POST-BUILD PROCESSING OF STEREOLITHOGRAPHY MOLDS

A Thesis
Presented to
The Academic Faculty

By

Bryan Michael Blair

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering

 Georgia Institute of Technology

May 1998
POST-BUILD PROCESSING OF STEREOLITHOGRAPHY MOLDS

Approved:

_________________________
Jonathan S. Colton, Chairman

_________________________
Dan Baldwin

_________________________
Steve Danyluk

_________________________
John Muzzy

Date Approved_____________
 SUMMARY

Stereolithography increasingly is being used to make injection molds for test and
small production runs. Stereolithography is a process in which photopolymerizable
epoxy is used to make the molds by exposing individual layers of resin to light in the
pattern desired for that layer. The individual layers are built up to produce the final
structure. The vertical surfaces of the final structure are limited in surface roughness by
the thickness of each layer (0.002-0.008 in). Smooth molds are critical in producing parts
in injection molding as rough surfaces prevent ejection of the part and play a role in the
overall quality of the part. Currently, hand post-processing is performed on the
stereolithography molds, and the results are not consistent. The parameters that affect the
polishing behavior of the stereolithography polymers are not understood fully. The life
of stereolithography molds in injection molding is limited because the heat and the
pressure of the process eventually cause the mold to fail by warping and cracking of the
mold face. Material properties, such as hardness, may affect the life of stereolithography
molds. The parameters that affect the hardness of the stereolithography polymers are not
understood fully.
An understanding of the polishing behaviors of the epoxy-acrylate resins Dupont
Somos 6110 and 7110 is developed. This is accomplished through an experimental
investigation. The experimental investigation involves determining the effects of the
applied force, the polishing time, the abrasive size, the stereolithography resin type, the
UV post cure time, the hardness, and the initial roughness on the final roughness of the
stereolithography polymer surfaces. The abrasive size and the UV post cure time affect
the final roughness of the stereolithography polymer. Polishing with smaller abrasives
yields smoother surfaces. At the time of polishing, all of the surface hardnesses were
between 85 and 86 Shore D, and the hardness did not affect the final roughness.
However, the polishing of stereolithography polymers that have 1.6 hours or more of UV
post cure time yield smoother surfaces than those that have 0 or 0.4 hours of UV post
cure. The results of the stereolithography polymer polishing tests are compared to
models used in describing metal polishing. As with the polishing of metals, the final
roughness achieved in the polishing of the stereolithography polymer depends on the
abrasive particle size. The Archard number, which relates the material hardness, the
material removal, the length of contact, and the applied force, was constant for each of
the abrasive size and material combinations. Additionally, an understanding of the post-
build cure of stereolithography polymer is developed. This is accomplished through an
experimental investigation that determines the way that the post cure method, the UV
post cure time, the age of the material, and the location of the material within a part effect
the hardness and the degree of cure of the stereolithography polymer. Stereolithography
polymer with more UV post cure time is cured more fully and thus is harder. The inside
material of stereolithographic samples is less cured than the outside material, as the inside
material does not receive as much UV energy during the post cure. Stereolithography
polymer that undergoes a thermal cure is cured more fully than that which is only UV
post cured. The thermal post cure also yields a material hardness 85 Shore D, while UV
post cure yields material hardnesses from 65 to 85. Inside material hardnesses are 87 to
92 percent of the hardnesses of the surface material.
 The results of these experimental investigations were used to develop a post-build
process that yields quality, long lasting stereolithography molds for their use in injection
molding. Given the increased hardness and degree of cure achieved during the thermal
post cure, a thermal post cure at 150°C for 30 minutes is recommended. For the
polishing of stereolithography molds, an abrasive paste with a mean particle size of 30
microns and a fluid pressure of 600 psi is recommended.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF TABLES xii
NOMENCLATURE xiv
SUMMARY xv

I. INTRODUCTION 1
I.1 Rapid Prototyping 2
I.2 Stereolithography 2
I.3 Rapid Tooling 3
I.4 Problems of Rapid Tooling 3
I.5 Goals 5
I.6 Thesis Organization 5

II. BACKGROUND 7
II.1 Stereolithography 7
II.2 Rapid Tooling 11
II.3 Problems of Rapid Tooling and Potential Solutions 13
II.4 Polishing 21
II.5 Roughness 25
II.6 Summary 27

III. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF SURFACE

IMPROVEMENT METHODS 28
III.1 Introduction 28
III.2 Sample Preparation 30
III.3 Initial Roughness Measurements 31
III.4 Initial Tests 31
III.5 Final Roughness Measurements 32
III.6 Results of Initial Testing 33

IV. STEREOLITHOGRAPHY POLYMER TESTING PROCEDURES 36

IV.1 Polishing Behavior of Stereolithography Polymer 36
IV.1.1 Applied Force, Polishing Time, and Abrasive
Size Testing 36
IV.1.1.1 Sample Preparation for Polishing Tests 37
IV.1.1.2 Initial Roughness Measurements 37
IV.1.1.3 Polishing Tests of Cylinders 38
IV.1.1.4 Final Roughness Measurements 40
 IV.1.2 Applied Force, Polishing Time, Abrasive Size, and
Cure Time Testing 40
IV.1.2.1 Sample Preparation for Polishing Tests 40
IV.1.2.2 Initial Roughness and Hardness
Measurements 41
IV.1.2.3 Polishing Tests of Cylinders 42
IV.1.2.4 Final Roughness Measurements 44
IV.1.3 Polishing Tests Summary 44
IV.2 Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) Tests of
Stereolithography Polymers 45
IV.2.1 Effects of Post Cure Method and Time on
Degree of Cure 45
IV.2.1.1 Sample Preparation for DSC Tests 46
IV.2.1.2 DSC Tests of Somos 6110 Liquid
Resin 47
IV.2.1.3 DSC Tests of UV Post Cure and
Control Samples of Somos 6110 Resin 47
IV.2.1.4 Additional DSC Testing of Inside
Material 48
IV.2.1.5 DSC Tests on Liquid Nitrogen
Cooled Samples 48
IV.2.2 Effects of Thermal Post Cure on Degree of Cure 49
IV.2.2.1 DSC Tests of Thermally Cured
Somos 6110 Samples 49
IV.2.3 Comparison of Somos6110 and 7110 Resins 50
IV.2.3.1 Sample Preparation 50
IV.2.3.2 DSC Tests of Somos 7110 Liquid
Resin 50
IV.2.3.3 DSC Tests of UV Post Cure Samples
of Somos 7110 Resin 51
IV.2.4 IR Testing of Effects of Post Cure Time and
Material Location 52
IV.2.5 Summary of DSC and IR Tests 52
IV.3 Hardness of Stereolithography Polymer 53
IV.3.1 Effects of Post Cure Time and Depth on Hardness of
Stereolithography Polymer 53
IV.3.1.1 Sample Preparation for Post Cure
Time and Depth Tests 53
IV.3.1.2 Hardness Testing 54
IV.3.2 Effects of Post Cure Time and Age on Hardness of
Stereolithography Polymer 54
IV.3.2.1 Sample Preparation for Post Cure
Time and Age Tests 54
IV.3.2.2 Hardness Testing 55
IV.3.3 Summary of Hardness Tests 55
IV.4 Hollow Cylinders Polishing Tests 56
 IV.4.1 Preparation of Hollow Cylinders 56
IV.4.2 Initial Roughness Measurements 57
IV.4.3 Abrasive Pastes Polishing of Hollow Cylinders 57
IV.4.4 Final Roughness Measurements 58
IV.4.5 Summary of Hollow Cylinder Tests 58
IV.5 Summary of Procedures 59

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 60

V.1 Polishing of Stereolithography Polymers 61
V.1.1 Force, Time, and Abrasive Size Test Results 61
V.1.1.1 As-Built Roughness of Somos 6110
Cylinders 61
V.1.1.2 Results of Force, Time, and Abrasive
Size Tests with Different Sandpaper
Configurations 62
V.1.1.3 Results of Force, Time, and Abrasive
Size Tests Based on First Polishing 63
V.1.2 Force, Time, Abrasive Size, and Post Cure Time
Test Results 69
V.1.2.1 Initial Roughness Measurements 70
V.1.2.2 Explanations for Differences In Initial
Roughness 70
V.1.2.3 Comparison of Polishing Behaviors of
Somos Resins 72
V.1.2.4 Results of Abrasive Size and Post Cure
Time Tests 73
V.1.3 Modeling of Abrasive Processing of Stereolithography
Polymers 78
V.1.4 Summary of Polishing Test Results 83
V.2 Results of DSC and IR Tests 84
V.2.1 Effects of Post Cure Method and Time on Degree of Cure 85
V.2.1.1 Results of Liquid Resin Tests 85
V.2.1.2 Results of Post Cure Time and Material
Location Tests 85
V.2.1.3 Additional Testing of Inside Material of
Somos 6110 Resin 90
V.2.1.4 Results of Liquid Nitrogen Tests 92
V.2.2 Effects of Thermal Post Cure on Degree of Cure 92
V.2.3 Comparison of Somos 6110 and 7110 Resins 97
V.2.3.1 Results of Liquid Resin Tests 97
V.2.3.2 Effect of Post Cure Time and Material
Location on Degree of Cure 98
V.2.4 Results of Infrared Spectrometry Tests 100
V.2.5 Summary of DSC and IR Test Results 103
V.3 Hardness of Stereolithography Polymers 104
V.3.1 Effects of Post Cure Time and Depth on Material
 Hardness 104
V.3.2 Effects of Post Cure Time and Age on Hardness 106
V.3.3 Modeling of Hardness of Stereolithography Polymers 111
V.3.4 Summary of Hardness Test Results 117
V.4 Results of Hollow Cylinder Polishing Tests 118
V.4.1 Effects of Layer Thickness on As-Built Roughness 118
V.4.2 Different Media/Abrasive Combinations 121
V.4.3 Summary of Hollow Cylinder Polishing Test Results 124
V.5 Summary of Results 125

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 131

VI.1 Conclusions 131
VI.2 Recommendations 138

APPENDIX A: ARCHARD EQUATION CALCULATIONS 140

A.1 Equations Used for Archard Calculations 140
A.2 Values Used for Calculating Archard Number 141
A.3 Calculated Values 143

APPENDIX B: INDIVIDUAL RESULTS OF HOLLOW CYLINDER

POLISHING TESTS 145
B.1 Method of Comparison 145
B.2 Results of Point by Point Comparison 145

REFERENCES 149
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Jonathan S. Colton. I owe him a great deal
of gratitude for his time and his continuous efforts to guide my research and to challenge
me beyond my preconceived limits.
I would also like to thank Dr. Daniel Baldwin, Dr. Steven Danyluk, and Dr. John
Muzzy for serving on my thesis committee.
I would like to thank the Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing Institute (3D
Systems, 3M, Baxter, The Coca-Cola Company, Dupont, Durden Enterprises, Georgia
Institute of Technology, Kodak, Lucent Technologies, Motorola, NCR, Pratt and
Whitney, Procter & Gamble, and Siemens) for sponsoring this work and providing an
opportunity for me to work in the field of rapid prototyping.
I would like to thank Reginald Ponder, the RPMI lab manager, for his patience,
his time, and his endless efforts in helping prepare the samples.
My colleagues in the Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing Institute and
in the Composites Manufacturing Research Program have offered their suggestions, their
support, and a much needed laugh from time to time. For this, I am very grateful. I want
to especially thank Jessica Brown, Janet Kinard, Anne Palmer, and Bret Rodeheaver for
cheering me on.
I would like to thank Cameron Lane for his assistance in completing the DSC
experiments and roughness measurements, Kent Dawson for the results of the
degradation tests, Lawrence Tognetti for the results of the injection molding tests, and
Thomas Cedorge and Yann Lebaut at ENSAM in Paris, France for the IR test results.
Their work helped to make this thesis more complete.
I would also like to thank Dr. Thomas L. Starr for the use of the polishing
machine and Dr. Sheryes Melkote for the use of the surface profilometer.
My family and close friends have provided continuous support. I would like to
thank John, Jane, and Lewis Chilton for their love and support. I would like to thank my
Dad and Pam for always being proud of me and my accomplishments. I would also like
to thank my sister, Susanne, for her love and support.
My fiancée, Kate, has been incredibly supportive and patient during my research
and while I was writing this thesis. For that, and the promise of our future, I am forever
thankful.
Finally, I would like to thank my Mom for raising me, pushing me, and loving
me. I can never repay all she has done.
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This thesis investigates processes to support the use of stereolithographic polymer

molds in injection molding. Smooth surfaces on these molds are critical. Rough surfaces
prevent ejection of the injection molded part and play a role in the overall quality of the
final part. Current stereolithography technology is limited in surface roughness by the
thickness of each layer. Manual post-processing currently is performed on
stereolithography molds with inconsistent results. It is the goal of this thesis to develop
an understanding of the way that stereolithographic polymers behave when polished and
to investigate methods to achieve consistently smooth surfaces on molds made from
stereolithography resins.
While the use of stereolithography for producing test and small run molds has been
well established [1], the life of the molds is limited. The temperatures and pressures of
the injection molding process eventually destroy the molds. The factors that determine
mold life are not understood completely. This thesis hypothesizes that surface hardness
affects the polishing characteristics of stereolithographic polymers. The goal of this
thesis to is investigate the surface hardness of stereolithographic polymers and
understand the factors that affect it.

I.1 Rapid Prototyping

Rapid Prototyping (RP) is a relatively new field that makes use of computer aided
design (CAD) models to produce three-dimensional physical models. There are seven
commercial RP technologies in use to date. These include the following:
Stereolithography (SLA), Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), Fused Deposition Modeling
(FDM), Multi-Jet Modeling (MJM), Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM), Solid
Ground Curing (SGC), and Ballistic Particle Manufacturing (BPM) [1,2].
Rapid prototyping technologies offer a means to build or “print” three
dimensional models from CAD data. This ability to build parts can be integrated into
many areas of the product development cycle. These areas include visualization, design
verification, iteration, and marketing. Physical models are more effective than
engineering drawings or computer models for visualizing a product, and give engineers
another tool to be more efficient. Another application of RP is in the medical field. RP is
used to build models of bones and other body parts that can be used to aid doctors in
surgery.

I.2 Stereolithography

Currently, stereolithography is the most widely used rapid prototyping technology,

with over 1200 machines in use worldwide [3]. The stereolithography process is a
layered process in which an ultraviolet laser is focused onto the surface of a vat of
photocurable polymer. The laser traces the part profile at each layer, curing the
photopolymer into a solid. The layers are built up on a platform that moves down into
the vat after each layer is produced. A more thorough explanation of the
stereolithography process is in Section II.1.

I.3 Rapid Tooling

Rapid tooling makes use of rapid prototyping technology, such as

stereolithography, to produce molds (or tools) that can be used for test runs or small
production runs in manufacturing processes such as injection molding, blow molding, or
die stamping. Rapid tooling can be made either indirectly or directly. Indirect tooling
utilizes the RP technology to build the desired part. A secondary process, such as RTV
silicone rubber tooling, 3D Keltool [3] or, investment casting [4], is necessary to produce
the molds. Direct tooling utilizes the RP technology to build the mold or tool directly.
No secondary process is needed to create the mold. Though rapid prototyping and rapid
tooling may be applied to many processes, this work focuses on direct tooling using
stereolithography to produce molds for the injection molding process.

I.4 Problems of Rapid Tooling

There are several problems that limit the effectiveness of rapid tooling. These
problems include but are not limited to the following: the surface roughness inherent to
the layered process, the surface roughness and part inaccuracy due to the approximation
of the CAD model, the part inaccuracy due to shrinkage, the poor injection mold
properties due to the low thermal conductivity of the material, and the short mold life due
to limited material strength and partially cured parts. The surface roughness of all
vertical surfaces is dictated by the layer thickness, which varies between 0.002 and 0.008
inches. The layering also causes surface roughness problems on curved surfaces as the
process approximates these surfaces by stair stepping. Other build parameters, such as
laser profile, laser overcure depth, and build location, also affect the surface roughness.
The algorithm that generates the build file from the solid model CAD data turns all
surfaces into a series of triangles. This approximation of the CAD model leads to
inaccuracies in build geometry, as well as to the “stair step” roughness on curved
surfaces. Inaccuracies in build geometry also are caused by part shrinkage as the
stereolithographic polymer cures. These form errors are not necessarily critical when
producing parts simply for show. However, when producing tools for molding, these
problems limit part quality and may prohibit part production all together. Rough surfaces
prevent ejection of the injection molded part and play a role in the overall quality of the
final part. Inaccurate mold dimensions limit the accuracy that can be achieved on molded
parts.
The cooling characteristics of stereolithographic molds also inhibit the accuracy of
the molded parts and limit the life of the molds. Injection molding with steel tools is well
understood. Shrinkage and cooling times are modeled easily. This is not the case with
stereolithographic molds. The stereolithographic molds have low thermal conductivities,
requiring long cycle times to cool parts. Also, their shrinkage is not understood fully.
The low thermal conductivity also limits the rate at which the mold itself cools after part
injection and ejection. As parts are shot into the mold, the mold heats up. This heating
alters part properties and affects the life of the mold. The life of the mold also is
determined by processing conditions, such as shot size and processing temperature, and
by the mold geometry, such as the size and depth of features.
After the stereolithography process is complete, the part that is built is not cured
completely. Depending on the type of epoxy resin that is used, the part can be between
65 and 90 percent cured [5, 6]. In order to complete the cure, the parts are irradiated with
UV light or are heated. The degree of cure will affect part properties, such as strength
and hardness. The degree of cure, the properties that are affected, and the part properties
that affect tooling life are not understood completely.

I.5 Goals

Given the problems associated with rapid tooling, the goals of this research are to
understand the way that the stereolithographic polymer behaves when polished, the way
that post cure affects part properties, and the way that part properties vary according to
the age of the material, the post cure method, and the location in the part. This research
investigates each of these areas and suggests a post processing strategy (curing, aging,
polishing) to produce more fully cured molds.

I.6 Thesis Organization

Chapter II provides explanations of the stereolithography process and of rapid

tooling. Rapid tooling is explained in detail with the differentiation made between direct
and indirect rapid tooling. The direct rapid tooling process used in the Georgia Institute
of Technology’s Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing Institute is explained. The
problems associated with rapid tooling are explained. Attempted solutions to the
problems are presented. Chapter II also presents information regarding the nature of
polishing and explores the polishing of thermoset polymers with respect to that of metals
and thermoplastics.
Chapter III lists ten possible surface finishing methods and ranks them based on
several criteria. The most promising methods are explored. The results of these initial
tests are used to determine the further experimentation necessary.
Chapter IV explains the testing procedures used to meet the research goals. The
polishing behaviors of stereolithographic polymers are explored. The degree of cure of
the polymers based on post cure method is determined. The part property of hardness is
studied with respect to polishing and the degree of cure.
Chapter V presents the results of the tests in Chapter IV and discusses the
implications to rapid tooling. Chapter VI presents the conclusions and the
recommendations for future work in this area.
 CHAPTER II

BACKGROUND

This chapter explains stereolithography and rapid tooling. The problems

associated with the rapid tooling process are explored and the ongoing research to
address these problems is discussed. Much attention is focused on the trial and error
approaches that have been used in trying to solve the surface roughness problem. One
possible solution that this thesis investigates is polishing. The nature of polishing is
discussed with emphasis on the process and material parameters that affect final part
roughness. An explanation of surface roughness is given.

II.1 Stereolithography

Rapid Prototyping (RP) is a relatively new field that makes use of computer aided
design (CAD) models to produce three dimensional physical models. Several RP
technologies exist today, including Stereolithography, the first such technology. The
stereolithography process, patented by Chuck Hall in 1986 [7], is a layered process in
which an ultraviolet laser is focused onto the surface of a vat of photocurable polymer.
The process begins with a CAD model from a solid modeling package, such ProEngineer
or I-DEAS. Using an algorithm in the solid modeling package, an .stl file is generated.
The surfaces of the original CAD model are translated into an array of triangles. A
tessellated model represents the original model, as shown in three representations of a
semicircle in Figure 2.1. The generated .stl file consists of the X, Y, Z coordinates of the
vertices of each triangle and an index that indicates the normal of the each triangle [8].
The next step involves creating supports that hold the object in place during the build
process. The 3D Systems software package Maestro creates these supports which can be
added to, deleted, or modified by the user [8]. Supports are necessary to hold the object
as well as to support special geometries such as cantilevers. Maestro also is used to input
the build parameters, such as the recoat parameters, the laser parameters, and the layer
thickness. The next step involves slicing the tessellated model into layers. The slicing of
the model is done using an algorithm within Maestro. Current limits on hardware
technology require the use of layers with thicknesses between 0.002-0.008 inches. After
all of the information concerning build parameters is entered, a build file is prepared
using the Maestro package.
 Figure 2.1: Tessellated Representation of Semicircle [8].

The build file then is transferred to the build machine. In the case of this research,
the build machine is a 3D Systems Stereolithography Apparatus – 250 (SLA-250). The
major components of the SLA shown in Figure 2.2 include the following: the Helium-
Cadnium laser, the optics, the build elevator, the build platform, the build vat of liquid
photopolymer, and the zephyr recoater blade. The controller reads the build file, which
contains the information about each “slice” or layer of the model. The model is built
layer by layer in the following repeated process. First, the build platform is positioned at
the surface of the vat of liquid photopolymer. The helium cadnium laser is directed by
the optics to focus the beam on the surface of the vat and “draw” the first layer of the
model. As the laser impinges on the surface of the photopolymer, the energy activates a
photoinitiator. This photoinitiator begins a chemical reaction that cures the photopolymer
wherever the laser beam draws. After the entire layer has been traced, the system will do
one of two things. If the build is in the supports section of the build, the elevator will dip
the build platform into the build vat in order to put resin on top of the area that was just
cured by the laser. The elevator then lifts the build platform such that it is now the
specified layer thickness below the surface of the liquid photopolymer. If the build is in
the part section of the build, the elevator will lower the build platform into the build vat
the specified layer thickness below the surface of the liquid photopolymer. The zephyr
recoater blade then will sweep across the length of the vat, spreading resin over the area
that was just cured by the laser. After the dipping and sweeping processes, there is a
delay to provide time for any vibration of the machine or disturbance in the vat to
dissipate. This process continues until all of the layers have been built. At the end of the
build, the elevator lifts the build platform out of the vat and allows the part to drain.
The part now undergoes a series of post processes that make it safe to handle.
First, the excess photopolymer is wiped off. The parts are cleaned using the standard
method of removing excess resin with Tripropylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether (TPM),
rinsing with water, and finally rinsing with isopropyl alcohol. The parts are allowed to
dry in air. The ultraviolet laser energy does not provide enough energy to cure the parts
fully. Because of this, it is necessary to post-cure the parts to cure the resin further by
placing them in the Post Cure Apparatus (PCA). The PCA is a chamber with a rotating
table and ultraviolet light bulbs. One hour in the PCA typically is recommended.
Alternative methods to cure the resin further include thermal and ultrasonic energy [9].
 Figure 2.2: Stereolithography Apparatus.

II.2 Rapid Tooling

The value of having a physical model to hold, touch, and see is clear. A prototype
part allows the designer to verify design decisions and catch mistakes before the part goes
into production. It allows marketing and management to better understand the product or
parts being produced, and in some cases provides a venue for consumer feedback.
Models of skulls, jaws, and other bones have been created from MRI data to aid doctors
by minimizing the iterative nature of some surgical procedures. For these applications,
the value of rapid prototyping is obvious and well documented [8,10]. However, these
applications only scratch the surface of the potential of the rapid prototyping technology.
Another area of application is the field of rapid tooling. Rapid tooling is the use
of rapid prototyping technology, such as stereolithography, to produce molds (or tools)
that can be used for test or small production runs for manufacturing processes, such as
injection molding, blow molding, or die stamping.
Rapid tooling can be done either indirectly or directly. Indirect rapid tooling
involves the building of the prototype part and then using a secondary process to create a
mold. Direct rapid tooling involves the building of the molds directly on the
stereolithography machine. Direct rapid tooling can use a solid mold made entirely on
the SLA. Alternatively, a thin shell of the mold can be made on the SLA and then back-
filled with another material. This is advantageous as it reduces the amount of
photopolymer used, the amount of build time, and the laser costs. The filler material is
typically either an epoxy, an aluminum-filled epoxy, or a low melting temperature alloy.
The standard rapid tooling procedure used in Georgia Tech’s Rapid Prototyping
and Manufacturing Institute is the thin shell SLA mold face back-filled with aluminum-
filled epoxy. The thin shell mold faces are designed with ejector pin holes, gates, and
bolt holes to minimize post-build processing. After the thin shell mold faces are built on
the SLA, they are cleaned and cured using the standard method. The walls of the mold
are braced with a wooden frame to prevent warpage during the back fill process. The
back-fill material is a two-part epoxy filled with aluminum beads. The epoxy is poured
into the mold. The epoxy is cured at room temperature for one day. The back sides of
the molds are machined to remove excess thickness due to the epoxy pour. Although the
molds are built with ejector pin holes in place, they are reamed to insure fit. After this
machining, the SLA molds are complete and ready for the injection molding process.
While some secondary processes are necessary to go from a thin shell mold built
on a SLA to a tool that can be used in injection molding, the cycle time and the cost
reduction from conventional tooling is worthwhile. While a conventional steel tool
typically costs ~$60K and takes several months to construct, a rapid tool typically costs
less that $1K and takes only days to complete [11]. While the use of stereolithography
for producing test and small run molds has been well established, the life of the molds is
limited. Runs made with softer plastics, such as polypropylene, can produce a mold life
of one hundred or more parts, whereas runs made with tougher plastics, such as ABS, can
produce a mold life of less than ten parts. Rapid tooling is ideal for small production runs
and for test runs in which the designer needs to verify their design.

II.3 Problems of Rapid Tooling and Potential Solutions

The rapid tooling process, while very promising, is not problem free. The layered
build style introduces a regular but rough surface on vertical surfaces, as shown in Figure
2.3. This is due to the parabolic profile of the cured region in the photopolymer, as
shown in Figure 2.4. The surface roughness of all vertical surfaces is dictated by the
layer thickness, which varies between 0.002 and 0.008 inches. The tessellated
approximation of the solid model introduces form errors by turning rounded horizontal
surfaces into polygonal surfaces, as shown in Figure 2.1. The tessellated approximation
of the solid model introduces form errors and rough surfaces by approximating rounded
vertical surfaces with a stair stepped surface, as shown in Figure 2.5. The combination of
the parabolic profiles and the stair step surfaces give parts an undesirable surface
roughness. In addition to the form errors due to the tessellation approximation, geometric
errors occur due to shrinkage. This shrinkage occurs as the photopolymer cures during
the build and post cure processes. While there are some shrinkage compensation factors
in the slicing software, the shrinkage effects are not the same for all geometries. The
shrinkage compensation factors are determined using the average shrinkage of several
different sized standards [1]. The inconstant shrinkage and the use of averaged factor
contribute to the geometric inaccuracy.
The rough surfaces and form errors can cause different levels of problems
depending on the application. Form errors and rough surfaces are not an issue if the part
is intended to give the end user a basic representation of the part. For some applications,
such as the verification of fit in a design, these problems may prohibit a good fit even
though the design is acceptable. In rapid tooling, it is paramount to address these
problems. Smooth surfaces are critical in the injection molding process. A maximum
arithmetic average surface roughness (Ra) of 50 µin is necessary [12]. Rough surfaces
prevent ejection of the injection molded part and play a role in the overall quality of the
final part. Inaccurate mold dimensions limit the accuracy that can be achieved on molded
parts.

100 µm

Figure 2.3: Regular Parabolic Profile of Vertical Surfaces [1].

Figure 2.4: Parabolic Profile of Cured Region in Liquid Photopolymer [1]

Currently, the roughness problem is addressed by using hand finishing and the
results are not consistent. Typical hand finishing begins with the removal of supports by
breaking them off by hand or with a small knife. This step does not cause problems for
the rapid tooling process as most molds are built with the mold faces as the upfacing or
vertical surfaces. This gives the mold face the best possible as-built roughness and
eliminates the rough bottom surface from the mold process. After post cure, the mold is
sanded. This can be done in steps, first using larger grit sandpaper and then successively
smaller grits until the desired roughness is achieved. The problem with this technique is
that excess material is removed during the sanding process, as shown in Figure 2.5. The
removal of the sharp edges of the layers results in surfaces much smaller than the
intended CAD model. Hence the relatively good accuracy of the stereolithography
process is ruined.
Several other techniques have been tried in order to address the roughness issue.
One study investigated abrasive blasting, barrel tumbling, and centrifugal tumbling. The
abrasive blasting technique provided a 20 to 40 percent reduction in surface roughness
but severe erosion was observed on the surfaces and edges. Barrel tumbling provided a
78 percent reduction in surface roughness but the corners and edges were rounded.
Centrifugal tumbling provided an 81 percent reduction in surface roughness but all edges
exhibited severe chipping [13]. While these techniques do offer a means to reduce the
surface roughness, they also cause unwanted material removal on edges and corners.
This removal would be detrimental to molds where rounded or chipped edges would
cause flash and lead to the failure of the tool.

CAD Model

After
Sanding

Figure 2.5: Stair Stepping From Layers on Curved Surfaces [8].

Another study investigated vibratory finishing. This method provided a final

average surface roughness of 33 µin, well below the desired smoothness needed for
molds. As with the tumbling and blasting techniques, the parts from the vibratory
finishing also had edge and corner damage. On one test part, an entire feature was
broken off the mold. The authors suggest a smaller abrasive in future tests which would,
they hypothesize, minimize the damage to the parts [14].
Another approach to this surface finishing problem used Abrasive Flow
Machining (AFM) to remove the regular, parabolic bumps from stereolithography parts
[2]. AFM is a process that is used to finish interior surfaces that are difficult to machine
using traditional methods, such as automobile manifolds. In the AFM process an
abrasive and viscoelastic media mixture are pumped through the parts being polished [2].
The AFM process was effective in eliminating the regular, parabolic bumps on flat,
vertical surfaces of stereolithographic parts. However, the effectiveness of this process in
polishing the complex geometries associated with molds was not tested.
 The potential solutions presented here have focused on solving the surface finish
problem after the build is complete in a material removal process. Several other solutions
have been presented that attempt to solve the problem during the build so as to eliminate
post-processes. One such in-process technique is meniscus smoothing [15]. This
involves the dipping of the part into the photopolymer to form a meniscus of
photopolymer between the stair steps of the layers and then the curing of this meniscus.
By creating fillets in the stair steps, as shown in Figure 2.6, the surface roughness can be
decreased substantially [15]. This method greatly increases the build time due to the
extra dip and scanning of the meniscus. While the decrease in roughness is substantial,
the final roughness achieved is not acceptable in the injection molding process.
Another possible way to reduce surface roughness is to minimize layer thickness
[15,16]. The problem with this solution is the increased build time and potential
problems in the build process. Build time depends on scan time and layer thickness. By
decreasing layer size there are more layers to build. The increase in the number of layers
means more laser time, more build time, and higher costs. Thin layers also cause
delamination problems in the build process [16]. Delamination occurs when thin layers
are not bonded fully to the layers below. During the sweep mode of the build, the loose
layers are swept away, causing the build to fail. Current stereolithography technology is
limited to a minimum layer thickness of 0.002 in.

Figure 2.6: Fillets Produced by Meniscus Smoothing [15].

Previous studies have determined models for predicting the as-built surface
roughness. One model predicted the roughness of stereolithography parts based on the
layer thickness, the surface angle, and the profile angle [15]. According to the model,
roughness varies according to Equation 2.1:

α (tan φ sin θ + cosθ )

Ra = +K (2.1)
4

where α = layer thickness

φ = profile angle
θ = surface angle
 K=
[(90 + φ ) − θ ] + κ
(90 + φ )
κ = 55.12 µin

The model presented by [15] accurately predicted the arithmetic average

roughness for surface angles up to 100°. According to this roughness model, a layer
thickness of 0.002 in. would produce vertical surfaces with an arithmetic average
roughness of 95 µin, still greater than the needed finish. According to the model, a layer
thickness of 0.001 in. is necessary to produce parts with as-built roughnesses suitable for
injection molding. In these applications, the part walls are not vertical, but instead are
drafted to allow for part ejection. When considering draft angle, a layer thickness of
0.00082 in. is necessary. This demand is beyond the current limits of the technology.
Until the technology can achieve these thinner layer thicknesses, the problem of poor
surface finish will exist.
The cooling characteristics of the stereolithographic molds also inhibit the
accuracy of the molded parts and limit the life of the molds. Injection molding with steel
tools is well understood. Shrinkage and cooling times are modeled easily. This is not the
case with stereolithographic molds. Stereolithographic molds have low thermal
conductivities, requiring long cycle times to cool parts and the shrinkage is not
understood fully. Their low thermal conductivity also limits the rate at which the mold
cools after part injection and ejection. As parts are shot into the mold, the mold heats up.
This alters part properties and affects the life of the mold. It has been suggested that the
low thermal conductivity and cross-linking of the SLA material allows the injection
molding of plastic into a mold at a temperature (e.g. 220°C for atactic polystyrene) above
the glass transition temperature of the mold. The physical properties of the thermoset
polymer change when heated above its glass transition, which is 90°C for the polymers
used in this thesis [6]. By not conducting heat well, the internal part of the mold is still
cool when the injection pressure is highest. The inside of the mold, which is still cold,
remains strong enough to endure the injection pressure [17]. However this could cause
differential thermal strain which would lead to cracking. The cross-linking allows the
material to perform without drastic changes in its properties at temperatures above its
glass transition temperature.
The life of the mold also is determined by the process conditions, such as shot
size, injection pressure, and processing temperature, and by the mold geometry, such as
the size and depth of features. Plastics with lower processing temperatures, such as
polypropylene and polystyrene, can be used in rapid tooling to produce 100 or more
parts. Plastics with higher processing temperatures, such as ABS, polycarbonate, and
nylon, will be limited to 10 to 50 parts, depending on part features. Typically, mold
failure is not immediate. Small features and the gate area are damaged first. The face of
the mold then warps and other features break. The injection molding process can be
continued but the quality of the parts continues to degrade. One study at Georgia Tech’s
RPMI using ABS and a mold with small (0.10 in.) features produced only two good parts.
After this point, small features began to break off during successive shots. Another study
by [17] using polypropylene to make small cubes (0.4 in.) produced 260 parts. While
feature size and processing conditions do affect the life of sterolithography molds, a more
complete study is necessary. A better understanding of process conditions and mold
specifications for the stereolithography molds will help improve mold life.
The life of the mold and its ease of finishing depend on many factors, including
the mold’s material. Due to this dependence on material, it is important to determine the
factors that affect mold material. After the stereolithography process is complete, the
part that is built is not cured completely. Depending on the epoxy resin used, the part can
be between 65 and 90 percent cured [5,6]. In order to complete the cure, the parts are
irradiated with UV light or are heated. There is an uncertainty regarding the uncured
material and the amount of cure achieved during the post cure. Varying material
properties complicate the modeling of a mold’s life and its polishing behavior. If the
parts are not cured completely, part properties, such as strength and hardness, will be
affected. The degree of cure, the properties that are affected, and the part properties that
affect tooling life are not understood completely.
Each of these issues presents a challenge that currently limits the effectiveness of
this application of rapid prototyping. The scope of this thesis is limited to the interrelated
problems of the degree of cure, the material hardness, the polishing behavior, and their
effects on the tool life of stereolithography molds in the injection molding process.

II.4 Polishing
The field of the abrasive processing of metals is well-developed. Much research
has been undertaken to understand the processes of grinding, cutting, lapping, honing,
and polishing. Numerous equations have been derived to describe the results of these
processes. Models relating the material and the abrasive hardness, the material removal,
the work speed, the abrasive size and strength, the applied load, the temperature and the
final roughness have been presented [18-22]. The work in this area is well justified, as 25
percent of machining operation costs are related to grinding and abrasive machining (of
metals) [19]. The abrasive processing of plastics is an underdeveloped field. Typical
manufacturing processes for plastics, such as injection molding, produce parts that do not
need to be ground or polished. If necessary, thermoplastics can be softened and hardened
repeatedly, allowing for a glossy, smooth surface to be formed. However,
stereolithography makes use of a thermoset, which undergoes a chemical reaction
through the application of ultraviolet light or heat and cannot be melted after cure.
Mechanical polishing is necessary to smooth rough surfaces on thermoset polymers. A
better understanding of the polishing of thermosets may be possible by first
understanding the nature of the polishing of metals. While the relations may not be
identical, understanding the primary factors will help to understand the behavior of
stereolithography polymers when polished.
Polishing generally uses an abrasive bonded onto a backing material, such as
paper or cloth. Many have believed polishing to be an abrasive process in which material
is removed in a series of scratches [18]. Beilby and others modeled it as a surface tension
phenomenon. Bowden and Hughes ascribed polishing to high temperature softening
[21]. Both wave formation and chip formation can be seen in polishing, indicating that
both softening and abrasion take place [21]. While this is the case for metals, the
polishing of thermosets cannot be of both of these natures. Because thermosets cannot
“melt,” the nature of polishing the stereolithography material is assumed to be only a chip
formation process.
 Material properties that affect final roughness in metal finishing processes include
the size, shape, and hardness of the material. Process parameters that affect final
roughness include the abrasive size and hardness, and the feed speed [18]. Harder parts
resist abrasion and hence brittle fracture leads to material being cut or chipped away.
Softer materials allow the abrasives to embed in the material. Small abrasive particles
lead to smoother surfaces but require longer processing times. Processing time is
increased because the material removal rate is less due to the smaller depth of cut. Faster
feed speeds increase the material removal rate but decrease the finished part quality and
lead to heating of the workpiece. Each of these parameters must be balanced to give
quality surface finish in a time and cost efficient manner.
The removal of material in the metal polishing process can be modeled at the
level of the formation of a chip under a single abrasive particle, as shown in Figure 2.7.
The thickness of material removed is denoted by t, the thickness, and is determined by
the size of the abrasive particle. The ratio between chip thickness, t, and mean grit
diameter, g, is typically between 2 and 5 percent, and varies according to the material and
abrasive hardnesses [18].

Abrasive Particle

Chip F

Figure 2.7: Chip Formation At Single Abrasive Particle [18].

The mean grit diameter is one way of designating the size of an abrasive. The
mean grit diameter usually is expressed in microns or microinches. Another common
designation is the size of the screen used to separate the abrasive particles. One such
designation is the FEPA (Federation of European Producers of Abrasive Products)
standard screen sizes. The abrasives described in this thesis will be designated using
FEPA standards.
In the polishing of stereolithography molds, it is necessary to remove the
parabolic bumps without removing too much material so as to preserve part accuracy.
Given the relation between the abrasive size and the depth of cut, the material removal
time necessary to remove a specific amount of material can be predicted. One such model
is described below.
Abrasive processes are governed by the following nondimensional relationship
known as Archard’s equation [21], Equation 2.2. The ratio, Nw, is constant for a singular
abrasive and material combination [18]. If any characteristic of either the abrasive
(hardness, size, binding) or the material (hardness, size) is changed, the ratio will change.
This relationship has been shown to hold for the abrasive processing of metals. This
relationship is tested for the polishing of stereolithography polymers in Chapter V.

BH
Nw = (2.2)
LP

where B = volume worn away

H = material hardness
L = sliding distance
P = applied load.

Pressures that need to be applied in (metal) polishing process are in the range of
20-300 kPa [22]. When polishing softer materials, such as plastic, a smaller force is
needed. The force applied in this work’s polishing tests (described in Chapter IV) ranged
from 5 to 15 N. With the sample size used, the pressures used for these polishing tests
were between 6.9 and 20.6 kPa, slightly lower than the recommended pressure for metals.
The relationship in Equation 2.2 provides information regarding the material
removal volume, the material hardness, the sliding distance, and the applied force.
However, this relationship is limited in that it is only applicable to a single abrasive and
material combination. A more useful relationship would include the abrasive size and the
final roughness resulting from the abrasive process.
The following relationship between abrasive size and final roughness is offered
by Equation 2.3 [19]:

Ra ∝ d gy (2.3)

where Ra = arithmetic average roughness

dg = mean grit diameter
y = constant.

For larger grit sizes (4,000-18,000 µin.), the value of y is between 0.3 and 0.7.
For smaller grit sizes, y can be expected to be larger [19]. This relationship is tested for
the polishing of stereolithography polymers in Chapter V.

II.5 Roughness

Much has been written about the surface finish and the surface roughness. In
order to measure the effectiveness of the polishing, a means is necessary that will
quantify the quality of the surface finish. Surface roughness is a numerical indication of
the deviations of the surface from the intended nominal surface. Surface roughness will
be reported throughout this thesis as either Ra or Rt. Ra is the arithmetic average
roughness and is calculated by averaging the absolute values of all deviations from the
mean line and is defined mathematically by Equation 2.4 [23].

1 l
l ∫0
Ra = y ( x) dx (2.4)

where l = sample length

y(x) = profile deviations from the nominal surface.

However, Equation 2.4 can be approximated by Equation 2.5 [23].

1 n
Ra ≈ ∑ yi
n i =1
(2.5)

where n = number of discrete profile deviations

yi = discrete profile deviation.

Rt is the total roughness, which is the difference between the highest peak and the
lowest valley, as shown in Figure 2.8 [23]. For a regular profile, such as a sinusoid, the
ratio of Rt to Ra is a constant. In the case of a sinusoid, that relation is π. For polished
metals, the ratio is between π and 5 [17].

Peak
y Nominal
Surface

Rt

Valley

Figure 2.8: Roughness Profile and Parameters [23].

 II.6 Summary

This chapter explained the processes of stereolithography and their use in

rapid tooling. The problems associated with rapid tooling were discussed and include the
following: the surface roughness inherent to the layered process, the surface roughness
and part inaccuracy due to the approximation of the CAD model, the part inaccuracy due
to shrinkage, the poor injection mold properties due to the low thermal conductivity of
the material, and the short mold life due to material strength and to partially cured parts.
Given these problems, the goals of this research are as follows: an understanding of the
way that the stereolithographic polymers behave when polished; the way that the post
cure affects the part properties; and the way that the part properties vary according to the
age of the part, the post cure method, and the location within the part. The experiments
conducted to realize these goals are explained in Chapter IV. Before these experiments
were conducted, a preliminary investigation of surface improvement methods was
performed to determine which possibly could be used to surface finish stereolithographic
polymers. Chapter III summarizes this investigation and the implications that the results
have on the research that follows.
 CHAPTER III

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
OF SURFACE IMPROVEMENT METHODS

The goals of this research include an understanding of the way stereolithographic

polymers behave when polished and the development of a method to smooth
stereolithographic molds efficiently and consistently. Before any experiments were
performed, a list of possible solutions was generated and ranked to determine the most
worthwhile potential solutions. Based on this ranking, the most promising solutions were
tested. The results of this initial testing, summarized here, were used to guide the
remainder of the research.

III.1 Introduction

Several surface improvement methods were investigated. These methods were

studied qualitatively to obtain an understanding of their capabilities. Ten ideas were
generated and ranked based on four criteria. The results were used to determine if the
potential smoothing method should be explored. The criteria used to rank each idea
included the costs involved, the time to set up the tests, the difficulty of setting up the
tests, and the time to run the tests. The results are summarized in Table 3.1.
Sanding is either sanding by hand or with a sandpaper wheel. The soldering iron
idea is to use the heat and pressure of the iron to reduce the rough surface of the uncured
part and to use the heat to advance the cure. The aquarium pump idea is to use an
aquarium pump submerged in an abrasive slurry. The outlet of the pump (a free jet) is
directed at the surface. It smoothes by erosion. The hot air gun idea is similar to the
soldering iron except that there is no pressure involved. The use of an abrasive paste can
be incorporated in two methods. The first involves oscillating the parts within a volume
of paste, similar to tumble finishing. The second involves pumping an abrasive through
or around the parts. The powder coating epoxy idea is to use a thin coating of liquid
epoxy to wet to the part and give a smooth surface as opposed to removing material.

Table 3.1: Methods of Smoothing Stereolithography Molds.

Method of Smoothing Cost Time- Ease- Time- Sum Rank Pursue

set up set up run test
Sanding 4 3 3 6 16 4 Yes
Soldering Iron 1 4 5 4 14 2 Yes
Aquarium Pump 3 1 1 1 6 1 Yes
 Hot Air Gun 2 5 6 5 18 6 Yes
Paste-Oscillate 6 7 7 8 28 7 No
Paste-Pump 5 6 2 2 15 3 Yes
Coating Epoxy 7 2 4 3 16 4 Yes
Porous Tool 8 8 9 7 32 8 No
.stl CNC Tool Path 10 10 10 10 40 10 No
Oversized core/cavity 9 9 8 9 35 9 No

The porous tool idea is to use a porous tool that is the negative of the shape of the
part and to force an abrasive slurry through the tool to smooth the surface. The .stl file-
generated CNC tool path would rely on the .stl file data to drive a polishing tool to
smooth the part. The oversized core and cavity idea would rely on two cores and two
cavities. One core and cavity set would be the right size and the other set would have an
oversized core and an undersized cavity. The oversized core and the regular sized cavity
would have an abrasive placed between them and then they would be oscillated relative
to one another. The oversizing insures that the abrasive will make contact with the part
being polished. Based on the ranking in Table 3.1, the best six ideas were pursued.
These included the following: sanding, soldering iron, aquarium pump, hot air gun,
abrasive paste with pump, and coating epoxy.

III.2 Sample Preparation

Before initial testing of the best ideas generated in Table 3.1 could begin, samples
were built that could be used in each of the tests.
Rectangular prism samples were built on the SLA-250 of Dupont Somos® 6110
epoxy-acrylate resin with the ACES (Accurate, Clear, Epoxy, Solid) build style. The
samples measured 1.5 x 1.5 x 0.25 inches and were oriented so that the square faces of
the prism were in the vertical plane. The samples were built in two builds of 12 samples
each. The samples were built with 0.006 inch layers. The parts were cleaned using the
standard method of removing excess resin with TPM (Tripropylene Glycol Monomethyl
Ether), rinsing with water, and rinsing with isopropyl alcohol. The parts were post cured
for one hour in the UV post cure apparatus (hereafter, PCA).

