ANALYSIS OF DIMENSIONAL QUALITY IN FDM

PRINTED NYLON 6 PARTS

PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by

CB.EN.U4MEE18203 - ADHITHYAN S S

CB.EN.U4MEE18205 - AMITHESH S R

CB.EN.U4MEE18212 - BALASURYA S

CB.EN.U4MEE18257 - SHRAVYAKAMATH B S

in partial fulfilment for the award of the degree

of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, COIMBATORE

AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM
COIMBATORE - 641112
JUNE 2022
 AMRITA VISHWA VIDYAPEETHAM
AMRITA SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, COIMBATORE - 641 112

BONAFIDE CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that this project report titled “Analysis of Dimensional
Quality in FDM Printed Nylon 6 Parts” submitted by “ADITHYAN S S
(CB.EN.U4MEE18203), AMITHESH S R (CB.EN.U4MEE18205),
BALASURYA S (CB.EN.U4MEE18212), SHRAVYAKAMATH B S
(CB.EN.U4MEE18257)” in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award
of the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering is a
bonafide record of the work carried out under my guidance and supervision at
Amrita School of Engineering, Coimbatore. The contents of this report, in full or
in parts, have not been submitted to any other Institution or University for the
award of any degree or diploma.

Dr. M. Ramu
PROJECT GUIDE
Vice Chairman
Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering

Dr. K. Ramesh Kumar

Chairman
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering

Place: Coimbatore
Date: 04.06.2022

This report was examined and the candidates underwent Viva-Voce examination on
04.06.2022.

Internal Examiner External Examiner

 DECLARATION

We hereby declare that this project report, titled “Analysis of Dimensional Quality in
FDM Printed Nylon 6 Parts”, is a record of the original work done by me under the
supervision of Dr. M. Ramu, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amrita School of
Engineering, Coimbatore and has not formed the basis for the award of any
degree/diploma/associateship/fellowship or a similar award, to any candidate in any
University, to the best of my knowledge. Due acknowledgements have been made
wherever the findings of others have been cited.

Adithyan S. S.
CB.EN.U4MEE18203

Amithesh S. R.
CB.EN.U4MEE18205

Balasurya S.
CB.EN.U4MEE18212

Shravyakamath B. S.
CB.EN.U4MEE18257

(Signature of the students)

Place: Coimbatore
Date: 04.06.2022

Dr. M. Ramu
PROJECT GUIDE
Vice Chairman
Associate Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank our beloved Chancellor AMMA, pro-chancellor, Dr.

Abhayamrita Chaitanya, Vice-Chancellor, Dr. P. Venkat Rangan and Dean–
Engineering, Dr. Sasagan Ramanathan for their encouragement which greatly helped
me to carry my project work.

I would like to extend my warm thanks to Dr. Ramesh Kumar, Professor & Chairperson,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Amrita School of Engineering, for his moral
support and encouragement towards project work.

We would like to extend our gratitude to our project guide, Dr. M. Ramu, for his
guidance, invaluable support and dedication that he shared with us to help us to conduct
this study.

We also thank the project review panel members for their continuous support and
feedback during the review session that helped us to tackle the technical difficulties in
this project.

Finally, we express our heartfelt gratitude to our Parents, Faculties and Friends who have
provided us support and confidence directly or indirectly during the period of the project.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF TABLES iv
ABSTRACT v
ABBREVIATIONS vi
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. PROBLEM STATEMENT 2
3. LITERATURE SURVEY 3
4. METHODOLOGY 6
4.1 Selection of Process Parameters 9
5. EXPERIMENTATION 10
5.1 Taguchi method 10
5.2 Calibration of printer 11
5.3 Printing 13
6. QUANTIFICATION OF DEVIATIONS 14
6.1 Dimensional Inspection 14
6.2 Inspection results 15
7. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 17
7.1 Test of significance 17
7.2 The concept of ANOVA 19
7.3 Performing ANOVA 22
7.4 S/N Ratio 27
7.5 Regression Analysis 29
8. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS 31
9. RESULTS & DISCUSSION 32
10. CONCLUSION 33
REFERENCES 34

ii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. no. Figure Caption Pg. no.

3.1 Pyramid of Polymeric materials 5
4.1 Overview of methodology 6
4.2 a) Prismatic structures – cross sectional dimensions. 8
b) Artifact no. 7 – isometric view. 8
c) Overview of observable geometric characteristics in artifact no.7 8
4.3 Warping observed in artifact 7. 9
5.1 Calibration model design. 12
5.2 FDM printed calibration model. 12
5.3 Artifact imported into Simplify 3D 13
6.1 a) IGS file received from CMM inspection. 14
b) Edge points isolated. 14
c) Edge points connected through splines on respective planes. 15
d) Tangent of a spline. 15
6.2 Spline parameters for model 4 on 16
a) ZX plane 16
b) ZY plane. 16
7.1 Schematic diagrams of planes chosen for CMM inspection: 17
a) Hexagonal prism 17
b) Triangular prism 17
c) Cylinder 17
d) Square prism. 17
7.2 ANOVA data table for curling. 22
7.3 ANOVA data table for hexagonal prism. 23
7.4 ANOVA data table for triangular prism. 24
7.5 ANOVA data table for cylinder. 25
7.6 ANOVA data table for square prism. 26
7.7 Main effects plot for S/N ratios. 29
7.8 Residual plots for warping: 30
a) Normal probability plot 30
b) Residuals vs fits plot 30
8.1 Filament spool inside heating chamber 31

iii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table no. Table Caption Page no.

4.1 Dimensional details of 3D model configuration. 7

5.1 Input parameters. 10
5.2 Taguchi L9 Orthogonal Array. 11
6.1 Slopes of warping. 16
7.1 Deviations in geometric characteristics. 18
7.2 ANOVA result table and formulae. 20
7.3 Critical values of F for the 0.05 significance level. 21
7.4 ANOVA result table for curling. 23
7.5 ANOVA result table for hexagonal prism. 24
7.6 ANOVA result table for triangular prism. 25
7.7 ANOVA result table for cylinder. 26
7.8 ANOVA result table for square prism. 27
7.9 Response table by L9 array. 28
7.10 Response table for S/N ratios. 28

iv
 ABSTRACT

FDM process is prone to surface and dimensional defects. Nylon’s water absorption
properties make it more prone to said inaccuracies. These inaccuracies were studied with
the help of appropriate 3D models and a CMM machine. A standard test artifact was
designed for this purpose, which allows measurement of multiple geometric
characteristics. 9 configurations of the artifact model were developed and printed.
Optimum model for study was chosen based on maximum warping and curling. A
Taguchi L9 Orthogonal Array was made for the chosen model by varying control factors.
Multiple versions of the optimum 3D model were printed based on the orthogonal array.
These models were studied using a CMM machine. ANOVA test was performed on the
recorded deviations. Optimum process parameters were found and ranked using S/N
ratios. These parameters were used to reprint selected model and further reduce
dimensional inaccuracies using printing techniques and ensuring better care of nylon
filament.

INDEX TERMS – 3D Printing, FDM, Nylon, Quality, ANOVA, GD&T.

v
 ABBREVIATIONS

FDM Fused Deposition Modelling

FFF Fused Filament Fabrication
RP Rapid Prototyping

AM Additive Manufacturing

CAD Computer Aided Design

ABS Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene

PLA Polylactic Acid

CMM Coordinate Measuring Machine

ISO International Organization for Standardization

RP Rapid Prototyping

CAD Computer Aided Drawing

PEEK Polyether ether ketone

PEI Polyethyleneimine

PET Polyethylene terephthalate

PS Polystyrene
DOE Design of Experiments

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

SS Sum of Squares

MS Mean of Sum of Squares

S/N Signal-to-noise

vi
 1. INTRODUCTION

3D printing is the process of creating a physical model from a design by layer by layer
addition of material, much like stacking a pack of playing cards (Sai and Yeole, 2001;
Shahrubudin, Lee and Ramlan, 2019). In other words, it is a type of additive
manufacturing (AM) technique.
It is one of the fastest growing industries in recent years and its applications are
widespread. It is used in the medical, aviation, automobile and various other industries.
Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), also known as Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), is
one such type of 3D printing process that was developed in the late 80s by S. Scott
Crump. Foreseeing its massive impact in the future of additive manufacturing, it was
commercialized in 1990 by Stratasys.
In this rapid prototyping (RP) technique, the model is formed by depositing layers of
fused material. Modeling, prototyping and production are some of its applications (Sai
and Yeole, 2001).
Conventional thermoplastics, ceramics, graphene-based materials, and metals are all used
for 3D printing nowadays (Shahrubudin, Lee and Ramlan, 2019). Metal based filaments
cannot be used in FDM processes as they require high temperatures. Acrylonitrile
Butadiene styrene (ABS) and Polylactide (PLA) thermoplastics are predominantly used in
FDM (Sai and Yeole, 2001). Some other materials that are used in FDM processes are
Polypropylene (PP), Polycarbonate (PC), Polyamide/Nylon (PA), Polyether ether ketone
(PEEK), Polyetherimide (PEI), Polystyrene (PS) and Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET).
Nylon 6 is a good FDM filament candidate with high physical and mechanical properties
that are optimal for the process. Its recyclability is another reason why it may become one
of the forerunners of the future of 3D printing materials (Farina et al., 2019).

1
 2. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Dimensional in accuracies and surface roughness cause a deviation of surface profile in
the final printed model from the initial 3D CAD representation. This project aims at
analyzing such deviations in 3D printed Nylon 6 models, and possibly providing a deep
insight into why and how such deviations arise. This project also attempts to suggest
some plausible solutions in order to quantify and minimize said deviations.
A test artifact needs to be modeled and printed in order to quantify said deviations.
Analytical tools and methods are to be employed to analyze quantified data. Percentage
contribution and ranking of process parameters are to be obtained by such methods.
Further reduction of dimensional deviations must be achieved with the aid of data inferred
from said analysis.

2
 3. LITERATURE SURVEY
FDM printing is relatively inexpensive due to the fact that the associated machines, as
well as materials are available at affordable rates. However, FDM printed parts have high
surface roughness (Ligon et al., 2017). This makes it ideal for study and improvement, in
the sense that, improved surface finish combined with its inexpensiveness will make
FDM easily accessible for everyone. FDM materials are used as build material and/or
support material. Support material is used to construct support structures for the actual
part (Sai and Yeole, 2001; Beniak, Križan and Matúš, 2015). Since this paper aims at
studying the dimensional deviations in 3D printed parts, limiting its scope to parts that do
not require support structures will be sufficient. Branched parts would require support
structures (Hu et al., 2020). Hence, simple, unbranched geometrical solids are chosen.
Hairspray is alcohol soluble, and can be used to increase bed adhesion. It reduces warping
& curling, but increases delamination (Richardson et al., 2017). Therefore, two layers of
hairspray can be used - one for bed-to-surface adhesion, another for surface-to-surface
adhesion. Subsequent layers are expected to be less prone to delamination, as
delamination starts from the bottom, i.e., first printed layer cools faster and does not
adhere to subsequent layers. The test artifact/benchmark model must contain a range of
features in order to measure and test the capability of the chosen FDM filament material
to its full extent. Moylan et al., 2012, with the help of models proposed by Kruth et al.,
2005 etc., has proposed a standardized benchmark model to conduct tests. It contains
varied shapes of holes and bosses, overhangs, angles etc. in a range of sizes. These fine
features can be inspected using an optical microscope. However, this inspection cannot be
quantified, and can only act as a visual assessment. Hence, basic shapes of varied
dimensions have to be printed separate from the standard artifact, and inspected using a
Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) (Gosavi and Cudney, 2012; Maurya, Rastogi and
Singh, 2019). This provides values for dimensional accuracy that can later be tabulated
and assessed. The fine features of the standard artifact do not give access to the CMM
probe (Moylan et al., 2012). Hence this is necessary. Alternatively, an optical
profilometer can be used to measure roughness (Maurya, Rastogi and Singh, 2019).
Varying certain process parameters while 3D printing, will considerably impact surface
profile and tensile properties of the resultant part. Such parameters include infill density,
no. of contours, raster orientation, raster pattern, no. of shells, raster width and most
importantly, layer thickness (Comb, Priedeman and Turley, 1994; Mostafa, Montemagno

3
and Qureshi, 2018; Dey and Yodo, 2019; Wickramasinghe, Do and Tran, 2020; Kam,
İpekçi and Şengül, 2021).
These parameters can be varied in different combinations and assessed using a Taguchi
L9 orthogonal array. It will enable one to determine the optimal process parameters for
chosen material (Mostafa, Montemagno and Qureshi, 2018; Dey and Yodo, 2019; Farina
et al., 2019; Kam, İpekçi and Şengül, 2021; Singh, Singh and Sharma, 2021).
Thermoplastic polymers are the most commonly used filaments in FDM. There is a wide
range of such materials with unique thermal and mechanical properties that make them
suitable for varied applications.
Thermoplastic polymers are the most commonly used filaments in FDM. There is a wide
range of such materials with unique thermal and mechanical properties that make them
suitable for varied applications.
ABS is a thermoplastic and amorphous polymer, which has good impact resistance and
toughness. It is non-biodegradable. ABS filaments do not pose the risk of nozzle jam
(Maia et al., 2016; Ligon et al., 2017; Dey and Yodo, 2019; Spoerk, Holzer and
Gonzalez-Gutierrez, 2020; Wickramasinghe, Do and Tran, 2020).
PLA is a biodegradable thermoplastic that has moderate tensile strength, low warpage,
low ductility and low printing temperature. It does not require heated bed. However, it
does pose the risk of jamming the printer (Dey and Yodo, 2019; Wickramasinghe, Do and
Tran, 2020).
PCs offer good strength, durability, toughness and heat resistance. They also have a good
layer to layer bonding which enables them to provide good surface finish (Dey and Yodo,
2019).
PEEK offers great heat resistance and mechanical properties, along with chemical
stability. It is superior to ABS and PLA in terms of mechanical properties (Dey and Yodo,
2019; Wickramasinghe, Do and Tran, 2020).
PEI has a high strength-to-weight ratio, low density and low toxicity. However, it
demands high printing and heated bed temperatures (Dey and Yodo, 2019). PS and PET
are some of the niche polymers that have found their own market (Dey and Yodo, 2019;
Spoerk, Holzer and Gonzalez-Gutierrez, 2020). PS is hard and brittle. It has good surface
qualities and low toxicity in general. PET offers low moisture absorption, low toxicity
and high abrasion resistance (Azimi et al., 2016). It is also recyclable.
Polyamides are non-biodegradable. Nylon products like fishing nets are abandoned in
oceans. It can cause grave dangers to aquatic life and the ocean biome in general.

4
However, nylon is recyclable. Aquafil group’s ECONYL project is responsible for the
development of an efficient method to recycle nylon for commercial use (Singh and
Singh, 2016; Farina et al., 2019). Waste nylon can be collected and extruded into
filaments for FDM process (Singh, Singh and Singh, 2016). It is also worth noting that
polyamides have been one among the first used filament materials in FDM, right from the
commercialization of FDM in 1990 by Stratasys. This is substantiated by Comb,
Priedeman and Turley, 1994, in a conference proceeding published by Stratasys
themselves. Nylon is used in spur gear manufacturing (Mejri et al., 2017; Zhang et al.,
2020), as it is a good alternative to metals in reducing noise and vibrations. Spur gears
can be 3D printed using FDM. Nylon spur gears printed using the FDM technology are
better than injection moulded nylon spur gears under low-medium torque conditions
(Zhang et al., 2020).

Fig. 3.1: Pyramid of polymeric materials

5
 4. METHODOLOGY
Nylon has been chosen for study. An overview of the methodology of the project is given
in the flowchart (fig. 4.1). A standard test artifact was to be modeled and printed using
FDM process for further study using a CMM machine. The test artifact is to contain a
base plate, upon which 4 geometric shapes are to be extruded, with enough room for a
CMM probe. The CMM has a 0.5 mm ruby ball tipped probe. The geometric shapes help
analyze common geometric characteristics such as perpendicularity, circularity,
parallelism etc.

Fig. 4.1: Overview of methodology.

In order to understand surface defects better, it is important to observe maximum possible

deviations from expected dimensions. To understand the effect of dimensions on warping,
delamination etc., 9 different 3D models were made with 3 different base plate cross
sections and 3 different base plate thicknesses. The details are illustrated in Table 4.1. The
extruded simple shapes were kept at a standard distance from the center of base plate so

6
that it does not influence said deviations, and also provides space for CMM probe
movement. The dimensional details of these prismatic structures have been illustrated in
fig. 4.2a (all dimensions in mm). The height remains same for all four of them, i.e. 10
mm.
9 different configurations of said artifact were 3D modeled using 3DS Solidworks. All of
these configurations were exported as STL (Standard Triangle Language) files. STL files
are the sliced version of solid part files where the model is divided into multiple triangles.
This helps the 3D printer to understand and print the object.
The 9 different configurations were printed using FDM process. A SPAAR3D Lapwing
V1 printer was used. It has a bed volume of 200 mm x 200 mm x 200 mm, with a nozzle
diameter of 0.4 mm. Print speeds can go up to 150 mm/s. The maximum bed and nozzle
temperatures are 100 °C and 300 °C respectively. Printed models were visually inspected
for dimensional deviations, warping, delamination etc.
It was observed that artefact no. 7 showed maximum deviations. It exhibited warping and
curling to the greatest extent. This model was chosen for further study. An overview of
observable geometric characteristics, along with dimensional details of artefact 7 has been
illustrated in fig. 4.2. Fig. 4.3 depicts the FDM printed artefact no. 7.

Table 4.1: Dimensional details of 3D model configuration

Art. No. Length (mm) Breadth (mm) Thickness (mm)

1. 80 30 3

2. 80 30 4

3. 80 30 5

4. 80 50 3

5. 80 50 4

6. 80 50 5

7. 80 80 3

8. 80 80 4

9. 80 80 5

7
 a) b)

c)

Fig. 4.2: a) Prismatic structures – cross sectional dimensions. b) Artifact no. 7 – isometric view.
c) Overview of observable geometric characteristics in artifact no. 7.

8
 Fig. 4.3: Warping observed in artifact 7.

4.1. Selection of Process Parameters

The Fused Deposition Modeling process has a lot of parameters that influence the printed
artefact’s surface and dimensional characteristics. Artefact no. 7 needs to be printed in
different combinations of said parameters, in order to experimentally identify the
optimum combination of process parameters that will result in a dimensionally
satisfactory product.
These process parameters include, but are not limited to (Dey and Yodo, 2019):

• Air gap: Gap between neighboring rasters on a deposited layer.

• Raster width: The width of the deposition beads. It depends on the extrusion nozzle
diameter.
• Print speed: Distance traveled by the extruder along the X-Y plane per unit time.
• Layer thickness: Height of the deposited layers along the vertical direction. It must
generally be less than the diameter of the extruder nozzle, and hence depends on it.
• Build orientation: Defines how the product is oriented in space on the build platform,
with respect to coordinates.
• Extrusion temperature: Temperature required to melt the filament in order to print. It
depends on various aspects like filament material and print speed.
• Infill density: Defines what percentage of the product is filled with the filament
material inside the shell (outer layer).
• Infill pattern: Different types exist such as hexagonal, diamond, and linear.
• Raster orientation: The direction of deposition bead w.r.t. X-axis of build platform.

However, not all these parameters are going to be varied for the experimental analysis.
Only the most influential parameters are to be considered.

9
 5. EXPERIMENTATION
5.1. Taguchi Method
It is a DOE method that helps minimize the number of experiments that need to be
performed in order to arrive at a conclusion. Since we have multiple parameters that
govern the quality of our FDM printed product, performing several iterations of
combinations of these parameters will end up being cumbersome. Hence, the Taguchi
method will be employed in order to simplify the experimental steps. Selection of factors
is very important in Taguchi method. Control factors are design factors that are to be set
at optimal levels to improve quality and reduce sensitivity to noise. These are factors that
can be controlled by the user. Temperature is the primary factor that concerns defects
such as warping. Warping can be caused by uneven cooling of layers and low bed
adhesion, of which the former is a direct result of temperature. However, nozzle
temperature cannot be changed too much because it depends on the filament material. It
leads us to further inferences such as the speed at which the layers cool down can be
controlled by controlling the print speed, rather than the extrusion temperature itself.
Hence, print speed is chosen as a parameter. Raster orientation is chosen as the next
parameter because the fashion in which the raster beads are laid will adversely affect how
they curl up and cause warping. Quasi-isotropic is a fashion in which raster is laid in
increments of 45° for each layer starting from 0° till 360°. Next, three levels of infill
density are chosen. It affects how dense and solid the final product is, and influences the
structural strength directly. Layer thickness is our final parameter as it influences surface
finish.

Table 5.1: Input parameters.

INPUT PARAMETERS LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3

Print speed (mm/min) 1800 2400 3600

Layer Thickness (mm) 0.1 0.2 0.3

Infill density (%) 40 60 80

Raster Orientation (°) Quasi-isotropic 0/90 -45/45

10
Orthogonal array is a type of general fractional factorial design in the Taguchi method. It
allows one to consider a selected subset of combinations of multiple factors at multiple
levels. We choose 3 levels for each parameter. For a three-level series with 4 parameters,
an L9 array is used (where ‘L’ stands for Latin square). Hence, a Taguchi L9 orthogonal
array was made.

Table 5.2: Taguchi L9 orthogonal array.

