A Response Surface Methodology Approach for The Optimisation of Energy and Waste Manufactured by Portable 3D Printing

A Response Surface Methodology Approach for The Optimisation of Energy and Waste Manufactured by Portable 3D Printing

  IJETT-book-cover  International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT)          
  
© 2020 by IJETT Journal
Volume-68 Issue-12
Year of Publication : 2020
Authors : Omar Mohd Faizan Bin Marwah, Adilah Binti Darsani, Mohd Yussni Bin Hashim, Elmy Johana Binti Mohamad
DOI :  10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V68I12P219

Citation 

MLA Style: Omar Mohd Faizan Bin Marwah, Adilah Binti Darsani, Mohd Yussni Bin Hashim, Elmy Johana Binti Mohamad. A Response Surface Methodology Approach for The Optimisation of Energy and Waste Manufactured by Portable 3D Printing International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology 68.12(2020):113-117. 

APA Style:Omar Mohd Faizan Bin Marwah, Adilah Binti Darsani, Mohd Yussni Bin Hashim, Elmy Johana Binti Mohamad. A Response Surface Methodology Approach for The Optimisation of Energy and Waste Manufactured by Portable 3D Printing.  International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology, 68(12), 113-117.

Abstract
Additive manufacturing (AM) processes such as fused deposition modeling (FDM) give a materialefficient effect to minimize material waste better than the subtractive machining process. The application of AM could also save energy, but the research on energy consumption of the process is not explored critically. Besides, the fabricated parts that suffer badly from low part quality require extra time and cost to improve their quality. Therefore, in this study, the optimization of built parameters was identified and analyzed to consider material waste and energy consumption using Response Surface Methodology (RSM). An optimal solution for material waste and energy consumption was determined by using the Minitab Response Optimizer tool. The result for optimal settings was; a number of shells = 3, slice orientation = 0º, layer height = 0.4 mm, and infill percentage = 100%, and the parameters gave the lowest values of waste and energy consumption. The confirmation test has shown that the percentages of error for response variables were within 11% to 26%, which are considered low due to some external sources of errors as the Rsquared was not perfect as 100%.

Reference
[1] R.A. Begum, K. Sohag, S.M.S. Abdullah & M. Jaafar, CO2 emissions, energy consumption, economic and population growth in Malaysia, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 41 (2015) 594–601.
[2] [C.A. Griffiths, J. Howarth, G. De Almeida-Rowbotham, A. Rees & R. Kerton, A design of experiments approach for the optimization of energy and waste during the production of parts manufactured by 3D printing, Journal of Cleaner Production, 139 (2016) 74–85.
[3] S. Magar, N.K. Khedkar & S. Kumar, Review of the effect of built orientation on mechanical Properties of metal-plastic composite parts fabricated by Additive Manufacturing Technique, Materials Today: Proceedings, 5(2) (2018) 3926–3935.
[4] S. Raut, V.S. Jatti, N.K. Khedkar & T.P. Singh, Investigation of the Effect of Built Orientation on Mechanical Properties and Total Cost of FDM Parts, Procedia Materials Science, 6(1) (2014) 625– 1630.
[5] R. Song & C. Telenko, Material and energy loss due to human and machine error in commercial FDM printers, Journal of Cleaner Production, 148 (2017) 895–904.
[6] T. Sonsalla, A.L. Moore, W.J. Meng, A.D. Radadia & L. Weiss, 3- D printer settings effects on the thermal conductivity of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), Polymer Testing, 70 (2018) 389– 395.
[7] Tang, Y., Mak, K., & Zhao, Y. F. A framework to reduce product environmental impact through design optimization for additive manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, (2016) 1560– 1572.
[8] Said, K. A. M., & Amin, M. A. M. Overview of the Response Surface Methodology ( RSM ) in Extraction Processes. Journal of Applied Science & Process Engineering, 2(1), (2015) 8–17.
[9] Chua, C. K., & Leong, K. F. 3D printing and additive manufacturing: principles and applications, 5th Edition. World Scientific, 2017.
[10] Fernandez-Vicente, M., Calle, W., Ferrandiz, S., & Conejero, A. Effect of Infill Parameters on Tensile Mechanical Behavior Desktop 3D Printing. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing, 3(3) (2016) 183–192.
[11] Mohamed, O. A., Masood, S. H., & Bhowmik, J. L. Parametric Analysis of the Build Cost for FDM Additive Processed Parts Using Response Surface Methodology. In Reference Module in Materials Science and Materials Engineering. (2016).
[12] Prof. (Dr) .V. R. Naik, Mr.G.C.Mekalke, Mr.A.V.Sutar, Implementation of Response Surface Methodology for Analysis of Milling Process Using Multi Point Cutting Tool for Surface Finish,
[13] IJETT International Journal of Mechanical Engineering 2(7) (2015) 1-7.Chen, D., Heyer, S., Ibbotson, S., Salonitis, K., Steingrímsson, J. G., & Thiede, S. Direct digital manufacturing: Definition, evolution, and sustainability implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107 (2015) 615–625.
[14] Guo, N., & Leu, M. C. Additive manufacturing: Technology, applications, and research needs. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 8(3) (2013) 215–243.

Keywords
Material Waste, Energy Consumption, Optimal Build Parameters, Minitab Optimizer Tool