Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of process variables on mechanical properties and material weight of acrylic butadiene styrene parts produced by fused filament fabrication

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

Abstract

Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) technology is popularizing in the world market for prototyping as well as end products of polymeric materials. The mechanical properties and material weight of components created by FFF prominently depend on several process parameters. The earlier studies are generally focused on optimizing FFF process parameters considering the single-objective problem. Investigating mechanical properties and material weight through advanced artificial intelligence-based techniques and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches was missing in the literature. This study investigates the mechanical properties and material weight of FFF produced acrylic butadiene styrene (ABS) part. Five process parameters are selected to examine their effect on mechanical strengths and material weight. The fracture modes of specimens loaded to Tinius Olson universal testing machine for mechanical tests are observed through scanning electron microscope (SEM). The mathematical modeling and multi-objective optimization performed through collective use of response surface methodology (RSM), artificial neural network (ANN), multi-objective genetic algorithm (GA) and MCDM approaches. The predicted results through proposed approaches are confirmed through experiments. The prediction error of RSM-GA-MCDM-based approach is 3.61, 3.54 and 1.32%, corresponding to tensile strength, flexural strength and material weight, respectively. Likewise, the prediction error of ANN-GA-MCDM is 6.45, 4.19 and 11.47%, respectively. The outcome of paper shows a significant improvement in mechanical properties with reduced material weight.

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
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

RSM:

Response surface methodology

CCD:

Central composite design

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

AI:

Artificial intelligence

GA:

Genetic algorithm

ANN:

Artificial neural network

MCDM:

Multi-criteria decision making

TOPSIS:

Technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution

FFF:

Fused filament fabrication

RO:

Raster orientation (°)

IF:

Infill (%)

SH:

Slice height (mm)

ET:

Extrusion temperature (°C)

PS:

Print speed (mm/s)

Y :

Response parameter

ɛ :

Residual error

y’:

Normalized data for ANN

r :

Row

c :

Column

u n :

Weight linking neurons

b n :

Bias value

w n :

Weight for neuron

N:

Neuron

References

  1. Koester L, Taheri H, Bond LJ et al (2016) Additive manufacturing metrology: state of the art and needs assessment. AIP Conf Proc 1706:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4940604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ASTM Standard F2792 12a (2012) Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/F2792-12A.

  3. Frazier WE (2014) Metal additive manufacturing: a review. J Mater Eng Perform 23:1917–1928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-014-0958-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mani M, Lyons KW, Gupta SK (2014) Sustainability characterization for additive manufacturing. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol 119:419–428. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.119.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang X, Gong X, Chou K (2015) Review on powder-bed laser additive manufacturing of Inconel 718 parts. J Eng Manuf 231:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405415619883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Guo N, Leu MC (2013) Additive manufacturing: technology, applications and research needs. Front Mech Eng 8:215–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-013-0248-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Singh S, Ramakrishna S, Singh R (2017) Material issues in additive manufacturing: a review. J Manuf Process 25:185–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2016.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Faujiya M (2016) Mechanical and viscoelastic properties of polylactic acid (PLA) materials processed through fused deposition modelling (FDM), Bachelor thesis, School of Engineering, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Technology Swinburne University of Technology Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia

  9. Jaisingh Sheoran A, Kumar H (2020) Fused deposition modeling process parameters optimization and effect on mechanical properties and part quality: Review and reflection on present research. Mater Today Proc 21:1659–1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2019.11.296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mohan N, Senthil P, Vinodh S, Jayanth N (2017) A review on composite materials and process parameters optimisation for the fused deposition modelling process. Virtual Phys Prototyp 12:47–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2016.1274490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mallesham P (2016) Overview of fused deposition modeling process parameters. In: 2nd National Conference on Developments, Advances & Trends in Engineering Science, pp 92–99

  12. Raney K, Lani E, Kalla DK (2017) Experimental characterization of the tensile strength of ABS parts manufactured by fused deposition modeling process. Mater Today Proc 4:7956–7961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.07.132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Srivastava M, Rathee S (2018) Optimisation of FDM process parameters by Taguchi method for imparting customised properties to components. Virtual Phys Prototyp 13:203–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2018.1440722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rathee S, Srivastava M, Maheshwari S, Noor A (2017) Effect of varying spatial orientations on build time requirements for FDM process : a case study. Def Technol 13:92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2016.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mohamed OA, Masood SH, Bhowmik JL (2016) Experimental investigations of process parameters influence on rheological behavior and dynamic mechanical properties of FDM manufactured parts. Mater Manuf Process 31:1983–1994. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2015.1127955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Vicente CMS, Leite M (2019) Influence of fused deposition modeling parameters on the mechanical properties of ABS parts. Polym Adv Technol 31:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/pat.4787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sarkar T, Salauddin M, Hazra SK, Chakraborty R (2020) Comparative study of predictability of response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network-particle swarm optimization (ANN-PSO) for total colour difference of pineapple fortified rasgulla processing. Int J Intell Networks 1:17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijin.2020.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dev S, Srivastava R (2020) Experimental investigation and optimization of FDM process parameters for material and mechanical strength. Mater Today Proc 26:1995–1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Panda SK, Padhee S, Sood AK, Mahapatra SS (2009) Optimization of Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) process parameters using bacterial foraging technique. Intell Inf Manag 1:89–97. https://doi.org/10.4236/iim.2009.12014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ahn S, Montero M, Odell D et al (2002) Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp J 8:248–257. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540210441166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Samykano M, Selvamani SK, Kadirgama K et al (2019) Mechanical property of FDM printed ABS: influence of printing parameters. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 102:2779–2796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Huang B, Meng S, He H et al (2018) Study of processing parameters in fused deposition modeling based on mechanical properties of acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene filament. Polym Eng Sci 59:120–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/pen.24875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vairis A, Petousis M, Vidakis N, Savvakis K (2016) On the strain rate sensitivity of ABS and ABS Plus fused deposition modeling parts. J Mater Eng Perform 25:3558–3565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-016-2198-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Uddin MS, Sidek MFR, Faizal MA et al (2017) Evaluating mechanical properties and failure mechanisms of fused deposition modeling acrylonitrile butadiene styrene parts. J Manuf Sci Eng Trans ASME 139:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4036713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 