Print Speed Infill density Layer Thickness Raster

Model No.
(mm/s) (%) (mm) Orientation (°)

1 1800 40 0.1 0/90

2 1800 60 0.2 -45/45

3 1800 80 0.3 Quasi

4 2400 40 0.2 Quasi

5 2400 60 0.3 0/90

6 2400 80 0.1 -45/45

7 3600 40 0.3 -45/45

8 3600 60 0.1 Quasi

9 3600 80 0.2 0/90

5.2. Calibration of Printer

Raster width is an important parameter that influences dimensional quality of an FDM
printed product. However, the Lapwing V1 printer does not allow one to change the raster
width setting. Nozzle diameter is associated with controlling layer height and raster
width. It does so by varying the extrusion width. Hence, extrusion width must be
optimized independent from the L9 orthogonal array before printing the 9 models given
by it. The relation between nozzle diameter and extrusion width is given as:

Nozzle diameter * Extrusion multiplier = Extrusion width

Nozzle diameter is constant at 0.4 mm for a Lapwing V1 printer. A cubical shell with
wall thickness 0.8 mm was designed. 0.8 mm was chosen as it is a multiple of 0.4 mm

11
(nozzle diameter). The idea is to measure the deviation in wall thickness to determine the
extrusion multiplier. This model was then printed. The walls were measured using a
vernier caliper. The measured wall thickness came out to be 1.2 mm as opposed to the
expected 0.8 mm.
Using the relation between nozzle diameter and extrusion width, the extrusion multiplier
is calculated as:

𝐸𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 2 1.2

Extrusion multiplier = * = = 1.5
𝑁𝑜𝑧𝑧𝑙𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟 2 0.8

This extrusion multiplier value is now entered into the parameter settings of Simplify 3D
in order to print the L9 array of models.

Fig. 5.1: Calibration model design.

Fig. 5.2: FDM printed calibration model.

12
5.3. Printing
STL model of the Artefact 7 was imported into Simplify 3D. A new profile with extrusion
multiplier 1.5 was created. 9 different combinations of control parameter settings were
created in this profile and each saved as a separate G-code file.

Fig. 5.3: Artifact imported into Simplify 3D

These G-codes were fed into the Lapwing printer. The print bed was prepared by spraying
it with hairspray. This increases bed adhesion (Richardson et al., 2017).
Printing was started. Each model took about 6 hours to get printed. 9 different models of
artefact no. 7 were printed using the combinations given by the L9 orthogonal array.

13
 6. QUANTIFICATION OF DEVIATIONS
6.1. Dimensional Inspection
Each of the printed samples needed to be dimensionally inspected. The purpose was to
quantify the extent of warping (curling) and other GD&T characteristics such as
perpendicularity, parallelism, angularity and cylindricity.
A CMM machine can be used for such inspection, where a probe measures the
displacement of discrete points from a fixed reference point in order to determine the
feature’s dimensions.
Since the objective is to find the best finished product through dimensional inspection,
some models that were obviously very defective were excluded from CMM inspection.
They were found to have undergone high degrees of warping through visual inspection
and were hence eliminated. The models 4, 5, 7 and 8 showed considerably good quality
and hence were selected and inspected through a CMM.
The inspection report received contained values of deviations from nominal values of
GD&T characteristics of the prismatic structures. These results were tabulated. However,
warping could not be quantified directly by the CMM inspection. An indirect method of
quantifying warping was employed.
An IGS file with discrete points and planes recorded from the printed model was
provided. This file was loaded into 3DS Solidworks (fig. 6.1a). The point at the bottom
left from where multiple lines diverge is the reference position from which the probe
starts its inspection for every iteration, and then retreats back to.

a) b)

14
 c) d)

Fig. 6.1: a) IGS file received from CMM inspection. b) Edge points isolated. c) Edge points connected
through splines on respective planes. d) Tangent of a spline.

The edge points are isolated (fig. 6.1b) by hiding the remaining features in the sketch such
as planes and lines. This is done so by turning off visibility for said features in the design
tree. The isolated points are then connected through two splines (fig. 6.1c) on
corresponding perpendicular planes, ZX and ZY. The tangent of these splines (fig. 6.1d)
will help quantify the extent of curling on the corners of the base plate.

6.2. Inspection Results

Warping
Selecting the spline’s desired corner point will reveal its tangent at that point. Selecting
this tangent will open up the ‘parameters’ of the spline. The ‘tangent radial direction’
value is used in calculating the slope at the corner for that particular plane.
The spline parameters for model 4 (refer table 6.1) is given below in fig. 6.2. Tangent
angle in the ZX plane comes out to be 173.914°. Slope in ZX plane is calculated as:

Slopezx = tan (180° - 173.914°) = 0.107

The tangent angle for the same model in ZY plane comes out to be 85.710°. Slope in ZY
plane is calculated as:

Slopezy = tan (90° - 85.710°) = 0.075

Slopes were calculated similarly for each model and tabulated in table 6.1.

15
 Fig. 6.2: Spline parameters for model 4 on a) ZX plane b) ZY plane.

Table 6.1: Slopes of warping.

ZX Plane ZY Plane
Sample No.
Tangent angle (°) Slope Tangent angle (°) Slope
4 173.914 0.107 85.710 0.075
5 172.183 0.137 79.387 0.187
7 165.691 0.255 76.009 0.249
8 179.096 0.016 87.242 0.048

Geometric Characteristics
Four prismatic structures were designed onto the base plate initially. They serve the
purpose of aiding in analysis of GD&T characteristics namely perpendicularity,
parallelism, angularity and cylindricity. The schematic diagrams of the prismatic
structures are given in fig. 7.1. The hexagonal and square prisms facilitate measurement
of deviation for perpendicularity and parallelism. The triangular prism showcases
perpendicularity and angularity. Finally, the cylinder permits perpendicularity and
cylindricity related deviations to be measured. The deviations were tabulated (table 7.1)
for further analysis using the one-way ANOVA method.

16
 7. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
7.1. Test of Significance
Variations have been observed between the deviations of each of the models. In order to
determine the best printed model of the four, one must first determine if these variations
are a result of the parameters chosen, or merely just a negligible and inconsistent variation
within experimental error limits. This is to say if the variation is ‘significant’ or due to
‘chance’. Multiple statistical methods to test significance exist, such as the Chi-square
method, Standard errors method, Analysis of Variance etc. For samples sizes of three and
above, we can use the ‘Analysis of Variance’ method, or more commonly known as
ANOVA. There are four samples here – models 4, 5, 7 and 8. These can be considered as
‘groups’, and ANOVA can be performed to test the significance. Level of significance is
taken to be 0.05, i.e., a confidence interval of 95%.

a) b)

c) d)

Fig. 7.1: Schematic diagrams of planes chosen for CMM inspection: a) Hexagonal prism b)
Triangular prism c) Cylinder d) Square prism.

17
 Table 7.1: Deviations in geometric characteristics.

Deviation in mm
Profile Sample Perpendicularity Parallelism
type No. H1- H2- H3- H4- H6-
H5-HTOP H1-H4 H2-H5 H3-H6
HTOP HTOP HTOP HTOP HTOP
4 0.0792 0.158 0.2328 0.0502 0.1766 0.2677 0.189 0.3988 0.0585
5 0.0232 0.2379 0.2007 0.0791 0.2653 0.2581 0.1287 0.3419 0.181
Hexagon
7 0.044 0.1625 0.1444 0.0918 0.1344 0.1871 0.5443 0.1111 0.1715
8 0.0594 0.1821 0.0216 0.3261 0.2203 0.0405 0.3845 0.9557 0.042
Perpendicularity Angularity
T1-TTOP T2-TTOP T3-TTOP T2-T3 T1-T2
4 0.7879 0.1507 0.1991 0.2842 0.9875
Triangle
5 0.1819 0.1299 0.1905 0.2654 0.3939

18
7 0.3122 0.2061 0.4162 0.1462 0.072
8 0.1684 0.0342 0.2091 0.3933 0.207
Perpendicularity Cylindricity
CYL.PLN.SIDE-CYL.PLN.TOP CYL1-CYL.PLN.TOP
4 0.2137 0.1421
Circle
5 0.0628 0.2781
7 0.1244 0.3074
8 0.217 0.0563
Perpendicularity Parallelism
S3- S2- S4-
S1-TOP S1-S2 S2-S3 S3-S4 S1-S4 S1-S3 S2-S4
TOP TOP TOP
Square 4 0.2184 0.2041 0.2101 0.2903 0.0682 0.1462 0.235 0.2231 0.0881 0.212
5 0.0494 0.05 0.1736 0.0561 0.1331 0.1023 0.1887 0.2557 0.2123 0.2097
7 0.2232 0.5524 0.0651 0.4234 0.1263 0.0926 0.0111 0.2156 0.3275 0.0925
8 0.0954 0.0699 0.0581 0.0899 0.1671 0.0574 0.0524 0.2382 0.2154 0.1081
7.2. The Concept of ANOVA
The four samples considered are independent, i.e., non-repeated measures. This simply
means the measured values come from individual models and not from the same group.
Hence, a one-way ANOVA test is to be performed. Firstly, a ‘null hypothesis’ is
assumed. It is defined as,
H0: All models are similar,
i.e., the deviations in each model are not significant. It’s more or less the same within
experimental error limits. The parameters do not have an effect on these deviations. An alternate
hypothesis is thus formed,

H1: All models are different,

suggesting that the deviations are a result of the chosen parameters and that they have an
adverse impact on the sample. The ANOVA test will be focused on rejecting one of these
hypotheses and selecting the other.
In statistics, two types of data exist – central tendencies, and deviations. Central
tendencies include mean, median and mode. Deviations are variance, sum of squares,
standard deviation etc. ANOVA will employ ‘sum of squares’ as a measure of deviation
in order to determine the result.
Variance is the average squared deviation of a data point from the mean value of normal
distribution. Sum of squares is essentially the variance, but not averaged. Sum of squares
(SS) needs to be calculated both between groups and within groups.
Important terms and formulae of ANOVA are given in table 7.2. This table will act as an
ANOVA result table, where, ‘N’ denotes number of observations, ‘n’ denotes number of
groups, subscripts ‘b’, ‘w’ and ‘t’ mean between, within and total respectively.
Once F-ratio is determined arithmetically, one needs to find out the corresponding F-ratio
value from the F-distribution table using the degrees of freedom dfb and dfw. The ‘Table
of critical values for the F distribution (for use with ANOVA)’ table from the University
of Sussex was used for this purpose (table 7.3).
If the calculated value is lesser than the observed value, then null hypothesis is accepted
and it would mean all models are similar and that the parameters of printing did not have
an adverse impact on the deviations. If the calculated value is greater than the observed
value, the converse is true.

19
 Table 7.2: ANOVA result table and formulae.

Source of Degrees of
Sum of Squares Mean of SS F ratio calc.
variance freedom

n (X )
n 2
Between dfb = n - 1 SSb = j j − Xt MSb = SSb/dfb
j =1

 ( X )
n N 2
Within dfw = N - n SSw = ij −Xj MSw = SSw/dfw Fcalc.= MSb/ MSw
j =1 i =1

 ( X )
n N 2
Total dft = N - 1 SSt = ij − Xt
j =1 i =1

Microsoft Excel is used to perform the one-way ANOVA test. Firstly, the deviations are
tabulated systematically. Then, a combination of excel formulae and equations have been
employed to find the values in table 7.2.
The following functions from excel have been useful in the ANOVA test.

1) MIN: MIN(number1, [number2], ...) - Returns the smallest number in a set of values.
2) AVERAGE: AVERAGE(number1, [number2], ...) - Returns the arithmetic mean of
the arguments.
3) INDEX: INDEX(reference, row_num, [column_num], [area_num]) - Returns the
reference of the cell at the intersection of a particular row and column.
MATCH: MATCH(lookup_value, lookup_array, [match_type]) - The MATCH
function searches for a specified item in a range of cells, and then returns the relative
position of that item in the range.
4) COUNT: COUNT(value1, [value2], ...) - The COUNT function counts the number of
cells that contain numbers, and counts numbers within the list of arguments.
5) VAR.S: VAR.S(number1,[number2],...]) - Estimates variance based on a sample
(ignores logical values and text in the sample).

It must be noted that, INDEX and MATCH functions are used for performing lookups.
They are used in conjunction with each other. This is simply known as INDEX and
MATCH. VAR.S function is used to calculate the variance of a sample of sample size less
than 25, as opposed to VAR.P which is used for a sample size greater than 25, considered
as a population.

20
 Table 7.3: Critical values of F for the 0.05 significance level.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 161.45 199.50 215.71 224 .58 230.16 233.99 236.77 238.88 240.54
2 18.51 19.00 19.16 19.25 19.30 19.33 19.35 19.37 19.39
3 10. 13 9.55 9.28 9.12 9.01 8.94 8.89 8.85 8.81
4 7.71 6.94 6.59 6.39 6.26 6.16 6.09 6.04 6.00
5 6.61 5.79 5.41 5.19 5.05 4.95 4.88 4.82 4.77
6 5.99 5.14 4.76 4.53 4.39 4.28 4.21 4.15 4. 10
7 5.59 4.74 4.35 4.12 3.97 3.87 3.79 3.73 3.68
8 5.32 4.46 4.07 3.84 3.69 3.58 3.50 3.44 3.39
9 5.12 4.26 3.86 3.63 3.48 3.37 3.29 3.23 3.18
10 4.97 4.10 3.71 3.48 3.33 3.22 3.14 3.07 3.02
11 4.84 3.98 3.59 3.36 3.20 3.10 3.01 2.95 2.90
12 4.75 3.89 3.49 3.26 3.11 3.00 2.91 2.85 2.80
13 4.67 3.81 3.41 3.18 3.03 2.92 2.83 2.77 2.71
14 4.60 3.74 3.34 3.11 2.96 2.85 2.76 2.70 2.65
15 4.54 3.68 3.29 3.06 2.90 2.79 2.71 2.64 2.59
16 4.49 3.63 3.24 3.01 2.85 2.74 2.66 2.59 2.54
17 4.45 3.59 3.20 2.97 2.81 2.70 2.61 2.55 2.49
18 4.41 3.56 3.16 2.93 2.77 2.66 2.58 2.51 2.46
19 4.38 3.52 3.13 2.90 2.74 2.63 2.54 2.48 2.42
20 4.35 3.49 3.10 2.87 2.71 2.60 2.51 2.45 2.39
21 4.33 3.47 3.07 2.84 2.69 2.57 2.49 2.42 2.37
22 4.30 3.44 3.05 2.82 2.66 2.55 2.46 2.40 2.34
23 4.28 3.42 3.03 2.80 2.64 2.53 2.44 2.38 2.32
24 4.26 3.40 3.01 2.78 2.62 2.51 2.42 2.36 2.30
25 4.24 3.39 2.99 2.76 2.60 2.49 2.41 2.34 2.28
26 4.23 3.37 2.98 2.74 2.59 2.47 2.39 2.32 2.27
27 4.21 3.35 2.96 2.73 2.57 2.46 2.37 2.31 2.25
28 4.20 3.34 2.95 2.71 2.56 2.45 2.36 2.29 2.24
29 4.18 3.33 2.93 2.70 2.55 2.43 2.35 2.28 2.22
30 4.17 3.32 2.92 2.69 2.53 2.42 2.33 2.27 2.21
31 4.16 3.31 2.91 2.68 2.52 2.41 2.32 2.26 2.20
32 4.15 3.30 2.90 2.67 2.51 2.40 2.31 2.24 2. 19
33 4.14 3.29 2.89 2.66 2.50 2.39 2.30 2.24 2. 18
34 4.13 3.28 2.88 2.65 2.49 2.38 2.29 2.23 2. 17
35 4.12 3.27 2.87 2.64 2.49 2.37 2.29 2.22 2. 16
36 4. 11 3.26 2.87 2.63 2.48 2.36 2.28 2.21 2. 15
37 4. 11 3.25 2.86 2.63 2.47 2.36 2.27 2.20 2. 15
38 4. 10 3.25 2.85 2.62 2.46 2.35 2.26 2.19 2. 14
39 4.09 3.24 2.85 2.61 2.46 2.34 2.26 2.19 2. 13
40 4.09 3.23 2.84 2.61 2.45 2.34 2.25 2.18 2. 12

21
7.3. PERFORMING ANOVA
For Curling
Slope values for curling have been recorded in table 6.1. This table will be essential to
perform ANOVA test for curling between the four samples. Fig. 7.2 shows the data table
for performing ANOVA in MS Excel.
‘Means within groups’ for cell E4 was calculated using the formula ‘AVERAGE(C4:D4)’.
It is understood that subsequent cells employ the same formula with a variation in the
arguments. This holds true for all formulae that will be discussed about henceforth.
Similarly, Overall mean = AVERAGE(C4:D7).

Fig. 7.2: ANOVA data table for curling.

‘Least deviation’ in cell C8 is given by ‘MIN(C4:C7)’. ‘Corresponding sample no.’ for

cell C9 is found using INDEX and MATCH as,
INDEX($B$4:$B$7,MATCH(MIN(C4:C7),C4:C7,0),1)
Next step is to calculate the values needed for ANOVA result table. These are given as,
• N = COUNT(C4:D7)
• n = COUNT(C4:C7)
• SSb = VAR.S(E4:E7)*H14*COUNT(C4:D4)
• SSw = (VAR.S(C4:D4)*(COUNT(C4:D4)-1)) + (VAR.S(C5:D5)*(COUNT(C4:D4)-1))
+ (VAR.S(C6:D6)*(COUNT(C4:D4)-1)) + (VAR.S(C7:D7)*(COUNT(C4:D4)-1))
• SSt = F16*VAR.S(C4:D7)

where, cell H14 contains dfb, and cell F16 contains dft. The results have been tabulated
below in table 7.4.

22
 Table 7.4: ANOVA result table for curling.

Source of Degrees of Sum of

Mean of SS F ratio calc.
variance freedom Squares

Between 3 0.053922 0.017974

Within 4 0.002292 0.000573 31.36795
Total 7 0.056214

The F value from the distribution table (table 7.3) comes out to be 6.59. This value is
clearly less than the calculated value of 31.37. This means that the null hypothesis can be
rejected, and one of the models is clearly different from the rest.
To what extent the said model differs can be inferred from table 6.1, which gives the
slope of curling. It turns out that model 8 has the least slope and thus the least amount of
curling.

For Hexagonal Prism

The data from table 7.1 has been used to construct an ANOVA data table in MS Excel for
hexagonal prism (fig. 7.3).

Fig. 7.3: ANOVA data table for hexagonal prism.

Formulae used for construction of result table:

• N = COUNT(C4:K7)
• n = COUNT(C4:C7)
• SSb = VAR.S(L4:L7)*I14*COUNT(C4:K4)
• SSw = (VAR.S(C4:K4)*(COUNT(C4:K4)-1)) + (VAR.S(C5:K5)*(COUNT(C4:K4)-1))
+ (VAR.S(C6:K6)*(COUNT(C4:K4)-1)) + (VAR.S(C7:K7)*(COUNT(C4:K4)-1))
• SSt = G16*VAR.S(C4:K7)

23
where, cell I14 contains dfb, and cell G16 contains dft. The results have been tabulated
below in table 7.5.

Table 7.5: ANOVA result table for hexagonal prism.

Source of Degrees of Sum of

Mean of SS F ratio calc.
variance freedom Squares

Between 3 0.030298 0.010099

Within 32 1.050857 0.032839 0.307536528
Total 35 1.081155

The F value from table 7.3 comes out to be 2.9. Since this value is higher than the
calculated value, we accept the null hypothesis that these four models are identical
regarding geometric characteristics of the hexagonal prism.

For Triangular Prism

Fig. 7.4: ANOVA data table for triangular prism.

Formulae used for construction of result table:

• N = COUNT(C4:G7)
• n = COUNT(C4:C7)
• SSb = VAR.S(H4:H7)*I14*COUNT(C4:G4)
• SSw = (VAR.S(C4:G4)*(COUNT(C4:G4)-1)) + (VAR.S(C5:G5)*(COUNT(C4:G4)-1))
+ (VAR.S(C6:G6)*(COUNT(C4:G4)-1)) + (VAR.S(C7:G7)*(COUNT(C4:G4)-1))
• SSt = G16*VAR.S(C4:G7)

24
where, cell I14 contains dfb, and cell G16 contains dft. The results have been tabulated
below in table 7.6.

Table 7.6: ANOVA result table for triangular prism.

Source of Degrees of Sum of

Mean of SS F ratio calc.
variance freedom Squares

Between 3 0.256564 0.085521

Within 16 0.759945 0.047497 1.800581
Total 19 1.016509

The F value from table 7.3 comes out to be 3.24. Since this value is higher than the
calculated value, we accept the null hypothesis that these four models are identical
regarding geometric characteristics of the triangular prism.

For Cylinder

Fig. 7.5: ANOVA data table for cylinder.

Formulae used for construction of result table:

• N = COUNT(C4:D7)
• n = COUNT(C4:C7)
• SSb = VAR.S(E4:E7)*H14*COUNT(C4:D4)
• SSw = (VAR.S(C4:D4)*(COUNT(C4:D4)-1)) + (VAR.S(C5:D5)*(COUNT(C4:D4)-1))
+ (VAR.S(C6:D6)*(COUNT(C4:D4)-1)) + (VAR.S(C7:D7)*(COUNT(C4:D4)-1))
• SSt = F16*VAR.S(C4:D7)

25
where, cell H14 contains dfb, and cell F16 contains dft. The results have been tabulated
below in table 7.7.

Table 7.7: ANOVA result table for cylinder.

Source of Degrees of Sum of

Mean of SS F ratio calc.
variance freedom Squares

Between 3 0.006345 0.002115

Within 4 0.055397 0.013849 0.152713
Total 7 0.061742

The F value from table 7.3 comes out to be 6.59. Since this value is higher than the
calculated value, we accept the null hypothesis that these four models are identical
regarding geometric characteristics of the cylinder.

For Square Prism

Fig. 7.6: ANOVA data table for square prism.

Formulae used for construction of result table:

• N = COUNT(C4:L7)
• n = COUNT(C4:C7)
• SSb = VAR.S(M4:M7)*J14*COUNT(C4:L4)
• SSw = (VAR.S(C4:L4)*(COUNT(C4:L4)-1)) + (VAR.S(C5:L5)*(COUNT(C4:L4)-1))
+ (VAR.S(C6:L6)*(COUNT(C4:L4)-1)) + (VAR.S(C7:L7)*(COUNT(C4:L4)-1))
• SSt = H16*VAR.S(C4:L7)

where, cell J14 contains dfb, and cell H16 contains dft. The results have been tabulated
below in table 7.8.

26
 Table 7.8: ANOVA result table for square prism.

Source of Degrees of Sum of

Mean of SS F ratio calc.
variance freedom Squares

Between 3 0.058647 0.019549

Within 36 0.407298 0.011314 1.727898
Total 39 0.465946

The F value from table 7.3 comes out to be 2.87. Since this value is higher than the
calculated value, we accept the null hypothesis that these four models are identical
regarding geometric characteristics of the square prism.

