Layer Orientation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/261363979
Role of build orientation in layered manufacturing: A review
Article in International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management · January 2014

DOI: 10.1504/IJMTM.2013.058637
CITATIONS READS
106 4,484
2 authors:
Mohammad Taufik Prashant Kumar Jain

Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal PDPM Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing Jaba…
32 PUBLICATIONS 246 CITATIONS 108 PUBLICATIONS 950 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Dieless Manufacturing Project View project
Development of hybrid additive subtractive process to improve the part quality in FDM View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Taufik on 23 January 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 27, Nos. 1/2/3, 2013 47
Role of build orientation in layered manufacturing:

a review
Mohammad Taufik* and Prashant K. Jain

Mechanical Engineering Discipline,
PDPM Indian Institute of Information Technology,
Design and Manufacturing Jabalpur,
Jabalpur-482005, Madhya Pradesh, India
Fax: 0761-2632-524
E-mail: mohammad.taufik@iiitdmj.ac.in
E-mail: pkjain@iiitdmj.ac.in
*Corresponding author
Abstract: Layered manufacturing, also called rapid prototyping or additive

manufacturing is a revolutionary development in the field of manufacturing
processes in last two decades. Unlike material removed from a stock in the
machining process, layered manufacturing builds the solid volume from a CAD
model by successively adding material layer by layer. Since parts are fabricated
layer by layer, build orientation plays a critical role in the layered
manufacturing process as it can improve part quality in terms of accuracy and
surface finish, reduce the support volume required, support contact area and
build time. It also affects the part strength and cost of manufacturing. This
paper presents review of various strategies developed to decide the optimum
part build orientation based on different criteria and related issues. This paper
also discusses the effect of build orientation on fabricated parts and future
directions to improve part quality by selecting suitable and feasible build
orientation.
Keywords: additive manufacturing; build orientation; surface finish; support

structures; volumetric error; dimensional accuracy; part strength; build time.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Taufik, M. and Jain, P.K.
(2013) ‘Role of build orientation in layered manufacturing: a review’,
Int. J. Manufacturing Technology and Management, Vol. 27, Nos. 1/2/3,
pp.47–73.
Biographical notes: Mohammad Taufik received his MTech (Hons.) in

Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM) from the Madan Mohan Malaviya
Engineering College, Gorakhpur, India. Currently, he is pursuing his PhD
in Mechanical Engineering Discipline at PDPM Indian Institute of
Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing Jabalpur, Madhya
Pradesh, India in the area of additive manufacturing process. His research
interests include CAD\CAM, rapid prototyping, CNC machining and finite
element analysis.
Prashant K. Jain is an Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering

Discipline of the PDPM Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design
and Manufacturing Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India. He received his PhD from
the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. His innovative work on improving
the part quality in the SLS process had been published in leading international
journals and peer-reviewed international conferences. He is also serving as a
Copyright © 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

48 M. Taufik and P.K. Jain
co-PI for an ongoing research project in the area of incremental sheet forming
sponsored by BARC, Mumbai. Earlier, he has served as Project Scientist and
Research Associate at IIT Delhi. His interests include rapid prototyping and
tooling, CNC machining, geometric modelling, CAD/CAM and computational
geometry.
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Orientation

techniques in layered manufacturing: a review’, presented at International
Conference on Innovations in Design and Manufacturing (InnDeM 2012),
Jabalpur, India, December 5–7, 2012.
1 Introduction
Layered manufacturing (LM) processes, apply physical or chemical phenomena

to build parts by adding material in a layer wise manner. It was initiated in the late 80s
(Kruth, 1991) with the introduction of stereo lithography (SL) process, which was a
liquid-based process and uses photo sensitive polymer. In the last two decades,
many processes based on powder, solid and liquid (Kruth et al., 1998) were developed
such as fused deposition modelling (FDM), ink jet printing (IJP), 3D printing (3DP),
selective laser sintering (SLS), laser cladding (LC), laminated object manufacturing
(LOM), laser vapour deposition (LVD), etc. The most popular and commercial
available LM processes are SL, FDM, LOM and SLS. FDM system forms a part by
depositing semi molten polymeric materials using extruder head. 3D Printing uses an
ink-jet print head to jet adhesive droplets onto the powder material, binding the solid
powder particles together. In LOM patterns are sequentially glued together and cut
to shape with a laser (or knife). SLS forms layered three-dimensional objects by sintering
or fusing together successive layers of powder material. Recently, Z Corporation (012)
has introduced commercial RP system which produces coloured models as well. Among
all LM processes determining the optimal build orientation is the most important and
critical issue (Alexander et al., 1998). Thus, in all LM processes, the solid model of a
component to be produced is properly oriented before transferring the data to the RP
machine and hence build orientation is usually optimised, predicted or controlled at the
initial stage of LM processes/cycle along with different strategies. LM processes can be
divided into nine stages and reverse engineering step completes the LM cycle. Figure 1
provides a good illustration of the different steps being used in LM and it can be seen
from Figure 1 that the build orientation has significant influence on the LM build parts,
because it is followed by slicing, support generation, toolpath definition, additive
fabrication, part removal/cleaning and also reverse engineering. Therefore, any change in
build orientation greatly affects the different steps of the LM process, i.e., slicing, support
generation, etc.
The first step is the generation of the geometric model using computer aided
design (CAD). The geometric model is then translated into a Tessellated version of
the CAD model also called SL format (Jain et al., 2009; Singhal et al., 2008a, 2008b;
Wood, 1993). In the Tessellation process various surfaces of a CAD model are
piecewise approximated by a series of triangular plane surface and in Standard
Tessellation Language (STL) format, the coordinates of vertices of triangles and
Role of build orientation in layered manufacturing 49
their surface normals are listed. A pre-processing step is necessary to verify before slicing
the STL model (Chua et al., 2010) for various defects in STL file such as flipped
triangles, bad edges, hidden lines, etc. The fourth step is selection of part deposition
orientation. In LM process this step is a significant niche area of research. Because
the part deposition orientation within the fabrication bed affect the various objectives,
therefore, before providing support to overhanging parts and slicing (Starly et al.,
2005), one has to specify optimal build orientation by considering various contradicting
performances (as shown in Figure 2). From Figure 2, it is clear that the final
build orientation of the model can be decided either directly based on a single or a
multi objective orientation and the final orientation is further used in the LM processes
along with different build strategies. Once the build orientation is decided; the fifth step
is slicing tessellated model and step sixth provides support to overhanging features.
Slicing of the CAD model can be carried out in any of the following way, either directly
on a surface or a solid model of the particular product or on a tessellated version of the
CAD model (Pandey et al., 2003). Then toolpaths (laser-scanning or material deposition
paths) are generated in the seventh step for the model as well as the support material.
This step is different for different LM processes and depends on the basic deposition
principle used in RP machine. The next step is the actual construction of prototypes; at
this stage only little human intervention is required. The final step is the post-processing
task. This step involves removing a part from build chamber, cleaning excess material
adhered with the part.
Figure 1 Typical LM cycle

