Effect of fused deposition modelling

process parameters on mechanical

properties of 3D printed parts
Abhinav Chadha, Mir Irfan Ul Haq, Ankush Raina, Rana Ratna Singh, Narendra Babu Penumarti and
Manjeet Singh Bishnoi
School of Mechanical Engineering, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, Katra, India

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore the effect of bed temperature, primary layer thickness and infill pattern (rectilinear, honeycomb, triangular) on
the mechanical properties of tensile strength and bending strength of 3D printed parts.
Design/methodology/approach – Samples in accordance to various ASTM standards were printed by fused deposition modelling (FDM) method by
varying the various input paramaters such as bed temperature, primary layer thickness and infill pattern (rectilinear, honeycomb, triangular). Tensile
and bending testing was carried out on the printed parts, and post to the testing, fractography has been carried out using scanning electron
microscope.
Findings – With increase in bed temperature tensile strength and flexural strength first increases then decreases. With the increase in primary layer
thickness, tensile strength and flexural strength increase. With regard to infill patterns, triangular and honeycomb exhibit better tensile strength and
better flexural strength.
Practical implications – The 3D printing is increasingly becoming important for manufacturing of engineering parts, determining the process
parameters which could result in better mechanical and physical properties shall certainly help designers and manufacturers globally.
Originality/value – This work elucidates the effect of various process parameters of FDM on tensile and flexural properties of the samples.
Keywords FDM, Additive manufacturing, Tensile strength, Bending strength, Infill pattern, Primary layer thickness
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction development(Abdullah et al., 2013; Chua et al., 2010). RP

Modern day manufacturing processes call for product
development with short lead times without compromising on
the quality of the developed part. This has given impetus to the
development of novel manufacturing processes and materials,
(Muthuramalingam and Mohan, 2014; Geethapriyan et al.,
2016; Irfan et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2018; Ul Haq and Anand,
2018) rapid prototyping (RP) being one of them. Additive
manufacturing, 3D printing and RP are terms, often
interchangeably used to describe processes which fabricate
parts by depositing material layer by layer and do not require
finishing, as in conventional manufacturing processes, to
produce the final product. Additive manufacturing allows
formation of complex shaped parts directly from their
computer aided design (CAD) models using only the
fabricating machine. The main advantages of this technique
include low maintenance costs, simple changing of materials,
low working temperature, supervision-free operation and
compact size (Bernard and Fischer, 2002). Manufacturers are
adopting RP technologies as the standard approach in product
facilitates production in computer integrated manufacturing
environment. By combining RP with concurrent engineering, a
considerable improvement in the manufacturing processes can
be achieved (Vaezi and Chua, 2011).
The most commonly used RP technology is Fused
Deposition Modelling (FDM). In this process, object formation
takes place by layer-by-layer deposition of melted filament
(usually Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene [ABS] or poly lactic
acid [PLA]) which eventually cools to form the solidified
product. An extruder which is capable of moving in the x-y
plane melts the plastic filament and deposits it on the bed,
which moves in the z-direction to form the final 3D object. Due
to their ability of being recycled, FDM models result in waste
reduction making the process ecologically friendly (G
orski et al.,
2015). FDM process have the special ability to control the
properties of the manufactured part locally like mechanical
properties, density and porosity (Li et al., 2002). In addition to
prototypes, FDM can also be used to produce functional parts.
To completely transform the FDM into a manufacturing tool, a
number of improvements are essential. These include greater

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Received 27 September 2018
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1708-5284.htm Revised 20 November 2018
6 December 2018
12 December 2018
World Journal of Engineering
24 December 2018
16/4 (2019) 550–559 11 January 2019
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1708-5284] 3 February 2019
[DOI 10.1108/WJE-09-2018-0329] Accepted 20 February 2019

550
 Fused deposition modelling process parameters World Journal of Engineering
Abhinav Chadha et al. Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2019 · 550–559

dimensional control, better surface finish and close tolerances. compared to model temperature, raster width and colour
Also, greater variety of polymers should be available for use and through experimental design and analysis. Lee et al. (2005)
the mechanical properties of the prototyped parts should be concluded that raster angle, air gap and layer thickness affect
enhanced to maintain their integrity during working (Gajdoš the elastic performance of the compliant FDM ABS prototype.
and Slota, 2013). Christiyan et al. (2016) used ABS 1 hydrous magnesium
The values of process parameters in additive manufacturing silicate composite to test the mechanical properties based on
processes can be more significant as compared to the properties ASTM D638 and ASTM D760 standards for tensile and
of the part material, which is contrary to most of the bending test, respectively. Samples with varying printing speed
manufacturing processes. Parts having same geometry but and layer thickness were made. It was concluded on the basis of
fabricated using different sets of process parameters will have experiments that low layer thickness and low printing speed has
entirely different properties, e.g. strength (Bellini and Güçeri, highest tensile and flexural strength. Vaezi and Chua (2011)
2003; Ahn et al., 2003) or accuracy (G
orski et al., 2013). Each explored the effect of binder saturation level, printing layer
combination of process parameters, namely, bed temperature, thickness, binder properties, powder size on the strength and
layer thickness and infill pattern, will produce a different part surface finish of 3D-printed parts. Trdnost and Modelov
structure, ultimately resulting in different values of mechanical (2013) researched the effect of some selected process
properties. parameters on the tensile strength and provided a factor
In a study by Es-Said et al. (2000), the authors demonstrated combination which provided the highest strength. Specimens
the effect of raster orientation along the direction of deposition of ZP 130 powder were prepared with changes in the building
on tensile, flexural and impact strength. Ahn et al. (2002) have orientation, layer thickness and infiltrant. Tymrak et al. (2014)
showed that process parameters such as raster orientation and found elastic modulus and tensile strength for 3D printed parts
air gap considerably effect the tensile strength of the part made from PLA and ABS. The tensile strength for ABS was
55.6 and for PLA was 28.5 and the elastic module is 1806 MPa
Figure 1 Geometrical details of sample for (a) tensile test as per ASTM for ABS and 3367 MPa for PLA. Wu et al. (2015) conducted
D638, (b) flexural test as per ASTM D790 (mm) research on a novel material, polyether-etherketone (PEEK).
They studied the effect of raster angle and layer thickness on
the mechanical properties of 3D printed PEEK parts.
Specimens with layer thicknesses (200, 300 and 400
micrometres) and raster angles (0, 30 and 45 degrees) were
made using a PEEK 3D printing system. The compressive,
tensile and bending strengths were tested, and it was concluded
that PEEK has superior properties than ABS. Sood et al.
(2010) took into consideration five parameters of layer
thickness, orientation, raster angle, raster width and air gap and
studied their effect on tensile, flexural and impact strength of
the test specimen. Lanzotti et al. (2015) have reported ultimate
tensile strength and the nominal strain at break of printed parts
Table I Technical specifications of 3D printer made from (PLA) with 3D printer, by varying the three
Build volume 290  290  500 mm (X,Y,Z) important process parameters: layer thickness, infill orientation
Physical 620  520  965 mm and the number of shell perimeters. G
orski et al. (2015)
dimensions performed tensile, flexural and impact strength tests on ABS
Technology Fused deposition modelling (FDM) material samples made with different orientations.
No. of extruders 2 Chac
on et al. (2017) studied the effect of layer thickness,
Extruder temp. Upto 300 deg. build orientation and feed rate on the tensile and bending
Print speed 20-300 mm/s (also polymer dependent)
Layer resolution 0.04 to 0.2 mm (for 0,4 nozzle) Table II Variation of process parameters
Print head Swappable nozzles (0.2/0.3/0.4/0.5/0.6 mm)
Parameter Values
Standard nozzle size-0.4 mm supplied with machine
Filament diameter 1.75 mm Primary layer thickness (mm) 0.150 0.175 0.200
Filament materials PLA, ABS, Nylon, Ninja Flex, PETG, Wood, Poly Bed temperature (°C) 40 60 80
Carbonate, PLA/PHA, PCTPE, T-glass Infill pattern Grid Triangular Honeycomb
Support filament HIPS
XYZ Accuracy 12.5, 12.5, 5 microns
Build plate MK2A heat bed with borosilicate glass plate
Build plate temp. 50-100 deg. Table III Process parameters for sample preparation
Supported OS Windows Infill percentage 50%
Power supply Input 120/240 V AC Flowrate 100%
Output 24 V DC 20 A X-Y displacement speed (mm/min) 3600
Operating ambient 15 to 35 degree Z displacement speed (mm/min) 1000
temp. Printing temperature (Extruder) 220°C

551
 Fused deposition modelling process parameters World Journal of Engineering
Abhinav Chadha et al. Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2019 · 550–559

Table IV Various process conditions for specimen preparations

Sample Bed temperature (°C) Primary layer thickness (mm) Pattern
1 40 0.2 Grid
2 40 0.2 Triangular
3 40 0.2 Honeycomb
4 60 0.2 Grid
5 60 0.2 Triangular
6 60 0.2 Honeycomb
7 80 0.2 Grid
8 80 0.2 Triangular
9 80 0.2 Honeycomb
10 40 0.175 Grid
11 40 0.175 Triangular
12 40 0.175 Honeycomb
13 60 0.175 Grid
14 60 0.175 Triangular
15 60 0.175 Honeycomb
16 80 0.175 Grid
17 80 0.175 Triangular
18 80 0.175 Honeycomb
19 40 0.150 Grid
20 40 0.150 Triangular
21 40 0.150 Honeycomb
22 60 0.150 Grid
23 60 0.150 Triangular
24 60 0.150 Honeycomb
25 80 0.150 Grid
26 80 0.150 Triangular
27 80 0.150 Honeycomb

strength of PLA samples. Decrease in ductility was observed
with increase in layer thickness and feed rate. Benwood et al.
(2018) investigated the effects of bed temperature, melt
temperature and raster angle on PLA-fabricated specimens.
Thermomechanical analysis (differential scanning calorimetry,
dynamic mechanical analysis, heat deflection temperature) was
thereafter conducted on these specimens. Li et al. (2018)
provided a quantitative relationship between the parameters of
layer thickness, deposition velocity and infill rate and tensile
strength of the PLA part. It was concluded that tensile strength
is affected by interface bonding state, which is determined by
heat transition. Rodriguez-Panes et al. (2018) did a
comparative study on the tensile strength of the parts produced
by ABS and PLA. The parameters varied were layer height,
infill density and layer orientation. The output variables were
chosen as tensile strength, tensile yield stress, modulus of
elasticity and nominal strain at break. Tontowi et al. (2017)
examined the response of process parameters on tensile
strength and dimensional accuracy of PLA parts. Layer
thickness, melt temperatures and raster angles were varied, and
optimization of these variables was done using Taguchi and
response surface methods. Rajpurohit and Dave (2018a)
investigated the effect of raster angle on tensile strength of PLA
specimen. The angles were varied from 0° to 90°. Parts with
criss-cross raster angles were also fabricated and compared with
parts made with unidirectional raster angle. 0° raster angle
showed maximum tensile strength, while 90° showed
minimum. The authors further included the effect of raster
angle, raster width and layer height on tensile strength in
another study (Rajpurohit and Dave, 2018b).
Istif et al. (2017) conducted tensile test on PLA specimens
fabricated with different orientations and noted average tensile
strength and elastic modulus. The specimens were also
subjected to cyclic loading to determine material’s deformation
mechanism. From experiments, it was concluded that the
material showed viscoplastic behaviour. Abbas et al. (2018)
evaluated tensile, compressive and bending strength for PLA
samples by varying layer thickness, infill density and print
orientation by using Taguchi method. An increase in strength
was observed with increase in layer thickness and infill density,
while 45° print orientation provided greater strength than at 0°
and 90°. Reducing the infill percentage value considerably
decreased the printing time.
Chari et al. (2018) varied infill, resolution, temperature of
PLA samples and investigated changes in compression
strength, hardness with respect to these parameters. Taguchi’s
L9 orthogonal array was used to find the number of
experimental models. Choudhary (2018) studied the effect of
layer thickness, pitch and raster angle on tensile strength and
hardness of PLA parts. The maximum tensile strength was
achieved as 52.6 MPa at layer thickness (0.5 mm), pitch
(4 mm) and raster angle (0°), while maximum hardness of 82
HV was achieved at layer thickness (0.4 mm), pitch (5 mm) and
raster angle (0°). Lužanin et al. (2014) discussed the effect of
infill, layer thickness and deposition angle on the flexural
strength of PLA specimens. The authors reported that the

552
 Fused deposition modelling process parameters World Journal of Engineering
Abhinav Chadha et al. Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2019 · 550–559

effect of layer thickness was the most dominant, and interaction Figure 2 (a) 3D printed samples for tensile test (ASTM D638), (b) 3D
between infill and deposition angle was also significant. In a printed samples for flexural test (ASTM D790)
similar study carried out by Fernandez-Vicente et al. (2016)
who studied the effect of infill pattern and infill density on the
tensile strength of ABS specimens. The authors reported that
infill pattern had a minor effect on the tensile properties of the
specimen while infill density had a greater impact.
Ebel and Sinnemann (2014) fabricated PLA and ABS
samples by varying infill amount and pattern. It was concluded
that PLA samples had higher tensile strength compared to their
ABS counterparts. Also completely filled samples possessed
higher strength than partially filled samples.
PLA material is used extensively for a variety of automotive
and industrial applications in general and for MEMS, Robotic
applications and medical applications in particular (Yazdi et al.,
2016; Abdallah et al., 2017; Haleem et al., 2018; Chae et al.,
2015). As additive manufacturing is increasingly becoming
important for manufacturing of these parts, determining the
process parameters which could yield better mechanical and
physical properties shall certainly help designers and
manufacturers globally. This paper studies the effect bed
temperature, primary layer thickness and infill pattern
(rectilinear, honeycomb, triangular) on tensile strength and
bending strength of the 3D printed part.

2. Materials and methods

The material used in the study was PLA. The samples were
prepared in accordance to ASTM D638 (Type 1) and ASTM
D790 standards, as shown in Figure 1 for the tensile and
flexural testing respectively. The CAD models corresponding
to ASTM D638 & ASTM D790 standards were prepared using Figure 3 Variation of tensile strength with primary layer thickness
SolidWorks. These models are then exported to slicing
software Simplify 3D. An FDM based 3D printer (Atharva Tensile Strength (Grid)
Tensile strength (Triangular)
Mega 3 Make) was used for fabricating the samples. The Tensile strength (Honey comb)
30
technical specifications of the 3D printer are provided in 29
Table I. For all experiments, 0.4 mm diameter nozzle was used. 28
The process parameters were selected primarily on the basis of 27
previous investigations (Lanzotti et al., 2015; G
orski et al., 26
Tensile Strength (Mpa)

2013; Chac
on et al., 2017; Benwood et al., 2018; Li et al., 2018; 25

Rodriguez-Panes et al., 2018; Tontowi et al., 2017) and trial 24
23
experiments. The process parameters were varied at three levels
22
as shown in Table II. The values of parameters kept constant
21
during sample creation are shown in Table III. Table IV gives a 20
detailed combination of 27 different samples made by varying 19
the process parameters. The samples, as shown in Figure 2 18
were subjected to tensile and flexural tests. A universal testing 17
machine was used to perform tensile and flexural tests. For 16
ASTM D790 specimen, a three-point load test was performed 15
0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20
for determining the flexural strength. Finally, scanning electron
Primary layer thickness (Mm)
microscope was used for fractographic analysis.

3. Results and discussions
3.1 Tensile strength
3.1.1 Effect of primary layer thickness on tensile strength
Figure 3 shows that there is an increase in tensile strength with
increase in primary layer thickness for all infill patterns. The
bed temperature is kept constant at 40°C. For triangular infill
pattern the change in strength is more prominent compared to
honeycomb and grid pattern. Honeycomb structure shows an
almost linear relation with primary layer thickness. The results
are in conformance to studies carried out by Benwood et al.
(2018)
Figure 4 shows that there is an increase in tensile strength
with increase in bed temperature for honeycomb infill pattern
and the relation is almost linear. The primary layer thickness is
kept constant at 0.2 mm. For triangular infill pattern, the
tensile strength decreases with increase in bed temperature. For

553
 Fused deposition modelling process parameters World Journal of Engineering
Abhinav Chadha et al. Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2019 · 550–559

grid pattern, the strength first increases then decreases with Figure 6 Variation of flexural strength with primary layer thickness
maximum strength in the range between 55°C and 60°C.
Keeping bed temperature and primary layer thickness Flexural strength (grid)
Flexural strength (Triangular)
constant at 40°C and 0.2 mm, respectively, effect of infill Flexural strength (Honey comb)
pattern is studied and represented in Figure 5. Triangular infill 52
pattern shows maximum tensile strength, whereas honeycomb
50
shows lowest.

Flexural strength (Mpa)

48
3.2 Flexural strength
Figure 6 shows that there is an initial decrease in flexural 46

strength with increase in primary layer thickness and then there 44

is an increase for all infill patterns. The bed temperature is kept
constant at 40°C. Triangular pattern possesses the maximum 42

flexural strength compared to grid and honeycomb. However, 40

honeycomb pattern exhibited more change in the flexural
strength with primary layer thickness. 38
The effect of bed temperature as shown in Figure 7 shows 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20
varying trends for all the three patterns. The primary layer Primary Layer Thickness (mm)
thickness is kept constant at 0.2 mm. For grid pattern strength
first decreases then increases, whereas for triangular and
honeycomb structures, the reverse is seen, with triangular
possessing more flexural strength than honeycomb.
Figure 4 Variation of tensile strength with bed temperature
Keeping bed temperature and primary layer thickness
Tensile strength (grid) constant at 40°C and 0.2 mm, respectively, effect of infill
29.5
Tensile strength (triangular) pattern is studied and represented in Figure 8. Triangular infill
29.0
28.5 Tensile strength (Honeycomb) pattern shows maximum tensile strength, whereas honeycomb
28.0 shows the lowest.
27.5
27.0
Tensile strength (Mpa)

26.5
3.3 Break strain
26.0 The effect of primary layer thickness shows varying trends as
25.5 shown in Figure 9 for all the three patterns. The bed
25.0
24.5
temperature is kept constant at 40°C. For honeycomb pattern,
24.0 break strain first decreases and then increases, whereas for
23.5 triangular and grid structures, break strain increases with the
23.0
22.5
increase in primary layer thickness. Grid pattern shows an
22.0 almost linear relation, and triangular pattern possesses more
21.5 break strain compared to grid.
21.0
The effect of bed temperature shows varying trends as shown
40 50 60 70 80
in Figure 10 for all the three patterns. The primary layer
Bed temperature (celsius)

Figure 7 Variation of flexural strength with bed temperature

Figure 5 Variation of tensile strength with infill pattern Flexural strength (grid)
Flexural strength(Triangular)
66 Flexural strength (Honey comb)
64
62
60
Flexural strength (Mpa)

58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
40 50 60 70 80
Bed temperature (celsius)

554
 Fused deposition modelling process parameters World Journal of Engineering
Abhinav Chadha et al. Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2019 · 550–559

thickness is kept constant at 0.2 mm. For triangular pattern,

Figure 8 Variation of flexural strength with infill pattern
break strain first decreases and then increases, whereas for
honeycomb and grid structures, break strain increases with the
increase in bed temperature. Grid pattern shows an almost
linear relation and triangular pattern possesses the maximum
break strain.
Keeping bed temperature and primary layer thickness
constant at 40°C and 0.2 mm, respectively, effect of infill
pattern is studied and represented in Figure 11. Honeycomb
infill pattern shows maximum break strain, whereas grid shows
the lowest.

3.4 Microscopic examination of fractured samples

From the fractography of the broken samples (Figures 12 to
15), it is evident that different breaking fracture modes are
visible for the different types of infill pattern. The shape of infill
pattern effects the load transfer in a typical tensile test. The
surface topography of the broken polymer sample also depicts a
different fracture pattern.
Figure 9 Variation of break strain with primary layer thickness In case of Triangular & Honeycomb, the fracture has
occurred after a certain elongation. The better bonding
Break strain (grid) between consecutive layers and closed packing of these fibres
Break strain (triangular) can also be seen which results in improvement of properties.
10.5 Break strain (honey comb)
However, in case of grid pulling out of fibres can also be seen.
10.0
In case of Triangular and Honeycomb, it can be seen that due
9.5 to more ductility the shape of fibres changes from circular to
9.0 elliptical. Moreover, comparatively higher plastic deformation
can be seen in case of triangular pattern than grid and
Break strain (%)

8.5
8.0 honeycomb (Figures 14 and 15).
7.5 After performing Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) test
7.0 on the samples, it was found that grid structure showed brittle
6.5
failure. This could be seen from the SEM images where the
6.0
layers did not show much deformation in the fracture zone.
Honeycomb structure on the other hand showed ductile
5.5
fracture. The SEM images showed considerable deformation in
5.0
the fracture zone. Triangular pattern (Figure 15) fracture was
4.5
0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20
intermediate between ductile and brittle as showed by the SEM
Primary layer thickness (mm) images.

3.5 Discussions
The results show that the tensile strength for triangular pattern
Figure 10 Variation of break strain with bed temperature is maximum, whereas for honeycomb pattern it is minimum.
The infill density of all the three patterns was kept constant at
Break strain (grid)
Break strain(traingular)
11.0
Break strain (Honeycomb) Figure 11 Variation of break strain with infill pattern
10.5
10.0
9.5
9.0
8.5
Break strain (%)

8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
40 50 60 70 80
Bed temperature (celsius)

555
 Fused deposition modelling process parameters World Journal of Engineering
Abhinav Chadha et al. Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2019 · 550–559

Figure 12 Representative SEM image corresponding to grid pattern Figure 15 Representative SEM image corresponding to triangular
after tensile test pattern after flexural test

