Journal of Materials Processing Technology 212 (2012) 339346

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Processing Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmatprotec

Quantication of surface roughness of parts processed by laminated object manufacturing

Daekeon Ahn a, , Jin-Hwe Kweon a , Jinho Choi a , Seokhee Lee b
a b

Research Center for Aircraft Parts Technology, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 660-701, Republic of Korea Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Additive manufacturing (AM) technology is essentially performed using a layered manufacturing (LM) process. Because more complex 3D physical models can be efciently fabricated without geometric limitation by the technology, a remarkable reduction in production life cycle has been achieved. However, due to the LM process, a deterioration of the surface quality of the parts processed by AM may occasionally occur, which is the primary reason that the surface problem has been a key issue in AM. In this paper, a methodology is proposed to quantify the surface roughness of the parts processed by laminated object manufacturing (LOM), which is a typical technology in AM. The surface proles of the parts were investigated, a schematic was constructed by considering the LOM process factor geometrically, and a theoretical approach to quantify average surface roughness according to surface angle variation is presented. The expressions required for numerical computation were deduced and dened. By comparing the measured data and computed values, the proposed approach was veried. Additionally, the effects of the process variables related to surface quality were evaluated and analyzed. 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Article history: Available online 25 August 2011 Keywords: Additive manufacturing Laminated object manufacturing Surface roughness

1. Introduction Additive manufacturing (AM) is an advanced technology and is the process of joining materials to make objects from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing methodologies. Because the layered process is mainly applied in the manufacturing technology also known as rapid prototyping (RP) or layered manufacturing (LM), more complex 3D physical models can be easily fabricated without geometric limitation, especially in prototyping for manufacturing millimeter structures or micro parts. As a result, the production life cycle has been remarkably reduced by up to 50% (Kochan et al., 1999). Hence, the technology can meet the requirements of small quantity batch production. More than 40 applied technologies have been introduced during the last 30 years, and the representative and fundamental ones are stereolithography (SL), selective laser sintering (SLS), fused deposition modeling (FDM), laminated object manufacturing (LOM) and 3D printing (Jacobs, 1996; Lee, 1999). However, because the technologies utilize a layering process (stacking layers), as mentioned above, stair steps inevitably occur on the surface of the fabricated parts. Thus, the surface quality of the processed

Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 55 772 2577; fax: +82 55 757 5622. E-mail address: dkahn@gnu.ac.kr (D. Ahn). 0924-0136/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2011.08.013

parts is insufcient to meet general industrial purposes (Ippolito et al., 1995; Reeves and Cobb, 1997; Mahesh et al., 2004; Ahn et al., 2009a), which is the main reason that the surface problem has been a key issue in this manufacturing technology. Representative researches related to the surface problem in AM are as follows. Reeves and Cobb (1997) proposed a mathematical model to represent the surface roughness of SL parts. The attributes of layer thickness, surface angle and layer prole were used for modeling the surface roughness. The actual characteristics, such as the print through effect, are also considered. The calculated roughness values of this model were compared with those of a test part fabricated to measure. The roughness model is reasonable for a limited range of surface angles. Luis Prez et al. (2001) proposed a theoretical model to represent a roughness average of general LM-processed parts. The roughness model was expressed by considering layer thickness and the horizontal distance between layers as the main factors. SL test parts were manufactured, and an experimental analysis of the resulting surface roughness was performed to compare it with the theoretical model. Their results show that it is necessary to correct for the surface characterization with surface angles close to 0 and 90 . Paul and Voorakarnam (2001) investigated the nature of surface roughness in LOM. An expression for predicting the surface roughness of LOM prototypes was deduced based on centerline average roughness and a fundamental model that represents the penetration depth of the SL part resin. A full-factorial experiment was performed to analyze

340

D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 212 (2012) 339346

Fig. 1. A typical type of LOM process.

the effects of the layer thickness and orientation angle. Because the computed results of only particular surface angles, 15 and 45 on the up-facing and down-facing, were presented, it is difcult to predict whole roughness variations. Pandey et al. (2003) suggested an equation to represent the surface roughness of FDM parts by approximating the layer edge prole as a parabolic curve. The mean line of the edge prole was taken to be half of the prole height. The prole height was also determined stochastically. As a result, the variations in the calculated roughness value were more or less similar to their measured, and an interval of the upper and lower limits of the calculated value (Ra ) results exists. Ahn et al. (2009a) proposed a methodology to predict the surface roughness of general LM-processed parts. The theoretical and actual characteristics of the surface roughness distributions of the LM parts were investigated and considered to represent the actual roughness for prediction. Any roughness value at a surface angle can be calculated by interpolating the measured roughness data. Thus, actual roughness characteristics such as support removal burrs can be efciently represented. The validity and effectiveness of the approach were demonstrated through the calculated roughness error estimation and several application examples. However, more measured data are required to obtain more reliable prediction results. Additionally, to represent surface roughness by surface angle changes in FDM, Ahn et al. (2009a) proposed a theoretical model. Key variables determining the section shape of the extruded lament were considered to express the roughness in more detail by investigating the actual surface prole of the part. The critical angle for the feasible region for computing the roughness was specically dened. By comparing measured data with computed values, it was veried that the approach could be valid in a comparatively broad region of surface angles. Most of the previous research is related to SL and FDM, and results presented are reasonable only at particular values and in limited regions of the surface angle. That is to say, it is difcult to express consecutive roughness variation by surface angle changes. Therefore, a theoretical approach for quantifying the surface roughness more delicately for a broader region of surface angles is required. A methodology for quantifying the surface roughness of micro parts processed by LOM is proposed in this paper. The surface proles of the parts are investigated by surface angle variation, a schematic that can express surface prole is constructed by relating the LOM process factor geometrically, and a theoretical model to quantify the average surface roughness according to surface angle change is presented. Related equations

required for numerical computation are dened and formulated. By comparing measured data and computed values, the proposed approach is veried. The effects of process variables related to surface quality, such as surface angle, layer thickness, cutting shape, and penetration depth are considered and analyzed.

2. Quantication for surface roughness 2.1. Actual surface prole Fig. 1 shows a typical type of the LOM process. The LOM process is performed by layered manufacturing as in other AM. The main components of the LOM machine are a feed mechanism that advances a sheet over a build platform, a heated roller to apply pressure to bond the sheet to the layer below, and a laser to cut the outline of the part in each sheet layer. Parts are produced by stacking, bonding, and cutting layers of adhesive-coated sheet material on top of the previous one. A laser cuts the contour of the part into each layer according to prepared CAD data. After each cut is completed, the platform is lowered by a depth equal to the sheet thickness, and another sheet is loaded on top of the previously deposited layers. The platform then rises slightly, and the heated roller applies pressure to bond the new layer. The laser cuts the outline, and the process is repeated until the last layer (Chua et al., 2010; Custompartnet, 2008). Fig. 2 shows a surface prole of the part fabricated by an LOM technology. Stair steps are clearly shown on the surface of the part due to stacking the sheet layers. This phenomenon is known as the stair stepping effect and is found generally in AM. The surface prole is changed by the variation of surface angle on inclined surfaces. That is to say, the prole is more even closer to the vertical surface and, is rougher closer to horizontal plane. The curved shape machined by laser cutting is shown in the outline of each layer. It is estimated that the curve form is inuenced by the Gaussian laser beam. Jacobs (1992) deduced an equation by assuming that the absorption of laser radiation within the resin follows the BeerLambert law and took the shape of the cured resin into account in the working curve in SL, as given in Eq. (1). Each variable x and y denotes the length from the center of the Gaussian laser beam in the radial direction and a normal distance from the resin surface to the cured depth. The coefcients a, b and c are constants

D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 212 (2012) 339346

341

From the results in Section 2.1, the shape of the surface prole machined by laser cutting, by contouring each layer, is formed by a parabolic curve and a horizontal line. It was observed that the surface prole formed by stacking several layers can be varied by changes in the layer thickness and surface angle. Because the surface angle is closer to the vertical surface from 0 to 90 , the prole can be more even. In contrast, when the angle is closer to the horizontal surface, from 90 to 180 , the prole can be rougher. In AM, the surface angle () is generally dened by the interval angle between the fabrication direction and the normal vector of the surface, as shown in Fig. 3. Thus, to quantify the surface roughness more elaborately, the proposed formulation is expressed by a classication based on an up-facing surface, a vertical plane and a down-facing surface. 2.2.1. Up facing surface roughness Quantication the up-facing surface (0 < < 90 ) is achieved as follows from the schematic presented in Fig. 4. Eq. (1) that forms the laser machined contour is changed to Eq. (3) by setting the point p0 as the origin point of the coordinate to compute the roughness. The coefcient a indicates the width of the parabolic curve as determined by characteristics of the laser and resin, and the constant d denotes the penetration depth into the previous layer. yp = ax2 + d determined by the characteristics of the laser beam and material resin. ax2 + by + c = 0 (1) (3)

Fig. 2. Magnied surface prole of the LOM manufactured part (Paul and Voorakarnam, 2001).

Using Eq. (1), Paul and Voorakarnam (2001) showed that the edge prole of the layer machined by laser can be a parabolic curve in LOM. The magnied surface prole also supports the approach, as shown in Fig. 2. Thus, the edge prole is subordinated by Eq. (1). 2.2. Quantication of the surface roughness Based on the surface prole investigated in the previous paragraph, a schematic was constructed to quantify the surface roughness of the part processed by LOM, as shown in Fig. 3. In this paper, the surface roughness computation is based on a base length that is composed of peaks and valleys at a surface angle using the concept of average surface roughness, as shown in Eq. (2). Each l and f(x) denotes the base length to compute the roughness and prole curve that forms the surface outline, respectively. Ra = 1 l f (x) dx (2)

In actual LOM processing, poor control of the cutting laser beam may cause penetration into the previously cut layers. However, in most of commercial LOM machines, the power of the laser used for cutting the perimeter of the prototype is precisely controlled so that the laser cuts only the current layer of the lamination (Chua et al., 2010). Hence, in this study, it is assumed that there is no damage to the horizontal plane of the previous layer, and that the constant d is related only to the location determination of the parabola curve in the y axis direction. That is to say, it is considered when computing the shape of the parabolic curve composed of points p1 , p2 and p3 , and the length of the line connected by points p3 and p5 , as shown in Fig. 4. As a result, f(x) in Eq. (2) expresses a unit prole combined by a quadric curve and a linear curve. The mean line (lm ) is formed by the unit prole curve f(x). The mean line (lm ) is parallel to the line connecting the two points (p1 and p5 ), that express peaks in the surface prole. Thus, the mean line is expressed by Eq. (4), and the value k denotes the translated distance from the origin point in the x direction. yl = tan( )(x k) (0 < < 2 ) (4)

Actually, the surface roughness value exists in the horizontal surface. However, theoretically, because the two adjacent layers become identical in case of surface angle 0 or 180 , the horizontal surface is not considered in formulation. Hence, the range of the surface angle is given, as shown in Eq. (4). Using the same area of the triangle ( p1 p1 p1 ) and triangle ( p5 p5 p5 ), the peak area (Ap ) and valley area (Av ) are calculated from Eqs. (3) and (4) as,
x2 x5

Ap = Ap1 + Ap2 =
x1 x3

(yp yl )dx +
x4 x4

(yl )dx

(5)

Av = Av1 + Av2 =
x2

(yl yp )dx +
x3

yl dx

(6) (7)

At = Ap Av

Fig. 3. A schematic to quantify surface roughness of a part processed by LOM.

At this point, if a temporary area (At ) expressed by Eq. (7) is zero by translating the mean line, that is to say, when the peak area (Ap ) and valley area (Av ) of the surface prole are equal, the nal mean line to compute the average surface roughness is set. Thus, a series

342

D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 212 (2012) 339346

Fig. 4. Quantication of the up-facing surface roughness.

of numerical computations to determine the nal k value in Eq. (4) is performed by the following: k = x4 = x4 x4
old old

+e e

(if At > 0) (if At < 0)

Hence, the nal value required for computing the roughness is given by dividing the layer thickness by the total area, as shown in Eq. (15). R(a)90 = 1 A t (15)

(8)

where x4 and e denote the x coordinate value of the point p4 and an increment value, respectively. The increment value e is reduced by half over one iteration. After setting the nal mean line, the total area (A) is calculated as f (x)dx = A = Ap + Av (9)

The base length (l) of the unit prole is the distance between the point p1 and point p5 , which is given as l= (x5 x1 )2 + (y5 y1 )2 (10)

Therefore, when the surface angle is , the nal average surface roughness (Ra ) is expressed as R(a) = 1 A l (11)

2.2.3. Down facing surface roughness In downward facing surface (90 < < 180 ), a schematic to formulate the roughness model is presented, as shown in Fig. 6. Since the two adjacent layers are overlapped in the horizontal surface as explained in Section 2.2.1, the surface angle 180 is not considered in deducing the following expressions. The mean line is translated parallel with the line that is connected by the two points p1 and p5 . Thus, the peak area (Ap ) and valley area (Av ) are calculated using the same area of triangle ( p1 p1 p1 ) and triangle ( p5 p4 p5 ) for convenience in computing the integral as follows, where each value xn denotes the x coordinate of the n-th point (pn ) and t expresses the layer thickness.
x2 x3

Ap =
x4

yl dx +
x2

yp dx

(16)

2.2.2. Vertical surface roughness In the case of a vertical surface angle, because the surface prole has another shape, quantication of the average surface roughness is achieved with the schematic given in Fig. 5. The points p1 and p3 are the peak and valley points, respectively, on the surface of the n-th layer, and point p2 is the cross point of the surface prole and mean line. The mean line is translated parallel to the y-axis by a distance k from the origin point. Thus, the peak area (Ap ) and valley area (Av ) are calculated by Eqs. (12) and (13) as follows, where the value t means the layer thickness and each value xn denotes the x coordinate of the n-th point (pn ).
x3

Ap =
x2 x2

yp dx (t yp )dx
x1

(12)

Av =

(13)

The temporary area (At ) is calculated by Eq. (7), and, by applying numerical computation using Eq. (14), the nal mean line is determined. Thus, the total area is calculated with Eq. (9). k = x2 = x2 x2
old old

+e e

(if At > 0) (if At < 0)

(14)
Fig. 5. Quantication of the vertical surface roughness.

D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 212 (2012) 339346

343

60

Layer thickness 0.112mm Layer thickness 0.224mm

Surface roughness (micrometer)

50

40

30

20

10

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180

Surface angle (degree)

Fig. 7. Distribution of the measured surface roughness by variation of the surface angle.

Fig. 6. Quantication of the down-facing surface roughness.

x1 x2

Av =
x1

(t yl )dx
x1

(yp yl )dx

(17)

The temporary area (At ) is also calculated by Eq. (7), and, by applying numerical computation using Eq. (8), the nal mean line is set. The total area is calculated with Eq. (9). Therefore, when the surface angle is , the nal average surface roughness (Ra ) is given by Eq. (11). 3. Verication and analysis 3.1. Implementation and verication To verify the presented expressions, two LOM test parts were fabricated with condition layer thicknesses 0.112 mm and 0.224 mm with an LOM 2030E apparatus and LPH042 material. The test part model, known as the Truncheon (Reeves and Cobb, 1997), was designed to easily measure surface roughness over the range from 0 to 180 . Ten measurements were taken on each surface angle at intervals of 3 using a Surftest Formtracer, which is a kind of contact surface prole-meter (Mitutoyo Corp., 1997). Repeatability of the measurement was under 0.25 m. Average surface roughness (Ra ) data were acquired by averaging ten measurements at each surface angle, and then a graph of the roughness values against surface angle were plotted by the two applied layer thickness as shown in Fig. 7. The roughness data variation by the surface angle change is also similar to that of the measured data that were presented by Campbell et al. (2002). When the layer thickness is greater, the surface quality is rougher at all surface angles. The roughness is comparatively smooth around a surface angle of 90 both of the two layer thicknesses, which is corresponds to the general characteristics of the surface roughness distribution investigated in the parts processed by AM. A computation of the roughness model deduced in the previous chapter was carried out by coding in the Mathematica (Wolfram Research Inc., 2003) application tool. In put variables of the process factor are given in Table 1. The applied value of the penetration depth (d) is zero, and other values were determined to evaluate effects of the process factor. Especially conditions of the Test 2 and Test 5 were specied by taking account of the fabrication conditions set for the two test parts to verify the presented expressions, from ten dozens of implementations for a condition. Tables 2 and 3 show the measured data and computed values of the surface roughness according to surface angle changes from 0 to 180 in

intervals of 3 with the test conditions given in Table 1. Additionally, to compare the gap between the empirical and theoretical data according to surface angle variation, two distribution curves of the surface roughness were presented, as shown in Fig. 8. Fig. 8(a) and (b) shows the compared graph in layer thickness 0.112 mm and 0.224 mm respectively. Based on the values computed by the conditions of the Test 2 and Test 5, the maximum gap between the empirical and theoretical data is about 9 m at a surface angle 84 in the case of a layer thickness of 0.224 mm. The gap may be due to unevenness of the machined surface due to the laser power, burrs occurring when eliminating the supports from the test parts or other factors, such as measurement errors or material properties. However, deviations between the measured data and computed values are under 5 m at all other surface angles. Moreover, for both layer thicknesses, the entire prole of the surface roughness distribution computed by the equations is similar and close to that of the measured data. Therefore, it can be concluded that the validity of the expressions to quantify the average surface roughness is reasonable. From the verication results, the effects of the LOM process factors, such as surface angle, layer thickness, parabolic curve and penetration depth, is analyzed and evaluated in the followings. 3.2. Surface angle In the up-facing surface, as the surface angle increases to a vertical surface, the surface roughness becomes gradually smoother, as shown in Tables 2 and 3 and Fig. 8. At a surface angle of 90 of the Test 2 and Test 5, the computed average roughness (Ra ) is under 3 m, with 2.09 m and 2.96 m for the layer thicknesses 0.112 mm and 0.224 mm, respectively. In the down-facing surface over the vertical surface, the roughness value increases beyond that
Table 1 Test condition for verication at layer thickness of 0.112 mm and 0.224 mm. Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 Layer thickness (mm) 0.112 0.112 0.112 0.224 0.224 0.224 Parabolic prole (a) 0.1 1 10 0.1 1 10

*Penetration depth (d) is zero.

344

D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 212 (2012) 339346

Table 2 Measured data and computed values of the average surface roughness in layer thickness 0.112 mm. Surface angle ( ) Measured Ra ( m) 0.112 mm 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 102 105 108 111 114 117 120 123 126 129 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 153 156 159 162 165 168 171 174 177 180 03.97 25.01 26.44 28.05 27.72 26.61 25.93 27.36 25.75 26.12 25.87 26.21 25.45 24.01 24.92 25.21 23.57 24.44 22.69 22.75 21.12 22.31 20.73 19.76 20.82 17.94 15.12 13.17 06.11 02.86 03.94 03.28 05.43 06.01 07.02 08.05 10.77 12.65 10.47 13.12 14.73 13.39 16.25 15.96 18.64 20.55 23.47 25.61 25.06 27.22 26.77 28.26 27.78 27.65 28.57 26.49 27.96 29.88 25.81 22.12 03.12 Computed Ra ( m) Test 1 27.66 27.31 26.97 26.61 26.25 25.88 25.49 25.09 24.68 24.23 23.76 23.26 22.72 22.13 21.49 20.77 19.96 19.05 17.99 16.76 15.28 13.48 11.22 08.31 01.51 01.18 02.32 03.72 05.16 06.61 08.05 09.48 10.88 12.25 13.59 14.90 16.16 17.38 18.55 19.68 20.75 21.76 22.71 23.60 24.43 25.19 25.88 26.50 27.05 27.52 27.92 28.24 28.48 28.65 28.74 28.75 28.68 28.53 28.30 Test 2 27.89 27.78 27.67 27.56 27.45 27.33 27.21 27.08 26.95 26.81 26.66 26.50 26.33 26.14 25.94 25.71 25.45 25.16 24.82 24.43 23.95 23.37 22.63 21.66 20.32 18.33 15.07 08.73 00.68 02.09 03.54 04.99 06.43 07.85 09.25 10.62 11.97 13.28 14.56 15.79 16.98 18.13 19.23 20.27 21.26 22.19 23.06 23.87 24.61 25.28 25.89 26.42 26.88 27.27 27.58 27.82 27.98 28.06 28.07 Test 3 27.97 27.93 27.90 27.86 27.82 27.79 27.75 27.71 27.67 27.62 27.58 27.53 27.47 27.41 27.35 27.27 27.19 27.10 26.99 26.87 26.72 26.53 26.30 25.99 25.56 24.93 23.88 21.80 15.62 00.66 02.12 03.58 05.03 06.46 07.88 09.27 10.64 11.99 13.29 14.57 15.80 16.99 18.13 19.22 20.26 21.25 22.17 23.04 23.84 24.58 25.24 25.85 26.37 26.83 27.22 27.52 27.76 27.91 28.00

Table 3 Measured data and computed values of the average surface roughness in layer thickness 0.224 mm. Surface angle ( ) Measured Ra ( m) 0.224 mm 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66 69 72 75 78 81 84 87 90 93 96 99 102 105 108 111 114 117 120 123 126 129 132 135 138 141 144 147 150 153 156 159 162 165 168 171 174 177 180 05.12 49.78 54.36 56.52 55.14 54.69 52.72 53.33 53.15 54.97 52.73 51.02 52.64 51.99 50.47 50.83 48.62 51.08 49.71 50.23 49.42 47.79 45.91 46.05 47.23 43.11 37.50 34.77 19.55 06.51 07.12 08.89 10.91 12.34 10.75 14.97 18.23 19.65 26.97 26.38 28.89 28.32 34.81 33.42 39.35 38.94 40.21 48.72 45.67 47.49 50.85 51.44 50.07 52.87 53.30 55.99 56.73 55.50 57.89 55.32 10.01 Computed Ra ( m) Test 4 55.52 55.03 54.54 54.04 53.52 53.00 52.46 51.89 51.30 50.67 50.01 49.30 48.53 47.69 46.78 45.76 44.62 43.32 41.82 40.06 37.95 35.37 32.11 27.84 22.01 13.64 01.63 03.64 06.46 09.35 12.24 15.11 17.94 20.73 23.46 26.13 28.72 31.24 33.68 36.02 38.27 40.41 42.44 44.35 46.14 47.81 49.34 50.74 52.00 53.12 54.10 54.92 55.59 56.12 56.48 56.70 56.76 56.66 56.41 Test 5 55.85 55.69 55.54 55.38 55.22 55.05 54.88 54.70 54.51 54.31 54.10 53.88 53.63 53.37 53.08 52.76 52.39 51.98 51.50 50.94 50.27 49.45 48.40 47.02 45.12 42.30 37.64 28.46 00.53 02.96 05.87 08.77 11.65 14.51 17.32 20.09 22.80 25.45 28.03 30.53 32.95 35.28 37.51 39.64 41.67 43.57 45.36 47.02 48.56 49.96 51.22 52.35 53.33 54.16 54.85 55.38 55.77 56.00 56.08 Test 6 55.95 55.90 55.85 55.80 55.75 55.70 55.65 55.59 55.53 55.47 55.40 55.33 55.25 55.17 55.08 54.97 54.86 54.73 54.58 54.40 54.19 53.93 53.59 53.16 52.55 51.66 50.17 47.22 38.45 00.94 03.86 06.77 09.67 12.55 15.39 18.18 20.93 23.62 26.25 28.80 31.28 33.66 35.96 38.16 40.25 42.23 44.10 45.85 47.47 48.96 50.32 51.53 52.61 53.54 54.33 54.97 55.46 55.79 55.97

D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 212 (2012) 339346

35

345

30

Measured data (t=0.112mm) Parabolic profile (a=0.1) Parabolic profile (a=1) Parabolic profile (a=10)

Table 4 Test conditions for analyzing the effect of the layer thickness. Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 *Penetration depth (d) is zero. Layer thickness (mm) 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Surface roughness (micrometer)

25

20

15

10

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180

Surface angle (degree)

(a) Comparison result for a layer thickness 0.112mm.

70
Measured data (t=0.224mm) Parabolic profile (a=0.1) Parabolic profile (a=1) Parabolic profile (a=10)

60

cases, as the value (a) increased, the surface angle of the minimum roughness changed from 70 to 110 via 90 because as the slope of the parabolic curve became steeper, the roughness was more even at the surface angle close to the average tangent angle of the parabolic prole. As the coefcient value increased, the average roughness values grew gradually, and the variation of the roughness was smaller in the up-facing surface because of the growth of the angle between tangent of the curve and horizontal surface in the unit surface prole. Ultimately, the analysis results show that the surface roughness can be predicted by the prole shape depending on the laser power.

Surface roughness (micrometer)

50

3.4. Layer thickness

40

30

20

10

0 0 30 60 90 120 150 180

Surface angle (degree)

(b) Comparison result for a layer thickness 0.224mm.

Fig. 8. Comparison of the measured roughness and computed values. Comparison result for a layer thickness 0.112 mm. Comparison result for a layer thickness 0.224 mm.

Because AM is performed by the LM process, the layer thickness (LT) generally has a deep afnity with the surface roughness. Thus, it is necessary to evaluate the effect on the roughness of variations of layer thickness. The test conditions are presented in Table 4. Fig. 8 shows the computed roughness value for layer thicknesses of 0.112 mm and 0.224 mm. For both layer thicknesses, as the layer thickness increased, the surface quality become poor at all surface angles, which is consistent with the measured roughness data, as shown in Fig. 7, and also corresponds to the general nature of AM. Fig. 9 shows more specic effects of the variation of the layer thickness, from 0.05 mm to 0.3 mm in 50 m intervals. In all cases, as the thickness increased, the surface quality becomes remarkably rougher, at all surface angles. The variation rates of the roughness for all test conditions are almost uniform by the surface angle changes. The investigated results show that the surface roughness prediction can be elaborately accomplished from a layer thickness in the LOM process planning.

Surface roughness (micrometer)

of the up-facing surface with increasing surface angle due to stacking the layers, and the general characteristics of AM as mentioned in the previous section. However, the distribution of the surface roughness between up- and down-facing surfaces is opposite of that of SL due to the smoothing effect called print through, which occurs in the down-facing surface of the parts processed by SL. In the case of LOM, without the smoothing effect, it is shown that the form of the surface prole can be inuenced by the geometric variable such as layer thickness, surface angle, parabolic curve and penetration depth. The schematics also support the nature of the LOM machining as shown in Figs. 46. 3.3. Parabolic prole Based on Section 2.1, the laser-machined prole due to the variation of the Gaussian laser power was investigated, in other words, the shape of the parabolic curve could be changed. Hence, it is necessary that the effect of the coefcient (a) expressed in Eq. (3) be analyzed. Table 1 shows the test conditions, and Fig. 8(a) and (b) displays the computed roughness graphs according to an increase of the coefcient from 0.1 to 10 in 10 times intervals for layer thicknesses of 0.112 mm and 0.224 mm, respectively. In both

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 30 60 90

LT=0.05mm LT=0.10mm LT=0.15mm LT=0.20mm LT=0.25mm LT=0.30mm

120

150

180

Surface angle (degree)

Fig. 9. Computed roughness for different layer thicknesses.

346

D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 212 (2012) 339346

Table 5 Test conditions for analyzing the effect of the penetration depth. Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 Penetration depth (mm) 0.0 0.03 0.06 0.0 0.03 0.06

4. Conclusion In this paper, a methodology to quantify the surface roughness of parts processed by laminated object manufacturing (LOM) was presented. The surface proles of the parts were investigated by surface angle variation, and a schematic that can express surface proles was constructed by considering the LOM process factor geometrically. A theoretical model to quantify the average surface roughness was proposed, and the expressions required for numerical computation were deduced and dened. The proposed approach was veried by comparing measured data with computed values. Additionally, the effects of the process variables related to surface quality, such as surface angle, layer thickness, cutting shape, and penetration depth, were analyzed and evaluated. This approach could be practicable and valuable for predicting the surface roughness of parts fabricated by AM technology using a laser cutting process to machine millimeter structures or micro parts. Acknowledgments

80 70

Surface roughness (micrometer)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 30 60

LT=0.112mm, PD=0mm LT=0.112mm, PD=0.03mm LT=0.112mm, PD=0.06mm LT=0.224mm, PD=0mm LT=0.224mm, PD=0.03mm LT=0.224mm, PD=0.06mm

This work was supported by the Priority Research Centers Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (2010-0029689).
90 120 150 180

References
Ahn, D., Kim, H., Lee, S., 2009a. Surface roughness prediction using measured data and interpolation in layered manufacturing. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2), 664671. Campbell, R.I., Martorelli, M., Lee, H.S., 2002. Surface roughness visualization for rapid prototyping models. Computer Aided Design 34, 717725. Chua, C.K., Leong, K.F., Lim, C.S., 2010. Rapid Prototyping: Principles and Applications. World Scientic, Singapore, pp. 153164. Custompartnet, 2008. http://www.custompartnet.com/. Ippolito, R., Iuliano, L., Torino, P., 1995. Benchmarking of rapid prototyping techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy and surface nish. Annals of CIRP 44 (1), 157160. Jacobs, P.F., 1996. Stereolithography and Other RP&M Technologies. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, New York, pp. 126. Jacobs, P.F., 1992. Rapid Prototyping & Manufacturing (Fundamentals of Stereolithography). Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, pp. 7991. Kochan, D., Chua, C.K., Du, Z.H., 1999. Rapid prototyping issues in the 21st century. Computers in Industry 39 (1), 310. Lee, K.W., 1999. Principles of CAD/CAM/CAE Systems. Addison Wesley, Massachusetts, pp. 378431. Luis Prez, C.J., Calvet, J.V., Sebastin Prez, M.A., 2001. Geometric roughness analysis in solid free-form manufacturing process. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 119 (13), 5257. Mahesh, M., Wong, Y., Fuh, J., Loh, H., 2004. Benchmarking for comparative evaluation of RP systems and processes. Rapid Prototyping Journal 10 (2), 123135. Mitutoyo Corp., 1997. Mitutoyo Contracer CBH-400 Users Guide. Pandey, P.M., Reddy, N.V., Dhande, S.G., 2003. Improvement of surface nish by staircase machining in fused deposition modeling. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 132 (13), 323331. Paul, B.K., Voorakarnam, V., 2001. Effect of layer thickness and orientation angle on surface roughness in laminated object manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Processes 3 (2), 94101. Reeves, P.E., Cobb, R.C., 1997. Reducing the surface deviation of stereolithography using in-process techniques. Rapid Prototyping Journal 3 (1), 2031. Wolfram Research Inc., Copyright 19882003, Mathematica, Ver. 5.0.

Surface angle (degree)

Fig. 10. Computed roughness for different penetration depths.

3.5. Penetration depth The penetration depth (PD) in the previous layer is expressed in Fig. 4. Actually, excessive laser power may damage the top surface of the previous layer because of poor control, but the problem is not considered in this study, as explained in Section 2. However, to clearly cut a layer, the depth value (d) should be greater than zero at the least. The variation of the depth can inuence the shape of the parabolic curve and the length of the top surface of the previous layer. Thus, it is necessary that the effect of the depth on the roughness be evaluated. The test conditions classied by the two layer thicknesses 0.112 mm (Test 1, Test 2 and Test 3) and 0.224 mm (Test 4, Test 5 and Test 6) are presented in Table 5. Fig. 10 shows a graph of the roughness computed by the test condition. In both cases, as the penetrated depth (d) value increased, the roughness values become rougher slightly for all surface angles. It is shown that the variation of the roughness was less signicant compared with the uctuation of the depth value because the depth variation had a minor effect on the roughness value in a shorter scale than that of the layer thickness. Therefore, even though limitations may exist in the analysis of the penetration depth effect, it is shown that the investigated results can be valid for predicting roughness.