Comparison of RP Techniques PDF

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 38 (1998) 1257–1287
A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies

D.T. Pham*, R.S. Gault
Cardiff Rapid Prototyping Centre, Systems Division, School of Engineering, University of Wales Cardiff, PO Box
688, Cardiff CF2 3TE, UK
Received 16 October 1997
Abstract
Until recently, prototypes had to be constructed by skilled model makers from 2D engineering drawings.
This is a time-consuming and expensive process. With the advent of new layer manufacturing and
CAD/CAM technologies, prototypes may now be rapidly produced from 3D computer models. There are
many different rapid prototyping (RP) technologies available. This paper presents an overview of the current
technologies and comments on their strengths and weaknesses. Data are given for common process para-
meters such as layer thickness, system accuracy and speed of operation. A taxonomy is also suggested,
along with a preliminary guide to process selection based on the end use of the prototype.  1998 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Rapid prototyping; Stereolithography; Selective laser sintering; LOM; 3D printing; Fused deposition model-
ling
1. Introduction
Prototyping is an essential part of the product development and manufacturing cycle required
for assessing the form, fit and functionality of a design before a significant investment in tooling
is made. Until recently, prototypes were still largely handmade by skilled craftsmen, adding weeks
or months to the product development time. Because of this, only a few design iterations could
be made before tooling went into production, resulting in parts which at best were seldom
optimised and at worst did not function properly.
Rapid prototyping (RP) is a term which embraces a range of new technologies for producing
* Corresponding author.
0890-6955/98/$19.00  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 8 9 0 - 6 9 5 5 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 1 3 7 - 5
1258 D.T. Pham, R.S. Gault/ International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 38 (1998) 1257–1287
accurate parts directly from CAD models in a few hours, with little need for human intervention.
This means that designers have the freedom to produce physical models of their drawings more
frequently, allowing them to check the assembly and function of the design as well as discussing
downstream manufacturing issues with an easy-to-interpret, unambiguous prototype. Conse-
quently, errors are minimised and product development costs and lead times substantially reduced.
It has been claimed that RP can cut new product costs by up to 70% and the time to market by
90% [1].
RP technologies may be divided broadly into those involving the addition of material and those
involving its removal. According to Kruth [2], the material accretion technologies may be divided
by the state of the prototype material before part formation. The liquid-based technologies may
entail the solidification of a resin on contact with a laser, the solidification of an electrosetting
fluid, or the melting and subsequent solidification of the prototype material. The processes using
powders compound them either with a laser or by the selective application of binding agents.
Those processes which use solid sheets may be classified according to whether the sheets are
bonded with a laser or with an adhesive. Figure 1 shows Kruth’s classification, which has been
adapted to include new technologies. In the following, RP technologies are presented according
to the arrangement shown in this figure.
Fig. 1. Classification of rapid prototyping methods (adapted from [2]).

D.T. Pham, R.S. Gault/ International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 38 (1998) 1257–1287 1259
2. Material addition technologies
All of the processes reviewed require input from a 3D solid CAD model, usually as slices. The
designer therefore first uses a CAD package to design the product which he wishes to manufacture.
This model is then tessellated and exported as an STL file, which is the current industry standard
for facetted models, although it may be possible, in future, to slice models directly from the CAD
system without first facetting them [3]. If supports are necessary to brace any overhangs, pro-
prietary software may now add these to the model. It is then sliced and the slices sent to the RP
machine for the production of the final physical part. By convention, the data slices are said to
be in the X–Y plane and the part is built in the Z direction.
An important problem is automatic support generation and part orientation. This is because
part orientation will influence the final prototype build time and the surface finish of critical areas.
The number and position of the supports depend to some extent upon the build direction chosen
and may also adversely affect the build time and surface finish of the prototype [3–5].
2.1. Processes involving a liquid
2.1.1. Solidification of a liquid polymer

Of the five processes in this category, which all involve the solidification of a resin via electro-
magnetic radiation, three construct the part using points to build up the layers whilst the other
two solidify entire layers or surfaces at once.
2.1.1.1. Stereolithography (SL) The most popular among currently available RP technologies
is perhaps stereolithography. This relies on a photosensitive monomer resin which forms a poly-
mer and solidifies when exposed to ultraviolet (UV) light. Due to the absorption and scattering
of the beam this reaction only takes place near the surface. This produces parabolically cylindrical
voxels (three-dimensional pixels) as shown in Fig. 2 which are characterised by their horizontal
line width and vertical cure depth [6].
An SL machine consists of a build platform (substrate) which is mounted in a vat of resin and
a UV helium–cadmium or argon ion laser (Fig. 3). The first layer of the part is imaged on the
resin surface by the laser using information obtained from the 3D solid CAD model. Once the
contour of the layer has been scanned and the interior either hatched or solidly filled, the platform
is next lowered to the base of the vat in order to coat the part thoroughly. It is then raised such
that the top of the solidified part is level with the surface and a blade wipes the resin leaving
exactly one layer of resin above the part. The part is then lowered to one layer below the surface
and left until the liquid has settled [7]. This is done to ensure a flat, even surface and to inhibit
bubble formation. The next layer may then be scanned.
All new SL machines now employ a method to apply the resin that is superior to the deep-dip
process described above. Because of the high resin viscosity, after the deep dip and recoating,
either too little or too much resin is left by the recoating blade, which affects part accuracy. The
new method involves spreading resin on the part as the blade traverses the vat. Because the blade
applies only the required amount of resin, good accuracy is achieved. This method also provides
a smoother surface finish and reduces non-productive recoat time. Another important advantage
is the elimination of ‘trapped volume’ problems. A trapped volume is a volume of resin that
Fig. 2. Single cured line of photopolymer (adapted from [6]).
cannot drain through the base of the part (Fig. 4). The presence of a trapped volume in the deep-
dip process affects part accuracy and may lead to delamination or collision of the blade and part
because of a build up of unwanted polymerised resin at the surface.
Once the part is completed, it is removed from the vat and the excess resin drained. Due to
the resin viscosity, this stage may take several hours. The supports are removed and the ‘green’
part is then placed in a UV oven to be postcured. This ensures that no liquid or partially cured
resin remains.
Solid or partially solid parts are made with either acrylic or epoxy resins in one of several
build styles, the three most common being ACES, STARWEAVE and QuickCast [8]. Com-
pletely hollow parts are not normally constructed as these are very fragile in the green state and
deform on handling.
When adopting ACES, the interior of the part is almost wholly cured by the laser (Fig. 5).
This is achieved by using a hatch-spacing which is equivalent to half the line width. This spacing
Fig. 3. Stereolithography.
Fig. 4. Trapped volume in stereolithography.

Fig. 5. ACES build style: repeated, even laser exposure produces a flat base.
is chosen such that all the solidified resin receives the same cumulative UV exposure and hence
the downward facing surfaces are flat. This style may only be used with epoxy resins that do not
shrink much when polymerised otherwise the connected lines would cause warping in the proto-
type. It is the most accurate of the three build styles for low-distortion resins and is employed
when making high precision parts although the drawing time is the longest of the three styles [9].
STARWEAVE provides stability to a solid part by hatching the interior with a series of grids
which are offset by half of the hatch spacing every other layer (Fig. 6). The grids are drawn such
that the ends are not attached to the part border to reduce the overall distortion. Also, to keep
the distortion low, the gridlines do not touch one another. However, they are located as closely
together as possible to improve the green strength of the part [8,9]. This build style should be
employed with acrylic resins which have a higher shrinkage when polymerised. It is sometimes
used with epoxy resins in preference to ACES because the draw time is lower.
QuickCast is usually adopted when the prototype is to be employed as a pattern for investment
casting as it produces almost hollow parts. The outline of the layer is drawn before the interior
is hatched. Either squares (QuickCast version 1.1) or equilateral triangles (QuickCast version
1.0) are used to fill the part and these are offset after a specified vertical build distance to facilitate
resin drainage. The triangles are offset such that the vertices of one section are above the centroids
of the triangles in the previous section (Fig. 7). The squares are offset by half of the hatch spacing.
Since squares have larger interior angles than triangles, the meniscus of resin will be smaller so
better drainage is achieved [9]. Horizontal sections that form the outer surface of the part are
completely solidified and are referred to as skinfill areas. Three layers are drawn with skinfill
areas corresponding to the part surface to avoid the formation of ‘pinholes’ when the supports
are removed and to prevent the upwards-facing horizontal surfaces from sagging [9,10]. These
Fig. 6. STARWEAVE build style. (a) One layer of STARWEAVE. This is composed of a cross-hatched grid
which is detached from the part border; (b) alternate layers of STARWEAVE are offset by half the hatch-spacing.
skinfills support the part surface, which means that the hatch spacing may be larger and a smaller
percentage of the prototype is solid [9]. Vents and drains must be designed into these areas to
allow the excess resin to bleed from the part. These parts will collapse quickly upon firing so
that little stress is developed on the ceramic investment shell, preventing it from being damaged.
Because QuickCast parts have a large surface area and the resin is hygroscopic, they should
be used as quickly as possible and stored in an area with controlled humidity to prevent later
distortion due to water absorption.
Hatch spacing must be determined so that the voxels are situated sufficiently near to each other
to allow the layers to be connected, but not so closely that the laser scan time is unacceptable or
residual stresses are developed through overcure. The layer thickness will obviously affect the
closeness of the voxels in the vertical direction — if the layers are too thick, surfaces will not
connect [7]. Voxels on sloped surfaces must be nearer to avoid gaps through which resin may
drain or through which slurry may invade in later processes such as investment casting.
The advantages of stereolithography are that it produces a surface finish that is comparable to
that of NC milling, it is a well proven system with over 500 machines in use worldwide and it
is reasonably fast and accurate [11,12]. To utilize the resin vat fully, several parts may be built
at once.
The disadvantages are that the material is expensive, smelly and toxic and must be shielded
from light to avoid premature polymerization; there is also a limited choice of resins. The parts
may be brittle and translucent and they need supports which may adversely affect the surface
finish when removed.
The system has an accuracy of ± 100 ␮m and can achieve layers 50 ␮m thick [13]. A machine
with a build chamber of 250 × 250 × 250 mm, the most common size, will cost approximately
Fig. 7. QuickCast build style: parts are hatched with offset triangles.
£150 000. The largest build chamber commercially available measures 500 × 500 × 584 mm [14].
The recoat time is 35 s for the new method and more than 50 s for the deep dip method. The
draw time is proportional to the cross-sectional area of the part; a layer with a cross-section of
50 × 50 mm2 takes about 78 s to solidify, according to the laser power and curing parameters.
Further research is being actively conducted into materials and into the accuracy, warping and
shrinkage of the parts.
2.1.1.2. Liquid thermal polymerization (LTP) This process is similar to SL except that the resin
is thermosetting and an infrared laser is used to create the voxels. This difference means that the
size of the voxels may be affected through heat dissipation, which may also cause unwanted
distortion and shrinkage in the part. However, the problems are apparently no worse than those
caused by SL and are controllable [2]. This system is still being researched.
2.1.1.3. Beam interference solidification (BIS) This process uses two laser beams mounted at
right angles which emit light at different frequencies to polymerise resin in a transparent vat (Fig.
8). The first laser excites the liquid to a reversible metastable state and then the incidence of the
second beam polymerises the excited resin.
To date, there are no commercial applications of this technology because there are still technical
difficulties to be solved:
쐌 Shadows are cast from previously solidified sections.

쐌 There is a problem with light absorption because the intensity of the lasers drops with depth.
쐌 It is hard to intersect the laser beams due to diffraction variations in the resin caused by
temperature gradients or solid sections [2].
Fig. 8. Beam interference solidification (adapted from [2]).

2.1.1.4. Solid ground curing (SGC) This system again utilizes photopolymerising resins and
light. Data from the CAD model is used to produce a mask which is placed above the resin
surface. The entire layer can then be illuminated with a UV lamp (Fig. 9). Once the layer has
been cured, the excess resin is wiped away and any spaces are filled with wax. The wax is cooled
with a chill plate, milled flat and any chips removed. A new layer of resin is applied and the
process is repeated.
The mask itself is a sheet of glass which is prepared whilst the current layer is being waxed,
cooled and milled. The negative image of each subsequent layer is produced electrostatically on
the glass and developed using a toner in a similar manner to laser printing.
Because wax is used to fill the gaps in the cured resin, no further supports need to be added
by the interface software. The wax supports any overhangs in the design and anchors any discrete
protrusions which may be drawn on a layer. It also theoretically reduces distortion due to warping
and curl since the part is surrounded and means that the machines do not need to be vibration
proofed as the part cannot move in the vat [2,15]. Builds may also be paused to allow other,
more urgent parts to be made [16]. An advantage of this system is that the entire layer is solidified
at once, reducing the part creation time, especially for multi-part builds. Parts may also be nested
to utilise the build volume fully. All the resin within a layer is completely cured by this method,
and so no postcuring is required, parts may be more durable than the hatched prototypes created
Fig. 9. Solid ground curing.

using other processes and operators need not handle partially cured, toxic resin [16]. The wax
may be removed automatically in a special machine.
The disadvantages of this system are that it is noisy, large and heavy and needs to be constantly
manned. It wastes a large amount of wax which cannot be recycled and is also prone to break-
downs [1,9]. The mask is produced by raster scanning the image [16] which may cause steps in
the X–Y plane, affecting accuracy. The resin models produced using SGC are solid and so cannot
be used for later investment casting since the coefficient of thermal expansion of the resin is an
order of magnitude greater than that of the ceramic system so the ceramic moulds will crack
when the sacrificial part is burnt out [1].
The resolution is 100 ␮m in the horizontal X–Y plane and 100 ␮m in the z direction. The least
expensive SGC machine costs around £180 000 and weighs about 5000 kg. The largest build
chamber available is 500 × 350 × 500 mm. Typically, a layer can be built in 65–120 s, depending
on the machine used. Of this building time, 3 s are for exposing the layer to a 2000 W UV
lamp, the remaining time being needed to clear the part of resin and to add, chill and mill the
wax [16,17].
2.1.1.5. Holographic interference solidification (HIS) A holographic image is projected into

the resin causing an entire surface to solidify. Data is still obtained from the CAD model, although
not as slices. The build space is 300 × 300 × 300 mm [2]. There are no commercial systems
available yet.
2.1.2. Solidification of an electroset fluid: electrosetting (ES)

