3D Printing Benchmark 2010 NAmerica Reprint

T.A.Grim m & Associates, Inc.
30 Printer Benchmark: N orth
"
T.A. Grimm1& Associates, Inc.""
Edgewood,Kentucky USA
www.tagr imm.com
3D Pri nt er Benchmar
k
Page
Table of Contents
Overview..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Test Procedures...................................................................................................................................................... 7
System Expense and Capacity................................................................................................................................................8
Acq uisit ion Ex pense............................................................................................................................................... 8
Annual Operating Expense..................................................................................................................................... 8
Hourly Cost............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Process
Time
...............................................................................................................................................................11
Prototype
Cost
............................................................................................................................................................16
Quality....................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Material Properties................................................................................................................................................ 20
Surface Finish....................................................................................................................................................................23
Dimens ional Accurac y.......................................................................................................................................... 26
Test Block.......................................................................................................................................................................27
Housing............................................................................................................................................................. 30
Security Panel-Front................................................................................................................................... 33
Security Panel-Back.................................................................................................................................... 36
Accuracy Summary........................................................................................................................................... 39
Rankings................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Form & Fit App lications......................................................................................................................................... 43
Off ice Compat ibility................................................................................................................................. 45
Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................. 48
Appendix A : Observations and Commentary............................................................................................................ 49
Appendix B: Systems and Construction Parameters.......................................................................................... 55
Appendix C: Suppleme ntal Data............................................................................................................................... 57
Appendix D:Benchmark Parts................................................................................................................................... 59
Copyright T. A. Grimm & Associates,Inc. All rights

reserved.
k
P a g e 13
Table of Figures
Figure 1:Test block...............................................................................................................................................7
Figure 2: Housing.................................................................................................................................................7
Figure 3: Security panel.............................................................................................................................................. 7
Figure 4: Acquisition expense for each system...................................................................................................8
Figure 5: Annual operating expense of the 3D printers........................................................................................8
Figure 6: Annual throughput quantity based on two "typical" parts.....................................................................9
Figure 7: Typical part dimensions........................................................................................................................9
Figure 8: Hourly rates calculated from annual utilization and operating expense................................................9
Figure 9: Continuous run time a nd the resulting number of parts before material replenishment
..........................10 Figure 10: Average build time (a ll parts built
individually).........................................................................................11
Figure 11:Average process time (all parts built
individually).....................................................................................11
Figure 12:Average time for attended (manual) operations
.......................................................................................12
Figure 13: Process times for consolidated and individual builds.......................................................................13
Figure 14:Total process time for each part grouped by technology.
........................................................................14 Figure 15:Total process time for each part.. . .15
Figure 16:Average part cost (all parts built
individually)...........................................................................................16
Figure 17:Average part cost - consolidated vs. individual
builds...............................................................................16 Figure
18: Part
cost
by
technology.............................................................................................................................17
Figure 19: Part cost grouped by
part..........................................................................................................................18
Figure 20: Effective material cost per cubic centimeter
.............................................................................................19
Figure 21: Oversized screws driven into two bosses..........................................................................................20
Figure 22 : Access cover on uPrint security panel..............................................................................................20
Figure 23 :Thin ribs broken on Alaris30 test block.................................................................................................... 21
Figure 24: Results of driving screw into Alaris30 housing..................................................................................21
Figure 25 :Three breaks on the ZPrinter 310 Plus test block.............................................................................21
Figure 26: Half-lap joint of ProJet SD 3000 security panel broken in routine handling......................................22
Figure 27 :Side wall V-Flash security panel.............................................................................................................. 22
Figure 28: Broken access cover and corner boss on the SD300 Pro security panel.................................................22
Figure 29 :Alaris30 surface finish.............................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 31: ProJet SD 3000 surface finish.................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 32: SD300 Pro surface finish.......................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 30: uPrint surface finish...........................................................................................................................25
Figure 33: V-Flash surface finish.............................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 34: ZPrinter 310 Plus surface finish............................................................................................................... 26
Figure 35: STL of test block...................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 36:Test block accuracy to 2 o................................................................................................................27
Figure 37:Test block error maps - front view (in.)........................................................................................28
Figure 38: Test block error maps - back view (mm)......................................................................................29
Figure 39: STL of housing...................................................................................................................................30
P a g e 14
kFigure 40: Housing accuracy to 2 cr................................................................................................................................30
Figure 41: Housing error maps - top view (in.).............................................................................................31
Figure 42 : Housing error maps - bottom view (in.).....................................................................................32
Copyright T. A. Grimm & Associates,Inc. All rights reserved.
Figure 43 : STL of security panel-front..........................................................................................................33

Figure 44: Security panel-front accuracy to 2 o..............................................................................................33
Figure 45 : Security panel-front error map - top view (in.)...........................................................................34
Figure 46 : Security panel-front error map - bottom view (in.).....................................................................35
Figure 47 : STL of security panel-back...............................................................................................................36
Figure 48 : Security panel-back accuracy to 2 o.......................................................................................36
Figure 49 : Security panel-back error map - top view (in.)...........................................................................37
Figure 50: Security panel-back error map - bottom view (in.)....................................................................38
Figure 51: Percentage of measurements exceeding 0.005 in.........................................................................39
Figure 52: Alaris30 normal distribution...............................................................................................................41
Figure 53: ProJet SD 3000 normal distribution......................................................................................................... 41
Figure 54: SD300 Pro normal distribution...........................................................................................................41
Figure 55: uPrint normal distribution.................................................................................................................42
Figure 56: V-Flash normal distribution................................................................................................................42
Figure 57: ZPrinter 310 Plus normal distribution................................................................................................42
Figure 58: Ranking of systems for form & fit applications..................................................................................43
Figure 59: Ranking of systems for suitability in an office environment..............................................................45
Figure 60: Radius on sharp edges............................................................................................................................. 49
Figure 61: Small steps present.................................................................................................................................. 49
Figure 62:4-hole pattern.....................................................................................................................................49
Figure 63 : Patch with odd texture......................................................................................................................49
Figure 64: Crisp battery text...............................................................................................................................49
Figure 65:Thick layers produce stepping.................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 66: Some gaps (pits) on surfaces................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 67: Ovaled holes........................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 68: Smallest step (0.005 in.) missing......................................................................................................52
Figure 69: Crisp, consistent reveal........................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 70: Details are sharp and crisp................................................................................................................50
Figure 71:4-hole pattern is well defined.............................................................................................................50
Figure 72: Smallest step is barely visible...........................................................................................................50
Figure 73: Bore has best circular profile.............................................................................................................50
Figure 74: Walls have a tendency to bow................................................................................................................. 50
Figure 75: Large shifts on bosses and walls.............................................................................................................. 51
Figure 76: Delamination.....................................................................................................................................51
Figure 77: Damaged holes when materia l was picked out................................................................................51
Figure 78: Misshapen hole..................................................................................................................................51
Figure 79:Thin walls delaminate when peeling material....................................................................................51
Figure 80: Wavy bottom.....................................................................................................................................53
Figure 81: Ovaled holes.....................................................................................................................................53
Figure 82:"D-Shaped" hole................................................................................................................................53
Figure 83: Irregular shape of bore......................................................................................................................53
Figure 84: Wavy pocket walls.............................................................................................................................53
Figure 85:Thin walls are straight and true..........................................................................................................54
Figure 86: Stray mounds of material..................................................................................................................54
Copyright T. A. Grimm & Associates,Inc. All rights reserved.
30 Pri nt er Benchmar
k
Page
Figure 87: Streaking on side walls............................................................................................................................ 54

Figure 88: 4 holes are present on well defined......................................................................................................... 54
Figure 89: Battery text is reasonably sharp.............................................................................................................. 54
Figure 90: Cost data (U.S.dollars)......................................................................................................................57
Figure 91: Process time data (hours).................................................................................................................58
Figure 92: Test Block.............................................................................................................................................................59
Figure 93: Housing.................................................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 94: Security Panel-Front..........................................................................................................................60
Figure 95: Security Panel-Back................................................................................................................................. 60
Copyright T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.
k
Page
16
Overview
The fastest growing segment of the additive manufacturing industry is 30 printers. A major driver for this
growth is the low cost of these devices,which are far less expensive than the 30 production systems used for
advanced prototyping and manufacturing.Other attractive aspects of these systems are the promises of
quick turnaround, simple operation, low operating expense and in-office use.
30 printers are intended to be self-service output devices that produce concept models and form/fit
prototypes. Instead of sending CAD data to an internal model shop or external service bureau,the idea is that
designers and engineers make their own parts right in the engineering office. Much like a 20 laser printer,
these devices become personal printers shared among a few co-workers.
The purpose of this benchmark study is to determine just how fast, inexpensive and easy to use 30 printers
can be. To do so, 30 printers are reviewed in the following four areas.
Time
Cost
Build time
Total process time
Direct
labor/automation
Operations
Quality
Prototype cost
Annual operating expense
Acquisition/implementation cost
Dimensional accuracy
Surface finish
Material characteristics
Day-to-day investment (time)

Suitability for office use
"Greenness" (recycling/disposal)
This study includes six commercially available systems from five companies. In each case, the lowest priced
model in the product family was tested.
Alaris30 (Objet Geometries)
uPrint (Stratasys)
ProJet SD 3000 (30 Systems)
V-Flash (30 Systems)
SD300 Pro (Solido)
ZPrinter 310 Plus (Z Corporation)
Brief descriptions of each system's technology and process are provided in

Appendix B: Systems and Construction Parameters
30 Pri nt er Benchmark
Page 17
Test Procedures
Testing results from 30 printers are dependent on the
prototype that is produced. Prototype parameters such as
size, volume and level of detailwill influence production
time, cost and quality.To provide data that is relevant to a
wide array of parts,this benchmark analyzes three distinctly
different
objects: test block, housing and security panel assembly. Since
the security panel includes two pieces,there are four parts
in the study.
The test block (Figure 1) is a small piece that combines a
variety of feature types,including: thin walls,small
steps,spherical surfaces and thick sections. The housing
(Figure 2) offers an example of a moderately sized,thickwalled,prismatic prototype. The security panel (Figure 3)
Figure 1:Test
block.
offers features
common to injection molded products as well as some thin
walled features. Since it includes both a front and back
panel,it also allows evaluation of the fit between mating
components.
These four prototypes were constructed individually in the

test systems with parameters suited to concept, form and fit
applications. During the process,all elements of time and
cost were measured-from openingthe STL file to the
moment that the prototype was ready for shipment. In doing
so, the most
important aspect of time,total process time, is documented.
Figure 2: Housing.
To eliminate the variable of post processing (part finishing)

and to evaluate the accuracy of raw prototypes, benching of
the parts was not permitted. However, all secondary
operations necessary for the completion of the test parts
were performed. These operations included
cleaning,curing,support removal and part infiltration.
Figure 3: Security panel.
k
Page
System Expense and Capacity

Without benchmark data, many buying decisions are based on system cost and vendor claims of system
speed. While these are critical components in an analysis,they do not accurately reflect the true ownership
and operational cost or the actual time for prototype production. By capturing all elements of time and
cost,this benchmark data offers an accurate depiction of acquisition expense, annual expense, hourly cost
and prototype cost. It also offers an accurate measure of the total time to produce a prototype.
Acquisition Expense
The acquisition expense (Figure 4)
reflects the investment for the system
configuration used in the benchmark,
including all necessary support
equipment and estimated costs for facility
modifications. The expenses do not
include optionalequipment that is at the
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$-
user's discretion.
With the promise of office environment
operations,facility modifications are
minimal. For the most part, the
requirements include water and drain
lines. In some cases, ventilation may also
be advisable.
Figure 4: Acquisition expense for each system.
Annual Operating Expense

To determine annual operating expense
$25,000
(Figure 5), the acquisition expense is

combined with ongoing expenses such as
annual maintenance contracts,labor and
replacement parts for routine service,
".
$20,000
.'.
$15,000
$10,000
consumables and material disposal. For
this calculation, acquisition expenses are
amortized (straight line) over five years.
Note that annual operating expense
:;
$5,000
$-
includes fixed expenses and the

variable expenses associated with a
single shift operation. It does not
include the variable expenses of labor
and materialfor the production of
prototypes. These are
captured in the cost of the
individual prototypes.
Figure 5: Annual operating expense of the 30 printers.
k
Page
Hourly Cost
The annual expense,when amortized over
anticipated annual prototype throughput ,
1,600
yields a standardized hourly cost for
1,400
ti:;; 1,200
e:
machine operation. To determine annual

prototype throughput and the associated
machine hours, build times were
calculated
J:J
for the construction of two "typica l"
1,000
800
41
::s
600
400
200
parts. The X, Y, and Z dimensions and

part volumes of the benchmark parts are
averaged to yield the "typical" part
(Figure 7).
Construction times are calculated for the
concurrent building of two "typical" parts.
Figure 6: Annual throughput quantity based on two "typical" parts.
Using the time per run and assuming a

single shift operation -nine hours per
day,
five days a week, and 50 weeks a year-the maximum number
of runs and the daily throughput are determined.Taking into
account lost time for repairs,maintenance and scheduling
inefficiencies, a utilization rate of 60% is applied to the daily
maximum. The resulting annual throughput is show in Figure 6.
This throughput and the associated build time yields the annual
''Typical" Part:
X:3.4 in.
Y:4.5 in.
Z:1.9 in.
Volume:4.1in3
operating hours for the test systems.

The hourly rate for machine operation (Figure 8) is calculated
from the annual operating hours and annual expense (Figure
5). For each system,the most significant factors affecting
hourly rate are annual hours of operation,system cost
and maintenance expense.
The resulting range of hourly rates is
$10.00
striking.At just $0.99, the 50300 Pro is by

far the lowest of the six systems.
Ill
$8.00
.!!!
$6.00
Conversely, the ProJet SD 3000, which is 0
0
the most expensive system in the
vi$4.00
benchmark, has the highest rate at $9.39. ::>

The uPrint and V-Flash have relatively low
rates of $3.62 and $3.03, respectively.
Alaris30 and ZPrinter 310 Plus have
moderate rates of $5.67 and $6.28.
$2.00
$-
Figure 7: Typical part dimensions.
k
Page
9
Figure 8: Hourly rates calculated from annual utilization and
operating expense.
k
Page
10
While it may be tempting to use hourly rate as a basis for system selection,it is not a useful measure of
performance or operational cost. It is determined solely for calculating the production costs of the benchmark
parts,which is the viable measure in a system evaluation (see Prototype Cost).
Recently, some vendors have begun stressing the length of time that their systems can operate without
material replenishment. This factor is called "continuous run time," and it is presented in Figure 9. This
value is calculated by determining the number of runs, and their total duration,that can be completed before
the material supply is exhausted. The consumption and build times are calculated from the "typical" part
used for throughput
determination. Also shown in this chart is the number of parts that can be produced during the continuous
operation.
70
160
60
50
"..'.
g
::c
80
."....'..
" '
0
...
40 .. ... .
+-----
30
40
20
20
10
Cll
.D
E
:J
-Run Time -m-Parts Built
Figure 9: Continuous run time and the resulting number of parts before material replenishment.
Holding five kilograms of material,the ProJet SD 3000 has by far the largest material capacity, which translates
to the longest continuous run time. Yet, even the shortest continuous run time exceeds 40 hours. So,all
systems in the benchmark would satisfy the two most important criteria: 1) overnight builds and 2) weekend
builds. Each of these systems could be packed with parts,launched on a Friday evening and allowed to build
throughout the weekend without concern of running out of material.
Process Time
Time is a bit of a moving target when it comes to 30 printers. While gross statements can be made about
systems being fast or slow,accurate representations are dependent on many factors. Additionally,it is always
advisable to investigate the total process time rather than build time alone.
To start the discussion of time,Figure 10
presents the average build time for the
12.00
four prototype parts. This data excludes
10.00
all steps in the process other than the

duration to build the prototypes when
made one at a time. As the chart shows,
the average times range from 1.4 to
8.00
I..I..\.
6.00
:J
:c
4.00
11.1hours. The graph, however, takes on
2.00
a different look with all time elements
0.00
included (Figure 11).
-==-..---==
-==--.. ;= -==-,="t"
The average process time in Figure 11,

includes such actions as system warmup, part drying,cleaning, curing and
support removal. In this chart, the time
associated with actions other than
building appears in red. As shown,the
Figure 10:Average build time (all parts built individually) .
ZPrinter 310 has the fastest average

process time (2.8 hours). VFlash is the second fastest (7.3 hours) and is closely followed by uPrint (7.6 hours).The other systems are fairly
even with times ranging from 9.9 to 12.5 hours.
Overall,these 30 printers are simple and quick in preparing to build parts. Data and machine preparation is
typically between 5 minutes and 15 minutes. This includes any system warm-up time when starting from a
standby state. SD300 Pro is a bit of an
exception in terms of both speed and
ease of preparation. To prepare files, the
part is oriented,and then the user defines
"peeling cuts" that a llow the material
that encases the part to be removed.
This step takes a little time and some
experience.
14.00
12.00
10.00
I..I..\.8.00
Pre
& Post Time
:J
:c6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Also,the time to process the files to

produce the information for each layer
can cause a bit of a delay. These factors
increased the preparation time for the
SD300 Pro to 15 minutes to 50 minutes.
-i_'\>-,Q,_,,QOO
1't.<Q, <Q, ,,,
o\e
v<
(O
<,to""
\'b-',t< ,.,
\)"'
-,",>o
"'-e< t.V<"
Unlike the preparat ion work, the post
variances are in the types of processes, degree of automation
processing effort varied widely.The
and amount of time.
Figure 11:Average process time (all parts built i ndividually) .
k
Page
12
Following is a brief summary of the post processing cycles.
Alaris30 : A sodium hydroxide soak is followed by a manualwater-jet support removal

process. oTime:1.0 to 1.3 hours (mostly unattended).
ProJet SD 3000: Parts are heated in a convection oven to melt away supports and are then washed
in hot water.
o Time:1.0 to 1.5 hours (mostly unattended).
SD300 Pro: Surrounding material is peeled from part and what remains is pulled out with tweezers
and picks.
o
uPrint: Parts are placed in the support removal system where support material is washed/dissolved
from the part.
o
Time:0.5 hour (manual).
Time: 1.0 to 1.5 hours (mostly unattended).
V-Flash: Parts are placed in a cleaning and curing station that: 1) washes parts with a propylene
carbonate solution 2) rinses parts with water 3) cures parts with UV light. Supports are then clipped from
the part and sanded smooth.
o Time:1.2 to 1.5 hours (mostly unattended).
ZPr inter 310 Plus: Parts dry in the machine before being excavated from surrounding
powder.They are then depowered with a jet of air and infiltrated with an adhesive (or similar)
material.
o
Time: 0.5 to 1.4 hours (partially unattended)
Note that the reported time is for the parts made in the benchmark .Actua ltimes may be higher or lower
depending on part size or configuration .
The amount and type of post processing will be important factors in the review and selection of a 3D Printer.
Post processing will dictate the type of work area (see Office Compatibility ), the level of skill and the amount of
direct labor needed. For example,the SD300 Pro has the shortest duration but is entirely manual,and the
techniques used will impact part quality. On the other hand, the uPrint takes more time but support removal
is completely automated with no user intervention. Technique and "touch" also play roles in the Alaris30 and
ZPrinter 310 part quality since a blast of water or air can damage a part.For 3D Systems' V-Flash and ProJet
SD 3000,a bit of care is needed because the parts are a bit pliable before curing or while heating.
:J
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.1
0.00
+--
--.--
---,,...---
-,.--
-,...
---,,...---
Figure 12:Average time for attended (manual) operations.
--{'
:s
::c
1>-',t- ,,,
'1-
,,,'\<,:>
.._et
'\. (
Consolidated BuildsIndividual Builds
Figure 13: Process times for consolidated and individual builds.
Another consideration when evaluating process time is whether parts will be built individually or in batches.
For all systems,there are some time savings when combining multiple parts in a build (Figure 13). However,
the savings vary significantly. The greatest time reductions from consolidated builds are on the ProJet SD
3000 (55%), ZPrinter310 (52%) and V-Flash (48%). The reason for these reductions is consolidation of
process overhead. With these systems,much (or all) of the build time comes from a fixed amount of time per
layer. So, when parts are grouped,the fixed time is spread over more parts. The Alaris30 {22% reduction)
has a smaller ratio of fixed to variable time, which yields a smaller reduction.
The SD300 Pro had an even smaller reduction {12%). While it can benefit from part consolidation, the size of
its build envelope forced the four parts to be made in three builds. The smallest reduction was with the uPrint
(5%) since its build times are largely unaffected by consolidation.
Like post processing, the influence of consolidation is an important consideration when evaluating systems.
If serving a number of design teams that need many prototypes, consolidated builds may be a practical way
to save a lot of time. If, on the other hand, the 3D printer will be used as needed to make a part or two, a
dependency on consolidation to make time reasonable will not be practical. So when it comes to time,the
expected mode of operation will play as big a role in the decision making as the types of parts to be
produced.
To illustrate the impact of part size and configuration on time,the individual results are presented in Figure
14 *. For the six technologies, the housing took the longest to construct because it has many of the
characteristics that increase build and processing time. This part also illustrates the amount of influence
these factors have since it
has the biggest range of process times, spanning 3.7 hours (ZPrinter 310) to 20.7 hours (ProJet SD 3000).
*Individual part reporting does not include a test block for the 50300 Pro. Due to thin walls and
general configuration, the supplier believed that this part was inappropriate for the
technology.
k
Page
14
For all of the technologies, build time is a function of part height, and at 3.48 in.,the housing is the tallest.
For the Alaris30 and ZPrinter 310, the X-Y footprint (4.87 in. x3.88 in.) is large enough to add additional
3
)
print head passes, which adds time.The housing's
volume (6.95 in is the largest of all the parts,and this
increases time for uPrint.
25.0
20.0
.":s.'.15.0
0
::t:
10.0
Housing
Security Panel-Front
Security Panel-Back
Test Block
Figure 14: Total process time for each part grouped by technology .
The other parts are influenced by these same factors as well as other aspects such as the amount of support
material,build orientation and surface area.
Security
PanelFront
6.7
Security
PanelBack
6.9
Test Block
Housing
7.4
18.5
12.9
20.7
8.8
7.6
SD300 Pro
NA
18.4
7.7
10.2
Alaris30
ProJet SD 3000
uPrint
5.0
12.3
4.3
8.8
V-Flash
8.0
11.0
5.1
5.2
ZPrinter 310 Plus
2.7
3.7
2.2
2.4
Table 1: Individual process times (hours) plotted in Figure 14.
25.0
20.0
15.0
::s
:c
10.0
5.0
0.0
Test Block
Housing
Security Panel- Security PanelFrontBack
Alaris30 ProJet SD 3000 SD300 Pro uPrint V-FlashZPrinter 310 Plus

