Design Rules For

Selective Laser Sintering

Submitted to:

Dr. Carolyn Seepersad, Assistant Professor

Mechanical Engineering Department
Sponsored by: Harvest Technologies
Belton, Texas

Prepared by:

Tyler Govett, Team Leader

Kevin Kim
Michael Lundin
Daniel Pinero

Mechanical Engineering Design Projects Program

The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas

Spring 2012
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. i

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... ii
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iii
1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................1
2 DESIGN GUIDELINES ..............................................................................................1
2.1 Circular Features ....................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Circular Hole..................................................................................................6
2.1.2 Hole Proximity ..............................................................................................6
2.1.3 Shaft Clearances...........................................................................................11
2.2 Thin Walls............................................................................................................11
2.2.1 External Thin Walls .....................................................................................12
2.2.2 Internal Thin Walls ......................................................................................13
2.3 Gaps .....................................................................................................................14
2.4 Pins.......................................................................................................................15
2.5 Fonts .....................................................................................................................16
2.6 Gears ....................................................................................................................18
3 CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................20

i
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Circular hole part dimensions ...............................................................................2

Figure 2. Deviation data for horizontal holes ......................................................................5
Figure 3. Deviation data for vertical holes...........................................................................5
Figure 4. Hole proximity part dimension.............................................................................7
Figure 5. Hole proximity part dimension values .................................................................7
Figure 6. Distance deviation plots for hole proximity testing using varying diameters ..............10
Figure 7. Shaft clearance part dimensions .............................................................................12
Figure 8. Shaft clearance part dimension values ....................................................................13
Figure 9. Thin wall part dimensions and values .....................................................................15
Figure 10. Thickness deviations for thin external walls ..........................................................17
Figure 11. Internal wall dimensions and values.................................................................18
Figure 12. Thickness deviations for vertical internal walls .....................................................21
Figure 13. Thickness deviations for horizontal internal walls .................................................21
Figure 14. Gap Part Dimensions and Values .........................................................................22
Figure 15. Edge length deviation for horizontal gaps .............................................................25
Figure 16. Edge length deviation for vertical gaps .................................................................25
Figure 17. Pin diameter part dimensions and values ...............................................................27
Figure 18. Pin diameter tolerances........................................................................................29
Figure 19. Font plates part dimensions and values .................................................................30
Figure 20. Gear part CAD model..........................................................................................39
Figure 21. Gear part dimension values ..................................................................................40

ii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Part orientation for hole diameter testing ..............................................................3

Table 2. Pass/fail criterion for circular holes .......................................................................3
Table 3. Pass/fail matrices for vertically oriented holes ......................................................4
Table 4. Pass/fail matrices for horizontally oriented holes ..................................................4
Table 5. Part orientation for hole proximity testing.............................................................8
Table 6. Pass/fail criterion for hole proximity testing .........................................................8
Table 7. Pass/fail matrix for vertically oriented part ...........................................................9
Table 8. Pass/fail matrix for horizontally oriented part .......................................................9
Table 9. Part orientation for shaft clearances test part .......................................................13
Table 10. Pass/fail criterion for shaft clearances ...............................................................13
Table 11. Pass/fail repeatability matrices for shaft clearances ..........................................14
Table 12. Part orientation for external thin wall test part ..................................................16
Table 13. Pass/fail criterion for external thin walls ...........................................................16
Table 14. Pass/fail matrices for horizontal and vertical thin walls ....................................16
Table 15. Part orientation for internal thin wall test ..........................................................19
Table 16. Pass/fail criterion for internal thin walls ............................................................19
Table 17. Pass/fail matrices for horizontal and vertically oriented internal thin walls......20
Table 18. Part orientation for square gap test ....................................................................23
Table 19. Pass/fail criterion for square gaps/holes ............................................................23
Table 20. Pass/fail matrices for horizontal and vertically oriented parts ...........................24
Table 21. Part orientation for pin test ................................................................................28
Table 22. Pass/fail criterion for pin test .............................................................................28
Table 23. Pass/fail matrices for horizontal pins .................................................................28
Table 24. Part orientation for font test plates .....................................................................31
Table 25. Pass/fail criterion for raised Sans Serif fonts .....................................................31
Table 26. Pass/fail matrices for raided Sans Serif fonts ....................................................32
Table 27. Pass/fail criterion for recessed Sans Serif fonts .................................................33
Table 28 Pass/fail matrices for recessed Sans Serif fonts ..................................................34
Table 29. Pass/fail criterion for raised Serif fonts .............................................................35
Table 30. Pass/fail matrix representing all raised Serif fonts ............................................36
Table 31. Pass/fail criterion for recessed Serif fonts .........................................................36
Table 32. Pass/fail matrices for recessed Serif fonts .........................................................37
Table 33. Part orientation for gear test...............................................................................40
Table 34. Pass/fail criterion for gear test ...........................................................................40
Table 35. Pass/fail matrices for gear test ...........................................................................41

iii
Design Rules & Tolerances for Selective Laser Sintering

1. INTRODUCTION

The information below is intended to be used during the design phase to minimize errors and
help with the fabrication of certain features of SLS parts. This report will serve as general design
guidelines for SLS and to outline expected tolerances.

The features demonstrated in this report include the following:

• Minimum hole diameter versus plate thickness

• Minimum distance from a hole to a walls edge versus hole diameter
• Minimum gap edge length versus plate thickness
• Minimum font size
• Minimum font height (raised or recessed)
• Serif versus San Serif font type
• Minimum wall thickness
• Minimum wall thickness versus plate thickness
• Minimum pin diameter
• Vertical versus horizontal build orientation
• Tolerances for all features listed

All of the listed test parameters were fabricated on parts using an SLS machine created by 3D
Systems. Harvest Technologies manufactured the parts using “production run” settings on their
machines. The machine uses a laser power of 42 Watts with a laser speed of 0.012 scan spacing.
The beam off set used on these parts was 0.279mm in both the X and Y direction. The material
used in these parts was a Nylon 12 PA.

*These results should not be considered valid with other SLS machines or types of rapid
prototyping systems.

2. DESIGN GUIDELINES

All part orientation figures represent a top view of the part within the build chamber. The axes
are oriented with respect to the chamber: the X-axis represents the width of the chamber, the Y-
axis represents the length of the chamber, and the Z-axis represents the height of the chamber.

1
2.1 Circular Features

The parts in this section contain circular geometries and include testing for minimum hole
diameter, minimum distance between a hole and a part edge, and shaft clearances. Tolerance data
for hole diameters and minimum distances will also be discussed.

2.1.1 Circular Hole

The following test part shown in Figure 1 was built using a staircase shape. There are seven
steps, ranging from 12.7 mm (0.5 in) to 0.939 mm (0.036 in). Each step contains an identical
circular pattern with diameter dimensions ranging from 4 mm to 0.125 mm. The part was built in
two orientations which can be seen in Table 1.

Figure 1. Circular hole part dimensions

2
 Table 1. Part orientation for hole diameter testing

Staircase Orientation (Gap Wall, Circular Holes, Square Gaps)

Horizontal Vertical

The pass/fail criterion for the following test matrices is shown in Table 2. Each matrix represents
a part created in either the horizontal or vertical orientation which is labeled in the upper left
hand corner of the test matrix. “V1” denotes the first vertical build of the part and “V2” denotes
the second vertical build. Similarly, “H1” denotes the first horizontal build of the part. There are
two matrices for each orientation to show repeatability of the process. The going through each
column are labeled 1 to 21, with 1 being the largest 4 mm hole and 21 being the smallest .12 mm
hole.
Table 2. Pass/fail criterion for circuler holes

Circular Hole Pass/Fail Criteria

Fail Neutral Pass

Hole is completely closed Hole is formed, but shape is Hole is formed with no
irregular irregularities

3
 Table 3. Pass/fail matrices for vertically oriented holes

Plate Thickness [mm] Plate Thickness [mm]

V1 12.7 9.327 7.152 5.253 3.755 1.877 0.939 V2 12.7 9.327 7.152 5.253 3.755 1.877 0.939

1 4 1 4
2 3.75 2 3.75
3 3.5 3 3.5
4 3.25 4 3.25
5 3 5 3
6 2.75 6 2.75
7 2.5 7 2.5
8 2.25 8 2.25
9 2 9 2

Diameter [mm]
Diameter [mm]

10 1.75 10 1.75
11 1.5 11 1.5
12 1.3 12 1.3
13 1.1 13 1.1
14 1 14 1
15 0.8 15 0.8
16 0.6 16 0.6
17 0.5 17 0.5
18 0.4 18 0.4
19 0.3 19 0.3
20 0.25 20 0.25
21 0.125 21 0.125

4
 Table 4. Pass/fail matrices for horizontally oriented holes

Plate Thickness [mm]

H1 12.7 9.327 7.152 5.253 3.755 1.877 0.939

1 4
2 3.75
3 3.5
4 3.25
5 3
6 2.75
7 2.5
8 2.25
9 2
Diameter [mm] 10 1.75
11 1.5
12 1.3
13 1.1
14 1
15 0.8
16 0.6
17 0.5
18 0.4
19 0.3
20 0.25
21 0.125
Plate Thickness [mm]
H2 12.7 9.327 7.152 5.253 3.755 1.877 0.939

1 4
2 3.75
3 3.5
4 3.25
5 3
6 2.75
7 2.5
8 2.25
9 2
Diameter [mm]

10 1.75
11 1.5
12 1.3
13 1.1
14 1
15 0.8
16 0.6
17 0.5
18 0.4
19 0.3
20 0.25
21 0.125

The previous matrices illustrate what can and cannot be done involving the fabrication of a hole
through a plate. The results are summarized in the following bullet points.

• The vertical plates shown in Table 3 allowed a 0.6 mm minimum hole resolution at the
smallest plate thickness of .939 mm.
• The horizontal plates allowed for a 1.1 mm hole resolution at the smallest plate thickness
minimum thickness of .939 mm.
• Building holes in the vertically oriented direction lowers the minimum possible hole
diameter to about .5 mm less than the horizontal value.
• In order to maximize resolution, it is recommended to minimize plate thickness and
orient the part in the vertical direction shown above.

5
Figure 2 and 3 compare the measured values of the hole diameter to the nominal value as
dimensioned in the part design. The X-axis lists the holes running from 1 to 21, with 1 being
the smallest value and 21 being the largest. Each data set is labeled H1 through H7 or V1
through V7, with H1/V1 corresponding to the largest stair step thickness and H7/V7
corresponding to the lowest stair step thickness.

Figure 2. Deviation data for horizontal holes

Figure 3. Deviation data for vertical holes

6
Figure 2 and 3 illustrate the tolerances involved in the fabrication of a hole through a plate. The
results are summarized in the following bullet points.

• The average tolerance for a hole made in the vertical orientation is -0.086 mm. A
negative value indicates the measured dimension is smaller than the nominal value.
• The average tolerance for the horizontal orientation is -0.418 mm. A negative value
indicates the measured dimension is smaller than the nominal value.
• Holes should be built large than 1.5 mm diameter if possible. Below 1.5 mm hole
diameter, the difference from the nominal value changes drastically base on plate
thickness.
• The nominal value deviation plots show that the vertically oriented parts contain less of a
deviation from the nominal value compared to the horizontal plates.
• The vertical build orientation is recommended for small holes that require tighter
tolerances.

7
2.1.2 Hole Proximity

The following test part shown in Figure 4 and 5 was to show how close a hole can be placed near
a wall edge. There were seven of these parts created with hole diameters ranging from 10 mm
down to 2.5 mm in order to create a broad range of results. The parts were built in two
orientations which can be seen in Table 5. The pass/fail criterion for the following test matrices
is shown in Table 6.

Figure 4. Hole proximity part dimensions

Figure 5. Hole proximity part dimension values

8
 Table 5. Part orientation for hole proximity testing

Hole-to-Wall Test Orientation

Horizontal Vertical

Table 6. Pass/fail criterion for hole proximity test

Hole to Wall
Fail Pass

Wall between hole and outside edge does not Wall between hole and outside edge is resolved
resolve

Each matrix in Table 7 represents a part created in either the horizontal or vertical orientation
which is labeled in the upper left hand corner of the test matrix. The matrices represent averaged
result for all seven parts. The distance values shown in the chart are arbitrary but represent the
full range of data that was tested. The results can be used to compare different size holes.

9
 Table 7. Pass/fail matrix for vertically oriented part

Circle to Wall (Vertical) Distance to Wall [mm]

1.05 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3

2.5
Circle Diameter [mm]

3.75
5
6.25
7.5
8.75
10

Table 8. Pass/fail matric for horizontally oriented part

Circle to Wall (Horizontal) Distance to Wall [mm]

1.05 1 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3

2.5
Circle Diameter [mm]

3.75
5
6.25
7.5
8.75
10

The previous matrices in Table 7 and 8 illustrate what can and cannot be done involving the
fabrication of a hole near a wall. The results are summarized in the following bullet points.

• The vertical part results shown in the Table 7 allowed for a minimum distance of 0.8 mm
at the smallest hole diameter.
• The largest hole diameter allowed for a distance of 1 mm.
• The horizontal part results shown in the bottom row allowed for a minimum distance of
0.8mm at the smallest hole diameter.
• The largest hole diameter allowed for a distance of 1.05 mm.
• In order to maximize resolution, it is recommended to minimize the hole diameter and to
orient the part in the vertical direction.

The following plots in Figure 6 compare the measured values of the distance between the hole
and the walls edge versus the distances used during part design.

10
Figure 6. Distance deviation plots for hole proximity testing using varying diameters

11
Figure 6 illustrates the tolerances involved in the fabrication of a hole near a wall. The results are
summarized in the following bullet points.

• The nominal value deviation plots show that the deviations for vertical and horizontal
were fairly consistent.
• A smaller hole diameter tended to lead to a larger deviation.
• A smaller hole also created more deviation when build in the horizontal orientation.
• The average tolerance for the distance between a hole and parts edge made in the vertical
direction is 0.108 mm. A positive value indicates that the measured dimension is larger
than the nominal value.
• The average tolerance for a part made in the horizontal direction is 0.141 mm. A positive
value indicates that the measured dimension is larger than the nominal value.

12
2.1.3 Shaft Clearances

The test part shown in Figure 7 and 8 was built using a staircase shape. There are eight steps,
ranging from 25.4 mm (1 in) to 1.27 mm (0.05 in). Each step contains an identical circular
pattern with diameter dimensions ranging from 10 mm to 13.6 mm. Each hole in the part was
embedded with a shaft. The shafts were 4 mm in length and 10 mm in diameter. By using the
identical shafts we were able to create changing clearances ranging from 0 mm to 1.8 mm on
each side of the shaft. The part was only built in one direction with the cross section of the shafts
parallel to the base of the chamber. The pass/fail criterion for the following test matrices is
shown in Table 9. Each matrix represents the part created in the horizontal direction. Two charts
are shown in Table 10 to show the repeatability of the SLS process (both built in the horizontal)

Figure 7. Shaft clearance part dimensions

13
 Plate Thickness[mm]
25.4 19.05 12.7 10.16 7.62 5.08 2.54 1.03
10 25.4/10 19.05/10 12.7/10 10.16/10 7.62/10 5.08/10 2.54/10 1.03/10
10.3 25.4/10.3 19.05/10.3 12.7/10.3 10.16/10.3 7.62/10.3 5.08/10.3 2.54/10.3 1.03/10.3
10.6 25.4/10.6 19.05/10.6 12.7/10.6 10.16/10.6 7.62/10.6 5.08/10.6 2.54/10.6 1.03/10.6
Bearing Diameter [mm]

10.9 25.4/10.9 19.05/10.9 12.7/10.9 10.16/10.9 7.62/10.9 5.08/10.9 2.54/10.9 1.03/10.9

11.2 25.4/11.2 19.05/11.2 12.7/11.2 10.16/11.2 7.62/11.2 5.08/11.2 2.54/11.2 1.03/11.2
11.5 25.4/11.5 19.05/11.5 12.7/11.5 10.16/11.5 7.62/11.5 5.08/11.5 2.54/11.5 1.03/11.5
11.8 25.4/11.8 19.05/11.8 12.7/11.8 10.16/11.8 7.62/11.8 5.08/11.8 2.54/11.8 1.03/11.8
12.1 25.4/12.1 19.05/12.1 12.7/12.1 10.16/12.1 7.62/12.1 5.08/12.1 2.54/12.1 1.03/12.1
12.4 25.4/12.4 19.05/12.4 12.7/12.4 10.16/12.4 7.62/12.4 5.08/12.4 2.54/12.4 1.03/12.4
12.7 25.4/12.7 19.05/12.7 12.7/12.7 10.16/12.7 7.62/12.7 5.08/12.7 2.54/12.7 1.03/12.7
13 25.4/13 19.05/13 12.7/13 10.16/13 7.62/13 5.08/13 2.54/13 1.03/13
13.3 25.4/13.3 19.05/13.3 12.7/13.3 10.16/13.3 7.62/13.3 5.08/13.3 2.54/13.3 1.03/13.3
13.6 25.4/13.6 19.05/13.6 12.7/13.6 10.16/13.6 7.62/13.6 5.08/13.6 2.54/13.6 1.03/13.6

Figure 8. Shaft clearance part dimension values

Table 9. Part orientation for shaft clearances test part

Shaft Test Orientation

Vertical

Table 10. Pass/fail criterion for shaft clearances

Shaft
Fail Neutral Pass

No rotation due to fusion Rotation possible within bearing, Shaft freely rotates within
between shaft and bearing but high friction observed bearing with little or no friction

14
 Table 11. Pass/fail repeatability matrices for shaft clearances

Part 1 Hole Clearance [mm]

0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75 0.9 1.05 1.2 1.35 1.5 1.65 1.8
25.40
19.05
Thickness [mm]
12.70
10.16
7.62
5.08
2.54
1.03

Part 2 Hole Clearance [mm]

0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75 0.9 1.05 1.2 1.35 1.5 1.65 1.8
25.40
19.05
Thickness [mm]

12.70
10.16
7.62
5.08
2.54
1.03

The matrices in Table 11 illustrate what can and cannot be done involving the fabrication of shaft
through a hole or bearing. The results are summarized in the following bullet points.

• The smallest bearing or plate thickness a minimum clearance of 0.9 mm on each side of
the shaft was resolvable.
• At the largest plate thickness a minimum clearance of 0.45 mm on each side of the hole
was resolvable.
• It is recommend that in order to minimize the clearance and prevent fusing to use a
thinner plate or bearing thickness.

15
2.2 Thin Walls

The parts in this section contain thin wall geometries and include testing for minimum wall
thicknesses and tolerances for both external and internal walls.

2.2.1 External Thin Walls

The following test part shown in Figure 9 was created to determine minimum external wall
thicknesses and the machine tolerances for these particular features. The part in Figure 9 contains
fifteen thin walls, which range in thickness from 3 mm down to 0.2 mm. This experimental part
was fabricated in both the horizontal and vertical direction. The part orientation is displayed in
Table 12. The pass/fail criterion for the following test matrices is shown in Table 13.

Figure 9. Thin wall part dimensions and values

16
 Table 12. Part orientation for external thin wall test part

Wall Test Orientation

Horizontal Vertical

Table 13. Pass/fail criterion for external thin walls

Thin Wall
Fail Neutral Pass

No wall formation Wall formation occurs, but wall Wall formed as a rigid structure
is fragile

The two matrices shown in Table 14 represent the part built in in the horizontal and vertical
direction and show the repeat part for each build orientation. The charts build orientation is
labeled in the upper left hand corner.

Table 14. Pass/fail matrices for horizontal and vertical thin external walls

Wall Test (Horizontal wall) Wall thickness [mm]

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
V1
V2

Wall Test (Vertical Wall) Wall thickness [mm]

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
H1
H2

17
The matrices in Table 14 illustrate what can and cannot be done involving the fabrication of thin
walls. The results are summarized in the following bullet points.

• The walls built in the horizontal direction were able to resolve at smaller dimensions.
• The horizontal direction produced a minimum sturdy wall of 0.6 mm and the vertical
direction produced a minimum sturdy wall of 0.8 mm.
• Horizontal walls can be built smaller than .6 mm but they will lack rigid strength

Figure 10. Thickness deviations for thin external walls

Figure 10 illustrates the tolerances involved in the fabrication of thin walls. The results are
summarized in the following bullet points.

• Walls built in either the vertical or horizontal resolve to their intended thicknesses fairly
well.
• Although it is difficult to see in the chart, a wall built in the vertical direction showed an
average deviation of 0.041 mm, while
• A wall built in the vertical direction showed an average deviation of 0.079 mm.
• It is recommended to build thin walls in the horizontal direction so that built plane by
plane rather line by line. This will help to improve accuracy and resolvability.

18
2.2.2 Internal Thin Walls

The test part shown in Figure 11 was created to determine minimum internal wall thicknesses
and the machine tolerances for these particular features. The parts build orientation can be seen
in Table 15. The part is also a staircase shaped part so that the internal walls can be tested versus
plate thickness. There are seven steps, ranging from 12.7 mm (0.5 in) to 0.939 mm (0.036 in).
Each step contains the same pattern, which consists of a series of internal thin walls. The walls
range from a thickness of 3 mm down to 0.25 mm with 3 mm gaps on each. The pass/fail
criterion for the following test matrices is shown in Table 16.

Figure 11. Internal wall dimensions and values

19
 Table 15. Part orientation for internal thin wall test

Staircase Orientation (Internal Wall, Circular Holes, Square Gaps)

Horizontal Vertical

Table 16. Pass/fail criterion for internal thin walls

Gap Wall
Fail Neutral Pass

No thin wall formation Partial thin wall formation Complete thin wall formation

The following matrices in Table 17 represent the part built in both the horizontal and vertical
direction as well as the repeatability experiments. The orientation and number is labeled in the
upper left corner of the matrix.

20
 Table 17. Pass/fail matrices for horizontal and vertically oriented internal thin walls

Internal Wall Test Plate Thickness [mm] Internal Wall Test Plate Thickness [mm]
V1 12.7 9.327 7.152 5.253 3.755 1.877 0.939 V2 12.7 9.327 7.152 5.253 3.755 1.877 0.939

1 3 1 3
2 2.5 2 2.5
3 2.25 3 2.25

Wall Thickness [mm]

Wall Thickness [mm]

4 2 4 2
5 1.75 5 1.75
6 1.5 6 1.5
7 1.25 7 1.25
8 1 8 1
9 0.75 9 0.75
10 0.5 10 0.5
11 0.25 11 0.25

Internal Wall Test Plate Thickness [mm] Internal Wall Test Plate Thickness [mm]
H1 12.7 9.327 7.152 5.253 3.755 1.877 0.939 H2 12.7 9.327 7.152 5.253 3.755 1.877 0.939

1 3 1 3
2 2.5 2 2.5
3 2.25 3 2.25
Wall Thickness [mm]

Wall Thickness [mm]

4 2 4 2
5 1.75 5 1.75
6 1.5 6 1.5
7 1.25 7 1.25
8 1 8 1
9 0.75 9 0.75
10 0.5 10 0.5
11 0.25 11 0.25

The matrices shown in Table 17 illustrate what can and cannot be done involving the fabrication
of internal thin walls.

• It can be seen that the walls built in the vertical direction where able to resolve to a
smaller thickness.
• Walls built in the vertical direction resolved to a minimum value of 0.5 mm
• Walls built in the horizontal direction resolved to a minimum of 0.75 mm.
• It is recommend building internal walls in the vertical direction to increase resolvability.

Figure 12 and 13 compare the measured values of the distance between the hole and the walls
edge versus the distances used during part design. The different series are correlated to the
different steps of the part with H1 and V1 corresponding to the thickest step.

21
 Figure 12. Thickness deviations for vertical internal walls

Figure 13. Thickness deviations for horizontal internal walls

Figure 12 and 13 illustrates the tolerances involved in the fabrication of internal thin walls. The
results are summarized in the following bullet points.

• Internal walls built in either the vertical or horizontal resolve to their intended thicknesses
fairly well.
• An internal wall built in the vertical direction showed an average deviation of 0.056 mm,
a negative value represents deviation that was less than the nominal and a positive value
represents deviation that was greater than the nominal.
• A wall built in the horizontal direction showed an average deviation of -0.066 mm.
• It is recommended to build internal thin walls in the vertical direction so that they are
built plane by plane rather than line by line. This will help to improve accuracy and
resolvability.

22
2.3 Gaps

The part shown in Figure 14 in this section contains gaps and includes testing for minimum gap
thickness and gap tolerances. The build orientation can be seen in Table 18. The part was built
using a staircase shape. There are seven steps, ranging from 12.7 mm (0.5 in) to 0.939 mm
(0.036 in). Each step contains an identical square pattern with gap dimensions ranging from 4
mm to 0.125 mm in thickness. The part was built in two orientations which can be seen below.
The pass/fail criterion for the following test matrices is shown in Table 19.

Figure 14. Gap Part Dimensions and Values

23
 Table 18. Part orientation for square gap test

Staircase Orientation (Gap Wall, Circular Holes, Square Gaps)

Horizontal Vertical

Table 19. Pass/fail criterion for square gaps/holes

Square Gap/Hole
Fail Neutral Pass

Hole is completely closed Hole is formed, but shape Hole is formed with no
irregular irregularities

The matrices in Table 20 represent the part built in both the horizontal and vertical direction as
well as the repeatability experiments. The orientation and number is labeled in the upper left
corner of the matrix.

24
 Table 20: Pass/fail matrices for horizontal and vertically oriented parts

Plate Thickness [mm] Plate Thickness [mm]

V1 12.7 9.327 7.152 5.253 3.755 1.877 0.939 V2 12.7 9.327 7.152 5.253 3.755 1.877 0.939

1 4 1 4
2 3.5 2 3.5
3 3 3 3
4 2.5 4 2.5
5 2 5 2
6 1.5 6 1.5
7 1.4 7 1.4
8 1.3 8 1.3
9 1.2 9 1.2
Edge Length [mm]

Edge Length [mm]

10 1.1 10 1.1
11 1 11 1
12 0.9 12 0.9
13 0.8 13 0.8
14 0.7 14 0.7
15 0.6 15 0.6
16 0.5 16 0.5
17 0.4 17 0.4
18 0.3 18 0.3
19 0.25 19 0.25
20 0.2 20 0.2
21 0.15 21 0.15
22 0.125 22 0.125

Plate Thickness [mm] Plate Thickness [mm]

H1 12.7 9.327 7.152 5.253 3.755 1.877 0.939 H2 12.7 9.327 7.152 5.253 3.755 1.877 0.939

1 4 1 4
2 3.5 2 3.5
3 3 3 3
4 2.5 4 2.5
5 2 5 2
6 1.5 6 1.5
7 1.4 7 1.4
8 1.3 8 1.3
9 1.2 9 1.2
Edge Length [mm]
Edge Length [mm]

10 1.1 10 1.1
11 1 11 1
12 0.9 12 0.9
13 0.8 13 0.8
14 0.7 14 0.7
15 0.6 15 0.6
16 0.5 16 0.5
17 0.4 17 0.4
18 0.3 18 0.3
19 0.25 19 0.25
20 0.2 20 0.2
21 0.15 21 0.15
22 0.125 22 0.125

The matrices above in Table 20 illustrate what can and cannot be done involving the fabrication
of small gaps within a part.

• It can be seen that the square gaps built in the vertical direction had greater resolvability.
• At the smallest plate thickness, there vertical parts had a minimum edge length of 0.5
mm.
• The horizontal parts had a minimum edge length of 0.7 mm.

25
 • Both orientations show that the resolvability increases as plate thickness decreases.

The following plots in Figure 15 and 16 compare the measured values of the distance between the
hole and the walls edge versus the distances used during part design. The different series are
correlated to the different steps of the part with H1 and V1 corresponding to the thickest step.

Figure 15. Edge length deviation for horizontal gaps

Figure 16. Edge length deviation for vertical gaps

26
Figure 15 and 16 illustrate the tolerances involved in the fabrication of small gaps. The results
are summarized in the following bullet points.

• The nominal value deviation plots show that the horizontally oriented parts contain less
of a deviation from the nominal value compared to the vertical plates.
• The horizontal orientation is recommended to maintain tight tolerances.
• The average tolerance for a square gap made in the vertical orientation is -0.113 mm, a
negative value indicates the measured dimension is smaller than the nominal value and a
positive one represents a larger dimension.
• The average tolerance for the horizontal orientation is 0.025 mm, a negative value
indicates the measured dimension is smaller than the nominal value and a positive one
represents a larger dimension.

27
2.4 Pins

The part shown in Figure 17 in this section tests small diameter pins. It was used to determine
minimum pin diameter and the tolerance of pins created using SLS. The part build orientation
can be seen in Table 21. The pins range from 3 mm in diameter to 0.2 mm in diameter. The part
was built in both the horizontal and vertical orientation but the pins themselves remained in the
horizontal orientation.

Figure 17. Pin diameter part dimensions and values

28
 Table 21. Part orientation for pin test

Pin Test Orientation

Horizontal

Table 22. Pass/fail criterion for pin test

Pin
Fail Neutral Pass

No pin formation Pin formation occurs, but pin is Pin formed as rigid structure
fragile

The pass/fail criterion for the following test matrices is shown in Table 22. The matrices in Table
23 represent the part built in both the horizontal and vertical direction as well as the repeatability
experiments. Even though the parts were built at different orientations the pin directions
remained the same. The pins were built lying in the horizontal position.

29
 Table 23. Pass/fail matrices for horizontal pins

Pin Test (Horizontal pin) - Horizontal Part Pin Diameter [mm]

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
V1
V2

Pin Test (Horizontal pin) - Vertical Part Pin Diameter [mm]

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
H1
H2

The matrices in Table 23 illustrate what can and cannot be done involving the fabrication of
small gaps within a part.

• The minimum size pins can be resolved is .8 mm in the vertical and horizontal direction.
• Pins with a diameter of .6 mm do not form rigid structures but will resolve.
• No significant difference between the vertical and the horizontal.
• Pins less than .6 mm did not form at all.

The following plot in Figure 18 compare the measured values of the distance between the hole
and the walls edge versus the distances used during part design.

Minimum Pin Diameter Test

3.5
3.0
Pin diameter [mm]

2.5
Nominal
2.0
avg. ver
1.5
avg.hor
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Measurement Points

Figure 18. Pin diameter tolerances

30
Figure 18 illustrates the tolerances involved in the fabrication of pin diameters. The results are
summarized in the following bullet points.

• Pins have fairly accurate tolerances in the vertical and horizontal direction.

2.5 Fonts

The part seen in Figure 19 was used to test two different font types (Serif, Sans Serif), minimum
font height/depth (raised or recessed), and minimum font size. The build orientations are shown
in Table 24. The first font plate contains a Serif font with raised letter A’s on the top half and
recessed letter A’s on the bottom half. The letters decrease in font size from left to right ranging
from size 36 down to size 1. The letters decrease in height/depth as from top to bottom of the
plate ranging from 2 mm down to 0.25 mm. The exact same pattern is mirrored on the back of
the plate to test the difference between upskin and downskin when the plate is built with a
horizontal orientation. A second equal plate was created using a Sans Serif font. The pass/fail
criterion for the following test matrices is shown in Table 25.

31
 Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 36/2 28/2 24/2 20/2 18/2 16/2 14/2 12/2 11/2 10/2 9/2 8/2 7/2 6/2 5/2 4/2 3/2 2/2 1/2
Font Height/Depth [mm]

1.75 36/1.75 28/1.75 24/1.75 20/1.75 18/1.75 16/1.75 14/1.75 12/1.75 11/1.75 10/1.75 9/1.75 8/1.75 7/1.75 6/1.75 5/1.75 4/1.75 3/1.75 2/1.75 1/1.75
1.5 36/1.5 28/1.5 24/1.5 20/1.5 18/1.5 16/1.5 14/1.5 12/1.5 11/1.5 10/1.5 9/1.5 8/1.5 7/1.5 6/1.5 5/1.5 4/1.5 3/1.5 2/1.5 1/1.5
1.25 36/1.25 28/1.25 24/1.25 20/1.25 18/1.25 16/1.25 14/1.25 12/1.25 11/1.25 10/1.25 9/1.25 8/1.25 7/1.25 6/1.25 5/1.25 4/1.25 3/1.25 2/1.25 1/1.25
1 36/1 28/1 24/1 20/1 18/1 16/1 14/1 12/1 11/1 10/1 9/1 8/1 7/1 6/1 5/1 4/1 3/1 2/1 1/1
0.75 36/0.75 28/0.75 24/0.75 20/0.75 18/0.75 16/0.75 14/0.75 12/0.75 11/0.75 10/0.75 9/0.75 8/0.75 7/0.75 6/0.75 5/0.75 4/0.75 3/0.75 2/0.75 1/0.75
0.5 36/0.5 28/0.5 24/0.5 20/0.5 18/0.5 16/0.5 14/0.5 12/0.5 11/0.5 10/0.5 9/0.5 8/0.5 7/0.5 6/0.5 5/0.5 4/0.5 3/0.5 2/0.5 1/0.5
0.25 36/0.25 28/0.25 24/0.25 20/0.25 18/0.25 16/0.25 14/0.25 12/0.25 11/0.25 10/0.25 9/0.25 8/0.25 7/0.25 6/0.25 5/0.25 4/0.25 3/0.25 2/0.25 1/0.25

Figure 19. Font plates part dimensions and values

Table 24. Part orientation for font test plates

Font Test Orientation

Horizontal Vertical

32
 Table 25. Pass/fail criterion for raised Sans Serif fonts

Sans Serif - Raised

Fail Neutral Pass

Font is illegible due to defects Font is legible, but contains Font is legible with the naked
such as major gap fusion and defects such as partial wall eye, and contains no defects
large portions of incomplete font fusion or small gaps in the wall such as fused or incomplete
structures walls

The following matrices in Table 26 represent the raised Sans Serif font results built in both the
horizontal and vertical direction as well as the repeatability experiments. The matrices in Table
26 shows raised fonts for both upskin and downskin in the horizontal orientation as well as both
sides of a vertical plate.
Table 26. Pass/fail matrices for raised Sans Serif fonts

Sans Serif - H1 - Upskin - Raised Sans Serif - H2 - Upskin - Raised

Font Size [pt] Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 2
1.75 1.75
Height/Depth [mm]
Height/Depth [mm]

1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25

33
 Sans Serif - H1 - Downskin - Raised Sans Serif - H2 - Downskin - Raised
Font Size [pt] Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 2
1.75 1.75
Height/Depth [mm]

Height/Depth [mm]
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25

Sans Serif - V1 - Marked Side - Raised Sans Serif - V2 - Marked Side - Raised
Font Size [pt] Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 2
1.75 1.75
Height/Depth [mm]
Height/Depth [mm]

1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25

Table 26. Pass/fail matrices for raised Sans Serif fonts Continued

Sans Serif - V1 - Unmarked Side - Raised Sans Serif - V2 - Unmarked Side - Raised
Font Size [pt] Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 2
1.75 1.75
Height/Depth [mm]
Height/Depth [mm]

1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25

34
The matrices in Table 26 illustrate what can and cannot be done involving the fabrication of
raised Sans Serif fonts.

• Upskin and downskin had little effect on the quality of raised letter formation with Sans
Serif fonts.
• The same results occurred on both sides of the vertical plates.
• A raised downskin font tends to have more rounded edges than the upskin raised fonts.

The pass/fail criterion for the following test matrices is shown Table 27. The matrices below
represent the recessed Sans Serif font results built in both the horizontal and vertical direction as
well as the repeatability experiments. The matrices in Table 28 show raised fonts for both upskin
and downskin in the horizontal orientation as well as both sides of a vertical plate.
Table 27. Pass/fail criterion for recessed Sans Serif fonts

Sans Serif - Recessed

Fail Neutral Pass

Font is illegible due to defects Font is legible, but contains Font is legible with the naked
such as major gap fusion and defects such as partial wall filling eye, and contains no defects
large portions of incomplete font or small gaps in the wall such as fused or incomplete
structures walls.

Table 28. Pass/fail matrices for recessed Sans Serif fonts

Sans Serif - H1 - Upskin - Recessed Sans Serif - H2 - Upskin - Recessed

Font Size [pt] Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 2
1.75 1.75
Height/Depth [mm]

Height/Depth [mm]

1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25

35
 Sans Serif - H1 - Downskin - Recessed Sans Serif - H2 - Downskin - Recessed
Font Size [pt] Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 2
1.75 1.75
Height/Depth [mm]

Height/Depth [mm]
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25

Sans Serif - V1 - Marked Side - Recessed Sans Serif - V2 - Marked Side - Recessed
Font Size [pt] Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 2
1.75 1.75
Height/Depth [mm]

1.5 Height/Depth [mm] 1.5

1.25 1.25
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25

Table 29. Pass/fail matrices for recessed Sans Serif fonts Continued

Sans Serif - V1 - Unmarked Side - Recessed Sans Serif - V2 - Unmarked Side - Recessed
Font Size [pt] Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 2
1.75 1.75
Height/Depth [mm]

Height/Depth [mm]

1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25

36
The matrices above in Table 28 illustrate what can and cannot be done involving the fabrication
of recessed Sans Serif fonts.

• Upskin and downskin have a large effect on the quality of recessed Sans Serif fonts.
• The reason the downskin resolved fonts are marked yellow is because they are very
rounded and quite sloppy for lettering.
• Upskin fonts proved to be much more accurate.
• The exact same results occurred on both sides of the vertical plates.

The pass/fail criterion for the following test matrices is shown in Table 29. The matrix in Table
30 represents the results every raised Serif font test. There is only one matrix shown because
upskin, down skin, and vertical plates failed to show any suitable results. It is highly
recommended to choose a Sans Serif font over a Serif font for raised lettering.
Table 30. Pass/fail criterion for raised Serif fonts

Serif - Raised
Fail Neutral Pass

Not observed Not observed

Font is illegible due to defects Font is legible, but contains Font is legible with the naked
such as major gap fusion and defects such as partial wall eye, and contains no defects
large portions of incomplete font fusion or small gaps in the wall such as fused or incomplete
structures walls.

Table 31. Pass/fail matrix representing all raised Serif fonts

Serif - H1 - Upskin - Raised

Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2
1.75
Height/Depth [mm]

1.5
1.25
1
0.75
0.5
0.25

37
The pass/fail criterion for the following test matrices is shown in Table 31. The matrices in Table
32 represent the recessed Serif font results built in both the horizontal and vertical direction as
well as the repeatability experiments. The matrices show raised fonts for both upskin and
downskin in the horizontal orientation as well as both sides of a vertical plate.
Table 32. Pass/fail criterion for recessed Serif fonts

Serif- Recessed
Fail Neutral Pass

Font is illegible due to defects Font is legible, but contains Font is legible with the naked
such as major gap fusion and defects such as partial wall filling eye, and contains no defects
large portions of incomplete font or small gaps in the wall such as fused or incomplete
structures walls.

Table 33. Pass/fail matrices for recessed Serif fonts

Serif - H1 - Upskin - Recessed Serif - H2 - Upskin - Recessed

Font Size [pt] Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 2
1.75 1.75
Height/Depth [mm]

Height/Depth [mm]

1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25

38
 Serif - H1 - Downskin - Recessed Serif - H2 - Downskin - Recessed
Font Size [pt] Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 2
1.75 1.75
Height/Depth [mm]

Height/Depth [mm]
1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25

Serif - V1 - Marked Side - Recessed Serif - V2 - Marked Side - Recessed

Font Size [pt] Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 2
1.75 1.75
Height/Depth [mm]

1.5 Height/Depth [mm] 1.5

1.25 1.25
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25

Table 34. Pass/fail matrices for recessed Serif fonts Continued

Serif - V1 - Unmarked Side - Recessed Serif - V2 - Unmarked Side - Recessed

Font Size [pt] Font Size [pt]
36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 36 28 24 20 18 16 14 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 2
1.75 1.75
Height/Depth [mm]

Height/Depth [mm]

1.5 1.5
1.25 1.25
1 1
0.75 0.75
0.5 0.5
0.25 0.25

39
The matrices above in Table 32 illustrate what can and cannot be done involving the fabrication
of recessed Serif fonts.

• For a recessed Serif font an upskin orientation produced better results.

• The lettering that did resolve in the downskin orientation was unclear and sloppy.
• The vertical plates produced better results than the horizontal plates for recessed serif
font.
• Fonts formed in the vertical direction are recommended.
• Raised serif fonts are not recommended with respect to the given test parameters
• It can also be noted that recessed fonts tend to have better resolution.
• When using a recessed Serif font any depth will do but a size of 14 or higher is
recommended.
• When using a recessed Sans Serif font any depth will do but a size of 12 or higher is
recommended.

2.4 Gears

The part shown in Figure 20 was used to test gear clearances. Figure 21 lists the part dimensions
used. These clearances include distance between the shaft and the inner bore as well as the
clearance between gear tooth separation. The part is made three times with three different gear
sizes including 15 teeth, 20 teeth, and 25 teeth. The part includes three sections of gear trains
with two gear trains in each section. In each section the gears shaft clearance alters between 1
mm and 1.5 mm on each side of the shaft. The three sections are used to alter the gear tooth
separation. Between the three parts the gear tooth separation ranges from 1.5 mm to 0.5 mm.

40
 Figure 20. Gear part CAD model

Figure 21. Gear part dimension values

Table 35. Part orientation for gear test

Gear Test Orientation

Vertical

41
 Table 36. Pass/fail criterion for gears

Gear
Fail Neutral Pass

Cannot be directly observed

Little to no gear teeth contact at Gears mesh at maximum Gears mesh at maximum
maximum possible separation possible separation, but possible separation, no slippage
slippage occasionally occurs

The pass/fail criterion for the following test matrices is shown in Table 33 and 34. Each part (15
teeth, 20 teeth, and 25 teeth) was fabricated twice to ensure repeatability. The matrices in Table
35 show the three different gear sizes as well as the shaft clearances and separation distances that
were used on that specific part. The two similarly labeled charts represent the second part.

Table 37. Pass/fail matrices for gear tests

Gear teeth-15 Gear teeth-15

Separation distance Separation distance
1.39 1.57 1.78 1.39 1.57 1.78
Clearance 1 Clearance 1
[mm] 1.5 [mm] 1.5

Gear teeth-20 Gear teeth-20

Separation distance Separation distance
0.54 0.75 0.93 0.54 0.75 0.93
Clearance 1 Clearance 1
[mm] 1.5 [mm] 1.5

42
 Gear teeth-25 Gear teeth-25
Separation distance Separation distance
0.67 0.88 1.11 0.67 0.88 1.11
Clearance 1 Clearance 1
[mm] 1.5 [mm] 1.5

Due to tolerances of the SLS process the repeatibility experiments were not exactly the same. Results
from Table 35 are outlined in the following bullets.

• It can be seen that a shaft clearance of 1.5 mm on each side ultimately becomes too large for
gears to mesh properly.
• It recommended to use a shaft clearance of 1 mm and a tooth separation distance between 0.5 and
1 mm.
• Choosing larger tooth speration distances could cause slippage in the gears.
• A tooth separation of less thatn 0.5 mm is possible but since it was not tested the lower bound of
fusing is unsure.

43