Technical-Economical Study on the Optimization of FDM Parameters for the Manufacture of PETG and ASA Parts

Dragos Valentin Iacob; Dragos Gabriel Zisopol; Mihail Minescu

doi:10.3390/polym16162260

Abstract

The article presents the results of the technical–economical study regarding the optimization of fused deposition modeling (FDM) parameters (the height of the layer deposited in one pass—L_h and the filling percentage—I_d) for the manufacture of Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol (PETG) and Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate (ASA) parts. To carry out this technical–economical study, was used the fundamental principle of value analysis, which consists of maximizing the ratio between V_i and C_p, where V_i represents the mechanical characteristic, and C_p represents the production cost. The results of the study show that for tensile specimens made of PETG, the parameter that significantly influences the results of the V_i/C_p ratios is the height of the layer deposited in one pass, (L_h), and in the case of the compression specimens made of PETG, the parameter that significantly influences the results of the V_i/C_p ratios is filling percentage (I_d). In the case of specimens manufactured via FDM from ASA, the parameter that decisively influences the results of the V_i/C_p ratios of the tensile and compression specimens is the filling percentage (I_d). By performing optimization of the process parameters with multiple responses, we identified the optimal parameters for FDM manufacturing of parts from PETG and ASA: the height of the layer deposited in one pass, L_h = 0.20 mm, and the filling percentage, I_d = 100%.

Keywords:

three-dimensional printing; FDM; value analysis; printing parameters; optimization; PETG; ASA; tensile; compressive

1. Introduction

Additive manufacturing consists of making components by successively adding material layer by layer, according to the instructions specified by the G-Code file [1,2,3,4]. Additive manufacturing technologies have experienced continuous evolution since their inception, and due to their significant advantages over formative and subtractive technologies, these technologies are now widely used in many industrial sectors [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. The major advantages of additive manufacturing technologies are represented by the efficiency of the use of materials (the amount of technological residues is negligible), the manufacturing of complex geometries without basing and fixing elements, and the low consumption of electricity [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].

The additive manufacturing process represents a major innovation in the field of manufacturing, enabling the transformation of digital concepts into physical objects [29,30,31,32,33,34]. This process encompasses several essential steps to ensure the transition from digital design to the final physical product:

-: CAD conceptualization;
-: Saving the CAD model and converting it into STL format;
-: Generating the G-Code file;
-: Equipment preparation, construction, extraction and use of parts.

In [4], innovative strategies are presented for the technical–economical optimization of the parameters of 3D printing via FDM (L_h—the height of the deposited layer in one pass; I_d—the filling percentage). To optimize the parameters, the value analysis method was used, which consists of maximizing the ratio between the use value (V_i) and the production cost (C_p). The use value is represented by the mechanical characteristics. The results of the study show that of the two parameters considered (L_h and I_d), the height of the layer deposited at one pass decisively influences the bending resistance, and I_d categorically influences the resistance to breaking and compression, but also the hardness. The optimal parameters for printing PLA via FDM are L_h 0.15 mm and I_d 100%, those for heat-treated PLA are 0.20 mm and I_d 100%, and those for ABS are L_h 0.15 mm and I_d 100%.

In [35], the authors present a study on the optimization of FDM parameters (I_d—filling percentage; L_h—height of the deposited layer in one pass; W_n—number of walls; E_t—extruder temperature; P_s—printing speed; B_t—platform temperature; N_l—the number of lower and upper layers; I_p—the filling pattern) to minimize energy consumption, but without affecting the traction characteristics. The conclusions show that the parameters that categorically influence the energy consumption, but also the traction characteristics, are I_d, L_h, W_n, and B_t, and their optimal values are as follows: I_d—90%; L_h—0.30 mm; W_n—4; B_t—60 °C.

In [36], a study is presented on the optimization of FDM parameters (N_d—extrusion nozzle diameter; W_n—number of walls; E_t—extruder temperature; I_d—filling percentage; I_p—filling pattern) to reduce the printing time, but without affecting the mechanical properties of the parts. The results of the study show that the parameters that decisively influence the printing time are as follows: N_d, I_d, and W_n. Research suggests that a larger nozzle diameter (N_d = 0.60 mm), four outer shells (W_n = 4), and a 10% infill (I_d = 10%) can reduce print time without compromising mechanical characteristics.

In [37], the authors presents a study regarding the impact of FDM parameters (L_h—height of the deposited layer in one pass; E_t—extruder temperature; P_s—printing speed; B_t—platform temperature) on the compression behavior of samples made of PLA filament, and its use in biomedical and clinical applications is investigated. The considered FDM parameters significantly influenced the mechanical properties, and statistical simulations and SEM (scanning electron microscopy) analyses showed the ability to improve the mechanical properties. The conclusions of the study show that the highest value of the compressive strength (C_s) was obtained for the samples made with the following parameters: L_h = 0.10 mm; T_e = 205 °C, B_t = 60 and P_s = 50 mm/min. ANOVA certified that the parameter that decisively influences the compressive strength (C_s) is the height of the layer deposited at one pass (L_h).

