Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Structural
Available Integrity
online Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000
at www.sciencedirect.com
Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
Procedia Structural Integrity 26 (2020) 139–146

The 1stst Mediterranean Conference on Fracture and Structural Integrity, MedFract1

The 1 Mediterranean Conference on Fracture and Structural Integrity, MedFract1
Experimental investigation and statistical modelling for assessing
Experimental investigation and statistical modelling for assessing
the tensile properties of FDM fabricated parts
the tensile properties of FDM fabricated parts
N.A. Fountasaa, P. Kostazosbb, H. Pavlidisaa, V. Antoniouaa, D.E. Manolakosbb, N.M.Vaxevanidisaa*
N.A.
a Fountas
Laboratory , P. Kostazos
of Manufacturing , H.
Processes Pavlidis
& Machine Tools, (LMProMaT),
V. Antoniou , D.E.
Department Manolakos
of Mechanical , N.M.Vaxevanidis
Engineering Educators, School of *
a
Pedagogical
Laboratory of Manufacturing and &
Processes Technological
Machine ToolsEducation (ASPETE),
(LMProMaT), Amarousion
Department GR 151 22,
of Mechanical Greece Educators, School of
Engineering
b
SchoolPedagogical and
of Mechanical Technological
Engineering, Education
National (ASPETE),
Technical Amarousion
University GR(NTUA),
of Athens 151 22, Athens,
Greece Greece
b
School of Mechanical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), Athens, Greece

Abstract
Abstract
Owing to its ability to manufacture complex parts without expensive tooling requirement or human intervention, fused deposition
Owing to its
modelling abilityistogaining
(FDM) manufacture complex
distinct advantagepartsinwithout expensiveindustry.
manufacturing tooling requirement
As it occursortohuman intervention,
any other fusedprocess,
engineering deposition
the
modelling (FDM)
properties of FDM-builtis gaining distinct
products advantage
exhibit in manufacturing
high dependence on processindustry. As which
parameters it occurs
maytobeany other engineering
improved process,
by setting suitable the
levels
properties of FDM-built
for parameters associatedproducts
to FDM.exhibit high dependence
Anisotropic and brittle on process
nature parameters
of build whichitmay
part makes be improved
essential by setting
to examine suitable
the effect levels
of process
for parameters
parameters to theassociated
resistanceto of
FDM. Anisotropic
tensile loading for andimproving
brittle nature of build
strength part makes
of functional it essential
parts. to examine
This paper focuses the effect
on the of process
experimental
parameters to the resistance
study of examining the effectof of
tensile loading
five fused for improving
deposition strength
modeling of functional
parameters such asparts.
layerThis papershell
height, focuses on the infill
thickness, experimental
density,
study of examining
orientation angle andthe effect speed
printing of fiveonfused deposition
the tensile modeling
strength parameters
of standard ASTMsuch 638-10as layer
type 1height,
tensileshell thickness,
specimens. The infill density,
experimental
orientation
study angle
involved and printing
a fractional speed design
factorial on the involving
tensile strength
16 runs.of This
standard ASTM
design 638-10
was then type 1 tensile
converted specimens.
to a custom Thesurface
response experimental
design
study involved
to examine the anon-linearity
fractional factorial
presenteddesign involving
by the curvature16when
runs. examining
This designindependent
was then converted
variablestoina custom response
continuous form.surface design
The study not
to examine
only gives antheinsight
non-linearity presented
concerning by the dependency
the complex curvature when examining
of tensile independent
load by the processvariables
parameters in continuous
corresponding form. The study
to FDM not
but also
only givesaanstatistically
generates insight concerning
validatedtheregression
complex dependency
model. The of tensile load
regression by the
model process parameters
adequately explains thecorresponding
variation andto the
FDM but also
non-linear
generates a statistically
influence of FDM parameters validated regression
on tensile model.
strength The regression
and thus, model adequately
it can be implemented explainsparameter
to find optimal the variation and with
settings the non-linear
the use of
influence of FDM
any artificial parameters
intelligent on tensile
algorithm strength
or neural and thus, it can be implemented to find optimal parameter settings with the use of
network.
any artificial intelligent algorithm or neural network.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
© 2020
This The
is an Authors. Published
open by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review underaccess article under
responsibility the CCorganizers
of MedFract1 BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
Peer-review under responsibility of MedFract1 organizers license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review
Keywords: under
Fused responsibility
deposition of MedFract1
modeling-FDM; organizers
3D printing; tensile strength; regression modelling; intelligent algorithms; neural network
Keywords: Fused deposition modeling-FDM; 3D printing; tensile strength; regression modelling; intelligent algorithms; neural network

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 210 2896841.

* Corresponding
E-mail address:author. Tel.: +30 210 2896841.
vaxev@aspete.gr
E-mail address: vaxev@aspete.gr
2452-3216 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an ©
2452-3216 2020
open The article
access Authors. Published
under the CCby Elsevier B.V.
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
This is an open
Peer-review access
under article under
responsibility the CC BY-NC-ND
of MedFract1 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
organizers
Peer-review under responsibility of MedFract1 organizers

2452-3216 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review under responsibility of MedFract1 organizers
10.1016/j.prostr.2020.06.017
140 N.A. Fountas et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 26 (2020) 139–146
2 Fountas et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

1. Introduction

Globalization and keener competition among manufacturing industries has imposed the necessity to produce high-
quality and low-cost products at the same time. Such volatile and competitive processing scenarios found in industry,
have already drawn the interest of researchers to develop and deploy automation technologies in almost all branches
of manufacturing engineering. To develop new products, it is mandatory to produce prototypes from solid models and
examine their properties. This process is widely known as rapid prototyping (RP). RP utilizes operations where
physical models are built by selectively adding material in the form of thin cross-sectional layers. Therefore, RP is
also referred to as additive manufacturing. Currently, additive manufacturing technologies see services not only on
communicating ideas and inspecting several design aspects but also on large-scale production of medical, biomedical
and aeronautical models. The technologies available for additive manufacturing are fused deposition modelling
(FDM); selective laser sintering (SLS); stereolithography (SL) laminated object manufacturing (LOM); solid ground
curing (SGC) and 3D-printing. As it occurs to any other manufacturing process, the performance of additive
manufacturing techniques is evaluated regarding surface roughness; dimensional accuracy and tolerances; production
cost; mechanical properties; tribological properties, etc. Therefore, such objectives should be examined with reference
to the effects of the independent process parameters. Additive manufacturing spans many objectives such as material
strength of fabricated parts, dimensional accuracy and tolerance of geometrical features, wear properties under
tribological tests, etc. The work presented in Sood et al. (2012a) studied the effect of five essential parameters on
compressive strength of standard test specimens built through FDM. The study statistically examined the complex
dependency of compressive strength by the independent variable controlling the FDM process and proposed a reliable
regression equation to predict compressive strength. Similarly, the work presented in Sood et al. (2012b) examines
the effect of independent FDM parameters on the sliding wear objective. The authors not only generated a reliable
regression model to predict sliding wear, but they also optimized the response by having the model under the role of
the objective function for a quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization (QPSO) algorithm for optimization. By
examining the FDM parameters of line width compensation, extrusion velocity, filling velocity, and layer thickness,
Peng et al. (2014) obtained experimental results referring to dimensional error, warp formation and built time for
FDM-fabricated parts. Based on their experimental results they turned the triple-bounded problem to a single-objective
one by formulating a single comprehensive response with fuzzy inference system. The relation between their single
response and the independent variables was obtained by employing the 2nd order response surface methodology, the
validity of which was further evaluated via a neural network. Their objective function was generated using the
“penalty” function whilst it was solved with a commercially available genetic algorithm. Guralla and Regalla (2014),
investigated the relationships between two quality objectives, tensile strength and volumetric shrinkage of FDM-
fabricated standard specimens and the independent parameters of build interior, horizontal build direction and vertical
build direction. By conducting the analysis of variance, an empirical model per objective was generated and served as
the objective function for process optimization. The problem formulated was a multi-objective one and was solved by
implementing the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm, NSGA-II (Deb et al. 2002). Finally, NSGA-II obtained a
Pareto front of non-dominated solutions that simultaneously satisfy the maximization requirement for tensile strength
and minimization requirement for volumetric shrinkage. Another noticeable study concerning the multi-objective
optimization of FDM-fabricated parts is the one presented in the work of Sood et al. (2010) where tensile, flexural
and impact strengths are simultaneously maximized by adopting the “desirability function” concept. The three
objectives were experimentally investigated by considering layer thickness, part orientation, raster angle, raster width
and air gap as the independent process parameters under a central composite design. For these three objectives,
empirical models relating objectives and corresponding independent parameters were generated and validated. Other
noticeable contributions related to additive manufacturing optimization are those of Pandey et al. (2004), Byun and
Lee (2005), Thrimurthulu et al. (2004), Rong-Ji et al. (2009) and Canellidis et al. (2009) where genetic algorithms
were applied to achieve optimal solutions for the objectives of the corresponding problems. Other more sophisticated
algorithms have also been tested to optimize additive manufacturing. This study focuses on the experimental
investigation of the effect of five important fused deposition modelling parameters, namely shell thickness, layer
 N.A. Fountas et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 26 (2020) 139–146 141
Fountas et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 3

height, infill density, orientation angle and printing speed on the tensile strength (load, kN) of PLA fabricated
specimens designed according to the ASTM 638-10 type I standard.

2. Experimental

With reference to the literature presented, five FDM parameters were considered for examining the tensile strength
of standard specimens. The parameters are determined as follows:

 Shell thickness: The thickness of the outer shell in horizontal direction. In combination with the nozzle size
the number of perimeter lines is determined.
 Layer height: Layer height is the thickness of a layer deposited by the extruder’s nozzle and is affected by the
nozzle type.
 Infill density: The density of material used for filling interion regions of the part. Infill density is given as a
percentage of a solid layer whose infill density is 100%. A density value of 40% is enough to give almost all
models good mechanical strength. A value of 20% is usually the minimum required to support flat ceilings.
 Orientation angle: The part’s inclination angle on the printing bed, with reference to X and/or Y axes.
 Printing speed: The extruder’s linear feed velocity.

A set of other parameters controlling the FDM process were kept at fixed values. The values corresponding to the
levels of FDM parameters selected for the experiments were determined regarding preliminary work and
recommendations by the manufacturer of the equipment (3D printer and software) adopted. The FDM parameters for
setting up the experiment and the constrained factors are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Experimental FDM parameters and corresponding levels.

FDM constant parameters FDM control parameters
Parameter Value Unit Parameter Symbol Level
Low (-1) Center (0) High (1) Unit
1st layer height 0.2 mm Layer height A 0.050 0.125 0.200 mm
Top/bottom thickness 0.6 mm Shell thickness B 0.300 0.500 0.700 mm
Printing temperature 190 o
C Infill density C 15.00 52.50 90.00 %
Bed temperature 65 o
C Orientation angle D 0.000 30.00 60.00 deg.
Infill overlap 15 % Printing speed E 26.25 35.00 43.75 mm/sec

The experiment was a fractional factorial design with 16 runs (L16). This design was selected to examine all
interactions according to the number of FDM parameters. The design was then transformed to a customized response
surface design to study the non-linear effect of all parameters to the response of tensile strength expressed through the
load (kN) at breakage. Response surface design allows for fitting a second order polynomial regression relation among
FDM parameters and the response of tensile strength and was preferred at that point of research owing to its ability of
studying the curvature of the effects. Table 2 shows the factorial experiment and results for load (kN). Upper and
lower levels for experimental parameters were coded to +1 and -1 respectively using Eq.1 and Eq.2 to examine them
under the same range. Zero level for each parameter (center point) was coded to 0.

x x 
ij  ij  2 (1)
 xi 
 


2
x
j 1 ij
xi  , xi  xi 2  xi1 , i  1, 2,..., K , j  1, 2 (2)
2
142 N.A. Fountas et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 26 (2020) 139–146
4 Fountas et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

The 3D CAD model of the ASTM D638-10 type I standard tensile specimen was prepared in CATIA® V5 R18 and
then exported as a *.STL file for importing it to Repetier Host® environment for modelling the printing process and
slicing the part with the Cura Engine® embedded module. Specimens per experimental run were fabricated using a
low-cost 3D printer. All tests are carried out at the temperature 23±2oC and relative humidity 50±5% as per ISO
R291:1977 (Plastics – Standard Atmospheres for Conditioning and Testing). The material used for fabricating the
parts was Polylactic Acid (PLA) 1.75 mm filament black, which is a kind of a thermoplastic polyester.

Table 2. Experimental results according to the L16 factorial design.

Experiment no. Coded parameters Objective
A B C D E Tensile strength (Load, kN)
1 -1 -1 -1 -1 +1 0.6617
2 +1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0.6824
3 -1 +1 -1 -1 -1 0.7943
4 +1 +1 -1 -1 +1 0.8028
5 -1 -1 +1 -1 -1 1.2926
6 +1 -1 +1 -1 +1 1.5919
7 -1 +1 +1 -1 +1 1.7603
8 +1 +1 +1 -1 -1 1.5193
9 -1 -1 -1 +1 -1 0.8239
10 +1 -1 -1 +1 +1 0.8693
11 -1 +1 -1 +1 +1 0.8995
12 +1 +1 -1 +1 -1 0.8525
13 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 1.7663
14 +1 -1 +1 +1 -1 1.5158
15 -1 +1 +1 +1 -1 1.7838
16 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 1.5674

With reference to the L16 experimental design each specimen was individually printed at the middle of the printer’s
working envelope to minimize the bed’s positioning error effect. PLA material was extruded through a heated nozzle
with 0.2 mm diameter, at 190 oC whilst the temperature of the heated bed was kept at 65 oC. After fabrication, the
specimens were dimensionally examined to ensure whether different geometric features are reasonably fabricated as
per the nominal design. Tensile tests were performed using the Instron® 4482 dual-column Universal Testing machine
shown in Fig.1a. Bluehill® 2 environment was utilized to set up the interface such as the specimen dimension and
other settings related to the overall process for performing the tensile tests.

Fig. 1. (a) Instron® 4482 testing machine; (b) Tensile test outputs from tensile tests.
 N.A. Fountas et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 26 (2020) 139–146 143
Fountas et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 5

During testing, the crosshead speed was maintained at 5 mm/min for PLA as specified in ASTM D638 standard for
recording stable material deformation before failure. The crosshead motion continued until the fracture or the
catastrophic failure of the specimens. Experimental results including tensile stress (MPa) - tensile strain (%), as well
as load (kN) - elongation (mm) data; see Fig. 1b were collected and recorded through the data acquisition system of
Bluehill® 2 environment.

3. Statistical analysis and regression model generation

The analysis of the data obtained from the customized RSM design coupled with the L16 factorial design was
performed on MINITAB® R17 software using the full quadratic response surface model as given by Eq.3.

k k
0   i xi   ii xi xi  
y  ij i x xj (3)
i 1 i 1 i j

Where y is the response i.e., load (kN) and xi is the ith parameter.

For significance check, F-value given in ANOVA table is used. Probability of F-value greater than calculated F-
value due to noise is indicated by p-value. If p-value is less than 0.05, significance of corresponding term is established.
For lack of fit, p-value should be greater than 0.05. An insignificant lack of fit is desirable because it indicates that
any term excluded by the model is insignificant and that the developed model fits well. Anderson–Darling normality
test is used to verify the suitability of the model corresponding to the tensile strength for practical applications. If p-
value for the Anderson–Darling test is lower than the chosen significance level (0.05 in the current study), it is
concluded that the data do not follow a normal distribution. In this research, ANOVA indicates that the quadratic
model generated, is suitable for predicting the tensile strength of PLA specimens in terms of load (kN) with regression
p-value less than 0.05 (i.e. 0.001) and lack of fit more than 0.05 (i.e. 0.25>0.05). Based on p-value, it has been
concluded that the tensile strength of PLA specimens is mainly influenced by the linear terms and interaction terms
followed by square terms in general. The individual significance of each term is calculated by t-test at 95% confidence
level, thus; terms having p-value less than 0.05 are significant. The coefficient of determination (R2) which indicates
the percentage of total variation in the response explained by the terms in the model has been found equal to 96.95 %.
It was evident that infill density and orientation angle had the largest effect on the response of load (kN). Results for
the regression model are shown in Fig.2. Fig. 2a illustrates a graphical comparison among experimental and predicted
results. Fig.2b verifies the model’s adequacy in predicting the response. Since p-value of the normality plot is found
to be far beyond 0.05 (i.e. 0.250) it indicates that residuals follow a normal distribution and prediction made by the
regression model are in good agreement with experimental results.

(a) Experimental vs predicted results for Load (kN) (b) Normality of residuals at 95% C.I.
99
1.75
90
80
70
1.50 60
50
40
30
Load (kN)

1.25
Percent

20

1.00 10
Shape 1.162
5
Scale 0.05708
0.75 3 N 16
Experimental Load (kN) 2 AD 0.178
Predicted Load (kN) P-Value >0.250
0.50 1
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1

Number of experiment Residual

Fig. 2. (a) Experimental vs predicted results for load (kN); (b) Probability plot of residuals at 95% c.i. (Anderson-Darling test).
144 N.A. Fountas et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 26 (2020) 139–146
6 Fountas et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

Shell thickness increases the outer pattern’s volume providing additional strength to the part. In combination to the
layer height it is observed that it should be low enough to build a higher number of layers (Fig.3a). Infill density
determines the air gap among depositing rasters. It is expected that values for air gap close to zero, i.e. 100% infill
density, will increase the tensile strength of the part. For such a state for infill density, number of layers should be
increased which means a low layer thickness or height (Fig.3b). Fused deposition modelling (3D printing) deposits
the filament at different hatching patterns from layer to layer to increase mechanical strength of parts. Hatching
patterns are built according to the orientation angle of the part with reference to X and Y axes. Orientation angle
affects the number of rasters as well as their length as it occurs also to CNC machining during the tool path planning
stage. Thus, when orientation angle increases the number of rasters is also increased whilst these rasters will be built
with smaller lengths. It can be observed that increase in orientation angle will decrease the raster length and improve
tensile strength. Fig.3c is in complete agreement with this observation. When setting high levels for orientation angle
to enhance tensile strength the number of layers should be increased thus, reducing layer thickness or height. In
general, FDM process is driven by the thermal energy of the almost-melted material. When printing speed is set at
low levels the thickness of the deposited filament is increased and may negatively affect the already deposited material
in terms of deformation owing to stress accumulation. As a result, the process may be prone to imperfections affecting
the part’s mechanical strength. According to the observations depicted in Fig.3d printing speed is suggested to be set
at high levels to avoid deformation owing to high thermal energy concentration. Fig.3e shows the contribution of shell
thickness and infill density to tensile strength. When setting low levels for infill density, layer thickness should be
increased to improve tensile strength and vice versa. Obviously, the best result is obtained by maximizing the levels
for both shell thickness and infill density parameters. The same also is observed for shell thickness and orientation
angle where the tensile strength is improved when setting both parameters at their high levels (Fig.3f). Shell thickness
and printing speed cause an increase in tensile strength (Fig.3g). Infill density and orientation angle give the maximum
tensile strength when set to their higher levels as shown in Fig.3h. The same trend of effects is noticed for the
interactions among infill density-printing speed (Fig.3i) and orientation angle-printing speed (Fig.3j).
 N.A. Fountas et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 26 (2020) 139–146 145
Fountas et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000 7

Fig. 3. Response surface plots for FDM parameters effect on load (kN) for tensile strength.

4. Conclusions and future perspectives

This work studied the effect of five additive manufacturing parameters to the fabrication of parts with fused
deposition modelling (FDM / 3D printing). The parameters were shell thickness, layer height, infill density, orientation
angle and printing speed. Experiments were conducted according to L16 fractional factorial design to obtain results for
load at break (kN) and further investigate the effect on the tensile strength of standard ASTM 638-10 type I specimens
being fabricated using fused deposition modelling. The fractional factorial design was converted to a customized
response surface one, in order to investigate the non-linear behaviour of the control parameters on the response of load
(kN) for tensile strength evaluation. The material tested was PLA. Statistical analysis followed the experiments
resulted in a regression model capable of explaining the experimental variability of parameters in the response, up to
96.95% and exploring the design space for further research. Owing to the complexity of the problem investigated, the
parameters were examined as interactions between two independent variables rather than as single factors.
Experimental observations as well as statistical outputs suggest that infill density is a dominant parameter to affect
the tensile strength of PLA fabricated specimens. Orientation angle should be high enough to reduce raster length and
increase their number; thus, contributing to the improvement of tensile strength. The same also goes for shell thickness.
The higher the thickness, the stronger the outer pattern of fabricated parts. Printing speed strongly affects thermal
energy and its absorption from neighbouring deposited layers. Printing speed should be set to middle and high levels
to avoid thermal deformations of fabricated parts which in turn may negatively affect tensile strength. In the case of
tensile strength, the number of layers should be increased meaning that the layer height or thickness should be set at
low levels. Moreover, observation it is indicated that the curvature exhibited in response surface analysis of results,
shows high non-linearity; suggesting the complex relationship between fused deposition modelling parameters and
load at break (kN) as a tensile strength indicator.
Looking further ahead, the research will involve more experiments under an original response surface design i.e.,
L32 to clearly examine the results of factorial points, center points and star points to investigate the experimental error.
Moreover, the regression model presented in this study or another yet to be generated after conducting new
experiments will serve as the objective function to optimize the FDM process with the use of genetic algorithms. If
another objective is to be introduced, i.e. fabrication time or material consumption, a multi-objective problem will be
solved using several algorithms for comparison. In addition, other materials than PLA such as ABS and Nylon will
be tested to examine their mechanical strength under several destructive tests such as tension, compression, flexural
and impact. Wear is also under question to examine the effect of FDM parameters for different materials.
146 N.A. Fountas et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 26 (2020) 139–146
8 Fountas et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

References

Byun, H.S., Lee, K.H., 2005. Determination of the optimal part orientation in layered manufacturing using a genetic algorithm. International Journal
of Production Research 43, 2709-2724.
Canellidis, V., Giannatsis, J., Dedoussis, V., 2009. Genetic-algorithm-based multiobjective optimization of the build orientation in
stereolithography. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 45, 714-730.
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T., 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on
Evolutionary Computation 6, 182-197.
Gurrala, P.K., Regalla, S.P., 2014. Multi-objective optimisation of strength and volumetric shrinkage of FDM parts. Virtual and Physical
Prototyping 9, 127-138.
Pandey, P.M., Thrimurthulu, K., Reddy, N.V., 2004. Optimal part deposition orientation in FDM by using a multicriteria genetic algorithm.
International Journal of Production Research 42, 4069-4089.
Peng, A., Xiao, X., Yue, R., 2014. Process parameter optimization for fused deposition modeling using response surface methodology combined
with fuzzy inference system. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 73, 87-100.
Rong-Ji, W., Xin-hua, L., Oing-ding, W., Lingling, W., 2009. Optimizing process parameters for selective laser sintering based on neural network
and genetic algorithm. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 42, 1035-1042.
Sood, A.K., Ohdar, R.K., Mahapatra, S.S., 2012a. Experimental investigation and empirical modelling of FDM process for compressive strength
improvement. Journal of Advanced Research 3, 81-90.
Sood, A.K., Equbal, A., Toppo, V., Ohdar, R.K., Mahapatra, S.S., 2012b. An investigation on sliding wear of FDM built parts. CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology 5, 48-54.
Sood, A.K., Ohdar, R.K., Mahapatra, S.S., 2010. Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed parts.
Materials and Design 31, 287-295.
Thrimurthulu, K., Pandey, P.M., Reddy, N.V., 2004. Optimum part deposition orientation in fused deposition modelling. International Journal of
Machine Tools and Manufacture 44, 585-594.