Thermoplastics and Photopolymer Desktop 3D Printing System Selection Criteria Based on Technical Specifications and Performances for Instructional Applications
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Types of Standard AM (Additive Manufacturing) Processes
- Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM or FFF): It is a material extrusion technique that prints plastic layer by layer at various thicknesses, speeds, and temperatures [56,57,58,59]. Some of notable works conducted [58,59] have shown the advantageous features of FFF technology with enhanced features by reducing printing time and waste through removing additional materials’ needs for the supporting structure.
- Stereolithography Apparatus (SLA): It is known its top accuracy and precision [60]. It converts liquid photopolymers into 3D objects, and the plastic is heated into a semi-liquid form, which hardens on contact with a UV laser. The object is then washed and cured to make it stronger and more stable. Some representative works are introduced in [8,56].
- Digital Light Processing: DLP is the oldest 3D printing method, and much like the SLA method, it uses a liquid plastic resin and an arc lamp (instead of a UV laser) to solidify the material to form the object. It is faster than SLA because it creates entire layers at once, whereas SLA has to draw out each layer [1,2]. An application for silk hydrogel printing is introduced in [61].
- Selective Laser Sintering (SLS): SLS technology uses a high-powered carbon dioxide laser to fuse metal (or nylon powder, ceramics, and glass) by partly melting the particles together. Since un-sintered material surrounds the print, this method does not require printed supports for stability. The un-sintered material is removed manually after the printing is carried out [62]. Due to its advanced and selective features for source selection, SLS is used for various applications in the medical field [63,64].
- Selective Laser Melting (SLM): SLM also uses a high-powered laser that melts and welds metallic powders together by layer. The unused material is removed after the object is finished printing. SLM completely melts the powder, resulting in a more robust finished product over SLS [8]. SLM is heavily used in industrial applications for its complex geometry structure without space limitations [65,66]
- Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM): LOM is a method that fuses plastic or paper using heat and pressure with a laser and a roller. It is one of the fastest and most affordable methods for 3D printing [18]. With the advancement of rapid processing requirements and material selection, printing for materials such as composite and ceramic adapts LOM [69].
- Binder Jetting (BJ): BJ was invented at MIT. It uses two types of materials (powder-based material and a bonding agent) to build objects. The materials can be ceramics, metals, sand, and plastics [8]. Binder Jetting is faster and more cost-effective than many 3D printing technologies. Binder Jetting machines can print quickly by using multiple heads to jet binding material simultaneously, turning out tens or even hundreds of parts in a single build. However, metal parts produced by Binder Jetting have inferior mechanical properties than DMLS/SLM parts. Additionally, the choice of materials used in Binder Jetting is limited [28,29,30,31,70,71]
- Material Jetting Polyjet (MJ): The MJ method uses molten wax as the material to make molds and casts. A UV light helps the layers to cure, and a gel-like material is used for supports. The gel is removed afterward by hand or water jets [1]. MJ can produce smoother parts and surfaces than injection molding that guarantees very high dimensional accuracy. In addition, parts printed by MJ could have homogeneous mechanical and thermal properties. However, they are poor in mechanical properties so that parts cannot be used for functional prototypes [40,41,42,43].
2.2. Common Thermoplastic and Photopolymer Materials of Desktop 3D Printers
- Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS);
- Polylactic Acid (PLA);
- Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU);
- Thermoplastic Elastomers (TPE);
- Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET);
- Polycarbonate Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (PC-ABS);
- Chlorinated Polyethylene (CPE);
- Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA);
- High Impact Polystyrene Sheet (HOPS);
- Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate (ASA).
3. Industry vs. Desktop 3D Printers
3.1. Printers for Industry
3.2. Desktop Printers
3.3. Challenges in Desktop Printers
- Lack of formal standards: Due to the usage of desktop printers mainly for proof-of-concept models from CAD or similar purposes, standardization in material properties, extruder speed, the manufacturing process has not been recognized and established yet.
- Limited repeatability: Unlike molding in the conventional manufacturing process, various processing parameters, such as speed, temperature, material characteristics, and inherited characteristics of additive manufacturing, do not guarantee as repetitive results as conventional ones.
- Software development and capabilities: Development software is not often provided open-source, limiting the capabilities of tuning in system parameters for precise control in hardware and material processing.
- Limited selection of materials: Comparatively small and simple hardware in the printers also limits the number of materials to process. Typical desktop printers can process up to five different materials while industry ones are above 10 or more simultaneously or separately.
- Low-resolution output: Similarly extended to limited repeatability, desktop printers do not require mechanical properties of prints but while simple and rapid material processing.
4. Comparison of Desktop 3D Printers
4.1. Creality 3D
4.1.1. Creality 3D: Cr-10s
4.1.2. Creality: Cr-10s Pro
4.1.3. Creality: Ender 3:
4.1.4. Creality: Cr–X
4.2. Prusa: i3 MK3
4.3. Makerbot
4.3.1. Makerbot: Method
4.3.2. Makerbot: Replicator+
4.3.3. Makerbot: Replicator z18
4.3.4. Makerbot: Ultimaker 3
4.3.5. Makerbot: Ultimaker S5
4.4. Formlabs
Formlabs: Form 2
4.5. T3D
5. Specifications of Desktop 3D Printers for Selection Criteria
- Printing Speed: Speed that the printer moves while extruding;
- File Format: The file types that the printer recognizes;
- Printing Software: The splicing software that the printer is compatible with;
- Nozzle Temp: Maximum temperature that the nozzle will reach;
- Bed Temp: Maximum Temperature that the heat bead will reach;
- Power Supply: The amount of input and output voltage the printer requires to work;
- Filaments: The types of materials that are compatible with the printer;
- Features: The unique capabilities the printer has to offer;
- Price: The amount of money the printer costs.
6. Summary and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Barnatt, C. 3D Printing; ExplainingTheFuture.com: Wroclaw, Poland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Berman, B. 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Bus. Horiz. 2012, 55, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardoso, R.M.; Rocha, D.P.; Rocha, R.G.; Stefano, J.S.; Silva, R.A.; Richter, E.M.; Munoz, R.A. 3D-printing pen versus desktop 3D-printers: Fabrication of carbon black/polylactic acid electrodes for single-drop detection of 2, 4, 6-trinitrotoluene. Anal. Chim. Acta 2020, 1132, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ainsworth, J.; Disher, D.; Morreal, D. Desktop 3D Printer. Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/47228785.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2021).
- Antreas, K.; Piromalis, D. Employing a Low-Cost Desktop 3D Printer: Challenges, and How to Overcome Them by Tuning Key Process Parameters. Int. J. Mech. Appl. 2021, 10, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butt, J.; Onimowo, D.A.; Gohrabian, M.; Sharma, T.; Shirvani, H. A desktop 3D printer with dual extruders to produce customised electronic circuitry. Front. Mech. Eng. 2018, 13, 528–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatz, C.R.; Msallem, B.; Aghlmandi, S.; Brantner, P.; Thieringer, F. Can an entry-level 3D printer create high-quality anatomical models? Accuracy assessment of mandibular models printed by a desktop 3D printer and a professional device. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 49, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horvath, J. The Desktop 3D Printer. In Mastering 3D Printing; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 11–20. [Google Scholar]
- Kacmarcik, J.; Spahic, D.; Varda, K.; Porca, E.; Zaimovic-Uzunovic, N. An investigation of geometrical accuracy of desktop 3D printers using CMM. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Novi Sad, Serbia, 6–8 June 2018; p. 012085. [Google Scholar]
- Papp, I.; Tornai, R.; Zichar, M. What 3D technologies can bring to education: The impacts of acquiring a 3D printer. In Proceedings of the 2016 7th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfoCom), Wroclaw, Poland, 16–18 October 2016; pp. 000257–000262. [Google Scholar]
- Sevvel, P.; Srinivasan, D.; Balaji, A.; Gowtham, N.; Varadhan, V.K.; Kumaresh, P.; Bajrang, M.K. Design & fabrication of innovative desktop 3D printing machine. Mater. Today: Proc. 2020, 22, 3240–3249. [Google Scholar]
- Turbovich, Z.N.; Avital, I.; Mazor, G.; Das, A.K.; Kalita, P.C. Personal 3D Printer: Self-design and Manufacturing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Research into Design, Guwahati, India, 9–11 January 2017; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 327–338. [Google Scholar]
- Zontek, T.L.; Ogle, B.R.; Jankovic, J.T.; Hollenbeck, S.M. An exposure assessment of desktop 3D printing. J. Chem. Health Saf. 2017, 24, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Letcher, T.; Waytashek, M. Material property testing of 3D-printed specimen in PLA on an entry-level 3D printer. In Proceedings of the ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Montreal, QC, Canada, 14–20 November 2014; Volume 46438, p. V02AT02A014. [Google Scholar]
- Deng, Y.; Cao, S.-J.; Chen, A.; Guo, Y. The impact of manufacturing parameters on submicron particle emissions from a desktop 3D printer in the perspective of emission reduction. Build. Environ. 2016, 104, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, K.; Tao, Y.; Zhang, K.; Song, L.X. Research on Common Problems Based on a Desktop 3D Printer. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2015, 757, 175–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mendes, L.; Kangas, A.; Kukko, K.; Mølgaard, B.; Säämänen, A.; Kanerva, T.; Flores Ituarte, I.; Huhtiniemi, M.; Stockmann-Juvala, H.; Partanen, J. Characterization of emissions from a desktop 3D printer. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, S94–S106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roberson, D.; Espalin, D.; Wicker, R. 3D printer selection: A decision-making evaluation and ranking model. Virtual. Phys. Prototyp. 2013, 8, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tully, J.J.; Meloni, G.N. A Scientist’s Guide to Buying a 3D Printer: How to Choose the Right Printer for Your Laboratory; ACS Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; pp. 14853–14860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savini, A.; Savini, G. A short history of 3D printing, a technological revolution just started. In Proceedings of the 2015 ICOHTEC/IEEE International History of High-Technologies and Their Socio-Cultural Contexts Conference (HISTELCON), Tel-Aviv, Israel, 18–19 August 2015; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Lopes, A.J.; Perez, M.A.; Espalin, D.; Wicker, R.B. Comparison of ranking models to evaluate desktop 3D printers in a growing market. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 35, 101291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitley, D.; Bencharit, S. Digital Implantology with Desktop 3D Printing; Formlabs White Paper; Formlabs: Somerville, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Steinle, P. Characterization of Emissions from a Desktop 3D Printer and Indoor Air Measurements in Office Settings. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2016, 13, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ragab, D.; Tutunji, T.A. Mechatronic system design project: A 3d printer case study. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Jordan Conference on Applied Electrical Engineering and Computing Technologies (AEECT), Amman, Jordan, 3–5 November 2015; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Petersen, E.E.; Kidd, R.W.; Pearce, J.M. Impact of DIY home manufacturing with 3D printing on the toy and game market. Technologies 2017, 5, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atanasova, B.; Langlois, D.; Nicklaus, S.; Chabanet, C.; et Etiévant, P. (Eds.) ASTM International; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Monzón, M.; Ortega, Z.; Martínez, A.; Ortega, F. Standardization in additive manufacturing: Activities carried out by international organizations and projects. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2015, 76, 1111–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afshar-Mohajer, N.; Wu, C.-Y.; Ladun, T.; Rajon, D.A.; Huang, Y. Characterization of particulate matters and total VOC emissions from a binder jetting 3D printer. Build. Environ. 2015, 93, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gokuldoss, P.K.; Kolla, S.; Eckert, J. Additive manufacturing processes: Selective laser melting, electron beam melting and binder jetting—Selection guidelines. Materials 2017, 10, 672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gonzalez, J.; Mireles, J.; Lin, Y.; Wicker, R.B. Characterization of ceramic components fabricated using binder jetting additive manufacturing technology. Ceram. Int. 2016, 42, 10559–10564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meteyer, S.; Xu, X.; Perry, N.; Zhao, Y.F. Energy and material flow analysis of binder-jetting additive manufacturing processes. Procedia Cirp 2014, 15, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carroll, B.E.; Palmer, T.A.; Beese, A.M. Anisotropic tensile behavior of Ti–6Al–4V components fabricated with directed energy deposition additive manufacturing. Acta Mater. 2015, 87, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saboori, A.; Aversa, A.; Marchese, G.; Biamino, S.; Lombardi, M.; Fino, P. Application of directed energy deposition-based additive manufacturing in repair. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saboori, A.; Gallo, D.; Biamino, S.; Fino, P.; Lombardi, M. An overview of additive manufacturing of titanium components by directed energy deposition: Microstructure and mechanical properties. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Z.; Palmer, T.A.; Beese, A.M. Effect of processing parameters on microstructure and tensile properties of austenitic stainless steel 304L made by directed energy deposition additive manufacturing. Acta Mater. 2016, 110, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, S.-I.; Rosen, D.W.; Choi, S.-k.; Duty, C.E. Effective mechanical properties of lattice material fabricated by material extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2014, 1, 12–23. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, F.; Vogt, B.D.; Cakmak, M. Complex flow and temperature history during melt extrusion in material extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 22, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seppala, J.E.; Han, S.H.; Hillgartner, K.E.; Davis, C.S.; Migler, K.B. Weld formation during material extrusion additive manufacturing. Soft Matter 2017, 13, 6761–6769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serdeczny, M.P.; Comminal, R.; Pedersen, D.B.; Spangenberg, J. Numerical simulations of the mesostructure formation in material extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 28, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Udroiu, R.; Braga, I.C.; Nedelcu, A. Evaluating the quality surface performance of additive manufacturing systems: Methodology and a material jetting case study. Materials 2019, 12, 995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vu, I.Q.; Bass, L.B.; Williams, C.B.; Dillard, D.A. Characterizing the effect of print orientation on interface integrity of multi-material jetting additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2018, 22, 447–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.; Lim, J.C.; Liu, Y.; Qi, X.; Yap, Y.L.; Dikshit, V.; Yeong, W.Y.; Wei, J. Performance evaluation of projet multi-material jetting 3D printer. Virtual. Phys. Prototyp. 2017, 12, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yap, Y.L.; Wang, C.; Sing, S.L.; Dikshit, V.; Yeong, W.Y.; Wei, J. Material jetting additive manufacturing: An experimental study using designed metrological benchmarks. Precis. Eng. 2017, 50, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatham, C.A.; Long, T.E.; Williams, C.B. A review of the process physics and material screening methods for polymer powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2019, 93, 68–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gong, H.; Rafi, K.; Gu, H.; Starr, T.; Stucker, B. Analysis of defect generation in Ti–6Al–4V parts made using powder bed fusion additive manufacturing processes. Addit. Manuf. 2014, 1, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khairallah, S.A.; Anderson, A.T.; Rubenchik, A.; King, W.E. Laser powder-bed fusion additive manufacturing: Physics of complex melt flow and formation mechanisms of pores, spatter, and denudation zones. Acta Mater. 2016, 108, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- King, W.E.; Anderson, A.T.; Ferencz, R.M.; Hodge, N.E.; Kamath, C.; Khairallah, S.A.; Rubenchik, A.M. Laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing of metals; physics, computational, and materials challenges. Appl. Phys. Rev. 2015, 2, 041304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhatt, P.M.; Kabir, A.M.; Peralta, M.; Bruck, H.A.; Gupta, S.K. A robotic cell for performing sheet lamination-based additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2019, 27, 278–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Derazkola, H.A.; Khodabakhshi, F.; Simchi, A. Evaluation of a polymer-steel laminated sheet composite structure produced by friction stir additive manufacturing (FSAM) technology. Polym. Test. 2020, 90, 106690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gibson, I.; Rosen, D.; Stucker, B.; Khorasani, M. Sheet Lamination. In Additive Manufacturing Technologies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 253–283. [Google Scholar]
- Gibson, I.; Rosen, D.W.; Stucker, B. Sheet lamination processes. In Additive Manufacturing Technologies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 223–252. [Google Scholar]
- Davoudinejad, A. Vat photopolymerization methods in additive manufacturing. In Additive Manufacturing; Elsevier: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 159–181. [Google Scholar]
- Davoudinejad, A.; Pedersen, D.B.; Tosello, G. Evaluation of polymer micro parts produced by additive manufacturing processes by using vat photopolymerization method. In Proceedings of the Dimensional Accuracy and Surface Finish in Additive Manufacturing, Joint Special Interest Group Meeting between Euspen and ASPE, KU Leuven, BE, Leuven, Belgium, 10–12 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, G.I.; Schwartz, J.J.; Zhang, D.; Weiss, B.M.; Ganter, M.A.; Storti, D.W.; Boydston, A.J. Production of materials with spatially-controlled cross-link density via vat photopolymerization. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 29037–29043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Awad, A.; Martinez, P.R.; Gaisford, S.; Goyanes, A.; Basit, A.W. Vat photopolymerization 3D printing for advanced drug delivery and medical device applications. J. Control. Release 2020, 329, 743–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamran, M.; Saxena, A. A comprehensive study on 3D printing technology. MIT Int. J. Mech. Eng. 2016, 6, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
- All3dp.com. Available online: https://all3dp.com/ (accessed on 20 June 2021).
- Kumar, A.; Collini, L.; Daurel, A.; Jeng, J.-Y. Design and additive manufacturing of closed cells from supportless lattice structure. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 33, 101168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, A.; Verma, S.; Jeng, J.-Y. Supportless lattice structures for energy absorption fabricated by fused deposition modeling. 3d Print. Addit. Manuf. 2020, 7, 85–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weng, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Lin, W.; Senthil, T.; Wu, L. Structure-property relationship of nano enhanced stereolithography resin for desktop SLA 3D printer. Compos. Part A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 2016, 88, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, H.; Seo, Y.B.; Lee, J.S.; Lee, Y.J.; Lee, H.; Ajiteru, O.; Sultan, M.T.; Lee, O.J.; Kim, S.H.; Park, C.H. Digital light processing 3D printed silk fibroin hydrogel for cartilage tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2020, 232, 119679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duran, C.; Subbian, V.; Giovanetti, M.T.; Simkins, J.R.; Beyette, F.R., Jr. Experimental desktop 3D printing using dual extrusion and water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2015, 21, 528–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, D.N.; De Oliveira, M.G.; Meurer, E.; Meurer, M.I.; Da Silva, J.V.L.; Santa-Bárbara, A. Dimensional error in selective laser sintering and 3D-printing of models for craniomaxillary anatomy reconstruction. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2008, 36, 443–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fina, F.; Goyanes, A.; Gaisford, S.; Basit, A.W. Selective laser sintering (SLS) 3D printing of medicines. Int. J. Pharm. 2017, 529, 285–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, N.; Zhang, J.; Xing, W.; Ouyang, D.; Liu, L. 3D printing of Fe-based bulk metallic glass composites with combined high strength and fracture toughness. Mater. Des. 2018, 143, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, C.; Zhang, C.; Xing, W.; Liu, L. 3D printing of Zr-based bulk metallic glasses with complex geometries and enhanced catalytic properties. Intermetallics 2018, 94, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, S.; Bourell, D.L.; Babu, S. Metallic materials for 3D printing. Mrs Bull. 2016, 41, 729–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Garcia, C.; Rumpf, R.; Tsang, H.; Barton, J. Effects of extreme surface roughness on 3D printed horn antenna. Electron. Lett. 2013, 49, 734–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ligon, S.C.; Liska, R.; Stampfl, J.; Gurr, M.; Mülhaupt, R. Polymers for 3D printing and customized additive manufacturing. Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 10212–10290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mostafaei, A.; Elliott, A.M.; Barnes, J.E.; Li, F.; Tan, W.; Cramer, C.L.; Nandwana, P.; Chmielus, M. Binder jet 3D printing—Process parameters, materials, properties, modeling, and challenges. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2021, 119, 100707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sivarupan, T.; Balasubramani, N.; Saxena, P.; Nagarajan, D.; El Mansori, M.; Salonitis, K.; Jolly, M.; Dargusch, M.S. A review on the progress and challenges of binder jet 3D printing of sand moulds for advanced casting. Addit. Manuf. 2021, 40, 101889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FormLab. Available online: https://formlabs.com/3d-printers/form-2/ (accessed on 24 May 2021).
- Creality 3D. Available online: https://www.creality3d.shop/ (accessed on 24 May 2021).
- PC Magazine. Available online: www.pcmag.com (accessed on 24 May 2021).
- Prusa. Available online: http:/shop.prusa3d.com (accessed on 24 May 2021).
- Makerbot Method. Available online: https://www.makerbot.com/3d-printers/method (accessed on 24 May 2021).
- Business Review. Available online: https://www.business.com/reviews/makerbot-replicator (accessed on 24 May 2021).
- Makerbot. Available online: www.makerbot.com (accessed on 24 May 2021).
- Christiyan, K.J.; Chandrasekhar, U.; Venkateswarlu, K. Flexural properties of PLA components under various test condition manufactured by 3D Printer. J. Inst. Eng. (India) Ser. C 2018, 99, 363–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makerbot Ultimaker. Available online: https://ultimaker.com/en/products/ (accessed on 24 May 2021).
- Campbell, I.; Diegel, O.; Kowen, J.; Wohlers, T. Wohlers Report 2018: 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing State of the Industry: Annual Worldwide Progress Report; Wohlers Associates: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- T3D. Available online: https://myt3d.com (accessed on 3 June 2021).
3D Printers | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Printer Name Model No. | Printing Material | Customization | Pros | Cons | Price in USD |
Creality Cr-10s | ABS, PLA, TPU | x,y,z movement | Price, size, dual extruder option for a higher price | Customizability, challenging to print with ABS and TPU, No original software, no enclosure | 400–500 |
Prusa i3 mk3 | ABS, PLA, Flex, PET, composite, nylon, PC-ABS | x,y,z movement | Automatic bed leveling, price, features, fast heating | No enclosure | 799–999 |
Makerbot | ABS, PLA, filaFlex | z movement | Auto bed leveling has a model with dual extrusion with PVA printing and enclosure | Not many filament options need to print raft for better removal | 2799–6499 |
Ultimaker | ABS, PLA, TPU, CPE, PVA, PC, Nylon | x,y,z movement, and z offset through software | Print supports in separate material for easy separation, heated bed, auto bed leveling, enclosed, dual extrusion, quiet | Longer print time | 2500–6000 |
Formlabs | Resin (tough, rigid, flexi, castable wax, ceramic, elastic, durable) | z movement, x-y scaling | Cleaner prints | Messy cleanup | 3350 |
Power Supply | Input: 100–240 V 5.9 A 50/60 Hz Output: 24 V 21 A 480 W |
---|---|
Materials | 1.75 mm, PLA, ABS, Wood, TPU, gradient color, carbon fiber |
Features | Filament run-out detection Outage recovery Aluminum frame Requires assembly MK8 nozzle extrusion structure; different nozzle sizes available Printing accuracy: ±0.1 mm |
Cons | The extruder is placed awkwardly on the z-axis. The filament holder is prone to tangling. The print preparation is tedious. The feet of the printers do not mitigate the print bed inertia. The heat bed takes a long time to reach the desired temperature. The filament that requires consistent heat is difficult to print with this printer [2]. |
Price | USD 439.99 |
Power Supply | Input 100–240 V 50/60 Hz Output: DC 24 V |
---|---|
Materials | 1.75 mm PLA, ABS, Wood, TPU, gradient color, carbon fiber etc. |
Features | All the features of Cr-10s Automatic matrix mesh leveling Quieter Quick heating print bed Touchscreen Double gear extrusion |
Price | USD 629 |
Power Supply | Input: AC 100–265 V 50–60 Hz Output: DC 24 V 15 A 360 W |
---|---|
Materials | 1.75mm PLA, ABS, Wood, TPU, gradient color, carbon fiber, etc. |
Features | Magnetic build surface plate Quick heating hotbed Resume print function Precision: 1 mm |
Cons | This printer needs assembly. It has a slight wobble from an uneven base that makes it hard to level. Some adhesion is needed to obtain the prints to stick to the bed. This printer needs manual calibration. The bed is flimsy and requires re-leveling. |
Price | USD 229 |
Power Supply | Input: 100–240 V 5.9 A 50/60 Hz Output: 24 V 21 A 480 W |
---|---|
Materials | 1.75 mm PLA, ABS, TPU, Copper, Wood, Carbon Fiber, Gradient Color c. |
Features | Body Structure: Imported V-Slot Aluminum Bearings. Two-color printing Touchscreen Carboloy silicon printing platform Dual fan cooling Support water-soluble filaments |
Cons | The Cr-X requires a large power supply. The bed takes a long time to reach the desired temperature. It is difficult to print with a filament that needs consistent heat, such as ABS. The preparation for setting up the printer can be tedious. The feet of the printer do not mitigate the inertia of the print bed while its printing. |
Price | USD 719 |
Power Supply | 80 W/ABS Settings: 120 W |
---|---|
Materials | PLA, ABS, PET, HIPS, Flex PP, Ninjaflex, Laywood, Laybrick, Nylon, Bamboofill, Bronzefill, ASA, T-Glase, Carbon-fibers enhanced filaments, Polycarbonates |
Features | Removable heat-bed Aluminum frame Quieter than 99% of available printers and faster 3d printing Print recovery and a filament sensor Shifted layer detection Double gear extrusion Temperature monitor probes E3d V6 nozzle Automatic mesh bed leveling Heat-bed with cold corners compensation–for warp-less 3D printing from any material Automatic skew axes compensation Hassle-free PEI print surface-no glass, no glue, no ABS juice Easy multicolor printing based on layer height 1 kg (2 lbs) silver PLA filament included |
Cons | The filament sensor is buggy. The bed needs help with adhesion. The quality of the 3D printed components is not as good. There are frequent updates to keep track of. |
Price | USD 749 or USD 999 |
Power Supply | 100–240 V 4 A, 50–60 Hz 400 W Max. |
---|---|
Materials | PLA, Tough, PVA PETG, more to come |
Features | Accuracy: ± 0.2 mm Industrial Reliability and precision Up to 2x faster than desktop printers. 21 onboard sensors Wifi connectivity 25 compatible cad file types Touchscreen Product dimensions: 43.7 L × 41.3 W × 64.9 H cm /17.2 × 16.3 × 25.6 in Frame construction: Aluminum Die-Cast Base Extruded Aluminum Uprights Steel Weldment Gantry Frame Temperature control: Circulating Heated Chamber Flexible Steel Build Plate Reusable Grip Surface Camera resolution: 640 × 480 pixels 21 sensors including:
|
Cons | The build size of the method is relatively small. There are cheaper alternatives being offered that also produce professional prints. The dual extruders are tricky to calibrate and maintain. |
Price | USD 6,499 |
Power Supply | 100–240 V, 50–60 Hz 0.76–0.43 A |
---|---|
Materials | 1.75 mm (0.069 in) MakerBot PLA Material-Large Spool, Small Spool MakerBot Tough Material-Large Spool, Additional materials such as bronzefill, copperfill, and woodfill, |
Features | PC ABS with Powder-Coated Steel Reinforcements Aluminum Casting and Extrusions for Motion Components Grip Surface Build Plate Leveling Factory Leveled Stepper Motors 1.8° step angle with 1/16 micro-stepping XY Positioning Precision 11 Microns (0.0004 IN) Z Positioning Precision 2.5 Microns (0.0001 IN) CAMERA: 640 × 480 |
Price | USD 2799 |
Power Supply | 100–240 V; 5.4–2.2 A; 50/60 Hz; 350 W |
---|---|
Materials | 1.75 mm (0.069 IN) MakerBot PLA Material-Large Spool, Small Spool MakerBot Tough Material-Large Spool, Additional materials such as bronzefill, copperfill, and woodfill |
Features | Construction Powder-Coated steel with PC-ABS and Aluminum Composite Material Build Surface Injection-molded PC ABS Stepper Motors 1.8° step angle with 1/16 micro-stepping XY Positioning Precision 11 Microns [0.0004 IN] Z Positioning Precision 2.5 Microns [0.0001 IN] CAMERA 320 × 240Cons: |
Cons | The MakerBot cannot make supports from a different material than the printed object. It is also difficult to remove the printed object from the print bed without damage. |
Price | USD 6499 |
Power Supply | Input 100–240 V 4A, 50–60 Hz 221 W Max. Output 24 V DC, 9.2 A |
---|---|
Materials | 2.85 mm; Supported materials Nylon, PLA, ABS, CPE, CPE+, PVA, PC, TPU 95A, PP, and Breakaway |
Features | Dual extrusion: 197 × 215 × 200 mm build size 0.25 mm nozzle: 150–60 micron 0.4 mm nozzle: 200–20 micron 0.8 mm nozzle: 600–20 micron Assembly type Pre-assembled Build Active plate leveling Print technology Fused filament fabrication (FFF) Dual extrusion print head Swappable print cores Dual geared feeder XYZ resolution 12.5, 12.5, 2.5 micron Nozzle heat up time < 2 min Build plate heat up time < 4 min Operating sound 50 dBA Operating ambient temperature 15 °C to 32 °C (59 °F to 89 °F) Nonoperating temperature 0 °C to 32 °C (32 °F to 89 °F) |
Cons | The front of the printer is open. The spool holders are poorly positioned. The glass plate release system is fiddly. The design is boring |
Price | USD 3495 |
Power Supply | 24 V DC @ 9.2 AMPS, 100–240V/6A/50–60Hz/500 W Max |
---|---|
Materials | 2.85 mm (1122 in); Optimized for PLA, Tough PLA, Nylon, ABS, CPE, CPE+, PC, TPU 95A, PP, PVA, Breakaway |
Features | 0.25 mm Print Core: 60–150 microns; 0.4 mm Print Core: 20–200 microns; 0.8 mm Print Core: 20–600 microns Printer Dimensions (including Bowden tube/filament spool holder): 49.5 × 58.5 × 78 cm (19.48 × 23.03 × 30.7 in) Included Filament: Tough PLA Black 750 g spool, PVA 750 g spool Included Spare Parts: 2 × 0.4 mm AA build material print core, 1 × 0.4 mm BB support material print core Included Accessories: Spool holder Glass build plate Glue stick Power cable Ethernet cable USB drive Grease (for z-screw lubrication) Sewing Machine Oil (for printhead rod lubrication) Hex screwdriver 2 mm XY calibration sheets 3× Silicone nozzle covers XY Positioning Precision: 6.9 microns Z Positioning Precision: 2.5 microns Please Note: PVA soluble support material only works in combination with PLA, CPE, and nylon build materials NFC system to automatically detect material type with official Ultimaker filament Open filament system also allows printing of 3rd party filament Print Technology: FFF Print Head: Dual-extrusion head with an auto-nozzle lifting system Swappable print cores (maximum 280 C) Build Platform: Heated glass build plate (maximum 140 C) Bed Leveling: Active Operating Temperature: 15–32 C (60–90 F), 10–90% relative humidity (non-condensing) Average Operation Noise: 50 dBA Storage Temperature: 0–32 C (32–90 F) |
Cons | The Ultimaker s5 is expensive and difficult to print with certain types of filaments. The camera feed freezes, and it has a longer print time than other printers [81] |
Price | USD 5995 |
Build Size | Layer Height | Printing Speed | File Format | Printing Software | Nozzle Temp. in C° | Bed Temp. in C° | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Creality | Cr-10s | 300 × 300 × 400 mm | 0.1–0.4 mm | Normal: 80 mm/s, Max.: 200 mm/s Filament | STL, OBJ, G-Code, | CURA, simplify 3D, Repetier-Host | 260 max | 110 max |
Cr-10s pro | 300 × 300 × 400 mm | 0.1–0.4 mm | <180 mm/s, normal: 30–60 mm/s | STL, OBJ, G-Code | CURA, simplify 3D, Repetier-Host | <260 | <110 | |
Ender 3 | 220 × 220 × 250 mm | 0.1–0.4 mm | 180 mm/s | STL, OBJ, G-Code | CURA, simplify 3D, Repetier-Host | 255 | 110 | |
Cr-X | 300 × 300 × 400 mm | 0.1–0.4 mm | Normal: 80 mm/s, Max.: 100 mm/s | STL, OBJ, G-Code, JPG | CURA, simplify 3D, Repetier-Host | <260 | <110 | |
Prusa | I3 mk3 | 250 × 210 × 210 mm | 0.05–0.35 mm | 30–200 mm/s | STL, OBJ, G-Code, JPG | Simplify3D, Cura, Slic3r | 300 | 120 |
Makerbot | Method | 190 × 190 × 196 mm | 20–400 microns | Up to 500 mm/s | makerbot, STL, OBJ, G-Code, | MakerBot Print, MakerBot Mobile | N/A | N/A |
Replicator+ | 295 × 195 × 165 mm | 100 microns | 175 mm/s max | Makerbot, STL, OBJ | MakerBot Print Software, MakerBot Mobile | N/A | N/A | |
Z18 | 300 × 305 × 457 mm | 100 microns | 175 mm/s max | STL, OBJ | MakerBot Print Software, MakerBot Mobile | N/A | N/A | |
Ultimaker | 3 | 215 × 215 × 200 mm | 20–200 microns | <24 mm3/s; 30 to 300 mm/s | STL, OBJ, X3D, 3MF, BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG | Ultimaker Cura Cura connect | 180–280 | 20–100 |
S5 | 330 × 240 × 300 mm | 20–600 microns | <24 mm^3/s; 30–300 mm/s | STL, OBJ, X3D, 3MF, BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG | Ultimaker Cura Cura connect | 180–280 | 140 max | |
Formlabs | Form 2 | 145 × 145 × 175 mm | 25–100 mm | N/A | STL, OBJ | Formlabs | N/A | N/A |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jo, B.W.; Song, C.S. Thermoplastics and Photopolymer Desktop 3D Printing System Selection Criteria Based on Technical Specifications and Performances for Instructional Applications. Technologies 2021, 9, 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies9040091
Jo BW, Song CS. Thermoplastics and Photopolymer Desktop 3D Printing System Selection Criteria Based on Technical Specifications and Performances for Instructional Applications. Technologies. 2021; 9(4):91. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies9040091
Chicago/Turabian StyleJo, Bruce W., and Christina Soyoung Song. 2021. "Thermoplastics and Photopolymer Desktop 3D Printing System Selection Criteria Based on Technical Specifications and Performances for Instructional Applications" Technologies 9, no. 4: 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies9040091