Article

Journal of Elastomers & Plastics

1–19
An experimental study ª The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:

of FDM parameters effects sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095244320916838

on tensile strength, density, journals.sagepub.com/home/jep

and production time

of ABS/Cu composites
Mojtaba Nabipour and Behnam Akhoundi

Abstract
Recently, applications of three-dimensional (3-D) printers have extensively been
increased in various industries. Fused deposition modeling process is one of the most
widely used 3-D printing methods in this area due to its simplicity, reliability, and the
ability to produce complex parts made of thermoplastic materials. In this research,
composite sample parts consisted of copper particles with a constant 25 wt% of metallic
powder as a filler and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene granules as a polymeric matrix.
A filament production line to acquire printable filaments was applied and its optimum
parameters were reported. Four printing parameters involved nozzle diameter, layer
height, raster angle, and nozzle temperature were chosen in three levels for investigation
of composite samples’ tensile strength, density, and production time as a new study. The
Taguchi method, a well-known design of experiment tool, was employed to find the
effect of each parameter and optimum levels with including the main effect, signal-to-
noise ratio, and analysis of variance. Finally, optimum composite specimens manu-
factured by 3-D printer verified Taguchi method analysis and results.

Keywords
3-D printer, fused deposition modeling (FDM), composite filament, FDM process
parameters, ABS/Cu

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Corresponding author:
Mojtaba Nabipour, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115-143,
Iran.
Email: Mojtaba.nabipour@modares.ac.ir
2 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics XX(X)

Introduction
According to the technical committee of the American Society for Testing and Materials,
additive manufacturing (AM) is defined as material joining for manufacturing of three-
dimensional (3-D) parts based on layered data and this method is on the opposite point of
machining or subtractive manufacturing processes. AM processes are described as
additive processes, direct digital manufacturing, rapid prototyping, rapid manufacturing,
layer manufacturing, and complicated parts manufacturing.1–3 As a cutting-edge tech-
nology, AM covers the creation of not only structural and functional parts but also
quickly prototyped components.4–8 Other advantages of AM contain energy usage and
efficiency in material, as well as parts’ complex geometry and wide materials.9–12
Building parts layer-by-layer simply provides dispose of the need for additional tooling
and also allowing for the manufacturing of near net shape parts for various indus-
tries.11,12 Fused deposition modeling (FDM) process, the most common technique of
polymeric AM, was progressed quickly to create 3-D prototypes from CAD data designs
and to decrease in the cycle time of products’ development.13–15 Although FDM has
normally been used for rapid prototyping, numerous benefits of this technology, such as
simplicity and the ability to produce complicated parts made of thermoplastic materials,
occupied its good position in the advanced manufacturing group.9,10,16
The study of AM methods is an attractive research area and numerous scientific
efforts have been conducted on AM processes, especially on process control and material
characteristics improvement. Nowadays, the diversity of available materials for AM has
broadened the field of this technology. By the development of AM processes, new
challenges have emerged, like weak strength of produced parts in comparison with
conventional methods such as machining and injection molding,3,14,17 material selection
limits, low dimensional accuracy because of staircase effect, weak repeatability, and lack
of standards for these processes.18 Moving on FDM, prominent researches have been
done to develop new materials for this process. As an important example, researchers at
Rutgers University were the first people who attempted to improve the properties and
change natural character of the produced parts by developing of metallic and ceramic
materials in the FDM process.19,20 Moreover, some studies have been performed to
calculate the viable ways of using composite materials as alternatives to main polymers
like acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and polylactic acid for FDM.9,10,21 Also,
several composite additives have been investigated, with fibers (like carbon and glass),
nanomaterials, and ceramics to acquire high functional products.10,22–29
Manufacturing polymeric/metallic composite and adding metal powders to thermo-
plastics such as ABS lead to the increase of the electrical and thermal conductivity and
can improve the efficiency and performance of produced parts by FDM 3-D printers.
Rapid tooling and molding, 3-D printed circuits, and electromagnetic structures for
coating are some applications of these composites.30 Masood and Song31 tried to pro-
duce polymeric/metallic composite parts through FDM 3-D printers. Specimens were
made of iron, and their final application was manufacturing inserts for plastic injection
molds. Nikzad et al.32 examined the mechanical and thermal properties of polymeric/
metallic composites and used copper (Cu) and ABS in their study. Hwang et al.30 studied
Nabipour and Akhoundi 3

thermomechanical characteristics of polymeric/metallic composite samples printed by

the FDM process with iron and Cu as metallic powders and ABS as a polymer. It is
crucial to note that a deficiency of investigating FDM parameters effect on composite
samples is significant through previous studies.
There are other researches that show the effect of process variables on the
mechanical properties of printed samples through FDM.33 Table 1 presents a summary
of published works on the optimization of FDM process parameters to investigate the
impacts of various process parameters on the outputs.34–47 Noticeably, prior studies
often focused on optimization algorithms and mechanical properties without deeming
practical parameters and their real levels, which are necessary to define during working
with commercial 3-D printing software. Furthermore, a lack of examining FDM
parameters effect on two prominent outputs (density and production time) is
remarkable.
This study aims to add metal particles to ABS powder in the first step for manu-
facturing composite filaments; then the examination of composite samples based on the
design of experiment (DOE) method is conducted. The research seriously struggles to
choose more functional printing parameters and levels to report valuable results for 3-D
printer users. Also, the study presents characteristics of the metal/polymer composite
with Taguchi method as a new investigation.

Materials and methods

Manufacturing process of composite filaments
The first step in manufacturing polymeric-metallic composite parts by the FDM method
is producing high-quality filaments properly. In this article, granular ABS of P2H-AT-
class produced in Spain and Cu powder made by Institute of Chemistry Pourian (Tehran,
Iran), in size smaller than 20 microns were used as polymeric and metallic materials,
respectively. Indeed, other additives such as paraffin wax and stearic acid were also used
to lubricate and increase the quality and flexibility of filaments. To have a perfect
mixture of metallic and polymeric materials, the raw materials and additives were mixed
for 40 min at 80 r/min speed and 140 C temperature. The production line consisted of an
extruder, filament production die, cooling water bath, and the drawing equipment.
Indeed, a laboratory type, corotating twin extruder, with 40 mm diameter screws and 5.5
KW power was used.
During the process, materials are inserted into the extruder after dry mixing, and by an
increase in the temperature, which leads to the softening effect, materials pass through
the hot die in a circular shape. Next, filaments are drawn by puller and move through the
water bath in order to become cool and simultaneously reached to a desirable diameter.
Figure 1 shows a schematic view of filaments production die, and optimum production
variables are also presented in Table 2.
Figure 2 shows the scanning electron microscopic image (Prox-phenom, Eindhoven,
Netherlands) of the Cu-ABS composite specimen, which demonstrates a suitable
distribution of Cu particles in the ABS matrix.
4 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics XX(X)

Table 1. Publications of FDM process parameters and levels.

Filament
Authors material Parameters and levels Outputs

Anitha et al.34 ABS Layer thickness (mm) [0.1778, 0.254, 0.3556] Surface roughness
Road with (mm) [0.537, 0.622, 0.706]
Speed deposition (mm) [100, 150, 200]
Nancharaiah35 ABS Model temperature ( C) [270, 274] and [270, 272, 274] Surface roughness
Layer thickness (inch) [0.007, 0.01] and [0.007,
0.0085, 0.01]
Visible surface [Normal rasters, fine rasters]
Chung Wang ABS Layer thickness (mm) [0.254, 0.233] Ultimate tensile
et al.36 Deposition style [Vn, Hn, Vs] strength
Support style [Surround, basic, sparse] Dimension
Deposition [L, M, H] accuracy
orientation—Z Surface roughness
direction
Deposition [0 , 45 , 90 ]
orientation—X
direction
Build location (mm) [50, 100, 150]
Sood et al.37 ABS Layer thickness (mm) [0.127, 0.178, 0.254] Dimensional
Orientation ( ) [0, 15, 30] accuracy
Raster angle ( ) [0, 30, 60]
Raster width (mm) [0.4064, 0.4564, 0.5064]
Air gap (mm) [0, 004, 008]
Zhang and Peng38 ABS Wire-width [0.17, 0.20, 0.25] Dimensional error
compensation (mm) Warpage
Extrusion velocity (mm/s)
[20, 25, 30] deformation
Filling velocity (mm/s) [20, 30, 40]
Layer thickness (mm) [0.15, 0.25, 0.30]
Lee et al.39 ABS Air gap (mm) [Solid fine, sparse, double Elastic performance
wide]
Raster angle ( ) [0/90, 45/þ45, 30/60]
Raster width (mm) [0.305, 0.655, 0.980]
Layer thickness (mm) [0.178, 0.254, 0.305]
Kumar and ABS Layer thickness (inch) [0.007, 0.01] Support material
Regalla40 Raster angle ( ) [45, 90] volume
Orientation ( ) [5, 90] Build time
Contour width (inch) [0.012, 0.028]
Raster width (inch) [0.012, 0.028]
Ahn et al.41 ABS Air gap (inch/mm) [0.0/0.0, 0.002/0.0508] Tensile strength
Road width (inch/mm) [0.02/0.508, 0.0396/1.00] Compressive
Model temperature ( C) [270, 280] strength
ABS color [Blue, white]
Orientation of rasters [Transverse, axial]
Chin Ang et al.42 ABS Air gap (mm) [0, 1.27] Porosity
Raster width (mm) [0.305, 0.98] Compressive
Build orientation ( ) [0, 90] Yield strength
Build laydown pattern [2, 5]
(angles)
Build layer [2, 5]