Electrodes are printed onto a conductive material such as aluminium. Once all the layers have
been printed, they are stacked, immersed in a bath of electrosetting fluid and energised. The fluid
which is between the electrodes then solidifies to form the part. Once the composite has been
removed and drained, the unwanted aluminium may be trimmed from the part.
Advantages of this technology are that the part density, compressibility, hardness and adhesion
may be controlled by controlling the voltage and current applied to the aluminium. Parts may be
made from silicon rubber, polyester, polyurethane or epoxy. The hardware for such a system
may be bought off the shelf and costs about £5000. The software for the system is still being
developed [18].
2.1.3. Solidification of molten material

There are four technologies which involve the melting and subsequent solidification of the part
material. Of these, the first three deposit the material at discrete points whilst the fourth manufac-
tures the whole layer at once.
2.1.3.1. Ballistic particle manufacture (BPM) A stream of molten material is ejected from a
nozzle. It separates into droplets which hit the substrate and immediately cold weld to form the
part (Fig. 10). If the substrate is rough, thermal contact between it and the part is increased which
will reduce stresses within the part [19].
The stream may be a drop-on-demand system or a continuous jet. When a continuous jet is
adopted, it is ejected through the nozzle which is being excited by a piezoelectric transducer at
a frequency of about 60 Hz [20]. To avoid melting the transducer, it is located at a distance from
Fig. 10. Ballistic particle manufacture.
the nozzle. Although a capillary stream will naturally decompose into droplets [21], the disturb-
ance at the nozzle forces the production of a stream of small, regular droplets with uniform
spacing and distance. Using a low-frequency carrier wave modulated by a higher frequency dis-
turbance, tailor made streams have been produced where the user is able to specify larger droplet
separations than would otherwise be obtainable with just a single frequency. Regular streams have
also been produced consisting of a few small, close droplets followed by larger, more distant
droplets [22]. This should allow more time for the nozzle to move to a new position or for the
droplets to solidify if necessary.
Parameters that will affect the eventual part characteristics are the temperature and velocity of
the droplets and the charge that they carry. The charge is acquired electrostatically when the
stream is ejected and can be used for the accurate placement of the material. Since the maximum
charge which may be held by a drop is limited, the maximum deflection of such a drop is also
limited and the substrate or the jet must therefore be movable in order to produce a large enough
build area. The temperature will control the speed at which the molten material solidifies. If the
droplets are too cold they will solidify midflight and will therefore not weld to the part. If they
are too hot, the part will lose shape. The deformation and placement accuracy of the droplet
depend on its velocity. If it is moving too slowly, placement accuracy will be poor; if it moves
too quickly the droplet will be highly deformed on impact [19].
The resolution of the prototypes is related to the droplet diameter which is typically 50–100 ␮m.
Droplets may be released in nitrogen or in vacuo to avoid their oxidation and dispersion. The
deposition rate is up to 15 000 droplets per second using a single nozzle and a continuous jet
[19]. In this process, the supports are usually made from a different material which facilitates
their subsequent removal from the part.
Advantages of BPM are that it is cheap and environmentally safe and that metal parts made
using this technology have a finer grain structure than the equivalent cast parts. This is because
the splat cooling of the droplets means that they retain an amorphous structure instead of crystallis-
ing, giving the prototype good mechanical properties. Materials which may currently be employed
for part construction are tin, zinc, lead, other low (⬍ 420°C) melting point alloys and thermoplas-
tics. Systems are being developed to deposit copper which melts at 1100°C [19].
A disadvantage is the small range of commercial materials available to construct the prototypes.
Of the systems available, either speed or accuracy is possible, but not both attributes.
There are several commercial dual material systems available which can deposit either thermo-
plastic or wax. One of the most accurate, BPM1, uses a drop-on-demand jet to eject the molten
material. The droplets are spheres, 76 ␮m in diameter, which flatten on impact to give discs which
have a diameter of 101 ␮m and are 63 ␮m thick. After each layer is deposited, the part is milled
to achieve accurate dimensions in the z direction. In order to maintain the tolerances in the hori-
zontal plane, the layer contours are drawn using linear interpolation (not raster scanning) before
the interior of the part is filled. The system is able to vary the layer thickness in order to provide
speed in areas where the geometry remains unchanged from layer to layer without losing accuracy
in critical areas. A future improvement is the use of a larger nozzle to deposit material within
the boundary of the part. This should significantly reduce the build time.
The system is claimed to have an exceptionally good accuracy of ± 25 ␮m, layer thicknesses
of 13–130 ␮m and resolution of 101 ␮m in the X–Y plane. It operates at 18–24°C and can build
at a linear speed of 310 mm s−1 [23]. The cost of a machine with a build chamber of 300 × 150
× 220 mm is about £60 000. It is intended to produce parts for downstream manufacturing and
so offers a very high accuracy and low layer thickness.
A similar system, BPM2, employs a head with 5 d.f. to deposit the material. This ensures that
the direction of the jet is perpendicular to the normal of the surface and should eliminate steps
in the build direction. The system uses a proprietary thermopolymer material to build models
with a maximum size of 250 × 203 × 150 mm. A BPM2 machine will cost approximately £25 000.
It has a resolution of 558 ␮m and an accuracy of ± 17 ␮m [24].
Another implementation of this technology, known as Multi Jet Modelling (MJM), employs
96 jets which scan each layer in a raster fashion. Parts are constructed from a thermopolymer
material within a 250 × 200 × 200 mm build envelope. The parts have a layer thickness of 33 ␮m,
an X–Y resolution of 85 ␮m and a droplet placement accuracy of ± 100 ␮m [25]. The cost of an
MJM machine is around £50 000. The machine offers a high part creation speed and is intended
primarily for model visualisation.
2.1.3.2. Fused deposition modelling (FDM) The FDM machine consists of a movable head
which deposits a thread of molten material onto a substrate. The build material is heated to 0.5°C
above its melting point so that it solidifies about 0.1 s after extrusion and cold welds to the
previous layers (Fig. 11). Factors to be taken into consideration are the necessity for a steady
nozzle speed and material extrusion rate, the addition of a support structure for overhanging parts,
and the speed of the head which affects the overall layer thickness [15,26].
The latest FDM system includes two nozzles, one for the part material and one for the support
Fig. 11. Fused deposition modelling.
material. The latter is cheaper and breaks away from the prototype without impairing its surface.
It is also possible to create horizontal supports to minimise material usage and build time [26,27].
An advantage of this system is that it may be viewed as a desktop prototyping facility in a
design office since the materials it uses are cheap, non-toxic, non-smelly and environmentally
safe. There is also a large range of colours and materials available, such as investment casting
wax, ABS plastic, medical grade ABS (MABS) and elastomers. Parts made by this method have
a high stability since they are not hygroscopic [26].
A disadvantage is that the surface finish of the parts is inferior to that produced using SL due
to the resolution of the process which is dictated by the filament thickness [28]. It has not yet
been demonstrated whether the material extrusion may be stopped quickly enough to produce
small holes in vertical sections [9].
A typical commercially available machine is a stand alone system measuring 660 × 914 ×
1067 mm which weighs 160 kg and operates at about 80°C. The build chamber in such a system
measures 254 × 254 × 254 mm. The system costs around £100 000, deposits approximately
380 mm of material a second, produces layer thicknesses of 50–762 ␮m and has an accuracy of
± 127 ␮ [27].
2.1.3.3. Three dimensional welding (3DW) This experimental system uses an arc-welding robot
to deposit weld material on a platform as simple shapes which may then be built into more
complex structures. Unlike most RP technologies, therefore, the prototypes are not built using
sliced CAD files. Parts with a resolution of a few millimeters have been made which may be
used for sandcasting or directly as tooling.
Several problems still remain to be solved. Since there is no feedback, heat buildup during
manufacture can cause the prototypes to melt and because the layers do not form a smooth surface
the torch may hit the part [11,29]. It is also not known whether complex structures can be built.
Some method needs to be found to generate the robot program directly from the CAD file. The
orientation of each section to be built should be generated as well as the order in which the
sections are to be assembled.
Another system which is being researched deposits the weld material in layers. Feedback control
is established by the use of thermocouples which monitor the temperature and operate an on-line
water cooling system. There is a grit blasting nozzle to minimise the oxidisation of the part and
a suction pump and vacuum nozzle to remove excess water vapours and grit [18].
2.1.3.4. Shape deposition manufacturing (SDM) This still experimental layer-by-layer process
involves spraying molten metal in near net shape onto a substrate, then removing unwanted
material via NC operations. Support material is added in the same way either before or after the
prototype material depending on whether the layer contains undercut features (Fig. 12). The added
material bolsters subsequent layers. If the layer is complex, support material may need to be
Fig. 12. Shaped deposition manufacturing (adapted from [30]).

added both before and after the prototype material. Each layer is then shot-peened to remove
residual stresses. The prototype is transferred from station to station using a robotised pallet
system which can position the workpiece to within an accuracy of ± 5 ␮m. Droplets of 1–3 mm
diameter are deposited at a rate of 1–5 droplets per second.
To date, stainless steel parts supported with copper have been produced. The copper may then
be removed by immersion in nitric acid. These prototypes have the same structure as cast or
welded parts with the accuracy of NC milling. Multiple materials may be employed and compo-
nents can be embedded in the structure. As yet, no temperature control system for the substrate
has been implemented, and the temperature, size and trajectory of the droplets are also not con-
trolled [30].
2.2. Processes involving discrete particles
These processes build the part by joining powder grains together using either a laser or a
separate binding material.
2.2.1. Fusing of particles by laser

Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) is the main process in this category. With Gas Phase Deposition
(GPD), the discrete grains are the result of the interaction between a reactive gas and a laser.
However, the laser is also used to fix the grains with respect to the part.
2.2.1.1. Selective laser sintering (SLS) SLS uses a fine powder which is heated with a CO2
laser of power in the range of 25–50 W such that the surface tensions of the grains are overcome
and they fuse together. Before the powder is sintered, the entire bed is heated to just below the
melting point of the material in order to minimize thermal distortion and facilitate fusion to the
previous layer [31]. Each layer is drawn on the powder bed using the laser to sinter the material.
Then the bed is lowered and a powder-feed chamber raised. A new covering of powder is next
spread by a counter-rotating roller. The sintered material forms the part whilst the unsintered
powder remains in place to support the structure and may be cleaned away and recycled once
the build is complete (Fig. 13).
There is a large range of materials available for this process — basically any material which
can be pulverised may be employed. At present, nylon, nylon composites, sand, wax, metals and
polycarbonates are in use, and it is claimed that these materials have engineering grade properties
[32]. They are cheaper than the resins used for SL, are non-toxic and safe and may be sintered
with relatively low-powered lasers. However, parts need a long cooling cycle on the machine
before they can be removed. For example, wax parts require 12 h to cool down. The materials
employed by the system are sensitive to the different heating and laser parameters and each
material requires distinct settings. These can be difficult and time-consuming to obtain.
Parts may be finished by infiltration with molten metal to achieve 100% density. A drawback
is that the recycled powders require sieving to ensure that no globules are present that would
interfere with the smooth application of the next powder layer. The system also requires an inert
nitrogen atmosphere in which to sinter the materials [32].
The least expensive machine which sinters thermoplastics costs around £250 000. The
Fig. 13. Selective laser sintering (adapted from [2]).
maximum build chamber size is 330 × 380 × 425 mm. The layer thickness is 76 ␮m with an
accuracy in the horizontal plane of ± 51 ␮m. The build speed is 12–25 mm h−1 [32].
A similar system, still under development, involves feeding powder through a nozzle onto the
part bed whilst simultaneously fusing it with a laser. The powder nozzle may be on one side of
the bed, or coaxial with the laser beam. If it is to the side, a constant orientation to the part
creation direction must be maintained to prevent solidified sections from shadowing areas to be
built. If the powder feeder is coaxial, there may be inaccuracies in the geometry of the part and
the layer thickness if the beam and the powder feeder move out of alignment.
The heating of the powder can lead to thermal distortion of the prototype. It is necessary to
cool the part when it becomes too hot in order to prevent distortions in the final piece. An
alternative would be to add a temperature control system. The minimum wall thickness depends
on the feed rate and the width of the particle stream and the laser spot size, speed and power.
Walls of 0.5–0.7 mm have been achieved [31].
2.2.1.2. Gas phase deposition (GPD) In this process, the molecules of a reactive gas are decom-
posed using either light or heat to leave a solid. The solid result of the decomposition then adheres
to the substrate to form the part (Fig. 14). Three slightly different methods of constructing the
part are currently being researched.
In the first, called SALD (Selective Area Laser Deposition), the solid component of the decom-
Fig. 14. Gas phase deposition.
posed gas is all that is used to form the part. It is possible to construct parts made from carbon,
silicon, carbides and silicon nitrides in this way. The second method, SALDVI (Selective Area
Laser Deposition Vapour Infiltration), spreads a thin covering of powder for each layer. Then the
decomposed solids fill in the spaces between the grains. In the third method, SLRS (Selective
Laser Reactive Sintering), the laser initiates a reaction between the gas and the layer of powder
to form a solid part of silicon carbide or silicon nitride. A resolution of 1 ␮m is hoped for [11,33].
2.2.2. Joining of particles with a binder

2.2.2.1. Three dimensional printing (3DP) Layers of powder are applied to a substrate then
selectively joined using a binder sprayed through a nozzle (Fig. 15). In order to avoid excessive
disturbance of the powder when it is hit by the binder, it is necessary to stabilise it first by misting
with water droplets [34]. Once the part is completed, it is heated to set the binder then the excess
powder, which was supporting the part, is removed by immersion in a water bath [35]. The part
is next subjected to a final firing at 900°C for 2 h in order to sinter it [15]. It is possible to press
the green part isostatically before this final firing to increase its density to over 99% of that of a
solid part [36]. After firing, the part may be dipped in binder and refired so that its strength is
improved. Since there is no state change involved in this process, distortion is reduced [28].
The resolution is dependent on the size of the binder droplets and the powder grains, the
placement accuracy of the nozzle and the way that the binder diffuses through the powder due
to capillary action. Neighbouring grains which have been wetted by a binder droplet are pulled
together into a voxel of approximately spherical shape due to the surface tension. The entire voxel
then shrinks as it dries [34]. The layer thickness is affected by the compression of the powder
due to the weight of subsequent layers. This compression is most noticeable in the center of the
part. At the base, there is no room to compact the powder. At the top of the part, there are fewer
layers to cause the compaction. However this effect is mitigated when using more densely packed
powders [34].
Fig. 15. Three dimensional printing.
Parts made using this process do not require supports to brace overhanging features. They do
however need to include a hole so that excess powder can be removed [20]. Disadvantages of
this technology are that the final parts may be fragile and porous, and it can be hard to remove
the excess powder from any cavities. A further drawback is that the layers are raster-scanned by
the printhead which leads to a stair-stepping effect in the X–Y plane as well as in the build
direction [9].
The materials employed by 3DP are metal or ceramic powders, or metal–ceramic composites
with colloidal silica or polymeric binders [20]. At present, this technology is available through a
service bureau only and is used to create cast metal parts. A 3DP machine has a build chamber
measuring 355 × 457 × 355 mm, a layer thickness of 177 ␮m, a resolution of 508 ␮m and an
accuracy of ± 127 ␮m. The build speed is 18–25 mm h−1 [37].
A similar technology, known as Topographic Shape Formation (TSF) is used primarily for
rapid production of moulds, which may then be used to create the prototype. The system prints
paraffin wax about a centimeter below the surface of a silica powder. Once each layer has been
completed, more powder is applied and the process is repeated. The wax binds the powder to
form the part and also partially melts the previous layer to ensure good adhesion. Once the part
is completed, it is sanded, coated in wax and then employed as a mould for the customer’s part.
Materials in use include concrete, fibreglass and expanding foam.
An advantage of this technology is that it can build very large parts quickly and cheaply, which
may be expensive and time-consuming if constructed by other RP methods. A disadvantage is
that the moulds have a ‘gritty’ surface finish and may need to be finished by an operator.
At present, TSF is in use in a service bureau only. The machine has a maximum build envelope
of 3353 × 1829 × 1219 mm, a layer thickness of 1270–3810 ␮m, resolution of 12 700 ␮m and
an accuracy of ± 1270 ␮m [38].
2.2.2.2. Spatial forming (SF) This technology is being developed for prototyping specialised
medical equipment with metal. It is designed to produce high precision parts within a small build
envelope of 2 × 2 × 300 mm. A negative of each layer is printed onto a ceramic substrate with
a ceramic pigmented organic ‘ink’. The layer is then cured with UV light and the process repeated.
After approximately 30 layers, the positive space left by the printing, which corresponds to the
part cross section, is filled using another ‘ink’ which contains metal particles. This is then cured
and milled flat. The process continues until the whole part is finished. Once the prototype is
complete, it is heated in a nitrogen atmosphere to remove the binders in both the positive and
negative ‘inks’ and to sinter the metal particles. The ceramic negative can then be removed in
an ultrasonic bath to reveal the final piece, which is infiltrated with liquid metal to produce the
metal prototype.
The sintering process causes shrinkage of up to 20% in all directions which needs to be taken
into account when designing the part. Further research includes optimizing the binder removal
process and automating the addition of the positive material and the later milling [39].
A prototype of this system is currently being employed to construct preassembled microstruc-
tures for medical purposes. To date, no commercial system is available and only extruded parts
with a constant cross-section can be produced. In theory, however, completely arbitrary geometries
should be feasible.
2.3. Technologies which use a solid
There are two different technologies which use solid foils to form the part. Laminated Object
Manufacture (LOM) bonds the different sheets with an adhesive and then cuts the part contour
using a laser. The second, Solid Foil Polymerisation (SFP), bonds sheets of foil by curing them
with UV light.
2.3.1. Sheets bonded with adhesive: laminated object manufacture (LOM)

The build material is applied to the part from a roll, then bonded to the previous layers using
a hot roller which activates a heat-sensitive adhesive. The contour of each layer is cut with a
laser that is carefully modulated to penetrate to a depth of exactly one layer thickness. Unwanted
material is trimmed into rectangles to facilitate its later removal, but remains in place during the
build to act as supports (Fig. 16). The sheet of material used is wider than the build area so that,
once the part cross-section has been cut, the edges of the sheet remain intact. This means that,
after the layer has been completed and the build platform lowered, the roll of material can be
advanced by winding this excess onto a second roller until a fresh area of the sheet lies over the
part. The whole process can then be repeated.
The system employs a 25 or 50 W CO2 laser to cut the material. Smaller hatches must be used
Fig. 16. Laminated object manufacture (LOM1).
on up- and down-facing surfaces to facilitate the removal of waste material which has bonded to
the part. It may also be necessary to stop the build to excavate paper from otherwise hard-to-
access places. Once the parts have been completed, they should be sealed with a urethane, silicon
or epoxy spray if made of paper to prevent later distortion of the prototype due to water absorption.
The height is measured and the cross-sections are calculated in real time to correct for any errors
in the build direction [9].
Advantages of LOM include the wide range of relatively cheap materials available — parts
may be made using paper for example, or from more expensive materials such as plastic or fiber
reinforced glass ceramic. The parts may be quite large compared to those produced by other RP
methods. Since they have the appearance of wooden pieces when finished, they are popular with
model makers. Speed is another strong point of LOM. As only the outlines of the parts need to
be traced, this method is about 5–10 times faster than other processes [40].
A drawback is the need to prise the finished parts off the table which adversely affects their
surface finish. It is also hard to make hollow parts due to the difficulty in removing the core and
there are serious problems with undercuts and re-entrant features. Other disadvantages of this
technology are that there is a large amount of scrap, the machine must be constantly manned,
parts need to be hand finished and the shear strength of the part is adversely affected by the
layering of adhesive and foil [1,41]. Because the laser cuts through the material, there is a fire
hazard which means that the machines need to be fitted with inert gas extinguishers. The drops
of molten material (dross) which form during the cutting process also need to be removed [2].
The cost of a LOM machine is between £120 000 and £235 000 depending on the size of the
build chamber. Available machines have a maximum build chamber of 813 × 559 × 508 mm.
The minimum layer thickness that they can handle is 76–203 ␮m and their maximum accuracy
is ± 127 ␮m. The maximum cutting speed achievable is 508 mm s−1 [40].
A similar process, LOM2, includes the ability to bond the sheets selectively to the part cross-
section. Here, the cross-section of the part is printed onto a sheet of paper which is applied to
the work-in-progress and bonded using a hot roller. A knife is then used to cut the outline of the
part and cross-hatch the waste material. This process is repeated until the part is finished, when
the excess material may be peeled away from the model. This can then be sealed with epoxy.
Since a knife is used to cut the paper, this system should be less hazardous and cheaper than
LOM1. The waste material is also easier to remove and so finer features may be built. A LOM2
machine costing approximately £130 000 has a build chamber of 400 × 280 × 300 mm. The
system has a throughput of 1 sheet per minute. The parts have a layer thickness of 100 ␮m, X–
Y resolution of 25 ␮m and an accuracy of ± 200 ␮m [42].
Another development which yields a low-cost machine involves using layers cut from adhesive
material on backing paper or from foam laminating material. These layers are then assembled by
hand using special positioning marks and the backing is removed. Once the prototype is com-
pleted, it may be coated to protect and strengthen it. This RP technology (LOM3) is perhaps one
of the most inexpensive available, with machines costing approximately £8500 [43], although the
finished parts are somewhat ‘tacky’ and the assembly process has to be performed manually.
2.3.2. Sheets bonded with UV light: solid foil polymerisation (SFP)

In SFP, the part is built up using semi-polymerised foils. On exposure to UV light, the foil
solidifies and bonds to the previous layer. It also becomes insoluble. Once the cross-section has
been illuminated, a new foil can be applied. The areas of foil which do not constitute the eventual
part are used to support it during the build process, but remain soluble and so are easy to remove.
Once the part is complete, the non-bonded pieces can be dissolved to leave the finished part
[2,44]. No commercial systems are available yet.
2.4. Material removal technology: desktop milling (DM)
This is a process which removes material from the workpiece as in traditional machining pro-
cesses instead of creating the part by gradual material buildup. The prototypes can be made with
a high degree of accuracy because they do not deform after they have been completed. If NC
machining is to be employed to manufacture the finished design, features which are difficult to
create will also be detected at this stage.
Any CNC machine may be employed to make prototypes from an inexpensive material such
as wax. There is a commercial entry-level desktop milling system available which is capable of
dealing with STL files, even those which contain gaps and self-intersecting surfaces. This means
that the designer does not need to spend time verifying and correcting the files, as is the case
with the material accretion technologies. The machine is inexpensive and can handle a wide
variety of materials. It generates the NC tool path automatically and may be operated with no
NC training. The cost of the basic model is approximately £4500. Cutting speeds of 0.06–3.6 m s−1
can be obtained depending on the model purchased. The resolution can be as high as 10 ␮m for
an inexpensive entry level machine, with an accuracy of ± 10 ␮m [45,46].
3. Applications
There are many uses for RP. Unlike conventional prototypes which may take a skilled artisan
weeks or months to produce, RP parts may be made cheaply by a machine in a few days or less,
with little human intervention. Therefore the designer may prototype the part as often as necessary
to check for appearance and function. Changes may then be easily incorporated into the model
and another prototype generated. This facilitates the optimisation of the design and saves time-
consuming and expensive alterations at a later production date. There are many other applications
for the prototyped parts which would have been impractical with conventional models. Some of
these applications are listed below.
3.1. Visualisation
쐌 Parts may be employed to facilitate communication of ideas in a concurrent engineering

environment.
쐌 Some companies now routinely include a prototype made from the CAD file with their sales
proposal to allow the customer to see and assess the part [27].
쐌 Complex models may be produced for teaching purposes [47].
3.2. Working models/functional parts
쐌 Small batches of plastic parts can be commercially manufactured. Because patterns for injection
moulding are expensive to produce, the break-even point for a production run is a few thousand
parts [2]. RP technologies can be used on their own or in conjunction with other more conven-
tional technologies to manufacture parts in quantities as low as one.
쐌 Parts may be produced with intricate internal shapes that could not be manufactured using
traditional technologies. Examples include medical equipment such as the interlocking tip
assembly for a catheter system to investigate arteries [39] and monolithic ceramic filters [48].
쐌 One-of-a-kind parts such as bone replacements may be made accurately from a scanned model
of the original. The bone may be imaged using X-ray tomography and the data translated to
a CAD file which is then used to drive the RP process [47].
쐌 Parts can be produced with well-defined microstructures by using technologies which can
deposit different materials [47].
3.3. Tooling/manufacturing pattern
쐌 It is possible to employ RP parts directly as tooling. SLS or ceramic 3DP parts may be infil-
trated with liquid metal to produce a dense tool with a well-defined distribution of ceramic or
metal particles [19,37]. RP models may be sprayed with metal to produce EDM electrodes
which may be used to manufacture up to 1000 parts [9,11]. TSF parts may be used as moulds
for concrete, fibreglass or expanding foams [38].
쐌 Parts made by RP may be used to produce tools indirectly. Tooling lead-times may be reduced
from 12–26 weeks to 1–6 weeks. Parts made of wax or other low melting point materials may
be sprayed with metal and the wax subsequently removed by melting. The metal shells may
then be employed for plastic injection moulding [20].
쐌 Parts made with a low-melting point material may be used for investment casting purposes.
The parts are coated with a ceramic slurry and then burnt out. As mentioned previously, SL
parts should be built using a draw-style such as QuickCast to avoid cracking the ceramic
moulds. The FDM, BPM and SLS investment casting waxes burn out, leaving little to no ash
content (⬍ 0.002%), and therefore are ideal for investment casting. LOM parts made of paper
may be burnt out at 760°C leaving approximately 3% in ash [40]. When adopting 3DP, the
ceramic moulds may be made directly, which has the effect of tightening tolerances as there
are fewer shape transfers. It is also possible to produce moulds with integral cores. This means
that they do not have to be manually located and again tolerances are tightened. Another possi-
bility is to print the cores in a different material so that they are easy to remove at a later date
[20]. An advantage of these RP technologies is that the expensive conventional tooling used
to produce the mould which makes the sacrificial wax patterns is not needed to create the
prototype, allowing multiple trials before the design is finalised [1,49].
쐌 SL, SLS and LOM prototypes may be used in the sand casting process for short runs of cast
parts [1].
4. Selection of RP processes
Tables 1 and 2 contrast the main features of the different RP systems. The technologies are
split into those which are commercially available and those which are still being researched. There
are alternative systems listed under each of the categories of BPM and LOM and data for these
alternatives have been included in the table. LOM1 is the fully automatic LOM process, employing
a laser, LOM2 is the selective bonding process which uses a knife and LOM3 is the manual
assembly process. As described previously, the BPM processes are the dual-jet BPM1, the 5-
axis BPM2 machine and the multi-jet MJM. The figures for DM refer to the entry level system
mentioned earlier.
Table 1
Features of rapid prototyping processes (commercial)
D.T. Pham, R.S. Gault/ International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 38 (1998) 1257–1287
SL SGC BPM1 BPM2 MJM FDM SLS 3DP TSF LOM1 LOM2 LOM3 DM2
Postcuring Yes No No No No (firing Yes No No No

required may be
required)
Supports Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No
required
Material Epoxy or Resin Thermo- Thermo- Thermo- ABS, Nylon, Ceramic Sand and Paper, Paper Paper or Various
used acrylic plastic or polymer polymer MABS, metals, or metal wax plastic or foam
resin wax wax or wax, or ceramic
elastomers poly
carbonate
Laser Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No No No
used
Layer 50 100–200 13–130 Not 33 50–762 76 177 1270– 76–203 100 110–140 N/A
thickness available 3810
(␮m)
X–Y 200–250 100 101 558 85 254 Not 508 12 700 203–254 25 Not 10
Resolution available available
(␮m)
Accuracy ± 100 ± 500 ± 25 ± 17 ± 100 ± 127 ± 51 ± 127 Not ± 127 ± 200 Not ± 10
(␮m) available available
Scan N/A N/A 310 12 000 6200 380 0.001– 0.007 Not 508 N/A Not 60
speed particles 0.008 available (cutting available
(mm s⫺1) per speed)
second
Time to 113 (50 × 65 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Not N/A 60 N/A N/A
complete 50 mm) available
a layer (s)
Maximum 500 × 500 × 300 × 250 × 250 × 254 × 330 × 355 × 3353 × 813 × 559 400 × 280 610 × 120 ×
part 500 × 350 × 150 × 203 × 200 × 254 × 380 × 457 × 1829 × × 508 × 300 6101 100 ×
dimensions584 500 220 150 200 254 425 355 1219 120
(mm3)
Cost 150–390 180–300 60 25 50 100 250–365 Bureau Bureau 120–235 130 8.5 4.5
(£1000) service service
only only
1
Since prototypes made with the LOM3 system are assembled manually there is no height constraint.
2
These figures refer to an entry-level system only.
1281
1282
Table 2
Features of rapid prototyping processes (non-commercial)
D.T. Pham, R.S. Gault/ International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 38 (1998) 1257–1287
LTP BIS HIS 3DW SDM GPD SF SFP ES
Postcuring Yes Yes No No No Yes No

required
Supports Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No
required
Material used Resin Resin Resin Weld beads Metal Reactive gas Metal Resin foils Electro-set
fluid
Laser used Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No
Layer 100 N/A 1450 0.5
thickness
(␮m)
X–Y 100 300–600 10
Resolution
(␮m
Accuracy ± 500 ± 25
(␮m)
Scan speed 8
(mm s ⫺ 1)
Time to
complete a
layer (s)
Maximum 300 × 300 × 300 × 300 × 2 × 2 × 300
part 300 300
dimensions
(mm3)
Cost (£1000)
The accuracy data in the tables was obtained from technical publications and from company
literature. In the main, these represent the best accuracies achievable with finely tuned equipment
when operated by a skilled technician and not the average accuracies and resolutions achieved
by the users. The layer thickness shown in the table is taken to be equivalent to the z resolution
of the part. Depending on whether the part is built point by point or layer by layer, either the
linear build rate is quoted, or the time to complete a layer is given.
Of the systems listed, the most accurate is the dual-jet BPM1 machine. However, the build
chamber and therefore the maximum part size is small. The cheapest systems are the LOM3
machine and the entry-level DM system. As already mentioned, the drawback of the LOM3 system
is that the parts produced are ‘tacky’ and need to be assembled manually. Disadvantages of the
low-cost DM machine are that its work envelope is small and it cannot manufacture shapes as
complex as those created using the material accretion technologies.
There was less information available for the non-commercial processes and for some techno-
logies no accurate figures could be obtained.
Figure 17 is a quick guide to selecting RP processes. The selection is based on the end use of
the part, part size, whether or not all features may be freely accessed, whether or not the part is
hollow, part accuracy and part strength. For completeness, approximate capital and running cost
information is provided on each process and this is then used to rank the different alternatives.
Only commercially available processes are represented.
5. Conclusion
Rapid prototyping is an enabling technology for concurrent engineering. Its goal is to reduce
product development and manufacturing costs and lead times, thereby increasing competitiveness.
Impressive steps towards that goal have been made. However, the field of RP is still new, with
much effort to be expended on improving the speed, accuracy and reliability of RP systems and
widen the range of materials for prototype construction. Another area of improvement will be
costing, as most RP systems are currently too expensive to be affordable by any but the larger
firms. Although RP technology will continue to be available to all companies via bureaux which,
often in partnership with traditional model makers, can provide a comprehensive service from
design through to short-run production, the future is likely to see more user-owned RP machines
as their costs are reduced. There will also be two different types of RP systems for two distinct
markets: the design-office ‘3D-plotter’ for rapidly generating parts for design verification and the
workshop/model-making shop machine for producing accurate functional parts and tooling.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund which is administered
by the Welsh Office for the European Commission.
Fig. 17. RP process selection guide.

Fig. 17. Continued
References
[1] N.A. Waterman, P. Dickens, Rapid product development in the USA, Europe and Japan, World Class Design To
Manufacture 1 (3) (1994) 27–36.
[2] J.P. Kruth, Material incress manufacturing by rapid prototyping technologies, CIRP Annals 40 (2) (1991) 603–614.
[3] A. Dolenc, I. Mäkelä, Slicing procedures for layer manufacturing techniques, Computer-Aided Design 26 (2)
(1994) 119–126.
[4] D. Frank, G. Fadel, Preferred direction of build for rapid prototyping processes, 5th International Conference on
Rapid Prototyping, Dayton, Ohio, 12–15 June, 1994, pp. 191–201.
[5] W. Cheng, J.Y.H. Fuh, A.Y.C. Nee, Y.S. Wong, H.T. Loh, T. Miyazawa, Multi-objective optimization of part-
building orientation in stereolithography, Rapid Prototyping Journal 1 (4) (1995) 12–23.
[6] P.F. Jacobs, Fundamentals of stereolithography, First European Conference on Rapid Prototyping, Nottingham,
July 1992, pp. 1–17.
[7] K. Renap, J.P. Kruth, Recoating issues in stereolithography, Rapid Prototyping Journal 1 (3) (1995) 4–16.
[8] 3D Systems, Maestro Workstation User Guide, 3D Systems, Worldwide Corporation HQ, 26081 Avenue Hall,
Valencia, CA, 1996.
[9] P.F. Jacobs, Stereolithography and Other RP and M Techniques, ASME Press, New York, 1996.
[10] P.F. Jacobs, QuickCast 1.1 and rapid tooling, 4th European Conference on Rapid Prototyping and Manufactur-
ing, Nottingham, 13–15 June 1995, pp. 1–27.
[11] P.M. Dickens, Research developments in rapid prototyping, Proceedings IMechE, Journal of Engineering Manufac-
ture, Part B, 1995, vol. 209, pp. 261–266.
[12] R. Ippolito, L. Iuliano, A. Gatto, Benchmarking of rapid prototyping techniques in terms of dimensional accuracy
and surface finish, CIRP Annals 44 (1) (1995) 157–160.
[13] 3D Systems, The Edge, vol. V, 1, 3D Systems, Worldwide Corporation HQ, 26081 Avenue Hall, Valencia,
CA, 1996.
[14] 3D Systems, SLA-500 Series, 3D Systems, Worldwide Corporation HQ, 26081 Avenue Hall, Valencia, CA, 1996.
[15] S. Au, P.K. Wright, A comparative study of rapid prototyping technology, Proceedings ASME Winter Conference,
New Orleans, November 1993, vol. 66, pp. 73–82.
[16] Cubital Ltd, Advantages of the Solider System, Cubital Ltd., 13 Hasadna St., PO Box 2375, Industrial Zone
North, Raanana, 43650 Israel, 1996.
[17] Cubital Ltd, Solider 5600, Cubital Ltd., 13 Hasadna St., PO Box 2375, Industrial Zone North, Raanana, 43650
Israel, 1996.
[18] Anon, State of the Art Review-93-01, MTIAC, 10 West 35 Street, Chicago, IL 60616, U.S.A., 1993.
[19] Anon, Manufacturing parts drop by drop, Compressed Air, March 100 (2) (1995) 38–44.
[20] E. Sachs, M. Cima, P. Williams, D. Brancazio, J. Cornie, Three dimensional printing: rapid tooling and prototyping
directly from a CAD model, Transactions of ASME: Journal of Engineering for Industry 114 (1992) 481–488.
[21] Rayleigh, On the instability of jets, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society 10 (4) (1878) 4–13.
[22] M. Orme, K. Willis, J. Courter, The development of rapid prototyping of metallic components via ultra uniform
droplet deposition, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Rapid Prototyping, Dayton, Ohio, 12–15
June 1994, pp. 27–37.
[23] Sanders Prototype Inc., ModelMakerII, Sanders Prototype Inc., PO Box 540, Wilton, New Hampshire 03086,
U.S.A., 1996.
[24] BPM Technology Inc., The Personal Modeler 2100 Printer, BPM Technology Inc., 1200 Woodruff Road, A-
19 Greenville, SC 29607, 1997.
[25] 3D Systems, Actua 2100, 3D Systems, Worldwide Corporation HQ, 26081 Avenue Hall, Valencia, CA, 1996.
[26] Stratasys Inc., Fused deposition modelling for fast, safe plastic models, 12th Annual Conference on Computer
Graphics, Chicago, April 1991, pp. 326–332.
[27] Stratasys Inc., FDM-1650, Stratasys Inc., 14950 Martin Drive, Eden Prairie, Minneapolis 55344-2020, U.S.A.,
1996.
[28] B. Bidanda, V. Narayanan, R. Billo, Reverse engineering and rapid prototyping, in: R.C. Dorf, A. Kusiak (Eds.),
Handbook of Design, Manufacture and Automation, Wiley, NY, 1991, pp. 977–991.
[29] P.M. Dickens, M.S. Pridham, R.C. Cobb, I. Gibson, Rapid prototyping using 3-D welding, Proceedings of the
3rd Symposium on Solid Freeform Fabrication, Austin, Texas, September 1992, pp. 280–290.
[30] R. Merz, F.B. Prinz, K. Ramaswami, M. Terk, L.F. Weiss, Shape deposition manufacturing, Proceedings of the
5th Symposium on Solid Freeform Fabrication, Austin, Texas, 8–10 August 1994, pp. 1–8.
[31] F. Klocke, T. Celiker, Y.-A. Song, Rapid metal tooling, Rapid Prototyping Journal 1 (3) (1995) 32–42.
[32] DTM Corporation, A platform that supports the entire design process, DTM Corporation, 1611 Headway Circle,
Building 2, Austin, Texas 78754, 1996.
[33] Laboratory for Freeform Fabrication, Web pages of University of Texas at Austin, Texas, U.S.A., 1996.
[34] E. Sachs, J. Cornie, D. Brancazio, J. Bredt, A. Curodeau, T. Fan, S. Khanuja, A. Lauder, J. Lee, S. Michaels,
Three dimensional printing: the physics and implications of additive manufacturing, CIRP Annals 42 (1) (1993)
257–260.
[35] E. Sachs, E. Wylonis, M. Cima, S. Allen, S. Michaels, E. Sun, H. Tang, H. Guo, Injection moulding tooling by
three dimensional printing, a desktop manufacturing process, Proceedings 53rd Annual Conference ANTEC, Bos-
ton, May 1995, vol. 1(1), pp. 997–1003.
[36] J. Yoo, M. Cima, E. Sachs, S. Suresh, Fabrication and microstructural control of advanced ceramic components
by three dimensional printing, Proceedings of the American Ceramic Society, Jan Cocoa Beach, FL, 1995.
[37] Soligen Technologies, Private communication, Soligen Technologies, 19408 Londelius Street, Northridge, CA
91324, 1995.
[38] Formus Ltd, Topographic shape fabrication, Formus Ltd, 185 Lewis Road, Suite 31, San Jose, CA 95111, 1997.
[39] C.S. Taylor, P. Cherkas, H. Hampton, J.J. Frantzen, B.O. Shah, W.B. Tiffany, L. Nanis, P. Booker, A. Sabhieh,
R. Hansen, Spatial forming, a three dimensional printing process, Proceedings IEEE Micro Electro Mechanical
Systems Conference, Amsterdam, January 1995, pp. 203–208.
[40] Helisys Inc., 2030H System, Helisys Inc., 24015 Garnier Street, Torrance, CA 90505, 1997.
[41] S.S. Crump, Fast precise, safe prototypes with FDM, ASME Annual Winter Conference, Atlanta, December 1991,
vol. 50, pp. 53–60.
[42] YUASA Warwick Machinery Ltd, Private communication, YUASA Warwick Machinery Ltd., Rothwell Road,
Wedgenock Ind. Est., Warwick CV24 5PY, U.K., 1997.
[43] Schroff Development Corporation, JP System 5, Schroff Development Corporation, PO Box 1334, Mission, Kansas
66205, USA, 1996.
[44] S. Corbel, A.L. Allanic, P. Schaeffer, J.C. Andre, Computer-aided manufacture of three-dimensional objects by
laser space-resolved photopolymerization, Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems 9 (1994) 310–312.
[45] Delft Spline Systems, Desk proto, offering in-house rapid prototyping, Delft Spline Systems, PO Box 2171, 3500
GB Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1996.
[46] Delft Spline Systems, CNC-500, Delft Spline Systems, PO Box 2171, 3500 GB Utrecht, The Netherlands, 1996.
[47] A.P. Nyaluke, D. An, H.R. Leep, H.R. Parasaei, Rapid prototyping in academic institutions and industry, Computer
and Industrial Engineering 29 (1995) 345–349.
[48] M. Parish, A.B. Jettery, Ceramic filter elements with tailored macro and microstructures, Filtration and Separation
32 (1) (1995) 31–36.
[49] C.C. Kai, 3D rapid prototyping technologies and key development areas, Computing and Control Engineering
Journal August (1994) 200–206.

Comparison of RP Techniques PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Comparison of RP Techniques PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 38 (1998) 1257–1287

A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies

0890-6955/98/$19.00  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Classification of rapid prototyping methods (adapted from [2]).

2. Material addition technologies

2.1. Processes involving a liquid

2.1.1. Solidification of a liquid polymer

Fig. 2. Single cured line of photopolymer (adapted from [6]).

Fig. 4. Trapped volume in stereolithography.

쐌 Shadows are cast from previously solidified sections.

Fig. 8. Beam interference solidification (adapted from [2]).

Fig. 9. Solid ground curing.

2.1.1.5. Holographic interference solidification (HIS) A holographic image is projected into

2.1.2. Solidification of an electroset fluid: electrosetting (ES)

2.1.3. Solidification of molten material

Fig. 10. Ballistic particle manufacture.

Fig. 11. Fused deposition modelling.

Fig. 12. Shaped deposition manufacturing (adapted from [30]).

2.2. Processes involving discrete particles

2.2.1. Fusing of particles by laser

Fig. 13. Selective laser sintering (adapted from [2]).

Fig. 14. Gas phase deposition.

2.2.2. Joining of particles with a binder

Fig. 15. Three dimensional printing.

2.3. Technologies which use a solid

2.3.1. Sheets bonded with adhesive: laminated object manufacture (LOM)

Fig. 16. Laminated object manufacture (LOM1).

2.3.2. Sheets bonded with UV light: solid foil polymerisation (SFP)

2.4. Material removal technology: desktop milling (DM)

쐌 Parts may be employed to facilitate communication of ideas in a concurrent engineering

3.2. Working models/functional parts

3.3. Tooling/manufacturing pattern

Postcuring Yes No No No No (firing Yes No No No

Postcuring Yes Yes No No No Yes No

Fig. 17. RP process selection guide.

Fig. 17. Continued

Você também pode gostar