III.3 Initial Roughness Measurements

Initial roughness measurements were taken using a Thyssen Hommel Tester

500™ surface profilometer. Five average roughness measurements were taken on each
square face of all of the prisms per ISO 468. The measurements were taken
perpendicular to the regular bumps formed in the build process, as shown in Figure 3.1.
 Figure 3.1: Direction and Location of Initial Roughness Measurements for Preliminary
Investigation of Surface Improvement Methods.

III.4 Initial Tests

Initial wheel sanding was accomplished using a polishing wheel. Samples

were held to the wheel by hand and by a sample holder arm. The wheel speed for all of
the tests was 550 RPM. The applied force used with the sample holder arm was 3.5 lbs.
When the sample was held to the wheel by hand, the applied force was approximately 5
lbs. Three sandpaper grit numbers were used based on previous experience in the
Georgia Institute of Technology’s RPMI, as well as the sandpaper that was available for
use in this study. The sizes used were 320, 600, and 1200 (U.S. Grain Size). Soldering
iron tests were conducted using a large, flat soldering iron with a one-inch edge. After
the iron heated up, the edge was pressed against the square face and slowly dragged
across the face of the sample. This was repeated with samples that had not been post
cured. A 1400 W hot air gun was used for the hot air gun tests. The hot air was directed
at the square face of the sample. This test was repeated with samples that had not been
post cured. A 125 gallon per hour water pump was used for the aquarium tests. The
pump was submerged in slurry in a five gallon bucket. The slurry was made from 5
micron alumina polishing grit and water. The samples were placed 2 inches from the 167
in. ID outlet of the pump. Two samples were tested in this manner. The first sample was
tested for four weeks. The second sample was tested for two weeks. The initial tests
with the abrasive pastes were conducted using the polishing wheel. A polishing cloth
with the abrasive paste (mean grit size of 400 µin) was attached to the polishing wheel
and the samples were held to the wheel by hand. Three samples were tested. Tests with
powder coating epoxy were not conducted due to the high temperature required to liquefy
the powder epoxy.

III.5 Final Roughness Measurements

Final roughness measurements were taken using a Thyssen Hommel Tester 500™
surface profilometer. Five average roughness measurements were taken on each square
face of all the prisms per ISO 468. These measurements were taken in the same direction
as the initial roughness measurements. Due to the physical damage done to the samples
in the soldering iron and the hot air gun tests, no measurements were taken on these
samples.
 III.6 Results of Initial Testing

The results of the initial testing are summarized in Table 3.2. The soldering iron
and hot air gun tests destroyed the surfaces of the samples. Both methods caused
warpage of the samples and were not pursued further. The two and the four week
aquarium pump tests resulted in 18 and 46 percent reductions in surface roughness,
respectively. The lengthy times associated with these tests reduces the effectiveness of
the rapid tooling process. Additionally, the surface roughness reduction resulted in
samples are not smooth enough for the injection molding process. Also, the samples
were very pliable when removed from the water, indicating that this testing method
results in damage to the material. Considering all of these drawbacks, this smoothing
method was not pursued further.

Table 3.2: Results of Initial Testing to Smooth Surface of Stereolithography Molds.

Method Tested Average Initial Average Final Percent Damage Pursue

Roughness, Ra Roughness, Reduction to Further?
(µin) Ra (µin) Material?
Sanding 357 33 91 No Yes
Soldering Iron 284 -- -- Yes No
Aquarium Pump 360 248 30 Yes No
Hot Air Gun 302 -- -- Yes No
Paste-Pump 244 25 90 No Yes
Coating Epoxy -- -- -- Yes No

The results of the sanding and polishing tests were very promising. All tests
resulted in a surface roughness below 55 µin. The results from the sanding tests, shown
in Figure 3.2, indicate that different sandpapers (abrasive size) give different surface
finishes. In order to verify this initial finding and test other factor effects, a more
complete set of tests was performed. These additional tests which test the applied force,
the polishing time, the abrasive size, and the post cure time are explained in Chapter IV.
The results of these tests are discussed in Chapter V.
 60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
U.S. Grain Numbers

Figure 3.2: Initial Sanding Results—Roughness (Ra) vs. Abrasive Size.

The polishing tests show that the polishing of stereolithography polymers can be
accomplished with an abrasive paste. While the sandpaper can be used to polish
stereolithograpy polymers, sandpaper cannot be shaped easily to fit into the complicated
geometries associated with the injection molding process. A paste or other fluid mixed
with an abrasive would conform more effectively to the complicated geometries, thus
reaching and polishing all of the rough surfaces. The effectiveness of this abrasive paste
polishing on the stereolithography polymer indicates that such a system is possible. To
test further the effectiveness of abrasive paste polishing, a series of media and abrasive
combinations were tested by forcing the pastes through hollow stereolithographic
cylinders. The test procedures and the media-abrasive combinations tested are explained
in Chapter IV. The results of these tests are discussed in Chapter V.
 CHAPTER IV

STEREOLITHOGRAPHY POLYMER TESTING PROCEDURES

The goals of this research include understanding the way that stereolithographic
polymers behave when polished, developing a method to smooth stereolithographic
molds efficiently and consistently, and determining the factors that affect the life of
stereolithographic molds. A series of experiments was completed to address each of
these goals.

IV.1 Polishing Behavior of Stereolithography Polymer

The goal of the polishing tests is to understand the way that stereolithographic
polymers behave when polished. Two sets of polishing tests were completed. The first
set tested the effects of the applied force, the polishing time, and the size of the abrasive.
The second set tested the effects of the applied force, the polishing time, and the size of
abrasive as in the first test, but also tested the post cure time. For each set of tests the
following is explained: the factors tested, the sample preparation, the initial roughness
measurement, the tests, and the final roughness measurement.

IV.1.1 Applied Force, Polishing Time, and Abrasive Size Testing

In order to understand the way that a cured stereolithography polymer behaves

when polished, a series of experiments was performed that relates the applied force, the
polishing time, and the abrasive size to the final surface roughness.

IV.1.1.1 Sample Preparation for Polishing Tests

Cylindrical samples were built on the SLA-250 of Dupont Somos® 6110 epoxy-
acrylate resin in the ACES build style. The samples were oriented so that the faces of the
cylinder were in the vertical plane such that the ends of the cylinder have the regular
roughness pattern, as shown in Figure 2.3. The cylinders measured 1.2 in. in diameter
and 1.0 in. in length. The samples were built in two builds of 18 samples each. The
samples were built with 0.004 in. layers. The parts were cleaned using the standard
method (hereafter the standard method) of removing excess resin with TPM
(Tripropylene Glycol Monomethyl Ether), rinsing with water, and then rinsing with
isopropyl alcohol. The parts were post cured for one hour in the PCA.
 IV.1.1.2 Initial Roughness Measurements

Initial roughness measurements were taken using a Thyssen Hommel Tester

500™ surface profilometer. Five average roughness measurements were taken on each
face of each cylinder per ISO 468. The measurements were taken perpendicular to the
regular parabolic bumps, as shown in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Direction and Location of Initial Roughness Measurements.

IV.1.1.3 Polishing Tests of Cylinders

Only the rough (vertical) faces of the cylinders were polished. The
experiment was conducted using a Struers RotoForce®/RotoPol® polishing machine
shown in Figure 4.2. The machine has a rotating wheel that can have either sandpaper or
polishing cloth attached to it. The cylindrical samples are held in a rotating carriage that
moves above the wheel. The carriage, which can hold six samples, supplies a force on
each sample to hold it to the polishing wheel. A water faucet on the side of the machine
keeps a steady stream of water flowing across the polishing wheel to remove spent
abrasive and wear particles.

RotoForce Arm
Load Applicator Sample Holder

Water Faucet

Sample Holds
Sample Holder (Rotates) Polishing Wheel
 Figure 4.2: Struers Polishing Machine.

The speed of the wheel, the rotational direction of the carriage, the force on each
sample, the time for the polishing of each sample, and the abrasive material all can be
varied. For these experiments, the speed of the wheel was kept constant at 150 RPM.
The carriage and the wheel were set to rotate in the same direction for all of the tests.
The carriage motor rotates the carriage at a constant speed, independent of the rotation of
the polishing wheel. The water was on for all of the tests. The samples were tested at
three different applied force levels and three different polishing times, which are
summarized in Table 4.1. This gave nine tests for each of the eight sandpaper
configurations. The eight sandpaper configurations used are shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.1: Time and Force Levels Tested.

Time (minutes) Force (N)

1 5
2 10
3 15

Table 4.2: Sandpaper Test Configurations.

Configuration Sandpaper Order (FEPA#)

1 500
2 500 800
3 500 800 1200
4 500 800 1200 4000
5 800
6 800 1200
7 800 1200 4000
8 1200

The sandpaper sizes chosen for the tests were based on the initial testing (as
explained in Chapter III) and the standard papers available for use with the Struers
machine. In each configuration, each sandpaper was used for the time specified. For
example, for a test of one minute and with a force of 5 N with configuration 3, the sample
was polished as follows: a force of 5 N was applied for one minute with #500 FEPA
sandpaper, for one minute with #800 sandpaper, and for one minute with #1200
sandpaper. The sandpaper was replaced after one minute of use. The different
configurations are intended to determine if successive polishing with smaller abrasive
sizes yields a better surface finish, or if only the abrasive size of the final polish effects
the surface finish.

IV.1.1.4 Final Roughness Measurements

Final roughness measurements were taken using a Thyssen Hommel Tester 500™
surface profilometer. Five average roughness measurements were taken on each face of
each cylinder per ISO 468. The measurements were taken in the same location and
direction as the initial roughness measurements.

IV.1.2 Applied Force, Polishing Time, Abrasive Size, and Cure Time Testing

A second set of polishing tests was performed that relates the applied
force, the polishing time, the post-cure time, the hardness of the sample, and the abrasive
size to the final surface roughness.

IV.1.2.1 Sample Preparation for Polishing Tests

Cylindrical samples were built on the SLA-250 of Dupont Somos® 7110 epoxy-
acrylate resin in the ACES build style. New resins for use in the SLA machine constantly
are being introduced. Each new resin is intended to be stronger and more accurate. With
the introduction of Dupont Somos® 7110 epoxy, the RPMI changed resins in order to use
this new resin. With only one SLA machine in the Georgia Institute of Technology’s
RPMI, these tests samples and all further test samples were built with the new resin.
The samples were oriented so that the faces of the cylinder were in the vertical
plane, and measured 1.2 inch in diameter and 1.0 inch in length. The samples were built
in one build with 0.004 inch layers. The parts were cleaned using the standard method.
Each face of the cylinder was regarded as an individual sample. The
samples were labeled according to their location on the platform. This labeling scheme is
shown in Figure 4.3. The samples were post cured in the PCA at the levels described in
Table 4.3. Samples with faces 1-18 were post cured for 1.0 hour in the PCA. Samples
with faces 19-30 were not post cured. Samples with faces 31-42 were post cured for 1.0
hour in the PCA. Samples with faces 43-54 were post cured for 1.6 hours in the PCA.
Samples with faces 55-66 were post cured for 0.5 hours in the PCA.

Table 4.3: Levels of UV Post Cure Time.

Sample Face Numbers UV Post Cure Time (hrs)

1-18, 31-42 1.0
19-30 0.0
43-54 1.6
55-66 0.5
 IV.1.2.2 Initial Roughness and Hardness Measurements

Initial roughness measurements were taken using a Thyssen Hommel Tester

500™ surface profilometer. Five average roughness measurements were taken on each
face of each cylinder per ISO 468. The measurements were taken against the regular
parabolic bumps, as shown in Figure 4.1. Just before polishing, the hardness was
measured in the same location using a Shore D Durometer per ASTM 2240 D.

1 13 25 37 49
2 14 26 38 50

3 15 27
4 16 28

5 17
6 18

7
8
FRONT

Figure 4.3: Labeling Scheme, Top View of Build Platform.

IV.1.2.3 Polishing Tests of Cylinders

These samples were tested using the same method and machine described
in Section IV.1.1.3.
A balanced-incomplete block experimental design [24] was used to test
sample faces 1-9 in order to compare the results of the Somos® 7110 epoxy-acrylate
resin to those of the Somos® 6110 epoxy-acrylate resin and to see if abrasive size has the
same effect on final roughness. Results (explained further in Chapter V) from the Force,
Time and Abrasive Size tests in Section IV.1.1 indicated that the applied force and the
polishing time do not have a main effect on final roughness. Because of this result, the
applied force and the polishing time are used as the blocking variables to determine the
effect of abrasive size. The incomplete block design, utilizing a standard Latin Square, is
summarized in Table 4.4. The levels of the blocking variables (applied force and
polishing time) and of the factor (abrasive size) are shown. The post-cure time for these
samples was 1.0 hours, the same as for the samples in the tests using the Somos® 6110
epoxy-acrylate resin.
A full factorial experimental design [24] was used to test sample faces 10-18 in
order to compare the results of the Somos® 7110 epoxy-acrylate resin to that of the
Somos® 6110 epoxy-acrylate resin. The applied force and the polishing time levels were
the same as those for the Force, Time, and Abrasive Size tests in Section IV.1.1 and are
summarized in Table 4.1. This was to ensure that resin type was not a factor in polishing
behavior. #500 FEPA sandpaper was used for all tests. The post-cure time for these
samples was 1.0 hours, the same as for the samples in the tests using the Somos® 6110
epoxy-acrylate resin.

Table 4.4: Incomplete Block Design.

Time \ Force 5N 10 N 15 N
1 minute #500 FEPA #800 FEPA #1200 FEPA
2 minutes #1200 FEPA #500 FEPA #800 FEPA
3 minutes #800 FEPA #1200 FEPA #500 FEPA

A full factorial experimental design was used to test sample faces 19-66 to
determine the effects of the abrasive size and the post-cure time. The levels tested are
summarized in Table 4.5. The applied force on each of the samples was 10 N. The
polishing time for each of the samples was 2 minutes. Given 12 testing levels and 48
samples provided four replications of each test.

Table 4.5: Abrasive Size and Post-Cure Time Levels Tested.

Abrasive Size (FEPA #) UV Post-Cure Time (hrs)

500 0.0
800 0.5
1200 1.0
1.6

IV.1.2.4 Final Roughness Measurements

Final roughness measurements were taken using a Thyssen Hommel Tester 500™
surface profilometer. Five average roughness measurements were taken on each face of
each cylinder per ISO 468. The measurements were taken in the same location and
direction as the initial roughness measurements.

IV.1.3 Polishing Tests Summary

This section presented the polishing tests. The effects of the polishing force, the
polishing time, the abrasive size, and the post-cure time on the final roughness were
studied. The effect of resin type was studied also. An understanding of the polishing
behavior is only a part of meeting the ultimate goal of producing quality
stereolithography molds. Another issue investigated was the post-build cure procedures
currently used and the way they affect the part properties. Test procedures to test the
factors that effect the degree of cure are presented in Section IV.2.

IV.2 Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) Tests

of Stereolithography Polymers

After the stereolithography process is complete, the part that is built is not cured
completely. For the resins used in the Georgia Institute of Technology’s RPMI, the part
should be cured approximately 90 percent [6]. In order to complete the cure, the parts are
irradiated with UV light or are heated. There is an uncertainty regarding the uncured
material and the amount of cure achieved during the post cure. In order to understand the
relationship between UV and thermal post-cure methods, a series of experiments was
performed that relates the post-cure method and the post-cure time to the degree of cure.
Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) was used to examine the reaction kinetics of the
stereolithography polymers. A first set of tests, using Somos® 6110 epoxy-acrylate
resin, investigated the differences in cured material according to the post cure method,
the post cure time, and the material location within the part. A second set of tests using
Somos® 7110 epoxy-acrylate resin was performed to compare its reaction kinetics to
those of the Somos® 6110 epoxy-acrylate resin. As experiments were run using both
resins throughout this thesis, the comparison was necessary to determine the effects of
each resin type. This comparison was necessary because of the resin change in the
Georgia Institute of Technology’s RPMI.

IV.2.1 Effects of Post Cure Method and Time on Degree of Cure

A series of experiments was performed to understand the way that the
degree of cure varies according to the UV post-cure time and the material location.

IV.2.1.1 Sample Preparation for DSC Tests

Rectangular prisms measuring 0.25 in. x 0.5 in. x 1.5 in. were built on 3D
Systems SLA-250 of Dupont Somos® 6110 epoxy-acrylate resin in the ACES build style
with 0.008 inch layers. They were oriented with the 0.5 in. side in the vertical plane.
One end of one side of each prism had the letter “A” built into it so that build orientation
was consistent, and the material samples for the DSC tests could be taken from the same
location on all of the samples. Ten prisms were built in a single build. The parts were
cleaned using the standard method as described in Section IV.1.1.1.
All of the prisms were placed on the rotating table in the PCA UV
chamber. Half of the prisms were placed in a dark box (control) and the other half were
placed in a circle, lying flat (the 0.25 in. dimension in the vertical), with the “A” facing
up and out (so that the “A” could be read from the outside of the circle). The box was
placed in the middle of the circle. The temperature in the UV chamber were recorded
using three thermocouples at different locations inside the UV chamber. A fourth
thermocouple monitored the ambient temperature in the room. The temperatures were
measured to determine the effect of thermal effects during the UV post cure.
 Prisms were selected randomly and removed from the chamber at each of
the following intervals: 0.0, 0.4, and 1.6 hours. At each interval, two prisms were
removed from the control box and placed in a plastic bag indicating the post cure time
and that the prisms were control. Two prisms were removed from the circle and placed
in a plastic bag, which was labeled with the post cure time and that the prisms were
exposed to UV light. All of the prisms were placed in a second dark box and stored in a
freezer at 0°F in order to avoid heat and UV exposure.

IV.2.1.2 DSC Test of Somos 6110 Liquid Resin

Prior to testing the material built on the SLA, the liquid resin was tested.
These tests provided information about the reaction kinetics of the liquid resin, which
was used to determine the temperature ranges at which the UV post cured and at which
the control samples were to be tested. The liquid resin was tested using TA Instruments
2920 Differential Scanning Calorimeter (DSC). Somos 6110 liquid epoxy-acrylate
resin was placed in an aluminum hermetic pan. The sample was weighed. The DSC was
run in ramp mode heating at 10°C/min. The test was stopped when degradation became
obvious at 250°C. This 250°C temperature limit was used to limit the heating temperature
for all other DSC tests on samples made with Somos 6110 liquid epoxy-acrylate resin.
IV.2.1.3 DSC Tests of UV Post Cure and Control Samples of Somos 6110 Resin

These tests were performed to test the effects of the UV post cure time and
the location of the material within the built sample. Material was removed in thin slices
(~1 mm thick) from the “A” side of the rectangular prism. This material was labeled
“outside” material. The rectangular prisms were broken in half and the material was
removed from the “A” side of the sample. This material was labeled “inside” material.
This was repeated for each level of the UV post cured samples and for each level of the
control samples. All of the levels tested are summarized in Table 4.5. The DSC tests
were performed as follows for all levels: prepare sample, weigh sample, ramp to 250°C
at a heating rate of 10°C/min, cool sample to 20°C, reheat to 250°C (at 10°C/min), and
cool again to 20°C.
IV.2.1.4 Additional DSC Testing of Inside Material

The reaction kinetics for the inside and outside materials were different. In order
to understand the way that the reaction kinetics changed with depth into a part, a small set
of tests was performed. Instead of only testing the inside and outside materials, the
material was removed from the same location on a part, but in successive layers. The
levels tested are summarized in Table 4.6. Material was removed in a thin layer (~1 mm
thick) from the “A” side of the rectangular prism. DSC testing, as described above, was
performed. Then, material was removed in a thin layer (~1 mm thick) from the same
location, but one layer down, and tested in the same manner. A total of three layers were
tested. This process was repeated for all of these levels.

Table 4.6: Post Cure Time and Material Location Levels Tested with 6110 Resin.
 Post Post Materi
Cure Condition Cure Time al Location
(hrs)
UV 0.0 Inside
Control 0.4 Outsid
1.6 e

IV.2.1.5 DSC Tests on Liquid Nitrogen Cooled Samples

The DSC tests described above started at 20°C. If any reactions take place below
this temperature then they would go undetected. To determine if any such reactions were
missed in the original testing, two additional tests were run. In these tests, the samples
were cooled to -30°C using liquid nitrogen. A prism that had no UV post-cure was used.
The tests were performed on inside and outside material. DSC tests were completed in
the same method as described above in Section IV.2.1.3.

IV.2.2 Effects of Thermal Post Cure on Degree of Cure

A series of experiments was performed to understand the way that the degree of
cure varies with thermal post-cure time and material location within a sample. The
thermal curing was completed using isothermal tests on the DSC. After the isothermal
test was completed, a DSC test was run to determine the extent of cure achieved during
the thermal cure. The samples used for these tests were the same prisms used in the Post
Cure Method and Time tests in Section IV.2.1.

IV.2.2.1 DSC tests of Thermally Cured Somos 6110 Samples

A second set of DSC tests was performed as follows: prepare sample, weigh
sample, preheat the DSC oven to initial temperature, place sample in oven, hold at
temperature for 30 minutes, cool sample to 20°C, and heat to 250°C at a heating rate of
10°C/min. The Post Cure Method and Time DSC tests revealed reactions near 50 and
100°C. The liquid resin reacted at 200°C. Ideally, thermal post cures should take place
above these temperatures. However, material degradation tests completed in the RPMI
reveal degradation near 200°C. Because of this degradation, thermal post cure at this
temperature was not completed. These degradation tests also revealed warping of the
material near 170°C. A previous study [8] suggested thermal post cure at 150°C. In
order to provide as much thermal energy as possible without causing damage to the
material, a thermal post at 150°C should be used. Based on these findings, temperatures
of 50, 100, and 150°C were used for the isothermal tests. Sample material was taken
from both the inside and the outside of the prisms in the same manner described above in
Section IV.2.1.3.
IV.2.3 Comparison of DSC Tests of Somos 6110 and 7110 Resins

In order to compare the results of the Somos 7110 epoxy-acrylate resin

to that of the Somos 6110 epoxy-acrylate resin, a series of experiments was performed
that relates the post cure time to the degree of cure. As in the testing of the Somos
6110 resin, a liquid test was performed first to give the reaction kinetics of the liquid
resin, which were used to determine the temperature range at which the UV post cured
samples were tested. Then DSC tests were run to verify the effect of the UV post cure
times and the location of the material within the built sample were the same for both
resins.

IV.2.3.1 Sample Preparation

Rectangular prisms measuring 1.0 in. x 1.0 in. x 3.0 in. were built on 3D Systems
SLA-250 of Dupont Somos 7110 epoxy-acrylate resin in the ACES build style with
0.008 inch layers. They were oriented with the 1.0 in. side in the vertical plane. Four
prisms were built in a single build. The parts were cleaned using the standard method as
described in Section IV.1.1.1.
The prisms then were placed on the rotating table in the PCA UV
chamber. Prisms were selected randomly and removed from the chamber at each of the
following intervals: 0.0, 0.4, 1.6, and 3.2 hours. At each interval, one prism was
removed from the PCA and placed in a plastic bag indicating the post cure time.

IV.2.3.2 DSC Test of Somos 7110 Liquid Resin

Prior to testing the samples built on the SLA, the liquid resin was tested. These
tests provided information about the reaction kinetics of the liquid resin, which was used
to determine the temperature range at which the UV post cured samples were to be tested.
The liquid resin was tested using TA Instruments 2920 Differential Scanning Calorimeter
(DSC). These tests provided information about the temperature range at which the UV
post-cured samples were to be tested. Somos® 7110 liquid epoxy-acrylate resin was
placed in an aluminum hermetic pan. The sample was weighed. The DSC was run in
ramp mode heating at 10°C/min. The test was stopped when degradation became
obvious at 250°C. This 250°C temperature limit was used to limit the heating temperature
for all other DSC tests on samples made with Somos® 7110 liquid epoxy-acrylate resin.
This was the same result as for the Somos® 6110 liquid epoxy-acrylate resin.

IV.2.3.3 DSC Tests of UV Post Cure Samples of Somos 7110 Resin

These tests were completed to test the effect of the UV post cure times and the
locations of the material within the built sample and to compare these effects to those of
the Somos® 6110 epoxy-acrylate resin parts. Material was removed in thin slices (~1
mm thick) from the “A” side of the rectangular prism. This material was labeled
“outside” material. The rectangular prisms were broken in half and material was
removed in slices from the “A” side of the sample. This material was labeled “inside”
material. This was repeated for each level of UV post cure time samples. The levels
tested for the Somos® 7110 are summarized in Table 4.7. The DSC tests were
performed as follows for all of these levels: prepare sample, weigh sample, ramp to
250°C at a heating rate of 10°C/min, cool sample to 20°C, reheat to 250°C (at 10°C/min),
and cool again to 20°C.

Table 4.7: Post Cure Time and Material Location Levels Tested with 7110 Resin.

UV Post Cure Time (hrs) Material Location

0.0 0.4 Inside
1.6 3.2 Outside

IV.2.4 IR Testing of Effects of Post Cure Time and Material Location

The differences in post cure time and material location result in different
DSC scans, indicating a difference in the materials at each level. The differences in the
material based on DSC tests are discussed further in Chapter V. To determine the nature
of the differences in the material based on the post cure time and the material location
within a part, infrared spectrometry tests were performed. IR tests were performed on
samples of Somos 7110 resin at the post cure times and the material locations
summarized in Table 4.7. The IR tests were performed at ENSAM, the French Grande
École for Mechanical Engineering in Paris, France. These tests were performed using a
Brucker IFS 28. The results of these IR tests are discussed in Chapter V.

IV.2.5 Summary of DSC and IR Tests

This section presented the DSC and IR test procedures. The effects of the post
cure method, the post cure time, and the material location within a part on the degree of
cure were tested. Another issue investigated was the material property of hardness. Test
procedures to determine the factors that affect the hardness are presented in Section IV.3.

IV.3 Hardness of Stereolithography Polymer

This thesis hypothesizes that hardness is one of the physical characteristics that
determine the life of molds in injection molding. If the goal of making long lasting,
quality molds with stereolithographic polymer is to be realized, the factors that affect the
part hardness must be understood. Two sets of tests were performed in order to
understand the way that the hardness of stereolithographic parts varies. The first set of
experiments studied the effects of the location within the part and the amount of UV post
cure. Another set of experiments studied the effects of the age of the part and the amount
of UV post cure.
IV.3.1 Effects of Post Cure Time and Depth on Hardness of Stereolithography Polymer

The Post Cure Time and Depth tests were used to study the effects of the post
cure time and the depth within the part on the hardness of the part.

IV.3.1.1 Sample Preparation for Post Cure Time and Depth Tests

Rectangular prisms measuring 1.0 in. x 1.0 in. x 3.0 in. were built on 3D Systems
SLA-250 of Dupont Somos® 7110 epoxy-acrylate resin in the ACES build style with
0.008 inch layers. They were oriented with the 1.0 in. side in the vertical plane. Four
prisms were built in a single build. The parts were cleaned using the standard method as
described in Section IV.1.1.1.
The prisms then were placed on the rotating table in the PCA UV chamber.
Prisms were selected randomly and removed from the chamber at each of the following
intervals: 0.0, 0.4, 1.6, and 3.2 hours. At each interval, one prism was removed from the
PCA and placed in a plastic bag indicating the post cure time.

IV.3.1.2 Hardness Testing

The hardness of the up-facing surfaces was measured using a Shore D Durometer.
Five measurements were recorded and averaged per ASTM 2240 D. One prism was
placed on a milling machine and a cut of 0.125 inches was made across the entire surface
of the prism. The hardness of the surface was measured using a Shore D Durometer.
Five measurements were recorded and averaged per ASTM 2240 D. This process was
repeated for the levels of the post cure time and the depth which are summarized in Table
4.8.

Table 4.8: Post Cure Time and Depth Levels For Hardness Testing.

UV Post Cure Time (hrs) Depth Into Part (in)

0.0 0.0
0.4 0.125
1.6 0.250
3.2 0.375

IV.3.2 Effects of Post Cure Time and Age on Hardness of Stereolithography Polymer

The Post Cure Time and Age tests were used to study the effects of the post cure
time and the age of the part on the hardness of the part. The hardness at four post cure
time levels and weekly and daily age levels was tested.
 IV.3.2.1 Sample Preparation for Post Cure Time and Age Tests

Rectangular prisms measuring 0.25 in. x 1.0 in. x 3.0 in. and 0.25 in. x 1.0 in. x
1.0 in. were built on 3D Systems SLA-250 of Dupont Somos® 7110 epoxy-acrylate resin
in the ACES build style with 0.008 inch layers. They were oriented with the 0.25 in. side
in the vertical plane. Eight prisms were built in two builds. The parts were cleaned using
the standard method as described in Section IV.1.1.1. The prisms were post cured and
labeled using the same procedure as described above in the Post Cure Time and Depth
tests in Section IV.3.1.1.

IV.3.2.2 Hardness Testing

The hardness of the up-facing surfaces were measured using a Shore D

Durometer. Five measurements were recorded and averaged per ASTM 2240 D. Three
sets of blocks were built and tested according to the aging levels summarized in Table
4.9.

Table 4.9: Post Cure Times and Age Levels for Hardness Tests.

UV Post Cure Sample Set #1 Sample Set#2 Sample Set#3

Times (hrs) Age (weeks) Age (weeks) Age (days)
0.0 0 0 0
0.4 1 1 0.97
1.6 2 2 2.06
3.2 3 3 3.83
4 4 4.82
5 5.87
6 6.91
14.76

IV.3.3 Summary of Hardness Tests

This section presented the Hardness tests. The effects of the UV post cure time,
the age of the material, and the material location within a part on the degree of cure were
tested. The polishing tests provided information regarding the factors that affect the
surface finish of stereolithography polymers. Given this information, and the promising
results of the abrasive paste polishing in Chapter III, a set of abrasive paste polishing
experiments was completed. Test procedures to try this abrasive paste polishing are
presented in Section IV.4.
 IV.4 Hollow Cylinders Polishing Tests

Wheel polishing is an effective method to polish flat, external surfaces. However,

in order to polish internal and non-flat surfaces, a different process is necessary. These
experiments were performed to test the effectiveness of abrasive paste polishing.
Previous tests using abrasives used sandpaper or a polishing cloth which held the
abrasive particles against the stereolithography polymer. While effective in polishing flat
surfaces, sandpaper and polishing cloth do not easily conform to the complex geometries
associated with molds. Fluids can easily conform to the complex geometries associated
with molds. These tests utilized abrasive particles suspended in a fluid and examined the
feasibility of pumping an abrasive fluid through a part in order to polish the internal
features. These tests also examined a variety of abrasives and media to determine which
combinations work best to finish the stereolithographic polymer.

IV.4.1 Preparation of Hollow Cylinders

Hollow cylinders measuring 2 in. long, 1-5/8 in. outer diameter, and ¾ in. inner
diameter were built on 3D Systems SLA-250 of Dupont Somos® 7110 epoxy-acrylate
resin in the ACES build style. They were oriented with the axis of the cylinder in the
vertical plane. The samples were built in five builds and with 0.008 in. layers.

IV.4.2 Initial Roughness Measurements

Initial roughness measurements were taken using a Thyssen Hommel Tester

500™ surface profilometer. Five average roughness measurements were taken on the
inside surface of each end of each cylinder per ISO 468. The five measurements were
taken at points equally spaced around the circumference of the internal circle.

IV.4.3 Abrasive Pastes Polishing of Hollow Cylinders

Each of the cylinders was placed between two syringes, as shown in Figure 4.4.
The syringes were used to apply pressure to the polishing media and to move the media
back and forth through the cylinders. The cylinder was oscillated manually at a rate of
approximately one stroke per second. Adjustable C-clamps were used to hold pressure
on the syringes and a spring scale was used to estimate the pressure of the media. For all
of the tests, the clamp was tightened to 100 pounds, providing a pressure of 225 psi. This
pressure is above the recommended pressures for polishing of 20-300 kPa (3-45 psi) [22],
but well below the pressures (600 and 1000 psi) used in the AFM tests [2]. The media
and abrasives used to polish the cylinders are summarized in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10: Abrasive and Media Mixtures for Abrasive Paste Tests.

Media Abrasive
Toothpaste Hydrated Silica
Lapping Compound Silicon Carbide
 Modeling Clay Sand
Modeling Clay Pumice
Borax/Glue Mix Sand
Borax/Glue Mix Pumice
Silly Putty Sand
Silly Putty Pumice
Water Sand

IV.4.4 Final Roughness Measurements

Final roughness measurements were taken using a Thyssen Hommel Tester 500™
surface profilometer. Five average roughness measurements were taken on the inside
surface of each end of each cylinder per ISO 468. The five measurements were taken in
the same location as in the initial roughness measurement.

IV.4.5 Summary of Hollow Cylinder Tests

This section presented the Hollow Cylinder Abrasive Paste Polishing

Tests. The effectiveness of each abrasive and media mixture on polishing the internal
surfaces of hollow cylinders is discussed in Chapter V.

Syringe
Abrasive Fluid

Force Force

Plunger
Hollow SLA Cylinder

Figure 4.4: Hollow Cylinder Polishing Test Apparatus.

 IV.5 Summary of Procedures

The ultimate goal of this research is to suggest a complete post-build process for
stereolithography molds that results in more fully cured, quality injection molds. The
experiments explained in this section were designed to determine the factors that affect
the surface finish and the material properties of the stereolithography polymer. These
factors indicated the surface finishing parameters, the post cure methods, and the post
cure times that were most effective. The results of these tests are discussed in Chapter V.
The end result is a recommended post build process that will result in more fully cured,
quality stereolithography injection molds.
 CHAPTER V

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The overall goals of this research include understanding the way that
stereolithographic polymers behave when polished, developing a method to efficiently
and consistently smooth stereolithographic molds, and determining the factors that affect
the life of stereolithographic molds. Presented in this chapter are the experimental results
obtained from the procedures presented in Chapter IV. Additionally, the experimental
results are compared to theoretical models. The effects of the applied force, the
polishing time, the abrasive size, the resin type, and the post-cure time on final roughness
of polished of stereolithographic polymers are presented. The effects of the material
location, the post-cure time, and the post-cure method are presented. The effects of the
post-cure time, the material age, and the material location on part hardness also are
presented. These effects are presented and discussed through statistical analyses and
graphical representations. The results of the polishing tests (Section V.1), the DSC and
IR tests (Section V.2), the hardness tests (Section V.3), and the hollow cylinder polishing
tests (Section V.4) will be summarized in Section V.5. Finally, a complete post-build
process that will yield quality stereolithography molds is presented and discussed.

V.1 Polishing of Stereolithography Polymers

The goal of the polishing tests was to understand the way that stereolithographic
polymers behave when polished. Two sets of polishing tests were performed. The first
set tested the effects of the applied force, the polishing time, and the size of the abrasive.
The second set tested the effects of the applied force, the polishing time, and the size of
the abrasive as in the first test, but also determined the effect of the post cure time. The
two sets of tests were performed with different resins, as explained in Chapter IV.
Because of this, the effect of resin type on final roughness was tested. The tests are
described in Section IV.1.

V.1.1 Force, Time, and Abrasive Size Test Results

In order to understand the way that cured stereolithography polymers behave

when polished, a series of experiments was performed that relates the applied force, the
polishing time, and the abrasive size to the final surface roughness. Somos 6110 was
used in these tests. The tests are described in Section IV.1.1.

V.1.1.1 As-Built Roughness of Somos 6110 Cylinders

 Initial roughness measurements indicate that the roughnesses of these as-built
parts range from 100-215 µin. According the model of build roughness presented by
[15], the roughness of parts with 0.004 in. thick layers should be 182 µin. While the
predicted roughness does fall within the range of the measured roughnesses, the model
does not predict the wide range of surface finishes. The wide range of as-built surface
roughnesses is explained further in Section V.1.2.2.

V.1.1.2 Results of Force, Time, and Abrasive Size Tests with Different Sandpaper

Configurations

This section describes the results from the tests described in Section IV.1.1.3 in
which eight sandpaper configurations were used to test the effects of the applied force,
the polishing time, and the abrasive size on the final roughness.
In Figure 5.1, a comparison between the roughness and the grit size is shown.
Each point represents the roughness of a sample that was polished last with the specified
grit size. For example, the category of #800 grit has test results with #500, 800 and with
#800 only, corresponding to sandpaper configurations 2 and 5, respectively. Each of the
#500 points represents the surface roughness of a sample that was finished with #500 grit
sandpaper only. Each of the #800 points represents the surface roughness of a sample
that was finished with #800 sandpaper only or with #500 and #800 sandpaper. Each of
the #1200 points represents the surface roughness of a sample that was finished with
#1200 sandpaper only, with #800 and #1200 sandpaper, or with #500, #800, and #1200
sandpaper. Each of the #4000 points represents the surface roughness of a sample that
was finished with #800, #1200, and #4000 sandpaper or with #500, #800, #1200, and
#4000 sandpaper. It is clear that larger grit numbered (smaller abrasive particle sizes)
papers yield parts with a smaller roughness. Figure 5.2 shows the change in roughness
with consecutive sanding tests as the grit size is reduced for a particular sample. Each
point represents the roughness of a sample at each stage of the testing. While the
roughness does decrease with a decrease in the grit size, it is the first sanding that has the
greatest effect on the roughness. This is for two reasons. First, the bumps that are
inherent to the SLA process are removed, greatly reducing the average roughness.
Second, the final roughness is limited by the abrasive particle size. After some time, the
abrasive will remove all of the surface irregularities that are of approximately the same
size as the abrasive. The only action of the abrasive particles after this time is an
occasional, single-point scratching of the surface, which will not reduce the average
surface roughness greatly.

V.1.1.3 Results of Force, Time, and Abrasize Size Tests Based on First Polishing

This section describes the results from the tests described in Section IV.1.1.3 in
which eight sandpaper configurations were used to test the effects of the applied force,
the polishing time, and the abrasive size on the final roughness. These results consider
only the first polishing of each of the sandpaper configurations described in Table 4.2.

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
FEPA Grit Number

Figure 5.1: Roughness (Ra) vs. FEPA Grit Number, 6110 Cylinders.

To determine the effects of the polishing time, the applied force, and the grit size,
only the roughness achieved after the first polishing was considered. This was necessary
to eliminate the effect of changing the abrasive size during a test. The effect due to the
abrasive grit size is shown in Figure 5.3. Analysis of variance F-tests indicate with 99
percent confidence that there is a main effect due to grit size. The levels, the number of
samples, the sample means, and the sample standard deviations for the factor of Abrasive
Size are summarized in Table 5.1.

250

200

150

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4
Number of Times Polished
 Figure 5.2: Roughness (Ra) vs. Times Polished, 6110 Cylinders.

Table 5.1: Roughness (Ra) Data for Abrasive Size Levels.

Abrasive Number Sample Standard

Size Level of Samples Mean, Ra (µin) Deviation (µin)
(FEPA #)
500 21 37 3.2
800 12 23 2.6
1200 12 16 2.9

Figure 5.4 shows a comparison of the roughness versus the time of polishing
based on only the first polishing sequence. As indicated, the time levels tested do not
affect the roughness. Analysis of variance F-tests indicate with 99 percent confidence
that there is no effect due to the polishing time. The levels, the number of samples, the
sample means, and the sample standard deviations for the factor of polishing time are
summarized in Table 5.2.
Figure 5.5, a plot of roughness versus applied force, shows that varying the force
at these levels does not significantly affect the final roughness. Analysis of variance F-
tests indicate with 99 percent confidence that there is no effect due to the applied force.
The levels, the number of samples, the sample means, and the sample standard deviations
for the factor of applied force are summarized in Table 5.3.

Table 5.2: Roughness (Ra) Data for Polishing Time Levels.

Polishing Number Sample Standard

Time Level of Samples Mean, Ra (µin) Deviation (µin)
(minutes)
1 9 25 10.3
2 9 24 10.5
3 9 25 8.4

Table 5.3: Roughness (Ra) Data for Applied Force Levels.

Applied Numbe Sample Standard

Force Level (N) r of Samples Mean, Ra (µin) Deviation (µin)
5 9 26 11.0
10 9 25 9.6
15 9 23 8.2
 45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Grit Number

Figure 5.3: Roughness (Ra) vs. FEPA Grit Number, First Polish Only, 6110
Cylinders.

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Time (minutes)

Figure 5.4: Roughness (Ra) vs. Polishing Time, First Polish Only, 6110
Cylinders.
 45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
Force (Newtons)

Figure 5.5: Roughness (Ra) vs. Applied Force, First Polish Only, 6110 Cylinders.

Although the applied force levels and the polishing time levels were not main
effects on the final roughness, the range of levels did provide satisfactory polishing of the
stereolithographic polymer. For the applied force levels, the polishing time levels, and
all of the grit sizes, the required surface finish of 50 µin or less was achieved.
Figure 5.6 shows the as-built profile of one of the cylinders used in these
polishing tests. The profile shows the regular, parabolic bumps as shown in Figure 2.3 in
Section II.3. The initial average roughness of this sample was calculated by the Hommel
T500 Analysis Software as 145 µin. Figure 5.7 shows the polished profile of the same
cylinder face. The polished profile shows no regular bumps, indicating that they were
removed in the polishing. The final average roughness of this sample was 12 µin. This
complete removal of the regular, parabolic bumps indicates the initial roughness had no
bearing on the final roughness for these tests.
 200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Sampling Length (microinches)

Figure 5.6: Profile of As-Built 6110 Cylinder, Ra = 145 µin.

200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Sampling Length (microinches)

Figure 5.7: Profile of Polished 6110 Cylinder, Ra = 12 µin.

Figure 5.8 confirms that the initial roughness had no affect on the final roughness
for these tests. This indicates that the polishing in these tests completely removed the
bumps from the layered build process. Ideally, a minimum amount of material would be
removed to achieve the desired roughness, thus minimizing the deviation from the
desired geometry. The samples showed no signs of this regular roughness after being
polished. This indicated that the polishing removed the bumps completely, and the final
surface roughness was due to abrasive scratching. While the polishing processes on the
machine gave the desired surface finish, a better process would remove just enough of the
bumps to give the desired roughness.

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
50 100 150 200 250
Initial Roughness (microinches)

Figure 5.8: Final Roughness (Ra) vs. Initial Roughness (Ra),

First Polish Only, 6110 Cylinders.

V.1.2 Force, Time, Abrasive Size, and Post Cure Time Test Results

A second set of polishing tests was performed that relates the applied
force, the polishing time, the post-cure time, and the abrasive size to the final surface
roughness. This section describes the results for the tests in Section IV.1.2

V.1.2.1 Initial Roughness Measurements

Initial roughness measurements indicated that the roughness of these as-built parts
ranges from 70-185 µin. According the model of build roughness presented by [15] the
roughness of parts with 0.004 in. thick layers should be 182 µin. While the predicted
roughness does fall within the range of measured roughnesses, the model does not predict
the wide range of surface finish.
The range of initial roughness on parts from the two sets of tests using the
Somos 6110 and 7110 resins is rather wide even though all of the samples were built
with the same layer thickness. A mapping of the samples in the build vat indicates that
the as-built part roughness depends on the location in the build vat. Figure 5.9 shows the
differences in roughness according to build location for the samples of Somos 7110.
Figure 4.3 in Section IV.1.2 shows the build locations. For cylinders that are in the
middle of the vat, each face has approximately the same roughness. The cylinders in the
middle include sample faces 5-8, 17-20, 29-32, 41-44, 53-56, and 65-68. However, for
the cylinders that are on the ends of the vat, each face is drastically different. The
outward faces of these cylinders are smoother than the average roughness of the cylinders
that are in the middle of the vat. The inward faces of these cylinders are rougher than the
average roughness of the cylinders that are in the middle of the vat.
V.1.2.2 Explanations For Differences In Initial Roughness

Explanations for this are the parabolic profile of the laser penetration into the vat
of liquid photopolymer and the angle at which the laser energy enters the vat on the
outside edges. The hypothesized difference is shown in Figure 5.10. In the middle of the
vat, the centerline of the profile of the laser is nearly vertical, giving the same shape and
hence the same roughness on each face. However, on the outside edges of the vat, the
laser beam impinges on the photopolymer at an angle and is refracted. Hence, the
centerline of the profile of the laser is at an angle giving different shapes to each face.
One side of the angled profile builds a smoother surface and the other builds a rougher
one. The refraction angle and the large distance between the laser optics and the liquid
surface minimize this effect, but the laser profile at the edges of the vat will still be
affected.

200 Sample Face

180 Number
160 1-12
140 13-24
120
25-36
100
37-48
80
60 49-60
40 61-72
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Row

Figure 5.9: Initial Roughness (Ra) vs. Build Location in Vat, 7110 Cylinders.

The faces of the cylinders were built only in one direction, facing in and out of the
SLA build vat, as shown in Figure 4.3. To understand this phenomena further, parts built
with faces in all directions are necessary. This will allow for a complete mapping of the
roughness according to the build location. While more data is necessary to understand
completely how the roughness varies within the build vat, these results clearly show that
the build location does affect the initial part roughness.
 Center of Vat Edge of Vat

Laser Into Vat Laser Into Vat

(Refracted)

Inside Edge Outside Edge

Figure 5.10: SLA Laser Profile into Build Vat.

 Resins
V.1.2.3 Comparison of Polishing Behaviors of Somos

This section describes the results for the tests in Section IV.1.2.3. In order to
make comparisons about the polishing behavior between the Somos 6110 and 7110
resins, two sets of polishing tests were completed using the Somos 7110 resin. The
first set of tests was a balanced incomplete block design. The applied force and the
polishing time were used as the blocking variables to study the effect of the abrasive size
on the final roughness of the stereolithography polymers. The second set of tests was a
full factorial design to verify that there were no effects of the applied force and the
polishing time on the final roughness. Using data from both of these tests and the data
from the Force, Time, and Abrasive Size tests in Section V.1.1, the potential effect due to
resin type was tested. Analysis of variance F-tests indicate with 99 percent confidence
there is no effect due to resin type. The levels tested, the number of samples, the sample
means, and the sample standard deviations for the factor of resin type are summarized in
Table 5.4.

Table 5.4: Roughness (Ra) Data for Resin Type Levels.

Resin Number Sample Standard

Type of Samples Mean, Ra (µin) Deviation (µin)
Somos 27 25 9.4
 6110
Somos 18 31 8.5
  7110

Given that there was no main effect for the resin type on final roughness, the
effects of the applied force and the polishing time were tested for all 45 samples.
Analysis of variance F-tests indicate with 99 percent confidence there is no main effect
for either the applied force or the polishing time on the final roughness. The levels
tested, the number of samples, the sample means, and the sample standard deviations for
the factors of applied force and polishing time are summarized in Table 5.5.

V.1.2.4 Results of Abrasive Size and Post Cure Time Tests

This section describes the results for the tests in Section IV.1.2.3. It has been
shown that the post cure method and the post cure time affect the final part properties [8].
Certain part properties, such as hardness affect the way that materials behave in abrasive
processes [18]. With this in mind, the effect of the post cure time and the abrasive size
on the final roughness were tested using Somos 7110. The effect of the grit size,
shown in Figure 5.11, is similar to the effect shown in Figure 5.3 in the Force, Time, and
Abrasive Size tests using Somos 6110 in Section V.1.1.3. Larger grit numbers (smaller
abrasives) yield smoother surfaces. Analysis of variance F-tests indicate with 99 percent
confidence that there is a main effect due to the abrasive size. The levels tested, the
number of samples, the sample means, and the sample standard deviations for the factor
abrasive size are summarized in Table 5.6.

Table 5.5: Roughness (Ra) Data for Applied Force Levels and Polishing Times Levels.

Applied Numbe Sampl Standard

Force Level (N) r of Samples e Mean, Ra Deviation (µin)
(µin)
5 15 29 10.2
10 15 28 10.3
15 15 26 8.6
Polishing
Time Level
(minute)
1 15 27 9.4
2 15 28 10.5
3 15 28 9.6

Table 5.6: Roughness (Ra) Data for Abrasive Size Levels.

 Abrasive Numbe Sample Standard
Size Level r of Samples Mean, Ra (µin) Deviation (µin)
(FEPA #)
500 16 34 2.8
800 16 24 1.6
1200 16 15 2.7

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Grit Number

Figure 5.11: Roughness (Ra) vs. FEPA Grit Number for 7110 Samples, Faces 19-66.

Figure 5.12 shows the final roughness versus the UV post cure time. It appears
that the post cure time has no effect on final roughness. However, analysis of variance F-
tests indicated with 95 percent confidence there is a main effect due to the post cure time.
The levels tested, the number of samples, the sample means, and the sample standard
deviations for the factor UV post cure time are summarized in Table 5.7.

Table 5.7: Roughness (Ra) Data for UV Post Cure Time Levels.

UV Number Sample Standard

Post Cure of Samples Mean, Ra (µin) Deviation (µin)
Time (hrs)
0.0 12 26 7.8
0.5 12 25 7.8
1.0 12 24 10.0
1.6 12 23 8.3
 By separating the roughness data according to grit size, the effect of the post cure
time is more evident. Figure 5.13 shows the effect of the post cure time on the final
roughness for the tests with FEPA #1200 abrasive. Even though the post cure times were
different, the hardnesses of these samples were the same at the beginning of these tests.
Still, the post cure time was shown to have an effect. This result will be explained further
in the discussion of the hardness tests in Section V.3.
As with the polishing tests discussed in Section V.1.1, the final roughness versus
initial roughness was plotted. Figure 5.14 shows that the initial roughness has no effect
on the final roughness, indicating that the polishing in these tests completely removed the
bumps left by the layered build process. This is the same result as with the samples
discussed in Section V.1.1.

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
UV Post Cure Time (hours)

Figure 5.12: Roughness (Ra) vs. UV Post Cure Time for 7110 Samples, Faces 19-66.
 25

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
UV Post Cure Time (hours)

Figure 5.13: Roughness (Ra) vs. UV Post Cure Time for 7110 Samples, #1200 Grit.

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
50 100 150 200
Initial Roughness (microinches)

Figure 5.14: Final Roughness (Ra) vs. Initial Roughness (Ra) for 7110 Samples, Faces
19-66.
 V.1.3 Modeling of Abrasive Processing of Stereolithography Polymers

This section compares the results discussed in Section V.1.1 and Section
V.1.2 to the theoretical models discussed in Section II.4. Stereolithographic polymers
were polished in this thesis. These polymers are thermoset, meaning they cannot be
melted after they are cured. While the analysis of the polishing of metals is well
developed, the analysis of the polishing for these materials is not. However, a
comparison of results using the metal polishing theory and the experiments with the
stereolithographic polymers was made. While not all materials will behave the same,
some similarities may be seen. The Archard equation (Equation 2.2), shown below, is
used to relate the material removal, the material hardness, the applied force, and the
length of contact in abrasive processes. For a given abrasive and workpiece, this relation
should yield a constant, Nw [18].

BH
Nw = (2.2)
LP

where B = volume worn away

H = material hardness
L = sliding distance
P = applied load.

The samples from the Abrasive Size and Post Cure Time tests in Section V.1.2.4
were used in this model. The length of contact was calculated by using the time of the
test and the wheel speed. The hardness was measured prior to testing. The applied force
was a given testing condition. The material removal was estimated by measuring the
height of the sample before and after polishing. The ratio was calculated for each grit
size tested. The values used in the calculations of the Archard equation are summarized
in Appendix A. The results are shown in Figures 5.15-17 and the values are summarized
in Table 5.8.

Table 5.8: Calculated Values of Archard Equation.

Abrasi Mean Max Min Standard

ve Size (x imum imum (x Deviation (x 10+5)
(FEPA #) 10+5) (x 10+5)
+5
10 )
500 5.4 9.0 3.6 1.36
800 4.8 9.2 3.1 1.56
1200 4.0 4.8 3.1 0.47
 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Test Number

Figure 5.15: Archard Number for #500 Grit Tests.

The tests with the FEPA #1200 abrasive had the most constant values with all of
the calculated ratios near 4 x 10-5. The tests with FEPA #800 abrasive had a mostly
constant value near 4.5 x 10-5 with several outliers. The tests with FEPA #500 abrasive
did not have a constant value. The values for the tests the FEPA #500 abrasive ranged
from 3.7-9.0 x 10-5. Perhaps this non-constant result is due to the estimation of material
removal. However, the results with the #800 and #1200 abrasives indicate that the
Archard equation does hold for polishing with stereolithographic polymers.

10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Test Number

Figure 5.16: Archard Number for #800 Grit Tests.

 10

0
0 5 10 15 20
Test Number

Figure 5.17: Archard Number for #1200 Grit Tests.

While the Archard equation offers a relation between the material hardness, the
material removal, the applied force, and the polishing time, there is no indication of the
final roughness or the role of abrasive size. One model suggests that roughness varies
proportionally to an exponent of the mean abrasive size [19], as shown in Equation 2.3.

Ra = ad gb (2.3)

where Ra = arithmetic average roughness

dg = mean grit diameter
a,b = constants.

The exponent and the constant vary according to the material being polished and
the abrasive type [19]. The exponent for metals and large abrasive sizes (4,000 to
18,000 µin) is typically between 0.3 and 0.7. Higher numbers are used for smaller
abrasive sizes [19]. The constant is determined experimentally. This thesis tests the
polishing of stereolithographic polymers with small abrasive sizes (200-1,200 µin).
Because higher numbers are used for smaller abrasives, an initial modeling was
performed using an exponent of 0.7. The constant, which is determined experimentally,
was chosen to be 0.2 based on the roughness results from Section V.1.2.4. The roughness
for the abrasives used in these tests was modeled using an exponent of 0.7 and a constant
of 0.2. The actual and predicted roughnesses are shown in Figure 5.18.
Equation 5.1, a least squares fit of the data with R2 value of 0.93 indicated that the
final roughness varies according to:
 Ra = 0.02d 1g.1 (5.1)

The final roughness that can be achieved can be calculated using this equation.
The exponent, equal to 1.1 is higher than the original model with an exponent of 0.7.
This result makes sense as smaller abrasives do have higher exponent values [19]. The
range of exponents of 0.3 to 0.7 is for metals. Stereolithography polymers are softer than
metals. This difference also may affect the value of the exponent. The values of the
constants in both cases were determined experimentally, and will vary according to the
material polished and the abrasive type used.

45
40 Actual
35
Equation
30 (2.3)
25 Equation
(5.1)
20
15 Equation 2.3:
b
10 y = ax

5 With a = 0.2
0 b = 0.7
0 500 1000 1500
Mean Grit Diameter (microinches)

Figure 5.18: Roughness (Ra) vs. Mean Grit Diameter With Predicted Values.

V.1.4 Summary of Polishing Test Results

These results summarize the way stereolithography polymers behave when

polished. The results of the polishing tests in Section V.1.1 show that the abrasive size
has a main effect on the final roughness of stereolithography parts of Somos 6110 resin.
These results also show that the applied force levels and the polishing time levels do not
affect the final roughness. The initial roughnesses of these parts have no effect on the
final roughness, as the bumps that are left by the layered process are removed completely
in the polishing process. The results of the polishing tests in Section V.1.2 show that the
abrasive size and the UV post cure time are main effects on the final roughness of
stereolithography parts of Somos 7110 resin. These results also show that, as in
Section V.1.1, the applied force levels and the polishing time levels do not affect the final
roughness. As with the results from Section V.1.1, the initial roughness of these parts do
not affect the final roughness, as the bumps that are left by the layered process are
removed completely in the polishing process. The results of the polishing tests in Section
V.1.1 and Section V.1.2 are compared and it is found that the resin types tested do not
affect the polishing behavior of the stereolithography polymers.
The results discussed in Section V.1.1 and Section V.1.2 are compared to
theoretical models in Section V.1.3. The Archard equation (Equation 2.2) should yield a
constant for a given abrasive and workpiece. The tests with FEPA #800 and #1200
abrasives have nearly constant values of 4 x 10-5 and 4.8 x 10-5, respectively. The tests
with FEPA #500 abrasive have values that range from 3.7-9.0 x 10-5. Equation 2.3 is
used to predict final roughness based on mean abrasive diameter. A least squares fit with
R2 of 0.93 was calculated that models the actual final roughnesses achieved during
testing. This model can be used to predict the final roughness of stereolithographic
polymers that can be achieved by sanding based on abrasive size.
These results give information regarding the way that stereolithography polymers
behave when polished. These results will be incorporated with the results of the other
tests and discussed in Section V.5 to provide a complete post-build process that will yield
long lasting, quality stereolithography injection molds.

V.2 Results of DSC and IR Tests

This section presents the results for the tests in Section IV.2. After the
stereolithography process is complete, the part that is built is not cured completely. For
the resins used in the Georgia Institute of Technology’s RPMI, the part should be
approximately 90 percent cured [6]. In order to complete the cure, the parts are irradiated
with UV light or are heated. The amount of cure achieved during the post cure and the
effect of the amount of cure on the material properties of the stereolithography polymers
is uncertain. In order to understand the relationship between UV and thermal post-cure,
the series of experiments described in Section IV.2 was performed that relates the post
cure method and the post cure time to the degree of cure. Differential Scanning
Calorimetry (DSC) was used to examine the reaction kinetics of the stereolithography
polymers. The DSC scans, the temperatures of reaction, and the energies of reaction are
presented for each of the resins, post cure methods, post cure times, and material
locations.

V.2.1 Effects of Post Cure Method and Time on Degree of Cure

This section presents the results for the tests in Section IV.2.1. This series of
experiments was performed to understand the way that the degree of cure varies
according to the UV post-cure time and the material location within each part.

V.2.1.1 Results of Liquid Resin Tests

 These results are for the tests described in Section IV.2.1.2. The DSC
scan for the Somos 6110 liquid epoxy-acrylate resin is shown in Figure 5.19. The
liquid resin began to cure at 175°C. The onset point is 188.8°C. The reaction energy
peaked at 211.96°C. The energy associated with this reaction was 147.3 J/g. A second
DSC scan of this sample shows no reaction, indicating the liquid was cured completely
by the DSC test, which heated the sample to 250°C. This test was repeated for another
sample of Somos 6110 liquid epoxy-acrylate resin. In this test, the reaction energy
peaked at 208.4°C and the energy of reaction was 150.3 J/g. These results are consistent
with the first test of the liquid resin.
The information from this test was used to set the range for the DSC tests of the
material built on the SLA. The results of the two consecutive DSC tests show that
heating to 250°C is sufficient to complete the cure.

V.2.1.2 Results of Post Cure Time and Material Location Tests

This section presents the results for the tests in Section IV.2.1.3. DSC tests were
run on samples with different UV post cure times and different material locations. DSC
scans, the temperatures of reaction, and the energies of reaction are presented. Peak
energies and temperatures were calculated using TA Instrument’s Universal Analysis
1.90 software. In each of the DSC tests, reactions occurred in three temperature ranges as
shown in Figure 5.20. The DSC scan shown is of the inside material from a sample of
Somos 6110 resin that was UV cured for 0.4 hours.
For analysis purposes, each of the peak temperatures and the reaction energies are
listed as peaks 1, 2 and 3, corresponding to 50, 100 and 200°C, respectively. For this
sample the peak temperatures are 49.75, 102.58, and 198.24°C. The DSC scan of this
sample is shown with that of the liquid resin for comparison.
Figure 5.19: DSC of Somos6110 Liquid Epoxy-Acrylate Resin.

Figure 5.20: DSC of Somos6110 Liquid Resin and Inside

Material, 0.4 Hours UV Post Cured.
 The reaction temperatures and the reaction energies for each sample tested are
shown in Table 5.9. Not all of the samples exhibit all three of the peaks. The liquid
resin only has a reaction peak at 200°C. The outside material on the samples that were
exposed to the UV post-cure typically only have a reaction peak in the 200°C range as
well. However some tests of the outside material have reactions in the 50 and 100°C
ranges. This could be a result of cutting too deep when trying to remove just the outside
layer. The inside material that is UV post cured, the inside material that is not UV post
cured, and the outside material that is not UV post cured (control) typically have
reactions in all three of the peak areas. The reason that these materials have reactions at
all three of the temperatures and that the outside material, which was UV post cured does
not is due to the fact that the latter is exposed to UV energy. This UV energy completes
the cure reactions that occur at 50 and 100°C. The other materials have reactions at 50
and 100°C because they are not exposed to the UV energy.

Table 5.9: Reaction Energies and Peak Temperatures for All DSC Tests of 6110 Resin.

Material UV Peak Peak Peak Reaction Reaction Reaction

Location Post Temp. Temp. Temp. Energy Energy Energy

Cure @ @ @ @ 50°C @ @

Time 50°C 100°C 200°C (J/g) 100°C 200°C

(hrs) (°C) (°C) (°C) (J/g) (J/g)

Liquid -- -- -- -- 208.4 -- -- 150.3

Liquid -- -- -- -- 212.0 -- -- 147.3

Cured Inside 0.0 49.7 99.6 -- 42.8 15.8 --

Cured Inside 0.0 52.8 91.0 -- 41.7 36.8 --

Cured Outside 0.0 -- -- 179.7 -- -- 44.96

Cured Inside 0.4 47.5 102.6 199.2 35.6 30.5 2.3

Cured Inside 0.4 51.1 89.7 219.0 40.4 51.3 3.2

 Cured Outside 0.4 55.8 100.0 177.1 0.8 1.7 32.78

Cured Outside 0.4 -- -- 192.1 -- -- 44.9

Cured Inside 1.6 47.7 93.7 190.7 55.4 24.6 2.2

Cured Inside 1.6 53.4 86.9 -- 37.1 22.5 --

Cured Outside 1.6 -- 101.1 -- -- 5.9 --

Cured Outside 1.6 -- -- 168.6 -- -- 58.5

Control 1 layer 0.4 59.57 104.6 193.0 2.4 4.2 11.6

Control 2 layers 0.4 56.4 90.4 180.8 25.6 20.7 1.1

Control Inside 0.4 49.35 105.7 204.4 72.2 31.7 9.6

Control Outside 0.4 60.8 102.1 181.3 0.6 3.1 67.2

Control Outside 0.4 -- 85.6 170.5 -- 7.0 39.2

Control Inside 1.6 48.3 102.4 -- 17.2 50.7 --

Control Inside 1.6 58.3 90.5 218.4 40.9 42.6 3.5

Control Outside 1.6 61.8 99.3 197.9 0.8 4.8 61.7

Control Outside 1.6 -- -- 180.9 -- -- 51.7

The peak temperatures associated with the reaction at 200°C for the inside
material are, on average, 20°C higher than the peak temperatures associated with the
reaction at 200°C for the outside material. The peak temperatures associated with the
reactions at 50°C for the inside material and the outside material are the same. The peak
temperatures associated with the reactions at 100°C for the inside material and the
outside material are the same. The energies associated with the reaction at 200°C for the
inside material reaction peaks are, on average, 45 J/g lower than the energies associated
with the outside material. The energies associated with the reaction at 50°C for the inside
material reaction peaks are, on average, 36 J/g higher than the energies associated with
the outside material. The energies associated with the reaction at 100°C for the inside
material reaction peaks are, on average, 26 J/g higher than the energies associated with
the outside material.
The higher peak temperatures associated with the inside material indicate the
presence of longer polymer chains. The lower reaction peak temperatures associated
with the outside material indicate shorter polymer chains. This difference can be
explained by the standard cleaning process, in which TPM, water and isopropyl alcohol
are used in succession to strip away excess epoxy-acrylate resin. In doing so, the
material on the outside, which can react during post-cure, is stripped away and hence the
chains cannot grow much further upon post-cure. Also, other tests indicate that the
photo-initiators are extracted from the parts by the TPM [5]. This greatly reduces the
effectiveness of the UV post-cure. Another factor limiting the effectiveness of the UV
post-cure is the gelling of the material during the SLA process. The mobility of the
polymer chains is limited in this gelled state, and the UV irradiation is not effective.
The differences in the reaction energies at the 50 and 100°C reaction points can be
explained by the UV post cure. The outside material is exposed to the UV light. This
UV energy further completes the cure reactions that occur at 50 and 100°C. Thus, the
inside material that is not exposed to as much of the UV light has more unreacted
material, resulting in larger reaction energies. The difference in the reaction energy at the
200°C reaction point may be explained by differences in polymer chain length, as
discussed above.
The post curing of the sample in the PCA is supposed to be due only to UV
irradiation. To verify that there were no significant thermal effects, the temperature was
measured during the post cure process. The temperature change in the UV post cure
apparatus during sample preparation was a 3°C rise to 24°C. This is an insignificant
change from ambient, as no reactions began below 35°C.

V.2.1.3 Additional Testing of Inside Material of Somos 6110 Resin

This section present the results for the tests described in Section IV.2.1.4.
Comparison of the inside and the outside material shows a difference in the degree of
cure of the material in each location. To obtain a better understanding of how the degree
of cure of the material changes with depth into the part, three DSC tests were run on three
successive layers. The DSC scans for each layer are shown in Figure 5.21. This figure
shows very clearly how the reaction peak levels change depending the depth in the part.
The outer layer third temperature peak is 170°C, while the next layer down has its third
peak at 190°C. The one-layer deep material and the two-layers deep material have very
similar DSC traces. The differences, however, show that the material is cured differently
throughout. The energies of reaction of the material from one layer deep into the sample
are 2.4 and 4.2 J/g for the reactions at 50 and 100°C, respectively. The energies of
reaction of the material from two layers deep into the sample are 25.6 and 20.7 J/g for the
reactions at 50 and 100°C, respectively. The energies of reaction are larger for the
material that is two layers deep into the sample indicating less cure deeper into the
sample.
 Figure 5.21: DSC of Three Consecutive Layers on 0.4 Hours Control,
Somos6110 Resin.

V.2.1.4 Results of Liquid Nitrogen Tests

This section presents the results for the tests described in Section IV.2.1.5.
The DSC tests for all of the samples were started at 20°C. If the material reacts near or
below 30°C, the reaction would not be detected due to the start up transition of the tests.
In order to verify that there were no reactions below 30°C, two tests were run by first
cooling the samples to –30°C with liquid nitrogen. Liquid resin that had been cooled
with liquid nitrogen had a peak temperature of 206.2°C and reaction energy of 121.3 J/g.
Inside material with no UV post cure that had been cooled with liquid nitrogen had peak
temperatures of 56.2, 94.4 and 199.8°C corresponding to the reactions points of 50, 100
and 200°C. Inside material with no UV post cure that had been cooled with liquid
nitrogen had energies of reactions of 24.1, 18.1 and 2.4 J/g corresponding to the reactions
points of 50, 100 and 200°C, respectively. These results are the same as the results in
Section V.2.1.2 in which the samples were started at 20°C. The results of the liquid
nitrogen cooled DSC tests and the results in Section V.2.1.2 indicate the first reaction
occur around 50°C. This indicates that the start up transition does not interfere with the
DSC results in Section V.2.1.2.

V.2.2 Effects of Thermal Post Cure on Degree of Cure

This section present the results for the tests described in Section IV.2.2. A series
of experiments were performed to understand the way that the degree of cure varies
according to thermal post-cure time and material location. The thermal curing was
performed using isothermal tests on the DSC. After an isothermal test was completed, a
DSC test was run to determine the extent of cure achieved during the thermal cure. The
samples used for these tests were the same prisms used in the Post Cure Method and
Time tests described in Section IV.2.1.
The UV post-cure is meant to polymerize any uncured liquid resin within the
parts by exposure to UV radiation. The thermal cure, however, induces further
polymerization by increasing mobility of the polymer chains. In order to study the
effectiveness of this thermal post-cure, a series of isothermal tests were run. The
temperatures for these isothermal tests were based on the two lower reaction areas of 50
and 100°C. The peak temperatures and the reaction energies of the 50, 100, and 150°C
isothermal tests are summarized in Table 5.10. None of the samples had reactions at
50°C. Only the inside samples that were cured thermally at 50°C had reactions at 100°C.
All of the samples had reactions at 200°C. The average peak temperatures at the 200°C
reaction were 196, 193, and 202°C for the samples cured thermally at 50, 100, and
150°C, respectively. The energies of reaction at the 200°C reaction were lower for the
samples that were cured thermally at 150°C. This difference can be explained by the
thermal cure at the higher temperature furthering the cure. When the DSC test is run on
the material that was thermally cured at 100°C, there is more unreacted material than for
the material that was thermally cured at 150°C. Thus, there is a higher energy of reaction
for a material thermally cured at lower temperatures. Figures 5.22-24 show the DSC
scans of inside material with no UV post cure and 30 minutes of thermal cure at 50, 100,
and 150°C, respectively. The DSC of the thermally cured material is compared to a DSC
of inside material with no UV or thermal post cure. The absence of reactions at 50 and
100°C for the samples that were thermally cured at 100 and 150°C can be explained by
the thermal cure. The absence of reactions at 50°C for the samples that were cured
thermally at 50°C also can be attributed to the thermal cure. Each thermal cure completes
the reactions associated the temperature of the thermal cure, as well as the reactions
below the thermal post cure temperature.

Table 5.10: Peak Temperatures and Reaction Energies for DSC Tests of Thermally
Cured Somos 6110 Resin.

Thermal Material UV Peak Peak Peak Reaction Reaction Reaction

Cure Location Post Temp. Temp. Temp. Energy Energy Energy

Temp. Cure @ @ @ @ 50°C @ @

Time 50°C 100°C 200°C (J/g) 100°C 200°C

(hrs) (°C) (°C) (°C) (J/g) (J/g)

50°C Liquid -- -- -- 196.9 -- -- 85.5

50°C Outside 0.0 -- -- 188.7 -- -- 31.4

50°C Inside 0.0 -- 94.4 216.3 -- 17.8 6.2

50°C Outside 0.4 -- -- 175.1 -- -- 62.3

50°C Inside 0.4 -- 100.9 183.8 -- 19.2 1.5

50°C Outside 1.6 -- -- 185.5 -- -- 38.9

50°C Inside 1.6 -- 87.8 220.5 -- 15.6 3.4

100°C Liquid -- -- -- 174.6 -- -- 74.9

100°C Outside 0.0 -- -- 193.7 -- -- 35.6

100°C Inside 0.0 -- -- 225.2 -- -- 1.2

100°C Outside 0.4 -- -- 178.6 -- -- 55.8

100°C Inside 0.4 -- -- 178.0 -- -- 2.0

100°C Outside 1.6 -- -- 176.4 -- -- 53.0

100°C Inside 1.6 -- -- 223.7 -- -- 7.5

150°C Liquid -- -- -- 191.1 -- -- 93.2

150°C Outside 0.0 -- -- 189.2 -- -- 19.4

150°C Inside 0.0 -- -- 215.3 -- -- 8.3

150°C Outside 0.4 -- -- 190.4 -- -- 3.7

150°C Inside 0.4 -- -- 213.0 -- -- 8.8

150°C Outside 1.6 -- -- 203.1 -- -- 25.8

150°C Inside 1.6 -- -- 221.3 -- -- 2.6

 As shown in Figure 5.22, the reaction that typically occurred in the 50°C range
was not seen in the DSC of material that had been post cure thermally at 50°C. Similar
results can be seen for the 100°C isothermal tests in Figure 5.23. The thermal post cures
at each temperature completed the reactions associated with the corresponding
temperature. The 150°C thermal post-cure DSC indicated a more fully reacted material,
but some uncured material remained. Thermal post cures above 150°C may further
complete the cure, but a degradation test at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s RPMI
indicated that heating the material above 150°C would cause it to warp. This warping is
not acceptable for the production of the stereolithography injection molds. Based on this
information, thermal post cure tests at higher temperatures were not completed. Even if
higher thermal post cures were shown to fully cure the material, the information would be
useless as it could not be applied to the production of stereolithography molds.

Figure 5.22: DSC of Inside Material of Somos 6110 Resin with No UV Post Cure and
with Thermal Cure for 30 Minutes at 50°C.
Figure 5.23: DSC of Inside Material of Somos 6110 Resin with No UV Post Cure and
with Thermal Cure for 30 Minutes at 100°C.

Figure 5.24: DSC of Inside Material of Somos 6110 Resin with No UV Post Cure and
with Thermal Cure for 30 Minutes at 150°C.

 6110 and 7110 Resins

V.2.3 Comparison of Somos

This section present the results for the tests described in Section IV.2.3. In order
to compare the results of the Somos 7110 epoxy-acrylate resin to that of the Somos
6110 epoxy-acrylate resin, a series of experiments was performed that relates the post
cure time to the degree of cure. As in the testing of the Somos 6110 resin, a test on the
liquid resin was performed first to give the reaction kinetics of the liquid resin which
were used to determine the temperature range at which the UV post cured samples were
tested. DSC tests were performed on the samples made of Somos 7110 resin to
determine the effect of the UV post cure times and the location of the material within the
built samples. The results of these tests are compared to the results in Section V.2.1.2 in
order to determine if there are differences between the Somos 6110 and 7110 resins.

V.2.3.1 Results of Liquid Resin Tests

These results are for the tests described in Section IV.2.3.2. The DSC
scan for the Somos 7110 liquid epoxy-acrylate resin is shown in Figure 5.25. The
liquid resin begins to cure at 180°C. The onset point is 187.0°C. The reaction peaks at
200.2°C. The energy associated with this reaction is 116.4 J/g. A second DSC scan of
this sample shows no reaction, indicating the liquid was completely cured by the DSC
test, which heated the sample to 250°C. These results are similar to those for the
Somos 6110 liquid resin, as summarized in Table 5.11.
The information from this test was used to set the range for the DSC tests of the
material built on the SLA. The results of the two consecutive DSC tests show that
heating to 250°C is sufficient to complete the cure.

Table 5.11: Comparison of Somos 6110 and 7110 Liquid Resin.

Resin Type Peak Temperature Onset Temperature Reaction

(°C) (°C) Energy (J/g)
Somos 6110 210.2 186.2 148.8
Somos 7110 200.2 187.0 116.4
 Figure 5.25: DSC Scan of Somos7110 Liquid Resin.

V.2.3.2 Effect of Post Cure Time and Material Location on Degree of Cure

This section presents the results for the tests described in Section IV.2.3.3. DSC
tests were performed on samples with different UV post cure times and different material
locations. The peak energies and the peak temperatures were calculated using TA
Instrument’s Universal Analysis 1.90 software. The temperatures of reaction and the
energies of reaction for these tests are summarized and compared to the results of Section
V.2.1.2 using Somos 6110 in Table 5.12. In each of the DSC tests, reactions occurred
in three temperature ranges as in the results in Section V.2.1.2. The DSC shown in
Figure 5.26 is of the inside material from a sample of Somos 7110 resin that was UV
cured for 1.6 hours. For this sample the peak temperatures were 65.4, 95.3, and 205.4°C.
These results are similar to those for Somos 6110 resin except the peak temperatures
for the first peak are 10°C higher and the peak temperatures for the second peak are 5°C
lower. The peak temperatures for the third peak are the same.

Table 5.12: Comparison of Peak Temperatures and Reaction Energies for DSC
Tests of UV Post Cured Somos 6110 and 7110 Resins.
Resin Material UV Peak Peak Peak Reaction Reaction Reaction

Type Location Post Temp. Temp. Temp. Energy Energy Energy

Cure @ @ @ @ 50°C @ @

Time 50°C 100°C 200°C (J/g) 100°C 200°C

(hrs) (°C) (°C) (°C) (J/g) (J/g)

6110 Liquid -- -- -- 210.2 -- -- 148.8

6110 Inside 0.0 51.3 95.3 -- 42.2 26.3 --

6110 Outside 0.0 -- -- 179.7 -- -- 45.0

6110 Inside 0.4 49.3 96.2 209.1 38.0 40.9 2.7

6110 Outside 0.4 55.8 100.0 184.6 0.8 1.7 38.8

6110 Inside 1.6 50.6 90.3 190.7 46.3 23.5 2.2

6110 Outside 1.6 -- 101.1 168.6 -- 5.9 58.5

7110 Liquid -- -- -- 200.2 -- -- 116.4

7110 Inside 0.0 63.1 93.7 193.1 12.2 5.4 1.4

7110 Outside 0.0 -- -- 181.8 -- -- 10.9

7110 Inside 1.6 65.4 95.3 205.4 22.4 6.9 9.1

7110 Outside 1.6 -- -- 181.9 -- -- 6.1

 Figure 5.26: DSC Scan of Inside Material, 1.6 Hours UV Cured Somos 7110 Resin.

V.2.4 Results of Infrared Spectrometry Tests

This section presents the results for the tests described in Section IV.2.4.
The results of the DSC tests indicate a difference in the degree of cure between the inside
material and the outside material of stereolithography samples. Infrared Spectrometry
Tests were performed to determine the differences in the progression of the cure reaction
and if new chemical species are generated during the cure reaction of the photopolymer.
The plots from the IR are for the absorbance versus the inverse of the wavelength
(proportional to frequency). This information can be used to determine the types of
bonds present and the amounts of each type of bond. Inside and outside material with
four levels of UV post cure were tested. Figure 5.27 shows the IR scans of all of the
levels tested normalized to the peak for the aromatic ring, as it will not change from
sample to sample. This plot shows that all samples had IR traces with the peaks at the
same wavelengths. This indicates that all of the samples, regardless of the post cure time
or the material location have the same chemical bonds, as labeled in Figure 5.27.
 1. Inside, 0.0
2 C=0 bonds hrs UV Cure
2. Outside,

Normalized Absorbance
CH3(CH2)16OH 0.0 hrs UV
(CHDCH=CHCH2)n
1.5 Cure
CH3(CH2) 15OH
3. Inside, 0.4
N hrs UV Cure
1 CH3 N-H =NH bonds 4. Outside,
bonds CH3 Groups 6 0.4 hrs UV
CH3(CH2)13OH Cure
0.5 7 4 5. Inside, 1.6
2 hrs UV Cure
6. Outside,
0 1.6 hrs UV
Cure
-OH Groups C=C bonds 3 5 1 8 7. Inside, 3.2
-0.5 hrs UV Cure
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 8. Outside,
3.2 hrs UV
-1
Wavelength Cure

Figure 5.27: IR Scans of All Levels Tested of Somos 7110 Resin.

Even though all of the samples have the same chemical bonds, that does not mean
that all of the chemical species are the same. The differences in absorbance show that
there are different amounts of each type of chemical bond. Figure 5.28 shows that the
absorbance is lower for all of the peaks for the inside material. Logically, if there is a
difference in cure between the inside material and the outside material, some of the peaks
should be higher for the inside material and some of the peaks should be lower. The
peaks with a higher absorbance for the inside material would represent the bonds
associated with the uncured material. The peaks with lower absorbance for the inside
material would represent the bonds associated with the cured material. However, this
trend is not observed. Instead, the absorbances for the inside material are lower than the
absorbances for the outside material. This may be a result of the amount of the cured
material bonds. Since the stereolithography material is 90 percent cured, the affect of the
bonds associated with the uncured material may be negligible. Because of this, only the
effects of the bonds associated with the cured material are observed. In this case, the
outside material peaks have a higher absorbance, indicating a more fully cured material.
 1.8
1.6
1.4
1. Inside, 0.0
1.2 hrs UV Post
1 Cure
2. Outside,
0.8
0.0 hrs UV
0.6 Post Cure
0.4 2
0.2
0
-0.2 1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
-1
Wavelength

Figure 5.28: IR Scans of Inside and Outside Material, 0.0 Hours UV Cured Somos
7110 Resin.

V.2.5 Summary of DSC and IR Test Results

These results summarize the way the post cure method, the post cure time, and the
material location within a built part affect the degree of cure of stereolithography
polymers. The results of the DSC tests in Section V.2.1.1 using Somos 6110 resin
show that the liquid resin has a reaction that peaks at 210.2°C with reaction energy of
148.8 J/g. The results of the DSC tests in Section V.2.1.2 using Somos 6110 resin
show that the UV post cure time and material location had effects on the amount of cure.
The differences in the materials are discussed in terms of the peak temperatures and the
energies of reaction for the three reactions that occur at 50, 100, and 200°C. The
materials that were not exposed to UV light had large reaction energies at 50 and 100°C.
The materials that were exposed to UV light had no reactions or very small reactions at
50 and 100°C. This difference indicates that the UV light completes these reactions. The
results of the DSC tests in Section V.2.2 using Somos 6110 resin show that thermal
post cures at 50 and 100°C can be used to complete the cure reactions associated with
those temperatures. The thermal post cure at 150°C can be used to complete further the
cure reaction that occurs at 200°C, but does not cure the part fully. Thermal cures at
250°C will cure the material fully but will result in warping of the stereolithography
polymer, which is undesirable. The results of the DSC tests in Section V.2.3 show that
the cure characteristics of the Somos 7110 resin are similar to the cure characteristics of
the Somos 6110. The results of the IR tests in Section V.2.4 using Somos 7110 resin
show that the UV post cure time and the material location do affect the degree of cure,
but the not the types of chemical bonds of the stereolithography polymer.
These results give information regarding the ways that the post cure method, the
post cure time, and the material location affect the degree of cure of the stereolithography
polymers. These results will be incorporated with the results of the other tests and
discussed in Section V.5 to provide a complete post-build process that will yield long
lasting, quality stereolithography injection molds.

V.3 Hardness of Stereolithography Polymers

This section present the results for the hardness tests described in Section IV.3.
The effect of the UV post cure time, the age of the polymer, and the depth of the material
were studied. The results from these experiments are presented both graphically and with
statistical analyses.

V.3.1 Effects of Post Cure Time and Depth on Material Hardness

This section presents the results are for the tests described in Section
IV.3.1. In the discussion of the DSC tests, it was shown that the inside and outside
materials are not cured to the same extent. The amount of post cure time affects the
extent to which each material is cured. Based on these differences in the degree of cure,
it is hypothesized that the UV post cure time and the material location also affect the
hardness. The results of experiments to test this effect are shown in Figure 5.29 with five
data points at each level.
The hardness is different for each UV post cure time. The hardness at different
depths for a given UV post cure time also is different. Analysis of variance was
performed to test these effects. The ANOVA table is shown in Table 5.13.
The F-statistic for the interaction effect is 3.69 [24], which is less than the F-value
computed in the ANOVA table. This F-test indicates with 99.9 percent confidence that
there is an interaction effect for the UV post cure time and the depth of material on
material hardness. Because there is an interaction effect, there are also main effects for
each factor [24]. The sample means for each level are summarized in Table 5.14. The
hardness values are given in the Shore D scale.

Table 5.13: Analysis of Variance Table for UV Post Cure Time and Material Depth.

Source Degrees of Sums of Mean Square F Value

Freedom Squares Error
UV Post Cure Time 3 120.7 40.3 39.0
Depth of Material 3 670.3 223.5 216.7
Interaction Effect 9 124.6 13.9 13.4
Error 64 66.0 1.0 --
Total 79 981.7 -- --
 Table 5.14: Factor Level Means for UV Post Cure Time and
Material Depth, Shore D Hardness.

Cure Time (hrs) \Depth Surface 0.125 in. 0.250 in. 0.375 in. MEANS
0.0 78.8 79.2 74.6 72.8 76.4
0.4 79.6 75.6 74.4 74.8 76.1
1.6 84.2 77.6 76.0 75.8 78.4
3.2 85.0 79.6 77.0 74.0 78.9
MEANS 81.9 78.0 75.5 74.4 77.5

86
84
82
Surface
80
0.125
78
0.25
76
0.375
74
(in.)
72
70
0 1 2 3 4
UV Post Cure Time (hours)

Figure 5.29: Hardness vs. UV Post Cure and Depth Into Samples of
Somos 7110 Resin.

V.3.2 Effects of Post Cure Time and Age on Hardness

This section presents the results for the tests described in Section IV.3.2.
The DSC tests and the Post Cure Time and Depth tests show that there is an effect on the
material depending on the post cure time. An industry member of the Georgia Institute of
Technology’s RPMI suggested that parts that were built on the SLA eventually reached
the same hardness. Based on previous tests and this suggestion, the effects of the UV
post cure time and the age of the material on hardness were studied. Two tests were
performed testing the hardness at weekly intervals. The results of the experiments to test
this effect are shown in Figures 5.30-31. After the parts were built, cleaned, and post
cured, the hardness was measured and found to vary according to the post cure time.
However, after one week of aging, the hardness for all of the samples was the same,
regardless of the post cure time.
 90

85 Fresh
Week1
80 Week2
Week3
75 Week4
Week5
70
Week6

65
0 1 2 3 4
Post Cure Time (hours)

Figure 5.30: Hardness vs. UV Post Cure and Age of Somos 7110, Measured Weekly
for Six Weeks.

In both sets of data, the hardness is different for each UV post cure time. The
hardness at different ages for a given UV post cure time is also different. Analysis of
variance was performed to test these effects. The ANOVA tables for these results are
shown in Tables 5.15-16.

Table 5.15: ANOVA Table for UV Post Cure Time and Material Age, Six Weeks.

Source Degrees of Sums of Mean Square F Value

Freedom Squares Error
UV Post Cure Time 3 100.3 33.4 37.6
Age of Material 6 1347.3 224.6 252.5
Interaction Effect 18 357.0 19.8 22.3
Error 112 99.6 0.9 --
Total 139 1904.2 -- --
 90

85
Fresh
80 Week1
Week2
75 Week3
Week4
70

65
0 1 2 3 4
Post Cure Time (hours)

Figure 5.31: Hardness vs. UV Post Cure and Age of Somos 7110 Resin, Measured
Weekly for Four Weeks.

For the six-week test, the F-statistic for the interaction effect is 2.61 [24], which is
less than the F-value computed in the ANOVA Table 5.15. For the four-week test, the F-
statistic for the interaction effect is 3.24 [24], which is less than the F-value computed in
the ANOVA Table 5.16. These F-tests indicate with 99.9 percent confidence that there is
an interaction effect for the UV post cure time and the age of material on hardness.
Because there is an interaction effect, there are also main effects for each factor [24].
The sample means for each level are summarized in Tables 5.17-18. The hardness values
are given in the Shore D scale.
While these tests show that there is an effect of age on hardness, there is no
indication of the way that the hardness changes. Another experiment was performed with
the hardness measured daily instead of weekly. The results are shown in Figure 5.32.
The hardness is different for each UV post cure time. The hardness at different ages for a
given UV post cure time is also different. Analysis of variance was performed to test
these effects. The ANOVA table for these results are shown in Tables 5.19.

Table 5.16: ANOVA Table for UV Post Cure Time and Material Age, Four Weeks.

Source Degrees of Sums of Mean Square F Value

Freedom Squares Error
UV Post Cure Time 3 174.1 58.0 80.1
Age of Material 4 1328.8 332.2 458.2
Interaction Effect 12 432.1 36.0 49.7
Error 80 58.0 0.7 --
Total 99 1993.0 -- --
Table 5.17: Factor Level Means for UV Post Cure Time and Material Age, Six Weeks,
Shore D Hardness.

Age/ Fresh Week Week Week Week Week Week MEANS

Cure Time (hrs) 1 2 3 4 5 6
0.0 71.4 85.6 85.0 84.4 84.6 85.4 85.4 83.1
0.4 73.2 86.2 86.0 85.4 85.6 86.0 85.6 84.0
1.6 79.2 86.2 85.6 85.4 85.6 85.6 85.8 84.8
3.2 83.2 86.4 85.8 85.2 85.4 86.0 85.6 85.4
MEANS 76.8 86.1 85.6 85.1 85.3 85.8 85.6 84.3

Table 5.18: Factor Level Means for UV Post Cure Time and Material Age, Four Weeks,
Shore D Hardness.

Age/ Fresh Week1 Week2 Week3 Week4 MEANS

Cure Time (hrs)
0.0 69.8 84.2 85.4 85.6 84.6 81.9
0.4 72.6 84.8 85.8 86.2 85.6 83.0
1.6 80.2 85.0 85.6 86.0 86.2 84.6
3.2 83.2 85.4 85.6 86.4 85.8 85.3
MEANS 76.5 84.9 85.6 86.1 85.6 83.7

90

85
Fresh
80 0.97 Days
2.06 Days
75 3.83 Days

70 4.82 Days
5.87 Days
65 6.91 Days
0 1 2 3 4 14.76 Days
UV Post Cure (hours)

Figure 5.32: Hardness vs. UV Post Cure and Age of Somos 7110, Measured Daily.
 The F-statistic for the interaction effect is 2.50 [24], which is less than the F-value
computed in the ANOVA table. This F-test indicates with 99.9 percent confidence that
there is an interaction effect for the UV post cure time and the depth of material on
material hardness. Because there is an interaction effect, there are also main effects for
each factor [24]. The sample means for each level are summarized in Table 5.20. The
hardness values are given in the Shore D scale.

Table 5.19: ANOVA Table for UV Post Cure Time and Material Age, Daily Tests.

Source Degrees of Sums of Mean Square F Value

Freedom Squares Error
UV Post Cure Time 3 392.5 130.8 133.3
Age of Material 7 838.3 119.8 122.0
Interaction Effect 21 344.3 16.4 16.7
Error 128 125.6 1.0 --
Total 159 1700.7 -- --

Tukey comparisons show that after two days, the hardnesses for all of the post
cure times are statistically the same. These results indicate that the surface hardness
increases with time, and that after two days, all of the parts reach the same hardness. The
mechanism of this increased hardness is not understood fully. One possible explanation
is that the cure continues to completion. While the cure does not complete fully, it does
reach as much completion as possible. This continued curing ceases when the mobility
of the molecules is decreased due to cross-linking and when there is little or no material
left to react. It is also possible tat absorbed solvents (TPM or alcohol) used in cleaning
evaporates, deplasticizing the material and yielding a harder surface. Another possible
explanation is the loss of low molecular weight surface materials.

Table 5.20: Factor Level Means for UV Post Cure Time and Material Age, Daily Tests,
Shore D Hardness.

Age/ Fresh 0.97 2.06 3.83 4.82 5.87 6.91 14.76 MEANS
Cure Time Days Days Days Days Days Days Days
(hrs)
0.0 67.8 77.2 80.4 80.6 81.2 82.4 82.2 82.0 79.2
0.4 76.4 82.0 82.4 83.2 84.0 83.2 83.6 83.2 82.3
1.6 80.2 81.6 83.0 82.4 84.6 84.2 84.4 84.2 83.1
3.2 80.8 82.0 83.2 82.8 83.8 84.2 83.2 83.8 83.0
MEANS 76.3 80.7 82.3 82.3 83.4 83.5 83.4 83.3 81.9
V.3.3 Comparison to Published Hardness Data

The hardness values achieved during these experiments were between 63

and 75 Shore D for uncured materials after the build process. Material property sheets
from the manufacturer indicate that the hardness of the uncured material should be 84
Shore D. The maximum hardness values achieved during these experiments were
between 85 and 86 Shore D for cured and aged materials. Material property sheets from
the manufacturer indicate that the hardness of the fully cured material should be 86 Shore
D. For comparison, the hardness of the cured stereolithography polymer is harder than
polypropylene (50 Shore D) and high-density polyethylene (68 Shore D), but softer than
polyethylene terephthalate (90 Shore D) [25].

V.3.4 Modeling of Hardness of Stereolithography Polymers

The hardness varies according to the post cure time. A least squares fit with R2 =
0.88, shown in Figure 5.33, indicates that the hardness varies with post cure time
according to Equation 5.2. One problem with this equation however is that it indicates
that hardness reaches a maximum at a post cure of 2.5 hours. The data indicate that a
greater post cure time results in harder surface material.

hardness = −2.1217 x 2 + 10.496 x + 69.579 (5.2)

85
83
81
79
77
75
73
71
69
67
65
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Post Cure Time (hours)

Figure 5.33: Hardness vs. UV Post Cure Time with Trendline.

A more appropriate model, such as the one shown in Equation 5.3, would reflect
an increase in material hardness with increasing post cure time. The piece-wise function
in Equation 5.3 has the same R2 value as Equation 5.2 but more accurately models the
actual hardness data. Figure 5.34 shows the plot of the actual data and Equation 5.3.
 − 2.1217 x 2 + 10.496 x + 69.579 0 ≤ postcuretime ≤ 1.8
hardness =  (5.3)
 0.9522 Ln( x) + 80.492 postcuretime > 1.8

Equation 5.3 provides a good fit (R2 = 0.88) of the actual hardness data, it
appears that two straight lines might work just as well and provide a simpler model of the
material hardness as a function of post cure time. The data was fit with two straight lines
and the R2 value was calculated to be 0.85. This fit is not as good as Equation 5.3.

90

85

80
Actual

75 Equation 5.3

70

65
0 1 2 3 4
Post Cure Time (hours)

Figure 5.34: Hardness vs. UV Post Cure Time with Model.

As discussed in Section V.1.3, the Archard equation relates the material

hardness, the volume removed, the polishing force, and the sliding distance. The material
hardness will affect the material removal process. If the material is hard, the abrasive
will cause brittle fracture of the surface, thus cutting the material away from the surface.
If the material is soft, the abrasive will plough or embed into the surface, thus cutting into
the surface. While the surface hardness becomes statistically the same for all of the
samples regardless of the post cure time, there is still an effect of the post cure time on
the final roughness in polishing. This effect could be explained by the presence of
uncured material even after months of aging, as indicated by the DSC test. The effect of
the amount of cured material in the polishing process can be compared to that of spring
stiffness. Consider the model shown in Figure 5.35. The surface material’s hardness is
represented by spring 1, while the internal material’s hardness is represented by springs
2, 3, and 4. As discussed in Section V.3.1, a sample that was post cured longer had
harder internal material than the internal material of a sample that was post cured less.
After two days, the surface material of both samples has the same hardness, represented
by each having the same spring constant (k1). However the internal material of each
sample is represented by different spring constants at different depths based on the results
discussed in Section V.3.1. The values of the spring constants are summarized in Table
5.21. Each relative spring constant is the ratio of the hardness and the surface hardness,
which was 85 Shore D for all of the samples.
When a UV post cured sample is polished, this stiffer internal material does not
yield as easily and the surface is pressed against the abrasive particles, yielding a
smoother surface. The sample with less post cure is represented by a less stiff internal
spring, which yields more easily when the forces of polishing are applied, resulting in a
less effective polishing.

Table 5.21: Relative Spring Constants for Internal Stereolithography Material.

Spring \Post Cure Time 0.0 hours 0.4 hours 1.6 hours 3.2 hours
k1 1 1 1 1
k2 0.93 0.89 0.91 0.94
k3 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.91
k4 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.87

More Post Cure Less Post Cure

k4 k4*

k3 k3*

k2 k2*

k1 k1

Surface

Figure 5.35: Model of Surface and Internal Hardness.

Ultimately, the UV post cure time, the age of the material, and the material depth
affect the hardness of stereolithography polymers. While the hardness of all
stereolithographic polymers will eventually be between 85 and 86 Shore D, the post cure
time has an effect on the final roughness that can be achieved in polishing. More UV
post cure time results in smoother final roughness, as discussed in Section V.1.2. This
effect is due to the difference in cure based on material location, which has been verified
by the DSC tests.
Hardness does become statistically the same after two days for parts made of the
same resin, thus the surface hardness realistically cannot be changed to try to improve
mold life. However, as seen from the polishing tests in Section V.1, the DSC tests in
Section V.2, and the hardness tests in Section V.3, the UV post cure time affects the
behavior of the stereolithography polymer. DSC tests indicated that there is more
uncured material in the inside of parts and the hardness tests showed that the material
deeper inside parts is less hard. As the material heats up during the molding process and
continues to cure thermally. A series of tests performed in the Georgia Institute of
Technology’s RPMI determined the effect of the temperatures of the injection molding
process on the mold temperatures [26]. Thermocouples were embedded in a back-filled
thin shell SLA mold at the faces of the mold and at the gate. The temperatures were
monitored during the injection of polycarbonate. The mold faces reached 100°C after 20
injection molding cycles. As seen in the DSC thermal cure tests in Section V.2.2, 100°C
thermal cure advances the cure of the SLA polymer. This occurs when the epoxy
networks are heated to a degree where they have segmental lateral motion and they will
continue to cross-link with unreacted epoxide groups. If this curing occurs during the
molding process, the material hardness will change with each shot. This changing
hardness may limit the life of the molds due to thermal gradients and cure shrinkage.

V.3.4 Summary of Hardness Test Results

This discussion summarizes the way that the UV post cure time, the material age,
and the material location within a built part affect the hardness of stereolithography
polymers. The results of the hardness tests in Section V.3.1 using Somos 7110 resin
indicate with 99.9 percent confidence that the UV post cure time and the material
location affect the hardness of stereolithography polymers. The internal materials had
lower hardnesses than the surface materials. The samples that had more UV post cure
time had higher hardnesses than the samples with less UV post cure times. The results of
the hardness tests in Section V.3.2 using Somos 7110 resin indicate with 99.9 percent
confidence that the UV post cure time and the age of the material affect the hardness of
stereolithography polymers. The samples that had more UV post cure times had higher
hardnesses than the samples with less UV post cure time. After one week, hardness tests
indicated that all of the samples had higher hardnesses than when first built. Not only
were all of the samples harder, but there were no statistical differences in the hardnesses
of the samples. All of the samples had hardnesses between 85 and 86 Shore D, similar to
the published data. To determine how the hardness changed with time, tests were
performed on a second set of samples. These results, in Section V.3.2, showed that there
was no statistical difference in the hardnesses of all of the samples after two days. The
results of Section V.3.1 and Section V.3.2 were used to model the effects of the UV post
cure time and the material location on the hardness. Equation 5.3 provides a model of the
way that the material hardness varies according to the UV post cure time. The
differences in the material hardness at different depths within the material were modeled
with springs to explain the effect of UV post cure time on the final roughness as seen in
Section V.1.2.4 and to determine what UV post cure time yield more fully cured
stereolithography injection molds.
These results provide information regarding the way that the UV post cure time,
the age of the material, and the material location affect the hardness of the
stereolithography polymers. These results will be incorporated with the results of the
other tests and discussed in Section V.5 to suggest a post-build process that will yield
more fully cured stereolithography injection molds.

V.4 Results of the Hollow Cylinders Polishing Tests

This section presents the results for the tests described in Section IV.4. Wheel
polishing is an effective method to polish flat, external surfaces. However, in order to
polish internal and non-flat surfaces a different process is necessary. These tests examine
the feasibility of pumping an abrasive fluid through a part in order to polish the internal
features. These tests examine the abrasives and media listed in Table 4.10 to determine
the combinations that work best to finish the stereolithographic polymer.

V.4.1 Effects of Layer Thickness on As-Built Roughness

This section presents the results for the tests described in Section IV.4.2. The
initial roughness measurements indicate the roughness (Ra) of these as-built parts ranges
from 175-375 µin. According to the model of build roughness in Equation 2.1 [15], the
roughness of parts with 0.008 in. thick layers should be 358 µin. As predicted by the
model, the layer thickness does affect the as-built roughness. The effect of layer
thickness on the roughness is shown in Figure 5.36. The cylinders that were built for the
polishing tests at 0.004 in. layers had roughnesses of 70-215 µin., significantly smoother
than the hollow cylinders built at 0.008 in. layers. Analysis of variance was performed to
test the effect of the layer thickness on the as-built roughness. 80 individual roughness
measurements for each layer thickness were randomly selected and compared. The
ANOVA table for these results is shown in Table 5.22.
The F-statistic for the interaction effect is 11.0 [24], which is less than the F-value
computed in the ANOVA table. This F-test indicates with 99.9 percent confidence that
there is a main effect for the layer thickness on the as-built roughness. The sample means
and the standard deviation for each level are summarized in Table 5.23.

Table 5.22: ANOVA Table for Layer Thickness.

Source Degrees of Sums of Mean Square F Value

Freedom Squares Error
Layer Thickness 1 243003 243003 61.6
Error 158 622678 3941 --
Total 159 865681 -- --
 Table 5.23: Effect of Layer Thickness on As-Built Roughness (Ra).

Layer Number of Sample Mean, Standard

Thickness (in) Samples Ra (µin) Deviation (µin)

0.004 80 118 26

0.008 80 197 85

The wide range of roughnesses within each layer thickness level is due to build
location, as discussed previously in the Force, Grit, Abrasive Size, and Post Cure Time
polishing tests in Section V.1.2.2. This thesis hypothesizes that the parts with 0.008 in.
layer thickness have a wider range of roughnesses due to the cylindrical geometry of the
cylinders. As shown in Section V.1.2.2, orientation of the beam profile and the location
within the vat effects the as-built roughness. The laser draws circles to form the internal
surfaces of the cylinders. As each circle is traced, the angle of the beam profile into the
liquid photopolymer will change, as shown in Figure 5.10. With the flat surfaces, such as
the faces of the cylinders used in Section V.1.2.2, the beam profile angle into the liquid
photopolymer is different for the inside and outside edges. However, with curved
surfaces, such as the internal surfaces of the hollow cylinders, the beam profile angle into
the liquid photopolymer is constantly changing. This constantly changing profile gives
the internal surface a wider range of surface roughnesses.
 400

Roughness (microinches)
350
300
250
Roughness
200
Equation 2.1
150
100
50
0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Layer Thickness (1x10 -3 inches)

Figure 5.36: Initial Roughness (Ra) vs. Layer Thickness with Predicted Roughness.

V.4.2 Different Media/Abrasive Combinations

This section present the results for the tests described in Section IV.4.3. The
results of the abrasive pastes polishing of the hollow cylinders are not satisfactory. None
of the media and abrasive combinations produced surface finishes that are acceptable for
the injection molding process. The results of each testing are summarized in Table 5.24.
The abrasive and the media combination used, the average of the ten roughness
measurements, and the standard deviation of the roughness measurements are reported
for each sample. While the average roughness measurements are on the average lower
for some media and abrasive combinations, the reductions are smaller than the standard
deviations, indicating that these reductions are not statistically significant.

Table 5.24: Results of Media & Abrasive Combinations for Polishing Hollow Cylinders.

Media Abrasive Initial Standard Final Standard

Ra Deviation Ra Deviation

(µin) (µin) (µin) (µin)

Toothpaste Hydrated Silica 197 24 155 36

Toothpaste Hydrated Silica 203 85 202 87

Lapping Compound Silicon Carbide 186 80 203 85

 Lapping Compound Silicon Carbide 135 32 154 20

Lapping Compound Silicon Carbide 154 20 147 23

Lapping Compound Silicon Carbide 195 60 197 70

Modeling Clay Sand 147 23 151 15

Modeling Clay Sand 202 87 186 71

Modeling Clay Pumice 211 99 220 97

Borax/Glue Mix Sand 197 70 166 64

Borax/Glue Mix Sand 174 77 132 56

Borax/Glue Mix Pumice 167 64 147 65

Silly Putty Sand 210 89 177 96

Silly Putty Pumice 208 117 200 122

Water Sand 193 107 164 108

While the overall results were negative, the comparison of the roughness profiles
of the as-built and the treated parts reveals that some smoothing occurred during the tests.
Figure 5.37 shows the as-built profile of the internal surface of one hollow cylinder. As
discussed in Chapter II, the regular, parabolic nature of the surface can be seen easily.
 600

400

200

-200

-400

-600
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Sampling Length (microinches)

Figure 5.37: As-Built Profile of Internal Surface of Cylinder 4, 7110 Resin, Ra=174 µin.

Figure 5.38 shows the profile of the same location on the same part that was
polished with the Borax/Glue and Sand mixture. The profile reveals some leveling has
taken place, indicating that the abrasive has done some material removal. Even though
the difference in roughness before and after testing is significant, the final roughness still
is not acceptable for the desired application.
Because the initial roughness results widely vary, the final roughness
measurements were compared to the initial roughness measurements for each
measurement location within each sample. These point by point comparisons,
summarized in Appendix B, also show that the polishing with the abrasive pastes did not
result in statistically significant reductions in surface roughness.

600

400

200

-200

-400

-600
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Sampling Length (microinches)

Figure 5.38: Polished Profile of Internal Surface of Cylinder 4, 7110 Resin, Ra=132 µin.
 One problem with these tests was that many abrasive and media mixes wetted the
internal surface of the hollow cylinder. As the fluid was pumped back and forth, a
boundary layer was formed. In this boundary layer, there was no flow and thus no
polishing. If the abrasive particles were larger than the boundary layer there would be
polishing. However, the larger abrasive size would result in a higher final roughness.
Another problem was the viscosity of some of the fluids used. Some of the thicker
media, such as the modeling clay and the Silly-Putty, were very difficult to push
through the hollow cylinders.
While the final roughness was not achieved with these polishing tests, some
leveling of the regular, parabolic bumps did occur. This result and another study [2]
show that this type of internal finishing is possible. The other study, which used
Abrasive Flow Machining (AFM) to finish stereolithography parts, had larger grit sizes
and higher media pressures than were used in this thesis. The study with AFM was more
effective than the abrasive paste polishing study in this thesis. Perhaps this is due to the
higher media pressures (600 and 1000 psi) in the AFM study, which would more
effectively hold the abrasive against the stereolithographic polymer and cause scratching.
As discussed in Section V.1.3 the final roughness that can be achieved depends on
abrasive size. The smaller abrasive used in this thesis should result in a smaller final
roughness than the larger abrasive used in the AFM study. However, the lower pressure
(225 psi) used in this thesis limits the effectiveness of the abrasive.

V.4.3 Summary of Hollow Cylinder Polishing Test Results

These results summarize the way that the layer thickness affects the as-built
roughness of stereolithography parts. These results also summarize the effectiveness of
abrasive and media mixtures in the polishing of internal surfaces of hollow cylinders. The
results of the initial roughness tests in Section V.4.1 indicate with 99.9 percent
confidence that the layer thickness effects the as-built roughness of stereolithography
polymers. The results of the hollow cylinder polishing tests in Section V.4.2 indicate that
none of the abrasive and media combinations tested yield final roughnesses that are
acceptable for the injection molding process. The average roughness reductions that
were measured are smaller than their standard deviations, indicating no statistically
significant reductions. The profilometry traces of the internal surface of one sample
before and after the polishing test shows some leveling, indicating that the abrasive had
done some material removal. These hollow cylinder polishing tests had a media pressure
of 225 psi, which is much lower than the media pressures of 600 and 1000 psi that were
used in the study of using the Abrasive Flow Machining process to polish the
stereolithography polymer. This lower pressure was not enough to hold the abrasive
against the surface of the stereolithography polymer. Thus, the action of the abrasive was
not effective.
These results give information regarding the way that the layer thickness affects
the as-built roughness of the stereolithography polymers. These results also give
information regarding the way that the abrasives and media combinations polished the
internal surfaces of hollow cylinders. These results will be incorporated with the results
of the other tests and discussed in Section V.5 to provide a complete post-build process
that will yield long lasting, quality stereolithography injection molds.

V.5 Summary of Results

The results of each test were presented in this chapter. The results of the
polishing tests are summarized in Table 5.25. The results of the cure and the hardness
tests are summarized in Table 5.26. The final roughness achieved when polishing
stereolithographic polymer depends on abrasive size, as discussed in Section V.1.1.3 and
the UV post cure time, as discussed in Section V.1.2.4. The results of the tests in Section
V.1.2.3 indicated that the final roughness of the polished parts did not depend on the
material used. Theoretical models used for the polishing of metals were applied to the
polishing of stereolithographic polymers in Section V.1.3.
Table 5.25: Polishing Behavior of Stereolithography Polymers.

Factor Studied Levels Tested Findings

Resin Type Somos 6110 The resin type does not affect final roughness.
Somos 7110
Abrasive Size 500, 800 The abrasive size affects final roughness. Smaller
(FEPA #) 1200, 4000 abrasives yield smoother surfaces. FEPA #500
abrasives yield a surface roughness of 45 µin,
below the required 50 µin needed for injection
molding.
Applied Force 5, 10, 15 The applied force does not affect final roughness.
(N) However, all of the applied force levels tested
yielded surface roughnesses below 50 µin.
Polishing Time 1, 2, 3 The polishing time does not affect final roughness.
(minutes) However, all of the polishing time levels tested
yielded surface roughnesses below 50 µin.
UV Post Cure 0.0, 0.4 The UV post cure time affects the final roughness.
Time (hrs) 1.6, 3.2 Longer post cure times yield smoother surfaces.
Layer 0.004 The layer thickness affects the as-built roughness.
Thickness (in) 0.008 The 0.008-inch layers yielded surface roughnesses
that range from 175-375 µin, while the 0.004-inch
layers yielded surface roughnesses that range from
100-215 µin.
Vat Build 6 rows, 12 The build location affects the as-built roughness.
Location faces per row On edge of the vat, the out facing surfaces are 75-
100 µin smoother than the in facing surfaces. In
the middle of the vat, each face has a similar
roughness, around 120 µin.
 Abrasive and Toothpaste, There were no significant reductions in the
Media Lapping roughness of internal surfaces. Surface profiles
Mixtures Compound, indicate some leveling did occur in the tests. The
Homemade media pressure was 225 psi, which is possibly too
Combinations low to force the abrasive particles against the
stereolithography surface.

The results of the Differential Scanning Calorimetry tests in Section V.2 indicated
that the amount of cure achieved during post cure depends on the post cure method, the
post cure time, and the material location within a stereolithography part. Section V.2.3
showed that for the resins tested, there were no significant differences in the degree of
cure. The results of the hardness tests in Section V.3 revealed that the hardness of
stereolithography polymer varies according to the UV post cure time, the age of the
material, and the material location within the stereolithography part. In Section V.3.3,
equations were derived that estimate the hardness based on the post cure time. The
polishing of hollow cylinders with abrasive pastes in Section V.4 showed that polishing
with a pressurized fluid with abrasive particles is possible. The initial roughness of parts
varied depends on the layer thickness, as shown in Section V.4.1, and on the build
location, as shown in Section V.1.2.1.
Each of these results has a bearing on the ability to produce smooth molds and the
overall goal of more fully cured stereolithographic molds for the injection molding
process. The hardness and DSC tests show that the materials are different on the inside
and outside and that this difference is affected by the post cure time. The post cure time
also affects the final roughness that can be achieved during the polishing process. The
polishing tests give a relation between abrasive particle size and the final roughness that
can be achieved using that abrasive particle size with the stereolithographic polymer.
While the applied force and the polishing time levels tested did not have a main effect on
the final roughness, each of the levels did provide the necessary surface roughness.
These forces and times give indications of the appropriate forces and times necessary for
polishing. Using this information, and the abrasive particle size information, a polishing
system can be designed to polish the internal surfaces of stereolithographic molds. It also
may be possible to utilize the differences in as-built roughness based on build location to
build molds with smoother surface by orienting critical surfaces to the “smooth” regions
of the vat.

Table 5.26: Cure Behavior of Stereolithography Polymers.

Factor Studied Levels Tested Findings

Resin Type Somos 6110 The resin types have similar reaction kinetics.
Somos 7110
UV Post Cure 0.0, 0.4 The materials with more UV post cure are cured
Time (hrs) 1.6, 3.2 more fully.
 Material Location Inside The inside materials have larger reaction
Outside energies than outside materials. Inside
materials have reaction peaks at 50, 100, and
200°C. Outside materials have reaction peak
only at 200°C.
Thermal Post Cure 50 A 30-minute thermal post cure completes the
Temperatures (°C) 100 reaction associated with the post cure
150 temperature. Thermal post cures at 150°C
complete the reactions at 50 and 100°C. The
material is cured further, but not cured fully.
Depth of Material 0.0 0.0 The depth of material and the UV post cure
(in) and UV Post 0.125 0.4 time affect the surface hardness. The material
Cure Time (hrs) 0.250 1.6 on the inside has a hardness that is 10 percent
0.375 3.2 less than the material on the outside. Samples
with more post cure have a harder inside than
the samples with less post cure. The
hardnesses range from 65-85 Shore D.
Age of Material 0, 1, 2, 3, 0.0 The age of the material and the UV post cure
(weeks) and UV 4, 5, 6 0.4 time affect the surface hardness. Samples
Post Cure Time 1.6 with more UV post cure time are harder.
(hrs) 3.2 Aged parts are harder. After one week of
aging, all samples had the same 85 Shore D
hardness.
Age of Material 0, 0.97 0.0 The age of the material and the UV post cure
(days) and UV 2.06, 3.83 0.4 time affect the surface hardness. Samples
Post Cure Time 4.82, 5.87 1.6 with more UV post cure time are harder.
(hrs) 6.91,14.76 3.2 Aged parts are harder. After two days of
aging, all samples had the same hardness.

As it is desirable to have a fully cured mold prior to its use, a thermal post cure is
recommended to complete the cure further and minimize the internal material differences.
The stereolithography molds should be heated to 150°C for 30 minutes. The molds
should be heated and cooled slowly (1-2°C per minute) to prevent thermal stress damage.
The results in Section V.1.2 show that the polishing times, the applied forces and
the abrasive sizes used all result in surface finishes that are acceptable for the injection
molding process. The applied forces used in these tests resulted in pressures (1-3 psi)
that are much lower than the pressures used in the hollow cylinder polishing tests in
Section V.4. The pressures used in the hollow cylinder tests (225 psi) were not high
enough to hold the abrasive particles against the surface of the stereolithography
polymer. Another study indicates a much higher pressure (600 psi) is necessary to finish
the cured stereolithography polymer effectively [2]. This indicates that while the applied
forces in the wheel polishing tests were sufficient, the forces are much lower than those
necessary for abrasive paste polishing, as the backing of the sandpaper holds the abrasive
in place. Thus, if abrasive paste polishing is to be used, higher pressures are necessary.
Based on this result, this thesis recommends the use of an abrasive with a mean grit
diameter of 30 microns, a viscoelastic media, such as the borax/glue mixture or Silly-
Putty used in Section IV.4.3, and a pressure of 600 psi (as suggested by [2]).
Given these post-build processing conditions, the life and quality of
stereolithographic mold can be improved. The results of this study are summarized in
Chapter VI and are used to suggest a post-build process. While this research addressed
the polishing behavior, the cure behavior, and the material hardness behavior of the
stereolithography polymers, there are still many aspects of the rapid tooling process that
should be investigated. Chapter VI summarizes these possible research areas.
 CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter brings together all of the results of this research. The individual
conclusions from each test are listed. The individual conclusions are tied together in one
recommended post-build process that will yield quality, long lasting stereolithography
injection molds. This research provides a basis for future work. The recommended
directions for future work are summarized.

VI.1 Conclusions

1. The results of the polishing tests in Section V.1 show that the abrasive size is a main
effect on the final roughness of stereolithography parts of Somos 6110 and 7110
resins. Smaller abrasive sizes result in smoother surfaces. These results show that
the UV post cure time is a main effect on the final roughness of stereolithography
parts. These results also show that the resin type, the applied force levels, and the
polishing time levels do not effect the final roughness. The initial roughnesses of
these parts have no effect on the final roughnesses as the bumps that are left by the
layered process were completely removed in the polishing process. All test
conditions yield surface roughnesses less than Ra = 50 µin, the maximum average
roughness necessary for surfaces of stereolithography injection molds.
2. The results of the initial roughness tests in Section V.1 show that the build location
affects the as-built roughness of the stereolithography parts. Parts built in the center
of the vat have the same roughness on each face, which is typically 120 µin for 0.004-
inch layer parts. Parts built near the edge of the vat have roughnesses that are 75-100
µin higher on the inside faces than on the outside faces.
3. The results of the polishing tests in Section V.1 were compared to theoretical models.
The Archard equation (Equation 2.2) relates the material removal (B), the material
hardness (H), the length of polish (L), and the applied force (P) and should yield a
constant for a given abrasive and workpiece.

BH
Nw = (2.2)
LP

The tests with FEPA #800 and #1200 abrasives had nearly constant values of Nw = 4
x 10-5 and Nw = 4.8 x 10-5, respectively. The tests with FEPA #500 abrasive had
values that ranged from 3.7-9.0 x 10-5. These constant values for each abrasive and
workpiece indicate that the polishing of stereolithographic polymer follows the
Archard relation in the same way as other abrasive processes with other materials.
 Equation 2.3 was used to predict final roughness (Ra) based on mean abrasive
diameter (dg).

Ra = 0.02d 1g.1 (2.3)

2
This least squares fit model, with an R value of 0.93, can be used to predict the final
roughness of stereolithographic polymers that can be achieved by sanding based on
abrasive size.
4. The results of the DSC tests in Section V.2 using Somos 6110 and 7110 resins
show that the UV post cure time and the material location affect the amount of cure.
The differences in the DSC scans are discussed in terms of the peak temperatures and
the energies of reaction for the three reactions that occur at 50, 100, and 200°C. The
materials that were not exposed to UV light had large reaction energies at 50 and
100°C. The materials that were exposed to UV light had no reactions or very small
reactions at 50 and 100°C. This difference indicates that the UV light completes
these reactions. These results also show that the cure characteristics of the Somos
6110 and 7110 resins are similar.
5. The results of the DSC tests in Section V.2.2 using Somos 6110 resin show that the
thermal post cure at 50 and 100°C can be used to complete the cure reactions
associated with those temperatures. The thermal post cure at 150°C can be used to
complete the cure reaction that occurs 200°C further, but does not cure the part fully.
Thermal cures at 250°C will cure the material fully, but will result in warping of the
stereolithography polymer, which is undesirable.
6. The results of the IR tests in Section V.2.4 using Somos 7110 resin show that the
UV post cure time and the material location do affect the degree of cure but the not
the types of chemical bonds present of the stereolithography polymer.
7. The results of the hardness tests in Section V.3.1 using Somos 7110 resin indicate,
with 99.9 percent confidence, that the UV post cure time and the material location
affect the hardness of stereolithography polymers. The internal materials had
hardnesses that were 5-10 percent lower than the hardnesses of surface material. The
samples that had more UV post cure time had a higher hardness than the samples with
less UV post cure time.
8. The results of the hardness tests in Section V.3.2 using Somos 7110 resin indicate
with 99.9 percent confidence that the UV post cure time and the age of the material
affect the hardness of stereolithography polymers. The samples that had more UV
post cure time had a higher hardness than the samples with less UV post cure time.
After one week, hardness tests indicated that all of the samples had a higher hardness
than when first built. The hardness of all of the samples increased and there were no
statistical differences in the hardnesses of the samples. Each of the samples had a
hardness between 85 and 86 Shore D. Additional results, discussed in Section V.3.2,
showed that there were no statistical differences in the hardnesses of all of the
samples after two days.
9. The results of Section V.3.1 and Section V.3.2 are used to model the effects of UV
post cure time and material location on the hardness. Equation 5.3 provides a model
of the way that the material hardness varies according to the UV post cure time.
 − 2.1217 x 2 + 10.496 x + 69.579 0 ≤ postcuretime ≤ 1.8hrs.
hardness =  (5.3)
 0.9522 Ln( x) + 80.492 postcuretime > 1.8hrs.

The differences in material hardness at different depths within the material were
modeled to explain the effect of UV post cure time on the final roughness, as seen in
Section V.1.2.4, and to determine what UV post cure time yield longer lasting
stereolithography injection molds. Samples with less UV post cure had a larger
difference between internal and surface hardness, however the internal material
hardness was only 88 percent smaller than the surface material hardness.
10. The results of the initial roughness tests in Section V.4.1 indicate with 99.9 percent
confidence that the layer thickness affects the as-built roughness of stereolithography
polymers.
11. The results of the hollow cylinder polishing tests in Section V.4.2 indicate that none
of the abrasive and media combinations tested yield a final roughness that acceptable
for the injection molding process. The average roughness reductions that are
measured are smaller than their standard deviations, indicating no statistically
significant reductions. These hollow cylinder polishing tests had a media pressure of
225 psi, lower than the media pressures of 600 and 1000 psi used in a study using
Abrasive Flow Machining to polish the stereolithography polymers. This lower
pressure was not enough to hold the abrasive against the surface of the
stereolithography polymer. Thus, the action of the abrasive was not effective.

Each of these results has a bearing on the ultimate goal of producing quality, more
fully cured stereolithographic molds for the injection molding process. The hardness and
DSC tests show that the materials are different on the inside and outside and that this
difference is affected by the post cure time. The post cure time also affects on the final
roughness that can be achieved during the polishing process. Using this information, and
the abrasive particle size information, a polishing system can be designed to polish
internal surfaces of stereolithographic molds. It may also be possible to utilize the
differences in as-built roughness based on build location to build molds with smoother
surface by orienting critical surfaces to the “smooth” regions of the vat.
As the material heats up during the molding process it will continue to cure
thermally. If this curing occurs during the molding process, the material hardness will
change with each shot. This changing hardness may limit the life of the molds. Also, the
thermal gradients and cure shrinkage may lead to mold damage. Considering this, a
thermal post cure is recommended to complete the cure further and minimize the internal
material differences. The stereolithography molds should be heated to 150°C for 30
minutes. The molds should be heated and cooled slowly (1-2°C per minute) to prevent
thermal stress damage.
The results in Section V.1.2 show that the polishing times, the applied forces, and
the abrasive sizes used all result in surface finishes that are acceptable for the injection
molding process. The applied forces used in these tests resulted in pressures (1-3 psi)
that are much lower than the pressures used in the hollow cylinder polishing tests in
Section V.4. The pressures used in the hollow cylinder tests (225 psi) were not high
enough to hold the abrasive particles against the surface of the stereolithography
polymer. Another study indicates a much higher pressure (600 psi) is necessary to finish
the stereolithography polymer effectively [2]. This indicates that while the applied forces
in the wheel polishing tests were sufficient, the forces are much lower than those
necessary for abrasive paste polishing, as the backing of the sandpaper holds the abrasive
in place. Thus, if abrasive paste polishing is to be used, higher pressures are necessary.

Based on these results, this thesis recommends the following post-build process:

1. Remove the parts from the build platform and clean using the standard method as
described in Section IV.1.1.1.
2. Thermally cure the samples at 150°C for 30 minutes. The samples should be heated
and cooled slowly (1-2°C/min) to avoid thermal stresses.
3. Back fill and machine.
4. Polish using an abrasive with a mean grit diameter of 30 microns (corresponding to
FEPA #500 grit) or smaller.
5. For polishing by pumping abrasive pastes against the mold faces, use a viscoelastic
media such as the borax/glue mixture mixed with 30 micron abrasive. A pressure of
600 psi should be used.

Given these post-build processing conditions, the life and quality of

stereolithographic mold can be improved.

VI.2 Recommendations for Future Research

The results of the material and polishing behavior tests are based on
stereolithography samples and not molds. These findings need to be tested further with
stereolithography molds. The results of the hardness tests in Section V.3 indicate that the
hardness of the internal and surface material is different and depends on the post cure
time. These differences in hardness will affect the mold life. Further work in this area
should include testing the effect of the post cure time and the post cure method on the life
of molds.
The results of the initial roughness measurements in Section V.1.2.1 indicate that
build location has an affect on the as-built roughness of the stereolithography parts. The
data for this thesis was only collected for surfaces built facing in and out of the vat. A
more complete study is necessary to map out the roughness in the vat in all directions and
to determine if part orientation can be modified to take advantage of the differences in
roughness based on build location.
The results of the hollow cylinder abrasive paste polishing tests in Section V.4.2
and the AFM study [2] indicate that the polishing of internal surfaces of
stereolithography polymers is possible by forcing an abrasive-laden media through a part.
The AFM study investigated the finishing of flat surfaces. This thesis investigated the
finishing of cylindrical surfaces. Further work in this area should include studying the
media pressures needed, the nature of the flow of the media (wetting versus plug flow),
and the development of a boundary layer. Once these factors are understood, the
finishing of more complex geometries that are representative of typical injection molds
should be studied.
 REFERENCES

1. Jacobs, Paul. Stereolithography and other RP&M Technologies: from Rapid

Prototyping to Rapid Tooling. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers,
1996.

2. Melton, Vicki. Abrasive Flow Finishing of Stereolithography Prototypes. Lincoln,

Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 1996.

3. Wohlers Associates, Inc. “State of The Industry Report: 1998.” Fort Collins, Co.:
Wohlers Associates, Inc. 1998.

4. Georgia Institute of Technology’s Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing Institute

Web Page. (http://rpmi.marc.gatech.edu/~rapid_tooling).

5. Cibatool Resin Data Supplement. P/N 19140-S10-00 Rev A. East Lansing, MI:
Ciba Geigy, 1994.

6. Dupont Somos 7100 Resin Data Sheet. New Castle, DE: Dupont, 1997.

7. Hull, Charles. U.S. Patent 4,575,330. Apparatus for production of three-dimensional

objects by stereolithography. 1986.

8. Jacobs, Paul. Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing: Fundamentals of

StereoLithography. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers, 1992.

9. Jayanthi, S., Hokuf, B., and Lawton, J. “Influence of Post Curing Conditions on the
Mechanical Properties of Stereolithographic Photopolymers.” DuPont Somos
Materials Group. August 1995.

10. Schmitt, Stephen. “Changing Lives with RP.” 4th Annual Gwaltney Manufacturing
Symposium. October 1-2, 1997, Georgia Institute of Technology.

11. Decelles, Paul. “AIM and Keltool Rapid Tools.” 4th Annual Gwaltney Manufacturing
Symposium. October 1-2, 1997, Georgia Institute of Technology.

12. Van Putte, Doug. Personal Communication. Kodak. Rochester, NY. June –
December, 1997.
13. Spencer, J., Cobb, R., and Dickens, P. “Surface Finishing Techniques for Rapid
Prototyping.” Society of Manufacturing Engineers Technical Paper PE93-168.
Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing Engineers, 1993.

14. Conely, J., Duty, C., Glomnes, M., Jangha, S., Kelton, M., and West, A.
“Stereolithography Surface Finish Design Project.” Georgia Institute of Technology,
1997.

15. Reeves, P. and Cobb, R. “Reducing the Surface Deviation of Stereolithography

Using in-process Techniques.” Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1997, pp20-
31.

16. Hope, R., Jacobs, P., and Roth, R. “Rapid Prototyping with Sloping Surfaces.”
Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1997, pp12-19.

17. Rahmati, S. and Dickens, P. “Stereolithography Injection Mould Tool Failure

Analysis.” Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Operations Management.
University of Nottingham. 1997.

18. Shaw, Milton C. Principles of Abrasive Processing. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1996.

19. Malkin, S. Grinding Technology: Theory and Applications Machining with

Abrasives. Chichester, England: Ellis Horwood Ltd., 1989.

20. Scheider, A. Mechanical Deburring and Surface Finishing Technology. New York:
Marcel Dekker, Inc. 1990.

21. Zhang, L.C. and Yasunaga, N. editors. Advances In Abrasive Technology.

Proceedings of the International Symposium. Sydney, Australia. July 8-10, 1997.

22. Borkowski, J. and Szymanski, A. Uses of Abrasives and Abrasive Tools. Chichester,
England: Ellis Horwood Ltd., 1992.

23. ISO 4287. Surface Roughness – Terminology—Part 1: Surface and Its Parameters.
International Organization for Standardization, 1984.

24. Neter, J., Kutner, M., Nachtsheim, C., and Wasserman, W. Applied Linear Statistical
Models. Fourth Edition. Chicago: IRWIN. 1989.

25. Ashland Chemical Company Web Page. http://www.ashchem.com.

26. Tognetti, Lawrence. Injection Molding Embedded Thermocouple Data. 1997.

 APPENDIX A

ARCHARD EQUATION CALCULATIONS

This appendix shows the method and numbers used to calculate the Archard
constant for the polishing tests reported in Section V.1.3.

A.1 Equations Used for Archard Calculations

The Archard equation is shown in Equation 2.2.

BH
Nw = (2.2)
LP

where B = volume of material removed

H = material hardness
L = length of contact
P = applied force
Nw = constant for each abrasive and workpiece.

The volume of material removed was calculated based on the change in height of the
sample. This volume was calculated according to Equation A.1.

B = πr 2 ∆h (A.1)

where r = radius of sample (r = 0.6 in.)

∆h = change in height in sample after polishing (measured).

The material hardness was measured using a Shore D Durometer. The length of contact
was calculated using the wheel speed, the radius of the wheel, and the time of the test as
shown in Equation A.2.

L = 2πΩ w R w t p (A.2)

where Ωw = wheel speed (Ωw = 150 RPM)

Rw = wheel radius (Rw = 3 in.)
tp = time of polishing test (tp = 1, 2, and 3 minutes).

The applied force was determine by test conditions and was 5, 10, and 15 Newtons.
 A.2 Values Used for Calculating Archard Number

The values used for calculating the Archard Number are listed in Table A.1.

Table A.1: Values Used for Calculating Archard Number.

Sample Delta H Volume Hardness Time Length Force

removed
Number (in.) (in.)^3 (Shore D) (Minutes) (in.) (N)
1 0.013 0.015 85 1 2827.4 5
2 0.052 0.059 86 2 5654.9 10
3 0.074 0.084 86 3 8482.3 15
4 0.025 0.028 87 1 2827.4 10
5 0.027 0.030 86 2 5654.9 15
6 0.040 0.045 86 3 8482.3 5
7 0.014 0.016 87 1 2827.4 15
8 0.013 0.015 87 2 5654.9 5
9 0.034 0.038 87 3 8482.3 10
10 0.008 0.010 85 1 2827.4 5
11 0.020 0.022 86 2 5654.9 5
12 0.018 0.020 86 1 2827.4 15
13 0.025 0.028 85 3 8482.3 5
14 0.023 0.026 86 1 2827.4 10
15 0.036 0.041 86 2 5654.9 15
16 0.033 0.038 86 2 5654.9 10
17 0.061 0.069 85 3 8482.3 15
18 0.056 0.064 85 3 8482.3 10
19 0.029 0.033 85 2 5654.9 10
20 0.027 0.030 85 2 5654.9 10
21 0.030 0.034 85 2 5654.9 10
22 0.028 0.032 85 2 5654.9 10
23 0.026 0.029 85 2 5654.9 10
24 0.024 0.027 85 2 5654.9 10
25 0.027 0.030 85 2 5654.9 10
26 0.025 0.028 85 2 5654.9 10
27 0.024 0.027 85 2 5654.9 10
28 0.022 0.025 85 2 5654.9 10
29 0.026 0.029 86 2 5654.9 10
30 0.024 0.027 86 2 5654.9 10
31 0.025 0.029 86 2 5654.9 10
32 0.023 0.026 86 2 5654.9 10
33 0.021 0.024 85 2 5654.9 10
 34 0.020 0.022 86 2 5654.9 10
35 0.030 0.034 85 2 5654.9 10
36 0.027 0.031 85 2 5654.9 10
37 0.029 0.032 86 2 5654.9 10
38 0.026 0.030 85 2 5654.9 10
39 0.025 0.028 86 2 5654.9 10
40 0.023 0.026 86 2 5654.9 10
41 0.024 0.027 86 2 5654.9 10
42 0.022 0.025 86 2 5654.9 10
43 0.028 0.031 86 2 5654.9 10
44 0.025 0.029 86 2 5654.9 10
45 0.029 0.033 86 2 5654.9 10
46 0.027 0.030 86 2 5654.9 10
47 0.035 0.039 86 2 5654.9 10
48 0.032 0.036 86 2 5654.9 10
49 0.034 0.039 86 2 5654.9 10
50 0.032 0.036 86 2 5654.9 10
51 0.026 0.029 86 2 5654.9 10
52 0.024 0.027 86 2 5654.9 10
53 0.027 0.031 86 2 5654.9 10
54 0.025 0.028 86 2 5654.9 10
55 0.024 0.028 85 2 5654.9 10
56 0.023 0.026 85 2 5654.9 10
57 0.025 0.029 86 2 5654.9 10
58 0.023 0.026 86 2 5654.9 10
59 0.028 0.032 86 2 5654.9 10
60 0.026 0.030 86 2 5654.9 10
61 0.026 0.029 86 2 5654.9 10
62 0.024 0.027 86 2 5654.9 10
63 0.021 0.024 86 2 5654.9 10
64 0.019 0.022 86 2 5654.9 10
65 0.020 0.022 86 2 5654.9 10
66 0.018 0.021 86 2 5654.9 10

A.3 Calculated Values

Using the values in Table A.1, the Archard number was calculated. These results
are summarized in Table A.2. They are grouped according to grit size, as the Archard
number is only constant for a single abrasive and workpiece combination.

Table A.2: Calculated Archard Numbers Grouped by Abrasive Size.

Sample Grit Size Constant Sample Grit Size Constant Sample Grit Size Constant
Number (FEPA #) (x 105) Number (FEPA #) (x 105) Number (FEPA #) (x 105)
1 500 8.87 29 800 8.57 48 1200 3.26
2 500 8.98 30 800 3.05 49 1200 4.51
3 500 5.65 31 800 9.15 50 1200 3.90
4 500 5.71 32 800 4.08 51 1200 4.53
5 500 6.71 33 800 4.20 52 1200 4.77
6 500 4.13 34 800 4.11 53 1200 3.79
7 500 5.66 35 800 4.47 54 1200 4.13
8 500 7.93 36 800 4.65 55 1200 4.00
9 500 4.14 37 800 4.49 56 1200 3.38
10 500 5.74 38 800 4.29 57 1200 3.96
11 500 4.60 39 800 4.07 58 1200 3.76
12 500 6.36 40 800 5.49 59 1200 4.38
13 500 4.91 41 800 5.45 60 1200 4.58
14 500 5.17 42 800 4.47 61 1200 4.13
15 500 4.42 43 800 4.65 62 1200 4.29
16 500 4.55 44 800 4.50 63 1200 3.84
17 500 4.34 45 800 4.13 64 1200 4.00
18 500 3.62 46 800 3.58 65 1200 3.30
19 500 5.04 47 800 3.40 66 1200 3.14
20 500 4.92
21 500 4.74
22 500 4.96
23 500 5.95
24 500 5.90
25 500 4.15
26 500 4.34
27 500 4.87
28 500 4.47
 APPENDIX B

INDIVIDUAL RESULTS OF HOLLOW CYLINDER POLISHING TESTS

This appendix shows the point by point comparison of the roughnesses of the
hollow cylinder polishing tests performed as described in Section IV.4. The results of
these tests show that the standard deviation of roughness is larger than the reduction in
roughness, indicating no statistically significant difference. These results show that some
smoothing did occur, as discussed in Section V.4.2.

B.1 Method of Comparison

Initial and final roughness measurements were taken in the same radial location
on each sample. Each of these measurements is compared for all of the cylinders tested.
For each cylinder, the ten roughness measurements, the average of the measurements,
and the standard deviation of the measurements are listed in Table B.1.

B.2 Results of Point by Point Comparison

This table shows a comparison of initial roughness and final roughness to show
the way that each abrasive and media mixture polished the internal surface of the hollow
cylinder. The measurement points are shown in Figure B.1.

6
1 7 10
5 2 8 9
4 3

Figure B.1: Roughness Measurement Points On Hollow Cylinders.

Table B.1: Point by Point Comparison of Roughness (Ra) for Hollow Cylinder Tests.

RED 1 RED 2
Initial Silly Putty Initial Silly Putty
Point Roughness w/Sand, Ra Point Roughness, w/Pumice,
Ra (µin) (µin) Ra (µin) Ra (µin)
1 275 254 1 366 375
2 180 152 2 199 254
3 103 55 3 71 72
4 109 125 4 111 67
 5 302 285 5 259 231
6 305 297 6 341 356
7 295 284 7 322 182
8 255 127 8 110 52
9 81 44 9 52 112
10 192 150 10 250 304
stddev. 89 96 stddev. 116 122
average 210 177 average 208 200
RED 3 RED 4
Initial Borax/Glue Initial Borax/Glue
Point Roughness w/Pumice, Ra Point Roughness, w/Sand, Ra
Ra (µin) (µin) Ra (µin) (µin)
1 80 72 1 97 117
2 114 76 2 79 72
3 141 182 3 215 208
4 243 232 4 270 179
5 147 126 5 210 167
6 -- 86 6 138 82
7 214 167 7 225 163
8 256 228 8 282 196
9 -- 214 9 160 77
10 136 87 10 70 62
stddev. 64 65 stddev. 77 56
average 167 147 average 175 132

RED 5 RED 6
Initial Modeling Clay Initial Water
Point Roughness w/Pumice, Ra Point Roughness, w/Sand,
Ra (µin) (µin) Ra (µin) Ra (µin)
1 156 142 1 342 326
2 202 324 2 130 100
3 332 307 3 329 217
4 300 229 4 157 51
5 189 222 5 67 49
6 95 147 6 85 67
7 85 47 7 119 127
8 153 145 8 328 323
9 340 310 9 241 251
10 372 327 10 130 126
stddev. 105 97 stddev. 107 108
average 222 220 average 193 164

BLACK 1 BLACK 2
Initial Modeling
 Rough- Tooth- Tooth- Initial Lapping Lapping Clay
Point ness, Ra paste#1, paste#2, Point Roughness Comp. #1, Comp. #2, w/Sand,
(µin) Ra (µin) Ra (µin) Ra (µin) Ra (µin) Ra (µin) Ra (µin)
1 226 166 134 1 124 154 142 137
2 183 188 133 2 121 159 130 154
3 186 153 132 3 139 115 147 159
4 178 174 128 4 148 155 123 136
5 175 96 149 5 132 135 152 128
6 235 -- 135 6 -- 150 167 165
7 196 -- 144 7 -- 190 150 141
8 -- -- 120 8 -- 165 198 171
stddev. 24 36 9 9 -- 145 122 152
average 197 155 134 10 -- 170 137 167
stddev. 11 20 23 15
average 133 154 147 151

BLACK 3
Initial Lapping Tooth- Modeling Clay
Point Roughness Compound, paste, Ra w/Sand, Ra
Ra (µin) Ra (µin) (µin) (µin)
1 91 153 355 118
2 218 83 273 162
3 278 309 147 277
4 295 268 130 116
5 136 214 146 132
6 130 163 164 247
7 98 249 116 296
8 234 334 251 156
9 263 127 311 116
10 117 130 135 238
stddev. 79 85 87 71
average 186 203 203 186

BLACK 4
Initial Lapping Borax/Glue
Point Roughness Compound, w/Sand, Ra
Ra (µin) Ra (µin) (µin)
1 260 152 128
2 139 110 112
 3 206 222 239
4 223 259 217
5 256 263 231
6 155 126 224
7 261 284 219
8 226 277 102
9 104 140 86
10 124 135 102
stddev. 60 70 64
average 195 197 166