Polymer Testing 118 (2023) 107910

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Polymer Testing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/polytest

Analysis of fused filament fabrication parameters for sliding wear

performance of carbon reinforced polyamide composite material fabricated
parts using a hybrid heuristic tool
Deepak Chhabra a, Sandeep Deswal a, Ashish Kaushik b, Ramesh Kumar Garg b, András Kovács c,
Rohit Khargotra c, *, Tej Singh d
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, 124001, Haryana, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, D.C.R.U.S.T, Murthal, Sonipat, 131039, Haryana, India
c
Department of Material Science and Chemical Engineering, University of Pannonia, Veszprem, 8200, Hungary
d
Savaria Institute of Technology, Faculty of Informatics, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Szombathely, 9700, Hungary

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

Keywords: Carbon-reinforced nylon composite material (PA12CF20), i.e., polyamide, has been widely used in the auto­
Additive manufacturing motive, medical, and electronics industries for fabricating functional parts, especially in gear manufacturing, due
FFF printing to its excellent wear property. The present work investigates the optimal parameters of the fused filament
ASTM G99
fabrication (FFF) 3D printing technique using PA12CF20 as feedstock to fabricate parts for enhancing the sliding
Carbon fiber reinforced polyamide
Wear performance
wear performance. The test specimens are fabricated as per the American society for testing and materials
Hybrid heuristic tool (ASTM) G99 standard. The hybrid heuristic tool, i.e., genetic algorithm-adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system
(GA-ANFIS), has been used to train, predict, and optimize the sliding wear performance of the fabricated parts
using carbon reinforced polyamide composite material. The experimental runs have been performed on 30
combinations of input factors based on face centered central composite design (FCCCD) and further used for
training and optimization for the hybrid GA-ANFIS approach. Scanning electron microscopy has been used to
characterize the wear crack of the PA12CF20. It is observed that the optimal parameters retrieved using GA-
ANFIS have increased the wear performance of PA12CF20 fabricated specimens, and the same has been vali­
dated experimentally. Further, a lathe machine spur gear was fabricated using optimal parameters of the FFF
technique and checked the suitability for end-use applications.

1. Introduction
Stratasys Inc., in the 1990s, invented fused filament fabrication
(FFF), a modern additive nature layered manufacturing 3D printing
technique to fabricate parts [1]. It is well known for fabricating
three-dimensional prototypes in different engineering-grade polymer
materials, like Nylon, composite materials, polycarbonate (PC), and
polyphenylsulfone [2,3]. This technique extrudes the semi-molten ma­
terial through the heated nozzle in a layer form and deposits it on the
heated bed to fabricate the parts [4]. FFF is expanding in many assem­
bling businesses, such as gadgets, aviation, broadcast communications,
and automobiles, because of its capacity to create complex net-shaped
parts [5,6]. FFF part’s characteristics display high reliance on input
factors and should be enhanced by controlling them at the ideal levels
[7,33]. FFF input parameters significantly affect different part charac­
teristics: layer height, wall line width, wall thickness, and build orien­
tation [8,9,35]. Better quality confirmation and good mechanical
characteristics of FFF made products are significant to keep away items
from lousy performance. One of this technique’s fundamental quality
checking criteria is the part’s tribological behaviour under various
working conditions [3,6,36]. It is imperative to describe specific items’
tribological behaviour to guarantee the FFF -made item’s high reli­
ability. Essentially, protection from wear in polymers isn’t just a mate­
rial characteristic; it is additionally a fabricated part characteristic
[10–12,34]. Any material part’s wearing mechanism relies upon sliding
motion between parts and working input parameters [6]. According to
the application area of any part, a material can wear for various reasons.
The material characteristics, operational conditions, and part miniature

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rohitkhargotra@phd.mk.uni-pannon.hu (R. Khargotra).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2022.107910
Received 13 October 2022; Received in revised form 4 December 2022; Accepted 19 December 2022
Available online 20 December 2022
0142-9418/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
D. Chhabra et al. Polymer Testing 118 (2023) 107910

structure can mutually impact the developed part’s wear characteristics. Table 1
In this way, there is a requirement to have exact and definite informa­ Properties of PA12CF20.
tion about the fabricated part while examining the product’s wear S.no Parameter Value
characteristics. The huge utilization of polymers as the finished product
1 Diameter 1.75 mm
has prompted an intense examination of the wear behaviour of polymers 2 Density 1 gm/cm3
[13]. Pant et al. [14] examined the layer thickness, build orientation and 3 Bed Temperature 60–65C
temperature FFF machine input parameters that affect on wearing 4 Hot end Temperature 240–250C
behaviour of Polylactic acid(PLA) thermoplastic material and found 5 Tensile strength 76Mpa
6 Flexural Strength 142Mpa
build direction as the most influencing parameter. Sood et al. [15]
described the wear execution of FFF Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
(ABS) printed tests by taking five printing parameters. They detailed
that each of the five input parameters affects wearing rate effectively.
Gurrala et al. [16] analyzed the impact of pin-on-plate wear machine
input parameters (typical burden, sliding rate, and part direction) on the
wear conduct of ABS material test pieces made by the FFF technique. It
was accounted that wear rate and build direction significantly affect
wear conduct. Various researchers have conducted different studies to
optimize the input factors using techniques such as Taguchi, response
surface methodology, and Genetic algorithm-assisted hybrid evolu­
tionary techniques [17–20]. For a given problem, the objective is to
locate an appropriate estimate for the genuine utilitarian connection
between independent and output factors. Then RSM is one technique
that helps evaluate the better connection between the controllable input
factors and the acquired output value. A supportive highlight of
Response surface methodology (RSM) is building an exact model be­
tween the desired output value and independent factors utilizing the
Analysis of variance (ANOVA). Precise control of process parameters to
achieve better quality is a prerequisite condition. Much more work
needs to be conducted to develop fitting models for experimental value
sets using arithmetical techniques. It is difficult to get any careful model
using the basic physics process. Therefore artificial intelligence calcu­
lating approaches like artificial neural network (ANN) and ANFIS can be
used to model the Fused deposition modelling (FDM) technique complex Fig. 1. Fused filament fabrication printer.
input process parameters. ANN is a neural network that is a simplified
model of the biological nervous system and has been motivated by the the present research work, the PA12CF20 filaments have been utilized to
kind of computing accomplished by the human brain. Therefore, it can fabricate test specimens and gears using FFF printing. The significant
solve significant computational problems efficiently [21]. A tool process parameters, i.e., layer height (LH), build orientation (BO), wall
designed to solve non-linear problems with high speed with a combi­ line width (WW), and wall thickness (WT), have been evaluated to in­
nation of ANN and fuzzy logic is known as an adaptive neuro fuzzy crease the wear performance of PA12CF20 using GA-ANFIS. The 30
inference system (ANFIS) [22]. Since ANFIS is a hybrid model and co­ combinations of input parameters have been decided using FCCCD. The
ordinates both fuzzy logic and neural network models, it catches the test specimens are fabricated per ASTM G99 standard on the input pa­
advantages of both in a solitary structure. A division of evolutionary rameters using the GEETECH A30 Desktop FFF printer. The sliding wear
computation, an evolutionary algorithm (EA) in computational intelli­ rate of the fabricated specimen has been tested using DUCOM pin-on-
gence (CI), is a metaheuristic human being generic system-based opti­ disc machine. Scanning electron microscopy has been used to charac­
mization algorithm [23]. An EA utilizes mechanisms enlivened by terize the wear crack of the PA12CF20. The effect of input parameters on
natural advancement, for example, mutation, reproduction, selection, wear performance has been investigated using a 3D surface plot of the
and recombination. In artificial intelligent computing, a genetic algo­ response surface methodology. The maximum wear performance has
rithm (GA) is an automated calculating procedure used to acquire an been predicted with the hybrid heuristic tool, i.e., GA-ANFIS. The pre­
ideal arrangement of any issue in an exceptionally stochastic way dicted results retrieved from GA-ANFIS have been validated
without considering any presumptions about the considered space experimentally.
problem. GA is a human being biological system-inspired technique that
uses different biosystem procedures like selection mutation and 2. Methodology
cross-over for learning the data. Genetic algorithms are generally uti­
lized to produce high-quality elucidations of optimization problems. 2.1. Material and test specimens printing
Therefore, the GA incorporated advanced methodology to arrange a
cozy connection between the input variables and output values by The test specimens were manufactured by an FFF 3D printer with
improving the model’s exactness level by generating several optimum carbon fiber reinforced (20% by weight) Nylon (PA12CF20) composite
possible solutions [21,24,25]. Many more researchers [26–28] have thermoplastic filament material. E3D wear-resistant hardened steel is
stated the usefulness of GA to optimize the given problem in different used as nozzle material to fabricate the PA1CF20 nylon polymer.
engineering fields. Therefore, the utilization of GA combined with PA12CF20 is an environmentally friendly filament having odorless,
ANFIS in this work to determine the values of the optimized parameters matte finishing and smooth printing-like characteristics. It offers high
for minimizing the wear rate of FFF fabricated parts can be feasible. strength, rigidity, good toughness, high wear-resisting, low shrink rate,
Many researchers have investigated the wear performance of ABS and distortion with high accuracy compared to virgin nylon filament.
and PLA as feedstock for FFF printing. Still, little work has been reported The properties of PA12CF20 are shown in Table 1. The labeled photo­
on analyzing the wear performance of carbon-reinforced polyamide graph of GEETECH A30 printer is shown in Fig. 1. Test specimens for
composite material (PA12CF20) fabricated parts using FFF printing. In

2
D. Chhabra et al. Polymer Testing 118 (2023) 107910

wear testing were fabricated as per ASTM G99 standard, and the cy­
lindrical test specimen (pin-shaped) with 35 mm length and 6 mm
diameter are shown in Fig. 2. First, the specimen shape is designed in
solid work software and saved to printable STL (Standard Triangulation
Language) file format, i.e.,.stl., then sliced into Cura slicer software and
converted into G code. Further, the generated G codes are exported to
the FFF machine to print each test piece.

2.2. Experimental design

The FFF machine input parameters, i.e., layer height, built orienta­
tion, wall line width, and thickness, were chosen as significant param­
eters. The input factors range of the machine considered during the
Fig. 2. ASTM G99 standard test piece shape.
experimental work is shown in Table 2, and a combination of four input
factors was developed using face centered central composite design
(FCCCD). The FCCCD design locates the sixteen factorial points, six axial
Table 2 points, and eight on the centres of the faces across the cube, thus,
Different factors and their range. resulting in 30 experimental runs and can be generalized by equation.
Sr. No. No. Input factors Notation Unit Level E denotes the number of experiments, and n is the number of input
variables. The complete methodology of the proposed work is shown in
− 1 0
Fig. 3.
+1

1 Layer height LH mm .1 .19 .28

2 Build orientation BO Degree 0 45 90
3 Wall line width WW mm .3 .4 .5
2.3. Pin-on-wear testing and determination of wear rate
4 Wall thickness WT mm .83 1.565 2.3
TR-20 LE, a pin-on-disk wears testing machine (supplied by DUCOM
instruments), was utilized to perform a sliding wearing test, as shown in

Fig. 3. Methodology of the proposed work.

Fig. 4. (a) DUCOM Pin on disc wear testing machine and (b) tested specimens.

3
D. Chhabra et al. Polymer Testing 118 (2023) 107910

Fig. 5. ANFIS five layers structure with forward and backward pass.

Fig. 4(a). The ASTM G99 standard was a customary test strategy for
sliding wear measurement [22,29]. The cylindrical pin-shaped specimen
is held fixed, and proper contact between the fixed specimen and disc is
maintained by applying the load parallel to the specimen axis, and then
the disc is rotated. The rotating disc speed is kept at 500 revolutions per
minute (rpm), and a load value of 40 N is applied under dry wear con­
ditions for 5 min. The disk material is EN 31 hardened steel, and the
track diameter of 120 mm was fixed for testing. Before and after testing,
to remove any unwanted debris, the wear testing machine, rotating disc,
and test specimens were cleaned with a cleaning agent (ethanol and

Table 3
Experimental run design.
Sr. No. Layer height Build orientation Wall width Wall Thickness Pin-wear (mm3/sec) Pin-wear (mm3/m) Pin-wear predicted by ANFIS ANFIS (mm3/m)

1 0.1 0 0.3 0.83 0.000288 0.009166 0.00937

2 0.28 0 0.3 0.83 0.000272 0.008636 0.00844
3 0.1 90 0.3 0.83 0.000295 0.009385 0.0091
4 0.28 90 0.3 0.83 0.000351 0.011167 0.0113
5 0.1 0 0.5 0.83 0.000904 0.028764 0.0268
6 0.28 0 0.5 0.83 0.000319 0.010133 0.0111
7 0.1 90 0.5 0.83 0.000803 0.025532 0.0235
8 0.28 90 0.5 0.83 0.000408 0.012967 0.013
9 0.1 0 0.3 2.3 0.000461 0.014661 0.0137
10 0.28 0 0.3 2.3 0.000604 0.019212 0.0192
11 0.1 90 0.3 2.3 0.000288 0.009167 0.00909
12 0.28 90 0.3 2.3 0.000602 0.01916 0.0192
13 0.1 0 0.5 2.3 0.000588 0.018698 0.0167
14 0.28 0 0.5 2.3 0.000274 0.008712 0.0087
15 0.1 90 0.5 2.3 0.000462 0.014681 0.0137
16 0.28 90 0.5 2.3 0.000273 0.008695 0.00845
17 0.1 45 0.4 1.565 0.000686 0.021833 0.0218
18 0.28 45 0.4 1.565 0.000623 0.019803 0.0198
19 0.19 0 0.4 1.565 0.000519 0.016512 0.0165
20 0.19 90 0.4 1.565 0.000481 0.015298 0.0153
21 0.19 45 0.3 1.565 0.000675 0.021466 0.0212
22 0.19 45 0.5 1.565 0.000726 0.023098 0.02212
23 0.19 45 0.4 0.83 0.000508 0.016167 0.0152
24 0.19 45 0.4 2.3 0.000473 0.01506 0.0154
25 0.19 45 0.4 1.565 0.000551 0.017521 0.017
26 0.19 45 0.4 1.565 0.000439 0.013954 0.017
27 0.19 45 0.4 1.565 0.000551 0.017515 0.017
28 0.19 45 0.4 1.565 0.000557 0.017713 0.017
29 0.19 45 0.4 1.565 0.000555 0.017654 0.017
30 0.19 45 0.4 1.565 0.000551 0.017541 0.017

4
D. Chhabra et al. Polymer Testing 118 (2023) 107910

acetone) for accurate test results. Other than that, the fabricated test
pieces were not subjected to any pre/post-processing. During testing, no
wear was observed on the rotating hardened steel plate. The wear rate in
terms of volume loss was calculated using the mathematical formula
aired in equation (1) and equation (2) using a digital weighing machine
having a range of up to 1 mg Fig. 4 (b) shows the specimens tested after
wear testing.
Wi − Wf
W= (1)
ps

Wi − Wf
W= (2)
pt

Here, (W) wear rate (mm3/m and mm3/s), (Wi) and (Wf) measured
weight before and after testing, s sliding distance (m) and p is density (g/
mm3), and t is time in second.

2.4. ANFIS method for input parameters training

ANFIS utilizes fuzzy logic and ANN competency and simultaneously

beats their specific imperatives. Its inference framework relates to many
fuzzy ‘If-then’ guidelines that have the learning ability to estimate
nonlinear capacities. Henceforth, ANFIS is viewed as a widespread
assessor [23–25,30–32]. In ANFIS, it is conceivable to recognize two
sections in the organization structure: premise and outcome. ANFIS
structure is made up of five layers, shown in Fig. 5. The Fuzzification
layer is the first layer that acquires the input values and decides the
membership functions fit them. The second layer, denoted as the rule or Fig. 6. Frictional force and wear plot with time.
product layer, is accountable for creating the rules’ sacking strengths.
The product layer is labeled as p. The third layer (labeled as q) accom­ averages of three samples have been taken as a final result. The input
plishes the normalization operation to normalize the weight function factors and output responses have been tabulated in Table 3. Fig. 6 de­
computed firing strengths. The Defuzzy layer is the fourth layer that picts the plot of frictional force and wears with time for the first
disquiets the culmination part of the fuzzy rule. The fifth layer labeled as experimental run performed. Fig. 6(a) shows that frictional force
∑
the total output layer. Its outcome provides the result of the consid­ initially increases with time. As the sliding process continues with time,
ered response. the frictional force value becomes stable and decreases due to removing
In this work, four input process parameters, as stated in Table 2, and the surface asperities. The same can be seen from Fig. 6(b) that wear
one output is linked using the ANFIS model. For each input parameter, with time is high at the starting as the wear line is away from the wear
three membership functions were allocated. For training the input (four slope line and then small as the wear line is close to the straight line.
input parameters)/output (wear rate), the data set as represented in Further, wearing increases as the crushing may occur due to constant
Table 3 (30 × 5) is used. Therefore, the constructed ANFIS structure will compressive force and relative motion between two surfaces. According
have four inputs and one output node. to adhesive junction growth theory, surface atoms attract each other as
motion starts due to attractive force generation.
Micrograph Fig. 7(a) shows the wearing due to the adhesive junction
2.5. GA-ANFIS Heuristic tool
growth phenomenon. In wear testing, layer crushing also occurs due to
compressive force, which is needed to maintain the proper contact be­
To achieve the optimal variables to minimize the wear rate, the
tween moving surfaces. Wear because of surface fatigue generation can
ANFIS model created is incorporated into the genetic algorithm (GA-
be portrayed by the flanking and crack formation of material because of
ANFIS). Genetic Algorithm (GA) algorithm based on natural selection is
continued sliding contact of micro-size asperities on the two mating
employed to find optimal solutions for challenging issues [26]. GA’s
surfaces and due to relative movement or the rehashed effect of wear
fundamental components are chromosome length in addition to, fitness
debris. The micrograph in Fig. 7(b) represents the crack formation
selection, and operators. GA began with selection of the population with
(circled) generated in the layer. So, when these soft abrasive particles
the solution. The population achieves an optimum solution over
attack the rubbing surface, it may result in crack formation on the sur­
consecutive generations because “good” parents produce “good” chil­
face. As the sliding motion continues, deep or shallow pits may be
dren and excludes the bad points [27]. The chromosome comprises
created due to the remaining air gap during part fabrication. Many pit
multiple input variables. The operator’s selection, crossover, and mu­
holes were observed for the test specimen having maximum wearing
tation create the offspring chromosome from the previous chromosome
rate calculated experimentally through micrograph shown in Fig. 7(c)
to obtain the specific output. The trained fis. the file generated by the
and (d).
best membership function type for the data set (30 × 5) is further used as
The data obtained from experiments as per FCCCD design (Table 3)
the objective function for GA.
were analyzed with the software design expert software at the confi­
dence level of 95% using the response surface method (RSM). ANOVA of
3. Results and discussions
the reduced quadratic model is used for the prediction of wear rate, as
shown in Table 4. It is observed from Table 4 that Fisher’s statistical test
The specimens for wear rate testing have been fabricated as per the
(F-test) value is 18.9 and P-value (probability value) < 0.0001, which
ASTM G99 standard on 30 different combinations of four significant
makes the model significantly. Model terms corresponding to P values
process parameters of FFF printing retrieved from the FCCCD approach.
less than 0.05 are significant and insignificant model terms are not
The wear rate has been tested for each fabricated specimen, and

5
D. Chhabra et al. Polymer Testing 118 (2023) 107910

Fig. 7. FFF part scanning electron microscope (SEM) micrograph.

Table 4
ANOVA results.
Source Sum of Squares DF Mean square F value Prob > F (P value) Remarks

Model 0.000754 14 5.39E-05 18.90151 <0.0001 Significant

LH 6.2E-05 1 6.2E-05 21.74657 0.0003
BO 3.96E-06 1 3.96E-06 1.389061 0.2569
WW 4.76E-05 1 4.76E-05 16.68805 0.0010
WT 8.32E-07 1 8.32E-07 0.292047 0.5968
LH2 3.75E-06 1 3.75E-06 1.317399 0.2690
BO2 3.56E-05 1 3.56E-05 12.50621 0.0030
WW2 1.84E-05 1 1.84E-05 6.469894 0.0225
WT2 4.15E-05 1 4.15E-05 14.54916 0.0017
LH*BO 1.98E-05 1 1.98E-05 6.963519 0.0186
LH*WW 0.000248 1 0.000248 86.93316 <0.0001
LH*WT 5.08E-05 1 5.08E-05 17.83146 0.0007
BO*WW 1.67E-07 1 1.67E-07 0.058676 0.8119
BO*WT 8.9E-06 1 8.9E-06 3.121875 0.0976
WW*WT 0.000159 1 0.000159 55.82463 <0.0001
Residual 4.28E-05 15 2.85E-06
Lack of Fit 3.17E-05 10 3.17E-06 1.44 0.3167 not significant
Pure Error 1.1E-05 5 2.21E-06
Cor Total 0.000797 29

Std. Dev. 0.001688 R-Squared 0.9464

Mean 0.016 Adj R-Squared 0.8963
C.V. 10.55 Pred R-Squared 0.8390
PRESS 0.000128 Adeq Precision 16.302

considered for further processing. The R2 value of the RSM model ob­
tained is 0.9464, and the difference between adjusted R2 and predicted
R2 values is less than the desired value, which shows a negligible vari­
ance in the predicted value.
3.1. 3D response surface analysis
The effect of different input factors on wear rate is discussed with the
help of different 3D surface plots. The wear of FFF fabricated parts
mainly depends on the bonding between deposited layers. The higher
layer bonding results in lower distortion between layers and a lower
surface wear rate. It is observed from Fig. 8(a) & (b) that with an in­
crease in wall thickness, the wear rate initially increases and then de­
creases. Due to too much internal stress generation, more wall line
count, and a non-uniform temperature gradient could cause the part to
chink or even break. Again at a high wall thickness value, the wear rate
is less. This is due to proper bonding between layers, as more space is
available to expand the layers when the part cools down, leaving no
space between layers.
Figures (8(c), 8(d)) represent how the wear rate increases with
increasing the value of wall line width. Wall line width is the width of a
single wall line, and it generally refers to the deposited layer width. It is
also known as extrusion width or thread width. With a high value of wall
line width, the nozzle’s pressure must be higher. But this high pressure
constricts the materials to the side faces when the material runs off the
nozzle. This higher pressure does not only constrict the material; it also
compresses the individual deposited layer together with a higher force
and distorts the layers because of the more shear forces produced.
Another issue with higher wall line width is that you need to pump out
more material in the same amount of time that needs sufficient cooling.
So in the absence of adequate cooling, the layers expand more without
proper bonding, and part strength decreases due to poor bonding. It

6
D. Chhabra et al. Polymer Testing 118 (2023) 107910

Fig. 8. (a) Wear rate w.r.t. wall thickness and orientation (b) Wear rate w.r.t. wall thickness and layer height (c) Wear rate w.r.t. wall thickness and wall line width
(d) Wear rate w.r.t. wall line width and layer height (e) Surface plot for orientation and layer height (f) Surface plot for wall line width and orientation.

results in more wear rate, as observed in Fig.s 8(c), 8(d).
Figures (8(c), 8(d)) represent how the wear rate increases with
increasing the value of wall line width. Wall line width is the width of a
single wall line, and it generally refers to the deposited layer width. It is
also known as extrusion width or thread width. With a high value of wall
line width, the nozzle’s pressure must be higher. But this high pressure
constricts the materials to the side faces when the material runs off the
nozzle. This higher pressure does not only constrict the material; it also
compresses the individual deposited layer together with a higher force
and distorts the layers because of the more shear forces produced.
Another issue with higher wall line width is that you need to pump out
more material in the same amount of time that needs sufficient cooling.
So in the absence of sufficient cooling, the layers expand more without
proper bonding, and part strength decreases due to poor bonding. It
results in more wear rate, as observed in Fig.s 8(c), 8(d).
Part build orientation also affects wear rate effectively. As we in­
crease the orientation value from 00 to 900, the wear rate first increases
and then decreases after near about 450, as can be seen from 3D surface
plots (Fig. 8 (e) and 8 (f)). As the orientation angle increases, the count
of deposited layers increases and vice versa. We can say that the number
of layers deposited to fabricate the part is directly proportional to the
part build orientation. Hence, similar reasoning for the effect of depos­
ited layer height on wear rate is applicable here as the number of layers
deposited is more at a high value of build orientation. The wear rate at 00
build orientation and 0.10 mm layer height is also low as the number of
layers needed to fabricate the part is more at the layer height value.
3.2. Prediction of pin-wear in FFF fabricated parts by ANFIS
ANFIS method comprises three significant stages, training, testing,

7
D. Chhabra et al. Polymer Testing 118 (2023) 107910

Table 5
Optimize obtained GA-ANFIS results and different membership functions used.
Sr. MF type Epoch 3: FIS generation Training FIS optim. Optimized input pin-wear (mm3/m) best pin-wear (mm3/m) mean
No. (Linear) error Method method Factors GA value value value

LH BO WW WT

1 trimf .00060668 Grid Partition Hybrid .25 75 .480 .98 .000421381 .000421598
2 trapmf .00060668 Grid Partition Hybrid .21 35 .387 1.05 .000589275 .00059001
3 gbellmf .00060668 Grid Partition Hybrid .19 48 .421 2.12 .000732101 .000732201
4 gaussmf .00060668 Grid Partition Hybrid .28 0 .35 .80 .000348184 .000350159
5 pimf .00060668 Grid Partition Hybrid .20 90 .50 2.3 .000723456 .000740012

Fig. 9. Sugeno-fuzzy implication framework (a) ANFIS output surface plot (b) Depiction of ANFIS training Schedule.

and learning. Initially, for training the data, the Input file is loaded with
a 30 × 5 matrix (.mat file) design, representing 30 samples data sets
corresponding to 4 input factors, i.e., layer height, build orientation,
wall line width, and wall thickness, and one output response, i.e., pin-
wear. The Grid-Partition method has been used to generate a Sugeno-
type FIS file. The other default parameters setting used are, Hybrid
training FIS optimum. method, zero error tolerance, linear form MFs and
81 rules. Different MFs are utilized for training the data, which are
shown in Table 5. The wear predicted output values obtained are rep­
resented in Table 3. According to the deviation of any two desired in­
puts, the target value’s digression is verified by a 3D surface plot. The
lowest point illustrates the objective mark’s intensification, as shown in
Fig. 9(a). The ANFIS structure for variables such as input, input/output
MFs, rules, and output is represented in Fig. 10. Fig. 9(b) depicts rule
viewers formed for indulgent the fuzzy inference system. The network
performance is measured using the determination coefficient (R2). To
determine the value of R2 is used, and calculation found R2 (0.9647),
which is nearly equal to 1. This obtained value specifies the exact pre­
ciseness of the predictive model.
3.3. ANFIS trained by GA
The ANFIS trained model (fis file) has been used as an objective
function in GA to form the GA-ANFIS heuristic tool. The optimal input
factors have been found to minimize the wear rate. The number of
chromosomes is taken as 100, termination criteria are taken as the
number of generations, 0.8 is the crossover fraction, and the elite count
is taken as 2. In contrast, the crossover and mutation functions are
considered constraint-dependent. The GA-ANFIS hybrid algorithm flow
chart is shown in Fig. 11. The convergence of objective function, i.e., the
wear rate concerning the number of generations, has been demonstrated
in Fig. 12. The minimum wear rate obtained is 0.000348184 mm3/m at
optimized factors: layer thickness 0.12 mm, Build orientation 00, wall
line width 0.35 mm, and wall thickness 0.80 mm.
3.4. Experimentally confirmation of GA-ANFIS result and end-use part
fabrication
A confirmation test was conducted with similar input parameter
values to validate the GA-ANFIS predicted optimization results. The
minimum wear rate in the validation test was 0.00034512mm3/m,

