See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235275194

Investigation of LOM process quality using design of experiments approach

Article  in  Rapid Prototyping Journal · October 2007

DOI: 10.1108/13552540710824823

CITATIONS READS
36 144

1 author:

John Kechagias
University of Thessaly
94 PUBLICATIONS   596 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue "Sustainable Manufacturing Processes and Machine Tool Technology" View project

Time prediction algorithm for raster Rapid Prototyping systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by John Kechagias on 24 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Investigation of LOM process quality using
design of experiments approach
John Kechagias
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technological Educational Institute of Larissa, Larissa, Greece

Abstract
Purpose – To investigate laminated object manufacturing (LOM) process quality, using a design of experiments approach.
Design/methodology/approach – The quality characteristics measured were in-plane dimensional accuracy, actual layer thickness (ALT), and mean time
per layer. The process parameters tested were nominal layer thickness (LT), heater temperature (HT), platform retract (PR), heater speed (HS), laser speed (LS),
feeder speed (FS) and platform speed (PS). A typical test part has been used, and matrix experiments were carried out based on Taguchi design. Optimal process
parameter values were identified and finally, additive and regression models were applied to the experimental results and tested using evaluation experiments.
Findings – The statistical analysis of the experimental results shows that error in X direction was higher than error in Y direction. Dimensional accuracy
in X direction depends mainly on the HS (89 percent) and HT (5 percent), and in Y direction on HS (50 percent), LT (31 percent), LS (9 percent), PS
(6 percent), and HT (3 percent). On the other hand, ALT depends mainly on the nominal ALT (96 percent), HS (2 percent), HT (1 percent), and PR
(1 percent). Finally, mean time per layer depends mainly on HS (59 percent), LS (17 percent), FS (17 percent), and PS (4 percent).
Research limitations/implications – Future work should involve extensive matrix experiments using parameters such as dimensions of test part
(Xmax, Ymax, Zmax), hatch spacing in X and Y directions, and delay time between sequential layers.
Practical implications – Using the extracted models, the quality of LOM parts can be predicted and appropriate process parameter values selected. This
means minimization of post processing time, easier disengagement between supporting frame and part, easier decubing, process optimization, less finishing
and satisfactory final LOM parts or tools. Also, ALT prediction and mean time per layer analysis could be used to improve LOM build time predictions.
Originality/value – The above analysis is useful for LOM users when predictions of part quality, paper consumption, and build time are needed. This
methodology could be easily applied to different materials and initial conditions for optimisation of other LOM-type processes.

Keywords Accuracy, Advanced manufacturing technologies, Rapid prototypes, Product quality

Paper type Research paper

Introduction malfunctioning, weak bonding, difficult disengagement

In the laminated object manufacturing (LOM) process
(Figure 1) physical prototypes are built by sequentially
laminating, bonding and cutting two dimensional (2D) cross-
sections generated by the horizontal slicing of a CAD model
(Jacobs, 1996). The material used is ordinary paper with a
thin layer of thermoplastic adhesive film on one side. The
bonding process is accomplished by applying heat and
pressure from a heated cylinder rolling along the sheet.
Then, a laser cuts the area of each layer in three different
sections: part perimeter, hatching area and supporting frame
perimeter. Finally, waste material, which is formed into cubes
by the laser, is removed once the build process is completed.
The LOM process builds large physical prototypes faster than
others (Wring, 1994; Kechagias et al., 1997, 2004) and gives
sufficient quality characteristics (Kruth, 1991; Kechagias,
2007), and tensile strength in the laminates direction
(Chryssolouris et al., 2003). On the other hand, LOM process
confronts sheet-bonding problems that cause process
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2546.htm
Rapid Prototyping Journal
13/5 (2007) 316– 323
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1355-2546]
[DOI 10.1108/13552540710824823]
between the supporting frame and the part, as well as unequal
dimensional accuracy in X, Y, and Z directions.
Improving the dimensional accuracy of the LOM process
means minimization of post processing time, easier
disengagement between the supporting frame and part,
easier decubing, process optimization, less finishing and
satisfactory final LOM parts or tools.
Dimensional accuracy of parts produced by the LOM
process can be divided into two categories: in-plane
dimensional accuracy (errors in X-Y plane), and vertical
dimensional accuracy (errors in Z height).
Vertical dimensional accuracy depends on moisture
absorption after completion of the model build cycle (Reece
and Styger, 1995), as well as layer thickness, and material
compaction applied by the heated cylinder during the process.
Reece and Styger noted expansion of models in the Z
direction between 1.56 and 8 percent. In-plane dimensional
accuracy is affected by several factors such as compressive
This research work was partially supported by the research project
“Flexible Assembly & Manufacture Engineering – FLAME” funded by
the Greek General Secretariat of Research & Technology (GSRT). The
work was mainly performed in the Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems
and Automation, Director Professor George Chryssolouris, University of
Patras, Greece.
Received: 28 September 2006
Revised: 25 June 2007
Accepted: 5 July 2007

316
 Investigation of LOM process quality
John Kechagias
Figure 1 LOM process
Laser Speed (mm/sec)
Heater
(Speed mm/sec)
(Temperature °C)
Platform
Retract (mm)
Part
Platform
Layer
Thickness (mm) Feeder Speed
(mm/sec)
Platform Speed
(mm/sec)
load caused by the heated roller during bonding, materials
properties (paper and glue), laser beam compensation, and
moisture exchange. Pham and Gault (1998) noted in-plane
dimensional accuracy of LOM parts of about ^ 0.127 mm.
A number of researchers have tried to investigate and improve
the quality of LOM parts proposing mathematical models
(analytical or statistical) for good bonding of laminates (Pak and
Nisnevich, 1994; Reece and Styger, 1995; Sonmez and Hahn,
1998; Flach et al., 1998), or mathematical models for predicting
quality characteristics when varying process or geometry
parameters (Reeves and Cobb, 1996; Chryssolouris et al.,
1999; Paul and Voorakarnam, 2001; Chryssolouris et al., 2003;
Kechagias, 2007). Besides, many researchers have proposed
modifications to the LOM process for improving quality
characteristics (Cho et al., 2000; Ahn et al., 2002; Yu et al.,
2003; Liao et al., 2006), as well as optimisation of part build
orientation (Campbell et al., 2002).
Wang et al. (1996) investigated the in-plane processing
accuracy of the slicing solid manufacturing process, which is
very similar WTO the LOM process. They introduced an
integrated method that combined orthogonal experimental
design and analysis, and neural networks analysis to determine
the optimal processing conditions. Park et al. (2000) studied the
precision and accuracy of the LOM process and the stability of
LOM parts. Cross hatching size, left and right heater margin,
heater speed (HS), heater temperature (HT), laser power, and
laser speed (LS) were found to affect cutting accuracy and
bonding efficiency. The experiments conducted showed that
mean values and standard deviations of each dimension were
different. The most affected dimension was Z, followed by X
and then Y. Additionally, the Z dimension displayed the largest
instability due mainly the moisture absorption.
Preliminary experiments (Kechagias et al., 1997) showed
differences in quality characteristic measures as well as total
build times and total number of final layers for the same part
when different sets of process parameters were used. Having
taken into account the above literature and the preliminary
work, it was concluded that the LOM process needs further
analysis and investigation in order to improve the final part
quality. Thus, an orthogonal experiment was designed to
determine the quality characteristics of LOM parts according to
the process parameters used.
317
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 13 · Number 5 · 2007 · 316 –323
The process parameters tested were nominal layer thickness
(LT), HT, platform retract (PR), HS, LS, feeder speed (FS)
and platform speed (PS). Two values of each process
parameter (levels) were used according to the L8 (27)
standard orthogonal matrix (Phadke, 1989). Taguchi design
demands each one of the matrix experiments to be executed
in order to have proper analysis of the results. Thus,
preliminary experiments were executed to define the final
experimental area. After that, a typical test part was used, and
experiments were carried out. Then an analysis of means and
an analysis of variances (ANOVA) were carried out in order to
characterize the LOM process parameters weightings with
respect to the dimensional accuracy, actual layer thickness
(ALT) and mean time per layer. In addition, additive and
regression models were extracted using the experimental
results. It was expected that using the extracted regression
models, the quality of LOM parts as well as the ALT could be
predicted and appropriate process parameter values selected.
Design of experiments
Conditions of experiments
The rapid prototyping machine used was a LOM 1015 from
Helisys. The paper used was LPH042 and LPH080 with a LT
of 0.1 and 0.2 mm, respectively. The machine uses a 25 W
CO2 laser. The percentage of laser power was 5.5 and
11 percent for LPH042 and LPH080, respectively. Moreover,
at the PR value of 1.27 mm, the gap between platform and
heater was adjusted to 0.508 mm.
Additionally, in each experiment, 20 layers of paper were
set on the platform before starting the process. This resulted
in obtaining the desirable temperature of the surface. In
addition, chamber temperature was kept constant. In each
experiment, two dog bones were built as is described in
previous work (Chryssolouris et al., 2003). Cubes produced
by hatching (20 £ 20 £ 7 mm3) were used as test parts for
in-plane measurements (Figure 2). In each experiment, a
mean value of five cubes measurements were used for error in
the X and Y directions correspondingly.
Also, for each experiment total build time (Ttot), actual height
(Zmax), and total number of layers (Nact) were measured. Then,
ALTand mean time per layer (Tlayer) were calculated as follows:
Z max
ALT ¼ ð1Þ
N act
and:
T tot
T layer ¼ ð2Þ
N act
Figure 2 Cubes produced by hatching
Hx=20mm
Hy=20mm
 Investigation of LOM process quality Rapid Prototyping Journal
John Kechagias Volume 13 · Number 5 · 2007 · 316 –323

Taguchi design Table II Part geometry parameters

The Taguchi design method is a simple and robust technique for
optimizing process parameters. In this method, the main Symbol Explanation Unit(s)
parameters, which are assumed to have most influence on X Xmax 2 Xmin mm
process results, are located at different rows in a designed Y Ymax 2 Ymin mm
orthogonal array. With such an arrangement randomized Z Zmax 2 Zmin mm
experiments can be conducted. In general, signal to noise (S/N) VSTL Part volume mm3
ratio (h, dB) represents a quality characteristic for the observed SSTL Part surface mm2
data in the Taguchi design of experiments. In the case of the SFLAT Flat surface mm2
nominal-the-best type problem the objective function to be SFC Total fine crosshatched surface mm2
maximized is: I Number of crosshatched layers Number
2 !2 3
Xk
N Predicted number of layers (Z/LT) Number
6 1
yi 7
6 k 7
6 i¼1 7
h ¼ 10 log10 6 !2 7 ð3Þ
6 Xk
1 Xk 7
4 1 5
k21 yi 2 yi Table III Process parameters and their levels
i¼1
k i¼1
Process parameters Abbreviation Levels
where yi is the observed data at the ith trial and k is the number of
1 Nominal layer thickness (mm) LT 0.1 0.2
trials.
From the S/N ratio, the parameters having influence on 2 Heater temperature (8C) HT 170 190
process results can be seen and the optimal sets of process 3 Platform retract (mm) PR 0.3 0.4
parameters can be determined. 4 Heater speed (mm/s) HS 70 140
5 Laser speed (mm/s) LS 150 180
6 Feeder speed (mm/s) FS 50 100
Parameter design 7 Platform speed (mm/s) PS 25 50
The LOM process involves a number of parameters that
should be taken into account at each new part build. These
parameters are divided in two categories; LOM process Experiments
parameters and part geometry parameters. These are The matrix experiment selected for this project is given in
summarised in Tables I and II, respectively. Table V. It consists of eight individual experiments
The set of process parameters and their corresponding levels corresponding to the eight rows (Phadke, 1989). The seven
are illustrated in Table III. These parameter levels define the columns of the matrix represent the seven parameters as
experimental area of interest. Table IV shows the parameters, indicated in Table V. The entries in the matrix represent the
which were kept at constant values during experiments. levels of the parameters.
The overall mean value of each quality characteristic is
Table I LOM process parameters
given by the formula:
Symbol Explanation Unit(s)
1X 8
LT Nominal layer thickness mm m¼ hi ð4Þ
HT Heater temperature 8C 8 i¼1
PR Platform retract (pressure) mm
HS Heater speed mm/s
LS Laser speed mm/s
FS Feeder speed mm/s Table IV Fixed parameters and their values
PS Platform speed mm/s
Parameter Value (mm)
DX Support wall in X-direction mm
DY Support wall in Y-direction mm Heater left margin 20
HX Hatch spacing in X-direction mm Heater right margin 70
HY Hatch spacing in Y-direction mm Xmin 0
HXFC Fine crosshatch spacing in X-direction mm Xmax 300
HYFC Fine crosshatch spacing in Y-direction mm Ymin 0
HRM Heater right margin mm Ymax 98
HLM Heater left margin mm Zmin 0
HM Heater margin mm Zmax 7
AM Advance margin mm Support wall in X-direction 10
DP_DOWN Platform distance down mm Support wall in Y-direction 10
DP_UP Platform distance up mm Hatch spacing in X-direction 20
OFFSET Laser offset mm Hatch spacing in Y-direction 20
LP Laser power percentage Percent Advance margin 5
BR Beam radius mm Beam radius 0.127
RD Roller diameter mm Laser offset ON

318
 Investigation of LOM process quality Rapid Prototyping Journal
John Kechagias Volume 13 · Number 5 · 2007 · 316 –323

Table V Matrix experiment (L8(27)) and measurements

No. LT HT PR HS LS FS PS EX EY ALT Tlayer
1 0.1 170 0.3 70 150 50 25 20.17 2 0.015 0.116 63.88
2 0.1 170 0.3 140 180 100 50 20.225 2 0.045 0.125 50.21
3 0.1 190 0.4 70 150 100 50 20.188 2 0.02 0.115 59.19
4 0.1 190 0.4 140 180 50 25 20.23 2 0.085 0.123 54.94
5 0.2 170 0.4 70 180 50 50 20.16 0.115 0.206 57.97
6 0.2 170 0.4 140 150 100 25 20.215 2 0.045 0.233 53.76
7 0.2 190 0.3 70 180 100 25 20.167 0.055 0.2 56.62
8 0.2 190 0.3 140 150 50 50 20.243 2 0.025 0.206 55.41
Mean 20.200 2 0.008 0.166 56.5
Notes: Ex, Ey: dimensional errors in X and Y directions (mm); ALT: actual layer thickness (equation (1); mm); Tlayer: mean time per layer (equation (2); s)

Results analysis and discussion Thus, the width of the two-standard-deviation confidence
interval, which is an approximately 95 percent confidence
Effects of process parameters interval for each estimated effect, is:
The mean values of each parameter (S/N ratios of seven
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
parameters according to each level) are reported in Table VI 1
for each quality characteristic. For example: ex ¼ ^2 · · 0:0004 ¼ ^28 mm ð5Þ
2

 1
mLTðLevel 1Þ Ex ¼ ðh1 þ h2 þ h3 þ h4 Þ and:
4 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 1
¼ ð20:17 2 0:225 2 0:188 2 0:23Þ ey ¼ ^2 · · 0:00026 ¼ ^23 mm ð6Þ
4 2

¼ 20:203 mm In addition, based on the same analysis, ALT is affected

where, h1, h2, h3, h4, are the measures of the error in X
direction in trials 1, 2, 3 and 4, in which they have the Level 1
(0.1 mm) for the LT parameter.
The higher the difference between the mean values, the
higher the effect onto each quality characteristic. Effects of
process parameters can be seen in Figures 3-6 for each quality
characteristic, respectively.
ANOVA
The results of the ANOVA for each quality characteristic are
shown in Tables VII-X, respectively.
Based on the statistical analysis of the experimental results
(F-ratios), error in X is affected by HS, and HT, while error in
Y is affected by HS, LT, LS, PS, and HT. According to the
ANOVA analysis, LT, PR, LS, FS, and PS have minimum
effect on X error, as well as PR, and FS having minimum
effect on Y error. Eliminating the above parameters, error
variance for X and Y errors are computed at 0.0004 and
0.00026, respectively, (values shown in parenthesis).
by LT (96 percent), HS (2 percent), HT (1 percent), and
PR (1 percent) while mean time per layer is affected by HS
(59 percent), LS (17 percent), FS (17 percent) and PS
(4 percent).
According to ANOVA analysis, LS, FS, and PS have
minimum effect upon ALT, as well as LT, HT, and PR having
minimum effect on mean time per layer.
Eliminating LS, FS, and PS for ALT, error variance is
computed at 0.0001.
Thus, the width of the two-standard-deviation confidence
interval, which is an approximately 95 percent confidence
interval for each estimated effect, is:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
eNLT ¼ ^2 · · 0:0001 ¼ ^17 mm ð7Þ
2
Additive model
For establishing a relationship between each quality
characteristic and the process parameters, one can derive
the additive model (Phadke, 1989) having the form:

Table VI Mean values of each parameter level

Ex Ey ALT Tlayer
Abbreviate Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2 Level 1 Level 2
1 LTi 20.203 2 0.196 20.0413 0.0250 0.1197 0.2112 57.055 55.94
2 HTj 20.193 2 0.207 0.0025 20.0188 0.17 0.161 56.455 56.54
3 PRk 20.201 2 0.198 20.0075 20.0088 0.1617 0.1692 56.53 56.465
4 HSl 20.171 2 0.228 0.0338 20.0500 0.1592 0.1717 59.415 53.58
5 LSm 20.204 2 0.196 20.0263 0.0100 0.1675 0.1635 58.06 54.935
6 FSn 20.201 2 0.199 20.0025 20.0138 0.1627 0.1682 58.05 54.945
7 PSk 20.196 2 0.204 20.0225 0.0063 0.168 0.163 57.3 55.695

319
 Investigation of LOM process quality Rapid Prototyping Journal
John Kechagias Volume 13 · Number 5 · 2007 · 316 –323

Figure 3 Effect of each parameter on Ex

–150

–170 LT
HT
Ex (µm) –190 PR
HS
–210 LS
FS
–230 PS

–250
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Levels

Figure 4 Effect of each parameter on Ey

45

30
LT
15 HT
PR
Ey (µm)

0
HS
–15 LS
–30 FS
PS
–45

–60
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Levels

Figure 5 Effect of each parameter on actual layer thickness

220
205
LT
190
HT
175
NLT (µm)

PR
160 HS
145 LS
FS
130
PS
115
100
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Levels



E x ¼ 20:2 þ mHTj þ 0:2 þ ðmHSl þ 0:2Þ ^ 0:028 ð8Þ ALT ¼ 0:166 þ ðmLTi 2 0:166Þ þ mHTj 2 0:166
ð10Þ
þ ðmPRk þ 0:166Þ þ ðmHSl þ 0:166Þ ^ 0:017


E y ¼ 20:008 þ ðmLTi þ 0:008Þ þ mHTj þ 0:008 where: Ex, Ey, are X and Y error predictions; ALT is ALT
prediction; 2 0.2 is the overall mean error in X; 20.008 is the
þ ðmHSl þ 0:008Þ þ ðmLSm þ 0:008Þ ð9Þ
overall mean error in Y, 0.166 is the overall mean of ALT;
þ ðmPSk þ 0:008Þ ^ 0:023 and, mLTi , mHTj , mPRk , mHSl , mLSm , mPSk are the mean values

320
 Investigation of LOM process quality Rapid Prototyping Journal
John Kechagias Volume 13 · Number 5 · 2007 · 316 –323

Figure 6 Effect of each parameter on mean time per layer

60

LT
58
HT
Tlayer (secs) PR
56 HS
LS
FS
54
PS

52
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Levels

Table VII ANOVA table for dimensional accuracy in X direction having the levels 1 or 2 represented in Tables VI, according to
its quality characteristic, respectively.
DOF Sum of squares Mean square F Percentage
LT 1 0.0001 0.0001 1.29 1 Regression model
HT 1 0.0004 0.0004 5.13 5 Engineering experimenters often wish to find the conditions
PR 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.24 0 under which a certain process attains the optimal results. That
HS 1 0.0065 0.0065 84.94 89 is, they want to determine the levels of the design parameters
LS 1 0.0001 0.0001 1.68 2 at which the response reaches its optimum. The optimum
FS 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.11 0 could be either a maximum or a minimum of a function of the
PS 1 0.0001 0.0001 1.68 2 design parameters. One of the methodologies for obtaining
Error 0 0.0000 the optimum is the response surface technique. Response
Total 7 0.0073 surface methodology is a collection of statistical and
(Error) (5) (0.0004) (0.00008) mathematical methods that are useful for the modeling and
analyzing of engineering problems. In this technique, the
main objective is to optimize the response surface that is
Table VIII ANOVA table for dimensional accuracy in Y direction influenced by various process parameters. Response surface
methodology also quantifies the relationship between the
DOF Sum of squares Mean square F Percentage
process parameters and the obtained response surface.
LT 1 0.0088 0.0088 68.51 31 Assuming that the process parameters are continuous and
HT 1 0.0009 0.0009 7.049 3 controllable in the experiments, the response can be expressed
PR 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.024 0 as follows:
HS 1 0.0140 0.0140 109.5 50
LS 1 0.0026 0.0026 20.51 9 Y ¼ b1 þ b2 LT þ b3 HT þ b4 PR þ b5 HS þ b6 LS
FS 1 0.0003 0.0003 1.976 1
PS 1 0.0017 0.0017 12.9 6 þ b7 FS þ b8 PS ^ e ð11Þ
Error 0 0.0000
Total 7 0.0282 where, Y is the response of each quality characteristic; and bi,
(Error) (2) (0.00026) (0.00013) coefficients, which should be determined. In general,
equation (11) can be written in a matrix form:

Table IX ANOVA table for actual layer thickness Table X ANOVA table for mean time per layer
DOF Sum of squares Mean square F Percentage DOF Sum of squares Mean square F percentage
LT 1 0.0167 0.0167 352.52 96 LT 1 2.4865 2.4865 2.97 2
HT 1 0.0002 0.0002 3.41 1 HT 1 0.0145 0.0145 0.02 0
PR 1 0.0001 0.0001 2.37 1 PR 1 0.0084 0.0084 0.01 0
HS 1 0.0003 0.0003 6.58 2 HS 1 68.0945 68.0945 81.41 59
LS 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.67 0 LS 1 19.5313 19.5313 23.35 17
FS 1 0.0001 0.0001 1.27 0 FS 1 19.2821 19.2821 23.05 17
PS 1 0.0001 0.0001 1.05 0 PS 1 5.1520 5.1520 6.16 4
Error 0 0.0000 Error 0 0.0000
Total 7 0.0175 Total 7 114.5692
(Error) (3) (0.0001) (0.00005) (Error) (3) (2.5094) (0.83645)

321
 Investigation of LOM process quality Rapid Prototyping Journal
John Kechagias Volume 13 · Number 5 · 2007 · 316 –323

Table XIII Actual LT evaluation experiments

Y ¼ bX þ E ð12Þ
Parameter Experiment 1 Experiment 2
where, Y is defined to be a matrix of measured values and X
to be a matrix of process parameters and their products. The LT 0.2 0.1
matrices b and E consist of coefficients and errors, HT 190 200
respectively. The solution of equation (12) can be obtained PR 0.3 0.5
by a matrix approach. HS 140 210
LS 180 150
b ¼ ðX T XÞ21 X T Y ð13Þ FS 100 100
PS 50 50
where, XT is the transpose of matrix X and (XTX) 2 1 is the
Zmax (mm) 60 40
inverse of the matrix XTX.
Actual LT (mm) 0.2068 0.1133
From the observed data listed in Table V and equation (13),
bi coefficients for each quality characteristic are tabulated in Additive LT (mm) 0.02043 –
Table XI. Regression LT (mm) 0.2075 0.1115

Evaluation experiments and discussion

Confirmation experiments were conducted in order to evaluate Conclusions and future applications
the above models (Table XII). The evaluation experiments In plane dimensional accuracy was investigated according to
showed that the differences between the actual and predicted orthogonal array in experiments. By the experimental and the
values were close to the error of the process (ex ¼ ^28mm, analytic results, the obtained conclusions are as follows:
ey ¼ ^23mm) when the process parameters values were inside .
In plane dimensional accuracy has different mean values
the initial experimental area. In addition, the regression models in X and Y directions (2 0.2 and 2 0.008 mm,
give more accurate predictions than additive models. respectively).
Also, evaluation experiments of ALT were conducted . The above constitutes as wrong the procedure of setting a
(Table XIII). The evaluation experiments showed that the constant value for laser beam radius (about 0.127 mm)
ALT predictions were quite accurate; even if experimental and then activating laser beam compensation choice in
process parameter values were out of the initial experimental LOMSlice software. Instead, it is proposed different
area (exp 2) as well as Zmax value being larger than the height scaling of the STL model in the X and Y directions.
of the experimental part. .
HS affects in plane dimensional accuracy the most.
Thus, it is proposed that lower values of this parameter
Table XI bi coefficients should be used for optimal in plane dimensional
accuracy.
Coefficients Ex Ey ALT
ALT and mean time per layer were investigated, too. By the
b1 20.0417 2 0.01188 0.0855
analysis of the experimental results, the obtained conclusions
b2 0.07 0.6625 0.915
are as follows:
b3 20.0007 2 0.00106 20.0004 . ALT affected by several process parameters in the LOM
b4 0.03 2 0.0125 0.075
process.
b5 20.0008 2 0.0012 0.0002 .
Analysis of variances shows that HS, LT, HT and PR have
b6 0.0003 0.001208 20.0001 most effect upon ALT.
b7 0 2 0.00023 0.0001 .
Accurate predictions of the ALT can be made using the
b8 20.0003 0.00115 20.0002 extracted regression model.
.
Number of layers can be predicted more accurately using
the form: N ¼ Zmax/ALT then, total build time can be
Table XII Ex and Ey evaluation experiments predicted using the build time algorithm which was
presented in previous work (Kechagias et al., 2004).
Parameter Experiment 1 Experiment 2 .
Mean time per layer was affected mainly by HS, LS, FS
LT 0.1 0.1 and PS, as was expected.
HT 170 190 Future work should involve extensive matrix experiments
PR 0.3 0.4 using parameters such as the dimensions of the test part
HS 70 140 (Xmax, Ymax, Zmax), hatch spacing in the X and Y directions,
LS 180 180 and delay time between sequential layers. Also, ALT analysis
FS 100 100 will be incorporated into a LOM build time algorithm.
PS 50 50
Actual Ex (mm) 20.180 2 0.270
Additive Ex (mm) 20.164 2 0.236 References
Regression Ex (mm) 20.170 2 0.239
Actual Ey (mm) 0.058 0.002 Ahn, D.G., Lee, S.H. and Yang, D.Y. (2002), “Development of
Additive Ey (mm) 0.043 2 0.062 transfer type variable lamination manufacturing (VLM-st)
Regression Ey (mm) 0.050 2 0.056 process”, International Journal of Machine Tools &
Manufacture, Vol. 42, pp. 1577-87.

