Analysis of Printing Variables to Enhance PLA, ABS, and PETG 3D

Printed Parts Using Fused Deposition Modeling

Dina Ali1, Abass Enzi2, Abdullah F. Huayier3
1, 2, 3
Department of Production Engineering and Metallurgy, University of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq

*Corresponding author's email: pme.21.71@grad.uotechnology.edu.iq

Abstract
Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is a 3D printing process widely recognized for its
versatility and broad applications in different industries. The manipulation of processing
parameters dramatically influences the properties of parts produced by FDM. This study focuses
on the predictive analysis of the FDM process's printing parameters of PLA, ABS, and PETG
materials, specifically in predicting ultimate tensile strength and formulating a mathematical
model using the Taguchi method and Artificial Neural Network. Five manufacturing variables
are used during preparing the specimens: layer thickness, print speed, orientation angle, number
of perimeters, and nozzle temperature with five levels. Based on the L25 Taguchi orthogonal
array, 25 experiments are used to determine the ultimate tensile strength mathematical model.
The results underline the significant influence of printing process parameters on tensile strength,
as the tensile test values vary between 54.74 MPa and 37.34 MPa for PLA, 39.52MPa and
32.04MPa for ABS, and 47.09MPa and 28.21MPa for PETG, this confirms the effect of the type
of material and the variables of the printing process on the tensile strength difference.
Furthermore, the error percentage of the ANN predictions and mathematical model for PLA,
ABS, and PETG were close to the practical values of the experiments.

Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, is a cutting-edge technology in
product manufacturing. It creates a virtual model on a computer and then divides it into 2D
cross-sections. These 2D data are sent to the additive manufacturing machine, which constructs
the final product layer-by-layer [1]. The process begins with a horizontally placed platform,
where the first layer is created by accurately displacing the printing bed downwards. This
displacement enables the nozzle to form the next layer on top of the previous one, and this cycle
continues until the entire part is built. To execute FDM successfully [2], as shown in Figure 1.
Achieving optimal geometrical accuracy and mechanical properties in parts manufactured
through FDM technology heavily relies on selecting the appropriate printing parameters. As a
result, numerous research papers nowadays concentrate on optimizing these printing parameters.
The primary objective is to produce parts that exhibit satisfactory properties in terms of
dimensional accuracy and mechanical performance. By fine-tuning and optimizing the printing
parameters, researchers aim to enhance FDM-produced parts' overall quality and functionality,
making them more suitable for various applications across different industries.
 Figure 1. Schematic diagram of FDM machine.

Berkay Ergene et al. (2022) [3] investigated the effect of the test speed on the tensile
properties using PETG material. Selected process parameters were 0.1 mm, 0.2 mm, and 0.4 mm
layer thickness values, 5 mm/min, 25 mm/min, and 50 mm/min print speed, while the other
factors were kept constant. The results showed the maximum average tensile strength value was
79.31 MPa and the minimum average tensile strength value was 45.68 MPa, calculated for the
specimens with a layer thickness of 0.1 mm and 0.4 mm, respectively, under the same test speed
of 25 mm/min. Grzegorz Dolzyk et al. (2019) [4] investigated the tensile and fatigue behavior of
PETG material. The selected process parameter used in this research is four raster orientations,
such as longitudinal, transversal, diagonal, and crosshatched. The results showed the highest
modulus of elasticity was 1623 MPa for the longitudinal specimen, and the lowest value was
1469 MPa for the transversal specimen. Longitudinal specimens displayed the highest fatigue
life for high-stress levels in fatigue analysis. Mohammad Taregh Sepahi et al. (2021) [5] studied
the mechanical properties of 3D-printed parts using PETG, ABS, and PLA materials. Selected
printing parameters included five raster angles, such as (0˚, 90˚, 0˚/90, 45˚, and 45˚/135˚). The
results showed that the 0° and 0/90° raster angles produced PETG with the best mechanical
characteristics, and the raster orientations of 0° and 45˚/135° offered the best performance for
ABS. However, because there are fewer inter-bead gaps in PLA, 45° and 45˚/135° raster angles
have superior mechanical properties than other angles. SEM images revealed that PLA-deposited
beads adhere consistently compared to ABS and PETG. Lower mechanical characteristics in
some raster angles were mostly caused by weak interlayer adhesion in PETG specimens.

The research objective involves a detailed analysis of the applicability of PLA, PETG,
and ABS materials in FDM-produced parts. The central investigation revolves around
elucidating the impact of process parameters on tensile strength. Concurrently, the study employs
an artificial neural network (ANN) and a mathematical model to predict ultimate tensile strength
and determine the most significant percentage error between practical and predicted values.

2. Materials and methods

One of the primary aspects of the 3D printing process involves the meticulous selection
of materials, which in turn hinges on both the intended application and the mechanical attributes
of the material. Therefore, this section will explore the chosen material while exploring how the
influencing printing variables interplay with the manufacturing process.

2.1 Materials

Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol (PETG), Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), and

Polylactic Acid (PLA) were chosen to print the specimens, and each material possesses specific
characteristics that make them suitable for the intended applications. In addition, Polyethylene
PETG exhibits excellent transparency and clarity, making it ideal for applications requiring
visual clarity. It also offers high impact resistance, good chemical resistance, and low levels of
warping during 3D printing, making it easy to work with. ABS provides a balanced combination
of strength, toughness, and thermal stability, and it is widely used in 3D printing due to its ease
of processing and good dimensional stability. Also, ABS is known for its resistance to chemicals,
making it suitable for a diverse range of industrial applications. Polylactic Acid (PLA) is a
biodegradable and bioactive thermoplastic derived from renewable resources such as corn starch
or sugarcane, and it is popular in 3D printing due to its low printing temperature, ease of use, and
minimal warping. In addition, PLA is commonly used for rapid prototyping, educational
purposes, and environmentally friendly applications [8].

2.2 Sample

The tensile test specimens were meticulously prepared by the dimensional specifications
outlined in ASTM D638 Type I and ISO 178 (Figure 2) standards, ensuring precision and
conformity to established guidelines. These internationally recognized standards are widely
adopted for evaluating the tensile properties of various materials. The design process involved
creating a three-dimensional model of the test specimen using SolidWorks software, a powerful
computer-aided design (CAD) tool widely used in engineering and manufacturing industries. The
CAD model was carefully crafted to replicate the precise geometry and dimensions mandated by
the ASTM and ISO standards, guaranteeing accurate and repeatable test results [9].
 Figure 2. Dimension of tensile test specimen according to ASTM D638 Type I.

2.3 Printing parameters

The main objective of this study is to underscore the significance of selecting optimal
process parameters for successful part fabrication through 3D printing. This involves thoroughly
examining various material properties, which profoundly impact the printed component's
strength and overall quality. Additionally, the dimensional stability of the part is intricately tied
to these parameters. The critical process parameters encompass layer thickness (mm); this
parameter signifies the height of each successive layer of material added during the printing
process. A smaller layer thickness enhances dimensional accuracy and an improved surface
finish. Nozzle temperature (°C); refers to the temperature at which the material is extruded from
the nozzle tip. Print Speed; this parameter denotes the time the printer takes to complete a single
print. Lower print speeds have been proven to lead to reduced surface roughness and optimal
mechanical strength. The number of perimeters; refers to the number of shells utilized for the
part's exterior. The range extends from a minimum of 1 to a maximum equal to the number of
extruded filaments, where the filament diameter matches the nozzle diameter. Orientation Angle;
this parameter relates to the angles of patterns for each layer, spanning from 0° to ±180° [10, 11].
Before 3D printing the test specimens on the Creality Ender-6 3D printer, the 3D model was
sliced using Ultimaker Cura 4.3 software, generating the G-code. PETG filament with a 1.75-
mm diameter was used for printing. The default 3D printing settings were applied by selecting
"Standard quality 0.2 mm" in the Cura slicer.

2.4 Experiment design

In the study, some parameters have been considered for studying their effect on tensile
strength. In contrast, few parameters have been kept constant such as infill density 100, infill
pattern Zig-Zag, and bed temperature for PLA 60˚C [14] and 100˚C for ABS and PETG. The
layer thickness, print speed, nozzle temperature, orientation angle, and the number of perimeters
have been selected for the present study with five levels, as shown in Table 1.
 Table 1. Printing process parameters and levels.
Parameters Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Layer Thickness (mm) 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28
Print Speed (mm/s) 45 50 55 60 65
Nozzle Temperature ˚C For (PLA) 200 205 210 215 220
Nozzle Temperature ˚C For (ABS, PETG) 230 235 240 245 250
Orientation angle 0˚ 25˚ 45˚ 70˚ 90˚
Number of perimeters 2 3 4 5 6

A design of experiments (DOE) can be used to get around these difficulties. DOE is a
subfield of statistics that enhances experiment output by assisting in efficient experiment
planning, organization, and execution. Most studies use Taguchi analysis to minimize the
number of experiments. So, L25 Taguchi orthogonal array has been used in this research to
analyze the impact of chosen parameters, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Matrix of experimental printing parameters.