8
D. Chhabra et al.
Fig. 10. Sugeno-fuzzy based ANFIS.
Fig. 11. GA-ANFIS hybrid flowchart.
which closely complies with the GA-ANFIS predicted value
(0.000348184 mm3/m). A lathe machine’s spur gear was also fabricated
using the same FFF machine shown in Fig. 13 to confirm the optimized
result obtained from GA-ANFIS. The fabricated gear is assembled on the
lathe machine, as shown in Fig. 14. After assembling the gear on the
lathe machine, the job represented in Fig. 13 was manufactured. The
total time taken to manufacture the job is approximately 1 h, and thus
machine with the same gear assembly is operated for five days or 30 h
with the same gear assembly. Then the gear wear rate was measured in
mm3/m as per equation (2) formula. The weight of gear before
9
Polymer Testing 118 (2023) 107910
Fig. 12. GA-ANFIS convergence plot.
Fig. 13. Lathe machine spur gear.
assembling to the lathe is measured (63.010g), then after operating for 5
h to manufacture the jobs is measured (63.010g) as shown in Fig. 15.
Therefore, no wear rate was examined during the whole operation.
4. Conclusion
The specimens are fabricated as per ASTM G99 standard on different
input significant process parameters, i.e., layer height, build orientation,
wall line width, and wall thickness, using the FFF printer. The 30
combinations of input parameters have been decided using the FCCCD
D. Chhabra et al.
Fig. 14. Lathe machine with FFF fabricated gear.
Fig. 15. Gear weight measurement on weighing machine.
approach of the response surface method. The sliding wear rate of the
fabricated specimen has been tested using DUCOM pin-on-disc machine.
It is observed from the experimental results that the minimum sliding
wear rate was 0.008636 mm3/m at 0.28 mm layer height, 00 build
orientation, 0.30 mm wall line width, and 0.83 mm wall thickness. The
significant process parameters have been evaluated to increase the wear
performance of PA12CF20 using GA-ANFIS. It is observed that the
minimum wear rate retrieved was (0.000348184 mm3/m) at 0.12 mm
layer height, 00 build orientation, 0.35 mm wall line width, and 0.80
mm wall thickness, which is significantly less compared to the value
observed experimentally. GA-ANFIS predicted results retrieved GA-
ANFIS have been validated experimentally. A lathe machine gear was
fabricated at the optimized parameters setting to confirm the GA-ANFIS
results and to find the application of PA12CF20 composite material in
end-use part manufacturing. The FFF fabricated gear was operated for
many hours on a lathe machine to manufacture the jobs and observed no
10
Polymer Testing 118 (2023) 107910
wear rate in terms of volume loss. Hence confirmed the result of GA-
ANFIS and would encourage us to use the FFF technique to fabricate
composite material parts for other industrial applications. Scanning
electron microscopy has been used to characterize the wear crack of the
PA12CF20. It is observed that wear rate depends on wall thickness, layer
height, build orientation and wall line width.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit funding agencies.
CRediT author statement
Andras Kovacs: Conceptualization, R.K Garg: Methodology, Ashish
Kaushik: Implementation of the hybrid heuristic tool, Sandeep Deswal.:
Experimental investigations, Deepak Chhabra: Writing- Original draft
preparation and fabrication of composite parts, Rohit Khargotra:
Methodology, Reviewing and Editing, Tez Singh: Reviewing and
Editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
No data was used for the research described in the article.
Acknowledgments
The authors sincerely acknowledge Maharshi Dayanand University,
Rohtak, India, for providing the necessary infrastructure and facilities.
References
[1] A.M. Oviedo, A.H. Puente, C. Bernal, E. Perez, Mechanical evaluation of polymeric
filaments and their corresponding 3D printed samples, Polym. Test. 88 (2020),
106561.
[2] N. Elmrabet, P. Siegkas, Dimensional considerations on the mechanical properties
of 3D printed polymer parts, Polym. Test. 90 (2020), 106656.
[3] N. Vidakis, M. Petousis, E. Velidakis, N. Mountakis, P.E. Fischer-Griffiths, S.
A. Grammatikos, L. Tzounis, Fused Filament Fabrication 3D printed
polypropylene/alumina nanocomposites: effect of filler loading on the mechanical
reinforcement, Polym. Test. 109 (2022), 107545.
[4] W. Zhong, F. Li, Z. Zhang, L. Song, Z. Li, Short fiber reinforced composites for fused
deposition modeling, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 301 (2001) 125–130.
[5] I. Gibson, D. Rosen, B. Stucker, Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing,
rapid prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing, Johnson Matthey Technol.
Rev. 59 (2015) 193–198.
[6] B. Chang, X. Li, P. Parandoush, S. Ruan, C. Shen, D. Lin, Additive manufacturing of
continuous carbon fiber reinforced poly-ether-ether-ketone with ultrahigh
mechanical properties, Polym. Test. 88 (2020), 106563.
[7] A.K. Sood, R.K. Ohdar, S.S. Mahapatra, Parametric appraisal of mechanical
property of fused deposition modelling processed parts, Mater. Des. 31 (2010)
287–295.
[8] A.K. Sood, R.K. Ohdar, S.S. Mahapatra, Experimental investigation and empirical
modelling of FDM process for compressive strength improvement, J. Adv. Res. 3
(2012) 81–90.
[9] O.A. Mohamed, S.H. Masood, J.L. Bhowmik, Optimization of fused deposition
modeling process parameters for dimensional accuracy using I-optimality criterion,
Measure 81 (2016) 174–196.
[10] O. Jacobs, R. Jaskulka, C. Yan, W. Wu, On the effect of counter face material and
queous environment on the sliding wear of various PEEK compounds, Tribol. Lett.
18 (2005) 359–372.
[11] G. Theiler, T. Gradt, Friction and wear of PEEK composites in vacuum
environment, Wear 269 (2010) 278–284.
[12] B.P. Chang, H.M. Akil, M.G. Affendy, A. Khan, R.B.M. Nasir, Comparative study of
wear performance of particulate and fiber-reinforced nano-ZnO/ultra-high
molecular weight polyethylene hybrid composites using response surface
methodology, Mater. Des. 63 (2014) 805–819.
D. Chhabra et al.
[13] C. Ramesh, C. Srinivas, B. Channabasappa, Abrasive wear behaviour of laser
sintered iron–SiC composites, Wear 267 (2009) 1777–1783.
[14] M. Pant, R.M. Singari, P.K. Arora, G. Moona, H. Kumar, Wear assessment of 3–D
printed parts of PLA (polylactic acid) using Taguchi design and Artificial Neural
Network (ANN) technique, Mater. Res. Express 7 (2020) 1–15.
[15] A.K. Sood, A. Equbal, V. Toppo, R.K. Ohdar, S.S. Mahapatra, An investigation on
sliding wear of FDM built parts, CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 5 (2012) 48–54.
[16] P.K. Gurrala, S.P. Regalla, Friction and wear behavior of ABS polymer parts made
by fused deposition modeling (FDM), in: International Conference on Advances of
Tribology (ICAT14), at NIT, Calicut, Kerla, India, 2014, 2014.
[17] A. Peng, X. Xiao, R. Yue, Process parameter optimization for fused deposition
modeling using response surface methodology combined with fuzzy inference
system, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 73 (2014) 87–100.
[18] S. Assarzadeh, M. Ghoreishi, Neural-network-based modeling and optimization of
the electro-discharge machining process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 39 (2008)
488–500.
[19] S. Prabhu, M. Uma, B.K. Vinayagam, Adaptive neuro-fuzzy interference system
modelling of carbon nanotube-based electrical discharge machining process,
J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 35 (2013) 505–516.
[20] S. Deswal, R. Narang, D. Chhabra, Modeling and parametric optimization of FDM
3D printing process using hybrid techniques for enhancing dimensional
preciseness, Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 13 (2019) 1197–1214.
[21] S. Ranganathan, T. Senthilvelan, G. Sriram, Evaluation of machining parameters of
hot turning of stainless steel (type 316) by applying ANN and RSM, Mater. Manuf.
Process. 25 (2010) 1131–1141.
[22] R.T.G.D. Cerro, M.S.P. Subathra, N.M. Kumar, S. Verrastro, S.T. George, Modelling
the daily reference evapotranspiration in semi-arid region of South India: a case
study comparing ANFIS and empirical models, Inform. Proc. Agri. 8 (2021)
173–184.
[23] B. Mrzygłód, G. Gumienny, D.W. Kołodziejczyk, K. Regulski, Application of
selected artificial intelligence methods in a system predicting the microstructure of
compacted graphite iron, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 28 (2019) 3894–3904.
[24] S. Deshwal, A. Kumar, D. Chhabra, Exercising hybrid statistical tools GA-RSM, GA-
ANN and GA-ANFIS to optimize FDM process parameters for tensile strength
improvement, CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Techno. 31 (2020) 189–199.
11
Polymer Testing 118 (2023) 107910
[25] H. Zhang, M. Hafezi, G. Dong, Y.A. Liu, Design of coverage area for textured
surface of sliding journal bearing based on genetic algorithm, J. Tribol. 140 (2018)
1–8.
[26] B. Esakki, T.K. Ali, D. Rajamani, S. Sachin, Parametric optimization on impact
strength of selective inhibition sintering fabricated PA-12 parts based on
evolutionary optimization algorithms, J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 30 (2021)
5356–5367.
[27] C.I. Papadopoulos, E.E. Efstathiou, P.G. Nikolakopoulos, L. Kaiktsis, Geometry
optimization of textured three-dimensional micro- Thrust bearings, J. Tribol. 133
(2011) 1–14.
[28] H. Zhang, M. Hua, G-z. Dong, D-y. Zhang, W-j. Chen, G-n. Dong, Optimization of
texture shape based on Genetic Algorithm under unidirectional sliding, Tribol. Int.
115 (2017) 222–232.
[29] A. Standard, Standard Test Method for Wear Testing with a Pin-On-Disk Apparatus,
G99, ASTM Int., West Conshohocken, PA, 2006.
[30] V.J. Mathai, H.K. Dave, K.P. Desai, End wear compensation during planetary EDM
of Ti–6Al–4V by adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system, Prod. Eng. Res. Dev. 12
(2018) 1–10.
[31] K. Maji, D.K. Pratihar, Forward and reverse mappings of EDM process using ANFIS,
Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (12) (2010) 8566–8574.
[32] J.S. Jang, ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy interference system, IEEE Trans.
Syst. Man Cybernetics. 23 (1993) 665–685.
[33] S. Kumar, M.R. Ramesh, M. Doddamani, S.M. Rangappa, S. Siengchin, Mechanical
characterization of 3D printed MWCNTs/HDPE nanocomposites, Polym. Test. 114
(2022), 107703.
[34] D.K. Rajak, P.H. Wagh, A. Kumar, M.R. Sanjay, S. Siengchin, A. Khan, N.K. Gupta,
Impact of fiber reinforced polymer composites on structural joints of tubular
sections: a review, Thin-Walled Struct. 180 (2022), 109967.
[35] B. Singh, R. Kumar, J. Chohan, S. Sharma, J. Singh, R.A. Ilyas, R. James,
Investigation of copper reinforced Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene and Nylon 6
based thermoplastic polymer nanocomposite filaments for 3D printing of electronic
components, High Perform. Polym. (2022), 09540083221112307.
[36] D. Athith, M.R. Sanjay, T.G. Yashas Gowda, P. Madhu, G.R. Arpitha, B. Yogesha, M.
A. Omri, Effect of tungsten carbide on mechanical and tribological properties of
jute/sisal/E-glass fabrics reinforced natural rubber/epoxy composites, J. Ind.
Textil. 48 (4) (2018) 713–737.