7.4. S/N RATIO

Signal-to-noise ratio is used to compare the level of a desired signal to that of background
noise. Here, ‘signal’ refers to any nominal value, and ‘noise’ is any undesired deviation.
The L9 orthogonal array will be used to create a response table, where warping is
considered the only response. Previously, geometric characteristics between the selected
four models were found to be of no significant difference. Hence, only warping is
considered as a response. This analysis will help determine which of the four parameters
affect warping the most.
Taguchi’s ‘smaller the better’ formula needs to be used here since warping is undesired
and it must be minimized. The formula is given as,

S  n yi2 
= −10 log   
N  i =1 n 

Where, yi stands for the response (here, warping). Average warping is considered by
taking the mean of slopes in the ZX and ZY planes (table 6.1).
Note that warping data is not available for rejected models and hence considered ‘1’. This
will not affect the Main effect plots significantly. Any higher value with considerable
difference from those of models 4, 5, 7, and 8 will be undesirable, and can be entered in
the table (table 7.9). For the sake of observability, this value is chosen as 1.

27
 Table 7.9: Response table by L9 array.

Print Speed Infill density Layer Thickness Raster Warping

(mm/min) (%) (mm) Orientation (°) (y1)
1800 40 0.1 0/90 1
1800 60 0.2 -45/45 1
1800 80 0.3 Quasi 1
2400 40 0.2 Quasi 0.091
2400 60 0.3 0/90 0.162
2400 80 0.1 -45/45 1
3600 40 0.3 -45/45 0.252
3600 60 0.1 Quasi 0.032
3600 80 0.2 0/90 1

The table was loaded into Minitab statistical software. The Taguchi L9 array was defined
by the first four columns, with 3 levels and 4 factors. Response column was selected as
‘Warping (y1)’. The array was analysed, and the response table for S/N ratios is given in
table 7.10. It is observed that Infill density with a delta value of 15.24 is the most
influential parameter, followed by printing speed with a delta value of 13.96. Raster
orientation (delta = 12.91) and layer thickness (delta = 3.03) are ranked third and fourth
respectively.

Table 7.10: Response table for S/N ratios.

Print Speed Infill Layer Thickness Raster

Level
(mm/min) density (%) (mm) Orientation (°)
1 0.0000 10.9304 9.9657 3.9907
2 12.2096 15.2356 6.9397 5.2699
3 13.9563 0.0000 9.2606 16.9054
Delta 13.9563 15.2356 3.0259 12.9147
Rank 2 1 4 3

28
 Fig. 7.7: Main effects plot for S/N ratios.

7.5. REGRESSION ANALYSIS

A multiple linear regression is done to identity the relationships between multiple
independent variables that affect a common dependent variable. A general regression is of
k
the form, yˆ =  bi xi + a +  , where ŷ is the dependent variable, xi is the ith independent
i =1

variable, bi is the slope of the ith independent variable, a is a constant and ε is the residual
error (the difference between fitted value and observed value). In the case of this project,
warping is the response/dependent variable and the predictors/independent variables are
print speed, infill density, layer thickness and raster orientation.
Table 7.9 was fed into Minitab. Print speed (x1), infill density (x2) and layer thickness (x3)
were chosen as continuous predictors and raster orientation (x4) was chosen as a categoric
predictor with 3 levels. Since these 3 levels are non-integer, and just different categories,
it will give rise to 3 regression equations, one for each level of raster orientation. The
regression model was fitted and data was obtained. Regression equations are as follows,

• -45/45: yˆ = 0.833 − 0.000271 x1 + 0.01381 x2 −1.03 x3

• 0/90: yˆ = 0.803 − 0.000271 x1 + 0.01381 x2 −1.03 x3
• Quasi: yˆ = 0.457 − 0.000271 x1 + 0.01381 x2 −1.03 x3

Residual plots for warping were plotted. The normal probability plot suggests an

29
approximately linear pattern consistent with normal distribution (as assumed for
ANOVA). It also suggests that there are no outliers. The residual vs. fits plot shows that
the points are scattered randomly on either side of the zero line. This suggests a constant
variance.

a) b)

Fig. 7.8: Residual plots for warping: a) Normal probability plot b) Residuals vs. fits plot.

30
 8. MISCELLANEOUS METHODS
Nylon 6 has water absorption rate of 3.5% under normal conditions. The nylon spool, if
kept in open air will absorb atmospheric moisture. This can be prevented to an extent by
storing the filament in a sealed package and in a less humid environment. However, this is
not enough. Heat treatment of the filament maybe required. A hot air oven of K.S.M.
Laboratory make was chosen for this purpose. The filament spool was kept in the oven
and temperature was set to 75 °C. The preheating must not damage the spool, i.e., over
heating may reduce the strength of the nylon and can cause problems during extrusion.
Hence, a temperature value much lower than its melting point was chosen. The spool was
kept in the heating chamber for 7-8 hours before it was taken out and stored in an air tight
package.

Fig. 8.1: Filament spool inside heating chamber.

Furthermore, rafts, brims and skirts can prove to be useful in reducing warping. Rafts and
brims increase surface adhesion, and skirts can be used to print a wall around the model in
order to guard the actual print from air movement which may cause premature cooling.
Printing temperature was also reduced gradually as the layers progressed, keeping the
bottom most layers hotter than the subsequent ones. This gave the bottom layers sufficient
time to cool and enables even cooling of all layers. The starting temperature was kept at
245 °C and subsequently reduced by 5 °C till 4 layers up.
Model 8 was reprinted to verify the statistical analysis done prior. These printing and
treatment practices ensured a better print with low warping, in combination with the
optimized process parameters.

31
 9. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Based on ANOVA findings, as far as warping is concerned, model no. 8 produces the best
results, with low warping. This can be attributed to its printing parameters such as fast
printing speed, better infill pattern, decent infill density and low layer height. However,
the geometric characteristics of all four models are equally good, and the parameters did
not considerably affect them.
The main effects plot for S/N ratios suggest that model 8’s combination of parameters
yields a better print with low warping, under smaller the better condition. This verifies the
CMM analysis and ANOVA findings.
Common sense would have it that 80%, or even 100%, infill density yields lowest
warping. However, higher infill percentages lead to lower printing speeds, and thus
uneven cooling. This could prove detrimental to the surface quality of the printed model,
by causing warping. The interaction caused by the combination of these parameters is
best illustrated by the main effects plot which suggests that an infill of 60% is superior
compared to 80% when print speed and other factors are taken into account.
Regression equations can be used to find warping for a given raster orientation, provided,
the other continuous predictors are known.

32
 10. CONCLUSION
The response table for S/N ratios suggests that infill density is the most influential
parameter that affects warping, followed by print speed, raster orientation and layer
height respectively. The main effects plot verifies CMM results and ANOVA findings
that model 8 is of superior quality in terms of warping.
The test artifact designed successfully aids in the quantification of warping in FDM
printed nylon models. This can be used in other cases of warping as well. The method
used to quantify, along with the test artifact, has filled a gap in most existing researches
that did not attempt to shed light on quantification of warping. This method and model
can be further refined for future researches. The reprint came out to be successful due to a
combination of better printing practices and optimized parameters.

33
 REFERENCES
[1] Azimi, P. et al. (2016) ‘Emissions of Ultrafine Particles and Volatile Organic Compounds
from Commercially Available Desktop Three-Dimensional Printers with Multiple
Filaments’, Environmental Science and Technology, 50(3), pp. 1260–1268. doi:
10.1021/acs.est.5b04983.
[2] Beniak, J., Križan, P. and Matúš, M. (2015) ‘A comparison of the tensile strength of
plastic parts produced by a fused deposition modeling device’, Acta Polytechnica, 55(6),
pp. 359–365. doi: 10.14311/AP.2015.55.0359.
[3] Celestine, A. D. N., Agrawal, V. and Runnels, B. (2020) ‘Experimental and numerical
investigation into mechanical degradation of polymers’, Composites Part B: Engineering,
201. doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2020.108369.
[4] Comb, J. W. J., Priedeman, W. W. R. and Turley, P. W. (1994) ‘Control parameters and
material selection criteria for fused deposition modeling’, Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Rapid Prototyping, pp. 163–70. Available at:
`http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a277718.pdf#page=94.
[5] Dey, A. and Yodo, N. (2019) ‘A systematic survey of FDM process parameter
optimization and their influence on part characteristics’, Journal of Manufacturing and
Materials Processing, 3(3). doi: 10.3390/jmmp3030064.
[6] Farina, I. et al. (2019) ‘High-Performance Nylon-6 Sustainable Filaments for Additive
Manufacturing’, Materials, 12(23), p. 3955. doi: 10.3390/ma12233955.
[7] Gosavi, A. and Cudney, E. (2012) ‘Form errors in precision metrology: A survey of
measurement techniques’, Quality Engineering, 24(3), pp. 369–380. doi:
10.1080/08982112.2011.652583.
[8] GUO, Y. et al. (2021) ‘Thermal performance of a 3D printed lattice-structure heat sink
packaging phase change material’, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 34(5), pp. 373–385.
doi: 10.1016/j.cja.2020.07.033.
[9] Hu, Q. et al. (2020) ‘Oriented to multi-branched structure unsupported 3D printing
method research’, Materials, 13(9), pp. 1–15. doi: 10.3390/MA13092023.
[10] Hu, X. and Gong, X. (2021) ‘Experimental study on the thermal response of PCM-based
heat sink using structured porous material fabricated by 3D printing’, Case Studies in
Thermal Engineering, 24(December 2020), p. 100844. doi: 10.1016/j.csite.2021.100844.
[11] Jafferson, J. M. and Sharma, H. (2021) ‘Thermal analysis of novel heat-sink fins for FDM
3D printer liquefier’, Materials Today: Proceedings, 46(March), pp. 1187–1194. doi:
10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.063.
[12] Kam, M., İpekçi, A. and Şengül, Ö. (2021) ‘Taguchi Optimization of Fused Deposition
Modeling Process Parameters on Mechanical Characteristics of PLA + Filament
Material’, pp. 1–21.
[13] Kruth, J.-P. et al. (2005) ‘Benchmarking Of Different SLS/SLM Processes As Rapid
Manufacturing Techniques’, Proceedings of the Int. Conf. Polymers & Moulds
Innovations (PMI), Part F1290, pp. 177–181. doi: 10.3850/2424-8967_V02-N778.
[14] Ligon, S. C. et al. (2017) ‘Polymers for 3D Printing and Customized Additive
Manufacturing’, Chemical Reviews, 117(15), pp. 10212–10290. doi:
10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00074.
[15] Maia, J. et al. (2016) ‘Rheology in Materials Engineering’, RHEOLOGY, 2(March 2016).
[16] Maurya, N. K., Rastogi, V. and Singh, P. (2019) ‘Comparative study and measurement of
form errors for the component printed by FDM and polyjet process’, Instrumentation
Mesure Metrologie, 18(4), pp. 353–359. doi: 10.18280/i2m.180404.
[17] Medellin-Castillo, H. I. and Zaragoza-Siqueiros, J. (2019) ‘Design and Manufacturing
Strategies for Fused Deposition Modelling in Additive Manufacturing: A Review’,

34
 Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering (English Edition), 32(1). doi:
10.1186/s10033-019-0368-0.
[18] Mejri, M. et al. (2017) ‘Fatigue life and residual strength of a short- natural-fiber-
reinforced plastic vs Nylon’, Composites Part B: Engineering, 110, pp. 429–441. doi:
10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.036.
[19] Mostafa, K. G., Montemagno, C. and Qureshi, A. J. (2018) ‘Strength to cost ratio analysis
of FDM Nylon 12 3D Printed Parts’, Procedia Manufacturing, 26(August), pp. 753–762.
doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.086.
[20] Moylan, S. et al. (2012) ‘Proposal For A Standardized Test Artifact For Additive
Manufacturing Machines And Processes’, Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pp.
902–920. Available at: https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=911953.
[21] Richardson, M. J. et al. (2017) ‘Flame retardant nylon 6 nanocomposites for fused
deposition modeling (FDM) applications’, International SAMPE Technical Conference,
(July), pp. 230–244.
[22] Sai, P. C. and Yeole, S. (2001) ‘Fused Deposition Modeling’, (December 2014). doi:
10.1201/9780203910795.ch8.
[23] Shahrubudin, N., Lee, T. C. and Ramlan, R. (2019) ‘An overview on 3D printing
technology: Technological, materials, and applications’, Procedia Manufacturing, 35, pp.
1286–1296. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.06.089.
[24] Singh, J., Singh, R. and Sharma, S. (2021) ‘Effect of processing parameters on
mechanical properties of FDM filament prepared on single screw extruder’, Materials
Today: Proceedings, (June). doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.06.166.
[25] Singh, R., Singh, J. and Singh, S. (2016) ‘Investigation for dimensional accuracy of AMC
prepared by FDM assisted investment casting using nylon-6 waste based reinforced
filament’, Measurement: Journal of the International Measurement Confederation, 78,
pp. 253–259. doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2015.10.016.
[26] Singh, S. and Singh, R. (2016) ‘Experimental investigations for use of nylon6 industrial
waste as FDM feedstock filament for investment casting applications’, Indian Journal of
Engineering and Materials Sciences, 23(2–3), pp. 181–187.
[27] Sodeifian, G., Ghaseminejad, S. and Yousefi, A. A. (2019) ‘Preparation of
polypropylene/short glass fiber composite as Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM)
filament’, Results in Physics, 12(November 2018), pp. 205–222. doi:
10.1016/j.rinp.2018.11.065.
[28] Spoerk, M., Holzer, C. and Gonzalez-Gutierrez, J. (2020) ‘Material extrusion-based
additive manufacturing of polypropylene: A review on how to improve dimensional
inaccuracy and warpage’, Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 137(12), pp. 1–16. doi:
10.1002/app.48545.
[29] Wang, X. et al. (2017) ‘3D printing of polymer matrix composites: A review and
prospective’, Composites Part B: Engineering, 110, pp. 442–458. doi:
10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.11.034.
[30] Wickramasinghe, S., Do, T. and Tran, P. (2020) ‘FDM-Based 3D printing of polymer and
associated composite: A review on mechanical properties, defects and treatments’,
Polymers, 12(7), pp. 1–42. doi: 10.3390/polym12071529.
[31] Wu, T., Ozpineci, B. and Ayers, C. (2016) ‘Genetic algorithm design of a 3D printed heat
sink’, Conference Proceedings - IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and
Exposition - APEC, 2016-May, pp.
[32] 3529–3536. doi: 10.1109/APEC.2016.7468376. Zhang, Y. et al. (2020) ‘A physical
investigation of wear and thermal characteristics of 3D printed nylon spur gears’,
Tribology International, 141(September 2019), p. 105953. doi:
10.1016/j.triboint.2019.105953.

35