Figure 15: Total process time for each part.
Figure 15 presents the same process time information as that in Figure 14 but groups the results by
prototype. For a detailed breakdown of the process time, see Figure 91in Appendix C: Supplementa l Data.
From the average and individual times,it becomes clear that there are many factors to consider when
evaluating systems. While the ZPrinter 310 Plus does demonst rate its claimed advantages in speed,some of
the systems fail to live up to their promises. Conversely, systems long thought of as slow can offer
competitive process times.
There simply are too many variables to make bold,sweeping claims. And,as previously noted,speed may be
trumped by a dependence on part consolidation or the amount of manual labor required.
Prototype Cost
The prototype cost takes into account the
expense of system operation,labor and
hourly rate (Figure 8) and actual build time.
$200.00
$160.00
$120.00
$80.00
$40.00
The labor component uses a rate of
$-
consumab les. The manufacturing

component of cost is calculated from the
$35.00/hour for all steps in the process

requiring manual work. Consumab le
costs, which include modeland support
material, infiltrants and miscellaneous
items, are calculated from the actual
amount used and the vendor-supplied list
price.
As with average build times,the variance
Figure 16:Average part cost (all parts built individually) .
in average cost is substantial. This range

is
seen in Figure 16,which presents the average cost for the four benchmark parts when produced in individual
builds. The highest average cost is $168.99 for the ProJet SD 3000. The lowest cost ($40.51) is for ZPrinter
310 parts,which is closely followed by the uPrint with an average cost of $59.55. Surprisingly, the lowestpriced systems do not have the lowest part costs. The SD300 Pro's average is $158.70,which is the second
highest, and the V-Flash comes in third with an average of$84.85.
To reflect the advantages of consolidating parts,Figure 17 plots the average part costs from Figure 16 and
the average cost when the parts are constructed in the fewest number of builds possible. Across the board,
average costs drop by 9.2% to 36.9%. For the three systems with the highest average, the effect of
consolidation is to make them almost the same cost, ranging from$106.57 to $124.04. The three systems
with the lowest averages are ZPrinter 310 ($33.76), uPrint ($54.08) and V-F lash ($74.39).
Consolidated Builds
Individual Builds
$200.00
!!?
$150.00
0
0
$100.00
vi
;::;
$50.00
$-
Figure 17: Average part cost - consolidated vs. ind ividual builds.
k
Page
17
Figure 18 presents the cost of the individual prototypes when built separately. With the largest volume
and height, it is not surprising that the housing is by far the most expensive part for all systems. As
listed in Table 2, the housings range from $55.67 (ZPrinter 310) to$279.17 (ProJet SD 3000). The other
parts, despite the differences in volume, height,length and width,are roughly the same for each
tec hnology. For the test block,the lowest costs are $37.67 (ZPrinter 310) and $41.67 (uPrint). For both
pieces of the security panel,ZPrinter 310 has the lowest costs at $32.62 for the front and $36.06 for the
back.
For a detailed breakdown of the cost contributors for each part,see Figure 90 in Appendix C: Supplemental Data.
$300.00
$250.00
..."'
$200.00
$150.00
:)
$100.00
Ill
vi
$50.00
$-
Test Block
Housing
Security Panel-Back
Figure 18:Part cost by technology .
70.70
196.35
Secu rity PanelFront

62.94
137.29
246.16
107.50
111.44
NA
185.48
93.63
90.63
Test Block
Alaris30
ProJet SD 3000
SD300 Pro
uPrint
Housing
Security PanelBack
82.35
97.36
38.16
60.99
V-Flash
58.15
125.46
48.74
68.73
Z Printer 310 Plus
34.14
49.65
29.95
32.72
41.67
Table 2: Individual part costs (U.S.dollars) plotted in Figure 18.
k
Page
18
In Figure 19,the individual costs listed in Table 2 are plotted by part. For each,the most expensive are from
the ProJet SD 3000.This is true because of the high hourly rate,long run times and large materialexpense.
For all other parts the ZPrinter 310 and uPrint offer the lowest costs. For the three other 30 printers,the
results were mixed.
$300.00
$250.0
0
.. .
$200.00
$150.00
l l
.!!!
vi
::::>
$100.00
$50.00
$Test Block
Housing
Security
Panel-Front
Security
Panel-Back
Alaris30 ProJet SD 3000 SD300 Pro uPrint V-Flash ZPrinter 310 Plus
Figure 19: Part cost grouped by part.
Note that these numbers are accurate reflections of costs for these specific prototypes,and they may be used
to characterize the relative expense for each 30 printer. However, since costs vary greatly with each part,a
system review that emphasizes part expense should include cost breakdowns for prototypes that are
representative of those that are components of a company's product line.
A final cost consideration is the effective material cost.A common objection to 30 printers, and alladditive
manufacturing machines,is the high cost of materials. Compared to engineering plastics and general-purpose
modeling materials, the cost per cubic centimeter or kilogram is high. However, the true cost can be much
higher that the vendor's list price, as shown in Figure 20.The effective materialcost is the totalcost of
consumables divided by a part's volume. Most of the consumables expense is in model and support materials.
k
Page
19
$30.00
$25.00
".'..=$20.00
QI
a.
...
Ill
$15.00
vi
$10.00
::::>
$5.00
$-
Figure 20: Effective material cost per cubic centimeter.
True to its claims,the ZPrinter 310 has the lowest material cost, which includes powder, binder and infiltrant,
3
at just $3.57/in Coming in second,uPrint's material cost is only $6.87/in Due to a considerable amount of
support
material and some

purging and planerizing,the next highest costs are with ProJet SD
3 loss of model material when
3
3000 ($10.13/in and Alaris30 ($11.84/in .
)
What is quite surprising is the very high cost for the two lowest priced systems. V-Flash's promoted cost of
3
$8.00/in swells to $12.80/in when support material is added to the total material consumption. This makes
3
V-Flash the second highest in material cost. The highest effective material cost-$25.05/in for the SD300 Pro3
is more than 15 times the list price of $1.63/in

The bigjump in cost for the SD300 Pro is due to the high
percentage of material that is wasted. What comes out of the machine is a 6.3 in.-wide, solid brick with the
part(s) buried inside. Everything that surrounds the part is waste that is shipped back to the vendor for
recycling.
k
Page
20
Quality
Quality is an important but often subjective measure of 30 printers that has many aspects. Certainly, the
dimensional accuracy of a part is an important quality factor to consider. But there are many others,as well. In
an effort to characterize the quality of the output from the six 30 printers,material properties, surface finish
and dimensional accuracy are evaluated.
Material Properties
Material properties are an important consideration even if a 30 printer is being used for something less
demanding than functiona l prototyping. At a minimum,the parts must withstand the wear and tear of routine
handling as they are passed from one designer to the next. In other words,they must be durable.
Durability is a bit challenging to characterize since it depends on a number
of mechanical and thermal properties. And it can be a bit of a moving
target since some 30 printer materials change with exposure to UV light or
moisture. In spite of the challenges,each part from the 30 printers was
reviewed in the context of a form or fit prototype. This review includes
documentation of inadvertent damage done to the parts when they were
photographed,shipped and inspected ("routine handling"). The other
element of the review is documentation of the intentional damage inflicted
when bending, twisting and squeez ing the parts by hand.
Since no damage occurred on any of the thick-walled housings,it was
subjected to a different test. Slightly oversized screws were driven into
two freestandi ng bosses that have 0.100 in. walls (Figure 21). This test
Figure 21:Oversized screws

driven into two bosses.
simply measured the number of fullturns before the bosses failed.
Listing the 30 printers from best to worst in terms of durability,following is a summary of the observations.
#1-uPrint
By far, the parts from this 30 printer are the strongest. There was no
damage to any parts during routine handling,and when intentionally
attempt ing to break the parts, nearly all features stood up to the
pressure. The only damage inflicted was on a small post (0.110 in. dia.),
a gusset (0.020 in.thick) and an access cover (0.070 in. thick). To do this
damage took quite a bit of force. For examp le,the access cover did not
break.
Instead it deflected nearly 45 before the side wall split along a layer
(Figure 22).
The uPrint also did well with the screw test. Both bosses held up while the
screws were dr iven to the bottoms.
Figure 22:Access cover on uPrint

security panel.
#2-Alaris30
This 30 printer takes second place by a large margin. All parts survived
routine handling without any damage, and thick-walled features would not
break under a good deal of pressure.
The thin-walled features,such as the 0.010 in.and 0.020 in.ribs on the
test block (Figure 23) and 0.030 in. half-lap joint on the security panel,did
break under moderate pressure. Yet, the side walls (0.070 in.thick and
0.920 in. high) of the security panel-back would not break without an
excessive amount of force.The access cover on the security panel-front
broke at its base with less force that that for the uPrint part, but the
amount of
pressure needed was stillimpressive.
One concern arose when the security panel-back was lightly twisted. A
large diagonal crack appeared across the bottom face. This "brittleness"
is contrary to what was observed with other features.
Alaris30 performed well with the screw test (Figure 24).One screw was
driven to the depth of the boss without breaking; the other was driven half
way before the wall failed.
NOTE: The next three systems, while ranked in order, were very close in
durability performance.
#3-ZPrinter 310 Plus

This system did reasonably well in the area of durability. Based on
powders, binders and adhesive infiltrants,it has long been characterized
as weak and fragile. Even though it is a distant third to the Alaris30,its
ranking in this evaluation was unexpected. Please note,however, that
before infiltration, parts are much more fragile than any others in the
benchmark.
There was only one small break during routine handling.Somewhere
between inspection and return of the parts, a small piece of the thin halflap on the security panel-back broke off. Another unexpected result was
that features with thicknesses greater than 0.080 in.,such as the corner
posts on the security panel,did not fail.
For thin-walled features,the lack of durability was apparent. All broke
with low to moderate pressure applied. In some cases,the break had a
brittle feel. In others, the features had a soft, yielding feelwhen they
failed. For example, when the screws were driven into the housing,they
slowly gave way (instead of sharply cracking) after four to six turns.
Figure 24:Results of driving screw

into Alaris30 housing.
Figure 23:Thin ribs broken on Alaris30 test block.
Figure 25: Three breaks on the

ZPrinter 310 Plus test block.
k
Page
22
#4-ProJet SD 3000
The limited durability of parts from this system was apparent during routine
handling.The first break, which was on a thin,0.010 in. rib, happened when
the test block was repositioned during photography. Light thumb pressure
in the wrong spot broke the rib. In inspection and transit, several other
features were damaged. This included a large section of the half-lap (0.030
in.) on the security panel breaking off (Figure 26).
Curiously, as with the Alaris30, a slight twist of the security panel-back
produce a diagonal crack on the bottom face in exactly the same
location.
Figure 26:Half-lap joint of

ProJet SD 3000 security panel
broken in routine handling.
All small or thin-walled features failed with low to moderate force. Yet,
this system did perform better on the screw test than did the ZPrinter
310. In both cases, it took more than six turns to break out the side walls
of the bosses.
#5-V-Flash
This 3D printer is very similar to the ProJet SD 3000 for durability, but its
strengths and weaknesses are a bit different. For example, it did quite
well in routine handling-there was only one small chip on a thin wall of
the test block. On the other hand, the side walls of the security panel
were much easier to break.
All small or thin-walled features failed with low to moderate force. Yet,the
half-lap of the security panel was slightly stronger than that on the ProJet
SD 3000.
Figure 27: Side wall V-Flash

security panel.
V- Flash did poorly on the screw test. One of the bosses broke out
before completing a single turn of the screw.
#6-50300 Pro
With PVC as its modeling material,much better performance was expected
from this system. Wh ile PVC is tough,it cannot hide the weakness of the
adhesive bond between layers. All features with wall thicknesses less than
1.80 in. were susceptible to breaking with low to moderate pressure.
However, thicker features were quite strong and durable.
When light force was applied to the access cover and large corner bosses,
the features broke cleanly and easily along the plane of a layer. For the
side walls of the security panel,the layers would break free of one another
rather than breaking outright.
Figure 28: Broken access cover

and corner boss on the SD300 Pro
security panel.
k
Page
23
If built such that all tensile and flexural loads would be perpendicular to the layers,the strength could be
impressive, but this is not a practical expectation.
While the 50300 Pro did better that the V-Flash when the screws were driven into the bosses,the weakness
of the layer bonds once again became apparent. Rather than splitting out the side walls,the screws lifted and
separated layers of the bosses in multiple locations.
Surface Finish
The surface finish of parts produced with 30 printers cannot be accurately depicted with measurement tools
such as surface profilometers. There is too much variance and inconsistency to describe these prototypes
with a simple Ravalue. The surface finish is different for flat planes,vertical walls and spherical shapes.
Additionally, on many surface, the finish is often non-uniform.
For these reasons, the surface finish is characterized through part observations. A lso,since the results vary
so greatly from feature to feature,the systems are listed in alphabetical order instead of rank.
Alaris30
Overall,this system produces smooth surfaces with little stair-stepping.Flat, horizontal faces are quite
smooth, yet in some areas there is evidence of "streak ing" from the print head. Vertical surfaces are also
rather smooth, but they have some "chatter," which is where a surface juts in and out. Spherical shapes
and angled surfaces are nearly stair-step free.
Figure 29:Alaris30 surface finish.
ProJet SD 3000
At first glance, the ProJet SD 3000 parts are appealing and have what appeared to be very smooth surfaces.
While the quality of the surface finish is one of the best, under harsher scrutiny some texture and roughness
are seen. The side walls of the parts are subject to "chatter," and in some cases soft textures are apparent.
On flat faces, some print head streaking is seen and fine lines cross the surfaces. Yet, small radii,angled
surfaces and spherical shapes are rather smooth with little evidences of stair-stepping.
Figure 30: ProJet SD 3000 surface finish.
50300 Pro
The SD300 Pro has some of the best and worst surface finishes. Flat, horizontal surfaces are perfectly smooth
and glossy.However, side walls have varying degrees of chatter -some faces have little while others have large
shifts. Stair-stepping is moderate.
Figure 31:SD300 Pro surface finish.
uPrint
The surface finish for the uPrint parts is best described as "textured ." These prototypes are anything but
smooth. The top and bottom faces of all parts have a distinct pattern.The verticalsurfaces have obvious layer
lines,and angled surfaces are clearly stair-stepped.
While the surfaces are not smooth, they are extremely uniform, which improves the aesthetic appealand
overall feel.
Figure 32:uPrint surface finish.
V-Flash
This system produces mixed results in surface quality. While there are some textures and layer lines on side
walls, the surfaces are quite acceptable and reasonably smooth.On the other hand,the supported surfaces,
which were lightly sanded to remove the support structure, are marked with a series of small pocks and
raised bumps. In an effort to counteract warping and sagging of the parts,they were built at a slight angle. For
the security panel,this results in a "shingling" effect from stair-stepping.
Figure 33: V-Flash surface finish.
k
Page
26
ZPri nter 310 Plus

For the ZPrinter 310, there is no need to differentiate between horizontal,vertical or angled surfaces since
they all have similar finishes. All features have a slightly "fuzzy" feel and appearance that can be likened to
220-grit sandpaper. This texture has the advantage of hiding stair-stepping on angled and spherical surfaces.
The only exceptions are some streaking from the print head and a slight chatter on a few side walls.
Figure 34: ZPrinter 310 Plus surface finish.
Dimensional Accuracy
Previous attempts to qualify accuracy have relied on tried-and-true inspection technology. Using coordinate
measuring machines {CMMs) or calipers, a handful of features would be measured and the deviation from the
design would be documented. But as shown in the following pages, this approach may yield a grossly
inaccurate depiction of part quality. As with surface finish,there is simply too much variance in 3D printed parts
to rely on a few point-to-point measurements to characterize these prototypes.
For this benchmark, CMM has been replaced by 3D scanning. Using white light scanning technology, the
quality of each benchmark part is described by up to 2.8 million points. With this density of data, every aspect
of the dimensional quality of the test parts is described. The data is interpreted with tables, graphs and
images for each part, including:
Standard deviation plots
Deviation tables
Error maps
To characterize each system, the report also presents:
Profile tolerance graphs
Normal distribution plots
Before reviewing this data,note that the information presented cannot be matched to a traditional X in.
statement. Instead of the tolerance between two points, such as the center-to-center position of two holes,the
3D scanning data presents the 3D distance of a point on a test part to the corresponding point on the CAD data.
So, what is shown is a profile tolerance.
k
Page
27
Test Block
Figure 36 presents a plot of the standard deviation of all measurement
points from their nominal locations on the CAD file. In this chart 2 sigma
(two standard deviations) is plotted for each technology. For this data, a
smaller bar (value) centered on 0.00 shows a higher accuracy. For
example,Alaris30 has the best dimensional accuracy with a 2 o of 0.0054
in. centered on - 0.0004 in. (the mean). V-Flash has the poorest accuracy
with 2 o of 0.0176 in centered on -0.0027 in.
The data for Figure 36 is shown in Table 3, which also lists the percentage
of all points that fall within 2 o. Two other items presented in the table are
the percentage of points that exceed 0.020 in. and 0.005 in.
Figure 35: STL of test block.
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
.s::.
u
0.000
-0.010
-0.020
-0.030
-0.040
Alaris30ProJet SD 50300 ProuPrintV-FlashZPrinter

3000310 Plus
Figure 36: Test block accuracy to 2 o.

Alaris30
Mean (in.)
-0.0004
ProJet
50
3000
0.0033
50300 Pro
uPrint
V-Flash
-0.0010
-0.0027
ZPrinte
r 310
Plus
0.0020
Standard Deviation (in.)
0.0027
0.0051
0.0046
0.0088
0.0044
10
81.64%
85.94%
90.48%
92.23%
75.95%
20
98.01%
97.43%
97.22%
99.15%
96.51%
Exceed 0.020 in.
0.04%
0.23%
Exceed 0.005 in.
4.08%
32.40%
1.18%
10.02%
0.71%
0.11%
39.20%
23.37%
k Table 3: Test block accuracy inspection data.
Page
28
To visually interpret the dimensional quality of the test block,Figure 37 presents error maps for five of the
benchmark systems. These error maps color code the deviation of each measurement point using the legend
to the right. In this error map,and all that follow,green shows areas between +0.005 in. and -0.005 in.Yellows
and oranges show points that are higher than the design intent (above the surface) while cyan and blue
show those that are lower (below the surface). To highlight regions that are grossly inaccurate,bright red
shows areas that are higher than 0.020 in. and deep purples show those lower than -0.020 in.
Through color,a clearer picture emerges. For example, the ProJet SD 3000 shows greater variance than one
would expect after reviewing the 2 CJ chart (Figure 36). This is true because a high percentage (32.4%) of the
points exceed 0.005 in. while 99.8% are w ithin 0.020 in. Conversely,the uPrint looks better with only a
slight improvement of the 2 CJ. This is because a low percentage (10.02%) exceeds 0.005 in.,but 1.18%
exceed 0.020 in. These large deviations for the uPrint test block are captured in Figure 38.
0.100
0.020
Alaris30
uPrint
0.015
..
0.010
0.005
..
0.000
-0.005
-0.010
ProJet SD 3000
V-Flash
-0.015
-0.020
-0.100
SD300 Pro
ZPrinter 310 Plus
Figure 37: Test block error maps -front view (in.)
While the uPrint part is mostly green,light cyan and light yellow (good accuracy),the red faces on the ribs
mark a problem area .These ribs are 0.010 in. and 0.020 in.thick,which is below the minimum that uPrint can
replicate. So,the system creates walls that are too thick,which throws off the 2 er value.
The inaccuracy of V-Flash is depicted well in this figure on the right-hand wal l. On one surface,the part goes
from very low to moderately high. Conversely, the accuracy of the Alaris30 is clear with the abundance of
green.
0.100
0.020
Alaris30
uPrint
0.015 ..
0.010
..
0.005
0.000
-0.005
ProJet SD 3000
V-Flash
..
50300 Pro
ZPrinter 310 Plus
Figure 38: Test block error maps - back view (mm)
-0.010
-0.015
-0.020
-0.100
k
Page
30
Housing
Figure 40 shows that Alaris30 and uPrint have the best accuracy with
2 cr values of 0.0070 in. and 0.0102in.,respectively, centered on
0.000. Alaris30 also has a very small number of points exceeding
0.005 in. (Table 4). uPrint is much greater (22.5%) but is far better
than all others. For this thick-walled part,four systems have a very
high percentage of point exceeding 0.005 in.,ranging from 41.2% to
56.1%.
However, the most interesting result is that of the ProJet SD 3000.
As seen in the graph and the table,the accuracy of this part is very
poor, which makes it suspect. To confirm that the error did not arise
from the 30 scanning process, this part was re-scanned and reinspected,
Figure 39: STL of housing.
but the results were unchanged.
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
.l:
.E
0.000
-0.010
-0.020
-0.030
-0.040
Alaris30ProJet SD SD300 ProuPrintV-FlashZPrinter
3000310 Plus
Figure 40: Housing accuracy to 2
Alaris30
-0.0001
-0.0001
-0.0020
0.0154
0.0082
0.0051
0.0109
0.0053
88.55%
71.63%
76.00%
78.29%
74.21%
81.71%
99.38%
92.52%
94.19%
99.73%
95.50%
95.00%
0.09%
23.73%
2.52%
0.08%
7.33%
0.10%
0.0003
0.0035
1o
2
Exceed 0.020 in.
ProJet
SD
3000
-0.0027
SD300 Pro
uPrint
V-Flash
ZPrinte
r 310
Plus
0.0044
Mean (in.)
(J
a.
k
Exceed 0.005 in.
3.37%
Table 4: Housing accuracy inspection data.
Page
56.06%
41.24%
22.52%
56.08%
30
51.68%
k
Page
I 31
The color maps in Figure 41and Figure 42 show the source of the error for the ProJet SD 3000 part:a badly
undersized outer wall and a badly oversized inner wall on the "bell" of the housing.Since these results are
not consistent with the other parts (see the normal distribution curves in Figure 54), it is very possible that
there was an undiagnosed problem with the building process that may be resolved if the part were re-built.
However,the procedures for this benchmark expressly state that second attempts are not permitted.
The error maps for the housing show an obvious distinction between the two best performers,Alaris30 and
uPrint, and the two worst,SD300 Pro and V-Flash. The latter two systems show significant irregularities w ith
surfaces color-coded to both the high and low extremes .Regardingthe ZPrinter 310,the amount of yellow
in both the top and bottom views illustrates the bias towards being oversized that is shown in Figure 40.
0.100
0.020
Alaris30
uPrint
0.015
..
0.010
..
0.005
..
0.000
-0.005 ..
-0.010
V-Flash
ProJet SD 3000
-0.015
-0.020
-0.100
50300 Pro
ZPrinter 310 Plus
Figure 41: Housing error maps - top view (in.).
0.100
Alaris30
0.020
uPrint
0.015
0.010
0.005
..
..
..
0.000
-0.005
ProJet SD 3000
V-Flash
..
-0.010
-0.015
-0.020
-0.100
50300 Pro
ZPrinter 310 Plus
Figure 42: Housing error maps - bottom view (in.).
type of deformation. The other
This part poses a challenge to the 30 printers because of its tendency to
warp, bow or cup along its length and width. As seen in the error
maps on the following pages,every system shows some degree of this
challenge is the number of

features measuring less than
0.030 in. thick.
For this part,Figure 44 shows that the best accuracy comes from the
Alaris30 ( 0.0104 in.) and ZPrinter 310 ( 0.0112 in.), which again has a
bias toward being oversized. The ProJet SD 3000 and uPrint are nearly
identical with values of 0.0154 in. and 0.0160 in. (respectively).
Figure 43:STL of security

panel front.
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
.&;
0.000
-0.010
--
....
- -
""
II.mm
-0.020
-0.030
-0.040
Alaris30
ProJet SD
3000
Figure 44:Security panel-f ront accuracy to
Alaris30
Mean (in.)
0.0001
0.0051
1()
20
ProJet
SD
3000
0.0018
V-FlashZPrinter 310
Plus
SD300 ProuPrint
2 o.
SD300 Pro
uPrint
V-Flash
ZPrinter
310
Plus
0.0021
0.0036
0.0029
0.0034
0.0077
0.0158
0.0080
0.0170
0.0056
81.87%
85.03%
94.92%
88.27%
88.27%
89.27%
99.38%
98.20%
96.60%
94.96%
94.96%
99.04%
Exceed 0.020 in.
0.07%
0.53%
4.34%
2.94%
2.94%
0.13%
Exceed 0.005 in.
19.35%
36.80%
36.37%
27.87%
27.87%
21.21%
Table 5: Security panel-front accuracy inspection data.
The error map in Figure 45 shows that Alaris30 and ZPrinter 310 are the flattest. In this view,the Alaris30 is
cupped (low in the center}, while the ZPrinter 310 is bowed (high in the center).With the exception of the
closest corner of the ProJet SD 3000,it and the uPrint are fairly flat. This cannot be said of the V-Flash or
50300 Pro.
The thin (<0.030 in.) features,which include the half-lap around the edge of the part and the frame around
each keypad button (backside}, were responsible for increasing the 2 cr value for the uPrint. In both Figure
45 and Figure 46,the bright red areas of the uPrint error maps highlight these thin features that the
technology constructs oversized. The 50300 Pro's reported accuracy,on the other hand, is not affected by
these features even though they were non-existent. The 30 scanning inspection software cannot include the
50300 Pro's absent
features in the calculation and error maps.
0.100
0.020
Alaris30
uPrint
0.015 ..
0.010 ..
0.005 .
. 0.000
-0.005 ..
-0.010
V-Flash
ProJet SD 3000
-0.015
-0.020
-0.100
ZPrinter 310 Plus

SD300 Pro
Figure 45: Security panel-front error map - top view (in.).
In Figure 46,note the red areas of the keypad for the 50300 Pro. Rather than through holes,9 of the 16 button
holes were left with a thin,horizontal pane of material. When attempting to remove this in the 7 open holes,the
surrounding frames were badly damages. Also note that the access cover seen in the upper left of all other
error maps is missing from the 50300 Pro image. The access cover was broken off during support removal.
0.100
0.020
uPrint
Alaris30
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
-0.005
-0.010
V-Flash
ProJet SD 3000
-0.015
-0.020
-0.100
SD300 Pro
ZPrinter 310 Plus
Figure 46: Security panel-front error map - bottom view (in.).
k
Page
37
Security Panel-Back
The top two systems for accuracy on this part are ProJet SD 3000 and
Alaris30. Their 2 a values are 0.0088 in. and 0.0106 in.,respectively.
Both were biased to the high side with a mean of 0.002 in.
Compared to the security panel-front,four of the six systems have
significant improvements in overall accuracy. For the ProJet SD 3000
and SD300 Pro, the improvements are roughly two-fold. The reason for
the improvements is the internal structure that adds rigidity and
Figure 47: STL of security

panel back.
diminishes the likelihood of warping and bowing.
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010
.c
u
0.000
.E
-0.010
-0.020
-0.030
-0.040
Alaris30
ProJet SD SD300 Pro

3000
Figure 48: Security panel-back accuracy to
Alaris30
uPrint
V-Flash
ZPrinter
310 Plus
2 a.
SD300 Pro
Mean (in.)
0.0025
ProJet
SD
3000
0.0021
0.0016
0.0012
0.0024
ZPrinter
310
Plus
0.0033
0.0053
0.0044
0.0086
0.0062
0.0104
0.0067
1()
90.96%
84.53%
93.43%
74.86%
81.33%
85.56%
20
98.44%
97.80%
97.60%
96.83%
94.27%
98.24%
Exceed 0.51 in.
0.36%
0.28%
1.94%
0.33%
6.30%
0.41%
Exceed 0.13 in.
23.06%
37.11%
53.89%
43.49%
16.80%
Table 6: Security panel-back accuracy inspect ion data.
25.98%
uPrint
V-Flash
k
Page
37
Figure 49 shows that the flatness of this part is better than that of its mate,the security panel-front, for all of
the 30 printers. When compared to the error maps in Figure 45 (security panel-front), the improvement is
quite obvious.
For the 50300 Pro,there is a red rectangular area. During post processing there was an oversight that left
surrounding material in this shallow label recess area.
0.100
0.020
Alaris30
uPrint
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
-0.005
-0.010
ProJet SD 3000
V-Flash
-0.015
-0.020
-0.100
50300 Pro
ZPrinter 310 Plus
Figure 49: Security panel-back error map - top view (in.).
..
..
..
This part,however, is not immune to distortion. With free-standing side walls that are 0.94 in. tall, there is a
tendency for these features to bow inward towards the center of the part.This distortion is most notable in the
error maps (Figure 50) for ProJet SD 3000 and SD300 Pro where the upper, left-hand wall is shaded red.
0.100
0.020
Alaris30
uPrint
0.015 0.010
0.005
..
..
0.000
-0.005
-0.010
V-Flash
ProJet SD 3000
-0.015
-0.020
-0.100
50300 Pro
ZPrinter 310 Plus
Figure 50: Security panel- back error map -bottom view (in.).
Accuracy Summary
As revealed by the standard deviation plots, inspection tables and error maps,dimensional accuracy is
dependent on the size and configuration of a part. To show this variance and to present a different
perspective on the accuracy of each technology, Figure 51 plots the percentage of points exceeding 0.005
in. for each part as well as the four-part average.
50.00%
30.00%
20.00%
0.00%
Alaris30
ProJet SD 300050300 Pro
Test Block -Housing -
uPrint
Security Panel-Front -
V-Flash
Security Panel-Back
ZPrinter 310
Plus
Aggregate
Figure 51:Percentage of measurements exceeding 0.005 in.
This chart shows that Alaris30 has the best accuracy overall with an average of 11.9% of the measurements
exceeding 0.005 in. It was also the best for three of the four parts. The second best performer is the uPrint
(27.4%). This is in spite of the significant number of features below 0.030 in. that the machine made
oversized.
k
Page
I40
Although this chart shows the 50300 Pro to be in the third position,this is an inaccurate reflection of its
accuracy. For this system,the data does not include the missing features that it could not build. It also
excludes the test block which was not made because much of the geometry was too small for the process.
With an overall value of 35.8%,the ProJet placed fourth in accuracy. However,this value would likely
decrease if the housing were re-built such that its accuracy is more consistent with the other three parts. The
fifth place system, ZPrinter 310 confirms that statements of quality are dependent on what and how accuracy
is measured. In terms of 2 o,this system was consistently in the middle of the pack. But when judged
based on the number of points exceeding 0.005 in.,it is second to last with an aggregate value of 39.3%.
The last place system, V-Flash had the highest percentage by all measures but one.
To further summarize the accuracy results,normal distribution curves are presenting on the following pages.
These curves are generated from the standard deviations and means presented in previous tables. "Good"
accuracy is shown when the normal distribution is high,tight and centered on zero. Consistent accuracy is
shown when the four normaldistributions have similar sizes, shapes and positions.
k
Page
41
A laris30
,.....
Figure 52: Alaris30 normal distribution.
SD300 Pro
ProJet SD 3000
Figure 53: ProJet SD 3000 normal distribution.
..
-Tcistllodt
-+loucine:
-t.curltyPa ntl Fl"ont
-ScurifVhl\tl-
Figure 54:50300 Pro normal distribution.
adl
uPrint
,..
....
V-Flash
-001
,.,,
.0:005
0.01
tl.0 15
-0.-01
MIS
'""
Figure 55:uPrint normal distribution.
-T t&Joieti
-+1".:,,,
-S.cur tyPl'l.8-F...,.,t
-Stur VPf\tlSaclc
"
ZPrinter310 Plus
Figure 56:V-Flash normal distribution.
,..
....
-0.0lS
...,
......
..
, ,
,..,
Figure 57:ZPrinter 310 Plus normal distribution.
G.02
Rankings
Having presented time, cost and quality data in many forms and through numerous charts, graphs and
images, the benchmark can become overwhelming. To aid in summarizing all of this data, two weighted
rankings are presented. The first evaluates the 30 printers as tools for making form and fit prototypes. The
second evaluates the compatibility with an office environment.
Form & Fit Applications

Form/Fit Index
0.00100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
Figure 58: Ranking of systems for form & fit applications.
The form/fit index shown in Figure 58 includes decision criteria commonly used when evaluating 30 printers
as CAD output devices that make concept models and form/fit prototypes. While many argue that function is
also critical,this benchmark assumes that functional prototyping is a more advanced application that is not
the domain of 30 printers. Although some systems may produce "functional" prototypes,this is not generally
expected of this class of additive manufacturing devices.
The rankings in Figure 58 use the criteria and weighting listed in Table 7. The weighting factors attempt to
strike a balance between time,cost, quality and performance. In effect, it is a measure of how well these
systems live up to the promise of easy, fast and affordable. But this measure is far too generic to be used for
system selection.
Instead,the weighting factors must be adjusted to match the corporate and departmental requirements for
specific applications.
k
Page 1
44
Considerations
Weighting
Factors
Considerations
Weighting
Factors
Cost
30
Quality
20
Part Cost
Accuracy
Surface Finish *
10
Feature Detail *
Material Properties *
12
Acquisition Expense
Annual Expense
Time
25
Performance
25
Prep/post time
Ease of Use *
Machine Time
Direct labor
Throughput
Office Compatibility
Benching
10
* Subjective measures
Table 7:Form & fit weightingfactors .
For example, uPrint and ZPrinter 310 have nearly equal rankings, which makes sense since both offer a
good balance of time, cost and quality. But place more importance on any factor, and one system can
become the clear winner. If higher priority is placed on durability, labor demands or office compatibility, uPrint
would have the edge. Conversely,if process speed is the primary issue,ZPrinter 310 would be the likely
choice.
Another example is if accuracy where of utmost importance. Considering the inspection report data, V-Flash
and SD300 Pro would no longer be contenders.
So,one small change to the weight of the criteria can have big impact on the system ranking.For this reason,
recipients of this benchmark are invited to download a worksheet that is pre-populated with the benchmark
data. This download allows "what-if' scenarios with user-editable weighting factors. Access the download at
www.tagri mm.com/benchmark -2010/weighted-rankings.html.
k
Page
45
The implied promise of 30 printers is office-compati ble operations.While the technologies have made much
progress towards this goal,there are aspects of each that detract from true office compatibility. For each of the
six techno logies, there some operationa lconsiderations in the processes that make them better suited for a
separate work area with ample lighting,ample workspace,access to utilities and linoleum flooring.And even if
the 30 printer is suited for the office, they tend to be a bit too loud to be located within arm's length of the CAD
workstation .
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
Figure 59: Ranking of systems for suitability in an office environment.
To illustrate the level of compatibility within an office environment,Figure 59 charts the ranking of each of the
30 printers. These rankings are calculated using the weighted factors listed in Table 8. As this table shows,
compatibility is determined by the type of work performed,facility needs and operating conditions. In
mapping out these criteria,the logic is to capture the factors that make 20 printers self-serve,office
equipment.
As with the form & fit ranking,the importance of each factor will vary by individual,department and
company .So, a user-editable worksheet is available for download at www.tagri mm.com/benchmark2010/weighted rankings.html. This worksheet recalculates office compatibility rankings as the weighting
factors are adjusted.
k
Considerations
Page
46
Weighting
Considerations
Factors
Operations
Weighting
Factors
Operating Environment
38
40
Ease of Use
10
Maintenance
Cleanliness
12
Build Management
"Glove" Free
10
Skill Level
Storage/Disposal
10
Labor
Facilities
Comfort (employee)
22
Utilities
Footprint
Environment Type
10
* All factors are subjective measures.

Table 8: Office Compatibility Weighted Factors
Using the weighted factors listed in Table 8, the system that ranks number one is the uPrint (945 points). The
process has few "touch points," very little user interaction and no post processing labor. The uPrint system
can run in the office,but the support removal station will need access to water and drain line.Yet,beyond
dripping of a little soapy water, there is nothing that wou ld make a mess of an engineering office.
The second place system is the ProJet SD 3000 (826 points).lt can also run in the office,and if comfortable
with a convection oven in the wor k area, parts could be post processed in the same space. But the
possibility of dripping wax on the carpet and the need for a hot-water scrub make post processing better
suited for a separate work space. For some part geometries,supports are removed while soaking in hot oil in
a crock pot. If using this process, the engineering office is definitely not the place for post processing of
ProJet SD 3000 parts.
The SD300 Pro (732 points) can easily run in the office and some may elect to post process the parts at their
desks. But the peeling process, which creates a bit of "clutter," is better located in an area with ample lighting
and good work areas. If following vendor recommendations to split parts and bond them with super glue to
minimize waste,users will want to move post processing to a workbench or similar work surface.
Coming in at number four and five are V-Flash (676 points) and Alaris30 (656 points). If running V-Flash in
the office,make sure to have a supply of gloves and drip pads at hand.The parts come out of the
machine with uncured resin on the surface. This can drip,and skin contact is not recommended. The parts
washer is a self contained cleaning and rinsing system that uses propylene carbonate and water .Some claim
that the odor is a bit much for them. Also,drips are possible when filling and emptying the system as well as
when removing parts. So, it is best to move this process,and the secondary curing step,out of the
office.Finally, supports need to be snipped off and sanded,so a workshop-l ike space may be the best
choice for V-Flash post processing.
Alar is30 runs a bit loud and emits an odor that some find unappealing,so the 3D printer will likely be moved
into an uninhabited area of the office. But the biggest detractors from office compatibility are the sodium
Page I
k
hydroxide part soak and water jetting that are done in post processing.Although in a weak concentration,
47 a
bucket of
k
Page
I47
sodium hydroxide (drain cleaner) is not something that is suited for the office. When working around the
solution, gloves and eye protection are also advised. Finally, the water jet station will need water and
drain lines, and when in operation, it will be too loud to be used in the office.
The least likely candidate for the office is ZPrinter 310. This powder-based technology will be a bit messy
throughout the entire process.When loading material into the machine and digging parts out after building, the
powder will make a mess. To clean it up,users vacuum the machine and surrounding area,which would be too
loud for most office areas. That same vacuum drives the depowdering station, which means more noise and
more airborne powder to settle on desks and electronics. The last step in the process is infiltrating the part
with cyanoacrylate,epoxy or wax .This step is definitely something that should be done in a workshop.
Conclusion
To confirm just how fast,inexpensive and easy to use 30 printers can be, this benchmark has thoroughly
assessed many aspects of time, cost, quality and performance. In general,these systems deliver on the
claims of having quick turnarounds,simple operations and low operating expenses. And to varying
degrees,these 30 printers satisfy the requirements for in-office use, but more progress is needed to bring the
entire process into the engineering office.
Through the charts,tables and images, the analysis shows clear leaders in specific measures of time,cost
and quality. Yet, it also shows that as the measures are adjusted,the relative positioning of systems change,
sometimes dramatically. The measure of build time for a single piece will yield a different ranking than the
measure of totalprocess time for consolidated builds. Likewise, the measure of accuracy in terms of standard
deviation produces different rankings than a measure of the percentage of points exceeding a specific
tolerance.
Through the form & fit and office compatibility indices,the benchmark also shows that a small shift in
weighting of decision-maki ng criteria will yield a big change in rankings. When durability trumps speed,or
accuracy trumps durability,there will be two very different sets of ranking results. And if seeking a balance of
time, cost and quality, the rankings will change yet again.
So, one conclusion from this benchmark is that general conclusions regarding the best and worst 30 printers
cannot be made. To reach such a conclusion requires a definition of product, operations and criteria. Another
conclusion from the benchmark is that bold,sweeping claims for any technology may not hold true for all parts
and in allcircumstances. These claims should be investigated in the context of the products that they will be
making and operating conditions under which they will be used.
Build from the benchmark data to develop an appreciation for the generalpositioning of the systems. Use the
finding to understand allthe factors that may affect time, cost, quality and performance. Then apply its
approach to evaluate 30 printers in a manner that accounts for the applications,requirements and constraints
within your design,engineering and manufacturing environment.
Appendix A: Observations and Commentary

Following are noteworthy items that do not appear in the previous discussions of time, cost, quality and
performance.
Alaris30
Without a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) soak when post processing,parts have a tacky feel.
All sharp corners (on horizontal plane) have an obvious radius to them
(Figure 60). o
This appears on all parts and all edges.
All other details are sharp and crisp.
Supported and unsupported surfaces have different appearances.

o Supported surfaces have a matte finish. Unsupported surfaces are glossy.
Test Block:
o Horizontal and vertical steps are all present, including the smallest (0.13mm) (Figure 61).
o
Four-hole pattern (ranging from 0.020 in. to 0.160 in.diameter) is well defined
(Figure 62).
o
However, sharp edges of holes are radiused.

Smallest verticalrib is malformed.Missing top portion.
Housing:
o
Irregular surface patch directly below the horizontal cylinder (Figure 63).
Strong texture edged by a small rib of material. Problem remains undiagnosed.
Security panel
o Two pieces mate well. Reveal between then is sharp,crisp and consistent.
o
On two side walls,a few stray "drops" of material that appear as pinhead-sized bumps.
o
Battery box text is sharp and crisp (Figure 64).
Figure 60: Radius on sharp edges.
Figure 61:Small steps present.
Figure 62:4-hole pattern.
Figure 63: Patch with odd

texture.
Figure 64:Crisp battery text.
k
Page
SO
ProJet SD 3000
All parts have a slightly waxy feel.
First impression was quite good in terms of color, feel,details and finish (Figure 65).
Details are very sharp,very crisp.
Side walls and thin ribs have a tendency to warp and bow (Figure 69).
Test block
o
Four-hole pattern was the best of all. Very sharp,crisp (Figure 66).
Smallest step on side wall step pattern is detectable, but barely there (Figure 67).
Housing
o
Profile of the horizontal cylinder is best of all (Figure 68).
All holes present,including 0.020 in. diameter.
True circular profile with smooth contours.
Security panel
o Reveal is crisp,sharp and consistent.
o
Battery box text is crisp, but battery profile is a bit washed out.
Figure 65:Details are sharp

and crisp.
Figure 66: 4-hole pattern is

well defined.
Figure 68: Bore has best

circular profile.
Figure 67: Smallest step is

barely visible.
Figure 69: Walls have a

tendency to bow.
k
Page
51
SD300 Pro
Big shifts on profiles of many features (Figure 70).
Some evidence of delamination between layers (Figure 71).
Many holes were ragged or gouged on edge

(Figure 72). o
Likely due to picking out
material.
Peeling material from any deep, narrow area seems to be difficult.

o Will likely need more than the tweezers that come with the system.
o
Dental picks or similar may be advisable.

Easy to overlook areas where material removal needed.
For detailed parts,may have to reference STL to see what must be peeled away. o
Peeling may cause thin-walled features to delaminate (Figure 74).
Test block
o This part was not constructed.
Thin walls on six ribs would not build.
Small holes would not build.
Housing
o
A few holes were "D-shaped." (Figure 73)
Security Panel
o Battery box text non-existent.
Figure 70: arge shifts on bosses

and walls.
Figure 71: Delamination.
Figure 72: Damaged holes

when materialwas picked out.
k
Figure 73: Misshapen hole.
Page
Figure 74: Thin walls
delaminate when peeling
material.
52
uPrint
No evidence of support structures remains.

o No marks,mars, remnants or witness lines left behind.
Coarsest layer thickness of all benchmarked systems (0.010 in.)

(Figure 75). o
Heavy stair stepping on contoured and angled
surfaces.
o
Obvious flats on top and bottom of horizontal cylinder that gives it an oval shape.
Occasional holes (gaps) in surface between extrusion paths (at the turns).
Test block
o Four-hole pattern:
Two largest holes have an oval shape (Figure 77).

Side wall step pattern is missing the smallest (0.005 in.) (Figure 78).
Housing
o A few dark spots (blemishes) on surface. May be related to support material.
o
Two smallest are missing.
Stray material in one hole made it "D-shaped" (Figure 76).
Security panel
o
Reveal is sharp,crisp and consistent. (Figure 79).

o
Walls are straight and true.
Figure 75 :Thick layers produce

stepping.
Figure 76:Stray material

makes hole 0-shaped.
Figure 77:Ovaled holes
Figure 78:Smallest step (0.005

in.) missing.
Figure 79:Crisp,consistent reveal.
V-Flash
Parts may require non-standard orientations to compensate for process

limitations. o
E.G.,Standing security panel on end or tilting test block 45
degrees.
o
Parts are "two-toned."

o
Odd angles will create pronounced stair stepping.

One side has a creamy beige hue,the other a strong yellow cast. Suspect that this results from the
UV curing process.
Many surface defects, including:

o
Pocks and bumps from supports .Also some residual supports.
Indicates that attention to detail (and perhaps skilled labor) is advisable for
post processing
Extraneous ribs of material and waviness (Figure 80).
Bowing and curling are pronounced and common.
Test block
o Three holes of the four-ho le pattern are present,but a llare misshapen {Figure 81).
o
Housing
o Several holes have a "D-shape." (Figure 82)
o
Side wall stepping patterns lack crispness and are missing smallest steps.
Horizontal cylinder is very misshapen (Figure 83).
Security panel
o Bowing across face of parts,on vertical walls and on pocket walls (Figure 84).
o
Battery text is barely visible.
Supports remain in label recess,side pockets and small holes.
Figure 80:Wavy bottom.
Figure 81:Ovaled holes.
Figure 82: "D-Shaped" hole.
Figure 83: Irregular shape of bore.
Figure 84: Wavy pocket walls.
ZPrinter 310 Plus
Parts are much heavier than all others due to infiltration with
cyanoacrylate. o Gives a false sense of durability.
Contrary to general perception,details are rather crisp

(relatively). o
And thin walls are true (Figure 85).
Several stray mounds of material on the parts (Figure 86).

o
Excess powder remained on surface.It was then glued in place with the infiltrant.
In isolated areas, some pitting and pock marks.
All features present, but keeping them required some experience in depowdering the
parts. o Thin walls susceptible to breaking before infiltration.
Some vertical streaking visible on side walls.
Test block
o Four-hole pattern has all present and crisply defined (Figure 88).
Stray rib of material adjacent to largest hole.
Side wall step pattern missing smallest (0.005 in.) steps.
Security panel
o Reveal is crisp and consistent.
o
Battery text relatively crisp (Figure 89).
Figure 85:Thin walls are straight

and true.
Figure 86:Stray mounds of

material.
Figure 88: 4 holes are present

on well defined.
Figure 87:Streaking on side walls.
Figure 89: Battery text

is reasonably sharp.
Appendix B: Systems and Construction Parameters

Alaris30 (Objet Geometries)
The A laris30 uses the PolyJet process,which mimics an ink jet printer.As the print carriage passes over the
build area,the print heads deposits fine droplets of material. One print head deposits model material,which is
a photocurable resin. The other print head deposits a gel-like support material. Ultraviolet (UV) light sources
on the printer carriage cure the materialas soon as it is deposited. Each pass covers a 2.3 in.-wide swath.
For the benchmark,the following were used:
FullCure 830 model material(VeroWhite)
28 micron layers
Glossy mode
Prof et SD 3000
Multi-Jet Modeling (MJM) technology is used by the ProJet SD 3000. Somewhat similar to the PolyJet process,
this system deposits droplets of material through an ink jet-like print head. The materials deposited are a UV
curable resin and a wax.The wax is used as a support material that encases the part. A single pass covers the
entire build area of the machine.
EX 200 model material
0.0015 in.layers
SD300 Pro (Solido)

This 30 printer laminates sheets of PVC plastic that are bonded with adhesive. After placing a fresh layer, a
knife cuts the profile of the layer and then makes "peeling cuts" that enables material. Before depositing the
next sheet, anti-glue pens add a release agent to the top of the previous sheet in system-determi ned areas.
The anti glue prevents adhesion,which further eases material removal.
For the benchmark, the following were used:
PVC material
0..007 in. layers
uPrint (Stratasys)
This system uses the FDM (fused deposition modeling) where a thin filament of thermop lastic material
passes through a liquefier. In a semi-mo lten state,the materialis extruded to build up the prototype.
uPrint deposits two materials;one for the model and one for supports.
ABSplus model material
0.010 in.layers
Sparse fill build style
V- Flash (3D Systems)

The underlying process of the V-Flash is FTI (film transfer imaging). Like ProJet,it uses photocurable
resins,but this material is conveyed into the build chamber as a thin film on top of a sheet of clear plastic. A
light source below the plastic sheet illuminates the profile to be solidified. Another unique characteristic is
that parts are built upside down. Parts hang down from the build platform, which is above the resin film.
FTl-GN material
0.004 in. layers
ZPrinter 310 Plus (Z Corporation)

