Polymers 15 03419 With Cover

5.0 6.
Article
Optimization of 3D Printing
Parameters for Enhanced Surface
Quality and Wear Resistance
Alexandra Ileana Portoacă, Razvan George Ripeanu, Alin Diniță and Maria Tănase
Special Issue
Advanced FFF-Printed Polymeric Composites: Characterization, Modification, and Application
Edited by
Dr. Teng-Chun Yang
https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15163419
polymers
Article
Optimization of 3D Printing Parameters for Enhanced Surface
Quality and Wear Resistance
Alexandra Ileana Portoacă , Razvan George Ripeanu , Alin Dinit, ă * and Maria Tănase *
Mechanical Engineering Department, Petroleum-Gas University of Ploies, ti, 100680 Ploies, ti, Romania;
[email protected] (A.I.P.); [email protected] (R.G.R.)
* Correspondence: [email protected] (A.D.); [email protected] (M.T.)
Abstract: In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the field of 3D printing technology.
Among the various technologies available, fused deposition modeling (FDM) has emerged as the
most popular and widely used method. However, achieving optimal results with FDM presents a
significant challenge due to the selection of appropriate process parameters. Therefore, the objective
of this research was to investigate the impact of process parameters on the tribological and frictional
behavior of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and polylactic acid (PLA) 3D-printed parts. The
design of experiments (DOE) technique was used considering the input design parameters (infill
percentage and layer thickness) as variables. The friction coefficient values and the wear were
determined by experimental testing of the polymers on a universal tribometer employing plane
friction coupling. Multi-response optimization methodology and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were
used to highlight the dependency between the coefficient of friction, surface roughness parameters,
and wear on the process parameters. The optimization analysis revealed that the optimal 3D printing
input parameters for achieving the minimum coefficient of friction and linear wear were found
to be an infill percentage of 50% and layer thickness of 0.1 mm (for ABS material), and an infill
percentage of 50%, layer thickness of 0.15 mm (for PLA material). The suggested optimization
methodology (which involves minimizing the coefficient of friction and cumulative linear wear)
through the optimized parameter obtained provides the opportunity to select the most favorable
design conditions contributing to a more sustainable approach to manufacturing by reducing overall
material consumption.
Citation: Portoacă, A.I.; Ripeanu,
R.G.; Dinit, ă, A.; Tănase, M.
Keywords: ABS; PLA; 3D printing; friction coefficient; roughness; wear; infill percentage; layer
Optimization of 3D Printing
thickness; parametric optimization; design of experiments
Parameters for Enhanced Surface
Quality and Wear Resistance.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419. https://
doi.org/10.3390/polym15163419
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Teng-Chun Yang
Fused deposition modeling (FDM) stands out as the most prevalent additive manufac-
Received: 3 July 2023 turing method, operating by constructing objects layer by layer. This process involves the
Revised: 9 August 2023 incremental deposition of filaments to create the desired object, and it has the capacity to
Accepted: 14 August 2023 handle a broad spectrum of materials, including polylactic acid (PLA), polycarbonate, poly-
Published: 16 August 2023 caprolactone, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, and composite materials with polymers [1–3].
Extensive research has been conducted in the field of 3D printing to investigate the
mechanical properties of parts fabricated using these technologies. Multiple studies [4–16]
have explored how factors such as layer thickness, layer height, infill density, and other
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
parameters affect the mechanical properties of these parts. Other studies [6,17–26] are in-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
vestigating the influence of printing parameters on the dimensional accuracy of 3D-printed
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
parts. Additionally, post-processing heat treatments can be used to further enhance the
conditions of the Creative Commons
quality and performance of the printed parts [27–39]. These conditions significantly influ-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// ence the properties exhibited by the printed components, and therefore many experimental
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ tests should be carried out in order to obtain the optimal parameters for each analyzed
4.0/). physical or mechanical property. Optimization techniques play a crucial role in identifying
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15163419 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 2 of 22
optimal parameters for enhanced performance. Subsequently, researchers [40–49] have

