Rapid Prototyping Journal

Process parameters optimization for improving surface quality and manufacturing accuracy of binder
jetting additive manufacturing process
Han Chen Yaoyao Fiona Zhao
Article information:
To cite this document:
Han Chen Yaoyao Fiona Zhao , (2016),"Process parameters optimization for improving surface quality and manufacturing
accuracy of binder jetting additive manufacturing process", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-11-2014-0149
Downloaded on: 29 March 2016, At: 08:02 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 15 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"A survey of the design methods for additive manufacturing to improve functional performance", Rapid Prototyping
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. -

(2016),"Development of rapid tooling using fused deposition modeling: a review", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp.
-
(2016),"Analysis of new additive manufacturing technology based on selective composite formation using finite element
method approach", Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. -

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:126209 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Process Parameters Optimization for Improving Surface Quality and
Manufacturing Accuracy of Binder Jetting Additive Manufacturing Process

1. Introduction
Additive Manufacturing (AM) technology, initially known as Rapid Prototyping (RP) or Direct
Digital Manufacturing (DDM) has been researched and developed for more than 20 years. Rather than
removing materials, AM processes make three-dimensional parts directly from CAD models by adding
materials layer by layer, offering advantages of building parts with geometric and material complexities
that can not be produced by subtractive manufacturing processes(Guo and Leu, 2013). AM technology
includes 7 different types of processes: material jetting, binder jetting, material extrusion, powder bed
fusion, directed energy deposition, sheet lamination, hybrid and direct write AM (STUCKER, 2011).
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

AM processes provide an opportunity for modern industry to shorten new product development time
and increase their global competitiveness. AM is a cost-effective technology for small batches or
complex-shape parts (such as lattice structure) that are impossible to be manufactured by subtractive
processes. The applications of AM are growing very fast. People applied AM in rapid tool
development(Biles et al., 1995), reverse engineering (Lee and Woo, 2000), biomedical
engineering(Melchels et al., 2012), etc. With the development of AM technology, its applications have
moved from producing prototypes for design verification to produce functional final product. Currently,
direct fabrication of multi-functional end-use products has become the main trend of AM technology.
Although AM technology has been significantly developed and improved, many challenges and
issues remain to be addressed. The report of 2009 National Science Foundation (NSF) workshop
“Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing: Identify the Future of Freeform Proceeding” (Bourell et al.,
2009) indicated that the repeatability and consistency of the manufactured parts are critical for a
manufacturing process to be adopted widely by industry. Actually, the performance of additive
manufacturing is affected by many factors, such as: printing parameters, materials, binding agent, and
post treatment etc.(Dimitrov et al., 2006) It is necessary to identify and control the key factors to
improve the process performance. However, it is hard to significantly change the hardware, e.g. the
machine and materials, etc. One way to achieve optimization process control is to tune process
parameters accordingly based on the given machine and materials (Hsu and Lai, 2010). The optimized
process parameters will reduce the process variability and enhance the process repeatability,
performance and stability.
This research focuses on the BJ additive manufacturing process. BJ is formerly named as
three-dimensional printing (3DP) in which powder materials are deposited layer by layer and selectively
joined with binder material jetted from a print head. BJ is a very competitive AM process in terms of
cost and speed. Since the major volume of the part is made up of the powder material, only the binder, a
small fraction of the volume of the part, needs to be deposited from the print heads. As a result, a layer
can be formed very quickly. The powder that surrounds the part naturally acts as a support for any
subsequent overhanging geometry, and no secondary support structures are needed. Thus, it eliminates
the support structure design and related post processing time.
The entire manufacturing process of BJ includes printing, curing, de-powdering, sintering,
infiltration, annealing and finishing. The essential step of BJ is the printing process. Fig.1 (Xu et al.,
2014) shows a schematic view of the BJ printing process. The printing system is made up of a print bed,
a feed bed, a roller, a drying unit, and a print head.
 Fig.1 Diagram of Printing System of BJ technology
(a) Printing (b) Drying and Spreading

As shown in Fig.1 (a), BJ printing process starts by spreading a thin layer of powder in the print bed
A. Then, the print head E deposits a pattern onto the powder with binder material, thus forming the first
layer. After one layer is finished, step motor system moves the print bed under an electrical infrared
heater to dry the binder. The next step is shown in Fig.1 (b), where the printing system lowers the print
bed one layer thickness and lifts feed bed one layer thickness. Continuously, the roller evenly spreads a
new layer of powder over the printed layer. Thus, a new layer of powder is deposited and binder will be
printed on it again. This process is repeated until the part is completed. Later, the part will be cured to
increase the green-part strength in order to de-powder easily. Finally, sintering is performed to burn off
the binder and metallurgically bond the metal particles.
The quality of BJ parts is significantly affected by the properties of the building material and related
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

process parameters. Several previous research studies have been done to improve the BJ process quality
and stability.
Albert, et al. (Yao and Tseng, 2002) investigated the optimal process parameters, including binder
setting saturation value (shell & core), layer thickness, and location of made-up parts, for Zcorp 402
3DP system with ZP100 and ZP11 plaster powder. Two groups of optimization parameters results can
shorten building time and reduce the use of material about 20% for ZP100 and 10 % for ZP11
respectively. Later, Tsung-Jung, et al. (Hsu and Lai, 2010) studied with the same machine and
determined the optimal parameter setup values that in turn improved dimensional accuracy, shorten
building time and increased flexural stress. A new formula of gypsum-compound powder material
NCKU-1 also has been proposed.
Jintamai (Suwanprateeb, 2006) improved the mechanical properties of BJ parts made from natural
polymers with a water-based binder and reinforced by double infiltration of acrylate resin. This study
result decreased the water absorption and amount of water-soluble matter, and significantly increased
flexural modulus and strength in wet conditions.
In another study of Jintamai (Suwanprateeb et al., 2012) the influence of BJ printing parameters
such as powder layer thickness and binder saturation, on the transformation efficiency and its
mechanical properties has been reported. The building material is plaster of Paris-based powder mixture.
It was found that the sample printed at optimal parameters yielded the highest transformation rate,
density and greatest flexural modulus and strength after conversion.
However, these previous research studies mainly focused on plaster or polymer materials, few research
studies dealt with metal powder materials. A process parameters optimization work for BJ with stainless
steel as the material has not yet been reported in the literature. Furthermore, few studies were conducted
to identify the influence of process parameters on surface roughness of the product. In this research, a
set of designed experiments is conducted to improve the manufacturing dimensional accuracy as well as
the surface finish. This research works with the 420 stainless steel powder material. Four key printing
process parameters are selected based on previous experimental results. Furthermore, 5 sets of optimal
parameters are identified by Taguchi Method. This study also describes the relationships and physical
interpretations between the process parameters and their resulting properties. The result of this research
is useful for BJ machine users to predict resulting properties and choose proper process parameters, and
for BJ machine manufacturers to control and improve the process stability and quality.

2. The Experiment Material and Method

 2.1 Powder Material

The typical BJ process powder materials include: glass, sand, ceramics, SS315 and SS420, etc. In
this research, the 420 stainless steel (SS420) powder material is used. The average particle size is 30 µm,
and the size distribution is from 22µm to 53µm. It is manufactured by gas-atomization process and
produced by ExOneTM. Fig. 2 shows the SEM micrograph of the stainless steel powder that has a nearly
spherical shape. The part made by SS420 from BJ process can be end-use product. The size of the
product depends on the machine type and capacity. It can vary from 10mm to 1800mm. The applications
of the products produced by BJ process and SS420 material include rotors, stators, impellers, and
prosthetics, and the application area includes aerospace, energy, automotive, biomedical, art and design
industry. For all of these applications, drastic reductions in time to manufacture from concept and
significant weight and cost savings have been realized (ExOne, 2012).
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

Fig. 2 SEM Micrograph of the SS420 Powder

2.2 Literature Review of Taguchi Method in AM

The most straightforward experiment design method is full factorial experimental design that
considers all of the possible combinations of different factors and levels. However, it is always needed to
conduct too many experiment runs. Considering the experiment cost and time, this study takes the
Taguchi design of experiment method that employs Orthogonal Arrays (OA) to significantly reduce the
number of experiment runs.
Many researchers and manufacturers worldwide adopted the Taguchi Method to analyze the
significance of process parameters on the product quality properties, to optimize process parameters and
to reduce the sensitivity of process to sources of noise. There are some related research studies that
analyzed the additive manufacturing processes by means of Taguchi Method, as presented in Table 1. S.
O. ONUH, et al (Onuh and Hon, 1998) carried out experimental investigation to statistically determine
the optimum build parameters to improve the SLA product surface finish, two new hatch styles had been
developed as well. R. Anitha, et al (Anitha et al., 2001) assessed the influence of the parameters on the
surface quality in FDM process. Munish Chhabra, et al (Chhabra and Singh, 2012) investigated
experimentally the effect of process parameters on the surface roughness of the castings obtained by
using ZCast direct metal casting process. Naiju. C.D, et al (Naiju et al., 2012) and K. Swarna Lakshmi,
et al (Lakshmi and Arumaikkannu, 2014) both studied the SLS process, and analyzed the fatigue
reliability and surface finish, respectively.

Table 1 Application of Taguchi Method in AM processes

Typically, most of these studies only considered one quality property to optimize and 3 levels of
process parameters, it is probably because of the limit of cost and time. However, considering more
levels and quality properties in a singe study will improve the reliability and practicability of the
research results. Therefore, this research considered 4 levels and 2 end-product quality properties that
are described in the following section.

2.3 Major End-Product Properties and Process Parameters Determination

 Normally, the dimensional accuracy and surface quality are the two of the most important
end-product properties. This research chooses shrinkage rate as the indicator of dimensional accuracy
because the estimated shrinkage rate value is always needed by the designers to make dimensional
compensation before printing. Also, surface roughness Ra is chosen as the indicator of the surface
quality in this research. There is very little previous reported research that considered the surface
roughness as an end-product property in BJ process. Due to the lack of information on the relationship
between the process parameters and surface finish, it is difficult to control the BJ process properly.
In the entire BJ process, there are many variables and parameters that affect the end-product
properties. These variables and parameters can be categorized into four groups: design feature (e.g.
smallest pore size, strut thickness in lattice structure), material property (e.g. powder basic geometry
parameters, flowability and wetability, binder viscosity and volatility), machine ability (e.g. printing
resolution limit, minimum layer thickness) and process parameters (e.g. layer thickness, printing
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

saturation, cleaning frequency, curing temperature and time and sintering curve).
According to previous experimental observation and literature review, it is found that only a few
key parameters dominate the end-product properties. In order to optimize these parameters, this research
work considers to control 4 key printing process parameters. The other variables are maintained at the
same value during experiments. This research is conducted on ExOne X1-Lab machine system.
Definitions or interpretations of the four key control parameters are list as following.

Layer Thickness
It can be found in Table 1 that all of the previous studies considered layer thickness as a parameter
to optimize, even though the AM processes types were different. Hence, layer thickness is an important
process parameter to be considered for most types of AM. After printing one layer, the print bed will
lower some distance, and this distance is the layer thickness. The variation range is limited by the BJ
machine capability. In the X1-Lab system, the minimum layer thickness can be set as 0.05mm. The layer
thickness is important, because it constrains the resolution and the possible smallest design feature size.
Normally, the thinner the layer is, the better end-product properties are obtained. However, the building
time will increase significantly as a tradeoff.

Printing Saturation
During the printing process, indissolvable powder, binder and air constitute the volume of print bed.
Saturation is the percentage of air space that is occupied by a binder volume, which is defined in the
following equation.

V V
S= =
V
 1 − PR × V
（1）

Where PR is “Packing Rate”, it refers to the fraction of a volume of powder in a given volume of
powder and air, which is defined as equation (2).

V
PR =
V + V

（2）

In this research, the PR value is about between 50% and 60%. Saturation describes how much binder
will be deposited during the printing process and it affects the printing stability. If the saturation is not
 enough, the powder cannot be jointed firmly and the printing process will fail. If the saturation is too
high, some excessive powder will be jointed to the part, leading to a bad geometry. Higher saturation
will also consume more electrical power and time during printing.

Heater Power Ratio

After printing one layer, step motor system moves the print bed under an electrical infrared heater to
dry the binder. The heater power ratio Rhp is defined by equation (3) where Pc is the current-heater-power,
and Pm is the maximum-heater- power.

P
R  = × 100%
P
（3）

It describes the power of the heater consuming. The maximum value is 100%. The power ratio also
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

defines the heating speed of the part as well as the highest temperature that the part can be heated to. If
the power ratio is too low, the liquid binder will not be dried thoroughly and the part will not be
solidified, thus the entire printing process will fail. However higher power ratio leads to higher
deformation and shrinkage during the printing process and consumes more electrical power.

Drying Time
It is the time that the print bed under the heater to be dried after each layer printing. At the same
time, the print head moves into a cleaner reservoir to dissolve the excessive binder materials in order to
avoid blocking. Actually, it provides a period of rest time to ensure the process stability. Based on
previous experimental experience, drying time is critical because short drying time always leads to print
head blockage. As shown in Fig. 3 (a) and (b), the excessive binder material binds the powder on the
print head, on the cleaning sponge cap, and even on the roller. As shown in Fig. 3 (c), the print head
blockage will drastically reduce the surface quality of the final part. However, excessive drying time is
unnecessary because it wastes the production time and increases the electricity power consumption.

Fig. 3 Print Head Blockage and Printing Failure

(a) The powder binds on the print head and the clean sponge cap (b) The powder binds on the roller
(c) Part with poor surface quality because of print head blockage

2.4 Experiments Setup

In this study, the effects of selected four parameters on two resulting properties are analyzed by
Taguchi Method. There are L9 (3-level, 4-factors) and L16 (4-level, 5-factors) OAs that can provide at
least four columns with reasonable number of runs. Finally, L16 OA is chosen in the study because L16
OA provides more combinations of factors and finally leads to a more reliable result. The extra one
column can be left for the error and noise. The values of different levels and notations of these four
factors are given in Table 2. The initial process parameters used for production before optimization are:
layer thickness: 100µm, printing saturation: 75%, heater power ratio: 55%, drying time: 60s, i.e. the
group No.6, notation: A2B2C1D4, in Table 3.

Table 2 Levels and Notation of Four Factors

The L16 OA with 5 columns and 16 experiment runs is shown as Table 3. The first four columns of
OA were set for the four control factors, and the last column is left for noise and error. Some possible
 noise and error factors include: environment vibration, such as environment temperature, vibration,
humidity, etc.; material quality variation; machine condition normally wearing down; operator skills and
some unknown noises. In order to reduce some possible noises, all the experiments were conducted in a
random order.
Table 3 Orthogonal Arrays L16 (45, Five-Factor Four-Level)
As shown in Fig.4, the entire experiment work can be summarized into the following four steps.
Step 1, Parameters Identification and Selection: two end-product properties (surface roughness Ra
and dimensional accuracy), four control factors (Layer Thickness, Printing Saturation, Heater Power
Ratio and Drying Time) and the L16 (45) OA are selected for this research.
Step 2, Sample Part Design: sample part is designed according to ASTM E9-89a (2000) standard
and modeled in CAD software SolidWorks 2013. The sample part is a cylinder with 38mm length and
13mm diameter. The drawing of the sample part is also shown in Fig.4.
Step 3, Experiment Conduction: Based on the selected OA, 16 groups and 48 samples (three
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

samples were made with the same process parameters) are made. The specific experiment specification
is given in Table 4.
Step 4, Measurement and Evaluation: the dimensions and surface roughness are measured. S/N
values are calculated and the ANOVA analysis is conducted to analyze the significance of parameters.
Finally, the optimal parameters are concluded.
Fig. 4 Entire Procedures of Experiment

Table 4 Experiment Specifications

3. Experiment Results Analysis and Discussion
3.1 Calculations of S/N ratios

The experiment data of surface roughness and dimensional accuracy are converted to S/N ratio as
the indicator for ANOVA. The S/N ratio of surface roughness is calculated by the-lower-the-better
formula (4).

S 1
= −10 × log#$ % ' Y) +
N n
（4）
*#

Where n is the number of measurements and Yi is the observed performance characteristic value.
The dimensional accuracy is assessed by the shrinkage rate with equation (5).

The Real Dimension of The Manufactued Sample

Shrinkage Rate = × 100%
The Design Dimension of The Sample
（5）

The samples are printed along the diameter direction. According to the experiment specification (Table
4), the printing resolution of X and Y-axis are the same. Therefore, the lengths of the samples are
measured to assess the dimensional accuracy in Y-axis direction and the diameters of the samples are
measured to assess the dimensional accuracy in Z-axis direction. The S/N ratio of shrinkage rate is
calculated by the lower-the-better formula (4) as well. The final S/N ratios for each set are calculated by
 the mean value of three samples made by the same process parameters. The original experiment data is
listed in Appendix. A.
The level response of a factor A to an end-product property is the sum of the corresponding S/N
ratios in the same factor level k. Set nk is the number of S/N ratios with the same level k, thus the level
response is defined as equation (6).
C

Level k Response of Factor A = 'S/NB （6）

*#

For example, the level 1, 2, 3 and 4 responses of the layer thickness (factor A) to the surface
roughness can be calculated by taking the sum of S/N ratios of group No. 1 - 4 (- 24.89 - 22.19 - 25.07 -
24.42 = - 96.57dB), 5-8, 9-12 and 13-16, respectively. The response range of these four level responses
is defined as equation (7) (96.57-(-113.85) = 17.28dB).
Response Range = Level Response
D − Level Response
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

（7）
The same procedures are adopted for calculating each factor’s level response to each end-product
property. The response calculation results are shown in Figure 5, 6 and 7.

Later, the tendency chart can be drawn based on these level responses. The horizontal axis of the
tendency chart is the levels, and vertical axis is the corresponding response of this level. The charts
shown in Fig. 5, Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 reflect the variation tendency of the effect of different factors on the
end-product properties. It can be found in Fig. 5 that the S/N ratio of the surface roughness decreases
when the layer thickness increases. However, when the printing saturation increases, the S/N ratio of the
surface roughness increases first and then decreases. It can be found in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 that there are
similar tendency between the Y-axis and Z-axis shrinkage, which provides the possibility to
simultaneously control the dimensional accuracy in different directions.

Fig. 5 Tendency Chart of Effect of Process Parameters on Surface Roughness S/N Ratio

Fig. 6 Tendency Chart of Effect of Process Parameters on

Mean Shrinkage Rate in Y-axis Direction S/N Ratio

Fig. 7 Tendency Chart of Effect of Process Parameters on

Mean Shrinkage Rate in Z-axis Direction S/N Ratio

3.2 Analysis of Variance

ANOVA is performed based on the S/N ratios to analyze the effect significance of different factors
on the end-product properties. The results of ANOVA for surface roughness and mean shrinkage rate in
Y-axis direction and Z-axis direction are shown in Tables 5, 6 and 7 respectively. From Table 5, it is
found that factor A (layer thickness) has the most significant effect on the surface roughness, and factor
B (printing saturation) has the secondary significance on the surface finish. From Table 6 and Table 7, it
is found that factor D (drying time) has the most significant effect on both of the mean shrinkage rate
along Y and Z-axis, and factor C (heater powder ratio) has the secondary significance.
 Table 5 Results of ANOVA for S/N Ratio of Surface Roughness
Table 6 Results of ANOVA for S/N ratio of Mean Shrinkage Rate in Y-axis Direction
Table 7 Results of ANOVA for S/N ratio of Mean Shrinkage Rate in Z-axis Direction
The contributions of each factor on the resulting properties are presented as pie charts in Fig.8. It is
found that the layer thickness has maximum influence of 73.02% on the surface finish beyond other
factors. The drying time is the most important major effect factor on the shrinkage rate. It makes 34.98%
and 53.05% contribution to the S/N ratio of mean shrinkage rate in Y and Z-axis direction, respectively.

Fig. 8 Percentage Contributions of Factors on End-Product Properties

3.3 Process Parameters Optimization

Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

According to S/N ratios, the parameters optimization work is conducted. From Fig. 5 the maximum
S/N ratio can be obtained with the parameters combination A1B3C2D2, and they are considered as the
optimal parameters for obtaining the best surface roughness. However, according to experimental
experience, with 50µm layer thickness, it takes very long time to finish the printing and decreases the
practicability of this optimal parameters set. An economical optimization result is also concluded here.
From Fig. 5, the difference between the effect B2 and B3 on surface roughness is very small. In
another word, B2 is the secondary best level. If considering saving the binder material usage, the
optimal level of factor B can be level2. The same relationship is between the factor A (layer thickness)
level1 and level2. With changing the level of factor A from 1 (50µm) to 2 (100µm), the number of
printing layers and printing time can be reduced by 50%, while the surface roughness only increases 5%.
Therefore, the economical recommendation optimal parameters should be A2B2C2D2. Similarly,
according to Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, the best combination of parameters for Y and Z-axis dimensional
accuracy is A3B3C2D2 and A2B3C2D2, respectively.
As presented in section 3.2, factors A and B have the most significant effect on the surface finish
and factors C and D have the most significant effect on the dimensional accuracy. Therefore, the level of
factors A and B for the combinatorial optimal process parameters to achieve the best surface finish and
dimensional accuracy should be selected from the optimal surface finish parameters result, thus they are
A1B3 and A2B2 (economical). The optimal level of factor C and D should be selected from the result of
optimal dimensional accuracy parameters, i.e. C2D2. Therefore, the combinatorial optimal result should
be A1B3C2D2 or A2B2C2D2 (economical). The results are shown in Table 8.

Table 8 Optimal Process Parameters Results

3.4 Confirmation Test

It is a standard procedure in Taguchi Method to verify the optimal process parameters through the
confirmation experiment. The confirmation tests are conducted based on the parameters listed in Table 8.
Four groups of tests are conducted with different parameters. They are A1B3C2D2, A2B2C2D2,
A3B3C2D2, and A2B3C2D2. The resulting properties values are measured by the mean value of three
times measurement results.
The following formula is adopted widely for predicting the S/N ratio by using of the optimal level
of process parameters, such as (Nalbant et al., 2007, Chhabra and Singh, 2012, Yang and Tarng, 1998,
Yousefieh et al., 2011).
 
S S S S
E F = E F + ' IE F − E F J
N G H N H N N H
（8）
*#

Where [S/N]tm is the total mean value of S/N ratios corresponding to the same end-product property
in every experiment groups, such as the [S/N]tm of surface finish is -26.35; [S/N]i is the mean S/N ratio
at the optimal level, and n is the number of the control parameters (here n=4). According to Fig. 5, the
values of [S/N]i at optimal surface finish factor levels A1, B3, C2 and D2 are -24.14 (=-96.57/4), -25.60,
-25.99 and -25.52, respectively. Therefore, by substituting corresponding value in the above formula, the

S
predicted S/N ratio for optimal surface roughness can be calculated as equation (9).
E F = −26.35 + −24.14 − −26.35 + −25.60 − −26.35
N G H （9）
+ −25.99 − −26.35 + −25.52 − −26.35 = −22.2dB
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

The corresponding optimal estimated surface roughness value is 12.88µm. The other predicting value
calculations follow the same way. The calculation and confirmation test results are listed in Table 9 and
Table 10.

Table 9 Results of the Confirmation Experiments for Single Property Parameters Optimization

Table 10 Results of the Confirmation Experiments for Combinatorial Parameters Optimization

In Table 9, for the optimal surface roughness parameters group, the experimental surface roughness
value 12.80µm is close to the predicted value 12.88µm; for the optimal y-axis dimensional accuracy
parameters group, the experimental shrinkage value 0.28% is close to the predicted value 0.27%; for the
optimal z-axis dimensional accuracy parameters group, the experimental shrinkage value 0.24% is close
to the predicted value 0.25%. In Table 10, for the wasteful combinational optimal parameters group, the
experimental values (12.80µm, 0.50%, 0.50%) are close to the predicted values (12.88µm, 0.50%,
0.54%); for the economical combinational optimal parameters group, the experimental values (15.05µm,
0.51%, 0.36%) are close to the predicted values (15.33µm, 0.49%, 0.35%). Therefore, the estimated
values are very close to the experimental value for all of the optimal parameters groups.
According to Table 9, by using the corresponding optimal parameters, the surface roughness
decreased by 39.88%; the shrinkage along Y-axis decreased by 84.00%; and the shrinkage along Z-axis
decreased by 87.69%. According to Table 10, by using the wasteful optimal parameters group, the
surface roughness decreased by 39.88%; the shrinkage along Y-axis decreased by 71.43%; and the
shrinkage along Z-axis decreased by 74.21%. By using the economical optimal parameters group, the
surface roughness decreased by 29.31%; the shrinkage along Y-axis decreased by 70.86%; and the
shrinkage along Z-axis decreased by 81.54%. Therefore, by using the optimal parameters, the
end-product properties were dramatically improved than using the initial parameters. And the obtained
experimental conclusions are confirmed.

3.5 Physical Interpretation Discussion

In order to better understand the physical meaning of the experiment results in section 3.2, some
physical interpretations are discussed here. One possible explanation for the reason why the layer
thickness has the most significant effect on the surface finish is the “stair-stepping” phenomenon
 proposed by S. O. ONUH(Onuh and Hon, 1998) for SLA. It also happens in BJ process. In order to print
an object, BJ machine slices the part to produce a series of horizontal cross sections with the height of
one layer thickness. However, in this case, parts cannot accurately conform to the CAD geometry. As
shown in Fig. 9(a), a cylinder has been sliced with different layer thickness. Because the shape of each
layer is rectangular in cross section, it cannot conform to the curved outside surface. It is clear from
Fig.9 (a-i) to (a-iii) that the smaller the slice thickness, the more layer numbers, and the greater the
surface roughness of the final part can be achieved.
The printing saturation has the secondary effect on the surface finish. The lower level and higher
level printing saturation both cause the bad surface roughness. As shown in Fig. 9(b-i), the lower level
printing saturation means that the binder is not enough to strongly bond the necessary powder materials
together. Some powder particles fall off from the part, leaving a zigzag part surface and bad surface
roughness results. If the printing saturation is too high, as shown in Fig. 9(b-ii), some excessive powder
will be bonded to the surface, making some swells on the surface and bad surface roughness. Therefore,
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

only the suitable amount of binder can lead to a good surface quality.
For the shrinkage rate along Y and Z-axis, the drying time has the most influence. The shorter and
longer drying time both lead to a higher shrinkage rate. In the entire BJ process, the shrinkage happens
during the dying process and the sintering process. Because of the binder solidification (Lewis et al.,
2006), the powders are bonded tightly together during the dying process, which makes the part shrinking.
The longer drying time leads to more solidification, thus the higher shrinkage rate is got. On the other
hand, the binder liquid penetrates into the powder material during the drying process. According to the
Washburn’s equation for flow in a powder bed reported by Levine and Neale (Moon et al., 2002), the
penetration length is proportional to the time. When the drying time is short, as shown in Fig 9(c), only
the top thin layer will be penetrated, which leaves more pores in the green part. In the following
sintering process, the green part undergoes a process known as densification (Marchelli et al., 2009).
The shrinkage happens due to three processes including neck growth, grain growth, and pore shrinkage
(Sun et al., 2009) (Rahaman, 2007). The porosity has a significant effect on the shrinkage. The higher
porosity of the green part, the higher sintering shrinkage will be obtained. German reveals that (German,
1996) the necking happening between the loose powders, signifies the part densification. During the
intermediate stage of sintering, pores in the part begin to elongate, and this elongation has a significant
effect on the densification rate of the porous powder body. Finally, the pores are ultimately closed. Since
the shorter drying time leads to a higher porosity, finally it leads to a higher sintering shrinkage.
Therefore, only the suitable dying time can lead to a good dimensional accuracy.

Fig. 9 The Physical Interpretations Diagram

4. Conclusions

In order to optimize the four key process parameters of BJ process, i.e. layer thickness, printing
saturation, heater power ratio and drying time, for better surface quality and manufacturing dimensional
accuracy, a detailed research and experimental work are conducted based on Taguchi design of
experiments method. A L16 (4-level, 5-factors) orthogonal array is chosen in this study to reduce the
large amount experiment runs. The ANOVA techniques are employed to analyze the experiment results,
and several confirmation tests are conducted to verify the optimal results as well. The following
conclusions can be drawn.
According to the S/N ratio calculation and ANOVA results, layer thickness has the most significant
effect on the surface roughness, and the contribution percentage is 73.02%. Drying time is the main
 factor that significantly affects the mean shrinkage rate along Y-axis and Z-axis. Some physical
interpretations are also discussed.
The optimal process parameters for best surface roughness are: layer thickness 50µm, printing
saturation 90%, heater power ratio 70% and drying time 30s. The surface roughness is decreased by
39.88% from initial process parameters to optimal process parameters. The optimal process parameters
for best Y-axis dimensional accuracy are: layer thickness 150µm, printing saturation 90%, heater power
ratio 70% and drying time 30s. The mean shrinkage rate along Y-axis is decreased by 84.00% from
initial process parameters to optimal process parameters. The optimal process parameters for best Z-axis
dimensional accuracy are: layer thickness 100µm, printing saturation 90%, heater power ratio 70% and
drying time 30s. The mean shrinkage rate along Z-axis is decreased by 87.69% from initial process
parameters to optimal process parameters.
Under the consideration of combination optimization of three resulting properties, two optimal
parameters groups are concluded. Without considering saving materials, the optimal parameters are:
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

layer thickness 50µm, printing saturation 90%, heater power ratio 70% and drying time 30s. This optimal
parameters group decreases the surface roughness by 31.00%, decreases mean shrinkage rate along
Y-axis by 71.43%, and decreases mean shrinkage rate along Z-axis by 74.21%. Considering saving
materials, the economical optimal parameters are: layer thickness 100µm, printing saturation 75%, heater
power ratio 70% and drying time 30s. This optimal parameters group decreases the surface roughness by
29.31%, decreases mean shrinkage rate along Y-axis by 70.86%, and decreases mean shrinkage rate
along Z-axis by 81.54%.
The confirmation tests are conducted with 5 groups of optimal process parameters. It is found that
there are good agreements between the predicted and experimental values, which confirmed the previous
results and conclusion of experiments.
This research work concludes four key process parameters and figures out the relationship between
the process parameters and resulting properties. This research work also recommends 5 optimal process
parameters groups for practical production to use. It is not only useful for manufacturing department
people to improve the manufacturing quality, but also useful for the design department people to revise
and improve their design work. Further study could consider more factors in research and try to establish
an in-depth theoretical physical model of BJ process.

Acknowledgments

Financial supported from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Discovery Grant RGPIN 436055-2013 is acknowledged with gratitude.

Appendix. A
Experimental Data and Corresponding S/N Ratios

Surface Dimension Accuracy in Dimension Accuracy in

Roughness Y-axis Direction Z-axis Direction
Group
Mean Mean Mean Mean
No. Mean S/N S/N S/N
Dimension Shrinkage Dimension Shrinkage
(µm) (dB) (dB) (dB)
(mm) Rate (mm) Rate
1 17.57 -24.89 37.46 1.41% 36.95 12.77 1.75% 35.22
2 12.87 -22.19 37.84 0.43% 46.70 12.95 0.42% 48.23
3 17.92 -25.07 37.55 1.19% 38.56 12.81 1.43% 37.19
 4 16.64 -24.42 37.53 1.24% 37.84 12.77 1.76% 35.13
5 17.89 -25.05 37.73 0.70% 43.36 12.94 0.50% 45.76
6 21.29 -26.56 37.33 1.75% 35.23 12.75 1.95% 34.40
7 15.97 -24.07 37.76 0.63% 44.46 12.91 0.71% 42.83
8 18.22 -25.21 37.63 0.99% 40.03 12.88 0.91% 41.27
9 27.87 -28.90 37.34 1.73% 35.20 12.67 2.50% 32.06
10 22.24 -26.94 37.67 0.86% 41.49 12.84 1.23% 38.64
11 18.83 -25.50 37.87 0.34% 49.15 12.96 0.32% 49.49
12 28.07 -28.96 37.66 0.90% 40.66 12.85 1.12% 39.23
13 28.75 -29.17 37.57 1.14% 39.14 12.86 1.06% 39.29
14 26.35 -28.42 36.87 2.97% 30.63 12.72 2.15% 33.49
15 24.39 -27.74 37.54 1.22% 38.47 12.82 1.42% 36.86
16 26.66 -28.52 37.49 1.35% 37.28 12.85 1.18% 38.23
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

Reference

ANITHA, R., ARUNACHALAM, S. & RADHAKRISHNAN, P. 2001. Critical parameters influencing the quality of
prototypes in fused deposition modelling. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 118, 385-388.
BILES, W. E., GORNET, T. J., DAVIS, K. & YI, A. 1995. Computer-aided design and rapid tool development in injection
molding processes. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 29, 659-662.
BOURELL, D. L., LEU, M. C. & ROSEN, D. W. 2009. Roadmap for additive manufacturing—identifying the future of
freeform processing. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Laboratory for Freeform Fabrication.
CHHABRA, M. & SINGH, R. 2012. Obtaining desired surface roughness of castings produced using ZCast direct metal
casting process through Taguchi's experimental approach. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 18, 458-471.
DIMITROV, D., SCHREVE, K. & DE BEER, N. 2006. Advances in three dimensional printing-state of the art and future
perspectives. Journal for New Generation Sciences, 4, p. 21-49.
EXONE. 2012. ExOne Product Solutions [Online]. Available: http://www.exone.com/en/materialization/solutions.
GERMAN, R. M. 1996. Sintering theory and practice. Sintering Theory and Practice, by Randall M. German, pp. 568. ISBN
0-471-05786-X. Wiley-VCH, January 1996., 1.
GUO, N. & LEU, M. C. 2013. Additive manufacturing: Technology, applications and research needs. Frontiers of
Mechanical Engineering, 8, 215-243.
HSU, T. J. & LAI, W. H. 2010. Manufacturing parts optimization in the three-dimensional printing process by the taguchi
method. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers, Transactions of the Chinese Institute of Engineers,Series
A/Chung-kuo Kung Ch'eng Hsuch K'an, 33, 121-130.
LAKSHMI, K. S. & ARUMAIKKANNU, G. 2014. Influence of process parameters on surface finish in customized bone
implant using selective laser sintering. Advanced Materials Research, 845, 862-867.
LEE, K. H. & WOO, H. 2000. Direct integration of reverse engineering and rapid prototyping. Computers and Industrial
Engineering, 38, 21-38.
LEWIS, J. A., SMAY, J. E., STUECKER, J. & CESARANO, J. 2006. Direct Ink Writing of Three‐Dimensional Ceramic
Structures. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 89, 3599-3609.
MARCHELLI, G., GANTER, M. & STORTI, D. New material systems for 3D ceramic printing. Proceedings of the
Twentieth Internantional Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA, 2009.
Wiley-VCH.
MELCHELS, F. P., DOMINGOS, M. A., KLEIN, T. J., MALDA, J., BARTOLO, P. J. & HUTMACHER, D. W. 2012.
Additive manufacturing of tissues and organs. Progress in Polymer Science, 37, 1079-1104.
MOON, J., GRAU, J. E., KNEZEVIC, V., CIMA, M. J. & SACHS, E. M. 2002. Ink‐Jet Printing of Binders for Ceramic
Components. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 85, 755-762.
NAIJU, C. D., ANNAMALAI, K., KARTHIK, S. & RAMARAJ, G. 2012. Fatigue reliability of selective laser sintered (SLS)
components using weibull analysis. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 232, 891-894.
 NALBANT, M., GÖKKAYA, H. & SUR, G. 2007. Application of Taguchi method in the optimization of cutting parameters
for surface roughness in turning. Materials & design, 28, 1379-1385.
ONUH, S. O. & HON, K. K. B. 1998. Optimising build parameters for improved surface finish in stereolithography.
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 38, 329-342.
RAHAMAN, M. N. 2007. Sintering of ceramics, CRC press.
STUCKER, B. Additive manufacturing technologies: technology introduction and business implications. Frontiers of
Engineering: Reports on Leading-Edge Engineering from the 2011 Symposium, 2011. 5-14.
SUN, L., KIM, Y.-H. & KWON, P. 2009. Densification and properties of 420 stainless steel produced by three-dimensional
printing with addition of Si3N4 powder. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 131, 061001.
SUWANPRATEEB, J. 2006. Improvement in mechanical properties of three‐dimensional printing parts made from natural
polymers reinforced by acrylate resin for biomedical applications: a double infiltration approach. Polymer
international, 55, 57-62.
SUWANPRATEEB, J., THAMMARAKCHAROEN, F., WASOONTARARAT, K. & SUVANNAPRUK, W. 2012. Influence
of printing parameters on the transformation efficiency of 3D-printed plaster of paris to hydroxyapatite and its
properties. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 18, 490-499.
XU, X., METEYER, S., PERRY, N. & ZHAO, Y. F. 2014. Energy consumption model of Binder-jetting additive
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

manufacturing processes. International Journal of Production Research, 1-11.

YANG, W. & TARNG, Y. 1998. Design optimization of cutting parameters for turning operations based on the Taguchi
method. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 84, 122-129.
YAO, A. W. & TSENG, Y. 2002. A robust process optimization for a powder type rapid prototyper. Rapid Prototyping
Journal, 8, 180-189.
YOUSEFIEH, M., SHAMANIAN, M. & SAATCHI, A. 2011. Optimization of the pulsed current gas tungsten arc welding
(PCGTAW) parameters for corrosion resistance of super duplex stainless steel (UNS S32760) welds using the
Taguchi method. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 509, 782-788.

Author Biographies

Han Chen is presently a Master of Engineering (Thesis) student in the Department of Mechanical Engineering of McGill
University in Montreal, Canada. He received his Bachelor of Engineering degree from the Department of Mechanical
Engineering and Automation in Beihang University (BUAA) in Beijing, China in 2013. When he was in BUAA, his research topic
was manufacturing information technology in CNC machining database. His current research topic is additive manufacturing
process modelling and optimization, and the development of tooling motion simulation algorithm and software for sheet metal
and plastic processes.

Dr. Yaoyao Fiona Zhao is currently an Assistant Professor at the Department of Mechanical Engineering in McGill University in
Canada. She received her Bachelor of Engineering degree from Beijing Institute of Technology, China in 2003. She received
her Master of Engineering (First Class Honors) and Ph.D. degree from the University of Auckland, New Zealand in 2006 and
2010, respectively. She has work as a researcher at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA and
post-doctoral research fellow at Ecole Centrale de Nantes, France from 2010 till 2012. Her research expertise lies in design and
manufacturing systems integration, quality control, and optimization. More specifically, her research focuses on manufacturing
informatics, dimensional metrology, additive manufacturing design and process modeling, as well as manufacturing
sustainability analysis. She heads the Additive Design and Manufacturing Laboratory (ADML) at McGill University.
 Table 1 Application of Taguchi Method in AM processes
Process Quality
Year Process Parameter Levels Outcome Ref
Name Property

4
(Layer thickness,
Stereo Hatch spacing and Hatch fill
Hatch spacing, Surface (Onuh and
1998 Lithography 3 cure depth significantly
Hatch overcure, Roughness Hon, 1998)
(SLA) affect the surface finish.
Hatch fill cure
depth)

Fused 3 Layer thickness is the most

Deposition (Layer thickness, Surface effective factor; And a set of (Anitha et
2001 3
Modelling road width, speed Roughness parameters that give the best al., 2001)
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

(FDM) deposition) results was concluded.

4
(Layer thickness, A set of optimal parameters
Three
Saturation value- Accuracy setup values which reduced
Dimensional (Hsu and
2011 shell, 3 & Flexural the dimensional accuracy
Printing Lai, 2010)
Saturation value- stress error and improve strength
(3DP)
core, was concluded.
Location)
3 Pouring temperature of
(Volume of cast materials was the most
component, Pouring significant factor in deciding (Chhabra
ZCast direct Surface
2012 temperature of 3 the surface roughness of the and Singh,
metal casting Roughness
different materials, castings and the shell mould 2012)
Shell mould wall wall thickness was the next
thickness) most significant factor
Laser beam had the most
Selective 3
Cycles to profound effect on cycles to
Laser (Slice Thickness, (Naiju et al.,
2012 3 Failure failure of the specimen
Sintering Scan Spacing, Laser 2012)
(Fatigue Test) followed by scan speed and
(SLS) Power)
slice thickness.
Build orientation is found to
Selective 3 be the dominant factor to (Lakshmi
Laser (Layer Thickness, Surface influence surface roughness and
2014 3
Sintering Fill Scan Spacing, Roughness and fill scan spacing does Arumaikkan
(SLS) Orientation) not have any significant nu, 2014)
effect.

Table 2 Levels and notation of four factors

Factors Unit Notation Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Layer Thickness µm A 50 100 150 200
Printing Saturation % B 60 75 90 105
Heater Power Ratio % C 55 70 85 100
Drying Time s D 15 30 45 60
 Table 3 Orthogonal Arrays L16(45), five- factor four-level
Group Factor Factor Factor Factor Noise
No. A B C D Factor
1 1 1 1 1 —
2 1 2 2 2 —
3 1 3 3 3 —
4 1 4 4 4 —
5 2 1 2 3 —
6 2 2 1 4 —
7 2 3 4 1 —
8 2 4 3 2 —
9 3 1 3 4 —
10 3 2 4 3 —
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

11 3 3 1 2 —
12 3 4 2 1 —
13 4 1 4 2 —
14 4 2 3 1 —
15 4 3 2 4 —
16 4 4 1 3 —

Table 4 The experiment specification

Machine ExOne X1-Lab
Powder PM-R1-S4-30, 30µm 420 Stainless Steel powder
Binder PM-B-SR1-04, polymer based ink
Cleaner PM-C-R1-02
Curing Time 5 Hours
Sintering Curve ExOne One-Step sintering without infiltration
Build Speed 1 minute/layer
Layer Thickness Variable with minimum of 0.05 mm
Print Resolution X/Y 0.0635mm, Z set by layer thickness
Data Interface .STL Format
Surface Finish Measurement Tester Mitutoyo, SURFTEST SJ-410
Dimension Measurement Tester Digimatic Standard Caliper
 Table 5 Results of ANOVA for S/N ratio of surface roughness
Notes: **Significant at: 90 percent confidence level; * non-significant at: 90 percent confidence level
Degree of Percentage
Sum of Squares Mean Square
Control Factor Freedom F-ratio Contribution
(SS) (MS)
(DOF) (P)
Layer Thickness (A) 3 48.44 16.15 7.33** 73.02%
Printing Saturation (B) 3 5.16 1.72 0.78* 7.77%
Heater Power Ratio(C) 3 1.89 0.63 0.29* 2.85%
Drying Time(D) 3 4.24 1.41 0.64* 6.40%
Error and Noise 3 6.61 2.20 9.96%
Total 15 66.34
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

Table 6 Results of ANOVA for S/N ratio of Mean Shrinkage Rate in Y-axis Direction
Notes: **Significant at: 90 percent confidence level; *non-significant at: 90 percent confidence level
Degree of Percentage
Sum of Squares Mean Square
Control Factor Freedom F-ratio Contribution
(SS) (MS)
(DOF) (P)
Layer Thickness (A) 3 63.83 21.28 4.35* 19.88%
Printing Saturation (B) 3 47.24 15.75 3.22* 14.72%
Heater Power Ratio(C) 3 83.00 27.67 5.66** 25.86%
Drying Time(D) 3 112.28 37.43 7.66** 34.98%
Error and Noise 3 14.66 4.89 4.57%
Total 15 321.02

Table 7Results of ANOVA for S/N ratio of Mean Shrinkage Rate in Z-axis Direction
Notes: **Significant at: 90 percent confidence level; *non-significant at: 90 percent confidence level
Degree of Sum of Percentage
Mean Square
Control Factor Freedom Squares F-ratio Contribution
(MS)
(DOF) (SS) (P)
Layer Thickness (A) 3 35.80 11.93 1.03* 9.00%
Printing Saturation (B) 3 31.11 10.37 0.90* 7.82%
Heater Power Ratio(C) 3 85.15 28.38 2.46* 21.41%
Drying Time(D) 3 210.94 70.31 6.09** 53.05%
Error and Noise 3 34.63 11.54 8.71%
Total 15 397.63

Table 8 Optimal Process Parameters Results

Printing Heater Drying
Layer
Optimal Parameters Group Saturation Power Ratio Time
Thickness (A)
(B) (C) (D)
1. Optimal Parameters in
50 90 70 30
Surface Finish (Wasteful)
 2. Optimal Parameters in
100 75 70 30
Surface Finish (Economical)
3. Optimal Parameters in
150 90 70 30
Y-axis Dimensional Accuracy
4. Optimal Parameters in
100 90 70 30
Z-axis Dimensional Accuracy
5. Optimal Parameters (Wasteful) 50 90 70 30
6. Optimal Parameters (Economical) 100 75 70 30

Table 9 Results of the confirmation experiments for single property parameters optimization
Optimal
Parameters Predicted Predicted Experimental Experimental Initial Value
Parameters
Level S/N Value S/N Value Value Decrease
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

Group
Optimal A1B3C2D2
Surface Optimal Group -22.2dB 12.88µm -22.14dB 12.80µm 21.29µm 39.88%
Roughness No.1
Optimal Y-axis A3B3C2D2
Dimensional Optimal Group 51.23dB 0.27% 51.06dB 0.28% 1.75% 84.00%
Accuracy No.3
Optimal Z-axis A2B3C2D2
Dimensional Optimal Group 52.11dB 0.25% 52.40dB 0.24% 1.95% 87.69%
Accuracy No.4

Table 10 Results of the confirmation experiments for combinatorial parameters optimization

Initial Optimal Parameters
Parameters Wasteful (Optimal Group No.5) Economical (Optimal Group No.6)
Predicted Experimental Predicted Experimental
S/N Value Value
Value S/N S/N S/N S/N
(dB) Value Value Decrease Value Value Decrease
(dB) (dB) (dB) (dB)
Level A2B2C1D4 A1B3C2D2 N/A A2B2C2D2 N/A
Surface 21.29 12.88 12.80 15.33 15.05
-26.56 -22.2 -22.14 39.88% -23.71 -23.55 29.31%
Roughness µm µm µm µm µm
Y-axis
Dimensional 35.23 1.75% 46.04 0.50% 46.11 0.50% 71.43% 46.23 0.49% 45.78 0.51% 70.86%
Accuracy
Z-axis
Dimensional 34.4 1.95% 45.38 0.54% 45.97 0.50% 74.21% 49.21 0.35% 48.79 0.36% 81.54%
Accuracy
 E

C
D C
(a) A: Print Bed
A B B: Feed Bed
C: Powder
D: Printed Part
E: Print Head
F F: Heater
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

G
G: Roller
C : Move Direction
C D
(b)
A B

Fig.1 Diagram of printing system of BJ technology: (a) printing (b) drying and spreading
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

Fig. 2 SEM Micrograph of the SS420 Powder

 Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3 Print head blockage and printing failure

(a) The powder binds on the print head and the clean sponge cap (b) The powder binds on the roller
(c) Part with poor surface quality because of print head blockage
 Parameters Identification
and Selection

Sample Part Design

Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

Experiment Sample Drawing

Experiment Conduction

Printing Process Curing Process Sintering Process

S/N
Calculation,
Measurement and
Evaluation ANOVA,
Parameters
Dimension Measurement Surface Roughness
Measurement

Fig. 4 The entire procedure of experiment

 -90
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Levels
-95
-96.57
-100 -102.07
-100.89 -102.38
-105.47 -105.58
-108.02 -107.59
-105
-104.11
-110.31 -103.95 -104.61
-110 -107.11 -106.34
-107.63
-115 -113.85
S/N
(dB)
-120
Printing Heater Power
Layer Thickness Saturation Ratio Drying Time
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

Range: 17.28dB Range: 5.65dB Range: 3.65dB Range: 5.56dB

Fig. 5 Tendency Chart of Effect of Process Parameters on Surface Roughness S/N ratio
 180
S/N 175.02
175 (dB) 170.64 169.18
170
166.49
165 162.94
160.05 160.69
160 163.09 154.65
155.81 158.61 152.70
155

150 154.04
145.52 146.74
145 Printing Heater Power
Layer Thickness Ratio 144.41 Drying Time
Saturation
140 Levels
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Range: 20.97dB Range: 16.60dB Range: 24.77dB Range: 28.27dB

Fig. 6 Tendency Chart of Effect of Process Parameters on Mean Shrinkage Rate in Y-axis
Direction S/N ratio
 180 S/N
175 (dB) 178.28
170.07
170 166.37
164.26
165 159.42
159.82
160 152.33 155.88
155
155.77 153.87 138.45
157.34
150
154.76 150.77
145 147.87 144.02
140 Layer Thickness Printing
Heater Power Ratio Drying Time
Saturation
135 Levels
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

Range: 16.38dB Range: 14.05dB Range: 26.05dB Range: 39.83dB

Fig. 7 Tendency Chart of Effect of Process Parameters on Mean Shrinkage Rate in Z-axis
Direction S/N ratio
 C,
2.85% D, E,
E, A, E, A,
4.57 B,
6.40% 9.96% 19.88 8.71 9.00
% 7.82
% % %
%
D,
34.98 C,
A, D, 21.41
% C,
73.02 53.05 %
B, % 25.86 %
7.77% % B,
14.72
%
(a) Percentage contributions of (b) Percentage contributions (c) Percentage contributions
factors on surface roughness of factors on Mean Shrinkage of factors on Mean
Rate in Y-axis Shrinkage Rate in Z-axis

Fig. 8 Percentage Contributions of Factors on End-Product Properties

Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

(a) “Stair-stepping” phenomenon that affects the surface roughness

Desired Liquid SS420

Real Surface
Surface Binder Powder
(Lose Powder)

i) The lower level printing saturation leads to power lose

 Real Surface
(Excessive Powder) Desired
Surface
Downloaded by Florida Atlantic University At 08:02 29 March 2016 (PT)

ii) The higher level printing saturation leads to excessive powder bond
(b) The printing saturation effect on the surface roughness

SS420 Liquid
Powder Binder

Only the Thin

Top Powders
are Penetrated

A New
Printed Layer

Pore

(c) Short time leads to thin binder penetration

Fig. 9 The Physical Interpretations Diagram