3D Printer Benchmark: North American Editionimages.connect2communities.com/pdf/3dprinterbenchmarknaversion.pdf · 3D Printer Benchmark: North American Edition June 2010. 3 D P r i

Edgewood, Kentucky USA www.tagrimm.com

T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc.

3D Printer Benchmark: North American Edition

June 2010

3 D P r i n t e r B e n c h m a r k P a g e | 2

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

Table of Contents

Overview ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Test Procedures ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

System Expense and Capacity ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Acquisition Expense .................................................................................................................................................. 8

Annual Operating Expense ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Hourly Cost ............................................................................................................................................................... 9

Process Time ............................................................................................................................................................... 11

Prototype Cost ............................................................................................................................................................ 16

Quality ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Material Properties ................................................................................................................................................. 20

Surface Finish .......................................................................................................................................................... 23

Dimensional Accuracy ............................................................................................................................................. 26

Test Block ............................................................................................................................................................ 27

Housing ............................................................................................................................................................... 30

Security Panel—Front ......................................................................................................................................... 33

Security Panel—Back .......................................................................................................................................... 36

Accuracy Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 39

Rankings ...................................................................................................................................................................... 43

Form & Fit Applications .......................................................................................................................................... 43

Office Compatibility ................................................................................................................................................ 45

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................... 48

Appendix A: Observations and Commentary ............................................................................................................. 49

Appendix B: Systems and Construction Parameters .................................................................................................. 55

Appendix C: Supplemental Data ................................................................................................................................. 57

Appendix D: Benchmark Parts .................................................................................................................................... 59



Table of Figures

Figure 1: Test block. ...................................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 2: Housing. ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3: Security panel. ............................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 4: Acquisition expense for each system. ........................................................................................................... 8

Figure 5: Annual operating expense of the 3D printers. .............................................................................................. 8

Figure 6: Annual throughput quantity based on two “typical” parts. ......................................................................... 9

Figure 7: Typical part dimensions. ................................................................................................................................ 9

Figure 8: Hourly rates calculated from annual utilization and operating expense. ..................................................... 9

Figure 9: Continuous run time and the resulting number of parts before material replenishment. ......................... 10

Figure 10: Average build time (all parts built individually). ........................................................................................ 11

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

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

Figure 13: Process times for consolidated and individual builds. ............................................................................... 13

Figure 14: Total process time for each part grouped by technology. ........................................................................ 14

Figure 15: Total process time for each part. ............................................................................................................... 15

Figure 16: Average part cost (all parts built individually). .......................................................................................... 16

Figure 17: Average part cost - consolidated vs. individual builds............................................................................... 16

Figure 18: Part cost by technology. ............................................................................................................................ 17

Figure 19: Part cost grouped by part. ......................................................................................................................... 18

Figure 20: Effective material cost per cubic centimeter. ............................................................................................ 19

Figure 21: Oversized screws driven into two bosses. ................................................................................................. 20

Figure 22: Access cover on uPrint security panel. ...................................................................................................... 20

Figure 23: Thin ribs broken on Alaris30 test block. .................................................................................................... 21

Figure 24: Results of driving screw into Alaris30 housing. ......................................................................................... 21

Figure 25: Three breaks on the ZPrinter 310 Plus test block. ..................................................................................... 21

Figure 26: Half-lap joint of ProJet SD 3000 security panel broken in routine handling. ............................................ 22

Figure 27: Side wall V-Flash security panel. ................................................................................................................ 22

Figure 28: Broken access cover and corner boss on the SD300 Pro security panel. .................................................. 22

Figure 29: Alaris30 surface finish. ............................................................................................................................... 23

Figure 31: ProJet SD 3000 surface finish. .................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 32: SD300 Pro surface finish. ........................................................................................................................... 24

Figure 30: uPrint surface finish. .................................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 33: V-Flash surface finish. ................................................................................................................................ 25

Figure 34: ZPrinter 310 Plus surface finish. ................................................................................................................ 26

Figure 35: STL of test block. ........................................................................................................................................ 27

Figure 36: Test block accuracy to ± 2 σ. ...................................................................................................................... 27

Figure 37: Test block error maps – front view (in.) .................................................................................................... 28

Figure 38: Test block error maps – back view (mm) .................................................................................................. 29

Figure 39: STL of housing. ........................................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 40: Housing accuracy to ± 2 σ. ......................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 41: Housing error maps - top view (in.). .......................................................................................................... 31

Figure 42: Housing error maps - bottom view (in.). .................................................................................................. 32



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

Figure 44: Security panel—front accuracy to ± 2 σ. ................................................................................................... 33

Figure 45: Security panel—front error map - top view (in.). ...................................................................................... 34

Figure 46: Security panel—front error map - bottom view (in.). ............................................................................... 35

Figure 47: STL of security panel—back. ...................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 48: Security panel—back accuracy to ± 2 σ. .................................................................................................... 36

Figure 49: Security panel—back error map - top view (in.). ....................................................................................... 37

Figure 50: Security panel—back error map – bottom view (in.). .............................................................................. 38

Figure 51: Percentage of measurements exceeding ± 0.005 in. ................................................................................ 39

Figure 52: Alaris30 normal distribution. .................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 53: ProJet SD 3000 normal distribution. .......................................................................................................... 41

Figure 54: SD300 Pro normal distribution. ................................................................................................................. 41

Figure 55: uPrint normal distribution. ........................................................................................................................ 42

Figure 56: V-Flash normal distribution. ...................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 57: ZPrinter 310 Plus normal distribution........................................................................................................ 42

Figure 58: Ranking of systems for form & fit applications. ........................................................................................ 43

Figure 59: Ranking of systems for suitability in an office environment. .................................................................... 45

Figure 60: Radius on sharp edges. .............................................................................................................................. 49

Figure 61: Small steps present. ................................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 62: 4-hole pattern. ........................................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 63: Patch with odd texture. ............................................................................................................................. 49

Figure 64: Crisp battery text. ...................................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 65: Thick layers produce stepping. .................................................................................................................. 52

Figure 66: Some gaps (pits) on surfaces. .................................................................................................................... 52

Figure 67: Ovaled holes .............................................................................................................................................. 52

Figure 68: Smallest step (0.005 in.) missing. .............................................................................................................. 52

Figure 69: Crisp, consistent reveal. ............................................................................................................................. 52

Figure 70: Details are sharp and crisp......................................................................................................................... 50

Figure 71: 4-hole pattern is well defined. ................................................................................................................... 50

Figure 72: Smallest step is barely visible. ................................................................................................................... 50

Figure 73: Bore has best circular profile. .................................................................................................................... 50

Figure 74: Walls have a tendency to bow. .................................................................................................................. 50

Figure 75: Large shifts on bosses and walls. ............................................................................................................... 51

Figure 76: Delamination. ............................................................................................................................................ 51

Figure 77: Damaged holes when material was picked out. ........................................................................................ 51

Figure 78: Misshapen hole. ......................................................................................................................................... 51

Figure 79: Thin walls delaminate when peeling material. .......................................................................................... 51

Figure 80: Wavy bottom. ............................................................................................................................................ 53

Figure 81: Ovaled holes. ............................................................................................................................................. 53

Figure 82: “D-Shaped” hole. ....................................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 83: Irregular shape of bore. ............................................................................................................................. 53

Figure 84: Wavy pocket walls. .................................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 85: Thin walls are straight and true. ................................................................................................................ 54

Figure 86: Stray mounds of material. ......................................................................................................................... 54



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

Figure 88: 4 holes are present on well defined. ......................................................................................................... 54

Figure 89: Battery text is reasonably sharp. ............................................................................................................... 54

Figure 90: Cost data (U.S. dollars). ............................................................................................................................. 57

Figure 91: Process time data (hours). ......................................................................................................................... 58

Figure 92: Test Block ................................................................................................................................................... 59

Figure 93: Housing ...................................................................................................................................................... 59

Figure 94: Security Panel—Front ................................................................................................................................ 60

Figure 95: Security Panel—Back ................................................................................................................................. 60


Overview

The fastest growing segment of the additive manufacturing industry is 3D printers. A major driver for this growth

is the low cost of these devices, which are far less expensive than the 3D production systems used for advanced

prototyping and manufacturing. Other attractive aspects of these systems are the promises of quick turnaround,

simple operation, low operating expense and in-office use.

3D printers are intended to be self-service output devices that produce concept models and form/fit prototypes.

Instead of sending CAD data to an internal model shop or external service bureau, the idea is that designers and

engineers make their own parts right in the engineering office. Much like a 2D laser printer, these devices become

personal printers shared among a few co-workers.

The purpose of this benchmark study is to determine just how fast, inexpensive and easy to use 3D printers can

be. To do so, 3D printers are reviewed in the following four areas.

Time Cost

Build time Prototype cost

Total process time Annual operating expense

Direct labor/automation Acquisition/implementation cost

Quality Operations

Dimensional accuracy Day-to-day investment (time)

Surface finish Suitability for office use

Material characteristics “Greenness” (recycling/disposal)

This study includes six commercially available systems from five companies. In each case, the lowest priced model

in the product family was tested.

Alaris30 (Objet Geometries)

ProJet SD 3000 (3D Systems)

SD300 Pro (Solido)

uPrint (Stratasys)

V-Flash (3D Systems)

ZPrinter 310 Plus (Z Corporation)

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

Appendix B: Systems and Construction Parameters


Test Procedures

Testing results from 3D printers are dependent on the

prototype that is produced. Prototype parameters such as size,

volume and level of detail will influence production time, cost

and quality. To provide data that is relevant to a wide array of

parts, this benchmark analyzes three distinctly different

objects: test block, housing and security panel assembly. Since

the security panel includes two pieces, there are four parts in

the study.

The test block (Figure 1) is a small piece that combines a variety

of feature types, including: thin walls, small steps, spherical

surfaces and thick sections. The housing (Figure 2) offers an

example of a moderately sized, thick-walled, prismatic

prototype. The security panel (Figure 3) offers features

common to injection molded products as well as some thin-

walled features. Since it includes both a front and back panel, it

also allows evaluation of the fit between mating components.

These four prototypes were constructed individually in the test

systems with parameters suited to concept, form and fit

applications. During the process, all elements of time and cost

were measured—from opening the STL file to the moment that

the prototype was ready for shipment. In doing so, the most

important aspect of time, total process time, is documented.

To eliminate the variable of post processing (part finishing) and

to evaluate the accuracy of raw prototypes, benching of the

parts was not permitted. However, all secondary operations

necessary for the completion of the test parts were performed.

These operations included cleaning, curing, support removal

and part infiltration.

Figure 1: Test block.

Figure 2: Housing.

Figure 3: Security panel.


System Expense and Capacity

Without benchmark data, many buying decisions are based on system cost and vendor claims of system speed.

While these are critical components in an analysis, they do not accurately reflect the true ownership and

operational cost or the actual time for prototype production. By capturing all elements of time and cost, this

benchmark data offers an accurate depiction of acquisition expense, annual expense, hourly cost and prototype

cost. It also offers an accurate measure of the total time to produce a prototype.

Acquisition Expense

The acquisition expense (Figure 4) reflects

the investment for the system

configuration used in the benchmark,

including all necessary support equipment

and estimated costs for facility

modifications. The expenses do not include

optional equipment that is at the user’s

discretion.

With the promise of office environment

operations, facility modifications are

minimal. For the most part, the

requirements include water and drain lines.

In some cases, ventilation may also be

advisable.

Annual Operating Expense

To determine annual operating expense

(Figure 5), the acquisition expense is

combined with ongoing expenses such as

annual maintenance contracts, labor and

replacement parts for routine service,

consumables and material disposal. For this

calculation, acquisition expenses are

amortized (straight line) over five years.

Note that annual operating expense

includes fixed expenses and the variable

expenses associated with a single shift

operation. It does not include the variable

expenses of labor and material for the

production of prototypes. These are

captured in the cost of the individual

prototypes.

Figure 4: Acquisition expense for each system.

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

U.S

. Do

llars

Figure 5: Annual operating expense of the 3D printers.

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

U.S

. Do

llars


Hourly Cost

The annual expense, when amortized over

anticipated annual prototype throughput,

yields a standardized hourly cost for

machine operation. To determine annual

prototype throughput and the associated

machine hours, build times were calculated

for the construction of two “typical” parts.

The X, Y, and Z dimensions and part

volumes of the benchmark parts are

averaged to yield the “typical” part (Figure

7).

Construction times are calculated for the

concurrent building of two “typical” parts.

Using the time per run and assuming a

single shift operation—nine hours per day,

five days a week, and 50 weeks a year— the maximum number of

runs and the daily throughput are determined. Taking into

account lost time for repairs, maintenance and scheduling

inefficiencies, a utilization rate of 60% is applied to the daily

maximum. The resulting annual throughput is show in Figure 6.

This throughput and the associated build time yields the annual

operating hours for the test systems.

The hourly rate for machine operation (Figure 8) is calculated

from the annual operating hours and annual expense (Figure 5).

For each system, the most significant factors affecting hourly rate

are annual hours of operation, system cost

and maintenance expense.

The resulting range of hourly rates is

striking. At just $0.99, the SD300 Pro is by

far the lowest of the six systems. Conversely,

the ProJet SD 3000, which is the most

expensive system in the benchmark, has the

highest rate at $9.39. The uPrint and V-Flash

have relatively low rates of $3.62 and $3.03,

respectively. Alaris30 and ZPrinter 310 Plus

have moderate rates of $5.67 and $6.28.

Figure 8: Hourly rates calculated from annual utilization and operating expense.

$-

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

U.S

. Do

llars

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

0200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,600

Nu

mb

er

of

Par

ts

“Typical” Part: X: 3.4 in. Y: 4.5 in. Z: 1.9 in. Volume: 4.1 in3

Figure 7: Typical part dimensions.


While it may be tempting to use hourly rate as a basis for system selection, it is not a useful measure of

performance or operational cost. It is determined solely for calculating the production costs of the benchmark

parts, which is the viable measure in a system evaluation (see Prototype Cost).

Recently, some vendors have begun stressing the length of time that their systems can operate without material

replenishment. This factor is called “continuous run time,” and it is presented in Figure 9. This value is calculated

by determining the number of runs, and their total duration, that can be completed before the material supply is

exhausted. The consumption and build times are calculated from the “typical” part used for throughput

determination. Also shown in this chart is the number of parts that can be produced during the continuous

operation.

Holding five kilograms of material, the ProJet SD 3000 has by far the largest material capacity, which translates to

the longest continuous run time. Yet, even the shortest continuous run time exceeds 40 hours. So, all systems in

the benchmark would satisfy the two most important criteria: 1) overnight builds and 2) weekend builds. Each of

these systems could be packed with parts, launched on a Friday evening and allowed to build throughout the

weekend without concern of running out of material.

Figure 9: Continuous run time and the resulting number of parts before material replenishment.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Nu

mb

er

of

Par

ts

Ho

urs

Run Time Parts Built


Process Time

Time is a bit of a moving target when it comes to 3D printers. While gross statements can be made about systems

being fast or slow, accurate representations are dependent on many factors. Additionally, it is always advisable to

investigate the total process time rather than build time alone.

To start the discussion of time, Figure 10

presents the average build time for the four

prototype parts. This data excludes all steps

in the process other than the duration to

build the prototypes when made one at a

time. As the chart shows, the average times

range from 1.4 to 11.1 hours. The graph,

however, takes on a different look with all

time elements included (Figure 11).

The average process time in Figure 11,

includes such actions as system warm-up,

part drying, cleaning, curing and support

removal. In this chart, the time associated

with actions other than building appears in

red. As shown, the ZPrinter 310 has the

fastest average process time (2.8 hours). V-

Flash is the second fastest (7.3 hours) and is closely followed by uPrint (7.6 hours). The other systems are fairly

even with times ranging from 9.9 to 12.5 hours.

Overall, these 3D printers are simple and quick in preparing to build parts. Data and machine preparation is

typically between 5 minutes and 15 minutes. This includes any system warm-up time when starting from a

standby state. SD300 Pro is a bit of an

exception in terms of both speed and ease

of preparation. To prepare files, the part is

oriented, and then the user defines

“peeling cuts” that allow the material that

encases the part to be removed. This step

takes a little time and some experience.

Also, the time to process the files to

produce the information for each layer can

cause a bit of a delay. These factors

increased the preparation time for the

SD300 Pro to 15 minutes to 50 minutes.

Unlike the preparation work, the post

processing effort varied widely. The

variances are in the types of processes,

degree of automation and amount of time.

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

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Ho

urs

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

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

Ho

urs

Prep & Post Time

Build time


Following is a brief summary of the post processing cycles.

Alaris30: A sodium hydroxide soak is followed by a manual water-jet support removal process.

o Time: 1.0 to 1.3 hours (mostly unattended).

ProJet SD 3000: Parts are heated in a convection oven to melt away supports and are then washed in hot

water.


SD300 Pro: Surrounding material is peeled from part and what remains is pulled out with tweezers and

picks.

o Time: 0.5 hour (manual).

uPrint: Parts are placed in the support removal system where support material is washed/dissolved from

the part.


V-Flash: Parts are placed in a cleaning and curing station that: 1) washes parts with a propylene carbonate

solution 2) rinses parts with water 3) cures parts with UV light. Supports are then clipped from the part

and sanded smooth.


ZPrinter 310 Plus: Parts dry in the machine before being excavated from surrounding powder. They are

then depowered with a jet of air and infiltrated with an adhesive (or similar) material.

o Time: 0.5 to 1.4 hours (partially unattended)

Note that the reported time is for the parts made in the benchmark. Actual times may be higher or lower

depending on part size or configuration.

The amount and type of post processing will be important factors in the review and selection of a 3D Printer. Post

processing will dictate the type of work area (see Office Compatibility), the level of skill and the amount of direct

labor needed. For example, the SD300 Pro has the shortest duration but is entirely manual, and the techniques

used will impact part quality. On the other hand, the uPrint takes more time but support removal is completely

automated with no user intervention. Technique and “touch” also play roles in the Alaris30 and ZPrinter 310 part

quality since a blast of water or air can damage a part. For 3D Systems’ V-Flash and ProJet SD 3000, a bit of care is

needed because the parts are a bit pliable before curing or while heating.

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

0.000.100.200.300.400.500.600.700.800.90

Ho

urs

Post Processing

Build/Prep


Another consideration when evaluating process time is whether parts will be built individually or in batches. For

all systems, there are some time savings when combining multiple parts in a build (Figure 13). However, the

savings vary significantly. The greatest time reductions from consolidated builds are on the ProJet SD 3000 (55%),

ZPrinter310 (52%) and V-Flash (48%). The reason for these reductions is consolidation of process overhead. With

these systems, much (or all) of the build time comes from a fixed amount of time per layer. So, when parts are

grouped, the fixed time is spread over more parts. The Alaris30 (22% reduction) has a smaller ratio of fixed to

variable time, which yields a smaller reduction.

The SD300 Pro had an even smaller reduction (12%). While it can benefit from part consolidation, the size of its

build envelope forced the four parts to be made in three builds. The smallest reduction was with the uPrint (5%)

since its build times are largely unaffected by consolidation.

Like post processing, the influence of consolidation is an important consideration when evaluating systems. If

serving a number of design teams that need many prototypes, consolidated builds may be a practical way to save

a lot of time. If, on the other hand, the 3D printer will be used as needed to make a part or two, a dependency on

consolidation to make time reasonable will not be practical. So when it comes to time, the expected mode of

operation will play as big a role in the decision making as the types of parts to be produced.

To illustrate the impact of part size and configuration on time, the individual results are presented in Figure 14 *.

For the six technologies, the housing took the longest to construct because it has many of the characteristics that

increase build and processing time. This part also illustrates the amount of influence these factors have since it

has the biggest range of process times, spanning 3.7 hours (ZPrinter 310) to 20.7 hours (ProJet SD 3000).

Figure 13: Process times for consolidated and individual builds.

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00H

ou

rs

Consolidated Builds Individual Builds

*Individual part reporting does not include a test block for the SD300 Pro. Due to thin walls and general

configuration, the supplier believed that this part was inappropriate for the technology.


For all of the technologies, build time is a function of part height, and at 3.48 in., the housing is the tallest. For the

Alaris30 and ZPrinter 310, the X-Y footprint (4.87 in. x3.88 in.) is large enough to add additional print head passes,

which adds time. The housing’s volume (6.95 in3) is the largest of all the parts, and this increases time for uPrint.

The other parts are influenced by these same factors as well as other aspects such as the amount of support

material, build orientation and surface area.

Test Block Housing Security Panel—Front

Security Panel—Back

Alaris30 7.4 18.5 6.7 6.9

ProJet SD 3000 12.9 20.7 8.8 7.6

SD300 Pro NA 18.4 7.7 10.2

uPrint 5.0 12.3 4.3 8.8

V-Flash 8.0 11.0 5.1 5.2

ZPrinter 310 Plus 2.7 3.7 2.2 2.4

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

Figure 14: Total process time for each part grouped by technology.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

Ho

urs

Test Block Housing Security Panel—Front Security Panel—Back


Figure 15 presents the same process time information as that in Figure 14 but groups the results by prototype.

For a detailed breakdown of the process time, see Figure 91 in Appendix C: Supplemental Data.

From the average and individual times, it becomes clear that there are many factors to consider when evaluating

systems. While the ZPrinter 310 Plus does demonstrate its claimed advantages in speed, some of the systems fail

to live up to their promises. Conversely, systems long thought of as slow can offer competitive process times.

There simply are too many variables to make bold, sweeping claims. And, as previously noted, speed may be

trumped by a dependence on part consolidation or the amount of manual labor required.

Figure 15: Total process time for each part.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0



Ho

urs

Alaris30 ProJet SD 3000 SD300 Pro uPrint V-Flash ZPrinter 310 Plus


Prototype Cost

The prototype cost takes into account the

expense of system operation, labor and

consumables. The manufacturing

component of cost is calculated from the

hourly rate (Figure 8) and actual build time.

The labor component uses a rate of

$35.00/hour for all steps in the process

requiring manual work. Consumable costs,

which include model and support material,

infiltrants and miscellaneous items, are

calculated from the actual amount used

and the vendor-supplied list price.

As with average build times, the variance in

average cost is substantial. This range is

seen in Figure 16, which presents the average cost for the four benchmark parts when produced in individual

builds. The highest average cost is $168.99 for the ProJet SD 3000. The lowest cost ($40.51) is for ZPrinter 310

parts, which is closely followed by the uPrint with an average cost of $59.55. Surprisingly, the lowest-priced

systems do not have the lowest part costs. The SD300 Pro’s average is $158.70, which is the second highest, and

the V-Flash comes in third with an average of$84.85.

To reflect the advantages of consolidating parts, Figure 17 plots the average part costs from Figure 16 and the

average cost when the parts are constructed in the fewest number of builds possible. Across the board, average

costs drop by 9.2% to 36.9%. For the three systems with the highest average, the effect of consolidation is to

make them almost the same cost, ranging from$106.57 to $124.04. The three systems with the lowest averages

are ZPrinter 310 ($33.76), uPrint ($54.08) and V-Flash ($74.39).

Figure 16: Average part cost (all parts built individually).

$-

$40.00

$80.00

$120.00

$160.00

$200.00

U.S

. Do

llars

Figure 17: Average part cost - consolidated vs. individual builds.

$-

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

U.S

. Do

llars

Consolidated Builds

Individual Builds


Figure 18 presents the cost of the individual prototypes when built separately. With the largest volume and

height, it is not surprising that the housing is by far the most expensive part for all systems. As listed in Table 2,

the housings range from $55.67 (ZPrinter 310) to$279.17 (ProJet SD 3000). The other parts, despite the

differences in volume, height, length and width, are roughly the same for each technology. For the test block, the

lowest costs are $37.67 (ZPrinter 310) and $41.67 (uPrint). For both pieces of the security panel, ZPrinter 310 has

the lowest costs at $32.62 for the front and $36.06 for the back.

For a detailed breakdown of the cost contributors for each part, see Figure 90 in Appendix C: Supplemental Data.



Alaris30 70.70 196.35 62.94 82.35

ProJet SD 3000 137.29 246.16 107.50 111.44

SD300 Pro NA 185.48 93.63 90.63

uPrint 41.67 97.36 38.16 60.99

V-Flash 58.15 125.46 48.74 68.73

ZPrinter 310 Plus 34.14 49.65 29.95 32.72

Table 2: Individual part costs (U.S. dollars) plotted in Figure 18.

Figure 18: Part cost by technology.

$-

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00

U.S

. Do

llars

Test Block Housing Security Panel—Front Security Panel—Back


In Figure 19, the individual costs listed in Table 2 are plotted by part. For each, the most expensive are from the

ProJet SD 3000. This is true because of the high hourly rate, long run times and large material expense. For all

other parts the ZPrinter 310 and uPrint offer the lowest costs. For the three other 3D printers, the results were

mixed.

Note that these numbers are accurate reflections of costs for these specific prototypes, and they may be used to

characterize the relative expense for each 3D printer. However, since costs vary greatly with each part, a system

review that emphasizes part expense should include cost breakdowns for prototypes that are representative of

those that are components of a company’s product line.

A final cost consideration is the effective material cost. A common objection to 3D printers, and all additive

manufacturing machines, is the high cost of materials. Compared to engineering plastics and general-purpose

modeling materials, the cost per cubic centimeter or kilogram is high. However, the true cost can be much higher

that the vendor’s list price, as shown in Figure 20. The effective material cost is the total cost of consumables

divided by a part’s volume. Most of the consumables expense is in model and support materials.

Figure 19: Part cost grouped by part.

$-

$50.00

$100.00

$150.00

$200.00

$250.00

$300.00



U.S

. Do

llars



True to its claims, the ZPrinter 310 has the lowest material cost, which includes powder, binder and infiltrant, at

just $3.57/in3. Coming in second, uPrint’s material cost is only $6.87/in3. Due to a considerable amount of support

material and some loss of model material when purging and planerizing, the next highest costs are with ProJet SD

3000 ($10.13/in3) and Alaris30 ($11.84/in3).

What is quite surprising is the very high cost for the two lowest priced systems. V-Flash’s promoted cost of

$8.00/in3 swells to $12.80/in3 when support material is added to the total material consumption. This makes

V-Flash the second highest in material cost. The highest effective material cost—$25.05/in3 for the SD300 Pro—is

more than 15 times the list price of $1.63/in3. The big jump in cost for the SD300 Pro is due to the high percentage

of material that is wasted. What comes out of the machine is a 6.3 in.-wide, solid brick with the part(s) buried

inside. Everything that surrounds the part is waste that is shipped back to the vendor for recycling.

Figure 20: Effective material cost per cubic centimeter.

$-

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

$30.00

U.S

. Do

llars

pe

r in

3


Quality

Quality is an important but often subjective measure of 3D printers that has many aspects. Certainly, the

dimensional accuracy of a part is an important quality factor to consider. But there are many others, as well. In an

effort to characterize the quality of the output from the six 3D printers, material properties, surface finish and

dimensional accuracy are evaluated.

Material Properties

Material properties are an important consideration even if a 3D printer is being used for something less

demanding than functional prototyping. At a minimum, the parts must withstand the wear and tear of routine

handling as they are passed from one designer to the next. In other words, they must be durable.

Durability is a bit challenging to characterize since it depends on a number of

mechanical and thermal properties. And it can be a bit of a moving target

since some 3D printer materials change with exposure to UV light or

moisture. In spite of the challenges, each part from the 3D printers was

reviewed in the context of a form or fit prototype. This review includes

documentation of inadvertent damage done to the parts when they were

photographed, shipped and inspected (“routine handling”). The other

element of the review is documentation of the intentional damage inflicted

when bending, twisting and squeezing the parts by hand.

Since no damage occurred on any of the thick-walled housings, it was

subjected to a different test. Slightly oversized screws were driven into two

freestanding bosses that have 0.100 in. walls (Figure 21). This test simply

measured the number of full turns before the bosses failed.

Listing the 3D printers from best to worst in terms of durability, following is a summary of the observations.

#1—uPrint

By far, the parts from this 3D printer are the strongest. There was no

damage to any parts during routine handling, and when intentionally

attempting to break the parts, nearly all features stood up to the pressure.

The only damage inflicted was on a small post (0.110 in. dia.), a gusset

(0.020 in. thick) and an access cover (0.070 in. thick). To do this damage

took quite a bit of force. For example, the access cover did not break.

Instead it deflected nearly 45° before the side wall split along a layer (Figure

22).

The uPrint also did well with the screw test. Both bosses held up while the

screws were driven to the bottoms.

Figure 21: Oversized screws driven into two bosses.

Figure 22: Access cover on uPrint security panel.


#2—Alaris30

This 3D printer takes second place by a large margin. All parts survived

routine handling without any damage, and thick-walled features would not

break under a good deal of pressure.

The thin-walled features, such as the 0.010 in. and 0.020 in. ribs on the test

block (Figure 23) and 0.030 in. half-lap joint on the security panel, did break

under moderate pressure. Yet, the side walls (0.070 in. thick and 0.920 in.

high) of the security panel-back would not break without an excessive

amount of force. The access cover on the security panel-front broke at its

base with less force that that for the uPrint part, but the amount of

pressure needed was still impressive.

One concern arose when the security panel-back was lightly twisted. A

large diagonal crack appeared across the bottom face. This “brittleness” is

contrary to what was observed with other features.

Alaris30 performed well with the screw test (Figure 24). One screw was

driven to the depth of the boss without breaking; the other was driven half

way before the wall failed.

NOTE: The next three systems, while ranked in order, were very close in

durability performance.

#3—ZPrinter 310 Plus

This system did reasonably well in the area of durability. Based on powders,

binders and adhesive infiltrants, it has long been characterized as weak and

fragile. Even though it is a distant third to the Alaris30, its ranking in this

evaluation was unexpected. Please note, however, that before infiltration,

parts are much more fragile than any others in the benchmark.

There was only one small break during routine handling. Somewhere

between inspection and return of the parts, a small piece of the thin half-lap

on the security panel-back broke off. Another unexpected result was that

features with thicknesses greater than 0.080 in., such as the corner posts on

the security panel, did not fail.

For thin-walled features, the lack of durability was apparent. All broke with

low to moderate pressure applied. In some cases, the break had a brittle

feel. In others, the features had a soft, yielding feel when they failed. For

example, when the screws were driven into the housing, they slowly gave

way (instead of sharply cracking) after four to six turns.

Figure 23: Thin ribs broken on Alaris30 test block.

Figure 24: Results of driving screw into Alaris30 housing.

Figure 25: Three breaks on the ZPrinter 310 Plus test block.


#4—ProJet SD 3000

The limited durability of parts from this system was apparent during routine

handling. The first break, which was on a thin, 0.010 in. rib, happened when

the test block was repositioned during photography. Light thumb pressure in

the wrong spot broke the rib. In inspection and transit, several other

features were damaged. This included a large section of the half-lap (0.030

in.) on the security panel breaking off (Figure 26).

Curiously, as with the Alaris30, a slight twist of the security panel-back

produce a diagonal crack on the bottom face in exactly the same location.

All small or thin-walled features failed with low to moderate force. Yet, this

system did perform better on the screw test than did the ZPrinter 310. In

both cases, it took more than six turns to break out the side walls of the

bosses.

#5—V-Flash

This 3D printer is very similar to the ProJet SD 3000 for durability, but its

strengths and weaknesses are a bit different. For example, it did quite well

in routine handling—there was only one small chip on a thin wall of the test

block. On the other hand, the side walls of the security panel were much

easier to break.

All small or thin-walled features failed with low to moderate force. Yet, the

half-lap of the security panel was slightly stronger than that on the ProJet SD

3000.

V-Flash did poorly on the screw test. One of the bosses broke out before

completing a single turn of the screw.

#6—SD300 Pro

With PVC as its modeling material, much better performance was expected

from this system. While PVC is tough, it cannot hide the weakness of the

adhesive bond between layers. All features with wall thicknesses less than

0.080 in. were susceptible to breaking with low to moderate pressure.

However, thicker features were quite strong and durable.

When light force was applied to the access cover and large corner bosses,

the features broke cleanly and easily along the plane of a layer. For the side

walls of the security panel, the layers would break free of one another

rather than breaking outright.

Figure 26: Half-lap joint of ProJet SD 3000 security panel broken in routine handling.

Figure 27: Side wall V-Flash security panel.

Figure 28: Broken access cover and corner boss on the SD300 Pro security panel.


If built such that all tensile and flexural loads would be perpendicular to the layers, the strength could be

impressive, but this is not a practical expectation.

While the SD300 Pro did better that the V-Flash when the screws were driven into the bosses, the weakness of

the layer bonds once again became apparent. Rather than splitting out the side walls, the screws lifted and

separated layers of the bosses in multiple locations.

Surface Finish

The surface finish of parts produced with 3D printers cannot be accurately depicted with measurement tools such

as surface profilometers. There is too much variance and inconsistency to describe these prototypes with a simple

Ra value. The surface finish is different for flat planes, vertical walls and spherical shapes. Additionally, on many

surface, the finish is often non-uniform.

For these reasons, the surface finish is characterized through part observations. Also, since the results vary so

greatly from feature to feature, the systems are listed in alphabetical order instead of rank.

Alaris30

Overall, this system produces smooth surfaces with little stair-stepping. Flat, horizontal faces are quite smooth,

yet in some areas there is evidence of “streaking” from the print head. Vertical surfaces are also rather smooth,

but they have some “chatter,” which is where a surface juts in and out. Spherical shapes and angled surfaces are

nearly stair-step free.

Figure 29: Alaris30 surface finish.


ProJet SD 3000

At first glance, the ProJet SD 3000 parts are appealing and have what appeared to be very smooth surfaces. While

the quality of the surface finish is one of the best, under harsher scrutiny some texture and roughness are seen.

The side walls of the parts are subject to “chatter,” and in some cases soft textures are apparent. On flat faces,

some print head streaking is seen and fine lines cross the surfaces. Yet, small radii, angled surfaces and spherical

shapes are rather smooth with little evidences of stair-stepping.

SD300 Pro

The SD300 Pro has some of the best and worst surface finishes. Flat, horizontal surfaces are perfectly smooth and

glossy. However, side walls have varying degrees of chatter—some faces have little while others have large shifts.

Stair-stepping is moderate.

Figure 30: ProJet SD 3000 surface finish.

Figure 31: SD300 Pro surface finish.


uPrint

The surface finish for the uPrint parts is best described as “textured.” These prototypes are anything but smooth.

The top and bottom faces of all parts have a distinct pattern. The vertical surfaces have obvious layer lines, and

angled surfaces are clearly stair-stepped.

While the surfaces are not smooth, they are extremely uniform, which improves the aesthetic appeal and overall

feel.

V-Flash

This system produces mixed results in surface quality. While there are some textures and layer lines on side walls,

the surfaces are quite acceptable and reasonably smooth. On the other hand, the supported surfaces, which were

lightly sanded to remove the support structure, are marked with a series of small pocks and raised bumps. In an

effort to counteract warping and sagging of the parts, they were built at a slight angle. For the security panel, this

results in a “shingling” effect from stair-stepping.

Figure 33: V-Flash surface finish.

Figure 32: uPrint surface finish.


ZPrinter 310 Plus

For the ZPrinter 310, there is no need to differentiate between horizontal, vertical or angled surfaces since they all

have similar finishes. All features have a slightly “fuzzy” feel and appearance that can be likened to 220-grit

sandpaper. This texture has the advantage of hiding stair-stepping on angled and spherical surfaces. The only

exceptions are some streaking from the print head and a slight chatter on a few side walls.

Dimensional Accuracy

Previous attempts to qualify accuracy have relied on tried-and-true inspection technology. Using coordinate

measuring machines (CMMs) or calipers, a handful of features would be measured and the deviation from the

design would be documented. But as shown in the following pages, this approach may yield a grossly inaccurate

depiction of part quality. As with surface finish, there is simply too much variance in 3D printed parts to rely on a

few point-to-point measurements to characterize these prototypes.

For this benchmark, CMM has been replaced by 3D scanning. Using white light scanning technology, the quality of

each benchmark part is described by up to 2.8 million points. With this density of data, every aspect of the

dimensional quality of the test parts is described. The data is interpreted with tables, graphs and images for each

part, including:

Standard deviation plots

Deviation tables

Error maps

To characterize each system, the report also presents:

Profile tolerance graphs

Normal distribution plots

Before reviewing this data, note that the information presented cannot be matched to a traditional ± X in.

statement. Instead of the tolerance between two points, such as the center-to-center position of two holes, the

3D scanning data presents the 3D distance of a point on a test part to the corresponding point on the CAD data.

So, what is shown is a profile tolerance.

Figure 34: ZPrinter 310 Plus surface finish.


Test Block

Figure 36 presents a plot of the standard deviation of all measurement points

from their nominal locations on the CAD file. In this chart ± 2 sigma (two

standard deviations) is plotted for each technology. For this data, a smaller

bar (value) centered on 0.00 shows a higher accuracy. For example, Alaris30

has the best dimensional accuracy with a 2 σ of 0.0054 in. centered on -

0.0004 in. (the mean). V-Flash has the poorest accuracy with 2 σ of 0.0176 in

centered on -0.0027 in.

The data for Figure 36 is shown in Table 3, which also lists the percentage of

all points that fall within ±2 σ. Two other items presented in the table are the

percentage of points that exceed ± 0.020 in. and ± 0.005 in.

Figure 36: Test block accuracy to ± 2 σ.

-0.040

-0.030

-0.020

-0.010

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040

Alaris30 ProJet SD 3000

SD300 Pro uPrint V-Flash ZPrinter 310 Plus

Inch



Mean (in.) -0.0004 0.0033

-0.0010 -0.0027 0.0020

Standard Deviation (in.) 0.0027 0.0051

0.0046 0.0088 0.0044

± 1 σ 81.64% 85.94%

90.48% 92.23% 75.95%

± 2 σ 98.01% 97.43%

97.22% 99.15% 96.51%

Exceed ± 0.020 in. 0.04% 0.23%

1.18% 0.71% 0.11%

Exceed ± 0.005 in. 4.08% 32.40%

10.02% 39.20% 23.37%

Table 3: Test block accuracy inspection data.

Figure 35: STL of test block.


To visually interpret the dimensional quality of the test block, Figure 37 presents error maps for five of the

benchmark systems. These error maps color code the deviation of each measurement point using the legend to

the right. In this error map, and all that follow, green shows areas between +0.005 in. and -0.005 in. Yellows and

oranges show points that are higher than the design intent (above the surface) while cyan and blue show those

that are lower (below the surface). To highlight regions that are grossly inaccurate, bright red shows areas that

are higher than 0.020 in. and deep purples show those lower than -0.020 in.

Through color, a clearer picture emerges. For example, the ProJet SD 3000 shows greater variance than one would

expect after reviewing the ±2 σ chart (Figure 36). This is true because a high percentage (32.4%) of the points

exceed ±0.005 in. while 99.8% are within ±0.020 in. Conversely, the uPrint looks better with only a slight

improvement of the ± 2 σ. This is because a low percentage (10.02%) exceeds ±0.005 in., but 1.18% exceed ±0.020

in. These large deviations for the uPrint test block are captured in Figure 38.

Figure 37: Test block error maps – front view (in.)


While the uPrint part is mostly green, light cyan and light yellow (good accuracy), the red faces on the ribs mark a

problem area. These ribs are 0.010 in. and 0.020 in. thick, which is below the minimum that uPrint can replicate.

So, the system creates walls that are too thick, which throws off the 2 σ value.

The inaccuracy of V-Flash is depicted well in this figure on the right-hand wall. On one surface, the part goes from

very low to moderately high. Conversely, the accuracy of the Alaris30 is clear with the abundance of green.

Figure 38: Test block error maps – back view (mm)


Housing

Figure 40 shows that Alaris30 and uPrint have the best accuracy with

±2 σ values of 0.0070 in. and 0.0102in., respectively, centered on

0.000. Alaris30 also has a very small number of points exceeding

±0.005 in. (Table 4). uPrint is much greater (22.5%) but is far better

than all others. For this thick-walled part, four systems have a very

high percentage of point exceeding 0.005 in., ranging from 41.2% to 56.1%.

However, the most interesting result is that of the ProJet SD 3000. As

seen in the graph and the table, the accuracy of this part is very poor,

which makes it suspect. To confirm that the error did not arise from

the 3D scanning process, this part was re-scanned and re-inspected,

but the results were unchanged.

Figure 40: Housing accuracy to ± 2 σ.

-0.040

-0.030

-0.020

-0.010

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040



Inch

Figure 39: STL of housing.



Mean (in.) 0.0003 -0.0027 -0.0001 -0.0001 -0.0020 0.0044

Standard Deviation (in.) 0.0035 0.0154 0.0082 0.0051 0.0109 0.0053

± 1 σ 88.55% 71.63% 76.00% 78.29% 74.21% 81.71%

± 2 σ 99.38% 92.52% 94.19% 99.73% 95.50% 95.00%

Exceed ± 0.020 in. 0.09% 23.73% 2.52% 0.08% 7.33% 0.10%

Exceed ± 0.005 in. 3.37% 56.06% 41.24% 22.52% 56.08% 51.68%

Table 4: Housing accuracy inspection data.


The color maps in Figure 41 and Figure 42 show the source of the error for the ProJet SD 3000 part: a badly

undersized outer wall and a badly oversized inner wall on the “bell” of the housing. Since these results are not

consistent with the other parts (see the normal distribution curves in Figure 54), it is very possible that there was

an undiagnosed problem with the building process that may be resolved if the part were re-built. However, the

procedures for this benchmark expressly state that second attempts are not permitted.

The error maps for the housing show an obvious distinction between the two best performers, Alaris30 and

uPrint, and the two worst, SD300 Pro and V-Flash. The latter two systems show significant irregularities with

surfaces color-coded to both the high and low extremes. Regarding the ZPrinter 310, the amount of yellow in both

the top and bottom views illustrates the bias towards being oversized that is shown in Figure 40.

Figure 41: Housing error maps - top view (in.).


Figure 42: Housing error maps - bottom view (in.).


Security Panel—Front

This part poses a challenge to the 3D printers because of its tendency to

warp, bow or cup along its length and width. As seen in the error maps on

the following pages, every system shows some degree of this type of

deformation. The other challenge is the number of features measuring less

than 0.030 in. thick.

For this part, Figure 44 shows that the best accuracy comes from the Alaris30

(± 0.0104 in.) and ZPrinter 310 (± 0.0112 in.), which again has a bias toward

being oversized. The ProJet SD 3000 and uPrint are nearly identical with

values of ± 0.0154 in. and ± 0.0160 in. (respectively).

Figure 44: Security panel—front accuracy to ± 2 σ.

-0.040

-0.030

-0.020

-0.010

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040



Inch



Mean (in.) 0.0001 0.0018 0.0036 0.0029 0.0034 0.0021


± 1 σ 81.87% 85.03% 94.92% 88.27% 88.27% 89.27%

± 2 σ 99.38% 98.20% 96.60% 94.96% 94.96% 99.04%

Exceed ± 0.020 in. 0.07% 0.53% 4.34% 2.94% 2.94% 0.13%

Exceed ± 0.005 in. 19.35% 36.80% 36.37% 27.87% 27.87% 21.21%

Table 5: Security panel—front accuracy inspection data.

Figure 43: STL of security panel—front.


The error map in Figure 45 shows that Alaris30 and ZPrinter 310 are the flattest. In this view, the Alaris30 is

cupped (low in the center), while the ZPrinter 310 is bowed (high in the center). With the exception of the closest

corner of the ProJet SD 3000, it and the uPrint are fairly flat. This cannot be said of the V-Flash or SD300 Pro.

The thin (<0.030 in.) features, which include the half-lap around the edge of the part and the frame around each

keypad button (backside), were responsible for increasing the ±2 σ value for the uPrint. In both Figure 45 and

Figure 46, the bright red areas of the uPrint error maps highlight these thin features that the technology

constructs oversized. The SD300 Pro’s reported accuracy, on the other hand, is not affected by these features

even though they were non-existent. The 3D scanning inspection software cannot include the SD300 Pro’s absent

features in the calculation and error maps.

Figure 45: Security panel—front error map - top view (in.).


In Figure 46, note the red areas of the keypad for the SD300 Pro. Rather than through holes, 9 of the 16 button

holes were left with a thin, horizontal pane of material. When attempting to remove this in the 7 open holes, the

surrounding frames were badly damages. Also note that the access cover seen in the upper left of all other error

maps is missing from the SD300 Pro image. The access cover was broken off during support removal.

Figure 46: Security panel—front error map - bottom view (in.).



The top two systems for accuracy on this part are ProJet SD 3000 and

Alaris30. Their ± 2 σ values are 0.0088 in. and 0.0106 in., respectively. Both

were biased to the high side with a mean of 0.002 in.

Compared to the security panel—front, four of the six systems have

significant improvements in overall accuracy. For the ProJet SD 3000 and

SD300 Pro, the improvements are roughly two-fold. The reason for the

improvements is the internal structure that adds rigidity and diminishes the

likelihood of warping and bowing.

Figure 48: Security panel—back accuracy to ± 2 σ.

-0.040

-0.030

-0.020

-0.010

0.000

0.010

0.020

0.030

0.040



Inch



Mean (in.) 0.0025 0.0021 0.0016 0.0012 0.0024 0.0033


± 1 σ 90.96% 84.53% 93.43% 74.86% 81.33% 85.56%

± 2 σ 98.44% 97.80% 97.60% 96.83% 94.27% 98.24%

Exceed ± 0.51 in. 0.36% 0.28% 1.94% 0.33% 6.30% 0.41%

Exceed ± 0.13 in. 23.06% 16.80% 25.98% 37.11% 53.89% 43.49%

Table 6: Security panel—back accuracy inspection data.

Figure 47: STL of security panel—back.


Figure 49 shows that the flatness of this part is better than that of its mate, the security panel—front, for all of the

3D printers. When compared to the error maps in Figure 45 (security panel—front), the improvement is quite

obvious.

For the SD300 Pro, there is a red rectangular area. During post processing there was an oversight that left

surrounding material in this shallow label recess area.

Figure 49: Security panel—back error map - top view (in.).


This part, however, is not immune to distortion. With free-standing side walls that are 0.94 in. tall, there is a

tendency for these features to bow inward towards the center of the part. This distortion is most notable in the

error maps (Figure 50) for ProJet SD 3000 and SD300 Pro where the upper, left-hand wall is shaded red.

Figure 50: Security panel—back error map – bottom view (in.).


Accuracy Summary

As revealed by the standard deviation plots, inspection tables and error maps, dimensional accuracy is dependent

on the size and configuration of a part. To show this variance and to present a different perspective on the

accuracy of each technology, Figure 51 plots the percentage of points exceeding ± 0.005 in. for each part as well

as the four-part average.

This chart shows that Alaris30 has the best accuracy overall with an average of 11.9% of the measurements

exceeding 0.005 in. It was also the best for three of the four parts. The second best performer is the uPrint

(27.4%). This is in spite of the significant number of features below 0.030 in. that the machine made oversized.

Figure 51: Percentage of measurements exceeding ± 0.005 in.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%


Test Block Housing Security Panel-Front Security Panel-Back Aggregate


Although this chart shows the SD300 Pro to be in the third position, this is an inaccurate reflection of its accuracy.

For this system, the data does not include the missing features that it could not build. It also excludes the test

block which was not made because much of the geometry was too small for the process.

With an overall value of 35.8%, the ProJet placed fourth in accuracy. However, this value would likely decrease if

the housing were re-built such that its accuracy is more consistent with the other three parts. The fifth place

system, ZPrinter 310 confirms that statements of quality are dependent on what and how accuracy is measured.

In terms of ± 2 σ, this system was consistently in the middle of the pack. But when judged based on the number of

points exceeding ± 0.005 in., it is second to last with an aggregate value of 39.3%. The last place system, V-Flash

had the highest percentage by all measures but one.

To further summarize the accuracy results, normal distribution curves are presenting on the following pages.

These curves are generated from the standard deviations and means presented in previous tables. “Good”

accuracy is shown when the normal distribution is high, tight and centered on zero. Consistent accuracy is shown

when the four normal distributions have similar sizes, shapes and positions.


Figure 52: Alaris30 normal distribution.

Figure 54: SD300 Pro normal distribution.

Figure 53: ProJet SD 3000 normal distribution.


Figure 56: V-Flash normal distribution.

Figure 57: ZPrinter 310 Plus normal distribution.

Figure 55: uPrint normal distribution.


Rankings

Having presented time, cost and quality data in many forms and through numerous charts, graphs and images,

the benchmark can become overwhelming. To aid in summarizing all of this data, two weighted rankings are

presented. The first evaluates the 3D printers as tools for making form and fit prototypes. The second evaluates

the compatibility with an office environment.

Form & Fit Applications

The form/fit index shown in Figure 58 includes decision criteria commonly used when evaluating 3D printers as

CAD output devices that make concept models and form/fit prototypes. While many argue that function is also

critical, this benchmark assumes that functional prototyping is a more advanced application that is not the

domain of 3D printers. Although some systems may produce “functional” prototypes, this is not generally

expected of this class of additive manufacturing devices.

The rankings in Figure 58 use the criteria and weighting listed in Table 7. The weighting factors attempt to strike a

balance between time, cost, quality and performance. In effect, it is a measure of how well these systems live up

to the promise of easy, fast and affordable. But this measure is far too generic to be used for system selection.

Instead, the weighting factors must be adjusted to match the corporate and departmental requirements for

specific applications.

Figure 58: Ranking of systems for form & fit applications.

0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00

Form/Fit Index


For example, uPrint and ZPrinter 310 have nearly equal rankings, which makes sense since both offer a good

balance of time, cost and quality. But place more importance on any factor, and one system can become the clear

winner. If higher priority is placed on durability, labor demands or office compatibility, uPrint would have the

edge. Conversely, if process speed is the primary issue, ZPrinter 310 would be the likely choice.

Another example is if accuracy where of utmost importance. Considering the inspection report data, V-Flash and

SD300 Pro would no longer be contenders.

So, one small change to the weight of the criteria can have big impact on the system ranking. For this reason,

recipients of this benchmark are invited to download a worksheet that is pre-populated with the benchmark data.

This download allows “what-if” scenarios with user-editable weighting factors. Access the download at

www.tagrimm.com/benchmark-2010/weighted-rankings.html.

Considerations Weighting Factors


Cost 30 Quality 20

Part Cost 12 Accuracy 5

Acquisition Expense 8 Surface Finish * 4

Annual Expense 10 Feature Detail * 4

Material Properties * 7

Time 25 Performance 25

Prep/post time 8 Ease of Use * 10

Machine Time 8 Direct labor 8

Throughput 5 Office Compatibility 7

Benching 4

* Subjective measures

Table 7: Form & fit weighting factors.


Office Compatibility

The implied promise of 3D printers is office-compatible operations. While the technologies have made much

progress towards this goal, there are aspects of each that detract from true office compatibility. For each of the

six technologies, there some operational considerations in the processes that make them better suited for a

separate work area with ample lighting, ample workspace, access to utilities and linoleum flooring. And even if the

3D printer is suited for the office, they tend to be a bit too loud to be located within arm’s length of the CAD

workstation.

To illustrate the level of compatibility within an office environment, Figure 59 charts the ranking of each of the 3D

printers. These rankings are calculated using the weighted factors listed in Table 8. As this table shows,

compatibility is determined by the type of work performed, facility needs and operating conditions. In mapping

out these criteria, the logic is to capture the factors that make 2D printers self-serve, office equipment.

As with the form & fit ranking, the importance of each factor will vary by individual, department and company. So,

a user-editable worksheet is available for download at www.tagrimm.com/benchmark-2010/weighted-

rankings.html. This worksheet recalculates office compatibility rankings as the weighting factors are adjusted.

Figure 59: Ranking of systems for suitability in an office environment.

0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00

Office Compatibility


Using the weighted factors listed in Table 8, the system that ranks number one is the uPrint (945 points). The

process has few “touch points,” very little user interaction and no post processing labor. The uPrint system can

run in the office, but the support removal station will need access to water and drain line. Yet, beyond dripping of

a little soapy water, there is nothing that would make a mess of an engineering office.

The second place system is the ProJet SD 3000 (826 points).It can also run in the office, and if comfortable with a

convection oven in the work area, parts could be post processed in the same space. But the possibility of dripping

wax on the carpet and the need for a hot-water scrub make post processing better suited for a separate work

space. For some part geometries, supports are removed while soaking in hot oil in a crock pot. If using this

process, the engineering office is definitely not the place for post processing of ProJet SD 3000 parts.

The SD300 Pro (732 points) can easily run in the office and some may elect to post process the parts at their

desks. But the peeling process, which creates a bit of “clutter,” is better located in an area with ample lighting and

good work areas. If following vendor recommendations to split parts and bond them with super glue to minimize

waste, users will want to move post processing to a workbench or similar work surface.

Coming in at number four and five are V-Flash (676 points) and Alaris30 (656 points). If running V-Flash in the

office, make sure to have a supply of gloves and drip pads at hand. The parts come out of the machine with

uncured resin on the surface. This can drip, and skin contact is not recommended. The parts washer is a self-

contained cleaning and rinsing system that uses propylene carbonate and water. Some claim that the odor is a bit

much for them. Also, drips are possible when filling and emptying the system as well as when removing parts. So,

it is best to move this process, and the secondary curing step, out of the office. Finally, supports need to be

snipped off and sanded, so a workshop-like space may be the best choice for V-Flash post processing.

Alaris30 runs a bit loud and emits an odor that some find unappealing, so the 3D printer will likely be moved into

an uninhabited area of the office. But the biggest detractors from office compatibility are the sodium hydroxide

part soak and water jetting that are done in post processing. Although in a weak concentration, a bucket of



Operations 38 Operating Environment 40

Ease of Use 10 Comfort (employee) 8

Maintenance 6 Cleanliness 12

Build Management 5 “Glove” Free 10

Skill Level 8 Storage/Disposal 10

Labor 9

Facilities 22

Utilities 7

Footprint 5

Environment Type 10

* All factors are subjective measures.

Table 8: Office Compatibility Weighted Factors


sodium hydroxide (drain cleaner) is not something that is suited for the office. When working around the solution,

gloves and eye protection are also advised. Finally, the water jet station will need water and drain lines, and when

in operation, it will be too loud to be used in the office.

The least likely candidate for the office is ZPrinter 310. This powder-based technology will be a bit messy

throughout the entire process. When loading material into the machine and digging parts out after building, the

powder will make a mess. To clean it up, users vacuum the machine and surrounding area, which would be too

loud for most office areas. That same vacuum drives the depowdering station, which means more noise and more

airborne powder to settle on desks and electronics. The last step in the process is infiltrating the part with

cyanoacrylate, epoxy or wax. This step is definitely something that should be done in a workshop.


Conclusion

To confirm just how fast, inexpensive and easy to use 3D printers can be, this benchmark has thoroughly assessed

many aspects of time, cost, quality and performance. In general, these systems deliver on the claims of having

quick turnarounds, simple operations and low operating expenses. And to varying degrees, these 3D printers

satisfy the requirements for in-office use, but more progress is needed to bring the entire process into the

engineering office.

Through the charts, tables and images, the analysis shows clear leaders in specific measures of time, cost and

quality. Yet, it also shows that as the measures are adjusted, the relative positioning of systems change,

sometimes dramatically. The measure of build time for a single piece will yield a different ranking than the

measure of total process time for consolidated builds. Likewise, the measure of accuracy in terms of standard

deviation produces different rankings than a measure of the percentage of points exceeding a specific tolerance.

Through the form & fit and office compatibility indices, the benchmark also shows that a small shift in weighting

of decision-making criteria will yield a big change in rankings. When durability trumps speed, or accuracy trumps

durability, there will be two very different sets of ranking results. And if seeking a balance of time, cost and

quality, the rankings will change yet again.

So, one conclusion from this benchmark is that general conclusions regarding the best and worst 3D printers

cannot be made. To reach such a conclusion requires a definition of product, operations and criteria. Another

conclusion from the benchmark is that bold, sweeping claims for any technology may not hold true for all parts

and in all circumstances. These claims should be investigated in the context of the products that they will be

making and operating conditions under which they will be used.

Build from the benchmark data to develop an appreciation for the general positioning of the systems. Use the

finding to understand all the factors that may affect time, cost, quality and performance. Then apply its approach

to evaluate 3D printers in a manner that accounts for the applications, requirements and constraints within your

design, engineering and manufacturing environment.


Appendix A: Observations and Commentary

Following are noteworthy items that do not appear in the previous discussions of time, cost, quality and

performance.

Alaris30

Without a sodium hydroxide (NaOH) soak when post processing, parts have a tacky feel.

All sharp corners (on horizontal plane) have an obvious radius to them (Figure 60).

o This appears on all parts and all edges.

All other details are sharp and crisp.

Supported and unsupported surfaces have different appearances.

o Supported surfaces have a matte finish. Unsupported surfaces are glossy.

Test Block:

o Horizontal and vertical steps are all present, including the smallest (0.13mm) (Figure 61).

o Four-hole pattern (ranging from 0.020 in. to 0.160 in. diameter) is well defined (Figure 62).

However, sharp edges of holes are radiused.

o Smallest vertical rib is malformed. Missing top portion.

Housing:

o Irregular surface patch directly below the horizontal cylinder (Figure 63).

Strong texture edged by a small rib of material. Problem remains undiagnosed.

Security panel

o Two pieces mate well. Reveal between then is sharp, crisp and consistent.

o On two side walls, a few stray “drops” of material that appear as pinhead-sized bumps.

o Battery box text is sharp and crisp (Figure 64).

Figure 63: Patch with odd texture.

Figure 64: Crisp battery text.

Figure 60: Radius on sharp edges.

Figure 61: Small steps present.

Figure 62: 4-hole pattern.


ProJet SD 3000

All parts have a slightly waxy feel.

First impression was quite good in terms of color, feel, details and finish (Figure 65).

Details are very sharp, very crisp.

Side walls and thin ribs have a tendency to warp and bow (Figure 69).

Test block

o Four-hole pattern was the best of all. Very sharp, crisp (Figure 66).

All holes present, including 0.020 in. diameter.

o Smallest step on side wall step pattern is detectable, but barely there (Figure 67).

Housing

o Profile of the horizontal cylinder is best of all (Figure 68).

True circular profile with smooth contours.

Security panel

o Reveal is crisp, sharp and consistent.

o Battery box text is crisp, but battery profile is a bit washed out.

Figure 65: Details are sharp and crisp.

Figure 66: 4-hole pattern is well defined.

Figure 67: Smallest step is barely visible.

Figure 68: Bore has best circular profile.

Figure 69: Walls have a tendency to bow.


SD300 Pro

Big shifts on profiles of many features (Figure 70).

Some evidence of delamination between layers (Figure 71).

Many holes were ragged or gouged on edge (Figure 72).

o Likely due to picking out material.

Peeling material from any deep, narrow area seems to be difficult.

o Will likely need more than the tweezers that come with the system.

Dental picks or similar may be advisable.

o Easy to overlook areas where material removal needed.

For detailed parts, may have to reference STL to see what must be peeled away.

o Peeling may cause thin-walled features to delaminate (Figure 74).

Test block

o This part was not constructed.

Thin walls on six ribs would not build.

Small holes would not build.

Housing

o A few holes were “D-shaped.” (Figure 73)

Security Panel

o Battery box text non-existent.

Figure 70: Large shifts on bosses and walls.

Figure 71: Delamination.

Figure 72: Damaged holes when material was picked out.

Figure 73: Misshapen hole.

Figure 74: Thin walls delaminate when peeling material.


uPrint

No evidence of support structures remains.

o No marks, mars, remnants or witness lines left behind.

Coarsest layer thickness of all benchmarked systems (0.010 in.) (Figure 75).

o Heavy stair stepping on contoured and angled surfaces.

o Obvious flats on top and bottom of horizontal cylinder that gives it an oval shape.

Occasional holes (gaps) in surface between extrusion paths (at the turns).

Test block

o Four-hole pattern:

Two smallest are missing.

Two largest holes have an oval shape (Figure 77).

o Side wall step pattern is missing the smallest (0.005 in.) (Figure 78).

Housing

o A few dark spots (blemishes) on surface. May be related to support material.

o Stray material in one hole made it “D-shaped” (Figure 76).

Security panel

o Reveal is sharp, crisp and consistent. (Figure 79).

o Walls are straight and true.

Figure 75: Thick layers produce stepping.

Figure 76: Stray material makes hole D-shaped.

Figure 77: Ovaled holes

Figure 78: Smallest step (0.005 in.) missing.

Figure 79: Crisp, consistent reveal.


V-Flash

Parts may require non-standard orientations to compensate for process limitations.

o E.G., Standing security panel on end or tilting test block 45 degrees.

o Odd angles will create pronounced stair stepping.

Parts are “two-toned.”

o One side has a creamy beige hue, the other a strong yellow cast. Suspect that this results from the

UV curing process.

Many surface defects, including:

o Pocks and bumps from supports. Also some residual supports.

Indicates that attention to detail (and perhaps skilled labor) is advisable for post

processing

o Extraneous ribs of material and waviness (Figure 80).

Bowing and curling are pronounced and common.

Test block

o Three holes of the four-hole pattern are present, but all are misshapen (Figure 81).

o Side wall stepping patterns lack crispness and are missing smallest steps.

Housing

o Several holes have a “D-shape.” (Figure 82)

o Horizontal cylinder is very misshapen (Figure 83).

Security panel

o Bowing across face of parts, on vertical walls and on pocket walls (Figure 84).

o Battery text is barely visible.

o Supports remain in label recess, side pockets and small holes.

Figure 80: Wavy bottom.

Figure 81: Ovaled holes.

Figure 82: “D-Shaped” hole.

Figure 83: Irregular shape of bore.

Figure 84: Wavy pocket walls.


ZPrinter 310 Plus

Parts are much heavier than all others due to infiltration with cyanoacrylate.

o Gives a false sense of durability.

Contrary to general perception, details are rather crisp (relatively).

o And thin walls are true (Figure 85).

Several stray mounds of material on the parts (Figure 86).

o Excess powder remained on surface. It was then glued in place with the infiltrant.

In isolated areas, some pitting and pock marks.

All features present, but keeping them required some experience in depowdering the parts.

o Thin walls susceptible to breaking before infiltration.

Some vertical streaking visible on side walls.

Test block

o Four-hole pattern has all present and crisply defined (Figure 88).

Stray rib of material adjacent to largest hole.

o Side wall step pattern missing smallest (0.005 in.) steps.

Security panel

o Reveal is crisp and consistent.

o Battery text relatively crisp (Figure 89).

Figure 85: Thin walls are straight and true.

Figure 86: Stray mounds of material.

Figure 87: Streaking on side walls.

Figure 88: 4 holes are present on well defined.

Figure 89: Battery text is reasonably sharp.


