Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparative analysis of printing parameter effects of tensile and flexural specimens produced with two different printers by the TAGUCHI method

  • Full Research Article
  • Published:
Progress in Additive Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fused deposition modeling (FDM), a prominent AM technique, involves the layer-by-layer deposition of material to construct objects. Various design and production process parameters influence the mechanical properties of FDM-printed components. This study aims to analyze and compare the impacts of printing parameters, specifically nozzle diameter, layer height, and printing speed, on the tensile and flexural properties of 3D-printed parts utilizing two distinct 3D printers. Polylactic acid (PLA) filament material was employed, and the printing parameters were determined based on prior research findings on mechanical properties. The temperature distribution of the printers was analyzed using a thermal camera during the production process. The Taguchi method was applied to ascertain the optimal parameter levels, and subsequently, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was executed to evaluate the significance of each parameter. Tensile and flexural tests were conducted on the printed samples, followed by an in-depth analysis of the results. The printer's structure has little effect on temperature distribution, but its impact on sample strength is uncertain. The results revealed that the printing parameters influenced the mechanical properties of the printed parts in different ways in the two unique printers. Printing speed was the most influential parameter for the Ender 3 V2, while layer height had the highest impact on the Ultimaker 2 + . The nozzle diameter also played a significant role in both printers. Visual analysis of the printed samples showed the printing parameters' effects on the printed lines' bonding and quality. This study provides insights into the effects of nozzle diameter, layer height, and printing speed on the tensile and flexural properties of the printed samples. The results contribute to understanding how different printers may require specific parameter settings to achieve optimal performance. Further research is recommended to explore additional parameters and materials, considering particular applications and their requirements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Alafaghani A, Qattawi A, Alrawi B, Guzman A (2017) Experimental Optimization of Fused Deposition Modelling Processing Parameters: A Design-for-Manufacturing Approach. Procedia Manuf 10:791–803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Popescu D, Zapciu A, Amza C et al (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.polymertesting.2018.05.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Yao T, Deng Z, Zhang K, Li S (2019) A method to predict the ultimate tensile strength of 3D printing polylactic acid (PLA) materials with different printing orientations. Compos B Eng 163:393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.01.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Demir S, Yüksel C (2023) Evaluation of effect and optimizing of process parameters for fused deposition modeling parts on tensile properties via Taguchi method. Rapid Prototyp J 29:720–730. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-06-2022-0201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Heidari-Rarani M, Ezati N, Sadeghi P, Badrossamay MR (2020) Optimization of FDM process parameters for tensile properties of polylactic acid specimens using Taguchi design of experiment method. J Thermoplast Compos Mater. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892705720964560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Durgun I, Ertan R (2014) Experimental investigation of FDM process for improvement of mechanical properties and production cost. Rapid Prototyp J 20:228–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-10-2012-0091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chacón JM, Caminero MA, García-Plaza E, Núñez PJ (2017) Additive manufacturing of PLA structures using fused deposition modelling: Effect of process parameters on mechanical properties and their optimal selection. Mater Des 124:143–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.03.065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. D’Amico AA, Debaie A, Peterson AM (2017) Effect of layer thickness on irreversible thermal expansion and interlayer strength in fused deposition modeling. Rapid Prototyp J 23:943–953. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-05-2016-0077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Raju M, Gupta MK, Bhanot N, Sharma VS (2019) A hybrid PSO–BFO evolutionary algorithm for optimization of fused deposition modelling process parameters. J Intell Manuf 30:2743–2758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-018-1420-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Akhoundi B, Behravesh AH (2019) Effect of Filling Pattern on the Tensile and Flexural Mechanical Properties of FDM 3D Printed Products. Exp Mech 59:883–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11340-018-00467-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chadha A, UlHaq MI, Raina A et al (2019) Effect of fused deposition modelling process parameters on mechanical properties of 3D printed parts. World Journal of Engineering 16:550–559. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJE-09-2018-0329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Durgashyam K, Indra Reddy M, Balakrishna A, Satyanarayana K (2019) Experimental investigation on mechanical properties of PETG material processed by fused deposition modeling method. Mater Today Proc 18:2052–2059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.06.082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schmitt M, Mehta RM, Kim IY (2020) Additive manufacturing infill optimization for automotive 3D-printed ABS components. Rapid Prototyp J 26:89–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2019-0007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pandelidi C, Maconachie T, Bateman S et al (2021) Parametric study on tensile and flexural properties of ULTEM 1010 specimens fabricated via FDM. Rapid Prototyp J 27:429–451. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-10-2019-0274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Butt J, Bhaskar R, Mohaghegh V (2022) Non-Destructive and Destructive Testing to Analyse the Effects of Processing Parameters on the Tensile and Flexural Properties of FFF-Printed Graphene-Enhanced PLA. J Comp Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcs6050148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yu W, Shi J, Sun L, Lei W (2022) Effects of Printing Parameters on Properties of FDM 3D Printed Residue of Astragalus/Polylactic Acid Biomass Composites. Molecules. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27217373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang P, Zou B, Ding S et al (2021) Effects of FDM-3D printing parameters on mechanical properties and microstructure of CF/PEEK and GF/PEEK. Chin J Aeronaut 34:236–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.05.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Camargo JC, Machado ÁR, Almeida EC, Silva EFMS (2019) Mechanical properties of PLA-graphene filament for FDM 3D printing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 103:2423–2443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03532-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Abeykoon C, Sri-Amphorn P, Fernando A (2020) Optimization of fused deposition modeling parameters for improved PLA and ABS 3D printed structures. Internat J Lightweight Mater Manufact 3:284–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlmm.2020.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Erdaş MU, Yıldız BS, Yıldız AR (2024) Experimental analysis of the effects of different production directions on the mechanical characteristics of ABS, PLA, and PETG materials produced by FDM. Mater Test 66:198–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/MT-2023-0206/MACHINEREADABLECITATION/RIS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mayén J, Del Carmen G-M, Pereyra I et al (2022) Descriptive and inferential study of hardness, fatigue life, and crack propagation on PLA 3D-printed parts. Mater Today Commun. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2022.103948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ngo TD, Kashani A, Imbalzano G et al (2018) Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials, methods, applications and challenges. Compos B Eng 143:172–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.02.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Torres J, Cole M, Owji A et al (2016) An approach for mechanical property optimization of fused deposition modeling with polylactic acid via design of experiments. Rapid Prototyp J 22:387–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-07-2014-0083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ben AN, Khlif M, Hammami D, Bradai C (2022) Optimization of structural parameters on hollow spherical cells manufactured by Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) using Taguchi method. Cell Polym 41:3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/02624893211043324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rajpurohit SR, Dave HK (2019) Analysis of tensile strength of a fused filament fabricated PLA part using an open-source 3D printer. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 101:1525–1536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-3047-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Atakok G, Kam M, Koc HB (2022) Tensile, three-point bending and impact strength of 3D printed parts using PLA and recycled PLA filaments: A statistical investigation. J Market Res 18:1542–1554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmrt.2022.03.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Dey A, Yodo N (2019) A Systematic Survey of FDM Process Parameter Optimization and Their Influence on Part Characteristics. J Manufact Mater Process 3(64):3–64

