An Overview Of Rapid Prototyping Technologies In Manufacturing

Dr. A. Dolenc Institute of Industrial Automation Helsinki University of Technology July 24, 1994

Abstract This document overviews a new class of manufacturing processes generally known as Rapid Prototyping Techniques or Technologies (RPT) that build parts by adding material on a layer-by-layer basis, in contrast to conventional methods that remove material. We discuss their basic principles, data transfer, applications, and compare them with their conventional counterparts.
1, FIN-02150 Espoo, Finland. Tel:+358-0-4513239. Fax:+358-0-4513293. Email (Internet): ado@mail.cs.hut.fi.
 Otakaari

Contents
1 2 3 About This Document What Is Rapid Prototyping? Overview Of Some Processes 3.1 Stereolithography : : : : : : : 3.2 Solid ground curing : : : : : : 3.3 Selective laser sintering : : : : 3.4 Laminated object manufacturing 3.5 A short comparison : : : : : : Data transfer to RPT 4.1 Constraints on the model RPT In Manufacturing 5.1 Toolings : : : : : 5 5

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

: : : : :

6 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 16 18 18 18 20 20 21

4 5 6 7 8 9

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

RPT In Industrial Design RPT In Medical Applications RPT vs conventional technologies Conclusions

10 Acknowledgements

List of Figures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A schematic drawing of an SLA. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : A schematic drawing of a SOLIDER process. : : : : : : : : A schematic drawing of an SLS process. : : : : : : : : : : : A schematic drawing of a LOM process. : : : : : : : : : : : A scenario between designer and manufacturer. : : : : : : : The state transitions of a parametric surface model. : : : : : The typical scenario of data preparation. : : : : : : : : : : : A correct triangulation : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Incorrect triangulations. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Correct vs. incorrect slices. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Changes in the requirements for the manufacturing industry. Development time vs. development costs. : : : : : : : : : : Obtaining medical models from scanned images. : : : : : : RPT vs conventional technologies. : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

: : : : : : : : : : : : : :

7 8 9 10 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 17 19 20

List of Tables
1 2 Other Stereolithography-based processes. : A short comparison of some RP processes.

::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::

7 11

1 About This Document

This document has two versions, a printed version and an electronic version. The printed version AT X, and converted to PostScript using dvips. The compressed PostScript is obtained using L E le can be obtained via anonymous ftp at sauna.cs.hut.fi (130.233.192.1) in /pub/rp-ml/rp.ps.Z. The electronic version is obtained using latex2html1. It may happen that both versions are not updated simultaneously. Observe that some differences are bound to exist between both versions. Take, for instance, a link to another document. Whereas in the electronic version it sufces to have only the link, in the printed version, it is replaced by a description of the contents of the other document.

2 What Is Rapid Prototyping?

The past decade has witnessed the emergence of new manufacturing technologies that build parts on a layer-by-layer basis. Using these technologies, manufacturing time for parts of virtually any complexity is measured in hours instead of days, weeks, or months; in other words, it is rapid. The rst commercial process was presented at the AUTOFACT show in Detroit (US) in November 1987, by a company called 3D Systems, Inc. At that time, the process was very inaccurate and the choice of materials was limited. Therefore, the parts obtained where considered prototypes. Like in software engineering, a prototype is something to look at, serves as a basis for discussion but cannot be used for anything serious, i.e. in a production environment. Since then, Rapid Prototyping Technologies (RPT) have taken enormous strides. Nowadays, there are over 30 processes some of which are commercial, while others are under development in research laboratories2. The accuracy has improved signicantly, and the choice of materials is relatively large, to the extent that the term prototype is becoming misleading; the parts are more and more frequently being used for functional testing or to derive tools for pre-production testing. It is very likely that a new term, or one of the numerous other expressions that are oating around, will replace it in the future3. It is true that rapid prototyping (notice the lowercase) can be achieved using conventional methods such as NC milling and hand carving. However, the term RP is normally reserved for the new technologies that build parts by adding material instead of removing it. In order to regard RP in the right perspective, one would need to compare it with the conventional methods. Unfortunately, this is beyond the scope of the present work. I will explain, though, to the best of my ability, the strategic importance of RP and describe in some detail some of the processes that will be referenced later.
http://cbl.leeds.ac.uk/nikos/tex2html/latex2html.tar A survey dated May 1993 by Wohlers Associates includes 34 processes out of which 11 are commercial with approximately 525 machines sold worldwide. 3 Personally, I favour the expression Rapid Prototyping&Manufacturing (RPM).
2 1

3 Overview Of Some Processes

All the processes described in this Section take as input a 3D model and a set of parameters that are process-dependent. The model to be manufactured is sliced by a set of parallel planes. The space between two adjacent slices is called a layer. The component of the process where the part is built is called the workspace. Although the processes described here can differ signicantly, e.g. by the use of materials other than photopolymers, the underlying theme is the same; they all build parts on a layerby-layer basis. Such processes are generally known as Layered Manufacturing Techniques or Technologies (LMT). These technologies are changing at a quick pace, and the information contained herein may become quickly outdated. For our purposes, it is not important that they be described in great detail. More information can be found in other sources [13, 14, 16, 21, 24, ?].

3.1 Stereolithography
Our rst example of RPT is the Stereolithography apparatus (SLA) (Figure 1), developed and commercialized by 3D Systems, Inc. (US). A short explanation on how the process operates is as follows. Initially, the elevator is located at a distance from the surface of the liquid equal to the thickness of the rst, bottom-most layer. The laser beam will scan the surface following the contours of the slice. The interior of the contour is then hatched using a hatch pattern. The liquid is a photopolymer that when exposed to the ultra-violet (uv) laser beam solidies or is cured. The elevator is moved downwards, and the subsequent layers are produced analogously. Fortunately, the layers bind to each other. Finally, the part is removed from the vat, and the liquid that is still trapped in the interior is usually cured in a special oven. The laser beam that solidies the liquid is the HeCd-laser shown in the upper-left corner of Figure 1. A second, HeNe-laser is used to ensure that the surface of the liquid is in the correct location. The sweeper4 breaks the surface tension, ensures that a at surface is obtained, and minimizes the processing time of each layer. Because the part is built in a liquid environment, and because the interior of the part still contains liquid polymer, it may be necessary to add support structures to increase the rigidity of the part, and to avoid overhangs from sinking to the bottom of the platform or from oating freely in the vat. The support structures are usually removed manually after the part is taken away from the platform. Scanning time depends on the geometry of the contours, hatch patterns, the speed of the laser, and the recoating time (i.e. the time taken to place a layer of photopolymer over the last solidied layer). The SLA is not the only process based on Stereolithography. Table 1 lists other organizations that commercialize processes based on the same principles.
4

Not present in the low-end model of the SLA-family.

HeCd-laser Lenses

Mirror

Elevator

Sweeper

Liquid polymer HeNe-laser Platform

FIGURE 1. A schematic drawing of an SLA.

Organization CMET (Mitsubishi) D-MEC (JSR/Sony) Laser 3D EOS GmbH Teijin Seiki Co.

Country Japan Japan France Germany Japan

Product SOUP 600, 850 SCS 1000HD SPL 1000, 5000 STEREOS 400, 600 Soliform 300, 500

TABLE 1. Other Stereolithography-based processes.

3.2 Solid ground curing

The SOLIDER system was developed and commercialized by Cubital Ltd. (Israel). It also uses a photopolymer, sensitive to uv-light. It is, however, a signicantly different process (see Figure 2).
UV-lamp + shutter

Mask plate

Residual polymer cleaner Polymer Wax spreader spreader

Wax cooling plate

Milling head Electrical charging Mask development Mask erasure Liquid polymer (current layer)
Wax Platform

FIGURE 2. A schematic drawing of a SOLIDER process. The rst difference concerns the vat: it moves horizontally as well as vertically. The horizontal movements take the workspace to different stations in the machine. The second difference concerns the light source: instead of using a laser beam, a uv-lamp (mercury) is used to ood the chamber and expose and solidify the entire layer at once. This avoids the need for post-curing the parts. To select the areas that should be cured, a mask is built on a glass plate, and subsequently, erased after begin used. The mask is built using a process similar to the one used in laser printers. The glass plate with the mask is placed between the lamp and the surface of the workspace. The third difference is that the parts are built surrounded by wax, eliminating the need for support structures5. Once a layer has been exposed to the uv-lamp, the un-cured areasthose areas lled with residual, liquid polymerare replaced by wax. This is done by wiping away the residual polymer and applying a layer of wax. The wax is hardened by a cold metal plate, and
On the other hand, one must de-wax the part. This can be done even with a dish washer, if the geometry of the part permits.
5

subsequently, the layer is milled to the correct height. The milling station also allows for layers to be removed, i.e. an undo operation is possible. The new layer of polymer is applied when the workspace moves from the milling station back to the exposure chamber. The latest improvements announced by Cubital are the ability to change the size of the workspace and an additional uv-lamp.

3.3 Selective laser sintering

The University of Texas at Austin developed a method for sintering powder materials. The process is depicted in Figure 3. Instead of a liquid polymer, powders of different materials are
CO2 Laser

Optics Scanning Mirrors

Powder Leveling Roller

Unsintered Powder Workpiece

Part Cylinder and Powder Bed Powder Cartridge Feedding/Collecting System

FIGURE 3. A schematic drawing of an SLS process. spread over a platform by a roller. A laser sinters selected areas causing the particles to melt and then solidify. Unlike the processes mentioned above where there is only one phase transition, in sintering there are two: from solid to uid, back to solid again. Processes that behave in this way 9

are generally known as selective laser sintering (SLS) processes. The materials being used or investigated include plastics, wax, metals, and coated ceramics. It is hoped that parts made of materials other than plastics with the required mechanical properties can be made using such processes. Like the SOLIDER system, there is no need for support structures, because the surrounding powder supports the parts being built. The process developed at Austin is being commercialized by DTM Corp. Recently, EOS GmbH has introduced to the market a process that operates under the same principles.

3.4 Laminated object manufacturing

Helysis developed and commercialized a system that cuts and binds foils as illustrated in Figure 4. The undersurface of the foil has a binder that when pressed and heated by the roller causes it to
Laser

Ra

Mirror Heated Roller Optic head

Platform Feeder Collector

FIGURE 4. A schematic drawing of a LOM process.

10

glue to the previous foil. The foil is cut by a laser following the contour of the slice. To help the removal of the excess material once the parts have been built, the exterior of the slice is hatched, as opposed to uid-based processes (e.g. the SLA process), where the interior is hatched. The thickness of the foil is not constant. Therefore, a sensor (not shown in the Figure) measures the current foil thickness, and the model is sliced accordingly.

3.5 A short comparison

From the users point-of-view, the major aspects taken into consideration in chosing when and how to obtain a part are: time, cost, and functionality. Regarding RPT, none of the processes excel in all respects; each process has restrictions imposed by costs, accuracy, materials, geometry, and size. Table 26 is a short summary of the differences between the processes discussed in the previous Sections. The comparison is not complete, in that various other important aspects are not included, e.g. the price of the equipment, maintenance costs, and material costs.
Process Company Max. part size (mm) Layer thickness (min/max; mm) Speed (vertical) Accuracy Materials SLA 250 3D Systems, Inc. 254  254  254 0:10:9 Part geometry dependent 0:2mm Photocurable resins SOLIDER 5600 Cubital Ltd. 508  508  355 0:050:15 60100 layers/hour
:

SLS 2000 DTM Corp. 305  381 (  height) 0:13 Part geometry dependent 0:050:25mm Thermoplastics (PVC, nylon, ABS/SAN), wax

LOM 1015 Helisys 330  2540  381 0:0050:05 10 mm/hour

1% (all directions) Photocurable resins, wax

0 127mm
:

Paper, nylon, polyester

TABLE 2. A short comparison of some RP processes. When the part does not t in the workspace of the machine, acceptable results have been obtained by splitting the model in parts, building the parts separately, and then binding them together. Regarding the software tools and data exchange formats, the lowest common denominator is triangulated models represented in STL format. All vendors supply software tools to verify, correct, and slice the models. However, the software architecture and the quality of the tools varies considerably. Data transfer is now covered in the next Section.
6

This Table was compiled from an internal report of the INSTANTCAM project [3].

11

4 Data transfer to RPT

As mentioned earlier, speed is one of the most distinguishing features of RPT when compared to conventional methods. In fact, in many cases, the use of RPT can only be justied if the part can be obtained quickly. Quite often, though, the limiting factor is the time spent preparing the data. Once the data is correct, manufacturing time is known and relatively fast. Figure 5 sketches a typical scenario. The designer delivers the model to the manufacturer using surface
Error Description or the Part Designer 3D Model Manufacturer

FIGURE 5. A scenario between designer and manufacturer. mail or by electronic means. The model will usually be represented in some neutral format, e.g. VDAFS [27], IGES [25], or STL [1], or in some native format when both have access to the same CAD system. The model is then veried for correctness and converted to a suitable form if possible. The manufacturer is faced with the following problems: Is the model correct? If not, what is the nature of the mistakes and can they be corrected locally? If the mistakes cannot be corrected locally, how can one describe them to the designer? RP machines are not yet commonplace and the physical distance between the designer and the manufacturer plays a role in delivery time due to difculties and delays in communication. Besides, the manufacturing costs are directly related to the amount of work spent preparing the data and the actual building of the part. The former can represent as much as 2=3 of the total costs. Therefore, any software tool that can minimize the number of times the designer and the manufacturer need to communicate or make their communication more efcient is benecial. In a nutshell, these are problems related to data transfer. A closer look at how parametric surface models7 are transferred will give us a better understanding of the problems. Figure 6 depicts the state transitions of interest undertaken by a model from the moment it is sent by the designer until it is manufactured. All the state transitions in the diagram are possible. For instance, one can take slices from medical imaging systems and interpolate intermediary slices that are subsequently used in a LMT process. In this case, a 3D model is never evaluated
7

Henceforth referred to as models.

12

Model in Internal, Native Format of Application Programs + a+b+c Surface Model in Neutral Format (e.g. IGES or VDAFS) Facetted Model in Neutral Format (e.g. STL) Sliced Model LMT Process

FIGURE 6. The state transitions of a parametric surface model. (path b+b,). On the other hand, some processes cannot effectively handle sliced modelsor 2 1 D modelstherefore, a faceted model is created and then sliced again (path b+a,a+b,). 3 The reason is that in some cases it is important to be able to position the model arbitrarily in the workspace of the machine, and this cannot be done with sliced models. The typical scenario is shown in Figure 7. A 3D CAD systema surface or solid modeller
a+ aaa+ aa+

CAD System

Verifier/ Corrector Process dependent

Slicer

b-

LMT Process

FIGURE 7. The typical scenario of data preparation. is used for creating the model. The most common step that follows is facetting the model. The current de facto data exchange standard for representing faceted models is called STL [1]. This format requires signicant redundancy and is restricted to triangles. Normally, each vendor supplies the software tools for verifying the correctness of the model, generate process-dependent data, and to perform the slicing of faceted models. The format for representing the slices is proprietary. There is a trend for LMT vendors to develop interfaces based on slicing surface 13

models together with major CAD vendors. One of the objectives is to eliminate the need for always generating intermediary, faceted models. Therefore, the interest in correctly slicing models for LMT is growing.

4.1 Constraints on the model

As mentioned above, data transfer between CAD systems and RP processes is mainly based on data exchange formats capable of representing faceted models. The current de facto standard is the STL format [1] which allows one to represent triangulated models, i.e. each facet is a triangle.

FIGURE 8. A correct triangulation In order for models to be correctly manufactured they must represent a collection of one or more non-intersecting solids. The manufacturer hopes to receive well-behaved STL-les such as the one outlined in Figure 8. In a correct STL-le, each triangle has exactly one neighbour along each edge, and triangles are only allowed to intersect at common edges and vertices. Under these conditions, it is possible to distinguish precisely the inside from the outside of the model. Unfortunately, quite often incorrect faceted models are used. The mistakes can be numerous (Figure 9). The models can contain gaps due to missing facets, facets may intersect at incorrect locations, the same edge may be shared by more than two facets, etc. Special cases of these errors may occur that require separate treatment, e.g. overlapping facets (coplanar facets whose intersection results in another facet). The reasons for such errors are related to the application that generated the faceted model, the application that generated the original 3D CAD model, and the user. Many STL interfaces in CAD systems fail to inform the user that the result is not correct and problems remain undetected until the manufacturer attempts to process the model. Errors in the model can interfere with the building process. For instance, if a slice contains a gap when the internal structure of the slice is built, stray vectors might be created (Figure 10). The possibility of this happening is great, due to the fact, that the tool in this case is a laser 14

Gap

FIGURE 9. Incorrect triangulations. beam of small diameter (approximately 0:2mm in an SLA), and the distance between the hatch lines may be likewise apart8. These stray vectors damage the resulting part and possibly other parts being built in the same platform. The internal structure is process-dependent and is usually
Contour of the slice Stray vectors Hatch pattern

FIGURE 10. Correct vs. incorrect slices. proprietary information. Therefore, the internal structures used in practice will probably differ from the ones shown in Figure 10, but they all require simple, non-intersecting contours to be successfully created. These, in turn, can only guaranteed to be obtained if the original model is correct, i.e. a solid.
8

Not all processes use a laser beam but similar problems may occur with other processes.

15

5 RPT In Manufacturing
RPT can be useful to anyone who manufactures a product or needs a physical object. To illustrate the strategic importance of RPT, we will use, as an example, the manufacturing industries. Figure 11 [26] illustrates how the requirements for the manufacturing industries have changed over the past three decades. One partner in the INSTANTCAM project markets appliances in
Number of Variants Product Lifetime

1970

1980

1990

1970

1980

1990

Product Complexity

Required Delivery Time

1970

1980

1990

1970

1980

1990

FIGURE 11. Changes in the requirements for the manufacturing industry. 10 countries. The same product family may have 6 different motors and 4 different technical features. The different technical features can be simple such as different materials, plugs, or colors, or complex such as differences in the internal housing. These differences are needed in order to attend to specic needs of users or to differenciate oneself from the competition. In addition, product lifetimes are becoming shorter, forcing a design group to develop new products whithin a shorter time. During the development process, one is frequently faced with the choice of either extending the development time or increasing the resources in order to meet the deadlines. Under these circumstances, time to market has been identied as a key factor in protability; it is the development time and not the cost that is critical for the results (Figure 12 [18]). 16

Product Lifetime: 5 Years

DEVIATION

Extending development time by about 6 months

Increasing development costs by about 50%

5%

DECREASED PROFITS

30%

FIGURE 12. Development time vs. development costs. This scenario requires changes on how a product is developed. Different groupsdesign, engineering, marketing, productionmust cooperate more closely towards a common goal and work concurrently. The goal must be clear to everyone involved, and if cooperation is to be effective, it is essential to avoid communication problems. RPT allows a physical model to be available as soon as a 3D CAD model is ready. The physical model is a perfect communication tool; if a picture is worth a thousand words, then a physical model is worth a thousand pictures. In addition, parts produced via RPT are more and more frequently being used for functional tests and for obtaining tools that can be used for pre-series production tests. In this way, errors can be found at an earlier stage when changes are not so costly. Requirements can be rened and better understood leading to better products that meet the market demands. It has been estimated that using RPT effectively, the development time for toolings can be reduced by half. Another important aspect is the cost of introducing changes in the design of a product. In this respect, development of a physical product does not differ from software development: the cost of introducing changes increases signicantly as one reaches the nal stages of development. RPT can be an effective means for evaluating a design before costly committments are made, commitments that affect manufacturing costs and, ultimately, the nal cost of the product. Again, the analogy holds: prototype software is developed for the same reason! However, Rapid Prototyping cannot be used effectively by product developers that do not use a 3D CAD system to create a model of the product.