Layer Nozzle Nozzle
Experiment Print Number of Orientation
thickness temperature(˚C) temperature(˚C)
number speed(mm/s) Perimeters angle (degree)
(mm) For (PLA) For (PETG, ABS)
1 0.2 45 200 230℃ 2 0
2 0.2 50 205 235℃ 3 25
3 0.2 55 210 240℃ 4 45
4 0.2 60 215 245℃ 5 70
5 0.2 65 220 250℃ 6 90
6 0.22 45 205 235℃ 4 70
7 0.22 50 210 240℃ 5 90
8 0.22 55 205 245℃ 6 0
9 0.22 60 220 250℃ 2 25
10 0.22 65 200 230℃ 3 45
11 0.24 45 210 240℃ 6 25
12 0.24 50 215 245℃ 2 45
13 0.24 55 220 250℃ 3 70
14 0.24 60 200 230℃ 4 90
15 0.24 65 205 235℃ 5 0
16 0.26 45 215 245℃ 3 90
17 0.26 50 220 250℃ 4 0
18 0.26 55 200 230℃ 5 25
19 0.26 60 205 235℃ 6 45
20 0.26 65 210 240℃ 2 70
21 0.28 45 220 250℃ 5 45
22 0.28 50 200 230℃ 6 70
23 0.28 55 205 235℃ 2 90
24 0.28 60 210 240℃ 3 0
25 0.28 65 215 245℃ 4 25
2.5 Artificial Neural Network (ANN)

A computer program inspired by the structure of organic neural networks found in the
brain. Its purpose is to model complex, nonlinear relationships and predict output values based
on training data. The network consists of three layers: an input layer, a hidden layer, and an
output layer. The hidden layer contains artificial neurons that receive weighted inputs and
generate an output using an activation function. ANN utilizes sample data instead of the entire
dataset, enabling quick predictions and saving time and resources. It can be seamlessly integrated
into existing data analysis systems. In 3D printing, the ANN model was employed to train and
evaluate data models. MATLAB was utilized to create an input layer with five inputs such as
(layer thickness, print speed, nozzle temperature, number of perimeters, and orientation angle), a
hidden layer with feed-forward conditions, and a single output layer [12,13].

3. Result and discussions

3.1 Fabricated specimens and tensile testing

After designing the specimen, the STL file is transferred to CURA software to slice the
CAD model into multi-layers. Ender-6 3D printer-Creality is used for printing samples in which
the sliced part file of the sample is fed. Specimens having different parameters are selected for
printing the specimens; see Fig. 3. The tensile strength tests of the specimens have been
performed the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) is computed as the maximum stress attained
during the tensile test.

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure 3. Fabricated specimens (a) PLA material, (b) ABS material, (c) PETG material.

Table 3 shows the obtained results for the tensile test of PLA [14], ABS, and PETG
materials providing valuable insights into their mechanical and surface properties. The highest
value recorded was 54.74MPa, indicating a strong resistance to external forces. This result was
achieved with specific variables 70˚ orientation angle, four perimeters, 205˚C nozzle
temperature, 45mm/s printing speed, and 0.22mm layer thickness. The higher value suggests that
this combination of parameters enhanced structural integrity and improved tensile strength for
the PLA material. On the other hand, the lowest value observed for the tensile test was
37.34MPa, representing a relatively lower deformation resistance. This value corresponded to
variables such as three numbers of perimeters, 205˚C nozzle temperature, 25˚ orientation angle,
50mm/s a printing speed, and 0.2mm a layer thickness. The lower value indicates that these
specific parameters resulted in a weaker PLA structure with reduced tensile strength ; the tensile
test results for ABS exhibited significant variations. The highest recorded value was 39.52MPa,
indicating a material with excellent tensile strength. This value was achieved under specific
printing conditions, such as 65mm/s a print speed, 250˚C nozzle temperature, six perimeters, 90˚
orientation angle, and layer thickness of 0.2mm. On the other hand, the lowest recorded value
was 32.04, suggesting a relatively lower tensile strength. This value corresponded to different
printing parameters, including 45mm/s print speed, 245˚C nozzle temperature, three numbers of
perimeters, 90˚ orientation angle, and layer thickness of 0.26mm. These variations highlight the
importance of optimizing printing parameters to achieve desired tensile properties for ABS
prints, ensuring their suitability for various applications that require strength and durability, and
for PETG, the highest recorded value was 47.09MPa, indicating exceptional tensile strength.
This value was achieved under specific printing conditions, including 45mm/s print speed, 240˚C
nozzle temperature, 25˚ orientation angle, six perimeters, and layer thickness of 0.24mm. On the
other hand, the lowest recorded value was 28.21MPa, suggesting comparatively lower tensile
strength. This value was associated with printing parameters, such as 50 mm/s print speed, 230˚C
nozzle temperature, six perimeters, 70˚ orientation angle, and layer thickness of 0.28mm. These
findings underscore the importance of carefully selecting and controlling printing parameters to
achieve desired tensile properties for PETG, enabling its optimal performance in applications
that require strength and resilience.

Table 3. Experiments matrix with tensile test values for PLA, ABS, and PETG specimens.

Tensile test values for PLA (MPa) Tensile test values for ABS (Mpa) Tensile test for PETG (Mpa)
38.13 32.90 39.77
37.34 34.64 43.95
42.99 37.25 42.82
51.79 37.08 45.08
48.78 39.52 42.39
54.74 36.81 44.21
52.13 38.73 41.17
41.78 33.77 41.69
38.04 34.12 41.08
43.08 36.12 42.47
40.3 35.25 47.09
37.51 34.12 38.56
49.52 35.94 45.34
45.69 34.39 43.43
41.42 36.64 40.04
45.17 32.04 38.73
37.44 33.95 40.73
41.25 35.77 42.04
43.53 35.87 36.64
48.88 36.47 44.56
48.04 34.99 44.73
50.44 38.13 28.21
38.47 34.12 42.30
43.34 33.61 38.99
43.52 33.52 41.17
3.2Comparative between specimens of the tensile strength data

Figure 4 illustrates the ultimate tensile strength of the three tested materials PLA, ABS,
and PETG. Comparing the ultimate tensile strengths, PLA is the strongest material, with an
ultimate value of about 54.74 MPa, surpassing PETG and ABS. PETG exhibits an ultimate
tensile strength of approximately 47.09 MPa, while ABS shows a lower value of about 39.52
MPa. Looking at the minimum tensile strengths, PLA continues to display superior performance,
with a minimum value of 37.34 MPa. On the other hand, PETG and ABS have minimum tensile
strengths measured at approximately 28.21 MPa and 32.04 MPa, respectively. These results
highlight the varying mechanical properties of PETG, ABS, and PLA. PETG and ABS
demonstrate good tensile strength, while PLA is the strongest material.

60
50
40
UTS(MPa)

30
PLA
20 ABS
10 PETG
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Experiment number

Figure 4. Comparative chart of tensile strengths for specimens’ data.

3.3 Mathematical model for PLA, PETG, and ABS

The mathematical model was obtained based on the samples data results of the UTS to
predict the tensile strength values of the samples after compensating the variables in the
mathematical model equations 1, 2, and 3, where X1 is layer thickness, X2 is printing speed, X3
is the number of perimeters, X4 is orientation angle named, and X5 is nozzle temperature.

UTS-PLA = 24.3 - 4.4 X1+ 0.025 X2 + 1.294 X3 + 0.0993 X4+ 0.047 X5 (1)

UTS-ABS = 37.78-19.49X1+0.0642 X2-0.0205 X3+0.650 X4+0.02429 X5 (2)

UTS-PETG = 19.0 - 45.1 X1 + 0.019 X2+ 0.139 X3 - 0.338 X4 + 0.0058 X5 (3)

The mathematical model for PLA samples is used first degree for predicting the tensile
values, and the results were between 36.53 MPa and 52.09MPa. Furthermore, the error values for
the mathematical model were between 13.85 and -16.81 percent [14]. The mathematical model
for ABS material is used first degree for predicting the tensile values. The results were between
39.02MPa and 33.20MPa, and the error percentage for the mathematical model was between
 4.49 and -8.35. The mathematical model for PETG material is used first degree for predicting
the tensile values. The results were between 44.46 MPa and 37.67 MPa, and the error
percentages for the mathematical model were between 13.98 and -33.53.

Table 4. Tensile test, mathematical model, and error values for PLA, ABS, and PETG material.

Tensile Tensile
Error Error Error
test Mathematical test Mathematical Mathematical
percentage of percentage of Tensile test percentage of
values Model values- values Model values- Model values-
mathematical mathematical (Mpa)-PETG mathematical
PLA PLA (Mpa)- ABS PETG
model -PLA model -ABS Model -PETG
(MPa) ABS
38.13 36.53 2.37 32.90 33.36 -1.39 39.77 42.13 -5.93
37.34 40.67 -8.48 34.64 34.83 -0.55 43.95 42.73 2.78
42.99 44.31 -2.17 37.25 36.19 2.86 42.82 43.29 -1.11
51.79 48.45 2.42 37.08 37.66 -1.57 45.08 43.89 2.64
48.78 52.09 -7.08 39.52 39.02 1.28 42.39 44.46 -4.88
54.74 46.22 13.85 36.81 35.86 2.57 44.21 41.65 5.79
52.13 49.86 7.22 38.73 37.22 3.90 41.17 42.22 -2.55
41.78 42.11 -0.83 33.77 35.9 -6.31 41.69 42.15 -1.10
38.04 40.24 -5.35 34.12 34.13 -0.02 41.08 44.44 -8.17
43.08 42.71 1.46 36.12 35.99 0.35 42.47 41.53 2.21
40.3 44.49 -10.47 35.25 35.58 -0.93 47.09 40.51 13.98
37.51 41.66 -10.70 34.12 33.68 1.28 38.56 42.77 -10.91
49.52 45.79 8.42 35.94 35.16 2.17 45.34 43.36 4.36
45.69 48.26 -5.73 34.39 37.03 -7.66 43.43 40.46 6.85
41.42 40.97 -8.60 36.64 35.71 2.54 40.04 40.39 -0.86
45.17 47.21 -4.62 32.04 34.72 -8.35 38.73 41.69 -7.65
37.44 39.92 -6.86 33.95 33.4 1.63 40.73 41.62 -2.19
41.25 42.88 -0.88 35.77 35.39 1.07 42.04 38.74 7.84
43.53 46.52 -7.02 35.87 36.74 -2.43 36.64 39.31 -7.29
48.88 44.19 9.47 36.47 34.97 4.12 44.56 41.60 6.64
48.04 45.47 4.71 34.99 34.43 1.60 44.73 40.55 9.35
50.44 48.43 2.43 38.13 36.42 4.49 28.21 37.67 -33.53
38.47 45.60 -16.81 34.12 34.52 -1.18 42.30 39.93 5.61
43.34 38.32 11.58 33.61 33.2 1.21 38.99 39.86 -2.23
43.52 42.46 2.98 33.52 34.68 -3.46 41.17 40.46 1.74

Figure 5 illustrates the highest predicted values for the mathematical equation across the
three materials: PLA, ABS, and PETG, by examining these data points. The highest predicted
tensile strength value is attributed to PLA, reaching a magnitude of 52.09 MPa. Following
closely is PETG, with a value of 44.46 MPa; subsequently, ABS exhibits a value of 39.02 MPa.
This comparative analysis sheds light on the varying mechanical characteristics of these
materials in the context of tensile strength.
 60
UTS-Mathematical model 50
40
30
(MPa)

PLA
20 ABS
10 PETG
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Experiment Number

Figure 5. Comparative chart of mathematical model for specimens’ data.

3.4 Specimens data analysis for surface roughness and weight

Table 5 shows the obtained results for PLA, ABS, and PETG, the highest surface
roughness value obtained was 12.41μm of PLA; this result was achieved with variables including
90˚orientation angle, 3 number of perimeters, 215˚C a nozzle temperature, 45mm/s a print speed,
and a layer thickness of 0.26mm. The lowest value recorded for surface roughness was 1.338μm,
indicating a smoother surface texture; this value was achieved with variables such as 25˚
orientation angle, 3 number of perimeters, 205˚C nozzle temperature, 50 mm/s print speed, and
a layer thickness of 0.2mm. The lower surface roughness value suggests that these specific
parameters resulted in a smoother surface finish, potentially suitable for applications with
reduced friction or a more refined appearance. Furthermore, the standard weight value for the
PLA material was 16.712g. Analyzing the obtained results further, the maximum recorded
weight was 22.8265g, signifying an increase of 6.1145g compared to the standard value.
Conversely, the lowest observed weight was 21.4350g, denoting an augmentation of 4.723g
relative to the standard value.

Table 5. Surface roughness and weight values for PLA, ABS, and PETG specimens.

PLA material ABS material PETG material

Surface
Surface
Roughness Weight Deviation Surface Weight Deviation Deviation
Roughness Weight (g)
)μm( )g( weight Roughness(μm) (g) weight (g) weight (g)
(μm)
)g(
1.473 21.6097 -4.8977 1.628 18.0855 1.6504 1.628 18.0855 1.6504
1.338 21.7268 -5.0148 3.48 18.0765 1.6594 3.48 18.0765 1.6594
2.035 21.8266 -5.1146 1.509 18.1386 1.5973 1.509 18.1386 1.5973
1.669 21.8899 -5.1779 1.899 18.0326 1.7033 1.899 18.0326 1.7033
10.012 22.6824 -5.9704 8.571 18.7614 0.9745 8.571 18.7614 0.9745
7.493 22.8265 -6.1145 1.825 17.9635 1.7724 1.825 17.9635 1.7724
10.83 22.4814 -5.7694 8.279 18.7315 1.0044 8.279 18.7315 1.0044
1.492 21.7931 -5.0811 1.993 18.1536 1.5823 1.993 18.1536 1.5823
1.675 21.6992 -4.9872 2.232 18.1069 1.629 2.232 18.1069 1.629
1.660 21.8677 -5.1557 1.9166 18.1360 1.5999 1.9166 18.1360 1.5999
1.527 21.5198 -4.8078 1.937 17.9601 1.7758 1.937 17.9601 1.7758
1.508 21.4350 -4.723 2.313 17.8047 1.9312 2.313 17.8047 1.9312
1.919 21.6724 -4.9604 2.588 17.8523 1.8836 2.588 17.8523 1.8836
9.927 22.4385 -5.7265 8.470 18.3185 1.4174 8.470 18.3185 1.4174
 1.506 21.7243 -5.0123 2.117 17.8792 1.8567 2.117 17.8792 1.8567
12.41 22.7564 -6.0444 11.37 18.5887 1.1472 11.37 18.5887 1.1472
1.858 21.6623 -4.9503 2.323 18.0662 1.6697 2.323 18.0662 1.6697
1.674 21.7478 -5.0358 2.5143 17.9023 1.8336 2.5143 17.9023 1.8336
2.093 21.9029 -5.1909 2.52 17.9783 1.7576 2.52 17.9783 1.7576
1.868 21.7008 -4.9888 2.2286 18.0304 1.7055 2.2286 18.0304 1.7055
7.92 22.6567 -5.9447 2.6803 18.0304 1.7055 2.6803 18.0304 1.7055
2.519 21.6174 -4.9054 2.106 17.7491 1.9868 2.106 17.7491 1.9868
7.415 22.7065 -5.9945 8.3905 18.3421 1.3938 8.3905 18.3421 1.3938
1.796 21.6730 -4.961 2.008 17.9469 1.789 2.008 17.9469 1.789
1.528 21.5379 -4.8259 2.0726 17.9200 1.8159 2.0726 17.9200 1.8159

A high value of 11.37 μm was recorded for the ABS surface roughness test. This high
value was obtained by modifying the following variables: the orientation angle was set to 90˚,
the number of the perimeter was 3, the nozzle temperature was 245˚C, the print speed was 45
mm/s, and the layer thickness was 0.26mm. On the other hand, the lowest value of surface
roughness recorded was 1.509μm. This value was obtained by setting the orientation angle to
45˚, the number of perimeter 4, the nozzle temperature to 240˚C, the print speed to 55mm/s, and
the layer thickness to 0.2mm. The standard weight measurement for ABS material was 19.735 g.
From the acquired results, the highest recorded weight was 18.7614g, presenting a deviation of
0.9745g from the standard value. The lowest measured weight was 17.7491 grams, representing
a deviation of 1.9868 g from the standard value. This variability in weight could be attributed to
several factors, including material density, experimental conditions, and possible measurement
errors.

For PETG, the highest surface roughness recorded value was 6.273μm. This value was
obtained under specific conditions, including 70˚ orientation angle, six perimeters, 230˚C nozzle
temperature, 50 mm/s print speed, and layer thickness of 0.28mm. Conversely, the lowest
recorded value of 1.533μm indicated a smoother surface, achieved with a 90˚ orientation angle,
four perimeters, 230˚C nozzle temperature, 60 mm/s print speed, and layer thickness of 0.24mm.
The standard weight value for the PETG specimen was 20.21g. Based on the results, the highest
recorded weight was 22.5507g, which increased by 2.3407 grams from the standard value. The
lowest weight observed was 20.3239g, signifying a increase of 0.1139g compared to the standard
value.

Figure 6 compares the surface roughness between PLA, ABS, and PETG materials. The
graph clearly represented the surface roughness values for each material. It was noticed that
some samples have a high surface roughness due to the difference in the material used and the
variables of the printing process. This indicates that the variables used and the material
significantly increased or decreased the surface roughness.
 14
Surface roughness (μm) 12
10
8
6 PLA
4 ABS
PETG
2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Experiment number

Figure 6. Comparative chart of surface roughness for specimens.

3.5 Regression analysis

Table 6 describes the data analysis using the Levenberg-Marquardt(LM) algorithm, the
performance metrics for different materials PLA, ABS, and PETG, and their respective training,
validation, testing, and all. The LM algorithm was employed to analyze the data, utilizing 70%
of the experimental data for training, 15% for testing, and 15% for cross-validation. The
performance of the algorithm was assessed based on various metrics.

Table 6. Regression values using ANN algorithms.

Data training Coded Training:

No. Validation: R Test: R All: R
algorithm As R
Levenberg-
1 Marquardt(LM) for trainlm1 0.99389 0.97451 0.98755 0.98055
PLA
Levenberg-
2 Marquardt(LM) for trainlm1 0.94463 0.99953 0.94087 0.94569
ABS
Levenberg-
3 Marquardt(LM) for trainlm1 0.92214 0.99916 0.99984 0.93694
PETG

For the PLA material, the training phase yielded an accuracy of 0.99389, indicating the
algorithm's ability to learn effectively from the training data. During the validation stage, an
accuracy of 0.97451 was achieved, demonstrating the algorithm's capacity to generalize well to
unseen data. When subjected to the testing set, the algorithm performed impressively, achieving
an accuracy of 0.98755. Considering all the data, the overall accuracy of the algorithm for PLA
material was calculated to be 0.98055, showcasing its proficiency in analyzing and predicting the
 properties of PLA. Moving on to the ABS material, the algorithm was trained with a success rate
of 0.94463, indicating its capability to learn and model the characteristics of ABS accurately.
During the validation and testing phases, the algorithm maintained a success rate of 0.99953 and
0.94087, respectively, showcasing its consistency and reliability in handling ABS data. The
overall success rate for ABS material stood at 0.94569, reflecting the algorithm's ability to
perform adequately on this specific material. Furthermore, for the PETG material, the training
phase resulted in an improved success rate of 0.92214, highlighting the algorithm's exceptional
ability to analyze and model the properties of PETG. During the subsequent validation and
testing stages, the algorithm consistently achieved high success rates of 0.99916 and 0.99984,
respectively, indicating its reliability and accuracy in handling PETG data. The overall success
rate for PETG material reached an impressive 0.93694, affirming the algorithm's effectiveness in
analyzing and predicting properties specific to PETG. These results demonstrate the LM
algorithm's versatility and effectiveness in analyzing and predicting the UTS values of different
materials, including PLA, ABS, and PETG. Its high accuracies, consistent performance, and
ability to handle diverse datasets make it a valuable tool in data analysis and material
characterization.