This system uses off-the-she lf ink jet printer cartridges to deposit a liquid binder on a bed of powdered material.
Each pass covers a 2.0 in.-wide swath of the powder bed. After depositing binder, a roller spreads a fresh layer
of powder and the process is repeated.
zplSO modelmaterial
0.004 in.layers
ZBond 90 infiltrant
Appendix C: Supplemental Data
Housing
Test Block
COGS
Alaris30
Data Preparation
Part Construction
Materials
Build Time
Post Processing
Sub-total
Total
ProJet S03000
Data Preparation
Part Construction
Material s
Build nme
Post Processing
Sub-total
Total
S0300 Pro
Data Preparation
Part Construction
Materials
Build Time
Post Processing
Sub-total
Total
uPrint
Data Preparation
Part Construction
Materials
Build nme
Post Processing
Sub-tota l
Total
V-Flash
Data Preparation
Part Construction
Materials
Build Time
Post Processing
Sub-tota l
Total
ZPrinter 310
Plus
Data Preparation
Part Construction
Materials
Build nme
Post Processing
Sub-tota l
labor
COGS
5.85
28.70
33.36
5.85
5.85
17.54
62.06
79.59
5.85
112.79
96.18
208.97
226.51
5.85
21.22
104.49
125.71
153.54
4.48
17.50
27.83
labor
Security PanelFront
COGS
labor
5.85
5.85
17.54
5.85
23.43
29.56
52.99
70.52
5.85
78.73
179.61
258.34
279.17
4.48
10.50
20.83
227.45
248.45
5.85
5.85
5.85
17.54
5.85
45.05
30.64
25.39
65.99
91.38
119.21
5.85
5.85
17.54
93.22
5.85
5.85
209.88
17.57
Security PanelBack
COGS
labor
4.48
17.50
27.83
5.85
44.05
55.66
99.71
124.04
12.85
4.48
14.00
24.33
19.85
79.37
6.56
63.48
8.79
15.16
21.00
18.66
85.93
31.50
117.43
18.10
72.27
37.94
110.21
5.85
5.85
5.85
18.15
13.58
4.10
47.60
39.82
4.10
17.36
10.86
4.10
27.52
23.53
4.10
31.73
9.94
87.42
9.94
28.22
9.94
51.05
9.94
5.85
38.52
19.70
58.22
68.72
1.75
2.91
10.50
5.85
99.17
28.63
127.80
138.30
2.91
11.11
12.87
23.98
37.67
Figure 90: Cost data (U.S.dollars).
7.00
3.78
13.69
1.75
2.91
10.50
5.85
28.33
10.64
38.97
52.41
2.91
25.14
19.47
44.61
55.67
4.66
3.50
11.06
1.75
5.85
13.44
5.85
53.16
10.45
63.61
79.96
2.91
8.22
9.84
18.06
32.62
7.00
4.66
14.56
1.75
8.75
16.35
2.91
13.23
11.20
24.43
36.08
4.10
4.66
11.66
Test Block
Auto
Alaris30
Data Preparation
Part Construction
Machine Time
Prep & Post
Post Processing
Sub-total
Total
ProJet SD3000
Data Preparation
Part Construction
Machine Time
Prep & Post
Post Processing
Sub-total
Total
SD300 Pro
Data Preparation
Part Construction
Machine nme
Prep & Post
Post Processing
:=
Sub-total
Total
uPrint
Data Preparation
:=
Part Construction
Machine nme
Prep & Post
Post Processing
Sub-total
Total
V-Flash
Data Preparation
Part Construction
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
:=
Total
0.08
1.00
6.97
0.17
0.17
0.42
Auto
0.08
0.08
16.88
0.17
5.32
0.08
1.00
18.05
0.17
0.17
0.42
.08
1.00
6.30
18.46
0.00
0.17
11.00
0.13
0.13
1.00
0.5
12.13
0.80
19.92
o.oo
I
I3.75
I o.oo
Ii.oo
1 4.75
I
I
I
0.111
0.17
0.42
0.08
0.08
5.13
.08
1.00
6.49
6.71
0.17
0.17
0.42
6.90
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
19.00
0.13
0.13
6.90
0.13
0.13
5.80
0.13
0.13
1.00
20.13
0.30
0.60
1.00
8.03
0.50
0.80
1.00
6.93
0.40
0.70
20.72
8.82
7.62
0.17
0.18
0.37
0.28
0.57
17.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.43
17.83
0.60
18.43
6.63
0.00
0.00
6.81
0.00
0.53
0.90
8.88
0.00
0.00
9.16
0.00
0.52
1.08
7.71
10.2
5
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.12
11.00
0.00
0.12
3.00
0.00
0.12
6.50
0.00
0.12
1.00
12.00
0.00
0.28
1.00
4.00
0.00
0.28
2.00
8.50
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.28
5.03
12.28
4.28
8.78
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
6.50
0.00
1.25
7.75
0.05
0.08
0.30
9.45
0.00
1.25
10.70
0.05
0.08
0.30
3.51
0.00
1.25
4.76
0.05
0.17
0.38
3.45
0.00
1.25
4.70
0.05
0.25
0.47
8.05
0.08
Security PanelBack
Auto
Manual
0.00
0.08
II
I
I
I
Manual
Security PanelFront
Auto
Manual
0.08
7.38
I
I
I
I
I
Machine nme
Prep & Post
Post Processing
Sub-total
0.08
5.80
Machine nme
Prep & Post
Post Processing
Sub-total
Total
ZPrinter 310 Plus
Data Preparation
Part Construction
Manual
0.08
Housing
11.00
5.14
5.1
7
1.30
0.75
0.25
0.20
0.11
2.30
0.39
Figure 91: Process time data (hours).
2.60
0.50
0.25
3.35
0.13
0.11
0.32
0.82
0.75
0.25
1.82
0.20
0.13
0.42
0.87
0.92
0.25
2.03
.012
0.13
0.33
2.37
Appendix D: Benchmark Parts
1.97 in.
1.97 in.
1.97 in.
Volume
2.91in.
Figure 92: Test Block
Figure 93: Housing
3.88 in.
4.87 in.
3.48 in.
Volume
6.95 in.
k
Page
60
ooog
DoOaoDcr
3.90 in.
5.65 in.
1.16 in.
Volume
2.27 in.
3.90 in.
5.65 in.
0.94 in.
Volume
4.11in.
Figure 94:Security Panel-Front
Figure 95:Security Panel-Back
..
About T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc.

T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc. is a consulting and communications
firm that focuses on the additive manufacturing and 30 imaging
industries. The company was founded in 2002 by industry veteran
Todd Grimm. Located in Edgewood,Kentucky, USA, the company
T.A. Grimm
& Associat es, Inc.
SM
can be reached at (859)-331-5340 or through its Website at

www.tagr imm.com.
About Todd Grimm

Todd Grimm is president of T. A. Grimm & Associates. In the 20 years that he has been involved with additive
manufacturing, he has established himself as one of the leading experts on the technology and the industry.
Todd is an author, speaker and industry advisor. He is the author of "User's Guide to Rapid Prototyping." He
frequently writes articles for trade magazines,such as Time-Compression Technologies,and has been an editorial
advisor for Time-Compression Technologies, Time-Compression Technologies UK and 30 Scanning Technologies.
For the past seven years,he has served as an advisor for the Society of Manufacturing Engineers' technical
communities. He is the Immediate Past Chairman of the society's Rapid Technologies and Additive
Manufacturing technical community. He has also served as Chairman of SME's 30 Imaging technical group.
Todd is a graduate of Purdue University, where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical
Engineering.
Additional copies may be downloaded at www.tagri mm.com/benchma rk-2010/. A European version is als
Disclaimers:
All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
The information in this report is believed to be accurate and reliable. The report in no way assumes any part of the risk
of the reader of this report; does not guaranteed its completeness, timeliness or accuracy; and shall not be held liable
for anything resulting from the use or reliance on the information, orfrom omission or negligence.
Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed
in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of T. A
Grimm & Associates, Inc.
Copyright T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.

3D Printing Benchmark 2010 NAmerica Reprint

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

3D Printing Benchmark 2010 NAmerica Reprint

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

T.A.Grim m & Associates, Inc.

30 Printer Benchmark: N orth

T.A. Grimm1& Associates, Inc.""

Copyright T. A. Grimm & Associates,Inc. All rights

Figure 43 : STL of security panel-front..........................................................................................................33

Figure 87: Streaking on side walls............................................................................................................................ 54

Copyright T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc. All rights reserved.

Day-to-day investment (time)

ProJet SD 3000 (30 Systems)

V-Flash (30 Systems)

SD300 Pro (Solido)

ZPrinter 310 Plus (Z Corporation)

Brief descriptions of each system's technology and process are provided in

These four prototypes were constructed individually in the

To eliminate the variable of post processing (part finishing)

Figure 3: Security panel.

System Expense and Capacity

Figure 4: Acquisition expense for each system.

Annual Operating Expense

(Figure 5), the acquisition expense is

consumables and material disposal. For

this calculation, acquisition expenses are

amortized (straight line) over five years.

Note that annual operating expense

includes fixed expenses and the

Figure 5: Annual operating expense of the 30 printers.

yields a standardized hourly cost for

machine operation. To determine annual

for the construction of two "typica l"

parts. The X, Y, and Z dimensions and

Figure 6: Annual throughput quantity based on two "typical" parts.

Using the time per run and assuming a

operating hours for the test systems.

striking.At just $0.99, the 50300 Pro is by

benchmark, has the highest rate at $9.39. ::>

Figure 7: Typical part dimensions.

-Run Time -m-Parts Built

four prototype parts. This data excludes

all steps in the process other than the

11.1hours. The graph, however, takes on

a different look with all time elements

included (Figure 11).

The average process time in Figure 11,

Figure 10:Average build time (all parts built individually) .

ZPrinter 310 has the fastest average

& Post Time

Also,the time to process the files to

Unlike the preparat ion work, the post

variances are in the types of processes, degree of automation

processing effort varied widely.The

and amount of time.

Figure 11:Average process time (all parts built i ndividually) .

Following is a brief summary of the post processing cycles.

Alaris30 : A sodium hydroxide soak is followed by a manualwater-jet support removal

Time:0.5 hour (manual).

Time: 1.0 to 1.5 hours (mostly unattended).

Time: 0.5 to 1.4 hours (partially unattended)

Figure 12:Average time for attended (manual) operations.

ZPrinter 310 Plus

Table 1: Individual process times (hours) plotted in Figure 14.

Security Panel- Security PanelFrontBack

Alaris30 ProJet SD 3000 SD300 Pro uPrint V-FlashZPrinter 310 Plus

hourly rate (Figure 8) and actual build time.

The labor component uses a rate of