materials

Article
Evaluating the Quality Surface Performance of
Additive Manufacturing Systems: Methodology
and a Material Jetting Case Study
Razvan Udroiu * , Ion Cristian Braga and Anisor Nedelcu
Department of Manufacturing Engineering, Transilvania University of Brasov, 29 Eroilor Boulevard,
500036 Brasov, Romania; braga.ion.cristian@unitbv.ro (I.C.B.); a.nedelcu@unitbv.ro (A.N.)
* Correspondence: udroiu.r@unitbv.ro; Tel.: +40-268-421-318




Received: 22 February 2019; Accepted: 22 March 2019; Published: 26 March 2019


Abstract: The performance characterization of the manufacturing processes for additive

manufacturing (AM) systems is a significant task for their standardization and implementation
in the industry. Also, there is a large diversity of materials used in different AM processes. In the
present paper, a methodology is proposed to evaluate, in different directions, the performance of an
AM process and material characterization in terms of surface quality. This methodology consists of
eight steps, based on a new surface inspection artifact and basic artifact orientations. The proposed
artifact with several design configurations fits different AM systems sizes and meets the needs
of customers. The effects of main factors on the surface roughness of up-facing platens of the
artifacts are investigated using the statistical design of experiments. The proposed methodology is
validated by a case study focused on PolyJet material jetting technology. Samples are manufactured
of photopolymer resins and post-processed. Three factors (i.e., artifact orientation, platen orientation,
and finish type) are considered for the investigation. The case study results show that the platen
orientation, finish type, and their interaction have a significant influence on the surface roughness
(Ra). The best Ra roughness results were obtained for the glossy finish type in the range of 0.5–4 µm.

Keywords: additive manufacturing; methodology; artifact configurations; design of experiments;

surface roughness; material jetting; polymer additive manufacturing

1. Introduction

1.1. Additive Manufacturing Standardizations

Additive manufacturing (AM) [1] techniques garner much interest within many fields, such as
aerospace, automotive, and medical, based on their flexibility given to designers to fabricate complex
structures, which are hard to fabricate using conventional methods. By achieving lightweight structures
that do not require molding and tooling, AM also saves time, cost, and effort. Also, AM plays
an important role in hybrid manufacturing and smart factories [2], and it is a key technology in the
implementation of the new industrial revolution, Industry 4.0 [3].
AM has a multi-disciplinary characteristic and its standardization is essential for the industrial
sector. The main organizations which are working and collaborating to standardize the processes of AM
are the International Organization for Standardization, the technical committee ISO/TC 261 (creation
date 2011), the American Society for Testing and Materials, the group ASTM F42 (formed in 2009),
and the European Committee for Standardization, the technical committee CEN/TC 438 (formed in
2015). ISO/ASTM 52900-15 established and defined terms used in AM technology, by defining
AM as the “process of joining materials to make parts from three-dimensional (3D) model data,
usually layer upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing and formative manufacturing

Materials 2019, 12, 995; doi:10.3390/ma12060995 www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2019, 12, 995 2 of 24

methodologies” [4]. Based on the ISO/ASTM 52900-15 standard, the AM processes are classified
as follows [4]: vat photo-polymerization (VP), binder jetting (BJ), material extrusion (ME), material
jetting (MJ), sheet lamination (SL), powder bed fusion (PBF), and directed energy deposition (DED).
Some examples of the technologies that fall within these processes types include stereolithography
(SLA) as a VP process [5], fused deposition modeling (FDM) as an ME process [6], laminated
object manufacturing (LOM) as an SL process [7], selective laser sintering/melting (SLS/SLM) as
a PBF processes [8,9], 3D inkjet printing (3DP) as a BJ process [7], polymer jetting (PolyJet) and
multi-jet printing (MJM) as MJ processes [10–12], wire and arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) and
laser-engineered net shaping (LENS) as DED processes [13].
The performance characterization of the AM processes and material characterization are
significant tasks for their standardization and implementation in the industry. A method for
evaluating of AM process performance consists of manufacturing and testing a customized sample [14].
The most important sections, focusing on test methods and product characterization of the parts
manufactured by AM [4], are mechanical properties (hardness, tensile strength, flexural strength,
impact strength, fatigue strength, elongation property, compressive properties, creep, aging, frictional
coefficient, shear resistant, crack extension), surface aspects (appearance, surface texture [15], color),
and geometry requirements [16] (size, dimensions, dimensional tolerances, geometrical tolerance).
Currently, the standards related to these items are under development. A number of experimental
and theoretical studies were developed in order to characterize the variety of AM processes and the
materials used for AM.

1.2. Surface Quality in Additive Manufacturing

The surface quality of the parts built by the AM technologies is an important parameter, which can
influence the product accuracy, minimize the post-processing operations, and enhance the functionality
of the product. Within the literature, many studies focused on the surface roughness [5,6,8,10–12,17–19]
of the parts made through additive manufacturing. Some studies investigated the influence of part
orientation on surface roughness [7,20], for different layer manufacturing technologies such as FDM,
SLS, LOM, and SLA. An optimal fabrication direction achieves good results. Canellidis et al. [20],
considering the build time, surface roughness, and post-processing time, proposed an optimization
procedure for optimum build orientation of the parts in SLA. Perez et al. [6] investigated the critical
factors in FDM processes for reducing surface roughness, and they concluded that the layer height and
wall thickness are dominant factors for surface roughness. DebRoy at al. [9], analyzing the AM metal
processes, showed that surface quality is influenced by the material feedstock, part and process design,
process parameters, and post-processing. The surface roughness is different in different AM processes.
The main factor that affects the surface roughness in different AM processes is the deposition layer
thickness. Also, in metal additive manufacturing, whatever might be the parameters, the surface
roughness is high in DED processes because of a higher deposition rate [13] and larger size of melt
pool. Thus, it is not fair to compare directed energy deposition with powder bed fusion from the point
of view of surface quality.
Additive manufacturing of parts with a small deposition layers thickness reduces the surface
roughness and improves the surface quality. PolyJet technology, using thin deposition layers of
16 or 30 microns [12,19], is one of the AM technologies that can effectively reduce the surface
roughness. A benchmark study based on customized test specimens investigated and compared the
properties of nonmetal additive manufacturing processes (SLA, PolyJet, SLS, LOM, FDM, and 3DP) [17].
It concluded that the roughness of the specimen fabricated by EDEN 500V increases with the surface
angle from 0◦ to 90◦ , and that PolyJet technology is effectively an office environment. An experimental
investigation of the surface roughness of the PolyJet process, in X- and Y-directions, based on
a prismatic test sample placed seven times, on the same platform was performed in Reference [19].
The results indicated that the best value of roughness was achieved at 0◦ and the worst at 90◦ .
The experiments on an EDEN 350V machine, with samples made of FullCure 720 and VeroBlue 840
Materials 2019, 12, 995 3 of 24

materials, oriented along the x-axis were carried out in order to investigate the influence of layer
thickness, local surface orientation, and finish type on the surface quality [12]; however, different part
orientations on the build tray were not performed. This study reported that the maximum surface
roughness was obtained for the 90◦ surface angle. Moore and Williams [21] investigated the effects
of the surface finish on the part fatigue life of PolyJet parts. It was concluded that the glossy finish
increases the fatigue life of the printed parts.
Ituarte et al. [22] performed a comparative assessment of three AM technologies (SLA, Polyjet,
and SLS) taking four control factors (the AM machine, the part orientation and location, and the
chordal errors of the STL files), and having one of the objectives to be optimized (i.e., the surface
roughness). The study reported that the manufacturing of flat plastic parts using the three selected
AM systems is not technically feasible. The main reason could be that the layer thickness set on a value
greater than 30 µm increases the surface roughness. Also, the results showed that surface quality was
the most difficult requirement to satisfy.
Most parts obtained by different additive manufacturing technologies need selecting a suitable
post-processing technique (computer numerical control machining, abrasive machining, laser machining,
chemical treatments, etc.) to improve the surface quality [23]. Cazon et al. [11] included in their studies
the effect of post-processing on the mechanical properties and the surface roughness of planar specimens
made by the PolyJet technology on the EDEN Objet 330 machine. The study concluded that the part
orientation has an effect on mechanical properties and the best roughness is obtained for the XY printing
direction. An industry-related survey including 50 interviewees evaluated technical and economic AM
capabilities [24]. The study concluded that post-processing constitutes a mandatory production step to
fulfill minimum surface roughness levels required by the industry.
From the literature survey, the following results were found:

• The surface quality of additive manufactured parts can be affected by different factors,
from pre-processing, processing, and post-processing stages.
• The factors affecting the surface quality are STL file preparation, material properties, layer thickness,
part orientation, scanning parameters (strategy, speed, etc.), surface orientation or surface angle,
finish type, and post-processing.
• AM technologies and variation from one AM machine to another can influence the surface quality.
• The staircase effect, support structure burrs, and errors from the deposition process are the most
frequent surface defects.
• There are few research studies developed on different AM systems built based on PolyJet
technology (Stratasys Ltd, USA and Objet Geometries Ltd., Israel).
• Having benefits in terms of cost reduction and a shortening of the time-to-market in products,
the implementation of AM technologies within pre-production series and short series production
depend on the repeatability of mechanical and surface quality properties of parts.

1.3. Test Artifacts for Quality Surface Evaluation

Many test artifacts were proposed to investigate the surface quality of the parts obtained by
different additive manufacturing processes. A standardized test artifact allows the performance
estimation and comparison for different AM systems or for the same AM system over time [14] and
can identify the possibilities for improvements.
A twisted pillar [5,8,12,18,25] or truncheon (Figure 1a) is one of the most used models for measuring
the surface roughness within an AM process, despite its massive shape. Thus, it can be used for
investigations of the surface roughness based on the truncheon within the following AM technologies:
SLA (vat photo-polymerization) [5,18,25], FDM (material extrusion) [5], PolyJet (material jetting) [12],
SLM (powder bed fusion) [8], and LOM (sheet lamination) [5]. The twisted pillar is obtained by rotating
a series of square sections around a central axis, from 0◦ to 90◦ , in 3◦ or 5◦ increments, allowing to
investigate the surface roughness of angled planes from 0◦ to 360◦ [18,26].
Materials 2019, 12, 995 4 of 24
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 24

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure
Figure 1. Test
1. Test artifacts:
artifacts: (a)(a)truncheon;
truncheon; (b)
(b) faceted
facetedsphere
sphere[26]; (c)(c)
[26]; specimen withwith
specimen sloped surfaces;
sloped (d)
surfaces; (d)
Standard Test Artifact (STAR)
Standard Test Artifact (STAR) [14,26].[14,26].

Another
Another testtest model
model isisa afaceted
facetedsphere
sphere (Figure
(Figure1b) 1b)which
which covers
covers a wide range
a wide of planar
range surface
of planar surface
orientations within one part [26,27]. A revised model with new features,
orientations within one part [26,27]. A revised model with new features, based on a specimen proposed based on a specimen
proposed by Kim et al. [17], is shown in Figure 1c. The ISO/ASTM NP 52902 standard focusing on
by Kim et al. [17], is shown in Figure 1c. The ISO/ASTM NP 52902 standard focusing on AM standard
AM standard test artifacts is under development. Some standard artifacts were developed by the
test artifacts is under development. Some standard artifacts were developed by the ASTM F42/ISO TC
ASTM F42/ISO TC 261 joint group for Standard Test Artifacts (STAR) in order to investigate the AM
261 joint
systemgroup for Standard
performances: Testand
linear Artifacts
circular(STAR) in order
accuracy, to investigate
resolution the AM
of ribs, pins, holessystem performances:
and slots, and
linear
surface texture [14]. The STAR group proposed a surface texture artifact [14,26] which consistsThe
and circular accuracy, resolution of ribs, pins, holes and slots, and surface texture [14]. of a STAR
group proposed a surface texture artifact [14,26] which consists of a series of seven
series of seven platens built at different angles to the horizontal plane, including 90°, 0°, 75°, 15°, 60°, platens built at
different angles to the horizontal ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
plane, including 90 , 0 , 75 , 15 , 60 , 30 , and 45 (Figure 1d). ◦
30°, and 45° (Figure 1d).
TheThe studies
studies focusing
focusing on theon the quality
quality surface
surface investigation
investigation obtained
obtained by by
AMAM diddid
notnotuseuse a
a common
common surface inspection artifact that allowed comparing the measurements.
surface inspection artifact that allowed comparing the measurements. Moreover, a deeper research Moreover, a deeper
basedresearch based on a standardized
on a standardized surface inspection
surface inspection artifact
artifact taking taking
into into the
account account the relevant
relevant build
build orientations
orientations on the manufacturing platform and post-processing operations was not performed.
on the manufacturing platform and post-processing operations was not performed.
The main aim of this article was to define a basic methodology that allows evaluating the
The main aim of this article was to define a basic methodology that allows evaluating the
performances of an AM process and material characterization in terms of surface quality, based on a
performances of anand
new test artifact AMinvestigating
process andthe material
primarycharacterization in terms
factors that affect the surfaceofquality.
surfaceThequality,
secondbased
part on a
newof test
the paper focuses on the investigation of polymer-based AM. A case study on a PolyJet process part
artifact and investigating the primary factors that affect the surface quality. The second
of the paper the
validates focuses on the
proposed basicinvestigation
methodology.of polymer-based AM. A case study on a PolyJet process
validates the proposed basic methodology.
2. Materials and Methods
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Design of a Test Artifact for Evaluating the Quality Surface Performance of AM Systems
2.1. Design of a Test Artifact for Evaluating the Quality Surface Performance of AM Systems
The main design requirements of a surface inspection artifact are as follows:
•TheAn
main
easydesign requirements
adaptation to differentofAM
a surface inspection
processes artifact
and machine are as follows:
sizes;
• •An easy
Measurements
adaptationto be
to easily performed
different in different
AM processes andways using sizes;
machine contact or non-contact methods;
• An editable geometry;
• Measurements to be easily performed in different ways using contact or non-contact methods;
• A short manufacturing time;
• •An editable
Minimumgeometry;
material and energy consumption.
• A short manufacturing time;
• Minimum material and energy consumption.
A new surface inspection artifact was designed using the SolidWorks version 2013 software
(Dassault Systèmes, Waltham, MA, USA), based on the above design requirements. It consisted of
 Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 24

MaterialsA2019,
new 12,surface
995inspection artifact was designed using the SolidWorks version 2013 software 5 of 24
(Dassault Systèmes, MA, USA), based on the above design requirements. It consisted of rotated
platens around a horizontal axis, which were built at different angles from 0° to 90° to◦ the horizontal
rotated platens around a horizontal axis, which were built at different angles from 0 to 90◦ to the
plane, in θ° increments. Eight design configurations of the test artifact were achieved, taking into
horizontal plane, in θ◦ increments. Eight design configurations of the test artifact were achieved,
account that the increment θ was a divisor of 90° (Table 1).
taking into account that the increment θ was a divisor of 90◦ (Table 1).
Table 1. The design configurations of the surface inspection artifact.
Table 1. The design configurations of the surface inspection artifact.
Artifact Design Configurations θ Increment Angle (°) Number of Platens
Artifact Design Configurations θ Increment Angle (◦ ) Number of Platens
Artifact configuration 1 2 46
Artifact configuration
Artifact 1
configuration 2 2 3 46
31
Artifact configuration 2 3 31
Artifact configuration 3 5 19
Artifact configuration 3 5 19
Artifact
Artifact configuration
configuration 4 4 6 6 16
16
Artifact
Artifact configuration
configuration 5 5 10 10 10
10
Artifact configuration
Artifact 6
configuration 6 15 15 77
Artifact configuration 7 30 4
Artifact configuration 7 30 4
Artifact configuration 8 45 3
Artifact configuration 8 45 3

The
Theplaten
platenthickness
thickness should
should be be chosen
chosensosoasasnot
notto to allow
allow thethe artifact
artifact to deform
to deform overover
time,time,
being
being
limitedlimited
by the bycharacteristics
the characteristics of theofmaterial.
the material. The dimensions
The dimensions of the ofplatens
the platens
(length(length and
and width)
width) should be chosen so that the surface roughness can be measured
should be chosen so that the surface roughness can be measured easily with both contact and easily with both contact
and non-contact
non-contact methods.
methods.
The
Theartifact waswas
artifact intended to be used
intended to beto evaluate
used to the surface the
evaluate quality of an additive
surface quality manufacturing
of an additive
process
manufacturing process and to test the machine accuracy. Mainly, the artifact was the
and to test the machine accuracy. Mainly, the artifact was designed to investigate surfaceto
designed
quality of the upward facing surfaces. The downward facings are strongly dependent
investigate the surface quality of the upward facing surfaces. The downward facings are strongly on the support
structure
dependent type,on which influences
the support the surface
structure quality.
type, which This artifact
influences allows quality.
the surface good accessibility
This artifactfor the
allows
surface investigation of the platens.
good accessibility for the surface investigation of the platens.
Two
Two3D 3Dcomputer-aided
computer-aided design
design (CAD)
(CAD)examples
examples ofofthe test
the artifact
test built
artifact builtatat
angles
anglesfrom
from 0◦0°toto9090°
◦

ininsteps ◦ ◦
stepsofof1515°and
andininsteps
stepsofof5 5°are
areshown
shownininFigure
Figure2.2.

(a) (b)
Figure2. 2.
Figure Three-dimensional
Three-dimensional (3D)(3D) models
models ofnew
of the the test
newartifact:
test artifact: (a) artifact
(a) artifact configuration
configuration 3; (b)
3; (b) artifact
artifact configuration
configuration 6. 6.

2.2.
2.2.Methodology
Methodologyfor
forEvaluating
Evaluatingthe
theSurface
SurfaceQuality
QualityininAM
AM
The
Theobjective
objectiveofofthe
theproposed
proposedmethodology
methodologyisistotoevaluate
evaluatethetheperformance
performanceofofananadditive
additive
manufacturing process on an additive manufacturing machine
manufacturing process on an additive manufacturing machine in terms in terms of surface
of surface quality.
quality. This
This methodology
methodology includes
includes exploratoryand
exploratory andconfirmatory
confirmatory experiments,
experiments, followed
followed by by analysis
analysisand
and
interpretation of the results. The methodology consists of eight steps as shown in the Figure
interpretation of the results. The methodology consists of eight steps as shown in the Figure 3. 3.

2.2.1. Step 1: Material and Additive Manufacturing Technology Analysis

There is a large diversity of materials used in additive manufacturing processing [28]: plastics
(thermoplastics and thermosets), metals, ceramics, and composites (polymer matrix composites,
metal matrix composites, and ceramic matrix composites). Thus, the additive manufacturing
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 24

technologies include polymer-based AM, metal-based AM, ceramic-based AM, and

composite-based AM. The purpose of AM technology analysis is the understanding of the process
basics principles and selection of some potential parameters that influence the manufacturing
Materials 2019, 12, 995 6 of 24
process and can affect the surface quality.

Figure 3. Flowchart of the proposed methodology named EvalSQ-AM.

2.2.1. Step 2:
2.2.2. Step 1: Choosing
Material and AdditiveConfiguration
an Artifact Manufacturing Technology Analysis
There is a large
The design diversity of
configuration of materials
the surface used in additive
inspection manufacturing
artifact processing
was chosen from [28]:
Table 1. Anplastics
artifact
(thermoplastics and thermosets), metals, ceramics, and composites (polymer
configuration was defined by a number of platens in steps of θ° from a 0° to 90° slope angle. Every matrix composites,
metal
artifactmatrix composites,
configuration due and
to itsceramic
size and matrix
volume composites).
influenced Thus, the additive manufacturing
the manufacturing time, material
technologies include polymer-based AM, metal-based AM, ceramic-based
consumption, and the amount of measurement data used within step 6 for statistical analysis. AM, and composite-based
AM. The purpose of AM technology analysis is the understanding of the process basics principles and
selection
2.2.3. Stepof3:some
Basicpotential parameters
Configuration that influence
of the Design the manufacturing
of Experiments (DOE) process and can affect the
surface quality.
In the third phase of the methodology, based on the additive manufacturing technology
2.2.2. Stepwe
features, designed an
2: Choosing theArtifact
experiments [29] by choosing the control factors that affect the surface
Configuration
quality and their levels. The primary control factors that affect the surface quality are the layer
The design configuration of the surface inspection artifact was chosen from Table 1. An artifact
thickness, the artifact orientation, the platen orientation, the material feedstock properties, the scan
configuration was defined by a number of platens in steps of θ◦ from a 0◦ to 90◦ slope angle.
speed, the scanning strategy or tool path strategy, the energy density, and the finish type based on
Every artifact configuration due to its size and volume influenced the manufacturing time, material
particular printing features or post-processing. The selection of the control factors depends on the
consumption, and the amount of measurement data used within step 6 for statistical analysis.
particularities of the additive manufacturing technology. The main factors, which should be used for
all additive
2.2.3. Step 3:manufacturing technologies,
Basic Configuration are artifact
of the Design orientation(DOE)
of Experiments and platen orientation.
The impact of nesting and orientation of parts that are inserted into the build platform on
In the third
production speed, phase of thecosts,
material methodology,
and costs based
relatedon tothe additive
process timemanufacturing
for different AM technology features,
process (ME, VP,
we designed the experiments [29] by choosing the control factors that affect the surface
BJ, MJ, SL, and PBF) was investigated in Reference [30]; however, the surface quality of the parts was quality and their
levels. The primary
not estimated. control
The study factors that
concluded thataffect the surface
the most quality
affordable way areofthe layer thickness,
manufacturing partsthedoes
artifact
not
orientation, the platen orientation, the material feedstock properties, the scan
guarantee constant or similar quality. The orientation of the AM build platform coordinate system speed, the scanning
strategy
depends or ontool path strategy,
building direction.the energy
Thus, the density,
coordinate andsystems
the finish of type based on
downward andparticular printing
upward building
features
machinesorare post-processing.
defined based on Thetheselection
standard of in
theReference
control factors
[31] and depends on the
are shown particularities
in the Figure 4. The of
the additive manufacturing technology. The main factors, which should be used for all additive
manufacturing technologies, are artifact orientation and platen orientation.
Materials 2019, 12, 995 7 of 24

The impact of nesting and orientation of parts that are inserted into the build platform on
production speed, material costs, and costs related to process time for different AM process (ME, VP,
BJ, MJ, SL, and PBF) was investigated in Reference [30]; however, the surface quality of the parts was
not estimated. The study concluded that the most affordable way of manufacturing parts does not
guarantee constant or similar quality. The orientation of the AM build platform coordinate system
depends
Materials on12,
2019, building
x FOR PEERdirection.
REVIEW Thus, the coordinate systems of downward and upward building 7 of 24
machines are defined based on the standard in Reference [31] and are shown in the Figure 4. The artifact
artifact orientation
orientation on theplatform
on the build build platform is considered
is considered a three-level
a three-level factor
factor with with
basic basic orientations
orientations of
of parallel,
parallel, perpendicular,
perpendicular, ◦
and 45 and to the45°scanning
to the scanning
direction direction (called
(called axes axes
1, 2, 1, 3,
and 2, respectively).
and 3, respectively). The
The layout
layout
of theseofthree
theseartifact
three orientations
artifact orientations
within thewithin
build the build isplatform
platform called theis basic
called the basic
artifact artifact
orientations.
orientations. The levels
The levels of platen of platen
orientation orientation
factor depend onfactor depend
the design on the design
configuration of theconfiguration of the
artifact, as shown in
artifact,
Table 1. as shown
It is giveninbyTable 1. It is given
the number by the
of platens ofnumber of platens of the artifact.
the artifact.

(a) (b)
Figure 4.
Figure Layout of
4. Layout of the
the build
build platform
platform illustrating
illustrating basic
basic artifact
artifact orientations
orientations for
for (a)
(a) upward
upward building
building
additive manufacturing
additive manufacturing (AM)
(AM) systems,
systems, and
and (b)
(b) downward
downward building AM systems

The layer
The layer thickness
thicknessfactorfactordepends
depends ononthethe
characteristics
characteristicsof the
ofAMthe technology.
AM technology. Also, this control
Also, this
factor strongly influences the surface quality. The feedstock material
control factor strongly influences the surface quality. The feedstock material for additive for additive manufacturing can
be a liquid, powder,
manufacturing can becombination
a liquid, powder,of powder and wire,
combination sheet, orand
of powder wire,
wire,according
sheet, ortowire,
the process
according in
question
to [13,28].
the process in The feedstock
question materials
[13,28]. can affectmaterials
The feedstock the surface canquality.
affect Regarding
the surfacethe scan speed
quality. factor,
Regarding
onlyscan
the some AMfactor,
speed technologies
only some allow AM modifications
technologiestoallow
its values. Thus, one
modifications to can mention
its values. powder
Thus, bed
one can
fusion and
mention directed
powder bedenergy
fusiondeposition
and directed technologies, which allow
energy deposition the variation
technologies, which of allow
the scanning speed
the variation
factor. Depending on the additive manufacturing technology characteristics,
of the scanning speed factor. Depending on the additive manufacturing technology characteristics, some AM technologies
allowAM
some modifications
technologies inallow
the scan strategy and
modifications others
in the scando not. The
strategy andscan strategy
others do not.factor is taken
The scan into
strategy
consideration
factor mainly
is taken into in powder mainly
consideration bed fusion [32] and
in powder beddirected
fusion energy
[32] anddeposition [33] technologies.
directed energy deposition
The tool path strategy factor is important in material extrusion technologies
[33] technologies. The tool path strategy factor is important in material extrusion technologies [6]. The energy density
[6].
is a energy
The specificdensity
factor is within metal
a specific additive
factor within manufacturing
metal additivetechnologies
manufacturing that needs to bethat
technologies carefully
needs
controlled
to [9]. The
be carefully two basic control
controlled [9]. Thefactors, artifactcontrol
two basic orientation and platen
factors, artifactorientation,
orientationand additional
and platen
process factors should be chosen to analyze the influence of their effects
orientation, and additional process factors should be chosen to analyze the influence of their effectsand interactions on the
surface
and roughness.
interactions on the surface roughness.

2.2.4. Step
2.2.4. Step4:4:Additive
AdditiveManufacturing
Manufacturingof ofthe
theArtifacts
Artifacts Based
Based on
on DOE
DOE
Additive manufacturing
Additive manufacturing of of the
the artifacts
artifacts based
based on on DOE
DOE represents
represents the
the fourth
fourth phase
phase ofof this
this
procedure. The
procedure. The basic
basictable
tableconfiguration
configuration is shown
is shownin theinFigure 4. A minimum
the Figure three artifacts
4. A minimum oriented
three artifacts
in a 0 ◦ –45◦ –90◦ configuration should be 3D-printed in a single printing job. In the pre-processing stage,
oriented in a 0°–45°–90° configuration should be 3D-printed in a single printing job. In the
the CAD modelstage,
pre-processing of thethe
testCAD
artifact is converted
model intoartifact
of the test a standard triangulation
is converted into alanguage
standard(STL) file and is
triangulation
loaded into
language specific
(STL) AM is
file and software
loaded in order
into to manage
specific the manufacturing
AM software process. the
in order to manage Themanufacturing
STL resolution
should be chosen according to the deposited layer thickness of the AM machine.
process. The STL resolution should be chosen according to the deposited layer thickness of the AM The post-processing
method depends
machine. on the type of
The post-processing AM technology
method depends on andtheraw material
type of AM used [23]. and raw material used
technology
[23].

2.2.5. Step 5: Surface Roughness Measurement of the Artifact Platens

The surface roughness measurements may be performed in different ways using contact or
non-contact methods. Only the surface of up-facing platens is measured, because the down-facing
platens are strongly influenced by the support material.
Materials 2019, 12, 995 8 of 24

2.2.5. Step 5: Surface Roughness Measurement of the Artifact Platens

The surface roughness measurements may be performed in different ways using contact or
non-contact methods. Only the surface of up-facing platens is measured, because the down-facing
platens are strongly influenced by the support material.

2.2.6. Step 6: Statistical Analysis of the Data

Statistical analysis of the data allows the investigation and characterization of the effects of
control factors and their interactions on the experimental surface roughness. Because there are
two or more control factors, two-way ANOVA or generalized linear models (GLM) should be used.
The generalized linear model is a more general approach to performing an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) [34]. The statistical analysis should have five stages as follows:

• Inputting data;
• Performing data analysis;
• Determination of significant factors from ANOVA table;
• Validating ANOVA assumptions;
• Interpreting ANOVA results.

GLM is used to analyze the results by calculating the means of each level for each factor. From the
ANOVA table, the p-value indicates the significance of the results. Additionally, it is necessary
to compare the relative significance by indicated the F-value when the p-value is close to zero.
Before drawing the conclusion, the three following assumptions in ANOVA analysis should be
checked [34]:

• Residuals are normal distributed;

• The variance of the observations in each treatment should be equal;
• Response is independent and identically distributed.

2.2.7. Step 7: Prove that the Experimental Hypothesis Is Correct through Repeated Experiments
The confirmatory experiments should be conducted in an environment as similar as possible to the
original experiment. An industrial process is desirable for stability. The purpose of the confirmation
experiment is to validate the conclusions drawn during the analysis phase and to confirm having a
stable process.

2.2.8. Step 8: Analyze and Interpret the Results

The experimental results are analyzed and interpreted within this step. The roughness prediction
for an AM process and the influence of the control factors and their interactions on the surface
roughness are determined.

2.3. Methodology Application—PolyJet Material Jetting Technology

The proposed methodology for evaluating the surface quality was validated for a polymer-based
additive manufacturing technology. The additive manufacturing machine used was EDEN 350 by
Objet (Stratasys, Rehovot, Israel ) using PolyJet technology.

2.3.1. Materials and PolyJet Technology Analysis

The Objet EDEN 350 PolyJet machine uses a drop-on-demand (DOD) inkjet technology [35] to
generate and selectively deposit droplets of resins in the scanning direction through one pass onto
the build platform. The deposited layers of resins are 0.016 mm thick. The print block contains eight
parallel print heads, four of which are allocated to the model material and the others to the support
material. The model material used in this investigation was FullCure 870 VeroBlack [36], supplied by
Materials 2019, 12, 995 9 of 24

Stratasys. The composition of the model material consisted of acrylic monomer, urethane acrylate
oligomer, epoxy acrylate, and a photo-initiator. The FullCure 705 [36] was used as a support material.
The support material consisted of acrylic monomer, polyethylene glycol 400, propane-1,2-diol, glycerol,
and a photo-initiator. During the printing process, the print heads and the photopolymer resins are
heated at a printing temperature of around 72 ◦ C, decreasing the viscosity of the resins. The print block
moves pass by pass in indexing the y-axis and layer to layer in the height direction (Z). A vacuum
system kept and controlled the resins within the print heads (Figure 5). The head vacuum of the Objet
EDEN
Materials350
2019,PolyJet
12, x FORmachine was set at 6.2 atm. Roller levels each deposit a resin layer and then
PEER REVIEW the
9 of 24
resin is hardened using two ultraviolet (UV) lights. The roller compresses the resin layers and removes
compresses
excess the resinfrom
resin material layers
theand removeslayer.
deposited excess
Theresin material
excess resin isfrom theinto
stored deposited
a wastelayer. The excess
container. Lines
resin
of is stored
droplets are into a waste
formed container.
in the scanningLines of droplets are formed in the scanning direction.
direction.

Figure
Figure 5. The basic
5. The basic principle
principle of
of the
the Objet
Objet EDEN
EDEN 350
350 PolyJet
PolyJet machine.
machine.
2.3.2. The Basic Configuration of the Design of Experiments (DOE)
2.3.2. The Basic Configuration of the Design of Experiments (DOE)
Artifact configuration 3 (Figure 2b), consisting of 19 platens built at angles from 0◦ to 90◦ in steps
◦ Artifact configuration 3 (Figure 2b), consisting of 19 platens built at angles from 0° to 90° in
of 5 , was chosen to investigate the effect of platen orientation on the surface roughness.
steps of 5°, was chosen to investigate the effect of platen orientation on the surface roughness.
The design of experiments was made according to the control factors. Three control factors were
The design of experiments was made according to the control factors. Three control factors
selected (i.e., the artifact orientation with three levels, the platen orientation with 19 levels, and the
were selected (i.e., the artifact orientation with three levels, the platen orientation with 19 levels, and
finish type with two levels), as shown in Table 2.
the finish type with two levels), as shown in Table 2.
The finish type was considered as a two-level factor: matte and glossy. The matte finish (Figure 6a)
meant that a thin layer of support material surrounded the part. When using a glossy finish (Figure 6b),
Table 2. Control factors and their level.
there was no support material deposited on the upper surfaces of the model; instead, it was only
deposited on the Level
bottomArtifact Orientation
surfaces. The points ofPlaten Orientation
transition Finishand
between the matte Type
glossy areas usually
required some polishingSymbol Value (°) Symbol Value (°) Symbol Value
or extra cleaning.
The working1 parameters 1 were set0 according1to the manufacturer’s
0 1 specifications
Matte as shown in
Table 3. The surface 2 roughness2 was the 45response factor
2 during5 the experiments.
2 Glossy
It is necessary3 to specify
3 why only90three control3 factors were
10 chosen. Some
- parameters
- of this Objet
EDEN 350 PolyJet4 machine- cannot be modified,
- being
4 set by15
the provider.- These are- scanning speed,
scanning strategy,5and layer- thickness. -These factors 5 should be 20 taken into- consideration
- for other AM
processes, which allow
6 modification
- in layer
- deposition
6 thickness
25 or scanning
- speed.- However, Polyjet
technology used 7on the EDEN - 350 machine
- allows
7 only deposition
30 of -thinner layers
- of 0.016 mm.
8 - - 8 35 - -
9 - - 9 40 - -
10 - - 10 45 - -
11 - - 11 50 - -
12 - - 12 55 - -
13 - - 13 60 - -
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 24

19 - - 19 90 - -

The2019,
Materials finish type was considered as a two-level factor: matte and glossy. The matte finish (Figure
12, 995 10 of 24
6a) meant that a thin layer of support material surrounded the part. When using a glossy finish
(Figure 6b), there was no support material deposited on the upper surfaces of the model; instead, it
In addition,
was Chen [10]
only deposited onconcluded
the bottomthat, for very
surfaces. Thelow thickness,
points the effect
of transition of change
between the in layer
matte thickness
and glossy
has a very low contribution toward change in surface
areas usually required some polishing or extra cleaning. roughness.

(a) (b)
Figure 6.
Figure Finish type
6. Finish type within
within PolyJet
PolyJet technology:
technology: (a)
(a) matte
matte finish;
finish; (b)
(b) glossy
glossy finish.
finish.

Table 2. Control factors and their level.

The working parameters were set according to the manufacturer’s specifications as shown in
Table 3. TheLevel
surface Artifact
roughness was the response
Orientation factor
Platen during the experiments.
Orientation Finish Type
It is necessary to specify
Symbol why only
◦
Value ( ) three control
Symbol factors were
◦
Value ( ) chosen.
SymbolSome parameters
Value of this
Objet EDEN 350 1
PolyJet1 machine cannot
0
be modified,
1
being set0
by the provider.
1
These are scanning
Matte
speed, scanning2 strategy,2 and layer45 thickness. These
2 factors should
5 be taken
2 into Glossy
consideration for
other AM processes,
3 which
3 allow90modification3 in layer deposition
10 thickness
- or scanning
- speed.
4 - - 4 15 -
However, Polyjet technology used on the EDEN 350 machine allows only deposition of thinner -
5 - - 5 20 - -
layers of 0.016 mm. In addition, Chen [10] concluded that, for very low thickness, the effect of change
6 - - 6 25 - -
in layer thickness
7 has a very
- low contribution
- toward
7 change 30in surface roughness.
- -
The experiments
8 and
- measurements
- were 8performed under35 controlled - laboratory- temperature
9
and relative humidity, - shown in-Table 3.
as 9 40 - -
10 - - 10 45 - -
11 - - 11 50 - -
Table 3. Working conditions of EDEN 350 machine.
12 - - 12 55 - -
13 - PolyJet- Process Parameters
13 60 -
Value -
14 - - 14 65 - -
Deposition layer thickness 0.016 mm
15 - - 15 70 - -
System vacuum level 6.2 atm
16 - - 16 75 - -
17 Temperature
- of each- support head17 80 72 °C - -
18 Block temperature
- behind
- support18heads 85 72 °C - -
19 Block temperature
- in
- front of support
19 heads 90 72 °C - -
Temperature of each model head 72 °C
Block temperature behind model heads 72 °C
Table 3. Working conditions of EDEN 350 machine.
Block temperature in front of model heads 72 °C
Pre-heating ofPolyJet
support and model
Process material
Parameters °C
68Value
Chamber temperature
Deposition layer thickness 20 °C
0.016 mm
Relative
Systemhumidity
vacuum level 6.2 30%
atm
Temperature of each support head 72 ◦ C
Block temperature behind support heads 72 ◦C
2.3.3. Additive Manufacturing by PolyJet of the Artifacts Based on DOE
Block temperature in front of support heads 72 ◦ C
The software used to prepare
Temperature the model
of each build head 72 ◦ C models and to simulate the
platform for producing
Block
build time and material temperature was
consumption behindthemodel
Objetheads 72 ◦8.0.1.3
Studio version C software (Rehovot, Israel)
Block temperature in front of model heads 72 ◦C
[36].
Pre-heating of support and model material 68 ◦ C
Chamber temperature 20 ◦ C
Relative humidity 30%

The experiments and measurements were performed under controlled laboratory temperature
and relative humidity, as shown in Table 3.
Materials 2019, 12, 995 11 of 24

2.3.3. Additive Manufacturing by PolyJet of the Artifacts Based on DOE

Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 24
The software used to prepare the build platform for producing models and to simulate the build
timeFive
and material consumption
test artifacts, named as wasinthe Objet
Table 4, Studio version 8.0.1.3 on
were manufactured software (Rehovot,
an Objet EDEN Israel) [36].
350 PolyJet
Five (Stratasys)
machine test artifacts,
innamed as inprinting
the same Table 4, were manufactured
job (using a singleonbuild
an Objet EDEN from
platform) 350 PolyJet machine
FullCure 870
(Stratasys) in the same printing job (using a single build platform) from FullCure 870
VeroBlack model material (Figure 7). The support material was removed with a pressure water VeroBlack model
jet.
material (Figure 7). The support material was removed with a pressure water jet. The
The specimens were immersed in a sodium hydroxide solution and were washed with pressurized specimens were
immersed
water in a sodium hydroxide solution and were washed with pressurized water afterward.
afterward.
Table 4. Printed artifact symbolization.
Table 4. Printed artifact symbolization.
Artifact Artifact
Symbolization Artifact
Symbolization Orientations
Artifact (◦ ) (°)
Orientations Finish
Finish Type
Type
1m 1m 0 0 Matte
Matte
1g 1g 0 0 Glossy
Glossy
2m 2m 45 45 Matte
Matte
3m 3m 90 90 Matte
Matte
3g 90 Glossy
3g 90 Glossy

Figure
Figure 7.7.Layout of the
Layout of EDEN 350 build
the EDEN platform
350 build illustrating
platform the artifact
illustrating the samples in three different
artifact samples in three
orientations.
different orientations.

In material
In material jetting
jetting technology,
technology, some
some rules
rules should
should bebe applied
applied regarding
regarding the the orientation
orientation of of the
the
part and
part and parts
parts within
within thethe build
build platform
platform inin order
order to
to minimize
minimize the the manufacturing
manufacturing time time and
and material
material
consumption, and
consumption, and toto improve
improve thethe quality
quality of
of the
the surface
surface [37].
[37]. The
The test
test artifacts
artifacts were
were built
built in
in three
three
different orientations
different orientations (Figure
(Figure 7),
7), namely
namely the
the longest
longest dimension
dimension parallel
parallel to to the
the scanning
scanning direction
direction
(Axis 1),
(Axis 1),perpendicular
perpendiculartotothe thescanning
scanning direction
direction (Axis
(Axis 2), 2),
andand
45° 45to ◦both
to both directions
directions (Axis(Axis
3). The3).
The samples
samples oriented
oriented in Axis in1Axis 1 and3 Axis
and Axis were 3fabricated
were fabricated in high-quality
in high-quality mode,
mode, either either
with a mattewithora
matte or
glossy glossy
finish. Thefinish.
sample Thealigned
samplewithaligned with
Axis Axis3D-printed
2 was 2 was 3D-printed in high-quality
in high-quality mode withmode a with
mattea
matte finish. A glossy sample aligned with Axis 2 was not chosen to be fabricated
finish. A glossy sample aligned with Axis 2 was not chosen to be fabricated because the glossy finish because the glossy
finish applied
applied to an to an unaligned
unaligned sample
sample to printer’s
to the the printer’s
axesaxes
cancan generate
generate surface
surface flaws,especially
flaws, especiallyififthethe
sample has
sample has “straight-line”
“straight-line” walls
walls [37].
[37].

2.3.4. Surface
2.3.4. SurfaceRoughness
Roughness Measurements
Measurements of
of the
the Artifact
Artifact Platens
Platens
Amodular
A modularartifact
artifactinspection
inspection fixture
fixture waswas designed
designed to easily
to easily investigate
investigate the artifact
the artifact platens.
platens. This
This fixture consisted of four flat components, as shown in Figure 8a: a base plate, a locating
fixture consisted of four flat components, as shown in Figure 8a: a base plate, a locating component,component,
and two positioning components. Taking into account the post-processing steps [23] and costs of
AM processes for the main categories of materials (plastics, metals, and ceramics), the new fixture is
proposed to be manufactured particularly in the case of a polymer-based AM process.
 Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 24

Materials 2019, 12, 995 12 of 24

and two positioning components. Taking into account the post-processing steps [23] and costs of
AM processes for the main categories of materials (plastics, metals, and ceramics), the new fixture is
proposed
Materials to12,
2019, bexmanufactured particularly in the case of a polymer-based AM process.
FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 24

(a) (b)
Figure 8. (a) The components of the artifact inspection fixture; (b) positioning of the artifact on the
fixture.

The components of the artifact inspection fixture were built on the Objet EDEN 350 PolyJet
machine in the same printing job from FullCure 720 material. All these components were built with a
glossy finish. The test artifact was positioned on the fixture, based on its cylindrical surfaces and the
locating component that slides in the slot of the plate, as seen in Figure 8b.
(a) (b)
Jouini et al. (2009) [38] carried out a multi-scale analysis of high-precision surfaces using three
different
Figure 8. (a) techniques:
(a)TheThecomponents stylusofofthe
components profiler,
theartifact
artifact scanning
inspection
inspection white-light
fixture; (b)(b)
fixture; interferometry,
positioning
positioning of the and
artifact
of the atomic
on
artifact the
on force
microscopy.
the fixture. It was concluded that the stylus profiler is optimal for the study of macro-roughness
fixture.
surfaces. Each specimen was measured using a Surtronic 25 contact surface roughness tester
The components
The components
(Hoofddorp, of the
of the artifact
The Netherlands) artifactfrom inspection
inspection fixture were
Taylor fixture
Hobson, were
as perbuilt
built
theononDIN theEN
the Objet
Objet EDEN
ISOEDEN 350 PolyJet
350
4288 standard PolyJet[39], as
machine
machine in
in the
the same
same printing
printing job
job from
from FullCure
FullCure 720
720 material.
material. All
All
shown in Figure 9a. This is a portable and flexible roughness checker that, technically, makesthese
these components
components were
were built
built with
with aa the
glossy
glossy finish.
finish. The
roughness The test artifact
test artifact
assessment was positioned
was positioned
feasible for this research.on the
on theThe fixture,
fixture, based
based
surface on its cylindrical
on its cylindrical
roughness checker was surfaces
surfaces and
and the
calibrated the
before
locating
locating component
component
performing that
the that slides in
slides
measurements. in the slot
slot of
the Usually, of the
thean plate,
plate, as
as seen
seen in
evaluation in Figure
Figureequal
length 8b.
8b. to five consecutive cut-off
Jouini et
Jouini
lengths et al.(2009)
al.
provides (2009) [38]
a [38]
good carried
carried
resultout out a multi-scale
a multi-scale
[39]. The analysis
analysis
standard DINofEN ofISOhigh-precision
high-precision surfaces
4288 provides surfaces
using using
three for
information
three different
different
conventional techniques:
techniques: stylus
stylus profiler,
manufacturing profiler,
processes. scanning
scanning
Moreover, white-light
white-light
guidelines interferometry,
interferometry,
on how to useand and atomic
the atomic force
standardforce for AM
microscopy.
microscopy. It
It was
was concluded
concluded that
that the
the stylus
stylus profiler
profiler is
is optimal
optimal
component measurement should be provided. The Gauss-filtered measurements were set up for an for
for the
the study
study of
of macro-roughness
macro-roughness
surfaces.
surfaces.
evaluationEachlength
Each specimen
specimen wasand
of 4 was
mm measured
measured using
a cutoffusingvalueaaofSurtronic
Surtronic
0.8 mm for 25 the
25 contact
contact surface
surface
artifacts printedroughness
roughness
in a glossy tester
tester
finish,
(Hoofddorp,
(Hoofddorp, The Netherlands)
The Netherlands)
and an evaluation length of from from
12.5 mm Taylor
Taylor Hobson,
andHobson, as per
as perof
a cutoff value thethe
2.5DIN DIN
mmEN EN
for ISO ISO 4288 standard
4288 standard
the artifacts in[39],
printed[39], a as
matte
as shown
shown in
finish. in Figure
Figure 9a.9a. This
This is is
a a portable
portable and
and flexible
flexible roughness
roughness checker
checker that,
that, technically,
technically, makes
makes the
the
roughness
roughness Theassessment
assessment feasible
surface feasible
roughness,for this
for thisRa research.
research. The surface
The
(the arithmetic surface mean
roughness
roughness checker was
checker
deviation), was calibrated
wascalibrated
evaluated. before
before Three
performing
performing
measurementsthe
themeasurements.
measurements.
were performed Usually, foran
Usually, evaluation
an
each evaluation length equalequal
length
platen orientation oftothefiveto consecutive cut-off lengths
five consecutive
artifact specimens. cut-offeach
Thus,
provides
lengths
platen a was
gooddivided
provides result
a good [39]. The standard
intoresult
three [39].
areas,The asDIN ENinISO
standard
shown DIN4288
Figure ENprovides
9b. ISO information
4288
The measurements provides of for conventional
information
Ra1, Ra2, and for Ra3
manufacturing
conventional
were taken processes.
manufacturing
in areas 1, 2, andMoreover,
processes. guidelines
Moreover,
3, respectively. on how
guidelines
Therefore, to use the
on how to use
57 measurements standard for AM
the taken
were standard component
for AM
for each artifact,
measurement
component should
measurement be provided.
should be The Gauss-filtered
provided. The measurements
Gauss-filtered
obtaining 285 measurements for the experiment. The same number of measurements was performed were
measurements set up for
were ansetevaluation
up for an
length of
evaluation 4 mm
length and a
of cutoff
4 mm value
and aof 0.8
cutoff mm for
value the
of artifacts
0.8 mm printed
for the in a glossy
artifacts
for the confirmatory experiment. Finally, the average roughness Ra was calculated for each platen finish,
printed and
in a an evaluation
glossy finish,
length
and an of
based 12.5
evaluation
on themmthree and surface
length a cutoff
of 12.5 value
mm of
roughness and 2.5ameasurements.
mm
cutoff forvalue
the artifacts
of 2.5 mm printed
for the in artifacts
a matte finish.
printed in a matte
finish.
The surface roughness, Ra (the arithmetic mean deviation), was evaluated. Three
measurements were performed for each platen orientation of the artifact specimens. Thus, each
platen was divided into three areas, as shown in Figure 9b. The measurements of Ra1, Ra2, and Ra3
were taken in areas 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Therefore, 57 measurements were taken for each artifact,
obtaining 285 measurements for the experiment. The same number of measurements was performed
for the confirmatory experiment. Finally, the average roughness Ra was calculated for each platen
based on the three surface roughness measurements.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. (a) Surface roughness measurement of the up-facing surfaces; (b) details of the measurement
procedure.

(a) (b)
Materials 2019, 12, 995 13 of 24

The surface roughness, Ra (the arithmetic mean deviation), was evaluated. Three measurements
were performed for each platen orientation of the artifact specimens. Thus, each platen was divided
into three areas, as shown in Figure 9b. The measurements of Ra1, Ra2, and Ra3 were taken in
areas 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Therefore, 57 measurements were taken for each artifact, obtaining
285 measurements for the experiment. The same number of measurements was performed for the
confirmatory experiment. Finally, the average roughness Ra was calculated for each platen based on
the three surface roughness measurements.
In order to evaluate the measurement system and to see if it was acceptable, the variability caused
by the roughness measurement device was investigated to understand how large the variability of
the measurement system was in comparison with the part variation. As only one appraiser was used,
three measurements were made for the 19 platens of the artifact. The data were processed with the
support of Minitab 17 software (Coventry, UK) using Gage R&R study and the interpretation of the
data was based on Reference [40].

2.3.5. Statistical Analysis of the Data

The purpose of the statistical analysis is to analyze the effects of different factors and their
interaction on the surface roughness measurements. A general full factorial design with 114 factor
combinations was performed to be able to investigate the influence of the artifact orientation, the platen
orientation, and the finish type on the surface roughness. The contribution of the three factors to the
surface roughness was determined using the generalized linear model (GLM) analysis within the
Minitab 17 software [41]. Based on generalized linear model analysis, the contribution of the factors
and their two-way interactions was calculated by selecting the sequential sum of square (Type I).
The F-values and the p-values were analyzed in order to make a decision concerning the statistical
significance. It is necessary to compare the relative significance by indicating the experimental and
critical F-values when the p-value is close to zero. The critical value is the number that the test statistic
must exceed to reject the test. The percentage contribution ratio (PC%) of each factor and interactions
was calculated by dividing each sequential sum of squares (Seq SS) by the total sequential sum of
squares and multiplying by 100. This parameter shows the significance of the effect of each factor and
their interactions.
The confirmatory experiment was performed in similar conditions as the initial experiment
(temperature, humidity, Objet EDEN 350 PolyJet machine’s parameters). Also, it used the same raw
materials. Based on generalized linear model analysis, the contribution of the factors and their two-way
interactions was calculated for the confirmatory experiment.

3. Results and Discussions

The results of the proposed methodology for the PolyJet process on the Objet EDEN 350 PolyJet
machine were analyzed taking into account the following factors:

• The experimental surface roughness distribution of up-facing platens;

• Comparison of the experimental surface roughness with theoretical models;
• Surface quality issues of PolyJet samples;
• Results of statistical analysis.

All five artifacts were manufactured in 10 h and 42 min, using 452 g of model material and 414 g
of support material. The processing time for the components of the artifact inspection fixture was
46 min, and the consumption was 99 g of model material and 24 g of support material. A comparative
study carried out by overlapping the CAD models of the proposed artifact and the truncheon artifact,
with the same dimensions of the flat surface to be measured, is shown in Figure 10. The new test
artifact allowed the model material consumption to be reduced by 83% compared to the truncheon
which is used for roughness investigation in most AM technologies.
Materials 2019, 12, 995 14 of 24
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 24

Comparisonbetween
Figure 10. Comparison
Figure betweenthethe new
new test
test artifact
artifact and
and the
the truncheon
truncheon artifact
artifact with
with the
the same
same
dimensions of
dimensions of the
the flat
flat surface
surface to
to be
be measured.

3.1. The Experimental Surface Roughness Distribution of Up-Facing Platens

3.1. The Experimental Surface Roughness Distribution of Up-Facing Platens
Surface roughness results determined from experiments were analyzed to predict their
Surface roughness results determined from experiments were analyzed to predict their
distribution. A detailed prediction of the experimental roughness is shown in Table 5.
distribution. A detailed prediction of the experimental roughness is shown in Table 5.
Table 5. A detailed prediction of the experimental surface roughness (Ra).
Table 5. A detailed prediction of the experimental surface roughness (Ra).
FinishType
Type Artifact ◦ ◦)
Finish Artifact Orientation
Orientation ((°)) Platen Orientation
Platen Orientation ((°) Trends of
Trends of Experimental
Experimental Ra Ra (µm)
(µm)
Matte
Matte 0 0–75 an increasing trend from 1.5 to 15
-- -- 75–90
75–90 aa decreasing
decreasing trend
trend toto 99
-- 45
45 0–45
0–45 an increasing
an increasing trend
trend from
from 1.8
1.8 to
to 66
-- -- 45–75
45–75 a constant trend around
a constant trend around 6 6
- - 75–85 an accelerated trend to 10
- - 75–85 an accelerated trend to 10
- - 85–90 a decreasing trend to 7
-- -
90 85–90
0–85 a decreasing
an increasing trendtrend
fromto0.8 7 to 13
-- 90- 0–85
85–90 an aincreasing trend from
low decreasing trend to 120.8 to 13
- - 85–90 a low decreasing trend to
a constant trend with low variation in 12
Glossy 0 0–65
a constantthe trend with
range oflow
2 tovariation
4 in
Glossy 0 0–65
- - 65–80 an accelerated increasing
the range of 2 to trend
4 to 10
-- - 80–90
65–80 an
an accelerated
accelerated decreasing
increasing trend to 1.3 10
-- 90
- 0–80
80–90 a low
an variationdecreasing
accelerated around thetrend
valuetoof1.3 2
-- 90- 80–90
0–80 a lowavariation
low increasing
aroundtrend to 4 of 2
the value
- - 80–90 a low increasing trend to 4
The experimental roughness (Ra) values of the artifacts printed in matte finish were low in
the rangeexperimental
The of 0.5–4 µm roughness
for a domain(Ra)ofvalues
0–25◦ of the artifacts
platen printed
orientation, in matteto
increasing finish were low
maximum in the
values of
range of 0.5–4 μm for a domain of 0–25° platen
◦ orientation, increasing to maximum
◦ values
10–15 µm for the platen orientation of 75–85 and then decreasing for the 90 surface angle, as shown of 10–15
μm for the11a.
in Figure platen
Theorientation
roughnessofof 75–85° and then
the artifacts decreasing
printed for the
in glossy 90° surface
finish presentedangle, as shown
different in
trends
Figure 11a. The roughness of the artifacts printed in glossy finish presented different trends
(Figure 11b). Specifically, the roughness of the 1g specimen showed a constant trend in the domain of (Figure
11b).
0–65◦Specifically, the roughness
platen orientation, of the
increasing 1g 80
until specimen showed
◦ and then a constant
decreasing at 90◦trend
. The in
Rathe domain of
roughness of the
0–65°
3g
platen orientation, increasing until 80° and then decreasing at 90°. The Ra roughness
specimen showed a constant trend in the domain of 0–80 platen orientation and then increased at 90◦ .
◦ of the 3g
specimen showed a constant trend in the domain of 0–80° platen orientation and then increased at
90°.
Materials 2019, 12, 995 15 of 24
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 24

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 11. 11. Trends
Trends of measured
of the the measured roughness
roughness (Ra): (Ra): (a) artifacts
(a) artifacts printed
printed in matte
in matte finish finish type;
type; (b) (b)
artifacts
artifacts
printed printedfinish
in glossy in glossy
type.finish type.

3.2.3.2.
Comparison of of
Comparison thethe
Experimental
ExperimentalSurface
SurfaceRoughness
Roughness with
with Theoretical Models
Theoretical Models
Theoretical predictions
Theoretical of surface
predictions roughness
of surface roughness (Ra) depending
(Ra) depending on the onsurface
the angle
surfacewere developed
angle were
developed by many authors [5,12], considering different AM
by many authors [5,12], considering different AM techniques. Within additive manufacturing, techniques. Within additive
themanufacturing, the theoretical
theoretical studies estimated thestudies estimated
Ra surface the Ra surface
roughness, based roughness, based [25],
on trigonometry on trigonometry
interpolation
[25], interpolation
of measured data [18],ofameasured
database data [18], a database
of roughness valuesof roughness values
experimentally experimentally
determined determined
analyzed by specific
analyzed by specific algorithms, and intelligent methodology based
algorithms, and intelligent methodology based on genetic algorithms for optimization of the build on genetic algorithms for
optimization of the build orientation [5]. The research studies [5,18,25] made
orientation [5]. The research studies [5,18,25] made on layer manufacturing technologies such as SLA, on layer manufacturing
FDM,technologies
and LOM suchshowas SLA,
that, FDM, and
generally, the LOM show
up-facing that, generally,
surface roughnessthe up-facing
decreases fromsurface roughness
a maximum value
decreases from a maximum value obtained
◦ ◦ for a surface angle between
obtained for a surface angle between 0 and 4 to a minimum value reached around 90 . A theoretical 0° and 4° to
◦ a minimum
value reached around 90°. A theoretical model for material jetting, including the PolyJet technology,
model for material jetting, including the PolyJet technology, should take into consideration the droplet
should take into consideration the droplet impact with the built platform. Kumar et al. [12]
impact with the built platform. Kumar et al. [12] determined a theoretical model for PolyJet technology
determined a theoretical model for PolyJet technology in the case of matte finish, described by
in the case of matte finish, described by Equation (1). They determined an optimal contact angle of 12◦
Equation (1). They determined an optimal contact angle of 12° of droplets for the Vero Blue 840
of droplets for the Vero Blue 840 resin.
resin.
t t  sin
sin(θθ+ ψ ψ) 
 
RaR = ·∙ .. (1) (1)
44 sin sin(ψψ) 
A theoretical
A theoretical model
model taking
taking into into
accord accord the post-processing
the post-processing is proposed
is proposed in Equation
in Equation (2). It
(2). It estimates
the surface roughness for the PolyJet technology in matte build style. The parameters of Equationsof(1)
estimates the surface roughness for the PolyJet technology in matte build style. The parameters
Equations (1) and (2) are layer thickness (t), platen orientation (θ), droplet contact angle (ψ), and
and (2) are layer thickness (t), platen orientation (θ), droplet contact angle (ψ), and post-processing
post-processing correction coefficient (K1). The correction coefficient K1 is less than one, indicating
correction coefficient (K1 ). The correction coefficient K1 is less than one, indicating the influence of
the influence of post-processing on the surface roughness.
post-processing on the surface roughness.
t (2)
R ∙ |cot ψ sin θ cos θ| ∙ K , K 1.
4t
Ra = ·|cot ψ sin θ + cos θ|·K1 , K1 < 1. (2)
The theoretical curves of the 4 surface roughness distribution (Figure 12), determined by
Equation (2), werecurves
The theoretical compared
of thewith the experimental
surface roughness(Figure
roughness distribution curves.12),
Andetermined
optimizationbystudy of the(2),
Equation
correction coefficient K 1 was carried out, for all artifact orientations, in the case of matte finish type.
were compared with the experimental roughness curves. An optimization study of the correction
The values
coefficient of the
K1 was correction
carried coefficient
out, for K1, which
all artifact gave the
orientations, in lowest standard
the case of mattemean
finisherror,
type.are
Theshown inof
values
Table 6.
the correction coefficient K1 , which gave the lowest standard mean error, are shown in Table 6.
Table 6. Theoretical estimation of correction coefficient K1.

Artifact Orientation (°) K1 Standard Deviation (µm) Standard Error Mean (µm)
0 0.6 1.87 0.43
45 0.4 1.69 0.27
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 24

Materials 2019, 12, 995 90 0.6 1.19 0.27 16 of 24

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure12.
Figure 12.Comparison
Comparisonofofexperimental
experimentalroughness
roughness and
and simulated
simulated roughness
roughness based
based on Equation
on Equation (2),
(2), for
for matte
matte artifacts
artifacts aligned
aligned withwith (a) Axis
(a) Axis 1, (b)1,Axis
(b) Axis 2, and
2, and (c) Axis
(c) Axis 3. 3.

Table 6. Theoretical estimation of correction coefficient K1 .

3.3. Surface Quality Issues of PolyJet Samples
Artifact Orientation ◦
( ) theKsurface Standard Deviation (µm) Standard Error
Chen et al. [10] analyzed 1 quality of the cylindrical parts printed onMean (µm) EDEN
the Objet
350 and observed 0 some errors 0.6 (rough surface areas)1.87 on a layer perpendicular 0.43 to the scanning
direction. These45were caused by0.4 the lower resolution 1.69 of 600 dots per inch (DPI) 0.27(0.042 mm) in the
90 0.6 1.19 0.27
X-direction and Y-direction compared to 1600 DPI (0.016 mm) in the Z-direction.
Some steps marks (Figure 13) were visually observed on the artifacts printed in the glossy
3.3.
mode,Surface
for Quality
the platenIssues of PolyJet Samples
orientation starting from 75° to 85°. The density of marks on the platens
decreased
Chen etwith the analyzed
al. [10] increase intheangle;
surfacehowever, it increased
quality of theirparts
the cylindrical height. The highest
printed marksEDEN
on the Objet were
observed for 85°. The vertical walls printed in the glossy style had excellent surface quality
350 and observed some errors (rough surface areas) on a layer perpendicular to the scanning direction. without
any visual
These were flaw.
caused A by
glossy–matte boundary of
the lower resolution flaw
600(Figure
dots per13)inch
was(DPI)
detected
(0.042onmm)
the cylindrical feature
in the X-direction
printed
and in the glossy
Y-direction comparedmode.to The
1600glossy–matte
DPI (0.016 mm) boundary delimited the upper surface printed in the
in the Z-direction.
glossySome steps marks (Figure 13) were visually observed onmaterial.
mode and the lower surface affected by the support the artifacts printed in the glossy mode,
for the platen orientation starting from 75◦ to 85◦ . The density of marks on the platens decreased with
the increase in angle; however, it increased their height. The highest marks were observed for 85◦ .
The vertical walls printed in the glossy style had excellent surface quality without any visual flaw.
A glossy–matte boundary flaw (Figure 13) was detected on the cylindrical feature printed in the glossy
mode. The glossy–matte boundary delimited the upper surface printed in the glossy mode and the
lower surface affected by the support material.
Materials 2019, 12, 995 17 of 24
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24

Figure 13. Flaws for samples printed in glossy style involve steps marks and a boundary
boundary transition
between matte and glossy areas.

3.4. Results of
3.4. Results of Statistical
Statistical Analysis
Analysis
Base on
Base onReference
Reference[40],
[40],thethe results
results of the
of the GageGage
R&RR&Rstudystudy
showed showed that
that the the measurement
measurement system
system is acceptable if the percentage of variance components is less
is acceptable if the percentage of variance components is less than 1%. This conditionthan 1%. This
wascondition
satisfied
was satisfied
for each formeasured,
artifact each artifact
with measured, with proven,
repeatability repeatability proven,
whereby whereby the
the roughness roughness
device device
variation was
variation was much smaller than the variation of the surface roughness of the
much smaller than the variation of the surface roughness of the parts manufactured by the AMparts manufactured
by the AM
process, as process,
shown inas Table
shown7.inInTablethis 7. In this
study, onlystudy,
one only one appraiser
appraiser recorded recorded
the data,the data,
making
making reproducibility
reproducibility unnecessary.
unnecessary.

Table 7. The percentage contribution of variance components/artifacts.

Table 7. The percentage contribution of variance components/artifacts.
Source Artifact 1m Artifact 2m Artifact 3m Artifact 1g Artifact 2g
Source Artifact 1m Artifact 2m Artifact 3m Artifact 1g Artifact 2g
Repeatability 0.33% 0.69% 0.53% 0.56% 0.47%
Repeatability 99.67%0.33%
Part-to-part 0.69%
99.31% 0.53%
99.47% 0.56%
99.44% 0.47%99.53%
Part-to-part
Total variation 100.00%99.67% 99.31%
100.00% 99.47%
100.00% 99.44%
100.00% 99.53%100.00%
Total variation 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
3.4.1. Determination of Significant Factors: ANOVA table
3.4.1. Determination of Significant Factors: ANOVA table
The results are listed in Table 8. From the ANOVA table, it can be seen that the platen orientation
Thefinish
and the resultstypeare
hadlisted in Table
a higher 8. From
significant the ANOVA
influence on the Ra,table,
as longit as
canthebep-value
seen that the platen
was lower than
orientation and the finish type had a higher significant influence on the Ra,
the significance level 0.05 (even lower than 0.001). Also, the factors platen orientation, finish as long as the p-value
type,
was their
and lower than theshowed
interaction significance levelgreater
Fexp values 0.05 (even
than thelower than
critical 0.001).
F-value Also,at the
of 0.1% factorsIt platen
α = 0.001. can be
orientation, finish type, and their interaction showed F exp values greater than the critical F-value of
concluded that the results were significant at the 0.1% significance level.
0.1% at α = 0.001. It can be concluded that the results were significant at the 0.1% significance level.
The mostTablesignificant percentage
8. The percentage contribution
contribution ratioson
ratio based were obtained
generalized for platen
linear orientation, finish
model (GLM).
type, and their interaction. The most significant factor on the roughness parameter (Ra) was the
Source which explained
platen orientation, DF Seq SS of theSeq
46.65% MSvariation.
total F exp The next
F 0.1%largestpcontribution
PC (%) on Ra
Artifact orientation 2 9.66 4.828 2.79 10,15 0.086
came from the finish type, with a contribution of 29.50%. This interaction had a significant effect on 0.81%
Platen orientation 18 554.13 30.785
Ra, whereby the F-value equal to 202.65 was larger than F0.1% 17.81 4.52
(equal to 15.08). <0.001
The artifact 46.65%
orientation
Finish type 1 350.36 350.365 202.65 15.08 <0.001 29.50%
hadArtifact
no important effect
orientation × on Ra, with a PC% around 0.81% and F exp equal to 18.55. The interaction of

platen orientation 36 type had

with finish 68.47a significant
1.902 effect on1.10the roughness
4.04 0.424
parameter,5.77%
whereby
platen orientation
PC% Platen
wasorientation
14.50% and × Fexp was equal to 5.53. The interaction of artifact orientation with platen
18 172.18 9.565 5.53 4.52 <0.001 14.49%
finish
orientation hadtype
no significant effect on the roughness parameter (p > 0.05).
Error 19 32.85 1.729 - - - 2.76%
Total 94 1187.64 - - - - 100%
Table 8. The percentage contribution ratio based on generalized linear model (GLM).

The most Sourcesignificant percentage DF Seq SS

contribution Seq MS
ratios Fexp
were obtained F0.1%
for platen p PC (%)
orientation,
Artifact orientation 2 9.66 4.828 2.79 10,15 0.086 0.81%
finish type, and their interaction. The most significant factor on the roughness parameter (Ra) was the
Platen orientation 18 554.13 30.785 17.81 4.52 <0.001 46.65%
platen orientation, which explained 46.65% of the total variation. The next largest contribution on Ra
Finish type 1 350.36 350.365 202.65 15.08 <0.001 29.50%
came from theorientation
Artifact finish type,× platen
with a contribution of 29.50%. This interaction had a significant effect on Ra,
whereby the F-value equal to 202.65 was 36
orientation larger 68.47
than F0.1% 1.902 1.10 The
(equal to 15.08). 4.04
artifact0.424 5.77%
orientation had
no important effect on Ra, with
Platen orientation × finish typea PC% around
18 0.81%
172.18 and F9.565
exp equal to
5.5318.55. The
4.52 interaction
<0.001 of platen
14.49%
orientation with Error
finish type had a significant
19 effect
32.85 on the roughness parameter, whereby PC%
1.729 was
2.76%
Total 94 1187.64 100%
Materials 2019, 12, 995 18 of 24

14.50% and Fexp was equal to 5.53. The interaction of artifact orientation with platen orientation had
no significant
Materials 2019, 12,effect
x FOR on theREVIEW
PEER roughness parameter (p > 0.05). 18 of 24

3.4.2. Validating ANOVA

ANOVA Assumptions
Assumptions
The GLM conducted in this section was checked for model adequacy using normal probability
plots of residuals,
residuals, versus fits, and histograms
histograms [42]. As As can be seen in the normal probability plot
(Figure 14), the normality of residual plots was proven as the the residuals
residuals were
were normally
normally distributed
distributed
with two outliers, and the plot resembled
resembled a straight
straight line. No common patterns were detected in the
graph with
with residual
residual versus
versusfitted
fittedvalues.
values.Eventually,
Eventually,thethe independence
independence assumption
assumption waswas satisfied
satisfied by
by checking
checking thethe patterns
patterns in in
thethe graph
graph ofofresiduals
residualsversus
versusorders,
orders,whereby
wherebynono positive
positive correlation
correlation or
negative correlation was detected.
detected.

Figure 14.
Figure Residual plot
14. Residual plot for
for surface
surface roughness
roughness (Ra).
(Ra).

3.4.3. Evaluation of the Influence of Control Factors on Surface Roughness through Graphical
3.4.3. Evaluation of the Influence of Control Factors on Surface Roughness through Graphical
Analysis: Interpreting ANOVA Results
Analysis: Interpreting ANOVA Results
Graphical methods were used to evaluate the influence of control factors on surface roughness.
Graphical methods were used to evaluate the influence of control factors on surface roughness.
The statistical results were plotted, resulting in the following graphs: the main effects plot, interaction
The statistical results were plotted, resulting in the following graphs: the main effects plot,
effects plot, and interval plot of Ra versus factor (interval plot of Ra versus artifact orientation,
interaction effects plot, and interval plot of Ra versus factor (interval plot of Ra versus artifact
interval plot of Ra versus platen orientation, and interval plot of Ra versus finish type).
orientation, interval plot of Ra versus platen orientation, and interval plot of Ra versus finish type).
From Figure 15, it can be seen that the main effects for surface roughness were the artifact
From Figure 15, it can be seen that the main effects for surface roughness were the artifact
orientation at level 1 (0◦ ), the platen orientation at level 17 (80◦ ), and the finish type at level 1 (matte).
orientation at level 1 (0°), the platen orientation at level 17 (80°), and the finish type at level 1 (matte).
It is obvious that the factors platen orientation, finish type, and their interaction had a significant
It is obvious that the factors platen orientation, finish type, and their interaction had a significant
influence on the surface roughness, as shown in Figures 15 and 16.
influence on the surface roughness, as shown in Figures 15 and 16.
The graphs from Figure 17 show the interval plots with standard error bars of each factor versus
the roughness (Ra). While the means appear to be different, the difference for Ra in the artifact
orientation was probably not significant because all the interval bars easily overlapped (Figure 17a).
The platen orientation (Figure 17b) had an influence on the surface roughness and it seems that,
at the platen orientation 0◦ , the mean of Ra was lower, while, for the platen orientation 80◦ , the
mean was higher. There is a possibility to reduce the overlapping if the number of measurements
increases, resulting in the difference of the means of the platen orientation at 40◦ to 80◦ to be statistically
Materials 2019, 12, 995 19 of 24

significant. The graph from Figure 17c shows that the difference between the means for Ra in the finish
Materials 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 24
type was
Materials significant
2019, because
12, x FOR PEER the interval
REVIEW bars did not overlap. 19 of 24

Figure 15.
Figure 15. Main effects
Maineffects
15. Main plot
effects plot for
plot for surface
for surface roughness
surface roughness Ra.
roughness Ra.
Ra.
Figure

Figure 16.
Figure Interaction effects
16. Interaction effects plot
plot for
for surface
surface roughness
roughness Ra.
Ra.
Figure 16. Interaction effects plot for surface roughness Ra.

The graphs from Figure 17 show the interval plots with standard error bars of each factor
The graphs from Figure 17 show the interval plots with standard error bars of each factor
versus the roughness (Ra). While the means appear to be different, the difference for Ra in the
versus the roughness (Ra). While the means appear to be different, the difference for Ra in the
artifact orientation was probably not significant because all the interval bars easily overlapped
artifact orientation was probably not significant because all the interval bars easily overlapped
(Figure 17a). The platen orientation (Figure 17b) had an influence on the surface roughness and it
(Figure 17a). The platen orientation (Figure 17b) had an influence on the surface roughness and it
seems that, at the platen orientation 0°, the mean of Ra was lower, while, for the platen orientation
seems that, at the platen orientation 0°, the mean of Ra was lower, while, for the platen orientation
80°, the mean was higher. There is a possibility to reduce the overlapping if the number of
80°, the mean was higher. There is a possibility to reduce the overlapping if the number of
measurements increases, resulting in the difference of the means of the platen orientation at 40° to
measurements increases, resulting in the difference of the means of the platen orientation at 40° to
80° to be statistically significant. The graph from Figure 17c shows that the difference between the
80° to be statistically significant. The graph from Figure 17c shows that the difference between the
means for Ra in the finish type was significant because the interval bars did not overlap.
means for Ra in the finish type was significant because the interval bars did not overlap.
Materials 2019,12,
Materials 2019, 12,995
x FOR PEER REVIEW 20
20 of
of 24
24

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure17.
Figure 17.Individual
Individual standard
standard deviations
deviations werewere used
used to to calculate
calculate the intervals
the intervals plot roughness
plot of surface of surface
roughness (Ra) versus (a) artifact orientation, (b) platen orientation, and (c) finish type. Bars are
(Ra) versus (a) artifact orientation, (b) platen orientation, and (c) finish type. Bars are standard errors of
standard
the mean. errors of the mean.

3.4.4.
3.4.4. Results
Results of
of Confirmatory
Confirmatory Experiment
Experiment
The
The differences
differencesofofmeans
meanswere
were proven
proven again with
again high
with significance
high for the
significance for platen orientation
the platen and
orientation
finish type.
and finish type.
SinceFexp
Since Fexpwas
wasgreater F0.1%Ffor
thanthan
greater the factors platen orientation, finish type, and their interaction,
0.1% for the factors platen orientation, finish type, and their
all
interaction, all these results were highlythe
these results were highly significant at 0.1% significance
significant level.
at the 0.1% the p-value
Moreover, level.
significance for Rathe
Moreover, in
Materials 2019, 12, 995 21 of 24

the analysis of variance of the artifact orientation (p = 0.113) led to the same conclusion as from the
first run of the experiments (i.e., probably not significant) (Table 9).

Table 9. The percentage contribution ratio based on GLM.

Source DF Seq SS Seq MS F exp F 0.1% p PC (%)

Artifact orientation 2 8.04 4.019 2.45 10,15 0.113 0.67%
Platen orientation 18 561.54 31.197 19.01 4.52 <0.001 46.94%
Finish type 1 352.90 352.903 215.00 15.08 <0.001 29.50%
Artifact orientation ×
36 70.17 1.949 1.19 4.04 0.352 5.86%
platen orientation
Platen orientation ×
18 172.26 9.570 5.83 4.52 <0.001 14.40%
finish type
Error 19 31.19 1.641 - - - 2.60%
Total 94 1196.10 - - - - 100.0%

4. Conclusions
This paper investigated the performance of a material jetting AM process and characterized AM
materials in terms of surface quality based on the proposed methodology. The following conclusions
can be drawn:

• There is a need for surface quality for additive manufactured parts in the industry.
• The implementation of AM for pre-production series and short series production depends on the
repeatable surface roughness properties of parts.
• Practical researches as a response to possible industrial beneficiaries need to be performed.
• A family of artifacts was defined to fit different AM system sizes and to meet the needs of a
particular customer. Using parametric design techniques, eight different design configurations of
the artifact were proposed.
• One of the main advantages of the new artifact over other massive artifacts is its lower volume,
resulting in less consumption of materials. Thus, by depositing a smaller amount of material,
the AM machine consumes less energy, resulting in lower production costs.
• The shape of the artifact is as simple as possible to ease the process of the build when it comes to
time and materials. Also, the simplicity of the artifact shape with flat platens helps in reducing
human error when taking measurements.
• The basic artifact orientations allow characterizing the quality surface performance of an AM
system in three different basic directions. This can help users and buyers of AM systems to
determine how the surface quality depends on the manufacturing direction.
• The flat shape of the platens allows for repeatable measurements and good accessibility for
surface investigation.
• The proposed methodology may assess the surface quality of the additive manufacturing process
and test the precision of the AM machines.
• The experimental roughness (Ra) values for the PolyJet material jetting process with matte finish
were in the range of 0.5–15 µm, with the maximum value for the platen orientation 75–85◦ and a
decreasing trend to 7 µm for 90◦ . The artifact printed in the glossy finish, oriented perpendicular
to the scanning direction, gave the best results in terms of roughness in the range of 0.5–4 µm.
• The drawbacks of the glossy finish include some surface quality issues, such as steps marks
at a platen orientation between 75◦ and 85◦ , and a boundary transition between the matte and
glossy areas.
• From the investigation, the most influential factors on surface roughness for the PolyJet process
were platen orientation, finish type, and their interaction.
Materials 2019, 12, 995 22 of 24

By carefully choosing the design configuration of the surface inspection artifact and selecting the
control factors that affect the surface quality, an efficient design of experiment can be created from the
proposed methodology that is applicable to other AM processes using different types of materials.
Thus, the methodology can be used to evaluate and compare the performance of the same AM machine
in time or between different AM systems.

Author Contributions: R.U. conceived the methodology, conceived and performed the experiments, and wrote
the paper; I.C.B. and R.U. designed the experiments and analyzed the data; R.U. and A.N. discussed the results.
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding: This research was partially funded by Transilvania University of Brasov.
Acknowledgments: We hereby acknowledge the research platform PLADETINO (Platform for Innovative
Technological Development), Grant No.13/2008, CNCSIS 78, for partly providing the infrastructure used in
this work.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Gibson, I.; Rosen, D.W.; Stucker, B. Additive Manufacturing Technologies; Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, USA,
2015.
2. Chu, W.S.; Kim, M.S.; Jang, K.H.; Song, J.H.; Rodrigue, H.; Chun, D.M.; Cho, Y.T.; Ko, S.H.; Cho, K.J.;
Cha, S.W.; et al. From design for manufacturing (DFM) to manufacturing for design (MFD) via hybrid
manufacturing and smart factory: A review and perspective of paradigm shift. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.
Green Tech. 2016, 3, 209–222. [CrossRef]
3. Kang, H.S.; Lee, J.Y.; Choi, S.; Kim, H.; Park, J.H.; Son, J.Y.; Kim, B.H.; Noh, S.D. Smart manufacturing: Past
research, present findings, and future directions. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf. Green Tech. 2016, 3, 111–128.
[CrossRef]
4. International Organization for Standardization. Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing—General
Principles—Terminology; ISO/ASTM 52900-15; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2015.
5. Campbell, R.I.; Martorelli, M.; Lee, H.S. Surface roughness visualization for rapid prototyping models.
Comput. Aided Des. Appl. 2002, 34, 717–725. [CrossRef]
6. Perez, M.; Medina-Sánchez, G.; García-Collado, A.; Gupta, M.; Carou, D. Surface quality enhancement of
fused deposition modeling (FDM) printed samples based on the selection of critical printing parameters.
Materials 2018, 11, 1382. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Byun, H.S.; Kwan, H.L. Determination of the optimal build direction for different rapid prototyping processes
using multi-criterion decision making. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2006, 22, 69–80. [CrossRef]
8. Strano, G.; Hao, L.; Everson, R.M.; Evans, K.E. Surface roughness analysis, modelling and prediction in
selective laser melting. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2013, 213, 589–597. [CrossRef]
9. DebRoy, T.; Wei, H.L.; Zuback, J.S.; Mukherjee, T.; Elmer, J.W.; Milewski, J.O.; Beese, A.M.; Wilson-Heid, A.;
Ded, A.; Zhang, W. Additive manufacturing of metallic components—Process, structure and properties.
Prog. Mater. Sci. 2018, 92, 112–224. [CrossRef]
10. Chen, Y.; Lu, J. RP Part Surface quality versus build orientation: When the layers are getting thinner. Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2013, 67, 377–385. [CrossRef]
11. Cazon, A.; Morer, P.; Matey, L. PolyJet technology for product prototyping: Tensile strength and surface
roughness properties. Proc. IMechE Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2014, 228, 1664–1675. [CrossRef]
12. Kumar, K.; Kumar, G.S. An experimental and theoretical investigation of surface roughness of poly-jet
printed parts. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2015, 10, 23–34. [CrossRef]
13. Bandari, Y.K.; Williams, S.W.; Ding, J.; Martina, F. Additive manufacture of large structures: Robotic or CNC
systems? In Proceedings of the 26th International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, USA,
12–14 August 2015; pp. 17–25.
14. Moylan, S. Progress toward standardized additive manufacturing test artifacts. In Proceedings of the ASPE
2015 Spring Topical Meeting Achieving Precision Tolerances in Additive Manufacturing, Raleigh, NC, USA,
26–29 April 2015; pp. 100–105.
Materials 2019, 12, 995 23 of 24

15. Leach, R. Metrology for additive manufacturing. Meas. Control 2016, 49, 132–135. [CrossRef]
16. Umaras, E.; Tsuzuki, M.S.G. Additive manufacturing-considerations on geometric accuracy and factors of
influence. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2017, 50, 14940–14945. [CrossRef]
17. Kim, G.D.; Oh, Y.T. A benchmark study on rapid prototyping processes and machines: Quantitative
comparisons of mechanical properties, accuracy, roughness, speed, and material cost. Proc. Imeche Part B J.
Eng. Manuf. 2008, 222, 201–215. [CrossRef]
18. Ahn, D.; Kim, H.; Lee, S. Surface roughness prediction using measured data and interpolation in layered
manufacturing. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2009, 209, 664–671. [CrossRef]
19. Kechagias, J.; Stavropoulos, P. An investigation of sloped surface roughness of direct poly-jet 3D printing.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering—INDE 2015, Zakynthos Island,
Greece, 16–20 July 2015; pp. 150–153.
20. Canellidis, V.; Giannatsis, J.; Dedoussis, V. Genetic-algorithm based multi-objective optimization of the build
orientation in stereolithography. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2009, 45, 714–730. [CrossRef]
21. Moore, J.P.; Williams, C.B. Fatigue properties of parts printed by polyjet material jetting. Rapid Prototyp. J.
2015, 21, 675–685. [CrossRef]
22. Ituarte, I.F.; Coatanea, E.; Salmi, M.; Tuomi, J.; Partanen, J. Additive manufacturing in production: A study
case applying technical requirements. Phys. Procedia 2015, 78, 357–366. [CrossRef]
23. Kumbhar, N.N.; Mulay, A.V. Post processing methods used to improve surface finish of products which are
manufactured by additive manufacturing technologies: A Review. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. C 2018, 99, 481–487.
[CrossRef]
24. Kretzschmar, N.; Chekurov, S.; Salmi, M.; Tuomi, J. Evaluating the readiness level of additivelymanufactured
digital spare parts: an industrial perspective. Appl. Sci. 2018, 8, 1837. [CrossRef]
25. Reeves, P.E.; Cobb, R.C. Reducing the surface deviation of stereolithography using in-process techniques.
Rapid Prototyp. J. 1997, 3, 20–31. [CrossRef]
26. Townsend, A.; Senin, N.; Blunt, L.; Leach, R.K.; Taylor, J.S. Surface texture metrology for metal additive
manufacturing: A review. Precis. Eng. 2016, 46, 34–47. [CrossRef]
27. Grimm, T.; Wior, G.; Witt, G. Characterization of typical surface effects in additive manufacturing with
confocal microscopy. Surf. Topogr. Metrol. Prop. 2015, 3, 1–12. [CrossRef]
28. Bourell, D.; Kruth, J.P.; Leu, M.; Levy, G.; Rosen, D.; Beese, A.M.; Clare, A. Materials for additive
manufacturing. CIRP Ann. 2017, 66, 659–681. [CrossRef]
29. Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN
9781119113478.
30. Salmi, M.; Ituarte, I.F.; Chekurov, S.; Huotilainen, E. Effect of build orientation in 3D printing production
for material extrusion, material jetting, binder jetting, sheet object lamination, vat photopolymerisation,
and powder bed fusion. Int. J. Collab. Enterp. 2016, 5, 218–231. [CrossRef]
31. International Organization for Standardization. Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing—Coordinate
Systems and Test Methodologies; ISO/ASTM 52921-13; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
32. Robinson, J.; Ashton, I.; Fox, P.; Jones, E.; Sutcliffe, C. Determination of the effect of scan strategy on residual
stress in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 23, 13–24. [CrossRef]
33. Saboori, A.; Gallo, D.; Biamino, S.; Fino, P.; Lombardi, M. An overview of additive manufacturing of titanium
components by directed energy deposition: microstructure and mechanical properties. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 883.
[CrossRef]
34. NIST/SEMATECH. e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. Available online: https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/
handbook/index.htm (accessed on 18 November 2018).
35. Derby, B. The inkjet printing of functional and structural materials: Fluid property requirements, feature
stability, and resolution. Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 2010, 40, 395–414. [CrossRef]
36. Objet Geometries. Eden 500V/350V/350 3-D Printer System. User Guide; Objet Geometries Ltd.: Rehovot,
Israel, 2007.
37. Udroiu, R.; Nedelcu, A. Optimization of additive manufacturing processes focused on 3D Printing. In Rapid
Prototyping Technology—Principles and Functional Requirements; Hoque, M.E., Ed.; InTechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia,
2011; pp. 1–28.
Materials 2019, 12, 995 24 of 24

38. Jouini, N.; Gautier, A.; Revel, P.; Mazeran, P.E.; Bigerelle, M. Multi-scale analysis of high precision surfaces
by stylus profiler, scanning white-light interferometry and atomic force microscopy. Int. J. Surf. Sci. Eng.
2009, 3, 310–327. [CrossRef]
39. International Organization for Standardization. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)—Surface Texture:
Profile Method—Rules and Procedures for the Assessment of Surface Texture; ISO 4288:1996; ISO/ASME
International: Geneva, Switzerland, 1996.
40. Automotive Industry Action Group. Measurement Systems Analysis—Reference Manual, 4th ed.; MSA-4;
Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG): Southfield, MI, USA, 2010.
41. Minitab. Getting Started with Minitab 17. Available online: https://www.minitab.com (accessed on
10 September 2018).
42. Mueller, J.; Shea, K.; Daraio, C. Mechanical properties of parts fabricated with inkjet 3d printing through
efficient experimental design. Mater. Des. 2015, 86, 902–912. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).