17

5.1 Toolings
The ideal situation is the ability to build any part with any material. Clearly, this is not yet possible, but there is relief in sight. Soligens DSPC process is capable of producing ceramic shells, and is now in beta testing [21, 29]. Two Institutes of the Fraunhofer Gesellschaft in Germany, the Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation (IPA, Stuttgart, Germany) and the Institute for Applied Material Research (IFAM, Bremen, Germany), are developing a process they call Multiphase Jet Solidication which can build plastic, metallic, and ceramic parts [12]. Another exciting project is being carried out at the Carnegie-Mellon University (USA) where a process capable of building composite parts is being developed [11]. The properties offered by RPT part are sufciently good nowadays to enable the production of prototype toolings by using a process chain. A well-established method is vaccum casting. From the RPT model, one obtains a silicon mould from which approximately 20 parts can be made in Epoxy or investment casting wax. Various process chains have been reported in the literature [19, 15]. Each one has limitations concerning the geometry of the part, precision, number of parts that can be manufactured, and materials that can be obtained in the nal part. In addition, some process chains, such as QuickCast, are restricted to a certain RP process.

6 RPT In Industrial Design

When comparing industrial design applications to the manufacturing of toolings, the role of dimensional accuracy is not as signicant as the quality of the surface. It should be clear to the reader by now that parts made via LMT exhibit a staircase effect. This effect can be minimized by choosing a suitable building direction, but rather often this is done at the expense of building time and costs. The staircase effect can be addressed in several ways. Firstly, good software tools can help minimize the problem [5]. Secondly, post-treatment can be applied, and in this case, the part is usually polished. Finally, the processes can be improved to virtually eliminate the problem. For instance, the technology developed by Laser 3D [2] can use a layer thickness as low as 0 :015mm resulting in parts with no noticable staircase effect to the naked eye. Soligen claims that their process can also eliminate the staircases using different principles.

7 RPT In Medical Applications

Applying RPT in the medicine is a new and exciting eld. Many applications have become possible due to the convergence of three distinct technologies, namely Medical Imaging, Computer Graphics and CAD, and RPT. Computer-Assisted Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provide high resolution images of internal structures of the human body, e.g. bone structures and organs. Once 18

these images have been processed by suitable software tools, it is possible to transfer the result to a RP process and obtain a physical part, called a medical model. Figure 13 depicts this process.
Image Processing Toolbox Images (pixmaps) RP-specific Data Generation Contours, Internal vectors, Support structures Contours RP Process Physical Part Edge Detection

FIGURE 13. Obtaining medical models from scanned images. Together, these technologies provide doctors and surgeons with a new toolphysical models of human internal structuresto better plan and prepare complex surgeries. If the surgeries can be carried out more successfully, less costs associated to post-operative treatment are expected, in addition to reduced risks, reduced patient suffering, and improvements in the quality of the results. Another recent application has been the manufacturing of a human chromosome9. In this case, a chromosome was depleted of DNA by enzymatic digestion, leaving just the scaffold. Markers where introduced to serve as reference points for the 3D reconstruction. Next, EM photographs of tilted series from 0o to 60o , with steps of 3o , were taken. A 3D CAD model containing 700000 triangles was obtained from the pictures, and a physical model was then built. Chromosomes are extremely complex. Several visualization techniques are used to understand their structure, including electron microscopic tomography, hidden line removal, stereo projections, and animations. Physical models, though, may become an indispensible tool for researches in the eld.
A description of this episode can be found through the World Wide Web at http://www.cs.hut.fi/ado/chromosome in the document chromosome.html. It contains color photographs and videos of the model, and the original pictures of the chromosome.
9

19

8 RPT vs conventional technologies

RPT does notand will notreplace completely conventional technologies such NC and highspeed milling, or even hand-made parts. Rather, one should regard RPT as one more option in the toolkit for manufacturing parts. Figure 14 depicts a rough comparison between RPT and milling regarding the costs and time of manufacturing one part as a function of part complexity10. It is
Costs Time LMT NC milling High-speed milling

Complexity

Complexity

FIGURE 14. RPT vs conventional technologies. assumed, evidently, that the part can be manufactured by either technology such that the material and tolerance requirements are met. The axis have no values; these are company dependent. RPT offers clear advantages when more than one copy of a complex part must be made. Out of context, part complexity cannot be dened precisely, but it certainly contains the following ingredients: model size, wall height and thickness, and the ratio between these two, total number of surfaces in the CAD model, tolerance requirements, type of CAD system used to generate tool paths, and so on. Again, what is, and what is not, a complex part varies, to some extent, from one company to another. Concerning material requirements, it is clear that when using milling one can always obtain directly a part with the desired mechanical properties. This is usually the choice when manufacturing production toolings. But, as mentioned earlier, using a chain of processes that includes a RPT part, it is many times possible to obtain, indirectly, the same results in a shorter period of time.

9 Conclusions
It is impossible to cover all aspects of these relatively new manufacturing processes without being brief at times. The reader should browse the literature to overcome the obvious limitations of this work. More important, though, is their effective introduction in the current working practices of companies. It is clear that these technologies, when applied correctly, can bring benets in the form of better products in shorter lead times, and at reduced costs.
10

The original gure is part of an unpublished report of the INSTANTCAM project.

20

10 Acknowledgements
I was introduced to RPT while participating in the INSTANTCAM project, an European Consortium of partners from both industry and research centers. A lot of material presented here was derived from reports of that project. I am very gratefull to these partners, particularly Hans M uller (BIBA, Germany), Ulrich Reetz (Black&Decker GmbH, Germany), Bent Mieritz and Karsten L. Jensen (the Danish Technological Institute, Denmark), Reidar Hovtun (NTH-SINTEF Production Engineering, Norway), and my collegue Ismo M akel a. The schematic drawings of the processes were made available by Joakim Simons and Benjamin Sederholm from the Mechanical Engineering Department of our Institute. At HUT, we received the nancial support of TEKES.

References
[1] 3D Systems, Inc. Stereolithography Interface Specication, July 1988. [2] A.-L. Allanic, C. M edard, and P. Schaeffer. Stereophotolithography: A Brand New Machinery. In Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pages 260271. University of Texas at Austin, August 1992. Austin, Texas, USA. [3] V. Burguete. LMT Processes Comparison. Technical report, Instituto Superior T ecnico, 1991. Available from the author. Address: Av. Rovisco Pais 1, P-1096 Lisboa Codex, Portugal. [4] Cubital Ltd., 13 HaSadna St., Industrial Zone North, Raanana 43650, Israel. Cubital Facet List Syntax Guide. [5] A. Dolenc. Software Tools for Rapid Prototyping Technologies in Manufacturing. PhD thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, October 1993. Published in ACTA POLYTECHNICA SCANDINAVICA , Mathematics and Computer Science Series No. 62. [6] A. Dolenc and I. M akel a. LEAF: A Data Exchange Format for LMT Processes. In Third International Conference on Rapid Prototyping, pages 155160, Dayton, Ohio USA, June 710 1992. [7] A. Dolenc and I. M akel a. Optimized Triangulation of Parametric Surfaces. In Adrian Bowyer, editor, Computer-aided Surface Geometry and Design (Mathematics of Surfaces IV), number 48 in The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications Conference Series, pages 169183. Clarendon Press (Oxford), 1994. The Conference took place at Bath University (UK) in September 1990. An improved version of this work can be found in [5]. [8] A. Dolenc and I. M akel a. Slicing Procedures for Layered Manufacturing Techniques. Computer-Aided Design, 26(2):119126, February 1994. This article is a subset of [5]. 21

[9] A. Dolenc, I. M akel a, and R. Hovtun. Better Software for Rapid Prototyping with INSTANTCAM. In G. L. Olling and F. Kimura, editors, Human Aspects in Computer Integrated Manufacturing, pages 449455. North-Holland, 1992. Also available as Technical Report TKO-B66 from the Helsinki University of Technology. [10] R. J. Donahue and R. S. Turner. CAD Modeling and Alternative Methods of Information Transfer for Rapid Prototyping Systems. In National Conference on Rapid Prototyping, pages 221235. University of Dayton and EMTEC, June 1991. Dayton, OH, USA. [11] D. Dutta, N. Kikuchi, P. Papalmbros, F. Prinz, and L. Weiss. Project MAXWELL: Towards Rapid Realization of Superior Products. In H. L. Marcus, J. J. Beaman, J. W. Barlow, D. L. Bourell, and R. H. Crawford, editors, Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pages 5462. University of Texas at Austin, August 1992. Austin, Texas, USA. [12] M. Geiger, W. Steger, M. Greul, and M. Sindel. Multiphase Jet Solidication. EARP Newsletter, (3):8, January 1994. This Newsletter is published by the EARP Project and printed at the Danish Technological Institute ( Arhus, Denmark). [13] P. F. Jacobs, editor. RAPID PROTOTYPING & MANUFACTURING: Fundamentals of Stereolithography. SME, 1992. [14] K. L. Jensen. Desktop manufacturing, the next Industrial Revolution. Technical report, Danish Technological Institute, Teknologiparken, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark, 1991. This document contains a rather complete technical description of all RP processes, including some efforts that never reached the market. It was, though, no longer updated after 1993. [15] K. L. Jensen and R. Hovtun. Making Electrodes for EDM with Rapid Prototyping. In Third International Conference on Rapid Prototyping, pages 295301, Dayton, Ohio USA, June 710 1992. [16] J. P. Kruth. Material Incress Manufacturing by Rapid Prototyping Techniques. In Annals of CIRP, volume 40/2, pages 603614, 1991. [17] I. M akel a and A. Dolenc. Some efcient procedures for correcting triangulated models. In H. L. Marcus, J. J. Beaman, J. W. Barlow, D. L. Bourell, and R. H. Crawford, editors, Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pages 126134. University of Texas at Austin, August 1993. Austin, Texas, USA. [18] McKinsey&Co. Various sources are cited. Apparently, this is part of a study conducted by McKinsey&Co. The Figure was kindly supplied by Mr. Ulrich Reetz (Black&Decker), 1990.

22

[19] T. H. Pang and P. F. Jacobs. StereoLithography 1993: QuickCastTM . In Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pages 158167. University of Texas at Austin, August 1993. Austin, Texas, USA. [20] S. J. Rock and M. J. Wozny. A Flexible File Format for Solid Freeform Fabrication. In H. L. Marcus, J. J. Beaman, J. W. Barlow, D. L. Bourell, and R. H. Crawford, editors, Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium Proceedings, pages 110. The University of Texas at Austin, September 1991. [21] E. Sachs, M. Cima, P. Williams, D. Brancazio, and J. Cornie. Three Dimensional Printing: Rapid Tooling and Prototypes Directly from a CAD Model. Transactions of the ASME, 114:481488, 1992. [22] X. Sheng and B. E. Hirsch. Triangulation of trimmed surfaces in parametric space. Computer-Aided Design, 24(8):437444, August 1992. [23] X. Sheng and U. Tucholke. On triangulation surface model for SLA. In Second International Conference on Rapid Prototyping, pages 236245, Dayton, Ohio USA, June 2326 1991. A better version of this paper was published in [22]. [24] Technical Insights, Inc., PO Box 1304, Fort Lee, NJ 07024-9967, USA. Rapid Prototyping: Strategic Technology for Product Development Success, Winter 19911992. [25] U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA. Initial Graphics Exchange Specication (IGES) Version 4.0, June 1988. [26] VDMA. The Figures where found by Mr. Ulrich Reetz (Black&Decker) in a brochure, 1991. [27] Verband der Automobilindustrie e.V. (VDA), Westendstrasse 61, D-6000 Frankurt am Main, Germany. VDA Surface Interface, version 2.0, January 1987. [28] L. E. Weiss, E. L. Gursoz, F. B. Prinz, P. S. Fussel, S. Mahalingam, and E. P. Patrick. A Rapid Tool Manufacturing System Based on Stereolithography and Thermal Spraying. Manufacturing Review, 3(1):4048, March 1990. [29] J. Yoo, M. J. Cima, S. Khanuja, and E. M. Sachs. Structural Ceramic Components by 3D Printing. In H. L. Marcus, J. J. Beaman, J. W. Barlow, D. L. Bourell, and R. H. Crawford, editors, Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pages 4050. University of Texas at Austin, August 1993. Austin, Texas, USA.

23