## 4 Discussion  
Upon the completion of the design assessment based on our proposed method, the algorithm presents the results of each part in a bar chart, detailing how each design performed against each of the assessment criterion. In this section, Figures 3-7 show the results of parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, followed by a verbal interpretation of the result. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Part** & **Thinnest Wall (mm)** & **Printability Score (Out of 38)** \\ \hline
1 & 0.5 & 18 \\
2 & 0.6 & 28 \\
3 & 10 & 34 \\
4 & 0.4 & 2 \\
5 & 1 & 32 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Printability scores of the parts assessed based on the proposed method. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Machine** & **Foodini** & **Foodbot S2** & **Mmuse** \\ \hline Max. Build Volume & 278 \(\times\) 278 \(\times\) 110 mm\({}^{3}\) & 150 \(\times\) 150 \(\times\) 73 mm\({}^{3}\) & 160 \(\times\) 120 \(\times\) 150 mm\({}^{3}\) \\ Printing Speed & 50 mm/s & 50 mm/s & 50 mm/s \\ Nozzle Diameter & 4.0 mm & 0.4 mm & 0.8 mm \\ Building Material & Various & Various & Various \\ Design & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Selected commercial machines to be used in the case study. As shown in Table 4 and Figure 3, part 1 has a width of 0.5 mm of the thinnest wall. Therefore, only Foodbot is capable of manufacturing the design of the part among the three machines available. According to the given query in Table 3, the printability score is \(3+5+1+9=18\), which is matched with the bar chart, as shown in Figure 3. Moreover, the printability of part 1 is categorized as a moderate printability. In addition, the most influential recommendations are the recommendations related to: 1. _long unsupported feature_; 2. _short unsupported feature_; and 3. _overhang features with sloped support_. Figure 4: The chart and the recommendations generated for the analysis of part 2. Figure 3: The chart and the recommendations generated for the analysis of part 1. As for part 2, the chart shown in Figure 4 above shows the results of a high printability design. However, as shown in the chart, the proposed method interacts well with the system's characteristics to include a validation of the system's capabilities to print the design under an investigation against each machine in the system. Thus, since the thinnest wall's width in part 2 is 0.7 mm, Foodbot will be the only capable printer for this design. The total score is \(9+7+3+5+3+1=28\). The top design issues in part 2 are: 1. _overhang features with sloped support_; 2. _post-processing not required for final texture_; 3. _The lack of small or no flat surfaces._  
The design of part 3 is an excellent example of what a good design intended for 3D food printing looks like. In part 3, the width of the thinnest wall width is 10 mm, which resulted in all three machines being capable of manufacturing. The printability score of this design is \(9+7+5+3+1+5+3+1=34\), which translates to a high printability. Nevertheless, to further improve this design, the algorithm suggests that the following aspects should be taken into consideration: 1. _Considering post-processing for final texture_; and 2. _Increasing the geometric tolerances of the design_, as shown in Figure 5 above. Figure 5: The chart and the recommendations generated for the analysis of part 3. For part 4, the results of the design assessment show that the design yields a low printability. As shown in Figure 6 above, the design has numerous unsupported features that are affecting the printability of the design. Moreover, the design has some surfaces that need to be exact, so that the design features are not distorted. On top of that, the part has a relative thin wall with a minimum width of 0.4 mm. This resulted in the incapability of the machines Foodini and Mmouse. The printability score is \(1+1=2\), which results in a low printability. Thus, the top recommendations suggested to the user to optimize the printability are related to the following criteria: 1.