applied various optimization techniques to refine the parameters directly affecting the
mechanical performance of 3D-printed parts. Response surface methodology is a common
method used in scientific papers [41,43,48,50–55] for optimization analysis. Grey relational
analysis (GRA) is a multi-response optimization technique that draws on the principles
of the Taguchi technique. Studies [44,56–62] have been conducted recently using GRA to
enhance various responses by optimizing processing parameters for 3D printing materials.
The study proposed by [41] focuses on optimizing the printing process using the
fused deposition modeling (FDM) method, considering infill percentage (IP), extruder
temperature (ET), and layer thickness (LT) as variables, which are adjusted based on the
design of experiments (DOE) principles. A total of 20 experiments are designed within the
parameter ranges of 15–55% for IP, 190–250 ◦ C for ET, and 0.15–0.35 mm for LT. The main
output responses evaluated are the maximum failure load, weight, fabrication time, and
surface roughness of the printed samples. The statistical analysis reveals that increasing the
infill percentage (IP) and setting the extruder temperature (ET) at 220 ◦ C led to an increase
in the failure load of the samples. Furthermore, the optimization process aims to reduce
both the weight and fabrication time of the specimens while achieving a maximum failure
load and minimizing surface roughness.
The research of [42] investigates the impact of three process variables, namely layer
thickness, infill percentage, and print speed, on the hardness and strength of PLA fabricated
specimens based on the Taguchi L9 orthogonal array. The study unveiled that both layer
thickness and infill percentage play a vital role in determining the mechanical properties of
FDM structures.
The scientific work of [45] aimed to optimize the settings of a 3D printer using ABS
material, considering several performance characteristics such as flexural strength, tensile
strength, average surface roughness, print time, and energy consumption. The study
focuses on three measurable characteristics: layer thickness, printing speed, and infill
density. To determine the significance of each performance parameter, the researchers
employed analysis of variance (ANOVA). Their findings revealed that achieving the de-
sired surface roughness and print time primarily depends on the layer thickness, while
infill density significantly influences the mechanical characteristics of the printed object.
Rodriguez et al. [47] conducted an optimization and statistical analysis to examine the
impact of various 3D printing parameters (geometric pattern, infill percentage, printing
direction, and layer height) on the ultimate tensile stress (UTS) and modulus of elasticity
(E) for PLA, ABS, and Nylon + CF manufactured by 3D FDM printing, using two designs
of experiments systematically to investigate these effects. The main contribution of this
work lies in identifying the printing parameters that maximize the UTS and determining
which parameters are not significant for the three materials taken under consideration. The
initial design of experiments revealed that the material type and infill percentage (33%,
66%, and 100%) significantly influence the print outcome, while the geometric internal
pattern (tridimensional, hexagonal, and linear) is considered irrelevant and excluded from
subsequent analysis. In a following DOE, it was discovered that reducing the layer height
from 0.18 mm to 0.14 mm and adjusting the printing direction from 0◦ /90◦ to +45◦ /−45◦
leads to an increase in ultimate tensile stress (UTS) for all three materials.
A similar study was performed in [48] with the aim of optimizing the printing param-
eters (layer thickness, printing speed, and nozzle temperature) for ABS polymer to improve
surface quality and reduce printing time.
Mani et al. [63] assessed, with the Taguchi design, the impact of printing parameter-
slayer thickness (0.15 mm, 0.25 mm, and 0.35 mm), nozzle temperature (210 ◦ C, 215 ◦ C, and
220 ◦ C), and infill density (55%, 60%, and 65%)on the tensile strength, hardness, and surface
roughness of PLA material. To achieve the highest tensile strength, the optimal parameters
were a layer thickness of 0.35 mm, an infill density of 65%, and a nozzle temperature of
220 ◦ C. In terms of hardness, the optimal parameters were a layer thickness of 0.25 mm,
an infill density of 65%, and a nozzle temperature of 215 ◦ C. For surface roughness, the
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 3 of 22
optimal parameters were a layer thickness of 0.15 mm, an infill density of 55%, and a nozzle
temperature of 210 ◦ C.
However, there is a limited number of references, specifically [64–70], that explore
the tribological behavior of 3D-printed parts. Additionally, there is scarce literature avail-
able on experimental studies that investigate the influence of printing variables, such as
infill percentage and layer thickness, on the tribological and frictional behavior of 3D-
printed components.
In a related study [71], the primary focus was examining the friction characteristics
of 3D-printed samples. The study observed that the transverse direction of the printed
samples exhibited higher coefficient of friction values compared to the longitudinal direc-
tion, regardless of the applied loads and sliding speeds. Furthermore, the study compared
the friction behavior of two 3D-printed materials: PLA and ABS. Consistently, PLA sam-
ples demonstrated lower coefficient of friction values than ABS samples, regardless of
the printing direction, applied loads, and sliding speeds. The objective of the research
paper [65] was to examine how the scaffolding angle and raster gap influence friction
behavior, specifically the coefficient of friction and wear rate. Moreover, graphite flakes
were introduced into the ABS matrix to potentially enhance the material properties. The
study demonstrated that the scaffolding angle only had a significant impact on behavior
for a positive printing gap, whereas it showed no significant effect for a negative gap. The
optimal combination, resulting in the highest friction coefficient and acceptable specific
wear rates, was achieved with a scaffolding angle of 90◦ and a negative gap. Incorporating
graphite into the material composition increased the coefficient of friction, but it led to a
reduction in wear properties.
The main goal of the study [72] was to evaluate the wear rate of PLA by identifying
the optimal parameters for 3D printing, namely extrusion temperature, fill density, and
nozzle speed. The research concluded that infill percentage had the most significant impact
on the wear rate, followed by extrusion temperature and nozzle speed. The optimal set of
process parameters determined was an infill percentage of 100%, an extrusion temperature
of 220 ◦ C, and a nozzle speed of 40 mm/s. Perepelkina et al. [69] demonstrated that
modifying the settings of 3D printing had a notable influence on the strength, stiffness,
surface quality, and, subsequently, the tribological properties of the printed parts. The study
found that the white filament color exhibited the highest friction tendency, whereas test
pieces printed at a 45◦ angle orientation with black filament color revealed the maximum
wear depth. Additionally, it was observed that wear reduced when the parts were subjected
to sliding under high loads [64].
Frunzaverde et al. [2] investigated the influence of filament color on the characteristics
of FFF-printed PLA materials, specifically in relation to dimensional accuracy, tensile
strength, and friction properties and concluded that the optimal characteristics in terms
of dimensional accuracy, tensile strength, and sliding wear behavior were within the
temperature range of between 210 ◦ C and 220 ◦ C for natural PLA, while slightly lower
temperatures (200–210 ◦ C) were found to be optimal for black PLA. Both types of PLA,
when printed at temperatures exceeding the upper limit of the aforementioned ranges,
exhibited lower values of the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and friction coefficient.
Given the anisotropic nature of 3D prisms, the analysis of the breaking behavior is
very important. Both experimental and numerical studies have been carried out, which
have revealed that the load-bearing capacity of these parts is radically influenced by the
orientation of the printing. Printing the part in the direction of the stress maximizes
its integrity, while a 90◦ orientation considerably decreases the maximum stress force
supported by the part [73–75]. Fracture toughness studies have also been conducted,
employing fracture mechanics principles for 3D-printed parts. These studies obtained
fracture toughness values that reached 1.97 MPa·m1/2 [75].
The current investigation aims to establish the relationship between printing process
parameters and the tribological and frictional behavior of 3D-printed components (made
of ABS and PLA materials) using fused deposition modeling (FDM). To achieve this aim,
parameters and the tribological and frictional behavior of 3D-printed components (made
of ABS and PLA materials) using fused deposition modeling (FDM). To achieve this aim,
a full factorial design of the experiment method is used for efficient experimentation by
simultaneously exploring multiple factors and their combinations. The selection of opti-
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 mal values of input parameters for minimal values of both coefficient of friction 4 of 22and cu-
mulative linear wear is obtained using the Minitab response optimizer and grey relational
analysis algorithm. Additionally, Pareto charts and ANOVA present the main effect plots
toa highlight
full factorialthedesign
influence
of the ofexperiment
input variablesmethodon isthe surface
used roughness,
for efficient coefficient of fric-
experimentation
tion, and cumulative linear wear for both analyzed polymers.
by simultaneously exploring multiple factors and their combinations. The selection of
Thevalues
optimal analyzed 3D-printed
of input parameters materials havevalues
for minimal manyofpractical applications,
both coefficient such
of friction andas non-
circular
cumulative gears used
linear wearinisdifferent industrial
obtained using fieldsresponse
the Minitab (robotics, automotive
optimizer and greyindustry,
relationalmedical
devices,
analysis and textileAdditionally,
algorithm. industry). InPareto the case of non-circular
charts and ANOVA present gears, having
the main a complex
effect plotsgeomet-
ric shape, classic manufacturing is more difficult to apply, thus justifying of
to highlight the influence of input variables on the surface roughness, coefficient thefriction,
choice of 3D
and cumulative linear wear for both analyzed polymers.
printing technology, correlated with other advantages such as low weight, low noise, and
The analyzed 3D-printed materials have many practical applications, such as non-
the possibility of working in aggressive environments. The tribological behavior of gears
circular gears used in different industrial fields (robotics, automotive industry, medical
has a direct
devices, and impact on the friction
textile industry). occurring
In the case between
of non-circular their
gears, meshing
having teeth.geometric
a complex Higher friction
levels
shape,can result
classic in energy losses,
manufacturing is morereduced efficiency,
difficult to apply, and
thusincreased
justifying wear, while
the choice of lower
3D fric-
tion levels
printing contribute
technology, to enhanced
correlated performance
with other advantages and minimized
such power
as low weight, losses.
low noise, and
The performed
the possibility investigation
of working in aggressiveintended to highlight
environments. the influence
The tribological of printing
behavior of gears parame-
ters
has on the coefficient
a direct impact on the of friction and wear,between
friction occurring aimingtheir
for their
meshingminimization,
teeth. Higherresulting
friction inlow
energy
levels canconsumption;
result in energy therefore,
losses, areduced
higher efficiency,
efficiencyand of the equipment
increased wear, in which
while lower the parts
friction levels contribute to enhanced performance and minimized power losses.
from the tested materials isused. Moreover, lower wear means higher durability, longer
The performed investigation intended to highlight the influence of printing parameters
service life, and lower material consumption, resulting in reduced CO2 emissions both
on the coefficient of friction and wear, aiming for their minimization, resulting inlow energy
during the
consumption; production
therefore, of semi-finished
a higher efficiencyproducts and during
of the equipment materials
in which processing.
the parts from the
testedOnmaterials
the otherisused.
hand, Moreover,
analyzinglower the specialized
wear means literature presentedlonger
higher durability, above, no scientific
service
work haslower
life, and madematerial
a complete correlation
consumption, between
resulting the printing
in reduced parameters
CO2 emissions both and
duringthethetribolog-
ical behavior
production of of 3D-printedproducts
semi-finished parts inand order to optimize
during materialsthe printing parameters.
processing.
On the other hand, analyzing the specialized literature presented above, no scientific
2. Materials
work has madeand Methods
a complete correlation between the printing parameters and the tribological
behavior of 3D-printed parts in order to optimize the printing parameters.
For the experimental study, 108 samples were printed, comprising both flat disks and
cubes. Disc and
2. Materials and cube structures were considered to simulate contact on a flat surface sim-
Methods
ilar toFor
that specific to
the experimentalnon-circular
study, 108 gears
samples with curved
were teeth.
printed, The shape
comprising bothofflat
thedisks
samples is
depicted
and cubes.inDisc
Figure
and 1.ABS and PLAwere
cube structures filaments weretosupplied
considered by Polymaker
simulate contact (Utrecht, The
on a flat surface
Netherlands). The printing
similar to that specific process
to non-circular gearsinvolved various
with curved teeth.combinations
The shape of theofsamples
three isdifferent
layer thicknesses (0.10 mm, 0.15 mm, and 0.20 mm) and three infill percentages (50%, 75%,
depicted in Figure 1. ABS and PLA filaments were supplied by Polymaker (Utrecht, The
and 100%). For
Netherlands). each
The combination
printing of printing
process involved parameters,
various three
combinations measurements
of three were per-
different layer
thicknesses (0.10 mm, 0.15 mm, and 0.20 mm) and three infill percentages (50%, 75%, and
formed, and it was observed that the stabilization of the values for the coefficient of fric-
100%). For each combination of printing parameters, three measurements were performed,
tion and linear wear was obtained at the same value as the measured data. Small differ-
and it was observed that the stabilization of the values for the coefficient of friction and
ences
linear(of thewas
wear order of 10−3)atofthe
obtained thesame
friction
valuecoefficient values were
as the measured data. recorded, these differences
Small differences (of
being
the order of 10 ) of the friction coefficient values were recorded, these differences values
insignificant
− 3 considering the reporting mode of the friction coefficient being (with
2insignificant
digits). considering the reporting mode of the friction coefficient values (with 2 digits).
(a)
Figure 1. Cont.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 5 of 22
(b)(b)
Figure1.
Figure
Figure 1.The
1. shape
Theshape ofofthe
shapeof the
thetested samples:
tested
tested samples:
samples: (a)ABS
(a) ABS material
(a) ABS and(b)
material
material and (b)
andPLA material.
(b)material.
PLA PLA material.
TheRaise
The
The Raise
RaiseE2E2
3D3D
E2 3Dprinter
printer
printer (Irvine,
(Irvine, CA,
CA, USA),
(Irvine, USA),
CA,havinghaving
USA), a volume
a volume
having capacity capacity of 330
of 330capacity
a volume × 240 × 240
× 240
of 330× × 240 ×
mm
240 mm
(Figure (Figure
2), 2),
was used was
forused for the
the printing printing process.
process. The specific
The specific
240 mm (Figure 2), was used for the printing process. The specific printing
printing parameters
parameters for
for the
printing parameters for
the present
present studystudy (Table
(Table 1) were:
1) were: buildbuild orientation
orientation X-Y model
X-Y model lineslines
and 45and 45° orientation.
◦ orientation.
the present study (Table 1) were: build orientation X-Y model lines and 45° orientation.
Figure 2. 3D printed samples fabrication.

Figure 2. 3D printed samples fabrication.
Figure
Table 2.The
Table1.1. 3Dprinting
The printedparameters
printing samples fabrication.
parameters described.
described.
Printing options for 1 set of samples ABS PLA
Table 1. The Options
Printing printingfor parameters described.
1 Set of Samples ABS PLA
Shell width (mm) 1 1
Shell width (mm) 1 1
Printing Infill
options speed for(mm/s)
1 set of samples 40 ABS 70 PLA
Infill speed (mm/s) 40 70
Estimated
Shell print
widthtime (mm)(min) 60 1 46 1
Estimated
Estimated filament
print
Infill speed used (g)
time (min)
(mm/s) 10.6 40
60 4610.6
70
Extruder
Estimatedtemperature
filament used(°C)
Estimated print time (min)
(g) 240 60
10.6 10.6210
46
Bed temperature
Extruder temperature (°C)◦
( C) 240110 210 60
Estimated filament used (g) 10.6 10.6
Platform addition◦ Raft
110 only Raft
60 only
Extruder temperature (°C)
Bed temperature ( C)
240 210
Bed
In this temperature
Platform addition
study, (°C) design method was used
the full factorial
Raft only
110 Raft only
60
through Minitab 19 software
Platform addition Raft only Raft
to optimize the tribological behavior of ABS and PLA 3D-printed parts. The investigation only
In this
focused on study, the full
two input factorial namely
parameters, design method was usedand
infill percentage through Minitab 19with
layer thickness, software
three
to optimize
levels, as the tribological
presented in Table behavior
2. of ABS and PLA 3D-printed parts. The investigation
In this study, the full factorial design method was used through Minitab 19 software
focused on two input parameters, namely infill percentage and layer thickness, with three
to optimize
levels,
the tribological behavior of ABS and PLA 3D-printed parts. The investigation
Table 2.asParameters
presentedand
in Table
levels 2.
used in DOE analysis.
focused on two input parameters, namely infill percentage and layer thickness, with three
levels, as presented in Table 2. Level
Parameter
1 2 3
Table 2. Parameters
Infilland levels used
percentage, % in DOE analysis. 50 75 100
Layer thickness, mm 0.10 0.15 0.20
Level
Parameter
1 2 3
Infill percentage, % 50 75 100
Layer thickness, mm 0.10 0.15 0.20
im Breisgau, Germany) pin-on-disc tribometer, with the functional components described
in Figure 3.The friction pair consisted of the disc sample (15 mm radius) and a cubic sam-
ple (4 mm side) of the same material (ABS and PLA), as presented in Figure 1.
During the tribological test, the following parameters were used: normal load—7 N,
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 friction length—50 m, and linear speed—0.314 m/s. The tests were performed at 6room of 22
temperature (20 °C) in air with 54% relative humidity. The coefficient of friction (μ) was
calculated from the ratio of the tangential friction force and the normal force. Three fric-
tion pairs were tested for each combination of printing parameters. Continuous measure-
Table 2. Parameters and levels used in DOE analysis.
ments were taken during the test to determine the coefficient of friction and cumulative
linear wear (the linear wear of both disc and cube samples). Level
The chosen friction coupling
Parameter
1 (contact on a flat surface)
2 simulates the type 3 of contact
specific to non-circular gears with curved teeth. The friction length of 50 mm, considered
Infill percentage, % 50 75 100
in the experiments (based on the authors' experience in the works [76,77]), corresponds to
the value
Layer at which
thickness, mma stabilization 0.10of friction coefficient was obtained (as seen
0.15 in Figure 4)
0.20
and no influence of the temperature appears (the heat developed by friction phenomenon
involves plastic
The total materials
number change their
of experiments mechanical
required characteristics
is determined by increasing
by the function the tem-
of the number
ofperature). The sliding
input factors (n) andspeed of 0.314of
the number m/s corresponds
levels (k). In thisto the sliding
specific speed obtained
scenario, on the
an orthogonal
AMSLER
array type A135
consisting of 32 tribometer at a roller diameter of 30 mm and is close to the speed in
tests was considered.
non-circular gears from
The coefficients some practical
of friction applications.
were determined usingThe load of
a CSM 7N corresponds
Instruments to a pres-
THT (Freiburg
imsure of 0.435Germany)
Breisgau, MPa, representing approximately
pin-on-disc 4.6% the
tribometer, with (forfunctional
ABS) and 2.52% (for PLA)
components of yield
described
instrength, respectively,
Figure 3.The compared
friction pair consisted toofvalues established
the disc sample (15by mm the authors
radius) andin the previous
a cubic sample
(4works
mm side)[9,11].
of the same material (ABS and PLA), as presented in Figure 1.
Figure 3. The test machine used to determine the sliding coefficient of friction.
Figure 3. The test machine used to determine the sliding coefficient of friction.
During the tribological test, the following parameters were used: normal load—7 N,
friction length—50 m, and linear speed—0.314 m/s. The tests were performed at room
temperature (20 ◦ C) in air with 54% relative humidity. The coefficient of friction (µ) was
calculated from the ratio of the tangential friction force and the normal force. Three friction
pairs were tested for each combination of printing parameters. Continuous measurements
were taken during the test to determine the coefficient of friction and cumulative linear
wear (the linear wear of both disc and cube samples).
The chosen friction coupling (contact on a flat surface) simulates the type of contact
specific to non-circular gears with curved teeth. The friction length of 50 mm, considered in
the experiments (based on the authors’ experience in the works [76,77]), corresponds to the
value at which a stabilization of friction coefficient was obtained (as seen in Figure 4) and no
influence of the temperature appears (the heat developed by friction phenomenon involves
plastic materials change their mechanical characteristics by increasing the temperature).
The sliding speed of 0.314 m/s corresponds to the sliding speed obtained on the AMSLER
type A135 tribometer at a roller diameter of 30 mm and is close to the speed in non-
circular gears from some practical applications. The load of 7N corresponds to a pressure
of 0.435 MPa, representing approximately 4.6% (for ABS) and 2.52% (for PLA) of yield
strength, respectively, compared to values established by the authors in the previous
works [9,11].
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 7 of 22
Figure 4. Measurement of friction coefficient and wear using InstrumX software.

The surface roughness of the 3D-printed samples was assessed by measuring Ra
The surface
(arithmetic
The surface roughness
deviation),ofofRthe
meanroughness the3D-printed
3D-printed
t(total samples
height ofsamples wasassessed
profile),was
and assessed
R bymeasuring
z (average
by measuring
peak RRa a
to valley
(arithmetic
height) mean
values. deviation),
This measurement R t(total
was height of
conductedprofile),
using aand R (average
Surtronic
z 3+ peak
surface
(arithmetic mean deviation), Rt (total height of profile), and Rz (average peak to valley to valley
roughness
height)
tester
height) values.
(Taylor
values. Thismeasurement
Hobson,
This measurement wasconducted
Leichester, UK)with
was conducted usingaacomponents
the functional
using Surtronic3+
Surtronic 3+described
surfaceroughness
surface roughness
in Figure
5. (Taylor Hobson, Leichester, UK)with the functional components described in in
tester
tester (Taylor Hobson, Leichester, UK)with the functional components described Figure
Figure 5.
5.
Figure 5. The surface roughness tester.

Inaddition,
In addition,hardness
hardness testing
testing waswas performed
performed using
using a Shore
a Shore D hardness
D hardness testertester (Wen-
(Wenzhou
In addition,
zhou Tripod
Tripod hardness
Instrument
Instrument testing was
Manufacturing
Manufacturing performed
Co., Ltd., Co., using a Shore D
Ltd., 15 Changsheng
15 Changsheng hardness
Road, Wenzhou, Road,tester (Wen-
Wenzhou,
China) with
zhou Tripod
Zhejiang, Instrument
China) with
◦ a Manufacturing
cone indentor30° Co.,
Type D Ltd., 15
durometer,Changsheng
a specific
a cone indentor30 Type D durometer, a specific method of harness measurement for Road,
method Wenzhou,
of harness
Zhejiang, China)
measurement
polymers, forwith
according toastandard
coneaccording
polymers, indentor30° Type D durometer,
to standard
ISO 7619-1:2010Rubber, a specificormethod
ISO 7619-1:2010Rubber,
vulcanized of harness
vulcanized
thermoplastic— or
measurement for polymers,
thermoplastic—determination according
of to standard
indentation ISO 7619-1:2010Rubber,
hardness—Part 1: vulcanized
Durometer
determination of indentation hardness—Part 1: Durometer method (Shore hardness). After or
method
thermoplastic—determination
(Shore hardness). After applying of indentation
sufficient hardness—Part
pressure between the 1: Durometer
gauge and
applying sufficient pressure between the gauge and the material and ensuring the needle the method
material
(Shore
and
has hardness).
ensuring
reached the After
needleapplying
its maximum of sufficient
has reached
depth pressure
its maximum
penetration, between ofthe gauge and
depth measurement
the hardness penetration, the
the
was material
hardness
accurately
and ensuring
measurement
displayed by thethe
was needle has reached
accurately displayed
measurement its maximum
by the6).
needle (Figure depth of penetration,
measurement needle (Figure 6). the hardness
measurement was accurately displayed by the measurement needle (Figure 6).
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 8 of 22
Figure6.
Figure 6.Shore
ShoreDDhardness
hardnesstesting
testingdevice.
device.
Figure 6. Shore D hardness testing device.
Toprovide
To
To provide
provide a visual
visual
a avisual representation
representation
representation of the
of
of the the performed
performed
performed investigation,
investigation,
investigation, thechart
the
the flow flow from
flow chart
chart
from Figure
from
Figure Figure 7 was
was created
7 was 7created created using
using using
the the specialized
the specialized
specialized software
software
software Clickcharts.
Clickcharts.
Clickcharts.
Figure7.
Figure 7.Flow
Flowchart
chartfor
forthe
theperformed
performedanalysis.
analysis.
Figure 7. Flow chart for the performed analysis.
Greyrelational
Grey
Grey relationalanalysis
relational analysiswas
analysis wasimplemented
was implementedto
implemented todetermine
to determinethe
determine theoptimal
the optimalcombination
optimal combinationof
combination of
of
independent variables
independent variables
independent that
variables that results
that results
results inin the
in the lowest
the lowest values
lowest values both
values both for
both for the
for the coefficient
thecoefficient of
coefficient of friction
offriction
friction
and cumulative
and cumulative linear
linear wear.
wear. Therefore,
Therefore, thethe smaller-is-better
smaller-is-better option
option should
should bebe considered
considered
and accordingly,
and accordingly, thethe data
data were
were normalized
normalized usingusing the
the following
following formula
formula [57]:
[57]:
− ,
=
−
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 9 of 22
where yij are the data points, and xij are the resulting normalized data.
The normalized data points were transformed to a deviation sequence  b
ing
andthem between
cumulative 0 wear.
linear and 1, applying
Therefore, thethe equation from
smaller-is-better [57]:
option should be considered
and accordingly, the data were normalized using the following formula [57]:
 = − ,
max(yij ) − yij
xij = , (1)
where represents the reference
max(yij ) value
− min(yand
ij ) represents the set of norm
data points.
where In this
yij are the case, the
data points, andreference value was
xij are the resulting fixed atdata.
normalized 1.
The grey relational coefficient 
The normalized data points were is calculated as: sequence ∆0i(k) by
transformed to a deviation
scaling them between 0 and 1, applying the equation from [57]:
∆0i (k) = x0=

 +  
(k) − ∆xi (k), . (2)
 +  
where x0(k ) represents the reference value and xi (k) represents the set of normalized data
In In
points. Formula
this case,(3),
the Δmin and
reference Δmax
value was represent
fixed at 1. the minimum, respectively, the max
values obtained for the deviation sequence responses.
The grey relational coefficient ε i ( k ) is calculated as: Each data point in the dev
sequence is denoted as Δij. In this particular
∆min study,
+ (ψ · ∆max ) a distinguishing coefficient ψ
( )
was used. The minimum deviation,∆ijΔmin, =
+ (ψ · has a )value of 0, while the maximum dev
ε i k . (3)
∆max
Δmax, has a value of 1.
In Formula (3), ∆min and ∆max represent the minimum, respectively, the maximum
For each experiment, the grey relational grade γi is computed as a function of th
values obtained for the deviation sequence responses. Each data point in the deviation
relational
sequence iscoefficients  In thisand
denoted as ∆ij. the number
particular study, a of coefficientn,
response variables
distinguishing ψ with
of 0.5 the for
was used. The minimum deviation, ∆min, has a value of 0, while the maximum deviation,

∆max, has a value of 1.
For each experiment, the grey relational grade γi is computed as a function of the grey
relational coefficients ε i (k) and the number of  . n, with the formula:
= = variables
response
n
∑ ε i (k)
i =1
γi =
3. Results and Discussion n
. (4)
3.1. Experimental
3. Results Determination of Roughness Parameters, Coefficient of Friction, Cumul
and Discussion
Linear Wear, andDetermination
3.1. Experimental Hardness of Roughness Parameters, Coefficient of Friction, Cumulative
Linear Wear, and Hardness
Figures 8–10 show the comparative experimental results for the coefficient of fr
Figures 8–10 show the comparative experimental results for the coefficient of friction,
cumulative linear wear, and surface roughness parameters.
cumulative linear wear, and surface roughness parameters.
Figure 8. Comparative values for the coefficient of friction.
Figure 8. Comparative values for the coefficient of friction.
The comparative results from Figure 8 show, overall, that for smaller layer
nesses, PLA samples have a greater coefficient of friction compared to ABS. For 0
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 layer thickness, the situation is the opposite, a similar conclusion as in10[71],
of 22 where
layer thickness was used.
Figure
Figure 9. Comparative
9. Comparative values
values for cumulative
for cumulative linear wear.
linear wear.
The comparative results from Figure 8 show, overall, that for smaller layer thicknesses,
PLAFrom
samplesFigure
have 9, it can be
a greater observed
coefficient that atcompared
of friction a lower layer to ABS.thickness
For 0.2 mm(0.1layer
mm), cum
linear wear
thickness, theissituation
greaterisfor thePLA samples,
opposite, except
a similar at 75%
conclusion as infill
in [71],percentage,
where 1 mm wherelayer three
greater values for ABS. For 0.2 mm layer thickness, the ABS samples exhibited g
thickness was used.
From Figure 9, it can be observed that at a lower layer thickness (0.1 mm), cumulative
cumulative linear wear: up to seven times greater at 75% infill percentage. Therefo
linear wear is greater for PLA samples, except at 75% infill percentage, where three times
not recommended
greater values for ABS. to use 75%
For 0.2 mm orlayer
100% infill percentage
thickness, the ABS samplesand 0.2 mm layer
exhibited thickness
greater
printing
cumulative ABS parts.
linear wear: up to seven times greater at 75% infill percentage. Therefore, it is
The coefficient
not recommended of 75%
to use friction andinfill
or 100% cumulative
percentage linear
and 0.2wearmm layerfor thickness
both materials
when are n
affected by the values of printing parameters. However, a clear and direct relation
printing ABS parts.
The coefficient of friction and cumulative linear wear for both materials are notably
dependence
affected by thebetween these parameters
values of printing and the afriction/wear
parameters. However, clear and directbehavior
relationship cannot
of be
fied. Consequently,
dependence between theseit becomes
parametersimperative to conduct
and the friction/wear an optimization
behavior analysis to
cannot be identified.
mine the specific
Consequently, values
it becomes of printing
imperative parameters
to conduct that result
an optimization in minimal
analysis to determinevalues
the for bo
coefficient of friction and cumulative linear wear.
specific values of printing parameters that result in minimal values for both the coefficient
of friction and cumulative linear wear.
The graphics from Figure 10 reveal that all surface roughness parameter
The graphics from Figure 10 reveal that all surface roughness parameters have greater
greater values
values for for ABS
ABS samples samples
compared compared
with with PLA,
PLA, regardless regardlessprinting
of the considered of theparame-
considered p
parameters.
ters. Opposite,Opposite, the results
the results from [71] showedfrom [71]
that showed that
for longitudinal for longitudinal
printing direction, the Rprinting
a
tion, the Ra parameter was greater for PLA samples than for ABS, but an infill perc
parameter was greater for PLA samples than for ABS, but an infill percentage of 20% and a
of 1 mm were used. The parameters Rt and Rz are not strongly influenced
oflayer
20%thickness
and a layer thickness of 1 mm were used. The parameters Rt and Rz are not st
by printing parameters, unlike Ra which increases with layer thickness for both analyzed
influenced by observation
materials. This printing parameters,
is in accordance unlike Ra which
with the literatureincreases with layer
findings [45,46,63], thickness
where it fo
analyzed
is specified materials.
that a high layerThis observation
thickness results inisan in accordance
increased Ra . with the literature fin
[45,46,63],
Figure where it isthe
11 presents specified
wear tracesthat a high
of the layer
samples thickness
after experimentalresults ininan
testing increased
order to R
highlight the patterns and characteristics of wear on the surfaces of these materials.
Uniform wear patterns can be observed for both tested materials and the adhesive–
abrasive character of the wear.
Figure 12 shows the comparative results regarding the Shore D harness means for PLA
and ABS samples.
greater values for ABS samples compared with PLA, regardless of the considered printing
parameters. Opposite, the results from [71] showed that for longitudinal printing direc-
tion, the Ra parameter was greater for PLA samples than for ABS, but an infill percentage
of 20% and a layer thickness of 1 mm were used. The parameters Rt and Rz are not strongly
influenced by printing parameters, unlike Ra which increases with layer thickness for both
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 11 of 22
analyzed materials. This observation is in accordance with the literature findings
[45,46,63], where it is specified that a high layer thickness results in an increased Ra.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 10. Comparative values for surface
Figure 10. Comparative valuesroughness parameters:(a)
for surface Ra—measuresRwithin
roughness parameters:(a) a certain
a —measures within a certain
sampling length the average of the peaks and valleys of the metal surface, including the deviation
from the mean line; (b) Rt—total height of the roughness profile; (c) Rz—calculated by measuring the
from the mean line; (b) Rt —total height of the roughness profile; (c) Rz —calculated by measuring
vertical distance from the highest peak to the lowest valley within five sampling lengths, then av-
the vertical distance from the highest peak to the lowest valley within five sampling lengths, then
eraging these distances.
averaging these distances.
Figure 11 presents the wear traces of the samples after experimental testing in order
to highlight the patterns and characteristics of wear on the surfaces of these materials.
from the mean line; (b) Rt—total height of the roughness profile; (c) Rz—calculated by measuring the
vertical distance from the highest peak to the lowest valley within five sampling lengths, then av-
eraging these distances.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419

Figure 11 presents the wear traces of the samples after experimental testing in order
12 of 22
to highlight the patterns and characteristics of wear on the surfaces of these materials.
Uniform wear patterns can be observed for both tested materials and the adhesive–
abrasive character of the wear.
Figure 12 shows the comparative (a) results regarding the Shore D harness (b) means for
PLA and ABS samples.
FigureFigure
11. Wear traces
11. Wear during
traces tests:
during (a)(a)ABS
tests: ABSsamples; (b)PLA
samples; (b) PLAsamples.
samples.
Figure 12. Shore D harness

Figuremeans
12. Shorefor PLA and
D harness ABS
means for samples.
PLA and ABS samples.
Through empirical observation, it is evident that the hardness properties of the poly-
Through empirical
mers observation, it is evident
PLA and ABS exhibit that
a consistent the
trend hardness
similar properties
to the friction of the
coefficient and pol-
cumula-
ymers PLA and ABStive exhibit
linear awear.
consistent trend
Specifically, similar
the mean to theoffriction
hardness coefficient
PLA samples is 28.57%and cumu-
higher than that
lative linear wear. Specifically,
of ABS-printedthe mean hardness of PLA samples is 28.57% higher than
samples.
The findings suggest a correlation between the tribological behavior and hardness
that of ABS-printed samples.
characteristics of PLA and ABS polymers. Notably, PLA demonstrates a higher resistance
The findings suggest a correlation
to indentation compared between the tribological
to ABS, indicating behavior
its superior ability and hardness
to withstand deformation
characteristics of PLA andexternal
under ABS polymers.
forces. Notably, PLA demonstrates a higher resistance
to indentation compared to ABS, indicating its superior ability to withstand deformation
3.2. Optimization of Process Parameters
under external forces. To assess the impact of printing parameters (infill percentage and layer thickness)
on different response variables, the main effect plots and graphical representations are
illustrated (Figures 13–17).
To assess the impact of printing parameters (infill percentage and layer thickness) on
different response variables, the main effect plots and graphical representations are illus-
trated (Figures 13–17).
to indentation compared to ABS, indicating its superior ability to withstand deformation
under external forces.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419

To assess the impact of printing parameters (infill percentage and layer thickness) on
13 of 22
different response variables, the main effect plots and graphical representations are illus-
trated (Figures 13–17).
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 13.
13. Main
Main effect
effect plots
plots for
for the
the coefficient
coefficient of
of friction:
friction: (a)
(a) ABS;
ABS; (b)
(b) PLA.
PLA.
It is observed from the results shown in Figure 13 that the minimum value of the
coefficient was obtained for 100% infill percentage and 0.1 mm layer thickness (in the case
of ABS 3D-printed samples) and 75% infill percentage and 0.2 mm layer thickness (in the
case of PLA 3D-printed samples).
(a) (b)
Figure 14. Main effect plots for cumulative linear wear: (a) ABS; (b) PLA.
Regarding the minimum value of cumulative linear wear, it can be achieved using
50%
(a) infill percentage and 0.15 mm layer thickness (in the case (b) of ABS 3D-printed samples)
and 50% infill percentage and 0.2 mm layer thickness (in the case of PLA 3D-printed sam-
Figure
Figure 14.
14. Main
Main effect
effect plots
plots for
for cumulative
cumulative linear
linear wear:
wear: (a)
(a) ABS;
ABS; (b)
(b) PLA.
ples). PLA.
Regarding the minimum value of cumulative linear wear, it can be achieved using
50% infill percentage and 0.15 mm layer thickness (in the case of ABS 3D-printed samples)
and 50% infill percentage and 0.2 mm layer thickness (in the case of PLA 3D-printed sam-
ples).
(a) (b)
Figure 15. Main effect plots for Ra.:(a) ABS; (b) PLA.
Figure 15. Main effect plots for Ra : (a) ABS; (b) PLA.
(a) (b)
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 (a) (b) 14 of 22
(a) (b)
Figure 16. Main effect plots for Rt.: (a) ABS; (b) PLA.
Figure 16. Main effect plots for Rt : (a) ABS; (b) PLA.
(a) (b)
Figure 17. Main effect plots for Rz:(a) ABS; (b) PLA.
Figure 17. Main effect plots for Rz : (a) ABS; (b) PLA.
Analyzing
It is observed the plots
from from Figures
the results 15–17,initFigure
shown can be 13 concluded
that the that for both
minimum materials,
value of the
acoefficient
smaller layer thickness leads to smaller values of surface roughness parameters.
was obtained for 100% infill percentage and 0.1 mm layer thickness (in the case
of ABS Regarding
3D-printed the samples)
influenceandof infill
75%percentage on theand
infill percentage surface roughness,
0.2 mm for ABS (in
layer thickness mate-
the
rial,itis
case of PLArecommended
3D-printedtosamples).
use a value of 50%, while for PLA, 75% infill percentage results
in a smoother
Regardingsurface.
the minimum value of cumulative linear wear, it can be achieved using 50%
infillFigures
percentage 15–17
andalso
0.15reveal thatthickness
mm layer the most(insignificant
the case offactor influencingsamples)
ABS 3D-printed the surface
and
roughness is layer thickness. The same conclusion is presented in [46],
50% infill percentage and 0.2 mm layer thickness (in the case of PLA 3D-printed samples). where it was found
that the layer thickness
Analyzing the plotshad a contribution
from Figures 15–17,percentage
it can befor Ra of 51.56%,
concluded whereas
that for layer com-a
both materials,
position
smaller layercontributed
thickness only 4.10%.
leads to smaller values of surface roughness parameters.
The relativethe
Regarding significance
influence ofofinfill
printing parameters
percentage on thebased
surfaceonroughness,
their impact can be
for ABS effec-
material,
tively illustrated using
it is recommended to usePareto charts
a value (Figures
of 50%, while18for
and 19).75%
PLA, These charts
infill indicateresults
percentage that, con-
in a
cerning
smootherthe coefficient of friction, layer thickness emerges as the most critical factor,
surface.
whereas cumulative
Figures linear
15–17 also wear that
reveal is more
the influenced by the infill
most significant factorpercentage.
influencing the surface
Furthermore,
roughness for ABS 3D-printed
is layer thickness. The samesamples,
conclusion theisinfluence
presentedofinlayer
[46],thickness on the
where it was co-
found
efficient
that the of friction
layer value is
thickness more
had pronouncedpercentage
a contribution when compared for RatoofPLA samples.
51.56%, whereas layer
composition contributed only 4.10%.
The relative significance of printing parameters based on their impact can be effectively
illustrated using Pareto charts (Figures 18 and 19). These charts indicate that, concerning the
coefficient of friction, layer thickness emerges as the most critical factor, whereas cumulative
linear wear is more influenced by the infill percentage.
position contributed only 4.10%.
The relative significance of printing parameters based on their impact can be effec-
tively illustrated using Pareto charts (Figures 18 and 19). These charts indicate that, con-
cerning the coefficient of friction, layer thickness emerges as the most critical factor,
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 whereas cumulative linear wear is more influenced by the infill percentage. 15 of 22
Furthermore, for ABS 3D-printed samples, the influence of layer thickness on the co-
efficient of friction value is more pronounced when compared to PLA samples.
(a) (b)
Figure 18.
Figure 18. Pareto
Pareto charts for the
charts for the coefficient
coefficient of
of friction:
friction: (a)
(a) ABS;
ABS; (b)
(b) PLA.
PLA.
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 19.
19. Pareto
Pareto charts
charts for
for cumulative
cumulative linear
linear wear:
wear: (a)
(a) ABS;
ABS; (b)
(b) PLA.
PLA.
(a) (b)
Contour plots for
Furthermore, derived from Figures
ABS 3D-printed 20 and the
samples, 21 serve as valuable
influence of layertools for visually
thickness on the
Figure 19. Pareto charts for cumulative linear wear: (a) ABS; (b) PLA.
grasping
coefficientthe connections
of friction valuebetween the coefficient
is more pronounced of friction
when comparedandtocumulative
PLA samples.linear wear
with Contour
the inputplots
Contour parameters.
derivedThese
plots derived fromplots
from Figureseffectively
Figures 20and
20 and21aid in identifying
21serve
serve regions
asasvaluable
valuable tools
tools characterized
forfor visually
visually
by high
grasping or low
the response
connections values, providing
between the a clear
coefficient and
of intuitive
friction understanding
and cumulative
grasping the connections between the coefficient of friction and cumulative linear wear of the
linear data.
wear
with the input parameters. These plots effectively aid in identifying regions characterized
with the input parameters. These plots effectively aid in identifying regions characterized
bybyhigh
highororlow
lowresponse
response values,
values, providing
providingaaclear
clearand
andintuitive understanding
intuitive understanding of the data.
of the data.
(a) (b)
Figure
(a) 20. Comparative contour plots for the coefficient of friction:
(b) (a) ABS; (b) PLA.
Figure 20. Comparative contour plots for the coefficient of friction: (a) ABS; (b) PLA.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 16 of 22
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 21. Comparative contour plots for cumulative linear wear(a) ABS; (b) PLA.
Figure 21. Comparative contour plots for cumulative linear wear (a) ABS; (b) PLA.
Thered
The redcontours
contoursindicate
indicatethe theregions
regionswith withlower
lower coefficient
coefficient of of friction
friction andand cumulative
cumula-
tive linear wear, respectively.
linear wear, respectively.
ByBydirecting
directing attention
attention to to these
these specific
specificregions,
regions,ititbecomes
becomes possible
possible to to
identify thethe
identify
combinations of variables that lead to more advantageous outcomes
combinations of variables that lead to more advantageous outcomes concerning the tribo- concerning the tribo-
logical behavior of 3D-printed parts fabricated from ABS or PLA materials, considering
logical behavior of 3D-printed parts fabricated from ABS or PLA materials, considering
certain applications. Based on the above results and considering the variation in both
the coefficient of friction and cumulative linear wear in relation to infill percentage and
layer thickness, it is recommended to perform a multi-objective optimization to achieve
certain applications. Based on the above results and considering the variation in both the
desirable
coefficient of outcomes
friction andin terms of coefficient
cumulative linear wear in ofrelation
frictiontoandinfillcumulative
percentage and linear
layerwear, considered
thickness, it is recommended to perform a multi-objective optimization to achieve desira- each response,
as responses, simultaneously. The optimization criteria are the same for
blenamely
outcomes toin terms of coefficient
minimize of friction and
them. Minimizing the cumulative
coefficient linear wear, considered
of friction is desirableas as it reduces
responses, simultaneously.
the resistance to motion Thebetween
optimization criteria
surfaces in are the same
contact. Lowerfor each response,
friction coefficients lead to
namely to minimize
smoother them. Minimizing
operation, reduced energy the coefficient of frictionand
consumption, is desirable as it reduces
less wear and tear on the parts.
the resistance to motion between surfaces in contact. Lower friction coefficients lead to
Additionally, minimizing cumulative linear wear is important for ensuring the durability
smoother operation, reduced energy consumption, and less wear and tear on the parts.
and reliability
Additionally, of 3D-printed
minimizing cumulative parts. Bywear
linear reducing wear,for
is important theensuring
parts canthe maintain
durability their structural
integrity and dimensional accuracy over an extended period,
and reliability of 3D-printed parts. By reducing wear, the parts can maintain their struc- resulting in improved perfor-
tural integrity
mance andand dimensional
operational accuracy over
efficiency. an extendedthese
By combining period,tworesulting in improved
objectives into a multi-objective
performance
optimization andproblem,
operationalit efficiency.
becomes By combining
possible these two
to identify objectives
a set into asolutions
of optimal multi- that provide
objective
a balanceoptimization
betweenproblem,
minimizingit becomes possible to identify
the coefficient a setand
of friction of optimal solutions
cumulative linear wear. This
that provide
allows thea selection
balance between minimizing
of printing the coefficient
parameters of friction
that offer and cumulative
the best compromise lin- between these
ear wear. This allows the selection of printing parameters that offer the best compromise
two conflicting objectives, leading to enhanced performance and durability of 3D-printed
between these two conflicting objectives, leading to enhanced performance and durability
parts. The parts.
of 3D-printed multi-response optimization
The multi-response results
optimization (illustrated
results (illustratedininFigure
Figure22) 22) were obtained
using
were Minitab
obtained usingsoftware.
Minitab software.
(a) (b)
Figure 22. Multi-responseoptimizationplots: (a) ABS; (b) PLA.
Figure 22. Multi-responseoptimizationplots: (a) ABS; (b) PLA.
The optimal combination of printing parameters is 50% infill percentage and 0.1 mm
layer thickness (for ABS) and 50% infill percentage and 0.15 mm layer thickness (for PLA).
To validate the results obtained with Minitab software, grey relational analysis opti-
mization methodology for multiple responses optimization was applied.
The Equations (1)–(4) were used, and the corresponding obtained results are pre-
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 17 of 22
The optimal combination of printing parameters is 50% infill percentage and 0.1 mm
layer thickness (for ABS) and 50% infill percentage and 0.15 mm layer thickness (for PLA).
To validate the results obtained with Minitab software, grey relational analysis opti-
mization methodology for multiple responses optimization was applied.
The Equations (1)–(4) were used, and the corresponding obtained results are presented
in Tables 3–6.
Table 3. Normalized data responses.
Printing Parameters Normalized Data

ABS PLA
Infill Layer
Cumulative Cumulative
percentage, % thickness, mm
linear wear, Coeff. of friction linear wear, Coeff. of friction
µm µm
50 0.1 1.000 1.000 0.839 0.496
75 0.1 0.404 0.813 0.379 0.000
100 0.1 0.993 0.817 0.000 0.037
50 0.15 0.668 0.361 1.000 0.486
75 0.15 0.924 0.000 0.134 1.000
100 0.15 0.822 0.939 0.978 0.102
50 0.2 0.930 0.115 0.952 0.518
75 0.2 0.000 0.498 0.656 0.833
100 0.2 0.526 0.102 0.850 0.597
Table 4. Deviation sequence responses.
Printing Parameters Deviation Sequence

ABS PLA
Infill Layer
µm µm
50 0.1 0.000 0.000 0.161 0.504
75 0.1 0.596 0.187 0.621 1.000
100 0.1 0.007 0.183 1.000 0.963
50 0.15 0.332 0.639 0.000 0.514
75 0.15 0.076 1.000 0.866 0.000
100 0.15 0.178 0.061 0.022 0.898
50 0.2 0.070 0.885 0.048 0.482
75 0.2 1.000 0.502 0.344 0.167
100 0.2 0.474 0.898 0.150 0.403
Table 5. Grey relational coefficient.
Printing Parameters Grey Relational Coefficient

ABS PLA
Infill Layer
µm µm
50 0.1 1.000 1.000 0.756 0.498
75 0.1 0.456 0.728 0.446 0.333
100 0.1 0.987 0.733 0.333 0.342
50 0.15 0.601 0.439 1.000 0.493
75 0.15 0.867 0.333 0.366 1.000
100 0.15 0.737 0.892 0.959 0.358
50 0.2 0.876 0.361 0.912 0.509
75 0.2 0.333 0.499 0.592 0.750
100 0.2 0.514 0.358 0.770 0.553
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 18 of 22
Table 6. Grey relational graded and ranks.
Printing Parameters I.
Infill Layer ABS PLA
Grade Rank Grade Rank
50 0.1 1.000 1* 0.627 7
75 0.1 0.592 6 0.390 8
100 0.1 0.860 2 0.338 9
50 0.15 0.520 7 0.747 1*
75 0.15 0.600 5 0.683 3
100 0.15 0.815 3 0.658 6
50 0.2 0.619 4 0.711 2
75 0.2 0.416 9 0.671 4
100 0.2 0.436 8 0.662 5
* the highlighted lines correspond to the optimal values (having Rank 1) of printing parameters for ABS and PLA,
respectively.
Considering the results analyzed and presented in Tables 3–5, Table 6 was obtained to
correlate all the information on infill percentage and layer thickness for ABS and PLA. The
optimal conditions can be established based on the data from Table 6, corresponding to
Rank 1 (the highest value).
Therefore, it can be seen that the optimal printing parameters for minimum values of
coefficient of friction and cumulative linear wear are an infill percentage of 50% and layer
thickness of 0.1 mm (for ABS)and an infill percentage of 50% and a layer thickness 0.15 mm
(for PLA), as obtained from Minitab response optimization (see Figure 22).
4. Conclusions
The present work aimed to analyze the frictional and wear behavior and surface
roughness of 3D-printed PLA and ABS parts. The investigation considered the impact
of printing parameters such as infill percentage and layer thickness. The experimentally
measured outcomes were the coefficient of friction, cumulative linear wear, and roughness
parameters (Ra , Rz , and Rt ). Full factorial design of experiments and ANOVA were used
to determine the contribution of each input parameter. Multi-objective optimization was
carried out to obtain the best values for coefficients of friction and linear wear.
The primary objective of this study was to identify the most effective printing pa-
rameters for two specific polymers, PLA and ABS. This was achieved through analysis of
the coefficient of friction and cumulative linear wear. The examination of the polymer’s
tribological behavior was essential for their application in power transmission, particularly
in non-circular gears. The characterization of these polymers in terms of hardness, wear
resistance, and coefficient of friction aimed to ensure optimal power transmission and
minimize wear in the gear system.
The study revealed a significant impact of 3D printing parameters, specifically infill
percentage and layer thickness, on the friction behavior of both ABS and PLA samples.
However, the relationship between these parameters proved to be intricate and varied
depending on the specific materials being used. Based on the findings from this study, it
is not recommended to use a 75% or 100% infill percentage in combination with a layer
thickness of 0.2 mm when printing ABS parts. These conditions result in significantly higher
linear wear, which could compromise the durability of the 3D-printed ABS components. It
is recommended to consider alternative infill percentages or adjust the layer thickness to
avoid excessive wear in ABS parts.
The measured data demonstrate that ABS samples consistently exhibit higher surface
roughness values (up to three times greater) compared to PLA, regardless of the specific
printing parameters being considered.
Hardness testing was performed to correlate the tribological behavior with hardness
values, and the findings strongly indicate a connection between these characteristics both
for PLA and ABS polymers. Significantly, PLA exhibits higher resistance to indentation
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 19 of 22
compared with ABS, highlighting its superior capability to withstand deformations when
subjected to external forces.
The main effect plots clearly illustrate that the lowest coefficients of friction are
achieved under specific printing conditions. For ABS 3D-printed samples, the minimum
coefficient of friction was attained with 100% infill percentage and 0.1 mm layer thickness.
Conversely, for PLA 3D-printed samples, the minimum coefficient of friction was obtained
with 75% infill percentage and 0.2 mm layer thickness. In terms of achieving the minimum
linear wear, for ABS 3D-printed samples, 50% infill percentage and 0.15 mm layer thickness
should be used. Similarly, for PLA 3D-printed samples, the minimum linear wear can be
obtained with a 50% infill percentage and 0.2 mm layer thickness.
The Pareto charts reveal that, for the coefficient of friction, the layer thickness is the
most significant factor, whereas the infill percentage has a greater influence on linear wear.
Multi-objective optimization was performed both with Minitab software and using
grey relational analysis methodology, and the obtained results were similar. Thus, the
optimal printing parameters that yield the minimum values of coefficient of friction and
linear wear can be determined as follows: an infill percentage of 50% and layer thickness of
0.1 mm for ABS samples, and an infill percentage of 50% and layer thickness of 0.15 mm
for PLA samples.
The application considered in this study was 3D-printed non-circular gears used in
flow meters, textile machines, Geneva mechanisms, printing press equipment, pumps,
packaging machines, potentiometers, conveyors, windshield wipers, and robotic mech-
anisms. Power transmission with 3D-printed gears has become a viable option in light
industries (textile, food industries, and robotics) due to advancements in 3D printing tech-
nology and the availability of sustainable and durable 3D printing materials. The study
revealed that the optimal solution was achieved with a 50% infill rather than 100%. This
implies that a more efficient material consumption approach can be used in the fabrication
of mentioned applications.
Optimizing the printing parameters can help improve the overall performance and
durability of 3D-printed parts (in particular non-circular gears), enhancing their tribo-
logical behavior, which directly affects their frictional characteristics and wear resistance.
However, the optimization function that aimed to minimize both the coefficient of friction
and linear wear for 3D-printed ABS and PLA parts encounters several limitations. Firstly,
different properties of ABS and PLA materials pose challenges as their responses to infill
percentage and layer thickness may vary significantly. Secondly, the complex interaction
between these parameters and the targeted results may result in compromises, making it
difficult to achieve an optimal balance between friction and wear resistance. Lastly, practical
constraints and design considerations could impact the effectiveness of the optimization, ne-
cessitating further research and advanced techniques to address these challenges effectively.
Overcoming these limitations will contribute to the advancement of additive manufactur-
ing, enhancing the tribological performance and durability of 3D-printed components, so
further investigations must be performed.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.I.P., M.T., A.D. and R.G.R.; methodology, M.T., A.I.P.
and R.G.R.; validation, R.G.R.; formal analysis, R.G.R.; investigation, A.I.P., M.T., A.D. and R.G.R.;
resources, M.T., A.I.P., A.D. and R.G.R.; writing—original draft preparation, A.I.P. and M.T.; writing—
review and editing, A.I.P., A.D., R.G.R. and M.T.; visualization A.I.P., R.G.R., A.D. and M.T.; supervi-
sion, R.G.R. 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 conflict of interest.
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 20 of 22
References
1. Rouf, S.; Raina, A.; Irfan Ul Haq, M.; Naveed, N.; Jeganmohan, S.; Farzana Kichloo, A. 3D Printed Parts and Mechanical Properties:
Influencing Parameters, Sustainability Aspects, Global Market Scenario, Challenges and Applications. Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res.
2022, 5, 143–158. [CrossRef]
2. Frunzaverde, D.; Cojocaru, V.; Ciubotariu, C.-R.; Miclosina, C.-O.; Ardeljan, D.D.; Ignat, E.F.; Marginean, G. The Influence of
the Printing Temperature and the Filament Color on the Dimensional Accuracy, Tensile Strength, and Friction Performance of
FFF-Printed PLA Specimens. Polymers 2022, 14, 1978. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Liu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Wu, B.; Cui, C.; Guo, Y.; Yan, C. A Critical Review of Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printing Technology in
Manufacturing Polylactic Acid Parts. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 102, 2877–2889. [CrossRef]
4. Pezer, D.; Vukas, F.; Butir, M. Experimental Study of Tensile Strength for 3D Printed Specimens of HI-PLA Polymer Material on
in-House Tensile Test Machine. Technium 2022, 4, 197–206. [CrossRef]
5. Afonso, J.A.; Alves, J.L.; Caldas, G.; Gouveia, B.P.; Santana, L.; Belinha, J. Influence of 3D Printing Process Parameters on the
Mechanical Properties and Mass of PLA Parts and Predictive Models. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2021, 27, 487–495. [CrossRef]
6. Vasilescu, M.D.; Fleser, T. Influence of Technological Parameters on the Dimension of GEAR Parts Generated with PLA Matherial
by FDM 3D Printing. Mat. Plast. 2018, 55, 247–251. [CrossRef]
7. Hanon, M.M.; Marczis, R.; Zsidai, L. Influence of the 3D Printing Process Settings on Tensile Strength of PLA and HT-PLA. Period.
Polytech. Mech. Eng. 2020, 65, 38–46. [CrossRef]
8. Zisopol, D.G.; Nae, I.; Portoaca, A. Comparison of the Charpy Resilience of Two 3D Printed Materials: A Study on the Impact
Resistance of Plastic Parts. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2023, 13, 10781–10784. [CrossRef]
9. 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. [CrossRef]
10. 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. [CrossRef]
11. Portoaca, A.; Nae, I.; Zisopol, D.G.; Ramadan, I. Studies on the Influence of FFF Parameters on the Tensile Properties of Samples
Made of ABS. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 1235, 012008. [CrossRef]
12. Zisopol, D.G.; Nae, I.; Portoaca, A.I.; Ramadan, I. A Statistical Approach of the Flexural Strength of PLA and ABS 3D Printed
Parts. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2022, 12, 8248–8252. [CrossRef]
13. Zisopol, D.G.; Iacob, D.V.; Portoaca, A.I. A Theoretical-Experimental Study of the Influence of FDM Parameters on PLA Spur
Gear Stiffness. Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2022, 12, 9329–9335. [CrossRef]
14. Farzadi, A.; Waran, V.; Solati-Hashjin, M.; Rahman, Z.A.A.; Asadi, M.; Osman, N.A.A. Effect of Layer Printing Delay on
Mechanical Properties and Dimensional Accuracy of 3D Printed Porous Prototypes in Bone Tissue Engineering. Ceram. Int. 2015,
41, 8320–8330. [CrossRef]
15. Galantucci, L.M.; Lavecchia, F.; Percoco, G. Study of Compression Properties of Topologically Optimized FDM Made Structured
Parts. CIRP Ann. 2008, 57, 243–246. [CrossRef]
16. Torrado, A.R.; Shemelya, C.M.; English, J.D.; Lin, Y.; Wicker, R.B.; Roberson, D.A. Characterizing the Effect of Additives to ABS
on the Mechanical Property Anisotropy of Specimens Fabricated by Material Extrusion 3D Printing. Addit. Manuf. 2015, 6, 16–29.
[CrossRef]
17. 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. [CrossRef]
18. Hanon, M.M.; Zsidai, L.; Ma, Q. Accuracy Investigation of 3D Printed PLA with Various Process Parameters and Different Colors.
Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 42, 3089–3096. [CrossRef]
19. Buj-Corral, I.; Zayas-Figueras, E.E. Comparative Study about Dimensional Accuracy and Form Errors of FFF Printed Spur Gears
Using PLA and Nylon. Polym. Test. 2023, 117, 107862. [CrossRef]
20. Nugroho, W.T.; Dong, Y.; Pramanik, A. Dimensional Accuracy and Surface Finish of 3D Printed Polyurethane (PU) Dog-Bone
Samples Optimally Manufactured by Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM). Rapid Prototyp. J. 2022, 28, 1779–1795. [CrossRef]
21. Buj-Corral, I.; Bagheri, A.; Sivatte-Adroer, M. Effect of Printing Parameters on Dimensional Error, Surface Roughness and Porosity
of FFF Printed Parts with Grid Structure. Polymers 2021, 13, 1213. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Zhang, Z.; Li, P.; Chu, F.; Shen, G. Influence of the Three-Dimensional Printing Technique and Printing Layer Thickness on Model
Accuracy. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2019, 80, 194–204. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Kumar Maurya, N.; Rastogi, V.; Singh, P. Investigation of Dimensional Accuracy and International Tolerance Grades of 3D Printed
Polycarbonate Parts. Mater. Today Proc. 2020, 25, 537–543. [CrossRef]
24. Luis-Pérez, C.J.; Buj-Corral, I.; Sánchez-Casas, X. Modeling of the Influence of Input AM Parameters on Dimensional Error and
Form Errors in PLA Parts Printed with FFF Technology. Polymers 2021, 13, 4152. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Kluska, E.; Gruda, P.; Majca-Nowak, N. The Accuracy and the Printing Resolution Comparison of Different 3D Printing
Technologies. Trans. Aerosp. Res. 2018, 2018, 69–86. [CrossRef]
26. Sood, A.K.; Ohdar, R.K.; Mahapatra, S.S. Improving Dimensional Accuracy of Fused Deposition Modelling Processed Part Using
Grey Taguchi Method. Mater. Des. 2009, 30, 4243–4252. [CrossRef]
27. Bolat, Ç.; Ergene, B.; Ispartalı, H. A Comparative Analysis of the Effect of Post Production Treatments and Layer Thickness on
Tensile and Impact Properties of Additively Manufactured Polymers. Int. Polym. Process. 2023, 38, 244–256. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 21 of 22
28. Ardi, D.T.; Guowei, L.; Maharjan, N.; Mutiargo, B.; Leng, S.H.; Srinivasan, R. Effects of Post-Processing Route on Fatigue
Performance of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Inconel 718. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 36, 101442. [CrossRef]
29. Elangeswaran, C.; Cutolo, A.; Muralidharan, G.K.; de Formanoir, C.; Berto, F.; Vanmeensel, K.; Van Hooreweder, B. Effect of
Post-Treatments on the Fatigue Behaviour of 316L Stainless Steel Manufactured by Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Int. J. Fatigue 2019,
123, 31–39. [CrossRef]
30. Afkhami, S.; Javaheri, V.; Dabiri, E.; Piili, H.; Björk, T. Effects of Manufacturing Parameters, Heat Treatment, and Machining on
the Physical and Mechanical Properties of 13Cr10Ni1.7Mo2Al0.4Mn0.4Si Steel Processed by Laser Powder Bed Fusion. Mater. Sci.
Eng. A 2021, 832, 142402. [CrossRef]
31. Cheruvathur, S.; Lass, E.A.; Campbell, C.E. Additive Manufacturing of 17-4 PH Stainless Steel: Post-Processing Heat Treatment to
Achieve Uniform Reproducible Microstructure. JOM 2016, 68, 930–942. [CrossRef]
32. Ali, M.; Sari, R.; Sajjad, U.; Sultan, M.; Ali, H. Effect of Annealing on Microstructures and Mechanical Properties of PA-12 Lattice
Structures Proceeded by Multi Jet Fusion Technology. Addit. Manuf. 2021, 47, 102285. [CrossRef]
33. Arjun, P.; Bidhun, V.K.; Lenin, U.K.; Amritha, V.P.; Pazhamannil, R.V.; Govindan, P. Effects of Process Parameters and Annealing
on the Tensile Strength of 3D Printed Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polylactic Acid. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 62, 7379–7384. [CrossRef]
34. Butt, J.; Bhaskar, R. Investigating the Effects of Annealing on the Mechanical Properties of FFF-Printed Thermoplastics. J. Manuf.
Mater. Process. 2020, 4, 38. [CrossRef]
35. Dinit, ă, A.; Neacs, a, A.; Portoacă, A.I.; Tănase, M.; Ilinca, C.N.; Ramadan, I.N. Additive Manufacturing Post-Processing Treatments,
a Review with Emphasis on Mechanical Characteristics. Materials 2023, 16, 4610. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Zisopol, D.G.; Portoaca, A.I.; Nae, I.; Ramadan, I. A Comparative Analysis of the Mechanical Properties of Annealed PLA. Eng.
Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2022, 12, 8978–8981. [CrossRef]
37. Galantucci, L.M.; Lavecchia, F.; Percoco, G. Quantitative Analysis of a Chemical Treatment to Reduce Roughness of Parts
Fabricated Using Fused Deposition Modeling. CIRP Ann. 2010, 59, 247–250. [CrossRef]
38. Khosravani, M.R.; Schüürmann, J.; Berto, F.; Reinicke, T. On the Post-Processing of 3D-Printed ABS Parts. Polymers 2021, 13, 1559.
[CrossRef]
39. Cao, L.; Xiao, J.; Kim, J.K.; Zhang, X. Effect of Post-Process Treatments on Mechanical Properties and Surface Characteristics of 3D
Printed Short Glass Fiber Reinforced PLA/TPU Using the FDM Process. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2023, 41, 135–143. [CrossRef]
40. Agrawal, A.P.; Kumar, V.; Kumar, J.; Paramasivam, P.; Dhanasekaran, S.; Prasad, L. An Investigation of Combined Effect of Infill
Pattern, Density, and Layer Thickness on Mechanical Properties of 3D Printed ABS by Fused Filament Fabrication. Heliyon 2023,
9, e16531. [CrossRef]
41. Shahrjerdi, A.; Karamimoghadam, M.; Bodaghi, M. Enhancing Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed PLAs via Optimization
Process and Statistical Modeling. J. Compos. Sci. 2023, 7, 151. [CrossRef]
42. Sahoo, S.; Sutar, H.; Senapati, P.; Shankar Mohanto, B.; Ranjan Dhal, P.; Kumar Baral, S. Experimental Investigation and
Optimization of the FDM Process Using PLA. Mater. Today Proc. 2023, 74, 843–847. [CrossRef]
43. Jaisingh Sheoran, A.; 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. [CrossRef]
44. Singh, M.; Bharti, P.S. Grey Relational Analysis Based Optimization of Process Parameters for Efficient Performance of Fused
Deposition Modelling Based 3D Printer. J. Eng. Res. 2022, 10. [CrossRef]
45. Mushtaq, R.T.; Iqbal, A.; Wang, Y.; Rehman, M.; Petra, M.I. Investigation and Optimization of Effects of 3D Printer Process
Parameters on Performance Parameters. Materials 2023, 16, 3392. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Al-Tamimi, A.A.; Tlija, M.; Abidi, M.H.; Anis, A.; Abd Elgawad, A.E.E. Material Extrusion of Multi-Polymer Structures Utilizing
Design and Shrinkage Behaviors: A Design of Experiment Study. Polymers 2023, 15, 2683. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Rodríguez-Reyna, S.L.; Mata, C.; Díaz-Aguilera, J.H.; Acevedo-Parra, H.R.; Tapia, F. Mechanical Properties Optimization for PLA,
ABS and Nylon + CF Manufactured by 3D FDM Printing. Mater. Today Commun. 2022, 33, 104774. [CrossRef]
48. Selvam, A.; Mayilswamy, S.; Whenish, R.; Naresh, K.; Shanmugam, V.; Das, O. Multi-Objective Optimization and Prediction of
Surface Roughness and Printing Time in FFF Printed ABS Polymer. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 16887. [CrossRef]
49. Waseem, M.; Habib, T.; Ghani, U.; Abas, M.; Jan, Q.; Khan, M. Optimization of Tensile and Compressive Behavior of PLA 3-D
Printed Parts Using Categorical Response Surface Methodology. Int. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 2022, 41, 417–437. [CrossRef]
50. Nguyen, V.H.; Huynh, T.N.; Nguyen, T.P.; Tran, T.T. Single and Multi-Objective Optimization of Processing Parameters for Fused
Deposition Modeling in 3D Printing Technology. Int. J. Automot. Mech. Eng. 2020, 17, 7542–7551. [CrossRef]
51. Vanaei, H.R.; Khelladi, S.; Tcharkhtchi, A. Roadmap: Numerical-Experimental Investigation and Optimization of 3D-Printed
Parts Using Response Surface Methodology. Materials 2022, 15, 7193. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Nazan, M.; Ramli, F.; Alkahari, M.R.; Sudin, M.N.; Abdullah, M. Process Parameter Optimization of 3D Printer Using Response
Surface Method. ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2017, 12, 17.
53. Vardhan Rai, H.; Kumar Modi, Y.; Pare, A. Process Parameter Optimization for Tensile Strength of 3D Printed Parts Using
Response Surface Methodology. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 377, 012027. [CrossRef]
54. Tontowi, A.E.; Ramdani, L.; Erdizon, R.V.; Baroroh, D.K. Optimization of 3D-Printer Process Parameters for Improving Quality of
Polylactic Acid Printed Part. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2017, 9, 589–600. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2023, 15, 3419 22 of 22
55. Waseem, M.; Salah, B.; Habib, T.; Saleem, W.; Abas, M.; Khan, R.; Ghani, U.; Siddiqi, M.U.R. Multi-Response Optimization of
Tensile Creep Behavior of PLA 3D Printed Parts Using Categorical Response Surface Methodology. Polymers 2020, 12, 2962.
[CrossRef]
56. Aslani, K.-E.; Kitsakis, K.; Kechagias, J.D.; Vaxevanidis, N.M.; Manolakos, D.E. On the Application of Grey Taguchi Method for
Benchmarking the Dimensional Accuracy of the PLA Fused Filament Fabrication Process. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1016. [CrossRef]
57. John, J.; Devjani, D.; Ali, S.; Abdallah, S.; Pervaiz, S. Optimization of 3D Printed Polylactic Acid Structures with Different Infill
Patterns Using Taguchi-Grey Relational Analysis. Adv. Ind. Eng. Polym. Res. 2023, 6, 62–78. [CrossRef]
58. Shakeria, Z.; Benfriha, K.; Zirak, N.; Shirinbayan, M. Optimization of FFF Processing Parameters to Improve Geometrical
Accuracy and Mechanical Behavior of Polyamide 6 Using Grey Relational Analysis (GRA). Research Square 2021. in review.
59. Garg, P.K.; Singh, R.; Ahuja, I. Multi-Objective Optimization of Dimensional Accuracy, Surface Roughness and Hardness of
Hybrid Investment Cast Components. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2017, 23, 845–857. [CrossRef]
60. Venkatasubbareddy, O.Y.; Siddikali, P.; Saleem, S.M. Improving the Dimensional Accuracy and Surface Roughness of FDM Parts
Using Optimization Techniques. IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 2016, 16, 18–22. [CrossRef]
61. Kumar, K.; Singh, H. Multi-Objective Optimization of Fused Deposition Modeling for Mechanical Properties of Biopolymer Parts
Using the Grey-Taguchi Method. Chin. J. Mech. Eng. 2023, 36, 30. [CrossRef]
62. Shakeri, Z.; Benfriha, K.; Shirinbayan, M.; Ahmadifar, M.; Tcharkhtchi, A. Mathematical Modeling and Optimization of Fused
Filament Fabrication (FFF) Process Parameters for Shape Deviation Control of Polyamide 6 Using Taguchi Method. Polymers 2021,
13, 3697. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Mani, M.; Karthikeyan, A.G.; Kalaiselvan, K.; Muthusamy, P.; Muruganandhan, P. Optimization of FDM 3-D Printer Process
Parameters for Surface Roughness and Mechanical Properties Using PLA Material. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 66, 1926–1931.
[CrossRef]
64. Hanon, M.M.; Zsidai, L. Comprehending the Role of Process Parameters and Filament Color on the Structure and Tribological
Performance of 3D Printed PLA. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 15, 647–660. [CrossRef]
65. Dawoud, M.; Taha, I.; Ebeid, S.J. Effect of Processing Parameters and Graphite Content on the Tribological Behaviour of 3D
Printed Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene: Einfluss von Prozessparametern Und Graphitgehalt Auf Das Tribologische Verhalten
von 3D-Druck Acrylnitril-Butadien-Styrol Bauteilen. Mat. Wiss. Werkst. 2015, 46, 1185–1195. [CrossRef]
66. Aziz, R.; Ul Haq, M.I.; Raina, A. Effect of Surface Texturing on Friction Behaviour of 3D Printed Polylactic Acid (PLA). Polym.
Test. 2020, 85, 106434. [CrossRef]
67. Şirin, Ş.; Aslan, E.; Akincioğlu, G. Effects of 3D-Printed PLA Material with Different Filling Densities on Coefficient of Friction
Performance. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2023, 29, 157–165. [CrossRef]
68. Dangnan, F.; Espejo, C.; Liskiewicz, T.; Gester, M.; Neville, A. Friction and Wear of Additive Manufactured Polymers in Dry
Contact. J. Manuf. Process. 2020, 59, 238–247. [CrossRef]
69. Perepelkina, S.; Kovalenko, P.; Pechenko, R.; Makhmudova, K. Investigation of Friction Coefficient of Various Polymers Used in
Rapid Prototyping Technologies with Different Settings of 3D Printing. Tribol. Ind. 2017, 39, 519–526. [CrossRef]
70. Roy, R.; Mukhopadhyay, A. Tribological Studies of 3D Printed ABS and PLA Plastic Parts. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 41, 856–862.
[CrossRef]
71. Chisiu, G.; Stoica, N.A.; Stoica, A.M. Friction Behavior of 3D-Printed Polymeric Materials Used in Sliding Systems. Mat. Plast.
2021, 58, 176–185. [CrossRef]
72. Maguluri, N.; Lakshmi Srinivas, C.; Suresh, G. Assessing the Wear Performance of 3D Printed Polylactic Acid Polymer Parts.
Mater. Today Proc. 2023, in press. [CrossRef]
73. Khosravani, M.R.; Berto, F.; Ayatollahi, M.R.; Reinicke, T. Fracture Behavior of Additively Manufactured Components: A Review.
Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2020, 109, 102763. [CrossRef]
74. Khosravani, M.R.; Soltani, P.; Reinicke, T. Fracture and Structural Performance of Adhesively Bonded 3D-Printed PETG Single
Lap Joints under Different Printing Parameters. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech. 2021, 116, 103087. [CrossRef]
75. Khosravani, M.R.; Rezaei, S.; Ruan, H.; Reinicke, T. Fracture Behavior of Anisotropic 3D-Printed Parts: Experiments and
Numerical Simulations. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2022, 19, 1260–1270. [CrossRef]
76. Ripeanu, R.G.; Badicioiu, M.; Caltaru, M.; Dinita, A.; Laudacescu, E. Tribological Characterization of the Drill Collars and Casing
Friction Couples. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 295, 012009. [CrossRef]
77. Cursaru, D.L.; Ramadan, I.; Tanasescu, C.; Ripeanu, R. Study of the Tribological Behavior of Different Carbonaceous Nanomaterials
Such as Antiwear Additives for an Environmentally Friendly Lubricant. Dig. J. Nanomater. Biostruct. 2013, 8, 205–815.
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.

Polymers 15 03419 With Cover

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Polymers 15 03419 With Cover

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Polymers 15 03419 With Cover

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5.0 6.

Polymers 2023, 15, 3419. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15163419 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

optimal parameters for enhanced performance. Subsequently, researchers [40–49] have

Figure 2. 3D printed samples fabrication.

Figure 4. Measurement of friction coefficient and wear using InstrumX software.

Figure 5. The surface roughness tester.

∆0i (k) = x0=

Figure 8. Comparative values for the coefficient of friction.

Figure 8. Comparative values for the coefficient of friction.

layer thickness was used.

Polymers 2023, 15, 3419

Figure 12. Shore D harness

3.2. Optimization of Process Parameters

Polymers 2023, 15, 3419

Table 3. Normalized data responses.

Printing Parameters Normalized Data

Table 4. Deviation sequence responses.

Printing Parameters Deviation Sequence

Table 5. Grey relational coefficient.

Printing Parameters Grey Relational Coefficient

Table 6. Grey relational graded and ranks.

You might also like