Figure 2 Orientation strategies in LM
The selection of part build orientation and associated cost of part depends on the
decisions made by the process engineer at the initial stage (pre-processing phase) of the
LM process cycle (as shown in Figure 1). However, determination of the best part
orientation with respect to the RP machine capabilities and limitations is not always easy.
One orientation may result in the desired surface finish with a long build time. In other
words, satisfying one objective may adversely affect some other objective. Figure 3
shows the typical example to understand the significance of build orientation, where
vector Z indicates the direction for build orientation (Jibin, 2005; Massod et al., 2000;
Tata et al., 1998). Hence, it is absolutely necessary to understand the roles of orientation
strategies before studying the different performances for overall process optimisation. If
the part is built as shown in Figures 3(a) and 3(d), the best surface finish can be obtained,
because no staircase effect (SE) is incurred. If it is built as shown in Figures 3(b)
and 3(c), a layering error (LE), also known as the stair stepping error effect occurred on
the surface, because of an inevitable loss of interpreting data during slicing (Bordoni and
Boschetto, 2012; Chua et al., 2010; Pandey et al., 2003; Singhal et al., 2008a). The
important parameters of the LE are summarised in Figure 4. The term maximum
deviation and chord length can be defined as the deviation of the layered model from the
Tessellated and original models respectively. From Figure 4, it can be easily recognised
that LE is the main bottleneck (in terms of surface deviation) for the manufacturing of
LM parts. Therefore, to estimate the effect of LE, the correlations between change in
Surface complexity (S) and the angle (θ) between the slice axis and its projection on the
surface established as follows (Tata et al., 1998):
Surface complexity S = tanθ (1)
where θ is the acute angle. According to equation (1), complexity effect increases as the
slope of the face increases and is infinite at θ equals 90° [refer equation (1)]. This
gives a zero or no complexity to the vertical axis and infinite complexity to flat faces
(as shown in Figure 5). Therefore, it is clear from Figures 4 and 5 that LE affects the
surface finish as well as dimensional accuracy for different part-build orientations.
Figure 3(c) shows the necessity of support structure along with part build orientation,
because surfaces having slope with respect to the slice axis results in an overhang and
requires support, therefore, the quantity of support may vary with the slope. The word
quantity of supports used here has two meanings. One is the quantity of supports volume
and the second is the quantity of the support area. Support area and supports volume
influence the surface quality, post processing and the building time respectively.
For the non-convex part shape, orientation strategy is more critical; because of at
different orientation the supports for some faces of convex part require different support
volume, and may be attached to other triangular facets (Jibin et al., 2005), which are part
of the desired component rather than to the platform of the machine (as shown in
Figure 6).
Figure 3 Effects of different build orientation
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Source: Jibin (2005), Massod et al. (2000), Tata et al. (1998) and
Rattanawong et al. (2001)
Build time varies due to variation in build height and associated number of layers
depending on the orientation. For each build orientation of the same part as shown in
Figures 3(a), 3(b) and 3(d), the part geometry is divided into different number of layers
which result in variation in build time. Variation in build time directly governs
productivity because large build time results in reduced productivity. The next
section describes the various approaches for determining the role of build orientation
strategies in LM.
Figure 4 Staircase effect
Source: Tata et al. (1998) and Singhal et al. (2008a)
Figure 5 Surface complexity at different orientations (e.g., θ, α, β and Ф)
Source: Tata et al. (1998)

Figure 6 2D views of non-convex part shape
Source: Jibin (2005)
2 Effects of orientation strategies
Many strategies for optimum build orientation have been successfully developed in the
past for optimising, predicting or controlling different performances of LM processes.
Most of the researcher considered surface finish as the most important factor followed by
dimensional accuracy, build time and support structures. In general, these orientation
strategies present significant differences among them, and there are no clear standard for
their implementation. In order to present a generic view of orientation strategies and
facilitate their implementation, this section describes the work done on various
orientation strategies and reviews different key issues involved in the selection of build
orientation direction with single and multi performances measured problems.
2.1 Effect of build orientation on surface finish

A good surface finish on the parts eliminate the amount of time that needs to be spent on
subsequent post-processing (finishing) of the part to attain the desired surface finish
and also eliminates dimensional inaccuracy problems which may, induce in the
post-processing operation. Thus, it is important to select a proper orientation and key
process parameters before starting a build. Vasudevarao et al. (2000) have studied the
effect of the five process parameters, namely build orientation, layer thickness, road
width, air gap and model temperature on the surface finish. According to developed
research procedure, edge profiles were approximated as curved shape. Fractional factorial
design with two levels for each factor is applied to find out important parameters
influencing the surface quality generated and also regression and analysis of variance
(ANOVA) model analysis were implemented to compute the final model in terms of
coded variables. It has been found that part orientation and layer thickness were the
important process parameters which significantly influence the surface roughness value.
In the developed approach, at lower build orientation the distance between two edges of
neighbouring layer becomes comparatively high which implies a coarse surface as shown
in Figure 7 (in this experimental study build orientation is measured with respect to the
machine platform, i.e., parallel to the horizontal direction). Figure 7 illustrates how the
inaccuracies caused by the length between step and sloped surface are considerably larger
with lower build orientation. Conversely, the use of higher build orientation tends to
provide smoother, more precise surfaces. Hence, the surface quality of a part can be
improved by avoiding the smaller build angles.
Figure 7 Effect of layer thickness (x) and length of the exposed part of a step (y)
Source: Kattethota et al. (1998) and Vasudevarao et al. (2000)

Kattethota et al. (1998) treat the surface roughness values as a dependent function of
build orientation and layer thickness. Experiments were conducted to obtain statistical
surface roughness and compiled these values and used as a foundation for assigning a
roughness value to a facet representing a triangular area of a surface. According to
Kattethota et al. (1998) when the deviation between actual surface and the desired surface
become sufficiently large, the length between step and sloped surface increases
substantially due to decrease in part build orientation(as shown in Figure 7). Step length
obtained using a mathematical equation:
Y = Layer thickness (X) / tanθ (2)
Above mentioned model in equation (2) is the initial forecasted mathematical model for
the surface deviation (Kattethota et al., 1998). The given mathematical model uses the
concept of stair-stepping effect, which representing a relationship with constant layer
thickness (X), step length (Y) of the part and the build orientation (θ). The model
demonstrates that for a constant layer thickness (X) surface deviation increases with the
lower value of the build orientation (i.e., higher is the value of tan θ), because the greater
is the length (Y) between two edges of neighbouring layer along the height of a sloped
surface of a part as shown in Figure 7. For the dynamic visualisation of surface quality;
implemented work developed a Decision Support Software (DSS) which allows
colour-coded surface roughness visualisation with respect to the build orientation and
layer thickness.
Schaub et al. (1997) have considered part orientation, boundary over cure depth, layer
thickness and spot overlap as process parameters, and conducted a set of experiments on
an SLS machine and concluded that the part orientation and the layer thickness are
important process parameters. With the help of design of experiment techniques, it was
found that for a better surface to occur the thicker layers has to be provided with a
vertical build orientation. Regression equation developed in this experimental study can
predict the roughness value of a RP build part in the considered range of process
variables.
2.2 Effect of build orientation on dimensional accuracy

It is very complicated to achieve the proper accuracy in the LM build parts produced by
different LM processes. The major limitations in achieving accuracy related to material
behaviour, data preparation STL files and build orientation. In order to improve the
accuracy of the part, Senthilkumaran et al. (2009) conducted a detailed study with
variable build conditions that help to understand the nature of shrinkage in SLS process.
The authors demonstrated that the part orientation and exposure strategies influence the
accuracy of the part to be produced. They fabricated the specimens with variable scan
length and measure deviations per unit length given in Figure 8(a). Accuracy of SLS
fabricated parts is assessed on a part-by-part basis. The interesting observation was that
the nominal dimension manufactured can be smaller or bigger than the original geometric
model dimension depending on the length of the specimen part. They found that the
positioning ability of the scan lines depend upon the galvanoscanner used in the SLS
machine rather its original intended dexel space as shown in Figure 8(b). Therefore, CAD
dimension is mainly depending on the length of the specimen part based on scanner
positioning ability to position the beam to the intended dexel space. It was also observed
that shrinkage is non-uniform in nature along both the axis. Shrinkage is varying with the
variation in orientation. When scan lengths and strip lengths are parallel, shrinkage along
Y direction is greatly non-uniform than in X direction. They presented non-uniformity in
shrinkage by the non-linear curve as shown in Figure 8(c). Because, it is easier to
understand the expansion and non-uniformity in shrinkage in Y direction by fitting the
data points for Y direction of the second degree curve.
Sood et al. (2009) combined grey theory and Taguchi method to determine the effect
of layer thickness, part orientation, raster angle, air gap and raster width at three levels on
the dimensional accuracy of component produced using the FDM process. In suggested
optimisation technique, the main effect plot shows the effect of process parameters
(as shown in Figure 9). From Figure 9, it is clear that the orientation has a significant
effect on the dimensional accuracy of the part. The results indicate that the layer
thickness at medium value, part orientation at lower value, raster angle at lower value,
road width at medium value and air gap at higher value would produce an overall
improvement in the fabricated part dimensions.
Paul et al. (2011) used the methodology (as shown in Figure 10) to investigate the
relation between part build orientation and cylindricity tolerance in LM. To illustrate the
cylindricity error, they presented two coaxial cylinders on the LM build cylindrical
surface, as shown by dotted lines in Figure 10(a). They suggested that difference in radius
of these two cylinders on the LM surface shows some additional material is deposited on
each slice and these additional points on the LM build surface in effect leads to
contribution to the cylindricity error. The flowchart of the used methodology to calculate
the cylindricity error is shown in Figure 10(b). In the developed methodology the concept
of a feasibility range for cylindricity tolerance was introduced and the acceptable ranges
of the orientation angles between the cylinder axis and build vector were calculated.
Presented approach predicted the effect of build orientation on cylindricity error by three
techniques. For all three techniques, they plotted the cylindricity error values against the
build angle values and the results are shown in Figure 10(c). Developed research method
considered a simple analytic method, simulation of the manufactured surface based on
the CAD and STL model and the cylindricity errors were calculated for all three methods.
The cylindricity error obtained from the STL file was more than compared to that of the
analytical method and CAD model, but the cylindricity error obtained from the analytical
method and from simulation of the CAD model were the same. This was happening,
because of the fact that the STL file is a piecewise approximation of the CAD surface by
a series of triangles. The method of finding an optimal build direction for a part with
multiple features was also explained. A graphical technique was also formulated to
identify optimal orientation zones that satisfy the cylindricity tolerance for a part with
multiple cylindrical features.
Figure 8 Effect of specimen orientation and scan speed in SLS process (a) shrinkage calibration
specimen (b) positioning error in hatching (c) effect of scan direction on shrinkage
pattern
(a) (b)
(c)
Source: Senthilkumaran et al. (2009)

Figure 9 Plot for factor effect for grey relation generation
Source: Sood et al. (2009)
Figure 10 (a) Cylindricity error in RM (b) Methodology to calculate cylindricity error

(c) Cylindricity error and build angle (θ)
(a) (b)
Figure 10 (a) Cylindricity error in RM (b) Methodology to calculate cylindricity error

(c) Cylindricity error and build angle (θ) (continued)
(c)
Source: Paul and Anand (2011)

Senthilkumaran et al. (2012) performed experiments on cylindrical parts to minimise the
form error in SLS prototyping using response surface methodology. A central composite
design (CCD) was used to plan experiments. Build orientation, laser power, scan speed,
cylinder diameter and build chamber temperature were selected as variables. In order to
formulate a second order regression model for each goal, each variable was considered at
five different levels. Cylindrical parts were fabricated with the different experimental
factors and their levels. In case of cylindricity, it is found that the interaction between the
scan speed and orientation is the dominant factor next to the orientation and quadratic
effect of the geometry. Figure 11 shows a contour plot map for the cylindricity of the
cylinders as it is built in SLS. The given contour plot has two axes: orientation and scan
speed are studied over their range of variation; the remaining parameters are kept
constant. To reach the experimental objective, contour plots are generally used. It is
observed that cylindricity decreases with increase in scan speed at 0° orientation, whereas
cylindricity increases with increase in scan speed at 90° orientation.
Figure 11 Illustration of various orientations and Interaction of parameters (see online version
for colours)
Source: Senthilkumaran et al. (2012)

2.3 Effect of build orientation strategies on volumetric error

Due to approximation of complex surface into planer sections an inherent error is induced
in built parts, known as volumetric error. This error occurred in LM processes build parts
due to difference in the volume of deposited part and the volume specified by the CAD
model. Massod et al. (2000) and Rattanawong et al. (2001) developed an analytical part
orientation system for rapid prototyping by considering the volumetric error caused by
slicing a CAD model. Developed system graphically displays the volumetric error for
different orientations by rotating about user-specified axes and recommends the best
orientation for the minimum volumetric error in the whole part. Developed methodology
utilises a basic primitive volume approach, which assumes a complex part to be
constructed from a combination of basic primitive volumes. The volumetric error (VE) in
the inclined primitive is then given by:
n
VE = ∑ ( A1)
i =1
i (3)
where
n total number of layers
A area error in each layer
l perimeter of each horizontal layer.
In order to find the error for an inclined primitive, they define a triangle abc. They have
chosen triangle abc, because the area of the triangle can be represented in terms of the
angle of orientation and the layer thickness, which is the angle between the normal vector
with the object surface and the slicing direction, i.e., z-axis [as shown in Figure 3(b)].
Considering the lower half of the inclined cylinder in Figure 3(b), the area error in each
layer:
⎛ 1 ⎞⎛ t ⎞
2
A = ⎜ ⎟⎜ ⎟ (4)
⎝ 2 ⎠ ⎝ tan θ ⎠
Considering the upper half of the inclined cylinder as shown in Figure 3(b), where the
angle between the normal vector and z-axis is equal to (90-θ) the area error in each layer:
⎛ t2 ⎞
A = ⎜ ⎟ ( tan θ ) (5)
⎝2⎠
where t = layer thickness.
In the presented approach the model of the RP part surface was considered with basic
primitive volumes, therefore, limited to applications to profile made of basic primitives.
An inherent limitation of the developed system is that the primitive-based mathematical
equations are not suitable with complex part surface. VE for complex part surface must
be calculated with an exact mathematical equation based on non-primitive shapes or free
form surfaces otherwise accuracy problems would occur in complex model.
To solve the accuracy problems associated with the determination of the VE in
complex model, Masood et al. (2003) also presented multi objective generic algorithm
(GA) for the part orientation accommodated with minimum build time and average
surface roughness. In this work Tessellated CAD models are used in place of basic
primitives which forms a part.
2.4 Effect of build orientation on support required

In any LM process, there has been a keen interest of process engineer in the effect of
build orientation on support required as it is directly related to the build time, surface
finish and post processing. Allen and Dutta (1994) suggested an algorithm to determine
the best orientation from a candidate list of orientations (as shown in Figure 12) based on
the objective of part stability and minimal surface area of contact with support structures
in a specified orientation. This approach only considered the volume of external support,
but does not consider the building time in the selection of optimal orientation. According
to the developed research procedure, if two build orientations required support structure
with equal volume of contact, the object that has a lower centre of mass would be chosen.
Developed algorithm was implemented in C++ with the geometric modeller ACIS.
Typical ACIS model example (a simple coffee cup type of part with faces from planes,
cylinders, and tori) presented by them have been given in Figure 12. Figure 12 shows the
different stable coffee cup orientations obtained from developed program and required
support structure for every orientation. It can be seen from Figure 12 that the first
orientation for the cup opening upward direction is the best orientation as it requires
minimum support. The cup opening downward is the least preferred case as in this case
the flat surface near the top will require the support structures.
Figure 12 Possible orientations of cup based on support required
Source: Allen and Dutta (1994)
2.5 Effect of build orientation strategies on part strength

Various studies and research work have shown that build orientation affect part strength
significantly. Caulfield et al. (2007) suggested that many factors get affected by the part
deposition orientation and energy density for the SLS build polyamide (i.e., nylon)
components. Fracture strength, elongation at break, yield strength, young’s modulus, part
dimensions, density, etc., were considered as important factors and measured for different
part orientations. Caulfield et al. (2007) presented a very useful research study on the
mechanical properties of the parts along with the different orientations as shown in
Figure 13. They suggested it is feasible in the SLS that the fusion between two successive
layers is unlike from the fusion within one layer due to the layer-by-layer manufacturing
nature of the SLS process as shown in Figure 13. Therefore, it is possible that the density
between the layers material is different (i.e., orthotropic behaviour) that the material
within one layer. Because of this under the application of external force it is possible that
for the 90° orientation deformation is different from that in the 0° orientation
(due to different elastic modulus in the z direction and in the x and y direction).
Therefore, inter-layer material deform more easily that the material in the layers,
resulting in greater overall specimen elongation for layers in the 90° orientation that the
layers in the 0° orientation, it might be due to poor densification as discussed above.
Figure 13 Effect of part build orientation on mechanical properties, (a) predicted fracture of the
0° orientated specimens (b) predicted fracture of the 90° orientated specimens
(a) (b)
Source: Caulfield et al. (2007)

Jain et al. (2008) presented an algorithm-based methodology, which estimates the effect
of delay time on tensile strength of SLS parts fabricated using polyamide powder.
Developed algorithm gives the best orientation for improved part strength by considering
delay time. In the developed method the optimum delay time range was found
experimentally. Developed algorithm used a particular orientation or maximum
percentage of points (GLP) as a criterion of maximum strength in which maximum area
on all layers falls within the optimum delay time range. It was assumed that part build
orientation which gives maximum GLP that also gives maximum part strength.
Percentage of points (GLP) for which delay time falls within optimum delay range on all
layers at a particular orientation was calculated using the following expression:
∑ PFD
i =1
GLP = n
× 100 (6)
∑P i =1
i
where PFDi is the number of points for which delay time falls within optimum delay time
range for ith layer, Pi is the number of grid points that fall within the part geometry on ith
layer and n is the number of layers. Typical examples [Figures 14(a) and 14(b)] were
presented to verify the results and to demonstrate the nature of the tensile strengths for
the polyamide specimens with different orientations. To verify the results obtained by
developed algorithm, several tensile specimens were fabricated at different part
orientations in the range of 0° to 90° at an interval of 15° as shown in Figure 14(a). The
obtained values of ultimate tensile strengths of specimens corresponding to their
orientations are plotted in Figure 14(b). It is noted from developed research procedure
that maximum strength was observed at 60° orientation and same was also predicted by
the developed algorithm. In presented approach, a part with various geometric shapes
having multiple contours was also considered to demonstrate the capabilities of
developed algorithm. The developed methodology considered maximum GLP to predict
optimum part build orientation. Therefore, orientation for which calculated GLP is found
maximum; is considered as an optimum part build orientation.
Figure 14 (a) Arrangement of tensile specimens on build platform and (b) tensile strength at
various orientations
(a)
(b)
Source: Jain et al. (2008)

2.6 Effect of build orientation strategies on build time

Although there have been major attempts in past to find optimal build orientations for
accuracy, surface finish, support required, strength, etc., but ‘build time’, is also a generic
problem in LM and received significant attention. In earlier work, Gupta et al. (1998)
provided an algorithm to find the near optimal build orientation for shape deposition
manufacturing (SDM) system, by considering the build time only. The above algorithm
has been implemented using C++ programming language. For geometric modelling and
transformation they used ACIS geometric kernel. Four great circles and a spherical
polygon created by taking intersection of these great circles as shown in
Figure 15. In this research work, presented approach considers a unit sphere and divides
it into smaller spherical polygons and identifies the best orientation within every
spherical polygon (as shown in Figure 15). Finally, assemble solutions from various
polygons were selected to find the global best build orientation. The major limitation of
the presented approach is that developed algorithm only considered parts with planar
surfaces.
Figure 15 Basics of spherical geometry
Source: Gupta et al. (1998)
2.7 Consideration for machine workspace with build orientation

Building a large part using LM processes is always a challenge due to workspace
limitations. It is not economical to fabricate a RP machine with a larger workspace due to
technical limitations. On the other hand, the large part can be segmented into smaller
elements to fabricate within the specified RP machine workspace. Therefore,
segmentation method plays a vital role in LM by providing proper orientation to build
large parts. Tang et al. (2003) presented an algorithm-based segmentation method for
dimensionally-large objects. Orientation was evaluated by individually rotation of each
critical surface feature (Fc) and non-critical surface feature (Fnc) component about the
z-axis such that the longest horizontal dimension of each component is aligned along the
workspace x-axis. Two case studies as shown in Figure 16 were conducted to test the
segmentation algorithm. The algorithm was implemented by using eight steps:
feature, union, isolation, orientation, feature interaction volume (FIV), x, y, z-cuts,
recombination, and packing. This allows the fabrication of dimensionally-large parts

within the given RP machine workspace by segmentation of dimensionally-large objects
into smaller components. It can be seen from Figures 16(b) and 16(d) that the
dimensionally-large parts after the segmentation are easily fit within the size limits of the
RP machine in all three directions, i.e., X, Y and Z directions.
Figure 16 Segmentation of dimensionally large objects
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Source: Tang et al. (2003)
3 Multi performances studies along with build orientation
Though single performances measured studies have some limitations, researchers have
developed multi-objective approach (Cheng et al., 1995), satisfactory degree principle
(Zhao et al., 2005), particle swarm optimisation algorithm (Li et al., 2010), real coded
GA (Thrimurtullu et al., 2004), Pareto optimal solutions (Pandey et al., 2004) and trust
region method (Singhal et al., 2008b). To reduce these limitations different
strategies of evaluating optimal part deposition orientation that adheres to
multi-performances are considered. In the present section, different multi-performances
evaluation techniques for part deposition orientation studies are reviewed. Cheng et al.
(1995) have developed a multi-objective approach considering part accuracy and build
time as two objectives for determining the optimal part-building orientation. Developed
algorithm works with flat, cylindrical surfaces and also with complex surfaces. Part
accuracy is calculated based on known sources of errors. The details of the sources of
errors are described as:
• tessellation: tessellation of CAD model is caused by the STL file format
(de facto standard)
• missing feature: it is appears as a result of constant slicing thickness
• overcure: because of the penetration of laser through the previous layer overcure
appears in an overhang area
• distortion and shrinkage: these are related to geometric features, i.e., overhang areas
as well as to the material properties
• the container effect: it is caused by the contractive tendency, i.e., surface tension
around the trapped area
• SEs: along the curved surfaces SEs appear.
In developed research procedure, degree of affecting the part accuracy is different for
various surfaces. Therefore, different weights are assigned to fourteen surfaces based on
experience. An equation is also presented for the calculation of weights for various
surfaces like the cone, ruled surface and free form surfaces like NURBS surface, etc. For
the secondary objective function presented approach found that the minimum numbers of
slices yield lower build time.
Figure 17 Optimum part deposition orientations of an axisymmetric cup type of part for
different criteria, (a) orientation for best part surface quality (b) orientation for
minimum build time
Source: Thrimurtullu et al. (2004)

Thrimurtullu et al. (2004) investigated an FDM process using real coded GA to study the
influence of the optimum part deposition orientation on surface roughness and build time.
Developed procedure work with the combination of two contradicting objectives, and the
optimum conditions and the best orientation of FDM process are achieved by minimising
their weighted sum. Typical examples of optimum part deposition orientation
determination of the axisymmetric cup type of part presented by them have been given in
Figure 17. In Figure 17, XY shows FDM to move the machine platform parallel to the
XY plane and z-axis represents the direction of part deposition orientation. The problem
of calculation for the coordinates of vertices and normal vectors for the part (an STL file)
shown in Figure 17 corresponding to any orientation is calculated using the rotation
matrix (Zeid, 1991). For the part shown in Figure 17, two objective functions surface
roughness and build time are computed and converted into single objectives for user
specified values of weight factors. Infinite numbers of the orientation results were
obtained by transformation matrix along with real coded GA and the result corresponds
to minimum objective function is selected as a best outcome. For the initial population,
rotation about an axis described by unit vectors (axis vectors) and angle of rotation are
first generated randomly between the two limits. Taken together, these findings they
suggested a methodology of an optimum part deposition orientation. Their presented
methodology builds the part with the optimal orientation among all possible (theoretically
infinite) build orientations.
Zhao (2005) developed a multi-objective optimisation of part-building orientation
based on satisfactory degree principle. Zhao determined suitable part deposition
orientation for improving build performance, i.e., VE due to SE, support area and
part-building time. He presented an STL file of tractor model part in his paper to
demonstrate the capabilities of his developed system. He described a mathematical model
of optimisation, concepts that minimised SE, supports area (SA) and production time
(PT). The following rules were framed to achieve optimal part’s orientation:
1 Objective model for optimisation of SE
A part building orientation such that the VE is minimised was formulated as given
below:
n h 2 d .n j A j
f1 (α , β ) = min ∑
j
2
(7)
s.t.
0 ≤ α ≤ 2π , 0 ≤ β ≤ π / 2
2 Objective model for optimisation of SA

A part building direction such that the support area is minimised was formulated as
given below:
n A j d .n j δ
f 2 (α , β ) = min ∑
j
2
(8)
s.t.
0 ≤ α ≤ 2π , 0 ≤ β ≤ π / 2
where δ ( is a threshold function) = {1, if d.nj < 0 and 0, if d.nj > 0

3 Objective model for optimisation of PT

A part building direction such that the number of total layers is minimised was
formulated as given below:
⎛ max ( d.v1,.d.v2 ,…d.vn ) − ⎞

f3 (α, β ) = min ⎜ ⎟
⎜ min ( d.v ,.d.v ,…d.v ) ⎟
⎝ 1 2 n1 ⎠
s.t. (9)
π π
0 ≤ α ≤ 2π , − ≤ β ≤
2 2
where
h is layer thickness
Aj is area of facet j
d is the unit vector of the build direction
β is the angle between building direction and Z axis of reference frame and α is the
angle between the projection of d in XOY and X axis (as shown in Figure 18).
Figure 18 Unit vector of build orientation
Source: Zhao (2005)

These three independent optimisations are solved by GA, and the optimal and worst
solution is obtained. He created the general satisfactory degree function and the optimal
part-building orientation is obtained through solving the GA. Similar work was
developed by Li et al. (2010), in which they investigated the fabrication orientation for
FDM parts and established a model to optimise support area, fabrication time and surface
roughness. The fabrication orientation was then obtained based on particle swarm
optimisation algorithm.
Figure 19 (a) Logic of determining initial guess used for optimisation and (b) flowchart showing
an implementation procedure
(a)
(b)
Source: Singhal et al. (2008b)

Singhal et al. (2008b) determined optimum part deposition orientation for SL and SLS
processed parts based on the considerations of minimum average part surface roughness
(best overall surface quality), minimum build time and support structures. Developed
technique provided a graphical user interface-based system to decide part deposition
orientation. A conventional optimisation algorithm based on a trust region method
(available with MATLAB-7 standard function ‘fmincon’) was used to solve the
multi-objective optimisation problem. The complete implementation procedure flow
chart of this research work is shown in Figure 19. As shown in Figure 19, once the
optimum value of different decision variables is obtained, their developed GUI generates
a graphical simulation of surface roughness and developed system also gives the digital
output of the angle of rotation, axis vector along with a minimum value of the objective
function. In the developed work, surface roughness model for SL based on statistical
design of experiments technique (Byun et al., 2006). Average part surface roughness was
calculated using the following expression:
Raav =
∑Ra Ai i
(10)
∑A i
Optimum part deposition orientation of multimodality model was carried out using an
initial part deposition orientation (guess) in which smallest value of objective function to
be minimised was used as a global minimum. This initial guess, used to execute an
optimisation module, was obtained by rotating the part in discrete intervals about various
combinations of axes. The assessment of the part deposition orientation was done using
the following objective function:
Minimise
Raav T AS up (11)
O = W1 + W2 b + W3
Ramax Zp Atotal
where w1, w2 and w3 are weight factors(their sum is equal to 1) and Ramax is maximum
surface roughness value possible in a process, Zp is Z-height in initial orientation.
Tb (= {(Zmax – Zmin)(1 + ASup/Atotal)}) is build time, Zmax and Zmin are the maximum and
minimum Z-coordinate values of the initial orientation. ASup is supported area and Atotal is
the total area of the part.
4 Discussion and conclusions
On the basis of published literature, the part deposition orientation studies can be roughly
categorised into two groups:
• related to the single performances measured
• related to multi-performances measured.

Usually the previous part deposition orientation studies based on part quality, build-up
time or support structure and optimal Part deposition orientation were used for
optimisation of these performances. Maximising the area of non-stepped surfaces is a
solution to handle the surface quality of the part. Proper part placement strategy is
required to be developed to minimise build time. Various researchers found that the build
time of RP part is indirectly assessed by part height along the build direction. Minimum
number of layers will lead to the minimum build time and it is the easiest elementary way
to estimate the build time for a part using specific RP process. In order to minimise the
support structure, researcher takes into consideration the area of the part which requires
support. Since the support structure and the number of support points are directly related,
the support structure usually minimise by minimising the number of support points.
Different versions of the similar concepts like minimising the area of worst quality,
minimising volumetric error, etc., are also developed. These different versions are
primarily of comparative nature (e.g., complex shape geometric model, actual CAD
models concept is better than basic primitive volumes concept in terms of accuracy).
Furthermore, parameter selection based on such different versions of the same concept
does not guarantee optimality. In the past few years, there is plenty of research involved
the application of multi-objective approach in the orientation problem, but the result is
near optimal solution. According to Lan et al. (1997) and Pham et al. (1997) solution is
not optimal, because multi-objective are often incompatible each other. In many
multi-criteria problems, various conflicting criteria or goals are classifying and assumed
to different rank according to their importance, therefore, the optimisation
multi-performances for a particular orientation is a complex and intuitive approach. Thus,
from above review study it can be concluded that:
• The previous LM research study usually based on part quality, total build-up time
and area of the region requiring a support structure and these parameters are used by
most of the researchers for optimisation of part build orientation.
• Optimisation of part building orientation is multi-objective problem, however,
most of the researchers optimise the part build orientation by considering one
objective.
• Few researchers determined part deposition orientation along with a multi-objective
problem but the result is not optimal. The cause is the multi-objective are often
incompatible with each other, e.g., if we use optimum value for surface roughness
that may result in higher built time.
• The development of GA and statistical model-based approach permits the
examination of additional measures of process performance along with build
orientation.
The findings of various researchers and adopted methodologies have been presented in
this review paper. In Most of the orientation related studies, effect of orientation on LM
process has been investigated for a few pre-selected performances. Although, role of the
build orientation is rather complex and further research is required for a thorough
understanding of the effect of build orientation on various performances along with
different LM process parameters.
Further research attempts should be made to study and explore the effect of build
orientation. As discussed in various section of this paper build orientation affects various
performances of the LM process like surface finish, build time, etc. Further optimisation
of various performances along with build orientation need more attention of the
researchers. Furthermore, orientation issues along with multi-objective performance must
be optimising by new hybrid techniques so that various conflicting criteria or LM
performances become compatible with each other. Effect of orientation on other
important LM parameters required more investigations. Also, some post surface finishing
methodology must be developed, so that uncontrolled surface quality problems due to
build orientation can be minimised from LM build parts.
References
Alexander, P., Allen, S. and Dutta, D. (1998) ‘Part orientation and build cost determination in
layered manufacturing’, Computer Aided Design, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp.343–356.
Allen, S. and Dutta, D. (1994) On the Computation of Part Orientation using Support Structures in
Layered Manufacturing [online] Technical Report UM-MEAM-TR-94-15, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor [online]
http://utwired.engr.utexas.edu/lff/symposium/proceedingsArchive/pubs/Manuscripts/1994/199
4-27-Allen.pdf (accessed 4 September 2012).
Bordoni, M. and Boschetto, A. (2012) ‘Thickening of surfaces for direct additive manufacturing
fabrication’, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp.308–318.
Byun, H.S. and Lee, K.H. (2006) ‘Determination of the optimal build direction for different rapid
prototyping processes using multi-criterion decision making’, Robotics and Computer
Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.69–80.
Caulfield, B., Mchugh, P.E. and Lohfeld, S. (2007) ‘Dependence of mechanical properties of
polyamide components on build parameters in the SLS process’, Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, Vol. 182, Nos. 1–3, pp.477–488.
Cheng, W., Fuh, J.Y.H., Nee, A.Y.C., Wong, Y.S., Loh, H.T. and Miyazawa, T. (1995)
‘Multiobjective optimisation of part building orientation in stereolithography’, Rapid
Prototyping Journal, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp.12–23.
Chua, C.K., Leong, K.F. and Lim, C.S. (2010) Rapid Prototyping: Principles and Applications,
3rd ed., World Scientific, Singapore.
Gupta, S.K., Tian, Q. and Weiss, L.E. (1998) ‘Finding near-optimal build orientations for shape
deposition manufacturing’, in Proceedings of the Sculptured Surface Machining Conference,
Auburn Hills, MI.
Jain, P.K., Pandey, P.M. and Rao, P.V.M. (2008) ‘Effect of delay time on part strength in
selective laser sintering’, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 43, Nos. 1–2, pp.117–126.
Jibin, Z. (2005) ‘Determination of optimal build orientation based on satisfactory degree theory for
RPT’, in CAD-CG 2005: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Computer
Aided Design and Computer Graphics, pp.225–230, Hong Kong, China.
Kattethota, G. and Henderson, M. (1998) ‘A visual tool to improve layered manufacturing part
quality’, Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pp.327–334, Austin,
Texas.
Kruth, J.P. (1991) ‘Material LNCRESS manufacturing by rapid prototyping techniques’, Annals of
the CIRP, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 603-614.
Kruth, J.P., Leu, M.C. and Nakagawm, T. (1998) ‘Progress in additive manufacturing and rapid
prototyping’, Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp.525–540.
Lan, P.T., Chou, S.Y., Chen, L.L. and Gemmill, D. (1997) ‘Determining fabrication orientations for
rapid prototyping with stereolithography apparatus’, Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 29, No. 1,
pp.53–62.
Li, A., Zhang, Z., Wang, D. and Yang, J. (2010) ‘Optimisation method to fabrication orientation of
parts in fused deposition modelling rapid prototyping’, in (MACE): International Conference
on Mechanic Automation and Control Engineering, pp.416–419, Wuhan, China.
Massod, S.H., Rattanawong, W. and Iovenitti, P. (2000) ‘Part build orientations based on
volumetric error in fused deposition modelling’, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.162–168.
Massod, S.H., Rattanawong, W. and Iovenitti, P. (2003) ‘A generic algorithm for part orientation
system for complex parts in rapid prototyping’, Journal of Material Process Technology,
Vol. 139, Nos. 1–3, pp.110–116.
Pandey, P.M., Reddy, N.V. and Dhande, S.G. (2003) ‘Slicing procedures in layered manufacturing:
a review’, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 9, No. 5, pp.274–288.
Pandey, P.M., Thrimurtullu, K. and Reddy, N.V. (2004) ‘Optimal part deposition orientation in
FDM using a multi-criterion genetic algorithm’, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 42, No. 19, pp.4069–4089.
Paul, R. and Anand, S. (2011) ‘Optimal part orientation in rapid manufacturing process
for achieving geometric tolerances’, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 30, No. 4,
pp.214–222.
Pham, D.T., Dimov, S.S. and Gault, R.S. (1999) ‘Part orientation in stereolithgraphy’,
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 15, No. 9,
pp.674–682.
Rattanawong, W., Massod, S.H. and Iovenitti, P. (2001) ‘A volumetric approach to part-build
orientation in rapid prototyping’, Journal of Material Process Technology, Vol. 119, Nos. 1–3,
pp.348–353.
Schaub, D.A., Chu, K.R. and Montgomery, D.C. ( 1997) ‘Optimizing stereolithography
throughput’, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.290–303.
Senthilkumaran, K., Pandey, P.M. and Rao, P.V.M. (2009) ‘Influence of building strategies
on the accuracy of parts in selective laser sintering’, Materials and Design, Vol. 30, No. 8,
pp.2946–2954.
Senthilkumaran, K., Pandey, P.M. and Rao, P.V.M. (2012) ‘Statistical modelling and minimisation
of form error in SLS prototyping’, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.38–48.
Singhal, S.K., Jain, P.K. and Pandey, P.M. (2008a) ‘Adaptive slicing for SLS prototyping’,
Computer-Aided Design and Applications, Vol. 5, Nos. 1–4, pp.412–423.
Singhal, S.K., Jain, P.K., Pandey, P.M. and Nagpal, A.K. (2008b) ‘Optimum part deposition
orientation for multiple objectives in SL and SLS prototyping’, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 47, No. 22, pp.6375–6396.
Sood, A.K., Ohdar, R.K. and Mahapatra, S.S. (2009) ‘Improving dimensional accuracy of
fused deposition modelling processed part using grey Taguchi method’, Materials and Design,
Vol. 30, No. 10, pp.4243–4252.
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, Vol. 37, No. 4,
pp.387–397.
Tang, Y., Loh, H.T., Fuh, J.Y.H., Wong, Y.S. and Lee, S.H. (2003) Segmentation of
Dimensionally-large Rapid Prototyping Objects [online]
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/3756 (accessed 5 September 2012).
Tata, K., Fadel G., Bagchi, A. and Aziz, N. (1998) ‘Efficient slicing for layered manufacturing’,
Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.151–167.
Thrimurtullu, K., Pandey, P.M. and Reddy, N.V. (2004) ‘Optimal part deposition orientation in
fused deposition modelling’, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture,
Vol. 44, No. 6, pp.585–594.
Vasudevarao, B., Natarajan, D.P. and Handerson, M. (2000) ‘Sensitivity of RP surface finish to
process parameters variation’, Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings, pp.251–258.
Wood, L. (1993) Rapid Automated Prototyping: an Introduction, Industrial Press, New York.
Z Corporation (2012) [online] http://www.zcorp.com/en/home.aspx (accessed 1 September 2012).
Zeid, I. (1991) CAD/CAM Theory and Practice, 1st ed., Mc Graw-Hill, New York.
View publication stats

Layer Orientation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Layer Orientation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Role of build orientation in layered manufacturing: A review

Article in International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management · January 2014

Mohammad Taufik Prashant Kumar Jain

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dieless Manufacturing Project View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Role of build orientation in layered manufacturing:

Mohammad Taufik* and Prashant K. Jain

Abstract: Layered manufacturing, also called rapid prototyping or additive

Keywords: additive manufacturing; build orientation; surface finish; support

Biographical notes: Mohammad Taufik received his MTech (Hons.) in

Prashant K. Jain is an Associate Professor in the Mechanical Engineering

Copyright © 2013 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Orientation

Layered manufacturing (LM) processes, apply physical or chemical phenomena

Figure 1 Typical LM cycle

Figure 2 Orientation strategies in LM

Surface complexity S = tanθ (1)

Figure 3 Effects of different build orientation

Figure 4 Staircase effect

Source: Tata et al. (1998) and Singhal et al. (2008a)

Figure 5 Surface complexity at different orientations (e.g., θ, α, β and Ф)

Source: Tata et al. (1998)

Figure 6 2D views of non-convex part shape

Source: Jibin (2005)

2 Effects of orientation strategies

2.1 Effect of build orientation on surface finish

Source: Kattethota et al. (1998) and Vasudevarao et al. (2000)

Y = Layer thickness (X) / tanθ (2)

2.2 Effect of build orientation on dimensional accuracy

Source: Senthilkumaran et al. (2009)

Figure 9 Plot for factor effect for grey relation generation

Source: Sood et al. (2009)

Figure 10 (a) Cylindricity error in RM (b) Methodology to calculate cylindricity error

Figure 10 (a) Cylindricity error in RM (b) Methodology to calculate cylindricity error

Source: Paul and Anand (2011)

Source: Senthilkumaran et al. (2012)

2.3 Effect of build orientation strategies on volumetric error

2.4 Effect of build orientation on support required

Figure 12 Possible orientations of cup based on support required

Source: Allen and Dutta (1994)

2.5 Effect of build orientation strategies on part strength

Source: Caulfield et al. (2007)

Source: Jain et al. (2008)

2.6 Effect of build orientation strategies on build time

Figure 15 Basics of spherical geometry

Source: Gupta et al. (1998)

2.7 Consideration for machine workspace with build orientation

recombination, and packing. This allows the fabrication of dimensionally-large parts

Figure 16 Segmentation of dimensionally large objects

Source: Tang et al. (2003)

3 Multi performances studies along with build orientation

Source: Thrimurtullu et al. (2004)

2 Objective model for optimisation of SA

where δ ( is a threshold function) = {1, if d.nj < 0 and 0, if d.nj > 0

3 Objective model for optimisation of PT

⎛ max ( d.v1,.d.v2 ,…d.vn ) − ⎞

Figure 18 Unit vector of build orientation

Source: Zhao (2005)

Source: Singhal et al. (2008b)

4 Discussion and conclusions

• related to the single performances measured

• related to multi-performances measured.