Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s00170-015-6879-7
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Received: 6 October 2014 / Accepted: 4 February 2015 / Published online: 19 February 2015
# Springer-Verlag London 2015
Abstract In additive manufacturing (AM) processes, the tessellation of CAD model and the slicing procedure are the
significant factors resulting unsatisfactory surface quality,
where the topics related to surface roughness have been a
key issue in this regard. In this paper, analytical models which
have been presented to express surface roughness distribution
in fused deposition modeling (FDM) are assessed according to
the variations in surface build angle by considering the main
factors which crucially affect surface quality. Analytical
models are verified by implementation and comparison with
empirical data derived from the comprehensive FDM fabricated test part. Finally, the most accurate model for estimation of
surface roughness in the process planning stage for optimization of effective parameters have been introduced upon calculating the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) as performance criteria of each model in various equal ranges.
Keywords Additive Manufacturing . Surface Roughness .
Analytical Model
1 Introduction
Emphasize on reduction of product manufacturing time is
followed by essential changes in manufacturing processes
and resulted in the birth of a new race of manufacturing techS. Rahmati (*)
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Majlesi Branch, Islamic
Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
e-mail: rahmati@rapidtoolpart.com
E. Vahabli
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Science and Research
Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: Ebrahim.vahabli@chmail.ir
824
2 Analytical modeling
The concept of cusp height tolerance was introduced by
Dolence et al. [8] and used for interpretation of surface roughness. Offering a theoretic formula, they calculated cusp height
in a 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional part. Campbell et al. [9]
introduced a mathematical model for estimation of arithmetic
mean surface roughness in various AM processes given by
Eq. (1).
90
Ra 1000tsin
tan90
1
4
where Ra is the arithmetic-mean-surface roughness (micron), t is the layer thickness (mm), and is the build angle
(degree). This model was tested for a few angles that none of
them contains downward facing. In their report, this model
predicts the surface roughness appropriately in a number of
angles. This estimation was reported in the range of 45 to
180 for the FDM process. Mason et al. [10] presented a
model for estimation of arithmetic mean surface roughness.
1000t
cos90
2
8
t
>
;
0 70
>
> 69:28e72:36
>
cos
.
<
20 90Ra70 70Ra90 Ra90 Ra70 ; 70 < < 90
Ra 1
>
>
>
117:6 t;
90
>
:
90 < 180
Ra90 1 w;
8
0;
0; =2;
>
<
2
2
2
2
2
R1 R2 1 sin90
Ra 1000t
R1 R2 1 4
4
>
cos90
tan90 sin90 ; O = W
:
4
1000t
1000t 3
1000t cos90
Ra
2
cos
Byun et al. [13] proposed a new roughness profile characterizing the surfaces made by layered manufacturing processes. For the FDM process, R1 and R2 were set to 0.045 and
0.01 mm respectively and maximum overhang angle was set
to 30 . Likewise, the profile roughness Ra as a function of f(t,
,R1,R2) is calculated by Eq. (4), where, Ra is arithmetic-mean
825
Table 1
No.
Parameter
Value
1
2
0.8 mm
4 mm
3
4
5.6 mm
250 m/7 nm
5
6
7
Fig. 3 Schema of the truncheon test part [14]
Scanning parameters
0.5 mm/s
11200
Perpendicular to the
deposition direction
826
Fig. 5 Measured Ra for the truncheon test part with layer thickness of
0.254 mm
Table 2 Empirical surface roughness (Ra) values for each build angle
with layer thickness of 0.254 mm
Build
angle
(degree)
Build
Ra-report no. Raavea
(micron) angle
(degree)
Ra-A Ra-B
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
17.56
17.72
20.37
21.94
20.06
26.98
24.48
27.43
28.56
17.82
19.1
19.33
20.56
22.82
20.32
25.32
27.63
29.52
17.69
18.41
19.85
21.25
21.44
23.65
24.9
27.53
29.04
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
1.4
18.55
18.2
18.68
19.14
17.14
21.1
22.55
24.63
2.72
17.77
17.56
18.4
20.02
23.54
21.22
22.63
23.37
2.06
18.16
17.88
18.54
19.58
20.34
21.16
22.59
24
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
32.52
31.92
34.52
39.26
42.01
38.42
31.3
23.08
18.27
28.74
32.54
34.4
40.1
39.55
42.5
31.4
20.38
17.59
30.63
32.23
34.46
39.68
40.78
40.46
31.35
21.73
17.93
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
180
24.66
26.63
21.86
27.83
29.61
32.5
33.21
20.22
18.78
26.92
25.45
26.22
30.11
30.45
30.82
35.63
20.74
17.92
25.79
26.04
24.04
28.97
30.03
31.66
34.42
20.48
18.35
a
It is notable that Raave is denoting the average value between the Ra-A
and Ra-B values which is considered as Ra value and used in evaluation
procedure
827
X X act X est
100
X
N
act
i
Byun
Ahn
Campbell
Mason
Pandey
0 45
45< 90
90< 135
135< 180
39.88
138.33
1279.15
112.91
13.56
96.13
950.35
67.88
932.79
183.03
175.93
434.21
59.28
451.24
16.54
45.57
76.30
1299.83
89.29
99.49
828
1279.15
1299.83
1200
950.35
1000
932.79
Byun model
Ahn model
Campbell model
Mason model
Pandey model
800
600
200
451.24
434.21
400
138.33
39.88
112.91
96.13
13.56
67.88
183.03 175.93
59.28
0
0 45
45< 90
90< 135
89.29 99.49
135< 180
Fig. 11 Mean absolute percentage error values (%) for different analytical models
5 Conclusion
In layered production processes, the tessellation of the CAD
model and the slicing procedure are assumed as the major
factors affecting creation of rough surfaces. In slicing a tessellated CAD model, containment problem results in distortion
of the original CAD model from the designed form. In addition to the containment problem, deposition of the sliced
layers leads to another problem called staircase effects. To
improve the FDM part surface roughness, modeling of the
surface roughness distribution for optimizing the effective
References
1. Tolio T, Ceglarek D, ElMaraghy HA, Fischer A, Hu SJ, Laperrire L,
Newman ST, Vncza J (2010) SPECIES-Co-evolution of products,
processes and production systems. CIRP Ann-Manuf Technol 59:
672693
2. Rahmati S. (2014) Direct Rapid Tooling, Comprehensive Materials
Processing, Masood S, ed.; ELSEVIER Ltd.; Vol. 10, 303-344. doi:
10.1016/B978-0-08-096532-1.01013-X
3. Ahn D, Kweon J, Kwon S, Song J, Lee S (2009) Representation of
surface roughness in fused deposition modeling. Elsevier, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, pp 55935600
4. Onuh SO, Yusuf YY (1999) Rapid prototyping technology: applications and benefits for rapid product development. J Intell Manuf 10:
301311
5. Upcraft S, Fletcher R (2003) The rapid prototyping technologies.
Assem Autom 23(4):318330
6. Pandey PM, Reddy NV, Dhande SG (2003) Slicing procedures in
layered manufacturing: a review. Rapid Prototyp J 9(5):274288
829
12. Pandey PM, Thrimurthulu K, Reddy NV (2004) Optimal part deposition orientation in FDM by using a multicriteria genetic algorithm,
Int J Prod Res. 42:4069-4089.
13. Byun HS, Lee KH (2006) Determination of optimal build direction in
rapid prototyping with variable slicing. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28:
307313
14. Ahn DK, Kwon SM, Lee SH (2008) Expression for surface roughness distribution of FDM processed parts. Int. Conf. on Smart
Manufacturing Application, Korea, pp 490493
15. Reeves PE, Cobb RC (1997) Reducing the surface deviation of
stereolithography using in-process techniques. Rapid Prototyp J 3(1):
2031