322
 Investigation of LOM process quality
John Kechagias
Campbell, R.I., Martorelli, M. and Lee, H.S. (2002), “Surface
roughness visualisation for rapid prototyping models”,
Computer Aided Design, Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 717-25.
Cho, I., Lee, K., Choi, W. and Song, Y. (2000),
“Development of a new type rapid prototyping system”,
International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture,
Vol. 40, pp. 1813-29.
Chryssolouris, G., Kechagias, J., Kotselis, J., Mourtzis, D.
and Zannis, S. (1999), “Surface roughness modeling of the
laminated object manufacturing parts”, in Campbell, R.I.
(Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Rapid
Prototyping & Manufacturing, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, pp. 141-52.
Chryssolouris, G., Kechagias, J., Moustakas, P. and Koutras,
E. (2003), “An experimental investigation of the tensile
strength of parts produced by laminated object
manufacturing (LOM) process”, CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 319-22.
Flach, L., Jacobs, M., Klosterman, D. and Chartoff, R.
(1998), “Simulation of laminated object manufacturing
with variation of process parameters”, Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium Proceedings, The University of
Texas at Austin, Texas, pp. 407-16.
Jacobs, P.F. (1996), Stereolithography and Other RP&M
Technologies: From Rapid Prototyping to Rapid Tooling,
Society of Manufacturing Engineers in Co-operation with the
Rapid Prototyping Association of SME, ASME Press,
New York, NY.
Kechagias, J. (2007), “An experimental investigation of the
surface roughness of parts produced by LOM process”,
Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 17-22.
Kechagias, J., Anagnostopoulos, V., Zervos, S. and
Chryssolouris, G. (1997), “Estimation of build times in
rapid prototyping processes”, in Dickens, P.M. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Rapid
Prototyping & Manufacturing, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, pp. 137-48.
Kechagias, J., Maropoulos, S. and Karagiannis, S. (2004),
“Process build-time estimator algorithm for laminated
object manufacturing”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 10
No. 5, pp. 297-304.
Kruth, J.P. (1991), “Material incress manufacturing by rapid
prototyping techniques”, CIRP Annals, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 603-14.
Liao, Y.S., Li, H.C. and Chiu, Y.Y. (2006), “Study of
laminated object manufacturing with separately applied
heating and pressing”, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 27, pp. 703-7.
Pak, S.S. and Nisnevich, G. (1994), “Interlaminate strength
and processing efficiency improvements in laminated object
manufacturing”, Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Rapid Prototyping, Dayton, Ohio, pp. 171-80.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
323
View publication stats
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 13 · Number 5 · 2007 · 316 –323
Park, J., Tari, M.J. and Hahn, H.T. (2000), “Characterization
of the laminated object manufacturing (LOM) process”,
Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 36-49.
Paul, B. and Voorakarnam, V. (2001), “Effect of layer
thickness and orientation angle on surface roughness in
laminated object manufacturing”, SME Journal of
Manufacturing Processes, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 94-101.
Phadke, M.S. (1989), Quality Engineering Using Robust Design,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Pham, D.T. and Gault, R.S. (1998), “A comparison of rapid
prototyping technologies”, International Journal of Machine
Tools & Manufacture, Vol. 38, pp. 1257-87.
Reece, S.R. and Styger, L.J. (1995), “Laminated object
manufacturing: process practice and research experience”,
paper presented at First National Conference on Rapid
Prototyping & Tooling Research, Buckinghamshire College,
UK, pp. 101-10.
Reeves, P.E. and Cobb, R.C. (1996), “Surface deviation
modelling of LMT processes: a comparative analysis”, in
Dickens, P.M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th European
Conference on Rapid Prototyping & Manufacturing, Helsinki,
Finland, pp. 59-76.
Sonmez, F. and Hahn, T. (1998), “Thermomechanical
analysis of the laminated object manufacturing process”,
Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 26-36.
Wang, W., Feng, W., Yan, Y. and Fuh, J. (1996),
“Experimental design and analysis of in-plane processing
accuracy for SSM process”, Materials & Design, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 159-66.
Wring, T. (1994), “Review of the applications possible with a
Helisys LOM model”, in Dickens, P.M. (Ed.) paper
presented at 3rd European Conference on Rapid
Prototyping & Manufacturing, University of Nottingham,
Nottingham, pp. 87-102.
Yu, G., Ding, Y., Li, D. and Tang, Y. (2003), “A low cost
cutter-based paper lamination rapid prototyping system”,
International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture,
Vol. 43, pp. 1079-86.
Further reading
Box, G.E.P., Hunter, W.G. and Hunter, J.S. (1978), Statistics
for Experimenters, Wiley, New York, NY.
D3500-76 (1986), Annual Book of ASTM Standards,
Standards Methods of Testing Plywood in Tension.
Peace, G.S. (1993), Taguchi Methods: A Hands-on Approach,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA.
Corresponding author
John Kechagias can be contacted at: jkechag@teilar.gr