Fig 1.
Filament Extruder for Wood-PLA compositeduring extrusion process.
Fig 2.
SEM image of Extruded Wood-PLA composite (arrows showing wood particles).
Fig 3.
Illustrates the overall methodological framework adopted in the present study.
Fig 4.
Pratham FDM printer.
Table 1.
Taguchi L9 orthogonal array DOE.
Fig 5.
3D Printed Samples Triangular.
Fig 6.
3D Printed Samples Cubic.
Fig 7.
3D Printed Samples Zig-zag.
Table 2.
Fig 8.
3D Printed Samples for Tensile Test.
Fig 9.
3D Printed Samples after the Tensile Test.
Fig 10.
Particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm flowchart.
Table 3.
Experimental tensile strength results of Wood-PLA composites showing mean and standard deviation (SD) for three repeated tests.
Fig 11.
Stress–strain curves of Wood-PLA specimens showing repeatability for Triangular, Zig-zag, and Cubic infill patterns.
Thin lines represent individual experimental runs, and thick lines represent the mean curve for each infill configuration.
Fig 12.
Effect of different layer thickness and patterns on tensile strength at 25% infill density and 210°C.
Fig 13.
Effect of infill density on tensile strength at 0.3 layer thickness and 210°C.
Fig 14.
Impact of nozzle temperature on tensile strength at 0.3 mm, 25%.
Fig 15.
Annotated SEM micrographs of fractured Wood-PLA specimens showing dominant failure feature Triangular infill — fiber pull-out (FP), matrix cracking (MC), and interfacial debonding (ID).
Fig 16.
Annotated SEM micrographs of fractured Wood-PLA specimens showing dominant failure feature Cubic infill — reduced void density (V), improved fiber–matrix adhesion (FA), and tortuous crack path (CP).
Table 4.
ANOVA analysis.
Fig 17.
Annotated SEM micrographs of fractured Wood-PLA specimens showing dominant failure feature Zig-zag infill — interlayer delamination (LD), microvoid coalescence (MV), and crack propagation direction (arrow).
Fig 18.
FEA simulation results of tensile test of the patterns.
Fig 19.
PSO convergence curve.
Fig 20.
Comparison of the results of Tensile strength of Triangular infill patterns in case of Experimental, Numerical (FEM) and Predictive (Regression) analysis.
Fig 21.
Comparison of the results of Tensile strength of Cubic infill patterns in case of Experimental, Numerical (FEM) and Predictive (Regression) analysis.
Fig 22.
Comparison of the results of Tensile strength of Zig-zag infill patterns in case of Experimental, Numerical (FEM) and Predictive (Regression) analysis.