Polymer Testing 80 (2019) 106094

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Polymer Testing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/polytest

Surface roughness of polyamide 12 parts manufactured using selective laser T

sintering
Sean Petzold∗, James Klett, Andrew Schauer, Tim A. Osswald
Polymer Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, United States

A B S T R A C T

Selective laser sintering (SLS) is an additive manufacturing technique that has become increasingly prevalent in today's rapidly advancing production industries. SLS
utilizes a layer-by-layer processing technique that allows for complex geometries to be produced without expensive tooling or molding. Because of the technology's
widespread use in fulfilling functional demands, parts produced by SLS should have a good surface quality. However, parts manufactured via SLS have a com-
paratively higher surface roughness than alternative manufacturing methods. To better understand the various factors that affect surface roughness, a design of
experiments was implemented which investigated the effects of four process parameters using a Sinterstation 2500, a commercial SLS printer: laser power, roller
speed, powder type, and scan spacing. To draw a comparison with other SLS systems, two process parameters were investigated on a Sinterit Lisa, a desktop SLS
printer: power ratio and powder type. These effects were studied across the entire powder bed, a study of which has not been previously conducted. Since many other
factors play a role such as layer height, this study concentrated on the top surface of the SLS printed part. The surface roughness of the produced parts was studied
using Focus Variation (FV) technology. Conditional formatting was used to show the surface roughness and area ratio of the powder bed, and an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) is performed on the data collected from the Sinterstation.

1. Introduction is considerably greater than parts manufactured using alternative

Selective laser sintering (SLS), schematically depicted in Fig. 1, uses
a laser to selectively, or locally, heat up and melt a polymer powder
layer. First, the polymer powder is heated to a process temperature,
ideally near the melting temperature of the polymer [1]. Powder layers
are applied using a powder feed roller, a wiper, or a re-coater blade.
The new layer is then fused selectively by a CO2 laser according to the
contour information and thus connected to the melt layer below. The
surrounding powder that was not molten supports the generated melt.
Each time an approximately 0.08–0.2 mm thick layer of powder is ap-
plied and the platform containing the previously applied layers is
lowered by the thickness of the layer. Therefore, the model is built up
layer by layer. During the application of the powder, while the build
platform is lowered by the amount of the layer thickness, a platform
that contains the feed material is raised. In other types of machines, the
material is applied into the re-coater from the top. Parts fabricated
through this technique do not require any support structures, post-
curing is not necessary, and various thermoplastic materials can be
used. Disadvantages of SLS include high powder degradation in un-
sintered powder due to exposure to high processing temperatures for
extended periods of time, and a high degree of specific surface rough-
ness, the investigation of which is the main focus of this paper.
Components manufactured using SLS have a surface roughness that
techniques, such as injection molding. Typical surface roughness values
for injection molded parts, which are largely dependant upon the sur-
face quality of the mold, are 0.012–0.025 μm for a super high glossy
finish and from 3.20 to 18.0 μm for a dull textured finish [2]. Previous
studies have shown typical surface roughness values for SLS processes
within the range of 5–25 μm, depending on the processing parameters
[1]. The intrinsic surface roughness for SLS parts is brought about by
several factors. SLS is a process that is moldless by nature, and thus no
polished mold surfaces contact the exterior of the parts and no external
pressure is involved. Additionally, surface roughness can be caused by
incomplete melting of powder grains, referred to as sintering neck
formation [3], which leaves a surface asperity. It is also possible for
freshly-rolled, dry powder grains to be pressed into a previously cured
layer. It is this effect that we primarily concentrated on in this study.
Improving the understanding of variations in the surface roughness of
SLS is of great importance for the design of end-use parts. Through such
an understanding, polymer components can be manufactured with
specific tribological properties that best suit their application, for ex-
ample, tailoring roughness to reduce product wear through frictional
contact.
Two recent advancements in powder-based additive manufacturing
include Multi-Jet Fusion (MJF) and selective heat sintering (SHS).
Similar to SLS, MJF starts by spraying an ink, also known as fusing

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: spetzold@wisc.edu (S. Petzold).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymertesting.2019.106094
Received 21 June 2019; Received in revised form 7 August 2019; Accepted 31 August 2019
Available online 01 September 2019
0142-9418/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Petzold, et al.
Fig. 1. Schematic of SLS process.
agent, over the region that is intended to become the final product.
Since MJF uses infrared heating instead of a laser, the regions sprayed
with the fusing agent are able to absorb the energy supplied by the
heating system, forming the sintered part. This technique was devel-
oped to improve processing speed and allows for multi-material and
multi-color options through the ink-printing process [4]. In contrast to
SLS and MJF, SHS uses a thermal printing head to selectively melt
portions of powder through contact heating. During a sintering cycle,
the print head deposits a thin layer of powder over the build platform,
while the printer head selectively melts the required areas during the
same pass. By implementing a simple and cheaper heating system, SHS
offers an economical alternative in comparison with SLS. Both MJF and
SHS still produce parts with high specific surface roughness, which
means that the results of a surface roughness study on SLS parts will be
of concern in these two technologies [4]. Silliani et al. investigated the
area surface roughness of both MJF and SLS and found that the trend of
surface roughness for top and bottom surfaces of a cube were almost
equal [5]. It was not possible to find published results on surface
roughness values for SHS.
2. Description of SLS technique
All samples were fabricated using a DTM Sinterstation 2500, Serial
#: S9031787, shown in Fig. 2. Prints were completed using 3D System
Software, SLS System Version 3.3, including Build Setup v3.3 for in-
putting print parameters. Both virgin powder and recycled powder
were investigated as numerous studies have shown that surface quality
decreases when the powder has been exposed to extended thermal cy-
cles [3,6,7]. This is caused in part by an increase in molecular weight of
the polymer chains, increasing the melt viscosity and amount of
shrinkage in the part. Pham et al. showed there is a rapid increase in
melt viscosity after 15–20 h of heat exposure, measured in melt flow
rate (MFR), and then a gradual increase past this time frame [6]. Re-
cycled powder was regarded as material that had been re-collected after
at least one print cycle. While this degradation was not controlled, the 8
arrays printed with recycled powder used powder with an almost
identical thermal history. Therefore, the powder should be equally
degraded, allowing hypotheses to be drawn if certain parameters
change in importance as the material becomes degraded.
Three parameters, the roller speed, laser power and slicer scan fill
spacing, were selected for this study, since previous research has shown
they significantly impact the surface quality of SLS parts [8–10]. The
speed at which the roller moves across the part cylinder dictates how
the powder particles pack. If the particles are packed with a different
bulk density, the bulk heat capacity will change, which would alter the
melting and coalescing behavior. Altering the laser power and slicer
scan fill spacing, the distance between the parallel lines of the raster,
changes the melting behavior of the powder by varying the energy
2
Polymer Testing 80 (2019) 106094
dosage. For roller speed, the default value of 12.7 cm/s (5 in/s) and a
slower rate of 7.62 cm/s (3 in/s), were selected. For laser power, 10 and
13 W were used, bounding the default value of 12 W. Lastly, for fill
spacing, the default value of 152 μm (0.006 in) and a higher density of
127 μm (0.005 in) were investigated.
To draw a comparison with other SLS systems, a Sinterit Lisa
desktop SLS printer was also used to produce builds. In contrast to the
Sinterstation, this system uses a 5 W infrared laser diode with an
emission peak of 808 nm [11]. For the powder to effectively absorb the
energy of the laser and begin the melting process, a darkened pigment
must be employed. Since the scan spacing and roller speed could not be
directly altered on the system, only alterations in powder and power
ratio were investigated. Power ratio values of 0.84 and 1.08 were used
to provide similar power variations to the Sinterstation. Both recycled
and virgin Sintratec PA12 powder were used, using the same thermal
history of 5–10 h of 140 °C exposure for each build. According to the
manufacturer of the Lisa printer, an energy density between 400 and
700 J/cm2 is supplied to the powder during the build process, where the
variation in this parameter is controlled by several variables which
cannot be disclosed.
Post-processing of the samples bypassed the customary media
blasting with glass beads as this could alter the surface roughness.
Samples blasted for 30 s with glass beads showed an average reduction
in surface roughness by 72% for recycled powder and 62% for virgin
powder, which was conducted as a part of this study. A milder cleaning
method was developed, which first removed residual powder on the
surface with compressed air and then subjected the surfaces to 10 min
in an ultrasonic water bath with deionized water. Then the coupons
were air dried overnight. To prepare the coupons for analysis, the
samples were gold sputtered two times to deposit about 80 nm of gold
on the sample surface.
3. Focus variation – 3D optical metrology system
A Focus Variation method was used to determine the surface
roughness parameters Sa, and Area Ratio, or the total area of the sample
surface over the theoretical area of a smooth sample. While many
studies have shown significant discrepancies in the results between FV
methods and traditional tactile methods, this can be attributed to the
fact that sufficient surface variation is required for measurement with
FV [12]. Recently, new roughness standards have been developed
which introduce a certain degree of surface nano-roughness, making
them suitable for both tactile and FV methods. It has been shown that
with these new standards, FV is able to produce repeatable and accurate
measurements of surface roughness that are comparable to tactile sys-
tems [13].
FV methods have been making a strong foothold in industry due to
the benefits of non-contact measuring. Tactile measurement systems, in
comparison, suffer from many severe limitations. Firstly, the contact
stylus has been shown to leave scratches, indentations, and visible trace
paths on the surface of specimens [14]. Secondly, high maintenance
costs are associated with tactile systems, due in part to the large number
of parts that must be regularly replaced. And lastly, the radial form of
the stylus tip has a smoothing effect on a surface which can conse-
quently influence the measurement result. FV methods, on the other
hand, efficiently bypass these limitations with the addition of true color
images [13].
The FV system uses a white light source to project light beams onto
a specimen's surface. Reflected light rays emerge from the surface and
are processed through a precise sensor. The FV system, schematically
depicted in Fig. 3, has a very limited depth of focus, which ensures that
only small regions of a surface are in focus at a given time. By vertically
scanning the surface along the optical axis, the distance between the
optical lens and specimen surface changes; different sections of the
surface are thus brought into and out of focus. The measuring algorithm
identifies the height of each point on a surface by determining at what
S. Petzold, et al. Polymer Testing 80 (2019) 106094

Fig. 2. Schematic of DTM Sinterstation 2500 SLS machine.

Fig. 4. Arrangement of specimens in the powder bed.

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of a focus variation measurement device [14].

vertical position the contrast is maximized.

FV methods have become extremely popular in the study of poly-
mers and polymer composites because of its delivery of true color
images [15]. The true color images, for example, have proven to be
useful in determining various effects of machining on composites [16].
The increased resolution also allows for results that are much finer than
those obtained through tactile measurements. Furthermore, in the case
of fibrous and additive manufactured plastics, the areal scanning of FV
methods hold advantages over the traditional tactile methods. Areal
Fig. 5. Three-dimensional scan of a low Sa from the Alicona InfiniteFocus.
scanning reduces the potential influence of scanning position while
incorporating a much larger amount of surface data than a linear tactile
measurement system. The advantage here is that the scanning results
are much more representative and repeatable.

3
S. Petzold, et al. Polymer Testing 80 (2019) 106094

Table 1 Table 3
Investigated process parameters and their values. 22 factorial design matrix – sinterit lisa.
Printer Type Parameters Levels Build Power Ratio Powder Type Surface Roughness (μm) Area Ratio

– + 1 0.84 Recycled 13.757 ± 0.487 1.689 ± 0.023

2 1.08 Recycled 13.890 ± 0.404 1.692 ± 0.026
Sinterstation 2500 Laser Power 10 W 13 W 3 0.84 Virgin 14.328 ± 0.481 1.711 ± 0.026
Roller Speed 7.62 cm/s (3 in/s) 12.7 cm/s (5 in/s) 4 1.08 Virgin 13.906 ± 0.405 1.691 ± 0.026
Powder Type Recycled Virgin
Scan Spacing 152 μm (0.006 in) 127 μm (0.005 in)
Sinterit Lisa Power Ratio 0.84 1.08
Powder Type Recycled Virgin

An Alicona Inc., InfiniteFocus G4 with Real3D, Optical 3D Micro-

Coordinate Measurement System was the FV measurement system used
in this analysis. This device works by placing a coupon on a motorized
stage, which is then illuminated with modulated white light [17].
Coaxial white light is provided by a light source delivered through a
beam splitter. Reflected light from the coupons is projected through the
beam splitter onto a color digital sensor. The resulting image is similar
to conventional light microscopy in a way that it shows limited depth of
focus. As the distance between the object and objective is varied, Fig. 6. Surface roughness in Build 14.
images are continuously captured. Each position in depth is differently
imaged depending on the 3D structure of the coupon. The harmonized
interaction between modulated illumination, vertical scanning and
sensor capturing is crucial for this process. Sharpness is calculated for
each position on the object and its variation is then utilized for ex-
tracting depth information. A dense 3D surface representation of the
object is obtained [15]. Coupons were scanned over a planar area of
approximately 2.9 mm2, near the center of each coupon. To achieve this
areal scanning, the system's Imagefield functionality was utilized. By
using this scanning mode, the InfiniteFocus device took several single
3D surface datasets in a 3 × 3 spatial grid and parsed them together via
slight overlap to create a complete topographical profile of the surface.
Measurements for each coupon consisted of approximately 15 million
individual 3D data points. Fig. 7. Surface roughness in Build 10.
The ratio between the true and projected area was calculated for
each coupon. The true area includes all of the asperities and valleys,
no filter or auto-averaging enabled.
while the projected area or planar area is “shadowed” by the true area.
To study the difference in reflectivity for the produced Sinterit and
In addition, the average surface roughness (Sa) was obtained in equa-
Sinterstation samples, a UV VIS NIR Spectrometer Lambda 19 by
tion (1):
PerkinElmer was used. Reflectance was measured covering the wave-
1 lengths of 380 nm–750 nm, the wavelengths supplied by the white light
Sa =
A
∬ Z (x , y ) dA
(1) illumination from the Alicona to determine surface topology and
where Z is the surface height as a function of position (x and y), dA is roughness.
the differential area and A is the total area. A 20x objective lens was
used to scan the coupons. The system was set to a contrast of 0.13, a
vertical resolution of 905 nm, and a lateral resolution of 2.93 μm, with

Table 2
24 factorial design matrix – sinterstation 2500.
Build Laser Power (W) Roller Speed (cm/s) Powder Type Scan Spacing (μm) Surface Roughness (μm) Area Ratio

1 10 7.62 Recycled 152 22.023 2 ± 1.3262 2.356 ± 0.132

2 13 7.62 Recycled 152 17.148 ± 0.978 1.903 ± 0.051
3 10 12.7 Recycled 152 15.133 ± 0.687 1.750 ± 0.044
4 13 12.7 Recycled 152 15.231 ± 0.687 1.743 ± 0.047
5 10 7.62 Virgin 152 13.241 ± 0.536 1.655 ± 0.029
6 13 7.62 Virgin 152 13.323 ± 0.800 1.650 ± 0.022
7 10 12.7 Virgin 152 12.691 ± 0.723 1.629 ± 0.060
8 13 12.7 Virgin 152 12.653 ± 0.566 1.643 ± 0.035
9 10 7.62 Recycled 127 23.450 ± 1.260 2.413 ± 0.077
10 13 7.62 Recycled 127 23.847 ± 0.963 2.454 ± 0.065
11 10 12.7 Recycled 127 18.728 ± 1.474 2.039 ± 0.064
12 13 12.7 Recycled 127 18.809 ± 0.843 2.083 ± 0.069
13 10 7.62 Virgin 127 12.746 ± 0.641 1.638 ± 0.026
14 13 7.62 Virgin 127 12.431 ± 0.521 1.642 ± 0.027
15 10 12.7 Virgin 127 12.975 ± 0.565 1.635 ± 0.030
16 13 12.7 Virgin 127 12.595 ± 0.637 1.620 ± 0.039

4
S. Petzold, et al.
Fig. 8. Surface roughness in Build 1.
Fig. 9. Surface roughness in Build 8.
Fig. 10. Three-piece plots for surface roughness in Build 1.
4. Experimental process
Each SLS build consisted of the manufacturing of 121 samples ar-
ranged in an 11 × 11 grid on the powder bed, as shown in Fig. 4. The
build was centrally and symmetrically placed on the bed. It was im-
portant to ensure that the entire build area be covered, since, to the best
knowledge of the authors, a significant study has not been completed
which investigated the surface roughness of the entire build area. Each
of the samples measured 15 mm × 15 mm and were 2 mm in thickness,
with each sample being separated by an inter-sample distance of 5 mm.
A recent study by Yahamed et al. included an investigation on the
precision of 3D printed structures as the thickness of the samples were
altered. For instance, the thickness of ABS and PLA materials were
changed from 78 – 118 μm and 77 – 105 μm, respectively. They found
5
Polymer Testing 80 (2019) 106094
that as the nominal thickness of the part was reduced the less accurate
the actual thickness of the part [21]. This is a valid and important in-
vestigation, the results of which can be implemented in several different
areas across additive manufacturing, not just SLS. However, it was
determined that it is not necessary to include the accuracy of part
thickness in our study, since the thickness of parts was not a variable in
the design of experiments. All parts were printed to 2 mm in thickness
to mitigate the effects of warpage or curling, which would adversely
affect the ability to measure surface roughness.. This is a valid and
important investigation, the results of which can be implemented in
several different areas across additive manufacturing, not just SLS.
However, it was determined that it is not necessary to include the ac-
curacy of part thickness in our study, since the thickness of parts was
not a variable in the design of experiments. All parts were printed to 2
mm in thickness to mitigate the effects of warpage or curling, which
would adversely affect the ability to measure surface roughness.
The surface characteristics of the manufactured specimens were
then analyzed using the Alicona InfiniteFocus machine. Fig. 5 illustrates
how a typical scan looks from this system. One principal objective in
the measuring of the parts’ surfaces was to eliminate the scanning of
“holes”. These holes are portions of the scan that have near vertical
walls, minimizing the scanning of these features ensures accuracy in
retrieving measurements.
In the full factorial design of experiments, a total of 16 unique trials
were executed for the Sinterstation 2500, and a total of four trials were
conducted for the Sinterit Lisa. In each of these trials, the laser power,
roller speed, powder type, and scan spacing for the Sinterstation, while
power ratio and powder type for the Sinterit, were assigned to one of
two levels according to Table 1.
As can be seen in Table 1, the higher value of scan spacing (152 μm)
is associated with the coded lower level of (−) as this is the standard
value used in the SLS. Table 2 lists all of these variables with each build
number labeled for the Sinterstation. The lower value of scan spacing
(127 μm) is assigned to the coded higher level of (+). The following are
SLS process parameters that were not altered: scan speed (1676 mm/s),
layer thickness (0.100 mm), bed temperature (166 °C), spot size
(0.450 mm), scan count (1) and hatch length (0.15 mm). For the Sin-
terit machine, Table 3 lists the variables with the designated level for
the following parameters: power ratio and powder type. The surface
roughness and area ratio values that were obtained for both printing
systems are also provided.
5. Results
5.1. Conditional analysis
5.1.1. Surface roughness powder bed study
The creation of models for surface roughness and area ratio use an
average value over the entire build examining their results while al-
ternating SLS parameters. Using conditional formatting, which changes
numerical values to colors, the behavior of the tribological variables
can be studied across the entire powder bed. Ideally, no trends should
be found and all behavior can be described as random. A comparison is
made between samples produced from the Sinterstation and Sinterit SLS
systems. It should be noted that samples made from the Sinterstation
required a thin layer of gold to be sputtered on its surface to enable a
reflection measurement from the Alicona FV system. Samples produced
on the Sinterit machine did not require a gold deposition, since the
material could be inherently measured on the Alicona due to its grey
color. Using a UV VIS NIR Spectrometer, it was found that the gold
coated samples exhibited a reflectance of 32% in the visible wavelength
range, while the grey Sinterit samples showed a reflectance of 11%.
According to Alicona, FV can be employed to measure surfaces with
strongly varying reflection properties – even within the same specimen.
For instance, a specimen can differ from shiny to diffuse reflecting, from
smooth to rough surface properties, and the FV system will still be able
S. Petzold, et al. Polymer Testing 80 (2019) 106094

Fig. 11. Top: Surface roughness plots for recycled PA12 (Builds 1–4 – top, Builds 9–12 – bottom); Bottom: Surface roughness plots for virgin PA12 (Builds 5–8 – top,
Builds 13–16 – bottom).

Fig. 12. Left: Suface roughness plots for virgin PA12; Right: Surface roughness plots for recycled PA12.

to detect surface roughness profile for a given sample [18]. Therefore,
results for surface roughness should be valid for both the grey Sinterit
and the more reflective gold coated Sinterstation samples.
From the Sinterit builds, both laser power and recycled material did
not have a significant impact on surface roughness. Contrary to the
predicted result, the lowest determined values were from recycled
powder and lower power ratio. It is possible that the material had not
degraded long enough to have a significant impact on increasing the
viscosity to be detrimental to surface quality. In a previous study on
correlating the melt flow rate (MFR) with degraded powder, it was

6
S. Petzold, et al.
Fig. 13. Area ratio in Build 16.
Fig. 14. Area ratio in Build 10.
Fig. 15. Area ratio of Build 1.
Fig. 16. Area ratio of Build 8.
shown that after 10 h of heating at 140 °C, there was a noticeable de-
crease in MFR [6]. However, the material still had a MFR that was
within the range of “good” processability [19]. Future studies should
include an investigation on heat exposure time and its effect on surface
roughness.
Random behavior was exhibited in the powder bed for the build
with the lowest surface roughness in Build 14 and greatest surface
roughness in Build 10. Builds made with recycled powder generally had
higher surface roughness than those made from virgin powder, re-
gardless of other varied parameters. The plots using conditional
7
Polymer Testing 80 (2019) 106094
Fig. 17. Three-piece plot of area ratio for Build 8.
formatting show no particular trends as shown below in Figs. 6 and 7.
However, in the surface roughness color plots for Builds 1 and Build
8, shown in Figs. 8 and 10 respectively, notable trends were observed.
In Build 1, lower values of surface roughness were located closer to the
front of the SLS machine, while higher values of surface roughness were
located towards the back of the machine. One potential explanation for
this trend is that the machine's roller mechanism could be functioning
as a heatsink. If the roller mechanism acts as a heatsink, it will result in
a lower melt temperature towards the back of the build platform. Due
to the reduction in temperature, the next layer of powder that is de-
posited has a lower likelihood of becoming completely molten, re-
sulting in sintering neck formation and increasing the surface roughness
of the specimen.
In Build 8, shown in Fig. 9, lower values of surface roughness were
located in the back-right of the powder bed, whereas higher values of
surface roughness were concentrated in the front-left of the powder
bed. It is thought that this trend is driven by the over-head heat lamps
operating on different duty cycles. Since the heat lamps have different
operating lifecycles, it is possible that the heat distribution is not the
same across all of the lamps, which would result in an uneven tem-
perature distribution along the outer edge of the build platform.
5.1.2. Surface roughness levels
To more thoroughly understand the non-random behavior of Build
1, the powder bed was divided into three distinct zones. For the one-
piece design, the entire powder bed was analyzed as shown previously
in Fig. 8. For the three-piece design, an outer, center, and inner piece
were prepared. It is obvious from Fig. 10, that as the region of interest
moves from outer to inner (1–3), the mean surface roughness increases
and the variation of surface roughness decreases. This could be due to a
greater distance from the heat lamps, resulting in incomplete melting of
powder grains, producing a rougher surface. A greater variation on the
edges of the build area could be due to the duty cycles of the heat lamps
supplying slight differences in heat output, and thus a different tem-
perature profile on the edges of the build. Closer to the center of the
build area, there is a lower temperature difference throughout this re-
gion, resulting in a lower surface roughness variation.
5.1.3. Complete surface roughness build study
Between each build using recycled powder, the differences in sur-
face roughness is readily observed. The difference in surface roughness
S. Petzold, et al.
Fig. 18. Top: Area ratio plots for recycled PA12 (Builds 1–4 – top, Builds 9–12 – bottom); Bottom: Area ratio plots for virgin PA12 (Builds 5–8 – top, Builds 13–16 –
bottom).
for the build with the highest amount of roughness can be easily dis-
tinguished from the build with the lowest amount of surface roughness,.
For virgin powder, since each build has similar surface roughness va-
lues, it is more difficult to make this distinction. Fig. 11 shows the
surface roughness for each build using recycled and virgin powder. The
variance between builds using virgin powder is not as great as in re-
cycled ones. This is due to the fact that the range of surface roughness
values is smaller for virgin powder, giving lower roughness values in
similar regions from build to build. It should be noted that the scale is
different for recycled and virgin powder. If both powder types were
shown using the same scale, the recycled plots would appear com-
pletely red, while the virgin plots would be completely green, since
recycled powder has inherently rougher surfaces.
For the Sinterit Lisa builds, Fig. 12 shows the surface roughness
plots for both recycled and virgin PA12. Virgin builds are shown on the
left, while the recycled builds are provided on the right. All builds are
performed on the same conditional formatting scale, since there is not
as significant of a change between the recycled and virgin prints, in
comparison with parts produced on the Sinterstation.
8
Polymer Testing 80 (2019) 106094
5.1.4. Area ratio powder bed study
Random behavior was exhibited across the powder bed for the
builds with the lowest area ratio in Build 16 and the highest area ratio
in Build 10, shown in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. As can be seen from
the color plots below, no detectable trends were observed.
However, notable trends were observed in the color plots for Builds
1 and 8, as shown in Figs. 15 and 16, respectively. In Build 1, cells with
greater area ratios are concentrated in the back of the SLS machine,
while cells with smaller area ratios were concentrated in the front. This
behavior can be explained using the same reasoning as presented in the
surface roughness powder bed distribution for Build 1. In Build 8, area
ratios of lower value were located in the back-right region of the ma-
chine.
5.1.5. Area ratio levels
As the region of interest moves from outer to inner (1–3), the mean
area ratio remains approximately constant, while the variance of the
area ratio decreases. This can be seen in Fig. 17. The variation of area
ratio reduces closer to the center of the build area, which reflects the
S. Petzold, et al. Polymer Testing 80 (2019) 106094

Table 4 Sinterstation builds. All statistical analysis was performed using

ANOVA table for surface roughness. Minitab, a widely used statistical modeling software that has been used
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value in the past to analyze effects of SLS processing parameters [20]. Using
Minitab has some limitations, and only allows the use of 10 replicates
Model 15 1975.06 131.67 144.67 for a 24 factorial design. To capture the symmetrical nature of the build
Linear 4 1621.51 405.38 445.41
it was decided to use 9 replicates, spaced evenly throughout. Fig. 19
Laser Power 1 0.71 0.71 0.78
Roller Speed 1 149.17 149.17 163.90
shows the locations of these specimens. It should be noted that the same
Powder Type 1 1324.82 1324.82 1455.64 analysis was not performed on the Sinterit samples, due to the lower
Scan Spacing 1 146.81 146.81 161.31 number of variables. Fig. 20 shows a Pareto chart of the standardized
2-Way Interactions 6 313.02 52.17 57.32 effects. It can be seen that the largest effect on surface roughness is the
Laser Power*Roller Speed 1 4.46 4.46 4.90
powder type, with roller speed and scan spacing having a lower effect in
Laser Power*Powder Type 1 0.02 0.02 0.03
Laser Power*Scan Spacing 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 comparison. Using aged powder has been shown to cause significant
Roller Speed*Powder Type 1 120.47 120.47 132.36 increases in surface roughness for SLS parts, as mentioned previously
Roller Speed*Scan Spacing 1 7.47 7.47 8.20 [3,6,7]. Both roller speed and scan spacing had about the same effect on
Powder Type*Scan Spacing 1 180.60 180.60 198.44
surface roughness. Lower scan spacing and higher roller speeds showed
3-Way Interactions 4 39.41 9.85 10.82
Laser Power*Roller Speed*Powder Type 1 6.58 6.58 7.23
improvement in surface roughness. A lower scan spacing leads to
Laser Power*Roller Speed*Scan Spacing 1 0.05 0.05 0.05 greater energy density supplied to the powder, which creates a greater
Laser Power*Powder Type*Scan Spacing 1 5.54 5.54 6.09 melt temperature and lower melt viscosity. With a higher roller speed,
Roller Speed*Powder Type*Scan Spacing 1 27.24 27.24 29.93 the powder will be pressed into the previously molten layer with
4-Way Interactions 1 1.13 1.13 1.24
greater force, therefore, powder grains on the top surface of the printed
Laser Power*Roller Speed*Powder 1 1.13 1.13 1.24
Type*Scan Spacing part will leave a lower asperity. As illustrated in Fig. 21, the data was
Error 128 116.50 0.91 tested for normality, reflecting a close normal distribution fit.
Total 143 2091.56 A regression equation was also supplied by the Minitab software,
which shows only significant effects and their values. This equation
uses coded units ( ± ) to predict the surface roughness of parts that may
use different values for the investigated parameters. Equation (2) shows
the regression model for suface roughness:

Sa = 15.8394 − 1.0178 ∗ (Roller Speed ) − 3.0332 ∗ (Powder Type )

Fig. 19. Cell geometry of the nine replicates taken evenly throughout for
Minitab analysis.
same trend described in Build 1. This shows a more random response as
opposed to a trend.
5.1.6. Complete area ratio build study
The same trends can be seen in the area ratio plots that appeared in
the plots showing surface roughness. Fig. 18 shows the area ratio for
recycled powder and virgin powder. Virgin powder area ratio plots
again show similar features when compared with surface roughness,
such as regions of consistent area ratio values across each build. Even
when a large number of outliers (values with abnormally high or low
numbers) are taken out, the plots still exhibit this behavior.
5.2. Statistical analysis – ANOVA
5.2.1. Surface roughness
Table 4 shows an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table, showing the
degrees of freedom, sum of squares, and F-Value for all effects and in-
teractions from the surface roughness data collected from the
+ 1.0097 ∗ (Scan Spacing ) + 0.9146 ∗ (Roller Speed )
∗ (Powder Type ) − 0.2277 ∗ (Roller Speed ) ∗ (Scan Spacing )
− 1.1199 ∗ (Powder Type ) ∗ (Scan Spacing ) − 0.2138
∗ (Laser Power ) ∗ (Roller Speed) ∗ (Powder Type) − 0.1961
∗ (Laser Power ) ∗ (Powder Type ) ∗ (Scan Spacing ) + 0.4349
∗ (Roller Speed ) ∗ (Powder Type ) ∗ (Scan Spacing ) (2)
As can be seen in Equation (2), three of the main affects, roller
speed, powder type and scan spacing are significant, while laser power
is not. Only the significant main effects are found in significant two-
factor interactions. While two of the three three-factor interactions
contain laser power, these are the lowest of all significant effects. It is
possible that this is caused by the low number of replicates used in the
model.
5.2.2. Area ratio
An ANOVA table for the area ratio of Sinterstation builds is provided
in Table 5. The significant effects and interactions can be clearly seen in
the Pareto chart shown in Fig. 22, where any values that are above 1.98
are significant. Similar to the data for suface roughness, the values
obtained for area ratio were tested for normality, as illustrated in
Fig. 23.
As can be seen in Equation (3), almost all main or interaction ef-
fects, are considered significant. This is also shown in the Pareto chart
provided in Fig. 22. There are two main reasons to explain this result.
First, the difference between the surface roughness and area ratio
models, is the presence of laser power as a significant effect. From
Fig. 22, laser power is shown to be over four times less than the highest
main effect, which indicates a much lower level of effect. When all
effects of a regression equation are determined to be significant, it
shows that the data sampled was random. Second, each of the 16 builds
contains 121 cells, but Minitab only allows 10 replicates to be included
in the model. The model discounts the two-factor (Roller Speed)*(Scan
Spacing) and the three-factor (Roller Speed)*(Powder Type)*(Scan
Spacing) as non-significant effects. This should not occur, since each of
these main effects that comprise the interaction effects are themselves

9
S. Petzold, et al. Polymer Testing 80 (2019) 106094

Fig. 20. Pareto chart showing significant effects for surface roughness. Main or interaction effects greater than 1.98 are determined to be significant.

Fig. 21. Normal probability plot for surface roughness.

significant. To form a better model, a higher performing modeling
software should be used in the future, which allows for a higher number
of replicates.
6. Conclusion
An investigation into the surface roughness and area ratio for parts
produced across the entire powder bed was conducted. On a
Sinterstation 2500, the powder type, power, roller speed, and scan
spacing were varied in accordance to a 24 full factorial design to de-
termine their effect on the surface roughness and area ratio of the
produced parts. A novel experimental technique was used which in-
cluded producing a 11 × 11 grid of 15 × 15 × 2 mm parts to determine
surface roughness and area ratio using an Alicona Focus Variation
measurement technique. Conditional formatting was used to illustrate
the variation in these values throughout the build cross section. By
visually showing how the relative surface roughness changes
throughout the powder bed based on variations in processing condi-
tions, it is possible to effectively determine factors contributing to this
disparity.
The surface roughness of the top surface of SLS parts showed a
significant dependency on the processing conditions with which parts
were made. Specifically, the greatest average surface roughness was
recorded for Build 10. In this Build, the laser power was set to 13 W, the
roller speed to 7.62 cm/s, the scan spacing to 127 μm, and recycled
powder was used. The smallest average surface roughness was recorded

10
S. Petzold, et al. Polymer Testing 80 (2019) 106094

Table 5 piece plots – random behavior was observed. However, for Builds 1 and
ANOVA table for area ratio. 8, it is believed that the absorption of heat to the roller assembly caused
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value a higher degree of surface roughness towards the back of the SLS ma-
chine, while the overhead heating lamps caused higher surface rough-
Model 15 12.3819 0.82546 203.20 ness towards the front-right portion of the build platform. It was shown
Linear 4 9.4262 2.35656 580.09
that the variation of surface roughness and area ratio decreased closer
Laser Power 1 0.0790 0.07900 19.45
Roller Speed 1 1.3105 1.31051 322.59
to the center of the build area in comparison with the outer edge,
Powder Type 1 7.3520 7.35201 1809.77 probably due to a lower variation in temperature towards the center of
Scan Spacing 1 0.6847 0.68471 168.55 the build.
2-Way Interactions 6 2.4630 0.41050 101.05 An ANOVA was used to determine the main and interaction effects
Laser Power*Roller Speed 1 0.1213 0.12128 29.86
for surface roughness and area ratio. The main effects for surface
Laser Power*Powder Type 1 0.0738 0.07375 18.16
Laser Power*Scan Spacing 1 0.1258 0.12579 30.97 roughness were powder type, scan spacing, and roller speed. For area
Roller Speed*Powder Type 1 1.2693 1.26932 312.46 ratio, these same main effects were determined to be significant, with
Roller Speed*Scan Spacing 1 0.0007 0.00072 0.18 the addition of laser power in the model. Since almost all main or in-
Powder Type*Scan Spacing 1 0.8721 0.87212 214.68
teraction effects of the regression model, the sampled data was found to
3-Way Interactions 4 0.3973 0.09933 24.45
Laser Power*Roller Speed*Powder Type 1 0.1304 0.13044 32.11
be random in behavior. To obtain a better model of surface roughness
Laser Power*Roller Speed*Scan Spacing 1 0.1007 0.10067 24.78 and area ratio, a higher performing statistical modeling software, such
Laser Power*Powder Type*Scan Spacing 1 0.1661 0.16612 40.89 as R, should be implemented. Moreover, the surface roughness and area
Roller Speed*Powder Type*Scan Spacing 1 0.0001 0.00010 0.03 ratios were tested for normality and showed normal tendencies for al-
4-Way Interactions 1 0.0954 0.09535 23.47
most all builds, meaning there is not a significant skew towards higher
Laser Power*Roller Speed*Powder 1 0.0954 0.09535 23.47
Type*Scan Spacing or lower values.
Error 128 0.5200 0.00406
Total 143 12.9019
Future work

Our work will concentrate on how the orientation of a surface

for Build 14. In this Build, the laser power was set to 13 W, the roller
within a build affects the surface roughness of the part within the build
speed to 12.7 cm/s, the scan spacing to 127 μm, and virgin powder was
volume. The angle at which the part is oriented in the build can sig-
used. The same settings were used to maximize and minimize area
nificantly impact surface roughness. For instance, if a 15 × 15 × 2 mm
ratio, which will be helpful for investigation of tribological studies of
part is being printed in a horizontal orientation, each layer will be
SLS parts.
exposed for longer periods of time due to larger area per layer when
In addition to the Sinterstation builds, samples were produced on a
compared to a vertical print orientation. This means the melt will be
Sinterit Lisa desktop SLS printer to draw comparison with different
exposed to the heaters for longer periods of time, allowing it to remain
available printers. It was found that both powder type and power ratio
at a high melt temperature. Differences in melt temperature could be
did not have a significant impact on the surface roughness of the parts
the basis for surface roughness differences in part orientation. Future
produced. It is possible that the material was not degraded for a long
work will study the relationship between part orientation and surface
enough time to have a detrimental impact on the surface quality, since
quality to better predict and control surfaces on end use parts.
the material was exposed to 140 °C for only 5–10 h. Previous research
has shown that this would increase the viscosity of the material, but
perhaps not long enough to cause detriment to surface quality. Data availability
For the vast majority of color plots – including single- and three-
The raw/processed data required to reproduce these findings cannot

Fig. 22. Pareto chart showing significant effects for area ratio.

11
S. Petzold, et al.
Fig. 23. Normal probability plot for area ratio. The same method to find a regression equation for surface roughness was used to determine the model for area ratio.
Equation (3) shows the regression equation for area ratio.
Area Ratio = 1.86226 − 0.02342 ∗ (Laser Power ) − 0.09540 ∗ (Roller Speed )
− 0.22595 ∗ (Powder Type ) + 0.06896 ∗ (Scan Spacing ) + 0.02902
∗ (Laser Power ) ∗ (Roller Speed ) + 0.02263 ∗ (Laser Power )
∗ (Powder Type ) + 0.02956 ∗ (Laser Power ) ∗ (Scan Spacing )
+ 0.09389 ∗ (Roller Speed ) ∗ (Powder Type ) − 0.07782
∗ (Powder Type ) ∗ (Scan Spacing ) − 0.03010 ∗ (Laser Power )
∗ (Roller Speed ) ∗ (Powder Type ) − 0.02544 ∗ (Laser Power )
∗ (Roller Speed ) ∗ (Scan Spacing ) − 0.03396 ∗ (Laser Power )
∗ (Powder Type ) ∗ (Scan Spacing ) + 0.02573 ∗ (Laser Power )
∗ (Roller Speed ) ∗ (Powder Type ) ∗ (Scan Spacing )
be shared at this time as the data also forms part of an ongoing study.
References
[1] P.B. Bacchewar, S.K. Singhal, P.M. Pandey, Statistical modelling and optimization
of surface roughness in the selective laser sintering process, Proc. IMechE, Pa. Birds:
J. Eng. Manuf. 221 (2006) 35.
[2] A.B. Varotsis, Injection molding SPI surface finishes. 3D hubs, SPI mold finishes,
https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/injection-molding-spi-surface-finishes.
[3] M. Zhao, D. Drummer, K. Wudy, M. Drexler, Sintering study of polyamide 12
particles for selective laser melting, iJES 3 (1) (2015) 34–38.
[4] T. Osswald, Understanding Polymer Processing: Processes and Governing
Equations, Munich (2017) (Print).
[5] F. Sillani, R. Kleijnen, M. Vetterli, M. Schmid, K. Wegener, Selective laser sintering
and multi jet fusion: process-induced modification of the raw materials and analyses
of parts performance, Addit. Manuf. 27 (2019) 32–41.
[6] D.T. Pham, K.D. Dotchev, W. Yusoff, Deterioration of polyamide powder properties
in the laser sintering process, Mech. Eng. Sci. 222 (11) (2008).
[7] W. Yusoff, D.T. Pham, K.D. Dotchev, Investigation of the thermal properties of
different grades polyamide 12 (PA12) in improving laser sintering process (SLS),
Appl. Mech. Mater. 548–549 (2014) 294–296.
[8] M. Launhardt, A. LWorz, A. Loderer, T. Laumer, D. Drummer, T. Hausotte,
M. Schmidt, Detecting surface roughness on SLS parts with various measuring
techniques, Polym. Test. (2016) 222.
[9] A. Wegner, G. Witt, Influencing factors on surface roughness in laser sintering and
their effect on process speed, Fraunhofer Direct Digital Manufacturing Conference,
Berlin, 2012.
12
Polymer Testing 80 (2019) 106094
(3)
[10] M. Vetterli, M. Schmid, W. Knapp, K. Wegener, New horizons in selective laser
sintering surface roughness characterization, Surf. Topogr.: Metrol. Prop. 5 (2017)
045007.
[11] Sinterit, Lisa SLS Printer – Product's Specification, p. 2.
[12] L Giusca Claudiu, James D. Claverley, Wenjuan Sun, Richard K. Leach,
Franz Helmli, P. Mathieu, J. Chavigner, Practical estimation of measurement noise
and flatness deviation on focus variation microscopes, CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol.
(2014) 545.
[13] Reinhard Danzl, Franz Helmli, Stefan Scherer, Focus variation – a robust technology
for high resolution optical 3D surface metrology, J. Mech. Eng. (2011) 248–250.
[14] R. Danzl, F. Helmi, P. Rubert, M. Prantl, Optical roughness measurements on spe-
cially designed roughness standards, Opt. Fabr. Test. Metrol. III (2008) 7102M – 3.
[15] N Duboust, H Ghadbeigi, C Pinna, S Ayvar-Soberanis, A Collis, R Scaife, K Kerrigan,
An optical method for measuring surface roughness of machine carbon fibre-re-
inforced plastic composites, J. Compos. Mater., p. 295.
[16] R. Danzl, F. Helmli, S. Scherer, Focus variation – a robust technology for high re-
solution optical 3D surface metrology, J. Mech. Eng. (2011) 247.
[17] Alicona Manual, IFM G4 3.5.1 EN, (December 17, 2009), p. 2 (Chapter 1).
[18] Bruker Alicona, Optical Metrology – Understanding Focus Variation, AZO Materials,
2017.
[19] M. Schmid, Laser Sintering with Plastics: Technology, Processes, and Materials,
(2018), p. 114 Munich.
[20] S. Singhal, P. Jain, P. Pandey, A. Nagpal, Optimum part deposition orientation for
multiple objectives in SL and SLS prototyping, Int. J. Prod. Res. 47 (22) (2009)
6375–6396.
[21] A. Yahamed, M. Joyce, P. Fleming, A. Pekarovicova, Polymers for 3D Printed
Structures, Precision, Topography and Roughness, International Journal of
Multidisciplinary Research and Studies 1 (2) (2018) 43–59.