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

net/publication/274309852

Effect of Adaptive Slicing on Surface Integrity in Additive Manufacturing

Conference Paper · August 2014

DOI: 10.1115/DETC2014-35559

CITATIONS READS
16 2,427

3 authors:

Snahungshu Sikder H. A. Kishawy

Sheridan College (Oakville) Ontario Tech University
11 PUBLICATIONS   110 CITATIONS    189 PUBLICATIONS   3,546 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ahmad Barari
Ontario Tech University
160 PUBLICATIONS   662 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Integrated Inspection System View project

High speed hard machining View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Snahungshu Sikder on 01 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences &
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
IDETC/CIE 2014
August 17-20, 2014, Buffalo, New York, USA

DETC2014-35559

EFFECT OF ADAPTIVE SLICING ON SURFACE INTEGRITY IN ADDITIVE

MANUFACTURING

S Sikder Ahmad Barari H A Kishawy

University of Ontario Institute of University of Ontario Institute of University of Ontario Institute of
Technology Technology Technology
Oshawa, Ontario, Canada Oshawa, Ontario, Canada Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
snahungshu.sikder@uoit.ca ahmad.barari@uoit.ca hossam.kishawy@uoit.ca

ABSTRACT In AM, a part is manufactured using 2D layer by layer

In today’s Additive Manufacturing (AM), a part is typically
manufactured using layer by layer addition of material from a
Computer Aided Design (CAD) model. Traditionally the CAD
model is transferred to RP system after exchanging to Stereo
Lithography (STL) format which is triangulated tessellation of
the CAD model. Then it is sliced using different slice
algorithms and machine constraints. The inherent uncertainties
in this process have led to development of adaptive direct
slicing technique. There are several adaptive slicing techniques
but only few researches have been done to calculate an actual
surface error factor and the cost aspect of the slicing algorithm.
This paper proposes new adaptive algorithm to compute a
surface error factor and to find the cost effective approach for
slicing. The adaptive slicing algorithm dynamically calculates
slice thickness and it is based on the allowable threshold for
surface integrity error to optimize the cost and time. The paper
also provides comparative study of previously developed
adaptive models by the authors based on cusp height and
surface integrity.
INTRODUCTION
Additive Manufacturing (AM) is a part of layer based non-
conventional manufacturing technique where a part is
manufactured using layer by layer addition of material from a
Computer Aided Design (CAD) model. AM is now considered
to be a new wave of industrial revolution which is commonly
used in various manufacturing and production industries such
as automotive, medical, and aeronautical; to reduce the
production time when the geometric complexity of the part is
relatively high. AM also provides significant opportunity to
small business owners from various industries ranging from art,
food, health, and fashion to manufacturing.
addition of material from a Computer Aided Design (CAD).
Traditionally the CAD model is transferred to Rapid
Prototyping (RP) system after converting to Stereo Lithography
(STL) format which is a triangulated tessellation of the CAD
model. Then it is sliced using different slicing algorithms based
on the RP machine specification. Alternately, similar to the
procedure utilized in this paper. The original CAD model was
directly sliced rather than converting it to the STL format to
reduce uncertainties.
Figure 1. Cusp height and staircase effect
After finishing the slicing process the information of each
slice is sent to the RP machine’s material delivery or curing
system capable that is capable of tracing out the layer. Each
layer has an associated thickness which is constant for the
entire layer. Once the current layer is produced, the controlling
computer then sends the information of the next layer to build it
on top of the existing layers. In this way, the entire object is
built layer-by-layer.
Slicing of a CAD model is a highly critical stage in AM
process chain. Large layer thickness generally incorporates
rough surface quality due to the stair-case effect as shown in
Figure 1. Alternatively, utilizing very small thickness of layers

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 makes the process time consuming and expensive. These two
contradictions have led to the development of adaptive slicing
technique, in which slice thickness varies according to the
surface topology and machine constraints. The methodology
presented and compared in this paper is based on adaptive
slicing. The algorithm dynamically calculates slice thickness
considering the local geometric properties of the part’s surface.
The objective in the current approach is to optimize the
prototyping cost and time provides comparative study of
previously developed adaptive models by the authors.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Typically, research on the slicing processes for AM can be
divided into two main categories of direct slicing and slicing of
the tessellated CAD model. Both of these slicing categories can
also be subdivided into two major sub-categories of uniform
slicing and adaptive slicing. In uniform slicing the layer
thickness of the rapid prototyping process is fixed through the
entire process, whereas in adaptive slicing, layer thickness
varies with the texture properties. As the proposed model is on
adaptive slicing, the main focus will be on direct adaptive
slicing.
Slicing of STL CAD file
Dolenc and Mäkelä [1] introduced an adaptive slicing
method for handling the staircase effect of STL CAD files.
They computed layer thickness at a certain point, based on the
actual cusp height that should fall between users defined
allowable cusp height limit.
Using the same concept of Dolenc and Mäkelä, Sabourin
et al. [2] proposed step by step slicing of a tessellated file. They
first sliced the file with the maximum thickness limit. In the
next step, they checked whether or not the cusp height of all
slices satisfied the allowable limit of maximum cusp height.
Those slices that did not satisfy the limit were divided into finer
layers. Justin and Jan Helge [3] proposed a local adaptive
slicing technique for parts. Unlike other approaches, they
identified the parts and features of the CAD model and sliced
them independently.
Barari and Ahmadian [4] introduced a global adaptive
slicing methodology to optimize the layer thicknesses of the
entire model. However, in that work they considered slicing of
the tessellated model instead of direct slicing of a CAD solid
model.
Sabourin et al.[5] proposed an algorithm to build an
exterior surface using adaptive layer thickness and an interior
surface with thick material layers for a STL CAD model. The
authors claimed their method reduced 50-80% of build time.
Denis et al.[6] studied the concept of non-uniform cusp height
depending on user requirements. Their algorithm allows the
designer to manually specify maximum cusp height for
different faces as per their requirements. Pandey et al.,[7]
developed a slicing algorithm considering parabolic edge
profile for a fused deposition model part. In their model,
surface roughness (Ra) value was used instead of cusp height.
Direct slicing of CAD model
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
Though tessellation of CAD data has advantages in
reducing computational time and cost, it has also several
disadvantages. Due to first order approximation of the CAD
file, the STL file loses some original CAD topological and
geometrical data. Moreover, tessellated CAD data carries
uncertainties and defects such as gaps, overlaps, and
degenerated faces due to less topological information. STL files
sometimes are larger than original CAD files due to a high
degree of redundancy. Subsequent slicing of a STL file
generally has higher slicing and chordal error [8].
Several researchers have worked on direct slicing of the
CAD model. Among them Jemison and Hacker [9] were first to
propose an algorithm for direct slicing of a CAD solid model
with uniform thickness. Zhao and Laperriere [10] also proposed
direct slicing of solid models using the same concept of limited
area deviation.
Kulkarni and Dutta [11] focused on the staircase effect and
surface quality. They proposed two approaches to calculate the
slice thickness based on a “Maximum Curvature Approach”
and a “Minimum Layer Thickness Approach”. Hope et al.[12,
13] used B-spline surface to define a part and sloping edge
concept. They claimed that they had achieved higher surface
finish with less build time. They sliced the model by tracing
surface contours and cutting vectors. Like Denis et al. [6], Mani
et al[14] introduced the concept of different cusp height for
different surfaces in direct slicing, using the tessellated CAD
model.
An adaptive slicing procedure with selective hatching was
implemented for slicing B-spline surface by Ma and He [15].
They first found the extreme point of the CAD model. They
then sub-divided the model in z direction. These slabs were
then subdivided, based on the containment and a pre-specified
cusp height requirement.
Chen et al. [16] proposed direct slicing for CAD models. In
this method, lines, arcs and Bezier curves were used to describe
the section contours, and layer thickness was taken as constant.
Similarly, Sun and Lee, [17] developed a user interactive direct
adaptive slicing model where the user input tolerances, desired
error limit, and maximum/minimum height. Accordingly, the
algorithm calculates the slicing thickness. There was also an
attempt to implement the direct slicing with the Standard for
the Exchange of Product model data (STEP) file by Starly et
al.[18]
Debapriya and Asimava [19] developed a case specific
surface–plane intersection algorithm for freeform surface. In
their algorithm, they performed a unidirectional scan of the
parts and established connectivity of successive points by a
matching technique. Slicing was done by equidistant parallel
horizontal planes by uniform zero order slicing.
Rianmora and Koomsap [20] developed a direct slicing
that applies the image processing technique to determine the
appropriate thickness for sliced layer and recommend slicing
position on a three-dimensional CAD model.
Sikder et al [21] developed a new adaptive slicing
approach to Control Cusp Height of the CAD model. The
developed methodology uses the allowable minimum and
2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 maximum thickness limits of an RP machine, and the maximum
acceptable cusp height of the final part to calculate the number
and thickness of the layers to directly slice the solid model.
Sikder et al.[22] studied the controllability of surface
roughness based on different adaptive slicing algorithms. In
their study, they compared the surface derivative approach and
the allowable cusp height approach to find the effectiveness.
Both procedures directly slice the CAD model expressed in
Standard Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES)
format and use the allowable minimum and maximum
thickness limits of the utilized rapid prototyping machine. The
first procedure uses allowable slope of the surface in the Z-axis
and the other is based on the user defined maximum acceptable
cusp height to calculate the number and thickness of the layers.
Sikder et al.[23] developed a direct slicing that applies
adaptive method and surface error function to optimize the
number layers and the surface error due to staircase effect.
Sikder et al.[24] proposed adaptive slicing algorithm of
CAD models based on a surface error factor. In their study they
also considered the effect of manufacturing cost of the parts.
Their algorithm provides optimized the manufacturing cost and
surface error factor for AM.
Only a few researches have been conducted to calculate the
actual surface error factor and the cost aspect of the prototyping
process. This paper proposes new adaptive algorithm to
compute a surface error factor and to find the cost effective
approach for slicing to reflect the total manufacturing cost in
the process.
EXCHANGING CAD DATA
The work in this paper aims at slicing the original CAD
models directly and efficiently instead of slicing of the STL
model. Thus the error and uncertainty produced by tessellation
and other typical disadvantages of the STL file can be avoided.
IGES [25] standard format is used as a unified solution that can
be used to transfer CAD models from any commercial CAD
software to the rapid prototyping computational environment.
IGES specification is established information structure for
digital representation and exchange of product definition data.
It supports exchanging this data among CAD and CAM
Systems.
Unlike the STL file, the IGES file does not approximate
the CAD surfaces during exchange from one system to another.
IGES passes the geometric features modelled in a CAD file,
including the primitive features and the freeform NURBS
surfaces and curves.
SLICING ALGORITHM
In this paper adaptive slicing algorithm is used for AM.
Central to the problem of slicing CAD model is the
determination of intersection points between the slicing plane
and the model. A computational platform is developed to
implement the slicing algorithms. The developed algorithm
receives IGES form of the CAD data as input instead of the
STL file. First, a solid or surface mode of multi-feature CAD
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
part is converted to IGES format to be exchanged to the
developed computational platform.
The developed computational program reads through the
multiline 80 Character ASCII IGES file and converts the IGES
file into executable customized database based on the
geometric features such as Line, Curve, B-spline curves, B-
spline surface, NURBS, point etc.
Then the data parameters of IGES file are divided into
three categories of points, curves and surfaces. Maximum Z
point (Zmax) and minimum Z point (Zmin) are computed for
slicing algorithm from this data.
The IGES file is plotted based on the geometric features in
the CAD file. If any feature entered to the computational
system represented by, G. Then G can be expressed as:
G  SN  S p  SR (
1)
Where SN represents the NURBS surfaces, SP is Planer
surfaces, and SR is revaluated and trimmed surface.
For SN the cloud of data is computed based on linear
interpolation. SR is converted to SN. SN, NURBS curves C, and
point clouds are computed base on the Equations (2) and (3):
n
 N i , p ( u ) w i Pi (
C (u )  i0
n 2)

i0
N i , p (u ) wi
n m
  N i , p (u ) N j ,q ( v ) wi , j Pi , j
i0 j 0
(
S N (u , v )  n m 3)
  N i , p ( u ) N j , q ( v ) wi , j
i0 j 0
Where, p and q present the degree of the curve. n and m are
the numbers of control points in the parametric domain. P and
w correspond to control point and their weights respectively. N
is the basis function for the NURBS. Parameters u and v vary
from 0 to 1
For the process of adaptive slicing, first the CAD model is
sliced once with maximum layer thickness and once with the
minimum layer thickness. Average error for each layer is
computed for both cases and saved as maximum allowable
average error Emax-avg and minimum allowable average error
Emin-avg as described in the following Section.
Surface Error Factor Calculation
For the consecutive slicing process, the texture error
function is computed based on considering the λ numbers of
points belonging to two consecutive layer surfaces. For each
pair of points (Pi and Pi-1) in the consecutive slices, the error
factor ep is computed for μ number of different points along the
profile Curve. For computational purposes in this study the
value of μ and λ are taken as 10 and 20.
3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 described by using Equations 4 and 5. This εi value is then
compared with Error threshold value Eallowable which is
computed using Equation 10.
a a (10)
Eallowable = E + (1 - )E max- avg
100 min - avg 100

In Equation 10, parameter a is user defined threshold factor

to control the desired error. As described, if εi is greater than
Eallowable then the procedure is repeated with new ti which is
the next possible slicing height based on the machine
Figure 2. Surface Error Calculation specification. Otherwise, height is saved and the computation
The surface error, ep, for Pi - Pi-1 patch is calculated as of the next slice height begins. This process runs till Zj is
follows, where υi and ηi are the Euclidian distances to the smaller than the maximum CAD height in the Z-direction. For
vertical and horizontal plane (Figure 2). the slicing process average surface error was also computed to
compare it with other slicing algorithm to find the efficiency of
 (4) the algorithm.
ep   min(i2 ,i2 )
i 1
SURFACE ERROR VERIFICATION
Surface error function at ith slice εi
 For the purpose of verification and experimental study of
(5)
i   e j the staircase and surface error effects experiments were
j 1 conducted to demonstrate the actual texture error function. The
Where εi is the surcace error function of the individual j-th CAD model and the physical prototype of the test part used in
point number. The total texture error, Et , for the entire part is these experiments are as shown in Figure 4. The length, width,
computed from the following equation. and height of this model which has four sloping surfaces are 40,
30 and 30 mm respectively. As marked in Figure 4a surface 1
 (6)
Et    i has 39.8° slope and surfaces 2, 3, and 4 have 45°, 51.3°, 59°
respectively. The rapid prototyping parts were built using
i 1
3DSYSTEMS’ RPOJET 1500 with 102μm constant slicing
Where κ is the total number of slice. The average texture
thickness.
error function ξ for the slice is calculated from the equation.
 (7)
 i
 i 1

Adaptive Slicing
In order to compute adaptive slicing heights the evaluation
algorithm starts with Zmin and layer thickness range of RP
machine. The algorithm starts by taking Zj as Zmin and the slice
thickness and maximum possible slice thickness tmax as the (a) (b)
current slice thickness, ti. Assume that we have n number of
Figure 3. Texture Error Verification Work piece, (a) CAD
layers with layer thickness ti, where i =1, 2…n. Then, Zj is
Model (b) Rapid Prototyped Model
computed form Equation 8.
j
All the step heights are computed using a three
Zj  t ; j  m
i 0
i
(8) dimensional microscopic roughness measurement and
compared with the actual computational height from the ideal
For i-th Zj height point on the CAD surface number of Pzj surface. Figures 4-7 shows the measured stair case effect data
points are computed considering the intersection between plane using a microscope for the diffrent sloping surfaces. The
SP at Zj and the CAD surface, G. The NURBS intersection measured data for the layers are computed with predicted
points are computed using a subdivision algorithm shown in values of υi and ηi computed by the algorithm showed good
[26] as follows: agreement. As shown in the Table 1 for the four different
sloping surfaces, the computed and measured vertical distance
PZj  S P  G Zj
(9)
υi as described in Figure 2, are within a 5% error limit. This
distances are critical factor in determining the value of texture
For the consecutive slicing the surface error εi is computed error function.
by considering the 20 points on the two consecutive surfaces as

4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Table 1: Experimental Verification of Staircase Effects
No of Measured Avg. Computed Avg.
Surfaces Vertical distance vertical distance
(μm) (μm)
1 35.2 34.9
2 65.2 66
3 80.1 81
4 90 90.5

Figure 6. Staircase Effect at Surface -3

Figure 4. Staircase Effect at Surface -1

Figure 7. Staircase Effect at Surface -4

Figure 5. Staircase Effect at Surface -2
TEST CASES
In order to verify the developed adaptive direct slicing
algorithm, it is applied to four different test CAD models
generated by commercial CAD software. Four models are
shown in Figures 8 to 11. First test model is a biological model
of arm with the minimum height in z direction of 160 mm and
maximum height of 0 mm (Figure 8). The second test model
(Figure 9) is inclined NURBS surface with the minimum height
in z direction is 38.875 mm and maximum height is 74.5mm.
The 3rd test model (Figure 10) is a mechanical part with length
in y direction is 120mm which is taken as height Z for the rapid
prototyping.
As shown in Figure11, model four consists of a concave
surface with radius 14 mm with height 20mm in z direction.

5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms


Figure 8. CAD Test model-1 Figure 9. CAD Test model-2
Figure 10:CAD Test model-3 Figure 11:CAD Test model-4
SLICING PARAMETER
Proposed algorithms are applied on the test model
assuming that the RP machine can accept varying layer
thickness. The machine thickness limits of Dimensions’ 3D
printer series Dimension 1200es is considered for all the test
cases. According to the machine specification the maximum
layer thickness (tmax) is taken as 0.33 mm and minimum layer
thickness is (tmin) is taken as 0.25 mm. In Dimension 1200es
high resolution printing costs $40 per cubic inch of material
used; low resolution printing costs $30 per cubic inch of
material. Standard labor rate is $75/hr, or $100/hr for design
services.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
All the test cases are tested using with the proposed
algorithm and the previously developed algorithms to compare
the efficiency of the slicing. For comparison, the Cusp Height
Model [21] and constant slice thickness model were used. At
first Adaptive slicing was implemented for the three test cases
varying the thresh hold factor from 0 to 100 to control the
Average Surface Error Factor.
Table 1 shows that for the test case-1, the surface error
factor is increased by 15% for a=50 comparing to using a=100.
Whereas for the test case- 2 the number of layers is decreased
by 15% and the surface error factor is increased by 25%, which
is due to the curved geometry of the CAD model. Test case-3
shows much improved surface quality with less number of
layers. In this case the number of layers is reduced by 16% and
the surface error factor is increased by 50%. As it is expected,
by using the developed algorithms when the part’s geometry is
complex (e.g. highly curved surfaces), using smaller layer
thicknesses results on better surface finish and shorter built
time.
Figures 13, 16, 19 & 22 show the comparison between the
cost and the evaluated surface error factor as well as the surface
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms
roughness. The cost is computed based on the overall volume
of the CAD drawing, machine run time and the labour cost for
Dimension 1200es. For the test case 1 cost effective breakeven
threshold value is a=40. This value for test cases 2,3 and 4 it is
approximately 38,52 and 55, respectively. The observed
changes of the parameter a can be explained by considering the
complexity of the models. Using breakeven point cost can be
reduced by 20-40% as shown in figure.
Table 2. Average Surface Error Cart vs Cost.
Test Average Layer Error (mm2)
Case
No. Slicing Slicing Slicing
with a=50 with with a=0
a=100
0.00919 0.00881 0.010099
1
0.00821 0.0076 0.0095
2
0.0090443 0.008043 0.0100443
3
0.00961 0.00941 0.0099
4
Secondly the algorithm ran for all the combination of
number of layers for different algorithm. Table 3 compared the
data of average surface error function with the different
algorithms for the optimum layer number proposed by the
algorithm. For all 4 cases, the average surface error function
value is reduced by employing the global adaptive algorithm
compared to the cusp height or the constant slice thickness
method for a defined layer number. Among test-cases 1-4, for
the test-case 2 with inclined NURBS surface, the surface
function value reduced significantly compared to the other
algorithms. From the table, it can be concluded that the average
surface error can be reduced significantly with the proposed
algorithm when the complexity of the surface is higher.
For test-case 1, Figure 12 shows the surface error vs. the
number of layers compression, Figure 14 shows the slice
orientation for the optimum layer number of 556. From Figure
14, it can be seen that the slice thickness is varying at the top
and the bottom section of the part and the steady slice thickness
at the middle portion of the CAD part. At the top and bottom
parts the slice thickness is smaller compared to the middle part
of the model due to the shape. When the number of layers is
556, then the number of layers is reduced by 50% with a
decrease in value of texture error function approximately by
50%.
For the inclined NURBS surface in test-case 3, the layer
number is reduced by approximately 40% with a texture error
compromise of 50%, as shown in Figure 15 which shows, due
to the curved nature at the top of the part, slice thickness
constantly decreased.
6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 Test-model 3 is a complex mechanical shape and sliced 5370
considering the y-axis. Using the proposed algorithm to slice

Average Surface Error(mm2)

5350 0.00981
this model, from Figure 18 and 20 surface error decreased

Cost for 50 pieces ($)

significantly compare to other algorithm. 5330 0.00961

However, for test-case 4, for the concave surface as shown 5310 Cost Curve 0.00941
in Figures 21 and 23 slice thickness was maximum till the 5290 Surface Error

concave surface. After that a sudden drop in slice thickness is 5270

0.00921

observed which then gradually increased till the top of the 5250
0.00901
surface. As shown in Figure 21, surface error and the number of
5230 0.00881
slices are both reduced by 50%. 0 20 40 60 80 100
Thresh-hold factor (α)
Table 3: Surface Error Chart for Different Algorithm
Figure 13. Cost Vs Average Surface Error (Test Model-1)
Test Average surface Error (mm2)
Case
No. Global Cusp Height Constant Number
Adaptive Algorithm[21] Layer of Layers
Algorithm Thickness

1 0.00927 0.00938 0.00946 556

2 0.00857 0.00866 0.00871 125

3 0.00883 0.00889 0.0089 413

4 0.0097 0.0098 0.00985 70

0.0102
Average Surface Error (mm2 )

0.01

0.0098

0.0096 (a) (b) (c)

0.0094 Figure 14. Optimized Layer Orientation with Number of Layers
=125 (a) CAD Model; (b) CAD Model after Slicing (Test-case
0.0092 Adaptive Slicing Algorithm 1)
0.009 Cusp Height Algorithm
0.01
Constant Layer Thickness
0.0088
485 500 515 530 545 560 575 590 605 620 0.0095
Average Surface Error (mm2 )

Number Of Layers
Figure 12. No. of Layers Vs. Average Surface Error for 0.009
Test-case 1.
0.0085

Adaptive Slicing Algorithm
0.008
Cusp Height Algorithm
Constant Layer Thickness
0.0075
108 113 118 123 128 133 138
Number Of Layers
Figure 15. No. of Layers Vs. Average Surface Error for Test-
case 2.

7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 5750 0.0100443

Average Surface Error(mm2 )

5735
0.0095443
5720

Cost for 50 pieces ($)

5705
Cost Curve 0.0090443
5690 Surface Error
5675 0.0085443
5660

5645 0.0080443
0 20 40 60 80 100
Thresh-hold factor (α)
Figure 16. Cost Vs Average Surface Error (Test Model-2) Figure 19. Cost Vs Average Surface Error (Test Model-3)

Figure 17. Optimized Layer Orientation with Number of Layers

=125 (a)
(a)CAD Model; (b) CAD(b)Model after Slicing(c)
(Test-case
2)
0.0103
Figure 20. Optimized Layer Orientation with Number of Layers
=125 (a) CAD Model; (b) CAD Model after Slicing (Test-case
3)
0.0098
Average Surface Error(mm2 )

0.01

0.0093
Average Surface Error(mm2 )

0.0099

0.0088 0.0098

Adaptive Slicing Algorithm 0.0097
0.0083
Cusp Height Algorithm
0.0096
Constant Layer Thickness
0.0078
0.0095 Adaptive Slicing Algorithm
363 383 403 423 443 463
Number Of Layers Cusp Height Algorithm
0.0094
Figure 18 No. of Layers Vs. Average Surface Error for Test- Constant Layer Thickness
case 3. 0.0093
62 65 68 71 74 77
Number Of Layers

8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Figure 21: No. of Layers Vs. Average Surface Error for Test- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
case 4. Put acknowledgments here. The research support provided
by the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of
920
Canada (NSERC) is greatly appreciated.

Average Surface Error(mm2 )

910 0.00991
900
Cost for 50 pieces ($)

890
880
870
860
850
840
0 20 40 60
Thresh-hold factor (α)
Figure 22. Cost Vs Average Surface Error (Test Model-4)
(a)
Figure 23: Optimized Layer Orientation with Number of Layers
=125 (a) CAD Model; (b) CAD Model after Slicing (Test-case
4)
CONCLUSION
A new adaptive direct slicing algorithm of CAD models based
on a surface error factor has been developed and implemented.
Comparing the results of implementation with the common
practice for several case studies shows that the proposed
approach has greater slicing efficiency. Typically by utilizing
this approach of adaptive slicing prototyping cost can be
reduced 20-45% compare to the slicing with minimum layer
thickness. Therefore, the developed slicing method provides a
reasonable trade-off between the rapid prototyping cost and the
rapid prototyping accuracy. For the many advantages of direct
slicing outside CAD system, it will be a future solution to the
slicing process in AM.
0.00981 REFERENCES
[1] Dolenc, A., and Mäkelä, I., 1994, "Slicing Procedures for
Cost Curve 0.00971 Layered Manufacturing Techniques," Computer-Aided Design,
Surface Error
26(2), pp. 119-126.
0.00961 [2] Sabourin, E., Houser, S. A., and Bohn, J. H., 1996,
"Adaptive Slicing Using Stepwise Uniform Refinement," Rapid
0.00951
Prototyping Journal, 2(4), pp. 20.
[3] Justin, T., and Jan Helge, B., 1998, "Local Adaptive
0.00941
Slicing," Rapid Prototyping Journal, 4(3), pp. 118.
80 100
[4] Barari, A., and Ahmadian, M. T., 1999, "Optimum Slicing
of Model for Rapid Prototyping," eds., Tehran, Iran, pp. 218-
228.
[5] Sabourin, E., Houser, S. A., and Bohn, J. H., 1997,
"Accurate Exterior, Fast Interior Layered Manufacturing,"
Rapid Prototyping Journal, 3(2), pp. 44.
[6] Denis, C., Kittinan, U., and Ezat, S., 2000, "Specifying
Non-Uniform Cusp Heights as a Potential Aid for Adaptive
Slicing," Rapid Prototyping Journal, 6(3), pp. 204.
[7] Pandey, P. M., Reddy, N. V., and Dhande, S. G., 2003, "Real
Time Adaptive Slicing for Fused Deposition Modelling,"
International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 43(1),
pp. 61-71.
(b) [8] Barari, A., 2012, "Profile Tolerance Allocation for Rapid
Prototyping of Sculptured Surfaces in a Direct Slicing Process,"
eds., Chicago, IL, United States, pp.
[9] Jamieson, R., and Hacker, H., 1995, "Direct Slicing of Cad
Models for Rapid Prototyping," Rapid Prototyping Journal,
1(2), pp. 4.
[10] Zhao, Z., and Laperriere, L., 2000, "Adaptive Direct
Slicing of the Solid Model for Rapid Prototyping,"
International Journal of Production
(c) Research, 38(1), pp. 69-83.
[11] Kulkarni, P., and Dutta, D., 1996, "An Accurate Slicing
Procedure for Layered Manufacturing," Computer-Aided
Design, 28(9), pp. 683-697.
[12] Hope, R. L., Jacobs, P. A., and Roth, R. N., 1997, "Rapid
Prototyping with Sloping Surfaces," Rapid Prototyping Journal,
3(1), pp. 12.
[13] Hope, R. L., Roth, R. N., and Jacobs, P. A., 1997,
"Adaptive Slicing with Sloping Layer Surfaces," Rapid
Prototyping Journal, 3(3), pp. 89.
[14] Mani, K., Kulkarni, P., and Dutta, D., 1999, "Region-
Based Adaptive Slicing," Computer-Aided Design, 31(5), pp.
317-333.
[15] Ma, W., and He, P., 1999, "An Adaptive Slicing and
Selective Hatching Strategy for Layered Manufacturing,"
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 89-90(pp. 191-
197.
[16] Chen, X., Wang, C., Ye, X., Xiao, Y., and Huang, S., 2001,
"Direct Slicing from Powershape Models for Rapid

9 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms

 Prototyping," The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 17(7), pp. 543-547.
[17] Sun, S., Chiang, H., and Lee, M., 2007, "Adaptive Direct
Slicing of a Commercial Cad Model for Use in Rapid
Prototyping," International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 34(7/8), pp. 689-701.
[18] Starly, B., Lau, A., Sun, W., Lau, W., and Bradbury, T.,
2005, "Direct Slicing of Step Based Nurbs Models for Layered
Manufacturing," Computer-Aided Design, 37(4), pp. 387-397.
[19] Debapriya, C., and Asimava Roy, C., 2007, "A Semi-
Analytic Approach for Direct Slicing of Free Form Surfaces for
Layered Manufacturing," Rapid Prototyping Journal, 13(4), pp.
256.
[20] Rianmora, S., and Koomsap, P., 2010, "Recommended
Slicing Positions for Adaptive Direct Slicing by Image
Processing Technique," The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 46(9), pp. 1021-1033.
[21] Sikder, S., Barari, A., and Kishawy, A., 2012, "Adaptive
Slicing Approach to Control Cusp Height of Rapid Prototyping
Parts," eds., Niagara, Canada, pp.
DownloadedViewFrom:
publicationhttp://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/
stats
[22] Sikder, S., Barari, A., and Kishawy, A., 2012
"Controllability of Surface Roughness by Adaptive Slicing in
Rapid Prototyping Manufacturing," eds., Winnipeg, Manitoba,
Canada, pp.
[23] Sikder, S., Barari, A., and Kishawy, A., 2013, "Adaptive
Slicing Approach to Control Surface Error Factor in Rapid
Prototyping Process," eds., University of Bergamo, Bergamo,
Italy, pp.
[24] Sikder, S., Barari, A., and Kishawy, A., 2013, "Control of
Nurbs-Based Surface Error Factor Using a Manufacturing Cost
Optimization in Rapid Prototyping Process," eds., Saint
Petersburg, Russia, pp.
[25] Reed, K., 1991, The Initial Graphics Exchange
Specification (Iges): Version 5.1, U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Inst. of Standards and Technology,
[26] Barnhill, R. E., Farin, G., Jordan, M., and Piper, B. R.,
1987, "Surface/Surface Intersection," Computer Aided
Geometric Design, 4(1–2), pp. 3-16.
10 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
on 04/01/2015 Terms of Use: http://asme.org/terms