3.6 Prediction data for PLA, ABS, and PETG

Table 7 shows practical tensile test values; the output parameter values were predicted
using the ANN technique-levenberg Marquard training algorithm and mathematical model
results. The tensile test values can be predicted by the ANN technique using the LM algorithm,
and the results were close to the practical values of the tensile test, which range between 37.36
MPa and 53.74 MPa for PLA specimens; the error values for ANN were between -3.08 and 8.91
percent, also, for ABS specimens which range between 32.25MPa and 39.19 MPa. Furthermore,
the error percentages for ANN were between -3.37 and 5.10, and for PETG specimens which
range between 29.60MPa and 45.62 MPa; the error percentages for ANN were between -6.75
and 4.08. In addition, the highest deviation value for the PLA of the artificial neural network
(ANN) was 8.91, and the lowest deviation value was -3.08. For the Mathematical Model, the
highest deviation value was 13.85, and the lowest was -16.81. Regarding ABS, the ANN had the
highest deviation value of -3.37 and the lowest of 5.10, while the Mathematical Model ranged
from -8.35 to 4.49. As for PTG, the ANN's highest deviation value was 4.08, and the lowest was
-6.75, while the Mathematical Model ranged from 13.98 to -33.53.

Table 7: Comparative evaluation of predictive models for PLA, ABS, and PETG specimens.
PLA material ABS material PETG material
Tensile test Error ANN Error ANN Predicted Error
ANN Predicted Tensile test Tensile test
values percentage of Predicted percentage of values (MPa) percentage of
values (MPa) values (Mpa) (Mpa)
(MPa) ANN values (MPa) ANN ANN
38.13 37.42 1.86 32.90 32.94 -0.12 39.77 39.81 -0.11
37.34 37.49 -0.41 34.64 34.96 -0.92 43.95 42.86 2.47
42.99 43.37 -0.88 37.25 37.57 -0.86 42.82 45.23 -5.63
51.79 49.65 4.13 37.08 36.72 0.97 45.08 44.82 0.57
48.78 48.64 0.29 39.52 39.19 0.84 42.39 42.23 0.37
54.74 53.65 1.98 36.81 35.99 2.23 44.21 44.32 -0.24
52.13 53.74 -3.08 38.73 38.59 0.36 41.17 41.16 0.04
41.78 41.76 0.04 33.77 34.38 -1.81 41.69 44.50 -6.75
38.04 38.20 -0.41 34.12 34.11 0.03 41.08 41.05 0.07
43.08 43.34 -0.59 36.12 35.78 0.94 42.47 44.78 -5.44
40.3 40.27 0.08 35.25 34.95 0.85 47.09 45.17 4.08
37.51 37.63 -0.31 34.12 32.38 5.10 38.56 38.66 -0.25
49.52 50.00 -0.97 35.94 34.45 4.15 45.34 45.62 -0.61
45.69 45.64 0.11 34.39 35.55 -3.37 43.43 42.24 2.73
41.42 37.73 8.91 36.64 36.85 -0.57 40.04 42.61 -6.41
45.17 45.12 0.10 32.04 32.25 -0.66 38.73 38.95 -0.58
37.44 37.36 0.21 33.95 33.85 0.29 40.73 40.74 -0.03
41.25 42.51 -3.05 35.77 36.08 -0.87 42.04 41.26 1.85
43.53 43.47 0.13 35.87 35.77 0.28 36.64 36.59 0.13
48.88 48.81 0.14 36.47 37.16 -1.89 44.56 44.66 -0.23
48.04 47.72 0.67 34.99 34.87 0.34 44.73 42.97 3.94
50.44 49.64 1.58 38.13 37.89 0.63 28.21 29.60 -4.91
38.47 39.04 -1.48 34.12 33.86 0.76 42.30 44.33 -4.80
43.34 43.34 0.01 33.61 33.65 -0.12 38.99 38.90 0.22
43.52 43.76 -0.55 33.52 33.80 -0.84 41.17 42.08 -2.22

Conclusion

This research aims to optimize the tensile strength of 3D-printed items using Fused
Deposition Modeling (FDM). The Taguchi L25 orthogonal array was used for efficient data
generation, analyzing five key printing factors with five levels for PLA, ABS, and PETG
materials. Artificial Neural Networks and mathematical models accurately predicted the strength
values, helping identify ideal printing parameters for enhanced performance. The study confirms
the effectiveness of ANN models in predicting outcomes, leading to significant accuracy and
efficiency improvements; the conclusions are summarized as follows:

1- The results proved that the variables whose effect was studied directly impacted the
tensile strength, as the obtained values had a clear difference between the highest and
lowest value.
2- Tensile strength predictions were accomplished through function approximation methods
employing the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm. The maximum achieved tensile strengths
were 53.74 N/mm² for PLA, 39.19 N/mm² for ABS, and 45.62 N/mm² for PETG.
3- Artificial neural networks (ANNs) were used to formulate models for predicting
ultimate tensile strength. The regression plots generated through ANN showcased robust
correlation coefficients: 0.98055 for PLA, 0.94569 for ABS, and 0.93694 for PETG.
These high values underscore the strong association between the projected and actual
values. Consequently, the ANN method emerges as a dependable avenue for estimating
the ultimate tensile strength of 3D-printed ABS materials.
4- When comparing the error values between the ANN and mathematical model approaches,
it became evident that the ANN method consistently outperformed the mathematical
model across all three materials. Specifically, in the case of PLA, the maximum error
achieved by the ANN was 8.91%, while the mathematical model had a higher maximum
error of 13.85%. Similarly, the ANN demonstrated a maximum error of 5.10% for ABS,
 slightly surpassing the mathematical model's lower maximum error of 4.49%. Regarding
PETG, the ANN's maximum error was 4.08%, while the mathematical model showed a
lower maximum error of 13.98%.
5- The surface roughness values for PLA, ABS, and PETG were obtained under specific
process parameters. The results indicated that PLA and ABS exhibit higher surface
roughness values than PETG. PLA's most elevated surface roughness value was
12.41μm. For PETG, the surface roughness value was measured at 6.273μm, and for
ABS, was11.37μm.
6- The weight values obtained for PLA material, the highest measured weight, was 22.8265
g, which deviated by an increase of 6.1145g from the standard value. For PETG material,
the highest measured weight was 22.5507g showing a variation of 2.3407 g, an increase
from the standard value. The highest measured weight for ABS material was 18.7614 g,
demonstrating a variation of 0.9745g.

References

1- Ambade MV, Padole MV, Badole MB. Effect of infill density, infill pattern, and
Extrusion temperature on Mechanical Properties of Part produced by 3D printing FDM
Technology Using ABS, PLA and PETG Filament: A Critical Review.
2- Popović M, Pjević M, Milovanović A, Mladenović G, Milošević M. Printing parameter
optimization of PLA material concerning geometrical accuracy and tensile properties
relative to FDM process productivity. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology.
2023 Feb;37(2):697-706.
3- Ergene B, Bolat Ç. An Experimental Investigation on the Effect of Test Speed on the
Tensile Properties of The Petg Produced By Additive Manufacturing. International
Journal of 3D Printing Technologies and Digital Industry. 2022 Aug 8;6(2):250-60.
4- Dolzyk G, Jung S. Tensile and fatigue analysis of 3D-printed polyethylene terephthalate
glycol. Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention. 2019 Apr 15;19:511-8.
5- Sepahi MT, Abusalma H, Jovanovic V, Eisazadeh H. Mechanical properties of 3D-
printed parts made of polyethylene terephthalate glycol. Journal of Materials Engineering
and Performance. 2021 Sep;30:6851-61.
6- Hanon MM, Marczis R, Zsidai L. Anisotropy evaluation of different raster directions,
spatial orientations, and fill percentage of 3D printed PETG tensile test specimens. Key
engineering materials. 2019 Nov 11;821:167-73.
7- Hsueh MH, Lai CJ, Wang SH, Zeng YS, Hsieh CH, Pan CY, Huang WC. Effect of
printing parameters on the thermal and mechanical properties of 3d-printed pla and petg,
using fused deposition modeling. Polymers. 2021 May 27;13(11):1758.
8- Ma X. Classification of additive manufacturing materials for radiologic phantoms
(Doctoral dissertation, Wien).
9- Sudin MN, Daud NM, Ramli FR, Yusuff MA. The Effect of Nozzle Size on the Tensile
and Flexural Properties of PLA Parts Fabricated Via FDM. Science, Engineering and
Technology. 2023 Apr 18;3(1):33-43.
10- Thakur A, Vates UK, Mishra S. Prediction of Mechanical Properties of FDM Printed
PLA Parts using Response Surface Methodology.
11- Lanzotti A, Grasso M, Staiano G, Martorelli M. The impact of process parameters on
mechanical properties of parts fabricated in PLA with an open-source 3-D printer. Rapid
Prototyping Journal. 2015 Aug 17;21(5):604-17.
12- Tura AD, Lemu HG, Mamo HB, Santhosh AJ. Prediction of tensile strength in fused
deposition modeling process using artificial neural network and fuzzy logic. Progress in
Additive Manufacturing. 2023 Jun;8(3):529-39.
13- Enzi A, Mynderse JA. Optimization of process parameters applied to a prototype
selective laser sintering system. InASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress
and Exposition 2017 Nov 3 (Vol. 58356, p. V002T02A022). American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
14- Ali D, Huayier AF, Enzi A. Parametric Prediction of FDM Process to Improve Tensile
Properties Using Taguchi Method and Artificial Neural Network. Advances in Science
and Technology. Research Journal. 2023;17(4):130-8.