(continued)
Nabipour and Akhoundi 5

Table 1. (continued)

Filament
Authors material Parameters and levels Outputs

Sood et al.43 ABS Layer thickness (mm) [0.1270, 0.1780, 0.2540] Tensile strength
Orientation ( ) [0, 15, 30] Flexural strength
Raster angle ( ) [0, 30, 60] Impact strength
Raster width (mm) [0.4064, 0.4564, 0.5064]
Air gap (mm) [0, 0.0040, 0.0080]
Percoco et al.44 ABS Raster width (mm) [0.404, 0.479, 0.554] Compressive
Raster angle ( ) [0, 30, 60] strength
Immersion time (s) [180, 300, 40]
Rayegani and ABS Part orientation ( ) [0, 90] Tensile strength
Onwubolu45 Raster angle ( ) [0, 45]
Raster width (inch/mm) [0.00800 /(0.2034), 0.02200 /
(0.5588)]
Air gap (inch/mm) [0.000100 /(0.0025), 0.02200 /
(0.5588)]
Arivazhagan and ABS Build styles [Solid normal, sparse-double Storage modulus
Masood46 dense, sparse] Complex viscosity
Raster angle ( ) [0/90, þ45/45, 30/60] Loss modulus
Raster width (mm) [0.305, 0.454, 0.679] Tan d
Jami et al.47 ABS Build-up orientation [Vertically, horizontal at 0 , Dynamic stress–
horizontal at 45 ] strain response

ABS: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene.

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of filament production die.8

Taguchi method
Taguchi method is a well-known technique that provides a systematic and effective
approach to optimal design. This method is widely used to design products and process
optimization. This is due to the advantages of Taguchi method in DOEs, including
6 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics XX(X)

Table 2. Optimum parameters for filament production.

Filament Puller speed Extruder Nozzle Nozzle

diameter (mm) (r/min) speed (r/min) diameter (mm) temperature ( C)

1.75 8 8 3 215

Figure 2. SEM image of Cu-ABS composite (1000). SEM: scanning electron microscope; Cu:
copper; ABS: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene.

simplifying the test plan and possibility of studying interactions between different
parameters.2 By small numbers of tests, it is possible to reduce the time and costs. This is
especially applicable for rapid prototyping processes where costs are relatively high.
Taguchi method uses an orthogonal array of parameters and their levels for experiments.
According to the Taguchi method, only the minimum number is needed for tests.48,49
The main effect analysis is conducted here by considering the average output value at
each parameter level. At the next step, analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to find out
which process parameter is important statistically and the impact of each process
parameter on outputs. Furthermore, a probable combination of optimum variables can be
forecasted with the main effect analysis and ANOVA.

Selection of process parameters

In this study, four parameters were selected at three levels: nozzle diameter, layer
height, filling pattern, and nozzle temperature. For experiment tests and selecting a
proper orthogonal array, it is required to calculate all degrees of freedom (DOFs). DOF
is a valuable quantity because it defines the minimum number of behavioral conditions.
Nabipour and Akhoundi 7

Table 3. Parameters and levels.

Parameters Levels

1 2 3
Nozzle diameter (mm) 0.5 1 1.5
Layer height (mm) 0.1 0.2 0.3
Raster angle ( ) þ45/45 0/90 30/60
Nozzle temperature ( C) 230 240 250

Table 4. Experimental plan using L9 orthogonal array.

Sample Nozzle diameter Layer height Raster angle Nozzle temperature

L1 1 1 1 1
L2 1 2 2 2
L3 1 3 3 3
L4 2 1 2 3
L5 2 2 3 1
L6 2 3 1 2
L7 3 1 3 2
L8 3 2 1 3
L9 3 3 2 1

DOF for each parameter equals to the number of levels minus of one.50 For example,
the DOF for a parameter with three levels is two. According to the Taguchi approach,
the proper arrays are those that, the number of experiments is at least equal to or greater
than the sum of the DOFs.51 In this article, four parameters were studied at three levels;
therefore, there are totally eight DOFs. To gain minimize the number of experiments,
the L9 orthogonal array Taguchi method is proposed. In addition, other factors were
kept constant and the interactions between the parameters were not considered. Table 3
presents the factors and their levels and Table 4 presents the selected orthogonal array
based on the Taguchi method.
It is absolutely vital to say that all mentioned parameters and their levels were chosen
to be adequately practical for the 3-D printing process, especially when users work with
commercial printing software such as Simplify3D, Ultimaker, Cura, and Slic3r. In light
of outputs, firstly, the importance of mechanical strength is obvious because of
improving printed parts’ function; secondly, the volume of specimens is fairly constant,
so the density indicates how much the inside of them is filled; finally, production time is
totally important because it is directly connected to printing costs.

3-D printing of composite specimens

For manufacturing tensile test samples, Quantum FDM 3-D printer type 2020 (Tehran,
Iran) was used. At first, the tensile test specimen CAD file was drawn based on
8 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics XX(X)

Table 5. Output results.

Trial Tensile strength (MPa) Density (g/cm3) Time (min)

L1 25.2 1.08 316

L2 30.39 1.18 207
L3 64.17 1.08 191
L4 5.24 1.25 197
L5 5.19 1.11 90
L6 5.2 1.17 75
L7 26.25 1.24 182
L8 55.11 1.02 73
L9 80.19 1.12 46

Figure 3. Tensile test of pure ABS and composite specimen. ABS: acrylonitrile butadiene styrene.

ASTM-D638 Type IV and saved in STL format, which is the input for 3-D printer
software. After setting the printing parameters, the software calculates the G-code file
for the 3-D printer machine. Then for manufacturing samples, composite filaments
with 25 wt% of metallic powder were prepared, and an Instron Tensile Test Machine
Model 5500 (Norwood, USA) was used for tensile tests (strain rate ¼ 5 mm/min).
Table 5 presents the results of tensile strengths, density, and production time based on
the average of three replicates.
Two tensile test samples, one made of pure ABS and the other consisted of 25 wt% of
Cu powder, were produced based on the same printing and dimension parameters. This
section aims to investigate the effect of Cu powder infusion on ABS polymer. Figure 3
shows the results of tensile test for these two samples. Based on Figure 3, as adding
metallic powders, the maximum strength and strain decrease by 15% and 29%,
respectively, in comparison with pure material.
Nabipour and Akhoundi 9

Figure 4. Electrical conductivity test results: (a) 25% Cu-ABS and (b) ABS. Cu: copper; ABS:
acrylonitrile butadiene styrene.

Table 6. Electrical conductivity test results.

Cu percentage R (O) Dr/rABS (%) Ds/sABS (%)

0 2  108 0 0
25 1.77  108 11.5 13

Cu: copper.

For calculating conductivity of the samples, the following fundamental equations

are used52:
V ¼ RI ð1Þ
A
r¼R ð2Þ
L
where V, R, I, r, A, and L denote voltage (V), electrical resistance (O), electrical current
(A), specific resistance, cross-section of the sample (mm2), and sample length, respec-
tively. Electrical conductivity is calculated through52:
1
s¼ ð3Þ
r
L
s¼ ð4Þ
RA
where s stands for electrical conductivity (S/m). Figure 4 and Table 6 show the results of
electrical conductivity test.
Obviously, as adding Cu powder, the electrical resistance of composite, which is the
slope of the voltage–current curve, decreases by 11.5% in comparison with pure poly-
mer. The samples had similar geometric parameters, so the decrease in electrical
resistance is because of a fall in specific resistance of the samples. Also, the significant
improvement in composites electrical conductivity (by 13%) is clear. For better com-
prehension of this value, the indicated equation in Table 6 should be considered for
10 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics XX(X)

Figure 5. Analysis of main effect for tensile strength: (a) nozzle diameter, (b) layer height, (c) filling
pattern, and (d) nozzle temperature.

electrical conduction variations. If this equation is used to reach from Cu to silver, the
result would be 5.7% and for a transition from aluminum to gold, it would be 8.7%. It is
important to say that the voltage–current curves were drawn based on the interpolation of
gathered points from electrical conductivity tests. In this test, two probes (which were
connected to the sample) collected output currents for different stepwise voltages from
20 volts to 20 volts. Based on those data, points were fitted to the final curves. Fur-
thermore, the electrical resistance of each sample was calculated based on the slope of
those curves.

Results and discussion

The main effects
The main effect plots are the mean response of each level of parameters connected by a
line. A horizontal line presents that there is no effect, while a line with a small deflection
from horizontal may importantly affect the response. A stepper slope in a line illustrates
the larger magnitude of the main effect. Figure 5 shows the results of this analysis.
From Figure 5(a) and (b), higher tensile strengths can be obtained by smaller nozzle
diameters and smaller layer heights, which provide more adhesion between rasters and
between layers, respectively. The number of adhesions between layers has a vital role in
the final strength of specimens because of local remelting and printing cycle (similar
cycle for each layer) repetition. Figure 5(c) indicates that 0/90 filling pattern causes the
Nabipour and Akhoundi 11

Figure 6. Analysis of main effect for density: (a) nozzle diameter, (b) layer height, (c) fill pattern,
and (d) nozzle temperature.

most strength, and 30/60 results were better than þ45/45 because specimens with
greater rasters along with their main axis have better tensile strength. In Figure 5(d), the
result demonstrates that the highest tensile strength was obtained at 240 C, which is in
the middle of used ABS melting temperature range (from 230 C to 250 C). This
temperature not only provides a suitable viscosity for the best deposition but also leads to
the greatest intermolecular fusion between layers. Indeed, 230 C is preferable than
250 C due to better viscosity, which causes stronger adhesion between rasters and layers.
Figure 6 presents the main effects analysis for density. The best result is achievable by
1 mm nozzle diameter, 0.1 mm layer height, 0/90 filling pattern, and 240 C nozzle
temperature for the optimum density of the samples. By neglecting volume deviation due
to shrinkage, which is restricted here because of metallic particles, the density indicates
the filling percentage of composite samples. Therefore, optimum levels minimize vacant
areas and voids between rasters by providing better deposition conditions.
Figure 7 demonstrates the production time investigation. It is true that finding filling
pattern and nozzle temperature without any effect is obvious, but the result of nozzle
diameter and layer height is important here; 0.5 mm nozzle diameter and 0.1 mm layer
height have profound effects on the output, and there is a great difference between their
values and other levels’ values based on the analysis. In addition, 1.5 mm nozzle dia-
meter and 0.3 mm layer height have the lowest effects, so they are desirable to minimize
production time.
12 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics XX(X)

Figure 7. Analysis of main effect for production time: (a) nozzle diameter, (b) layer height, (c) fill
pattern, and (d) nozzle temperature.

Analysis of signal-to-noise ratio

The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) measures the sensitivity of the quality examined to
those uncontrollable factors in the experimental tests. The greater value of SNR is
preferable because higher SNR will result in smaller product variance around the target
value. The quality characteristic used in this research is “the larger is better” for tensile
strength and density, and for production time is “the smaller is better.” The relations
are given below53:

1
X
n
1
MSDLarger is better ¼ ð5Þ
n y2i
i¼1

1
X
n

MSDSmaller is better ¼ y2i ð6Þ

n
i¼1

S=N ¼ 10Log10 ðMSDÞ ð7Þ

In these relations, MSD represents the mean square deviation, yi the output value, n is the
number of experiments, and S/N presents the SNR. Because each experiment was repeated
three times, totally 27 tests were conducted during this study. The S/N ratio acquired for each
output is presented in Table 7. It can be realized from Table 7 that for each output, the
combination of the parameters and their levels has systematically caused the maximum
Nabipour and Akhoundi 13

Table 7. SNR for tensile strength, density, and time.

Experiment number Strength Density Time

L1 28.03 0.66848 50

L2 29.65 1.43764 46.32
L3 24.93 0.66848 45.62
L4 27.78 1.93820 45.89
L5 25.80 0.90646 39.08
L6 26.23 1.36372 37.50
L7 28.05 1.86843 45.20
L8 21.25 0.17200 37.26
L9 25.93 0.98436 33.25

SNR: signal-to-noise ratio.

value of SNR. Indeed, this indicates that parameters and their levels have optimum quality
characteristic with minimum variance around the target value for each output.

Analysis of variance
This analysis is a way to determine the contribution of each variable on the outputs value,
the relations are as follow54:
X
n

SST ¼ y2i  CF ð8Þ

i¼1

T2
CF ¼ ð9Þ
n
where SST is the sum of squares deviation, CF is the correction factor, and T denotes the
sum of the output values. To show the effect of each variable on the output value, F index
is used as below50:
MSa
F¼ ð10Þ
MSe
In this equation, MSa is the mean of squares for each variable and MSe is the mean of
squares of error. Tables 8, 9, and 10 show the performed ANOVA for the experiments.
For tensile strength, nozzle temperature makes up the largest proportion at 35.42%;
on the contrary, nozzle diameter is at the lowest spot with 19.38%. Noticeably, raster
angle and layer height have a fairly same percentage (22.53% and 22.67%, respectively).
Similarly, nozzle temperature is at the top and nozzle diameter is at the bottom for
density at in sequence, 34.48% and 11.95%. Here, the proportion of layer height and
raster angle is pretty similar too (25.60% and 27.97%, respectively). Moving on pro-
duction time, it is evident that raster angle and nozzle diameter have no effect, but a
slight difference (7.69%) between nozzle diameter proportion and layer height propor-
tion can prominently be understood.
14 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics XX(X)

Table 8. ANOVA for tensile strength.

Parameter DOF Sum of squares Mean square F Contribution (%)

Nozzle diameter 2 138.2 69.1 42.65 19.38

Layer height 2 161.6 80.8 49.88 22.67
Raster angle 2 160.6 80.3 49.57 22.53
Nozzle temperature 2 252.3 126.2 77.90 35.42
Error 18 37.3 1.62 — —
Total 26 750 — — 100

ANOVA: analysis of variance; DOF: degree of freedom.

Table 9. ANOVA for density.

Parameter DOF Sum of squares Mean square F Contribution (%)

Nozzle diameter 2 0.02007 0.01003 1.97 11.95

Layer height 2 0.03707 0.01853 4.22 25.60
Raster angle 2 0.03947 0.01973 4.60 27.97
Nozzle temperature 2 0.04587 0.02293 5.70 34.48
Error 18 0.0072 3.24  104 — —
Total 26 0.14968 — — 100

ANOVA: analysis of variance; DOF: degree of freedom.

Table 10. ANOVA for production time.

Parameter DOF Sum of squares Mean square F Contribution (%)

Nozzle diameter 2 99,398 49,699 17,561 53.8

Layer height 2 85,226 42,613 15,057 46.11
Raster angle 2 122 61 21.55 0.06
Nozzle temperature 2 78 39 13.78 0.03
Error 18 65 2.83 — —
Total 26 184,889 — — 100

ANOVA: analysis of variance; DOF: degree of freedom.

Confirmation test
At the final step, after obtaining optimum levels for each parameter, it is necessary to
verify the estimated results versus experimental ones. Taguchi approach predicts the
optimum value using the following equations53:
yopt ¼ m þ ðmAopt  mÞ þ ðmBopt  mÞ þ ðmCopt  mÞ þ ðmDopt  mÞ ð11Þ
T
m¼ ð12Þ
n
Nabipour and Akhoundi 15

Table 11. Optimum levels and value.

Optimum levels
Predicted
Nozzle Layer Raster Nozzle optimum
Outputs diameter height angle temperature values SNR

Tensile strength (MPa) 1 1 2 2 34.90 32.04

Density (g) 2 1 2 2 1.33 2.57
Production time (min) 3 3 2 1 46 33.25

SNR: signal-to-noise ratio.

Table 12. Result of confirmation tests.

Optimal levels

Outputs Experiment Estimation Difference

Tensile strength (MPa) 34.57 34.90 0.33

Density (g) 1.32 1.33 0.01
Production time (min) 47 46 1

Items show: m is the average performance, T is the grand total of average for each
experiment, and n is the total number of experiments. Based on the main effect analysis,
the optimum level for each parameter was assessed to optimize the output value.
Optimum levels and values for three outputs are presented in Table 11. Moreover, the
comparison results are presented in Table 12.
According to the results, slight differences between the actual values and pre-
dicted values for tensile strength, density, and time production (0.95%, 0.75%, and
2.13%, respectively, related to real values) prove the accuracy of all tests and
analyses.

Metal particles effect on FDM process

At the final step, metal particles effect on FDM technology is reported. Firstly, the
heat transfer coefficient of a polymer increases with metal particles, so composite
specimens have better cooling, which reduces the possibility of distortion and
warpage during the FDM process. Also, metal particles as solid materials can
decrease the possibility of shrinkage too. Secondly, the viscosity of composite
filaments is reduced by metal particles; therefore, nozzle temperature should be
higher in comparison with using pure polymers. Finally, the probability of nozzle
clogging is further with composite materials; consequently, larger nozzle diameters
are recommended.
16 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics XX(X)

Conclusion
In this research, manufacturing of polymeric-metallic composite parts by FDM 3-D
printer was investigated in order to maximize the tensile strength and density and
minimize the production time of the samples. Based on the results and tests, the fol-
lowing optimum conditions were acquired:

 For tensile strength: 0.5 mm nozzle diameter, 0.1 mm layer height, 0/90 raster angle,
and 240 C nozzle temperature;
 For density: 1 mm nozzle diameter, 0.1 mm layer height, 0/90 raster angle, and
240 C nozzle temperature; and
 For production time: 1.5 mm nozzle diameter, 0.3 mm layer height, 0/90 raster angle,
and 230 C nozzle temperature.

Finally, the experiments and results were confirmed by the comparison between
prediction values and estimation values for each output.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

ORCID iD
Behnam Akhoundi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4283-1684

References
1. Guo N and Leu MC. Additive manufacturing: technology, applications and research needs.
Front Mech Eng 2013; 8: 215–243.
2. Akhoundi B, Behravesh AH, and Bagheri Saed A. An innovative design approach in
three-dimensional printing of continuous fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composites via fused
deposition modeling process: in-melt simultaneous impregnation. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng
Manuf 2020; 234: 243–259.
3. Akhoundi B, Behravesh AH, and Bagheri Saed A. Improving mechanical properties of con-
tinuous fiber-reinforced thermoplastic composites produced by FDM 3D printer. J Reinf Plast
Comp 2019; 38: 99–116.
4. Mowery DC. Plus ca change: industrial R&D in the “third industrial revolution.” Ind Corp
Change 2009; 18: 1–50.
5. Christopher M and Ryals LJ. The supply chain becomes the demand chain. J Bus Logist 2014;
35: 29–35.
6. Huang Y, Leu MC, Mazumder J, et al. Additive manufacturing: current state, future potential,
gaps and needs, and recommendations. J Manuf Sci Eng 2015; 137: 014001.
7. Roudbarian N, Baniasadi M, Ansari M, et al. An experimental investigation on structural
design of shape memory polymers. Smart Mater Struct 2019; 28: 095017.
Nabipour and Akhoundi 17

8. Nabipour M, Akhoundi B, and Bagheri Saed A. Manufacturing of polymer/metal composites

by fused deposition modeling process with polyethylene. J Appl Polym Sci 2019; 137: 48717.
9. Roberson D, Shemelya CM, MacDonald E, et al. Expanding the applicability of FDM-type
technologies through materials development. Rapid Prototyp J 2015; 21: 137–143.
10. Das M and Balla VK. Additive manufacturing and innovation in materials world. In: Ban-
dyopadhyay A and Bose S (eds) Additive manufacturing. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2015,
pp. 310–345.
11. Herderick ED and Patterson C. Industrial implementation of additive manufacturing. In:
Herderick ED, Patterson C, Bandyopadhyay A and Bose S (eds) Additive manufacturing. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2015, pp. 259–276.
12. Ameta G.Design issues in additive manufacturing. In: A Gaurav (ed) Additive manufacturing.
Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2015, pp. 185–196.
13. Crump S. Rapid prototyping using FDM. Mod Cast 1992; 82: 36–38.
14. Akhoundi B and Behravesh AH. Effect of filling pattern on the tensile and flexural mechanical
properties of FDM 3D printed products. Exp Mech 2019; 59: 883–897.
15. Akhoundi B, Nabipour M, Hajami F, et al. An experimental study of nozzle temperature and
heat treatment (annealing) effects on mechanical properties of high-temperature polylactic
acid in fused deposition modeling. Polym Eng Sci 2020. DOI: 10.1002/pen.25353.
16. Hedayati SK, Behravesh AH, Hasannia S, et al. 3D printed PCL scaffold reinforced with
continuous biodegradable fiber yarn: a study on mechanical and cell viability properties.
Polym Test 2020; 83: 106347.
17. Mori K-I, Maeno T, and Nakagawa Y. Dieless forming of carbon fibre reinforced plastic parts
using 3D printer. Procedia Eng 2014; 81: 1595–1600.
18. Berman B. 3-D printing: the new industrial revolution. Bus Horiz 2012; 55: 155–162.
19. Wu G, Langrana NA, Sadanji R, et al. Solid freeform fabrication of metal components using
fused deposition of metals. Mater Design 2002; 23: 97–105.
20. Allahverdi M, Danforth S, Jafari M, et al. Processing of advanced electroceramic components
by fused deposition technique. J Eur Ceram Soc 2001; 21: 1485–1490.
21. Torrado AR, Shemelya CM, English JD, et al. Characterizing the effect of additives to ABS on
the mechanical property anisotropy of specimens fabricated by material extrusion 3D printing.
Addit Manuf 2015; 6: 16–29.
22. Corney J, Masood S, and Song W. Thermal characteristics of a new metal/polymer material
for FDM rapid prototyping process. Assembly Autom 2005; 24: 309–315.
23. Shofner M, Lozano K, Rodrı́guez-Macı́as F, et al. Nanofiber-reinforced polymers prepared by
fused deposition modeling. J Appl Polym Sci 2003; 89: 3081–3090.
24. Shofner M, Rodrı́guez-Macı́as F, Vaidyanathan R, et al. Single wall nanotube and vapor
grown carbon fiber reinforced polymers processed by extrusion freeform fabrication. Compos
A Appl Sci Manuf 2003; 34: 1207–1217.
25. Tekinalp HL, Kunc V, Velez-Garcia GM, et al. Highly oriented carbon fiber–polymer com-
posites via additive manufacturing. Compos Sci Technol 2014; 105: 144–150.
26. Ning F, Cong W, Qiu J, et al. Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic
composites using fused deposition modeling. Compos B Eng 2015; 80: 369–378.
27. Yao X, Luan C, Zhang D, et al. Evaluation of carbon fiber-embedded 3D printed structures for
strengthening and structural-health monitoring. Mater Design 2017; 114: 424–432.
28. Love LJ, Kunc V, Rios O, et al. The importance of carbon fiber to polymer additive manu-
facturing. J Mater Res 2014; 29: 1893–1898.
18 Journal of Elastomers & Plastics XX(X)

