Research Papers

Analyzing the Effects of Temperature, Nozzle-Bed Distance, and Their Interactions on the Width of Fused Deposition Modeled Struts Using Statistical Techniques Toward Precision Scaffold Fabrication

[+] Author and Article Information
Prashanth Ravi

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
The University of Texas at Arlington,
Box 19023,
Arlington, TX 76019-0023
e-mail: prashanth.ravi@uta.edu

Panos S. Shiakolas

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
The University of Texas at Arlington,
Box 19023,
Arlington, TX 76019-0023
e-mail: shiakolas@uta.edu

Avinash Dnyaneshwar Thorat

Department of Industrial, Manufacturing and
Systems Engineering,
The University of Texas at Arlington,
Box 19023,
Arlington, TX 76019-0023
e-mail: avinash.thorat@mavs.uta.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received October 28, 2016; final manuscript received January 30, 2017; published online March 8, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Zhijian J. Pei.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 139(7), 071007 (Mar 08, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: MANU-16-1576; doi: 10.1115/1.4035963 History: Received October 28, 2016; Revised January 30, 2017

Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is currently one of the most widely utilized prototyping technologies. Studies employing statistical techniques have been conducted to develop empirical relationships between FDM process factors and output variables such as dimensional accuracy, surface roughness, and mechanical properties of the fabricated structures. However, the effects of nozzle temperature (T), nozzle-bed distance (NBD), and their interactions on strut width (SW) have not been investigated. In the present work, a two-way factorial study with three levels of T and NBD in triplicates was undertaken. A fixed-effects model with interaction was proposed and remedial measures based on the error analysis were performed to obtain correct inferences. The factor main/interaction effects were all found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05) using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multiple comparisons were conducted between treatment means using the Tukey's method. A multiple linear regression (MLR) model (R2 = 0.95) was subsequently developed to enable the prediction of SW. The developed MLR model was verified experimentally; by (1) the fabrication of individual struts and (2) the fabrication of single-layer scaffolds with parallel raster patterns. The percentage error between the predicted and observed widths of individually fabricated struts was 3.2%, and the error between predicted and observed SW/spacing for the single-layer scaffolds was ≤ 5.5%. Results indicate that a similar statistical methodology could be potentially employed to identify levels of T and NBD that yield defined width struts using open architecture, personal or commercial FDM setups, and existing/new materials.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Crump, S. S. , 1992, “ Apparatus and Method for Creating Three-Dimensional Objects,” U.S. Patent No. 5,121,329.
Kalita, S. J. , Bose, S. , Hosick, H. L. , and Bandyopadhyay, A. , 2003, “ Development of Controlled Porosity Polymer-Ceramic Composite Scaffolds Via Fused Deposition Modeling,” Mater. Sci. Eng. C, 23(5), pp. 611–620. [CrossRef]
Bose, S. , Roy, M. , and Bandyopadhyay, A. , 2012, “ Recent Advances in Bone Tissue Engineering Scaffolds,” Trends Biotechnol., 30(10), pp. 546–554. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Turner, B. N. , Strong, R. , and Gold, S. A. , 2014, “ A Review of Melt Extrusion Additive Manufacturing Processes: I. Process Design and Modeling,” Rapid Prototyping J., 20(3), pp. 192–204. [CrossRef]
Ramanath, H. S. , Chua, C. K. , Leong, K. F. , and Shah, K. D. , 2008, “ Melt Flow Behaviour of Poly-e-Caprolactone in Fused Deposition Modelling,” J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Med., 19(7), pp. 2541–2550. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Turner, B. N. , and Gold, S. A. , 2015, “ A Review of Melt Extrusion Additive Manufacturing Processes: II. Materials, Dimensional Accuracy, and Surface Roughness,” Rapid Prototyping J., 21(3), pp. 250–261. [CrossRef]
Hodgson, G. , Ranellucci, A. , and Moe, J. , 2011, “ Slic3r Manual: Flow Math,” Aleph Objects, Loveland, CO, http://manual.slic3r.org/advanced/flow-math
Uppal, N. , and Shiakolas, P. S. , 2009, “ Process Sensitivity Analysis and Resolution Prediction for the Two Photon Polymerization of Micro/Nano Structures,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 131(5), p. 51018. [CrossRef]
Sheshadri, P. , and Shirwaiker, R. A. , 2015, “ Characterization of Material–Process–Structure Interactions in the 3D Bioplotting of Polycaprolactone,” 3D Print. Addit. Manuf., 2(1), pp. 20–31. [CrossRef]
Khan, S. N. , and Shiakolas, P. S. , 2016, “ To Study the Effects of Intrastromal Corneal Ring Geometry and Surgical Conditions on the Postsurgical Outcomes Through Finite Element Analysis,” J. Mech. Med. Biol., 16(7), p. 1650101. [CrossRef]
Loh, Q. L. , and Choong, C. , 2013, “ Three-Dimensional Scaffolds for Tissue Engineering Applications: Role of Porosity and Pore Size,” Tissue Eng., Part B, 19(6), pp. 485–502. [CrossRef]
Zein, I. , Hutmacher, D. W. , Tan, K. C. , and Teoh, S. H. , 2002, “ Fused Deposition Modeling of Novel Scaffold Architectures for Tissue Engineering Applications,” Biomaterials, 23(4), pp. 1169–1185. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mastrogiacomo, M. , Scaglione, S. , Martinetti, R. , Dolcini, L. , Beltrame, F. , Cancedda, R. , and Quarto, R. , 2006, “ Role of Scaffold Internal Structure on In Vivo Bone Formation in Macroporous Calcium Phosphate Bioceramics,” Biomaterials, 27(17), pp. 3230–3237. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Bose, S. , Vahabzadeh, S. , and Bandyopadhyay, A. , 2013, “ Bone Tissue Engineering Using 3D Printing,” Mater. Today, 16(12), pp. 496–504. [CrossRef]
Mohamed, O. A. , Masood, S. H. , and Bhowmik, J. L. , 2015, “ Optimization of Fused Deposition Modeling Process Parameters: A Review of Current Research and Future Prospects,” Adv. Manuf., 3(1), pp. 42–53. [CrossRef]
Peng, A. , Xiao, X. , and Yue, R. , 2014, “ Process Parameter Optimization for Fused Deposition Modeling Using Response Surface Methodology Combined With Fuzzy Inference System,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 73(1), pp. 87–100. [CrossRef]
Mohamed, O. A. , Masood, S. H. , and Bhowmik, J. L. , 2016, “ Optimization of Fused Deposition Modeling Process Parameters For Dimensional Accuracy Using I-Optimality Criterion,” Measurement, 81, pp. 174–196. [CrossRef]
Wang, C. C. , Lin, T.-W. , and Hu, S.-S. , 2007, “ Optimizing the Rapid Prototyping Process by Integrating the Taguchi Method With the Gray Relational Analysis,” Rapid Prototyping J., 13(5), pp. 304–315. [CrossRef]
Sood, A. K. , Ohdar, R. K. , and Mahapatra, S. S. , 2010, “ Parametric Appraisal of Mechanical Property of Fused Deposition Modelling Processed Parts,” Mater. Des., 31(1), pp. 287–295. [CrossRef]
Rayegani, F. , and Onwubolu, G. C. , 2014, “ Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) Process Parameter Prediction and Optimization Using Group Method for Data Handling (GMDH) and Differential Evolution (DE),” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 73(1–4), pp. 509–519. [CrossRef]
Lee, B. H. , Abdullah, J. , and Khan, Z. A. , 2005, “ Optimization of Rapid Prototyping Parameters for Production of Flexible ABS Object,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 169(1), pp. 54–61. [CrossRef]
Montero, M. , Roundy, S. , Odell, D. , Ahn, S. H. , and Wright, P. K. , 2001, “ Material Characterization of Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) ABS by Designed Experiments,” Rapid Prototyping Manufacturing Conference (RPM), Cincinnati, OH, May 15–17, pp. 1–21.
Sun, Q. , Rizvi, G. M. , Bellehumeur, C. T. , and Gu, P. , 2008, “ Effect of Processing Conditions on the Bonding Quality of FDM Polymer Filaments,” Rapid Prototyping J., 14(2), pp. 72–80. [CrossRef]
Ravi, P. , Shiakolas, P. S. , Welch, T. R. , Saini, T. , Guleserian, K. J. , and Batra, A. , 2015, “ On the Capabilities of a Multi-Modality 3D Bioprinter for Customized Biomedical Devices,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2015-52204.
Ravi, P. , Shiakolas, P. S. , Oberg, J. C. , Faizee, S. , and Batra, A. , 2015, “ On the Development of a Modular 3D Bioprinter for Research in Biomedical Device Fabrication,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2015-51555.
Hamad, K. , Kaseem, M. , and Deri, F. , 2011, “ Melt Rheology of Poly(Lactic Acid)/Low Density Polyethylene Polymer Blends,” Adv. Chem. Eng. Sci., 1(4), pp. 208–214. [CrossRef]
Dean, A. M. , and Voss, D. , 2000, Design and Analysis of Experiments ( Springer Texts in Statistics), Springer-Verlag, New York.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) The in-house developed CMMB with different modules and (b) the FDM module highlighted with important components adapted from Ref. [25]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

