Determining the relationships between the build orientation, process parameters and voids in additive manufacturing material extrusion processes

  • Hasti EiliatEmail author
  • Jill Urbanic


It stands to reason that the additive manufacturing build orientation for the material extrusion process affects the support material requirements, processing time, surface finish, etc. This paper aims to study the influence of the build orientation on the optimal process parameter settings (bead width, overlap, and raster angle), the amount, and location of unwanted voids. This research shows that there are limited optimal solution alternatives over the large solution space explored. The layer by layer process parameters are not selected independently. Knowledge of a void location in one layer is utilized to select a process parameter set for the next layer, preventing void regions from being stacked in 3D, and avoiding creating an internal chimney. Material extrusion processes, with a wide selection of nozzle sizes (0.4 mm to 21 mm), are considered suitable candidates for this solution. To carry out this study, a literature review was performed to understand the influence of the build parameters. Then, an analysis of valid parameter settings to be targeted was performed for a commercial system. The mathematical model is established based on the component geometry and the available build options for a given machine-material configuration. A C++ program has been developed to select a set of standards (available) toolpath parameters to determine the optimal process variables. Case studies are presented to show the merits of this approach. The influence of the orientation on the optimal process parameters is illustrated as well as its impact on voids. As expected, it is statistically shown that the amount and location of the voids depends on the build orientation. The optimal solution for the void minimization may be suboptimal for other criteria such as support material usage; consequently, a comprehensive multi-objective optimization heuristic algorithm needs to be developed. The processing time is long and is unacceptable for industrial applications. This outcome also needs to be addressed.


Material extrusion processes Toolpath parameters Void area Void management Build rotation Additive manufacturing quality issues 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors would like to thank CAMufacturing Solutions Inc. (especially Bob Hedrick) for their assistance with the C++ programming.


This research is funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada through the Discovery Grant.


  1. 1.
    Proto3000 (2016) Fortus400mc. Accessed 26 Feb 2018
  2. 2.
    Schmidt A (2017), Self-supporting angles in large scale additive manufacturing. AES Originals, Large Scale 3D Printing. Accessed 26 Feb 2018
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Composites Manufacturing (2014) Pros and cons of additive manufacturing. Accessed 2016
  5. 5.
    Kishore V, Ajinjeru C, Nycz A, Post B, Lindahl J, Kunc V, Duty C (2017) Infrared preheating to improve interlayer strength of big area additive manufacturing (BAAM) components. Addit Manuf J 14:7–12Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cincinnati (2017) SAAM specifications. Accessed 1 May 2017
  7. 7.
    W. Associates (2014) Wohlers report—3D printing and additive manufacturing state of the industry. Annual Worldwide Progress ReportGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eiliat H, Urbanic JR (2018) Visualizing, analyzing, and managing voids in the material extrusion process. J Adv Manuf TechnolGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahn S-H, Montero M, Odell D, Roundy S, Wright PK (2002) Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyp J 8(4):248–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Onwubolu GC, Rayegani F (2014) Characterization and optimization of mechanical properties of ABS parts manufactured by the fused deposition modelling process. Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Int J Manuf Eng 2014:1–13Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rayegani F, Onwubolu GC (2014) Fused deposition modelling (FDM) process parameter prediction and optimization using group method for data handling (GMDH) and differential evolution (DE). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(1):509–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sood AK, Chaturvedi V, Datta S, Mahapatra SS (2011) Optimization of process parameters in fused deposition modeling using weighted principal component analysis. J Adv Manuf Syst 10(2):241–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vijayaraghavan V, Garg A, Lam JSL, Panda B, Mahapatra SS (2015) Process characterisation of 3D-printed FDM components using improved evolutionary computational approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 78(5–8):781–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vidakis N, Petousis M, Konstantinos S, Vairis A, Athina M, Manolis A (2015) Experimental determination of fused deposition modelling parts compressive strength. 9th International Conference New Horizons in Industry, Business and Education at SkiathosGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee CS, Kim SG, Kim HJ, Ahn SH (2007) Measurement of anisotropic compressive strength of rapid prototyping parts. J Mater Process Technol 187-188:627–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stucker B, Rosen DW, Gibson I (2010) Additive manufacturing technologies. Springer, ISBN: 978-1-4419-1119-32010Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pandey PM, Reddy MV, Dhande SG (2003) Real time adaptive slicing for fused deposition modelling. Int J Mach Tool Manu 43(1):61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ledalla SRK, Tirupathi B, SriramV (2016) Performance evaluation of various STL file mesh refining algorithms applied for FDM-RP process. J Inst Eng, 99, 339, 346
  19. 19.
    Stratasys (2014) FDM Machine. Accessed 12 Jan 2017
  20. 20.
    Kyle Stetz (2009) Makerbot Vs. Dimension SST 1200es. Accessed 26 Feb 2018
  21. 21.
    All 3D (2017). Best 3D printing software tools. Accessed August 2017
  22. 22.
    Thompson A, Maskery I, Leach RK (2016) X-ray computed tomography for additive manufacturing: a review. Meas Sci Technol 27(7):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical, Automotive, & Materials EngineeringUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations