Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-021-00255-6

FULL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Investigation of tensile properties of PLA–brass composite using FDM

S. K. Selvamani1 · K. Rajan2 · M. Samykano1,3 · R. R. Kumar1 · K. Kadirgama2,3 · R. V. Mohan4

Received: 19 July 2021 / Accepted: 26 December 2021 / Published online: 12 February 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022

Abstract
Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is an additive manufacturing technique used to build complete three-dimensional models
from a range of materials for various applications. Brass alloys as an additive were found to be noteworthy composites used
in additive manufacturing. Till date, limited research data are available on the tensile properties of PLA–brass composites
manufactured using the FDM process. As such, the present research investigates the tensile properties of brass–PLA compos-
ite at various infill patterns and compositions (15% and 70%). The significant parameter affecting the mechanical parameters
was determined using response surface methodology (RSM). Mechanical qualities were mathematically modeled using the
response surface methodology, anticipating the needed output value for various compositions, and infill patterns. In con-
clusion, for the tensile test, the concentric pattern achieves the highest value for elastic modulus, ultimate tensile strength,
and yield strength (0.2% offset) for both compositions and the octa-spiral pattern has the weakest properties. The highest
value of elastic modulus, ultimate tensile strength, and yield strength (0.2% offset) obtained was 0.333 GPa, 7.758 MPa
and 4.539 MPa, respectively. The higher infill composition was found to decreases the tensile behavior of the composite.
Adapting RSM, a mathematical model to estimate tensile properties has also been developed to ease the future FDM printed
PLA–brass tensile properties.

Keywords Fused deposition modeling · 3D printing · Mechanical properties · Additive manufacturing · Fused filament
fabrication

1 Introduction uncomplicated steps [1]. With rapid prototyping, research-

Rapid prototyping was initially idealized to construct model
and prototype parts, and it is one of the earlier AM pro-
cesses. Rapid prototyping’s advantages over typical manu-
facturing techniques include reduction in processing time,
cost, tools, and cutting process. Besides that complex geom-
etry models have been feasible for development with more
* M. Samykano
mahendran@ump.edu.my
1
College of Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Pahang,
26300 Gambang, Pahang, Malaysia
2
Faculty of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering
Technology, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26600 Pekan,
Pahang, Malaysia
3
Centre for Research in Advanced Fluid and Processes,
Universiti Malaysia Pahang, 26300 Gambang, Pahang,
Malaysia
4
Joint School of Nanoscience and Nanoengineering, North
Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC 27401, USA
ers are able to build up models quickly and are ready for
analysis, investigations, or use. The first commercial use of
AM was rolled up in 1987, which was a stereolithography
(SLA) printing technique. SLA uses a UV light laser to
melt and solidify the layers. Additive manufacturing (AM)
methods and processes have been expanding swiftly, spe-
cifically in the automotive, aerospace, and medical sectors
[2–6]. Additive manufacturing (AM) has distinct properties
that set it apart from other technologies. For example, the
AM technique is capable of fabricating an object by print-
ing numerous layers and merging them into one without the
use of tools or moulds. “Layering” from the additive manu-
facturing process gives a huge advantage to print complex
geometries objects [7, 8]. Generally, AM machine deposits
the raw material onto the build platform after the data of
the 3D model is loaded to the machine with a specific for-
mat. After the model printing is completed, post-processing
(optional) is carried out to boost the quality of the printed
model. Fused deposition modeling (FDM), stereolithogra-
phy (SLA), and powder bed fusion (PBF) are some of the

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
840
examples of additive manufacturing methods. Figure 1
shows the process of additive manufacturing [9–12].
At present, numerous AM processes have been made
available such as Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), Ste-
reolithography (SLA), Digital Light Processing (DLP),
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), Direct Metal Laser Sin-
tering (DMLS), Selective Laser Melting (SLM), Electron
Beam Melting (EBM) and Drop-on-Demand (DOD) [3,
13]. Among them, Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), one
of the most commonly used RP methods for manufactur-
ing components with three-dimensional (3D) complexity,
involves depositing the material layer by layer through a
small liquefying orifice that moves in the X and Y directions
(in the plane of build platform) [7, 14, 15]. Immediately
following the deposit of a layer and the addition of the subse-
quent layer, the build platform (or worktable) lowered in the
Z direction. The model and support materials are deposited
using FDM using separate liquefier nozzles located on the
extrusion head during the printing process. Components are
manufactured by depositing support materials at strategic
locations throughout the component as it is being assem-
bled to minimize substantial geometric deformation. Once
the fabrication is complete, the item is removed from the
build platform. FDM methods are often used to create prod-
ucts with a high degree of efficiency, accuracy, and most
importantly, mechanical strength and other characteristics
[16–18]. The FDM method has been rapidly commercial-
ized, and it is already being utilized in a wide variety of
industries to produce intricately designed parts. Compared
with other traditional manufacturing technologies such as
injection moulding and sand casting, FDM can print com-
plicated geometries effortlessly.
FDM printing is capable of printing on thermoplastic
polymer materials (e.g., ABS, PC, PLA, and PP) and ther-
mosetting polymer materials (e.g., epoxy resins) are both
widely used. However, polymers are less applicable for
industrial 3D printing due to their inability to provide the
necessary strength and functionality. 3D printing of polymer
composites has been introduced to circumvent these restric-
tions. With the addition of reinforcements, such as particles,
fibres, or nanomaterials, polymer composites demonstrate
increased structural, and functional properties. Moreover,
the mechanical properties of the product are mainly affected
Fig. 1  Flow chart of AM
process
13
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851
by the build parameters. Parameters, such as layer thickness,
build orientation, raster angle, and infill pattern perform a
significant role in the properties [19]. Many researchers
focused on the parameters to achieve sufficient characteris-
tics. Zhang et al. [20] investigated the mechanical properties
of the PLA and copper composite by varying the raster angle
from 0° to 90°. The 0° infill pattern obtained a high value
in the product’s tensile strength and dynamic mechanical
properties. Ćwikła et al. [21] analyzed the effect of the infill
pattern, and the result shows that the honeycomb pattern
affects the strength of the product most. Strength and the
surface characteristics of the PLA parts observed by Yadav
et al. [22]. For rectilinear and Hilbert curve patterns, sur-
face roughness increases with increasing infill densities, but
decreases for line patterns. In comparison to Hilbert curve
and line design patterns, the rectilinear pattern has the lowest
roughness rating.
The usage of alloy in the Additive Manufacturing process
is gaining tremendous attention. However, the use of brass
alloy in AM is still limited. Thus, studies on the mechanical
properties of brass alloy in additive manufacturing are also
limited. Zhang et al. [23] studied the brass alloy manufac-
tured by SLM, and Yang et al. [24] studied silicon brass
printed by SLM. Due to the adequate mechanical features
of the Cu–Zn brass alloy, such as high corrosion resistance,
formability, and outstanding tensile strength and hardness,
it is widely used in a variety of applications, including chan-
nels, valves, and parts for aerospace and automotive [25].
Their light weight, high strength, and great performance at
increased temperatures, polymer-based composites have an
exceptional potential to replace traditional structural materi-
als such as steel and aluminium [26]. Yet, there is minimal
research regarding the mechanical properties of brass–PLA
composite using the FDM process. Hence, this has motivated
this research to be performed to fill this research gap. The
brass-filled PLA composite has been reduced to the amount
of metal usage in the applications of various sectors and also
it will reduce the cost of the product. According to the previ-
ous literatures, the high values of the results observed in the
grid, honeycomb, concentric infill patterns, and the percent-
age of mixture of the composites which affects the product
quality in the low and high compositions. The study aims
to examine the tensile properties of the PLA–brass filament
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851 841

Table 1  Process parameters for the FDM printing

No Parameter Values

1 Layer thickness 0.3 mm

2 First layer thickness 0.3 mm
3 Solid layers Each 3 layers
(top and bot-
tom)
4 Diameter of the Nozzle 0.4 mm
5 Diameter of filament 1.75 mm
6 Nozzle temperature 190 °C
7 Bed temperature 60 °C
8 Printing speed 30 mm/sec

by various infill pattern (grid, octagram spiral, honeycomb,

rectilinear, concentric) and the composition of 15% and 70%.

2 Materials and methods
According to ASTM standard, the tensile test specimen
is printed using the Wanhao Duplicator i3 Desktop FDM
3D printer with 0.4 mm nozzle diameter and 1.75 mm fila-
ment. The brass–PLA filament was purchased from (Easy
wood) Magma filaments, Malaysia. The composite filament
contains 15 wt% and 70 wt% of brass in PLA. The work-
ing temperature of the filaments is 180 °C to 210 °C. The
raster angle is set to 0° and the infill density of the printing
specimen is set to 50%. Some of the parameters are set to
be constant throughout the printing process, as shown in
Table 1. The surrounding humidity ensured to be between
70 and 80%, and the surrounding temperature ensured to be
between 20 °C and 25 °C.
Fig. 2  Wanhao duplicator i3 desktop fused deposition modeling 3D
printer
2.2 Tensile testing
The tensile test is performed using INSTRON 3367. The
maximum force that the computer can exert is 30 kN. For
the Type 1 specimen geometry, the recommended speed for
ASTM D368 is 10 mm/min with a tolerance of 25%. Fig-
ure 3 and Table 3 display the model and the Type 1 specimen
details.
3 Results and discussion

