Sensors International 3 (2022) 100149

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sensors International
journal homepage: www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/sensors-international

Analyzing the Impact of Print Parameters on Dimensional Variation of ABS

specimens printed using Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM)
Krishna Mohan Agarwal a, Pritish Shubham a, Dinesh Bhatia b, *, Prairit Sharma a, Harshal Vaid a,
Ritam Vajpeyi a
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Noida, 201313, India
b
Department of Biomedical Engineering, North Eastern Hill University, Shillong, 793022, Meghalaya, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Fused Deposition Modelling is the most popular additive manufacturing technique. Its ability to build complex
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) designs in limited time and money makes it more accessible than other AM techniques. Many Industries employ
Central composite design (CCD) this technique in Prototyping, tooling, and mold design. However, the dimensional accuracy of the printed part is
Fused deposition modelling (FDM)
susceptible to deviations with changes in print settings, this drawback of FDM affects its employability in large
3D printing
scale manufacturing, where repeatability is of paramount importance. Therefore, in this paper the impact of six
significant print parameters; wall thickness, infill density, build plate temperature, print speed, layer thickness
and extrusion temperature on the dimensional accuracy of the printed specimens have been studied. The material
chosen for the study is Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS). The experiments were conducted using a small
resolution central composite design (CCD) and it was found that layer thickness and print speed have the most
significant impact on the dimensional accuracy of the printed parts, it is also observed that lower values of layer
thickness and higher print speed result in better dimensional accuracy.

1. Introduction
Additive Manufacturing was developed in the 1980s as a rapid pro-
totyping technique that offers the ability to manufacture parts from
Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Models. It offered engineers and de-
signers the ability to realize their designs almost instantly. It could create
prototypes in very little time and designs that were difficult to machine
could be produced with ease, product cycle times could also be reduced
significantly [1,2] 3D printing can be utilized in conjunction with 3D
scanning which allows accurate and precise digital modelling of the
parts. The two techniques (Additive Manufacturing and 3D Scanning)
when employed by manufacturers would aid in efficient and flexible
design and development [3]. The technique was not adopted readily by
specialized manufacturing industries such as aerospace and automobile
which require high degree of control on both mechanical and topo-
graphic quality of the part [4,25–27].
However, with the onset of the 4th Industrial Revolution technologies
like Industrial Internet of Things(IIoT) [5] and consequential de-
velopments in AM techniques like the expiration of patents for major AM
techniques have led to 3D printing becoming popular [1,1,1]. This has
caused significant cost reductions in printing machines as well as their
materials, leading to wider access to AM technologies. According to
S.Tofail et al., nearly 11% of 100 companies surveyed in a PwC survey in
North America in 2014 had migrated to AM for mass production. AM this
technology would be called mainstream when this number reaches 20%.
The paper also mentions that different geometry, process opti-
mization/selection of process parameters would play a significant role in
aiding AM in achieving the “mainstream technology” tag [2,2,2,6]. A
more recent survey conducted by Fortune Business Insights the additive
manufacturing industry market size currrently stands at USD 15.26
billion in 2021 and is expected to grow at an annual growth rate of 24%
to USD 68.71 billion during 2021–2028 period [7].. The impact of the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bhatiadinesh@rediffmail.com (D. Bhatia).

Production and hosting by Elsevier

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sintl.2021.100149
Received 11 September 2021; Received in revised form 20 November 2021; Accepted 26 November 2021
Available online 28 November 2021
2666-3511/© 2021 The Authors. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co. Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
K.M. Agarwal et al.
COVID-19 pandemic [8] did hinder the growth in the 2020–2021 finacial
year due to massive supply chain disruptions but it had a positive impact
for AM as 25% of manufacturers surveyed admitted that they would
invest more in this technology post Covid. Among the different forms of
AM technologies FDM, as expected has the largest market cap owing to its
ease of operation [7].
Additive Manufacturing (AM) offers numerous advantages such as
increase in degree of customization and ability to print complex struc-
tures however, it is not without some of its limitations. The nascent na-
ture of AM at present has limited its applications in real world scenarios.
Currently, the process has low efficiency, limit on the part dimension that
can be manufactured, anisotropic mechanical characterstics and low
dimensional accuracy. In material extrusion techniques there is high
chnace of formation of voids between the fabricated layers which leads to
reduced part quality [9–11].
[3]–[5][3]–[5][3]–[5] The aim of this research is to study the impact
of print parameters on dimensional accuracy of the part, it fixates on
studying the relation between dimensional variation of parts fabricated
using Fused Deposition Modelling(FDM) and the process parameters
associated with this technique. Tools like Response Surface Method-
ology(RSM) and Design of Experiments(DOE) have been used to effec-
tively attempt to establish well-founded relations between them. Based
on the results obtained inferences have been made that highlight the
compelling impact of a few parameters and the near insignificant impact
of others on the overall dimensional variations.
2. Literature review
2.1. Computer aided design (CAD)
In additive manufacturing, the product is obtained by adding material
instead of subtracting them. This reduces the 3d shape creation process to
2D layer stacking mechanisms, allowing an item to be created straight
from its computer model. A geometric modeler, such as a solid modeler,
or Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software, first creates an object. The
built-in tessellation method generates a basic boundary representation
that uses triangles to cover the surface of the solid. An outward normal
and the coordinates of three ordered points define each triangle [12].
Fig. 1. Fused Deposition Modelling technique illustrated.
2
Sensors International 3 (2022) 100149
2.2. Standard tessellation language (STL)
The triangular meshes created by CAD are saved in STL format and
utilized as geometric specifications for actual objects in a range of
manufacturing applications, along with fast prototyping and production.
The mesh is subsequently divided into parallel cross-section layers.
Different strategies can be used to create the layers. The STL file is a
triangle facet depiction with each triangle's vertex arranged to meet this
criterion. This triangular mesh information is excellent for digital 3d
representation, and the STL file is the industry standard for digital input
into all sorts of additive manufacturing devices.
2.3. Fused deposition modeling
FDM is one of the most accessible AM techniques, it was developed by
Stratasys in the 1990s and has gained significant momentum in recent
years. The technique is popular among hobbyists, researchers, and stu-
dents, etc. as it can be used to produce functional prototypes in thermo-
plastic form with relative ease and in-home/office-friendly environments
unlike in other AM techniques like Selective Laser Sintering where
specialized rooms and pieces of equipment are required for fabrication.
FDM, like other AM techniques, fabricates parts directly from CAD files
converted into STL format. In this technique, the material is fed into an
extruder which melts the material at a predetermined temperature, as the
melting takes place the nozzle moves gradually over the build plate tracing
the design of the part and depositing the melted material onto the build
plate. Fig. 1 depicts the fused deposition modelling technique [13].
2.2. FDM process parameters
Nowadays, the FDM technique is utilized to produce parts with
outstanding part quality, increased productivity, safety, cheap produc-
tion costs, and reduced lead times [13]. To satisfy each application the
FDM process parameters need to be tuned individually to suit them. The
FDM printing technique is governed by the process parameter for
simplicity they can be classified as i) extruder related; ii) process related
and iii) structural parameters. The perks of selecting an optimum set of
parameters are quite advantageous, selecting the appropriate process
K.M. Agarwal et al. Sensors International 3 (2022) 100149

parameters ensures the parts fabricated have high dimensional accuracy,

wastage of material is minimized, production time is reduced and
reduction in the cost of producing each part is achieved [14]. The scope
of this research is to optimize parameters to get high accuracy in printed
parts. The process parameters considered for this research have been
described below:

1. Wall Thickness: It is defined as the distance between the outer surface

of the part and the opposite inner sheer surface.
2. Infill Density: The inside structure of a printed part is generally not
solid but sparsely filled with material. Thus, Infill Density refers to the
percentage of volume filled with material out of the total volume
available inside a fabricated specimen.
3. Build Plate Temperature: It refers to the temperature at which the build
plate (i.e., the plate on which the part is fabricated) is heated up to.
When using ABS as a material, heated work bed is considered very
important as it slows down the cooling process and help in achieving
higher dimensional accuracy, therefore countering the tendency of
ABS to shrink upon rapid cooling.
4. Print Speed: It refers to the speed of the material depositing nozzle as it Fig. 3. Isometric view of the fabricated specimen.
navigates the XY plane to build the part. It also refers to the speed of
deposition of material onto the build plate.
5. Layer Thickness: Height of the one layer measured along the Z-axis as
deposited by the extrusion nozzle [15].
6. Extrusion Temperature: Refers to the temperature inside the heating
nozzle used to melt the filament before it is extruded onto the build
plate [16].

3. Experimental procedure

The specimen fabricated for the experiment is shown in Fig. 2 &

Fig. 3. The specimen dimensions are given in Fig. 2. The part is made of
several types of geometries like shafts, holes, and rectangular slots to
account for dimensional variation caused by different geometry forms
(see Fig. 4).

3.1. RSM-based experimentation

The experiment was designed by RSM on Design Expert 12 software.

A small resolution face-centered Central Composite Design was

Fig. 4. (a) & (b). The printed specimens.

Fig. 2. Dimensions of various geometries within the specimen. (All specifica-
tions are in mm).
generated with a total of 33 runs having six variables and one response.
The effect of print parameters; wall thickness, infill density, build plate
temperature, print speed, layer thickness, and extrusion temperature on the
average percentage deviation of each run was studied. All other print/
process parameters apart from the ones mentioned in Table 1 have been
kept constant. The specimen as shown in Figs. 2 and 3 was printed for

3
K.M. Agarwal et al. Sensors International 3 (2022) 100149

Table 1 Dp1 þ Dp2 þ :::Dp6

Average Percentage Deviation ¼ (3)
Input Variables of the experiment and their levels. 6
Process Parameter Unit Lower Intermediate Upper
limit Value Limit 4. Result and discussion
Wall Thickness mm 0.8 1.20 1.6
Infill Density % 20 35 50 The results obtained for the central composite design (CCD) were
Build Plate Celsius 80 95 110 analyzed in Design Expert 12 Software. Based on the results an ANOVA
Temperature table was developed which confirmed the RSM model to be significant
Print Speed mm/s 30 47.50 65
and the Lack of Fit was also found to be insignificant as shown in Table 3.
Layer thickness mm 0.1 0.20 0.30
Extrusion Celsius 225 232.5 240 Out of the six parameters studied all parameters except build plate
Temperature temperature and extrusion temperature had a significant impact on the
average percentage deviation of the specimens which also confirmed by
Akbas et al. [17]. Among the significant five parameters, Layer Thick-
each run. The CAD model was developed using Solidworks and converted ness, Print Speed, and Infill Density had the maximum impact on the
into a.stl file. The.stl was used to carry out the prints only the process response. Table 4 highlights the fit statistics of the model, the difference
parameter values were changed according to the RSM design for each between the predicted R2 and Adjusted R2 is less than 0.2 which signifies
print/run (see Table 2). that there is no block effect in the model. The Adequate Precision which
measures the signal-to-noise ratio is more than 4 i.e., the model can be
used to navigate the design space. The R2 of the model is 0.9483 which
3.2. Data collection signifies that the model can identify the cause behind variation in the
responses of nearly 95% of the cases.
After printing the specimens of the experiment according to the RSM The Normal Plot of Residuals and the predicted versus actual graphs
design successfully, the measurement was done of the geometries using a shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 are in a straight-line signifying that the re-
digital vernier caliper with a resolution of 0.01 mm. Each geometry was siduals are normally distributed and the difference between the predicted
measured six times in each run, and the average percentage deviation for and actual values is quite low.
the geometry was calculated using Equations (1)–(3). Multiple readings
were taken to minimize human and equipment errors. 4.1. Effect of print speed on deviation
Deviation ðDi Þ ¼ jSpecified Dimension  Observed Value j (1)
According to Fig. 7 at print speed of 65 mm/s 4.5% deviation is
observed and at the slowest speed of 30 mm/s 8.57% deviation is
DeviationðDiÞ
Percentage DeviationðDpiÞ ¼  100 (2) recorded. Which clearly suggests that when the print speed is higher,
Specified Dimension
dimensional accuracy is improved, with the least deviation being
observed at a print speed of 65 mm/s. This was an unexpected result but