50 per cent. Further probing into the results is done by

Figure 13 Representative SEM image corresponding to triangular
pattern after tensile test
Figure 14 Representative SEM image corresponding to honeycomb
pattern after tensile test
measuring the weight of three samples with different infill
patterns. Upon measuring the weights of all the three samples,
it was found that honeycomb structure had minimum weight
while triangular structure had maximum weight (Figure 16).
The strength to weight ratio of all the three samples were
evaluated, and it was found that honeycomb structure had
maximum strength to weight ratio, followed by triangular and
grid pattern had minimum strength to weight ratio (Figure 17).
This could be attributed to the property of honeycomb
conjecture which is salient of honeycomb structures.
Therefore, it is suggested to use honeycomb structure, as it is
most economical. Same analogy applies for flexural strength
where honeycomb has maximum strength to weight ratio and
grid has the minimum. Therefore, honeycomb structure is best
suited for bending applications.
The results obtained in this study suggest that the parameters
such as bed temperature, primary layer thickness and the infill
pattern have a considerable impact on the properties such as
tensile strength, flexural strength and break strain. With regard
to increase in the primary layer thickness for all the infill
patterns the tensile strength increases, whereas the flexural
Figure 16 Variation of weight of samples with different infill patterns

556
 Fused deposition modelling process parameters
Abhinav Chadha et al.
Figure 17 Variation of strength to weight ratio with different infill
patterns
strength shows an initial decrease followed by an increase. With
regard to increase in the bed temperature, the infill patterns
show varied trends for both tensile strength and the flexural
strength. Moreover, triangular pattern emerges as the better
option for better tensile and flexural strength. The findings in
this study will help in printing critical parts with better
mechanical properties made of PLA such as exoskeleton for
medical purposes and robotic arms. In case of exoskeleton and
robotic arms, the properties such as tensile strength and flexural
strength are very critical parameters.
The study shall help designers and manufacturers in
selecting the process parameters resulting in better mechanical
properties; however, our study does not focus on other
polymeric materials such as ABS and PEEK. Moreover, the
parameters listed in Table III have not been varied. In addition
to this, the results obtained in the current study are valid for the
3D printing machine for which the technical specifications are
provided in Table I; hence, the results obtained in the current
study may not hold good if the samples are prepared via
different technology. A future study could focus on such issues
and an optimization tool could be applied for optimized values.
In addition to this the base material could be reinforced by
various materials so as to achieve better mechanical results.
4. Conclusions
 The tensile and bending strengths of PLA samples
fabricated by varying bed temperature, primary layer
thickness and infill pattern were studied.
 With increase in bed temperature, tensile strength first
increases; thereafter, it decreases. The maximum change
is about 22.27 per cent with layer thickness 0.2 mm and
triangular infill pattern.
 With increase in primary layer thickness, tensile strength
increases. The change is about 7.422 per cent with bed
temperature 40 degrees and honeycomb infill pattern.
 Out of the three infill patterns, triangular and honeycomb
exhibit better tensile strength. The maximum difference
being 22.93 per cent with bed temperature 40°C and
primary layer thickness at 0.2 mm, but triangular had
maximum weight at same infill percentage.
557
World Journal of Engineering
Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2019 · 550–559
 With increase in bed temperature, flexural strength first
increases then exhibited a decreasing trend. The
maximum change is about 12.01 per cent with layer
thickness 0.2 mm and triangular infill pattern.
 With increase in primary layer thickness, flexural strength
increases. The change is about 9.456 per cent with bed
temperature 40°C and honeycomb infill pattern.
 Out of the three infill patterns, triangular and honeycomb
exhibit better flexural strength. The maximum difference
being 11.42 per cent with bed temperature 40°C and
primary layer thickness at 0.2 mm, but triangular pattern
exhibited maximum weight at same infill percent.
 The results shall be helpful for designers and
manufacturers for selecting process parameters for better
mechanical strength of 3D printed parts.
References
Abbas, T.F., Othman, F.M. and Ali, H.B. (2018), “Influence
of layer thickness on impact property of 3D-Printed PLA”,
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 1-4.
Abdallah, I.B., Bouteraa, Y. and Rekik, C. (2017), “Design
and development of 3D printed myoelectric robotic
exoskeleton for hand rehabilitation”, International Journal on
Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 341-366.
Abdullah, M.I.H.C., Abdollah, M.F.B., Amiruddin, H.,
Tamaldin, N. and Nuri, N.R.M. (2013), “Optimization of
tribological performance of HBN/AL2O3 nanoparticles as
engine oil additives”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 68,
pp. 313-319.
Ahn, S.H., Baek, C., Lee, S. and Ahn, I.S. (2003),
“Anisotropic tensile failure model of rapid prototyping parts-
fused deposition modeling (FDM)”, International Journal of
Modern Physics B, Vol. 17 Nos 8/9, pp. 1510-1516.
Ahn, S.H., Montero, M., Odell, D., Roundy, S. and Wright, P.K.
(2002), “Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition
modeling ABS”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 248-257.
Bellini, A. and Güçeri, S. (2003), “Mechanical characterization
of parts fabricated using fused deposition modeling”, Rapid
Prototyping Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 252-264.
Benwood, C., Anstey, A., Andrzejewski, J., Misra, M. and
Mohanty, A.K. (2018), “Improving the impact strength and
heat resistance of 3D printed models: structure, property,
and processing correlationships during fused deposition
modeling (FDM) of poly (lactic acid)”, ACS Omega, Vol. 3
No. 4, pp. 4400-4411.
Bernard, A. and Fischer, A. (2002), “New trends in rapid
product development”, CIRP Annals-Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 635-652.
Chac
on, J.M., Caminero, M.A., Garcia-Plaza, E. and
Núñez, P.J. (2017), “Additive manufacturing of PLA
structures using fused deposition modelling: effect of process
parameters on mechanical properties and their optimal
selection”, Materials & Design, Vol. 124, pp. 143-157.
Chae, M.P., Rozen, W.M., McMenamin, P.G., Findlay, M.
W., Spychal, R.T. and Hunter-Smith, D.J. (2015),
 Fused deposition modelling process parameters
Abhinav Chadha et al.
“Emerging applications of bedside 3D printing in plastic
surgery”, Frontiers in Surgery, Vol. 2, p. 25.
Chari, V.S., Venkatesh, P.R. and Krupashankar Dinesh, V.
(2018), “Effect of processing parameters on FDM process”,
AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 1943, p. 20061.
Choudhary, S.K.M.J. (2018), “Experimental investigation on
the process parameter of rapid prototyping technique for the
improvement of disposal glass material replace by PLA”,
IJARIIT, Vol. 4 No. 3.
Christiyan, K.G.J., Chandrasekhar, U. and Venkateswarlu, K.
(2016), “A study on the influence of process parameters on
the mechanical properties of 3D printed ABS composite”,
IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
Vol. 114, p. 12109.
Chua, C.K., Leong, K.F. and Lim, C.S. (2010), Rapid
Prototyping: Principles and Applications, World Scientific
Publishing Company, Singapore.
Ebel, E. and Sinnemann, T. (2014), “Fabrication of FDM 3D
objects with ABS and PLA and determination of their
mechanical properties”, RTejournal, Vol. 2014 No. 1.
Es-Said, O.S., Foyos, J., Noorani, R., Mendelson, M.,
Marloth, R. and Pregger, B.A. (2000), “Effect of layer
orientation on mechanical properties of rapid prototyped
samples”, Materials and Manufacturing Processes, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 107-122.
Fernandez-Vicente, M., Calle, W., Ferrandiz, S. and Conejero, A.
(2016), “Effect of infill parameters on tensile mechanical
behavior in desktop 3D printing”, 3D Printing and Additive
Manufacturing, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 183-192.
Gajdoš, I. and Slota, J. (2013), “Influence of printing
conditions on structure in FDM prototypes”, Tehnički
Vjesnik, Strojarski Fakultet u Slavonskom Brodu,
Elektrotehnički Fakultet u Osijeku, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 231-236.
Geethapriyan, T., Kalaichelvan, K. and Muthuramalingam, T.
(2016), “Multi performance optimization of electrochemical
micro-machining process surface related parameters on
machining Inconel 718 using Taguchi-grey relational
analysis”, La Metallurgia Italiana, Vol. 2016, pp. 13-19.
G
orski, F., Kuczko, W. and Wichniarek, R. (2013), “Influence
of process parameters on dimensional accuracy of parts
manufactured using fused deposition modelling
technology”, Advances in Science and Technology – Research
Journal, Vol. 7 No. 19, pp. 27-35.
G
orski, F., Wichniarek, R., Kuczko, W., Zawadzki, P. and
Bu
n, P. (2015), “Strength of ABS parts produced by fused
deposition modelling technology – a critical orientation
problem”, Advances in Science and Technology Research
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 26, pp. 12-19.
Haleem, A., Javaid, M. and Saxena, A. (2018), “Additive
manufacturing applications in cardiology: a review”, The
Egyptian Heart Journal, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 433-441.
Irfan, M., Haq, U. and Anand, A. (2018), “Dry sliding friction
and wear behavior of AA7075-Si 3 N 4 composite”, Silicon,
Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 1819-1829.
_ Feratoglu, K. and Acar, A. (2017), “Investigation of
Istif, I,
mechanical behaviours of PLA parts manufactured by fused
deposition modeling”, 56th ISC of the University of Ruse’17,
Ruse, BULGARISTAN, 26-29 Ekim, pp. 1-6.
Lanzotti, A., Grasso, M., Staiano, G. and Martorelli, M.
(2015), “The impact of process parameters on mechanical
558
World Journal of Engineering
Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2019 · 550–559
properties of parts fabricated in PLA with an open-source
3-D printer”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 604-617.
Lee, B.H., Abdullah, J. and Khan, Z.A. (2005), “Optimization
of rapid prototyping parameters for production of flexible
ABS object”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
Vol. 169 No. 1, pp. 54-61.
Li, H., Wang, T., Sun, J. and Yu, Z. (2018), “The effect of
process parameters in fused deposition modelling on
bonding degree and mechanical properties”, Rapid
Prototyping Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 80-92.
Li, L., Sun, Q., Bellehumeur, C. and Gu, P. (2002),
“Composite modeling and analysis for fabrication of
FDM prototypes with locally controlled properties”,
Journal of Manufacturing Processes, Vol. 4 No. 2,
pp. 129-141.
Lužanin, O., Movrin, D. and Plančak, M. (2014), “Effect of
layer thickness, deposition angle, and infill on maximum
flexural force in FDM-built specimens”, Journal for
Technology of Plasticity, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Muthuramalingam, T. and Mohan, B. (2014), “Application of
Taguchi-grey multi responses optimization on process
parameters in electro erosion”, Measurement, Vol. 58,
pp. 495-502.
Rajpurohit, S.R. and Dave, H.K. (2018a), “Effect of process
parameters on tensile strength of FDM printed PLA part”,
Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 1317-1324.
Rajpurohit, S.R. and Dave, H.K. (2018b), “Analysis of tensile
strength of a fused filament fabricated PLA part using an
open-source 3D printer”, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 101 Nos 5/8,
pp. 1-12.
Rodriguez-Panes, A., Claver, J. and Camacho, A. (2018), “The
influence of manufacturing parameters on the mechanical
behaviour of PLA and abs pieces manufactured by FDM: a
comparative analysis”, Materials, Multidisciplinary Digital
Publishing Institute, Vol. 11 No. 8, p. 1333.
Singh, N., Mir, I.U.H., Raina, A., Anand, A., Kumar, V. and
Sharma, S.M. (2018), “Synthesis and tribological
investigation of Al-SiC based nano hybrid composite”,
Alexandria Engineering Journal, Vol. 57 No. 3,
pp. 1323-1330.
Sood, A.K., Ohdar, R.K. and Mahapatra, S.S. (2010),
“Parametric appraisal of mechanical property of fused
deposition modelling processed parts”, Materials & Design,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 287-295.
Trdnost, V.P.D.N.N. and Modelov, T.T. (2013),
“Influence of processing factors on the tensile strength of
3D-printed models”, Materiali in Tehnologije, Vol. 47
No. 6, pp. 781-788.
Tontowi, A.E., Ramdani, L., Erdizon, R.V. and Baroroh, D.K.
(2017), “Optimization of 3D-Printer process parameters for
improving quality of polylactic acid printed part”,
International Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 9
No. 2.
Tymrak, B.M., Kreiger, M. and Pearce, J.M. (2014),
“Mechanical properties of components fabricated with
open-source 3-D printers under realistic environmental
conditions”, Materials & Design, Vol. 58, pp. 242-246.
 Fused deposition modelling process parameters
Abhinav Chadha et al.
Ul Haq, M.I. and Anand, A. (2018), “Dry sliding friction and
wear behaviour of hybrid AA7075/Si 3 N 4/Gr self lubricating
composites”, Materials Research Express, Vol. 5 No. 6, p. 66544.
Vaezi, M. and Chua, C.K. (2011), “Effects of layer thickness
and binder saturation level parameters on 3D printing
process”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 53 Nos 1/4, pp. 275-284.
Wu, W., Geng, P., Li, G., Zhao, D., Zhang, H. and Zhao, J.
(2015), “Influence of layer thickness and raster angle on the
mechanical properties of 3D-printed PEEK and a
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
559
World Journal of Engineering
Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2019 · 550–559
comparative mechanical study between PEEK and ABS”,
Materials, Vol. 8 No. 9, pp. 5834-5846.
Yazdi, A.A., Popma, A., Wong, W., Nguyen, T., Pan, Y. and
Xu, J. (2016), “3D printing: an emerging tool for novel
microfluidics and lab-on-a-chip applications”, Microfluidics
and Nanofluidics, Vol. 20 No. 3, p. 50.
Corresponding author
Mir Irfan Ul Haq can be contacted at: haqmechanical@
gmail.com