A representative experimental run shown with the initialization, transition, and actual regions counterclockwise from top-right

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Plot of SW versus T (a) with average SW data for each T level within inset text box, SW versus NBD (b), and SW versus treatment no. (c)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Residuals (e) versus fitted values (ŷ)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Normal probability plot (NPP) of SW residuals (e) versus normal scores (z)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Residuals (e) versus fitted values (ŷ) for the transformed data

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Normal probability plot (NPP) of SW residuals (e) versus normal scores (z) for the transformed data set

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Interaction plot of factors NBD and T. Note: NBD in mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Representative cross-sectional SEM image of a strut printed with T = 200 °C and NBD = 0.18 mm using a 0.4 mm nozzle. The deformed cross section is clearly visible as a result of the strut being sandwiched between the bed and nozzle.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Line plot summarizing results from pairwise comparisons of the nine μij treatment means using the Tukey's procedure. Nonsignificant differences are connected by lines. Out of the 36 total pairwise comparisons, eight were found to be nonsignificant at 95% family confidence, simultaneously.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

A representative single layer scaffold 3D printed with a targeted strut–strut spacing of 600 μm (T = 220 °C, NBD = 0.2 mm) visible with the initialization and transition regions starting from the top-right corner. Scale bar 1 division = 1 mm.



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In