In [9], a study is presented on the influence of the filling pattern (I_p) on the compressive strength of parts manufactured via FDM from PLA. In this context, 28 samples were manufactured on the Anycubic 4 Max Pro 2.0 3D printer using seven filling patterns (Grid, Tri-Hexagon, Octet, Triangles, Cubic subdivision, Gyroid, Cross-3D). The dimensions of the specimens were measured before and after the compression test using a DeMeet 3D coordinate measuring machine. The results show a minimum printing accuracy of 98.98% and a maximum deformation value of 57.70% for the specimens with the Triangles fill pattern. The highest values of compressive strengths were obtained for the specimens with the Triangles filling pattern. To establish the optimal option from a technical–economical point of view, a maximization of the ratio between the use value (V_i) and the production cost (C_p) was carried out, this ratio being one of the fundamental technical–economical principles of the value analysis. The Cubic subdivision fill pattern is the most efficient method for the FDM fabrication of PLA compression specimens using lattice structures.

Additive manufacturing technologies have significant potential to contribute to sustainability in various industries, with the main benefits being waste reduction, optimizing the use of materials, reducing energy consumption, the use of sustainable materials, and integration of the production and consumption model based on circularity [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51].

Table 1 details the main additive manufacturing technologies, including the components, operating principles, and advantages and disadvantages of each technology.

Table 1. The main additive manufacturing technologies [31].

In the following, attention will be paid to the use of additive manufacturing technology through thermoplastic extrusion, this being one of the most widespread additive manufacturing technologies due to its ease of use, but also because of its low costs of equipment and materials (see Table 1).

This paper presents a technical–economical study regarding the optimization of the FDM parameters (L_h—the height of the layer deposited in one pass and I_d—the filling percentage) for the manufacture of tensile and compression specimens from PETG and ASA. The novelty of this study consists in the application of the fundamental principle of value analysis (AV), which aims to maximize the ratio between the use value (V_i) and the production cost (C_p). Thus, we will establish the optimal FDM parameters for the manufacture of tensile and compression specimens from PETG and ASA.

2. Materials and Methods

The variable parameters of FDM used in the manufacture of tensile and compression specimens from PETG and ASA are the height of the deposited layer in one pass, L_h = (0.10/0.15/0.20) mm and the filling percentage I_d = (50/75/100)%. The mechanical properties of tensile (tensile strength, percentage elongation at break and elastic modulus) and compressive (compressive stress), were previously determined by the authors in works [48,49], respectively [50,51].

Using the parameters from Table 2, 54 tensile specimens (27 of PETG and 27 of ASA), in accordance with [52], and 90 compression specimens (45 of PETG and 45 of ASA) were manufactured on the Anycubic Pro Max 2.0 3D printer (Shenzhen, China), in accordance with [53]. Tensile and compression specimens made from Everfil PETG and ASA filament on the Anycubic Pro Max 2.0 3D printer were tested on the Barrus White 20 kN universal testing machine.

Table 2. FDM printing parameters used to manufacture tensile and compressive samples from PETG and ASA [48,49,50,51].

Table 3 shows the technical specifications of the Everfil filament used in the manufacture of tensile and compression specimens from PETG and ASA. Adapted with permission from [54,55], 2024, 3DKORDO.

Table 3. Recommended printing parameters and physical properties of Everfil PETG and ASA filament.

Following the realization of the experimental determinations for the two types of mechanical tests (tension and compression), as well as the calculation of the production cost for each set of samples, a technical–economical study on the optimization of the FDM parameters was carried out. To establish the optimal variant, the fundamental principle of value analysis was used, which is presented in relation 1, and which consists of maximizing the ratio between the use value (V_i) and the production cost (C_p) [4,9,56,57,58,59]. This fundamental principle of value analysis is an effective tool for multi-objective optimization processes because it is value-driven and cost-effective, and it simplifies the decision process because it offers clear and easy-to-follow objective functions.

\frac{V_{i}}{C_{p}} \to m a x

(1)

where V_i represents the value in use (mechanical characteristic), and C_p represents the production cost expressed in monetary units.

Minitab 19 software was used to optimize the ratio between V_i and C_p. To calculate the production cost, the following relationship was used [4,9,56,57,58,59]:

C_{p} = Q_{m a t} \times P_{m a t} + P_{t} \times E_{c} \times P_{e n}

(2)

where

C_{p}

represents the production cost (EUR);

C_{m a t}

represents the cost of the material (EUR);

C_{e n}

represents the energy cost (EUR);

Q_{m a t}

represents the quantity of used material (g);

P_{m a t}

represents the material price (EUR/g);

P_{t}

represents the printing time (h);

E_{c}

represents the energy consumption (kW);

P_{e n}

represents the price of electrical energy (euro/kWh).

The following constant values were used to perform the economical calculations:

P_{m}

= 0.22 Euro/g (for PETG);

P_{m}

= 0.23 Euro/g (for ASA);

P_{e n}

= 0.25 kW/h;

E_{c}

= 0.23 kW/h [60]. The material consumption and print time values for each set of samples were generated by Cura Slicer version 5.7.2, [61].

The dimensions and test conditions of the tensile and compression specimens are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Testing conditions and samples dimensions for experimental investigation.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Applications of Value Analysis for Analyzing the Mechanical Behavior of PETG and ASA 3D-Printed Samples

3.1.1. Tensile Testing

Table 5 and Table 6 show the results obtained from the application of relation 2 and the determination of the production cost for the tensile specimens manufactured via FDM from PETG and ASA.

Table 5. Cost calculation for PETG samples used for tensile testing.

Table 6. Cost calculation for ASA samples used for tensile testing.

FDM parameters impact the mechanical behavior of parts made of PETG and ASA, but also the consumption of electricity [35]. The results of the V_i/C_p ratio are shown in Table 7 and Table 8.

Table 7. Determination of V_i/C_p ratio for tensile samples made from PETG.

Table 8. Determination of V_i/C_p ratio for tensile samples made from ASA.

Figure 1 graphically shows the values of the ratios between V_i (ultimate tensile strength) and C_p (production cost) of the samples manufactured via FDM from PETG and ASA.

Figure 1. Determination of V_i/C_p ratio for tensile samples made from PETG and ASA.

Analyzing Figure 1, we notice that the highest value of the ratio between V_i (ultimate tensile strength) and C_p (production cost) was obtained for the set of specimens made of ASA with the layer height deposited at a pass of L_h = 0.20 mm and with a percentage of filling of I_d = 100%. In the case of specimens made of PETG, the highest value of the ratio between V_i and C_p was obtained for the set of specimens with the layer height deposited at a pass of L_h = 0.20 mm and with a filling percentage of I_d = 100%. Comparing the minimum and maximum results of the V_i/C_p ratios of the ASA samples with those obtained for the PETG samples, it was found that for the ASA samples, the results are 13.94–37.23 % higher compared to the results of the V_i/C_p ratios of the samples made from PETG.

Using the Minitab 19 software, we performed ANOVA (analysis of variances), which includes sets of statistical methods and procedures used to analyze differences between means, [62]. In our study, we used ANOVA to evaluate the relationship between the FDM parameters (L_h and I_d) and the result of the ratio between V_i (ultimate tensile strength) and C_p (production cost) [42]. Figure 2 shows the result of the ANOVA.

Figure 2. Main effects plots for tensile strength: (a) PETG; (b) ASA.

Analyzing Figure 2, we observe how the two considered parameters (L_h and I_d) affect the result of the V_i/C_p ratio of the tensile specimens made of PETG (Figure 2a) and ASA (Figure 2b). According to Figure 2a, the layer height deposited in one pass (L_h) was the parameter that significantly influenced the result of the V_i/C_p ratio of the tensile specimens made of PETG. Analyzing Figure 2b, we notice that the filling percentage (I_d) was the parameter that decisively influenced the result of the V_i/C_p ratio of the tensile specimens made of ASA. The same conclusions are suggested by the Pareto charts shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Pareto charts for tensile strength: (a) PETG; (b) ASA.

3.1.2. Compressive Testing

Table 9 and Table 10 present the results obtained following the application of relation 2 and the determination of the production cost for the compression specimens manufactured via FDM from PETG and ASA.

Table 9. Cost calculation for PETG samples used for compressive testing.

Table 10. Cost calculation for ASA samples used for compressive testing.

Table 11 and Table 12 show the V_i/C_p results for the compression specimens manufactured via FDM from PETG and ASA.

Table 11. Determination of V_i/C_p ratio for compressive samples made from PETG.

Table 12. Determination of V_i/C_p ratio for compressive samples made from ASA.

Figure 4 graphically shows the values of the ratios between V_i (compressive strength) and C_p (cost of production) of the samples manufactured via FDM from PETG and ASA.

Figure 4. Determination of V_i/C_p ratio for compressive samples made from PETG and ASA.

Analyzing Figure 4, we notice that the highest value of the ratio between V_i (compressive strength) and C_p (cost of production) was obtained for the set of samples made of ASA with the height of the layer deposited at a pass of L_h = 0.20 mm and with a filling percentage of I_d = 100%. In the case of specimens made of PETG, the highest value of the ratio between V_i and C_p was obtained for the set of specimens with the layer height deposited at a pass of L_h = 0.20 mm and with a filling percentage of I_d = 100%. Comparing the minimum and maximum results of the V_i/C_p ratios of the ASA samples with those obtained for the PETG samples, it is found that for the ASA samples the results are 12.47–20.42% higher compared to the results of the V_i/C_p ratios of the samples made from PETG.

Figure 5 shows the results of the ANOVA, during which the relationship between the FDM parameters (L_h and I_d) and the result of the ratio between V_i (compressive strength) and C_p (production cost) was studied.

Figure 5. Main effects plots for compressive strength: (a) PETG; (b) ASA.

Analyzing Figure 6, we observe how the two considered parameters of FDM (L_h and I_d) affect the result of the V_i/C_p ratio of compression specimens made of PETG (Figure 5a) and ASA (Figure 5b). According to Figure 6a, the filling percentage (I_d) is the parameter that significantly influences the V_i/C_p ratio result of compression specimens made of PETG. Analyzing Figure 5b, we notice that the filling percentage (I_d) is the parameter that decisively influences the result of the V_i/C_p ratio of the ASA compression specimens. The same conclusions are suggested by the Pareto charts shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Pareto charts for compression strength: (a) PETG; (b) ASA.

3.2. Optimization of FDM Parameters Based on Value Analysis for Improving the 3D Printing Efficiency for Samples Made of PETG and ASA

Using Minitab 19, the FDM parameters presented in Table 2 and the results obtained via applying the fundamental principle of value analysis by maximizing the V_i/C_p ratio, we optimized the FDM parameters with the aim of achieving technical–economical efficiency.

To optimize the FDM parameters, we used the desirability method, where the goal was to maximize the values of the ratios between V_i and C_p for each type of mechanical test (tension and compression) and each type of material (PETG and ASA). Table 13 presents optimization objectives for each studied material.

Table 13. Optimization goals for analyzed materials (PETG and ASA).

For the desirability study, we used the following relationships [3]:

D = (d_{1} \cdot d_{2} \cdot \dots {\cdot d}_{n}) 1

(3)

d_{i} = 0, i f y_{i} < L_{i} d_{i} = \frac{(y_{i} - L_{i}) \cdot r_{i}}{(T_{i} - L_{i})}, i f L_{i} \leq y_{i} \leq T_{i} d_{i} = 1, i f y_{i} > T_{i}

(4)

where

D

—composite desirability; n—number of responses;

d_{i} —

the desirability for each individual response,

y_{i}, L_{i}, T_{i}

—the predicted value, target value, and lowest value, respectively, of the analyzed response of response.