2.1 Fabrication of specimen 3.1 Tensile test results

Solid works 2019 is used to design the tensile test CAD
design. The design and dimension of the specimen were done
according to the ASTM D638 Type 1 standard. The design
model is initially stored in STL format, and the file is imported
into slicing software. Ideamaker is the standard software for
the Wanhao Duplicator i3 Desktop printer. The slicing soft-
ware generates the G-codes, and the file is transferred to the
FDM printer to print the specimens. However, before the
printing process, the printing bed is heated to a specified tem-
perature. The nozzle temperature and the temperature of the
bed remain constant throughout the printing. The temperature
of the nozzle is set at 190 °C to extrude the filament. Wanhao
Duplicator i3 Desktop FDM 3D printers used are shown in
Fig. 2. The view of the various infill patterns and the number
of specimens printed specifics are exhibited in Table 2. The
total number of specimens with various infill and composition
is 10 for each composition 5 samples were printed and totally
50 samples were prepared for the tensile test.
Tensile test results consist of elastic modulus, ultimate
tensile strength, and yield strength at 0.2% offset. Elastic
modulus, alternatively referred to as Young’s modulus, is
the first segment of a curve, also referred to as the low strain
region. The Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) of a material
refers to the maximum pressure that it can withstand while
being expanded. Finally, yield strength is the amount of
force required to cause a tiny quantity of plastic deformation.
These tensile properties were calculated from the raw data
obtained from the test. Load and elongation are included
with the raw data for stress and strain. The stress versus
strain graph is then plotted to obtain the tensile properties
for every sample as shown in Fig. 4, and the average tensile
properties of the PLA–brass composite are shown in Table 4.
The 15 wt% and 70 wt% tensile tested specimens are shown
in Figs. 5 and 6.

13
842 Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851

Table 2  Numbers of the Parameters Type and number of test

specimen to be printed specimens for tensile tests

Infill Pattern

Concentric Honeycomb

Specimen Standard

Tensile test - (ASTM D638 Type-1)

Rectilinear Octagram-spiral

As a result, the total number of

specimens with a different
combination of selected
parameters is ten samples when
permutations are used. The
sample size of each combination
is n = 5. Hence, the total number
Grid of specimens printed for each
mechanical test is 50 specimens.

PLA-Brass composition %

(15 wt%, 70 wt%)

3.1.1 Elastic modulus obtained are 0.333 GPa and 0.199 GPa at 15wt% and 70%,
respectively. According to the modulus value for the ana-
Table 4 and Fig. 7 show the average elastic modulus values lysed pattern, the escalating sequence is octagram spiral,
for all the investigated samples. The investigations reveal
that the concentric infill pattern provides the highest elas-
tic modulus. The maximum and minimum elastic modulus Table 3  ASTM D638 type 1 Parameters Dimen-
geometry sions
(mm)

Wc 13
L 57
Wo 19
Lo 165
G 50
D 115
R 76
T 3
Fig. 3  ASTM D638 type 1 specimens [27]

13
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851 843

Fig. 4  Stress vs. strain curve

16
of a single specimen of grid
infill pattern with 50% infill 14
percentage 12
Slope of straight line= Highest peak=Ulmate

Stress (MPa)
10
8 Elasc Modulus Tensile Strength
6
4 Yield Strength
2 0.2% offset
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Strain (mm/mm)

Table 4  Average tensile properties of each pattern for PLA–brass for rectilinear, honeycomb, grid, and concentric. The octagram
the various infill percentage spiral has the lowest elastic modulus for both 15 wt% and
Infill pattern Compo- Elastic Ultimate tensile Yield a 70wt% composition. The overall elastic modulus analysis
sition % Modulus strength (MPa) strength showed that the 70wt % has a lower modulus value com-
(GPa) (MPa) pared to the 15wt%. The lower modulus obtained for higher
Octa-spiral 15 0.177 7.762 5.948 fillers is believed due to the lower bonding strength. The
Rectilinear 15 0.211 12.842 7.539 increased amount of fillers (Brass) leads to a decrease in the
Honeycomb 15 0.258 13.550 8.880 composite bonding strength. The high amount of PLA in
Grid 15 0.267 14.265 9.376 the lower filler composition increases the bonding strength,
Concentric 15 0.333 20.078 13.137 leading to a better modulus value.
Octa-spiral 70 0.076 3.408 1.763
Rectilinear 70 0.093 5.129 2.598 3.1.2 Ultimate tensile strength
Honeycomb 70 0.164 5.714 3.498
Grid 70 0.173 5.742 3.562 According to Table 4 and Fig. 8, the concentric pattern with
Concentric 70 0.199 8.071 4.318 a weight ratio of 15 wt% obtains the highest ultimate ten-
sile strength. This specimen possesses a maximum ultimate
tensile strength of 20.078 MPa. As illustrated in Fig. 8, the
octagram spiral obtained the lowest ultimate tensile strength
of the infill patterns at 7.762 MPa and 3.408 MPa for both 15
wt% and 70 wt% compositions, respectively. The ascending
order of UTS value for the pattens is octa-spiral, rectilinear,
honeycomb, grid, and concentric for both compositions. The
overall UTS analysis shows that the 70wt% has a lower UTS
value as compared to the 15wt%. The lower UTS obtained
for higher fillers is believed due to the lower bonding
strength, which was also reflected in their modulus value.
The increased amount of fillers (Brass) leads to a decrease in
Fig. 5:  15 wt% of brass–PLA composite after testing
the composite bonding strength. The high amount of PLA in
the lower filler composition increases the bonding strength,
leading to a better UTS value.

3.1.3 Yield strength (0.2% offset)

According to Fig. 9 and Table 4, the highest yield strength

Fig. 6  70 wt% of brass–PLA composite after testing
(0.2% offset) accomplished by concentric with 15wt.%. This
specimen achieves a yield strength of 13.137 MPa (0.2 per-
cent offset). As illustrated in Fig. 9, the octagram spiral has
the lowest yield strength (0.2 percent offset) of the infill
patterns, at 5.948 MPa and 1.763 MPa for both 15 wt% and

13
844 Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851

Fig. 7  Elastic modulus of PLA–

brass composite with various 0.40
infill patterns and composition 0.333
0.35

Elasc Modulus (GPa)

0.267
0.30 0.258

0.25 0.211
0.199
0.177 0.164 0.173
0.20

0.15
0.093
0.076
0.10

0.05

0.00
Octaspiral Reclinear Honeycomb Grid Concentric
Infill Pa ern

15wt% composion 70wt% composion

Fig. 8  Ultimate tensile strength

of PLA–brass composite with 25
various infill pattern and com- 20.078
position
Ulmate Tensile Strength (MPa)

20

13.550 14.265
12.842
15

7.762
10 8.071

5.129 5.714 5.742

5 3.408

0
Octaspiral Reclinear Honeycomb Grid Concentric
Infill Pa ern

15wt% composion 70wt% composion

70 wt% compositions, respectively. According to the pattern,
the ascending order of yield strength (0.2 percent offset) is
octagram spiral, rectilinear, honeycomb, grid, and concentric
for both compositions. The overall yield strength analysis
also shows that the 70wt % has a lower UTS value as com-
pared to the 15wt%. The lower yield strength obtained for
higher fillers is believed due to the lower bonding strength,
which was also reflected in their UTS value. The increased
amount of fillers (Brass) leads to a decrease in the compos-
ite bonding strength. The high amount of PLA in the lower
filler composition increases the bonding strength, leading to
a better yield strength value.
3.2 Design of experiment (DOE) analysis
3.2.1 Elastic modulus
Figure 10 shows the Pareto effect of elastic modulus cor-
responding with the parameters. Each bar length is propor-
tional to the absolute value of the estimated effects with a
95% confidence level. It shows that the infill pattern and
composition significantly affect the elastic modulus. Table 5
proves this statement as the infill pattern and composition
have the highest contribution in affecting the elastic modu-
lus. In Table 5, R2 which is equal to 97.56%, implies that the
higher the value of R2, the model fits the data better. Besides

13
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851 845

Fig. 9  Yield strength of PLA–

brass composite with various 16
infill patterns and composition 13.137
14

Yield Strength (0.2 % offset) (MPa)

12
9.376
8.880
10
7.539
8 5.948

6
4.318
3.498 3.562
4
2.598
1.763
2

0
Octa Spiral Reclinear Honeycomb Grid Concentric
Infill Paern

15wt% composion 70wt% composion

Fig. 10  Pareto chart of elastic

modulus

that, S with a value of 16.3536 indicates that the lower the S Elastic Modulus = 0.1594 + 0.0424 Infill Pattern
value, the better the model predicts the response. − 0.001727 Composition
The P value for this model is 0, which is lower than the
− 0.00071 Infill Pattern
alpha value of 0.05. This indicates that the model is con- (1)
sidered as significant. The model obtained from this study × Infill Pattern
that can be used to predict the elastic modulus is shown in − 0.000080 Infill Pattern
Eq. (1). × Composition

13
846 Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851

Table 5  ANOVA analysis for Source DF Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F value P value
elastic modulus (%)

Model 4 97.56 53,467.8 13,367.0 49.98 0.000

Linear 2 97.36 53,356.5 26,678.3 99.75 0.000
Infill pattern 1 43.0.94 24,079.8 24,079.8 90.04 0.000
Composition 1 53.42 29,276.8 29,276.8 109.47 0.000
Square 1 0.03 14.2 14.2 0.05 0.827
Infill pattern × Infill pattern 1 0.03 14.2 14.2 0.05 0.827
2-way interaction 1 0.18 97.1 97.1 0.36 0.573
Infill pattern × composition 1 0.18 97.1 97.1 0.36 0.573
Error 5 2.44 1337.2 267.4
Total 9 100 54,805.0
Standard deviation (S) = 16.3536
R2 = 97.56%
R2—adjusted = 95.61%
R2—predicted = 90.36%

Table 6  Comparison of experimental and predicted values of elastic RSM to determine the elastic modulus. According to the
modulus calculations, the maximum elastic modulus was 0.322 GPa
Infill pat- Composi- Actual Predicted value Error (%) with the set of parameters with 15% brass and a concentric
tern tion value (GPa) infill pattern.
(GPa)

Octa- 15 0.177 0.174 1.733 3.2.2 Ultimate tensile strength

spiral
Rectilin- 15 0.211 0.213 0.965 Figure 11 shows the Pareto effect of ultimate tensile strength
ear corresponding with the parameters. Each bar length is pro-
Honey- 15 0.258 0.251 2.910 portional to the absolute value of the estimated effects with
comb
a 95% confidence level. It shows that the infill pattern and
Grid 15 0.267 0.287 6.948
composition have a significant effect on the ultimate tensile
Concen- 15 0.333 0.322 3.498
strength. Table 7 proves this statement as the infill pattern
tric
and composition have the highest contribution in affecting
Octa- 70 0.076 0.075 1.877
spiral the ultimate tensile strength. In Table 7, R2 which is equal
Rectilin- 70 0.093 0.109 14.890 to 95.93%, implies that the higher the value of R2, the model
ear fits the data better. Besides that, S with a value of 1.43212
Honey- 70 0.164 0.143 15.072 indicates that the lower the S value, the better the model
comb predicts the response.
Grid 70 0.173 0.174 0.774 The P value for this model is 0.001, which is lower than
Concen- 70 0.199 0.205 2.813 the alpha value of 0.05. This means that the model is consid-
tric
ered as significant. The model obtained from this study that
Aver-
can be used to predict the UTS is shown in Eq. (2).
age = 5.148
Yield tensile Strength = 7.30 + 2.59 Infill Pattern
− 0.0591 Composition
Using Eq. (1), the predicted values were compared with + 0.076 Infill Pattern
the actual values shown in Table 6. The model’s average (2)
× Infill Pattern
percentage error in comparison with the experimental values
is 5.15%. Thus, the derived model is sufficiently accurate in − 0.0293 Infill Pattern
predicting elastic modulus. × Composition
A comparison of experimental and predicted values of the
elastic modulus is performed and shown in Error! Reference Using Eq. (2), the predicted values were compared with
source not found. The final analysis was undertaken using the actual values shown in Table 6. The model’s average

13
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851 847

Fig. 11  Pareto chart of ultimate

tensile strength

Table 7  ANOVA analysis for Source DF Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F value P value
ultimate tensile strength (%)

Model 4 95.92 241.401 60.350 29.43 0.001

Linear 2 90.70 228.252 114.126 55.64 0.000
Infill pattern 1 25.74 64.777 64.777 31.58 0.002
Composition 1 64.96 163.475 163.475 79.71 0.000
Square 1 0.06 0.162 0.162 0.08 0.790
Infill pattern × infill pattern 1 0.06 0.162 0.162 0.08 0.790
2-way interaction 1 5.16 12.987 12.987 6.33 0.053
Infill pattern × composition 1 5.16 12.987 12.987 6.33 0.053
Error 5 4.08 10.255 2.051
Total 9 100 251.656
Standard deviation (S) = 1.43212
R2 = 95.93%
R2—adjusted = 92.67%
R2—predicted = 80.34%

percentage error in comparison with the experimental values
is 8.753%. The derived error suggests that the derived model
is sufficiently accurate in predicting ultimate tensile strength.
A comparison of experimental and predicted values of
the ultimate tensile strength was undertaken and shown in
Table 8. From the analysis, the error for ultimate tensile
strength is from 0.007% to 16.549%, with an average of
8.753%. Another analysis was done to obtain the maximum
ultimate tensile strength by using response optimization.
The optimum value will be determined in the given con-
straint and range in order to obtain the highest value of ulti-
mate tensile strength. From the optimization, the maximum
predicted ultimate tensile strength that can be achieved is
19.0628 MPa, and it is achievable with the combination of
15wt % of the composition of Brass and concentric as the
infill pattern.
3.2.3 Yield strength (0.2% offset)
Figure 11 shows the Pareto effect of yield strength corre-
sponding with the parameters. Each bar length is propor-
tional to the absolute value of the estimated effects with a
95% confidence level, and it shows that the infill pattern,
composition, and the interaction of infill pattern and compo-
sition bring a significant effect on the yield strength. Table 9
proved this statement as the infill pattern, composition, and
the interaction of infill pattern, and composition have the
highest contribution in affecting the yield strength (0.2%

13
848 Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851

offset). In Fig. 12, R2 which is equal to 97.96%, implies that Using Eq. (3), the predicted values were compared with
the higher the value of R2 , the model fits the data better. the actual values shown in Table 6. The model’s average
Besides that, S with a value of 0.6922 indicates that the percentage error in comparison with the experimental values
lower the S value, the better the model predicts the response. is 6.991%. The obtained error affirms the derived model is
The p value for this model is 0, which is lower than the sufficiently accurate in predicting yield strength.
alpha value of 0.05. This means that the model is considered A comparison of experimental and predicted values of
as significant. The model developed, which can estimate the yield strength (0.2% offset) is done and shown in Table 10.
yield strength, is as shown in Eq. (3). From the analysis, the error for yield strength is from 0.556%
to 17.661%, with an average of 6.991%. Another analysis
Yield Strength (0.2% offset) = 5.50 + 1.362 Infill Pattern was done to obtain the maximum yield by using response
− 0.0506 Composition optimization. The optimum value will be determined in the
+ 0.089 Infill Pattern given constraint and range in order to obtain the highest
value of yield strength. From the optimization, the maximum
× Infill Pattern
predicted yield that could be achieved is 12.3978 MPa, and
− 0.01844 Infill Pattern it is achievable with the combination of 15wt % of the com-
× Composition position of Brass and concentric as the infill pattern.
(3)
Table 8  Comparison between the experimental and predicted value 3.2.4 Overall optimization of tensile properties
of ultimate tensile strength
Infill pattern Composition Average Predicted Error (%)
The overall optimization for elastic modulus, ultimate tensile
value value strength, and yield strength (0.2% offset) was performed to
(MPa) (MPa) identify suitable parameter combinations that lead to maxi-
mum properties. The RSM shows that 15 wt.% of brass com-
Octa-spiral 15 7.762 8.640 10.162
position with concentric as the infill pattern would result
Rectilinear 15 12.842 11.0185 16.549
in the highest value of elastic modulus, ultimate tensile
Honeycomb 15 13.550 13.549 0.007
strength, and yield strength (0.2% offset) which are 0.333
Grid 15 14.265 16.2315 12.115
GPa MPa, 7.758 MPa and 4.539 MPa, respectively. The
Concentric 15 20.078 19.066 5.308
obtained experimental result values were compared with the
Octa-spiral 70 3.408 3.778 9.785
optimized or predicted values, as shown in Table 11. From
Rectilinear 70 5.129 4.545 12.857
the comparison, the combination of 15 wt% of the brass
Honeycomb 70 5.714 5.464 4.575
composition and concentric infill is the best-suited param-
Grid 70 5.742 6.535 12.135
eter to produce maximized overall tensile properties. It is
Concentric 70 8.071 7.758 4.035
supported by the difference of experimental value from the
Aver-
age = 8.753 predicted value, which only varied from 3.498% to 4.878%.

Table 9  ANOVA analysis for Source DF Contribution Adj SS Adj MS F value P value
yield strength (0.2% offset) (%)

Model 4 97.96 115.124 28.7811 60.06 0.000

Linear 2 93.39 109.757 54.8785 114.53 0.000
Infill pattern 1 21.13 24.836 24.8356 51.83 0.001
Composition 1 72.26 84.921 84.9214 177.23 0.000
Square 1 0.19 0.224 0.2238 0.47 0.525
Infill pattern × infill pattern 1 0.19 0.224 0.2238 0.47 0.525
2-way interaction 1 4.38 5.144 5.1435 10.73 0.022
Infill pattern × composition 1 4.38 5.144 5.1435 10.73 0.022
Error 5 2.04 2.396 0.4792
Total 9 117.520
Standard deviation (S) = 0.6922
R2 = 97.96%
R2—adjusted = 96.33%
R2—predicted = 87.49%

13
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851 849

Fig. 12  Pareto chart for yield

strength (0.2% offset)

Table 10  Comparison between the experimental and predicted value According to the previous literatures the strength of the
of yield strength (0.2% offset) PLA/ brass composite is less than the pure PLA. Corapi et al.
Infill pattern Composi- Average Predicted Error (%) [28] investigated the effects on PLA specimens with respect
tion value value to printing orientation. The ultimate tensile strength of the
(MPa) (MPa) specimen is ranging from 28 to 58 MPa and the Modulus
Octa-spiral 15 5.948 5.9154 0.556 was between 2.3 and 2.5 GPa. Durga Prasada Rao et al. [29]
Rectilinear 15 7.539 7.2678 3.733 analyze the effect of the layer thickness in the PLA speci-
Honeycomb 15 8.880 8.7982 0.925 men and the tensile strength obtained the range between 21
Grid 15 9.376 10.5066 10.763 and 26 MPa. The past researchers set the infill density as
Concentric 15 13.137 12.393 6.007 100%, but in this research the infill density is set as 50% to
Octa-spiral 70 1.763 2.1182 16.753 reduce the usage of material and also to increase the prod-
Rectilinear 70 2.598 2.4564 5.777 uct strength. However, the obtained value of the PLA/brass
Honeycomb 70 3.498 2.9726 17.661 composite is relatively low compared with the PLA.
Grid 70 3.562 3.6668 2.855
Concentric 70 4.318 4.539 4.878
Aver- 4 Conclusion
age = 6.991
The experimental analysis elucidates the effect of the infill
pattern and composition on the tensile properties of FDM
Table 11  Comparison of experimental and predicted value of overall printed specimens. The tensile test findings demonstrate the
optimized properties of 15 wt% specimens of the brass composition interaction impact of infill pattern and composition have a
and concentric as infill pattern considerable effect on ultimate tensile strength, elastic modu-
Tensile properties Predicted value Experimental value Error lus, and yield strength (0.2% offset). In tensile test results,
(%) infill pattern and composition significantly affect the elastic
modulus, ultimate tensile strength, and yield strength (0.2%
Elastic modulus 0.333 GPa 0.322 GPa 3.498
offset). The highest elastic modulus, ultimate tensile strength,
Ultimate tensile 7.758 MPa 8.071 MPa 4.035
strength
and yield strength (0.2% offset) were achieved by 15wt.%
Yield strength (0.2% 4.539 MPa 4.318 MPa 4.878
brass composition with concentric as the infill pattern. The
offset) results demonstrate that the tensile test, concentric able to

13
850
achieve the highest value for elastic modulus, ultimate tensile
strength, and yield strength (0.2% offset) for both composi-
tions and octa-spiral is the weakest. The dissimilarity in the
results mainly occurred due the internal structure of the infill
pattern. For the tensile properties of the product the concen-
tric pattern is suitable because of the linear structure of infill
printing. However, these infill pattern orders (concentric,
grid, honeycomb, rectilinear and grid) are not to be the same
in the other properties of the products, such as compressive,
impact, and flexural properties. From the tensile test experi-
mental analysis, the highest value of elastic modulus, ulti-
mate tensile strength, and yield strength (0.2% offset) obtain
was 0.333 GPa, 7.758 MPa and 4.539 MPa, respectively. In
addition, the discrepancy between the experimental and pro-
jected values is just 3.498% to 4.878%. This demonstrates
that the expected optimal parameter combination is capa-
ble of achieving increased tensile characteristics. The over-
all tensile analysis also shows that the 70wt % has a lower
tensile properties value compared to the 15wt%. The lower
tensile properties obtained for higher fillers are believed to
be due to the lower bonding strength. The increased amount
of fillers (Brass) leads to a decrease in the composite bond-
ing strength. The high amount of PLA in the lower filler
composition increases the bonding strength, leading to a bet-
ter tensile properties value. Adapting RSM, a mathematical
model to estimate tensile properties, has also been developed
to ease future FDM printed PLA–brass tensile properties.
The tensile properties of the PLA/brass are nearly adequate
compared with the previous works of literature. In the future
to concentrate on the infill density, layer thickness, and the
raster angle with a 15 wt% composition will be helpful to
enhance the tensile properties of the product.
Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge Universiti
Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia, for providing funds and facilities under
research grants RDU190351, RDU192402, and RDU192217 to conduct
this research.
Data availability The datasets generated during and/or analysed dur-
ing the current study are available from the corresponding author on
reasonable request.
Declarations
Conflict of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
1. Vashishtha VK (2011) Advancement of rapid prototyping in aero-
space industry—a review. Sci Technol 3(3):2486–2493
2. Zhang X, Fan W, Liu T (2020) Fused deposition modeling 3D
printing of polyamide-based composites and its applications.
Compos Commun. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​coco.​2020.​100413
13
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851
3. Ramya A, Vanapalli SL (2016) 3D printing technologies in vari-
ous applications. Int J Mech Eng Technol 7(3):396–409
4. Le Duigou A, Barbé A, Guillou E, Castro M (2019) 3D printing
of continuous flax fibre reinforced biocomposites for structural
applications. Mater Design. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matdes.​
2019.​107884
5. Boparai KS, Singh R, Singh H (2016) Development of rapid tool-
ing using fused deposition modeling: a review. Rapid Prototyp J
22(2):281–299. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​RPJ-​04-​2014-​0048
6. Liu Z, Wang Y, Wu B, Cui C, Guo Y, Yan C (2019) A criti-
cal review of fused deposition modeling 3D printing technol-
ogy in manufacturing polylactic acid parts. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 102(9–12):2877–2889. https:// ​ d oi. ​ o rg/ ​ 1 0. ​ 1 007/​
s00170-​019-​03332-x
7. Mitchell A, Lafont U, Hołyńska M, Semprimoschnig C (2018)
Additive manufacturing—a review of 4D printing and future
applications. Addit Manuf 24:606–626. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
addma.​2018.​10.​038
8. Mansfield B, Torres S, Yu T, Wu D (2019) A review on additive
manufacturing of ceramics. ASME 2019 14th Int Manuf Sci Eng
Conf MSEC 1:36–53. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1115/​MSEC2​019-​2886
9. Aslanzadeh S, Saghlatoon H, Honari MM, Mirzavand R, Mon-
temagno C, Mousavi P (2018) Investigation on electrical and
mechanical properties of 3D printed nylon 6 for RF/microwave
electronics applications. Addit Manuf 21:69–75. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​addma.​2018.​02.​016
10. Sadiq HAJ (2020) Review on 4D and 5D Printing Technology. Int
Res J Eng Technol 07:744–751
11. Choi J, Kwon OC, Jo W, Lee HJ, Moon MW (2015) 4D printing
technology: a review. 3D Print Addit Manuf 2(4):159–167. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1089/​3dp.​2015.​0039
12. Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G, Nguyen KTQ, Hui D (2018)
Additive manufacturing (3D printing): a review of materi-
als, methods, applications and challenges. Compos Part B Eng
143:172–196. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​compo​sitesb.​2018.​02.​012
13. Shahrubudin N, Lee TC, Ramlan R (2019) An overview on 3D
printing technology: technological, materials, and applications.
Procedia Manuf 35:1286–1296. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​promfg.​
2019.​06.​089
14. Popescu D, Zapciu A, Amza C, Baciu F, Marinescu R (2018)
FDM process parameters influence over the mechanical properties
of polymer specimens: a review. Polym Test 69:157–166. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​polym​ertes​ting.​2018.​05.​020
15. Mohamed OA, Masood SH, Bhowmik JL (2015) Optimization of
fused deposition modeling process parameters: a review of current
research and future prospects. Adv Manuf 3(1):42–53. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s40436-​014-​0097-7
16. Mazzanti V, Malagutti L, Mollica F (2019) FDM 3D printing of
polymers containing natural fillers: a review of their mechanical
properties. Polymers (Basel). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.3​ 390/p​ olym1​ 1071​
094
17. Kumbhar NN, Mulay AV (2018) Post processing methods used
to improve surface finish of products which are manufactured by
additive manufacturing technologies: a review. J Inst Eng Ser C
99(4):481–487. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40032-​016-​0340-z
18. Rayegani F, Onwubolu GC (2014) Fused deposition modelling
(fdm) process parameter prediction and optimization using group
method for data handling (gmdh) and differential evolution (de).
Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(1–4):509–519. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s00170-​014-​5835-2
19. Kumaresan R, Samykano M, Kadirgama K, Ramasamy D, Keng
NW, Pandey AK (2021) 3D printing technology for thermal
application: a brief review. J Adv Res Fluid Mech Therm Sci
83(2):84–97. https://​doi.​org/​10.​37934/​ARFMTS.​83.2.​8497
Progress in Additive Manufacturing (2022) 7:839–851
20. Zhang X, Chen L, Mulholland T, Osswald TA (2019) Characteri-
zation of mechanical properties and fracture mode of PLA and
copper/PLA composite part manufactured by fused deposition
modeling. SN Appl Sci 1(6):1–12
21. Ćwikła G, Grabowik C, Kalinowski K, Paprocka I, Ociepka P
(2017) The influence of printing parameters on selected mechani-
cal properties of FDM/FFF 3D-printed parts. IOP Conf Ser Mater
Sci Eng. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1757-​899X/​227/1/​012033
22. Yadav P, Sahai A, Sharma RS (2021) Strength and surface charac-
teristics of FDM-BASED 3D printed PLA parts for multiple infill
design patterns. J Inst Eng Ser C 102(1):197–207. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s40032-​020-​00625-z
23. Zhang Y et al (2018) Additive manufacturing of metallic materi-
als: a review. J Mater Eng Perform 27(1):1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​s11665-​017-​2747-y
24. Hua Y, Liu Z (2018) Effects of cutting parameters and tool nose
radius on surface roughness and work hardening during dry turn-
ing Inconel 718. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96(5):2421–2430
25. Aichner T (2018) Mass customization: do creative product config-
urations in ads drive behavioural intention and perceived product
quality? In: Proceeding 8th Int Conf Mass Cust Pers—Community
Eur MCP-CE 2018, pp. 206–210
851
26. Khalid MY, Al Rashid A, Arif ZU, Sheikh MF, Arshad H, Nasir
MA (2021) Tensile strength evaluation of glass/jute fibers rein-
forced composites: an experimental and numerical approach.
Results Eng 10:100232. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​r ineng.​2021.​
100232
27. Samykano M (2021) Mechanical property and prediction model
for FDM-3D printed polylactic acid (PLA). Arab J Sci Eng
46(8):7875–7892. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13369-​021-​05617-4
28. Corapi D, Morettini G, Pascoletti G, Zitelli C (2019) Characteriza-
tion of a polylactic acid (PLA) produced by fused deposition mod-
eling (FDM) technology. Procedia Struct Integr 24(2019):289–
295. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​prostr.​2020.​02.​026
29. Durgar Pasada Rao V, Rajiv P, Navya Geethika V (2019) Effect of
fused deposition modelling (FDM) process parameters on tensile
strength of carbon fibre PLA. Mater Today Proc 18:2012–2018.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matpr.​2019.​06.​009
Publisher's Note Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13