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

net/publication/4332563

Expression for Surface Roughness Distribution of FDM Processed Parts

Conference Paper · May 2008

DOI: 10.1109/ICSMA.2008.4505572 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

17 1,642

3 authors, including:

Soon-man Kwon
Changwon National University
76 PUBLICATIONS   663 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Soon-man Kwon on 22 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 5593–5600

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Materials Processing Technology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmatprotec

Representation of surface roughness in fused deposition modeling

Daekeon Ahn a,∗ , Jin-Hwe Kweon a , Soonman Kwon b , Jungil Song b , Seokhee Lee c
a
Research Center for Aircraft Parts Technology, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, 660-701, Republic of Korea
b
School of Mechatronics, Changwon National University, Changwon 641-773, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Most rapid prototyping (RP) technologies apply a layered manufacturing (LM) process to efficiently fab-
Received 5 December 2008 ricate 3D physical models. However, a critical drawback that reduces the surface quality of the RP parts
Received in revised form 30 April 2009 occurs by utilizing LM. Hence, topics related to surface roughness have been a key issue in RP. In this paper,
Accepted 17 May 2009
a new approach to model surface roughness in fused deposition modeling (FDM) is proposed. Based on
actual surface roughness distributions of FDM parts, a theoretical model to express surface roughness
Keywords:
distribution according to changes in surface angle is presented by considering the main factors that cru-
Fused deposition modeling
cially affect surface quality. The proposed expression is verified by implementation and comparison with
Surface roughness
empirical data. Also, the effectiveness of the main factors is analyzed and discussed.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In consumer products, the trend is gradually leading towards
preferring sensitivity factors over functional parts. Using only dig-
ital data, such as CAD models and virtual reality, is not sufficient
to reflect sensitivity effects in the design stage of the manufactur-
ing process. As a person can touch and feel natural objects, the role
of physical models is expanding. An advanced technology that can
efficiently form 3D physical models has been introduced to meet
this demand (Jacobs, 1996).
Rapid prototyping (RP) is a manufacturing technology that fab-
ricates 3D physical models using a layered manufacturing (LM)
process that stacks and bonds thin layers in one direction. In
comparison with the previous numerically controlled (NC) man-
ufacturing technology, RP can rapidly fabricate high level models
with complex shapes without geometric restriction under more
comfortable work conditions. Hence, the manufacturing technol-
ogy has been widely applied in various fields, from industrial
products to medical appliances. SL (stereolithography), SLS (selec-
tive laser sintering), FDM (fused deposition modeling), and LOM
(laminated object manufacturing) are representative RP technolo-
gies (Lee, 1999; Chua et al., 2003).
However, as the RP process is inherently performed by layered
manufacturing, the surface finish of the RP part is inevitably exces-
sively rough. The defect is extreme on the inclined surfaces of the
parts and is known as the “stair stepping effect.” As a result, the
surface finish of the parts is not satisfactory for general engineer-
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 55 751 6694; fax: +82 55 757 5622.
E-mail address: dkahn@gnu.ac.kr (D. Ahn).
ing purposes. For this reason, surface roughness is a key issue in RP
(Ippolito et al., 1995; Reeves and Cobb, 1997; Mahesh et al., 2004).
In the broad spectrum of RP, a number of research works related
to the topic of surfaces have been presented, but most of them
have been concerned with the problem of the part itself for pro-
cess optimization. That is, there have not been many approaches
focusing on investigating and modeling surface roughness. The fol-
lowing approaches are directly associated with surface roughness
representation. Reeves and Cobb (1998) proposed a mathematical
model to represent the surface roughness of SL parts. Attributes
of layer thickness, surface angle, and layer profile were used for
modeling surface roughness. The calculated roughness values of the
presented model were compared with those of a test part designed
to measure and obtain average surface roughness accurately. Addi-
tionally, reduction of inherent surface deviation was carried out by
analyzing and applying an effect called “print-through.” The rough-
ness model and reduction improvement seem to be reasonable for
a limited range of surface angles. Paul and Voorakarnam (2001)
investigated the source of surface roughness in LOM. An expres-
sion for predicting the surface roughness of LOM prototypes was
deduced based on centerline average roughness and a fundamen-
tal model that represents penetration depth of the SL part resin.
A full-factorial experiment was performed to analyze the effects
of layer thickness and orientation angle. The results show that the
roughness model is restrictively available for prototypes with com-
paratively thin paper thickness and at small orientation angles.
Luis Pérez et al. (2001) proposed a theoretical model to represent
a roughness average of general LM parts. The roughness model
was expressed considering layer thickness and horizontal distance
between layers as main factors. SL test parts were manufactured,
and an experimental analysis of the resulting surface roughness was

0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2009.05.016
 Author's personal copy

5594 D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 5593–5600

performed to compare with the presented theoretical model. Their

results show that it is necessary to correct for the surface character-
ization with surface angles close to 0◦ and 90◦ and the calculated
values constitute a maximum for effective roughness. Pandey et al.
(2003) suggested an equation to represent the surface roughness
of FDM parts by approximating the layer edge profile as a parabolic
curve. The mean line of the edge profile was taken to be half of
the profile height. The profile height was also determined stochas-
tically. As a result, variation in the calculated roughness value was
more or less different from the measured data produced by them,
and an interval of the upper and lower limits of the calculated value
(Ra ) results exists. Ahn et al. (2009) proposed a methodology to pre-
dict the surface roughness of general LM parts. The theoretical and
actual characteristics of the surface roughness distributions of the
LM parts were investigated to represent the actual roughness for
prediction. Based on the investigation, every roughness value at a
surface angle was calculated by interpolating the measured rough-
ness data. Thus, actual roughness characteristics such as support
removal burrs could be efficiently represented. The validity and
effectiveness of the proposed approach were demonstrated through
the calculated roughness error estimation and several application
examples. However, a greater amount of measured data is required
to obtain more reliable prediction results.
Based on the previous research on the surface roughness of RP, a
new approach for modeling the surface roughness of fused deposi-
tion modeling (FDM) is proposed in this paper. By investigating the
actual surface roughness characteristics of FDM parts, a theoretical
model to express the deviation in the roughness values with respect
to the surface angle is derived by considering the main factors that Fig. 2. Surface profile of RP parts: (a) A SL-processed part and (b) a FDM-processed
crucially affect surface quality. The proposed expression is verified part.
by implementing and comparing with empirical data. Moreover, it
is demonstrated that an elaborate prediction of surface roughness
can be accomplished by analyzing and discussing the effectiveness As the RP process is performed using layered manufacturing, the
of the main factors. surface finish of the RP part is excessively rough, as shown in Fig. 2.
In cases of SL and most RP parts, the surface profile resembles a
rectangle type staircase, as shown in Fig. 2a (Ahn and Lee, 2007). As a
2. Modeling of the FDM surface profile result, the profile is usually called “stair stepping.” However, an FDM
part is fabricated by depositing extruded filaments, as explained
2.1. Surface profile above. Thus, it seems that the surface profile of the parts is different
from that of SL parts, as shown in Fig. 2. That is, since the cross-
FDM technology is fundamentally based on surface chemistry, sectional shape of the ABS filament resembles a curve, such as an
thermal energy, and a layer manufacturing process. The material in ellipse or parabola, surface profile variation along the surface angle
the filament is melted in a specially designed head, which extrudes would not be in accordance with that of other RP.
a layer according to generated section data from a prepared 3D
CAD model. As it is extruded, cooled and thus solidifies to form
2.2. Formulation for surface roughness computation
the model. The model is fabricated by stacking and depositing each
layer in succession from the bottom to the top, as with other RP
Fig. 3 shows a magnified cross-sectional shape of the deposited
technologies. Fig. 1 shows a fabrication process to build a physical
filaments, which is close to an elliptic curve (Sun et al., 2008; Ahn
model by FDM.
et al., 2002). And, Stratasys, the manufacturing company for FDM
machines has reported that model accuracy is about 0.1–0.03%
(Stratasys Inc., 2007). This shows that distortion effect of successive
filaments due to melting, stacking and overlapping between layers
can be inconsiderable in formulating surface roughness. Hence, in
this paper, an expression to represent surface roughness in FDM is
formulated by assuming the filament profile as an elliptical curve. In
the first, a schematic for defining an expression to represent the sur-
face profile is presented in Fig. 4. The figure shows that the surface
profile depends on several factors, such as cross-sectional shape,
surface angle, and layer thickness, and thus, these factors can defi-
nitely be used to model surface roughness. Additionally, the overlap
interval between adjacent layers (n, n + 1 layer) exists in the verti-
cal direction during the deposition process. Actual layer thickness
is reduced by said interval. Hence, the overlap interval is also con-
sidered as a crucial factor. A horizontal interval called an air gap
between adjacent filaments in the same layer also exists (Ahn et
Fig. 1. A manufacturing process to construct a physical model by FDM. al., 2004). However, the boundary profile of the surface finish is not
 Author's personal copy

D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 5593–5600 5595

directly influenced by the interval. Hence, the air gap effect is not
considered in this paper.
Based upon the factors and the profile schematic, an expression
that can compute the surface roughness value according to sur-
face angle variation in FDM is derived by the following procedure.
The cross-sectional shape of the filament is defined as an ellipse.
Thus, the cross-section profile of the filament on the n-th layer is
expressed as:
x2 y2
+ 2 =1 (1)
a2 b
where a and b denote the half-lengths of the long and short axes of
the ellipse, respectively. Thus, the width (w) and height (h) of the
ellipse are given by:

w = 2a (2-a)

h = 2b (2-b)

If the overlap interval is equal to the value c, the actual interval (t)
of the layer thickness is obtained as:

t =h−c (3)

The value of the surface angle at one point on the surface of the
RP part is defined by the angle between the fabrication direction
and the normal vector of the spot, as illustrated in Fig. 4. Therefore,
when the fabrication process is performed at surface angle , the
Fig. 3. Magnified cross-sectional shape of the filament used in FDM. (a) Section view ellipse curve of the next layer (n + 1) is expressed as:
of deposited filaments (Sun et al., 2008) and (b) shape of deposited filaments (Ahn 2 2
et al., 2002). (x − k1 ) (y − k2 )
+ =1 (4)
a2 b2
where k1 and k2 denote translated lengths of the n-th filament
according to the x axis and y axis directions, respectively, repre-

Fig. 4. Schematic for modeling the surface profile of the FDM-processed part.
 Author's personal copy

5596 D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 5593–5600

sented as:
⎧  
⎪
⎨
t
0 <  < , =
/

tan  2
k1 =   (5)
⎪
⎩0 =

2

k2 = t (6)

Actually, surface roughness value can exist in the horizontal surface.

However, since the two adjacent layers become identical in case of
surface angle 0◦ or 180◦ , the horizontal surface is not considered in
the formulation of the surface roughness. Hence, the range of the
surface angle is given as shown in Eq. (5).
The two points (p1 , p2 ) for determining the area are used to com-
pute surface roughness; that is, two intersection points between the
n-th layer and adjacent layer positioned on the surface should be
calculated. By intersecting the two ellipse curves from Eqs. (1) and
(4), p1 (x1 , y1 ) is fixed when selecting a point, which takes the big-
ger value from the two obtained x values. Thus, by taking a slope of
tan( − ) passing across point (p1 ), a line is given by:

y = tan( − )(x − x1 ) + y1 (7)

The line is denoted as lv and passes through the deepest valley

points of the assessed profile. Another point p2 (x2 , y2 ) is given by
intersecting the line and the ellipse curve (1).
The surface roughness value applied in this paper is the surface
roughness average (Ra ), which is widely used in the industrial field.
The value is defined as the arithmetic average deviation from the
measurement centerline to the surface profile. This is expressed by
Eq. (8), where f(x) is the surface profile and l denotes the base assess
length.
 l
1
Ra = |f (x)|dx (8)
l 0

Therefore, the expression for representing the surface roughness

average can be formulated as follows. The boundary lines of the
area required for computing surface roughness are given by lb1 and
lb2 ; the two lines are parallel to the normal vector of the surface. A
temporary centerline (lt ) is located parallel with the lines between
lp and lv . Each Ap and Av is a closed area enclosed by line lt , the peak
profile, the valley profile, and the two respective boundary lines.
Hence, at a surface angle, when the centerline (lt ) is located at a
position that the two closed areas (Ap , Av ) become equal, the final
value of the surface roughness average is computed by dividing the
total closed area by the base assessed length (l).
A numerical computation is performed to obtain the surface
roughness average as follows. The intersection point between
the centerline (lt ) and the boundary line (lb1 ) is represented as
pt1 (xt1 , yt1 ). Thus, the coordinate value (xt1 ) of the point is calcu-
lated by:

xt1 old +d (if At > 0)
xt1 = (9)
xt1 old −d (if At < 0)

where At is the current total closed area, d is an increment value.

In order to obtain a reasonable value efficiently, the initial value of
xt1 is given by taking x1 of the point p1 , and an increment value d is
reduced by half over one iteration. The area value At expresses the
Fig. 5. Schematic of the indeterminate region. (a) In the case of one point intersec-
current total closed area enclosed by the centerline, the assessed tion, (b) in the case of no intersection, (c) an example of crisscross build style (Ahn
profile, and the two boundary lines. et al., 2002) and (d) 3D view of the no-intersection case.
To begin with, the boundary line (lb1 ) is given as:

−(x − x1 )
y= + y1 (10)
tan( − )
 Author's personal copy

D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 5593–5600 5597

Fig. 6. Fabrication and measurement of an FDM test part. (a) Test part and surface
roughness measurement and (b) Empirical surface roughness data.
Fig. 7. Comparison of the measured data and computed values of surface roughness.
(a) Computed Ra for a layer thickness of 0.254 mm and (b) computed Ra for a layer
Thus, the coordinate value yt1 is obtained by inserting the value x1 thickness of 0.178 mm.
into Eq. (10). Therefore, a temporary centerline (lt ) is expressed by:

y = tan( − )(x − xt1 ) + yt1 (11) By subtracting Av from Ap , At is given as:

Additionally, two points (pt2 , pt3 ) are calculated by intersecting the At = Ap − Av (17)
line defined by Eq. (11) and the ellipse curve given by Eq. (1). Next, Thus, the final closed areas Afp and Afv are determined by moving
the other boundary line (lb2 ) is derived as: the temporary centerline until At is close to zero, as explained in Eq.
−(x − x2 ) (9). Hence, the final computed area required to obtain the average
y= + y2 (12) surface roughness is calculated as:
tan( − )

Next, point pt4 (xt4 , yt4 ) is calculated by intersecting the line defined Af = Afp + Af v (18)
by (12) and the line given by Eq. (11). The distance between the two boundary lines is given by:
After obtaining all four points, the area (Ap , Av ) is calculated by
1/2
Eqs. (13)–(16), as shown in Fig. 4. Each set (f(x), f(y)), (lt (x), lt (y)), l = [(x1 − x2 )2 + (y1 − y2 )2 ] (19)
and (lb (x), lb (y)) is an expanded form based on variables x and y of
the ellipse curve, the temporary centerline, and the boundary line, Therefore, the final roughness value at a surface angle  is computed
respectively. by the following:
 pt2 Af
Ap = [f (y) − lt (y)]dy (13) Ra = (20)
l
pt3
 xt1  xt2
All roughness values at surface angles between 0◦ and 180◦ are
obtainable by the presented expressions and computation process.
Av1 = [lb1 (x) − f (x)]dx + [lt (x) − f (x)]dx (14)
x1 xt1
Moreover, the total computed Ra at all surface angles from 0◦ to
  360◦ is also easily calculated because the surface roughness forms
yt3 yt4
a symmetric distribution based on a surface angle of 180◦ . Conse-
Av2 = [lt (y) − f (y)]dy + [lb2 (y) − f (y)]dy (15)
yt4 y2
quently, if the two adjacent ellipse curves intersect, the value (Ra )
at all surface angles is accurately and efficiently computed by the
Av = Av1 + Av2 (16) proposed methodology.
 Author's personal copy

5598 D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 5593–5600

Table 1 3. Verification and discussion

Test condition for verification at layer thicknesses of 0.254 mm and 0.178 mm.

Test Independent value Dependent value Verification of the proposed roughness expression is essential.
LT (t) W/H (r) OI (c) RW(w) RH (h) Thus, FDM test parts were fabricated, and empirical roughness
data was obtained by measurement. In parallel, computation of the
1 90 516 344
2 120 561 374
introduced equation was carried out by coding with an application
254 1.5
3 150 606 404 tool. A comparison of the results from the measured data and the
computed values of surface roughness is presented. Additionally,
4 50 342 228
5 178 1.5 80 387 258
the effects of the major factors that influence surface roughness are
6 110 432 288 analyzed and discussed.
Values t, c, w and h are in micrometers; r is dimensionless value.
3.1. Verification

2.3. Indeterminate region
The indeterminate region is required for investigating the fea-
sible region of the proposed expression. If the surface angle ()
gradually decreases, the two ellipse curves can intersect at one
point, as shown in Fig. 5a. The surface angle at this point is given
as the critical angle ( c ). The critical angle depends on the surface
angle, layer thickness, and ellipse shape. If the surface angle is less
than the critical angle value, the two adjacent ellipses do not inter-
sect, as described in Fig. 5b. In this case, to prevent deformation and
to intensify the rigidity of the FDM part, the fabrication process
is generally performed by raster angle such as cross (0◦ /90◦ ) and
crisscross (+45◦ /−45◦ ) deposition style at the inner region, except
for the outer surface area (Mukesh et al., 1996; Ahn et al., 2004).
Fig. 5c shows an example of the FDM part by the crisscross build
style. Hence, the tendency of surface roughness distribution can be
extremely variable according to each measurement point (a–d), as
shown in Fig. 5d. That is, the surface roughness profile cannot be
defined as a functional relation. Therefore, the region under the crit-
ical angle is named the “indeterminate region” and is not treated in
this paper.
In order to verify the proposed roughness, two test parts were
fabricated by the layer thickness as shown in Fig. 6a. The RP machine
and fabrication material used in manufacturing the test parts were
FDM Maxum and ABS, respectively. The applied layer thicknesses
were 0.254 and 0.178 mm. The test part model was designed to
obtain measured roughness values accurately and efficiently. That
is, several rotated planes were formed at the surface of the model.
The part geometry was similar to that of Reeves and Cobb (1997),
and was designed to measure the average surface roughness of an
SL part. The total number of the measured roughness data was 60
at surface angles 0–180◦ by rotating the planes at 3◦ angle inter-
vals. Surface roughness was measured by a Surftest Formtracer
(Mitutoyo Corp., 1997). From almost 50 measurements, two rough-
ness data sets (MSR1 and MSR2) were obtained according to the
two applied layer thicknesses of 0.254 and 0.178 mm, respectively,
as shown in Fig. 6b. Each series of roughness data was taken by
considering the set of data within one standard deviation of the
mean surface roughness from 100 trial measurements. MSR2 data is
smaller than that of MSR1 owing to the applied layer thickness dif-
ference. Moreover, for both MSR1 and MSR2, the surface roughness
values (Ra ) measured near a surface angle of 90◦ are comparatively

Table 2
Measured data and computed values of surface roughness.

Surface angle () Measured Ra (␮m) Computed Ra (␮m)

MSR1 MSR2 Test1 Test2 Test3 Test4 Test5 Test6

0 8.85 16.85 – – – – – –
3 46.31 26.31 – – – – – –
6 23.22 33.22 – – – – – –
9 44.18 34.18 – – – – – –
12 21.24 31.24 – – – – – –
15 49.36 39.36 – – – – – –
18 39.28 34.28 – – – – – –
21 45.82 40.82 – – – – – –
24 37.66 35.66 – – – – – –
27 38.11 32.11 – – – – – –
30 36.83 26.83 – – 36.51 – – 24.71
33 33.37 24.37 – 36.04 31.02 – 26.23 21.13
36 31.60 21.16 – 31.26 27.46 – 22.57 18.75
39 30.06 20.06 32.75 28.12 24.95 – 20.23 17.06
42 28.77 19.07 29.73 25.88 23.10 23.28 18.59 15.82
45 26.26 19.06 27.60 24.22 21.71 21.38 17.38 14.87
48 21.86 18.12 26.01 22.95 20.64 20.01 16.46 14.14
51 22.81 18.28 24.80 21.97 19.80 18.99 15.74 13.59
54 21.13 17.13 23.86 21.20 19.15 18.22 15.18 13.14
57 21.14 16.94 23.13 20.59 18.63 17.62 14.75 12.77
60 20.71 16.71 22.54 20.10 18.20 17.14 14.39 12.49
63 20.13 15.43 22.07 19.72 17.87 16.76 14.11 12.27
66 19.86 15.86 21.69 19.40 17.60 16.47 13.88 12.08
69 18.56 14.56 21.40 19.15 17.38 16.22 13.71 11.94
72 18.39 14.79 21.17 18.96 17.22 16.04 13.57 11.82
75 18.75 13.05 20.98 18.80 17.09 15.90 13.45 11.73
78 19.67 13.27 20.84 18.69 16.98 15.77 13.37 11.67
81 19.44 13.44 20.74 18.60 16.91 15.70 13.30 11.61
84 20.08 13.08 20.67 18.54 16.86 15.63 13.25 11.58
87 19.59 12.59 20.62 18.51 16.83 15.60 13.23 11.56
90 17.35 12.51 20.61 18.50 16.81 15.58 13.22 11.55
 Author's personal copy

D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 5593–5600 5599

smaller than those of the other surface angles. A common char- Table 3
Test condition for analyzing the effect of the ratio of width to height of the section
acteristic in most RP-processed parts, this is due to using the LM
area of the filament.
process, as mentioned above. However, in spite of the same mea-
surement conditions and layer thicknesses, the roughness of the Test Independent value Dependent value
two layer thicknesses are extremely different between the angle LT (t) OI (c) W/H (r) RH (h) RW(w)
ranges 0–30◦ and 150–180◦ from the horizontal planes. This is due 1 1.2 449
to the “indeterminate region,” as explained in Section 2.3. Hence, 2 254 120 1.5 374 561
that region is not considered in verification. 3 1.8 673
Computation of the proposed roughness expression was carried 4 1.2 310
out by coding in the Mathematica (Wolfram Research Inc., 2003) 5 178 80 1.5 258 387
application tool. The same layer thicknesses (t) were used as in fab- 6 1.8 464
ricating the test parts, 0.254 and 0.178 mm. The applied ratio (r) of Values t, c, w and h are in micrometers; r is dimensionless value.
the road width to the road height was 1.5. Other input values were
the same as those used in fabricating the test parts. The specific
input overlap interval was determined based on the verification
test conditions for verification are shown in Table 1. The variables
results (Fig. 7a and b), and the interval between ratios was set to 0.3
OI, RH, RW, and W/H denote overlap interval (c), road height (h),
to adequately distinguish each surface roughness distribution. The
road width (w), and the ratio (r), respectively; these factors are also
dependent values h and w were given by the independent values (t,
illustrated in Fig. 4. Actually, it is difficult to know the exact values
c, and r) from expressions (2) and (3).
of the overlap interval in advance, because the value is a kind of
The computed surface roughness values vs. the ratio change
correction factor to adjust layer thickness. Fig. 3 shows an overlap
were also plotted, shown in Fig. 8. The results for layer thicknesses
interval between adjacent layers. In the experiment, the base value
of 0.254 and 0.178 mm are shown in Fig. 8a and b, respectively. In
of the overlap interval was determined based on the interval pre-
each layer thickness, as the ratio increases, the computed Ra values
sented in Fig. 3. And, two additional interval values were used to
also increase together, and the range that has the higher roughness
know the effect of the interval variation by 30 plus and minus inter-
values is expanded. This is caused by increasing the areas enclosed
vals in micrometers from the base value. That is, the interval values
by the assessed profile to the basic evaluation length as the ratio
are input by classifying three cases for each layer thickness as pre-
increases. Also, it is shown that the indeterminate region is reduced
sented in Table 1. Afterward, the values t, c, and r are independently
determined as input values, and values h and w are dependently
calculated by Eqs. (2) and (3).
Table 2 shows the measured data and the computed values
according to the test conditions given in Table 1 for surface angles
from 0◦ to 90◦ . From all the data and computed values, distribution
graphs were obtained with respect to surface angle from 0◦ to 180◦
at 3◦ intervals, as shown in Fig. 7.
Comparisons of the layer thicknesses 0.254 and 0.178 mm are
presented in Fig. 7a and b, respectively. It is shown that the
computed roughness distribution profiles are shifted down by
increasing the overlap interval. That is to say, the roughness val-
ues are diminished in proportion to the interval. And, the range of
the computed roughness depends on the critical angle ( c ) in all
test conditions. That is, the indeterminate region decreases as the
overlap interval increases from comparing the two roughness data
sets. Additionally, the profile curves of Test2 and Test5 are closest to
those of MSR1 and MSR2. Deviations between the measured data
and computed values were within 3–5 ␮m over a limited surface
angle range by comparison between MSR1 and Test2; MSR2 and
Test5. However, by considering the distributed roughness values, it
can be estimated that even this deviation is due to measurement
error. Moreover, the roughness profile variations with surface angle
change are similar to those of the measured surface roughness val-
ues under all test conditions. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
validity of the proposed surface roughness expression is reasonable.

3.2. Shape effect of filament section area

Based on the previous section, the shape effect of filament sec-

tion area was analyzed. The proposed expression was formulated
by considering the shape of the filament section area as an ellipse.
Hence, the surface roughness must depend on the lengths of the
long axis and short axis of the ellipse by definition. The ratio of the
two axis lengths is expressed as r (=w/h); if r = 1, the ellipse becomes
a circle.
Rodriquez et al. (2000) utilized ratios from 1.6 to 2.0 to charac-
terize and classify FDM materials. The test conditions for analyzing
the effect of the ratio (r) are given in Table 3. The test was performed Fig. 8. Effectiveness of the section shape of the filament. (a) Computed Ra for a layer
by dividing two groups based on layer thickness, as in Table 2. The thickness of 0.254 mm and (b) computed Ra for a layer thickness of 0.178 mm.
 Author's personal copy
5600 D. Ahn et al. / Journal of Materials Processing Technology 209 (2009) 5593–5600
according to the increase in the ratio. This is due to expansion of the
overlap area between the adjacent filaments, as the length of the
long axis comparatively increases. From the results, prediction of
surface roughness for a given nozzle size and layer thickness can be
more accurately accomplished.
3.3. Overlap interval
The overlap interval is directly related to the layer thickness,
as explained in Section 2.2. Thus, the interval can also influence
surface roughness. In this section, the effect of the interval is ana-
lyzed. Table 1 also shows the test conditions for the interval effect
because the overlap interval is constant according to each applied
layer thickness. Hence, from the verification results presented in
Fig. 7, the effect can be concluded as follows. As the overlap intervals
increase, the computed values (Ra ) of surface roughness decrease
at all surface angles except for the intermittent region. The surface
roughness profile at each interval variation seems to be approxi-
mately an offset curve of the other profile. This effect commonly
occurs in the case of the two layer thickness condition. The result
comes from reduction of the layer thickness by increasing the inter-
val. Further, as the interval increases, the intermittent region is
reduced. This is also due to the overlap area expansion by the
interval increase. Consequently, the effects on surface roughness
distribution of changes in overlap interval can be predicted.
4. Conclusions
In this paper, a new approach for formulating the surface rough-
ness of FDM parts was presented. In order to express the surface
roughness in more detail, key variables determining the section
shape of the extruded filament were considered by investigating
the actual surface profile of the part. FDM test parts were fabricated
to verify the proposed surface roughness expression. Empirical and
computed roughness data were acquired by measuring the test
part and implementing the proposed expression. By comparison
between the measured data and computed values, the validity of
the proposed expression was proved. Additionally, the effects of
surface angle, layer thickness, cross-sectional shape of the fila-
ment, and overlap interval on surface roughness were analyzed and
evaluated. From the results, it was demonstrated that an elaborate
prediction of the surface roughness of FDM parts can be performed
View publication stats
with the presented surface roughness expression. Therefore, more
advanced process planning can be achieved in RP.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by a Korea Research Foundation Grant
funded by the Korean Government (MOEHRD) (KRF-2008-005-
J01001).
References
Ahn, D., Kim, H., Lee, S., 2009. Surface roughness prediction using measured data and
interpolation in layered manufacturing. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 209, 664–671.
Ahn, D.K., Lee, S.H., 2007. Improving the surface roughness of SL parts using a coating
and grinding process. Int. J. Precision Eng. 8, 14–19.
Ahn, S.H., Lee, C.S., Jeong, W., 2004. Development of translucent FDM parts by post-
processing. Rapid Prototyping J. 10 (4), 218–224.
Ahn, S.H., Montero, M., Odell, D., Roundy, S., Wright, P.K., 2002. Anisotropic materials
properties of fused deposition modeling ABS. Rapid Prototyping J. 8 (4), 248–257.
Chua, C.K., Leong, K.F., Lim, C.S., 2003. Rapid Prototyping: Principles and Applications.
World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 1–23.
Ippolito, R., Iuliano, L., Torino, P., 1995. Benchmarking of rapid prototyping techniques
in terms of dimensional accuracy and surface finish. Ann. CIRP 44 (1), 157–160.
Jacobs, P.F., 1996. Stereolithography and Other RP&M Technologies. Society of Man-
ufacturing Engineers, New York, pp. 1–26.
Lee, K.W., 1999. Principles of CAD/CAM/CAE Systems. Addison Wesley, Mas-
sachusetts, pp. 378–431.
Luis Pérez, C.J., Calvet, J.V., Sebastián Pérez, M.A., 2001. Geometric roughness analysis
in solid free-form manufacturing process. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 119, 52–57.
Mahesh, M., Wong, Y., Fuh, J., Loh, H., 2004. Benchmarking for comparative evaluation
of RP systems and processes. Rapid Prototyping J. 10 (2), 123–135.
Mitutoyo Corp., 1997. Mitutoyo Contracer CBH-400 User’s Guide.
Mukesh, K., Agarwala, V.R., Jamalabad, N.A., Langrana, A.S., Philip, J.W., Stephen, C.D.,
1996. Structural quality of parts processed by fused deposition. Rapid Prototyp-
ing J. 2 (4), 4–19.
Pandey, P.M., Reddy, N.V., Dhande, S.G., 2003. Improvement of surface finish by stair-
case machining in fused deposition modeling. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 132,
323–331.
Paul, B.K., Voorakarnam, V., 2001. Effect of layer thickness and orientation angle on
surface roughness in laminated object manufacturing. J. Manuf. Process. 3 (2),
94–101.
Reeves, P.E., Cobb, R.C., 1997. Reducing the surface deviation of stereolithography
using in-process techniques. Rapid Prototyping J. 3 (1), 20–31.
Rodriquez, J.F., Thomas, J.P., Renaud, J.E., 2000. Characterization of the mesostructure
of fused-deposition acrylonitrile–butadienestyrene materials. Rapid Prototyp-
ing J. 6 (3), 175–185.
Stratasys Inc., 2007. http://www.stratasys.com/.
Sun, Q., Rizvi, G.M., Bellehumeur, C.T., Gu, P., 2008. Effect of processing conditions
on the bonding quality of FDM polymer filaments. Rapid Prototyping J. 14 (2),
72–80.
Wolfram Research Inc., Copyright 1988–2003, MATHEMATICA, Ver. 5.0.