Table 14 shows the composite desirability for each printing parameter and each type of material.

Table 14. Composite desirability.

Figure 7 shows the plots of FDM parameter optimizations for the manufacture of PETG and ASA samples.

Figure 7. Optimization plots for 3D-printed materials: (a) PETG; (b) ASA.

Analyzing Figure 7, we observe how each factor (column) influences the composite desirability response (row). The vertical solid red lines indicate the current setting of the factors, and the red numbers on each column indicate the current level of the factors. The blue horizontal dashed lines indicate the responses corresponding to the current factor settings, and the blue numbers indicate the response corresponding to the current factor settings.

According to Figure 7a, following the optimization process of the FDM parameters for PETG, the results of the optimal settings were as follows: layer height (L_h) = 0.20 mm and infill density (I_d) = 100%. Analyzing Figure 7b, we notice that following the optimization process of the FDM parameters for ASA, the results of the optimal settings were as follows: layer height (L_h) = 0.20 mm and infill density (I_d) = 100%. Increasing the layer height per pass (L_h) has a significant impact on print time; this leads to lower power consumption, and thus lower production costs. The decrease in the height of the layer deposited at a pass (L_h) has a direct impact on production costs, but also on maintenance costs, which increase considerably.

4. Conclusions

This paper presents the results of a technical–economical study regarding the optimization of FDM parameters for the manufacture of PETG and ASA parts. In this context, we carried out multi-objective optimization with the aim of finding the optimal FDM parameters (L_h—the height of the deposited layer in one pass; I_d—the filling percentage) for the manufacture of PETG and ASA parts. Following the determination of the mechanical characteristics (tensile and compression) of the specimens manufactured via FDM from PETG and ASA, but also the determination of the production cost for each set of specimens, using the fundamental principle of value analysis by maximizing the V_i/C_p ratio, we achieved the technical–economical optimization of the FDM parameters.

Layer height at one pass (L_h) and infill density (I_d) are crucial parameters for 3D printing via FDM. This conclusion is highlighted in many studies, such as [4,33,34,35,36,37,48,49,50,51]. L_h has an impact on layer adhesion, surface finish, and defects, and a smaller layer height generates higher tensile strength and compressive strength. I_d has an impact on the internal structure; a higher infill density generates higher tensile and compressive strength.

The results of the ANOVA show that the two FDM parameters considered (L_h—the height of the layer deposited in one pass; I_d—the filling percentage) influence the results of the V_i/C_p ratios. For tensile specimens made of PETG, the parameter that significantly influences the results of the V_i/C_p ratios is L_h, the height of the layer deposited in one pass, and in the case of compression specimens made of PETG, the parameter that significantly influences the results of the V_i/C_p ratios is I_d—the filling percentage.

In the case of specimens manufactured via FDM from ASA, the parameter that decisively influences the results of the V_i/C_p ratios of the tensile and compression specimens is I_d—the filling percentage.

Using the results of the V_i/C_p ratios for the tensile and compression specimens made of PETG and ASA, we found the optimal FDM parameters: L_h = 0.20 mm and I_d = 100%.

The results of the study have applicability for the efficient exploitation of 3D printers for the manufacture of PETG and ASA parts via FDM.

For the next direction of study, our proposition is to extrapolate the study to other types of materials such as recycled PETG and recycled ASA, but also to other types of mechanical tests such as resilience, flexural, and hardness testing. Also, we want to perform microscopic analyses on parts to investigate microstructure and interface adhesion condition. For the ASA and recycled ASA parts, we plan to choose a broader range of infill densities, I_d = (25; 50; 75; 100) %, and layer heights, L_h = (0.10; 0.15; 0.20; 0.25; 0.30), mm to capture non-linear trends of ASA parts. For the achievement of the desired objectives, a new FDM 3D printer was purchased (Piocreat G5 Pro), and we were able to manufactured samples via FDM from granular material.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.G.Z., M.M. and D.V.I.; methodology, D.G.Z., M.M. and D.V.I.; validation, D.G.Z. and M.M.; formal analysis, D.G.Z.; investigation, D.G.Z., M.M. and D.V.I.; resources, D.G.Z., M.M. and D.V.I.; writing—original draft preparation, D.V.I.; writing—review and editing, D.G.Z., M.M. and D.V.I.; visualization, D.G.Z., M.M. and D.V.I.; supervision, D.G.Z. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

Amaya-Rivas, J.L.; Perero, B.S.; Helguero, C.G.; Hurel, J.L.; Peralta, J.M.; Flores, F.A.; Alvarado, J.D. Future trends of additive manufacturing in medical applications: An overview. Heliyon 2024, 10, e26641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Srivastava, M.; Rathee, S. Additive manufacturing: Recent trends, applications and future outlooks. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2021, 7, 261–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
D’addona, D.; Raykar, S.J.; Singh, D.; Kramar, D. Multi Objective Optimization of Fused Deposition Modeling Process Parameters with Desirability Function. Procedia CIRP 2021, 99, 707–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zisopol, D.G.; Tănase, M.; Portoacă, A.I. Innovative Strategies for Technical-Economical Optimization of FDM Production. Polymers 2023, 15, 3787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kothandaraman, L.; Balasubramanian, N.K. Optimization of FDM printing parameters for square lattice structures: Improving mechanical characteristics. Mater. Today Proc. 2024; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sheoran, A.J.; Kumar, H. Fused Deposition modeling process parameters optimization and effect on mechanical properties and part quality: Review and reflection on present research. Mater. Today: Proc. 2020, 21, 1659–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ghosh, M.; D’souza, N.A. Improved Mechanical Performance in FDM Cellular Frame Structures through Partial Incorporation of Faces. Polymers 2024, 16, 1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hassine, S.B.H.; Chatti, S.; Louhichi, B.; Seibi, A. Experimental Study of the Tensile Behavior of Structures Obtained by FDM 3D Printing Process. Polymers 2024, 16, 1562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zisopol, D.G.; Minescu, M.; Iacob, D.V. A Study on the Evaluation of the Compression Behavior of PLA Lattice Structures Manufactured by FDM. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2023, 13, 11801–11806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tagliaferri, V.; Trovalusci, F.; Guarino, S.; Venettacci, S. Environmental and Economic Analysis of FDM, SLS and MJF Additive Manufacturing Technologies. Materials 2019, 12, 4161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ponticelli, G.S.; Venettacci, S.; Tagliaferri, F.; Guarino, S. Fused deposition modelling for aeronautics: Techno-economic and environmental assessment for overhead locker supports replacement. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2023, 128, 3817–3840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Amithesh, S.R.; Shanmugasundaram, B.; Kamath, S.; Adhithyan, S.S.; Murugan, R. Analysis of dimensional quality in FDM printed Nylon 6 parts. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2023, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ciornei, M.; Iacobici, R.I.; Savu, I.D.; Simion, D. FDM 3D Printing Process—Risks and Environmental Aspects. Key Eng. Mater. 2021, 890, 152–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zhai, C.; Wang, J.; Tu, Y.; Chang, G.; Ren, X.; Ding, C. Robust optimization of 3D printing process parameters considering process stability and production efficiency. Addit. Manuf. 2023, 71, 103588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wei, H.; Tang, L.; Qin, H.; Wang, H.; Chen, C.; Li, Y.; Wang, C. Optimizing FDM 3D printing parameters for improved tensile strength using the Takagi–Sugeno fuzzy neural network. Mater. Today Commun. 2024, 38, 108268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fountas, N.A.; Zaoutsos, S.; Chaidas, D.; Kechagias, J.D.; Vaxevanidis, N.M. Statistical modelling and optimization of mechanical properties for PLA and PLA/Wood FDM materials. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, 93, 824–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ermergen, T.; Taylan, F. Investigation of DOE model analyses for open atmosphere laser polishing of additively manufactured Ti-6Al-4V samples by using ANOVA. Opt. Laser Technol. 2024, 168, 109832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Singh, D.P.; Dwivedi, V.K.; Agarwal, M. Application of the DoE approach to the fabrication of cast Al₂O₃-LM6 composite material and evaluation of its mechanical and microstructural properties. Mater. Today Proc. 2023; ISSN 2214-7853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Singh, B.J.; Kalra, G. Mixture DoE: A strategic approach for multi-response optimization of AA1100 metal-matrix hybrid composites. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 50, 1480–1495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nyabadza, A.; Mc Donough, L.M.; Manikandan, A.; Ray, A.B.; Plouze, A.; Muilwijk, C.; Freeland, B.; Vazquez, M.; Brabazon, D. Mechanical and antibacterial properties of FDM additively manufactured PLA parts. Results Eng. 2024, 21, 101744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fountas, N.A.; Papantoniou, I.; Kechagias, J.D.; Manolakos, D.E.; Vaxevanidis, N.M. Modeling and optimization of flexural properties of FDM-processed PET-G specimens using RSM and GWO algorithm. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 138, 106340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sandhu, G.S.; Sandhu, K.S.; Boparai, K.S. Effect of extrudate geometry on surface finish of FDM printed ABS parts. Mater. Today Proc. 2024. ISSN 2214-7853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kumar, M.P.; Saravanakumar, K.; Kumar, C.A.; Saravanakumar, R.; Abimanyu, B. Experimental investigation of the process parameters and print orientation on the dimensional accuracy of fused deposition modelling (FDM) processed carbon fiber reinforced ABS polymer parts. Mater. Today Proc. 2024, 98, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Camposeco-Negrete, C. Optimization of FDM parameters for improving part quality, productivity and sustainability of the process using Taguchi methodology and desirability approach. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 5, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jatti, V.S.; Sapre, M.S.; Jatti, A.V.; Khedkar, N.K.; Jatti, V.S. Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Components Using Fused Deposition Modeling: Optimization Using the Desirability Approach and Machine Learning Regressor. Appl. Syst. Innov. 2022, 5, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rivera-López, F.; Pavón, M.M.L.; Correa, E.C.; Molina, M.H. Effects of Nozzle Temperature on Mechanical Properties of Polylactic Acid Specimens Fabricated by Fused Deposition Modeling. Polymers 2024, 16, 1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Almuflih, A.S.; Abas, M.; Khan, I.; Noor, S. Parametric Optimization of FDM Process for PA12-CF Parts Using Integrated Response Surface Methodology, Grey Relational Analysis, and Grey Wolf Optimization. Polymers 2024, 16, 1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Van, C.N.; Le Hoang, A.; Long, C.D.; Hoang, D.N. Surface Roughness in Metal Material Extrusion 3D Printing: The Influence of Printing Orientation and the Development of a Predictive Model. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2023, 13, 11672–11676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zisopol, D.G.; Minescu, M.; Iacob, D.V. A Theoretical-Experimental Study on the Influence of FDM Parameters on the Dimensions of Cylindrical Spur Gears Made of PLA. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2023, 13, 10471–10477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dev, S.; Srivastava, R. Experimental investigation and optimization of FDM process parameters for material and mechanical strength. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 26, 1995–1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Iacob, D.V. Stadiul Actual al Cercetărilor în Domeniul Fabricației Additive. Ph.D. Thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, Petroleum-Gas University, Ploiesti, Romania, May 2024. [Google Scholar]
Zisopol, D.G. Ingineria Valorii; Editura Universitătății Petrol-Gaze din Ploiești: Ploiesti, Romania, 2004; ISBN 973-7965-96-5. [Google Scholar]
Zisopol, D.G.; Nae, I.; Portoaca, A.I.; Ramadan, I. A Theoretical and Experimental Research on the Influence of FDM Parameters on Tensile Strength and Hardness of Parts Made of Polylactic Acid. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2021, 11, 7458–7463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zisopol, D.G.; Nae, I.; Portoaca, A.I. Compression Behavior of FFF Printed Parts Obtained by Varying Layer Height and Infill Percentage. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2022, 12, 9747–9751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ramadan, S.; Altwarah, Q.; Abu-Shams, M.; Alkurdi, D. Optimizing tensile strength and energy consumption for FDM through Mixed-Integer Nonlinear Multi-objective optimization and design of experiments. Heliyon 2024, 10, e30164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Le, L.; Rabsatt, M.A.; Eisazadeh, H.; Torabizadeh, M. Reducing print time while minimizing loss in mechanical properties in consumer FDM parts. Int. J. Light. Mater. Manuf. 2022, 5, 197–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rahman, M.; Sultana, J.; Bin Rayhan, S.; Ahmed, A. Optimization of FDM manufacturing parameters for the compressive behavior of cubic lattice cores: An experimental approach by Taguchi method. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2023, 129, 1329–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Belarbi, B.; Ghernaout, M.E.A.; Benabdallah, T. Implementation of a New Geometrical Qualification (DQ) Method for an Open Access Fused Filament Fabrication 3D Printer. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2019, 9, 4182–4187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Park, H.S.; Tran, N.H.; Hoang, V.T.; Bui, V.H. Development of a Prediction System for 3D Printed Part Deformation. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2022, 12, 9450–9457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Subramonian, S.; Kadirgama, K.; Al-Obaidi, A.S.M.; Salleh, M.S.M.; Vatesh, U.K.; Pujari, S.; Rao, D.; Ramasamy, D. Artificial Neural Network Performance Modeling and Evaluation of Additive Manufacturing 3D Printed Parts. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2023, 13, 11677–11684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Anh, N.T.; Quynh, N.X.; Tung, T.T. Study on Topology Optimization Design for Additive Manufacturing. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2024, 14, 14437–14441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ziółkowski, M.; Dyl, T. Possible Applications of Additive Manufacturing Technologies in Shipbuilding: A Review. Machines 2020, 8, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kanishka, K.; Acherjee, B. Revolutionizing manufacturing: A comprehensive overview of additive manufacturing processes, materials, developments, and challenges. J. Manuf. Process. 2023, 107, 574–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attaran, M. The rise of 3-D printing: The advantages of additive manufacturing over traditional manufacturing. Bus. Horiz. 2017, 60, 677–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dusanapudi, S.; Krupakaran, R.; Srinivas, A.; Nikhil, K.S.; Vamshi, T. Optimization and experimental analysis of mechanical properties and porosity on FDM based 3D printed ABS sample. Mater. Today Proc. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rahmatabadi, D.; Soleyman, E.; Bashi, M.F.M.; Aberoumand, M.; Soltanmohammadi, K.; Ghasemi, I.; Baniassadi, M.; Abrinia, K.; Bodaghi, M.; Baghani, M. 4D printing and annealing of PETG composites reinforced with short carbon fibers. Phys. Scr. 2024, 99, 055957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mirasadi, K.; Rahmatabadi, D.; Ghasemi, I.; Khodaei, M.; Baniassadi, M.; Baghani, M. Investigating the Effect of ABS on the Mechanical Properties, Morphology, Printability, and 4D Printing of PETG-ABS Blends. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2024, 309, 2400038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zisopol, D.G.; Minescu, M.; Iacob, D.V. A Study on the Influence of FDM Parameters on the Tensile Behavior of Samples made of PET-G. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2024, 14, 13487–13492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zisopol, D.G.; Minescu, M.; Iacob, D.V. A Study on the Influence of FDM Parameters on the Compressive Behavior of PET-G Parts. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2024, 14, 13592–13597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zisopol, D.G.; Minescu, M.; Iacob, D.V. A Study on the Influence of FDM Parameters on the Tensile Behavior of Samples made of ASA. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2024, 14, 15975–15980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zisopol, D.G.; Minescu, M.; Iacob, D.V. A Study on the influence of FDM parameters on the compressive behavior of ASA parts. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2024, preprint. [Google Scholar]
ASTM D638-14; Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics. ASTM: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2022.
ISO 604:2002; Plastics: Determination of Compressive Properties. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
Available online: https://3dkordo.eu/en/product/filament-everfil-petg-s10-diam-175mm-color-flame-red-weight-100kg-netto (accessed on 15 June 2024).
Available online: https://3dkordo.eu/en/product/filament-everfil-asa-l01-diam-175mm-color-red-weight-100kg-netto (accessed on 15 June 2024).
Zisopol, D.G. The Place and Role of Value Analysis in the Restructuring of Production (Case Study). Econ. Insights Trends Chall. 2012, 1, 27–35. [Google Scholar]
Minescu, M.; Zisopol, D.G. Sudarea Țevilor şi Fitingurilor din Polietilenă de Înaltă Densitate (HDPE Pipe & Fittings Welding); UPG Ploieşti Publishing House: Ploiesti, Romania, 2021. [Google Scholar]
Zisopol, D.G.; Dumitrescu, A. Ecotehnologie. Studii de caz; Editura Universității Petrol-Gaze din Ploiești: Ploiesti, Romania, 2021. [Google Scholar]
Zisopol, D. Tehnologii Industriale și de Construcții. Aplicații Practice și Studii de Caz; Editura Universității din Ploiești: Ploiesti, Romania, 2003. [Google Scholar]
Eurostat Statistics Explained. Electricity Price Statistics. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics (accessed on 15 June 2024).
Available online: https://ultimaker.com/software/ultimaker-cura/ (accessed on 10 June 2024).
Available online: https://www.minitab.com/en-us/ (accessed on 15 June 2024).