Table 2
Experimental Results obtained from Central Composite Design.
Standard Run Wall Thickness Infill Density Build Plate Temp. Print Speed Layer Thickness Extrusion Temp. Average Percentage
Order (mm) (%) ( C) (mm/s) (mm) ( C) Deviation

31 1 1.2 35 95 47.5 0.2 232.5 4.87

5 2 0.8 50 80 65 0.3 240 5.77
19 3 1.2 20 95 47.5 0.2 232.5 4.55
7 4 0.8 50 110 30 0.1 225 5.57
26 5 1.2 35 95 47.5 0.3 232.5 6.15
30 6 1.2 35 95 47.5 0.2 232.5 5.97
29 7 1.2 35 95 47.5 0.2 232.5 5.41
20 8 1.2 50 95 47.5 0.2 232.5 5.56
25 9 1.2 35 95 47.5 0.1 232.5 4.52
4 10 1.6 20 110 30 0.3 240 6.63
3 11 1.6 50 80 65 0.1 240 4.54
17 12 0.8 35 95 47.5 0.2 232.5 4.27
8 13 1.6 50 80 30 0.3 240 9.07
2 14 1.6 50 110 30 0.3 225 7.59
28 15 1.2 35 95 47.5 0.2 240 4.72
21 16 1.2 35 80 47.5 0.2 232.5 4.84
11 17 0.8 50 80 30 0.1 240 3.56
14 18 0.8 20 110 65 0.3 240 3.96
6 19 1.6 20 110 65 0.1 240 4.5
23 20 1.2 35 95 30 0.2 232.5 8.57
12 21 1.6 20 80 30 0.3 225 6.29
10 22 0.8 20 110 30 0.1 240 6.39
24 23 1.2 35 95 65 0.2 232.5 4.43
22 24 1.2 35 110 47.5 0.2 232.5 4.52
27 25 1.2 35 95 47.5 0.2 225 3.37
9 26 1.6 20 80 65 0.1 225 4.5
15 27 0.8 50 110 65 0.3 225 7.2
18 28 1.6 35 95 47.5 0.2 232.5 5.2
1 29 1.6 50 110 65 0.1 225 2.8
16 30 0.8 20 80 30 0.1 225 4.8
13 31 0.8 20 80 65 0.3 225 3.12
32 32 1.2 35 95 47.5 0.2 232.5 5.11
33 33 1.2 35 95 47.5 0.2 232.5 5.45