29. Dickson AN, Barry JN, McDonnell KA, et al. Fabrication of continuous carbon, glass and
Kevlar fibre reinforced polymer composites using additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf
2017; 16: 146–152.
30. Hwang S, Reyes EI, Moon K-S, et al. Thermo-mechanical characterization of metal/polymer
composite filaments and printing parameter study for fused deposition modeling in the 3D
printing process. J Electron Mater 2015; 44: 771–777.
31. Masood S and Song W. Development of new metal/polymer materials for rapid tooling using
fused deposition modelling. Mater Design 2004; 25: 587–594.
32. Nikzad M, Masood S, and Sbarski I. Thermo-mechanical properties of a highly filled poly-
meric composites for fused deposition modeling. Mater Design 2011; 32: 3448–3456.
33. Mohamed OA, Masood SH, and Bhowmik JL. Optimization of fused deposition modeling
process parameters: a review of current research and future prospects. Adv Manuf 2015; 3:
42–53.
34. Anitha R, Arunachalam S, and Radhakrishnan P. Critical parameters influencing the quality of
prototypes in fused deposition modelling. J Mater Process Technol 2001; 118: 385–388.
35. Nancharaiah T. Optimization of process parameters in FDM process using design of
experiments. Int J Emerg Technol 2011; 2: 100–102.
36. Chung Wang C, Lin T-W, and Hu S-S. Optimizing the rapid prototyping process by inte-
grating the Taguchi method with the gray relational analysis. Rapid Prototyp J 2007; 13:
304–315.
37. Sood AK, Ohdar R, and Mahapatra SS. Improving dimensional accuracy of fused deposition
modelling processed part using grey Taguchi method. Mater Design 2009; 30: 4243–4252.
38. Zhang JW and Peng AH. Process-parameter optimization for fused deposition modeling based
on Taguchi method. Adv Mater Res 2012; 538–541: 444–447.
39. Lee BH, Abdullah J, and Khan ZA. Optimization of rapid prototyping parameters for pro-
duction of flexible ABS object. J Mater Process Technol 2005; 169: 54–61.
40. Kumar GP and Regalla SP. Optimization of support material and build time in fused
deposition modeling (FDM). Appl Mech Mater 2012; 110–116: 2245–2251.
41. Ahn S-H, Montero M, Odell D, et al. Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition
modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp J 2002; 8: 248–257.
42. Chin Ang K, Fai Leong K, Kai Chua C, et al. Investigation of the mechanical properties and
porosity relationships in fused deposition modelling-fabricated porous structures. Rapid
Prototyp J 2006; 12: 100–105.
43. Sood AK, Ohdar RK, and Mahapatra SS. Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused
deposition modelling processed parts. Mater Design 2010; 31: 287–295.
44. Percoco G, Lavecchia F, and Galantucci LM. Compressive properties of FDM rapid proto-
types treated with a low cost chemical finishing. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 2012; 4:
3838–3842.
45. Rayegani F and Onwubolu GC. Fused deposition modelling (FDM) process parameter pre-
diction and optimization using group method for data handling (GMDH) and differential
evolution (DE). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 2014; 73: 509–519.
46. Arivazhagan A and Masood S. Dynamic mechanical properties of ABS material processed by
fused deposition modelling. Int J Eng Res Appl 2012; 2: 2009–2014.
47. Jami H, Masood SH, and Song W. Dynamic response of FDM made ABS parts in different
part orientations. Adv Mater Res 2013; 748: 291–294.
48. Phadke Madhav S. Quality engineering using robust design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 1989, pp. 41–229.
Nabipour and Akhoundi 19

49. Kamaruddin SKS, Khan ZA, and Wan KWK. The use of the Taguchi method in determining
the optimum plastic injection moulding parameters for the production of a consumer product.
Jurnal Mekanikal 2004; 18: 98–110.
50. Taguchi G, Chowdhury S, and Wu Y. Taguchi’s quality engineering handbook. Hoboken:
Wiley, 2005.
51. Roy RK. Design of experiments using the Taguchi approach: 16 steps to product and process
improvement. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
52. Halliday D, Resnick R, and Walker J. Fundamentals of physics. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons,
2013.
53. Phadke S. Quality engineering using robust design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1989.
54. Roy R. A primer on the Taguchi method. Competitive manufacturing series. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold, 1990, pp. 7–80.