Appendix B: Systems and Construction Parameters

Alaris30 (Objet Geometries)

The Alaris30 uses the PolyJet process, which mimics an ink jet printer. As the print carriage passes over the build

area, the print heads deposits fine droplets of material. One print head deposits model material, which is a

photocurable resin. The other print head deposits a gel-like support material. Ultraviolet (UV) light sources on the

printer carriage cure the material as soon as it is deposited. Each pass covers a 2.3 in.-wide swath.

For the benchmark, the following were used:

FullCure 830 model material (VeroWhite)

28 micron layers

Glossy mode

ProJet SD 3000

Multi-Jet Modeling (MJM) technology is used by the ProJet SD 3000. Somewhat similar to the PolyJet process, this

system deposits droplets of material through an ink jet-like print head. The materials deposited are a UV curable

resin and a wax. The wax is used as a support material that encases the part. A single pass covers the entire build

area of the machine.


EX 200 model material

0.0015 in. layers

SD300 Pro (Solido)

This 3D printer laminates sheets of PVC plastic that are bonded with adhesive. After placing a fresh layer, a knife

cuts the profile of the layer and then makes “peeling cuts” that enables material. Before depositing the next

sheet, anti-glue pens add a release agent to the top of the previous sheet in system-determined areas. The anti-

glue prevents adhesion, which further eases material removal.


PVC material

0..007 in. layers


uPrint (Stratasys)

This system uses the FDM (fused deposition modeling) where a thin filament of thermoplastic material passes

through a liquefier. In a semi-molten state, the material is extruded to build up the prototype. uPrint deposits

two materials; one for the model and one for supports.


ABSplus model material

0.010 in. layers

Sparse fill build style

V-Flash (3D Systems)

The underlying process of the V-Flash is FTI (film transfer imaging). Like ProJet, it uses photocurable resins, but

this material is conveyed into the build chamber as a thin film on top of a sheet of clear plastic. A light source

below the plastic sheet illuminates the profile to be solidified. Another unique characteristic is that parts are built

upside down. Parts hang down from the build platform, which is above the resin film.


FTI-GN material

0.004 in. layers

ZPrinter 310 Plus (Z Corporation)

This system uses off-the-shelf ink jet printer cartridges to deposit a liquid binder on a bed of powdered material.

Each pass covers a 2.0 in.-wide swath of the powder bed. After depositing binder, a roller spreads a fresh layer of

powder and the process is repeated.


zp150 model material

0.004 in. layers

ZBond 90 infiltrant


Appendix C: Supplemental Data

Figure 90: Cost data (U.S. dollars).



COGS Labor COGS Labor COGS Labor COGS Labor

Alaris30 Data Preparation

5.85

5.85

5.85

5.85

Part Construction Materials 28.70

112.79

23.43

45.05

Build Time 33.36 5.85 96.18 5.85 29.56 5.85 30.64 5.85

Post Processing

5.85

5.85

5.85

5.85

Sub-total 62.06 17.54 208.97 17.54 52.99 17.54

17.54

Total 79.59 226.51 70.52 93.22

ProJet SD3000 Data Preparation

5.85

5.85

5.85

5.85


78.73

25.39

44.05

Build Time 104.49 4.48 179.61 4.48 65.99 4.48 55.66 4.48

Post Processing

17.50

10.50

17.50

14.00

Sub-total 125.71 27.83 258.34 20.83 91.38 27.83 99.71 24.33

Total 153.54 279.17 119.21 124.04

SD300 Pro Data Preparation

5.85

12.85

19.85

Part Construction Materials

209.88

79.37

63.48 Build Time

17.57

6.56

8.79

Post Processing

15.16

18.66

18.10

Sub-total

227.45 21.00 85.93 31.50 72.27 37.94

Total

248.45 117.43 110.21

uPrint Data Preparation

5.85

5.85

5.85

5.85


47.60

17.36

27.52

Build Time 13.58 4.10 39.82 4.10 10.86 4.10 23.53 4.10

Post Processing Sub-total 31.73 9.94 87.42 9.94 28.22 9.94 51.05 9.94

Total V-Flash Data Preparation

5.85

5.85

5.85

5.85


99.17

28.33

53.16

Build Time 19.70 1.75 28.63 1.75 10.64 1.75 10.45 1.75

Post Processing

2.91

2.91

5.85

8.75

Sub-total 58.22 10.50 127.80 10.50 38.97 13.44 63.61 16.35

Total 68.72 138.30 52.41 79.96

ZPrinter 310 Plus Data Preparation

2.91

2.91

2.91

2.91


25.14

8.22

13.23

Build Time 12.87 7.00 19.47 4.66 9.84 7.00 11.20 4.10

Post Processing

3.78

3.50

4.66

4.66

Sub-total 23.98 13.69 44.61 11.06 18.06 14.56 24.43 11.66

Total 37.67 55.67 32.62 36.08


Figure 91: Process time data (hours).

Test Block Housing Security Panel—

Front Security Panel—

Back

Auto Manual Auto Manual Auto Manual Auto Manual

Alaris30 Data Preparation 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08

Part Construction

Machine Time 5.80

16.88 0.17 5.32

5.13

Prep & Post 0.08 0.17 0.08 0.17 .08 0.17 .08 0.17

Post Processing 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.17

Sub-total 6.97 0.42 18.05 0.42 6.30 0.42 6.49 0.42

Total 7.38 18.46 6.71 6.90

ProJet SD3000 Data Preparation 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17

Part Construction Machine Time 11.00

19.00

6.90

5.80

Prep & Post 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13

Post Processing 1.00 0.5 1.00 0.30 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.40

Sub-total 12.13 0.80 20.13 0.60 8.03 0.80 6.93 0.70

Total 19.92 20.72 8.82 7.62

SD300 Pro Data Preparation

0.08 0.17 0.18 0.37 0.28 0.57

Part Construction Machine Time

17.75

6.63

8.88 Prep & Post

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Post Processing

0.00 0.43 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.52

Sub-total

17.83 0.60 6.81 0.90 9.16 1.08

Total

18.43 7.71 10.25

uPrint Data Preparation 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17


11.00

3.00

6.50

Prep & Post 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12

Post Processing 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00

Sub-total 4.75 0.28 12.00 0.28 4.00 0.28 8.50 0.28

Total 5.03 12.28 4.28 8.78

V-Flash Data Preparation 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.17


9.45

3.51

3.45

Prep & Post 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05

Post Processing 1.25 0.08 1.25 0.08 1.25 0.17 1.25 0.25

Sub-total 7.75 0.30 10.70 0.30 4.76 0.38 4.70 0.47

Total 8.05 11.00 5.14 5.17

ZPrinter 310 Plus Data Preparation


2.60

0.82

0.87

Prep & Post 0.75 0.20 0.50 0.13 0.75 0.20 0.92 .012

Post Processing 0.25 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.25 0.13 0.25 0.13

Sub-total 2.30 0.39 3.35 0.32 1.82 0.42 2.03 0.33

Total 2.69 3.67 2.23 2.37


Appendix D: Benchmark Parts

X 1.97 in.

Y 1.97 in.

Z 1.97 in.

Volume 2.91 in.3

X 3.88 in.

Y 4.87 in.

Z 3.48 in.

Volume 6.95 in.3

Figure 92: Test Block

Figure 93: Housing


X 3.90 in.

Y 5.65 in.

Z 1.16 in.

Volume 2.27 in.3

X 3.90 in.

Y 5.65 in.

Z 0.94 in.

Volume 4.11 in.3

Figure 94: Security Panel—Front

Figure 95: Security Panel—Back


About T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc.

T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc. is a consulting and communications

firm that focuses on the additive manufacturing and 3D imaging

industries. The company was founded in 2002 by industry veteran

Todd Grimm. Located in Edgewood, Kentucky, USA, the company

can be reached at (859)-331-5340 or through its Website at

www.tagrimm.com.

About Todd Grimm

Todd Grimm is president of T. A. Grimm & Associates. In the 20 years that he has been involved with additive

manufacturing, he has established himself as one of the leading experts on the technology and the industry.

Todd is an author, speaker and industry advisor. He is the author of “User’s Guide to Rapid Prototyping.” He

frequently writes articles for trade magazines, such as Time-Compression Technologies, and has been an editorial

advisor for Time-Compression Technologies, Time-Compression Technologies UK and 3D Scanning Technologies.

For the past seven years, he has served as an advisor for the Society of Manufacturing Engineers’ technical

communities. He is the Immediate Past Chairman of the society’s Rapid Technologies and Additive Manufacturing

technical community. He has also served as Chairman of SME’s 3D Imaging technical group.

Todd is a graduate of Purdue University, where he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical

Engineering.

Disclaimers:

All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

The information in this report is believed to be accurate and reliable. The report in no way assumes any part of the risk of the

reader of this report; does not guaranteed its completeness, timeliness or accuracy; and shall not be held liable for anything

resulting from the use or reliance on the information, or from omission or negligence.

Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any

form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of T. A. Grimm &

Associates, Inc.

Additional copies may be downloaded at www.tagrimm.com/benchmark-2010/. A European version

is also available from the same Web page.

http://www.tagrimm.com/

Documents

3D Printer Benchmark: North American Editionimages.connect2communities.com/pdf/3dprinterbenchmarknaversion.pdf · 3D Printer Benchmark: North American Edition June 2010. 3 D P r i