4
K.M. Agarwal et al. Sensors International 3 (2022) 100149

Table 3 was also observed by Oguzhan Emre Akbas et al. [17] https://doi.org/1
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table. 0.1108/RPJ-04-2019-0115/FULL/XML. Brydson (1981) [18] explained
Source Sum of Df Mean F- p-value that once the shear rate exceeds a critical value, an increase in shear rate
Squares Square value decreases the extrudate swell i.e.: higher print speeds increase the shear
Model 61.89 12 5.16 30.56 < significant rate beyond a critical value after which the melted material on deposition
0.0001 does not flow.
A-Wall 2.33 1 2.33 13.82 0.0014
thickness
4.2. Effect of layer thickness on deviation
B-Infill Density 2.66 1 2.66 15.76 0.0008
C-Build Plate 0.3961 1 0.3961 2.35 0.1412
Temp Fig. 8 highlights the linear and significant relation between layer
D-Print Speed 8.57 1 8.57 50.78 < thickness and the deviation (dimensional accuracy) observed in the
0.0001
specimens. Increasing Layer Thickness roughly translates to an increase
E-Layer 11.84 1 11.84 70.17 <
Thickness 0.0001 of deviation in the specimens. Therefore, a lower value of layer thickness
F-Extrusion 0.845 1 0.845 5.01 0.0368 is mandatory to decrease deviation in the printed part. The result ob-
Temperature tained in the study were in coalition with the findings by Kumar et al.
AC 4.79 1 4.79 28.35 < [19], Nancharaiah et al. [20] and Bual et al. [22]. The density of the part
0.0001
produced from the melted filament is dependent on the layer thickness,
AE 2.67 1 2.67 15.82 0.0007
AF 1.31 1 1.31 7.73 0.0115 Lubis et al. [23] concluded that the error observed in dimensional ac-
BE 11.14 1 11.14 66 < curacy of the printed specimen is affected significantly by the layer
0.0001 height. Larger values of the layer slice height led to poor density of the
D2 6.58 1 6.58 39 <
parts amongst the multiple layers. Vasudevarao et al. [24] conducted the
0.0001
F 2
4.14 1 4.14 24.53 <
research using factorial design and found that 0.007-inch layer thickness
0.0001 produced parts with the best surface and dimensional accuracy.
Residual 3.38 20 0.1688
Lack of Fit 2.69 16 0.1681 0.9813 0.35 not
4.3. Effect of infill density on deviation
significant
Pure Error 0.6853 4 0.1713
Cor Total 65.26 32 In Fig. 9 it is observed that the impact of infill density is somewhat
less pronounced, still there is a linear relationship between Infill density
and the average percentage deviation observed. At 20% Infill Density a
deviation of 4.7% is observed and at 50% Infill Density 5.49% Deviation
Table 4 is observed. Increasing the infill density directly increases the deviation
Fit statistics of the design.
in the print which agrees with Akande (2015) [21]. This phenomenon
Std. Dev. 0.4108 R2 0.9483 can be a direct cause of the presence of high volume of molten material
Mean 5.27 Adjusted R2 0.9173 which tends to flow and less space within the part causes it to flow
C.V. % 7.8 Predicted R2 0.8618 outward thereby deforming the produced part altogether. Hence, it is
Adequate Precision 26.3009 suggested to reduce infill density to keep dimensional variation in
control.

Fig. 5. Normal Plot of Residuals for Average Percentage deviation.

5
K.M. Agarwal et al. Sensors International 3 (2022) 100149

Fig. 6. Predicted versus Actual for Average percentage deviation.

Fig. 7. Impact of Print speed on the deviation of the printed specimens.

4.4. Response surface plot
The response surface plot between the two most significant process
parameters Layer Thickness and Print Speed is shown in Fig. 10. On one axis
containing layer thickness, there is a linear increase in deviation, and a non-
linear relationship is seen on the other axis. Choosing the maximum layer
thickness and slowest print speed results in max deviation observed of
9.07% from the CAD specified value in the part while the highest print speed
and lowest layer thickness gave the least deviation of 2.8% in the part.
4.5. Optimized process parameters
Using Design Expert software, the process parameters studied in this
research were then optimized using the desirability approach to
minimize the average percentage deviation observed in the printed part.
The results of the optimization and the most suited parameter values
have been mentioned in Table 5.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, the effect of Wall thickness, Infill Density, Build Plate
Temperature, print speed, Layer Thickness, and Extrusion Temperature
on dimensional accuracy observed in parts printed was investigated. The
impact was studied by employing the Design of Experiment technique
and later optimization of parameters was done using the Desirability
Approach. Of the six parameters, Print Speed and Layer Thickness had
the most significant impact followed by Infill Density and Wall Thickness.
In addition, Extrusion Temperature was found to have a low impact on

6
K.M. Agarwal et al. Sensors International 3 (2022) 100149

Fig. 8. Impact of layer thickness on the deviation of the printed specimens.

Fig. 9. Impact of infill density on the deviation of the printed specimens.

the response and Build Plate Temperature did not have any effect to be
considered in ANOVA. In further analysis it was observed that in parts
which had layer thickness on the lower side and fastest print speed and
least infill density had the least percentage deviation from the CAD
specified value. Further optimization of the 6 parameters using desir-
ability approach suggested wall thickness (0.982 mm), infill density,
(20.3%), build plate temperature (89  C), print speed (59.1 mm/s), layer
thickness (0.212 mm) and extrusion temperature (225.5  C) in order to
achieve maximum accuracy in printed parts.
Future work could include optimization using advanced techniques
like Grey Relational Analysis which could offer even more reliable
insights to reduce deviation in prints. Although the FDM process contains
many factors, many of which are interconnected, in this study only six
parameters were treated as variables, while the remaining parameters
were treated as constants. A variable process parameter may be influ-
enced by the constant values of other parameters which can be studied
and could have a detrimental effect on the part deviations. Also, in order
to achieve the most accurate part we had to reduce parameters such as
infill density which could affect the functionality of the part by lowering
its mechanical strength, future research could incorporate fabrication of
parts with least deviation and maximizing other properties like me-
chanical strength.

7
K.M. Agarwal et al. Sensors International 3 (2022) 100149

Fig. 10. Response Surface Plot between Layer thickness and Print Speed and their combined effect on Average Percentage Deviation.

[7] 3D printing market size & share | analysis report [2021-2028] (n.d.). Retrieved
Table 5 November 16, 2021, from, https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/indust
Optimized Process Parameters using Desirability Approach. ry-reports/3d-printing-market-101902.
[8] K.M. Agarwal, S. Mohapatra, P. Sharma, S. Sharma, D. Bhatia, A. Mishra, Study and
Wall Infill Build Print Layer Extrusion overview of the novel corona virus disease (COVID-19), Sensor. Int. 1 (July) (2020)
thickness Density Plate Speed Thickness Temperature 100037, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sintl.2020.100037.
Temp [9] J.P. De Jong, E. de Bruijn, Innovation lessons from 3-D printing, MIT Sloan Manag.
Rev. 54 (2013) 43–52.
0.982 20.289 88.938 59.175 0.212 225.459 [10] L. Chen, Y. He, Y. Yang, The research status and development trend of additive
manufacturing technology, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 89 (2017) 3651–3660,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-016-9335-4.
Declaration of competing interest [11] B. Zareiyan, B. Khoshnevis, Interlayer adhesion and strength of structures in
Contour crafting—effects of aggregate size, extrusion rate, and layer thickness,
Autom. ConStruct. 81 (2017) 112–121.
The Authors report no conflict of interest for submitting paper titled [12] M. Szilvasi-Nagy, G. Matyasi, Analysis of STL files, Math. Comput. Model. 38 (7–9)
“Analyzing the Impact of Print Parameters on Dimensional Variation of (2003) 945–960, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-7177(03)90079-3.
ABS Specimens printed using Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM)” to the [13] O.A. Mohamed, S.H. Masood, J.L. Bhowmik, Optimization of fused deposition
modeling process parameters: a review of current research and prospects, Adv.
Sensors International Journal. Manuf. 3 (1) (Mar. 2015) 42–53, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40436-014-0097-7.
[14] A. Dey, N. Yodo, A systematic survey of FDM process parameter optimization and
References their influence on Part Characteristics, J. Manuf. Mater. Process. 2019 3 (3) (2019)
64, https://doi.org/10.3390/JMMP3030064. Page 64, 3.
[15] A. Jaisingh Sheoran, H. Kumar, Fused Deposition modeling process parameters
[1] Pritish Shubham, Prairit Sharma, Harshal Vaid, Ritam Vajpeyi, Utilizing machine
optimization and effect on mechanical properties and part quality: review and
learning to predict the dimensional variation of shafts printed using fused
reflection on present research, Mater. Today: Proceedings 21 (Jan. 2020)
deposition modeling, Trends Mech. Eng. Technol. 11 (2) (2021) 41–46p.
1659–1672, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.296.
[2] D.T. Pham, R.S. Gault, A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies, Int. J. Mach.
[16] I.J. Solomon, P. Sevvel, J. Gunasekaran, A review on the various processing
Tool Manufact. 38 (10–11) (1998) 1257–1287.
parameters in FDM, Mater. Today: Proceedings, Jan. 37 (2) (2020) 509–514,
[3] M. Javaid, A. Haleem, R. Pratap Singh, R. Suman, Industrial Perspectives of 3D
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.484.
scanning: features, roles and it's analytical applications, Sensor. Int. 2 (2021)
[17] O.E. Akbaş, O. Hıra, S.Z. Hervan, S. Samankan, A. Altınkaynak, Dimensional
100114, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sintl.2021.100114.
accuracy of FDM-printed polymer parts, Rapid Prototyp. J. 26 (2) (2020) 288–298,
[4] B.K. Foster, E.W. Reutzel, A.R. Nassar, C.J. Dickman, B.T. Hall, A brief survey of
https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-04-2019-0115/FULL/XML.
sensing for metal-based powder bed fusion additive manufacturing, Dimens. Opt.
[18] J.A. Brydson, Flow Properties of Polymer Melts, second ed., Godwin, London, 1981.
Metrol. Insp. Practical Appl. Iv 9489 (2015) 94890B, 1–94890B-9.
[19] Anoop Kumar Sood, R.K. Ohdar, S.S. Mahapatra, Improving dimensional accuracy
[5] M. Javaid, Abid Haleem, R. Pratap Singh, S. Rab, R. Suman, Upgrading the
of Fused Deposition Modelling processed part using grey Taguchi method 30 (10)
manufacturing sector via applications of industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), Sensor.
(2009) 4243–4252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.04.030.
Int. 2 (2021) 100129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sintl.2021.100129.
[20] T. Nancharaiah, D. Ranga Raju, V. Ramachandra Raju, An experimental
[6] S.A.M. Tofail, E.P. Koumoulos, A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Bose, L. O'Donoghue,
investigation on surface quality and dimensional accuracy of FDM components.
C. Charitidis, Additive manufacturing: scientific and technological challenges,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267248480, 2010.
market uptake and opportunities, Mater. Today 21 (1) (Jan. 01, 2018) 22–37,
[21] Stephen Oluwashola Akande, Dimensional accuracy and surface finish optimization
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mattod.2017.07.001. Elsevier B.V.
of fused deposition modelling parts using desirability function analysis, Int. J. Eng.
Res. V4 (2015), https://doi.org/10.17577/ijertv4is040393, 04.

8
K.M. Agarwal et al.
[22] G.S. Bual, P. kumar, Methods to improve surface finish of parts produced by fused
deposition modeling, Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2 (3) (2014) 51–55, https://doi.org/
10.13189/mst.2014.020301.
[23] S. Lubis, Pengaruh Orientasi Objek Pada Proses 3D Printing Bahan Polymer PLA
Dan ABS Terhadap Keakurtan Tarik Dan Ketelitian Dimensi Produk, 2016,
pp. 27–35.
[24] B. Vasudevarao, D.P. Natarajan, M. Henderson, A. Razdan, Sensitivity of RP Surface
Finish to Process Parameter Variation, Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings
Symposium, Austin, 2000, pp. 251–258.
Sensors International 3 (2022) 100149
[25] Modeling, analysis, and optimization of dimensional accuracy of FDM-fabricated
parts using definitive screening design and deep learning feedforward artificial
neural network, Adv. Manuf. 9 (2021) 115–129, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40436-
020-00336-9.
[26] Mechanical characterization of PC-ABS based graphene reinforced polymer
nanocomposites fabricated by FDM process, J., Polymers 13 (Issue 17) (2021),
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13172951.
[27] Additive manufacturing processes and their applications for green technology.
Handbook of Research on Green Engineering Techniques for Modern
Manufacturing. Doi: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5445-5.2019.