  26. Dev S, Srivastava R (2021) Effect of infill parameters on material sustainability and mechanical properties in fused deposition modelling process: a case study. Prog Addit Manuf 6:631–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-021-00184-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yadav DK, Srivastava R, Dev S (2020) Design & fabrication of ABS part by FDM for automobile application. Mater Today Proc 26:2089–2093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.02.451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sun Q, Rizvi GM, Bellehumeur CT, Gu P (2008) Effect of processing conditions on the bonding quality of FDM polymer filaments. Rapid Prototyp J 2:72–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540810862028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bellehumeur C, Li L, Sun Q, Gu P (2004) Modeling of bond formation between polymer filaments in the fused deposition modeling process. J Manuf Proc 6:170–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1526-6125(04)70071-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Deshwal S, Kumar A, Chhabra D (2020) Exercising hybrid statistical tools GA-RSM, GA-ANN and GA-ANFIS to optimize FDM process parameters for tensile strength improvement. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 31:189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2020.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Savvakis K, Petousis M, Vairis A, Vidakis N, Bikmeyev A (2014) Experimental determination of the tensile strength of fused deposition modeling parts. ASME 2014 Int Mech Eng Congr Expo 14:V014T11A022

  32. Ziemian S, Okwara M, Ziemian CW (2015) Tensile and fatigue behavior of layered acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. Rapid Prototyp J 21:270–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-09-2013-0086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Taufik M, Jain PK (2013) Role of build orientation in layered manufacturing: a review. Int J Manuf Technol Manag 27:47–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang Y, Bernard A, Harik R, Karunakaran KP (2017) Build orientation optimization for multi-part production in additive manufacturing. J Intell Manuf 28:1393–1407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-015-1057-121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Liu J, Gaynor AT, Chen S et al (2018) Current and future trends in topology optimization for additive manufacturing. Struct Multidiscip Optim 57(6):2457–2483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-018-1994-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Paul R, Anand S (2014) Optimization of layered manufacturing process for reducing form errors with minimal support structures. J Manuf Syst 36:231–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2014.06.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Xu F, Loh HT, Wong YS (1999) Considerations and selection of optimal orientation for different rapid prototyping systems. Rapid Prototyp J 5:54–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552549910267344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Song R, Clemon L, Telenko C (2018) Uncertainty and variability of energy and material use by fused deposition modeling printers in makerspaces. J Ind Ecol 23:699–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Byun HS, Lee KH (2005) Determination of the optimal part orientation in layered manufacturing using a genetic algorithm. Int J Prod Res 43:2709–2724. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540500031857

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Tymrak BM, Kreiger M, Pearce JM (2014) Mechanical properties of components fabricated with open-source 3-D printers under realistic environmental conditions. Mater Des 58:242–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.02.038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Harris M, Potgieter J, Ray S, Archer R (2019) Preparation and characterization of thermally stable ABS/HDPE blend for fused filament fabrication. Mater Manuf Process 35:230–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/10426914.2019.1692355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Montgomery DCASU (2017) Design and analysis of experiments, 9th edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gupta SK, Pandey KN, Kumar R (2018) Artificial intelligence-based modelling and multi-objective optimization of friction stir welding of dissimilar AA5083-O and AA6063-T6 aluminium alloys. Proc IMechE Part L J Mater Des Appl 232:333–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464420715627293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Konak A, Coit DW, Smith AE (2006) Multi-objective optimization using genetic algorithms: A tutorial. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 91:992–1007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.11.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim K (2014) Business information system recovery priority decision using TOPSIS on interval data. J Syst Inf Technol 16:103–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSIT-12-2013-0068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Garg A, Bhattacharya A, Batish A (2017) Failure investigation of fused deposition modelling parts fabricated at different raster angles under tensile and flexural loading. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part B J Eng Manuf 231:2031–2039. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405415617447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nidagundi VB, Keshavamurthy R, Prakash CPS (2015) Studies on parametric optimization for fused deposition modelling process. Mater Today Proc 2:1691–1699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2015.07.097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Dong G, Wijaya G, Tang Y, Zhao YF (2018) Optimizing process parameters of fused deposition modeling by Taguchi method for the fabrication of lattice structures. Addit Manuf 19:62–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Asadollahi-yazdi E, Gardan J, Lafon P (2018) Toward integrated design of additive manufacturing through a process development model and multi-objective optimization. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 96:4145–4164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1880-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Director MNNIT Allahabad, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, India for providing necessary laboratory facilities. The Ministry of Education, Govt. of India, New Delhi, India, is acknowledged for providing financial assistance to Saty Dev throughout this tenure.

Funding

This research did not obtain any grant from funding agencies in the commercial, public, or not-for-profit divisions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, Prayagraj, 211004, India

    Saty Dev & Rajeev Srivastava

Authors
  1. Saty Dev
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rajeev Srivastava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Rajeev Srivastava: Designed the study and guided to perform experiments; Saty Dev: Performed the experiments, analysed the results, Writing- original draft preparation; All authors read and commented on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Saty Dev.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dev, S., Srivastava, R. Influence of process variables on mechanical properties and material weight of acrylic butadiene styrene parts produced by fused filament fabrication. Prog Addit Manuf 8, 143–158 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-022-00318-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40964-022-00318-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation