The dynamic 3D-printing landscape is a challenge to navigate for skillfully developed, and even more so for individuals who are not aware of the capabilities, limitations, and idiosyncrasies of the various technologies. Further adding complexity, 3D-printing procedures don’t translate comparably with conventional manufacturing technology always, once the material output is virtually exactly the same even. This is typically because of the dissimilar build parameters, environment, and material delivery methodology. To learn the nuances, you must grasp the basics behind each technology and know the full spectrum of available material options.
This article will help you figure out the materials and technologies which are right for your application. Today many 3D-printing processes come in use, but for the reasons of this article, we shall only touch on probably the most commonly used in style and manufacturing engineering nowadays: photocuring, filament deposition, polymer laser beam sintering, and direct metal laser sintering.
Photocuring
This group of 3D-printing processes employs liquid photopolymer resins that are solidified and cured with ultraviolet (UV) light, mostly to serve as models, light-duty prototypes, and patterns for secondary casting. Photopolymers vary in color, transparency, and mechanical and thermal properties, which range from low-temperature flexible plus soft elastomers to hard plus rigid nanocomposites in a position to withstand elevated temperatures. For example, Somos NanoTool, a composite stereolithography (SL) material, has a heat deflection of up to 437°F at 66 psi.
An advantage of photocuring is the refined quality of the output. Photocuring functions produce parts with smooth floors and fine-feature details-16-micron layer elevation with PolyJet-ideal for aesthetic plus cosmetic applications. However , UV stability and durability falls short for high-performance and end-use product applications. Continued exposure to UV light causes photocured items to become brittle and alter in appearance. Furthermore, some materials can lose form and dimensional accuracy from wetness absorption and sag or creep from prolonged stress.
The two nearly all used photocuring technologies are PolyJet and SL widely. PolyJet deposits small droplets of photopolymer and simultaneously cures the thin layers with UV light. This process can print in a very high res with layer thicknesses as slim as 16 microns, which minimizes post-processing. Called multi-jet printing also, PolyJet is among the only technologies having the ability to print several materials in one print with varying durometers.
On the other hand, SL builds 3D objects coating upon layer by using an UV laser to draw and solidify cross-sectional slices in a vat of liquid resin. It too can produce smooth parts requiring minimal finishing, but does not offer multi-material printing. Multi-jetting and SL have minimal shrink-associated deformation typically. Finally, both processes are perfect for producing casting patterns targeted at silicone urethane and tooling casting, and sacrificial patterns for expense casting.
Filament Deposition
Guided by software- produced toolpaths, the filament-deposition processes create 3D objects simply by drawing cross-sectional slices of pieces one upon another with a heated extruder mind. One chief benefit of filament deposition will be the capability to produce strong and durable functional prototypes and end-use parts in a variety of high-performance materials commonly used in conventional machining and molding manufacturing processes.
Fused deposition modeling (FDM) may be the the majority of mature and widely used filament deposition process. FDM may maintain dimensional accuracy over range while having the opportunity to save weight and material. Some companies will post a general tolerance of ±0. 008 inches; however , it’s difficult to give an exact number or even a range because of this accuracy because it depends upon the machine, materials, geometry, and size of the proper part. Furthermore, FDM is less susceptible to warp and curl than laser beam sintering.
The most important drawback of filament deposition is the pronounced layer lines in the surface of its output. It necessitates more effort than other 3D-printing technologies to clean the areas and create aesthetic qualities much like conventional manufacturing procedures, such as for example injection molding. Additionally , programs that demand watertight or airtight functionality may necessitate a denser build style, which increases build time and material consumption, and/or software of a sealant to alleviate surface porosity.
Polymer Laser Sintering
These practical processes fuse or melt powdered polymers and composites with a low wattage CO2 laser that sinters cross-sections of 3D objects layer upon layer. Polymer laser-sintering (LS) materials primarily have bases of Nylon 12 and Nylon 11, with a variety of filler options such as glass beads, mineral fibers, and carbon fiber, which provide substantial durability and strength for functional prototyping and end-use part production.
Other specialty materials that offer niche programs include thermoplastic elastomer, that may have rubber-like characteristics for prototype hoses, grommets and seals. Also, low-density polystyrene infiltrated with wax can offer as a low-ash expense casting.
Another advantage of LS is that 3D objects are self-supporting within the build chamber, enabling three-dimensional nesting. Efficient and affordable production of complex geometries with internal cavities and channels are feasible with LS without the need to remove supports.
The thermal nature of the process and absence of supports to anchor laser-sintered objects makes them more prone to warp during the build or cool- down cycle. In addition, an inverse relationship often exists between the mechanical strength and dimensional accuracy of the output. Laser power and build chamber temperature increase to optimize particle adhesion, and build a stronger part. However , higher temperatures and power could cause expansion; the walls and top features of a right part may become oversized, warp, and curl. Usually, dimensional problems arise with increased laser-power and powder-bed temps. That’s because even more of the surrounding powder sticks to the sintered/melted part, which causes the surfaces to grow and walls to thicken.
This commonly results in fitment problems with mating parts. Yet, experienced LS operators might be able to adjust laser offsets, adjust build orientation, and modify the design to work better with the process.
Direct Metal Laser Sintering
Using an yttrium-aluminum-garnet-fiber laser, known as a YAG-fiber laser commonly, metal laser-sintering systems basically micro-weld powdered metals plus alloys layer upon level to produce completely dense 3D objects with attributes much like castings. Through post procedures, such as heat-treating and popular isostatic pressing (HIP), it’s possible to improve metallurgical properties for high-performance applications.
There are several advantages to direct-metal-laser-sintering (DMLS) types of processes over conventional manufacturing methodologies, including their ability to produce complex contoured geometries without excessive programming or tooling costs. The additive nature of 3D printing saves weight and material , and offers greener manufacturing in comparison to casting and deductive processes.
In addition , 3D printing can consolidate assemblies, reducing the real number of components that may reduce work cost and fasteners, and simplify a product. Benefiting from these functions with the DMLS process is ideal for low-volume manufacturing of end-use parts and products, and high-performance functional prototypes.
On the downside, the learning curve to build quality DMLS products and parts will be substantial. An educated technician or designer should comprehend how to work with a CAD design to verify a print is economically practical before it would go to print. An experienced operator will have to develop effective build strategies to mitigate warping and minimize support structures. Furthermore, for optimal dimensional accuracy, smooth surface finishing, and tiny features, DMLS users need to utilize more advanced post-processing and finishing systems usually , such as for example CNC machining, wire EDM, chemical substance etching, liquid honing, tumbling, media blasting or coating.
Selection Methodology
A trained staff can screen and qualify the best processes and materials for each customer’s specific applications and needs. There isn’t a single technology well-suited for every application, and there isn’t often a clear-cut remedy for a customer’s specific requirements. Multiple options can work often, each with a different group of cons and pros. The following seven considerations will help you qualify and disqualify procedures and materials for every of your unique projects:
1 . Application: What is the purpose of the object?
The intent for 3D-printed objects could range from cosmetic show models and mock-ups, to functional prototypes, R&D test pieces, or end-use production parts and products. The requirements of each of these applications can vary greatly, and are better suitable for some processes therefore. It boils down to cosmetic often, dimensional, or performance requirements.
2 . Features: What does the part should do?
A 3D-printed part may should just hold form as a static design or bear a close resemblance to a conventionally manufactured product with fine detail and smooth surfaces. In this case, PolyJet or stereolithography may be the ideal process. Hard-working parts that must bear a load or resist impact could possibly be better suitable for the FDM procedure. If the application involves simple fit or long lasting living hinge, LS may be the better option.
3. Stability: In what atmosphere does the part have to function?
The necessity to maintain properties and function in higher temperatures rules out some 3D-printing processes and materials. In addition , outdoor applications require an UV-stable material such as acrylonitrile styrene acrylate (ASA) or durable laser-sintered nylon with an UV-inhibitive coating. Photopolymers shall not work well for outdoor environments because they react to UV light. Moisture is another common aspect that affects many components adversely. If biocompatibility is essential for a surgical device, metals then, such as for example titanium Ti-64 for electron or DMLS beam melting may be the best, if not the only real, option.
4. Durability: Just how long does the part have to last?
The number and duration useful cycles can eliminate some processes and materials. For example , a 3D- imprinted mold or form tool may need to go through hundreds of cycles and withstand prolonged stress and friction, whereas a fit-check prototype may only need to function once. Photopolymer materials work for short-term often, low-stress applications and are struggling to withstand prolonged stress typically. Constructed thermoplastics from the FDM and LS procedures can serve many useful prototyping and end-use reasons for increased cycle life.
5. Aesthetics: How does it need to look and feel?
You can generally expect photocured 3D objects to be fairly smooth and have high resolution right off of the machine, and may easily be hand-finished to an aesthetic state. While thermoplastic and powdered plastic processes such as LS and FDM produce stronger and more durable parts, cosmetically they shall require even more labor and skill to accomplish a smooth surface, resulting in higher costs and increased business lead time. With the durable alloys and metals of DMLS, it takes a lot more time, effort, and experience to make a polished look.
6. Economics: What is your budget, timeline, and quality expectation?
If you have a firmly capped budget, the decision may be on price than other factors instead. Time and quality come in conflict collectively often; rapid turnaround and high-level aesthetic finishing could be mutually exclusive. However , shortcuts, workarounds, and efficient systems can reduce lead times and costs while maintaining high quality standards. Efficiencies can be gained from dealing with an ongoing service bureau that may creatively batch, nest, section strategically, shell, adjust fill, and change build orientation to lessen machine time and material usage.
7. Priorities: Of all these factors, which is the most important?
Ultimately, you must consider all factors and decide on those that are most important to achieve the primary objectives and project goals. Often there are several competing requirements, however your main priorities should drive your choice and filter the 3D-publishing material and technology options. If you have a brief timeline, economics may be the determining factor. If longevity is the priority, longevity may be the determining factor.
Selecting the perfect technology and material for the project is vital to maximizing success. The primary point to remember will be that the “one-size-fits-all” approach doesn’t apply to 3D printing. It is essential that you either invest time to learn the pros, negatives, and nuances of the major processes, materials, and post processes, or find a target partner or expert who gets the know-how and experience to provide you with sound guidance.
The post Identify the Best 3D-Printing Process for Your Application appeared first on Solidface.