Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) has been the most widely used three-dimensional printing (3DP) technology due to its cost-effectiveness, easy application, and material readiness. FFF, to date, has been used to fabricate polymer components for rapid prototyping and increasingly for some end-user applications. Thus, there is a pressing need to optimize 3DP process parameters for FFF materials to achieve higher dimensional accuracy, especially in functional components for final use applications. Therefore, to ensure desired geometries with reasonable accuracy, precise measurements are required to validate the FFF process’s dimensional capability under different process conditions. This study presents the dimensional measurement and statistical analysis to evaluate the effect of printing materials, speed, and layer heights on dimensional accuracy and repeatability of the commercial FFF process. A benchmark part model was designed with different external and internal features commonly used in manufacturing processes. Taguchi’s design of experiments (DOE) was employed to obtain the experiments scheme, followed by the 3DP, dimensional measurement, and analysis of 3DP samples. Results revealed polylactic acid (PLA) material provided better dimensional control in most of the features. Higher printing speeds and layer heights were found optimum for external features/protrusions, whereas lower-to-medium speeds and layer heights were more appropriate for the fabrication of internal features.
Al RashidAKhanSAAl-GhamdiSG, et al. Additive manufacturing: Technology, applications, markets, and opportunities for the built environment. Automation in Construction2020; 118: 103268. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103268.
2.
Al RashidAKhanSAAl-GhamdiSG, et al.Additive manufacturing of polymer nanocomposites: needs and challenges in materials, processes, and applications. J Mater Res Tech2021; 14: 910–941. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2021.07.016.
3.
Al RashidAAhmedWKhalidM.YKocM,et al. Vat photopolymerization of polymers and polymer composites: Processes and applications. Addit Manuf2021; 47: 102279. DOI:10.1016/j.addma.2021.102279.
4.
YilmazBAl RashidAMouYA, et al. Bioprinting: a review of processes, materials and applications, Bioprinting2021; 23: e00148. DOI: 10.1016/j.bprint.2021.e00148.
5.
Al RashidAImranRArifZU, et al. Finite element simulation technique for evaluation of opening stresses under high plasticity. J Manufacturing Sci Eng2021; 143(12): 1–21. DOI: 10.1115/1.4051328.
6.
Al RashidAKoçM. Creep and recovery behavior of continuous fiber-reinforced 3DP composites. Polymers2021; 13(10): 1644. DOI: 10.3390/polym13101644.
7.
WuHFahyWPKimS, et al. Recent developments in polymers/polymer nanocomposites for additive manufacturing. Prog Mater Sci2020; 111: 100638. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmatsci.2020.100638.
8.
Al RashidAKhalidMYImranR, et al. Utilization of banana fiber-reinforced hybrid composites in the sports industry. Materials2020; 13(14): 3167. DOI: 10.3390/ma13143167.
9.
KhalidMYRashidAAArifZU, et al. Characterization of failure strain in fiber reinforced composites: under on-axis and off-axis loading. Crystals2021; 11: 216. DOI: 10.3390/cryst11020216.
10.
ChacónJMCamineroMANúñezPJ, et al. Additive manufacturing of continuous fibre reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modelling: effect of process parameters on mechanical properties. Composites Sci Tech2019; 181: 107688. DOI: 10.1016/j.compscitech.2019.107688.
11.
AkbaşOEHıraOHervanSZ, et al. Dimensional accuracy of FDM-printed polymer parts. Rapid Prototyping J2019; 26(2): 288–298. DOI: 10.1108/RPJ-04-2019-0115.
12.
MessimerSPereiraTPattersonA, et al. Full-density fused deposition modeling dimensional error as a function of raster angle and build orientation: Large dataset for eleven materials. J Manufacturing Mater Process2019; 3(1): 6. DOI: 10.3390/jmmp3010006.
13.
YadavDKSrivastavaRDevS. Design & fabrication of ABS part by FDM for automobile application. Mater Today Proc2020; 26: 2089–2093. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.451.
14.
Reyes-RodríguezADorado-VicenteRMayor-VicarioR. Dimensional and form errors of PC parts printed via Fused Deposition Modelling. Proced Manufacturing2017; 13: 880–887. Elsevier B.V. DOI: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.149.
15.
OuballouchAAlaijiREEttaqiS, et al. Evaluation of dimensional accuracy and mechanical behavior of 3D printed reinforced polyamide parts. Proced Struct Integrity2019; 19; 433–441. Elsevier B.V. DOI: 10.1016/j.prostr.2019.12.047.
16.
YadavDChhabraDGuptaRK, et al. Modeling and analysis of significant process parameters of FDM 3D printer using ANFIS. Mater Today Proc2020; 21: 1592–1604. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.227.
17.
AbeykoonCSri-AmphornPFernandoA. Optimization of fused deposition modeling parameters for improved PLA and ABS 3D printed structures. Int J Lightweight Mater Manufacture20203(3): 284–297. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlmm.2020.03.003.3
18.
TanotoYYAnggonoJSiahaanIH, et al. The effect of orientation difference in fused deposition modeling of ABS polymer on the processing time, dimension accuracy, and strength. AIP Conf Proc2017: 1–8. DOI: 10.1063/1.4968304.
19.
TanLJZhuWZhouK. Recent progress on polymer materials for additive manufacturing. Adv Funct Mater2020; 30(43): 2003062–2003154. DOI: 10.1002/adfm.202003062.
20.
AbdelaalOHeshmatMAbdelrhmanY. Experimental investigation on the effect of water-silica slurry impacts on 3D-Printed polylactic acid, Tribology Int2020; 151: 106410. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.triboint.2020.106410.
21.
HritucAMihalacheAMaresM, et al. Mechanical behaviour of 3D printed PLA hollow spherical parts under axial compression. Materiale Plastice2020; 57(1): 13–20. DOI: 10.37358/MP.20.1.5307.
22.
SagiasVDGiannakopoulosKIStergiouC. Mechanical properties of 3D printed polymer specimens. Proced Struct Integrity2018; 10: 85–90. Elsevier B.V. DOI: 10.1016/j.prostr.2018.09.013.
23.
KoçMAllenTJiratheranatS, et al. The use of FEA and design of experiments to establish design guidelines for simple hydroformed parts. Int J Machine Tools Manufacture2000; 40(15): 2249–2266, DOI: 10.1016/S0890-6955(00)00047-X.
24.
MahabunphachaiSCoraÖNKoçM. Effect of manufacturing processes on formability and surface topography of proton exchange membrane fuel cell metallic bipolar plates. J Power Sourc2010; 195(16): 5269–5277, DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.03.018.
25.
DevSSrivastavaR. Experimental investigation and optimization of FDM process parameters for material and mechanical strength. Mater Today Proc2020; 26: 1995–1999. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.435.
26.
Ajay KumarMKhanMSMishraSB. Effect of fused deposition machine parameters on tensile strength of printed carbon fiber reinforced pla thermoplastics. Mater Today Proc2020; 27: 1505–1510. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.033.
27.
KavehMBadrossamayMForoozmehrE, et al. Optimization of the printing parameters affecting dimensional accuracy and internal cavity for HIPS material used in fused deposition modeling processes. J Mater Process Tech2015; 226: 280–286. Elsevier B.V. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.07.012.
28.
Durga Prasada RaoVRajivPNavya GeethikaV. Effect of fused deposition modelling (FDM) process parameters on tensile strength of carbon fibre PLA. Mater Today Proc2019; 18: 2012–2018. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2019.06.009.
29.
NancharaiahTRajuDRRajuVR. An experimental investigation on surface quality and dimensional accuracy of FDM components. Int J Emerging Tech2010; 1(2): 106–111.
30.
SrinivasanRPridharTRamprasathLS, et al. Prediction of tensile strength in FDM printed ABS parts using response surface methodology (RSM). Mater Today Proc2020; 27: 1827–1832. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.788.
