QUANTIFICATION OF ERRORS IN RAPID PROTOTYPING PROCESSES, AND DETERMINATION OF PREFERRED ORIENTATION OF PARTS

Minoo Bablani and Amit Bagchi Product Realization Laboratory Center for Advanced Manufacturing Clemson University Clemson, South Carolina.

ABSTRACT Surface errors in layered manufacturing are: representational, process planning and process errors. In this paper, process planning error and process error are quantified, and the change in their magnitude and number of layers required to build a part for different orientations of the part are utilized to suggest the preferred orientation. An algorithm is developed to calculate the process planning error, process error and number of layers in different orientations achieved by rotating the given part about user selected axis/axes and interval of rotation, and suggest to the user, the preferred orientation of the parts. As different orientations have different errors and numberoflayersrequirement, the preferred orientation is based on the users selection of primary criterion. Furthermore, issues of support structureand trapped volume are analyzed qualitatively as having potential to affect the orientation recommendations in this paper. INTRODUCTION Layered manufacturing (LM), or more commonly, rapid prototyping, is the most recent breakthrough in the field of manufacturing, bringing the concept of desktop manufacturing into reality. In this process CAD model of the part is decomposed into several rightangular polyhedron layers which are then built one by one. This enables the process to build parts of any shape, and in any orientation. Because each object is decomposed into layers, for any curved surface or inclined plane, the effect of laminar build is noticed as stairsteps, shown in Figure 1 for a rectangular block. It is possible to reduce or completely eliminate the stairstepping effect by changing the direction of build. For example, for a rectangular block, the stairstepping effect will not be noticed if it is built on one of the flat faces, as in Figure 1A, but will be prominent in any other orientation. The effect increases as slope of the face increases with respect to the vertical axis (build direction), as shown in Figures 1B and 1C. The stairstepping effect can be quantified by measuring either the area of the error triangle 123 or by measuring the cusp height, perpendicular length 24, shown in Figure 1C. Furthermore, the number of layers needed to construct the rectangular block in Figure 1 also

depends on its orientation. The block in Figure 1A would result in the least number of layers for a given layer thickness, because the height along the build direction is the smallest. This orientation would also provide the shortest build time because build time is directly related to the number of layers (Frank, 1993, and Puduhai and Dutta, 1994). Thus, Figure 1A represents the best orientation considering speed, time of build and stairstepping effect. However, for more complex parts it becomes difficult to decide, intuitively, which orientation would result in the best built part.
Build direction Build direction Build direction

4 3 A. No stairstepping. B. More prominent on the bottom face.

1 2

Cusp

C. Prominent on all faces.

FIGURE 1. STAIRSTEPPING EFFECT. Some of the guidelines (Jacobs, 1994) currently followed in practice to determine the best orientation for building a part are: a. The height of the object along zaxis (build direction) should be minimized as it affects the number of slices. For example, for stereolithography (one of the applied techniques of photolithography), the zheight affects the number of dips and dunks, and hence, the build time. The user has to make a tradeoff between build time and part resolution depending upon the final application of the part. b. Simple curved surfaces should be oriented in the horizontal plane normal to the build direction in order to achieve higher resolution of the surfaces. c. All planes should be built parallel to the build direction. d. Objects with internal volumes should be oriented such that the trapped raw material for the process (particulates or liquids) can be easily removed. Frank and Fadel (1993) developed a rule based expert system which suggests an optimal orientation of the part based on user input and a decision matrix. The expert system allows the user to

choose two features on the part, and rank them in order of preference. The optimal orientation is suggested by aligning the most important feature axis along the build direction. The suggested orientation produces the least stairstepping effect on the most important feature, selected by the user. However, the model (i) does not quantify the stairstepping effect, (ii) works with only two features on the part, (iii) can be applied only for primitive shapes, and (iv) depends on the user to identify which feature is the most significant. Puduhai and Dutta (1994) suggested an algorithm by considering number of slices as the primary criterion and the ratio of total staircase area to the total surface area of the object as the secondary criterion. The proposed algorithm eliminates the orientations which need support structures by classifying them as unstable orientations. Also, it determines variable layer thickness along the built up direction subject to the condition that the cusp height is maintained within the user specified tolerances. They do not consider the role of support structure to enhance the quality of the part or decrease the number of layers. Also, they do not consider process related errors which might affect the choice of orientation. The objective of this paper was to identify and quantify the various sources of surface errors in the parts built by photolithography, and to determine the preferred orientation of any given part based on (i) the minimum overall stairstepping effect for a full 360 degree rotation of the part about the user specified axis or axes and interval of rotation, or (ii) the minimum number of slices without exceeding a prespecified value of the cusp height. Although the orientation issues are different for different LM processes, stairstepping effect and number of layers are issues relevant to all processes (Kruth, 1990). This paper suggests preferred orientation based on these issues; thus, recommendations from this approach can be applied to any LM process. The issue of process error as described in this paper is related to only those processes which use laser beam and photosensitive polymers to build parts. MODELING OF ERRORS IN FREE FORM FABRICATION Three types of surface errors, related to layered manufacturing are identified. These are, representational errors, process planning errors and process errors. Representational Error STL (3D, 1989) file is a defacto standard input file for many rapid prototyping processes ( Jacobs, 1994). It is a tessellated BRep of objects, wherein the surfaces of the objects are represented by triangular facets, thus introducing error in the representation of the surfaces. For higher number of facets the surface is smoother. So, the accuracy of CAD represented surface increases as the number of facets increases. This type of error will be present irrespective of the orientation of the part, and hence it will not be considered in this paper. Process Planning Error In layered manufacturing, the part is decomposed into several right angular polyhedron layers, which are built one over the other till the part is completely built. This process of building introduces a definite stairstepping effect on curved and slant surfaces which will be termed as process planning error (PPE) in this paper. The STL file contains the coordinates of the vertices i,j,k in Figure 2 of each facet, and a unit normal vector, N, associated with every facet. The normal vectors always point outward from the object, as shown in Figure 2. If a facet belongs to a curved surface or an inclined plane, stairstepping effect is associated with it. For example, the right cone shown sliced in Figure 3A shows the effect of slicing and consequently stairstepping error by the shaded triangle. The stairstepping error can be represented either in terms of the area abc,

or the cusp height bd in Figure 3B, which can be expressed in terms of the facet inclination, q, and layer thickness, bc. Figure 2 shows one such facet in a build environment, for example, the 3D space of a vat of a photolithographic machine. The slope of the facet is determined by calculating the angle, q, shown in Figure 2, between the facet unit normal vector, N, and a unit vector, B: (0, 0, 1), along the build direction. Thus, the area of the error triangle (abc) and cusp height (bd) can be calculated as shown below.
i z B Build direction N q j Unit normal vector of the facet given by STL file

k x y

FIGURE 2. SINGLE FACET IN SPACE.

Build direction a B q d b abc = error triangle bd = cusp height bc = layer thickness Slice axis A. Sliced cone. c B. Error triangle. N

FIGURE 3. PROCESS PLANNING ERROR. From Figures 2 and 3B: B N + |B| |N| cos q or, Now, Because, q + cos*1 B N . |B| |N| area of error triangle + (bc) ab + tan q 1 bc 2 area abc + 2 tan q (1) (2) (ab)(bc) . 2 (3) (4) (5) (6)

and

cusp height + bd + (bc)(cos q) .

The process planning error due to slicing in any orientation is the mean of the stairstepping errors for all the facets. The stairstepping error, such as area abc in equation 5 can be calculated for each facet from its maximum and minimum z value for the vertices, and treating those vertices as points i and k, respectively, in Figure 2. The process planning error can therefore be expressed as: Process planning error + (area abc)j Sn j+ 1 (n) (7)

where, j = facet number, and varies from 1 to n, and n = total number of facets. Process Error Each laminated manufacturing process has errorscharacteristic of the process, and thus, must be considered separately. Such errors specific to the process physics (or chemistry), raw materials used and hardware design for each process will be characterized as pro-

cess errors (PE). Because the principles used in LM processes are different, only those using photopolymerization, viz. stereolithography and solid ground curing (Burns, 1993), will be considered in process error calculation in this paper. In photopolymerization based layered manufacturing, several factorscontribute to the process error leading to part inaccuracy. VanPutte (1991) considered beam width and polymer shrinkage as the two most important factors affecting the accuracy. Richter and Jacobs (1991) made empirical observation on curl distortion and proposed a new building methodology (weave), which aimed to reduce the fraction of the liquid resin remaining within the laser cured part and simultaneously attempted to minimize the curl distortion. Whereas, Gargiulo and Belfiore (1991) showed that a study on uniformity and repeatabilityof the parts was required before the issue of reproduction accuracy could be addressed. Their study showed that when equal sized cubes were built at different places on the platform of SLA 250, they lacked dimensional uniformity. This was attributed to (i) the absence of beam compensation, and (ii) the use of noncalibrated laser beam. In this paper the process errors associated with photolithographic processes are attributed to (i) the finite crosssectional area of the laser beam, and (ii) the fact that the laser beam polymerizes the photopolymer at different incident angles within the workspace. As a first approximation let us consider that the laser beam only photopolymerizes the material along its path and only through one layer typically 0.13 to 0.76mm. The polymerized material at any position of the laser beam can be represented by the section xbcy in Figure 4A. It is assumed that the laser beam completely cures the polymer in the shaded area between the slices 1 11 and 2 22 in Figure 4A. Thus the actual shape of the cured volume shown in Figure 4B can be approximated by the quadrilateral abcd, shown in Figure 4C, with unit thickness perpendicular to the plane of paper for the purpose of process error calculation.
1

Laser Error trapezium= area bcnm 1 Layer 2 d a Part D

FIGURE 5. LASER BUILDING A PARALLEL EDGE. Outer Edge Error. In the configuration (see Figure 6) the center of the laser beam hits vertex a of the layer abcd and travels into polymer layer, away from it, thus building an outer edge of the part. The region polymerized by the laser beam (shown in Figure 4) is now partly inside the part, and partly outside. The region, adnm, outside the part, is therefore the process error for the corresponding contour point in this layer, which can be decomposed into area adtm and area mtn. The area adtm can be obtained in terms of laser beam diameter, D (which is 2pa in Figure 6), and the layer thickness, ad, as: (ad)(D)(sinq tan q ) cos q) . (9) 2 Likewise the area mtn can be calculated to be (ad2tanq)/2. The total process error for any outer edge is thus: ad [D(sinq tan q ) cos q) ) (ad)(tanq)] (10) area adnm + 2 area adtm +
Error trapezium = adnm 1 Layer

b c

Uncured polymer m 11

22

2 n

2 x

A. Laser penetrating a layer. B. Actual cure volume. C. Approximated volume.

b c y

Laser 11 Layer 22

b c b c x y a d

FIGURE 6. LASER BUILDING AN OUTER EDGE. Inner Edge Error. An edge of a contour for any layer is defined as an inner edge if the center of the laser beam hits the object at b, and then enters the object, as shown in Figure 7. The polymerized region outside the part, bcnm, is the process error for an inner edge, as shown in Figure 7. From elementary geometry and trigonometry the process error can be easily calculated: bc [D(sinq tan q ) cos q) * (ad)(tanq)] (11) area bcnm + 2 Thus, combining expressions (8), (10) and (11), the process error can be expressed as: ad [D(sinq tan q ) cos q)  (ad)(tanq)] (12) Process error + 2 where, ad = bc = layer thickness, D = laser diameter, and q = magnitude of the angle subtended by the laser beam with the build direction for the inner and outer edge. = 0 for the parallel edge.
Error trapezium= area bcnm a 1 Layer 2 d Part

p m s t

Laser q b Part c 22 11

D/2 a

FIGURE 4. CURE SECTIONS. In a photolithography process with a laser beam vector scanning the contour of the object, a right angular polyhedron is created for each layer. Careful study of all possible tracing patterns by a laser beam led the authors to three generic representations for all edges on any contour. These are: curing on (i) a parallel edge, (ii) an outer edge, and (iii) an inner edge. These three representations are shown in Figure 5, 6 and 7 respectively, along with the associated process error, the slices to generate the layer, the uncured polymer, and the desired part shape in that layer. Parallel Edge Error. When the center of the laser is directly over the edge to be built, that edge is classified as parallel edge, as shown in Figure 5. The line of incidence of the laser beam in this case is always parallel to the vertical face associated with the edge it is tracing. Thus the center of the laser hits at point b of the edge and travels parallel to the part, Figure 5. The process error, bcnm, beyond the boundaries of the part, is therefore always rectangular in shape, whose area is: area bcnm + (bc)(D) 2 (8)

FIGURE 7. LASER BUILDING AN INNER EDGE.

b m

Laser D/2 11

c n

22

For any layer, the number of error trapeziums associated with it is same as the number of contour points for the layer. The process error for the part can therefore be expressed as the arithmetic mean trapezium area, which is the ratio of the sum of all error trapeziums to the total number of contour points for the part. The resulting mean process error is: (area error trapezium) j Sn j+ 1 (13) Process error = (n) where, j = contour point number and varies from 1 to n, and n is total number of contour points. ALGORITHM The approach in this research has been to give the user of the prototyping system the option to determine the orientation (s)he would prefer based on his/her primary criterion. Furthermore, the user should also be provided with the values of the process and process planning error for any part orientation (s)he might consider for building. The algorithm developed is capable of working for the complete part and also for the user selected set of surface(s) provided that only the facets representing the selected surface(s) are fed to the algorithm. As the present solid modeling environments do not allow user to obtain only a part of the STL file representing the selected surface, only complete parts have been tested on the algorithm. The flow charts describing the algorithm, Figure 8A and Figure 8B, expect the user to choose between (i) minimum process planning error (PPE), Figure 8A, and (ii) minimum number of layers, Figure 8B, for a given layer thickness, as the principal criterion to build the part. If error is selected as the primary issue, the user specifies the axis/axes of rotation about which (s)he wishes to check minimum process planning error for a specified range and interval of angle of rotation. The process planning error is checked at every interval by the program using equation (7). Whereas, if the user wishes to choose part orientation based on the number of layers (N) to be used, (s)he provides the layer thickness1 and the maximum acceptable cusp height (H) as input along with the axis/axes about which (s)he wants the part to be rotated. The algorithm slices the object in each possible orientation based on the slicing method and criterion chosen2, calculates the number of layers and checks the maximum cusp height. A recommendationis made to the user for the smallest number of layers. For the orientation recommended to the user either based on the minimum error or based on the least number of layers equations (7) and (13) are used to calculate the process planning error and process error for the part respectively. The algorithm is implemented in C on a 50MHz, 59.1 MIPS and 4.6 FP workstation, and the input to the program is the STL file of the part. A graphic interface (ITHACA Software, 1990), is utilized to represent the different orientations on the screen for the user. CASE ANALYSES The algorithm was tested on three primitive shapes a cylinder, cone and a sphere shown in Figure 9A, 9B and 9C respectively. The algorithm was also used on a complex part (formed by boolean operation of rectangular blocks and sphere), shown in Figure 9D, to evaluate it for complex shapes.

* user input

STL file of the CAD model * axis rotation, d1 to d2; interval, i set d = d1 set facet = f at d find error triangle for fth facet *

set f = f + 1 f = total facets YES get mean of error triangle, this is PPE set d = d1 + i d > d2 YES select least PPE and corresponding d d = OPTIMAL ORIENTATION STOP A. Based on minimum process planning error. NO NO

* user input

STL file of the CAD model * cusp height H

* * *

axis rotation, d1 to d2; interval, i set d = d1 set facet = f

set f = f + 1 find cusp (hi) and N hi violates H NO f = total facets YES Record N set d = d1 + i d > d2 NO YES select d with least N d = OPTIMAL ORIENTATION STOP d > d2 NO NO discard d set d = d1 + i YES

YES alter H; start again

1. Can be constant or varied continuously by interfacing with a suitable slicing algorithm (Vouzlaud, 1993, Merschat, 1994). 2. In this work, only a constant layer thickness has been used, and the slicing process has been kept outside the autoorientation algorithm.

B. Based on minimum number of layers.

FIGURE 8. ALGORITHM FOR PREFERRED ORIENTATION.

z y x Build direction A. Cylinder B. Cone C. Sphere D. Solid A

TABLE 2. RESULTS OF ORIENTATION IN FIGURE 11.

Part A Preferred Max. cusp Min. PPE Process error Dimensions mm orientation 101 mm slices x10 3 mm2 x10 3 mm2 radius = 50.8 horizontal height = 76.2 as shown radius = 50.8 horizontal height =76.2 as shown radius = 50.8 all alike sphere rad.=50.8 best box as shown height=76.2 base=88.9 2.31 2.36 2.44 200 200 200 1.245 0.787 1.092 2.46 1.93 2.692

FIGURE 9. TEST PARTS; INITIAL ORIENTATION. For each of the parts in Figure 9, the preferred orientations are determinedfor both the criteria described earlier. Figure 10 shows the preferred orientation based on minimum process planning error criterion. The calculations are shown in Table 1 based on layer thickness and laser diameter of 0.254 mm each). In this table, in addition to the process planning error, the number of layers and process error are also shown. The preferred orientations are also obtained based on the minimum number of layer criterion (see Figure 11). The calculated data is shown in Table 2 for the minimum number of layers and corresponding values of maximum cusp height, process planning error and process error. Thus, the user can make his/her decision on the basis of several measures of a good orientation of the part.

B C

2.48

300

0.965

1.524

z y x Build direction A. Cylinder B. Cone C. Sphere D. Solid A

FIGURE 10. ORIENTATION BASED ON PROCESS PLANNING ERROR.

TABLE 1. RESULTS OF ORIENTATION IN FIGURE 10.

Part Preferred Dimensions mm orientation radius = 50.8 height = 76.2 radius = 50.8 height =76.2 vertical as shown vertical as shown Process planning No. Process error error of slices x10 3 mm2 x10 3 mm2 0 0.229 1.092 300 300 300 2.692 2.692 2.692

B C

radius = 50.8 all orientations are alike sphere rad.=50.8 best box as shown height=76.2 base=88.9

0.939

300

1.542

z y A. Cylinder x Build direction B. Cone C. Sphere

D. Solid A

FIGURE 11. ORIENTATION BASED ON NUMBER OF LAYERS.

DISCUSSIONS The process planning error for the cylinder in the preferred build orientation, Figure 10A, was zero, as in Table 1. This is to be expected for a cylinder because each facet is either parallel or perpendicular with respect to the build direction (zaxis). If the criterion is to build in shortest time, i.e., in fewest number of layers, the cylinder will be oriented on its side as in Figure 11A, as it would then give the smallest vertical height , and consequently the least number of layers. It will then have a process planning error of 1.25x103 mm2 and a process error of 2.46x103 mm2 (Table 2). The cone, when built with its apex up, Figure 10B, has the least process planning error with higher number (300) of layers, but when built in a horizontal orientation, Figure 11B, it has the least number of layers albeit with a higher process planning error than with its apex up (0.229x103mm2 in Table 1, compared with 0.787x103mm2 in Table 2). If the cone is built with its apex down, i.e., rotated by 180 degrees about x or y axes, it will have the same process planning error and the number of slices as when it is built with its apex up, but will be highly unstable during its build unless it is supported externally. Again, because an orientation without additional support structure is preferred in practice over those with it for the same process planning error, the apex up will be preferable to the apex down orientation for the cone. For the sphere, as expected, all orientations are equally plausible. The small change noticed in the error and number of slices in various orientations is attributed to the fact that the tessellated surfaces are represented by flat triangular facets, and not smooth curves. The solid A in Figure 9D provides a number of different features to determine the optimum orientation of build. The object has a total of 180 facets distributed in a portion of a sphere, and a truncated block. Thus, depending on the distribution of facets, and their exact orientation in the space, the process planning error and the number of layers to build the part will be different. Tables 3 and 4 show the variation of the process planning error and the number of layers when the object is rotated about x and y axes. The rotation about z axis will not affect either the process planning error or the number of layers, as this rotation will neither change the slope of any facet with respect to the build direction nor will it change the z height of the part. Tables 3 and 4 show that for the solid A the minimum number of slices is 300, which can be obtained for two different angles both about x and y axes. For example, the number of slices is 300 for 0 and 180 degree rotation of the object about y axis, and 90 degree rotation interval from 0 degree orientation (as shown in Figure 9D) about x axis. Thus, at each of these orientations the build will be done fastest because of the fewest number of layers. Introducing a second criterion process planning error to choose the best of these orientations, we find that the least process planning error (or stairstepping error for the whole object) is for 90 degree or 270 degree rotation of the object

about its x axis. Thus, although from a purely z height or number of slices criterion, there are four equally preferable orientations, adding a second criterion reduces the possible orientation to only two. The process error calculations are done assuming that the build platform forms a positive 254 x 254 mm quadrant and the parts are oriented with their minimum x and y coordinate at 2.54 mm each. Although the extra resin cured during the building process partly compensates for shrinkage of the part during post cure, the process error calculation in this paper reflects only the amount of extra resin cured during the building process. The percentage change in the volume of the part during the post cure has not been considered in this paper. TABLE 3. VARIATION OF PPE ABOUT Y AXIS.
yaxis 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 rotation slices 300 387 441 408 465 442 300 387 441 408 465 442 300 PPE 0.96 1.12 2.18 2.97 1.12 1.07 0.96 1.12 2.18 2.97 1.12 1.07 0.96 x10 3 mm2

CONCLUDING REMARKS In this paper, two types of surface inaccuracies have been quantified: (i) process planning (or stairstepping) error due to slicing of components, and (ii) process error accounting for the undesired polymerization of the material. The process planning error is shown to decrease for certain orientations of the part, for which the number of layers is also reduced. As this is not the case in general, the user is left with the choice of the primary criterion for the build, because (s)he knows the final application of the part (s)he wants to build. The application of the algorithm to four objects shows that it is possible to determine preferred orientation of objects using these error criteria. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Ms. Elaine Persall is thanked for technical discussions, and Mr. Kamesh Tata for providing the sliced data for some of the parts. REFERENCES 3D Systems, (1989), StereoLithography Interface Specifications, 3D Systems, Inc., Valencia, CA. Frank, D., and Fadel, G.F., (1994), Preferred Direction of Build for Rapid Prototyping Processes, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Rapid Prototyping, Dayton, OH. pp. 191200. Gargiulo, E.P., and Belfiore, D.A., (1991), Stereolithography Process Accuracy: User Experience, Transactions of the Second International Conference on Rapid Prototyping, Dayton, OH, pp. 311326. ITHACA Software, (1990), HOOPS Graphic System Users Guide, ITHACA Software, Alameda, CA. Burns, Marshall, (1993), Automated Fabrication; Improving Productivity in Manufacturing, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Jacobs, P.F., (1994), Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing: Fundamentals of Stereolithography, Society of Manufacturing Engineers. Kruth, J.P., (1990), Material Incress Manufacturing by Rapid Prototyping Techniques, Annals of the CIRP, Keynote Paper, Vol. 41/2, pp. 603614. Merschat, Stephen R., (1994), Object Realization Using Volumetric Adaptive Slicing, M.S. Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC. Puduhai, N.S., and Dutta, D., (1994), Determination of Optimal Orientation Based on Variable Slicing Thickness in Layered Manufacturing, Technical Report UMMEAM9414, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Richter, J., and Jacobs, P., (1991), The Present State of Accuracy in Stereolithography, Transactions of the Second International Conference on Rapid Prototyping, Dayton, OH, pp. 269294. VanPutte, D.A., (1991), A Study of Stereolithography Uniformity and Repeatability, Transactions of the Second International Conference on Rapid Prototyping, Dayton, OH, pp. 295 310. Vouzlaud, F.A., (1993), Adaptive Laminated Machining for Prototyping Dies and Molds, M.S. Thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, SC.

TABLE 4. VARIATION OF PPE ABOUT X AXIS.

xaxis 0 rotation slices 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 410 300

300 410 410 300 410 410 300 410 410 300 410

PPE x10 3 0.96 1.07 1.12 0.94 1.17 1.09 0.96 1.07 1.12 0.94 1.17 1.09 0.96 mm2

For more complex objects (objects with cavities and protrusions), such as that in Figure 12, there is a need to consider all the factors discussed above: (i) process planning error, (ii) absolute vertical height, (iii) process error, and (iv) support structure. The user must now determine which parameter is most important in deciding the preferred orientation. For example, if surface errors and inaccuracies are important, the process planning and process errors should be minimized at the expense of the other requirements. On the other hand if the part is a thin shell structure, the preferred orientation must take into account the entrapped volume of the raw polymer material, and/or the effect of support structure for overhanging sections. A comprehensive approach to determining the preferred orientation of build, with four factors discussed, and variable thickness slicing is being developed now, and will be presented in a future paper.

FIGURE 12. PART WITH CAVITIES AND PROTRUSIONS.