Journal of Materials Processing Technology 118 (2001) 385388

Critical parameters inuencing the quality of prototypes

in fused deposition modelling
R. Anithaa,*, S. Arunachalamb, P. Radhakrishnana
a

PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore 641 004, Tamilnadu, India

Manufacturing Engineering Subject Group, School of Engineering, Coventry University, Coventry, UK

Abstract
Rapid prototyping (RP) meets the current needs in the industry to shorten design cycles and improve the design quality. Fused deposition
modelling (FDM) is one of the key technologies of RP. Various process parameters used in FDM affect the quality of the prototype. Work
was undertaken to assess the inuence of the parameters on the quality characteristics of the prototypes using Taguchi technique. This paper
discusses the results of the study and the conclusions arrived from it. # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rapid prototyping; FDM; Taguchi

1. Introduction
Rapid prototyping (RP) technique is one of the most
promising techniques to reduce product development time
by way of realising the prototype or a prototype component
that can be directly used in assemblies, product testing, or
tooling for short or medium run production of the several RP
techniques widely used today, fused deposition modelling
(FDM) accounts for a signicant percentage of the machines
in use and almost half of the machines which are introduced
in the market belong to this category. Since this process
could be used for a variety of applications and the cost of
prototype is generally high, there is a need for optimising the
process parameters both from technological and economic
point of views. This work attempts to obtain optimum
process conditions using Taguchi techniques.
The quality of a prototype is manifested by several
parameters. For many engineering applications, surface
nish is an important criterion. Several attempts have been
made in the past to make a systematic analysis of errors and
the quality of the prototypes. Susila et al. [1] have studied the
problem of optimisation by considering the direction of
orientation of model build up. They found that the choice
of correct orientation resulted in minimum build time. Male
et al. [2] have made a time, cost and accuracy comparison in
the case of investment casting tooling produced using
stereolithography technique. The dimensional variability
of LOM models was studied by Wang et al. [3]. They
adopted the sh bone diagram approach to systematically
*

Corresponding author.

evaluate the major factors affecting the dimensional variability of the castings produced.
2. Taguchi technique
In the recent years, Taguchi's techniques have been
immensely used to optimise both process design and product
design, based on comprehensive experimental investigation
[4]. The technique has been employed to analyse superabrasive reaming process for comparisons to be made with
the existing hole nishing processes. Based on the experimental results, optimum process parameters have been
reported in literature [5]. The primary advantages of the
design of experiments using Taguchi's technique include
simplication of experimental plan, feasibility of study of
interaction effects among the different parameters. The
process variables in FDM are road width, build layer thickness, and speed of deposition, though there are other factors
like temperature, humidity and wire diameter which are,
however, kept constant in this study. Anitha et al. [6] studied
the applicability of the method to surface grinding problems
and found that the results obtained are quite satisfactory.
Therefore, the authors are convinced to adopt this technique
to identify an optimum process model for FDM.
3. Selection of process parameters
The objective of the study is to analyse the effect of
process variables on the surface roughness of the compo-

0924-0136/01/$ see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 4 - 0 1 3 6 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 9 8 0 - 3

386

R. Anitha et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 118 (2001) 385388

Table 1
List of process variables and their levels

Table 3
Measured Ra values

Factors

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Trials

Ra value

Layer thickness (mm)

Road width (mm)
Speed deposition (mm)

0.1778
0.537
100

0.254
0.622
150

0.3556
0.706
200

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

7.34
8.32
9.26
2.79
3.43
5.03
3.24
5.19
2.89
9.85
10.73
3.82
7.97
2.63
6.59
3.04
2.88
6.21

nents produced by the FDM process. The surface roughness

of the components produced is measured by the CLA value.
The objective is to minimise the surface roughness (Ra value).
Table 1 shows the variables and levels selected for the study.
The design matrix, an L18 orthogonal array (Table 2), was
chosen to account for the factors and their levels.
4. Results and analysis
The study involved a sample component and 18 models.
The roughness of these models was measured using Surtronic
surface roughness measurement tester and listed in Table 3.

4.2. ANOVA analysis

4.1. Signal to noise (S/N) ratio

ANOVA analysis provides signicance rating of the

various factors analysed in the study. Based on the above
rating, factors which inuence the objective functions signicantly could be identied and proper control measures
adopted. In a similar way, those factors with minimum
inuence could be suitably modied to suit economic considerations.
The ANOVA computations were carried out based on
procedure outlined in Ref. [7] and listed in Tables 8 and 9. A
variable possessing the maximum value of variance is said
to have the most signicant effect on the process under
consideration.

The signal to noise ratio measures the sensitivity of the

quality characteristic being investigated to those uncontrollable external factors. To minimise the problem, the
governing relationships for the S/N ratio in terms of the
experimentally measured values of Ra, i.e., yi is calculated
as follows:
S=N ratio

10 log 10 MSD
P
where MSD yi ytar 2=n, ytar the target value that is
to be achieved, n the number of samples. The S/N ratio
values obtained for the trials are listed in Tables 47.
Table 2
Design matrix used in the experiment
Trials

Dummy
level

Layer
thickness (mm)

Road width
 speed (mm2)

Dummy
level

Layer thickness
 speed (mm2)

Dummy
level

Road width
(mm)

Speed
(mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3

1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
1
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3

1
2
3
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
2
3
1

R. Anitha et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 118 (2001) 385388

Table 4
S/N values of experimental study
Trials

Roughness values

MSD

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

9.45
8.32
9.26
2.79
3.43
5.03
3.24
5.19
2.89
9.85
10.73
3.82
7.97
2.63
6.59
3.04
2.88
6.21

89.21
69.22
85.75
7.78
11.76
25.3
10.49
26.94
8.35
96.82
115.13
14.59
63.52
6.92
43.43
9.21
8.29
38.56

S/N
19.5
18.4
19.33
8.91
10.7
14.03
10.2
14.3
9.21
19.85
20.61
11.64
18.02
8.4
16.37
9.64
9.18
1.58

Table 5
S/N analysis of layer thickness
Factor

S/Navg

Layer thickness at 0.1778 mm

Layer thickness at 0.254 mm
Layer thickness at 0.3556 mm

18.22
12.74
9.02

Table 6
S/N analysis of road width
Factor
Road width at 0.537 mm
Road width at 0.622 mm
Road width at 0.706 mm

S/Navg

Speed at 100 mm
Speed at 150 mm
speed at 200 mm

When contribution of any factor is small, then the sum

of squares, S, for that factor is combined with the error Se.
This process of disregarding the contribution of a selected
factor and subsequently adjusting the contributions of the
other factors is known as pooling [8]. In this experiment,
the contributions of the interactions between the layer
thickness and speed of deposition, and road width and
speed of deposition were found to be negligible. Hence
they are pooled and the contributions of other factors are
signicantly increased.
4.3. Correlation analysis
In process control, the aim is to control the characteristics
of the output of the process by controlling a process parameter. One succeeds if the parameters are chosen correctly.
The choice is usually based on judgement and knowledge of
the concerned technology. A correlation is assumed between
a variable product characteristic and a variable process
parameter.
In the present study, a relationship is assumed between the
layer thickness (process parameter) and surface roughness
(product characteristic). Layer thickness is the property
which signicantly affects the quality of the prototypes in
RP. This is proved by the contribution at 99% level of
signicance.
The results obtained are listed in Table 10. The correlation
(r) coefcient obtained is 0.656. The range of values for r
lies between 1 and 1. The experimental value indicates a
reasonably strong negative relation. Therefore, as layer
thickness increases, the surface roughness decreases.
4.4. Regression analysis

12.02
14.67
13.79

The regression analysis is attempted for layer thickness as

it is the dominant factor. The desired surface roughness is to
be as less as possible. The surface roughness value that is
required is set at 3.15 Ra. Though surface roughness is to be
as minimum as possible, the experimental value is set by the
range covered by the experiment. Statistical reasoning is that
linearity of the relationship applies only to the range covered
by the data. Additional data would be required to check if the
surface roughness improves further in case the process
parameter values are changed.

Table 7
S/N analysis of speed of deposition
Factor

387

S/Navg
13.72
14.985
11.28

Table 8
ANOVA analysis (without pooling)
Factors

Degrees of freedom, d

Sum of squares, S

Variance, V

Variance ratio, F

Contribution, P (%)

Layer thickness (mm)

Road width (mm)
Speed of deposition (mm)
Layer thickness  speed (mm2)
Road width  speed (mm2)
Error

2
2
2
4
4
3

74.24
24.34
24.72
5.58
0.936
8.744

37.12
12.17
12.36
1.395
0.234
2.915

12.73
4.175
4.240
0.479
0.080

49.37
13.36
13.63
Negligible
Negligible

388

R. Anitha et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 118 (2001) 385388

Table 9
ANOVA analysis (with pooling)
Factors

Degrees of freedom, d

Sum of squares, S

Variance, V

Variance ratio, F

Contribution, P (%)

Layer thickness (mm)

Road width (mm)
Speed of deposition (mm)
Layer thickness  speed (mm2)
Road width  speed (mm2)
Error

2
2
2
4
4
11

74.24
24.34
24.72
5.58
0.936
15.26

37.12
12.17
12.36
Pooled
Pooled
1.397

26.76
8.774
8.911

51.57
15.57
15.83

Table 10
Results of correlation analysis
S. No.

Layer
thickness, x (mm)

Surface
roughness (y)

x2

y2

xy

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

0.1778
0.1778
0.1778
0.254
0.254
0.254
0.0356
0.0356
0.0356
0.1778
0.1778
0.1778
0.254
0.254
0.254
0.3556
0.3556
0.3556

9.445
8.32
9.26
2.79
3.43
5.03
3.24
5.19
2.89
9.85
10.73
3.82
7.97
2.63
6.59
3.035
2.88
6.21

0.032
0.032
0.032
0.065
0.065
0.065
0.126
0.126
0.126
0.032
0.032
0.032
0.065
0.065
0.065
0.126
0.126
0.126

89.21
69.22
85.75
7.78
11.76
25.3
10.49
26.94
8.35
97.022
115.13
14.59
63.52
6.92
43.43
9.21
8.29
38.56

1.679
1.479
1.646
0.708
0.871
1.277
1.152
1.85
1.028
1.751
1.908
0.679
2.02
0.668
1.674
1.079
1.024
2.208

For a surface roughness value of 3.15 Ra, the desired

value for layer thickness would be 0.367 Ra. The other
factors can also be suitably set depending on the desired
roughness value.
5. Conclusions
The results revealed several interesting features of the
FDM processes. It is found that without pooling, only the
layer thickness is effective to 49.37% at 95% level of
signicance. But on pooling, it was found that the layer
thickness is effective to 51.57% at 99% level of signicance.

The other factors, road width and speed, contribute to 15.57

and 15.83% at 99% level of signicance, respectively. The
signicance of layer thickness is further strengthened by the
correlation analysis, which indicates a strong inverse relationship with surface roughness.
According to the S/N analysis, the layer thickness is most
effective when it is at level 3 (0.3556 mm), the road width at
level 1 (0.537 mm) and the speed of deposition at level 3
(200 mm). According to the trials, sample 18 was found to
give the best results.
References
[1] B. Susila, et al., Studies on the influence of fabrication orientation on
the productivity of fused deposition modelling, in: Proceedings of 13th
CAR and FOF Conference, Colombia, Brazil, 1997.
[2] J. Male, H. Tsang, G. Bennet, A time, cost and accuracy comparison of
soft tooling for investment casting produced using stereolithography
techniques, in: Proceedings of the Solid Freedom Symposium, The
University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1996.
[3] W. Wang, J.G. Conley, H.W. Stoll, Dimensional variability analysis in
post processing of rapid tooling, in: Proceedings of the Ninth Solid
Free Form Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, 1998.
[4] S. Arunachalam, J. O'Sullivan, Role of design of experiments in
business manufacturing management an application example, in:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Business and
Management, India, 1998.
[5] S. Arunachalam, et al., Process capability analysis of super abrasive
reaming compared with the existing hole finishing processes, in:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Quality Engineering
and Management, 1997.
[6] R. Anitha, et al., Taguchi approach to improve surface topography of
how carbon steels finished by surface grinding, in: Proceedings of the
EUFIT'98 Conference, Aachen, Germany, 1998.
[7] W.L. Condra, Value Added Management with Design of Experiments,
Chapman & Hall, London, 1995.
[8] R.K. Roy, A Primer on the Taguchi Method, Van Nostrand, New York,
1990.