    Google Scholar 

  28. Demir S, Yüksel C, Akpınar F (2024) Investigation of the Mechanical Response of Hexagonal Lattice Cylindrical Structure Fabricated with Polylactic Acid 3D Printing. J Mater Eng Perform. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-024-09155-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vyavahare S, Teraiya S, Panghal D, Kumar S (2020) Fused deposition modelling: a review. Rapid Prototyp J 26:176–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-04-2019-0106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. ISO ASTM (2013) ISO/ASTM 52921: Standard terminology for additive manufacturing—Coordinate systems and test methodologies Terminologie. West Conshohocken, USA

    Google Scholar 

  31. ASTM (2015) ASTM D638–14: Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics. West Conshohocken, USA

    Google Scholar 

  32. ASTM (2017) ASTM D790–-7: Standard Test Methods for Flexural Properties of Unreinforced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Insulating Materials. USA

  33. Sabyrov N, Abilgaziyev A, Ali MH (2020) Enhancing interlayer bonding strength of FDM 3D printing technology by diode laser-assisted system. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 108:603–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05455-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Costa AE, Ferreira da Silva A, Sousa Carneiro O (2019) A study on extruded filament bonding in fused filament fabrication. Rapid Prototyp J 25:555–565. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-03-2018-0062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hıra O, Yücedağ S, Samankan S et al (2022) Numerical and experimental analysis of optimal nozzle dimensions for FDM printers. Progress Addit Manufact 7:823–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-021-00241-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Barreno-Avila AF, Monar-Naranjo M, Barreno-Avila EM (2021) Fusion deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing parameters correlation: An analysis of different polymers surface roughness. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 1173:012071. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1173/1/012071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tezel T, Kovan V (2022) Determination of optimum production parameters for 3D printers based on nozzle diameter. Rapid Prototyp J 28:185–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-08-2020-0185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kuznetsov VE, Tavitov AG, Urzhumtsev OD et al (2019) Hardware Factors Influencing Strength of Parts Obtained by Fused Filament Fabrication. Polymers 11:1870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ćwikła G, Grabowik C, Kalinowski K et al (2017) The influence of printing parameters on selected mechanical properties of FDM/FFF 3D-printed parts. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/227/1/012033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Christiyan KGJ, Chandrasekhar U, Venkateswarlu K (2016) A study on the influence of process parameters on the Mechanical Properties of 3D printed ABS composite. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 114:012109. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/114/1/012109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Santana L, Ahrens CH, Costa SabinoNetto A, Bonin C (2017) Evaluating the deposition quality of parts produced by an open-source 3D printer. Rapid Prototyp J 23:796–803. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-05-2016-0078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Gao G, Xu F, Xu J et al (2022) A Survey of the Influence of Process Parameters on Mechanical Properties of Fused Deposition Modeling Parts. Micromachines (Basel) 13:553. https://doi.org/10.3390/mi13040553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kuznetsov VE, Solonin AN, Urzhumtsev OD et al (2018) Strength of PLA components fabricated with fused deposition technology using a desktop 3D printer as a function of geometrical parameters of the process. Polymers (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym10030313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Maguluri N, Suresh G, Rao KV (2023) Assessing the effect of FDM processing parameters on mechanical properties of PLA parts using Taguchi method. J Thermoplast Compos Mater 36:1472–1488. https://doi.org/10.1177/08927057211053036

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by Doğuş University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit under grant number 2021–22-D1-B02.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Doğuş University, 34725, Istanbul, Turkey

    Sermet Demir & Caner Yüksel

Authors
  1. Sermet Demir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caner Yüksel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sermet Demir.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Demir, S., Yüksel, C. A comparative analysis of printing parameter effects of tensile and flexural specimens produced with two different printers by the TAGUCHI method. Prog Addit Manuf (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-024-00648-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-024-00648-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation