Int J Adv Manuf Technol
DOI 10.1007/s00170-016-9257-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Chemical vapor treatment of ABS parts built by FDM: Analysis
of surface finish and mechanical strength
Ashu Garg 1 & Anirban Bhattacharya 1 & Ajay Batish 2
Received: 28 October 2015 / Accepted: 1 August 2016
# Springer-Verlag London 2016
Abstract The present study investigates the simultaneous ef-
fect of part building orientation (along the X, Y, and Z axis)
and raster angle (0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°) on surface roughness,
tensile strength, flexural strength, consumption of model, sup-
port material, and building time of acrylonitrile butadiene sty-
rene (ABS) test specimens fabricated by fused deposition
modeling (FDM) process. Mechanical properties and surface
roughness show a strong anisotropic behavior for the parts.
For parts built with the X or Y orientations and 30° or 60°
raster angle, pulling of fiber and a small amount of necking
along with tearing are observed, which are responsible for
higher strength. Post-built treatment of the parts with cold
vapors of dimethyl ketone resulted in an immense improve-
ment in surface finish. Exposing the parts in cold vapors turns
the surfaces to a soft/mushy-like state due to the weakening of
the secondary bonds, and the minor flow of polymer layers
fills the cavity region between the adjacent layers and helps in
improving the surface finish after the treatment.
* Ashu Garg
ashu.7161@gmail.com; ashu.pme16@iitp.ac.in
Anirban Bhattacharya
anirban.bhatta@gmail.com; abhatta@iitp.ac.in
Ajay Batish
abatish@thapar.edu
1
Measurement and Process Analysis Laboratory, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Patna, Bihta
Campus, Patna, Bihar 801103, India
2
Mechanical Engineering Department, Thapar University,
Patiala, Punjab 147004, India
Keywords Part orientation . Raster angle . Surface
roughness . Mechanical strength . Build cost . Cold vapor
treatment
1 Introduction
Fused deposition modeling (FDM), one of the common vari-
ants of rapid prototyping (RP) or additive manufacturing tech-
nique, is widely adopted by the industries for producing com-
plex geometrical parts at reasonable low cost [1]. The process
fabricates prototypes from environment-friendly thermoplas-
tic materials of different grades for prototypes and/or function-
al components. The raw material is used in the form of a
filament for melting and is deposited layer by layer to build
the parts. The process is capable of building parts with admi-
rable accuracy and strength and thereby makes FDM one of
the extensively used techniques [1]. In FDM machines, the
extrusion head consists of two separate liquefier nozzles,
one each for model and support material deposition. The
movement of this liquefier nozzle is computer controlled with
respect to build platform (worktable), thus allowing the fabri-
cation of a geometrically complex model with decent dimen-
sional accuracy [2]. The parts are built by extruding and de-
positing the molten filament through the liquefier nozzle on a
fixtureless worktable in the form of precise layers that rapidly
solidify and adhere to the adjoining layers [3]. The bonding
between the adjoining layers takes place due to thermally
driven diffusion bonding [4]. After depositing one layer, the
worktable moves down (Z direction) by a distance equal to the
layer thickness and the next layer is deposited [3]. Nowadays,
the FDM process is used not only for product visualization or
prototype building but also for final part production (function-
al parts) due to its operational simplicity and reliability and the
durability of the final components in terms of accuracy and

strength [4]. However, in many of the cases, parts built by
FDM are not free from deficiencies in terms of strength, ac-
curacy, and finish and exhibit anisotropic behavior.
In FDM process, the errors in the manufactured parts
depend mainly on the process parameter settings during
building of the parts. The process parameters, such as
raster angle, raster width, air gap, part orientation, and
slice thickness, directly influence the mechanical prop-
erties, geometric accuracy, surface roughness, build
time, etc. Regarding these issues, Sood et al. [4] inves-
tigated the influence of raster width, raster angle, layer
thickness, air gap, and part orientation on the dimen-
sional accuracy of FDM parts using the grey Taguchi
method. Alexander et al. [5] studied the influence of
part build orientation on part accuracy and build cost
of layered manufactured parts. Pilipović et al. [6] inves-
tigated the variation in dimensional accuracy, surface
roughness, and mechanical properties of parts built with
different materials. However, other process parameters
such as part orientation and raster angle would influence
the strength, accuracy, and roughness of the RP parts
and the effects should be investigated. Xu et al. [7]
studied the effect of part building orientation on surface
finish, build time, and build cost for different RP pro-
cesses. The effect of part building orientation on surface
roughness and building time was investigated for FDM
samples using the genetic algorithm technique [8, 9].
The influence of layer orientation on tensile, flexural,
and impact strength was investigated for ABS-P400
FDM parts [10]. Noriega et al. [11] proposed a meth-
odology for improving the dimensional accuracy of
FDM manufactured parts, implementing an artificial
neural network and optimization algorithm technique.
Vijayaraghavan et al. [12] studied the effect of part
orientation, raster width, raster angle, air gap, and layer
thickness on the wear strength of FDM parts using an
improved multigene genetic programming approach.
Anitha et al. [13] investigated the variation of layer
thickness, deposition speed, and road width on the sur-
face roughness of FDM parts. They also conducted cor-
relation analysis and concluded that there exist a strong
inverse relation between surface roughness and layer
thickness. The influence of part slope variation was
studied on the surface roughness and dimensional accu-
racy of FDM parts [14]. Ahn et al. [15] investigated the
effect of surface angle, overlap between adjacent layers,
and layer thickness on the surface roughness of FDM
parts. Sood et al. [16] investigated the effects of raster
angle, raster width, part orientation, layer thickness, and
air gap on the impact, tensile, and flexural strength of
FDM parts using a statistical approach. But, in many
practical cases, the surface roughness of the built part
can be one of the prime criteria and the influence of the
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
parameters on roughness or secondary treatment to re-
duce the roughness of the fabricated parts should also
be developed to enhance process capability and applica-
tion. Gurrala and Regalla [17] examined the effect of
part build direction and build interior on the volumetric
shrinkage and mechanical strength of FDM parts using
a statistical approach. Pandey et al. [18] evaluated the
influence of staircase effect on surface roughness and
proposed a hybrid machine combining FDM and hot
cutter machining to overcome the staircase effect and
improve the surface quality of FDM parts. However,
this finishing operation may be time consuming for
freeform/complex part shapes in terms of CNC code
generation, machine setup, and availability of tool size
or shape. The influence of internal lattice structure
(parts having honeycombs, circular, stripes, holes, and
solid) and part build orientation along with base align-
ment was investigated on tensile strength of 3D printer
samples. They concluded that a honeycomb structure
sample built along the Y direction on a thinner base
exhibits the highest tensile strength [19]. Krolczyk
et al. [20] investigated the surface roughness and sur-
face texture of the specimens fabricated by turning and
FDM technique. From the results, they revealed that the
samples fabricated by a turning operation exhibit a
smooth surface finish as compared to FDM samples.
The influence of deposition angle and layer thickness
on surface roughness of parts was investigated using
the artificial neural network technique [21]. Boschetto
and Bottini [22] studied the effect of deposition angle
and layer thickness on the dimensional accuracy of parts
built by FDM process. An analytical model is proposed
and compared with other models for predicting surface
roughness of FDM parts built at different build angles
[23]. Galantucci et al. [24] evaluated the effect of chem-
ical treatment (90 % dimethyl ketone and 10 % water)
on surface roughness of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
(ABS) parts considering slice height, raster width, and
tip size as process parameters. The effect of post-built
treatment by dimethyl ketone and water solution was
investigated on the surface roughness, tensile strength,
flexural strength, and compressive strength of FDM
components, considering raster width, raster angle, and
immersion time as process parameters [25, 26]. The lit-
erature review indicates that the post-built treatment of
the FDM samples by sinking the test samples in di-
methyl ketone and water solution and reported the
changes in surface roughness and mechanical properties
have been investigated by few authors [24–26].
However, alternative methods of post-built treatment
may be looked for to investigate the change in surface
roughness and mechanical properties of ABS parts. Part
build orientation along with raster angle has a
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
significant effect on the mechanical properties and sur-
face roughness of FDM specimens, and subsequently,
post-built treatment has a different effect on the me-
chanical properties and roughness of parts. However,
immersion or direct contact with dimethyl ketone
(acetone) may lead to a very quick reaction and may
damage the ABS parts if dipping time and concentration
are not monitored/optimized accurately. To avoid such
aggressive and quick reaction, post-built treatment with
cold vapors of dimethyl ketone is considered in this
work.
Detailed literature survey reveals that the effect of
several process parameters has widely been studied for
mechanical property and surface quality of the fabricat-
ed samples. However, in order to improve the surface
quality of the built specimens, a low-cost approach of
posttreatment using cold vapors of acetone is demon-
strated. However, this treatment is also expected to in-
fluence the mechanical properties of the parts. The pres-
ent article first investigates the combined effect of part
building orientation (along the X, Y, and Z) and raster
angle (0°, 30°, 60°, 90°) on the mechanical properties,
surface roughness, and building aspects (build time and
material consumption) of FDM-processed ABS speci-
mens. Fractographic analysis is carried out by optical
and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to understand
failure behavior after tensile and flexural test. All the
specimens are measured for their surface roughness
(along and across the length direction) and tensile and
flexural strength. Later, the parts are posttreated by ex-
posing them to cold vapors of acetone (dimethyl ketone)
and the surface roughness and mechanical properties
(tensile and flexural strength) are measured. The results
are compared with those obtained without chemical
treatment, and the changes in surface finish and me-
chanical properties are investigated. Finally, the optimal
part deposition orientations is suggested that could be
selected to build parts with good surface finish and
reduce material consumption and build time without
forfeiting the mechanical strength of the specimens.
2 Materials and methods
In the present work, all the specimens are built using ABS
P430™ model material (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA).
SR30™ support material (Stratasys, Eden Prairie, MN, USA)
is used for support structure generation (as and when needed)
while building the test specimens. ABS P430 material has the
following properties: tensile strength = 37 MPa, tensile elon-
gation = 3 %, and flexural strength = 53 MPa.
Layers of support material at desired locations are deposit-
ed based on the part orientation and geometric complexity.
After building the component, the support materials are dis-
solved in a support cleaning station (WaveWash station).
Commercial computer-aided design (CAD) software Pro/
Engineer 5.0 is used to create the models of the test specimens.
ASTM D638 and ASTM D790 standards are used for decid-
ing the detailed dimensions of tensile and flexural test speci-
mens, respectively [27, 28]. The models are saved in .stl for-
mat for slicing, layer generation, and building of the speci-
mens. All specimens are built by depositing layers of 0.178-
mm constant thickness. Figure 1a, b shows the geometric
shape and dimensional details of the tensile and flexural test
specimens. Figure 1c schematically represents the part orien-
tation and raster directions for three different part orientations
(along the X, Y, and Z axis) with four different raster angles
(0°, 30°, 60°, and 90°).
The tensile and flexural (three-point bending) testing
of the specimens are conducted on a Zwick/Roell Z010
(Zwick Roell, Ulm, Germany) ultimate testing machine
(UTM) equipped with 10 kN load cell. Figure 2a, b
shows the gripper arrangements on the UTM machine
for tensile and flexural testing, respectively. The tensile
tests are conducted at 5 mm/min cross head speed [27].
During flexural testing, the specimen is placed on two
supports and load is applied at the center of the speci-
men. The distance between the supports are maintained
in such a way that the value of the support span-to-depth
ratio is 16 [28]. Figure 2c, e shows some of the speci-
mens built for tensile and flexural testing, and the frac-
tured samples after testing are shown in Fig. 2d, f.
Surface roughness is measured using a surface roughness
tester (SJ400, Mitutoyo, Kawasaki, Japan), selecting a
0.8-mm cutoff length. Roughness is measured twice and
the average value is considered for the analysis. The
average surface roughness (Ra) values and root mean
square roughness (Rq) values are measured both along
and across the length of the specimens. The 3D optical
profiler (Zegage, Zygo, Middlefield, CT, USA) and scan-
ning electron microscope (JSM-6510LV, JEOL, Tokyo,
Japan) are used to analyze the fracture surfaces.
Later, all the fabricated components are treated by exposing
the test specimens to cold vapors of dimethyl ketone (99 %
concentration). Due to low toxicity, low cost, and very high
evaporation rate, acetone was used for the chemical treatment
of ABS specimens. Initially, the test specimens are treated in
three different ways—with cold vapors of acetone, hot vapors
of acetone, and immersing the parts in lukewarm acetone. But,
the chemical reaction with hot vapors or liquid acetone is
found aggressive and sometimes, it became difficult to control
the damage of the part surfaces. To reduce damage, short
exposure duration is opted for hot vapor; however, it is again
observed that all surfaces are not treated uniformly. Treatment
by dipping of components would require proper balance of
acetone concentration and exposure time to obtain an
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 1 a Tensile and b flexural

testing specimen dimensions as
per ASTM standards. c Schematic
illustration of the different part
orientations and raster angles for
part building

Dimensions are in mm

(a) Tensile testing specimen (b) Flexural testing specimen

(ASTM D638) (ASTM D790)

X0 X30 X60 X90

Base plate

Y X X Direction

Y0 Y30 Y60 Y90

Y X
Y Direction

Z0 Z30 Z60 Z90

X
Y Z Direction
(c) Schematic representation of different part orientations and raster angles

acceptable surface quality. However, the authors noted that in
treatment with cold vapors of acetone, the specimen surfaces
are uniformly exposed to the acetone vapors and smoothen the
part surfaces uniformly [29]. For cold vapor treatment with
acetone, the test specimen is kept in an air-tight container
(capacity ∼1.3 L), with walls lined with absorbent papers
soaked in acetone. The container is kept at a temperature of
20 °C for 40 min so that the acetone could vaporize and form a
cloud of acetone vapors inside the container. Surface rough-
ness and tensile and flexural strength are measured after the
chemical treatment and compared with specimens that are not
posttreated.
3 Results and discussions
The parts are fabricated at different part building orientations,
and raster angles and their surface roughness, tensile, flexural
strength, and building aspects are measured. Measurements
are carried out for all parts before, as well as after, the chemical
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
(a) Tensile testing setup
(c) Tensile specimen (d) Tensile specimen
beforre testing aftter testing
Fig. 2 Tensile and flexural specimens before and after testing and their gripper arrangements
treatment and compared to study and analyze the effect of the
different parameters.
3.1 Surface roughness
Surface roughness of the components are measured along and
across the length of the specimens twice (on flat surface), and
the average surface roughness (Ra) and root mean square
roughness (Rq) values are considered. Variations of Ra and
Rq for each test samples built at different orientations and
raster angles are shown in Fig. 3. It can be noted that for parts
built with X orientation, the surface roughness is higher in the
across direction compared to along the length. This can be
easily correlated that the raster layers are deposited along the
length, and measuring roughness implies that the stylus moves
in the direction of length of layers. However, in the across
direction, the stylus moves past the width of the layers thereby
several times moving up and down and recording higher
roughness of the surface. Before the chemical treatment, the
specimens built with X orientation provide the lowest surface
roughness when measured along the length of the specimen,
whereas much higher surface roughness is observed when
orientations is about the Z axis. A possible reason behind this
phenomenon is that when a test specimen is orientated along
the Z axis, a number of layers increase, each having rasters of
smaller length followed by more numbers of heating and
cooling cycle, which may have caused distortion and
microcracking between the deposited layers on the top surface
of the specimen. Moreover, due to the smaller length of layers,
the movement direction changes in a very short time interval
to remain synchronized in both the X and Y direction. This
causes the fluctuation in depositing the road in each layer,
leads to the formation of voids, and creates air gap that in-
creases the surface roughness of the test specimens.
(b) Flexural testing setup
(e) Flexural specimen (f) Flexural specimen
before testingg after testing
The specimens built with X orientation exhibit higher sur-
face roughness when measured across the length of the spec-
imen. The best surface finish across the length is obtained
when the specimen is orientated along the Z axis and raster
angle is 0° (Z0) due to the fact that, here, roughness measure-
ment across the direction implies that the stylus travels along
the length of the layers (width direction of the specimen).
Conversely, a poor surface finish along the length of the spec-
imen is obtained when the specimen is orientated along the Z
axis and raster angle is 30° (Z30). The results indicate that for
part orientation along the X axis, the lower roughness is
achieved when measured along the length, but the higher
roughness is obtained when measured across the length. An
exact reverse behavior is observed for part orientation in the Z
axis. However, reasonably moderate surface roughness is not-
ed for part orientation along the Y axis with 30° and 60° raster
orientation for both the along and across directions.
After the specimens are posttreated with cold vapor of ac-
etone, enormous reductions in surface roughness are ob-
served. The maximum surface roughness (across the length)
of Ra = 13.05 μm is reduced to 0.270 μm after the chemical
treatment for specimens built along the X orientation (refer to
Fig. 3a). Similarly, the maximum surface roughness of
Ra = 15.39 μm along the length direction for the specimen
built along the Z axis with raster angle of 30° is reduced to
0.220 μm (refer to Fig. 3c) after the chemical treatment. The
minimum surface roughness (Ra = 0.135 μm) is obtained for
the specimen built along the X axis and raster angle of 0° (X0)
when roughness is measured along the length of the specimen.
It can be well observed from Fig. 3 that substantial reduc-
tion in roughness can be achieved after the chemical treatment
for all the test samples built at different part building orienta-
tions and raster angles. The outer surfaces of all the test spec-
imens are uniformly exposed to cold vapors of acetone for an
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Without Chemical Treatment

20 Without Chemical Treatment 20

Root Mean Square Roughness, Rq (µm)

Average Surface Roughness, Ra (µm)
With Chemical Treatment With Chemical Treatment
18 18
Along the length
Along the length 16 Across the length
16
Across the length
14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2
0 0
X0 X30 X60 X90 X0 X30 X60 X90
Raster angle (degree) Raster angle (degree)
(a) X direction

Without Chemical Treatment

20 Without Chemical Treatment 20
Average Surface Roughness, Ra (µm)

Root Mean Square Roughness, Rq (µm)

With Chemical Treatment
18 With Chemical Treatment 18
16 Along the length 16 Along the length
Across the length Across the length
14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
Y0 Y30 Y60 Y90 Y0 Y30 Y60 Y90
Raster angle (degree) Raster angle (degree)
(b) Y direction

Without Chemical Treatment

20 Without Chemical Treatment 20
Root Mean Square Roughness, Rq (µm)
Average Surface Roughness, Ra (µm)

With Chemical Treatment

18 With Chemical Treatment 18
Along the length
Along the length 16 Across the length
16
Across the length
14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
Z0 Z30 Z60 Z90 Z0 Z30 Z60 Z90
Raster angle (degree) Raster angle (degree)
(c) Z direction
Fig. 3 Surface roughness along and across the length of the specimens built at different part orientations and raster angles with and without
chemical treatment

adequate duration and ensure smooth and shiny surface finish come in contact with the outer surfaces of the test specimen
all around the test specimen [29, 30]. As the acetone vapors and exposed for a sufficient duration, the surface and
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
subsurface layers of the part gets softened. The surface grad-
ually converts to a mushy stage and the secondary bond be-
tween the ABS polymer chains breaks down. Due to the soft,
mushy nature, the polymer layers and chains slide past each
other to fill the cavity/valley region between the adjacent de-
posited layers and reach a more stable position [29]. Surface
tensions in liquid like the ABS layer flow to some extent and
polishes the surface texture especially the air voids/gaps pres-
ent between the neighboring layers [30]. Finally, when the test
specimens are removed from the container, the remaining
traces of acetone evaporate and the original well-bonded con-
tinuous layer on the outer surface with adequate hardness is
regained. Figure 4 shows the optical micrographs of surface
appearances before and after chemical treatment. The distinct
surface unevenness with the prominent crest and valley of
layers almost vanished after the chemical vapor treatment.
The surface smoothness even over a larger region is indicative
of the reduction in surface roughness after the chemical treat-
ment of the samples.
Figure 5 shows the optical microscopic images of sample
surfaces with 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° raster orientations before
and after treatments. Chemical vapor treatment eliminates the
distinct demarcation between the layers that was present on
the sample surface before the treatment.
3.2 Tensile strength
The variations in tensile strength with raster angle for three
different part building orientations are shown in Fig. 6. From
Fig. 6, it can be noted that the maximum strength is achieved
for the X and Y part orientation as compared to the orientation
on Z axis. Also, for the X and Y orientations, minimum
strength is achieved for a 90° raster angle as compared to the
other raster orientations. Higher tensile strength with a 0° ras-
ter angle as compared to 90° is observed by authors when only
the effect of raster angle was studied for ABS parts build at Y
orientation (without chemical treatment) [31]. This is due to
the fact that in the specimens build at the X and Y orientations
with a 90° raster angle, the layers are aligned in a
Fig. 4 Optical micrographs of
the surfaces before and after
treatment
Crest of layer
60º
Valley betweeen
two layers
(a) before treatment
perpendicular direction to the applied load (i.e., across the
length of the specimens) with smaller raster length. Large
numbers of raster with smaller length increases the number
of heating and cooling cycle, which results in interlayer crack-
ing, delamination, and separation between adjacent layers.
However, for parts with a 0° raster angle, the layers are depos-
ited along the length of the specimen and are aligned in the
direction parallel to the applied load thus producing a higher
resistance to tensile failure.
Tearing and brittle fracture of the deposited layers takes
place for samples built at the 0° raster angle, whereas for parts
with 30° and 60° raster angles, shear failure is also involved
along with tearing of layers. Figure 6c shows that significantly
low tensile strength is obtained for the test specimens built
with Z orientation because the number of layers is significant-
ly high with this orientation. Due to the large number of
layers, the interlayer bonding strength varies along the length
of the specimen and all these layers are across the loading
direction. Separation of layers for 0° and 90° raster orientation
becomes easier as compared to 30° or 60° raster orientation
for parts build along the Z orientation due to smaller length of
interlayer bonding. Thus, the above results showed that FDM
specimens manufactured at different raster orientations exhibit
strong anisotropic properties and are majorly dependent on
part build orientation. The maximum tensile strength
(34.5 MPa) comparable to the original strength of the ABS
material is achieved when part orientation is along the X axis
and raster angle is 60° (X60), while minimum tensile strength
(14.8 MPa) is obtained when part orientation is along the Z
axis and raster angle is 90° (Z90). The microscopic inspec-
tions are carried out to study the fracture behavior of the FDM
samples and understand the weakest path for crack propaga-
tions. The specimens with the 0° and/or 90° raster angles
failed in transverse direction with fiber pullout, interlayer de-
lamination at certain weak regions, and tearing of individual
fibers. These fracture tendencies and patterns of FDM speci-
mens are schematically represented in Fig. 7.
From Fig. 6, it can also be seen that chemical treatment
reduces the tensile strength of the specimen built at different
Crest of laayer
(b) after treatment

Without chemical treatment With chemical treatment
Stress concentration and
fractures initiation
Smoothened
surfaces
(a)
Regions of fracture
growth
Smoothened
surfaces
(b)
Stress concentrated
regions
Smoothened
surfaces
(c)
Stress
concentrated
regions
(d)
Fig. 5 Optical microscopic images of the specimens built at four
different raster angles: a Y0, b Y30, c Y60 and d Y90
part building orientations and raster angles (except Z0 and
Z90). Figure 8 clearly illustrates that the acetone used for the
posttreatment softens the outer layer of the FDM test speci-
mens and, to some extent, the inner layers also absorb the
acetone that may have contributed in reducing tensile strength.
However, after chemical treatment, the maximum tensile
strength is also found for the X and Y part orientations as
compared to the orientation on the Z axis and this behavior
is similar to the situation of the untreated samples. Also, for
the X and Y orientation, minimum strength is achieved for the
90° raster angle as compared to the other raster orientations.
This is due to the similar reason that in the X and Y orienta-
tions for the 90° raster angle, the layers are aligned in a per-
pendicular direction to the applied load thus producing raster
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
of smaller length that increases the number of heating and
cooling cycle, interlayer cracking, delamination, and failure.
Additionally, the layers deposited in a direction transverse to
loading favor easy interlayer separation rather than the pulling
of layers. It can be seen from Fig. 5 that after the chemical
treatment, when the specimens are tested for tensile strength,
numerous regions with higher stress concentrations are found
and fracture is initiated from such weak regions. However, for
samples built at the 0° and 90° raster angles along the Z axis,
the tensile strength of the specimen is increased by 72.43 and
56.08 % after chemical treatment. This could be due to the fact
that before chemical treatment, both Z0 and Z90 specimens
consist of larger number but smaller length rasters thus the
crack propagates along the weak interlayer bonding between
the rasters. Due to the chemical treatment by acetone vapors,
the weak and unfilled valley region between the adjacent
layers are smoothened and filled due to the flow of the ABS
during treatment. These regions after treatment get bonded
together thus diminishing weak interlayer regions and reduc-
ing the fracture tendency that is initiated from these regions.
The maximum tensile strength (33 MPa) is obtained when part
orientation is along the X axis and raster angle is 60° (X60).
Minimum tensile strength (18.1 MPa) is obtained when part
orientation is along the Z axis and raster angle is 30° (Z30)
which is a little higher than the minimum tensile strength of
14.8 MPa (Z90) for the specimen without any cold vapor
treatment.
The SEM images of fracture surface for some of the
test specimens that failed under tensile loading are shown
in Fig. 9. Figure 9a shows that tearing/brittle failure and
separation of materials occur in a normal direction to the
tensile stress for specimens built with a 0° raster angle.
Some air voids between the layers are more prominent for
the sample with a 0° raster angle. Figure 9b indicates the
presence of tearing of the fibers along with pulling and
rupturing due to shear for the failed tensile sample built at
the 30° raster angle (Y30); however, no occasional neck-
ing of fibers are visible. Relatively more amount of shear
took place in the 60° raster specimen build along the X
axis (X60) and due to the strong interlayer bonding be-
tween rasters, pulling and rapture are also observed
(Fig. 9c). A visible necking can be noticed (refer
Fig. 9c) in some of the fibers that are pulled out for this
case thus providing the highest tensile strength of the
specimen. In Fig. 9d, for Z30, specimen failure occurred
between the layers and fracture propagates along the weak
interlayer path, thereby providing significantly low tensile
strength and fracture surface exhibit smooth patterns with
no traces of fiber pulling or rupture.
Figure 10 shows the optical images of the fracture surfaces
under tensile loading for the few selected samples. Figure 10a
shows the fracture surface image for the sample built with X
orientation and 60° raster angle. As indicated in Fig. 10a,
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Without Chemical Treatment Without Chemical Treatment

40 40
With Chemical Treatment With Chemical Treatment
35 35

Tensile Strength (MPa)

Tensile Strength (MPa) 30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
X0 X30 X60 X90 Y0 Y30 Y60 Y90
Raster Angle (degree) Raster Angle (degree)
(a) (b)

Without Chemical Treatment

40
With Chemical Treatment
35
Tensile Strength (MPa)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Z0 Z30 Z60 Z90
Raster Angle (degree)
(c)
Fig. 6 Tensile strength of the specimens built at different part orientations and raster angles with and without chemical treatment

pulling out of fiber indicates a small amount necking along 3.3 Flexural strength
with the sudden ruptured region. Numerous numbers of
microhills appeared due to the micropulling of fibers within Flexural (three-point bending) test is carried out for all the test
a layer of material which is also indicative of improved tensile specimens and the variations in flexural strength with raster
strength (highest tensile strength of all samples). A relatively angle for parts built at different orientations are shown in
small amount of micropulling of fibers and stepwise sudden Fig. 11. Flexural strength for all samples is calculated as,
failure can be seen in Fig. 10b, wherein a relatively low tensile Flexural Strength ¼ 2bt
3FL
2 MPa, where F = load at failure (N),

strength is achieved for sample X90. The flat stepwise failure L = length between support rollers (mm), t = thickness of
also indicates the separation from adjacent layers. Minimal specimen (mm), and b = width of specimen (mm). From
amount of fiber pulling and distinct layer separation at the Fig. 11, it can be seen that flexural strength of the FDM spec-
weak interlayer regions can be clearly seen in Fig. 10c, d for imens is very close to the original strength of the parent ma-
sample Z30. Thus, they are indicative of lower tensile strength terial in many cases when built orientation is X or Y axis.
of the specimens. Specimens with raster angle of 90° exhibit lower flexural

Crack due to delamination of layers Crack due to delamination of layers

Fiber pullout

Typical
crack path

Fig. 7 Schematic illustration of fracture pattern (delamination and fiber pullout) under uniaxial tensile loading of FDM built specimens at different raster
angles of 0° and/or 90°
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 8 Optical microscopic Without chemical treatment With chemical treatment

images of fracture surfaces of
specimens under uniaxial tensile
loading when built at different
raster angles: a Y0, b Y30, c Y60,
and d Y90 Brittle fracture

Acetone absorb by
inner surface

(a)

(b)

Staircase
effect

(c)

Smooth outer
surface

(d)

strength for different part orientations as compared to other
raster angles (Fig. 11a, b). In the specimens built with the 90°
raster angle, the rasters are deposited perpendicular to the
bending plane, thus producing rasters of smaller length.
Bending load very quickly leads to separation of layers along
the width of the specimen at the bottom of the specimen and
fails quickly. For example, specimens built at X orientation
with raster angle of 30° (X30) exhibits the highest flexural
strength as compared to specimens built with same orienta-
tion. Amidst different parts built with Y orientation, the part
having a raster angle of 0° exhibits higher flexural strength as
compared to those with a 90° raster angle as the rasters are laid
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 9 SEM image for tensile

fracture of samples (without
treatment) a Y0, b Y30,
Air void Pulling and tearing
c X60, and d Z30 of fibers but no
visible necking

(a) (b)

Necking of the few

Grain pulled out fibers

Brittle failure

(c) (d)

parallel to the bending plane and exhibits higher resistance to
bending. For parts built with orientation along the Z axis
(Fig. 11c), the lowest flexural strength is obtained as com-
pared to the test specimens built at the other two part orienta-
tion directions due to the easier tendency of interlayer separa-
tion. Specimens with 30° and 60° raster angles (with Z
orientation) show higher flexural strength as compared to the
other two raster angles due to the relatively larger length of
interlayer contact.
From Fig. 11, it can also be seen that after the chemical
treatment, the flexural strength of the specimen reduces for
different part orientations and raster angles. This behavior

Fig. 10 Optical images of the

fracture surfaces a X60, b X90
and c, d Z30 Fiber pulling with
small necking

Region of
rupture

Numerous micro-
pulling of fibers (a) (b)

Layer separation
and failure

(c) (d)
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Without Chemical Treatment 60 Without Chemical Treatment

60
With Chemical Treatment With Chemical Treatment
55 55

Flexural Strength (MPa)

Flexural Strength (MPa) 50 50

45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
X0 X30 X60 X90 Y0 Y30 Y60 Y90
(a) Raster Angle (degree) (b) Raster Angle (degree)

60 Without Chemical Treatment

55 With Chemical Treatment
Flexural Strength (MPa)

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
Z0 Z30 Z60 Z90
(c) Raster Angle (degree)
Fig. 11 Flexural strength of specimens built at different part orientations and raster angles with and without chemical treatment

(similar to cases of tensile strength) could be due to that the
absorption of acetone vapors below the surface layers and
traces/presence of acetone weakens the subsurface region,
thus reducing the flexural strength. Moreover, specimens
built by layer deposition processes, containing rasters with
different orientations, sometimes exhibit higher resistance to
bending as compared to single solid layers due to the diffu-
sion of rasters into continuous layer after chemical treatment.
The maximum flexural strength after chemical treatment is
noted for the X and Y part orientations as compared to
orientation on Z axis. But, for the X and Y orientations,
minimum strength is achieved for a 0° raster angle as com-
pared to 90° raster orientations, which is contrary to the
cases without treatment. This is mainly because the 90°
raster specimen consists of more rasters of smaller length
as compared to that in the 0° raster orientation, thus the
chemical treatment attacks the specimen’s outer surface
and small rasters are bonded together into a continuous
piece. However, in the 0° raster orientation, long rasters
are probably not diffused together into a continuous piece,
leaving behind some air voids and small crater between the
rasters, which increases the stress concentration of the spec-
imens and reduces the flexural strength of the specimen.
Microscopic examination of the surfaces shows that failure
of the specimen is initiated on the bottom surface (tensile side)
of the specimen, but layers are held together by the unbroken
fibers of the compression side (refer to Fig. 2f). SEM images
of the samples under flexural failure are shown in Fig. 12.
Figure 12a, b shows that cracks propagate along the loading
direction for the test specimen built with the 0° raster angle,
and it is almost straight whereas it is non-uniform and incon-
sistent for the 90° raster sample. Moreover, for the part built
with the 0° raster angle along the Z axis (Z0), the cracks
propagate along the weak interlayer bonding due to the easier
tendency of interlayer separation; thereby, the fractured sur-
face of the sample exhibits flat and smooth layer-separated
regions (Fig. 12c). However, for specimens built with the
30° raster angle along the X axis (X30), they exhibit strong
interlayer bonding due to the relatively larger length of inter-
layer contact (Fig. 12d).
Figure 13 shows the optical images of the fracture surfaces
after the flexural test for the three selected samples. A signif-
icant amount of grain fiber pulling can be noticed in Fig. 13a
for the sample built with the 60° raster angle at X orientation.
A noticeable amount of fiber stretching and pulling results in
the higher flexural strength (55 MPa) of the sample. Relatively
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 12 SEM image for flexural

fracture of samples (without Catastrophic
treatment): a Y0, b Y90, c Z0, failure
and d X30

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

lower amounts of fiber stretching, pulling, and sudden failure/ in Fig. 13(c) for the sample built with the 0° raster angle along
brittle fracture of the fibers are noticed in the X90 sample the Z direction, is responsible for the early failure of the sam-
(Fig. 13b), thus a reduced flexural strength (49.3 MPa) is ple thus resulting in the minimum flexural strength
obtained. A drastic failure with layer separation, as observed (18.59 MPa) of the sample.

Fig. 13 Optical images of the

fracture surfaces: a X60, b X90,
and c Z0

(a) (b)

(c)
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

60 8
Build Time
Model Material
50 Support Material

6
40
Build Time (Min)

Material (cm3)
30 4

20
2
10

0 0
X0 X30 X60 X90 Y0 Y30 Y60 Y90 Z0 Z30 Z60 Z90
(a) Build axis-Raster Angle (degree)

60 8
Build Time
Model Material
50 Support Material
6
Build Time (Min)

40

Material (cm3)
30 4

20
2
10

0 0
X0 X30 X60 X90 Y0 Y30 Y60 Y90 Z0 Z30 Z60 Z90
(b) Build axis-Raster Angle (degree)
Fig. 14 Build cost data for specimens built for different part orientations and raster angles for a tensile and b flexural specimens

3.4 Build cost
Part building time, together with model material and sup-
port material consumption, represents the build cost for
an FDM part. Figure 14a, b represents the comparison of
build time and model and support material consumption
at different part orientations and raster angles for build-
ing tensile and flexural test specimens. From Fig. 14, it
can be observed that part orientation is more significant
in influencing build time than the raster angles of the
specimen are. The building height of the specimen is
directly related to the part orientations and significantly
influences the build time. In addition to the height of the
specimen, the build time also depends upon the amount
of support and model material to be deposited in
completing the specimen and the ideal time spent in
moving the base table in the Z direction after completion
of each layer.
Commonly, FDM parts are built on a specific base plate
and the first few layers of the model material is deposited to
strengthen the base of the component to be fabricated follow-
ed by deposition of the support material to facilitate the re-
moval of the actual component from the base plate. Then, the
actual layers (model material) are deposited for building the
component. Thus, the amount of support material required
depends upon the total contact area between the specimen
and the base plate in addition to the overhung portion of the
component (geometry-dependent support needed). Reducing
the contact area decreases the amount of support material re-
quired which further reduces the amount of build time and
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Fig. 15 Optical microscopic
image of the top surface of the
FDM specimen showing
perimeter voids for different raster
angles: a Y0, b Y30, c Y60, and d
Y90
(a)
(k +1)th layer
th
k layer
cost of removing the support material. Figure 14 clearly indi-
cates that the minimum amount of support material is con-
sumed for both tensile and flexural specimen for part ori-
entation along the Z axis due to the minimum contact area
between the specimen and base plate; however, these test
specimens have minimum tensile and flexural strength.
The amount of model material required depends on the
volume of the specimen and area of contact of the spec-
imen with the base plate as well as raster angle of the
specimen. Since the volume of the specimen remains con-
stant for all cases, the variation in model material con-
sumption for different part orientations depends mainly
upon the area of contact of the specimen with the base
plate and volume consumed at the first few layers of
model material deposition. A little variation in model ma-
terial consumption for different raster angles (for same
part orientations) is due to the pattern of raster fill and
void regions at the corners (shown in Fig. 15). The num-
ber, size, and occurrence of these voids largely depend on
the raster deposition pattern, i.e., raster angle and its in-
teraction with the deposited periphery/boundary layer of
the part. Figure 15 depicts the incomplete filling of layers
at locations where raster turns around near the component
periphery and the presence of unfilled sections between
the successive deposited layers (Fig. 15c, d).
Boundary layer
Void region
Voids
Raster
layers
(b)
kth layer
(k +1)th layer
(c) (d)
From Figs. 6 and 14a, the optimal tensile strength-build
time-material consumption relation is obtained and it is ob-
served that test specimens fabricated with the X axis and raster
angle of 60° (X60) exhibited maximum tensile strength with
reasonably lower surface roughness, build time, and model
and support material consumption. From Figs. 11 and 14b,
the optimal flexural strength-build time-material consumption
relation indicates orientation X30 could be a better option for
maximum flexural strength, good surface finish with low
build time and model and support material consumption.
Moreover, for highest mechanical properties (tensile and flex-
ural strength) with relatively low importance of surface rough-
ness, build cost (like in the case of functional parts), the com-
ponent may be built at X orientation with raster angle of 30°
(X30).
4 Conclusions
In this present work, effects of part build orientation and raster
angle on tensile, flexural strength, surface roughness, and
build cost of FDM test specimens are investigated. The re-
sponses are also measured after post-built treatment by cold
vapors of acetone, and the results are compared. Based on the

results obtained and the fractographic studies, the following
conclusions are drawn:
& FDM samples built with different raster angles at different
part orientations exhibit strong anisotropic behavior, and
mechanical strength and surface roughness are strongly
dependent on part build orientation.
& Lowest surface roughness (Ra = 0.63 μm) across the
length is obtained for specimens built with orientation
along the Z axis (Z0), whereas a better finish along the
length of the specimen is obtained when part build orien-
tation is on the X axis. Surface roughness values measured
along and across the length are almost in similar order for
specimens built along the Y orientation.
& The cold vapor treatment with acetone yielded an
immense improvement in the surface finish of the
specimen as in contact with the acetone vapors, the
surface gradually transforms to a mushy-like stage
due to weakening of the secondary bonds. The soft,
mushy nature of the polymer layers allows minor
flow and fills the valley region between the adjacent
layers reaching a more stable position. Later, solidi-
fication helps to achieve smooth surface texture al-
most filling the air voids/gaps present between the
neighboring layers.
& Higher tensile and flexural strengths are obtained
when specimens are built with part orientation along
the X or Y orientations, but part orientation along
the Z axis results in inferior strength due to weak
bonding between the small-length rasters. For parts
with raster angles of 30° or 60°, pulling of fiber and
small amount of necking along with tearing are re-
sponsible for higher tensile strength. Numerous num-
bers of microhills that appeared due to micropulling
of fibers within a layer of material are observed
during the fractographic study for these samples.
& There is a marginal reduction in mechanical strength ob-
served after post-built treatment due to softening of the
subsurface layers. However, a huge improvement in sur-
face finish is achieved with this treatment. Highest tensile
strength of 34.5 MPa before chemical treatment is reduced
to 33 MPa after chemical treatment for the X60 specimen,
and flexural strength of 58.5 MPa before chemical treat-
ment is reduced to 54.16 MPa after treatment for the X30
specimen.
& Part orientation along the X axis with raster angle of
30° can be selected to achieve higher mechanical
properties with reasonably lower surface roughness.
Samples built with conditions X60 also produce a
comparable mechanical strength. Parts built with Z
orientation consume lower model and support mate-
rial consumption, but built time is more and strength
is poor.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the financial support
from All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi, India
(Grant No. 20/AICTE/RIFD/RPS (POLICY III) 92/2012-13) for this
work. The authors also express their sincere thanks to Dr. H. Bhunia
and Mr. Manjit Singh for their support and help.
References
1. Gurrala PK, Regalla SP (2014) Part strength evolution with bond-
ing between filaments in fused deposition modelling. Virtual Phys
Prototyp 9(3):141–149
2. Sood AK, Equbal A, Toppo V, Ohdar RK, Mahapatra SS (2012) An
investigation on sliding wear of FDM built parts. CIRP J Manuf Sci
Technol 5:48–54
3. Sun Q, Rizvi GM, Bellehumeur CT, Gu P (2008) Effect of process-
ing conditions on the bonding quality of FDM polymer filaments.
Rapid Prototyp J 14(2):72–80
4. Sood AK, Ohdar RK, Mahapatra SS (2010) Parametric appraisal of
fused deposition modelling process using the grey Taguchi method.
Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 224(1):135–145
5. Alexander P, Allen S, Dutta D (1998) Part orientation and build cost
determination in layered manufacturing. Comput Aided Des 30(5):
343–356
6. Pilipović A, Raos P, Šercer M (2009) Experimental analysis of
properties of materials for rapid prototyping. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 40:105–115
7. Xu F, Loh HT, Wong YS (1999) Considerations and selection of
optimal orientation for different rapid prototyping systems. Rapid
Prototyp J 5(2):54–60
8. Thrimurthulu K, Pandey PM, Reddy NV (2004) Optimum part
deposition orientation in fused deposition modeling. Int J Mach
Tool Manu 44:585–594
9. Byun HS, Lee KH (2005) Determination of the optimal part orien-
tation in layered manufacturing using a genetic algorithm. Int J Prod
Res 43(13):2709–2724
10. Es-Said OS, Foyos J, Noorani R, Mendelson M, Marloth R, Pregger
BA (2000) Effect of layer orientation on mechanical properties of
rapid prototyped samples. Mater Manuf Process 15(1):107–122
11. Noriega A, Blanco D, Alvarez BJ, Garcia A (2013) Dimensional
accuracy improvement of FDM square cross-section parts using
artificial neural networks and an optimization algorithm. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 69(9):2301–2313
12. Vijayaraghavan V, Garg A, Lam JSL, Panda B, Mahapatra SS
(2015) Process characterisation of 3D-printed FDM components
using improved evolutionary computational approach. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 78(5):781–793
13. Anitha R, Arunachalam S, Radhakrishnan P (2001) Critical param-
eters influencing the quality of prototypes in fused deposition
modelling. J Mater Process Tech 118:385–388
14. Pérez CJL (2002) Analysis of the surface roughness and dimension-
al accuracy capability of fused deposition modelling processes. Int J
Prod Res 40(12):2865–2881
15. Ahn D, Kweon JH, Kwon S, Song J, Seokhee L (2009)
Representation of surface roughness in fused deposition modeling.
J Mater Process Tech 209:5593–5600
16. Sood AK, Ohdar RK, Mahapatra SS (2010) Parametric appraisal of
mechanical property of fused deposition modelling processed parts.
Mater Des 31:287–295
17. Gurrala PK, Regalla SP (2014) Multi-objective optimization of
strength and volumetric shrinkage of FDM parts. Virtual Phys
Prototyp 9(2):127–138
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
18. Pandey PM, Reddy NV, Dhande SG (2003) Improvement of sur-
face finish by staircase machining in fused deposition modeling. J
Mater Process Tech 132:323–331
19. Galeta T, Raos P, Somolanji M (2012) Impact of structure and
building orientation on strength of 3D printed models. KGK-
Kautschuk Gummi Kunststoffe 65(10):36–42
20. Krolczyk G, Raos P, Legutko S (2014) Experimental analysis of
surface roughness and surface texture of machined and fused depo-
sition modelled parts. Tehnicki Vjesnik - Technical Gazette 21(1):
217–221
21. Boschetto A, Giordano V, Veniali F (2013) Surface roughness pre-
diction in fused deposition modelling by neural networks. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 67(9):2727–2742
22. Boschetto A, Bottini L (2014) Accuracy prediction in fused depo-
sition modeling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(5):913–928
23. Rahmati S, Vahabli E (2015) Evaluation of analytical modeling for
improvement of surface roughness of FDM test part using measure-
ment results. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 79(5):823–829
24. Galantucci LM, Lavecchia F, Percoco G (2009) Experimental study
aiming to enhance the surface finish of fused deposition modeled
parts. CIRP Ann Manuf Techn 58:189–192
25. Galantucci LM, Lavecchia F, Percoco G (2010) Quantitative anal-
ysis of a chemical treatment to reduce roughness of parts fabricated
using fused deposition modeling. CIRP Ann Manuf Techn 59:247–
250
26. Percoco G, Lavecchia F, Galantucci LM (2012) Compressive
properties of FDM rapid prototypes treated with a low cost
chemical finishing. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol 4(19):3838–
3842
27. ASTM D638-02 (2002) Standard test method for tensile properties
of plastics. ASTM International, West Conshohocken
28. ASTM D790-02 (2002) Standard test methods for flexural proper-
ties of unreinforced and reinforced plastics and electrical insulating
materials. ASTM International, West Conshohocken
29. Garg A, Bhattacharya A, Batish A (2016) On surface finish and
dimensional accuracy of FDM parts after cold vapor treatment.
Mater Manuf Process 31(4):522–529
30. Chapman B, Desai S, Muraoka M, Vidolova T (2014) Investigating
methods of prototyping with ABS. https://benchapman4.files.
wordpress.com/2014/05/teamabs_guidereport.pdf. Accessed 29
March 2016
31. Garg A, Bhattacharya A, Batish A (2015) Failure investigation
of fused deposition modelling parts fabricated at different ras-
ter angles under tensile and flexural loading. Proc Inst Mech
Eng B J Eng Manuf. doi:10.1177/0954405415617447