A Comparison Study in Terms of Dimensional Accuracy and Precision Of 3D Modeling
Öz
In this study, the differences in the dimensions of the 3D models produced by Polyjet and FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling) methods as Auto surface modeling (ASm) and Parametric modeling (Pm) were investigated. Here, our purpose is to demonstrate the effects of the modeling methods on the dimensional accuracy and precision. A component having cylindrical, plane and amorphous surfaces have been selected as a sample material. Polyjet and FDM methods have been used in 3D printer using the nominal data of this component. Then a 3D scanner have been used to scan those aforementioned parts. These scans have been remodeled with two different modeling methods, namely, ASm and Pm. After modeling, the measured (scan) data has been compared with the nominal data. Differences in terms of the size of the results were revealed mathematically. According to the results obtained, when we compare the parts produced by Polyjet by ASm and Pm methods, we observe that ASm gives better results all over the surface than Pm. Also the former one has less maximum error norm than the later one. On the other hand the samples produced by FDM using both ASm and Pm give better results all over the surface, but the former one has relatively less maximum error norm than the later one.
Anahtar Kelimeler
3D scanning, 3D printing, Accuracy, Auto surface modeling, Parametric modeling, Reverse Engineering
Kaynakça
- [1] Boschetto, A., Giordano,V., & Veniali ,F. (2013). 3D roughness profile model in fused deposition modelling. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 19(4), 240-252.
- [2] Dietricha, C.A., Enderb ,A., Baumgartner, S., & Mehld, A. (2017). A validation study of reconstructed rapid prototyping models produced by two Technologies. Angle Orthodontist, 87(5), 782-786.
- [3] Mallepree,T., & Bergers ,D. (2009). Accuracy of medical RP models. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 15(5), 325-332.
- [4] Johnson,W.M., Rowell ,M., Deason ,B., & Eubanks ,M. (2014). Comparative evaluation of an open-source FDM system. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 20(3), 205–214.
- [5] Armillotta, A., Bianchi,S., Cavallaro,M., & Minnella, S. (2017). Edge quality in fused deposition modeling: II. experimental verification. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 23(4), 686-695.
- [6] Cheng, L., Zhang, P., Biyikli, E., Bai, J., Robbins, J., & To, A. (2017). Efficient design optimization of variable-density cellular structures for additive manufacturing: theory and experimental validation. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 23(4), 660-677.
- [7] Anwer,N., & Mathieu, L. (2016). From reverse engineering to shape engineering in mechanical design. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 65(1), 165–168.
- [8] Van Eijnatten, M., Berger, F.H., De Graaf, P., Koivisto, J., Forouzanfar, T., & Wolff, J. (2017). Influence of CT parameters on STL model accuracy. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 23(4), 678-685.
- [9] Chiu, S.-H., Chen, K.-T., Wicaksono ,S.T., Tsai ,J.-R., & Pong ,S.-H. (2015). Process parameters optimization for area-forming rapid prototyping system. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 21(1), 70-78.
- [10] Aroca ,R.V., Ventura,C.E.H., De Mello, I., & Pazelli, T.F.P.A.T. (2017). Sequential additive manufacturing: automatic manipulation of 3D printed parts. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 23(4), 653-659.