Advertisement

Effect of Process Parameters of Fused Deposition Modeling and Vapour Smoothing on Surface Properties of ABS Replicas for Biomedical Applications

  • Jasgurpreet Singh Chohan
  • Rupinder Singh
  • Kamaljit Singh Boparai
Chapter

Abstract

In spite of numerous applications, the functionality of FDM patterns is severely influenced by poor surface finish which must be maintained as it would be further inherited by castings. The impact of process parameters of an advanced finishing technique i.e. Vapour Smoothing (VS) has been investigated on surface roughness, hardness and dimensional accuracy of hip implant replicas. The Taguchi L18 Orthogonal Array and ANOVA statistical tools were used to scrutinize the significant parameters. The exposure of hot chemical vapours tends to melt the upper surface of ABS parts which are immediately cooled. This led to improvement in surface finish and surface hardness as layers settle down as smooth surface. The shrinkage in FDM parts has been noticed due to layer re-settlement. Based on significant parameters, the mathematical models for each response were formulated using Buckingham Pi theorem. The multi-response optimization study was performed to endorse a single set of process parameters to attain best surface characteristics. The Differential Scanning Calorimetry tests were performed which reveal that VS process enhanced thermal stability of material due to increase in bonding strength.

Keywords

Vapour smoothing Surface hardness Dimensional accuracy Buckingham Pi theorem Multi-response optimization 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors are thankful to DST (GOI) for financial support and Manufacturing Research Lab (Dept. of Production Engg., Guru Nanak Dev Engg. College, Ludhiana (India) for technical support.

References

  1. 1.
    Horáček M, Charvát O, Pavelka T, Sedlák J, Madaj M, Nejedlý J. Medical implants by using RP and investment casting technologies. In 69th WFC 2011 Feb:107-111Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gibson I, editor. Advanced manufacturing technology for medical applications: reverse engineering, software conversion and rapid prototyping. John Wiley & Sons; 2006 Jun 14Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rao AS, Dharap MA, Venkatesh JV. Development of Rapid Tooling for Investment Casting using Fused Deposition Modeling Process. Advanced Materials Research. 2014 Jul 9;970Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hanus A, Špirutová N, Beňo J. Surface quality of foundry pattern manufactured by FDM method-rapid prototyping. Archives of Foundry Engineering. 2011;11(1):15-20.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sreedhar P, MathikumarManikandan C, Jothi G. Experimental investigation of surface roughness for fused deposition modeled part with different angular orientation. International Journal of Advanced Design and Manufacturing Technology. 2012 Jan 1;5(3):21-8Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kattethota G, Henderson M. A visual tool to improve layered manufacturing part quality. InProceedings of Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium 1998 Aug 10: 327-334Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vasudevarao B, Natarajan DP, Henderson M, Razdan A. Sensitivity of RP surface finish to process parameter variation. InSolid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings 2000 Aug 8 (pp. 251-258). Austin: The University of TexasGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Byun HS, Lee KH. Determination of the optimal build direction for different rapid prototyping processes using multi-criterion decision making. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing. 2006 Feb 28;22(1):69-80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noriega A, Blanco D, Alvarez BJ, Garcia A. Dimensional accuracy improvement of FDM square cross-section parts using artificial neural networks and an optimization algorithm. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 2013 Dec 1;69(9-12):2301-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gurrala PK, Regalla SP. Multi-objective optimisation of strength and volumetric shrinkage of FDM parts: a multi-objective optimization scheme is used to optimize the strength and volumetric shrinkage of FDM parts considering different process parameters. Virtual and Physical Prototyping. 2014 Apr 3;9(2):127-38Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rattanawong W, Masood SH, Iovenitti P. A volumetric approach to part-build orientations in rapid prototyping. Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 2001 Dec 20;119(1):348-53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nancharaiah T, d Ranga Raju VR, Raju R. An experimental investigation on surface quality and dimensional accuracy of FDM components. 2010:1 (2), 106-111Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ahn SH, Montero M, Odell D, Roundy S, Wright PK. Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid prototyping journal. 2002 Oct 1;8(4):248-57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arumaikkannu G, Maheshwaraa NU, Gowri S. A genetic algorithm with design of experiments approach to predict the optimal process parameters for FDM. InProceedings of Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium 2005 (pp. 150-161).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chohan JS, Chohan JS, Singh R, Singh R. Pre and post processing techniques to improve surface characteristics of FDM parts: a state of art review and future applications. Rapid Prototyping Journal. 2017 Apr 18;23(3):495-513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yang Y, Fuh JY, Loh HT, Wong YS. A volumetric difference-based adaptive slicing and deposition method for layered manufacturing. Transactions-American Society of Mechanical Engineers Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering. 2003 Aug 1;125(3):586-94Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pandey PM, Reddy NV, Dhande SG. Slicing procedures in layered manufacturing: a review. Rapid prototyping journal. 2003 Dec 1;9(5):274-88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pandey PM, Reddy NV, Dhande SG. Real time adaptive slicing for fused deposition modelling. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture. 2003 Jan 31;43(1):61-71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pandey PM, Reddy NV, Dhande SG. Improvement of surface finish by staircase machining in fused deposition modeling. Journal of materials processing technology. 2003 Jan 10;132(1):323-31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leong KF, Chua CK, Chua GS, Tan CH. Abrasive jet deburring of jewellery models built by stereolithography apparatus (SLA). Journal of Materials Processing Technology. 1998 Nov 1;83(1):36-47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Galantucci LM, Dassisti M, Lavecchia F, Percoco G. Improvement of fused deposition modelled surfaces through milling and physical vapor deposition. Available at http://www.poliba.it/Didattica/docs/scorepoliba2014 _submission_187.pdf (Accessed on December 22, 2014)
  22. 22.
    Boschetto A, Bottini L, Veniali F. Microremoval modeling of surface roughness in barrel finishing. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 2013 Dec 1;69(9-12):2343-54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fischer M, Schöppner V. Some investigations regarding the surface treatment of Ultem* 9085 parts manufactured with fused deposition modeling. In Proceedings of 24 th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, Aug 2013 (pp. 12-14)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vinitha, M., Rao, A.N. and Mallik, M.K. (2012) “Optimization of Speed Parameters in Burnishing of Samples Fabricated by Fused Deposition Modeling”, International Journal of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 10-12Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Galantucci LM, Lavecchia F, Percoco G. Experimental study aiming to enhance the surface finish of fused deposition modeled parts. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology. 2009 Dec 31;58(1):189-92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuo CC, Mao RC. Development of a precision surface polishing system for parts fabricated by fused deposition modeling. Materials and Manufacturing Processes. 2016 Jun 10;31(8):1113-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Garg A, Bhattacharya A, Batish A. On surface finish and dimensional accuracy of FDM parts after cold vapor treatment. Materials and Manufacturing Processes. 2016 Mar 11;31(4):522-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Percoco G, Lavecchia F, Galantucci LM. Compressive properties of FDM rapid prototypes treated with a low cost chemical finishing. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology. 2012 Oct 1;4(19):3838-42Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Galantucci LM, Lavecchia F, Percoco G. Quantitative analysis of a chemical treatment to reduce roughness of parts fabricated using fused deposition modeling. CIRP Annals-manufacturing technology. 2010 Dec 31;59(1):247-50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taufik M, Jain PK. Laser assisted finishing process for improved surface finish of fused deposition modelled parts. Journal of Manufacturing Processes. 2017 Dec 31;30:161-77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Priedeman WR, Smith DT. Smoothing method for layer manufacturing process. United States Patent No. US8123999B2, USA. 2011Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    ISO 4287 (1997), Geometrical Product Specification (GPS) – Surface Texture: Profile Method – Terms, Definition and Surface Texture Parameters, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), GenevaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    ASTM D2240 (2010). Standard Test Method for Rubber Property - Durometer Hardness, American Society for Testing and Materials, 2010Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    ISO 10360-2 (2009). Geometrical product specifications (GPS) - Acceptance and reverification tests for coordinate measuring machines (CMM) - Part 2: CMMs used for measuring linear dimensions, 2009Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Chohan JS, Singh R, Boparai KS. Parametric optimization of fused deposition modeling and vapour smoothing processes for surface finishing of biomedical implant replicas. Measurement. 2016 Dec 31;94:602-13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Chohan JS, Singh R, Boparai KS, Penna R, Fraternali F. Dimensional accuracy analysis of coupled fused deposition modeling and vapour smoothing operations for biomedical applications. Composites Part B: Engineering. 2017 May 15;117:138-49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Singh J, Singh R, Singh H. Repeatability of linear and radial dimension of ABS replicas fabricated by fused deposition modelling and chemical vapor smoothing process: a case study. Measurement. 2016 Dec 31;94:5-11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dym C. Principles of mathematical modeling. Elsevier Academic press, Burlington; 2004 Aug 10.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jasgurpreet Singh Chohan
    • 1
  • Rupinder Singh
    • 2
  • Kamaljit Singh Boparai
    • 3
  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentChandigarh UniversityGharaunIndia
  2. 2.Production Engineering DepartmentGuru Nanak Dev Engineering CollegeLudhianaIndia
  3. 3.Mechanical Engineering DepartmentMRSPTUBathindaIndia

Personalised recommendations