Journal of Materials Processing Technology 169 (2005) 5461

Optimization of rapid prototyping parameters for production of exible ABS object

B.H. Lee, J. Abdullah, Z.A. Khan
School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia Engineering Campus, 14300 Seri Ampangan, Nibong Tebal, Penang, Malaysia Received 12 March 2004; received in revised form 14 December 2004; accepted 9 February 2005

Abstract In this study, the Taguchi method, a powerful tool to design optimization for quality, is used to nd the optimal process parameters for fused deposition modeling (FDM) rapid prototyping machine that was used to produce acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) compliant prototype. An orthogonal array, main effect, the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) are employed to investigate the process parameters in order to achieve optimum elastic performance of a compliant ABS prototype so as to get maximum throwing distance from the prototype. Through this study, not only can the optimal process parameters for FDM process be obtained, but also the main process parameters that affect the performance of the prototype can be found. Experiments were carried out to conrm the effectiveness of this approach. From the results, it is found that FDM parameters, i.e. layer thickness, raster angle and air gap signicantly affect the elastic performance of the compliant ABS prototype. The optimum levels of parameters at different angle of displacement are also presented. 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rapid prototyping; Flexibe ABS; Fused deposition modeling; Taguchi method

1. Introduction Since the introduction of the rst commercial rapid prototyping (RP) machine widely known as Stereolithography in 1986, a wide range of RP machines have been commercialized, and many more newer systems continue to be developed in various parts of the world [1]. The future is clear as rapid prototyping is now becoming a key technology that shortens product development time for faster building of physical prototypes, tooling and models. Rapid prototyping in general, is more exible and can readily accommodate changes in product design as compared to conventional method of casting, molding or machining. Studies have been conducted to improve and optimize the process, so as to obtain high quality parts produced on a wide range of commercial RP machines [26]. Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is one RP system that produces prototypes from plastic materials such as ABS by

Corresponding author. Tel.: +60 4 5937788x6365; fax: +60 4 5941025. E-mail address: zakhanusm@yahoo.com (Z.A. Khan).

laying tracks of semi-molten plastic lament onto a platform in a layer wise manner from bottom to top. It is known that process parameters such as the air gap between adjacent tracks, raster angle, raster width and thickness of deposited layers inuence the performance of parts produced on an FDM machine. Nevertheless, the suitable levels of parameters associated with different performance criteria still need further investigation. Some studies have been conducted to determine the optimum parameters of FDM, and performance criteria often used include build time, strength, toughness and surface integrity of the prototypes, normally for injection molding and tooling applications [4,5,7]. Some work to determine the feasibility/capability of fabricating fused deposition modeling (FDM) parts concurrently from elastomeric and structural members using FDM 1600 machine has been done [8]. Optimization method for producing exible prototype using FDM 1650 to achieve optimum performance of the prototype has also been reported [9]. It is to be noted that FDM machine has potential for direct use in certain applications such as actuator in electro-mechanical systems and construction of plastic toys. In these areas, compliant mem-

0924-0136/$ see front matter 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2005.02.259

B.H. Lee et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 169 (2005) 5461

55

bers that exhibit elastic and exible behavior are increasingly being used due to reduce parts counts and therefore, lead to ease of assembly and lower product costs [10]. It has been reported that compliant member in general, gains its mobility and performs its functions through elastic deformation of its structure which is a function of material properties or geometrical design [10]. Childrens toys such as sling shot, bow and arrow are examples where compliant or exible plastic members are widely used. Toys have long been produced using the conventional methods of casting and molding. As design becomes more complicated and product life cycle gets shorter due to market needs, alternative approaches such as RP, that offers more exibility and responsiveness to design changes, are needed. This paper attempts to describe the optimization of FDM process parameters for optimum performance of compliant ABS prototypes in terms of elasticity and exibility. A model of a catapult that can be used in sling shot toy is taken as case example. Elasticity and exibility are assumed to be related to its ability to throw a plastic ball a distance. Four FDM parameters i.e. air gap, raster angle, raster width and layer thickness, each with three levels, are investigated in this study. Other parameters such as humidity and temperature are kept constant. In the following, an overview of the Taguchi method is given rst. This is followed by the description of experiments using the Taguchi method to determine and analyze the optimal FDM parameters. The optimal FDM process parameters with regard to the performance criteria, i.e. throwing distance and elasticity, are considered. Results are discussed and nally the paper concludes with the ndings of the study.

ferent combinations of parameters and their levels for each experiment. According to this technique, the entire parameter space is studied with minimal number of necessary experiments only [14,15]. Based on the average output value at each parameter level, main effect analysis is performed. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is then used to determine which process parameter is statistically signicant and the contribution of each process parameter towards the output characteristic. With the main effect and ANOVA analyses, possible combination of optimum parameters can be predicted. Finally, a conrmation experiment is conducted to verify the optimal process parameters obtained from the process parameter design.

3. Optimization of fused deposition modeling parameters 3.1. Selection of process parameters The FDM3000 rapid prototyping machine with Insight 3.1 software was used in the study. Four parameters, each at three levels as presented in Table 1 were taken into consideration in the study. It can be noted that raster angle was specied as 0 /90 , 45 /45 and 30 /60 in Table 1. The 0 /90 angle means that FDM machine fabricates the alternate layers of the catapult on the horizontal plane by changing direction at 0 and 90 angles from the coordinate of the machine. Similarly, 45 /45 and 30 /60 indicate the same deposition pattern followed by the machine. The interactions between the parameters were not considered and other factors such as temperature and humidity were kept constant. To select an appropriate orthogonal array for the experiments, the total degrees of freedom need to be determined. The degrees of freedom are dened as the number of comparisons between process parameters that need to be made to determine which level is better and specically how much better it is. For example, a three-level process parameter counts for two degrees of freedom. The total degrees of freedom are obtained by multiplying the degrees of freedom of each process parameter to the number of parameters. Therefore, in this study, four parameters, each with three levels count for eight degrees of freedom. Basically, the degrees of freedom for the orthogonal array should be greater than or at least equal to those for the process parameters. Obviously the appropriate orthogonal array in this case was the standard L9 , with four columns and

2. The Taguchi approach The Taguchi method is a well-known technique that provides a systematic and efcient methodology for design optimization. It has been widely used for product design and process optimization worldwide [1113]. This is due to the advantages of the design of experiment using Taguchis technique, which includes simplication of experimental plan and feasibility of study of interaction between different parameters. Lesser number of experiments means time and costs are reduced. This is especially vital for rapid prototyping where cost to produce prototypes is still high. Taguchi proposes experimental plan in terms of orthogonal array that gives dif-

Table 1 FDM parameters and their levels Symbol A B C D FDM parameter Air gap Raster angle Raster width Layer thickness Unit mm Degree angles mm mm Level 1 Solid ne 0 /90 0.305 0.178 Level 2 Sparse 45 /45 0.655 0.254 Level 3 Double wide 30 /60 0.980 0.305

56

B.H. Lee et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 169 (2005) 5461

Table 2 Experimental plan using L9 orthogonal array Experiment number Parameter/level A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 B 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 C 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 2 D 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1

nine rows. The L9 orthogonal array for this study is shown in Table 2. 3.2. Testing of compliant ABS product The isometric and top views of the selected catapult design are shown in Fig. 1a and b, respectively. Nine samples were produced on an FDM3000 machine using ABS (acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) material according to the parameters and their levels as indicated in Table 2. For testing, the catapult was xed on a specially designed xture. The isometric and side views of the experimental setup are illustrated in Fig. 2a and b, respectively. The xture was placed on a laboratory bench. The catapult was bent and held in place using a stopper placed at locator holes for 10 , 15 and 20 angle of displacement from the initial position of the catapult. A 5 g ball was loaded onto the catapult. When the stopper was released, then the catapult got deected and threw the ball at a distance as shown in Fig. 2b. Thin powder layer was spread evenly on the bench so that when the ball was thrown, it left a

mark upon landing. Three throws were performed using the catapult produced from parameters settings of experiment number 1 (Table 2), after bending it to an angle of displacement of 10 . The average throwing distance was recorded. Next, this catapult was replaced by another catapult obtained from parameters settings of experiment number 2 and average throwing distance for the same angle of displacement was recorded. Similarly, the average throwing distances at the same angle of displacement of 10 was recorded for the catapults produced from parameters setting of experiment number 39, respectively. This procedure was repeated for the other two angles of displacements i.e. 15 and 20 , respectively. During testing of the catapults it was observed that the catapults did not loose their elastic strength and were also not plastically deformed. This observation was based on fact that there was consistency in the throwing distances and the catapults did not loose their original shape. This is to mimic the way catapult is normally used as component in toys.

4. Results and discussion The results were obtained by testing all the nine prototypes for different angles of displacement i.e.10 , 15 and 20 . Each prototype represented each experiment of the orthogonal array (Table 2). The average throwing distance at different angles of displacement is summarized in Table 3. In the latter, the results were analyzed by employing main effects, ANOVA, and the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) analyses. Finally, a conrmation test was carried out to compare the experimental results with the estimated results. 4.1. Main effects For performing the main effect, average throwing distance from the prototypes, which were produced according to the experimental plan of the orthogonal array (Table 2), at each angle of displacement was calculated and the results are shown in Table 3. Figs. 35 depict graphs for the output characteristic (average throwing distance) of the prototypes when they were bent at angle of displacement of 10 , 15 , and 20 respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 3 that on the
Table 3 Average throwing distances at various angles of displacement Experiment number Throwing distance (cm) 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 96.70 95.53 100.07 98.23 107.80 104.63 99.83 104.37 125.33 15 160.13 165.50 164.10 157.20 185.87 179.97 171.20 169.90 213.83 20 250.17 256.00 253.77 234.13 304.80 275.53 275.27 263.37 325.43

Fig. 1. Catapult design: (a) isometric view; (b) top view.

B.H. Lee et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 169 (2005) 5461

57

Fig. 2. Experimental setup for catapult testing: (a) isometric view; (b) side view.

basis of average throwing distance, the best combination of parameters and their levels for the optimum performance of compliant ABS prototype for 10 angle of displacement is A3 B3 C2 D1 . The parameters and their levels, i.e. A3 B3 C2 D1 once again appear to be the best combination for 15 angle of displacement as it is evident from Fig. 4. Finally, it can be observed from Fig. 5 that the best combination of parameters and their levels for 20 angle of displacement is A3 B3 C3 D1 .

Fig. 4. Main effect chart at 15 angle of displacement.

4.2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) The purpose of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) was to investigate which parameters signicantly affected the quality characteristic. In order to perform ANOVA rst, the total sum of squared deviations, SST was calculated from the following formula [14]:
n

SST =
Fig. 3. Main effect chart at 10 angle of displacement.
i=1

2 yi C.F.

(1)

58

B.H. Lee et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 169 (2005) 5461

Fig. 5. Main effect chart at 20 angle of displacement.

where, n is the number of experiments in the orthogonal array, yi the throwing distance of i-th experiment and C.F. the correction factor. C.F. was calculated as [14]: C.F. = T2 n (2)

and then raster width. Therefore, based on main effect and ANOVA analyses, the optimal parameters for achieving maximum throwing distance from the prototype were the air gap at level 3, the raster angle at level 3, the raster width at level 2, and the layer thickness at level 1. Similarly, it can be observed from Table 5 that for 15 angle of displacement, all the four parameters had a signicant effect on the throwing distance. However, the contribution order of the parameters for the desired output was raster angle, layer thickness, air gap, and then raster width. Based on the main effect and ANOVA analyses, the optimal parameters were air gap at level 3, raster angle at level 3, raster width at level 2, and layer thickness at level 1. Finally, Table 6 reveals that for 20 angle of displacement all the four parameters once again had a signicant affect on the desired output. The contribution order for the parameters was layer thickness, air gap, raster angle, and then raster width. Based on the main effect and the ANOVA analyses, the optimal parameters were air gap at level 3, raster angle at level 3, raster width at level 3, and then layer thickness at level 1. 4.3. Signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) The signal-to-noise ratio measures the sensitivity of the quality investigated to those uncontrollable factors (error) in the experiment. The higher value of S/N ratio is desirable because greater S/N ratio will result in smaller product variance around the target value. The quality characteristic used in this study was the-bigger-the-better, i.e. the farther the throwing distance, the better the catapult performance. In order to perform S/N ratio analysis, mean square deviation (MSD) for the-bigger-the-better quality characteristic and S/N ratio were calculated from the following equations [14]: MSD = 1 n
n i=1

where, T is the total of the throwing distances. It should be noted that the prototypes resulting from each experiment was used three times to throw the ball at each angle of displacement and thus the value of n (27) was used in the calculation. The total sum of squared deviations, SST was decomposed into two sources: the sum of squared deviations, SSd due to each process parameter and the sum of squared error, SSe . The percentage contribution, p by each of the process parameter in the total sum of squared deviations, SST was a ratio of the sum of squared deviations, SSd due to each process parameter to the total sum of squared deviations, SST . Statistically, there is a tool called F test to see which process parameters have signicant effect on the quality characteristic. For performing the F test, the mean of squared deviations, SSm due to each process parameter needs to be calculated. The mean of squared deviations, SSm is equal to the sum of squared deviations, SSd divided by the number of degrees of freedom associated with the process parameters. Then, the F value for each process parameter is simply the ratio of the mean of squared deviations, SSm to the mean of squared error, SSe . Usually, when F > 4, it means that the change of the process parameter has signicant effect on the quality characteristic. Tables 46 show the results of ANOVA for 10 , 15 and 20 angles of displacement respectively. The F-ratios were obtained for 99% level of condence [14]. In addition to this, percent contribution of each parameter was also calculated. It can be seen from Table 4 that for 10 angle of displacement, within the range investigated as shown in Table 1, all the four parameters i.e. air gap, raster angle, raster width and layer thickness were signicant in terms of affecting the exible performance resulting in maximum throwing distance. However, the contribution order of the parameters for maximum throwing distance was air gap, raster angle, layer thickness,

1 2 yi

(3) (4)

S/N = 10 log10 (MSD)

where yi is the throwing distance for ith experiment. The S/N ratio obtained for each angle of displacement is presented in Tables 79, respectively. It can be seen from these tables that for each angle of displacement, the combination of the parameters and their levels, A3 B3 C2 D1 has consistently resulted in the maximum value of S/N ratio. This shows that in the present case study the parameters and their levels, A3 B3 C2 D1 yield optimum quality characteristic with minimum variance around the target value for each angle of displacement. 4.4. Conrmation test Once the optimal combination and levels of the process parameter at each angle of displacement had been obtained,

B.H. Lee et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 169 (2005) 5461 Table 4 ANOVA for 10 angle of displacement Symbol A B C D All other/error Total Table 5 ANOVA for 15 angle of displacement Symbol A B C D All other/error Total Table 6 ANOVA for 20 angle of displacement Symbol A B C D All other/error Total FDM parameter Air gap Raster angle Raster width Layer thickness Degrees of freedom 2 2 2 2 18 26 Sum of squares 5425.93 4721.39 1013.32 8392.10 214.94 19,767.68 Mean square 2712.97 2360.70 506.66 4196.05 11.94 F 227.22 197.71 42.43 351.43 FDM parameter Air gap Raster angle Raster width Layer thickness Degrees of freedom 2 2 2 2 18 26 Sum of squares 2125.85 2408.41 354.95 2407.49 142.31 7439.01 Mean square 1062.93 1204.21 177.48 1203.75 7.91 F 134.38 152.24 22.44 152.18 FDM parameter Air gap Raster angle Raster width Layer thickness Degrees of freedom 2 2 2 2 18 26 Sum of squares 693.21 636.60 104.51 545.06 28.79 2008.17 Mean square 346.61 318.30 52.26 272.53 1.60 F 216.63 198.94 32.66 170.33

59

Contribution (%) 34.52 31.70 5.20 27.14 1.44 100

Contribution (%) 28.58 32.38 4.77 32.36 1.91 100

Contribution (%) 27.45 23.88 5.13 42.45 1.09 100

the nal step was to verify the estimated result against experimental value. Estimated throwing distance at optimum condition for each angle of displacement was calculated by adding the average performance to the contribution of each parameter at the optimum level using the following equations [15]: yopt = m + (mAopt m) + (mBopt m) + (mCopt m) + (mDopt m) T n (5)

m=

(6)

the throwing distance for A3 B3 C2 D1 is same as that of estimated value and thus there was no need for any conrmation test. However, conrmation test was required for 20 angle of displacement only because the optimum parameters and their levels (A3 B3 C3 D1 ) did not correspond to any experiment of the orthogonal array. The prototype at optimal levels of the factors i.e. A3 , B3 , C3 and D1 was produced on the FDM machine. The prototype was bent at 20 angle of displacement so as to throw the ball. This was repeated three times and for each time, throwing distance was measured. Subsequently, the average throwing distance was calculated. The experimental throwing distance was compared with the estimated throwing distance
Table 7 S/N values at 10 angle of displacement Experiment number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average distance, yave (cm) 96.70 95.53 100.07 98.23 107.80 104.63 99.83 104.37 125.33 MSD (105 ) 10.69 10.96 9.99 10.37 8.60 9.13 10.03 9.18 6.30 S/N 39.71 39.60 40.00 39.84 40.65 40.39 39.98 40.37 41.96

where m is the average performance, T the grand total of average throwing distance for each experiment, n the total number of experiments and mAopt the average throwing distance for parameter A at its optimum level, mBopt the average throwing distance for parameter B at its optimum level, mCopt the average throwing distance for parameter C at its optimum level, and mDopt the average throwing distance for parameter D at its optimum level. It was found that for 10 and 15 angle of displacement, the optimum parameters and their levels (A3 B3 C2 D1 ) corresponded to experiment number 9 of the orthogonal array. And furthermore, it can be seen from Table 10 that for 10 and 15 angles of displacement the experimental value of

60

B.H. Lee et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 169 (2005) 5461

Table 8 S/N values at 15 angle of displacement Experiment number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average distance, yave (cm) 160.13 165.50 164.10 157.20 185.87 179.97 171.20 169.90 213.83 MSD (105 ) 3.90 3.65 3.71 4.04 2.89 3.09 3.41 3.48 2.19 S/N 44.09 44.37 44.30 43.93 45.38 45.10 44.67 44.60 46.60

Table 9 S/N values at 20 angle of displacement Experiment number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average distance, yave (cm) 250.17 256.00 253.77 234.13 304.80 275.53 275.27 263.37 325.43 MSD (105 ) 1.60 1.52 1.55 1.82 1.08 1.31 1.32 1.44 9.45 S/N 47.96 48.16 48.09 47.39 49.68 48.80 48.79 48.41 50.25

The optimal parameters and their levels for 10 , 15 and 20 angle of displacement are A3 B3 C2 D1 , A3 B3 C2 D1 and A3 B3 C3 D1 , respectively. For 10 angle of displacement, air gap produces maximum contribution to the output performance of the product (throwing distance). For 15 angle of displacement, raster angle and layer thickness demonstrate almost equal maximum contribution to the output performance of the product (throwing distance). For 20 angle of displacement, layer thickness gives the highest contribution to the output performance. The parameters and their levels, i.e. A3 B3 C2 D1 yield the optimum quality characteristic with minimum variance for all angles of displacements considered in the study.

Acknowledgements Logistic support from the School of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Sains Malaysia is acknowledged. The material for FDM experiment is also nancially supported partly by USM short-term grant #6035064. Technical support from the rapid prototyping laboratory personnel, Mr. Mohd. Najib Hussain is greatly acknowledged.

Table 10 Estimated result against experimental value Angle of displacement Estimated result (mm) Experimental value for experiment number 9 (mm) 125.33 213.83 Does not correspond to any experiment in the orthogonal array

References
[1] P.F. Jacobs, Stereolithography and other RP&M Technologies: from Rapid Prototyping to Rapid Tooling, SME, Dearbon, MI, 1995. ISBN 0-87263-467-1. [2] S.H. Choi, S. Samavedam, Modelling and optimization of rapid prototyping, Comp. Ind. 47 (2002) 3953. [3] S.O. Onuh, K.K.B. Hon, Optimising build parameters for improved surface nish in stereolithography, Int. J. Machine Tools Manuf. 38 (4) (1998) 329392. [4] K. Thrimurthulu, P.M. Pandey, N.V. Reddy, Optimum part deposition orientation in fused deposition modeling, Int. J. Machine Tools Manuf., in press. [5] P.M. Pandey, N.V. Reddy, S.G. Dhande, Real time adaptive slicing for fused deposition modeling, Int. J. Machine Tools Manuf. 43 (2003) 6171. [6] J.G. Zhou, D. Herscovici, C.C. Chen, Parametric process optimization to improve the accuracy of rapid prototype stereolithography part, Int. J. Machine Tool Manuf. 40 (2000) 363379. [7] R. Anitha, S. Arunachalam, P. Radhakrishnan, Critical parameter inuencing the quality of prototype in fused deposition modelling, J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 118 (2001) 385388. [8] K. Elkins, C. Janak, H. Nordby, R.W. Gray IV, J.H. Bohn, D.G. Baird, Soft Elastomers for Fused Deposition Modelling, in: Proceedings of the 8th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, The University of Texas at Austin, August 1113, 1997, pp. 441448. [9] J. Weinmann, H. Ip, D. Prigozhin, E. Escobar, M. Mendelson, R. Noorani, Application of Design of Experiments (DOE) on the Processing of Rapid Prototyping Samples, in: Proceedings of the 14th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, The University of Texas at Austin, August 46, 2003, pp. 340347. [10] L.L. Howell, Compliant Mechanism, Wiley, New York, 2001. [11] W.H. Wang, Y.S. Tarng, Design optimization of cutting parameters for turning operations based on the Taguchi method, J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 84 (1998) 122129.

10 15 20

125.32 213.83 331.53

Table 11 Results of conrmation experiment Optimal condition Estimation Level Distance achieved (cm) S/N value A3 , B3 , C3 , D1 331.53 Experiment A3 , B3 , C3 , D1 330.93 50.39 0.6 Difference

as presented in Table 11. It can be seen from Table 11 that the difference between experimental result and the estimated result is only 0.6 cm. This indicates that the experimental value is very close to the estimated value. This veries that the experimental result is strongly correlated with the estimated result, as the error is only 0.18%.

5. Conclusions On the basis of the results obtained the following can be concluded:

B.H. Lee et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 169 (2005) 5461 [12] T. Chung-Chen, H. Hong, Comparison of the tool life of tungsten carbides coated by multi-layer TiCN and TiAlCN for end mills using the Taguchi method, J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 123 (2002) 14. [13] C.Y. Nian, W.H. Yang, Y.S. Tarng, Optimization of turning operations with multiple performance characteristics, J. Mater. Proc. Technol. 95 (1999) 9096.

61

[14] R.K. Roy, A Primer On The Taguchi Method, Competitive Manufacturing Series, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990. [15] M.S. Phadke, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice Hall International Inc., 1989.