Figure 1. Determination of V_i/C_p ratio for tensile samples made from PETG and ASA.

Figure 2. Main effects plots for tensile strength: (a) PETG; (b) ASA.

Figure 3. Pareto charts for tensile strength: (a) PETG; (b) ASA.

Figure 4. Determination of V_i/C_p ratio for compressive samples made from PETG and ASA.

Figure 5. Main effects plots for compressive strength: (a) PETG; (b) ASA.

Figure 6. Pareto charts for compression strength: (a) PETG; (b) ASA.

Figure 7. Optimization plots for 3D-printed materials: (a) PETG; (b) ASA.

Table 1. The main additive manufacturing technologies [31].

Technology Name	Components	Details
Stereolitograpgy, (SL).	1—laser generator; 2—optic system; 3—galvanometric mirror; 4—laser beam; 5—construction platform; 6—piece; 7—blade.	Advantages: + high accuracy of parts; + high print speed. Disadvantages: - laborious post-processing of printed parts; - fragility of parts.
Digital exposure of light, (DEL).	1—digital projector; 2—UV light; 3—resin; 4—piece; 5—construction platform.	Advantages: + high quality of surfaces; + high print speed. Disadvantages: - high-cost materials; - limited print volume.
Layered manufacturing by laminating layers, (LMLL).	1—driven roller; 2—driving roller; 3—construction platform; 4—laser beam; 5—laser generator; 6—galvanometric mirror; 7—heated roller.	Advantages: + high-accuracy parts; + high-stability structures. Disadvantages: - significant loss of material. - laborious post-processing of printed objects.
Thermoplastic extrusion, (TE).	1—coil with material; 2—filament; 3—extruder; 4—extrusion nozzle; 5—piece; 6—construction platform.	Advantages: + simple technology; + low-cost materials and equipment. Disadvantages: - poor-quality surfaces of parts; - low printing speed.
Selective laser sinterising, (SLS).	1—laser generator; 2—laser beam; 3—galvanometer 4—construction platform; 5—raw material container; 6—blade.	Advantages: + high-resistance parts; + good precision of parts. Disadvantages: - poor quality of surfaces poor; - high-cost equipment and materials.
3D inkjet printing (3DP).	1—scraper blade; 2—enclosure with raw material; 3—work platform; 4—print head; 5—binder tank; 6—track.	Advantages: + high printing speed; + reduced costs for materials and equipment. Disadvantages: - fragile parts; - poor quality of surfaces poor.
Selective laser melting, (SLM).	1—laser generator; 2—laser beam; 3—galvanometer 4—construction platform; 5—raw material container; 6—blade.	Advantages: + use of high-performance materials; + high resistance of parts. Disadvantages: - high-cost equipment and materials; - long duration required for cooling parts.
Polyjet printing with photopolymers, (PJP).	1—liquid polymer tanks; 2—print head; 3—construction platform; 4—piece; 5—piece support.	Advantages: + good precision; + simple post-processing operations. Disadvantages: - weak resistance of parts; - high-cost materials.

Table 2. FDM printing parameters used to manufacture tensile and compressive samples from PETG and ASA [48,49,50,51].

Printing Parameters	PETG	ASA
Part orientation, P_o	X–Y	X–Y
Extruder temperature, E_t	250 °C	240 °C
Platform temperature, P_t	70 °C	90 °C
Printing speed, P_s	30 mm/s	30 mm/s
Infill pattern, I_p	Grid	Grid
Layer height, L_h	0.10/0.15/0.20 mm	0.10/0.15/0.20 mm
Infill density, I_d	50/75/100%	50/75/100%
Plate adhesion, P_a	Brim	Brim

Table 3. Recommended printing parameters and physical properties of Everfil PETG and ASA filament.

Materials	Recommended Printing Parameters		Physical Properties
Materials	Extruder Temperature, (°C)	Platform Temperature, (°C)	Density, (g/cm³)	Flexural Modulus, (MPa)	Charpy Impact Strength, (kJ/m²)
PETG ASA	220–250 240–260	70–90 90–110	1.29 1.07	2200 2100	33 23

Table 4. Testing conditions and samples dimensions for experimental investigation.

Mechanical Test	Testing Condition	Sample Dimensions
Tensile	ASTM D638-14 [52] speed 5 mm/min
Compression	ISO 604:2002 [53] speed 10 mm/min

Table 5. Cost calculation for PETG samples used for tensile testing.

Sample Set	L_h, (mm)	I_d, (%)	$C_{m a t}$ , (Euro)	$C_{e n}$ , (Euro)	$C_{p}$ , (Euro)
1	0.10	100%	0.99	1.01	2.00
2		75%	0.86	0.69	1.55
3		50%	0.73	0.60	1.33
4	0.15	100%	0.99	0.63	1.63
5		75%	0.86	0.48	1.34
6		50%	0.73	0.43	1.16
7	0.20	100%	0.99	0.51	1.51
8		75%	0.86	0.35	1.22
9		50%	0.73	0.31	1.04

Table 6. Cost calculation for ASA samples used for tensile testing.

Sample Set	L_h, (mm)	I_d, (%)	$C_{m a t}$ , (Euro)	$C_{e n}$ , (Euro)	$C_{p}$ , (Euro)
1	0.10	100%	1.04	1.01	2.05
2		75%	0.90	0.69	1.59
3		50%	0.76	0.60	1.36
4	0.15	100%	1.04	0.63	1.67
5		75%	0.90	0.48	1.38
6		50%	0.76	0.43	1.19
7	0.20	100%	1.04	0.51	1.55
8		75%	0.90	0.35	1.26
9		50%	0.76	0.31	1.07

Table 7. Determination of V_i/C_p ratio for tensile samples made from PETG.

Sample Set	Ultimate Tensile Strength, (MPa)	$C_{p}$ , (Euro)	V_i/C_p
1	28.25	2.00	14.11
2	22.66	1.55	14.64
3	18.76	1.33	14.10
4	25.34	1.63	15.56
5	19.85	1.34	14.82
6	16.61	1.16	14.38
7	24.29	1.51	16.11
8	18.72	1.22	15.40
9	15.48	1.04	14.87

Table 8. Determination of V_i/C_p ratio for tensile samples made from ASA.

Sample Set	Ultimate Tensile Strength, (MPa)	$C_{p}$ , (Euro)	V_i/C_p
1	43.24	2.05	21.12
2	26.01	1.59	16.39
3	22.69	1.36	16.63
4	40.13	1.67	23.98
5	23.46	1.38	17.01
6	20.87	1.19	17.56
7	39.87	1.55	25.66
8	21.46	1.26	17.09
9	18.82	1.07	17.51

Table 9. Cost calculation for PETG samples used for compressive testing.

Sample Set	L_h, (mm)	I_d, (%)	$C_{m a t}$ , (Euro)	$C_{e n}$ , (Euro)	$C_{p}$ , (Euro)
1	0.10	100%	0.22	0.29	0.51
2		75%	0.22	0.19	0.41
3		50%	0.22	0.16	0.38
4	0.15	100%	0.22	0.20	0.42
5		75%	0.22	0.13	0.35
6		50%	0.22	0.11	0.33
7	0.20	100%	0.22	0.15	0.37
8		75%	0.22	0.10	0.32
9		50%	0.22	0.08	0.30

Table 10. Cost calculation for ASA samples used for compressive testing.

Sample Set	L_h, (mm)	I_d, (%)	$C_{m a t}$ , (Euro)	$C_{e n}$ , (Euro)	$C_{p}$ , (Euro)
1	0.10	100%	0.23	0.29	0.52
2		75%	0.23	0.19	0.42
3		50%	0.23	0.16	0.39
4	0.15	100%	0.23	0.20	0.43
5		75%	0.23	0.13	0.36
6		50%	0.23	0.11	0.34
7	0.20	100%	0.23	0.15	0.38
8		75%	0.23	0.10	0.33
9		50%	0.23	0.08	0.31

Table 11. Determination of V_i/C_p ratio for compressive samples made from PETG.

Sample Set	Compressive Strength, (MPa)	$C_{p}$ , (Euro)	V_i/C_p
1	30.33	0.51	59.07
2	19.83	0.41	48.30
3	14.06	0.38	37.19
4	30.57	0.42	72.55
5	20.22	0.35	57.60
6	12.20	0.33	37.03
7	29.20	0.37	78.35
8	19.82	0.32	62.22
9	11.27	0.30	37.28

Table 12. Determination of V_i/C_p ratio for compressive samples made from ASA.

Sample Set	Compressive Strength, (MPa)	$C_{p}$ , (Euro)	V_i/C_p
1	38.04	0.52	72.65
2	28.58	0.42	67.94
3	16.42	0.39	42.30
4	34.43	0.43	79.78
5	25.85	0.36	71.59
6	15.04	0.34	44.32
7	37.68	0.38	98.45
8	28.54	0.33	86.86
9	16.45	0.31	52.66

Table 13. Optimization goals for analyzed materials (PETG and ASA).

Response	Goal	Lower		Target		Weight	Importance
Vi/Cp		PETG	ASA	PETG	ASA
Tensile [MPa/EUR]	Maximum	14.10	16.39	16.11	25.66	1	1
Compression [MPa/EUR]	Maximum	37.03	42.30	78.35	98.45	1	1

Table 14. Composite desirability.

Printing Parameters		Material
Layer Height, (mm)	Infill Density, (%)	PETG	ASA
Layer Height, (mm)	Infill Density, (%)	Composite Desirability	Composite Desirability
0.10	100	0.453350	0.56643
	75	0.168040	0.29452
	50	0.000000	0.01430
0.15	100	0.696297	0.80768
	75	0.405383	0.44291
	50	0.066163	0.05602
	100	0.917938	1.00000
0.20	75	0.615557	0.59118
	50	0.275221	0.09752

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.