The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2019) 105:5121–5137

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04568-3

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Optimization of surface roughness in FDM 3D printer using response

surface methodology, particle swarm optimization, and symbiotic
organism search algorithms
Mohd Sazli Saad 1 & Azuwir Mohd Nor 1 & Mohamad Ezral Baharudin 1 & Mohd Zakimi Zakaria 1 & A.F Aiman 1

Received: 24 July 2019 / Accepted: 4 October 2019 / Published online: 18 November 2019
# Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies such as fused deposition modeling (FDM) have been widely used in various fields of
today’s manufacturing industries such as transportation, aerospace, and medical because of its ability to produce parts of complex
designs with less manufacturing time and cost. However, a proper selection of input process parameters is a vital aspect in order to
obtain the best quality of the printed part. This paper presents several approaches, namely response surface methodology, particle
swarm optimization, and symbiotic organism search, to find the optimal parameter settings for better surface quality, i.e., surface
roughness of the FDM printed part. Layer height, print speed, print temperature, and outer shell speed were considered as the
input parameters and surface roughness as the output response. The experimental design was carried out using response surface
methodology (RSM) method. Then, the relationship between the input parameters and the surface roughness was established
using regression model. Once the accuracy of the model had been validated, the model was then coupled with particle swarm
optimization (PSO) and symbiotic organism search (SOS) to optimize the input parameters that would lead to minimum surface
roughness. Experimental results showed that the surface roughness obtained using PSO and SOS have improved about 8.5% and
8.8%, respectively, compared with the conventional method, i.e., RSM. A good agreement between the predicted surface
roughness and the experimental values was also observed.

Keywords Fused deposition modeling (FDM) . Surface roughness . Particle swarm optimization . Symbiotic organism search .
Response surface methodology

1 Introduction minimum cost and production time. This competitive technol-

ogy also showed higher flexibility than traditional
Addictive manufacturing (AM) such as FDM has shown great manufacturing techniques for producing small-volume, com-
potential in performing advanced product development with plex, and customized product which is of high quality. Since
the global economy climate focused on the needs to developed
custom-made and advanced products, there is an increasing
* Mohd Sazli Saad interest in establishing 3D printing technologies and a more
sazlisaad@unimap.edu.my
efficient production approach for high value products such as
Azuwir Mohd Nor aerospace and biomedical products [1, 2]. Nevertheless, there
azuwir@unimap.edu.my are several issues from the FDM process that influence the
Mohamad Ezral Baharudin
production of the printing parts. The production of complex
m.ezral@unimap.edu.my product has provided a new challenge for the FDM process,
which implicates the assessment of several processing op-
Mohd Zakimi Zakaria
zakimizakaria@unimap.edu.my tions. One of the options is the setting of the FDM process
parameters. Improper selection of process parameters would
A.F Aiman
result in low surface quality, poor mechanical properties, wast-
aiman@unimap.edu.my
age of energy, and manufacturing time, thus increasing
1
School of Manufacturing Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Perlis, manufacturing costs and resources [3–5]. Therefore, process
Kampus Tetap Pauh Putra, 02600 Arau, Perlis, Malaysia optimization is the way towards meeting various targets while
5122
at the same time adopting the parameters of the selected range.
High product quality, low cost, and a fast production process
are precedents of goals that should be accomplished. To meet
at least one target, the best set of parameters needs to be ob-
tained. There are several optimizations that have been done on
3D printer such as dimensional accuracy [6], mechanical
properties [7], building time [8], and also surface roughness
[9].
Among the tangible problems that occur are the flexural
strength of the product, the surface roughness, and dimension-
al accuracy. However, the obvious problem that will under-
mine perception of the first user is the surface quality of the
product. The rough surface of a product will affect the aesthet-
ic value of the product and indirectly reduce the selling rate of
the product [10]. Logically, surface roughness can be classi-
fied as a very important parameter in the 3D printing industry.
The quality of surface finish in the 3D printing industry be-
comes more important when multiple printed parts are used
for customized product applications. Good surface quality is
important not only for functionality and appearance but also
for cost-effectiveness and overall prototyping time reduction
[11]. Therefore, in order to obtain the best surface quality, the
optimum process parameters can be found through several
optimization approaches such as conventional or nonconven-
tional techniques.
For conventional optimization approach, various works
have been done to gain the optimal parameter settings of the
FDM 3D printer for the fabrication of 3D parts in order to
achieve the best surface roughness. Peng and Yan [12] con-
ducted a study on the effect of process parameters to the mul-
tiple objective analysis which is surface roughness and energy
consumption for desktop FDM 3D printer using full factorial
design. Anitha et al. [13] experimentally obtained the optimal
parameters (layer thickness, road width, and speed deposition)
for the best surface quality for an ABS prototype using
Taguchi method. The study showed that a minimum layer
thickness will improve surface finish. Vijeth et al. [14] studied
the parameters that affect the surface roughness of truncheon
design test artifacts. From the Taguchi statistical analysis, it
was found that build inclination and layer thickness signifi-
cantly influenced the surface quality of the part. Nancharaiah
et al. [15] studied the influence of the process parameters of
layer thickness, raster angle, air gap, and road width on the
dimensional accuracy and surface quality. The experimental
study was implemented using Taguchi method where three
levels for each factor had been set. It was observed that layer
thickness and road width were the most influential parameters
for surface roughness compared to the raster angle and air gap.
Horvath et al. [16] conducted two sets of experiments using
full factorial method to minimize the surface roughness of the
samples. The sample material used was ABS 400 polymer.
The three parameters involved in the study were layer thick-
ness, model temperature, and part fill style. It was found that
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137
the layer thickness had more affect on the surface roughness
whereby when the layer thickness was increased, the surface
roughness increased as well. In another study by Chung Wang
et al. [17], the Taguchi method was used to optimize the fused
deposition modeling (FDM) process in terms of the ultimate
tensile strength, dimension accuracy, and surface roughness.
The selected parameters for this study were layer thickness,
deposition orientation, deposition style, support style, and
build location. Based on the experimental result, it was ob-
served that the layer thickness had the greatest affect on the
surface roughness of the sample. Jiang et al. [18] examined the
effect of process parameters such as part orientation, layer
thickness, and raster angle on surface roughness of FDM-
built parts. The experimental design was performed using re-
sponse surface methodology (RSM). Results showed that part
orientation was the most prominent parameter influencing the
surface roughness.
Based on the literature review for the surface roughness
optimization of 3D printer using conventional method, it can
be clearly seen that the conventional method has already wide-
ly been used on 3D printer. Based on the previous studies, the
most common methods used are Taguchi method, full factorial
method, and response surface method. For RSM, the method
is not too popular and rarely used because it is time consuming
compared with the Taguchi method. However, Mohamed
et al. [5] stated that the RSM can be counted as an excellent
method for optimization because it made very low standard
errors on experimental validation. Furthermore, the RSM
method can give a better solution for 3D printer optimization
that has more than one response because of its ability to deal
with higher degrees of fitting models and multi-objectivity.
Nowadays, only a few nonconventional methods such as
metaheuristic techniques have been substantially studied to
solve optimization problems in the FDM 3D printing process.
Some of the popular metaheuristic methods for solving sur-
face roughness optimization in FDM 3D printer are genetic
algorithms (GAs), nondominated sorting genetic algorithm II
(NSGA II), and teaching-learning-based optimization
(TLBO). Among them, GA is the most common algorithm
that has been applied for surface roughness optimization.
Thrimurthulu et al. [19] used GA to investigate the optimum
part deposition orientation for surface roughness. The sample
was created with different build orientations and layer thick-
nesses. The expectation of the created sample was verified,
and it was in great concurrence with the outcome distributed
before. This study revealed that the created model can be
utilized to anticipate the optimum part orientation for any
complex freeform surfaces. In another study, Asadollahi
Yazdi et al. [20] employed NSGA II to search for the optimum
layer thickness and orientation angle by minimizing the pro-
duction time and material mass with the constraint of surface
roughness and mechanical strength of FDM products. Layer
thickness and part orientation were used as the input
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137
parameters. Experimental results showed that the surface
roughness could be improved by decreasing the layer thick-
ness. Ghetiya and Patel [21] investigated the effect of layer
thickness, flow rate, and feed rate on the surface roughness of
test specimen (implant replica). ABS plus plastic was used as
a material to match with the application of the test specimen of
this study which is for biomedical implants. TLBO method
was used to achieve good surface roughness simultaneously
for all responses. Experimental validation had found that min-
imum surface roughness can be achieved by lowering the feed
rate and increasing the flow rate of the FDM process. Pandey
et al. [22] performed a study about the effect of the optimal
part deposition on the surface roughness and build time. The
optimization method used was multi-criteria GA. It was found
that the orientation for part deposition significantly affected
the surface roughness and build time of the part produced. In
another study by Byun and Lee [23], the optimal part orienta-
tion which was believed to be able to improve surface rough-
ness was investigated. GA method was used to search for the
optimal orientation for better surface roughness. From the
analysis, part orientation was the most significant factor that
affected the surface roughness of the printed part.
Based on the literature review for the surface roughness
optimization of 3D printer using nonconventional method, it
can be seen that the meta-heuristic method is still at the early
stages and needs to be emphasized in the 3D printing indus-
tries. Furthermore, particle swarm optimization (PSO) and
symbiosis organism search (SOS) methods have not yet prov-
en its performance in the optimization of surface roughness in
FDM 3D printer. Thus, the optimization of surface roughness
on 3D printer by using PSO and SOS method can be consid-
ered as new approaches whereby both methods offer great
robustness with better and fast convergence towards the global
optimal solution. Both methods have shown their capability in
other fields of practical optimization problems, i.e., engineer-
ing structures, power systems (Flexible AC Transmission
System (FACTS)), human resources management, transporta-
tion, etc. [24–27]. In manufacturing areas such as machining
and rapid prototyping, PSO has been widely applied for pro-
cess optimization and proved to be efficient and effective. In
contrast, no studies have been conducted using SOS in the
field of machining and rapid prototyping. Since the SOS al-
gorithm is notably new, the capability of SOS optimization
approach in solving the surface roughness of FDM 3D part
is very compelling to be further explored and investigated.
The novelty of this study lies in the newly approach of
FDM optimization based on the recently developed SOS and
PSO algorithms specifically in the surface quality of the FDM
part. Both methods are more robust, simple, fast convergence
towards the global optimal solution and ability to escape from
local optima compared to the conventional optimization
methods. In this work, three different optimization methods,
i.e., RSM, PSO, and SOS, were carried out in order to
5123
minimize the surface roughness of the FDM 3D part. The
objective was to obtain the optimum parameters of FDM 3D
printer for good surface quality. The experiments began with
the regression model development between the process factors
and output response (surface roughness) using central com-
posite design (CCD) method of RSM. The regression model
served as the prediction model for the surface roughness
which in turn became the objective function while the lower
and upper limits became the constraints. Furthermore, the ob-
jective function (i.e., surface roughness model) was evaluated
in PSO and SOS optimization methods to obtain the optimal
parameters that lead to the minimum surface roughness.
Results obtained from different optimization techniques were
compared in order to look for the best minimum surface
roughness. Finally, experimental confirmation were per-
formed to validate the efficiency of the propose methods and
the error between the predicted surface roughness and the
experimental values were observed.
2 Methodology
Figure 1 indicates the workflow of the proposed methodology.
This study begins with 3D CAD modeling design of the spec-
imen that is developed using CAD software (CATIAV5). The
CAD drawing is converted into standard tessellation language
(STL) file. This file is used to orientate the model for the
building process and mathematical slicing that will be printed
layer-by-layer by the FDM machine. Then, the conversion of
the 3D model into printing instruction code is done using the
Ultimater Cura 4.0 software. This software has several fea-
tures such as to modify the process parameters setting, infill
density of each layer, calculate the tool paths, and to regulate
the heated printer extruder head of the FDM 3D machine
through its USB port or SD card port for the specimen.
Once the printing process is completed, the surface roughness
of the specimen will be measured using contact-type surface
roughness machine.
Next, the experimental plan is conducted using response
surface methodology. With this method, a sequence of exper-
imental runs will be performed to obtain the optimum re-
sponse. At this stage, the experiments are carried out accord-
ing to the number of runs suggested from the experimental
design method, i.e., DOE. The surface roughness for all the
samples is measured using surface roughness testing machine
(SV-C4500 Mitutoyo Formtracer. The surface roughness (Ra)
corresponding to the each parameter setting is recorded.
Design Expert software is used to analyze the relationship
between the surface roughness and the input parameters (i.e.,
layer height, print speed, print temperature, and outer shell
speed) and to obtain the regression model for the output re-
sponse. The accuracy of the predicted model is determined
based on the statistical analysis using analysis of variance
5124
Fig. 1 Workflow of the process
methodology
(ANOVA) method where the significance of the input param-
eters, lack of fit, and the coefficient of determination (R2) can
be observed. The coefficient of determination (R2) is impor-
tant to be known in order to check the fitness of the regression
model to the experimental data.
After a good model of the process is obtained, the optimi-
zation process will be conducted to get the optimal value of
FDM 3D printer parameters that can produce the minimum
surface roughness. The optimization process is performed
using conventional method (RSM), and two popular nature-
inspired algorithms: PSO and SOS. The regression model of
the surface roughness will become the objective/fitness func-
tion for PSO and SOS. Simulation results obtained from all the
optimization techniques is analyzed and compared. Finally,
the experimental confirmation test is performed to validate
the efficiency of the proposed algorithms. The optimization
techniques that can produce the minimum surface roughness
will be considered as the best optimization approach.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137
3 Experimental work
In the experimental study, all the samples were printed using
3D printer machine (Tarantula Prusa I3). The overall specifi-
cation for the FDM 3D printer is shown in Table 1. The print-
ing material used for the model was polylactic acid (PLA)
which is a biodegradable thermoplastic polymerized from nat-
ural sources. It can be prototyped fast, is cost-effective, and
capable of printing complex structures. Table 2 shows the
material properties for PLA. The microstructures of the spec-
imens and fracture surfaces were determined using a digital
microscope (Micro Topper), and the surface roughness of the
specimen was measured using a SV-C4500 Mitutoyo
Formtracer. In order to minimize the error, the three measure-
ment points were averaged to represent the surface roughness
of each specimen.
In this study, the ASTM D790 and ISO178 were applied
for testing flexural samples. As shown in Fig. 2, the sample
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137 5125

Table 1 Technical specification

for TEVO Tarantula Prusa I3 Technical specifications Tarantula Prusa I3 Units

Layer resolution 50 microns

Printing speed 150 mm/s
Build size 200 × 200 × 200 mm3
Material type PLA, ABS, PETG, Wood, PVA, and flexible filaments Subject
Material diameter 1.75 mm
Position accuracy Z = 0.004, XY = 0.012 mm
Nozzle diameter 0.4 mm
Extruder temperature Recommended = 210 °C
Maximum = 260
Ambient temperature Above > 25 °C

size for ASTM is 3.2 mm × 12.7 mm × 125 mm. The 3D much different from each other with a range between 2.3 and
printed sample geometry was modeled using CATIA software 3.9 μm.
exported as a STL file and imported into the 3D printing
software.

5 RSM

4 Experimental design RSM is an accumulation of numerical and measurable

In the experimental design, response surface method was
adopted to study the relationship between the process param-
eters and the output response and the mathematical model that
can predict the output response from the actual process. The
range and level of parameters are shown in Tables 3 and 4. To
develop the empirical model for surface roughness, experi-
ment was implemented in accordance with CCD. The CCD
is a full factorial plan which incorporates all grouping of the
factor and consists of the eight-star trial and six center points.
The center points were set to six and replication of the factorial
points was two to get the precise result.
Table 5 shows the experimental data for 46 runs with four
control factors and one output response. The surface rough-
ness of each samples were measured using Mitutoyo
Formtracer instrument. The four factors of input parameter
included layer height (A), print speed (B), print temperature
(C), and outer shell speed (D).
According to Table 5, the minimum value of surface rough-
ness is from the sample 40 which is 2.299 μm and the maxi-
mum value is from the sample 19 which is 3.911 μm. For the
other samples, all the values of surface roughness were not too
Table 2 Typical range of
mechanical properties Mechanical properties PLA
for PLA materials
Tensile strength (MPa) 15.5–72.2
Tensile modulus (GPa) 2.020–3.550
Elongation at break (%) 0.5–9.2
Flexural strength (MPa) 52–115.1
Flexural modulus (GPa) 2.392–4.930
methods that are valuable for the modeling and analysis of
issues in which a response of interest is impacted by a few
factors and the goal is to optimize this response. RSM also
evaluates connections among at least one measured reaction
and the important input factors [28, 29]. The Design Expert
Ver. 11 software was utilized to build up the experimental plan
for RSM.
Analysis of the collected data was done by using the same
software. The second-order model which is a quadratic model
is generally used since it works extremely well in modeling
curvature around promising regions [30]. It is expressed based
on the connection between the input parameters and the output
response as the Eq. (1).
y ¼ β 0 þ ∑kj¼1 β j x j þ ∑kj¼1 βjj x2 j þ ∑i< j ∑βij xi x j þ e ð1Þ
In Eq. (1), y is the predicted output response which is sur-
face roughness while β0 is a constant. The terms βj, βjj, and βij
are the first and second degree input process parameters and
the interaction of parameter, respectively. xj represents the
value of the input process parameter while e is the error of
the experimental measurement.
Fig. 2 CAD design specimen
5126 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137

Table 3 3D printer parameter and their levels where i = 1, 2, 3, …N

Symbol Parameter Unit Lower boundary Higher boundary
A Layer height mm 0.18
B Print speed mm/s 36
C Print temperature °C 185
D Outer shell speed mm/s 29
6 PSO
The component of PSO is one of the points of interest com-
pared with other optimization techniques. Natural animals
sometimes behave as a swarm. One of the fundamental objec-
tives of artificial life researches is to inspect how normal an-
imals carry on as a swarm and reconfigure the swarm models
inside a computer. Thoughts of PSO algorithm begin from
artificial mode and developmental calculation theory and a
flock of birds are utilized for tackling the optimization issue.
Arrangement of the issue, called “particle,” relates the bird
position within the pursuit space. The best position can be
decided by position parameters, speed parameters, and fitness
parameters of each particle [31].
Optimization of PSO was carried out by using MATLAB
9.4 software. There are several processes that need to be per-
formed in order to get the best value of the optimization. The
summaries of the processes are as follows:
i. Initialization of population
All process parameter are randomly set within pre-
defined ranges. The random parameter will be inserted in
the function.
ii. Evaluation of searching point of each particle
The objective function value is calculated for every
particle. If the value is better than the current pbest of
the agent, the pbest value is replaced by the new value.
iii. Updating velocity and position of each particle
The velocity of each particle, v, will be updated ac-
cording to the Eq. (2). Meanwhile, the position of parti-
cle, s, will updated by Eq. (3).



vi ðk þ 1Þ ¼ w:vi ðk Þ þ C 1 :rand 1 X pbest −X i þ C 2 :rand 2 X gbest −X i
s i ð k þ 1Þ ¼ s i ð k Þ þ v i ð k þ 1Þ
v is the particle velocity, s is the particle position, k is the
iteration counter, w is the momentum inertia, rand1 and rand2
0.3 are random variables, C1 is the cognitive parameter, and C2 is
60 the social parameter.
205
40
6.1 Adaptation of PSO technique to 3D printer
optimization problem
In order to search for the optimal process parameters, regres-
sion model of surface roughness was integrated with particle
swarm optimizer. Figure 3 shows the PSO flowchart of the
optimization of the 3D printer process. In the first phase, the
PSO initialization is carried out where several parameters need
to be set such as number of iteration, number of particle pop-
ulation, range of the input parameters (i.e., shell speed, layer
thickness, print speed, and print temperature), and dimension
of particle position. The particle position is the input parame-
ter of the FDM 3D printer. After initialization is completed,
the fitness function will be evaluated. The fitness function is
equivalent to the surface roughness, Ra, regression model.
This is the goal of the optimization process which is to achieve
the optimum parameter settings for the best minimum Ra. If
the new value of surface roughness is better than the current
value of surface roughness, the new value replaces the current
value as the local best, pbest. This process will be repeated
until all the particles in the population is completed. Then, in
the next level, comparison with the global best value, gbest
will be done. If the new value of surface roughness is better
than the current value of gbest, then the new value of surface
roughness becomes the gbest value. The optimization process
will run continuously until the end of iteration. For each iter-
ation, the particle position and velocity will be updated and the
same process will be repeated for the next iteration. Once the
iterations are completed, the optimum parameters for the best
surface roughness will be obtained.
7 SOS
ð2Þ SOS algorithm is a metaheuristic optimization method simu-
lated from the symbiotic interaction within organisms. This
method is affectively used for optimizing the objective func-
ð3Þ
tion modeled from actual problems. The algorithm offers three

Table 4 Five levels of parameters

by using RSM Symbol Parameter Unit Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

A Layer thickness mm 0.10 0.18 0.24 0.30 0.38

B Print speed mm/s 19.46 36.00 48.00 60.00 76.54
C Print temperature °C 171.22 185.00 195.00 205.00 218.78
D Outer shell speed mm/s 21.42 29.00 34.50 40.00 47.58
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137 5127

Table 5 Experimental data

Number of sample Parameter setting Surface roughness, Ra (μm)

A (mm) B (mm/s) C (°C) D (mm/s)

1 0.18 60.00 185.00 40.00 3.546

2 0.38 48.00 195.00 34.50 2.954
3 0.18 60.00 205.00 40.00 2.788
4 0.24 19.46 195.00 34.50 2.880
5 0.24 48.00 195.00 21.42 3.584
6 0.30 36.00 185.00 40.00 3.126
7 0.30 36.00 185.00 40.00 3.117
8 0.24 48.00 195.00 34.50 3.298
9 0.18 60.00 205.00 29.00 3.626
10 0.18 36.00 205.00 29.00 3.420
11 0.30 36.00 205.00 29.00 3.222
12 0.18 60.00 205.00 29.00 3.826
13 0.30 36.00 205.00 29.00 3.215
14 0.24 48.00 218.78 34.50 3.190
15 0.18 36.00 205.00 40.00 2.392
16 0.24 48.00 195.00 34.50 3.014
17 0.18 60.00 205.00 40.00 2.732
18 0.30 60.00 185.00 29.00 3.869
19 0.30 60.00 185.00 40.00 3.911
20 0.30 36.00 205.00 40.00 3.217
21 0.18 36.00 185.00 40.00 2.989
22 0.24 48.00 195.00 34.50 3.647
23 0.30 36.00 185.00 29.00 2.788
24 0.24 48.00 195.00 34.50 3.565
25 0.30 60.00 205.00 40.00 3.474
26 0.18 36.00 185.00 40.00 3.232
27 0.18 60.00 185.00 29.00 2.754
28 0.24 76.54 195.00 34.50 3.666
29 0.30 36.00 205.00 40.00 3.289
30 0.24 48.00 171.22 34.50 2.856
31 0.30 60.00 205.00 29.00 3.752
32 0.24 48.00 195.00 34.50 3.606
33 0.30 60.00 185.00 29.00 3.773
34 0.18 36.00 205.00 29.00 3.299
35 0.24 48.00 195.00 34.50 3.417
36 0.30 60.00 205.00 29.0 3.777
37 0.30 60.00 185.00 40.00 3.906
38 0.24 48.00 195.00 47.58 3.110
39 0.30 36.00 185.00 29.00 2.584
40 0.10 48.00 195.00 34.50 2.299
41 0.18 36.00 205.00 40.00 2.354
42 0.18 36.00 185.00 29.00 2.967
43 0.18 60.00 185.00 29.00 2.303
44 0.18 36.00 185.00 29.00 2.697
45 0.18 60.00 185.00 40.00 3.514
46 0.30 60.00 205.00 40.00 3.550
5128
Fig. 3 PSO algorithm for
optimization of surface roughness
main advantages, i.e., able to find the best global optima re-
gardless of the initial setting of its parameter values, uses
fewer control parameters, and fast convergence rate to reach
for the final value. Other important features of SOS algorithm
are simple and easily adaptable for integer and discrete opti-
mization, useful for optimizing multi-modal search spaces,
and quite affective in nonlinear constraint optimization includ-
ing penalty functions [32]. The SOS algorithm is a population
based on symbiotic organisms by using mutualism, commen-
salism, and parasitism. The details of the operation of each
phase are as follows:
1. Mutualism phase: In this phase an organism creates a
relationship that brings benefit to each other. For example,
the interaction between bees and flowers shows that bees
obtain benefit from the nectar and distribute the pollen,
which facilitates the pollination process. The following
equations show the mutualism relationship:
X inew ¼ X i þ rand ð0; 1Þ*ðX best −Mutual Vector:BF 1 Þ ð4Þ
X jnew ¼ X j þ rand ð0; 1Þ*ðX best −Mutual Vector:BF 2 Þ ð5Þ
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137
Xi þ X j
Mutual Vector ¼ ð6Þ
2
BF is the benefit factor of either 1 or 2.
2. Commensalism phase: The stage in which an organism
is developing a relationship that benefits itself while
not affecting others. Shark and remora fish is one ex-
ample of commensalism. The commensal relationship
is modeled in following equation:


X inew ¼ X i þ rand ð−1; 1Þ* X best −X j ð7Þ
3. Parasitism phase: Is the phase where an organism is
building a relationship that benefits itself but harms
others. An example of parasitism is a plasmodium par-
asite, which uses its association with the anopheles
mosquitoes to pass parasite into the human hosts.
There are no equations involve in this phase. The pro-
cess is performed only by duplicating the existing or-
ganism to become the parasite organism. Parasite or-
ganism with better fitness value will kill other organ-
isms from the ecosystem.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137
7.1 Adaptation of SOS technique to 3D printer
optimization problem
In this study, the target of the optimization process is to deter-
mine the optimal set values of process parameters that con-
tribute to the minimum surface roughness, Ra, value. To opti-
mize the surface roughness, it is important to determine the
problems of process parameters which consist of layer height
(A), print speed (B), print temperature (C), and outer shell
speed (D). Figure 4 shows the SOS optimization process.
The SOS optimization begins with the initialization process.
In the initialization process, there are four important parame-
ters that need to be set: number of iteration, number of organ-
isms in the ecosystem, organism size, and range of organisms.
The number of organism reflects to the number of input pa-
rameters of the FDM 3D printer and range of organisms refer
to the range of its input parameters. After initialization is com-
pleted, the mutualism phase is carried out. At this phase, two
organisms need to be mutual. Organism Xi, which is the ith
member of the ecosystem, is mutual with Xj that has been
selected randomly from the ecosystem. Both will go through
the mutualistic relationship from Eqs. (4) and (5) and become
new organisms (Xinew and Xjnew). Both new organisms will
be evaluated for its fitness value and compared with the pre-
vious organisms (Xi and Xj). Fitter organisms are selected as a
solution for the next iteration. The fitter organism is referred to
as the best fitness function evaluated from the surface rough-
ness regression model. In this case, organism with the fittest
Fig. 4 SOS algorithm for optimization of surface roughness
5129
value (i.e., lowest Ra) will continue to the next phase. In the
commensalism phase, again a new organism, Xinew, is calcu-
lated according to commensal symbiosis as from Eq. (7)
where Xj is randomly selected from the ecosystem to com-
mensal with Xi. The fitness value is evaluated for Xinew and
compared with the previous Xi. If Xinew fitness is better than
its pre-interaction fitness, then the former will be chosen as the
solution for the next iteration. For the third phase, parasitism
organism is created from organism, Xi (i.e., duplicating organ-
ism Xi and modifying its value). The fitness of the parasite
organism is compared with the organism Xj that is randomly
selected from the ecosystem. If the fitness of the parasite or-
ganism is better than the organism Xj, organism Xj will be
eliminated from the ecosystem and replaced with the parasite
organism. The fitter organism will survive for the next itera-
tion. For each iteration, the minimum fitness value (i.e., sur-
face roughness) will be stored iteratively until it converges to
the global optimum value. This value is the optimum input
parameter setting for the FDM 3D printer to produce the best
minimum value of surface roughness.
8 Results and analysis
8.1 Variance analysis
ANOVA has been done as shown in Table 6 to observe the
influence of the process parameters which are layer thickness
5130 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137

Table 6 ANOVA results for

surface roughness Source Sum of squares df Mean square F value p value Contribution%

Model 8.36 15 0.56 20.50 < 0.0001 Significant

A 1.39 1 1.39 50.97 < 0.0001 15.41
B 1.87 1 1.87 68.80 < 0.0001 20.37
C 0.058 1 0.058 2.15 0.1530 0.63
D 0.075 1 0.075 2.76 0.1072 0.82
AB 0.42 1 0.42 15.35 0.0005 4.58
AC 1.665E−004 1 1.665E−004 6.123E−003 0.9381 0.33
AD 0.13 1 0.13 4.67 0.0389 1.42
BC 0.025 1 0.025 0.93 0.3429 0.27
BD 7.703E−004 1 7.703E−004 0.028 0.8675 1.54
CD 2.00 1 2.00 73.67 < 0.0001 21.79
A2 0.93 1 0.93 34.19 < 0.0001 10.13
C2 0.20 1 0.20 7.45 0.0105 2.18
ABC 0.37 1 0.37 13.67 0.0009 4.03
ABD 0.25 1 0.25 9.12 0.0051 2.72
ACD 0.76 1 0.76 27.85 < 0.0001 8.28
Residual 0.82 30 0.027 – – –
Lack of fit 0.30 9 0.033 1.35 0.2721 Not significant

(A), print speed (B), print temperatures (C), and outer shell
speed (D) on output response which is surface roughness.
The cubic model was chosen in this analysis because cubic
model are more accurate based on R squared (R2) compared to
the quadratic model. The significance of each parameter to the
surface roughness was evaluated by the significance effect
(p values). This value indicates the importance of the param-
eters that influence the output response if the value is less than
0.05.
Table 6 shows the layer thickness and print speed having a
p value < 0.0001 followed by outer shell speed and print
temperature. This indicates that both of these parameters have
considerable affect on the surface roughness since the p values
of these are less than 0.05. The lower the layer thickness and
print speed, the higher surface quality can be achieved.
However, it will lead to longer build time as the print speed
has been reduced. For the interaction between parameter, layer
thickness and print speed (AB); layer thickness and outer shell
speed (AD); print temperature and outer shell speed (CD);
layer thickness, print speed, and print temperature (ABC); lay-
er thickness, print speed, and outer shell speed (ABD); and
layer thickness, print temperature, and outer shell speed
(ACD) significantly influenced the response.
An interaction effect is the simultaneous effect of two or
more input parameters on at least one output response in
which their joint affect is significantly greater (or significantly
less) than the sum of the parts. The presence of interaction
effects in this study is important because it tells how the pro-
cess parameters of 3D printer work together to impact the
surface roughness of the printed sample. From the ANOVA,
there are three interaction effects that have significant impact
to the response which are layer thickness and print speed (AB),
layer thickness and outer shell speed (AD), and print temper-
ature and outer shell speed (CD).
Figure 5 a shows the interaction plot between surface
roughness and layer thickness with respect to the print speed.
The minimum point of surface roughness from the graph was
achieved at the minimum value of layer thickness and print
speed of 0.18 mm and 36 mm/s, respectively. However, the
maximum point of surface roughness increased linearly with
the increasing of layer thickness and print speed. Thus, it
shows that the decreasing of layer thickness and print speed
would give better surface roughness. In a previous study,
Anitha et al. [24] also found that the decreasing of print speed
would improve the surface quality. Therefore, the print speed
is one of the important factors that needs to be considered
while performing the FDM process.
Figure 5 b shows the interaction effect of the layer thick-
ness and outer shell speed on surface roughness. Minimum
surface roughness decreased linearly with the decreasing of
layer thickness and increasing outer shell speed. However, the
outer shell speed had only a little bit of effect on the surface
roughness as the value was reduced. The minimum surface
roughness can be achieved at lower layer thickness and higher
outer shell speed which was consistent with previous study by
Nancharaiah et al. [15]. Thus, it is revealed that both layer
thickness and outer shell speed have an influence on the sur-
face roughness.
Figure 5 c shows the interaction effect of print temperature
and outer shell speed on surface roughness. Based on the plot,
the surface roughness decreased proportionally when higher
outer shell speed reacted with the lower print temperature.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137
Fig. 5 Interaction effect analysis for the surface roughness. a Layer thickness and print speed. b Layer thickness and outer shell speed. c Print speed and
outer shell speed
However, the surface roughness also remained low at lower
shell speed and higher print temperature. This situation occurs
because, as the outer shell speed was increased, the material
was released faster from the extruder. At that time, a higher
print temperature was required in order to release the material
quickly. The best surface roughness was obtained at the 40
mm/s outer shell speed and 205 °C print temperature. This
interaction was the most significant interaction as the p value
was < 0.0001.
Comparisons of the regression predicted results and the
experimental results of the surface roughness were also
performed. The experimental and predicted surface rough-
ness values were compared as shown in Fig. 6. For a good
fit, the points are located in the vicinity of the fitted line,
with narrow confidence bands. Points on the left or right
of the plot, furthest from the mean, have the most lever-
age and effectively try to pull the fitted line towards the
point. Points that are vertically distant from the line rep-
resent possible outliers. Figure 6 shows that the points
that have been plot are mostly close to the fitted line so
the cubic model that had been generated can be consid-
ered as a good prediction in estimating the predicted sur-
face roughness values.
Before accepting any model, the adequacy of the model
must be checked by an appropriate statistical analysis.
5131
One of the analyses is to examine a normal probability
plot of the residuals where the data of surface roughness
are plotted against a theoretical normal distribution in or-
der to form an approximate straight line. The residuals
present the normality and response transformation of the
model. In this study, the normal probability plot of resid-
uals is depicted in Fig. 7. It is observed that most of the
data points are located along the line which indicates that
the error of the model are normally distributed and ade-
quately fit a straight line with no apparent problems in
normality and response transformation.
8.2 Regression model for surface roughness
The regression equation and coefficient of the cubic model
was obtained by carrying out a rigorous analysis with the
experimental data using Design Expert software. The signifi-
cance of the model was examined using ANOVA. The best
model was achieved by observing three factors which are p
value of the model, p value of the lack of fit, and R2 value.
First of all, the model was evaluated by the p value of model
and lack of fit to make sure whether the model was significant
or not.
Table 7 shows the p value for the model is less than 0.0001
which implies that the selected model is significant. The term
5132
Fig. 6 Comparison of
experimental and predicted
surface roughness values
significant means that the model fits enough data from the
experiment. The lack of fit is another important feature needed
to assess whether the model fits the data well or not. It is
shows that the lack of fit p value of 0.2721 implies that the
lack of fit is not significant relative to the pure error. There is a
27.21% chance that a lack of fit this large could occur due to
noise. The lack of fit should be insignificant before it will
further be used as the predicted model for the response.
The regression model was developed together with the
coefficient of determination (R2). R2 is the proportion of
variability in the response described by the model. R2 ap-
proaches 1 when the model fits the data perfectly predicted
Fig. 7 Normal probability plot of
residuals for surface roughness
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137
from the actual response and 0 shows the model fits worse
than the mean of the response. The value of R2 shows the
accuracy of the model in terms of the percentage value.
From Table 7, the R2 value is 91.11% and the adjusted R2
is 86.67 % that can be considered as an adequate model in
representing the surface roughness of the FDM process. The
adjusted R2 is an altered version of R2 that was adjusted
based on the number of predictors in the model. The adjust-
ed R2 increases only if the new term improves the model
more than would be expected by chance. However, it is
always lower than the R2. The regression model for the
surface roughness is shown in the Eq. (8).
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137 5133

Table 7 Model adequacy, lack of

fit, and R-squared Source Sum of squares df Mean square F value p value Comment

Model 8.36 15 0.56 20.50 < 0.0001 Significant

Lack of fit 0.30 9 0.033 1.35 0.2721 Nonsignificant
R-squared 0.9111 Adequate
Adj R-squared 0.8667 Adequate

Ra ¼ −86:28432 þ 143:75348A−0:86231B In the desirability function approach, the input parameter of

þ 0:62559C þ 2:75590D
þ 3:84465AB−0:89363AC−7:83291AD
þ 3:35859E−003BC
þ 5:40956E−003BD−0:015738CD−36:51104A2
−6:13478E−004C 2 −0:014970ABC−0:022230ABD
þ 0:046619ACD
ð8Þ
where Ra represents the surface roughness, A represents the
layer thickness, B is the print speed, C is the print temperature,
and D is the outer shell speed.
8.3 RSM optimization
The surface roughness optimization has been done by using
conventional and nonconventional methods. For conventional
method, the optimization has used RSM that applied desirabil-
ity analysis to find the parameter settings for minimum surface
roughness. The optimization analysis was performed using
Design Expert software. Then, the desirability function ap-
proach was used to find the optimum solutions.
Before the optimization starts, parameters and output re-
sponse needed to be set. Based on Table 8, the limitation of
all parameters was set from the lower and higher boundaries,
respectively. The lower limit and upper limit values of surface
roughness were taken from the previous experimental data
which are 2.299 μm and 3.911 μm, respectively. The goal of
surface roughness was set as “Minimize” to get the better
surface roughness.
Table 8 Parameter range and response target
Name Goal Lower limit Upper limit
each predicted output response was changed to a dimension-
less desirability value which is d. The scale of the desirability
function ranged between 0 and 1. If the value of desirability is
0, this means that the response is completely unacceptable and
if the value of desirability is 1, the response is exactly the
target value. From Fig. 8, the first optimum setting that was
predicted by the desirability analysis is the layer thickness
with the minimum value of 0.18 mm. In addition, the opti-
mum setting for print speed also hit the minimum value from
the parameter range which is 36.00 mm/s. Meanwhile, the
predicted optimum setting for print temperature is the maxi-
mum value from the range that has been set which is 205.00
°C. Lastly, the optimum setting for outer shell speed is also the
maximum value from the range which is 40.00 mm/s.
Furthermore, the optimum predicted surface roughness by
RSM is 2.29473 μm. The predicted surface roughness is low-
er than the minimum surface roughness value from DOE
which is 2.299 μm. Table 9 shows the overall optimization
results by using RSM method.
8.4 PSO optimization
In this study, the goal of the optimization process was to figure
out the optimal values of process parameters that will give the
lowest possible value of surface roughness. Previously, the
RSM optimization has given a set of process parameter with
the minimum predicted surface roughness. The same process
was done by using the PSO method with the same goal which
is to achieve minimum surface roughness.
By using the MATLAB 9.4 software, the surface roughness
regression model in Eq. (8) was selected for the fitness func-
tion in the process of optimization. The goal of the 3D printing
was to decide on the process parameters, namely the layer
thickness, print speed, print temperature, and outer shell
speed, in order to optimize the objective function which is
surface roughness. The minimization of surface roughness
by using PSO can be expressed as:

Layer thickness (mm) In range 0.18 0.30

Print speed (mm/s) In range 36 60
Minimize : Ra ðA; B; C; DÞ ð9Þ
Print temperature (°C) In range 185 205
Outer shell speed (mm/s) In range 29 40
Surface roughness (μm) Minimize 2.299 3.911 Each of the optimization process uses algorithms and each
of these algorithms have different settings and need to be
5134
Fig. 8 Optimal parameters for
surface roughness from RSM
optimization
studied wisely for affective optimization. Table 10 shows the
parameter settings for PSO algorithm. The main settings that
need to be focused included the population number (no. of
particles), no. of iteration (particle steps), and PSO momen-
tum (w). The population number was set to 60 which is suffi-
cient to obtain the best surface roughness. Apart from that, the
number of iteration was set to 100 because from the prelimi-
nary test, it was observed that most of the runs that have been
done converged between 40 and 80 iterations. If the number of
iterations was increased, there would be no difference in the
PSO results. The PSO momentum (w) controls the speed of
the graph to convergence. From the w value, there are two
categories in searching the optimum value that can be used
which are exploration and exploitation. Exploration means the
searching process can go further but not the deeper in the area
and vice versa for the exploitation. Commonly, for the explo-
ration setting, the value of w is greater than 1 or equal and
exploitation is below than 1. In this study, w was set to 1.
C1 is the acceleration constant for the cognitive parameter
and C2 is the acceleration constant for the social parameter
which controls the position of the particles. The values of C1
which controls the position of pbest (local best) must be the
same with the value of C2 which controls the position of gbest
(global best) to make sure the position of the particle is bal-
anced. Therefore, both values have been set to 1.5 which is the
common value used in PSO optimization. In order to achieve
the optimal process parameter, the range based on DOE
Table 9 Overall optimization result by using RSM
Process parameter Optimum value
Layer thickness (mm) 0.18
Printing speed (mm/s) 0.36
Printing temperature (°C) 205.00
Outer shell speed (mm/s) 40.00
Predicted surface roughness (μm) 2.295
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137
process was selected to present the target of the optimization
solution as follows:
0:10≤ A ≤0:33 ð10aÞ
36:00≤ B ≤ 60:00 ð10bÞ
185:00≤ C ≤ 205:00 ð10cÞ
29:00≤ D ≤ 40:00 ð10dÞ
In this optimization, the process parameters were represent-
ed by the position and velocity of particles while the surface
roughness is represented by the fitness function. By using the
combination of Eqs. (10a) to (10d) and the setting value from
Table 10, the optimization was performed. The system ran
based on the settings that have been set to achieve the opti-
mum setting of parameters in order to minimize the surface
roughness. Table 11 shows that the optimum surface rough-
ness given by PSO is 2.176 μm. The set of process parameters
that was predicted by the system are layer thickness of 0.15
mm, print speed of 37.77 mm/s, print temperature of 202.09
°C, and outer shell speed of 39.69 mm/s.
Figure 9 shows the parameter profile for the PSO optimi-
zation. In this optimization, all the process parameters started
to converge when it reached the optimum value of between 55
to 60 iterations. The convergence profile in Fig. 10 indicates
Table 10 Optimal solution of PSO setting
Parameter Setting value
Population number (no. of particles) 60
Iteration number (particle steps) 100
Dimension (number of process parameter) 4
C1 (acceleration constant for the cognitive parameter) 1.5
C2 (acceleration constant for the social parameter) 1.5
W (PSO momentum) 1.0
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137
Table 11 Optimization result by using PSO
Process parameter Optimum value
Layer thickness (mm) 0.15
Printing speed (mm/s) 37.77
Printing temperature (°C) 202.09
Outer shell speed (mm/s) 39.69
Predicted surface roughness (μm) 2.176
that the minimum value of surface roughness is 2.1757 μm. In
addition, the graph starts to converge when the minimum val-
ue of surface roughness was achieved between 50 and 60
iterations. From the observation, the optimization process by
using PSO method had been successfully performed.
8.5 SOS optimization
The overall process of the SOS optimization method in en-
hancing the process factors affecting the surface roughness, Ra
value of the PLA material was divided into three phases which
are the mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism. The SOS
algorithm was developed using MATLAB 9.4 software. In
order to achieve the optimum process parameters and the min-
imum value of surface roughness, Ra, a minimum and maxi-
mum value of FDM parameters needs to be considered. The
process parameters in this study were subjected to lower
boundary value and upper boundary value given in Eqs.
(10a) to (10d). The regression model as in Eq. (8) was used
as the objective function of the problem in the SOS algorithm.
The optimum process parameters and its output response, i.e.,
surface roughness will be achieved at the end of the genera-
tion/iteration. In order to obtain the optimum surface
Fig. 9 Parameter profile for PSO optimization
5135
Fig. 10 Convergence of PSO algorithm for surface roughness
roughness, a proper initialization process must be considered
such as number of ecosystem (ecosize), number of generation
(gen), and number of organisms (n) based on Table 12. These
settings are sufficient enough for the algorithm to obtain the
optimum results as SOS uses fewer parameters and is easy to
implement.
Based on Table 13, it can be observed that the minimum
value of surface roughness, Ra, is 2.18 μm. The set values of
process parameters that lead to the minimum surface rough-
ness value are layer thickness 0.1 μm, print speed 37.84 mm/s,
print temperature 192.70 °C, and outer shell speed 38.59 mm/
s. Figure 11 shows the performance of each process parame-
ters and the plot function diagram of the SOS algorithm, re-
spectively. Thus, based on the SOS optimization result, it can
be concluded that a better surface finish is possible by
selecting a combination of layer thickness, print speed, print
temperature, and outer shell speed. The convergence profile in
Fig. 12 indicates that the minimum value of surface rough-
ness, Ra, is 2.18 μm. The optimal solution obtained for the
minimum value of surface roughness is at the 25th generation
(iteration) of the SOS algorithm.
8.6 Experimental confirmation test for RSM, PSO,
and SOS
Experimental confirmation test was carried out to validate the
efficiency of the proposed optimization method to obtain the
optimum FDM process parameters for minimum surface
roughness. In this study, the surface roughness between
RSM, PSO, and SOS were compared between its predicted
Table 12 Optimal solution of SOS parameter setting combination
Parameter Setting value
Ecosystem size (ecosize) 30
Number of generation (gen) 100
Number of organisms (n) 4
5136 Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137

Table 13 Output values of SOS with respect to input parameters

Process parameter Optimum value

Layer thickness (mm) 0.1

Printing speed (mm/s) 37.84
Printing temperature (°C) 192.70
Outer shell speed (mm/s) 38.59
Predicted surface roughness (μm) 2.18

and experimental value. From Table 14, it can be observed
that the predicted surface roughness for PSO and SOS are less
than that of the RSM optimization method. After going
through the experiment validation, the error for each method
was computed. The experimental validation of surface rough-
ness for RSM was 2.444 μm compared with the predicted
value, 2.295 μm. There was about 6.10% of error between
the experiment and predicted value. This is most probably
due to the inaccuracy of the polynomial estimation that lead
to poor representation of the optimal FDM process parame-
ters. In contrast, the experimental validations of surface rough-
ness for PSO and SOS improved by about 2.68% and 2.21%
of error, respectively. The results for PSO and SOS also
showed that the surface roughness reduced by 8.5% and
8.8%, respectively, compared with the conventional method,
i.e., RSM. It can be concluded that the use of metaheuristic
methods such as PSO and SOS can improve the surface
roughness of the 3D printed part due to its ability to search
for the best parameter setting for the optimal response.
Fig. 12 SOS convergence Profile
9 Conclusions
In this work, the optimization of FDM parameters to improve
surface roughness has been implemented using RSM, PSO,
and SOS. The regression model for the surface roughness was
developed using ANOVA statistical analysis. The major infer-
ences of the research are presented below:
1. ANOVA analysis and surface interaction plot have re-
vealed that layer thickness and print speed have signifi-
cant effect on surface roughness followed by outer shell
speed and print temperature. Better surface finish can be
obtained with a proper combination of lower layer thick-
ness, low print speed, high print temperature, and high
outer shell speed.
2. Results from optimization algorithms have shown that
SOS and PSO gave better prediction of surface roughness
compared to RSM. The predicted surface roughness from
the simulation results have shown that both methods
(PSO and SOS) the ability to improve the surface quality
of FDM 3D parts. It is about 5% reduction of surface
roughness compared to the RSM method.
3. From the experimental confirmation test, it is observed
that SOS gave better surface quality compared to RSM
and PSO. SOS produced the lowest surface roughness of
2.229 μm followed by PSO, 2.236 μm, and RSM, 2.444

Table 14 Comparison of surface roughness between experimental and

predicted

Process parameter RSM PSO SOS

Layer thickness (mm) 0.18 0.15 0.1

Print speed (mm/s) 36.00 37.77 37.84
Print temperature (°C) 205.00 202.09 192.70
Outer shell speed (mm/s) 40.00 39.69 38.59
Predicted surface roughness (μm) 2.295 2.176 2.18
Experimental surface roughness (μm) 2.444 2.236 2.229
Error (%) 6.10 2.68 2.21
Fig. 11 Parameter profile for SOS optimization
Int J Adv Manuf Technol (2019) 105:5121–5137
μm, respectively. The results for PSO and SOS have im-
proved by 8.5% and 8.8%, respectively, compared to
RSM. These findings reveal that the nonconventional
method gives better optimization results compared to the
conventional method.
Since SOS optimization method is relatively new, the ca-
pability of this method in solving other types of responses
such as mechanical strength, build time, dimensional accura-
cy, etc. would be very interesting to be further explored.
Furthermore, this work could be extended to other addictive
manufacturing process such as selective laser melting, selec-
tive laser sintering, stereo-lithography, electron beam melting,
etc. Each of the process has their own parameters settings
which is generally difficult to obtain. Therefore, a reliable
and promising approach such as metaheuristic optimization
should be chosen in order to achieve the best output response.
Acknowledgments This research study was supported by the researchers
from University Malaysia Perlis. The authors would like to express their
gratitude to University Malaysia Perlis for their guidance in order to
complete this research study.
References
1. Yan Q, Dong H, Su J, Han J, Song B, Wei Q, Shi Y (2018) A review
of 3D printing technology for medical applications. Engineering
4(5):729–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.07.021
2. Singamneni S, Yifan L, Hewitt A, Chalk R, Thomas W (2019)
Additive manufacturing for the aircraft industry: a review. J
Aeronaut Aerospace Eng 8(214):2
3. Deswal S, Narang R, Chhabra D (2019) Modeling and parametric
optimization of FDM 3D printing process using hybrid techniques
for enhancing dimensional preciseness. Int J Interact Des Manuf
(IJIDeM):1-18
4. Lyu J, Manoochehri S (2019) Multi-objective optimization based
on machine reliability and process-dependent product quality for
FDM system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol:1-10
5. Griffiths C, Howarth J, De Almeida-Rowbotham G, Rees A,
Kerton R (2016) A design of experiments approach for the optimi-
sation of energy and waste during the production of parts
manufactured by 3D printing. J Clean Prod 139:74–85
6. Boursier J-F, Fournet A, Bassanino J, Manassero M, Bedu A-S,
Leperlier D (2018) Reproducibility, accuracy and effect of auto-
clave sterilization on a thermoplastic three-dimensional model
printed by a desktop fused deposition modelling three-
dimensional printer. Vet Comp Orthopaed Traumatol 31(06):422–
430
7. Leite M, Varanda A, Ribeiro AR, Silva A, Vaz MF (2018)
Mechanical properties and water absorption of surface modified
ABS 3D printed by fused deposition modelling. Rapid Prototyp J
24(1):195–203
8. Srivastava M, Rathee S, Maheshwari S, Kundra T (2019)
Estimating percentage contribution of process parameters towards
build time of FDM process for components displaying spatial sym-
metry: a case study. Int J Mater Prod Technol 58(2-3):201–224
9. Mohamed OA, Masood SH, Bhowmik JL (2015) Optimization of
fused deposition modeling process parameters: a review of current
research and future prospects. Adv Manuf 3(1):42–53
5137
10. Boér J, Blaga P (2018) Reducing production costs by monitoring
the roughness of raw product surfaces. Procedia Manuf 22:202–
208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.031
11. Alsoufi MS, Elsayed AE (2018) Surface roughness quality and
dimensional accuracy-a comprehensive analysis of 100% infill
printed parts fabricated by a personal/desktop cost-effective FDM
3D printer. Mater Sci Appl 9:11–40
12. Peng T, Yan F (2018) Dual-objective analysis for desktop FDM
printers: energy consumption and surface roughness. Procedia
CIRP 69:106–111
13. Anitha R, Arunachalam S, Radhakrishnan P (2001) Critical param-
eters influencing the quality of prototypes in fused deposition
modelling. J Mater Process Technol 118(1):385–388. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0924-0136(01)00980-3
14. Reddy V, Flys O, Chaparala A, Berrimi CE, Amogh V, Rosén BG
(2018) Study on surface texture of Fused Deposition Modeling.
Procedia Manuf 25:389–396
15. Nancharaiah T, Raju DR, Raju VR (2010) An experimental inves-
tigation on surface quality and dimensional accuracy of FDM com-
ponents. Int J Emerg Technol 1(2):106–111
16. Horvath D, Noorani R, Mendelson M Improvement of surface
roughness on ABS 400 polymer using design of experiments
(DOE). In: Materials Science Forum, 2007. Trans Tech Publ, pp
2389-2392
17. Chung Wang C, Lin T-W, Hu S-S (2007) Optimizing the rapid
prototyping process by integrating the Taguchi method with the
Gray relational analysis. Rapid Prototyp J 13(5):304–315
18. Jiang R, Kleer R, Piller FT (2017) Predicting the future of additive
manufacturing: A Delphi study on economic and societal implica-
tions of 3D printing for 2030. Technol Forecast Soc 117:84–97
19. Thrimurthulu K, Pandey PM, Venkata Reddy N (2004) Optimum
part deposition orientation in fused deposition modeling. Int J Mach
Tool Manuf 44(6):585–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmachtools.
2003.12.004
20. Asadollahi-Yazdi E, Gardan J, Lafon P (2018) Multi-objective op-
timization of additive manufacturing process. IFAC-PapersOnLine
51(11):152–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.08.250
21. Rao RV, Rai DP (2016) Optimization of fused deposition modeling
process using teaching-learning-based optimization algorithm. Eng
Sci Technol Int J 19(1):587–603
22. Pandey PM, Thrimurthulu K, Reddy* NV (2004) Optimal part
deposition orientation in FDM by using a multicriteria genetic al-
gorithm. Int J Prod Res 42(19):4069–4089
23. Byun HS, Lee* KH (2005) Determination of the optimal part ori-
entation in layered manufacturing using a genetic algorithm. Int J
Prod Res 43(13):2709–2724. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00207540500031857
24. Khatir S, Wahab MA, Benaissa B, Köppen M Crack identification
using eXtended IsoGeometric analysis and particle swarm optimi-
zation. In: Fracture, fatigue and wear, 2018. Springer, pp 210-222
25. Prasad D, Mukherjee V (2016) A novel symbiotic organisms search
algorithm for optimal power flow of power system with FACTS
devices. Eng Sci Technol Int J 19(1):79–89
26. Tran D-H, Cheng M-Y, Prayogo D (2016) A novel Multiple
Objective Symbiotic Organisms Search (MOSOS) for time–cost–
labor utilization tradeoff problem. Knowl-Based Syst 94:132–145
27. Yamada T, Febri Z (2015) Freight transport network design using
particle swarm optimisation in supply chain–transport
supernetwork equilibrium. Transport Res E Log 75:164–187
28. Noordin MY, Venkatesh VC, Sharif S, Elting S, Abdullah A (2004)
Application of response surface methodology in describing the per-
formance of coated carbide tools when turning AISI 1045 steel. J
Mater Process Technol 145(1):46–58
29. Nee CY, Saad MS, Mohd Nor A, Zakaria MZ, Baharudin ME
(2018) Optimal process parameters for minimizing the surface
roughness in CNC lathe machining of Co28Cr6Mo medical alloy