PHD HIND

Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Higher Education

and Scientific Research
University of Technology
Dep. of Prod. Eng. & Metallurgy
Optimization of Rapid Prototyping

Parameters Using Fused Deposition
Modeling
A Thesis
Submitted to Dep. of Production Engineering & Metallurgy/
University of Technology, in a partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Degree of Philosophy Doctorate in
Industrial Engineering
By
Hind Basil Ali Al-Attraqchi
MSc. Prod. Eng. /Ind. Eng.
BSc. Prod. Eng. /Ind. Eng.
Supervised By
Dr.Thaseen Fadhil Abbas Dr. Farhad Mohammed Othman

Assistant Professor Assistant Professor
2018
I
‫) اﻟﻣﺟﺎدﻟﺔ ‪(11 :‬‬
‫‪II‬‬
Acknowledgments
This work is the culmination of my journey of Ph.D which was just
like climbing a high peak step by step accompanied with encouragement,
hardship, trust, and frustration. When I found myself at top
experiencing the feeling of fulfillment, I realized though only my name
appears on the cover, is a great.
First for all, praise be to Allah for providing me the great
willingness and strength to carry out this work.
My profound gratitude and appreciation goes to my supervisors
Asst. Prof. Dr. Thaseen Fadhil Abbas and Asst. Prof. Dr. Farhad
Mohammed Othman for their support and guidance for the success of
this work and especially for their confidence in me.
I am grateful to Department of Production Engineering &
Metallurgy and Asst. Prof. Dr.Ali Abbar Khleif Head of Dep. and Asst.
Prof. Dr. Sawsan Sabih Head of Industrial Eng. Branch for their kind
support and concern regarding my academic requirements.
I would also like to express my special thanks and grattiude to

Asst. Prof. Dr. Ahmed Al-Gaban and Asst. Prof. Dr. Jamal Jalal
Dawood in Materials Engineering Department to facilitate my work in
the laboratories and Eng. Mokhelled Haider and Eng. Huseen Fadhil to
help me complete the practical part tests.
III
I offer my special appreciation to the Engineer Safaa kadhim for
his assistance in the basic principles of the software program that used
in this work.
Finally, to all my friends and fellow students thank you for your
understanding, encouragment and make my life a wounderful
experience. I cannot list all the name here, but you are always on my
mind.
Hind B.Al-Attraqchi
IV
Dedication
My Father,
You have given me the best things in life: Your time, your
care, and your love. I would not be who I am today without
you. I am truly grateful to have you in my life.
My Mother,
I have no words to write how she loves me, how she full-
fills my all necessaries for facing life situations. I cannot return
anything against her love and appreciations except to say that I
have my all life dedicated for her love.
My Husband,
Life has given us a wonderful family, a happy home, and

love for each other. Most importantly, it has given us each other.
I am so grateful to have you as my husband.
My Children
You have made me stronger, better than I could have ever

imagined. I love you to the moon and back.
Hind B. Al-Attraqchi
2018
V
ABSTRACT
Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is one of the rapid prototyping processes that
develop rapid prototyping parts. The part is created layer by layer of material on the top
of each until the geometry of the part is completed.
This work aims to study, investigate and optimize the influence of five process
parameters, which are Printing Speed, Layer Thickness, Shell Thickness, Infill Density
and Printing Orientation on the physical properties (Surface roughness and dimensional
accuracy) and mechanical properties (Impact strength, Bending strength, Compressive
strength and Tensile strength) of the printed part as well as on the building time.
In the design of experiment, Taguchi technique was used according to the

Orthogonal Array L27 which reduces the number of test to 27 experiments testing the
optimal setting of the process control parameters.
Grey Relation Analysis based on the Taguchi method was used to solve the multi
objectives optimization to optimize the process parameters.
Polylactic acid (PLA) material was used to fabricate specimens with five process
parameters in three levels which are Printing Speed (50, 75 and 100 mm/s), Layer
Thickness (0.1, 0,2 and 0.3 mm), Shell Thickness (1.2, 1.6 and 2.0 mm), Infill Density
(20, 50 and 80%) and Printing Orientation (0°, 45° and 90°).
It was found that the optimal parameters setting for better mechanical properties
was printing speed of 50 mm/s, layer thicknesses of 0.3 mm, shell thickness of 2 mm,
infill density of 80% and printing orientation of 45°.
For the Printing Time and the Surface Roughness were printing speed of 100
mm/s, layer thicknesses of 0.3 mm, shell thickness of 1.6 mm, infill density of 20% and
printing orientation of 90° gives the optimum results while the optimal parameters
setting for Dimension Accuracy was printing speed of 100 mm/s, layer thicknesses of
0.2 mm, shell thickness of 1.2mm, infill density of 80% and printing orientation of 90°.
In most of engineering applications.
VI
List of Contents
CHAPTER ONE
FUNDAMENTALS OF RAPID PROTOTYPING
Subject Pages
1.1. Introduction 1
1.2. Additive Manufacturing (AM) 2
1.3. 3D Printing 3
1.4. Rapid Prototyping 3
1.5. Principles of Rapid Prototyping 4
1.6. Rapid Prototyping Techniques 6
1.7. Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) 7
1.8. Motivation 9
1.9. Aim of Research 9
1.10. Work Plan 10
1.11. Outline of the Thesis 12
VII
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Subject Pages
2.1. Brief History of 3D Printing 13
2.2. Literature Review 14
2.3. Concluding Remarks 30
CHAPTER THREE
DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT AND OPTIMIZATION
Subject Pages
3.1. Introduction 31
3.2. Design of Experiments 32
3.3. Taguchi Method 32
3.4. Process Optimization Tools 33
3.5. Steps Involved in Taguchi Method 35
3.6. Optimization of Multiple Performance Characteristics with 36
Grey Relation Analysis
3.7. Data Pre-Processing for Grey Relation Analysis 38
3.8. Computing the Grey Relational Coefficient and Grade 38
VIII
CHAPTER FOUR
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Subject Pages
4.2. Specimens Design 42
4.3. Slicing (Cura Software) 42
4.4. Process Parameter Setting 42
4.5. Testing 42
4.6. Ultimaker Materials 43
4.7. Process parameters 44
4.8. Design of Experiments 45
4.9. CAD Modelling and UG NX Software 47
4.10. Specimens Test 48
CHAPTER FIVE
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Subject Pages
5.2. Design of Experimental Results 53
5.3. Discussion of the Results 55
5.4. Optimization Using Grey Relation Analysis 63
5.5. Optimization Algorithm of Multi Performance 64
IX
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
Subject Pages
6.1. Conclusions 110
6.2. Suggestions for Future work 112
References 113
Appendix A 122
Appendix B 123
Appendix C 123
Appendix D 124
X
List of Tables
Table No. Table Title Pages
Table 2-1 Summary of previous researches on the Fused Deposition 25

Modelling process parameters
Table 4-1 Mechanical properties of PLA 43
Table 4-2 Material properties of PLA 43
Table 4-3 Process Parameters with Their Levels 45
Table 4-4 DOE Using Taguchi Method based on Orthogonal Array 46

L27
Table 5-1 Signal to Noise Ratios for the Mechanical Properties 54
Table 5-2 Response Table for S/N Ratios for Impact Strength 55
Table 5-3 Response Table for S/N Ratio for Compressive Strength 56
Table 5-4 Response Table for S/N Ratio for Bending Strength 56
Table 5-5 Response Table for S/N Ratio for Tensile Strength 56
Table 5-6 Performance Characteristic 𝑥𝑖 ∗ 𝑘 after Data Processing 64
Table 5-7 The Deviation Sequences ∆0𝑖𝑘 for the mechanical 65

Properties
Table 5-8 The Grey Relational Grade and the Optimization Process 66
Table 5-9 Response Value for Grey Relational Grade 68
Table 5-10 Printing Time for the Mechanical Properties 70
Table 5-11 Signal to Noise of Printing Time for the Mechanical 72

Properties
XI

Properties
Table 5-16 Surface Roughness for the Mechanical Properties 78
Table 5-18 The Deviation Sequences ∆0𝑖𝑘 for the Surface Roughness 80
Table 5-21 Length of Dimensional Accuracy for the Mechanical 84

Properties
Table 5-22 Relative Change in Length for the Mechanical Properties 85
Table 5-23 Signal to Noise Relative Change in Length for the 86

Mechanical Properties

Properties
Table 5-26 The Gray Relational Grad and the Optimization Process 89
Table 5-28 Width of Dimensional Accuracy for the Mechanical Properties 93
XII
Table 5-29 Relative Change in Width for the Mechanical Properties 94
Table 5-30 Signal to Noise Relative Change in Width for the 95


Properties
Table 5-35 Thickness of Dimensional Accuracy for the Mechanical 101

Properties
Table 5-36 Relative Change in Thickness for the Mechanical 102

Properties
Table 5-37 Signal to Noise Relative Change in Thickness for the 103
Properties
XIII
List of Figures
Figure No. Figure Title Pages
Figure (1-1) Additive Manufacturing process 3
Figure (1-2) Rapid Prototyping Wheel 4
Figure (1-3) Application of 3D Printing 5
Figure (1-4) Rapid Prototyping Techniques 6
Figure (1-5) Representation of CAD File to Finish Part 7
Figure (1-6) Fused Deposition Modelling 8
Figure (1-7) Work plan, (A): Bending specimen, (B): Compressive 11

specimen, (C): Tensile specimen, (D): Impact specimen
Figure (2-1) History of 3D Printing 13
Figure (3-1) Graphical representation of S/N Ratio 35
Figure (3-2) Procedure of Grey Relation Analysis Based on Taguchi 37

Method
Figure (4-1) The First Step in Work Plan of Experimental Work 41
Figure (4-2) Different Infill Densities (A):20%, (B): 50% and (C): 44
80%
Figure (4-3) Schematic of Testing Specimens 47
Figure (4-4) Ultimaker 2+ FDM Machine 47
Figure (4-5) Specimens Fabricated Using Ultimaker 2+ 48
Figure (4-6) Impact Test Device 49
XIV
Figure (4-7) Tensile Test Device 50
Figure (4-8) Compressive Test Device 50
Figure (4-9) Bending Test Device 51
Figure (4-10) Roughness Test Device 52
Figure (5-1) Effect of Printing Speed of Signal to Noise on 58

Figure (5-2) Effect of Layer Thicknesses on Mechanical Properties 60
Figure (5-3) Effect of Shell Thicknesses on Mechanical Properties 61
Figure (5-4) The Infill Densities for the Mechanical Properties 62
Figure (5-5) Printing orientation for Mechanical Properties 63
Figure )5-6) Signal to Noise Ratio of Process Parameters on GRA. 69
Figure (5-7) Percentage Contributions of Process Parameters 70
Figure (5-8) Signal to Noise Ratio of Printing Time on GRA 77
Figure (5-9) Percentage Contributions of Process Parameters to the 78

Printing Time
Figure (5-10) GRA based Taguchi for the Surface Roughness 83

Surface Roughness
Figure (5-12) GRA based Taguchi for the Length of Dimensional 92

Accuracy
XV

Length of Dimensional Accuracy
Figure (5-14) GRA based Taguchi for the Width of Dimensional 100
Accuracy

Width of Dimensional Accuracy
Figure (5-16) GRA based Taguchi for the Thickness of Dimensional 108
Accuracy
Thickness of Dimensional Accuracy
XVI
List of
Abbreviations
Abbreviation Refer to
3D Three- Dimensional
3DP Three-Dimensional Printing
ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
AM Additive Manufacturing
ANN Artificial Neural Networks
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
ASTM American Society For Testing And Materials Specifications
b Specimen width
CAD Computer Aided Design
CAM Computer Aided Manufacturing
CCD Central Composite Design
CMM Coordinate Measuring Machine
CSG Solid Ground Curing
d Specimen thickness
DMD Direct Metal Deposition
DOE Design of Experiments
DSC Differential Scanning Calorimetric
XVII
DSPC Direct Shell Production Casting
EBM Electron Beam Melting
F Total force applied to the specimen by two loading pins
FDM Fused Deposition Modeling
FFF Free Form Fabrication
GRA Grey Relation Analysis
GS Generis System
HB Higher the Better
ID Infill Density
ISO International Organization for Standardization
L Specimen length
LENS Laser Engineered Net Shaping
LOM Laminated Object Manufacturing
LT Layer Thickness
MEM Melted Extrusion Modeling
MFI Melt Flow Index
MJM Multi-Jet Modelling System
MJS Multiphase Jet Solidification
MOORA Multi-Objective Optimization on Basis of Ratio Analysis
MSD Mean Square Deviation
OA Orthogonal Arrays
PEEK Polyether-Ether-Ketone
XVIII
PLA Polylactic Acid
PLT Paper Lamination Technology
PO Printing Orientation
PS Printing Speed
RP Rapid Prototyping
S/N Signal to Noise Ratio
SLA Stereo lithography Apparatus
SLS Selective Laser Sintering
SLT Stereo lithography
SOUP Solis Objective Ultraviolet- Laser Print
SSM Slicing Solid Manufacturing
ST Shell Thickness
Tg Glass transition
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal
TOPSIS
Solution
XIX
List of Symbols
Symbol Refer to
𝑳 Loss in monetary unit
𝒎 Target value
𝒚 Actual value of characteristic
𝒌 Constant
𝒑 Number of repetitions in a trial
𝐲𝟎 Nominal value of characteristic
𝜸𝒊 Grey Relational Grade
𝒙∗𝟎 (𝒌) Reference Sequence
𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) The sequences of performance characteristic
∆𝒊 (𝒌) Deviation Sequence
𝜺𝒊 (𝒌 ) Grey Relational Coefficient
XX
Chapter One Fundamentals of Rapid
Prototyping
CHAPTER ONE
1. FUNDAMENTALS OF RAPID PROTOTYPING

1.1. Introduction
In recent years, international markets have led to an essential change in the
product development. Today, it is so significant to lead a product from concept to
market inexpensively and quickly. Rapid prototyping (RP) is a process to
fabricate these prototypes more cost-effective and very fast. It was inserted in late
1980’s. It can be known as a collection of techniques used to speedy manufacture
a physical working modal / component layer by layer (additive deposition) of a
part or assembly using 3Dimentional CAD data [1].
Available rapid prototyping techniques can be divided into two main

categories: material removal processes and material additive processes. The RP
material removal includes machining, primarily milling and drilling, using a
dedicated Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine while material additive
RP technologies add layers of material simulatelly to build the solid part from
bottom to top.
Primers include liquid monomers that are treated as a layer by layer of solid
polymers, powders that are grouped and bonded layers by layer, and solid sheets
that are laminated to generate the solid model [2].
Rapid prototyping is a significant component of the new design process.
With a small human interference, it translates the solid virtual models into
physical models to improve understanding and visualization. Hence, by
decreasing the cost and time of each design-manufacturing-redesign iteration,
rapid prototyping enables designers to find out the design errors earlier and at a
lower cost [3].
Rapid Prototyping (RP) is an additive manufacturing technique that
automatically builds practical assemblies using CAD model of the piece. Real
1
Prototyping
prototypes practice can be built by PLA (Poly Lactic Acid) material using Fused
Deposition Modelling process which is one of RP technology [4].
Fused Deposition Modelling is the prototyping and modelling method for
options of engineers and designers in the military, technology, medical,
automotive, aerospace, toy, consumer goods, and architecture fields. The
inexpensive and rapid development of Fused Deposition Modelling prototypes
greatly minimize the design-to-production time and let for extremely higher return
on investment [1].
1.2. Additive Manufacturing (AM)

AM is the official expression for so-called rapid prototypes and 3D
printing. The basic principle of this technique is a prototype that was initially
created using a 3D CAD design system that can be manufactured directly.
It is also knows as a process of joining materials to manufacture parts from
3D model data, generally layer over layer, as opposed to subtractive fabricating
techniques [5].
Traditionally, the AM process begins with the generation of a 3-
dimensional (3D) model by using computer-aided design (CAD) software.
Typically, as a Standard Tessellation Language (STL) file, the CAD-based 3D
model has been saved which is a triangulated representation of the part. Software
then slices the data file into unique layers, which are sent as instruction to the AM
tool. AM instrument generates the part by adding layers of material, one above
the other, till the tangible object is formed. Once the part is generated, it may
require a set of finishing activities. Depending on complexity of the product and
the material used, some specimens may require minor processing, which can
involve polishing, sanding, painting, filling, material fill and curing. Figure (1-1)
depicts the overall AM process [6].
2
Prototyping
Figure (1-1): Additive Manufacturing process[6]
1.3. 3D Printing
3-Dimentional printing can be known as the manufacturing objects by
depositing material using a print head, nozzle, or another printer
technology [7].
Defining a layer-based fabrication is the key to how RP really works. Models
are generated by bonding layers of material together. If the layers are thin enough
, then the models will close the original intended design [8].
1.4. Rapid Prototyping

Rapid Prototyping (RP) is known as a family of singular manufacturing
processes sophisticated to do engineering prototypes in minimum lead time based
on a CAD model of the item. The alternative names for RP are Layer
manufacturing, Direct CAD manufacturing, and Solid freeform fabrication [9].
3
Prototyping
1.5. Principles of Rapid Prototyping

A model or component is designed on a Computer Assisted CAD / CAM
system (CAD / CAM). The model that clarifies the physical part to be constructed
must be performed. Data must be specified within and outside boundary of the
model.
The solid or surface model that will be built the next time is transformed to
a format called "STL” (Standard Triangle Language) or (Standard Tessellation
Language) file format, which is produced from the 3D Systems. A computer
program analyses the STL file that specifies the form to be manufactured and the
model's "slices" to cross sections. [10-12]
The rapid prototyping wheel is shown in Fig. (1-2) depicting the four major
sides of Rapid Prototyping. They are Input, Method, Material and Applications.
Figure (1-2): Rapid Prototyping Wheel
4
Prototyping
1- Input
The input point to the electronic information desired to characterize the physical
object with three- Dimensional data. There are two possible beginning points — a
computer model or a physical model. The computer model generated by a CAD system
can be either a solid model or a surface model. [13]
2- Material
The premier case of material can come in either liquid, solid or powder state. In
solid state, it can come in different shapes, such as pellets, wire or laminates. The present
area of materials involves nylon, paper, resins, wax, ceramics and metals.[14]
3- Method
There are more than 20 vendors for RP systems, the method used by each vender
can be mostly categorized into the following classes: Image processing, cutting, pasting
/ joining, smelting, hardening / melting and joining / binding. Image processing can be
further split into classes of singular laser beam, double laser beams and a hooded
lamp.[15]
4- Applications
Generality of the Rapid Prototyping parts are completed before they are applied
for their proposed applications. Applications can be grouped into Engineering. The rapid
developed and betterment in three-dimensional printing technique has enabled many
industries to interest from it. Here are several of the industries that employ three-
dimensional printing for a set of objectives[16], as shown in Fig. (1-3).
Figure (1-3): Application of 3D Printing [16]
5
Prototyping
1.6. Rapid Prototyping Techniques
To characterize the collection of techniques that generate three- dimensional
parts by adding layer over layer of material according to materials, the techniques
can differ. The first thing to begin this process is to make a CAD drawing. Then, the
AM device reads the data from a CAD file and builds a structure layer after layer of
printing material, which can be plastic, liquid, powder filaments or even sheet of
paper [17] There are different three-dimensional printing methods developed to build
3D structures and objects. Some are very popular nowadays. Others have been
predominated by competitors.[18]
Different types of three-dimensional printers employ various techniques that
manipulate various materials in divers’ ways. RP can be classified by the primary
form of the starting material, it can be readily categorized into (1) liquid-based (2)
solid-based and (3) powder based [19, 20], as shown in Fig.(1-4).
Figure (1-4): Rapid Prototyping Techniques [21, 22]

6
Prototyping
1.7. Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM)
The three-dimensional printing using thermoplastic extrusion is the most
common three-dimensional process, and can be identified. The most famous name
for this process is Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM); but this is the trademark
name, recorded by Stratasys, a company that is originally sophisticated, generally
referred to as Freeform Fabrication (FFF). [23]
The concept is that a filament, of PLA, is during a heating element, it is
heated to the molten state. The filaments are then fed during the nozzle and
deposited on the part which is building. Since the material is thrown in a molten
state, it combines with the material around it that has already been deposited. The
head is then moved into XY plane and deposits material according to the
requirements of the part of STL file [24]. After a period of time, the head will
have deposited a full physical exemplification of the original CAD file, as shown
in Fig. (1-5) [25].
Figure (1-5): Representation of CAD File to Finish Part [25]
Fused Deposition Modelling has a second nozzle to throw support material

Fig. (1-6). Material support is comparable to model materials, but it is more brittle
so that it can be easily removed after the model is finished [26]. The greatest
7
Prototyping
advantages of the FDM process are the relative simplicity of the process and that
there are several materials available. Because the material is provided on spools,
material changes can easily be made and no material loss occurs during the
process. The production time depends primarily on the volume of the parts to be
fabricated.[27]
The materials used in Fused Depositions Modelling are restricted. Materials
must contain a melting point between 180 and 220° [28]. The majority of the
systems use thermoplastic materials. Investment Casting Waxirconia, Alumina,
ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) plastics, MABS (methyl methacrylate
ABS) plastics and chopped Carbon-Fibber Reinforced Poly Ether Ether Ketone
(PEEK) are the major origin of material for the fused deposition [29].
Figure (1-6): Fused Deposition Modelling [30]
8
Prototyping
1.8. Motivation
The properties of RP parts are affected by various process parameters. The
process parameters can get better for the different properties of RP parts. Where
the surface roughness and strength are required, the mechanical properties become
critically important to meet the requirements. It is needful to study the influence
of different process parameters on the physical and mechanical properties because
the physical and mechanical properties effect on the behavior of workable parts.
The multi-objective optimization problem is solved by Grey Relation

Analysis (GRA) based on Taguchi method, a very popular technique. The out-put
of the multi-objective problem is a solution set that comprises an optimal
parameters solution that relates both the responses namely impact, bending,
compression and tensile strength.
1.9. Aim of Research

Fused deposition modelling (FDM) is a layer over layer technique to make
complicated and individual parts of thermoplastic materials in this work using
PLA. The purpose of this thesis is to optimize the process parameters and
manufacture with a FDM machine.
The first goal of this work is to determine a suitable procedure for selecting
the parameters of process and testing the mechanical and physical properties of
specimens created using the Fused Deposition Modeling process. As FDM
specimens are being built, the print speed, layer thickness, infill density, shell
thickness, and printing orientation can be controlled by the designer.
The second goal of this work is to determine the effects of process

parameters on the mechanical properties of the samples by using Grey Relation
Analysis (GRA) used to do the optimization.
9
Prototyping
1.10. Work Plan:
The aim of this work is to optimize the effect of process parameters, namely
print speed, layer thickness, shell thickness, infill density and printing orientation
on the mechanical properties and study their effect on the work done according to
the following steps, as shown in Fig. (1-8):
1. According to machine specifications, the process variables and their

levels are selected.
2. According to established standards, the solid modellings of standard
test specimens are used.
3. Utilizing the Design of Experiments (DOE) through Taguchi
technique using MINITAB Software.
4. Using the statistical model for impact, compression, bending, and
tensile strengths.
5. Optimization of process parameters by using Grey Relation Analysis
(GRA).
10
Prototyping
Stage One - Design
-CAD Design
- Slice specimen
CAD- Design Slice in Layers

Stage Two - Design of Experiment
- Taguchi Method
- Orthogonal Array
- Select No. of Runs
Stage Three - Fabrication
(A) (B)
(C) (D)
Stage Four - Testing
- Impact Test -Tensile Test

- Bending Test - Surface Roughness
- Compression Test - Printing Time Measurement
Stage Five - Optimization
- Grey Relation Analysis
Figure (1-7): Work plan, (A): Bending specimen, (B): Compressive specimen,
(C): Tensile specimen, (D): Impact specimen
11
Prototyping
1.11. Outline of the Thesis
This thesis consists of six chapters divided into three main parts:
introduction, the project and conclusion.
• The introduction part consists of two chapters. First, there is an introductory

chapter explaining the objective and motivation for this thesis. This is followed
by a background chapter that provides some relevant information on the topics of
this work and some of the previous research and work on the subject. The second
chapter include the literature review.
• The experimental part presents the work plan, implementation and testing. This
will include the design of experiment, testing of the whole system, and finally
making the optimization of process parameters.
• The last part is the conclusion where results from different tests are presented
and analyzed. This is followed by a chapter that discusses the results, along with
conclusions and suggestions for future work.
12
Chapter Two Literatures Review
CHAPTER TWO
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Brief History of 3D Printing
The three-dimensional printing date dates back more than expected until
2017. To be more precise in presenting the history of this technology, some
important times and dates have been reviewed [16, 22, 31, 32]. This history is
shown in Fig. (2-1).
For future, the most important information from the 2017 survey was that
3D printing is increasingly being used as a complete production method rather
than just for prototypes.[7] Companies see the use of the additional manufacturing
as a more competitive advantage. The rate of accuracy will tell how one can
predict the development of further manufacturing [33].
2010 • Urbee is the first 3D printed prototype car presented.
• Cornell University began to build 3D food printer, FormLabs founded.

2011
• The first prosthetic jaw is printed and implanted.

2012
• 3D Hubs Launched.
2013
• First 3D printed object off of the earth.

2014
• Carbon 3D issues their revolutionary ultra-fast CLIP 3D printing
2015 machine
• Daniel Kelly’s lab announces being able to 3D print bone

2016
2017 • HP enters 3D printing space with Fusion Jet 3D printer.
Figure (2-1): History of 3D Printing
13
2.2. Literature Review

There are several researches on Fused Deposition Modeling technology and
how to get optimization. Here the literature review is from 2010 to the present and
divided into sections that cover the mechanical properties, physical properties
(surface roughness and dimensional accuracy) and optimization.
2.2.1. Studies Related to Mechanical Properties

Es-Said et al. (2000) [34] studied the, flexural strength, impact resistance
and tensile strength of ABS samples created utilizing different raster orientations.
The results proposed that the 0° raster orientation showed impact strength and
better strength between the five raster orientations tested. The factors were
discussed, finding that the built orientation is the significant one of process
parameters that have major importance in the optimization of Fused Deposition
Modelling process.
Ahn S. et al. (2002) [35] characterized the properties of Acrylonitrile
Butadiene Styrene (ABS) parts manufactured by Fused Deposition Modelling
(FDM). The process parameters of FDM, such as model temperature, bead
width, air gap, colour, and raster orientation were examined by using Design of
Experiment (DOE) approach. Fabricated specimens were measured by
compressive strengths and tensile strengths and compered with the injection
molded FDM ABS P400 material. For the Fused Deposition Modelling samples
made with a 0.003 in. superposition between paths, the range of the tensile
strength was between 65 and 72 % of the strength of injection molded of ABS
P400. The range of the compressive strength was 80 to 90 % of the injection
molded Fused Deposition Modelling of ABS. Various structure rules were
formulated to design FDM models based on experimental results.
Sood et al. (2010) [36] used five important process parameters which are
(air gape, layer thickness, raster width, orientation, and raster angles. Their effect
was studied on three responses, like impact, flexural and tensile strength of the
14
test samples. Experiments were managed based on Response surface analysis,

central - composite design, so as to decrease the runs of experiment. Experimental
parts relating process parameters and response were satisfactory. The sincerity of
the parts was tested using analyses of variance (ANOVA). Each response of
response surface plots was analysed, and each response of optimum parameter
settings was determined. The main cause for weakly strength may be refers to
deformation inside or between layers. Finally, the concept of desire function was
used to maximize all responses at the same time.
Drummer et al. (2012) [37] reported the effect of infill density and layer
thickness on the strength and other properties. Evaluate the performance of parts
(tensile property mechanical properties) fabricated with a Fused Deposition
Modelling machine and the conditions of process. For the processing with FDM,
the material specific effects (crystallization and shrinkage) and the suitability of
PLA were evaluated. Therefore, semi-crystaline biodegradable materials were
characterized by thermal, mechanical and microscopic analyses. The effect of the
functional properties of the specimens was analysed. Among them, the
morphology of the final components was significantly affected by the size of the
sample and the temperature of the treatment. Elements of the PLA / TCP with
sufficient mechanical properties for their potential use as scaffolds were acquired.
This paper displays that by thermal analysis, it is possible to determine the main
effects on the part properties and processing.
Tymrak et al. (2014) [38] described the mechanical properties of the

experimental samples printed with PLA and ABS, taking into consideration
several filament orientation values ( constant values and 100 % filling for the rest
of the parameters) and layer thicknesses. The results appeared that the 0.2 mm
layer thickness values and +45 º /-45 º orientations introduced the best tensile
strength test results. Moreover, the printed samples with the ones with 0/90º
15
orientations and 0.4 mm layer thickness presented the highest elastic modulus
during the tests.
Lužanin et al. (2014) [39] analyzed the experimental effect of layer

thickness, deposition angle and infill on the maximum flexural force in FDM
specimens made of polylactic acid (PLA). The deposition angle takes up the
maximum force of the flexural in FDM samples made of polylactic acid (PLA).
The experiment was statistically prepared and processed on two levels. This work
used a Design of Experiment (DOE) approach and Analysis of variance
(ANOVA) to determine the significant of the effects of parameters on the flexural
force. The outcome revolved a predominant, statistically important effect of the
extrusion speed, considerable interaction through deposition angle and infill, as
well as the nonlinearity of effects. ANOVA displayed that the layer thickness had
statistically an important influence on the flexural strength, and the interaction
between deposition angle and infill was also important.
Letcher and Waytashek (2014) [29] studied the orientation angle of three
levels 0°, 45° and 90° and its effect on the tensile, flexural and fatigue properties
of samples made with a three-dimensional MakerBot type of polylactic acid
(PLA). The influence of the raster orientation angle at 45° was found. For tensile
and bending testing, it was determined that the specimens were the strongest.
Alvarez et al. (2016) [40] analyzed the effect of fill ratio on the mechanistic
characteristic of printed ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) samples. In order
to describe this effect, test samples were printed for tensile strength and charpy
tests with a 2X Replicator Makerbot printer, the fill ratio was varied but the rest
of the printing parameters remained constant. Three various results were analyzed
for these experiences: tensile strength, impact resistance, and time of printing
efficiency. In terms of printing time efficiency, the outcome displayed that it is
not recommended to print using a range of infill between 50% and 98%, since the
16
printing time higher than with a 100 % infill and impact resistance and tensile
strength are maximized. To minimize the printing time a lower infill is utilized.
Zarybnicka and Dvorak (2017) [41] studied the optimization of

parameters for 3D printing of polymer acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS)
using Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) by quality of production. ABS was
tested with different temperatures of 3D print with the same speed of printing. An
evaluation sample was chosen as sample (dog bone). The samples were
characterized by Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC), Melt flow index (MFI),
3D scanner, measurement of tensile and bending tests and measurement of
notched toughness. The optimal melting point was determined with respect to the
mechanical properties of the sample and the print quality. The results showed that
it is very important to choose the appropriate 3D print temperature and substrate
temperature for this material. For prototypes that should exhibit better flexibility,
it is advisable to choose temperatures around 245 ° C. On the contrary, for samples
without preference of flexibility, it is advisable to choose temperatures around
275 ° C. Due to the short contact time of the ABS material with the nozzle, there
is no degradation of the material, as confirmed by DSC.
Kshitiz et al. (2017) [42] The current research concentrated on the

effectiveness of the direction of construction on the mechanical properties of the
samples of acrylonitrile butadiene samples (P400). Izod impact, tensile, hardness
and the compression tests were implemented on samples combined in both
horizontal and vertical directions with purpose to make a directive construction
that gives a maximum strength in an appointed work state. To study the effect of
failure style, the fractured specimens were analyzed using Scanning Electron
Microscope. To improve the mechanical strength in the manufacture of layers, the
results of this work can be applied to formulate the product design basics.
17
2.2.2. Studies Related to Surface Roughness
Anitha et al. (2001) [17] investigated of the influences of some serious

Fused Deposition Modelling process parameters on the surface roughness of ABS
model. In the design of a matrix, signal to noise ratio (S / N) and ANOVA were
used in this research. Three process parameters were considered involving road
width, speed of deposition and thickness layer. This research depicted that the
parameter with the most significant effect on the surface roughness was the
thickness of the layer compared to the width and sped of the path. An inverse
relationship between thickness and surface roughness was also detected.
Thrimurthulu K. et al. (2004) [43] presented the two significant problems

in rapid prototyping (RP) which are the part deposition time and the surface finish
using an adaptive slicing sketch; however, choosing the correct deposition
orientation sample will also proper an improved solution. The research was a trial
towards gaining an optimal piece deposition orientation for fused deposition
modelling process to develop the part surface roughness and minimize the time
building. By depositing with the thicker layers, the building time of the prototype
can be decreased. This will lead to surface roughness and increases the building
time by using deposition of thin layers. In this paper, the building time of the
model and the average part surface roughness were seen as two aims and they
were decreased by reducing their weighted sum. Genetic algorithm was used to
obtain the optimal solution.
Bakar et al. (2010) [44] reported that the raster angle, tool path, slice
thickness, building orientation, and deposition speed were used to achieve the
minimum deviation in the specimen dimensions. This work was to discuss the
FDM process parameters. Different chosen parameters, such as layer thickness,
road width, air gap, and built style or direction were tested. The dimensional
accuracy and surface roughness were analyzed using a coordinate measuring
18
machine (CMM) and a surface roughness tester, respectively. The surface finish
became rougher and worse when the sizes of layer thickness were smaller.
Kopplmayr and Meuhlberger (2016) [45] studied a possible method of

treating polylactic acid (PLA), as usually utilized for FDM printing, by inkjet
technique. The PLA solvent inks were prepared at various concentrations by
dissolving the PLA in 1,4-dioxane (a colorless, toxic liquid used as an organic
solvent). The PLA substrates tested by FDM were prepared with various layer
thicknesses, and the variation in surface roughness was determined after multi-
layers inkjet printing via profilomter. Surface roughness was reduced by up to
50% and increased by the number of inkjet layers causing space.
2.2.3. Studies Related to Dimensional Accuracy
Sood et al. (2009) [46] studied the effect of five process parameters: road
width, raster angle, air gap, layer thickness and part orientation on the dimensional
accuracy of Fused Deposition Modelling manufacturing ABSP400 part applying
gray Taguchi technique. It was deduced that to decrease the deviation between the
manufactured sample and the dimensions of CAD sample, the orientation of 0º,
layer thickness of 0.178 mm, road width on 0.4564 mm, part raster angle of 0º
and air gap of 0.008 mm should be used. Grey relational grade (GRD) was
employed to transform three responses (percentage change of length, width and
thickness) into one response.
Nancharaiah et al. (2010) [47] applied the Taguchi method and ANOVA
technique to treat the basic parameters (layer thickness, road width, raster angle
and air gap) affecting the surface finish and dimensional accuracy of ABS
samples. It was concluded that the air gap and layer thickness significantly
affected the precision of FDM samples.
19
Sahu et al. (2013) [48] used Taguchi method to study the effects of
orientation, raster width, raster angle, layer thickness and air gap on the sample
accuracy. To optimize the dimensional accuracy, a prediction model was
developed based on fuzzy logic. It was deduced that the average error value is
gained less than 4.5% of laboratory experiment which is well acceptable with the
expected response.
2.2.4. Studies Related to Optimization
Thrimurthulu et al. (2004) [43] studied Genetic algorithm used to obtain

the optimal solution. This paper presents a method that chooses the optimum
sample deposition orientation of FDM process. Two conflicted objectives, known
as building time and average sample surface roughness, were decreased by
reducing their weighted sum. The adaptive slicing was used in the specification
of the optimal sample deposition orientation. The input data presented were
identical to the optimum solution obtained for STL file of the part. It was seen
that for the surface quality of the part, there was no preference. This result refers
to that the orientation corresponds to minimum building time.
Wang et al. (2007) [49] focused on optimizing the fused deposition modelling
(FDM) process of RP systems based on the Taguchi technique in establishing rapid
prototyping constructing parameters and their different levels (layer thickness, building
location, deposition orientation in z direction and x-direction, and deposition style) . The
surface roughness (SR), ultimate tensile strength and dimensional accuracy were
analyzed. By analyzing of variance (ANOVA) and contribution approximation, the
important constructing parameters of each quality attribute and the optimum parameters
level sets of each best quality attribute were gained. The major procedures are the
determination of Weight per quality property of the previous Taguchi method, obtaining
the characteristics of the estimated multiple construction quality by incorporating the
Gray theory and gaining a group of optimum constructing parameters. The outcome was
20
confirmed by gray theory and technology for a predilection of likeness to the optimum
solution (TOPSIS) estimation method.
Tagore et al. (2007) [50] focused on optimizing the building orientation to

obtain the better part accuracy, surface quality, cost and building time. An
arithmetical part was developed after investigating the theoretical values of
surface roughness with measured values. This assisted minimize the experimental
work and get better for the virtualization capabilities of rapid prototyping samples.
To select the best direction, directions were arranged according to scores of
directions. The scores were gained using the simple added weighting method.
Sood and Ohdar (2010) [51] considered five important parameters of

process like raster angle, layer thickness, air gap, raster width and orientation.
Their effect on three responses on the dimensional accuracy, such as percentage
change in length, width and thickness of specimen was studied. Taguchi’s design
of experiment was applied to find the optimal parameter levels using Grey
Taguchi method. Grey Taguchi method has the capability to collect all of the
targets that are decreasing the proportion variation in length, thickness and width
into one target known as grey relation grade. The maximized grey relation grad
refers to the part orientation of 0°, layer thickness of 0.178 mm, air gap of 0.008
mm, raster angle of 0° and path width of 0.4564 mm will produce overall
improvement in part dimension. By using the artificial neural networks (ANN)
model, the prediction of proposed model was done. The error between the
expected data and the obsrved values varied between 0 and 3.5%. This error in
the small proportion confirmed the appropriateness of the current part.
Azad and Puri (2012) [52] presented six input factors known as pulse-on
time, dielectric flow rate, peak present, wire tension, pulse-off time, and taper
angle which had been assigned three levels, while the taper angle parameter is a
geometric changeable that involves two fields to improve the operational
21
execution, like tool wear rate, metal removal rete based on Taguchi method. The
Grey Relationship Analysis method was used for optimization the objectives.
Based on analyses of variance (ANOVA) for grey relational grade values, the
important factors affecting the multiple machining properties were taper angle,
pulse-on time and dielectric flew rate.
Kumar et al. (2014) [53] reported five Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM)
procedure changeable factors known as contour width, air gap, layer thickness,
and raster direction. The new ABS-M30i biomedical materials were used in this
work to build parts. Experiments for two levels of each factor were used by
Taguchi’s design of experiments. The results were analysed statistically to
determine the important parameters and their interactions according to the
analysis of variance (ANOVA). It was found that not all Fused Deposition
Modelling factors effect on the surface roughness; air gap parameter effects on
the surface finish, raster orientation may have less effect, while the contour width
has no effect and building models with narrower roads or thinner layers may
decrease the surface roughness.
Nidagundi et al. (2015) [54] discussed the improvement in the parameters

of process for Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM). Thickness of layer, direction
angle and fill angle are the process parameters taken into consideration for
optimization. Maximum tensile strength, surface roughness, accuracy and
dimensional fabrication time were considered as response developers. The
experiments were designed using the orthogonal array of Taguchi L9, and the S /
N ratio was utilized in Taguchi to determine the optimal parameter values. The
efficiency of each factor was studied using variance analysis. The optimized
performance was verified by performing the verification of experiment.
22
A. Lanzotti et al. (2015) [55] studied a Rep-Rap 3D printer. Using a

simplified 3D slicing program, it was possible to change the popular parameters
of process (infill orientation, number of shell and layer thickness) and know the
effect on the tensile property of samples in PolyLactic Acid (PLA). Using
Taguchi method, the result of surface model was used to derive the desired
relationship between the tensile strength and process parameters. The analysis
of the experimental results was made using the Rep – Rap method; it was
possible to understand the influence of control factors on the mechanical
properties of specimens produced. The results showed that the maximum tensile
strength increases by increasing the layer thickness, and increasing the strength as
the infill direction is reducing.
Mendonsa et al. (2015) [56] demonstrated the influence of infill density,

layer thickness and printing speed with three levels on the building time, and these
parameters were optimized to gain a Fused Deposition Modelling sample in the
least timeout applying Taguchi and ANOVA technique. The authors observed that
the building time for a particular printing can be decreased by reducing the
thickness of the layer and decreasing the infill density. Infill density and printing
speed showed a significant effect on the building time.
Patel et al. (2015) [57] studied the influence of the process parameters:
thickness of layer, infill, and orientation with three levels on the tensile module,
tensile strength, compression module, compression strength, and surface
roughness for PLA printed samples. Taguchi method, orthogonal array was used
to create the experimental runs. Based on the evaluation criteria weights obtained
by AHP, the ranking for choosing of the parameters process of FDM was done
using MOORA and TOPSIS method. The preference or arranging of alternate
depends on the property weight or the relative importance specified among the
properties and on the values of the selected properties. MOORA and TOPSIS
23
ranking results found that 100 micron layer thickness, 90° orientation and 98%
infill get the optimum result of all responses.
Wenzheng et al. (2015) [58] investigated the effect of raster angle and
layer thickness on the mechanical properties of three dimensional printed
PEEK. Specimens with 3 various raster angles (0 degree, 30 degree and 45
degree) and layer thickness (200, 300 and 400 μm) were prepared utilizing a
polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) 3-dimensional printing system, and their
compression, bending and tensile strengths were inspected. The optimum
mechanical properties of polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) specimens were
obtained at a raster angle at 0° and a layer thickness of 300 μm. Print
achievement of polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) specimens was evaluated by a
comparison between the mechanical properties of three-dimensional printed
polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
samples. The outcome presented that the average compressive strengths was
114%, bending strengths was 115% and tensile strengths of polyether-ether-
ketone (PEEK) samples were 108% higher than those for acrylonitrile butadiene
styrene (ABS). These results refer to that the mechanical properties of the three-
dimensional printed polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) are better than the three-
dimensional printed ABS.
Spoerk et al. (2017) [13] aimed at maximizing the strength of printed parts
by researching and developing the inside- and inter-layer coherence through close
filaments by preparing a specific tensile test, printed polylactic acid samples were
described, and by inspecting the double cantilever beam, the coherence through
the layers in the printed specimens was estimated. The detailed parametric
statistical evaluation, involving layer thicknesses, layer-designs and printing
temperatures, was accomplished by the analyses of the samples breaking surfaces
and the material’s viscosity data and cross sections. The optimal layer design was
found to be a key factor in optimizing the power in relation to different load
24
directions. The current research detected the guidelines for benefiting the flexible
extrusion production based fabrication, taking into considering intra- and inter-
layer cohesion.
Table 2-1: Summary of previous researches on the Fused Deposition

Modelling process parameters.
Significant
References Methods Materials Inputs Outputs
Inputs
flexural strength,
Es-Said et
Laboratory raster impact resistance raster
al. (2000) ABS
experiment orientations and tensile orientations
[34]
strength
compressive
model strengths and
temperature, bead tensile strengths
Ahn S. et al. Taguchi raster
ABS width, air gap, and compared it
(2002) [35] method. orientation
colour, and raster with injection
orientation molded FDM ABS
P400 material
Response
surface
air gap, layer
analysis
thickness, raster impact, flexural
Sood et al. central - ABS All input
width, and tensile
(2010) [36] composite P400 parameters
orientation, and strength
design
raster angle
(CCD)-
ANOVA
Drummer et thermal analysis

Laboratory infill density and All input
al. (2012) PLA/TCP and tensile
experiment layer thickness parameters
[37] property
25
Tymrak et layer thicknesses

Laboratory PLA and All input
al. (2014) and part tensile strength
experiment ABS parameters
[38] orientations
23
Lužanin et factorial layer thickness,
All input
al. (2014) design, PLA deposition angle flexural force
parameters
[39] ANOVA and infill
procedure
Letcher and tensile, flexural

Laboratory orientation
Waytashek PLA orientation angle and fatigue
experiment angle at 45
(2014) [29] properties
Alvarez et tensile strength,

Laboratory infill
al. (2016) ABS infill percentage Charpy tests and
experiment percentage
[40] printing time.
Different tensile and

Zarybnicka
Laboratory temperatures bending tests and
and Dvorak ABS temperatures
experiment with the same measurement of
(2017) [41]
speed of printing. notched toughness.
Izod impact,
Rockwell
Kshitiz et
Laboratory Hardness Test, build
al. (2017) ABS build orientation
experiment Tensile, hardness orientation
[42]
and compressive
tests
Road width,
Taguchi
Anitha et al. speed deposition Layer
method, ABS surface roughness
(2001) [17] and layer thickness.
ANOVA
thickness.
26
Thrimurthulu part deposition

genetic Layer thickness, Layer
et al. (2004) ABS time and the
algorithm building time thickness,
[43] surface finish
Raster angles,
silicone dimensional
tool path, Layer
Bakar et al. Laboratory rubber accuracy and All input
thickness, build
(2010) [44] experiment surface parameters
moulding
orientation, and
(SRM). finish.
deposition speed.
Kopplmayr
and Laboratory layer
PLA layer thickness surface roughness
Meuhlberger experiment thicknesses
(2016) [45]
layer
grey Taguchi thickness, part

Sood et al. ABS dimensional All input
technique, orientation, raster
(2009)[46] P400 accuracy parameters
ANOVA angle, air gap and
raster width
layer
Nancharaiah experimental layer thickness, surface finish
thickness
et al. (2010) design ABS road width, raster and dimensional
and road
[47] technique angle and air gap accuracy
width
layer thick-
Taguchi
technique, ness, orientation,
Sahu et al. ABS dimensional Part
ANOVA, raster angle,
(2013) [48] P400 accuracy orientation
raster width and
fuzzy logic
air gap
27
Gray Taguchi tensile test, surface

layer thick-
Wang et al. method, ABS finish Part
ness and part
(2007) [49] ANOVA, P400 and dimensional orientation
orientations
TOPSIS accuracy
experimental Surface quality,

Tagore et al. part
design ABS part orientations accuracy, build
(2007) [50] orientations
technique time and part cost.
Taguchi’s layer thickness,
design of part orientation,

Sood, Ohdar
experiment, raster angle,
and ABS dimensional part
grey raster to raster
Mahapatra P400 accuracy orientations
relational gap (air gap) and
(2010) [51]
grade, raster
ANOVA width
peak current,
material removal
pulse-on time,
orthogonal rate (MRR), dielectric
Azad and pulse-off time,
array, surface roughness flow, pulse-
Puri (2012) ABS wire tension,
Taguchi (SR), angular error on time and
[52] dielectric flow
method (AE) and radial taper angle
rate and taper
overcut (RoC)
angle
layer thickness,
Taguchi’s
air gap, raster
Kumar et al. design of ABS- layer
width, contour Surface Roughness
(2014) [53] experiments, M30i thickness
width and raster
ANOVA
orientation
28
tensile strength,
Taguchi’s Layer surface roughness,

Nidagundi
design of thickness, dimensional All input
et al. (2015)
experiments, Orientation angle accuracy and parameters
[54]
ANOVA and fill angle manufacturing
time
infill orientation,
A. Lanzotti Taguchi
number of shell layer
et al. (2015) method, PLA tensile property
and layer thickness
[55] ANOVA
thickness
layer
Mendonsa Taguchi and Print speed,
thickness
et al. (2015) ANOVA ABS Layer thickness, build time
and infill
[56] approach Infill density
density.
tensile
Taguchi’s strength, tensile

design of module,
layer thickness,
Patel et al. experiments, compressive All input
PLA orientation and
(2015) [57] MOORA and strength, parameters
infill
TOPSIS compressive
Method. module, and
surface roughness.
tensile,
Wenzheng layer thickness
Laboratory PEEK compressive All input
et al. (2015) and raster
experiment and ABS and bending parameters
[58] angle
strengths
printing
Spoerk et
Laboratory temperature, layer
al. (2017) PLA Tensile strength
experiment layer thickness, thicknesses
[13]
and layer-designs
29
2.3. Concluding Remarks:

The application of Fused Deposition Modelling has been gaining more interest of
researchers day by day as parts made by FDM are used. There are some point to be
conclude, as following below:
1. From previous literature, different parameters have been studied the

mechanical and physical properties of parts manufactured by Fused
Deposition Modelling (FDM), as shown in previous table 2-1.
2. This work presents a brief insight into one of the emerging Rapid-Prototyping
technique called Fused Deposition Modelling. It emphasizes on the working
process of the FDM and various parameters involved in it and their effects on
the mechanical properties, like impact strength, bending strength,
compression strength, and tensile strength and the physical properties, like
dimensional accuracy, surface roughness and printing time. From this work,
it has been understood that the parameters, like printing speed, layer thickness,
shell thickness, infill density, and printing orientation are the primary
parameters that directly affects the quality of the part.
3. Pervious researches showed many parameters in this filed and compared it
with this work, which some of them used in this work but their levels are
different. The shell thickness was not used, while the effect of this parameter
in this work will be considered and studied its effect. The effectiveness of shell
thickness on the mechanical and physical properties will be changed when
used with the other parameters. Also, some of the existing methodologies, like
Design of Experiment (DOE), Taguchi method, orthogonal array (OA) and
Gray Relation Analysis (GRA) will be discussed.
4. It can be concluded on the basis of the literature review that there is still
enough space for the research in order to improve the mechanical and physical
properties of the parts by optimizing the parameters that used in the building
of the part in this work.
30
Chapter Three
Experimental Work
CHAPTER THREE
3. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT AND OPTIMIZATION
3.1. Introduction
The last stage before the release of the product to the customer is the testing
process, which is carried on the key to success of the product in the market. With
the everyday growing competition in the market, there is a need to decrease the
testing lifecycle so that the desirable testing can be performed with less cost and
high quality. Considering the truth that time is always at an excellent, the
requirement for having an optimized testing process is therefore very primary.
The precision of the process set to optimize some specific sets of factors
without breaking some limitation is the process optimization. The most popular
objectives are maximizing throughout, reducing cost and/or efficiency. This is one
of the main quantitative tools in the industrial decision making.
Taguchi Method is a statistical approach to optimize the process parameters

of components that are fabricated.
The Orthogonal Array and Signal-to-Noise ratio are used to study the
performance characteristics of operation. In this analysis, five parameters namely;
printing speed, layer thickness; shell thickness, infill density and printing
orientation were considered.
According to experiments were conducted, a suitable orthogonal array was

selected, the impact strength, bending strength, tensile strength, compression
strength and surface roughness were measured and Signal to Noise ratio was
counted.
31
Chapter Three
Experimental Work
3.2. Design of Experiments:
In the late 1940’s, Dr. Genichi Taguchi as an investigator in Electronic

Control Laboratory in Japan, carried out important work with DOE techniques.
Much effort has been made to make this experimental technique easier to apply
and use for the best quality of fabricated products [59]. Dr. Taguchi's standard
version of the Department of Energy, known as the Taguchi or Taguchi method,
was introduced in the early 1980s in the United States. At present, it is one of the
most quality construction tools used by engineers in all kinds of manufacturing
activities.[60]
One of the most comprehensive approaches to product / process

developments is the Design of Experiments. It is a statistical process that tries to
provide a multi-variable process and predictive knowledge of a complex with few
trails.
3.3. Taguchi Method

A large number of experiments should be performed. If the number of
factors increases, it becomes complex and laborious. To defeat this problem,
Taguchi proposed especially designed method is called using the orthogonal array
to search the full parameter space with fewer number of experiments to be
calculated. Taguchi thus advised to use the loss function for the performance
characteristics that are corrupted from the desirable target value [61].
The purposes of the method are to adjust the design parameters (known as
the control agents) to their optimal levels, so that the system response is strong -
that is, they are not sensitive to noise factors, which are difficult or impossible to
control [62].
32
Chapter Three
Experimental Work
3.4. Process Optimization Tools

To identify the optimum solution, there are many related processes of
optimization directly to use of statistical techniques [41]. However, a thorough
understanding of the process must be made before comiting time to optimize it.
Many methodologies have been developed for process optimization, including six
sigma, Taguchi method, lean manufacturing and others [63].
Signal-to-Noise (S/N) Ratio.

The ratio S / N is statistically static. Concurrent statistics are able to
simultaneously look at two characteristics of the distribution and role these
characteristics into a single number of digits. The signal-to-noise ratio (S / N) is a
collection between each of the parameters (intermediate level of quality
characteristics and variance syndrome of this mean) in one range. The high S / N
value indicates that the signal is much higher than the random effects of the noise
factor. The operation is compatible with the highest S / N and always results in
the best quality with a minimal variation.[64]
The quality characteristic of choice used Taguchi as Signal-Noise (S/N)
ratio. The S / N ratio is used as a measurable value rather than the mean decrease
because of the truth that the standard deviation also decreases, and
vice versa [63, 65].
(a) Lower the Better (LB)

Performance characteristics, which are preferred when values are low, are
calculated using this approach. These factors are surface roughness, cutting
forces. The following equation is used to calculate the signal to noise ratio (S/N)
for the type of LB characteristics [66, 67]:
33
Chapter Three
Experimental Work
(
1
(𝑆/𝑁 )$% = −10 log => 𝑦&' @ (3-1)
𝑛
&)*
Where,
𝑦! = Value of the characteristics in an observation i
𝑛 = Number of repetitions in a trial
(b) Higher the Better (HB)

Performance characteristics, whose values are their preferred value when
high, are calculated using this approach. Such factors are quality, tool life. The
following equation is used to calculate the S/N ratio for HB type of characteristics
[34, 65]:
(
1 1
(𝑆/𝑁)+% = −10 log = > ' @ (3-2)
𝑛 𝑦&
&)*
Where,
(c) Nominal the Best (NB)

Performance characteristics, which are preferred when values at nominal,
are calculated using this approach. These factors like dimensions. The following
equation is used to calculate the S/N ratio for NB type of characteristics [65, 68]:
(𝑆/𝑁),% = −10 log(𝑦 ' − 𝜎 ' ) (3-3)
Where,

𝜎 " = value of variance
A statistical quality that be inverted the deviation from the target value
refers to Mean Square Deviation (MSD). For different quality characteristics, the
34
Chapter Three
Experimental Work
expressions for MSD are different. The standard definition of MSD is used for
nominal the best, while for the others, a little adjusted definition is used. The
unstated target value is zero for lower the best. On the reverse, each large value
becomes a small value, and again the declared target value is zero for higher the
best. Thus for all three terms, the smallest volume of MSD is being sorted out, ,
as shown in Fig. (3-1) [25].
Ly Ly Ly
y y y
Figure (3-1): Graphical representation of S/N Ratio [25].
3.5. Steps Involved in Taguchi Method

The use of Taguchi’s parameter design involves the following
steps [60, 65, 69]:
Step-1: Characterize the main function.
Step-2: Characterize the noise factors, quality characteristics and testing
condition.
Step -3: Characterize the goal function to be optimized.
Step -4: Characterize the control factors and their levels.
Step -5: Chose a suitable Orthogonal Array and construct the Matrix
Step -6: Conduct the Matrix experiment.
Step -7: Examine the data; predict the optimum levels and performance
Step -8: Conduct the verification experiment.
35
Chapter Three
Experimental Work
3.5.1. Orthogonal Array (OA) Experiments
Utilizing OAs significantly reduces the number of the experimental
configurations to be studied. The influence of many various parameters on the
performance characteristic in a process can be tested by using the orthogonal array
designs of experiment suggested by Taguchi [63]. For in-depth understanding of
the process, the levels of the variable to be tested are determined, which include
the maximum, minimum, and current value of the parameter. The values that are
tested can be more apart or can be tested for more values if the variation between
the maximum and minimum value of a parameter is large. While, the lower value
can be tested or the tested values can be closer together if the range of a parameter
is small.[65]
The Taguchi method is a powerful tool for designing high quality systems
to maximize the efficiency of experiment. In this work, it was applied to determine
the significant process parameters. In the experiments, five effective parameters
were selected for that process, like printing speed, layer thicknesses, shell
thickness, infill density and printing orientation. Each of which includes three
various levels (low, medium and high levels).
3.6. Optimization of Multiple Performance Characteristics with

Grey Relation Analysis
To optimize the parameters, the different performance characteristics of the
Fused Deposition Modelling process using the Grey Relation Analysis were
given. Characteristics of Performance including impact strength, bending
strength, compression strength and tensile strength were selected to evaluate the
process parameters. [53, 70] Those parameters of process which are closely
associated with the performance characteristics selected in this work are printing
speed, layer thicknesses, shell thickness, infill density and part orientation. Firstly,
based on experiments, the appropriate L27 OA was conducted. Then, the
36
Chapter Three
Experimental Work
coefficients and grading were presented according to the GRA experimental
results of normalization of performance characteristics. The parameters of the
optimized process simultaneously leading to mechanical properties were then
verified through a confirmation experiment, as shown in Fig (3-2).
Figure (3-2): Procedure of Grey Relation Analysis Based on Taguchi Method

37
Chapter Three
Experimental Work
3.7. Data Pre-Processing for Grey Relation Analysis

In GRA, pre-processing of data is required because the range and unit in a
single data sequence may vary from each other. The transferring process of the
original sequence as a sequence similar is known as data pre-processing. For this
aim, the experimental results are normal in the range between zero and one.[71]
Different data pre-processing methodologies for GRA are available
depending on the characteristics of the data sequence. The steps are given
according to the followings, [72]:
1. Characterize the characteristics of performance and parameters of process
to be evaluated. Specify the number of levels for the process parameters.
2. Choose the suitable OA and specify the parameters of process to the OA.
3. Based on the arrangement of OA, conduct the experiments.
4. Normalize the results of experiment of impact strength, bending strength,
compression strength and tensile strength.
5. Perform the gray relational creating and calculate the gray relational
coefficient.
6. Calculate the gray relational grade by averaging the gray relational
coefficients.
7. Analyze the experimental results using the gray relational grade.
8. Choose the optimum levels of process parameters.
3.8. Computing the Grey Relational Coefficient and Grade

After data pre-processing is executed, a gray relational coefficient can be
computed according to the equation (3-4) for the "larger-the-better" characteristic,
the original sequence can be normalized as follows [73]:
𝑥& (𝑘 ) − min 𝑥& (𝑘)
𝑥&∗ (𝑘 ) = (3-4)
max 𝑥& (𝑘) − min 𝑥& (𝑘)
If the objective is “smaller-the-better”, then the original sequence is normalized
as follows:
38
Chapter Three
Experimental Work
𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑥& (𝑘 ) − 𝑥& (𝑘)
𝑥&∗ (𝑘 ) = (3-5)
max 𝑥& (𝑘) − min 𝑥& (𝑘)
However, if there is “a specific target value”, then the original sequence is
normalized using,
|𝑥& (𝑘) − 𝑂𝐵|
𝑥&∗ (𝑘 ) = 1 − (3-6)
max{𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑥& (𝑘 ) − OB; OB − min 𝑥& (𝑘)}
Where, 𝑥&∗ (𝑘 ) and 𝑥& (𝑘) are the sequence after the data comparability
sequence and preprocessing, respectively, k=1 for each mechanical property; i=1,
2, 3…, 27 for numbers of experiment 1 to 27 and OB is the target value.
∆& (𝑘) is the deviation sequence of the reference sequence 𝑥-∗ (𝑘 ), and the
comparability sequence 𝑥&∗ (𝑘 ) can be define as the equation (3-7)[72]:
∆-& (𝑘 ) = |𝑥-∗(𝑘 ) − 𝑥&∗ (𝑘)| (3-7)

The pre-processed sequence refers to the relation between the actual
normalized experimental results and ideal. The gray relational coefficient is
known as illustrated in equation (3-8) [74]:
∆.&( + 𝜀∆./0
𝜀& (𝑘 ) = (3-8)
∆& (𝑘) + 𝜀∆./0
Where, ∆2 (k) is the deviation sequence of the reference sequence x- (k),
and the comparability sequence is x2 (k). ε is the distinguishing or identification
coefficient.
After gaining the gray relational coefficient, the gray relational grade is
calculated by averaging the gray relational coefficients conforming to each
characteristic of performance. The gray relational grade has been based on the
overall evaluation of the multiple performance characteristics according to the
equation (3-9) [74]:
(
1
𝛾& = > ε& (𝑘) (3-9)
𝑝
3)*
Where, 𝛾& is the gray relational grade for the 𝑖45 experiment, and 𝑝 is the number
of performance characteristics.
39
Chapter Four Experimental
Work
CHAPTER FOUR
4. EXPERIMENTAL WORK
4.1. Introduction
In this chapter, several process parameters and their levels have been used
because they are sufficient to study and evaluation process performance. They are
printing speed (50, 75, and 100 mm/s), layer thickness (0.1, 0.2, 0.3 mm), shell
thickness (1.2, 1.6, 2.0 mm), infill density (20, 50, and 80%) and printing
orientation (0, 45, 90°).
The Fused Deposition Modelling was used to manufacture 27 specimens

based on Taguchi method L27 according to design of experiment with suitable
dimensions for the required tests.
The specimens were designed with UG NX software and then sliced using
Cura software, the process parameters must be specified.
Specimens were tested for mechanical properties, which are impact

property, bending property, compression property and tensile property, and for
surface roughness, and printing time.
The printing machine that used for the fabricated specimens is known as
Ultimaker 2+. It supports a wide range of materials, the material that used in this
work is Polylactic acid (PLA)
The first stage in the work plan of the experimental work was executed
according to the block illustrated in Fig. (4-1).
40
Work
Phase 1- Specimens Design
Specimenc Desgin
STL File
Phase 2- Slicing (Cura Software)
Specimence Slicing
Part Program
Phase 3- Process Parameters Setting
FDM Machine (Ultimaker 2+)
Specimen Printing
Phase 4- Testing
Impact Strength
Bending Strength
Compression Strength
Tensile Strength
Surface Roughness
Printing Time Measurement
Figure (4-1): The First Step in Work Plan of Experimental Work

41
Work
4.2. Specimens Design

Unigraphics NX program was used to design specimens according to the
standard specifications for each mechanical property test, and then the designs
must be saved in Standard Triangle Language (STL) file form. Utility of STL
form is that the CAD packages support it.
4.3. Slicing (Cura Software)

STL file is exported and opened in Cura software slicing programs. The
goal of the slicing program is to split, the specimen into the desired number of
layers. The slicing program is able to specify the process parameters. The program
communicates the code to the printer and controls the extruder nozzle
temperature.
4.4. Process Parameter Setting

According to the need of the material used, the printer setting has been
changed. Settings of object position, settings of Filament, settings of Print and
settings of Slicer have been controlled by the computer connected. Settings of
Filament contain the length of extrusion for the printing, while printer settings
provide the full control of settings of temperature of bed temperature and filament
extrusion.
After checking the settings of all filaments, settings slice tab, printer axis
and extrusion then printing will finally start. Ultimaker2+ is a Fused Deposition
Modelling machine for manufacturing specimens.
4.5. Testing
After specimens have been printed, the mechanical properties, which are
impact property, bending property, compression property and tensile property
surface roughness, and dimensional accuracy would be tested while the printing
time will be measured.
42
Work
4.6. Ultimaker Materials

Ultimaker 2+ prints using polylactic acide (PLA) which is a thermoplastic
material that is highly used for Fused Deposition Modelling.
PLA filament comes in a diversity of solid and translucent colures and is
more public than Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) in 3D printing because
it’s simpler to print than ABS itself.
PLA is an expression indicated as poly (lactic acid) or simply polylactid
biodegradable thermoplastic made of lactic acid. It is groups between the
biopolymers in order that its renewability and degradability to nature have made
it more interesting for a broad range of goods applications. The lactic acid is
multilateral due to its application in the automotive, architecture, healthcare,
education, textile, food, and chemical industries and pharmaceutical. Various
ways of chemical synthesis or fermentation have produced naturally the organic
acid.[75]
As building materials PLA have been selected, the standard mechanical and
thermal properties of PLA are presented in the Tables (4-1 & 4-2).
Table 4-1: Mechanical properties of PLA [76]

Tensile Bending Izod Impact, Elongation
Property Hardness strength strength Un-notched at break
(MPa) (MPa) (J/cm) (%)
Value 110-122 73 48-110 2.46-2.94 21-30
Table 4-2: Material properties of PLA [76]

Glass transition Heat deflection
Density Melt flow
Property temperature temperature
(g/cm3) (g/10 min)
(Centigrade) (Centigrade)
Value 1.25 18-23 52-62 21.49-52
43
Work
4.7. Process parameters

Five process parameters were selected with three levels for each parameter to
optimize the process.
1- Printing Speed (PS) mm/s: The printing speed determines the speed at which
the print head moves during printing; based on this speed, the amount of plastic
that nessecarly to be removed is calculated. The printing speed is set to 50 mm/s.
three levels have been used in this work are (50, 75 and 100 mm/s).
2- Layer Thickness (LT) (mm): To obtain a shorter overall printing time, thicker
layers for the infill can be used. The layer thickness that used in this work are
(0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 mm).
3- Shell Thickness (Wall Thickness) (ST) (mm): This setting defines the thickness
of the wall of the print. The shell thickness that used in this work are (1.2, 1.6
and 2.0 mm).
4- Infill Density (ID) (%): In general, the infill density is a significant setting which
is known as the quantity of plastic inside the print. The maximum infill density
refers to more plastic inside the print, giving a stronger part. The object can also
be printed completely hollow, which is desired in some cases. The infill density
that used in this work are (20, 50 and 80%). Figure (4-2) illustrates the types of
infill density.
(A) (B) (C)
Figure (4-2): Different Infill Densities (A):20%, (B): 50% and (C): 80%.
5- Printing Orientation (PO) (degree): Printing Orientation refers to how and

which direction a part is placed on the 3D printing built platform. The printing
orientation that used in this work is (0, 45 and 90°).
44
Work
4.8. Design of Experiments

In the current work, the objective is to investigate the influence of
parameters of printing which are (layer thicknesses, shell thickness printing speed,
infill density and printing orientation) on the mechanical properties of the parts.
These parameters have a major effect on the mechanical strength of the model.
So, these parameters are chosen for the current work. The range of process
parameters and their levels are summarized in Table (4-3).
Table 4-3: Process Parameters with Their Levels

No. Parameters Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
1 Printing speed (mm/s) 50 75 100
2 Layer thickness (mm) 0.1 0.2 0.3
3 Shell thickness (mm) 1.2 1.6 2.0
4 Infill density (%) 20 50 80
5 Printing orientation (Degree) 0 45 90
Table (4-4) refers to the design of experiment (DOE) plan that built using
Taguchi method. Three levels of five parameters of process gave L27 runs when
Taguchi method was constructed using statistical analysis software Minitab16,
before the total no. of runs = 35 = 243 specimens. With the Orthogonal Array
matrix, it has been able to decrease the no. of runs to 27 specimens. Thus, it has
been able to decrease the Saved Effort to 88.4%. Statistical analysis feature is
being reliable, accurate, and generally faster than computing statistics and
drawing graphs by hand [25].
45
Work
Table 4-4: DOE Using Taguchi Method based on Orthogonal Array L27
Printing Layer Shell Infill Printing
No. of
Speed (PS) Thickness Thickness Density (ID) Orientation
Runs
(mm/s) (LT) (mm) (ST) (mm) (%) (PO) (degree)
1 50 0.1 1.2 20 0
2 50 0.1 1.2 20 45
3 50 0.1 1.2 20 90
4 50 0.2 1.6 50 0
5 50 0.2 1.6 50 45
6 50 0.2 1.6 50 90
7 50 0.3 2 80 0
8 50 0.3 2 80 45
9 50 0.3 2 80 90
10 75 0.1 1.6 80 0
11 75 0.1 1.6 80 45
12 75 0.1 1.6 80 90
13 75 0.2 2 20 0
14 75 0.2 2 20 45
15 75 0.2 2 20 90
16 75 0.3 1.2 50 0
17 75 0.3 1.2 50 45
18 75 0.3 1.2 50 90
19 100 0.1 2 50 0
20 100 0.1 2 50 45
21 100 0.1 2 50 90
22 100 0.2 1.2 80 0
23 100 0.2 1.2 80 45
24 100 0.2 1.2 80 90
25 100 0.3 1.6 20 0
26 100 0.3 1.6 20 45
27 100 0.3 1.6 20 90
46
Work
4.9. CAD Modelling and UG NX Software

According to established standards, dimensions of the standard test samples to
be modelled are illustrated in Figs. (4-3), and all dimensions are in mm.
(A): Impact specimens (B): Bending specimens
(D): Tensile specimens

(C): Compressive specimen
Figure (4-3): Schematic of Testing Specimens
On the bases of DOE plan, 27 specimens for each test were manufactured. The
CAD part was designed in Cura software and transformed to STL file form. After that,
the samples orientation were set in Ultimaker software. When part orientation was set,
the G-codes of the models were designed using Cura software. These G-codes were fied
to the printing machine through the SD card, and model manufacturing was done by the
Ultimaker 2+ machine, as shown in Fig. (4-4), specifications in details are illustrated in
Appendix A.
Figure (4-4): Ultimaker 2+ FDM Machine
47
Work
4.10. Specimens Test

Figure (4-5) shows the impact, bending, compression and tensile specimens
performed for different testing instruments.
(A): Impact specimens (B): Bending specimens
(C): Compression specimen (D): Tensile specimens

Figure (4-5): Specimens Fabricated Using Ultimaker 2+
4.10.1. Impact test

Izod Impact Test is an ISO180 standard method for determining material
impact resistance. One point test that measures the material resistance to the
impact of the swing pendulum is known as Unnotched Izod Impact. Izod impact
is known as the kinetic energy needed to start the fracture and continue to break
until the sample has been broken [40].
Samples were installed in the pendulum of the impact test fixtures with a
thin edge facing the edge of the pendulum striking. The pendulum was released
and allowed to strike the specimens. If breaking does not happen, a heavier
hammer has to be used until breaking the sample. Figure (4-6) clarifies the impact
instrument. Specifications in details are illustrated in Appendix B. Impact strength
was computed by the division of impact energy in Joule by the area [28].
𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦 (𝐽)
𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = (4-10)
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 − 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎(𝑚" )
48
Work
Scale
Hummer
Specime
n
Figure (4-6): Impact Test Device
4.10.2. Tensile Test
Tensile strength is defined as a stress, which is measured as force per unit

area. The tensile test was performed according to (ASTM D638-03) using the
tensile machine (universal testing machine shown in Fig. (4-7)) at a cross head
speed (strain rate) of (5 mm/min) and a load was applied equal to (5 KN) until the
break of the specimen occurred. Specifications in details are illustrated in
Appendix C.
The basic idea of a tensile test is to place a sample of a material between
two fixtures called "grips", which clamp the material. The material has known
dimensions, like length and cross-sectional area, then the weight is applied to the
material gripped at one end, while the other end is fixed. The weight (often called
the load or force) is kept in increasing of while at the same time, the change in
length of the sample is measured [34].
49
Work
Clamp
Specime
Figure (4-7): Tensile Test Device

4.10.3. Compression test
The compression test was performed Fig. (4-8) according to (ASTM D695)
using the same tensile machine at across head (strain rate) of
(5 mm/min) and applied load was (25 kN) until the break of the specimen
occurred. Specifications in details are illustrated in Appendix C. It was calculated by
the following equation [77, 78]:
𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = (4-11)
𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎
Compression
Specimen platens
Figure (4-8): Compressive Test Device

50
Work
4.10.4. Bending Test
In this test, a specimen with a round, rectangular or flat cross-section is

placed on two parallel supporting pins. The bending test was performed according
to ASTM D790. All data were measured from the three-point bending test
machine Fig. (4-9) using the same tensile machine at across head speed (strain
rate) of (5 mm/min), and load was applied equal to (5 kN) until the break of the
specimen occurred. Specifications in details are illustrated in Appendix C. The
bending stress was computed by the following formula [39, 79]:
3𝐿𝐹
𝜎 = (4-12)
2𝑏𝑑 '
Where,
𝜎 – Bending stress;
L – Specimen length in mm;
F – Total force applied to the specimen by two loading pins in N;
b – Specimen width in mm;
d – Specimen thickness in mm;
Loading Rollers
Specimen
Support Rollers
Figure (4-9): Bending Test Device
51
Work
4.10.5. Surface Roughness Test
The surface roughness test was performed using the profilmeter device
(surface roughness) and supplied with a surface analyzer (sharp diamond stylus),
and the maximum distance that can be moved is (11 mm).
The profile of the surface irregularities and recess characterize the surface
by made scale. Each specimen was tested five times on different positions of each
specimen at same time, and the average value was taken. Figure (4-10) shows the
image of machine used in this test. Specifications in details are illustrated in
Appendix D.
Figure (4-10): Roughness Test Device.
4.10.6. Dimensional Accuracy Test

Dimensions were measured using a digital vernier calliper having the least
count of 0.01 mm to measure the length (L), width (W) and thickness (T). the
relative change in dimension was calculated using the following equation [80]:
𝑋 − 𝑋678
∆𝑋 = (4-13)
𝑋678
Where, X is the measured value of length or width or thickness, XCAD

represents the respective CAD model value and ΔX stands for the relative change
in X.
52
Chapter Five Results &
Discussion
CHAPTER FIVE
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

5.1. Introduction
In this chapter, the results were obtained by using the Fused Deposition
Modelling for manufacturing specimens, studying the effect of the process
parameters on the mechanical properties and determining which parameters are
better and more influential than others.
The Taguchi method was used to select the best results. For optimization,
the grey relationship analysis was used.
This chapter is divided into several sections characterizing the Orthogonal

Array (OA) for creating the optimal number of test and the need for the
optimization of test. It includes the results and gives the analyses diagram for
explaining the advantage of using this way.
5.2. Design of Experimental Results
To increase the experimental efficiency, using Orthogonal Array (OA)

significantly reduces the number of experiments to be studied. The L27
Orthogonal Array is shown in Table (4-4). Table (5-1) lists the values of the tests
performed using the Signal -to- Noise Ratio (S/N) for each property.
53
Discussion
Table 5-1: Signal to Noise Ratios for the Mechanical Properties

No. of S/N for S/N for S/N for S/N for
Runs Impact Strength Bending Strength Compressive Tensile Strength
Strength
1 7.154 35.391 25.801 32.712
2 13.272 38.142 26.235 33.828
3 9.315 36.047 25.977 33.194
4 17.188 38.386 27.959 34.086
5 18.381 39.302 28.465 35.085
6 17.621 38.741 28.062 34.500
7 21.286 39.409 28.943 36.794
8 20.734 40.702 32.361 36.948
9 21.453 39.621 29.127 36.948
10 20.734 40.325 29.542 35.634
11 21.453 40.702 29.827 36.184
12 20.927 40.516 29.657 35.982
13 10.935 37.363 29.513 34.295
14 14.161 39.192 30.317 35.419
15 12.218 38.386 29.883 34.895
16 18.717 39.302 29.966 35.616
17 19.030 40.228 30.238 36.016
18 18.381 39.621 30.049 35.757
19 17.188 37.761 30.906 33.124
20 18.381 39.302 31.126 33.806
21 17.621 39.082 31.053 33.403
22 19.849 40.129 32.041 36.381
23 21.613 39.930 29.396 37.069
24 20.089 40.421 32.256 36.478
25 10.935 38.017 32.298 34.086
26 14.925 39.302 32.465 35.455
27 12.218 38.142 32.403 34.797
54
Discussion
5.3. Discussion of the Results

Using design of experiment, Taguchi method converts the response values
into S/N ratio. With the help of S/N ratio, the least variations and optimal quality
design can be obtained. The objective of the present investigation is to maximize
the mechanical properties of the specimens. Therefore, the larger the better
characteristics were used. The experimental results of the optimum levels for
mechanical properties in S/N ratio are given shown in Tables (5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and
5-5).
The optimum level of three process parameters for impact strength, bending
strength, compression strength and tensile strength can be obtained intuitively
from the main effect plot for S/N ratio as shown in figures later.
According to Table (5-1) the analysis of the S/N values can be separated
for each process response parameters in the following Table list these values with
Rank of effect of each input parameter of the process where Delta shows the
difference between the values of the highest and lowest values for each process
parameters which should be based on knowledge of any parameters having greater
effect on the mechanical property.
Table 5-2: Response Table for S/N Ratios for Impact Strength
No. of Printing Layer Shell Infill Printing
Level Speed Thickness Thickness Density Orientation
Level 1 17.4 17.62 16.28 11.68 16
Level 2 16.36 16.8 17.15 18.06 17.99
Level 3 16.88 16.23 17.21 20.9 16.65
Delta 1.04 1.39 0.93 9.22 1.99
Rank 4 3 5 1 2
55
Discussion
Table 5-3: Response Table for S/N Ratio for Compressive Strength
Level 1 27.89 30.54 29.44 29.43 29.66

Level 2 29.35 30.1 30.08 29.76 30.05
Level 3 31.88 28.9 30.03 30.35 29.83
Delta 4.1 1.64 0.64 0.92 0.38
Rank 1 2 4 3 5
Table 5-4: Response Table for S/N Ratio for Bending Strength

Level 1 39.51 39.29 38.89 37.78 38.45
Level 2 38.33 39.18 39.27 39.08 39.64
Level 3 39.21 38.59 39.89 40.2 38.95
Delta 1.19 0.7 0.38 2.42 1.19
Rank 3 4 5 1 2
Table 5-5: Response Table for S/N Ratio for Tensile Strength

Level 1 35.53 35.84 35.08 34.3 34.75

Level 2 34.91 35.34 35.09 34.6 35.53
Level 3 34.94 34.21 35.21 36.49 35.11
Delta 0.62 1.63 0.13 2.19 0.79
Rank 4 2 5 1 3
In Tables (5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-5) the results obtained using Taguchi method,
as the following:
56
Discussion
5.3.1. Printing Speed

The effect of printing speed has a rank (4) this mean have low effect
between other processes. The print speed decreases with sufficient limit can
improve the mechanical properties in general. Decreases printing speed at 50
mm/s will increases the mechanical properties.
The results obtained indicate that increasing in printing speed reduces the
impact strength. Because of the effect of the orientation of printing at 0° and 90°,
for the direction of the cross, the layer of the road is oriented in a direction 0 °
followed by a layer in the direction of 90 °. The stacking of roads arranges on
each other in a vertical direction. While, the roads stacked a layer with a 45-degree
cross-section direction.
The filament path is therefore seen as rigid and stronger because the order
of bonding intersects with the other in opposite directions, giving a more dense
and rigid structure than the cross-pattern. The intersecting direction will give
higher mechanical properties compared to the transverse direction.
Low speed has been used, so that the material sticks well to the building
plate on the first layer and this is one of the problems facing the work when using
printing speed at 100 mm/s.
Printing speed at 100 mm/s has a higher compressive strength. Increasing
printing speed from 50 mm/s to 100 mm/s increased the compression strength of
the printed specimens.
As a result, the greatest improvement in the compressive strength and
toughness has been gained when samples printed with a 100 mm/s.
Therefore, it may be better to filament quickly to be deposited so that the
next layer is placed on a previous surface.
Therefore, the first layer of more cohesive filament will be formed and as
a result, the strength of the compressive will increase.
57
Discussion
In general, low or high printing can affect the bonding between the filament
layers.
This is observed for other mechanical properties, such as tensile strength,
bending strength and compressive strength. According to the specimens that were
tested using Taguchi method. It was found that the printing speed of 50 mm/s is
ideal for impact, bending and tensile strength while compressive strength at 100
mm/s printing speed, as shown in Fig. (5-1).
(A) Impact Strength (B) Bending Strength
(C) Compressive Strength (D) Tensile Strength
Figure (5-1): Effect of Printing Speed of Signal to Noise on Mechanical

Properties
58
Discussion
5.3.2. Layer thickness:

As the layer thickness decreases, many number of layers will be required and
distortion effect is minimized and hence strength increases. The printing time
required and the results of a smoother surface are also greatly determined by the layer
height.
The number of layers required to create an object determines the printing
speed and thus the printing time required. The lower the layer thickness, the longer
it takes to make a 3D printed object of a given height. The layer thickness determines
how many times an object will be sliced.
Specimens with a smaller layer thickness are closely stacked together, thus
creating a better inter-layer bond when compared to samples with a larger layer
thickness. Therefore, the mechanical properties are higher for smaller layer thickness
samples. As shown below in Figure (5-2), decreasing the thickness of the layer leads
to an increase in the mechanical properties.
The best layer thickness was 0.1 mm for the mechanical properties, while the
0.3 mm layer thickness of specimens was not significant in all specimens studied.
59
Discussion
Figure (5-2): Effect of Layer Thicknesses on Mechanical Properties

5.3.3. Shell thickness
As can be seen clearly in Figures and Tables, this parameter has significant
effect on the mechanical properties. Increasing shell thickness increase impact
strength, bending strength, and tensile strength while the compressive strength as
a little response to the factor.
The shell of a part is a content of layers on the part outside. In many designs,
often the first area that is printed in any layer is the shell. This refers to that the
shell thickness is intimately attached to the infill percentage and quantity.
Increasing the shell thickness has the added benefit of making samples
much stronger and enhances the resistance of the part to failure. Increases in shell
thickness increase the strength but also time to print and printing cost. This means
that the samples become stronger and more capable of treating stress without the
need for maximizing the 3D printing infill density.
60
Discussion
It was found that the greater the shell thickness of the specimen leads to the
stronger of the mechanical properties, as noted below in Figure (5-3), the shell
thickness at 2 mm gives strength for the mechanical properties.
Figure (5-3): Effect of Shell Thicknesses on Mechanical Properties.

5.3.4. Infill density
Infill density included testing at three levels (20%, 50% and 80%). There
is a great difference between 80% and 20% infill density for specimens. Thus, the
PLA specimens are a stronger at 80% infill density.
According to the Tables (5-2, 5-3, 5-4 and 5-5) refer to the rank (1) for infill
density which is important process parameter that significant effect on the
mechanical properties.
The best mechanical properties are obtained when the infill density of the
specimens is large at 80%, as shown in Fig. (5-4).
61
Discussion
(C) Compression Strength (D) Tensile Strength
Figure (5-4): The Infill Densities for the Mechanical Properties
5.3.5. Printing Orientation

The results indicate that the strength of the effect is high at 45° and less at
0° and 90° for all samples when testing the mechanical properties while the roads
stacked a layer with a 45-degree cross-section direction. The filament path is
therefore seen as rigid and stronger because the order of bonding intersects with
the other in opposite directions, giving a more dense and rigid structure than the
cross-pattern. The intersecting direction will give higher mechanical properties
compared to the transverse direction, thus the optimum values at 45° for each
mechanical property, as shown in Fig. (5-5).
62
Discussion
(a) Impact Strength (b) Bending Strength
(c) Compressive Strength (d) Tensile Strength
Figure (5-5): Printing orientation for Mechanical Properties

5.4. Optimization Using Grey Relation Analysis
Grey Relation Analysis (GRA) is used to quantify all the influences of process
parameters and the relationship among the data series that is a collection of
measurements.
The use of the Orthogonal Array with the Gray Relation Analyses for
determining the optimal process parameters is reported step by step, the process
characteristics are obtained and verified.
Mechanical properties, surface roughness and printing time are the response in
FDM which choose the material machinability under consideration.
63
Discussion
The following steps clarify the optimization algorithm of multiple performance

characteristics of fused deposition modeling process using Grey Relation analysis
method and based on Taguchi design of experiment with L27 orthogonal array.
5.5. Optimization Algorithm of Multi Performance

Step 1: Design of Experiment using Taguchi method.
Step 2: Orthogonal Array L27 according to DOE with their levels (35)
appropriate OA will be L27.
Step 3: Analysis of the result of the experiment output (S/N values).
Step 4: Input (S/N ratio) to calculate GRA performance characteristic
𝑥! (𝑘) − min 𝑥! (𝑘)
𝑥!∗ (𝑘 ) =
max 𝑥! (𝑘) − min 𝑥! (𝑘)
Step 5: Determine the deviation sequence ∆#! (𝑘) = |𝑥#∗ (𝑘 ) − 𝑥!∗ (𝑘)|
∆!"# %&∆!$%
Step 6: Calculate gray relational coefficient 𝜀! (𝑘) =
∆" (()%&∆!$%
*
Step 7: Determine gray relational grade 𝛾! = + ∑,(-* ε! (𝑘)
Step 8: Rank deduce each process parameter according to the Delta.
Step 9: Delta is the difference between the values of the highest and lowest
values for each process parameters.
5.5.1. Mechanical Properties

Due to the experimentally obtained values of the mechanical properties are
presented in Table 5-1. The result of optimization process the performance
characteristics x.∗ (k) of the mechanical properties of the 27 runs have been obtained as
illustrated in the Table 5-6.
Table 5-6: Performance Characteristic 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) after Data Processing
𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for
No. of
Impact Bending Compressive Tensile
test
strength strength strength strength
64
Discussion
1 0 0 0 0
2 0.423 0.518 0.065 0.256
3 0.149 0.123 0.026 0.111
4 0.694 0.564 0.324 0.315
5 0.776 0.736 0.400 0.545
6 0.724 0.631 0.339 0.410
7 0.977 0.757 0.472 0.937
8 0.939 1.000 0.984 0.972
9 0.989 0.796 0.499 0.972
10 0.939 0.929 0.561 0.671
11 0.989 1.000 0.604 0.797
12 0.953 0.965 0.579 0.750
13 0.261 0.371 0.557 0.363
14 0.485 0.716 0.678 0.621
15 0.350 0.564 0.613 0.501
16 0.800 0.736 0.625 0.667
17 0.821 0.911 0.666 0.758
18 0.776 0.796 0.637 0.699
19 0.694 0.446 0.766 0.095
20 0.776 0.736 0.799 0.251
21 0.724 0.695 0.788 0.159
22 0.878 0.892 0.936 0.842
23 1.000 0.855 0.540 1.000
24 0.895 0.947 0.969 0.864
25 0.261 0.494 0.975 0.315
26 0.537 0.736 1.000 0.630
27 0.350 0.518 0.991 0.479
While the Deviation Sequences ∆𝟎𝒊 (𝒌) for 27th runs have been obtained
from optimization process are listed in the Table 5-7
Table 5-7: The Deviation Sequences ∆𝟎𝒊 (𝒌) for the mechanical Properties
∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for
No. Of ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for
Bending Compressive
test Impact strength Tensile strength
strength strength
1 1 1 1 1
2 0.577 0.482 0.935 0.744
65
Discussion
3 0.851 0.877 0.974 0.889

4 0.306 0.436 0.676 0.685
5 0.224 0.264 0.600 0.455
6 0.276 0.369 0.661 0.590
7 0.023 0.243 0.528 0.063
8 0.061 0.000 0.016 0.028
9 0.011 0.204 0.501 0.028
10 0.061 0.071 0.439 0.329
11 0.011 0.000 0.396 0.203
12 0.047 0.035 0.421 0.250
13 0.739 0.629 0.443 0.637
14 0.515 0.284 0.322 0.379
15 0.650 0.436 0.387 0.499
16 0.200 0.264 0.375 0.333
17 0.179 0.089 0.334 0.242
18 0.224 0.204 0.363 0.301
19 0.306 0.554 0.234 0.905
20 0.224 0.264 0.201 0.749
21 0.276 0.305 0.212 0.841
22 0.122 0.108 0.064 0.158
23 0.000 0.145 0.460 0.000
24 0.105 0.053 0.031 0.136
25 0.739 0.506 0.025 0.685
26 0.463 0.264 0.000 0.370
27 0.650 0.482 0.009 0.521
The Rank of the 27th runs have been obtained by evaluating multiple
performance characteristics optimization process are shown in the Table 5-8.
Table 5-8: The Grey Relational Grade and the Optimization Process
Grey Relational Coefficient Grey
No.
𝜀& (𝑘 ) for 𝜀& (𝑘 ) for 𝜀& (𝑘 ) for 𝜀& (𝑘 ) for Relational
of Rank
Impact Bending Compressive Tensile Grade
Runs
strength strength strength strength ( 𝜸𝒊 )
1 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.333 27
66
Discussion
2 0.464 0.509 0.348 0.402 0.431 25

3 0.370 0.363 0.339 0.360 0.358 26
4 0.620 0.534 0.425 0.422 0.500 23
5 0.691 0.655 0.454 0.523 0.581 17
6 0.644 0.575 0.431 0.459 0.527 21
7 0.957 0.673 0.486 0.888 0.751 8
8 0.892 1.000 0.970 0.947 0.952 1
9 0.978 0.711 0.500 0.947 0.784 6
10 0.892 0.875 0.533 0.603 0.726 9
11 0.978 1.000 0.558 0.711 0.812 5
12 0.913 0.934 0.543 0.667 0.764 7
13 0.404 0.443 0.530 0.440 0.454 24
14 0.492 0.638 0.608 0.569 0.577 18
15 0.435 0.534 0.563 0.500 0.508 22
16 0.714 0.655 0.571 0.600 0.635 13
17 0.737 0.848 0.599 0.674 0.715 10
18 0.691 0.711 0.580 0.624 0.651 12
19 0.620 0.474 0.681 0.356 0.533 20
20 0.691 0.655 0.713 0.400 0.615 14
21 0.644 0.621 0.702 0.373 0.585 16
22 0.804 0.823 0.887 0.760 0.818 4
23 1.000 0.775 0.521 1.000 0.824 3
24 0.826 0.904 0.941 0.787 0.864 2
25 0.404 0.497 0.952 0.422 0.569 19
26 0.519 0.655 1.000 0.574 0.687 11
27 0.435 0.509 0.982 0.490 0.604 15
Since the design of experiment is orthogonal, it is then possible to separate out the effect
of each process parameter on the grey relational grade at different levels.
The mean of the grey relational grade for the printing speed, layer thicknesses,
shell thickness, infill density and printing orientation at levels one, two and three can be
counted by averaging the gray relational grad for the test, according to the Delta value
the Rank of each input FDM process parameter has been deduced and illustrated in the
Table 5-9.
67
Discussion
Table 5-9: Response Value for Grey Relational Grade

Level 1 5.232 5.277 3.974 1.85 3.459
Level 2 3.892 4.277 4.099 4.58 4.86
Level 3 3.509 3.128 4.561 6.203 4.314
Delta 1.723 2.149 0.587 4.353 1.401
Rank 3 2 5 1 4
In Table 5-9, the highest value was obtained by ranking the Grey Relational
Grade from the highest value. This value indicates the improvement from sample no. 8,
which has 50 mm/s printing speed, thickness of 0.1 mm, layer thickness of 2 mm, 80%
infill density and printing orientation in 45°, reached before using Taguchi method. In
the Taguchi method, the values that appeared in each of the three levels gave values
corresponding to those mathematically reached.
The gray relational grade uses the L27 OA for each experiment. If the
corresponding experimental result is closer to the ideally normalized value, this refers
to that the higher grey relational grade has been represented. Experiment number 8 has
the better multiple characteristics of performance between the 27 runs because it has the
maximum gray relational grad. It can be seen in the current work, the optimization of
the complex multiple characteristics of performance of Fused Deposition Modelling
(FDM) has been transformed into optimization of a gray relational grade.
Figures (5-6 and 5-7) show the grey relational grade obtained for different
process parameters. The larger the grey relation grade is, the closer will be the
product quality to the ideal value. Thus, larger grey relational grade is desired for
the optimum performance. Therefore, the optimal parameters setting for better
mechanical properties are printing speed at 50 mm/s, layer thicknesses at 0.1 mm,
shell thickness at 2 mm, infill density at 80% and printing orientation at 45°, as
68
Discussion
given in Table 5-10. The optimum level of process parameters is the level with
the highest gray relational grade.
(A) Printing Speed (B) Layer Thickness
(C) Shell Thickness
(D) Infill Density (E) Printing Orientation
Figure 5-6): Signal to Noise Ratio of Process Parameters on GRA.
According to analysis percentage of each process parameter can be

illustrated in Fig. (5-7). as it can be clearly seen the effect of infill density has
largest effect than other pointers on the mechanical properties of the specimens
while the other process has close effect on mechanical properties.
69
Discussion
Figure (5-7): Percentage Contributions of Process Parameters
5.5.2. Printing time

The time of the intensive process depends on the complexity of the object
printed. The more complex, the more time it takes to remove all of the supports.
Printing orientation has a significant impact on the printing time. Using Grey
Relation Analysis was based on the Taguchi method for the optimum printing
time and the effect of process parameters on the printing time, as shown in
Table 5-10.
It seen from Table 5-10 experiment No. 12 has greatest time in printing the
specimen for all the test because the infill of this specimen has 80% and this mean
the printing of each layer of specimen take long time while specimens No. 25, 26,
and 27 have lowest printing time for all mechanical printing test due to the infill
density 20% that is mean each layer will take low time comparing with other infill
density.
Table 5-10: Printing Time for the Mechanical Properties

Printing time for Printing time for Printing time for Printing time for
No. of Impact Strength Bending Compressive Tensile Strength
Test
(min) Strength (min) Strength (min) (min)
1 42 52 28 28
70
Discussion
2 42 51 28 28
3 42 52 28 28
4 32 34 22 22
5 31 34 21 21
6 32 34 22 22
7 25 25 17 17
8 24 25 17 17
9 25 25 17 17
10 48 42 35 35
11 46 41 34 34
12 48 42 35 35
13 21 24 14 14
14 20 23 13 13
15 21 24 14 14
16 14 15 12 12
17 13 15 11 11
18 14 15 12 12
19 36 34 28 28
20 35 32 27 27
21 36 34 28 28
22 19 18 15 15
23 18 17 14 14
24 19 18 15 15
25 10 13 9 12
26 10 13 9 13
27 10 13 9 12
To evaluate the data obtain from Table 5-10 S/N ration value of each
specimen have been obtain with the Minitab 16 according to the rule the smallest
71
Discussion
is the best. The value of S/N ratio of each mechanical properties as listed in Table
5-11.
Table 5-11: Signal to Noise of Printing Time for the Mechanical Properties
S/N for
No. of S/N for S/N for S/N for
Compressive
Runs Impact Strength Bending Strength Tensile Strength
Strength
1 32.465 34.320 28.943 28.943
2 32.465 34.151 28.943 28.943
3 32.465 34.320 28.943 28.943
4 30.103 30.630 26.848 26.848
5 29.827 30.630 26.444 26.444
6 30.103 30.630 26.848 26.848
7 27.959 27.959 24.609 24.609
8 27.604 27.959 24.609 24.609
9 27.959 27.959 24.609 24.609
10 33.625 32.465 30.881 30.881
11 33.255 32.256 30.630 30.630
12 33.625 32.465 30.881 30.881
13 26.444 27.604 22.923 22.923
14 26.021 27.235 22.279 22.279
15 26.444 27.604 22.923 22.923
16 22.923 23.522 21.584 21.584
17 22.279 23.522 20.828 20.828
18 22.923 23.522 21.584 21.584
19 31.126 30.630 28.943 28.943
20 30.881 30.103 28.627 28.627
21 31.126 30.630 28.943 28.943
22 25.575 25.105 23.522 23.522
23 25.105 24.609 22.923 22.923
24 25.575 25.105 23.522 23.522
25 20.000 22.279 19.085 21.584
26 20.000 22.279 19.085 22.279
27 20.000 22.279 19.085 21.584
72
Discussion
Due to the result of optimization process the performance characteristics

x2∗ (k) of the mechanical properties of the 27 runs have been obtained as illustrated
in the Table 5-12.
𝑥!∗ (𝑘 ) for 𝑥!∗ (𝑘 ) for 𝑥!∗ (𝑘 ) for 𝑥!∗ (𝑘 ) for
No. Of
Runs
1 0.915 1.000 0.836 0.807
2 0.915 0.986 0.836 0.807
3 0.915 1.000 0.836 0.807
4 0.158 0.694 0.658 0.599
5 0.721 0.694 2.363 0.559
6 0.742 0.694 0.658 0.599
7 0.584 0.472 0.468 0.376
8 0.558 0.472 0.468 0.376
9 0.584 0.472 0.468 0.376
10 1.000 0.846 1.000 1.000
11 0.973 0.829 0.979 0.975
12 1.000 0.846 1.000 1.000
13 0.473 0.442 0.325 0.208
14 0.442 0.412 0.271 0.144
15 0.473 0.442 0.325 0.208
16 0.215 0.103 0.212 0.075
17 0.167 0.103 0.148 0.000
18 0.215 0.103 0.212 0.075
19 0.817 0.694 0.836 0.807
20 0.799 0.650 0.809 0.776
21 0.817 0.694 0.836 0.807
22 0.409 0.235 0.376 0.268
23 0.375 0.194 0.325 0.208
24 0.409 0.235 0.376 0.268
25 1.029E-10 3.208E-10 1.029E-10 0.075
26 1.029E-10 3.208E-10 1.029E-10 0.144
27 1.029E-10 3.208E-10 1.029E-10 0.075
73
Discussion
While the Deviation Sequences ∆-& (𝑘 ) for 27th runs have been obtained
∆-2 (k) for ∆-2 (k) for
No. Of ∆-2 (k) for ∆-2 (k) for
Bending Compressive
Runs Impact strength Tensile strength
strength strength
1 0.085 0.000 0.164 0.193
2 0.085 0.014 0.164 0.193
3 0.085 0.000 0.164 0.193
4 0.842 0.306 0.342 0.401
5 0.279 0.306 0.376 0.441
6 0.258 0.306 0.342 0.401
7 0.416 0.528 0.532 0.624
8 0.442 0.528 0.532 0.624
9 0.416 0.528 0.532 0.624
10 0.000 0.154 0.000 0.000
11 0.027 0.171 0.021 0.025
12 0.000 0.154 0.000 0.000
13 0.527 0.558 0.675 0.792
14 0.558 0.588 0.729 0.856
15 0.527 0.558 0.675 0.792
16 0.785 0.897 0.788 0.925
17 0.833 0.897 0.852 1.000
18 0.785 0.897 0.788 0.925
19 0.183 0.306 0.164 0.193
20 0.201 0.350 0.191 0.224
21 0.183 0.306 0.164 0.193
22 0.591 0.765 0.624 0.732
23 0.625 0.806 0.675 0.792
24 0.591 0.765 0.624 0.732
25 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.925
26 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.856
27 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.925
74
Discussion
Grey Relational Coefficient Grey
No.
𝜀& (𝑘 ) for 𝜀& (𝑘 )for 𝜀& (𝑘 ) for 𝜀& (𝑘 ) for Relational
of Rank
Impact Bending Compressive Tensile Grade (
Runs
strength strength strength strength 𝛾& )
1 0.855 1.000 0.753 0.722 0.832 17
2 0.855 0.973 0.753 0.722 0.825 16
3 0.855 1.000 0.753 0.722 0.832 17
4 0.373 0.620 0.594 0.555 0.535 11
5 0.642 0.620 0.571 0.531 0.591 12
6 0.659 0.620 0.594 0.555 0.607 13
7 0.546 0.486 0.485 0.445 0.490 10
8 0.531 0.486 0.485 0.445 0.487 9
9 0.546 0.486 0.485 0.445 0.490 10
10 1.000 0.764 1.000 1.000 0.941 19
11 0.949 0.745 0.959 0.952 0.901 18
12 1.000 0.764 1.000 1.000 0.941 19
13 0.487 0.473 0.426 0.387 0.443 8
14 0.473 0.459 0.407 0.369 0.427 7
15 0.487 0.473 0.426 0.387 0.443 8
16 0.389 0.358 0.388 0.351 0.371 4
17 0.375 0.358 0.370 0.333 0.359 3
18 0.389 0.358 0.388 0.351 0.371 4
19 0.732 0.620 0.753 0.722 0.706 15
20 0.713 0.588 0.724 0.690 0.679 14
21 0.732 0.620 0.753 0.722 0.706 15
22 0.458 0.395 0.445 0.406 0.426 6
23 0.444 0.383 0.426 0.387 0.410 5
24 0.458 0.395 0.445 0.406 0.426 6
25 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.351 0.338 1
75
Discussion
26 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.369 0.342 2

27 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.351 0.338 1
Figures (5-8) and (5-9) exhibit the main effects describing the printing time.
According to smaller is the best of S/N ratio, the printing time was obtained as
lower values for S/N ratios. Therefore, the work was on minimizing the printing
time of FDM part so the objective function smaller- the better was considered.
Layer thickness and printing speed showed a significant effect on the

printing time. The printing time of the specimens would be decreased with
increasing of layer thickness, shell thickness, printing orientation, while the S/N
ratio increased with increasing of infill density for each mechanical property.
The results revealed that the printing time depends on the layer thickness
and printing speed, according to the Delta value the Rank of each input FDM
process parameter has been deduced and illustrated in the Table 5-15
The printing time for a given print can be reduced by increasing the layer
thickness and reducing the infill density.
Based on the S / N ratio analyses, the optimal parameters of the process to

achieve the lower printing time are 100 mm/s printing speed, 0.3 mm layer
thickness, 1.6 mm shell thickness, 90° printing orientation and 80% infill density.

Level 1 17.23 12.08 15.89 15.12 15.84
Level 2 15.88 15.41 14.15 15.25 15.42
Level 3 12.51 18.14 14.17 15.37 14.36
Delta 4.72 6.06 1.72 0.25 1.48
Rank 2 1 3 5 4
76
Discussion
(C) Shell Thickness
Figure (5-8): Signal to Noise Ratio of Printing Time on GRA
According to analysis percentage of each process parameter can be illustrated in

Fig. (5-9). as it can be clearly seen that still the infill density has significant effect than
other pointers on the printing time of the specimens while the other process parameter
have close effect on printing time.
77
Discussion
Figure 5-9): Percentage Contributions of Process Parameters to the Printing Time.
5.5.3. Surface Roughness:

Due to the result of S/N ratio of the surface roughness for mechanical
properties of the 27 runs have been obtained as illustrated in the Table 5-16.
Table 5-16: Surface Roughness for the Mechanical Properties
S/N for S/N for S/N for S/N for
No. of
Runs
Strength Strength Strength Strength
1 1.734 2.722 10.431 9.123
2 0.910 0.282 10.451 9.147
3 1.875 7.291 9.673 8.687
4 3.926 2.574 9.682 8.600
5 3.107 0.282 12.395 8.780
6 4.123 6.588 12.400 8.755
7 3.921 6.351 12.005 8.780
8 2.516 1.613 12.006 8.755
9 3.233 6.064 12.404 8.821
10 6.012 0.231 12.276 8.809
11 2.870 0.604 12.431 8.802
12 3.496 6.653 12.865 8.799
13 3.346 6.941 13.922 10.764
14 4.984 2.059 13.954 10.973
15 2.916 4.979 12.727 10.899
78
Discussion
16 4.851 6.186 12.986 11.092

17 1.756 4.193 13.563 11.539
18 3.504 6.848 13.457 11.383
19 6.415 6.008 13.269 11.614
20 6.154 9.820 13.501 11.601
21 3.893 6.212 13.827 11.661
22 4.940 7.716 13.983 11.621
23 2.779 6.010 14.096 11.908
24 6.214 4.826 14.069 11.834
25 8.002 2.722 14.293 11.881
26 2.352 6.446 14.120 11.876
27 7.105 7.626 14.539 12.012
in the Table 5-17.
𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for
No. Of
Runs
1 0.884 0.740 0.844 0.847
2 1.000 0.995 0.840 0.840
3 0.864 0.264 1.000 0.975
4 0.515 0.756 0.998 1.000
5 0.618 0.995 0.441 0.947
6 0.490 0.337 0.440 0.955
7 0.515 0.362 0.521 0.947
8 0.693 0.856 0.521 0.955
9 0.602 0.392 0.439 0.935
10 0.251 1.000 0.465 0.939
11 0.648 0.961 0.433 0.941
12 0.569 0.330 0.344 0.942
13 0.588 0.300 0.127 0.366
14 0.381 0.809 0.120 0.305
15 0.642 0.505 0.373 0.326
79
Discussion
16 0.398 0.379 0.319 0.270

17 0.789 0.587 0.201 0.138
18 0.568 0.310 0.222 0.184
19 0.200 0.398 0.261 0.117
20 0.233 0.000 0.213 0.120
21 0.519 0.376 0.146 0.103
22 0.387 0.219 0.114 0.115
23 0.660 0.397 0.091 0.031
24 0.226 0.521 0.097 0.052
25 0.000 0.740 0.051 0.038
26 0.714 0.352 0.086 0.040
27 0.113 0.229 0.000 0.000
Table 5-18: The Deviation Sequences ∆𝟎𝒊 (𝒌) for the Surface Roughness
∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for
No. Of ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for
Bending Compressive
Runs Impact strength Tensile strength
strength strength
1 0.116 0.260 0.156 0.153
2 0.000 0.005 0.160 0.160
3 0.136 0.736 0.000 0.025
4 0.485 0.244 0.002 0.000
5 0.382 0.005 0.559 0.053
6 0.510 0.663 0.560 0.045
7 0.485 0.638 0.479 0.053
8 0.307 0.144 0.479 0.045
9 0.398 0.608 0.561 0.065
10 0.749 0.000 0.535 0.061
11 0.352 0.039 0.567 0.059
12 0.431 0.670 0.656 0.058
13 0.412 0.700 0.873 0.634
14 0.619 0.191 0.880 0.695
80
Discussion
15 0.358 0.495 0.627 0.674

16 0.602 0.621 0.681 0.730
17 0.211 0.413 0.799 0.862
18 0.432 0.690 0.778 0.816
19 0.800 0.602 0.739 0.883
20 0.767 1.000 0.787 0.880
21 0.481 0.624 0.854 0.897
22 0.613 0.781 0.886 0.885
23 0.340 0.603 0.909 0.969
24 0.774 0.479 0.903 0.948
25 1.000 0.260 0.949 0.962
26 0.286 0.648 0.914 0.960
27 0.887 0.771 1.000 1.000
Grey Relational Coefficient
No. Grey
𝜀! (𝑘 ) for 𝜀! (𝑘 ) for 𝜀! (𝑘 ) for 𝜀! (𝑘 ) for
of Relational Rank
Runs Grade ( 𝜸𝒊 )
1 0.811 0.658 0.763 0.765 0.749 19
2 1.000 0.989 0.758 0.757 0.876 22
3 0.786 0.404 1.000 0.952 0.786 20
4 0.508 0.672 0.996 1.000 0.794 21
5 0.567 0.990 0.472 0.904 0.733 18
6 0.495 0.430 0.472 0.917 0.578 13
7 0.508 0.439 0.511 0.904 0.591 14
8 0.619 0.776 0.510 0.917 0.706 16
9 0.557 0.451 0.471 0.885 0.591 14
10 0.400 1.000 0.483 0.891 0.694 15
11 0.587 0.928 0.469 0.894 0.719 17
12 0.537 0.427 0.433 0.895 0.573 12
81
Discussion
13 0.548 0.417 0.364 0.441 0.442 8

14 0.447 0.724 0.362 0.418 0.488 9
15 0.583 0.502 0.443 0.426 0.489 10
16 0.454 0.446 0.423 0.406 0.432 6
17 0.703 0.548 0.385 0.367 0.501 11
18 0.537 0.420 0.391 0.380 0.432 6
19 0.385 0.454 0.404 0.361 0.401 4
20 0.395 0.333 0.389 0.362 0.370 2
21 0.510 0.445 0.369 0.358 0.420 5
22 0.449 0.390 0.361 0.361 0.390 3
23 0.595 0.453 0.355 0.340 0.436 7
24 0.392 0.511 0.356 0.345 0.401 4
25 0.333 0.658 0.345 0.342 0.420 5
26 0.636 0.435 0.354 0.342 0.442 8
27 0.361 0.393 0.333 0.333 0.355 1
Figures (5-10) and (5-11) illustrate the main influence diagram for the
surface roughness. Based on the S/N ratios, the lower surface roughness values
are gained by the minimum values of the S/N ratio. The major influences of S/N
ratio are clarified in Fig. (5-10), the ratio of S/N is reducing with growing the
layer thickness and printing speed shell thickness, infill density and printing
orientation. On the bases of analyses of the S/N ratio, the process parameters
optimized to achieve the lower surface roughness are shown in Table 5-19 and the
optimum parameters are 100 mm/s printing speed, 0.3 mm layer thickness,
1.6 mm shell thickness, 20% infill density and 90° printing orientation.

Level 1 11.779 10.682 10.704 9.792 10.376
Level 2 10.34 10.459 9.813 10.558 10.317
Level 3 8.828 9.805 10.43 10.596 10.254
82
Discussion
Delta 1.439 0.877 0.891 0.804 0.122

Rank 1 3 2 4 5
(C) Shell Thickness

Figure (5-10): GRA based Taguchi for the Surface Roughness

Fig. (5-11). as it can be clearly seen the effect of printing orientation and shell thickness
83
Discussion
have largest effect than other pointers on the mechanical properties of the specimens
while the other process has close effect on mechanical properties.
Figure (5-11): Percentage Contributions of Process Parameters to the Surface Roughness.
5.5.4. Dimensional Accuracy

In dimensional accuracy the deviation from the base dimension of specimen. The
geometry of the specimen for all the mechanical property test have three basic dimension
which are length, width and thickness:
1-Length :The length of each specimens have been measure after printing with different
process parameters the 27th for each mechanical property are listed in Table 5-21.
Table 5-21: Length of Dimensional Accuracy for the Mechanical Properties
Length for
No. of Length for Impact Length for Bending Length for Tensile
compressive
Runs Strength Strength Strength
Strength
1 60.02 127 20.08 150.12
2 60.01 127 20.05 150.99
3 60.01 127 20.04 150.06
4 60.03 127 20.05 150.88
5 60.01 127 20.06 150.79
6 60.02 127 20.03 150.68
7 60.04 127 20.05 150.77
8 60.03 127 20.03 150.57
9 60.03 127 20.02 150.34
10 60.05 127.1 20.04 150.99
11 60.04 127 20.07 150.43
12 65.07 127.1 20.03 150.87
84
Discussion
13 60.02 127 20.03 150.99

14 60.01 127 20.02 150.43
15 60.01 127 20.03 150.27
16 60.02 127.1 20.03 150.89
17 60.02 127 20.03 150.54
18 60.02 127 20.05 150.07
19 60.03 127 20.04 150.18
20 60.01 127 20.05 150.01
21 60.02 127 20.06 150.07
22 60.02 127 20.05 150.15
23 60.01 127 20.03 150.33
24 60.01 127 20.02 150.23
25 60.03 127 20.03 150.11
26 60.02 127 20.03 150.25
27 60.01 127 20.04 150.19
Deviation between measure length of specimen and the original length has
been taken as a reference to evaluate the relative change of each specimen. The
results are shown in Table 5-22.
Table 5-22: Relative Change in Length for the Mechanical Properties

∆L for
No. of ∆L for ∆L for ∆L for
compressive
Strength
1 0.000333 0.000157 0.004 0.00080
2 0.000167 0.000079 0.0025 0.00660
3 0.000167 0.000079 0.002 0.00040
4 0.000500 0.000236 0.0025 0.00587
5 0.000167 0.000079 0.003 0.00527
6 0.000333 0.000157 0.0015 0.00453
7 0.000667 0.000315 0.0025 0.00513
8 0.000500 0.000236 0.0015 0.00380
9 0.000500 0.000236 0.001 0.00227
10 0.000833 0.000394 0.002 0.00660
11 0.000667 0.000315 0.0035 0.00287
12 0.084500 0.000551 0.0015 0.00580
85
Discussion
13 0.000333 0.000157 0.0015 0.00660

14 0.000167 0.000079 0.001 0.00287
15 0.000167 0.000079 0.0015 0.00180
16 0.000333 0.000787 0.0015 0.00593
17 0.000333 0.000157 0.0015 0.00360
18 0.000333 0.000157 0.0025 0.00047
19 0.000500 0.000236 0.002 0.00120
20 0.000167 0.000315 0.0025 0.00007
21 0.000333 0.000079 0.003 0.00047
22 0.000333 0.000236 0.0025 0.00100
23 0.000167 0.000079 0.0015 0.00220
24 0.000167 0.000079 0.001 0.00153
25 0.000500 0.000157 0.0015 0.00073
26 0.000333 0.000236 0.0015 0.00167
27 0.000167 0.000079 0.002 0.00127
Due to the result of S/N ratio of the relative change in length for
mechanical properties of the 27 runs have been obtained as illustrated in the
Table 5-23.
Table 5-23: Signal to Noise Relative Change in Length for the Mechanical
Properties
S/N ∆L for
No. of S/N ∆L for S/N ∆L for S/N ∆L for
Compressive
Strength
1 69.542 76.055 47.959 61.938
2 75.563 82.076 52.041 43.609
3 75.563 82.076 53.979 67.959
4 66.021 72.534 52.041 44.632
5 75.563 82.076 50.458 45.569
6 69.542 76.055 56.478 46.872
7 63.522 70.035 52.041 45.792
8 66.021 72.534 56.478 48.404
9 66.021 72.534 60.000 52.892
10 61.584 68.097 53.979 43.609
11 63.522 70.035 49.119 50.852
12 21.463 65.174 56.478 44.731
86
Discussion
13 69.542 76.055 56.478 43.609

14 75.563 82.076 60.000 50.852
15 75.563 82.076 56.478 54.895
16 69.542 62.076 56.478 44.534
17 69.542 76.055 56.478 48.874
18 69.542 76.055 52.041 66.620
19 66.021 72.534 53.979 58.416
20 75.563 70.035 52.041 83.522
21 69.542 82.076 50.458 66.620
22 69.542 72.534 52.041 60.000
23 75.563 82.076 56.478 53.152
24 75.563 82.076 60.000 56.287
25 66.021 76.055 56.478 62.694
26 69.542 72.534 56.478 55.563
27 75.563 82.076 53.979 57.947

in the Table 5-24.
𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for ∆L 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for ∆L 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for ∆L 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for ∆L
No. Of
Runs
1 0.111 0.301 1.000 0.541
2 0.000 0.000 0.661 1.000
3 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.390
4 0.543 0.477 0.661 0.974
5 0.000 0.000 0.792 0.951
6 0.111 0.301 0.292 0.918
7 0.223 0.602 0.661 0.945
8 0.176 0.477 0.292 0.880
9 0.176 0.477 0.000 0.767
10 0.258 0.699 0.500 1.000
11 0.223 0.602 0.904 0.819
12 1.000 0.845 0.292 0.972
87
Discussion
13 0.111 0.301 0.292 1.000

14 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.819
15 0.000 0.000 0.292 0.717
16 0.111 1.000 0.292 0.977
17 0.111 0.301 0.292 0.868
18 0.111 0.301 0.661 0.423
19 0.176 0.477 0.500 0.629
20 0.000 0.602 0.661 0.000
21 0.111 0.000 0.792 0.423
22 0.111 0.477 0.661 0.589
23 0.000 0.000 0.292 0.761
24 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.682
25 0.176 0.301 0.292 0.522
26 0.111 0.477 0.292 0.700
27 0.000 0.000 0.500 0.641
from optimization process are listed in the Table 5-25.
∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆L
No. of ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆L ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆L ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆L
Compressive
Runs Impact strength Bending strength Tensile strength
strength
1 0.889 0.699 0.000 0.459
2 1.000 1.000 0.339 0.000
3 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.610
4 1.543 0.523 0.339 0.026
5 1.000 1.000 0.208 0.049
6 0.889 0.699 0.708 0.082
7 0.777 0.398 0.339 0.055
8 0.824 0.523 0.708 0.120
9 0.824 0.523 1.000 0.233
10 0.742 0.301 0.500 0.000
11 0.777 0.398 0.096 0.181
12 0.000 0.155 0.708 0.028
13 0.889 0.699 0.708 0.000
88
Discussion
14 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.181

15 1.000 1.000 0.708 0.283
16 0.889 0.000 0.708 0.023
17 0.889 0.699 0.708 0.132
18 0.889 0.699 0.339 0.577
19 0.824 0.523 0.500 0.371
20 1.000 0.398 0.339 1.000
21 0.889 1.000 0.208 0.577
22 0.889 0.523 0.339 0.411
23 1.000 1.000 0.708 0.239
24 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.318
25 0.824 0.699 0.708 0.478
26 0.889 0.523 0.708 0.300
27 1.000 1.000 0.500 0.359
Table 5-26: The Gray Relational Grad and the Optimization Process
Gray Relational Coefficient
No. Grey
𝜀& (𝑘)for ∆L 𝜀& (𝑘)for ∆L 𝜀& (𝑘 )for ∆L 𝜀& (𝑘)for ∆L
of Relational Rank
Runs Impact Bending Compressive Tensile Grade ( 𝜸𝒊 )
1 0.360 0.417 1.000 0.521 0.575 21
2 0.333 0.333 0.596 1.000 0.566 18
3 0.333 0.333 0.500 0.450 0.404 2
4 0.245 0.489 0.596 0.951 0.570 19
5 0.333 0.333 0.707 0.911 0.571 20
6 0.360 0.417 0.414 0.859 0.513 15
7 0.391 0.557 0.596 0.901 0.611 22
8 0.378 0.489 0.414 0.806 0.522 16
9 0.378 0.489 0.333 0.683 0.471 10
10 0.403 0.624 0.500 1.000 0.632 24
11 0.391 0.557 0.838 0.734 0.630 23
12 1.000 0.763 0.414 0.947 0.781 26
13 0.360 0.417 0.414 1.000 0.548 17
89
Discussion
14 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.734 0.433 4

15 0.333 0.333 0.414 0.639 0.430 3
16 0.360 1.000 0.414 0.956 0.682 25
17 0.360 0.417 0.414 0.791 0.496 13
18 0.360 0.417 0.596 0.464 0.459 8
19 0.378 0.489 0.500 0.574 0.485 12
20 0.333 0.557 0.596 0.333 0.455 7
21 0.360 0.333 0.707 0.464 0.466 9
22 0.360 0.489 0.596 0.549 0.498 14
23 0.333 0.333 0.414 0.677 0.439 6
24 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.612 0.403 1
25 0.378 0.417 0.414 0.511 0.430 3
26 0.360 0.489 0.414 0.625 0.472 11
27 0.333 0.333 0.500 0.582 0.437 5
Figures (5-12) and (5-13) view the main influence diagram for the length.
Based on the S/N ratios, the lower length of dimensional accuracy values are
gained by the minimum values of the S/N ratio. The major influences of S/N ratio
are illustrated in Fig. (5-12), the ratio of S/N is reducing with growing the layer
thickness and printing speed, infill density and printing orientation. Similarly, the
S/N ratio increases with growing the shell thickness. According to the Delta value
the Rank of each input FDM process parameter has been deduced and illustrated
in the Table 5- 27.
The optimum parameters are 100 mm/s printing speed, 0.2 mm layer
thickness, 1.2 mm shell thickness, 80% infill density and 90° printing orientation.
These parameters refer to the specimen number 24.

90
Discussion
Level 1 6.876 6.274 6.099 6.499 6.463

Level 2 5.517 5.281 5.193 5.72 5.927
Level 3 5.127 5.965 6.228 5.301 5.129
Delta 1.749 0.993 1.035 1.198 1.334
Rank 1 5 4 3 2
91
Discussion
(C) Shell Thickness
Figure (5-12): GRA based Taguchi for the Length of Dimensional Accuracy

Fig. (5-13). as it can be clearly seen the effect of process parameters have similar effect
on the mechanical properties of the specimens.
92
Discussion
Figure (5-13): Percentage Contributions of Process Parameters to the Length of

Dimensional Accuracy
2- Width
The width of each specimens have been measure after printing with different
process parameters the 27th for each mechanical property are listed in
Table 5-28.
Table 5-28: Width of Dimensional Accuracy for the Mechanical Properties

Width for
No. of Width for Impact Width for Width for Tensile
compressive
Runs Strength Bending Strength Strength
Strength
1 10.03 12.76 10.07 10.06
2 10.02 12.8 10.08 10.27
3 10.02 12.79 10.12 10.13
4 10.01 12.76 10.09 10.25
5 10.02 12.71 10.08 10.53
6 10.02 12.8 10.13 10.81
7 10.01 12.72 10.11 10.85
8 10.02 12.79 10.16 10.65
9 10.05 12.75 10.14 10.88
10 10.03 12.71 10.11 10.41
11 10.04 12.72 10.22 10.03
12 10.04 12.73 10.19 10.11
13 10.01 12.8 10.15 10.05
14 10.02 12.71 10.12 10.85
15 10.04 12.76 10.08 10.01
16 10.03 12.71 10.06 10.81
17 10.03 12.74 10.1 10.81
18 10.02 12.77 10.02 10.06
19 10.02 12.8 10.12 10.27
20 10.03 12.81 10.1 10.12
21 10.01 12.82 10.11 10.86
22 10.01 12.77 10.07 10.82
23 10.04 12.79 10.04 10.32
24 10.03 12.75 10.09 10.19
93
Discussion
25 10.04 12.78 10.7 10.21

26 10.03 12.74 10.2 10.41
27 10.02 12.77 10.05 10.89
Deviation between measure width of specimen and the original width has
Table 5-29: Relative Change in Width for the Mechanical Properties

∆W for
No. of ∆W for ∆W for ∆W for
compressive
Strength
1 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.006
2 0.002 0.008 0.008 0.027
3 0.002 0.007 0.012 0.013
4 0.001 0.005 0.009 0.025
5 0.002 0.001 0.008 0.053
6 0.002 0.008 0.013 0.081
7 0.001 0.002 0.011 0.085
8 0.002 0.007 0.016 0.065
9 0.005 0.004 0.014 0.088
10 0.003 0.001 0.011 0.041
11 0.004 0.002 0.022 0.003
12 0.004 0.002 0.019 0.011
13 0.001 0.008 0.015 0.005
14 0.002 0.001 0.012 0.085
15 0.004 0.005 0.008 0.001
16 0.003 0.001 0.006 0.081
17 0.003 0.003 0.01 0.081
18 0.002 0.006 0.002 0.006
19 0.002 0.008 0.012 0.027
20 0.003 0.009 0.01 0.012
21 0.001 0.009 0.011 0.086
22 0.001 0.006 0.007 0.082
23 0.004 0.007 0.004 0.032
24 0.003 0.004 0.009 0.019
94
Discussion
25 0.004 0.006 0.07 0.021

26 0.003 0.003 0.02 0.041
27 0.002 0.006 0.005 0.089
Due to the result of S/N ratio of the relative change in width for mechanical
Table 5-30: Signal to Noise Relative Change in Width for the Mechanical
Properties
S/N ∆W for
No. of S/N ∆W for S/N ∆W for S/N ∆W for
Compressive
Strength
1 50.458 46.513 43.098 44.437
2 53.979 42.076 41.938 31.373
3 53.979 42.991 38.416 37.721
4 60.000 46.513 40.915 32.041
5 53.979 62.076 41.938 25.514
6 53.979 42.076 37.721 21.830
7 60.000 56.055 39.172 21.412
8 53.979 42.991 35.918 23.742
9 46.021 48.097 37.077 21.110
10 50.458 62.076 39.172 27.744
11 47.959 56.055 33.152 50.458
12 47.959 52.534 34.425 39.172
13 60.000 42.076 36.478 46.021
14 53.979 62.076 38.416 21.412
15 47.959 46.513 41.938 60.000
16 50.458 62.076 44.437 21.830
17 50.458 50.035 40.000 21.830
18 53.979 45.174 53.979 44.437
19 53.979 42.076 38.416 31.373
20 50.458 41.248 40.000 38.416
21 60.000 40.492 39.172 21.310
22 60.000 45.174 43.098 21.724
23 47.959 42.991 47.959 29.897
24 50.458 48.097 40.915 34.425
25 47.959 44.014 23.098 33.556
95
Discussion
26 50.458 50.035 33.979 27.744

27 53.979 45.174 46.021 21.012

in the Table 5-31.
𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for ∆W 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for ∆W 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for ∆W 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for ∆W
No. Of
Runs
1 0.683 0.384 0.352 0.399
2 0.431 0.494 0.390 0.734
3 0.431 0.471 0.504 0.571
4 0.225 0.384 0.423 0.717
5 0.431 0.000 0.390 0.885
6 0.431 0.494 0.526 0.979
7 0.000 0.149 0.479 0.990
8 0.431 0.471 0.585 0.930
9 1.000 0.345 0.547 0.997
10 0.683 0.000 0.479 0.827
11 0.861 0.149 0.674 0.245
12 0.861 0.236 0.633 0.534
13 0.000 0.494 0.567 0.359
14 0.431 0.000 0.504 0.990
15 0.861 0.384 0.390 0.000
16 0.683 0.000 0.309 0.979
17 0.683 0.297 0.453 0.979
18 0.431 0.417 0.000 0.399
19 0.431 0.494 0.504 0.734
20 0.683 0.514 0.453 0.554
21 0.000 0.533 0.479 0.992
22 0.000 0.417 0.352 0.982
23 0.861 0.471 0.195 0.772
24 0.683 0.345 0.423 0.656
96
Discussion
25 0.861 0.446 1.000 0.678

26 0.683 0.297 0.648 0.827
27 0.431 0.417 0.258 1.000
∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆W
No. Of ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆W ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆W ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆W
Compressive
strength
1 0.317 0.616 0.648 0.601
2 0.569 0.506 0.610 0.266
3 0.569 0.529 0.496 0.429
4 1.225 0.616 0.577 0.283
5 0.569 1.000 0.610 0.115
6 0.569 0.506 0.474 0.021
7 1.000 0.851 0.521 0.010
8 0.569 0.529 0.415 0.070
9 0.000 0.655 0.453 0.003
10 0.317 1.000 0.521 0.173
11 0.139 0.851 0.326 0.755
12 0.139 0.764 0.367 0.466
13 1.000 0.506 0.433 0.641
14 0.569 1.000 0.496 0.010
15 0.139 0.616 0.610 1.000
16 0.317 1.000 0.691 0.021
17 0.317 0.703 0.547 0.021
18 0.569 0.583 1.000 0.601
19 0.569 0.506 0.496 0.266
20 0.317 0.486 0.547 0.446
21 1.000 0.467 0.521 0.008
22 1.000 0.583 0.648 0.018
23 0.139 0.529 0.805 0.228
24 0.317 0.655 0.577 0.344
25 0.139 0.554 0.000 0.322
97
Discussion
26 0.317 0.703 0.352 0.173

27 0.569 0.583 0.742 0.000
Grey Relational Coefficient
No. 𝜀& (𝑘 )for 𝜀& (𝑘 )for 𝜀& (𝑘 )for 𝜀& (𝑘 )for Grey
of ∆W ∆W ∆W ∆W Relational Rank
Runs Impact Bending Compressive Tensile Grade ( 𝜸𝒊 )
1 0.612 0.867 0.436 0.454 0.592 4
2 0.468 0.961 0.450 0.653 0.633 11
3 0.468 0.940 0.502 0.538 0.612 7
4 0.290 0.867 0.464 0.639 0.565 2
5 0.468 0.645 0.450 0.812 0.594 5
6 0.468 0.961 0.514 0.960 0.726 23
7 0.333 0.716 0.490 0.980 0.630 10
8 0.468 0.940 0.546 0.877 0.708 21
9 1.000 0.837 0.525 0.995 0.839 25
10 0.612 0.645 0.490 0.743 0.622 8
11 0.783 0.716 0.606 0.398 0.626 9
12 0.783 0.765 0.577 0.518 0.661 16
13 0.333 0.961 0.536 0.438 0.567 3
14 0.468 0.645 0.502 0.980 0.649 13
15 0.783 0.867 0.450 0.333 0.608 6
16 0.612 0.645 0.420 0.960 0.659 15
17 0.612 0.837 0.464 0.592 0.626 9
18 0.612 0.804 0.477 0.960 0.713 22
19 0.468 0.961 0.502 0.653 0.646 12
20 0.612 0.981 0.477 0.528 0.650 14
21 0.333 1.000 0.490 0.985 0.702 20
22 0.333 0.893 0.436 0.965 0.657 15
23 0.783 0.940 0.383 0.687 0.698 19
24 0.468 0.893 0.333 0.454 0.537 1
98
Discussion
25 0.783 0.917 1.000 0.608 0.827 24

26 0.612 0.804 0.587 0.743 0.686 17
27 0.468 0.893 0.402 1.000 0.691 18
Figures (5-14) and (5-15) displays the main influence diagram for the
width. Based on the S/N ratios, the lower length of the dimensional accuracy
values are gained by the minimum values of S/N ratio. The major influences of
S/N ratio are illustrated in Fig. (5-14), the ratio of S/N is reducing with growing
the layer thickness and printing speed. Similarly, the S/N ratio is reducing with
growing the shell thickness, infill density and printing orientation. According to
the Delta value the Rank of each input FDM process parameter has been deduced
and illustrated in the Table 5- 34.
On the bases of analyses of the S/N ratio, the process parameters optimized
to achieve the lower dimensional accuracy are shown in Table 5-34, and the
optimum parameters are 100 mm/s printing speed, 0.2 mm layer thickness, 1.2
mm shell thickness, 80% infill density and 90° printing orientation. These
parameters refer to the specimen number 24.
Level 1 4.209 3.911 3.953 3.997 3.992
Level 2 3.734 3.306 3.574 3.769 3.726
Level 3 3.161 3.888 3.578 3.338 3.457
Delta 1.048 0.605 0.379 0.659 0.535
Rank 1 3 5 2 4
99
Discussion
(C) Shell Thickness
Figure (5-14): GRA based Taguchi for the Width of Dimensional Accuracy
Fig. (5-15). as it can be clearly seen the effect of other process parameter have largest
effect than other pointers on the mechanical properties of the specimens while the other
process has close effect on mechanical properties.
100
Discussion
Figure (5-15): Percentage Contributions of Process Parameters to the Width of

3-Thickness: The thickness of each specimens have been measure after printing
with different process parameters the 27th for each mechanical property are listed
in Table 5-35.
Table 5-35: Thickness of Dimensional Accuracy for the Mechanical Properties
Thickness for
No. of Thickness for Thickness for Thickness for
compressive
Strength
1 10.08 3.24 10.7 10.07
2 10.05 3.21 10.7 10.06
3 10.04 3.35 10.7 10.27
4 10.05 3.37 10.3 10.12
5 10.06 3.37 10.5 10.96
6 10.03 3.28 10.65 10.11
7 10.05 3.38 10.11 10.95
8 10.03 3.4 10.25 10.09
9 10.02 3.5 10.2 10.97
10 10.04 3.37 10.6 10.01
11 10.07 3.28 10.9 10.92
12 10.03 3.29 10.11 10.96
13 10.03 3.22 10.32 10.67
14 10.02 3.24 10.95 10.16
15 10.03 3.34 10.31 10.64
16 10.03 3.37 10.25 10.97
17 10.03 3.33 10.9 10.01
18 10.05 3.29 10.2 10.11
19 10.04 3.22 10.13 10.94
20 10.05 3.32 10.3 10.11
21 10.06 3.28 10.2 10.04
22 10.05 3.27 10.7 10.07
23 10.03 3.33 10.4 10.05
24 10.02 3.36 10.18 10.09
25 10.03 3.32 10.7 10.91
101
Discussion
26 10.03 3.26 10.2 10.99

27 10.04 3.24 10.15 10.93
Deviation between measure width of specimen and the original width has
Table 5-36: Relative Change in Thickness for the Mechanical Properties

∆T for
No. of ∆T for ∆T for ∆T for
compressive
Strength
1 0.008 0.013 0.07 0.007
2 0.005 0.003 0.07 0.006
3 0.004 0.047 0.07 0.027
4 0.005 0.053 0.03 0.012
5 0.006 0.053 0.05 0.096
6 0.003 0.025 0.065 0.011
7 0.005 0.056 0.011 0.095
8 0.003 0.062 0.025 0.009
9 0.002 0.094 0.02 0.097
10 0.004 0.053 0.06 0.001
11 0.007 0.025 0.09 0.092
12 0.003 0.028 0.011 0.096
13 0.003 0.006 0.032 0.067
14 0.002 0.013 0.095 0.016
15 0.003 0.044 0.031 0.064
16 0.003 0.053 0.025 0.097
17 0.003 0.041 0.09 0.001
18 0.005 0.028 0.02 0.011
19 0.004 0.006 0.013 0.094
20 0.005 0.037 0.03 0.011
21 0.006 0.025 0.02 0.004
22 0.005 0.022 0.07 0.007
23 0.003 0.041 0.04 0.005
24 0.002 0.050 0.018 0.009
25 0.003 0.037 0.07 0.091
102
Discussion
26 0.003 0.019 0.02 0.099

27 0.004 0.013 0.015 0.093
Due to the result of S/N ratio of the relative change in width for mechanical
Table 5-37: Signal to Noise Relative Change in Thickness for the Mechanical
Properties
S/N ∆T for
No. of S/N ∆T for S/N ∆T for S/N ∆T for
Compressive
Strength
1 41.938 38.062 23.098 43.098
2 46.021 50.103 23.098 44.437
3 47.959 26.581 23.098 31.373
4 46.021 25.494 30.458 38.416
5 44.437 25.494 26.021 20.355
6 50.458 32.041 23.742 39.172
7 46.021 24.998 39.172 20.446
8 50.458 24.082 32.041 40.915
9 53.979 20.561 33.979 20.265
10 47.959 25.494 24.437 60.000
11 43.098 32.041 20.915 20.724
12 50.458 31.018 39.172 20.355
13 50.458 44.082 29.897 23.479
14 53.979 38.062 20.446 35.918
15 50.458 27.180 30.173 23.876
16 50.458 25.494 32.041 20.265
17 50.458 27.824 20.915 60.000
18 46.021 31.018 33.979 39.172
19 47.959 44.082 37.721 20.537
20 46.021 28.519 30.458 39.172
21 44.437 32.041 33.979 47.959
22 46.021 33.201 23.098 43.098
23 50.458 27.824 27.959 46.021
24 53.979 26.021 34.895 40.915
25 50.458 28.519 23.098 20.819
103
Discussion
26 50.458 34.540 33.979 20.087

27 47.959 38.062 36.478 20.630

in the Table 5-38.
𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for ∆T 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for ∆T 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for ∆T 𝒙∗𝒊 (𝒌) for ∆T
No. Of
Runs
1 1.000 0.586 0.858 0.423
2 0.661 0.000 0.858 0.390
3 0.500 1.144 0.858 0.717
4 0.661 1.197 0.465 0.541
5 0.792 1.197 0.702 0.993
6 0.292 0.878 0.824 0.522
7 0.661 1.221 0.000 0.991
8 0.292 1.266 0.381 0.478
9 0.000 1.437 0.277 0.996
10 0.500 1.197 0.787 0.000
11 0.904 0.878 0.975 0.984
12 0.292 0.928 0.000 0.993
13 0.292 0.293 0.495 0.915
14 0.000 0.586 1.000 0.603
15 0.292 1.115 0.481 0.905
16 0.292 1.197 0.381 0.996
17 0.292 1.084 0.975 0.000
18 0.661 0.928 0.277 0.522
19 0.500 0.293 0.077 0.989
20 0.661 1.050 0.465 0.522
21 0.792 0.878 0.277 0.302
22 0.661 0.822 0.858 0.423
23 0.292 1.084 0.599 0.350
24 0.000 1.171 0.228 0.478
25 0.292 1.050 0.858 0.982
104
Discussion
26 0.292 0.757 0.277 1.000

27 0.500 0.586 0.144 0.986
∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆T
No. Of ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆T ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆T ∆𝟎𝐢 (𝐤) for ∆T
Compressive
strength
1 0.000 0.414 0.142 0.577
2 0.339 1.000 0.142 0.610
3 0.500 0.144 0.142 0.283
4 0.339 0.197 0.535 0.459
5 0.208 0.197 0.298 0.007
6 0.708 0.122 0.176 0.478
7 0.339 0.221 1.000 0.009
8 0.708 0.266 0.619 0.522
9 1.000 0.437 0.723 0.004
10 0.500 0.197 0.213 1.000
11 0.096 0.122 0.025 0.016
12 0.708 0.072 1.000 0.007
13 0.708 0.707 0.505 0.085
14 1.000 0.414 0.000 0.397
15 0.708 0.115 0.519 0.095
16 0.708 0.197 0.619 0.004
17 0.708 0.084 0.025 1.000
18 0.339 0.072 0.723 0.478
19 0.500 0.707 0.923 0.011
20 0.339 0.050 0.535 0.478
21 0.208 0.122 0.723 0.698
22 0.339 0.178 0.142 0.577
23 0.708 0.084 0.401 0.650
24 1.000 0.171 0.772 0.522
25 0.708 0.050 0.142 0.018
26 0.708 0.243 0.723 0.000
27 0.500 0.414 0.856 0.014
105
Discussion
Gray Relational Coefficient
No. Grey
𝜀& (𝑘)for ∆T 𝜀& (𝑘)for ∆T 𝜀& (𝑘 )for ∆T 𝜀& (𝑘)for ∆T Relational
of Rank
Runs Grade ( 𝜸𝒊 )
1 1.000 0.069 0.779 0.464 0.578 22
2 0.596 0.042 0.779 0.450 0.467 13
3 0.500 0.177 0.779 0.639 0.524 19
4 0.596 0.208 0.483 0.521 0.452 9
5 0.707 0.208 0.627 0.987 0.632 23
6 0.414 0.102 0.740 0.511 0.442 8
7 0.596 0.226 0.333 0.982 0.535 20
8 0.414 0.269 0.447 0.489 0.405 3
9 0.333 1.000 0.409 0.991 0.683 24
10 0.500 0.208 0.701 0.333 0.436 7
11 0.838 0.102 0.952 0.969 0.715 25
12 0.414 0.110 0.333 0.987 0.461 11
13 0.414 0.052 0.498 0.855 0.455 10
14 0.333 0.069 1.000 0.558 0.490 17
15 0.414 0.164 0.490 0.840 0.477 14
16 0.414 0.208 0.447 0.991 0.515 18
17 0.414 0.152 0.952 0.333 0.463 12
18 0.596 0.110 0.409 0.511 0.407 4
19 0.500 0.052 0.352 0.978 0.470 13
20 0.596 0.140 0.483 0.511 0.433 6
21 0.707 0.102 0.409 0.417 0.409 5
22 0.596 0.093 0.779 0.464 0.483 15
23 0.414 0.152 0.555 0.435 0.389 2
24 0.333 0.192 0.393 0.489 0.352 1
106
Discussion
25 0.414 0.140 0.779 0.965 0.575 21

26 0.414 0.085 0.409 1.000 0.477 14
27 0.500 0.069 0.369 0.974 0.478 15
Figures (5-16) and (5-17) illustrates the main influence diagram for the
thickness. According to the S/N ratios, the lower dimensional accuracy values are
gained by the minimum values of S/N ratio. The major influences of S/N ratio
illustrated in Fig. (5-16), the ratio of S/N is reducing with growing the layer
thickness and printing speed. Similarly S/N ratio is reducing with growing the
shell thickness, infill density and printing orientation. According to the Delta
value the Rank of each input FDM process parameter has been deduced and
illustrated in the Table 5- 41.
On the bases of analyses of the S/N ratio, the process parameters optimized
to achieve the lower dimensional accuracy are shown in Table 5-41, and the
optimum parameters are 100 mm/s printing speed, 0.2 mm layer thickness, 1.2
mm shell thickness, 80% infill density and 90° printing orientation. These
parameters refer to the number of specimen, which is 24.

Level 1 6.983 6.781 6.761 6.549 6.693
Level 2 6.287 6.059 5.831 6.338 6.34
Level 3 5.729 6.16 6.407 6.012 6.066
Delta 1.254 0.722 0.93 0.537 0.627
Rank 1 3 2 5 4
107
Discussion
(C) Shell Thickness
Figure (5-16): GRA based Taguchi for the Thickness of Dimensional Accuracy

Fig. (5-17). as it can be clearly seen the effect of process parameters have similar effect
on the mechanical properties of the specimens.
108
Discussion
Figure (5-17): Percentage Contributions of Process Parameters to the Thickness of

109
Chapter Six Conclusion & Suggestions for Future
Work
CHAPTER SIX
6. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
FUTURE WORK
6.1. Conclusions
Based on the results of the previous chapter, the following important
conclusions were reached:
1. The relationship between the mechanical properties (impact strength, bending

strength, compressive strength and tensile strength) and the process parameters
(print speed, layer thickness and shell thickness) is a positive one, the
mechanical properties increase with the increases of the process parameters
with different percentage.
2. For the specimens subjected to impact strength, compressive strength, bending
strength and tensile strength, the optimal value was found for the specimens
printed at 45.
3. The optimal levels of the PLA specimens for impact strength, bending strength
and tensile strength were Printing speed 50 mm/s, Layer thickness 0.1 mm,
Shell thickness 2 mm, Infill density 80%, and Part orientation at 45°.
4. The parameters arranged as the most important and affecting on the impact
strength, bending strength and tensile strength are Infill density, Printing speed,
Layer thickness, Shell thickness, and Part orientation.
5. The optimal levels of the PLA specimens for compressive strength were Print
speed 100 mm/s, Layer thickness 0.1 mm, Shell thickness 1.6 mm, Infill density
80%, and Part orientation at 45.
6. The optimal compressive properties vary with the different process parameters.
Therefore, the influence of the parameters on the compressive strength
arranged as the most important and affecting on this property is as follows:
110
Work
Infill density, Shell thickness, Part orientation, Print speed, and Layer
thickness.
7. When searching for fast printing but not mechanical properties, the lower infill
density is recommended, the infill density decreased, the gap between the
printed filaments became larger, and this takes long time comparing with
other infill density.
8. The Grey Relational Analyses based on the Taguchi procedure has been used
as method to optimize the process parameters of FDM.
9. As the output of optimization method grey relational grade, it is found the
largest value of grey relational grade for printing speed at 50 mm/s, layer
thickness at 0.1mm, shell thickness at 2 mm, infill density at 80% and printing
orientation at 45.
10. The optimized process parameters for printing time and surface roughness;
printing speed at 100 mm/s, layer thicknesses at 0.3 mm, shell thickness at 1.6
mm, infill density at 20% and printing orientation at 90.
11. The optimum parameters for dimension accuracy are printing speed at 100
mm/s, layer thicknesses at 0.2 mm, shell thickness at 1.2 mm, infill density at
80% and printing orientation at 90°.
111
Work
6.2. Suggestions for Future work
1- Using the genetic method to obtain the optimal process parameters for Fused
Deposition Modeling.
2- Investigation and optimization of the process parameter on other mechanical

properties.
3- Comparison of the result between the optimization method using Taguchi and
factorial design.
4-Use other optimization techniques such as analytic hierarchy process (AHP),

Multi-Objective Optimization on Basis of Ratio Analysis (MOORA), Technique
for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS).
112
References
7. References
[1] D. yagnik, "Fused Deposition Modeling – A Rapid Prototyping technique

for Product Cycle Time Reduction cost effectively in Aerospace
Applications," presented at the International Conference on Advances in
Engineering & Technology – (ICAET), 2014
[2] M. P. Groover, "Fundamentals of modern manufacturing, materials,

processes and systems", Fourth ed. John Wiley & Sons,Inc., 2010.
[3] T. K. Benjaminsen, "Rapid Prototyping CNC," Master Thesis, Department

of Informaion, university of Oslo, 2015.
[4] R. Bansal, "Improving dimensional accuracy of fused deposition modelling

(FDM) parts using response surface methodology," Thesis, Master Degree,
Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, 2011.
[5] J. Edgar and S. Tint, “Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing,

Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing”, , 2nd Edition ed.
(Johnson Matthey Technology Review, no. 3). 2015, pp. 193-198.
[6] R. Hashemi Sanatgar, C. Campagne, and V. Nierstrasz, "Investigation of

the adhesion properties of direct 3D printing of polymers and
nanocomposites on textiles: Effect of FDM printing process parameters,"
Applied Surface Science, vol. 403, pp. 551-563, 2017.
[7] F. Baumann and D. Roller, "Additive Manufacturing, Cloud-Based 3D

Printing and Associated Services—Overview," Journal of Manufacturing
and Materials Processing, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 15, 2017.
113
References
[8] I. Gibson, "Advanced Manufacturing Technology for Medical

Applications: Reverse Engineering, Software Conversion and Rapid
Prototyping". JohnWiley & Sons Ltd., 2005.
[9] Alexandros Beiker Kair, "Additive Manufacturing and Production of

Metallic Parts in Automotive Industry," Master Thesis, Production
Engineering and Management, Kth Royal Institute of Technology, 2014.
[10] A. Pîrjan and D. Petroşanu, "The Impact of 3D Printing Technologyon The

Socity and Economy," Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 12, no. 4, pp.
316-324, 2014.
[11] I. L. SERIES, "Rapid Prototyping & Manufacturing Technologies," The

Hong Kong Polytechnic University Industrial Centre, 2012.
[12] M. E. Hoque, M. E. Hoque, Ed. "Rapid Prototping Technology - Principles

and Functional Requiremenrs" (Intechweb.org). Croatia, 2011.
[13] M. Spoerk , F. Arbeiter , H. Cajner, J. Sapkota , and C. Holzer, "Parametric

optimization of intra- and inter-layer strengths in parts produced by
extrusion-based additive manufacturing of poly(lactic acid)," Journal of
Applied Polymer Science, vol. 134, no. 41, pp. 45401 -45416, 2017.
[14] Ozan Avinc and Akbar Khoddami, "Overview of Poly(Lactic Acide) (PLA)
Fiber: Production, Properties, Performance, Environmental Impact, and
End-use Applications of Poly(lactic acid) Fibres," Journal of Fibre
Chemistry, vol. 41, no. 6, 2009.
[15] Lee B., Abdullah J., and Khan Z., "Optimization of Rapid Prototyping
Parameters for Production of Flexible ABS Object," Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, vol. 169, no. 1, pp. 54-61, 2005.
114
References
[16] A. Ramya and Sai leela Vanapalli, "3D Printing Technologies in Various
Applications," International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and
Technology (IJMET), vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 396-409, 2016.
[17] R. Anitha, S. Arunachalam, and P. Radhakrishnan, "Critical parameters

influncing the quality of prototypes in fused deposition modelling," Journal
of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 118, pp. 385-388, 2001.
[18] P. K. Mallick, "Fiber - Composites Materials, Manufacturing and Deesign

Reinforced" Taylor & Francis Group, LLC., 2007.
[19] S. Bhandari and B. Regina, "3D Printing and Its Applications,"

International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology
Research, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 378-380, 2014.
[20] S. Aarnio, "Rapid Prototyping " Brandenburg University of Technology,

2010.
[21] Chua C. K., Leong K. F., and Lim C. S., Rapid Prototyping..Principles and
Applications 2nd ed. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.,
2003.
[22] F. W. LIOU, "Rapid Prototyping and Engineering Applications "

(Mechanical Engineering, A Series of Textbooks and Reference Books).
Taylor & Francis Group LLC, 2008.
[23] Ojas Dandgaval and Pranita Bichkar, "Rapid Prototyping Technology-

Study of Fused Deposition Modeling Technique," International Journal of
Mechanical And Production Engineering, vol. 4, no. 4, 2016.
[24] F. Rayegani and G. C. Onwubolu, "Fused deposition modelling (FDM)

process parameter prediction and optimization using group method for data
handling (GMDH) and differential evolution (DE)," The International
115
References
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 73, no. 1-4, pp. 509-
519, 2014.
[25] Shwetha K, H N Narasimha Murthy, K V S Rajeswara Rao, N S Narahari,

Rohit Agarwal, and Rahul Singh, "Parametric study of Fused Deposition
Modelling by Design of Experiments," International Journal Of
Advancement In Engineering Technology, Management and Applied
Science (IJAETMAS), vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 202-212, May-2017.
[26] D. K. G. b. N. Mohammed Raffic , Palaniappan P. L , P. RajeshKannan ,

N. S. Santhanabharathi , S. Venkatramanan "Effect of Fdm Process
Parameters in ABS Plastic Material," International Journal on Mechanical
and Production Engineering, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 14-23, 2017.
[27] L. u. NOVAKOVA - MARCINCINOVA and J. o. NOVAK -

MARCINCIN, "Applications of Rapid Prototyping Fused Deposition
Modeling Materials," Annals of DAAAM for 2012 & Proceedings of the
23rd International DAAAM Symposium, vol. 23, no. No.1, pp. 56-60, 2012.
[28] A. M. Forster, "Materials Testing Standards for Additive Manufacturing of

Polymer," in "National Institute of Standards and Technology," 2015.
[29] T. Letcher and M. Waytashek, "Material Property Testing of 3D-Printed

Specimen in PLA on an Entry-Level 3D Printer," presented at the the
ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition
IMECE2014, Canada, 2014.
[30] John Sarik, James Scott, Alex Butler, Steve Hodges, and Nicolas Villar,
"Combining 3D printing and printable electronics," Rapid Prototyping
Journal, vol. 10, pp. 56-66, 2012.
116
References
[31] Ad van Wijk and Iris van Wijk, "3D Printing with Biomaterials Towards
a Sustainable and Circular Economy". Published by IOS Press under the
imprint Delft University Press, 2015.
[32] G. Tama, "History in 3D : The Digital Preservation of Cultural Heritage in

an Age of Terrorism," International Journal of Mechanical Engineering
and Technology vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 167-175, 2017.
[33] R. Matsuzaki et al., "Three-dimensional printing of continuous-fiber

composites by in-nozzle impregnation," Sci Rep, vol. 6, p. 23058, Mar 11
2016.
[34] O. S. Es-Said, J. Foyos, R. Noorani, M. Mendelson, R. Marloth, and B. A.

Pregger, "Effect of Layer Orientation on Mechanical Properties of Rapid
Prototyped Samples," Materials and Manufacturing Processes, vol. 15, no.
1, pp. 107-122, 2000.
[35] Ahn S. , Montero M., Odell D., Roundy Sh., and Wright P.K., "Anisotropic
material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS," Rapid Prototyping
Journal, vol. 8, no. No.4, pp. 248-257, 2002.
[36] A. K. Sood, R. K. Ohdar, and S. S. Mahapatra, "Parametric appraisal of

mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed parts,"
Materials & Design, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 287-295, 2010.
[37] Dietmar Drummer, Sandra Cifuentes-Cuellar, and Dominik Rietzel,

"Suitability of PLA/TCP for fused deposition modeling," Rapid
Prototyping Journal, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 500-507, 2012.
[38] Tymrak B. M., Kreiger M., and Pearce J. M., "Mechanical properties of
components fabricated with open-source 3-D printers under realistic
117
References
environmental conditions," Materials & Design, vol. 58, pp. 242-246,

2014.
[39] O. Lužanin, D. Movrin, and M. Plančak, "Effect of Layer Thickness,

Deposition Angle and Infill on Maximum Flexural Force in FDM-Built
Specimens," Journal for Technology of Plasticity, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 48-58,
2014.
[40] K. Álvarez, R. F. Lagos, and M. Aizpun, "Investigating the influence of

infill percentage on the mechanical properties of fused deposition modelled
ABS parts," Ingeniería e Investigación, vol. 36, no. 3, p. 110, 2016.
[41] L. Zarybnicka and K. Dvorak, "Optimization of Parameters for 3D Print for

Acrylonitrile - Butadiene- Styrene by Fused Deposition Modeling,"
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET),
vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 1054-1058, 2017.
[42] U. Kshitiz, D. Ravi, and S. Kumar, Wimpenny David Ian, Pandey Pulak
M., Kumar L. Jyothish, and Eds. "Determination and Comparison of the
Anisotropic Strengths of Fused Deposition Modeling P400 ABS"
(Advances in 3D Printing & Additive Manufacturing Technologies).
Springer Science+Business Media Singapore Pte Ltd., 2017, pp. 9-28.
[43] Thrimurthulu K., Pandey Pulak M., and Venkata Reddy N., "Optimum part
deposition orientation in fused deposition modeling," International Journal
of Machine Tools and Manufacture, vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 585-594, 2004.
[44] N. S. A. Bakar, M. R. Alkahari, and H. Boejang, "Analysis on fused

deposition modelling performance," Journal of Zhejiang University-
SCIENCE A, vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 972-977, 2010.
118
References
[45] Thomas Kopplmayr and M. Muhlberger, "Inkjet printing of polylactic acid

on substrates prepared by fused deposition modeling and its potential for
selective surface finishing," Journal of Applied Polymer Science, vol. 133,
no. 23, 2016.
[46] Anoop Kumar Sood, R.K. Ohdar, and S.S. Mahapatra, "Improving
dimensional accuracy of Fused Deposition Modelling processed part using
grey Taguchi method," Journal of Materials and Design, vol. 30, pp. 4243–
4252, 2009.
[47] T. Nancharaiah , D. Ranga Raju, and V. Ramachandra Raju, "An

experimental investigation on surface quality and dimensional accuracy of
FDM components," International Journal on Emerging Technologies, vol.
1, no. 2, pp. 106-111, 2010.
[48] R. K. Sahu, S. S. Mahapatra, and A. K. Sood, "A Study on Dimensional

Accuracy of Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) Processed Parts using
Fuzzy Logic," Journal for Manufacturing Science & Production, vol. 13,
no. 3, 2013.
[49] Che Chung Wang, Ta-Wei Lin, and Shr-Shiung Hu, "Optimizing the rapid
prototyping process by integrating the Taguchi method with the Gray
relational analysis," Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 304-315,
2007.
[50] G. R. N. Tagore, S. D. Anjikar, and A. Gopal, "Multi Objective

Optimization of Bulid Orientation for Rapid Prototyping with Fused
Deposition Modeling (FDM)," In: Seventeenth Solid Freeform Fabrication
(SFF) Symposium, , no. Austin,, pp. 246-255, 2007.
119
References
[51] Anoop Kumar Sood and R. K. Ohdar, "Grey Taguchi Method for
Improving Dimensional Accuracy of FDM Process," AIMS International
Conference on Value-based Management, pp. 6-8-613, 2010.
[52] M. S. Azad and A. B. Puri, "Simultaneous optimisation of multiple

performance characteristics in micro-EDM drilling of titanium alloy," The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 61, no.
9, 2012.
[53] S. Dinesh Kumar, V. Nirmal Kannan, and G. Sankaranarayanan,

"Parameter Optimization of ABS-M30i Parts Produced by Fused
Deposition Modeling for Minimum Surface Roughness," International
Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, no. Special Issue-3, pp.
93-97, 2014.
[54] V. B. Nidagundi, R. Keshavamurthy, and C. P. S. Prakash, "Studies on

Parametric Optimization for Fused Deposition Modelling Process,"
Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 2, no. 4-5, pp. 1691-1699, 2015.
[55] A. Lanzotti, D. Eujin Pei, M. Grasso, G. Staiano, and M. Martorelli, "The

impact of process parameters on mechanical properties of parts fabricated
in PLA with an open-source 3-D printer," Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol.
21, no. 5, pp. 604-617, 2015.
[56] Cany Mendonsa, KV Naveen, Prathik Upadhyaya, and Vyas Darshan

Shenoy, "Influence of FDM Process Parameters on Build Time Using
Taguchi and ANOVA Approach," International Journal of Science and
Research (IJSR), vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 330-333, 2015.
[57] Priyank B Patel, Jaksan D. Patel, and K. D. Maniya, "Evaluation of FDM

Process Parameter for PLA Material by Using MOORA-TOPSIS Method,"
120
References
International Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Technology vol. 3, no.

1, pp. 84-93, 2015.
[58] Wu Wenzheng , Geng Peng, Li Guiwei, Zhao Di, Zhang Haibo, and Zhao
Ji, "Influence of Layer Thickness and Raster Angle on the Mechanical
Properties of 3D-Printed PEEK and a Comparative Mechanical Study
between PEEK and ABS," Materials journal vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 5834-5846,
2015.
[59] Srinivas Athreya and Dr Y.D.Venkatesh, "Application Of Taguchi Method

For Optimization Of Process Parameters In Improving The Surface
Roughness Of Lathe Facing Operation," International Refereed Journal of
Engineering and Science (IRJES), vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 13-19, November 2012.
[60] M. B. Silva, L. M. Carneiro, J. P. A. Silva, I. dos Santos Oliveira, H. J. I.

Filho, and C. R. de Oliveira Almeida, "An Application of the Taguchi
Method (Robust Design) to Environmental Engineering: Evaluating
Advanced Oxidative Processes in Polyester-Resin Wastewater Treatment,"
American Journal of Analytical Chemistry, vol. 05, no. 13, pp. 828-837,
2014.
[61] S. R. J. Cantrell, D. Damiani, R. Gurnani, L. DiSandro, J. Anton, A. Young,

A. Jerez,D. Steinbach, C. Kroese, and P. Ifju, "Experimental
Characterization of the Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed ABS and
Polycarbonate Parts," Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol. 23, no. 4, 2017.
[62] Jiju Antony and Frenie Jiju Antony, "Teaching the Taguchi Method to
Industrial Engineers," Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 141-
149, 2001.
121
References
[63] Shyam Kumar Karna and Dr. Rajeshwar Sahai, "An Overview on Taguchi
Method," International Journal of Engineering and Mathematical
Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 11-18, June 2012.
[64] Uğur Eşme, "Application of Taguchi Method for the Optimization of

resiistance Spot Welding Process," The Arabian Journal for Science and
Engineering, vol. 43, no. 2B, 2009.
[65] J. L. Rosa, A. Robin, M. B. Silva, C. A. Baldan, and M. P. Peres,

"Electrodeposition of copper on titanium wires: Taguchi experimental
design approach," Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 209,
no. 3, pp. 1181-1188, 2009.
[66] A. Kumar, "A Detail Study of Taguchi Technique," INTERNATIONAL

JOURNAL OF R&D IN ENGINEERING, SCIENCE AND
MANAGEMENT, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1-9, 2017.
[67] D. C. MONTGOMERY, S. Edition, Ed. Introduction to Statistical Quality

Control. Printed in the United States of America.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
, 2009.
[68] Jagdish Khatwani, "Stattistical Modeling and Optimization of Mechanical

Properties for Solidified Polylactic Acid Parts Fabricated by Fused
Filament Modeling Process," Thesis, Master of Engineering, Mechanical
Engineering Departement, Thapar University, Patiala, 2016.
[69] Shubhra Banerji, "Orthogonal Array Approach for Test Case

Optimization," International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer
and Communication Engineering, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 613-621, 2012.
[70] Roselina Sallehuddin, Siti Mariyam, Hj. Shamsuddin, Siti Zaiton, and
Mohd Hashim, "Grey Relational Analysis and Its Application on
122
References
Multivariate Time Series.," The International Journal of Advanced

Manufacturing Technology, vol. 18, no. 6, 2008.
[71] Y. Kuo, T. Yang, and G.-W. Huang, "The use of grey relational analysis in
solving multiple attribute decision-making problems," Computers &
Industrial Engineering, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 80-93, 2008.
[72] Geeta Nagpal, Moin Uddin, and Arvinder Kaur, "Grey Relational Effort
Analysis Technique Using Regression Methods for Software Estimation,"
The International Arab Journal of Information Technology,, vol. 115, pp.
437-446, 2014.
[73] G. Kumar, "Multi Objective Optimization of Cutting and Geometric

parameters in turning operation to Reduce Cutting forces and Surface
Roughness," Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology,
India, 2014.
[74] Santosh Tamang and M Chandrasekaran, "Multi Response Optimization of

Surface Roughness and Tool Wear in Turning AL/SIC Particulate Metal
Matrix Composites Using Taguchi Grey Relation Analysis," Journal of
Manufacturing Technology vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 14-29, 2013.
[75] H. Hamod, "Suitability of recycled HDPE for 3D printing filament," master

dgree in Plastics Technology, Arcada University of Applied Science, 2014.
[76] M. Jamshidian, E. A. Tehrany, M. Imran, M. Jacquot, and S. Desobry,

"Poly-Lactic Acid: Production, Applications, Nanocomposites, and
Release Studies," Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food
Safety, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 552-571, 2010.
[77] Nikita Khlystov, Daniel Lizardo, Keisuke Matsushita, and Jennie Zheng,
"Uniaxial Tension and Compression Testing of Materials," 2013.
123
References
[78] S. A. LOMBARDI, G. D. CHON, J. JIN-WU LEE, H. LANE, and K. T.

PAYNTER, "Shell Hardness and Compressive Strength of the Eastern
Oyster, Crassostrea virginica, and the Asian Oyster, Crassostrea
ariakensis," pp. 175–183, 2013.
[79] J.P. Nunes, A.S. Pouzada, and C. A. Bernardo, "The use of a three-point
support flexural test to predict the stiffness of anisotropic composite plates
in bending," Polymer Testing, vol. 21, pp. 27-33, 2002.
[80] M. S. Hossain, J. Ramos, D. Espalin, M. Perez, and R. Wicker, "Improving

Tensile Mechanical Properties of FDM-Manufactured Specimens via
Modifying Build Parameters," Solid Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX,
pp. 380-391, 2013.
124
Appendix
Appendix A
Ultimaker 2+ Machine Specifications
Dimensions 342 x 357 x 388 mm

(13.5 x 14.0 x 15.3 inches)
Weight: 11.3 kg (399 ounces)
Layer Resolution 0.25 mm nozzle: 150 to 60 micron

0.4 mm nozzle: 200 to 20 micron
Build plate 50 °C to 100 °C heated glass build

plate
Print technology Fused filament fabrication (FFF)
Print head travel speed 30 to 300 mm/s
XYZ resolution 12.5, 12.5, 5 micron
Nozzle diameter 0.25, 0.4, 0.6 and 0.8 mm nozzles
Nozzle temperature 180 °C to 260 °C
Materials: Filament diameter 2.85 mm
125
Appendix
Appendix B
Impact Device Specifications
Characteristics
Max. 22 J / ISO 180 | XJU series
5.5 J
Impact Energy
Less than 0.05 J

Free Impact Energy Loss
3.5 m/s
Impact Speed
160°
Pendulum Initial Angle
2.75 J
Pendulum Weight
Appendix C
Bending, Compressive and Tensile Device Specifications
Test Speed
0.001-500 mm/min
Max. Capasity
100N, 200N, 500N
0.25 %
Load Accuracy
0.1 %
Speed accurate
Ac 220V 5-/60HZ 10A

Power Supply
163 Kg
Weight
126
Appendix
Appendix D
Surface Roughness Device Specifications
Measuring Range 160µm
Roughness Standards ISO/DIN/JIS/ANSI

2 µm
Stylus Tip Radius
Diamond
Stylus Tip Material
4mN(0.4gf)
Measuring Force
90°
Stylus Tip Angle
Less than or equal 10%
Accuracy
141 X 56 X 48mm
Dimension
430 g
Weight
127
‫ا ﻟ ﺧ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ﻼ ﺻ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـ ـﺔ‬
‫‪ LK‬اﺣﺪى ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎت )‪(Fused Deposition Modeling‬ﻧﻤﺬﺟﺔ اﻟ*‪+‬ﺳ)ﺐ اﳌﻨﺼ‪%‬ﺮ‬
‫اﻟﻨﻤﺎذﺟﺔ اﻟﺴﺮ‪c‬ﻌﺔ ﻟﺘﻄﻮ_ﺮ أﺟﺰاء ﺣﻴﺚ ‪M‬ﺴﺘﺨﺪم ﻋ‪ SR‬ﻧﻄﺎق واﺳﻊ ﻟﺘﻄﺒﻴﻘﺎت اﻟﻨﻤﺎذج اﻷوﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻟﺘﺼ‪w‬ﻴﻊ اﻻﺟﺰاء‪ .‬ﻳﺘﻢ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ا‪fe‬ﺰء ﻋ‪ SR‬ﺷ‪n‬ﻞ ﻃﺒﻘﺎت ‪q‬ﻌﻀ‪%‬ﺎ ﻓﻮق اﻟﺒﻌﺾ ﺣ‪ ih‬ﻳﻜﺘﻤﻞ ﺷ‪n‬ﻞ ا‪fe‬ﺰء‬
‫اﻟ‪yx‬ﺎ‪z‬ﻲ‪.‬‬
‫‡‪y‬ﺪف اﻟﻌﻤﻞ إ†‪ S‬اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ واﻟﺘﺤﺮي واﻻﻣﺜﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻤﺴﺔ ﻣﺘﻐ~‪+‬ات و‪ LK‬ﺳﺮﻋﺔ‬

‫‪ (Shell‬وﺳﻤﻚ اﻻﻃﺎر )‪ (Layer Thickness‬وﺳﻤﻚ اﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ )‪(Printing Speed‬اﻟﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫وﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ اﳌ‪Thickness)”R‬‬ ‫)‪ (Part Orientation‬واﺗﺠﺎﻩ اﻟﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ )‪(Infill Density‬‬
‫اﻟﻔ~‪œ‬ﻳﺎﺋﻴﺔ‬ ‫ا‪že‬ﺼﺎﺋﺺ‬ ‫ﻋ‪SR‬‬ ‫اﻟﺴﻄﺢ‬ ‫‪)Surface‬ﺧﺸﻮﻧﺔ‬ ‫‪Roughness‬‬
‫‪ ( Impact‬وا‪že‬ﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﳌﻴ‪n‬ﺎﻧﻴﻜﻴﺔ )اﺟ‪%‬ﺎد اﻟﺼﺪﻣﺔ ‪Dimension Accuracy‬ودﻗﺔ اﻷ‪q‬ﻌﺎد‬
‫‪ ، Compressive Strength‬اﺟ‪%‬ﺎد اﻻﻧﻀﻐﺎط ‪ ، Bending Strength‬اﺟ‪%‬ﺎد اﻻﻧﺤﻨﺎء ‪Strength‬‬
‫( ﻟ®‪f‬ﺰء اﳌﺼﻨﻊ ¬‪y‬ﺬﻩ اﻟﻄﺮ_ﻘﺔ وﻛﺬﻟﻚ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﳌﺴﺘﻐﺮق‪Tensile Strength .‬اﺟ‪%‬ﺎد اﻟﺸﺪ‬
‫‪ ،‬وﻓًﻘﺎ )‪(Design of Experiment‬ﺗﻢ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﺗﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺗﺎ‪±‬ﻮ‪ L° ´³²‬اﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ اﻟﺘﺠﺎرب‬

‫( اﻟ‪ ´h‬ﺗﻘﻠﻞ ﻣﻦ ﻋﺪد اﻻﺧﺘﺒﺎرات إ†‪ 27 S‬ﺗﺠﺮ‪º‬ﺔ ﺗﺨﺘ»‪ +‬اﻹﻋﺪاد اﳌﺜ‪L27 SR‬ﻟـﻠﻤﺼﻔﻮﻓﺔ اﳌﺘﻌﺎﻣﺪة )‬
‫ﳌﺘﻐ~‪+‬ات اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻤﻜﻦ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ اﻻﺳﺘﻔﺎدة اﳌﺜ‪ SR‬ﻣﻦ ﺧﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﻷداء ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل اﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﻣﺘﻐ~‪+‬ات اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻦ أﺟﻞ )‪(Grey Relation Analysis‬ﻋ‪ SR‬أﺳﺎس ﻃﺮ_ﻘﺔ ﺗﺎ‪±‬ﻮ‪ ´³²‬ﻣﻊ اﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﻌﻼﺋﻘﻲ اﻟﺮﻣﺎدي‬
‫ﺗﺤﺴ~ن ﻣﺘﻐ~‪+‬ات اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ ذات ا‪že‬ﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﳌﺘﻌﺪدة ﻟﻸداء‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﺘﺼ‪w‬ﻴﻊ اﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎت ﺑﺨﻤﺴﺔ ﻣﺘﻐ~‪+‬ات )‪(Polylactic Acid‬ﺗﻢ اﺳﺘﺨﺪام ﻣﺎدة اﻟﺒﻮ†‪ L‬ﻻﻛﺘﻚ‬
‫)‪ 100 ، 75 ، 50‬ﻣﻠﻢ‪/‬ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ( )‪(Printing Speed‬ﺑﺜﻼﺛﺔ ﻣﺴﺘﻮ_ﺎت ﻟ‪n‬ﻞ ﻣﺘﻐ~‪ LK +‬ﺳﺮﻋﺔ اﻟﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫‪ ،(Shell‬وﺳﻤﻚ اﻻﻃﺎر ﻣﻠﻢ(‪ ،(Layer Thickness) 0.3 ، 0،2 ، 0.1) mm‬ﺳﻤﻚ اﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ‬
‫‪128‬‬
‫)‪ 2.0 ،1.6 ،1.2) (Infill Density) (%80 ،50 ،20‬ﻣﻠﻢ(‪ ،‬ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ اﳌ‪Thickness) ”R‬‬
‫)‪ ° 45 ، ° 0‬و ‪(Part Orientation).(° 90‬واﺗﺠﺎﻩ اﻟﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫و‪Ô‬ﻌﺪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ اﻟﻨﺘﺎﺋﺞ وﺟﺪ ان اﳌﺘﻐ~‪+‬ات اﳌﺜ‪ SR‬ﻟ®‪ž‬ﺼﺎﺋﺺ اﳌﻴ‪n‬ﺎﻧﻴﻜﻴﺔ اﻷﻓﻀﻞ ﻋﻨﺪ ﺳﺮﻋﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ‪0.3‬ﻣﻠﻢ )‪50 L° (Layer Thickness‬ﻣﻠﻢ‪/‬ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻤﻚ اﻟﻄﺒﻘﺔ )‪(Printing Speed‬اﻟﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ ٪80‬واﺗﺠﺎﻩ )‪ (Infill Density‬ﻋﻨﺪ ‪2‬ﻣﻠﻢ ‪ ،‬ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ اﳌ‪ ،(Shell Thickness) ”R‬ﺳﻤﻚ اﻻﻃﺎر‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ 45‬درﺟﺔ‪(Part Orientation).‬اﻟﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫‪(Printing‬اﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻟ‪w‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻻﻓﻀﻞ ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ ﻟﻮﻗﺖ اﻟﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ وﺧﺸﻮﻧﺔ اﻟﺴﻄﺢ ‪ LK‬ﺳﺮﻋﺔ اﻟﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ‪0.3‬ﻣﻠﻢ ‪ ،‬ﺳﻤﻚ اﻻﻃﺎر )‪ (Layer Thickness‬ﻋﻨﺪ ‪100‬ﻣﻠﻢ‪/‬ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻤﻚ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ )‪Speed‬‬
‫‪ (Part‬ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ ٪20‬و اﺗﺠﺎﻩ اﻟﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ )‪(Infill Density‬ﻣﻠﻢ ‪ ،‬ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ اﳌ‪ 1.6 ”R‬ﻋﻨﺪ )‪(Shell Thickness‬‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ‪ LK ° 90‬ﻣﺘﻐ~‪+‬ات اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟ‪ ´h‬ﺗﻢ اﺳﺘ‪w‬ﺘﺎﺟ‪%‬ﺎ ﻟﺘ‪n‬ﻮن ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ و ‪Ö‬ﺎﻣﺔ‪Orientation).‬‬
‫ان ﻣﺘﻐ~‪+‬ات اﻟﻌﻤﻠﻴﺔ اﻟ‪ ´h‬ﺗﻢ اﺳﺘ‪w‬ﺘﺎﺟ‪%‬ﺎ ﻟﺘ‪n‬ﻮن ﻣﺜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟ‪w‬ﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﺪﻗﺔ اﻻ‪q‬ﻌﺎد ‪ LK‬ﺳﺮﻋﺔ‬
‫ﻣﻠﻢ ‪ 0.2‬ﻋﻨﺪ )‪ (Layer Thickness‬ﻋﻨﺪ ‪100‬ﻣﻠﻢ‪ /‬ﺛﺎﻧﻴﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺳﻤﻚ ﻃﺒﻘﺔ )‪(Printing Speed‬اﻟﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫واﺗﺠﺎﻩ ‪ 80%‬ﻋﻨﺪ)‪(Infill Density‬ﻣﻠﻢ ‪ ،‬ﻛﺜﺎﻓﺔ اﳌ‪ 1.2 ”R‬ﻋﻨﺪ )‪ ،(Shell Thickness‬ﺳﻤﻚ اﻻﻃﺎر‬
‫ﻋﻨﺪ ‪(Part Orientation).° 90‬اﻟﻄﺒﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫‪129‬‬
‫ﺟﻤ‪Q‬ﻮر‪T‬ﺔ اﻟﻌﺮاق‬
‫وزارة اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﺎ‪ dc‬واﻟﺒﺤﺚ اﻟﻌﻠ‪ih‬‬
‫ا‪kj‬ﺎﻣﻌﮫ اﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺴﻢ ‪r‬ﻨﺪﺳﺔ اﻻﻧﺘﺎج واﳌﻌﺎدن‬
‫أﻣﺛﻠﯾﺔ ﻣﺗﻐﯾرات اﻟﻧﻣﺎذﺟﺔ اﻟﺳرﯾﻌﺔ‬

‫ﺑﺎﺳﺗﺧدام ﻧﻣذﺟﺔ اﻟﺗرﺳﯾب اﻟﻣﻧﺻﮭر‬
‫ٔ!ﻃﺮو&ﺔ ﺗﻘﺪﻣﺖ ﲠﺎ‬

‫!ﻨﺪ ﺑﺎﺳﻞ ﻋ*‪ +‬اﻻﻃﺮﻗ‪+1‬‬
‫ﻣﺎﺟﺴﺘ~‪Ö +‬ﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑ‪n‬ﺎﻟﻮر_ﻮس ‪Ö‬ﻨﺪﺳﺔ ﺻﻨﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ا"‪ #‬ﻗﺴﻢ (ﻨﺪﺳﺔ اﻻﻧﺘﺎج واﳌﻌﺎدن ‪ 87‬ا‪:9‬ﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﺘﻜﻨﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ‬

‫و‪ 8A‬ﺟﺰء ﻣﻦ ﻣﺘﻄﻠﺒﺎت ﻧﻴﻞ درﺟﺔ دﻛﺘﻮراﻩ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﺔ ‪ 87‬اﻟ‪O‬ﻨﺪﺳﺔ اﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺑﺄﺷﺮاف‬
‫ا"ﻛﺘﻮر ﻓﺮﻫﺎد ﶊﺪ ﻋ‪7‬ن‬ ‫ا"ﻛﺘﻮر ﲢﺴﲔ ﻓﺎﺿﻞ ﻋﺒﺎس‬
‫ٔ‪9‬ﺳ<ﺘﺎذ ﻣﺴﺎ?ﺪ‬ ‫ٔ‪9‬ﺳ<ﺘﺎذ ﻣﺴﺎ?ﺪ‬
‫‪ 1439‬ھـ‬ ‫‪ 2018‬م‬
‫‪130‬‬

PHD HIND

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHD HIND

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of Iraq

Ministry of Higher Education

Optimization of Rapid Prototyping

Dr.Thaseen Fadhil Abbas Dr. Farhad Mohammed Othman

I would also like to express my special thanks and grattiude to

Life has given us a wonderful family, a happy home, and

You have made me stronger, better than I could have ever

In the design of experiment, Taguchi technique was used according to the

1.2. Additive Manufacturing (AM) 2

1.4. Rapid Prototyping 3

1.5. Principles of Rapid Prototyping 4

1.6. Rapid Prototyping Techniques 6

1.7. Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) 7

1.9. Aim of Research 9

1.10. Work Plan 10

1.11. Outline of the Thesis 12

2.1. Brief History of 3D Printing 13

2.2. Literature Review 14

2.3. Concluding Remarks 30

3.2. Design of Experiments 32

3.3. Taguchi Method 32

3.4. Process Optimization Tools 33

3.5. Steps Involved in Taguchi Method 35

3.6. Optimization of Multiple Performance Characteristics with 36

Grey Relation Analysis

3.7. Data Pre-Processing for Grey Relation Analysis 38

3.8. Computing the Grey Relational Coefficient and Grade 38

4.2. Specimens Design 42

4.3. Slicing (Cura Software) 42

4.4. Process Parameter Setting 42

4.6. Ultimaker Materials 43

4.7. Process parameters 44

4.8. Design of Experiments 45

4.9. CAD Modelling and UG NX Software 47

4.10. Specimens Test 48

5.2. Design of Experimental Results 53

5.3. Discussion of the Results 55

5.4. Optimization Using Grey Relation Analysis 63

5.5. Optimization Algorithm of Multi Performance 64

6.1. Conclusions 110

6.2. Suggestions for Future work 112

Table 2-1 Summary of previous researches on the Fused Deposition 25

Table 4-1 Mechanical properties of PLA 43

Table 4-2 Material properties of PLA 43

Table 4-3 Process Parameters with Their Levels 45

Table 4-4 DOE Using Taguchi Method based on Orthogonal Array 46

Table 5-1 Signal to Noise Ratios for the Mechanical Properties 54

Table 5-6 Performance Characteristic 𝑥𝑖 ∗ 𝑘 after Data Processing 64

Table 5-7 The Deviation Sequences ∆0𝑖𝑘 for the mechanical 65

Table 5-9 Response Value for Grey Relational Grade 68

Table 5-10 Printing Time for the Mechanical Properties 70

Table 5-11 Signal to Noise of Printing Time for the Mechanical 72

Table 5-12 Performance Characteristic 𝑥𝑖 ∗ 𝑘 after Data Processing 73

Table 5-13 The Deviation Sequences ∆0𝑖𝑘 for the mechanical 74

Table 5-15 Response Value for Grey Relational Grade 76

Table 5-16 Surface Roughness for the Mechanical Properties 78

Table 5-17 Performance Characteristic 𝑥𝑖 ∗ 𝑘 after Data Processing 79

Table 5-20 Response Value for Grey Relational Grade 82

Table 5-21 Length of Dimensional Accuracy for the Mechanical 84

Table 5-22 Relative Change in Length for the Mechanical Properties 85

Table 5-23 Signal to Noise Relative Change in Length for the 86

Table 5-25 The Deviation Sequences ∆0𝑖𝑘 for the mechanical 88

Table 5-27 Response Value for Grey Relational Grade 90