A Systematic Survey of FDM Process Parameter Optimization and Their in Uence On Part Characteristics

Journal of
Manufacturing and
Materials Processing ml’l
(HEP;
Review
A Systematic Survey of FDM Process Parameter
Optimization and Their Influence on
Part Characteristics
Arup Dey and Nita Yodo *
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58102, USA
* Correspondence: nita.yodo@ndsu.edu

Received: 27 June 2019; Accepted: 25 July 2019; Published: 29 July 2019
Abstract: Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is an additive manufacturing (AM) process that is often
used to fabricate geometrically complex shaped prototypes and parts. It is gaining popularity as it
reduces cycle time for product development without the need for expensive tools. However, the
commercialization of FDM technology in various industrial applications is currently limited due
to several shortcomings, such as insufficient mechanical properties, poor surface quality, and low
dimensional accuracy. The qualities of FDM-produced products are affected by various process
parameters, for example, layer thickness, build orientation, raster width, or print speed. The setting
of process parameters and their range depends on the section of FDM machines. Filament materials,
nozzle dimensions, and the type of machine determine the range of various parameters. The optimum
setting of parameters is deemed to improve the qualities of three-dimensional (3D) printed parts and
may reduce post-production work. This paper intensively reviews state-of-the-art literature on the
influence of parameters on part qualities and the existing work on process parameter optimization.
Additionally, the shortcomings of existing works are identified, challenges and opportunities to work
in this field are evaluated, and directions for future research in this field are suggested.
Keywords: fused deposition modeling; process parameters; part characteristics; optimization
1. Introduction
Currently, fused deposition modeling (FDM) is not only used to produce visual aids, conceptual
models, and prototypes, but it is also used to produce functional parts such as drilling grids in the
aerospace industry [1] and edentulous mandible trays [2]. It reduces assembly cost as it is capable of
manufacturing complex geometry and flexible function parts from a stereolithography (STL) file by
depositing two-dimensional (2D) layers on a build platform. As of the time of writing, researchers
are still working on developing new materials, as well as improving existing materials used in FDM
parts in different fields such as aerospace, biomedical, and many other fields. However, the application
of the FDM process in manufacturing functional parts is limited due to different drawbacks such as
irregular surface, poor mechanical properties, and low accuracy. Although low accuracy is a relative
term, as some applications do not require high accuracy (prototypes or display parts), in order for
FDM to be more acceptable in the industry and for it to be a good candidate to mass-produce printed
parts, accuracy is a basic requirement that is sought for. To produce good functional parts and increase
the market share of FDM parts, it is necessary to produce parts with stable qualities to meet specific
requirements. The FDM process has several parameters that have a significant impact on built parts.
All these parameters affect the bonding between and within the deposited layers. A part with desired
qualities can be produced by selecting an optimum combination of process parameters. An important
role is also played by the use of the best thermoplastic polymer for the proposed use of the part.
J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2019, 3, 64; doi:10.3390/jmmp3030064 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmmp

J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2019, 3, 64 2 of 30
A huge number of researchers analyzed various controllable parameters to achieve desirable

properties of parts [3–7], and many also worked on optimizing process parameters [8,9]. Many of the
researches optimized process parameters in order to improve a single part’s quality. Rayegani and
Onwubolu worked on optimizing tensile strength with a differential evolution (DE) approach [10]. Some
researchers also considered more than one part’s quality, but they were analyzed separately [11–13].
Additionally, a more advanced approach is to consider two or more parts’ qualities and optimize them
simultaneously to obtain a set of optimum combination(s) of parameters. Akande [14], Gurrala et al. [15]
and Rao et al. [16] worked on multi-objective optimization. In addition to this review paper, interested
readers are encouraged to review two published review papers on FDM process parameter optimization.
The first manuscript is by Mohamed et al. [17], where research works until the year 2014 were analyzed.
The second manuscript is by Popescu et al. [18]; they reviewed research that considered only mechanical
properties as the part characteristics. To complement the two reviewed papers, this paper aims to fill
the gaps by systematically representing current and future research trends carried out by researchers
on FDM process parameter optimization and their influence. Based on the authors’ knowledge, at the
time of writing, the optimization information for FDM process parameters was not concisely reviewed.
This paper also serves as an aid for current and future researchers, practitioners, and the general
public to set up experiments for the FDM process and to do research on improving or optimizing the
characteristics of FDM parts.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 describes process parameters, equipment,
and materials. Section 3 reviews the existing papers on FDM part characteristics. In Section 4, the
current works on numerical process parameter optimization for the FDM process are discussed.
Section 5 defines challenges, opportunities, and future research areas in the improvement of FDM part
characteristics. Section 6 provides conclusions.
2. Fused Deposition Modeling

In this section, before summarizing the contributions of existing research and the future directions
of research in the field, lists of the process parameters considered for analysis, as well as lists of
thermoplastics and FDM machines used for the analysis, are discussed first.
2.1. Process Parameters

The FDM process has several process parameters, and they have a significant impact on production
efficiency and part characteristics. Some of the most common process parameters are air gap, build
orientation, extrusion temperature, infill density, infill pattern, layer thickness, number of shells, print
speed, raster orientation, raster width, and heat treatment temperature (post-processing parameter).
The main process parameters are described below.
• Air gap: The gap between two adjacent rasters on a deposited layer. The air gap is called negative
when two adjacent layers are overlapped.
• Build orientation: Build orientation is defined as the way to orient the part in a build platform
with respect to X-, Y-, and Z-axes. In some papers, build orientation represented a quantitative
parameter [13,19], but in others, it was considered a categorical parameter [11,20]. Different build
orientations are given in Figure 1.
• Extrusion temperature: The temperature at which the filament of a material is heated during
the FDM process. Extrusion temperature depends on various aspects, for example, the type of
material or print speed.
• Infill density: The outer layers of a three-dimensional (3D) printer object are solid. However,
the internal structure, commonly known as the infill, is an invisible inner part covered by the
outer layer(s), and it has different shapes, sizes, and patterns. Infill density is the percentage of
infill volume with filament material. The strength and mass of FDM build parts depend on the
infill density.
• Infill pattern:
J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2019,infill
Different patterns
3, x FOR are used in parts to produce a strong and durable internal
PEER REVIEW 3 of 30
structure. Hexagonal, diamond, and linear are commonly used infill patterns (Figure 2).
• Layer thickness: This is the height of the deposited layers along the Z-axis, which is generally the
86 vertical axis of an FDM machine. Generally, it is less than the diameter of the extruder nozzle and
87 depends on the diameter Figure 1. the nozzle.
ofBuild orientation: (a) numerical; (b) categorical [11].
• Print speed: This is the distance traveled by the extruder along the XY plane per unit time while
88 • extruding. temperature:
Extrusion Printing time The on printat
temperature
depends whichand
speed, filament
thethe of a material
print speed is heated
is measured during
in mm/s.
89 • the FDM
Raster process.
width: Raster width is temperature
Extrusion defined as the width ofonthe
depends various aspects,
deposition beads example,
for (Figure 3).the type of
It depends
90 material or print speed.
on the extrusion nozzle diameter.
91 •• Infill density:
Raster The outer
orientation: This is layers of a three-dimensional
the direction of the deposition printer
(3D)bead withobject
respect the However,
solid.
are to X-axis of the the
92 internal structure, commonly known
build platform of the FDM machine (Figure 4). as the infill, is an invisible inner part covered by the outer
86
93 J. layer(s),
Manuf. Mater. it has2019,
andProcess. 3, x FORshapes,
different sizes, and patterns. Infill density is the percentage of
PEER REVIEW 3 ofinfill
30
94
87 volume with filament Figurematerial. The strength
1. Build orientation: and mass (b)
(a) numerical; of FDM
categorical parts depend on the infill
build[11].
95 density.
88
96 •• Extrusion Different The
temperature:
Infill pattern: patterns areat
infilltemperature which
used the filament
in parts to produceof aamaterial
strong and is heated
durableduring
internal
89
97 the FDM process.
structure. Hexagonal,Extrusion
diamond, temperature
and lineardepends on various
are commonly usedaspects, for example,
infill patterns (Figure type of
the2).
90 material or print speed.
91 • Infill density: The outer layers of a three-dimensional (3D) printer object are solid. However, the
92 internal structure, commonly known as the infill, is an invisible inner part covered by the outer
93 layer(s), and it has different shapes, sizes, and patterns. Infill density is the percentage of infill
94 volume with filament material. The strength and mass of FDM build parts depend on the infill
95 density.
86
96 • Infill pattern: Different infill (a)patterns are used in parts to produce a strong and durable internal
97
87 structure. Hexagonal, Figure
Figurediamond, and linear(a)
Buildorientation:
1.1.Build orientation: are
(a) commonly
numerical;
numerical; used
(b)categorical
(b) categorical patterns
infill[11].
[11]. (Figure 2).
98
8899 • Figure 2.
Extrusion temperature: TheInfill pattern: (a) linear;
temperature at which(b) diamond;
the filament(c) hexagonal [20]. is heated during
of a material
89 the FDM process. Extrusion temperature depends on various aspects, for example, the type of
100
90 • Layer thickness:
material This is the height of the deposited layers along the Z-axis, which is generally
or print speed.
101
91 • the vertical
Infill an FDM
Theofouter
density:axis layersmachine.
of a three-dimensional (3D)than
Generally, it is less printer object areof
the diameter the extruder
solid. However, nozzle
the
102
92 and depends on the diameter of the nozzle.
internal structure, commonly known as the infill, is an invisible inner part covered by the outer
103
93 • Print speed:
layer(s), the distance
hasisdifferent
and itThis shapes, sizes,by
traveled and along
extruderInfill
thepatterns. the XYisplane
density per unit time
the percentage while
of infill
104
94 volume filamenttime
withPrinting
extruding. depends
material. Theon print speed,
strength and massand the printbuild
of FDM is measured
speedparts depend on in mm/s.
the infill
98
105
95 • Raster
density.
(a)Raster width is defined as the(b)
width: width of the deposition beads (C)
(Figure 3). It depends
106
99
96 • on the
Infill extrusion
pattern: nozzle
Figure
Figure
Different 2.
2. diameter.
Infill
infill (a) linear;
pattern: are
patterns used in diamond;
(b)parts (c) hexagonal
to produce [20].and durable internal
a strong
97 structure. Hexagonal, diamond,RAS'I'ER and linear are commonly used infill patterns (Figure 2).
100 • Layer thickness: This is the height of the \VEIH
deposited layers
AIRGAP
along the Z-axis, which is generally
101 the vertical axis of an FDM machine. Generally, it is/|less than the diameter of the extruder nozzle
102 and depends on the diameter of the nozzle. Z
103 • Print speed: This is the distance traveled by the extruder along the XY plane per unit time while
104 extruding. Printing time depends on print speed, and the print speed is measured in mm/s.
105 • Raster width: Raster width is defined as the width of the deposition beads (Figure 3). It depends
106 on the extrusion nozzle diameter.
107
98
108 Figure 3. 3.
Figure Raster width
Raster and
width and gap.
airair gap.
99 Figure 2. Infill pattern: (a) linear; (b) diamond; (c) hexagonal [20].
109 • Raster orientation: This is the direction of the deposition bead with respect to the X-axis of the
110
100 • platform of
buildthickness:
Layer theisFDM
This machine
the height of (Figure 4).
the deposited layers along the Z-axis, which is generally
101 the vertical axis of an FDM machine. Generally, it is less than the diameter of the extruder nozzle
102 and depends on the diameter of the nozzle.
103 • Print speed: This is the distance traveled by the extruder along the XY plane per unit time while
107
104 extruding. Printing time depends on print speed, and the print speed is measured in mm/s.
108
105 • Raster width: Raster width isFigure
defined as thewidth
3. Raster widthand thegap.
of air deposition beads (Figure 3). It depends
106 on the extrusion nozzle diameter.
109 • Raster orientation: This is the direction of the deposition bead with respect to the X-axis of the
110 build platform of the FDM machine (Figure 4).
J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2019, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 30
//
111
112 W
V
Figure 4.
Figure Raster orientation.
4. Raster orientation.
2.2. FDM Equipment
113 2.2. FDM Equipment
For research purposes, different research teams use different FDM machines. Stratasys was one of
114 For research purposes, different research teams use different FDM machines. Stratasys was one
the first companies to develop the FDM process and FDM machine. The following is a list of commonly
115 of the first companies to develop the FDM process and FDM machine. The following is a list of
used FDM machines: Fortus FDM 400 mc machine (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [10,21,22],
116 commonly used FDM machines: Fortus FDM 400 mc machine (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA)
Fortus 360 mc machine (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [23], FDM 200 mc machine (Stratasys,
117 [10,21,22], Fortus 360 mc machine (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, USA) [23], FDM 200 mc machine
Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [24], FDM 1650 machine (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [25–28], FDM
118 (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [24], FDM 1650 machine (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [25–
Vantage machine (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [29,30], Ultimaker 2 (Ultimaker, Amsterdam,
119 28], FDM Vantage machine ( Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [29, 30], Ultimaker 2 (Ultimaker,
Netherlands) [23,31,32], MakerBot Replicator 2 (MakerBot, New York, NY, USA) [33,34], MEM-300
120 Amsterdam, Netherlands) [23,31,32], MakerBot Replicator 2 (MakerBot, New York, NY, USA) [33,34],
machine (Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototypes Making and Mould Technology Co., Ltd, Beijing,
121 MEM-300 machine (Beijing Yinhua Laser Rapid Prototypes Making and Mould Technology Co., Ltd,
China) [35], Uprint SE 3D printer (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [5], The FDM 3000 3D printer
122 Beijing, China) [35], Uprint SE 3D printer (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [5], The FDM 3000 3D
(Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [36,37], Raise3D N2plus machine (Raise3D, Irvine, CA, USA) [38],
123 printer (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [36,37], Raise3D N2plus machine (Raise3D, Irvine, CA,
Makerbot Replicator 2X (MakerBot, New York, NY, USA) [1,3,20], Julia 3D printer (Fracktal Works,
124 USA) [38], Makerbot Replicator 2X (MakerBot, New York, USA) [1,3,20] , Julia 3D printer (Fracktal
Bangalore, India) [7], FDM Maxum Machine (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [39], Prodigy Plus
125 Works, Bangalore, India) [7], FDM Maxum Machine (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [39], Prodigy
(Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [6,40], WitBox desktop 3D printer (BQ, Madrid, Spain) [11], and
126 Plus (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA) [6,40], WitBox desktop 3D printer (BQ, Madrid, Spain) [11],
HP Designjet 3D CQ656A (HP, Palo Alto, CA, USA) [41].
127 and HP Designjet 3D CQ656A ( HP, Palo Alto, CA, USA) [41].
Please note that the list above is in no way exhaustive. There are also other do-it-yourself (DIY)
128 Please note that the list above is in no way exhaustive. There are also other do-it-yourself (DIY)
FDM printers that are highly customizable. Each FDM machine has its advantages and disadvantages.
129 FDM printers that are highly customizable. Each FDM machine has its advantages and
Depending on the controllable process parameters that are offered by an FDM machine, and some
130 disadvantages. Depending on the controllable process parameters that are offered by an FDM
other parameters that are difficult to control using a specific machine, each user may have a different
131 machine, and some other parameters that are difficult to control using a specific machine, each user
view of the equipment. Thus, the advantages and disadvantages of each FDM machine are not the
132 may have a different view of the equipment. Thus, the advantages and disadvantages of each FDM
focus of this paper and are not discussed further in this paper.
133 machine are not the focus of this paper and are not discussed further in this paper.
2.3. Filament Materials
134 2.3. Filament Materials
In the FDM process, a part is produced by a filament that passes through a nozzle. Different
135 In the FDMare
thermoplastics used aaspart
process, is produced
filaments. Theby commonly that passes
a filamentused filament through a nozzle.
materials Different
are described
136 [42–44]. are used as filaments. The commonly used filament materials are described below
thermoplastics
below
137 [42–44].
1. Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS): ABS, a thermoplastic and amorphous polymer, is one of
138 the commonlybutadiene
1. Acrylonitrile styrene
used materials to (ABS):
make 3D ABS,
printed parts via theand
a thermoplastic FDM amorphous polymer,
process. ABS is one of
is a copolymer
139 the commonly used materials to make 3D printed parts via the FDM process. ABS is
made of acrylonitrile, butadiene, and styrene; impact resistance and toughness are two important a copolymer
140 made
mechanical properties ofbutadiene,
of acrylonitrile, ABS. ABS has impact
styrene; point
anda melting resistance
of 230 ◦ (standardandfortoughness are two
printing, although
141 important mechanical properties of ABS. ABS has a melting point of 230° (standard
amorphous), which is higher than polylactic acid (PLA)’s melting point [45]. While PLA is for printing,
142 although amorphous),
biodegradable, which
ABS is not, lowerpolylactic
offers athan
butisit higher acid (PLA)’s
risk of jamming melting point [45]. While
a nozzle.
143 2.
PLA is biodegradable, ABS is not, but it offers a lower risk of jamming a nozzle.
Polylactic acid (PLA): PLA is one of the widely used thermoplastics in FDM. The use of PLA is
144 2. Polylactic acid (PLA): PLA is one of the widely used thermoplastics in FDM. The use of PLA is
increasing as it is a biodegradable thermoplastic [46]. Also, it needs less energy and temperature
145 increasing as it is a biodegradable thermoplastic [46]. Also, it needs less energy and temperature
to process prototypes and functional parts with good quality. Now, many desktop 3D printers
146 to process prototypes and functional parts with good quality. Now, many desktop 3D printers
use PLA as a filament as it does not require a heated bed, although it is prone to jamming a
147 use PLA as a filament as it does not require a heated bed, although it is prone to jamming a
printer nozzle during printing. PLA has higher tensile strength, low warp, and low ductility
148 printer nozzle during printing. PLA has higher tensile strength, low warp, and low ductility
149 when compared to ABS. For post-processing, PLA built parts required extra care compared to
when compared to ABS. For post-processing, PLA built parts required extra care compared to
ABS. In Table 1, some important properties of PLA and ABS are summarized. The presented
properties will help choose the right filament for the part to be printed.
3. Polycarbonates (PCs): PCs are a group of thermoplastics known for their good strength, durability,
and toughness, and some are transparent. They are high-temperature thermoplastics with good
heat resistance, good layer for layer bonding, and they provide a good-quality surface.
4. Polyether ether ketone (PEEK): PEEK is a thermoplastic with excellent heat resistance, mechanical
properties, and chemical stability. It has higher mechanical properties when compared to PLA and
ABS. PEEK, a biomaterial, is considered as a promising bone repair material to make prostheses
for the human body.
5. Polyetherimide (PEI): PEI is widely used in the transportation industry for its high
strength-to-weight ratio with low smoke evolution and low smoke toxicity. It requires a
high extrusion temperature and bed temperature during printing. Its trade name is ULTEM™
9085. Due to its low density and toxicity properties, it can be used for aircraft cabins.
6. Nylon: Nylon can be chosen as the filament if the requirement is to print more flexible and more
durable parts. It has high toughness and impact resistance, but it is highly sensitive to moisture.
Nylon can warp about as much as ABS. Like many other FDM filaments, nylon absorbs moisture
from the air as it is hygroscopic. Moisture absorption deteriorates filament properties and results
in part characteristic degradation.
7. Other materials: In addition to the commonly used materials discussed above, there are some
other materials that are not commonly used or analyzed as filament materials, for instance,
high-impact polystyrene (HIPS), polyphenylsulfone (PPSF), polyethylene terephthalate glycol
modified (PETG), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), bio-composite filaments, ceramic filaments,
and other composite material filaments. Most of these materials are either still in the development
process or are not easily obtained on the market.
Table 1. Properties of polylactic acid (PLA) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) [47].
Property PLA ABS

Printing temperature (◦ C) 180–230 210–250
Build platform temperature (◦ C) 20–60 80–110
Raft Optional Mandatory
Strength High Medium
Flexibility Brittle Moderately flexible
Heat resistance Low Moderate
Biodegradability Yes No
Moisture absorption Yes Yes
Some research efforts were carried out to compare the properties and functionality of multiple
materials for the FDM process. Messimer et al. studied 10 materials to determine whether a heated
aluminum–polycarbonate composite print bed was suitable for the FDM process or not [48]. In their
updated work, they collected 11 materials to be used in modeling dimensional errors in the FDM
process for full-density parts based on seven raster angles and three build orientations [49]. The
11 materials were ABS, PLA, high-temperature PLA, wood PLA, carbon-fiber PLA, aluminum PLA,
copper PLA HIPS, PETG, polycarbonate, and nylon.
3. Research on Process Parameter Analysis

A considerable number of researches were conducted to analyze the impacts of process parameters
on dimensional accuracy, surface roughness, build time, and mechanical properties. For this survey
paper, different keywords were used to search for articles on scientific online databases (e.g., Google
Scholar, Elsevier, Springer, etc.). These keywords were FDM, fused deposition modeling, process
J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2019, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 30

parameters, FDM optimization, and part characteristics of FDM build parts. Relevant published
articles (journals and conference proceedings) from the year 2005 to 2019 are included in this paper, but
189 Relevant published articles (journals and conference proceedings) from the year 2005 to 2019 are
some important papers from the year 2000 are also included. All the articles reviewed were published
190 included in this paper, but some important papers from the year 2000 are also included. All the
in English language only. During the initial search, more than 250 related articles were collected.
191 articles reviewed were published in English language only. During the initial search, more than 250
After an initial screening by reading titles and abstracts, close to 100 papers were used as the main
192 related articles were collected. After an initial screening by reading titles and abstracts, close to 100
material for this survey paper. In addition to the published articles, manufacturers’ recommendations
193 papers were used as the main material for this survey paper. In addition to the published articles,
in the form of manuals or webpages were also used as references for filament properties or suggested
194 manufacturers’ recommendations in the form of manuals or webpages were also used as references
printing conditions. For an initial summary of the conducted survey, a fishbone diagram is provided in
195 for filament properties or suggested printing conditions. For an initial summary of the conducted
Figure 5 as a visual representation to illustrate the impacts of different process parameters on various
196 survey, a fishbone diagram is provided in Figure 5 as a visual representation to illustrate the impacts
part characteristics. The fishbone diagram was developed based on the outcome of different existing
197 of different process parameters on various part characteristics. The fishbone diagram was developed
studies. Please note that some process parameters overlap with part characteristics, as one process
198 based on the outcome of different existing studies. Please note that some process parameters overlap
parameter can affect multiple part characteristics.
199 with part characteristics, as one process parameter can affect multiple part characteristics.
Surfiwe
Surface Dnnm 'onal
Dimensional
accuracy Build time
roughness
roughness accuracy Budd tume
_ Layer
Layer _
Build ‘_ ._ Layer thiclmss
Layer thickness Layer thickness
Laym' thickness ,_
thlckness
thickness Build onentauon Air 8313 ‘Raster An- gap
01151113t Air gap *Raster A“
gap
. Build otiemafion
odutation orientafion
ofientmion Raster width
Pm“ 51”“ Shell width
Print speed Rnstetwidth
Raster width Shell width
‘Raster
*Rastet width Rastet
Raster Number o f shell
Number
mum“
orientation -' speed
Punt Build orientation
orientation .
Extrusion
Extrusion Extrusion
Extrusion Print speed densnty
Infill densny
tem ature
temperahlte temperature I
FDM parts
per
Layer thickness
Layer thickness Layer thickness
Layer thickness ._ ._ ~
_ Layer thickness
Layer thickness ‘* _
Build orientation
Build orientation . Build orientation
Budd onentauon ., Raster w1dth
w1dth
Raster width
width ‘Raster Width
‘Rastet w1dth Air gap
Air gap *Pnnt speed
‘Pnnt speed Raster
Raster
._ Print “PM
mm speed Infill pattern
pattern Build orientation
orientation
Extrusion
fmnta‘m
.onentatlon
*An'
‘Al: gap
Infill densnty
densuy Raster
Rast Infill density
l . E ion
. EI’ ,
A“ WWW”
Raster gap
Air 8119 orientafion
orientation t—perature density
Infill density
of shell
Number“Shell pattern
Infill ”mm Number of shell
Numberofshell
ofientation
“imam“ Numb“ ”‘5"
Flemu'a]
Flexura] Compmssive
Compressive .
strength
straigfll Tensule Smath
Tensfle uength
strength
strength
200 Indicates still unknownwhether

*"‘ Indicates unlmownwhether part charaflu'istic
paIameter is significant for a pan
aa pammeter characterisfic or not
201 Figure5.5.AAfishbone
Figure diagramtotoillustrate
fishbonediagram impactsofofprocess
theimpacts
illustratethe processparameters onpart
parameterson characteristics.
partcharacteristics.
In many papers, different statistical tools such as full factorial design [10,24], fractional factorial
202 In many papers, different statistical tools such as full factorial design [10,24], fractional factorial
design [22,25], and face-centered central composite design (FCCCD) [13,50] were used to gain maximum
203 design [22,25], and face-centered central composite design (FCCCD) [13,50] were used to gain
information from a smaller number of experiments. As another approach, optimum levels of parameters
204 maximum information from a smaller number of experiments. As another approach, optimum levels
for analyzing part characteristics were determined based on experimental results. In some papers, such
205 of parameters for analyzing part characteristics were determined based on experimental results. In
as Mohamed et al. [51] and Chacón et al. [11], various mathematical models were developed to show
206 some papers, such as Mohamed et al. [51] and Chacón et al. [11], various mathematical models were
a relationship between process parameters and part quality. Peng et al. [35] and Rayegani et al. [10]
207 developed to show a relationship between process parameters and part quality. Peng et al. [35] and
worked on optimizing mathematical models of part characteristics to determine optimal levels of
208 Rayegani et al. [10] worked on optimizing mathematical models of part characteristics to determine
process parameters. There were also approaches that looked into characteristics of more than one part
209 optimal levels of process parameters. There were also approaches that looked into characteristics of
that were optimized simultaneously. For this, various heuristic optimization algorithms, for example,
210 more than one part that were optimized simultaneously. For this, various heuristic optimization
quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization (QPSO) [8], non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm
211 algorithms, for example, quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization (QPSO) [8], non-dominated
II (NSGA-II) [15], differential evolution (DE) [10], and genetic algorithm (GA) [52], were used. In the
212 sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) [15], differential evolution (DE) [10], and genetic algorithm
following subsections, a systematic summary of research analyzing each FDM printed part’s quality
213 (GA ) [52], were used. In the following subsections, a systematic summary of research analyzing each
characteristic is given.
214 FDM printed part’s quality characteristic is given.
3.1. Dimensional Accuracy
215 3.1. Dimensional Accuracy
Dimensional accuracy is an important property for functional parts. Adjusting FDM process
216 Dimensional accuracy is an important property for functional parts. Adjusting FDM process
parameters has a significant impact on dimensional accuracy. Many researchers worked extensively to
217 parameters has a significant impact on dimensional accuracy. Many researchers worked extensively
determine how process parameters can influence the dimensional accuracy of the printed parts.
218 to determine how process parameters can influence the dimensional accuracy of the printed parts.
Wang et al. [53] studied the influence of six process parameters on dimensional accuracy. The
219 Wang et al. [53] studied the influence of six process parameters on dimensional accuracy. The
examined factors were layer thickness, deposition style, support style, deposition orientation in the
220 examined factors were layer thickness, deposition style, support style, deposition orientation in the
221 Z-direction, deposition orientation in the X-direction, and build location. The authors used the
222 Taguchi orthogonal array (L18) for experimental design, and ABS parts were produced by the
223 Dimension BST rapid prototyping machine according to the experimental design. Their results were
Z-direction, deposition orientation in the X-direction, and build location. The authors used the Taguchi
orthogonal array (L18) for experimental design, and ABS parts were produced by the Dimension BST
rapid prototyping machine according to the experimental design. Their results were reviewed using
analysis of variance (ANOVA), which indicated that deposition orientation in the Z-direction was the
most significant parameter for dimensional accuracy. Sood et al. [54] analyzed the impacts of five process
parameters (layer thickness, build orientation, raster orientation, raster width, and air gap) and their
interactions on dimensional deviations along the length, width, and thickness. Their results showed
that layer thickness was the most important factor for width and thickness deviations. However, build
orientation was most influential for change in length. The authors also observed some shrinkages which
occurred in the length and width directions. However, the thickness of the printed part was found to be
higher than the computer-aided design (CAD)-defined thickness along the Z-direction. They found that
the optimum setting of parameters was different for dimensional deviations and for different dimensions
of a part. For this, they used the gray relational grade to convert three target part characteristics into one.
We discuss this method in the optimization section of this paper.
Similar to the abovementioned two papers, Nancharaiah et al. [6] used Taguchi’s design of
experiments to examine the impact of layer thickness, raster width, raster orientation, and air gap on
dimensional accuracy. ANOVA was used to determine significant parameters and their interactions
for dimensional accuracy. The ABS parts were produced using a Prodigy plus FDM machine for
different combinations of the analyzed parameters. According to their experimental design, it was
shown by ANOVA that raster width and interaction between raster width and raster orientation were
two significant terms for dimensional accuracy. Other than that, their results indicated that there
was a positive correlation between dimensional accuracy and layer thickness. According to their
suggestion based on signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio, a smaller layer thickness is preferred for a higher
dimensional accuracy.
By using the same machine, Bakar et al. [40] produced a complex shaped part (with slots, cubes,
cylinders, and rings) by varying layer thickness, shell width, and internal raster width. The conclusion
of their results was that the dimensional accuracy of an FDM part also depends on its shape, and
a cylindrical shape has high dimensional deviation. Peng et al. [35] used the MEM-300 machine to
produce ABS parts based on uniform experimental design. From their case study, the controllable
parameters were line width compensation, extrusion velocity, filling velocity, and layer thickness. They
also concluded from the experimental results that low layer thickness was preferable for improving
dimensional accuracy. In addition, they also determined the optimum combinations of these four
process parameters using response surface method (RSM), fuzzy inference system (FIS), artificial
neural network (ANN), and genetic algorithm (GA) for three response variables including dimensional
accuracy. All of these techniques are discussed in the upcoming sections.
Akande [14] analyzed the effect of three process parameters (layer thickness, print speed, and infill
density) on dimensional accuracy. The results showed that high dimensional errors took place along
the thickness (Z-direction) of a PLA part. The author recommended high layer thickness (0.5 mm),
low print speed (16 mm/s), and low infill density (20%) for printing parts with high dimensional
accuracy. The influence of layer thickness, raster orientation, and build orientation on dimensional
accuracy was investigated by Nidagundi et al. [7], and the ABS parts were manufactured by a Julia
3D printer [7]. A Taguchi orthogonal array (L9) and S/N ratio were applied for experimental design
and the determination of optimum levels of parameters, respectively. Low layer thickness, 0◦ raster
orientation, and build orientation were found to be optimum for dimensional deviation reduction, and
the most significant parameter was indicated as layer thickness.
Mohamed et al. [55] considered six process parameters, and all parameters excluding layer
thickness had six levels. In their paper, I-optimal design was used for experimental set-up because
the number of levels for each parameter was more than three. They also determined a quadratic
equation that represented the relationship between process parameters and dimensional accuracy.
Their observational results showed that low layer thickness and number of shells were optimal to
decrease the dimensional deviation along the length, width, and thickness. Additionally, the other four
parameters (raster orientation, raster width, air gap, and build orientation) had a different optimum
combination for dimensional accuracy in different directions. Thus, the desirability function approach
was used to determine the optimum combination of all parameters for three-dimensional deviations.
In 2017, Qattawi et al. [20] experimentally examined the impact of two categorical parameters
(build orientation and infill pattern) and four numerical parameters (layer thickness, infill density,
print speed, and extrusion temperature) on dimensional accuracy. They used PLA as the filament
and Makerbot Replicator 2X as the FDM machine. They concluded that layer thickness, extrusion
temperature, and build orientation were the three significant parameters among the six parameters for
dimensional accuracy. In addition, a low level for both layer thickness and extrusion temperature was
preferable to a high level for dimensional accuracy. Tontowi et al. [56] observed the dimensional change
of PLA printed parts by a Wanhao Duplicator 5S Mini FDM machine (WANHAO, Jinhua, China)
with three process parameters, namely, layer thickness, raster orientation, and extrusion temperature.
Unlike other research, their experimental results concluded that raster orientation was more significant
than layer thickness for dimensional accuracy. In their paper, the outcomes of the Taguchi orthogonal
array and response surface method were compared, and they concluded that the response surface
method gave a better prediction. On the other hand, Wu [38] showed that low layer thickness was
important for high dimensional accuracy. This conclusion is more aligned with the majority of research
in this area. Beniak et al. [57] analyzed the importance of layer thickness and extrusion temperature for
dimensional accuracy. Among layer thickness and extrusion temperature, extrusion temperature was
significant for dimensional accuracy and, again, a low level for extrusion temperature was preferable.
Short discussion and summary: According to the presented reviewed literature, the layer
thickness is one of the most analyzed and influential factors for dimension accuracy. Most of the
researchers concluded that high dimensional accuracy is obtained by setting a low layer thickness
extrusion temperature and number of shells. In our perspective, further analysis is needed for extrusion
temperature and the number of shells for validation of the conclusion. It is observed that shrinkage
occurs along X- and Y-directions of build platforms and expansion is experienced along the Z-direction
of the build platform. From this, we can conclude that build orientation is also an important parameter
of dimensional accuracy. The effects of many process parameters including extrusion temperature,
number of shells, infill pattern, and raster width on dimensional accuracy are still unknown. It is
important to know the influence of those parameters to produce a part with high dimensional accuracy.
Most of the existing research considered only two or three levels of parameters. There is a need to
analyze more than three levels of parameters to make a more accurate decision, and to study the impact
of the least known parameters on dimensional accuracy (such as extrusion temperature, infill pattern,
or nozzle diameter).
3.2. Surface Roughness

Surface roughness is a widely used index of product quality. In most cases, surface roughness
is often used as a technical requirement for mechanical products. Surface roughness increases the
aesthetic view and is important to ensure proper function of very precise parts, for instance, sealing
shafts and friction plates in the automobile sector. One of the limitations of the FDM process is poor
surface quality due to the staircase effect, STL file resolution, and process parameters. The impacts of the
staircase effect and STL file resolution depend on the shape complexity of a part (e.g., a curved surface
is harder to obtain than a flat surface). The influence of process parameters on surface roughness not
only depends on the shape of a part, but also on the setting of process parameters. The surface quality
of an FDM built part can be improved by selecting an optimum combination of process parameters.
Higher surface quality typically reduces post-processing cost.
Vasudevarao et al. [28] investigated the influence of build orientation, layer thickness, raster width,
air gap, and model temperature on the surface roughness. For this, parts produced by the Stratasys FDM
1650 machine for different combinations of process parameters were analyzed by half factorial design.
The results of the experiment showed that low layer thickness and high build orientation reduced surface
roughness, but other parameters were not significant for surface quality. According to Anitha et al. [58],
among layer thickness, raster width, and print speed, the layer thickness was found to be the most
important parameter for surface quality. Raster width and print speed were almost equally significant
for surface quality. Thrimurthulu et al. [59] also recommended a low layer thickness for high surface
finishing. The impacts of three process parameters, namely, layer thickness, extrusion temperature, and
visible surface, were investigated by Horvath et al. [60] to know the importance of those parameters for
surface roughness, and a full factorial experimental design was used for the experiments. The results
of the experimental study were aligned with the results found by Vasudevarao et al. [28], where layer
thickness was the most significant parameter, and the extrusion temperature was insignificant. They also
recommended a fine raster width for reducing surface roughness.
Wang et al. [53] studied the impact of six process parameters on surface roughness along with
dimensional accuracy. Among the analyzed six parameters, the layer thickness was the most significant
parameter for surface roughness, but build orientation in the Z-direction was the most significant
parameter for dimensional accuracy. Galantucci et al. [61] experimentally investigated the impact
of layer thickness, raster width, and tip size (nozzle diameter) on the roughness of the top and side
surfaces. Their results indicated that layer thickness and raster width were significant for the side and
top surface roughness of ABS printed parts. Other than dimensional accuracy, Nancharaiah et al. [6]
also investigated the impact of four parameters (layer thickness, raster width, raster orientation, and air
gap) on surface roughness. Their results showed that layer thickness and raster width had an influence
on surface roughness and also recommended that the negative air gap degraded surface quality.
Bakar et al. [40] analyzed layer thickness, shell width, and internal raster to determine the
significance of those parameters for improving surface finishing. The surface quality of a top surface
is better than the side surface. The shape of a part is important for reducing surface roughness, and
a complex curvy surface reduces surface finishing. According to their paper, a wider raster width
increases surface finishing as heat and high temperature easily affect the smaller raster. Like other
researchers, they also recommended that low layer thickness is preferable for good surface quality.
Akande [14] used a 3D Touch FDM machine and PLA as the filament material to produce cuboid-shaped
specimens based on full factorial design, and investigated the importance of layer thickness, infill
density and print speed for surface roughness. The lower level of each parameter was optimum for
maximizing surface finishing.
Along with many other part characteristics, Nidagundi et al. [7] analyzed surface roughness as well.
In their research, the analyzed process parameters were build orientation, layer thickness, and raster
orientation, and a Taguchi orthogonal array (L9) was applied to reduce the number of experiments. Based
on the reduced experimental design, ABS printed parts were produced by a Julia 3D printer and the
average Ra value (surface roughness) was used as a measurement for optimum surface roughness. Their
results indicated that 0.1 mm (minimum) layer thickness on the top and side surfaces, 0◦ build orientation,
and 0◦ raster orientation were the settings for achieving optimum surface roughness. Raju et al. [19] also
showed that layer thickness and build orientation were two significant parameters for surface quality.
Valerga et al. [62] analyzed various PLA filament conditions to know their impact on surface quality,
along with the dimensional accuracy and tensile strength of the FDM printed part. They considered
extrusion temperature, humidity, and pigmentation color as variables. They drew a conclusion that a lack
of pigmentation and a low extrusion temperature were preferable for better surface quality. Unlike most
of the previously mentioned research, Pérez et al. [63] used a cylindrical-shaped specimen instead of a
cuboid-shaped specimen. In their study, layer thickness, print speed, extrusion temperature, and shell
thickness were the analyzed parameters. Their findings showed that low layer thickness was favored for
good surface finishing, but extrusion temperature and print speed were insignificant.
Short discussion and summary: High surface finishing can be achieved by selecting a low
layer thickness because it helps reduce the staircase effect on the printed parts. Other than layer
thickness, low extrusion temperature and print speed are preferable to achieve a higher print precision.
A high extrusion temperature increases the fluidity of filament materials and further results in high
dimensional deviation and surface roughness. Most results indicated that the surface finish of a top
printed surface is better than the side surface for any setting of process parameters. Therefore, printing
the shortest side of a part in the Z-direction is recommended for the FDM process to reduce the overall
surface roughness. For an inclined part’s orientation, neither horizontal nor vertical orientations
increase surface roughness. Thus, if possible, it is best to avoid printing on an inclined orientation.
3.3. Mechanical Properties

The mechanical properties of a part are important. Depending on the application areas, mechanical
properties can be used as one of the guidelines to explore new applications or to determine the expected
service life of a part. Due to different process parameters (e.g., extrusion temperature and layer
thickness), mechanical properties of an FDM built part are not the same as the mechanical properties
of the filament. There were a lot of research efforts that investigated the impact of process parameters
on mechanical properties [18]. Tensile strength, compressive strength, and flexural strength were the
three most widely analyzed mechanical properties of FDM parts. In this section, the current research
related to tensile strength, compressive strength, and flexural strength is summarized systematically.
3.3.1. Tensile Strength

Tensile strength is one of the most analyzed mechanical properties. In most of the papers, the
parts for the tensile test were produced according to the American Standard for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) D638 standard. This standard is used for testing the tensile properties of thermoplastics. The
test specimens were dumbbell-shaped. Some of the recent work is summarized below.
Montero et al. [25] investigated five process parameters (air gap, raster width, extrusion
temperature, filament color, and raster orientation) and designed their experiment according to
fractional factorial design. Their printed specimens were produced from ABS using a Stratasys FDM
1650 machine. The experimental results showed that the air gap and raster orientation were two
significant parameters for tensile strength, and a negative air gap and 0◦ raster orientation were
preferable for maximum tensile strength. Es-Said et al. [26] analyzed the tensile properties of ABS
parts manufactured by the FDM process by considering raster orientation as the variable. For this,
ABS parts were produced for five different raster orientations. Like other research, it was shown that
a raster orientation of 0◦ was best to maximize the tensile strength. Along with surface roughness
and dimensional accuracy, Wang et al. [53] also analyzed the impact of the six parameters on tensile
strength, and showed that build orientation in the Z-direction was the most significant parameter for
the tensile strength property. Layer thickness, build orientation, raster width, raster orientation, and
air gap were considered as variables to examine their impact on tensile strength by Panda et al [13].
Their experiment was designed according to FCCCD, and a quadratic equation was formulated for the
tensile property. They showed that all parameters (other than raster width), and the combinations of
parameters were influential for tensile strength.
Bagsik et al. [64], Domingo-Espin et al. [65], and Letcher et al. [3] tested the tensile strength of Ultem
9085, PC, and ABS parts, respectively, in different build orientations. The first two groups of researchers
showed that tensile strength was maximum when build orientation was 0◦ in the X-direction, but the
outcome of the third group’s experimental study was different. In separate research, Hernandez et al. [66]
showed that the influence of build orientation was not significant for the tensile strength of ABS P430
built parts. The influence of five process parameters (layer thickness, build orientation, raster orientation,
raster width, and air gap) on tensile strength was studied by Sood et al. [12]. Their parts were built by
an FDM machine according to FCCCD; a quadric equation for tensile strength was formulated using
the response surface method, and ANOVA was used to determine the significance of different terms in
the equation. It was shown that all parameters, excluding raster width, and the interactions of different
parameters were significant. They also plotted response surface graphs to visualize the change of tensile
strength with the interaction between two parameters. Fatimatuzahraa et al. [67] investigated the impact
of raster orientation on the mechanical properties, including tensile strength, of ABS parts. Three parts,
each having four different raster orientations, were produced, and parts were tested by a destructive
tensile testing machine. The results concluded that tensile strength was maximum and almost the same at
the cross (0◦ /90◦ ) and crisscross (45◦ /−45◦ ) raster orientations.
Croccolo et al. [68] analyzed the impact of the number of shells on the tensile strength, and showed
that the property increases with the increase in the number of shells. Rayegani et al. [10] investigated
five process parameters (layer thickness, build orientation, raster orientation, raster width, and air
gap) to get an optimum combination of the process parameters that maximize the tensile strength of
ABS printed parts. For this purpose, the group method of data handling (GMDH) approach was used
to develop a mathematical model that related process parameters with tensile strength. In order to
maximize tensile strength, a differential evolution (DE) optimization approach was applied to get levels
of each parameter. The optimization results showed that tensile strength approached a maximum at
the minimum setting of layer thickness, build orientation, raster width, and negative air gap. Raster
orientation was found to be comparatively less significant. On the other hand, Panda et al. [69] also
used DE to get an optimum combination of process parameters for tensile strength. However, the
combination of process parameters (high layer thickness, raster width, and positive air gap) was
different from the combination obtained by Rayegani et al. [10].
Durgun et al. [4] analyzed the impact of build orientation and raster orientation on tensile
properties. Their experimental investigation results suggested that 0◦ raster orientation and 0◦ build
orientation were suitable to optimize tensile strength. Build orientation was found to be more significant
than raster orientation. Gorski [70] analyzed the importance of build orientation on tensile strength and
the brittleness property of FDM built ABS parts. The author showed that tensile strength was maximum
at 0◦ build orientation. However, the FDM built part became brittle when the build orientations
exceeded 20◦ in the X-axis and 25◦ in the Y-axis. Wu et al. [71] showed that layer thickness and raster
orientation were both significant for the tensile properties of PEEK parts. Additionally, the authors also
compared PEEK with ABS, and the comparison outcome was that PEEK parts performed better under
tensile loading when compared to ABS parts. However, for both materials, the mechanical properties
of the FDM parts were worse than injection molded parts.
Other than dimensional accuracy and surface roughness, Nidagundi et al. [7] analyzed the impact
of layer thickness, build orientation, and raster orientation on the ultimate tensile strength property.
The number of experimental runs was selected by a Taguchi orthogonal array, and a low level of S/N
ratio for all three parameters was recommended for tensile strength. Ziemian et al. [72] researched
raster orientation as the only variable to determine the significance and the optimum level of the
parameter for tensile properties. For this purpose, ABS parts were produced for different raster
orientations, and tensile properties (yield strength and ultimate strength) were found to be maximum
at 0◦ raster orientation and minimum at 90◦ raster orientation. Wittbrodt et al. [73] showed that the
filament color of PLA was found to be significant for tensile properties. Torres et al. [74] investigated
the influence of extrusion temperature, print speed, raster orientation, infill density, layer thickness,
and perimeter (number of shells) on the tensile properties of PLA parts for different build orientations.
Their outcome indicated that build orientation was one of the most significant parameters for tensile
strength, and other tensile properties were also affected by build orientation.
Torrado et al. [75] investigated the tensile strength of FDM parts for a set of unique variables,
part geometry, and raster orientation. In their research, ABS parts were built for different geometries
(Type I, IV, and V) of ASTM D638 standard, as well as different raster orientations. Rankouhi et al. [76]
analyzed the importance of two process parameters (layer thickness and raster orientation) for the
tensile properties of FDM built ABS parts. For experimental analysis, they considered two and three
levels of layer thickness and raster orientation, respectively. According to their experimental results and
statistical analysis, layer thickness and raster orientation, as well as their interaction, were significant.
Additionally, the ultimate tensile strength and elastic modulus were maximum at lower levels of both
parameters. The microscopic inspection of the fracture area showed that a smaller air-gap-to-material
ratio contributed to tensile properties.
Chacon et al. [11] investigated the importance of layer thickness, print speed, and build orientation
for tensile properties. They showed that tensile strength was minimum at an upright build orientation
(90◦ ) and was almost the same at two other build orientations (on-edge and flat). Another finding
was that the levels of layer thickness and print speed depended on build orientation. Uddin et al. [77]
determined the impact of three process parameters on tensile properties. They showed that the
mechanical properties of FDM parts, regardless of material, were lower than injection molded parts.
The experimental outcomes revealed that the combination of process parameters was the same as
the combination obtained by Chacon et al. [11]. Cantrell et al. [23] showed that tensile properties
(yield strength and ultimate strength) were minimum at upright built orientation, and maximum at
flat and on-edge build orientations for ABS and PC parts, respectively. Also, the authors showed
that tensile properties were maximum at (0◦ /90◦ ) and (−45◦ /45◦ ) raster orientations for ABS and PC
parts, respectively. Raney et al. [5] produced ABS parts using a Uprint SE 3D printer and analyzed the
influence of build orientation on tensile strength. Aligned with most researchers, tensile strength was
found to be maximum at on-edge build orientation.
Qattawi et al. [20] determined significant parameters for tensile properties from build orientation,
infill density, infill patterns, print speed, extrusion temperatures, and layer thickness. Among the six
parameters, build orientation, layer thickness, infill density, and extrusion temperature were significant
for tensile properties (Young’s modulus, tensile strength, yield strength). Liu et al. [33] analyzed
layer thickness, build orientation, raster orientation, raster width, and air gap and determined an
optimum combination of process parameters for the tensile properties. The authors designed parts for
the tensile test and the experiment according to GB/T 1040.2-2006 (Chinese Standard) and a Taguchi
orthogonal array, respectively. From the five parameters, layer thickness (high), build orientation (60◦ ),
and raster orientation (−45◦ /45◦ ) were significant for tensile strength. The optimum levels of significant
parameters were different from most of the existing research. Tontowi et al. [56] investigated layer
thickness, build orientation, and raster orientation for tensile strength, as well as dimensional accuracy,
and showed that build orientation was the most significant parameter. The authors also recommended
that RSM was a better approach than a Taguchi orthogonal array.
According to Mahmood et al. [78], the ultimate tensile strength of ABS parts depended on
the cross-section area (width × thickness), infill density, and number of shells. The property was
proportional to infill density and number of shells; however, it was inversely proportional to the
cross-section area. A metamodel for tensile force was developed by Raju et al. [19], and they showed
that layer thickness and build orientation were also the two most significant parameters among the
four parameters for tensile properties. Aw et al. [79] determined the impacts of infill density and
infill pattern (rectilinear and line) on the tensile properties of ABS/ZnO and conductive ABS/ZnO
(CABS/ZnO) built parts. Their study revealed that 100% infill density and a line infill pattern maximized
tensile strength. Similar to Mahmood et al. [78], Kung et al. [80] showed that the cross-section area and
the number of shells were significant for tensile strength. Additionally, Kung et al. [80] showed that
tensile strength was maximum at a −45◦ /45◦ raster orientation.
Vosynek et al. [81] compared PETG filaments produced by two different suppliers. They considered
filament color, infill pattern, build orientation, infill density, and raster orientation as variables, showing
that build orientation was the most significant parameter, and the tensile strength was maximum at a flat
build orientation. Infill density and raster orientation were also significant for tensile strength. For FDM
produced PEEK parts, Deng et al. [82] designed experiments according to a Taguchi orthogonal array,
and showed that high print speed, low layer thickness, and high extrusion temperature were preferable
for tensile strength. However, one of their contradictory outcomes was that the tensile strength was
maximum at 40% infill density instead of at maximum infill density (60%). Rinanto et al. [83] applied
the Taguchi orthogonal array for experimental design, and the controllable parameters were infill
density, raster orientation, and extrusion temperature for PLA parts. The study revealed that a high
extrusion temperature and infill density and a 45◦ raster orientation were optimum for tensile strength.
Fernandes et al. [31] analyzed infill density, extrusion temperature, raster orientation, and layer
thickness, and the optimum combination for tensile properties was high infill density and extrusion
temperature, low layer thickness, and 0◦ /90◦ raster orientation. On tensile strength, the influence of
layer thickness, print speed, and infill density was separately analyzed by Taiyong et al. [84]. Tensile
strength was maximum at low layer thickness and high infill density; however, unlike other research,
it was shown that tensile strength was maximum at low print speed. Rodríguez-Panes et al. [85]
compared the tensile properties of FDM built ABS parts and PLA parts by varying layer thickness,
infill density, and build orientation. The tensile properties (modulus of elasticity, nominal strain at
break, yield stress, and tensile strength) of PLA were better than the case of ABS.
Short discussion and summary: Compared to any other part characteristics, tensile properties,
especially tensile strength, are the most analyzed part characteristics in FDM printed parts. From
existing research, the build orientation was found to be the most significant parameter, and tensile
strength was maximum at 0◦ (or flat/on-edge) build orientation. At this build orientation, the direction
of filament fiber extrusion is parallel to the direction of the applied load. Layer thickness depends on
other parameters, for instance, build orientation, and is optimum at 0◦ build orientation. Low layer
thickness is recommended for tensile properties. It is safe to conclude from the current research, as well
as general knowledge, that tensile strength is maximum at high infill density and a high number of shells.
At high density, interlayer bonds become strong. High extrusion temperature is preferable for tensile
strength. This is because, at a high temperature, the fluidity of the filament increases, and interlayer
bonds become stronger. The optimum raster orientation for tensile strength is still contradictory, but it
may be concluded that a 0◦ /90◦ or −45◦ /45◦ raster orientation is optimum. Additionally, the color is also
a significant factor for tensile strength, and tensile properties are maximum for natural color filaments.
3.3.2. Compressive Strength

For the functional use of FDM printed parts, mechanical properties are also important, along
with dimensional accuracy and surface roughness. Compressive strength is one of the most important
mechanical properties and, like other part characteristics, it is also affected by process parameters. For
the compressive test, almost all papers followed the ASTM 695 standard for compression test of rigid
thermoplastics, as there is no standard for testing the mechanical properties of additive manufacturing
build parts. In the FDM process, the generally used test specimens for this standard are shaped as
follows: (1) right cylinder with 12.7 mm diameter and 25.4 mm height, or (2) rectangular prism with
25.4 mm × 12.7 mm × 12.7 mm dimensions. The speed of the load shell for the testing of compressive
properties is in the range of 1.3 ± 0.3 mm/min. In this section, the surveyed literature related to
compressive strength is systematically reviewed.
Ang et al. [27] used the FDM process to produce an ABS scaffold structure for tissue engineering and
analyzed the impact of different process parameters (air gap, raster width, build orientation, build layer,
and build profile). Among those parameters, air gap and raster width were the two significant parameters
for compressive strength, and the preferable levels for both parameters were lower and upper levels,
respectively. Bagsik et al. [64] analyzed the impact of build orientation on the compressive properties of
ULTEM™ 9085 built parts, and only two build directions were considered, 0◦ and 90◦ . Their experimental
results showed that the compressive property was higher along 90◦ . Sood et al. [8] investigated the
influence of five process parameters on compressive stress, but also developed a quadratic equation that
showed the relationship between process parameters and compressive stress. Their outcomes indicated
that a complex nonlinear relation existed, and the interaction of process parameters was also important
for compressive stress. Unlike the previous research, their results also showed that low build direction,
along with high layer thickness, increased compressive stress, but raster width was insignificant.
For a full factorial experiment, extrusion temperature, raster width, filament color, raster
orientation, and air gap were considered as variables, and the impact of the variables on compressive
strength was analyzed by Ahn et al. [86]. They recommended five build rules for producing a part
by FDM based on an experimental study. Unlike most research findings, the experimental results of
cylindrical-shaped ABS parts showed raster orientation was significant, but build orientation was
insignificant for compressive strength. Lee et al. [36] analyzed only the influence of build orientation on
compressive strength and showed that build orientation was significant, and the strength was maximum
at 0◦ . They concluded that parts produced by additive manufacturing had a low compressive strength
compared to other processes, but FDM process produced parts had a relatively good compressive
strength. Wu et al. [71] showed that layer thickness was significant for compressive strength, but
their outcomes indicated that the center level maximized the properties. In order to compare ABS
and PEEK materials, they produced parts by both materials and tested the compressive strength and
modulus. The outcome was that PEEK had higher mechanical properties, although it demonstrated an
inconsistent stress–strain curve when compared to ABS. Compressive properties of ABS parts were
analyzed by Baich et al. [87], and the infill pattern was their chosen variable. The summary of their
work was that the compressive properties of a part increase as shape complexity increases.
Hernandez et al. [66] analyzed the importance of build orientation for maximizing compressive
properties, along with other mechanical properties. For this, three levels of the process parameters
were considered, and parts were produced by a uPrint SE Plus 3D printer from ABS P430 filaments.
The experimental outcome was that 0◦ build orientation increased compressive strength, compressive
yield strength, and compressive modulus. On the other hand, compressive strength was found to be
minimum at 45◦ build orientation. Unlike other researchers, Zaman et al. [1] produced function parts for
the aerospace industry to study how layer thickness, infill pattern, infill density, and number of shells
were important for compressive properties. In the paper, the experimental study was designed according
to a Taguchi orthogonal array (L8), and specimens were produced from PLA and PETG by a Makerbot
Replicator 2X and Open Edge HDE machine, respectively. The outcome of the experiment and statistical
analysis (ANOVA and S/N ratio) showed that the compressive strength of PETG built parts was slightly
better than PLA built parts. Note that, in their study, different machines were used for different materials.
Short discussion and summary: Research conducted to analyze the impacts of compressive
stress is still limited, and different researches used a different combination of process parameters. In
most of the reported research, it was necessary to use the same values for constant parameters for
valid comparisons. In our view, further investigation is needed to draw a valid conclusion about the
influence of a parameter (or combination of different parameters) on compressive strength. However,
from the existing research, it can be initially concluded that a high level of layer thickness increases
compressive properties. In addition, part orientation is important for comprehensive strength as
it changes the anisotropic properties of FDM parts. From experimental results, as well as general
knowledge, it is also safe to conclude that high infill density, complex infill shape, and a high number
of shells are preferable for improving the compressive properties of the printed parts. To know more
about the influence of process parameters, it is important to investigate extrusion temperature, infill
pattern raster width, and raster orientation. According to the state-of-art research, there is still limited
research that compares the mechanical properties of parts produced from different materials. This is a
research gap that needs to be filled in this field.
3.3.3. Flexural Strength

Flexural strength is an important mechanical property like tensile and compressive strength
for functional parts. ASTM D790 is an international standard for testing the flexural properties of
thermoplastics. A three-point loading system is typically used for flexural strength. The load is
applied to the specimen, and the specimen simply acts as a supported beam. In this section, the
existing research on determining the impacts of FDM process parameters on flexural properties is
summarized extensively.
The impact of layer thickness, build orientation, raster width, raster orientation, and air gap on
flexural strength was investigated by Panda et al. [13], along with tensile strength. The outcome of their
experimental study and statistical analysis was that all parameters, as well as their combination, were
significant for flexural strength. Sood et al. [12] considered the same parameters, and a response surface
equation for flexural strength was developed that showed the relationship between process parameters
and the obtained strength. Other than that, response surface plots were also used to describe the
significance of the interactions of two parameters for flexural strength. A high level of layer thickness
and raster width, and a low level of the other parameters were deemed to increased flexural strength.
The optimum raster orientation for flexural strength was determined by Fatimatuzahraa et al. [67] with
ABS parts produced by a Dimension SST 768 FDM machine with four different of raster orientations.
They concluded that flexural strength was maximum at a 45◦ /−45◦ raster orientation.
Durgun et al. [4] investigated build orientation and raster orientation to determine the levels of both
parameters that maximized the flexural strength of ABS parts. Their finding was that 0◦ raster orientation
and 0◦ build orientation maximized flexural strength, as well as surface roughness. Lužanin et al. [88]
produced PLA parts by a MakerBot Replicator 2 for investigating flexural strength. The analyzed process
parameters were layer thickness, build orientation, and infill density. Based on the experimental results and
statistical analysis (ANOVA), layer thickness and the interaction between build orientation and infill density
were significant for flexural strength. Raut et al. [89] analyzed the impact of built orientation on flexural
strength of ABS parts produced by a Stratasys FDM machine. For the build orientation, the outcome of
the analysis was the same as the outcome by Durgun et al. [4]. Hernandez et al. [66] considered only
one process parameter, which was build orientation, to analyze the impact on the flexural strength. Parts
were produced according to ASTM D790 from ABS P430 filament, and the results indicated that flexural
properties, like compressive properties, were maximum at 0◦ build orientation. Liu et al. [33] designed
their experiments based on a Taguchi orthogonal array, and PLA parts were designed according to GB/T
9341 (a Chinese testing standard). According to ANOVA analysis at a 5% significance level, they concluded
that build orientation, layer thickness, and raster orientation were significant for flexural strength.
Wu et al. [71] compared flexural properties along with tensile and compressive properties for PEEK
and ABS. Unlike tensile and compressive properties, the experimental outcome showed that flexural
properties were almost similar for both materials. Christiyan et al. [90] analyzed the impact of layer
thickness and print speed on flexural strength. Unlike most research findings, the composite parts were
built from ABS and hydrous magnesium silicate according to ASTM D790. The experimental investigation
showed that flexural strength was maximum at a low layer thickness and print speed. The influence
of two quantitative parameters (layer thickness and print speed) and one categorical variable (build
orientation; flat, on-edge, and upright) on flexural strength was analyzed by Chacon et al. [11]. For flexural
strength, like tensile strength, they developed a quadratic model for each build orientation. The flexural
strength was found to be maximum at on-edge build orientation, and optimum layer thickness and
print speed depended on build orientation. Raju et al. [19] considered layer thickness, build orientation,
the support material, and the model interior as variables, and ABS parts were produced according to a
Taguchi orthogonal array (L18). To demonstrate the relationship between the four process parameters and
flexural strength, a linear regression model was developed, and, based on the equation, their research
summary was that a high layer thickness and a low build orientation increased the flexural strength.
Short discussion and summary: Flexural strength is one of the least analyzed mechanical
properties in comparison to compressive and tensile strength. Based on the analysis of the existing
research, it can be concluded that the relationship between flexural strength and process parameters is
more complex compared to tensile or compressive strength. This is because, during flexural strength
testing, a component experiences both tensile and compressive force. Flexural strength is maximum
at 0◦ build orientation. In this build orientation, the orientation of the filament is perpendicular
to the direction of the load applied. Further research is required to know the impact of various
process parameters, including layer thickness, raster orientation, print speed, and air gap on flexural
strength. Based on the current literature review, the impact of some parameters such as infill pattern,
extrusion temperature, and infill density on flexural properties was not widely analyzed. As one of the
future research directions, it will be valuable for public information if more parameters are analyzed
simultaneously to know the cumulative impact of printed parts on flexural strength.
3.4. Build Time

To be able to compete with traditional manufacturing processes, the reduction of lead time, as well
as production time, is one of the main concerns for additive manufacturing processes to be employed
in industrial settings. Therefore, along with part characteristics such as surface roughness, dimensional
accuracy, and mechanical properties, build time reduction is an important requirement for functional
part production. In addition, the control of “failures” for build time is very important, for example,
blocked nozzles can significantly increase build time. Like other part characteristics of FDM parts,
build time is also affected by process parameters, and it can be minimized by selecting an optimum
combination of process parameters.
To know the impact of three process parameters (layer thickness, air gap, and raster orientation)
on build time, Nancharaiah [9] designed an experiment according to a Taguchi orthogonal array (L9)
and produced parts by an FDM machine. Along with a positive air gap, a negative air gap was also
considered in their work. Their results indicated that a high layer thickness and a positive air gap
reduced build time; the layer thickness was the most significant process parameter, and the raster
orientation was insignificant for build time. Kumar et al. [24] investigated the impact of layer thickness,
raster orientation, raster width, build orientation, and shell width on build time. They applied a full
factorial experimental design to determine the required number of experimental runs for two levels of
parameters and produced parts using a Stratasys FDM 200 machine. Their conclusion was similar
to the conclusion by Nancharaiah [9]; the raster orientation was insignificant for build time. The
impact of layer thickness, raster width, raster orientation, number of shells, air gap, STL deviation, and
STL orientation on build time was studied by Ali et al. [91]. In their paper, the first-time impact of
STL deviation and STL orientation was analyzed. A multilinear regression model for build time was
developed at a 95% confidence level, and results showed that STL deviation and STL orientation were
insignificant for build time. To determine an optimum combination of three process parameters (layer
thickness, build orientation, and raster orientation) for build time, Nidagundi et al. [7] designed an
experiment using a Taguchi orthogonal array. Unlike the previously mentioned papers, they showed
that raster orientation, layer thickness, and build orientation were all significant for build time.
Rhee et al. [92] investigated layer thickness, shell width, air gap, raster width, raster orientation,
and build orientation to know the importance of those parameters for build time. They developed a
quadratic response surface equation using a central composite design (CCD) approach for different
spatial orientations (rotation around different axes). The outcome of the study showed the layer
thickness was the most significant parameter, and other significant parameters were raster orientation
and air gap. One contradiction with other reviewed papers was that they claimed raster width was
insignificant, but raster orientation was a significant parameter for build time. Other conclusions
were the spatial rotation was significant, and the build time was minimum when the shortest side
of an object was placed in the Z-direction. Srivastava et al. [93] designed an experiment according
to CCD, and considered six controllable parameters with three levels each. Among the studied
parameters, the layer thickness, shell width, air gap, and raster width were significant parameters, and
the insignificant parameters were raster orientation and build orientation. Wu [38] studied the impact
of layer thickness on some part qualities, and one of them was build time; for this, cylindrical PLA
parts were manufactured by a Raise3D N2plus FDM machine. Their outcome was the same as other
research, whereby build time decreased with an increase in layer thickness.
Short discussion and summary: From the outcomes of the reviewed papers on build time, build time
was found to be minimum at a high layer thickness, 0◦ build orientation, and low infill density. Minimum
build time means that it is faster to print a part. The impact of raster orientation and raster angle on
build time is still unknown. Thus, further analyses are still needed to draw a more valid conclusion. On
a separate note, build time may also be significantly affected by the FDM machine itself. A good FDM
machine typically can produce a relatively good-quality part faster than a poor FDM machine. One further
research direction is to study the influence of the infill pattern and extrusion temperature on build time.
3.5. Part Geometry

The part characteristics of an FDM part deteriorate as the complexity of the part’s geometry
increases. For instance, the surface quality and dimensional accuracy of a flat-surfaced part are typically
better than for a cylindrical or pyramid-shaped part. The staircase effect is a common problem in the
FDM process. The support structures of an FDM printed part are typically required for overhanging
parts, and the removal of these support structures may reduce part characteristics. The quality of an
FDM part depends on process parameters, mechanical properties, and geometrical properties [94].
Bakar et al. [40] produced a test model with different shapes (slot, cube, ring cylinder). The authors
showed that the impact of process parameters depended on part geometry. They concluded that the
cylindrical shape had the maximum surface roughness and dimensional deviation when compared to
the other shapes. It was also shown that the diameter size was important for part characteristics. The
part with a smaller diameter had a higher surface roughness due to high thermal stress.
Sun et al. [95] mentioned that print speed and the tool path selection also depended on part
geometry. In addition, the bonding strength of layers and part characteristics were affected by
extrusion temperature, build platform temperature, and cooling rate. Gajdos et al. [96] performed an
experimental study to analyze the impact of printing conditions on the part structure. They showed
that structural homogeneity was affected by the shape of a part. For their study, rectangular and
circular cross-section parts were produced. Their results showed that extrusion temperature and
build platform temperature were more significant for the structural homogeneity of a rectangular
cross-section part. Masood et al. [97] analyzed the impact of build orientation on the volumetric
error of a build part. Further, a mathematical model was developed to determine the optimum build
orientation that minimized the volumetric error for different part geometries. It was shown that
the optimum build orientation depended on part geometry. For uniformly shaped parts (cube or
cylindrical parts), a horizontal or vertical build orientation is able to minimize volumetric errors. For
non-uniformly shaped parts (pyramid parts), the selection of a build orientation that can minimize
volumetric error depends on the overall part geometry’s complexity.
To analyze the impact of part geometry, Kuznetsov et al. [98] produced a part that consisted of two
coaxial cylinders; one was larger, and the other was smaller in diameter size. Mechanical properties of the
part were tested by applying a radial load to the small-diameter cylinder. The experimental study showed
that the mechanical performance of a part can be improved in different ways such as by increasing part
volume, introducing cavities, and converting an interrupted shell into a continuous shell. Carneiro et al. [99]
produced five wing ribs with different configurations for an aircraft structure from PLA using an FDM
process. The authors compared different wing ribs by determining strength, stiffness, and mass. According
to their results, printing accuracy and surface finish affect the strength and part cross-section dimension.
Mercado-Colmenero et al. [100] produced a real-world complex functional part (a machine for the olive
harvesting process) using the FDM process with PLA as the filament material. It was shown that the FDM
process is a promising technology for low-volume industrial complex component manufacturing.
Short discussion and summary: To explore more on the capabilities of the FDM process and to
expand the applications of the FDM process, it is necessary to produce functional parts for research
purposes, in addition to testing samples according to international standards (e.g., ASTM). The part
characteristics of a complex part can be improved by selecting proper geometrical configurations. The
optimal process parameters related to geometrical configurations can be further determined to reduce
printing errors and defects. Considering the complex part geometry and process parameters together
for improving part characteristics is a research gap in the field of FDM part characteristic optimization.
3.6. Other Part Characteristics

Other than the above-presented works, there are other research efforts that were done in analyzing
at least one different part characteristic other than dimensional accuracy, surface roughness, build
time, tensile strength, compressive strength, and flexural strength. In Table 2, a list of papers is
organized based on these categories. Machine/equipment, methods/tools, materials, considered
process parameters, and part characteristics are presented. Since there is a lot of scattered information,
interested readers are encouraged to further review the work based on their interest.
Table 2. Studies focusing on process parameter analysis. S/N—signal-to-noise; CCD—central composite

design; RSM—response surface method; ANN—artificial neural network; GA—genetic algorithm;
DoE—design of experiment; PC—polycarbonate; CABS—conductive ABS; PEEK—polyether ether ketone.
Machine/ Process
Reference Material Methods/Tools Part Characteristics
Equipment Parameters
Fused
deposition Build orientation
Rodriguez et al.
- ABS design and raster Strength
[101]
optimization orientation
tool (FDMOT)
Taguchi Layer thickness,
FDM3000 method (L9), raster orientation,
Lee et al. [36] ABS Elastic performance
machine S/N ratio, raster width, air
ANOVA gap
Taguchi Layer thickness,
FDM3000 method (L9), raster orientation, Throwing distance of
Laeng et al. [37] ABS
machine S/N ratio, raster width, air a bow
ANOVA gap
CCD, finite
element Layer thickness,
Residual stress and
Zhang et al. [50] - ABS analysis (FEA), print speed, raster
part distortion
ANOVA, width,
regression
Ultimate tensile
strength, yield
FDM 1650
Es-Said et al. [26] ABS - Raster orientation strength, flexural
machine
strength, and impact
strength
Layer thickness,
FDM CCD, ANOVA,
build orientation, Tensile strength,
Vantage bacterial
Panda et al. [13] ABS raster orientation, flexural strength, and
SE foraging
raster width, air impact strength
machine optimization
gap
Layer thickness,
FDM
CCD, ANOVA, build orientation, Tensile strength,
Vantage
Sood et al. [12] ABS response raster orientation, flexural strength, and
SE
surface plot raster width, air impact strength
machine
gap
Tensile strength,
Dimension
Fatimatuzahraa et al. flexural strength,
SST 768 ABS - Raster orientation
[67] impact strength, and
machine
deflection test
FDM Build style, raster
Arivazhagan et al. Viscosity and
Vantage ABS - orientation, raster
[29] modulus
machine width
FDM Dynamic
Jami et al. [30] Vantage ABS Build orientation stress–strain
machine response
Open-source
Raster orientation Tensile strength and
Tymark et al. [102] 3D ABS and PLA -
and layer thickness elastic modulus
printers
Table 2. Cont.
Machine/ Process
Width
RSM, Fuzzy Build time,
compensation,
MEM-300 inference dimensional
Peng et al. [35] ABS layer thickness,
machine system (FIS), accuracy, warp
extrusion velocity
ANN, GA deformation.
and filling velocity
MakerBot Ultimate tensile
Raster orientation
Letcher et al. [3] Replicator ABS - strength, modulus of
and layer thickness
2x elasticity, elongation
Ultimate shear
Layer thickness,
Taguchi strength, 0.2% yield
MakerBot infill density and
method, strength,
Torres et al. [34] Replicator PLA postprocessing
regression, proportional limit,
2 heat-treatment
ANOVA shear modulus, and
time
fracture strain
Stratasys Part cost, tensile,
Baich et al. [87] Fortus ABS - Infill pattern compressive and
250mc flexural properties
Stratasys
Tensile strength and
Ziemian et al. [72] Vantage-i ABS ANOVA Raster orientation
fatigue performance
machine
Fortus
360mc
Raster orientation
machine digital image Tensile and shear
Cantrell et al. [23] ABS and PC and build
and correlation properties
orientation
Ultimaker
2
Build orientation,
Young’s modulus,
infill density, print
MakerBot yield strength, tensile
speed, layer
Qattawi et al. [20] Replicator PLA FEA strength,
thickness, infill
2x dimensional
pattern, extrusion
accuracy
temperature
Tensile strength,
Stratasys failure strain,
Digital image
Zaldivar et al. [21] Fortus Ultem 9085 Build orientation modulus Poisson’s
correlation
400 mc ratio, thermal
expansion
Taguchi Build orientation,
method, S/N layer thickness,
MakerBot Tensile, flexural and
Liu et al. [33] PLA ratio, ANOVA, raster orientation,
Replicator2 impact strength
gray relational raster width, air
analysis gap
Taguchi
method, S/N
ratio,
regression, Layer thickness, Hardness, flexural
hybrid particle build orientation, modulus, tensile
Raju et al. [19] - ABS
swarm and support material, strength, and surface
bacterial model interior roughness
foraging
optimization
(PSO–BFO)
RepRap Tensile, dynamic and
ABS/ZnO and Infill pattern and
Aw et al. [79] Mendelmax - thermoelectric
CABS/Zno infill density
1.5 properties,
Table 2. Cont.
Machine/ Process
Print speed, layer
Tensile strength,
thickness,
Taguchi elongation, flexural
Deng et al. [82] PEEK extrusion
method strength, impact
temperature, infill
strength
density
Infill Ultimate tensile
density, extrusion strength, yield
Fernandes et al. Ultimaker
PLA ANOVA temperature, raster strength, modulus of
[31] 2
orientation, and elasticity and
layer thickness elongation
Air gap, raster
width, build
FDM 1650 Compressive
Ang et al. [27] ABS Fractional DoE orientation, build
machine properties, porosity
layer and build
profile
Layer thickness,
Full factorial raster orientation,
FDM Build time, support
Kumar et al. [24] ABS design, raster width, build
200mc material volume
ANOVA orientation, shell
width
Dimension
Górski et al. [103] BST 1200 ABS - Build orientation Impact strength
machine
Layer thickness, air
Stratasys Fraction gap, raster
Storage modulus,
Mohamed et al. FDM factorial design, orientation, build
PC–ABS blend loss modulus,
[22] Fortus ANOVA, orientation, road
mechanical dumping
400 mc regression width, and number
of shells
Ultimaker Energy Layer height, raster Thermal
Elkholy et al. [32] PLA
2 equation width conductivity
Tensile strength,
FDM 1650
Es-Said et al. [26] ABS - Raster orientation modulus of rupture,
machine
impact resistance
gap, raster
Srivastava et al. Fortus CCD, fuzzy orientation, build Build time and
ABS
[93] 250mc logic orientation, road support volume
width, and shell
width
Srivastava et al. Fortus ANOVA, S/N
ABS gap, road width, Material volume
[104] 250mc ratio
and shell width
Ultimaker Taguchi design,
Dong et al. [105] 2 ABS S/N ratio, - Lattice structure
Extended+ ANOVA
Table 2. Cont.
Machine/ Process
Taguchi
method, S/N
ratio
Process Extrusion
Tensile strength,
Capability temperature, raster
Rinanto et al. [83] - PLA energy consumption,
Ratio-Technique orientation, infill
and build time
for Order density
Performance by
Similarity to
Ideal Solution
(PCR-TOPSIS)
4. Process Parameter Optimization

In most of the presented research, the optimum combination of process parameters was determined
from an experimental study, and the experimental outcome that generated a better solution was
considered as the optimum solution. However, the combination of process parameters for the
best solution may be different from the experimental combinations, and they must be within the
allowable range of process parameters. To overcome this shortcoming, different optimization methods
were employed by different researchers. In most optimization problems, the objective function is
a mathematical model that represents the relationship between process parameters and one single
part’s characteristic. In multi-objective optimization, a combination of mathematical models is used
to represent the relationship between process parameters and multiple parts’ characteristics. The
constraints are the allowable range of process parameters; generally, this represents the highest and
lowest levels of process parameters from the FDM machine or a range of process parameters that are
known to produce good part characteristics. In this section, the papers that employed optimization
techniques to get the desired combination of process parameters are summarized.
Sood et al. [8] applied quantum-behaved particle swarm optimization (QPSO) to get the optimum
combination of five process parameters for compressive strength. In the paper, a quadratic response
surface model for compressive strength was generated by MINITAB R14, and the validity of the model
was checked by the normal probability plot of residuals. Other than optimization, the compressive
strength obtained by the quadratic model was compared to an ANN prediction. Rayegani et al. [10]
developed a mathematical model for tensile strength using a group method for data handling (GMDH),
and differential evolution (DE) was implemented to generate the optimum combination of build
orientation, raster orientation, raster width, and air gap.
In some works, characteristics of more than two parts were optimized simultaneously to determine
the optimum combination(s) for multiple conflicting characteristics. Sood et al. [54] determined the
optimum combination of five process parameters (layer thickness, build orientation, raster orientation,
raster width, and air gap) for three-directional (length, width, and height) dimensional accuracy. The
authors used the Taguchi method for optimization of all dimensional accuracies, and an optimal
solution that minimized three-directional dimensional accuracy was determined. In addition, the
author also employed an ANN approach for prediction. Liu et al. [33] also applied the Taguchi method
for evaluating the levels of process parameters (build orientation, layer thickness, raster orientation,
raster width, and raster gap) for tensile strength, flexural strength, and impact strength.
Sood et al. [12] published another paper where the desirability function was applied for
multi-objective optimization, instead of the gray Taguchi method. In their research, three mechanical
properties (tensile, flexural, and impact strength) were optimized simultaneously. Akande [14] also
applied the desirability function to transform two objectives (surface finishing and dimensional
accuracy) into one objective and get an optimum combination of layer thickness, print speed, and
infill density. Peng et al. [35] used RSM, fuzzy logic, and the genetic algorithm (GA) to optimize
dimensional accuracy, warp deformation, and build time. In their work, the fuzzy logic method was
applied to convert three objectives (dimensional accuracy, warp deformation, and build time) into
a single objective. Furthermore, this single objective optimization problem was later solved using
GA. Srivastava et al. [93] used RSM combined with Fuzzy logic for optimizing the build time and
support material volume simultaneously. Rinanto et al. [83] used a method called process capability
ratio-technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution (PCR-TOPSIS) to get an optimum
combination of extrusion temperature, infill density, and raster orientation for tensile strength, energy
consumption, and build time. The above-discussed multi-objective optimization algorithms are able
to generate a single optimum solution, and this is a disadvantage of single-solution multi-objective
optimization. One of the reasons is that a unique solution may not be valid for multiple responses
due to the different users’ requirements. Therefore, multi-objective optimization techniques which
generate a set of non-dominated solutions, often known as the Pareto frontier, are more suitable for
FDM process parameter optimization.
There are only limited articles that used multi-objective optimization algorithms that generated a set
of optimal solutions. Pandey et al. [106] minimized surface roughness and build time simultaneously
by considering build orientation as a variable. To solve the optimization problem, the non-dominated
sorting genetic algorithm-II (NSGA-II), a heuristic algorithm, was used, and a set of optimum solutions
was generated. Gurrala et al. [15] also applied NSGA-II for optimizing tensile strength and volumetric
shrinkage simultaneously, and quadratic equations of both part characteristics were determined using
Design Expert®software. Finally, a set of non-dominated optimum solutions was generated by
NSGA-II. Rao et al. [16] introduced a teaching–learning-based optimization (TLBO) algorithm and
non-dominated sorting TLBO (NSTLBO) algorithm in the field of FDM for single-objective optimization
and multiple-objective optimization, respectively, and they showed that the algorithms worked better
than many heuristic algorithms including QPSO, GA, and NSGA-II. The recent work on FDM process
parameter optimization is summarized in Table 3 based on the optimization method employed, process
parameters considered, and part characteristics of interest. Please note that, due to the page limitations of
this paper, the optimization methods are not discussed in detail. Interested readers are encouraged to
review the provided references for more information about the step-by-step optimization procedure for
each optimization method.
Table 3. Research on numerical optimization. QPSO—quantum-behaved particle swam optimization;

DE—differential evolution; NSGA-II—non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II.
Reference Optimization Method Process Parameters Part Characteristics

Layer thickness, build orientation, raster
Sood et al. [8] QPSO Compressive strength
orientation, raster width, and air gap
Rayegani et al. Build orientation, raster orientation,
DE Tensile strength
[10] raster width, and air gap
Layer thickness, raster orientation,
Panda et al. [69] PSO Tensile strength
raster width, and air gap
Bacteria foraging Layer thickness, build orientation, raster Tensile, flexural, and
Panda et al. [13]
optimization (BFO) orientation, raster width, and air gap impact strength
Dimensional accuracy
Layer thickness, build orientation, raster
Sood et al. [54] Gray Taguchi method (length, width, and
orientation, raster width, and air gap
thickness)
Layer thickness, build orientation, raster Tensile, flexural, and
Liu et al. [33] Gray Taguchi method
orientation, raster width, and air gap impact strength
Layer thickness, build orientation, raster Tensile, flexural, and
Sood et al. [12] Desirability function
orientation, raster width, and air gap impact strength
Layer thickness, print speed, and infill Dimensional accuracy
Akande [14] Desirability function
density and surface roughness
Table 3. Cont.
Reference Optimization Method Process Parameters Part Characteristics

Line width compensation, Dimensional accuracy,
Peng et al. [35] Fuzzy logic and GA extrusion velocity, filling velocity, and warp deformation, and
layer thickness build time
Layer thickness, build orientation, shell
Srivastava et al. Build time and support
Fuzzy logic width, raster orientation, raster width,
[93] material volume
and air gap
Tensile strength, energy
Rinanto et al. Extrusion temperature, infill density,
PCR-TOPSIS consumption, and build
[83] and raster orientation
time
Surface roughness,
Layer thickness, build orientation, hardness, tensile
Raju et al. [19] PSO–BFO
support material, and model interior strength, and flexural
modulus
Pandey et al. Surface roughness and
NSGA-II Build orientation
[106] build time
Gurrala et al. Model interior, horizontal direction, and Tensile strength and
NSGA-II
[15] vertical direction volumetric shrinkage
5. Discussion and Potential Research Areas

Based on the presented research of process parameters, this section describes the major findings
and shortcomings of the existing research and the future direction of research in the FDM process
parameters optimization. The future direction of research may contribute to increasing FDM usage in
industrial mass production, reducing the shortcomings of the FDM process to ensure process efficiency,
and improving or optimizing printer part characteristics.
Limited Materials: One of the disadvantages of the FDM process to be employed in industries is
that only limited materials can be used as filaments. ABS and PLA are the two most widely analyzed
filament materials, and some other materials such as PC and Ultem 9085 are also considered as other
good part materials. Comparing ABS and PLA, PLA is rigid and biodegradable; however, ABS is
ductile and heat resistant. ABS has a high tendency to warp when compared to PLA, and the warping
occurs mainly due to an uneven cooling rate. The comparison of ABS and PLA is given in Table 1. The
impact of process parameters on other materials including nylon, PPSF, and TPU is still unknown.
Thus, to increase the use of the FDM process and produce parts with different part characteristics, it
may be helpful to consider different materials (other than ABS and PLA) as part materials for research
purposes, as well as for functional parts. Research efforts aimed at studying the influence of process
parameters on two or more materials are still limited. Rodríguez-Panes et al. [85] concluded that
process parameters are more significant for PLA when compared to ABS. The comparison of different
materials will be helpful to predict the impact of parameters on new materials, as well as the part
characteristics of parts built from new materials.
From the existing research, it can be concluded that the part characteristics of FDM parts are worse
than the part characteristics of traditional manufacturing processes, for instance, injection molding. To
compete with traditional manufacturing processes, it is necessary to improve part quality along with
the advantages of the additive manufacturing process. There is a need to explore new materials in
addition to developing composite or hybrid filament materials, including bio-composite and bioplastic
materials. Two or more thermoplastic blends and reinforced thermoplastics may be two good options
for developing new filament materials.
Process Parameters: The FDM process consists of several parameters, but layer thickness, build
orientation, raster orientation, raster width, air gap, and infill density are the most analyzed process
parameters. To explore more about the FDM process, there is a need to know about the least analyzed
parameters such as infill pattern, number of shells, shell width, raft thickness, nozzle diameters,
build platform temperature, cooling rate, etc. Due to the wide range of different equipment used
for the FDM process, some of these parameters may not be always controllable, which eventually
makes the analysis rather difficult to be performed. From the existing research, the impact of some
process parameters is clear. For example, 0◦ build orientation maximizes the mechanical properties,
dimensional accuracy, and surface finishing and minimizes the build time, as the longest side of a part
placed in the XY-plane reduces the number of layers, and the downward speed of the build platform
(after each layer deposition) is lower than the print speed. Another parameter, infill density, maximizes
the mechanical properties (tensile, compressive, flexural, and impact strength) and build time when
high. The infill density is not significant for dimensional accuracy and surface roughness.
Although the FDM process has several parameters, and many of them are interdependent, in
most of the existing research, only three to six parameters were considered as variables, and other
parameters were considered as constants. A process parameter that is considered as a variable may be
affected by the constant values of other parameters. Ideally, a more valuable piece of information can
be gained by considering as many parameters as variables as possible. However, in reality, this is not
something that is easily achievable. A major disadvantage of considering more variables is the number
of experimental runs and the cost (time and resources), which increase exponentially.
In the existing research, dimensional accuracy, surface roughness, and several mechanical
properties could be improved by optimizing the process parameters. There are many other part
characteristics, such as thermal properties, environmental properties, other mechanical properties,
support materials, and part shape complexity, which are equally important for functional parts.
Optimizing those part characteristics is also important for producing higher-quality FDM parts. This
could be a potential future research direction in this field.
Optimum Combination: In most of the existing research, the optimum combination of process
parameters was determined from experimental studies instead of applying numerical optimizations.
Thus, an optimum solution is one of the combinations from the experimental data. However, the
actual optimal solutions might be different. In addition, there may be some combinations that are
not analyzed due to the limited amount of resources, effort, time, and cost. This shortcoming can be
overcome by using numerical optimization algorithms. Only a few researchers worked on the numerical
optimization of process parameters, and most of them optimized only a single part’s characteristics.
However, one of the drawbacks is that optimizing a single part’s characteristics may not always be a
practical solution for real-world applications, as a functional part typically requires fulfilling more than
one part’s requirements. For this kind of functional part, to get an optimum combination of parameters
for multiple parts’ characteristics, multi-objective optimization is a useful approach. There is a need for
more research efforts on multi-objective process parameter optimizations for the FDM process.
In addition to mathematically optimizing process parameters, there are some additional concerns
from the practitioners’ perspective. Although optimizing process parameters can give decision-makers
a full spectrum of process parameter ranges to obtain the desired part characteristics, the combinations
of the best process parameters may not always be achievable in certain FDM machines. This is due to
either the FDM printers not offering a certain range of parameters, or some process parameters unable
to be controlled. In order to verify that the optimum process parameter combination is applicable, a
validation experimental process should be carried out with the results obtained from the mathematical
parameter optimization.
Process Uncertainty: Another consideration that may improve part characteristics is controlling
the uncertainties in the FDM process. FDM is a complex process; a CAD design passes through several
stages to an STL file before it can be used to build a physical object. Each stage has different sources of
uncertainties, for example, during the printing process, extrusion temperature variability, properties of
filaments, feed rate variability, the environment, or ambient conditions. Other sources of uncertainties
can be found prior to printing or outside of the printing process, for example, FDM software algorithms,
its assumptions, or numerical model approximations. By considering the uncertainties of the FDM
process during process parameter optimization, a part with consistent quality and less variation can
be produced. There are limited research efforts that considered the uncertainties in the FDM process.
Hu et al. [107] worked on predicting the uncertainty quantification of material properties but not the
FDM process. The uncertainty quantification of the FDM process is another good direction of research.
Multi-Disciplinary Research: Now more than ever, machine learning algorithms are widely
applied to data analysis for prediction or learning purposes. These algorithms are also applicable in the
field of FDM for the prediction of part qualities, especially in mass-producing FDM parts. In the FDM
process, filaments are heated at a high temperature, and the deposited layers are cooled in the build
platform. These heating and cooling processes have a significant impact on part characteristics. A
closed-loop feedback system through image processing and machine learning algorithms is applicable
to control and monitor FDM process performance. Any process parameter deviation may be adjusted
based on an advanced control system with some predictive algorithms. By integrating advancements
in other disciplines into the FDM process, the realization of the FDM process being employed in an
Industry 4.0 setting will be more viable in the near future.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, comprehensive information on FDM process parameters and their impact on part
characteristics was concisely summarized. The authors of this review article hope to provide readers
with a better understanding of the FDM process and its state-of-the-art research. This article also
gives general insight into the existing research carried out on process parameter optimization of
the FDM process by using different tools such as the design of experiment (DoE), statistical tools,
and optimization methods. Overall, FDM process parameters are deemed to be interdependent and
significant for part characteristics. The quality of printed parts and the efficiency of the FDM process
can be improved by optimizing a certain set of process parameters. Along with summarizing existing
works, challenges and opportunities for future research directions are introduced. The key findings of
this survey and future research directions are summarized below.
• PLA and ABS are the two most widely used materials. Along with PLA and ABS, other materials
such as nylon, PETG, and composite materials can be used as filament materials for research
purposes, as well for producing functional parts, to get a wider range of material selections and
printed part characteristics.
• Some process parameters such as infill pattern, print speed, shell width, or extrusion temperature
are less analyzed compared to layer thickness, build orientation, raster width, or raster orientation.
The least known process parameters may be considered as variables for future research directions.
• There is limited research that optimized multiple parts’ characteristics simultaneously. Further
research on multi-objective process parameter optimizations can be another direction for
future research.
• The FDM process is complex. It consists of several steps, and each step has different levels of
uncertainty. Consistency of printed FDM parts can be improved by considering uncertainties
during design and manufacturing. Additionally, it is also essential to incorporate the uncertainty
of mathematical models and algorithms during analysis.
• Toward a multi-disciplinary research direction, various machine learning algorithms and image
processing may be applied for predicting part characteristics in the FDM process.
Based on the findings of the existing works, some future directions and research gaps were
identified for the FDM process. The authors of this review paper hope to encourage the general public
to work together to reduce the research gaps in the FDM process, as well as simultaneously increasing
FDM’s employment in a wide range of industries, and FDM parts in the market.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.D. and N.Y.; methodology, A.D.; validation, A.D..; formal analysis,
A.D.; investigation, A.D.; resources, N.Y.; data curation, A.D.; writing—original draft preparation, A.D.;
writing—review and editing, N.Y.; visualization, A.D.; supervision, N.Y.; project administration, N.Y.; funding
acquisition, N.Y.
Funding: This research was partially funded by ND-EPSCOR, grant number FAR0030453.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. uz Zaman, U.K.; Boesch, E.; Siadat, A.; Rivette, M.; Baqai, A.A. Impact of fused deposition modeling (FDM)
process parameters on strength of built parts using Taguchi’s design of experiments. Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 2019, 101, 1215–1226. [CrossRef]
2. Chen, H.; Yang, X.; Chen, L.; Wang, Y.; Sun, Y. Application of FDM three-dimensional printing technology in
the digital manufacture of custom edentulous mandible trays. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 19207. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Letcher, T.; Rankouhi, B.; Javadpour, S. Experimental study of mechanical properties of additively
manufactured ABS plastic as a function of layer parameters. In Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition (IMECE), Houston, TX, USA, 13–19 November 2015.
4. Durgun, I.; Ertan, R. Experimental investigation of FDM process for improvement of mechanical properties
and production cost. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2014, 20, 228–235. [CrossRef]
5. Raney, K.; Lani, E.; Kalla, D.K. Experimental characterization of the tensile strength of ABS parts manufactured
by fused deposition modeling process. Mater. Today Proc. 2017, 4, 7956–7961. [CrossRef]
6. Nancharaiah, T.; Raju, D.R.; Raju, V.R. An experimental investigation on surface quality and dimensional
accuracy of FDM components. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. 2010, 1, 106–111.
7. Nidagundi, V.B.; Keshavamurthy, R.; Prakash, C. Studies on parametric optimization for fused deposition
modelling process. Mater. Today Proc. 2015, 2, 1691–1699. [CrossRef]
8. Sood, A.K.; Ohdar, R.K.; Mahapatra, S.S. Experimental investigation and empirical modelling of FDM process
for compressive strength improvement. J. Adv. Res. 2012, 3, 81–90. [CrossRef]
9. Nancharaiah, T. Optimization of process parameters in FDM process using design of experiments.
Int. J. Emerg. Technol. 2011, 2, 100–102.
10. Rayegani, F.; Onwubolu, G.C. Fused deposition modelling (FDM) process parameter prediction and
optimization using group method for data handling (GMDH) and differential evolution (DE). Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 2014, 73, 509–519. [CrossRef]
11. Chacón, J.; Caminero, M.; García-Plaza, E.; Núñez, P. Additive manufacturing of PLA structures using fused
deposition modelling: Effect of process parameters on mechanical properties and their optimal selection.
Mater. Des. 2017, 124, 143–157. [CrossRef]
12. Sood, A.K.; Ohdar, R.K.; Mahapatra, S.S. Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused deposition
modelling processed parts. Mater. Des. 2010, 31, 287–295. [CrossRef]
13. Panda, S.K.; Padhee, S.; Anoop Kumar, S.; Mahapatra, S.S. Optimization of fused deposition modelling
(FDM) process parameters using bacterial foraging technique. Intell. Inf. Manag. 2009, 1, 89–97. [CrossRef]
14. Akande, S.O. Dimensional accuracy and surface finish optimization of fused deposition modelling parts
using desirability function analysis. Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol 2015, 4, 196–202.
15. Gurrala, P.K.; Regalla, S.P. Multi-objective optimisation of strength and volumetric shrinkage of FDM parts:
a multi-objective optimization scheme is used to optimize the strength and volumetric shrinkage of FDM
parts considering different process parameters. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2014, 9, 127–138. [CrossRef]
16. Rao, R.V.; Rai, D.P. Optimization of fused deposition modeling process using teaching-learning-based
optimization algorithm. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2016, 19, 587–603. [CrossRef]
17. Mohamed, O.A.; Masood, S.H.; Bhowmik, J.L. Optimization of fused deposition modeling process parameters:
A review of current research and future prospects. Adv. Manuf. 2015, 3, 42–53. [CrossRef]
18. Popescu, D.; Zapciu, A.; Amza, C.; Baciu, F.; Marinescu, R. FDM process parameters influence over the
mechanical properties of polymer specimens: A review. Polym. Test. 2018, 69, 157–166. [CrossRef]
19. Raju, M.; Gupta, M.K.; Bhanot, N.; Sharma, V.S. A hybrid PSO–BFO evolutionary algorithm for optimization
of fused deposition modelling process parameters. J. Intell. Manuf. 2018, 1–16. [CrossRef]
20. Qattawi, A.; Alrawi, B.; Guzman, A. Experimental optimization of fused deposition modelling processing
parameters: a design-for-manufacturing approach. Procedia Manuf. 2017, 10, 791–803.
21. Zaldivar, R.; Witkin, D.; McLouth, T.; Patel, D.; Schmitt, K.; Nokes, J. Influence of processing and orientation
print effects on the mechanical and thermal behavior of 3D-Printed ULTEM®9085 Material. Addit. Manuf.
2017, 13, 71–80. [CrossRef]
22. Mohamed, O.A.; Masood, S.H.; Bhowmik, J.L.; Nikzad, M.; Azadmanjiri, J. Effect of process parameters on
dynamic mechanical performance of fdm PC/ABS printed parts through design of experiment. J. Mater. Eng.
Perform. 2016, 25, 2922–2935. [CrossRef]
23. Cantrell, J.T.; Rohde, S.; Damiani, D.; Gurnani, R.; DiSandro, L.; Anton, J.; Young, A.; Jerez, A.; Steinbach, D.;
Kroese, C. Experimental characterization of the mechanical properties of 3D-printed ABS and polycarbonate
parts. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2017, 23, 811–824. [CrossRef]
24. Kumar, G.P.; Regalla, S.P. Optimization of support material and build time in fused deposition modeling
(FDM). Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 110–116, 2245–2251. [CrossRef]
25. Montero, M.; Roundy, S.; Odell, D.; Ahn, S.-H.; Wright, P.K. Material characterization of fused deposition
modeling (FDM) ABS by designed experiments. Soc. Manuf. Eng. 2001, 10, 1–21.
26. Es-Said, O.; Foyos, J.; Noorani, R.; Mendelson, M.; Marloth, R.; Pregger, B. Effect of layer orientation on
mechanical properties of rapid prototyped samples. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2000, 15, 107–122. [CrossRef]
27. Chin Ang, K.; Fai Leong, K.; Kai Chua, C.; Chandrasekaran, M. Investigation of the mechanical properties
and porosity relationships in fused deposition modelling-fabricated porous structures. Rapid Prototyp. J.
2006, 12, 100–105. [CrossRef]
28. Vasudevarao, B.; Natarajan, D.P.; Henderson, M.; Razdan, A. Sensitivity of RP surface finish to process
parameter variation. In Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings, Austin, TX, USA, 7–9
August 2000; pp. 251–258.
29. Arivazhagan, A.; Masood, S. Dynamic mechanical properties of ABS material processed by fused deposition
modelling. Int. J. Eng. Res. Appl 2012, 2, 2009–2014.
30. Jami, H.; Masood, S.H.; Song, W. Dynamic response of FDM made ABS parts in different part orientations.
Adv. Mater. Res. 2013, 748, 291–294. [CrossRef]
31. Fernandes, J.; Deus, A.M.; Reis, L.; Vaz, M.F.; Leite, M. Study of the influence of 3D printing parameters
on the mechanical properties of PLA. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Progress in
Additive Manufacturing (Pro-AM 2018), Singapore, 14–17 May 2018.
32. Elkholy, A.; Kempers, R. Investigation into the Influence of Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) Process
Parameters on the Thermal Properties of 3D-Printed Parts. In Proceedings of the 2018 Canadian Society for
Mechanical Engineering (CSME) International Congress, Toronto, ON, Canada, 27–30 May 2018.
33. Liu, X.; Zhang, M.; Li, S.; Si, L.; Peng, J.; Hu, Y. Mechanical property parametric appraisal of fused deposition
modeling parts based on the gray Taguchi method. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2017, 89, 2387–2397.
[CrossRef]
34. Torres, J.; Cotelo, J.; Karl, J.; Gordon, A.P. Mechanical property optimization of FDM PLA in shear with
multiple objectives. JOM 2015, 67, 1183–1193. [CrossRef]
35. Peng, A.; Xiao, X.; Yue, R. Process parameter optimization for fused deposition modeling using response
surface methodology combined with fuzzy inference system. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 73, 87–100.
[CrossRef]
36. Lee, B.H.; Abdullah, J.; Khan, Z.A. Optimization of rapid prototyping parameters for production of flexible
ABS object. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2005, 169, 54–61. [CrossRef]
37. Laeng, J.; Khan, Z.A.; Khu, S. Optimizing flexible behaviour of bow prototype using Taguchi approach.
J. Appl. Sci. 2006, 6, 622–630.
38. Wu, J. Study on optimization of 3D printing parameters. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 392, 062050.
[CrossRef]
39. Ahn, D.; Kweon, J.-H.; Kwon, S.; Song, J.; Lee, S. Representation of surface roughness in fused deposition
modeling. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2009, 209, 5593–5600. [CrossRef]
40. Bakar, N.S.A.; Alkahari, M.R.; Boejang, H. Analysis on fused deposition modelling performance. J. Zhejiang
Univ.-Sci. A 2010, 11, 972–977. [CrossRef]
41. Noriega, A.; Blanco, D.; Alvarez, B.; Garcia, A. Dimensional accuracy improvement of FDM square
cross-section parts using artificial neural networks and an optimization algorithm. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
2013, 69, 2301–2313. [CrossRef]
42. 3D Printer Filament Comparison Guide. Available online: https://www.matterhackers.com/3d-printer-
filament-compare (accessed on 17 July 2019).
43. 3D Printer Filament Guide—All You Need to Know in 2019. Available online: https://all3dp.com/1/3d-
printer-filament-types-3d-printing-3d-filament/ (accessed on 17 July 2019).
44. FDM 3D Printing Materials Compared. Available online: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/fdm-

3d-printing-materials-compared (accessed on 17 July 2019).
45. ABS. Available online: https://reprap.org/wiki/ABS (accessed on 13 July 2019).
46. Sin, L.T. Polylactic Acid: PLA Biopolymer Technology and Applications; William Andrew: Boston, MA, USA, 2012.
47. PLA vs ABS Filament: Plastic Strength, Flexibility Compared! Which Is Better For 3D Printing?
Available online: https://www.allthat3d.com/pla-vs-abs/ (accessed on 21 June 2019).
48. Messimer, S.L.; Patterson, A.E.; Muna, N.; Deshpande, A.P.; Rocha Pereira, T. Characterization and processing
behavior of heated aluminum-polycarbonate composite build plates for the FDM additive manufacturing
process. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2018, 2, 12. [CrossRef]
49. Messimer, S.L.; Pereira, T.R.; Patterson, A.E.; Lubna, M.; Drozda, F.O. Full-Density Fused Deposition
Modeling Dimensional Error as a Function of Raster Angle and Build Orientation: Large Dataset for Eleven
Materials. J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2019, 3, 6. [CrossRef]
50. Zhang, Y.; Chou, K. A parametric study of part distortions in fused deposition modelling using
three-dimensional finite element analysis. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2008, 222,
959–968. [CrossRef]
51. Mohamed, O.A.; Masood, S.H.; Bhowmik, J.L. Mathematical modeling and FDM process parameters
optimization using response surface methodology based on Q-optimal design. Appl. Math. Model. 2016, 40,
10052–10073. [CrossRef]
52. Byun, H.-S.; Lee, K.H. Determination of the optimal part orientation in layered manufacturing using a genetic
algorithm. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2005, 43, 2709–2724. [CrossRef]
53. Wang, C.C.; Lin, T.-W.; Hu, S.-S. Optimizing the rapid prototyping process by integrating the Taguchi method
with the Gray relational analysis. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2007, 13, 304–315. [CrossRef]
54. Sood, A.K.; Ohdar, R.; Mahapatra, S.S. Improving dimensional accuracy of fused deposition modelling
processed part using grey Taguchi method. Mater. Des. 2009, 30, 4243–4252. [CrossRef]
55. Mohamed, O.A.; Masood, S.H.; Bhowmik, J.L. Optimization of fused deposition modeling process parameters
for dimensional accuracy using I-optimality criterion. Measurement 2016, 81, 174–196. [CrossRef]
56. Tontowi, A.; Ramdani, L.; Erdizon, R.; Baroroh, D. Optimization of 3D-printer process parameters for
improving quality of polylactic acid printed part. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2017, 9, 589–600.
57. Beniak, J.; Križan, P.; Šooš, L’.; Matúš, M. Research on Shape and Dimensional Accuracy of FDM Produced
Parts. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 501, 012030. [CrossRef]
58. Anitha, R.; Arunachalam, S.; Radhakrishnan, P. Critical parameters influencing the quality of prototypes in
fused deposition modelling. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2001, 118, 385–388. [CrossRef]
59. Thrimurthulu, K.; Pandey, P.M.; Reddy, N.V. Optimum part deposition orientation in fused deposition
modeling. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2004, 44, 585–594. [CrossRef]
60. Horvath, D.; Noorani, R.; Mendelson, M. Improvement of surface roughness on ABS 400 polymer using
design of experiments (DOE). Mater. Sci. Forum 2007, 561–565, 2389–2392. [CrossRef]
61. Galantucci, L.M.; Lavecchia, F.; Percoco, G. Experimental study aiming to enhance the surface finish of fused
deposition modeled parts. CIRP Ann. 2009, 58, 189–192. [CrossRef]
62. Valerga, A.; Batista, M.; Salguero, J.; Girot, F. Influence of PLA Filament Conditions on Characteristics of
FDM Parts. Materials 2018, 11, 1322. [CrossRef]
63. Pérez, M.; Medina-Sánchez, G.; García-Collado, A.; Gupta, M.; Carou, D. Surface quality enhancement of
fused deposition modeling (FDM) printed samples based on the selection of critical printing parameters.
Materials 2018, 11, 1382. [CrossRef]
64. Bagsik, A.; Schöppner, V.; Klemp, E. FDM part quality manufactured with Ultem* 9085. In Proceedings of
the 14th International Scientific Conference on Polymeric Materials, Halle, Germany, 15–17 September 2010;
pp. 307–315.
65. Domingo-Espin, M.; Puigoriol-Forcada, J.M.; Garcia-Granada, A.-A.; Llumà, J.; Borros, S.; Reyes, G.
Mechanical property characterization and simulation of fused deposition modeling Polycarbonate parts.
Mater. Des. 2015, 83, 670–677. [CrossRef]
66. Hernandez, R.; Slaughter, D.; Whaley, D.; Tate, J.; Asiabanpour, B. Analyzing the tensile, compressive, and
flexural properties of 3D printed ABS P430 plastic based on printing orientation using fused deposition
modeling. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin,
TX, USA, 12–14 August 2019; pp. 939–950.
67. Fatimatuzahraa, A.; Farahaina, B.; Yusoff, W. The effect of employing different raster orientations on the
mechanical properties and microstructure of Fused Deposition Modeling parts. In Proceedings of the 2011
IEEE Symposium on Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications (ISBEIA), Langkawi, Malaysia, 25–28
September 2011; pp. 22–27.
68. Croccolo, D.; De Agostinis, M.; Olmi, G. Experimental characterization and analytical modelling of the
mechanical behaviour of fused deposition processed parts made of ABS-M30. Comput. Mater. Sci. 2013, 79,
69. Panda, B.N.; Bahubalendruni, M.R.; Biswal, B.B. Comparative evaluation of optimization algorithms at
training of genetic programming for tensile strength prediction of FDM processed part. Procedia Mater. Sci.
2014, 5, 2250–2257. [CrossRef]
70. Górski, F.; Wichniarek, R.; Kuczko, W.; Andrzejewski, J. Experimental determination of critical orientation of
ABS parts manufactured using fused deposition modelling technology. J. Mach. Eng. 2015, 15, 121–132.
71. Wu, W.; Geng, P.; Li, G.; Zhao, D.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, J. 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 2015, 8, 5834–5846. [CrossRef]
72. Ziemian, S.; Okwara, M.; Ziemian, C.W. Tensile and fatigue behavior of layered acrylonitrile butadiene
styrene. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2015, 21, 270–278. [CrossRef]
73. Wittbrodt, B.; Pearce, J.M. The effects of PLA color on material properties of 3-D printed components.
Addit. Manuf. 2015, 8, 110–116. [CrossRef]
74. Torres, J.; Cole, M.; Owji, A.; DeMastry, Z.; Gordon, A.P. An approach for mechanical property optimization
of fused deposition modeling with polylactic acid via design of experiments. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2016, 22,
75. Torrado, A.R.; Roberson, D.A. Failure analysis and anisotropy evaluation of 3D-printed tensile test specimens
of different geometries and print raster patterns. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 2016, 16, 154–164. [CrossRef]
76. Rankouhi, B.; Javadpour, S.; Delfanian, F.; Letcher, T. Failure analysis and mechanical characterization of 3D
printed ABS with respect to layer thickness and orientation. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 2016, 16, 467–481. [CrossRef]
77. Uddin, M.; Sidek, M.; Faizal, M.; Ghomashchi, R.; Pramanik, A. Evaluating mechanical properties and failure
mechanisms of fused deposition modeling acrylonitrile butadiene styrene parts. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 2017,
139, 081018. [CrossRef]
78. Mahmood, S.; Qureshi, A.; Goh, K.L.; Talamona, D. Tensile strength of partially filled FFF printed parts: meta
modelling. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2017, 23, 524–533. [CrossRef]
79. Aw, Y.; Yeoh, C.; Idris, M.; Teh, P.; Hamzah, K.; Sazali, S. Effect of printing parameters on tensile, dynamic
mechanical, and thermoelectric properties of FDM 3D printed CABS/ZnO composites. Materials 2018, 11,
466. [CrossRef]
80. Kung, C.; Kuan, H.-C.; Kuan, C.-F. Evaluation of tensile strength of 3D printed objects with FDM process on
RepRap platform. In Proceedings of the 2018 1st IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Innovation
and Invention (ICKII), Jeju, Korea, 23–27 July 2018; pp. 369–372.
81. Vosynek, P.; Navrat, T.; Krejbychova, A.; Palousek, D. Influence of Process Parameters of Printing on
Mechanical Properties of Plastic Parts Produced by FDM 3D Printing Technology. MATEC Web Conf. 2018,
237, 02014. [CrossRef]
82. Deng, X.; Zeng, Z.; Peng, B.; Yan, S.; Ke, W. Mechanical properties optimization of poly-ether-ether-ketone
via fused deposition modeling. Materials 2018, 11, 216. [CrossRef]
83. Rinanto, A.; Nugroho, A.; Prasetyo, H.; Pujiyanto, E. Simultaneous Optimization of TensileStrength, Energy
Consumption and Processing Time on FDM Process Using Taguchi and PCR-TOPSIS. In Proceedings of the
2018 4th International Conference on Science and Technology (ICST), Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 7–8 August
2018; pp. 1–5.
84. Li, H.; Wang, T.; Sun, J.; Yu, Z. The effect of process parameters in fused deposition modelling on bonding
degree and mechanical properties. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2018, 24, 80–92. [CrossRef]
85. Rodríguez-Panes, A.; Claver, J.; Camacho, A. The influence of manufacturing parameters on the mechanical
behaviour of pla and abs pieces manufactured by fdm: a comparative analysis. Materials 2018, 11, 1333.
[CrossRef]
86. Ahn, S.-H.; Montero, M.; Odell, D.; Roundy, S.; Wright, P.K. Anisotropic material properties of fused
deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2002, 8, 248–257. [CrossRef]
87. Baich, L.; Manogharan, G.; Marie, H. Study of infill print design on production cost-time of 3D printed ABS
parts. Int. J. Rapid Manuf. 2015, 5, 308–319. [CrossRef]
88. Lužanin, O.; Movrin, D.; Plančak, M. Effect of layer thickness, deposition angle, and infill on maximum
flexural force in FDM-built specimens. J. Technol. Plast. 2014, 39, 49–58.
89. Raut, S.; Jatti, V.S.; Khedkar, N.K.; Singh, T. Investigation of the effect of built orientation on mechanical
properties and total cost of FDM parts. Procedia Mater. Sci. 2014, 6, 1625–1630. [CrossRef]
90. Christiyan, K.J.; Chandrasekhar, U.; Venkateswarlu, K. A study on the influence of process parameters on
the Mechanical Properties of 3D printed ABS composite. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2016, 114, 012109.
[CrossRef]
91. Ali, F.; Chowdary, B.V.; Maharaj, J. Influence of some process parameters on build time, material consumption,
and surface roughness of FDM processed parts: Inferences based on the Taguchi design of experiments. In
Proceedings of the 2014 IACJ/ISAM Joint International Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 25–27 September 2014.
92. Rathee, S.; Srivastava, M.; Maheshwari, S.; Siddiquee, A.N. Effect of varying spatial orientations on build
time requirements for FDM process: A case study. Def. Technol. 2017, 13, 92–100. [CrossRef]
93. Srivastava, M.; Rathee, S.; Maheshwari, S.; Kundra, T. Multi-objective optimisation of fused deposition
modelling process parameters using RSM and fuzzy logic for build time and support material. Int. J. Rapid
Manuf. 2018, 7, 25–42. [CrossRef]
94. Shahrain, M.; Didier, T.; Lim, G.K.; Qureshi, A. Fast deviation simulation for ‘fused deposition
modeling’process. Procedia CIRP 2016, 43, 327–332. [CrossRef]
95. Sun, Q.; Rizvi, G.; Bellehumeur, C.; Gu, P. Effect of processing conditions on the bonding quality of FDM
polymer filaments. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2008, 14, 72–80. [CrossRef]
96. Gajdoš, I.; Slota, J. Influence of printing conditions on structure in FDM prototypes. Teh. Vjesn. 2013, 20,
231–236.
97. Masood, S.; Rattanawong, W.; Iovenitti, P. Part build orientations based on volumetric error in fused
deposition modelling. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2000, 16, 162–168. [CrossRef]
98. Kuznetsov, V.E.; Tavitov, A.G.; Urzhumtsev, O.D.; Mikhalin, M.V.; Solonin, A.N. Design and Fabrication of
Strong Parts from Poly (Lactic Acid) with a Desktop 3D Printer: A Case with Interrupted Shell. Polymers
2019, 11, 760. [CrossRef]
99. Carneiro, P.M.C.; Gamboa, P. Structural analysis of wing ribs obtained by additive manufacturing.
Rapid Prototyp. J. 2019. [CrossRef]
100. Mercado-Colmenero, J.M.; Rubio-Paramio, M.A.; la Rubia-Garcia, M.D.; Lozano-Arjona, D.; Martin-Doñate, C.
A numerical and experimental study of the compression uniaxial properties of PLA manufactured with FDM
technology based on product specifications. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 103, 1893–1909. [CrossRef]
101. Rodríguez, J.F.; Thomas, J.P.; Renaud, J.E. Design of fused-deposition ABS components for stiffness and
strength. J. Mech. Des. 2003, 125, 545–551. [CrossRef]
102. Tymrak, B.; Kreiger, M.; Pearce, J.M. Mechanical properties of components fabricated with open-source 3-D
printers under realistic environmental conditions. Mater. Des. 2014, 58, 242–246. [CrossRef]
103. Górski, F.; Kuczko, W.; Wichniarek, R. Impact strength of ABS parts manufactured using Fused Deposition
Modeling technology. Arch. Mech. Technol. Autom. 2014, 31, 3–12.
104. Srivastava, M.; Rathee, S. Optimisation of FDM process parameters by Taguchi method for imparting
customised properties to components. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2018, 13, 203–210. [CrossRef]
105. Dong, G.; Wijaya, G.; Tang, Y.; Zhao, Y.F. Optimizing process parameters of fused deposition modeling by
Taguchi method for the fabrication of lattice structures. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 19, 62–72. [CrossRef]
106. Pandey, P.M.; Thrimurthulu, K.; Reddy, N.V. Optimal part deposition orientation in FDM by using a
multicriteria genetic algorithm. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2004, 42, 4069–4089. [CrossRef]
107. Hu, Z.; Mahadevan, S. Uncertainty quantification in prediction of material properties during additive
manufacturing. Scr. Mater. 2017, 135, 135–140. [CrossRef]
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
CC article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

A Systematic Survey of FDM Process Parameter Optimization and Their in Uence On Part Characteristics

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

A Systematic Survey of FDM Process Parameter Optimization and Their in Uence On Part Characteristics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of

Keywords: fused deposition modeling; process parameters; part characteristics; optimization

J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2019, 3, 64; doi:10.3390/jmmp3030064 www.mdpi.com/journal/jmmp

A huge number of researchers analyzed various controllable parameters to achieve desirable

2. Fused Deposition Modeling

2.1. Process Parameters

Property PLA ABS

3. Research on Process Parameter Analysis

J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2019, 3, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 30

200 Indicates still unknownwhether

3.2. Surface Roughness

3.3. Mechanical Properties

3.3.1. Tensile Strength

3.3.2. Compressive Strength

3.3.3. Flexural Strength

3.4. Build Time

3.5. Part Geometry

3.6. Other Part Characteristics

Table 2. Studies focusing on process parameter analysis. S/N—signal-to-noise; CCD—central composite

4. Process Parameter Optimization

Table 3. Research on numerical optimization. QPSO—quantum-behaved particle swam optimization;

Reference Optimization Method Process Parameters Part Characteristics

Reference Optimization Method Process Parameters Part Characteristics

5. Discussion and Potential Research Areas

44. FDM 3D Printing Materials Compared. Available online: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/fdm-

You might also like