Advertisement

Virtual bead representation and surface roughness evaluation challenges for additive manufacturing material extrusion processes

  • R. J. UrbanicEmail author
  • L. DiCecco
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Additive manufacturing (AM) processes, such as material extrusion, are part of a popular growing technology field; with limited human assistance required and advanced rapid prototyping capabilities, this technology is advertised to have limitless possibilities. The common challenge faced by users is a lack of design control of the surface roughness, which is highlighted by a characteristic “stair case” layering effect at the boundary. Focusing on material extrusion processes, the goal of this research is to model representative bead shapes, and highlight the surface roughness challenges for assessing boundary-fill regions. Various bead shapes are explored and compared through virtual simulation. Unique material extrusion AM-related issues arise, and it is shown that machining solutions may not provide the desired surface smoothness. This research illustrates that specific physical and virtual assessment tools and standards need to be further developed to convey surface roughness attributes for material extrusion additive manufactured components.

Keywords

Additive manufacturing Material extrusion Bead modeling Surface roughness Virtual simulation Machining 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Funding information

The financial support from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada through discovery research grants, and the University of Windsor Outstanding Scholars program are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Urbanic RJ, Hedrick R, Saqib S, Nazemi N (2017) Material bead deposition with 2 + 2 ½ multi-axis machining process planning strategies with virtual verification for extruded geometry, Inter. J Adv Manuf Technol 95(9–12):3167–3184Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Spinnie N, Smith DE (2016) Large scale fused deposition modeling: the effect of processing parameters on bead geometry, solid freeform fabrication 2016: proceedings of the 26th annual international solid freeform fabrication symposiumGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vorberger TV, Raja J (1990) Surface finish metrology tutorial, U.S. Department of Commerce, viewed 14 Jul. 16, url: http://www.nist.gov/calibrations/upload/89-4088.pdf
  4. 4.
    ASME B46.1-2002 (2002) Surface texture (surface roughness, waviness, and lay), viewed Aug. 2, 16, url: http://files.asme.org/Catalog/Codes/PrintBook/17866.pdf Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO 3274:1996 (1996) Surface texture: profile method - nominal characteristics of contact (stylus) instruments, url: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=1916 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    DIN EN ISO 4288:1998 (1998) GPS - Surface texture: Profile method - Rules and procedures for the assessment of surface texture (ISO 4288:1996), standard by British Standard/European Standard/International Organization for Standardization.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Triantaphyllou A, Giusca CL, Macaulay GD, Roerig F, Hoebel M, Leach RK, Tomita B, Milne KA (2015) Surface texture measurement for additive manufacturing. Surf Topogr Metrol Prop 3(2):024002 (8 pp.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sager B, Rosen DW (2008) Use of parameter estimation for stereolithography surface finish improvement. Rapid Prototyp J 14(4):213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Onuh SO, Hon KKB (1998) Optimizing build parameters for improved surface finish in stereolithography. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 38(4):329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reeves P, Cobb R (1997) Reducing the surface deviation of stereolithography using in-process techniques. Rapid Prototyp J 3:20–31, 1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cazo’n A, Morer P, Matey L (2014) PolyJet technology for product prototyping: tensile strength and surface roughness properties. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 228(12):1664–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paul BK, Voorakarnam V (2001) Effect of layer thickness and orientation angle on surface roughness in laminated object manufacturing. J Manuf Process 3:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shi D, Gibson I (2000) Improving surface quality of selective laser sintered rapid prototype parts using robotic finishing. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 214(B3):197–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pinkerton AJ, Li L (2003) The effect of laser pulse width on multiple-layer 316L steel clad microstructure and surface finish. Appl Surf Sci 208-209:411–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sreedhar P, Manikandan CM, Jothi G (2012) Experimental investigation of surface roughness for fused deposition modeled part with different angular orientation. Int J Adv Des Manuf Technol 5(3):21–28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Urbanic RJ, Hedrick R (2009) Developing a virtual model for the fused deposition rapid prototyping process, Proceedings of the Life Cycle Engineering Conference: 131–137.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pandey PM, Reddy NV, Dhande SG (2003) Improvement of surface finish by staircase machining in fused deposition modeling. J Mater Process Technol 132:323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ahn D, Kweon H, Kwon S, Song J, Lee S (2009) Representation of surface roughness in fused deposition modeling. J Mater Process Technol 209:5593–5600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Galantucci LM, Lavecchia F, Percoco G (2009) Experimental study aiming to enhance the surface finish of fused deposition modeled parts. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 58(1):189–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anitha R, Arunachalam S, Radhakrishnan P (2001) Critical parameters influencing the quality of prototypes in fused deposition modelling. J Mater Process Technol 118:385–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perez C (2002) Analysis of the surface roughness and dimensional accuracy capability of fused deposition modelling processes. Int J Prod Res 40(12):2865–2881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ippolito R, Luliano L, Gatto A (1995) Benchmarking of rapid prototyping techniques in terms, of dimensional accuracy and surface finish. Ann CIRP 44(1):157–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boschetto A, Giordano V, Veniali F (2012) Modelling micro geometrical profiles in fused deposition process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 61:945–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thrimurthulu K, Pandey PM, Reddy NV (2004) Optimum part deposition orientation in fused deposition modeling. Int J Mach Tool Manu 44(6):585–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Xu F, Loh HT, Wong YS (1999) Considerations and selection of optimal orientation for different rapid prototyping systems. Rapid Prototyp J 5(2):54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhou MY, Xi JT, Yan JQ (2004) Adaptive direct slicing with non-uniform cusp heights for rapid prototyping. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 23(1–2):20–27Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Byun H-S, Lee KH (2005) Determination of the optimal part orientation in layered manufacturing using a genetic algorithm. Int J Prod Res 43:2709–2724CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mahapatra SS, Sood AK (2012) Bayesian regularization-based Levenberg-Marquardt neural model combined with BFOA for improving surface finish of FDM processed part. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 60(9–12):1223–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sood AK, Mahapatra SS, Ohdar RK (2011) Weighted principal component approach for improving surface finish of ABS plastic parts built through fused deposition modelling process. Int J Rapid Manuf 2(1–2):4–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ghorpade A, Karunakaran KP, Tiwari MK (2007) Selection of optimal part orientation in fused deposition modelling using swarm intelligence. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 221(7):1209–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pandey PM, Reddy NV, Dhande SG (2006) Virtual hybrid-FDM system to enhance surface finish. Virtual Phys Prototyp 1(2):101–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Duty C, Kunc V, Compton B, Post B, Erdman D, Smith R, Lind R, Lloyd P, Love L (2017) Structure and mechanical behavior of big area additive manufacturing (BAAM) materials. Rapid Prototyp J 23(1):181–189.  https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-12-2015-0183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Eiliat H, Urbanic RJ (2018) Visualizing, analyzing, and managing voids in the material extrusion process, The Inter. J Adv Manuf Technol 96(9–12):4095–4109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Urbanic RJ, Burford C, Hedrick R (2018) Virtual quality assessment tools for material extrusion processes. Comput-Aided Des Applic:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1080/16864360.2017.1419640
  35. 35.
    Adams T, Grant C, Watson H (2012) A simple algorithm to relate measured surface roughness to equivalent sand-grain roughness, In Proceedings of the international conference on mechanical engineering and mechatronics, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 16-18 August 2012Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    BAAM CI, Big area additive manufacturing, url: http://www.e-ci.com/baam/. Accessed 07 Feb 2019
  37. 37.
    LSAM, Large scale additive manufacturing, url: http://www.thermwood.com/lsam_development_main.htm. Accessed 07 Feb 2019
  38. 38.
    MAAM CI, Medium area additive manufacturing, url: http://www.e-ci.com/maam/. Accessed 07 Feb 2019
  39. 39.
    Stratasys FDM Technology, url: FDM technologyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations