Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Mechanical Characterization of Additive Manufacturing Processes


Affiliations
1 Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University, Manipal-576104, Karnataka, India
 

Objectives: To compare two of the most popular rapid prototyping processes of Stereolithography (SLA) and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) from a product-based perspective, to help customers analyze them and make a choice between the two. Methods: This paper includes the qualitative testing of identical specimens created by SLA and SLS. The specimens are evaluated on the parameters of dimensional accuracy, tensile strength, water absorption, surface roughness, density, Vickers hardness and microscopic defect structure. The outcome of this study aims at helping people to understand SLS and SLA better in terms of the products they create so that it becomes easier for users to make a choice between the two. It also aims at highlighting the above mentioned statistical information about SLA and SLS so that they may be improvised and enhanced in the future. Findings: Based on the tests conducted, it was confirmed that the SLA specimens were better than the SLS specimens in the tensile strength, water absorption, surface roughness and density tests. The SLS specimens outperformed the SLA specimens in the dimensional accuracy and Vickers hardness tests. Thus it was concluded that the SLA specimens exhibited better mechanical and physical characteristics than the SLS specimens.

Keywords

Additive Manufacturing, Material Properties, Mechanical Characterization, Rapid Prototyping, SLA, SLS.
User

Abstract Views: 158

PDF Views: 0




  • Mechanical Characterization of Additive Manufacturing Processes

Abstract Views: 158  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Mukund Joshi
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University, Manipal-576104, Karnataka, India
Nagaraja Shetty
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University, Manipal-576104, Karnataka, India
S. Divakara Shetty
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University, Manipal-576104, Karnataka, India
N. L. S. Bharath
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University, Manipal-576104, Karnataka, India
Chanakya Varma Surapaneni
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal University, Manipal-576104, Karnataka, India

Abstract


Objectives: To compare two of the most popular rapid prototyping processes of Stereolithography (SLA) and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) from a product-based perspective, to help customers analyze them and make a choice between the two. Methods: This paper includes the qualitative testing of identical specimens created by SLA and SLS. The specimens are evaluated on the parameters of dimensional accuracy, tensile strength, water absorption, surface roughness, density, Vickers hardness and microscopic defect structure. The outcome of this study aims at helping people to understand SLS and SLA better in terms of the products they create so that it becomes easier for users to make a choice between the two. It also aims at highlighting the above mentioned statistical information about SLA and SLS so that they may be improvised and enhanced in the future. Findings: Based on the tests conducted, it was confirmed that the SLA specimens were better than the SLS specimens in the tensile strength, water absorption, surface roughness and density tests. The SLS specimens outperformed the SLA specimens in the dimensional accuracy and Vickers hardness tests. Thus it was concluded that the SLA specimens exhibited better mechanical and physical characteristics than the SLS specimens.

Keywords


Additive Manufacturing, Material Properties, Mechanical Characterization, Rapid Prototyping, SLA, SLS.



DOI: https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst%2F2016%2Fv9i36%2F128250