Weekly Report 2 (02.19.

2019)

From Last week :

1. Slicing tool selection : Printing multiple test models generated by prusa slicer in
UM3 & prusa to evaluate the slicing tool
2. Methods to evaluate the print quality

Summary
Different benchmark artifacts and measurements techniques were looked at in order to understand and
the select the best artifacts to compare FDM printers based on the geometric accuracy, repeatability,
minimum feature size & mechanical property.
Use of Test/Benchmark Artifacts
Test artifacts have been used to either evaluate the individual processes or to compare between processes
in order to determine the suitability of the processes for various applications. The test artifact should
contain certain features that allow the quantification of several qualities of the process.
Key features that should be able to be manufactured by AM are identified, such as :
• straight features,
• parallel and perpendicular features,
• circular and arc features,
• fine features,
• freeform features,
• holes and bosses, and
• overhangs.
Protrusions and cavities are used for the dimensional accuracy evaluation, whereas planes with different
angles and overlapped cylinders are used for determination of position errors such as inclination and
perpendicularity. Cylinders are also included to measure conicity.
Benchmark Artifact #1
Childs et. Al (1994) designed an artifact to test the geometrical capabilities, tolerances, limits and
repeatability of different processes, such as selective laser sintering (SLS), laminated object manufacturing
(LOM), and fused deposition modeling (FDM). The part includes a square base that allowed the
measurement of flatness, straightness and right angles.
• Childs, T. H. C., & Juster, N. P. (1994). Linear and geometric accuracies from layer manufacturing. CIRP
annals, 43(1), 163-166.
Benchmark Artifact #2
Benchmark presented in this paper is primarily used to study the dimensional accuracy of parts built from
different RP&M processes. The capability of the process in terms of constructing special features like fine
solid features, overhangs, large flat surfaces, small gaps are investigated. The benchmark is designed to
achieve these experimental goals.

• Xu, F., Wong, Y. S., & Loh, H. T. (2000). Toward generic models for comparative evaluation and process selection
in rapid prototyping and manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 19(5), 283.

Benchmark Artifact #3

The CMM machine is a suitable measurement equipment because of its versatility, speed and high
accuracy compared to other measurement methods and can be programmed to carry out a variety of
automatic measurements, ranging from simple to complex, to measure dimensions and shape errors,
based on ISO standards such as straightness (ISO 12780), roundness (ISO 12181), flatness (ISO 12781),
cylindricity (ISO 12180), etc.
There are various standardised measurements that can be conducted on the benchmark part. These
include:
(1) measurements of elements or individual features, such as points, straight lines, holes, boss, spheres,
cylinders, cones, slots, etc.
(2) relations between the elements; distance relation, for example, the distance between centres of
circular features, intersection relationships such as the angle between two planes, checking geometric
tolerances, parallelism tolerances, perpendicularity tolerances, angularity tolerances, checking coaxiality,
checking concentricity, symmetry tolerances, and position tolerances.
 The benchmark part was fabricated on the Stratasys FDM
3000 using ABS-400 as the part material and ABS-400R as
the support material. All part features, except the pass-
fail features, could be fully built (Figures 12 and 13). The
FDM process was least suitable to build fine features as
compared with the other processes.

• Mahesh, M., Wong, Y. S., Fuh, J. Y. H., & Loh, H. T. (2004). Benchmarking for comparative evaluation of RP
systems and processes. Rapid Prototyping Journal.

Benchmark Artifact #4
The artifact was also used to compare between processes of similar principle such as direct metal laser sintering
(DMLS), SLM and SLS with the help of a half die for glass bottle as a benchmark. It included complicated features
such as fine holes, cooling channels, text with sharp edges and corners, fillets, chamfers, and thin walls.

• Ghany, K. A., & Moustafa, S. F. (2006). Comparison between the products of four RPM systems for metals. Rapid
Prototyping Journal.

Benchmark Artifact #5
Lee et al. have designed a benchmark specifically for microfluidic chip application to compare the printing
resolution, accuracy, repeatability, circularity, surface roughness, and water contact angle of PolyJet and
FDM printed benchmark artifact.
• Lee, J. M., Zhang, M., & Yeong, W. Y. (2016). Characterization and evaluation of 3D printed microfluidic chip for
cell processing. Microfluidics and Nanofluidics, 20(1), 5.
Measurement Methods
A. The physical features commonly reported in AM parts:

1. Straightness, Roundness & Roughness

• ISO 12780 Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—straightness.
• ISO 12181 Geometrical product specifications (GPS)—roundness.
• ASTM D7127 Standard test method for measurement of surface roughness of abrasive blast cleaned
metal surfaces using a portable stylus instrument.

2. Porosity & Density

𝑄𝑎
𝜀 =1−
𝑄𝑡
𝑄𝑎 − 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑄𝑡 − 𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝜀 − 𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
True density of a material is measured by applying Archimedes Principle, which is by water displacement
method using a pycnometer. However, it is important to saturate the material with wetting liquid,
otherwise the displaced volume does not represent the real volume of the material. Alternatively, the
real volume can be measured using X-ray diffraction method. There are two simple ways to measure the
apparent density of a porous material. The first method is by using a nonwetting liquid for the liquid dis-
placement method. One disadvantage of this method is the hydrostatic pressure tends to force the
liquid into the pores, which will result in smaller external volume estimation. The second method is by
applying an impermeable coating to the porous material; however, it is difficult to ensure no coating is
sucked up into the pores.

• ASTM B962 Standard Test Methods for Density of Compacted or Sintered Powder Metallurgy (PM)
Products Using Archimedes Principle.

3. Dimensions
• Dimensions of the parts can be measured simply using Vernier calipers and rulers
• Measurement can be taken with magnified images from either, optical microscopy (OM), scanning
electron microscopy (SEM), or X-ray microtomography
 CMM is a common measuring modality in precision engineering. It uses a probe, that can be
mechanical, optical or laser, to obtain the location of a point of the part in the three axes, relative to
the predetermined origin. Using these precise coordinates, points are generated, which can then be
analyzed using regression algorithms to get reconstructed features or measurements. μCT uses X-rays
to obtain cross-sections of a part, which then is used for reconstruction of a virtual three-dimensional
(3D) model. The reconstructed model can then be used for measurements.

B. The current commercial and research landscape in mechanical measurement methods of AM

polymers
1. tensile properties
• ASTM D638 Standard test method for tensile properties of plastics.
• ISO 527-2 Plastics—determination of tensile properties—part 2: test conditions for molding
and extrusion plastics.

2. compressive properties
• ASTM D695 Standard test method for compressive properties of rigid plastics.
• ISO 604 Plastics—determination of compressive properties, provide standards for testing of
compressive properties.

3. flexural properties
• ASTM D790 Standard test methods for flexural properties of unreinforced and reinforced
plastics and electrical insulating materials.
• ISO 178-Plastics—determination of flexural properties.
4. impact strength
• ASTM D256 Standard test methods for determining the Izod pendulum impact resistance of
plastics.
• ISO 180 Plastics—determination of Izod impact strength.
Benchmark Evaluations :

1. the test part must be easy to measure with commonly available measuring equipment (e.g., coordinate
measuring machines (CMMs), 3D scanners, surface profilers, optical microscopes, digital cameras, etc.)
2. measure the density using the water-removing (Archimedes rule)
3. Hardness values (HV) were evaluated and averaged at five different positions
4. Surface roughness measurement :
Surface roughness was measured using the Plμ Sensofar confocal image profiler. The available system is capable
of profiling a maximum slope of 51° using a 100 × EPI objective for a smooth surface, and a maximum field of
view was 700 × 525 μm2 with a 20 × EPI objective for a single-profile measurement. This system provides non-
contact, nondestructive fast sampling of high aspect ratio and steep samples
5. Ultrasonic testing (UT) for porosity and measurement of material moduli can be performed using a small contact
transducer on the top step of the positive staircase structure. Samples can be cut off the part and machined
into tension testing bars. Small samples can be cut off the part (e.g., any of the pins) and measured by x-ray
computed tomography (CT) or prepared by common metallographic techniques to examine microstructures of
the samples
6. Lateral features can be examined qualitatively by eye (or digital camera), and they can be measured by CMM
or other measuring device for dimensional accuracy.
7. The small sizes of the features inhibit access by a typical CMM probe. Visual inspection by microscope does not
provide a value for dimensional accuracy (as in measurement by CMM), but the microscope images (usually at
no more than 5x magnification) give an adequate indication of whether or not the feature was successfully built.
• Moylan, S., Slotwinski, J., Cooke, A., Jurrens, K., & Donmez, M. A. (2012, August). Proposal for a standardized
test artifact for additive manufacturing machines and processes. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual international
solid freeform fabrication symposium (pp. 6-8). Austin, TX.

Additive Manufacturing ASTM Standards

F2971-13
Standard Practice for Reporting Data for Test Specimens Prepared by Additive Manufacturing

ASTM 52902:2019 :
Additive manufacturing — Test artifacts — Geometric capability assessment of additive manufacturing
systems

ASTM 52910 : 2018

Additive manufacturing — Design — Requirements, guidelines and recommendations

ASTM 52921
Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing—Coordinate Systems and Test Methodologies

Future Direction :

1. Model a simple artifact to evaluate FDM printer

2. Slicing tool selection : Printing multiple test models generated by prusa slicer in
UM3 & prusa to evaluate the slicing tool
3.