Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 27 (3) (2013) 857~863

www.springerlink.com/content/1738-494x
DOI 10.1007/s12206-013-0111-1

Determination of optimum SLA process parameters of H-shaped parts†

Emad Rajabi Khorasani and Hamid Baseri*
Mechanical Engineering Department, Babol University of Technology, Babol, 47148-71167, Iran

(Manuscript Received March 23, 2012; Revised August 22, 2012; Accepted October 30, 2012)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract

A model was proposed for optimization of stereolithography (SLA) process parameters to achieve the minimum shrinkage of H-
shaped parts. A neural network was designed to correlate the input parameters to dimensional error of the parts manufactured by SLA.
For this purpose, the data of a previous study from the literature was used that investigated the effect of three important parameters (layer
thickness, hatch overcure and hatch spacing) of the SLA process by measuring the H-shaped parts manufactured by SLA 250. Then, the
neural network model was imported into two optimization algorithms (genetic algorithm and simulated annealing) and the optimal values
were determined. Results showed that the combination of neural network and optimization algorithms could determine the optimal input
parameters for the minimum shrinkage with good accuracy.
Keywords: SLA; Neural network; Shrinkage; Optimization; Genetic algorithm; Simulated annealing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SLA dimensional accuracy. They used the Taguchi method to

1. Introduction
reduce the number of experiments and proposed an optimal
Rapid prototyping (RP) is a material additive process, setup of the build parameters for building a general part consist-
where a 3D computer model is sliced and reassembled in real ing of a mixture of the various features. Minetola [4] considered
space, layer by layer. In 1987, 3D Systems introduced the first different 3-2-1 alignments and analyzed their influence on the
commercialized RP system based on stereolithography (SLA) inspection results, putting in evidence that an inattentive or in-
process [1]. accurate definition of the part reference frame can lead to incor-
Although many commercial RP technologies are available, rect evaluations of real part deviations.
SLA remains the most popular RP technique with the largest Raju et al. [5] studied the influence of the layer thickness
installed user bases in the world because of better part build over the part quality for SLA 5000 machine. They concluded
accuracy than other rapid prototyping techniques. However, that a layer thickness equivalent to 0.1 mm is optimal at which
the technology still needs to achieve much better accuracy in the mechanical properties are high with minimum dimensional
order to make its applications available for areas such as rapid instability. Campanelli et al. [6] used the Taguchi method to
tooling and precision parts building [1, 2]. find the parameters leading to the best accuracy of the manu-
From the inception of SLA, improving its accuracy has been factured parts in the SLA process. Also, Vosniakos et al. [7]
an interesting case for researchers. Various approaches and optimized the parameters in layer-based rapid prototyping
different methods have been used to find an effective way to using the genetic algorithm (GA).
promote SLA dimensional accuracy. Jayanthi et al. [3] proposed This study is based upon results of previous work of Lee et
a twin-cantilever test piece and studied the effects of SLA proc- al. [2]. They designed and manufactured special H-shaped
ess parameters and also two different writing styles (hatch and parts by SLA 250 and built 140 samples using different setup
weave) in curl distortion of manufactured parts. They concluded parameters (layer thickness, hatch overcure and hatch spacing)
the four main parameters are layer thickness, hatch spacing, fill and then measured 5 positions. They proposed a neural net-
cure depth and hatch overcure. They also found that the distor- work to predict the dimensional accuracy of SLA parts using
tion in weave style is much higher than hatch style. Zhou et al. input parameters and output measured data. The test results on
[1] managed an experiment using special designed parts manu- performance of the trained network showed that it can predict
factured by SLA250 to find important process parameters in the dimensional errors with reasonable accuracy.
To continue their valuable work, we developed a model to
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 111 3234205, Fax.: +98 111 3212268 optimize the SLA setup parameters. An artificial neural net-
E-mail address: h.baseri@nit.ac.ir
†
Recommended by Associate Editor Sung Hoon Ahn
work (ANN) was designed and tested with different combina-
© KSME & Springer 2013 tions (number of hidden layers, hidden layer transfer function
858 E. R. Khorasani and H. Baseri / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 27 (3) (2013) 857~863

and training method) to create a capable and accurate network.

The regression and statistical analysis are only effective for
large quantities of data. In this way, methods based on neural
networks can generate very precise predictions. So, this net-
work was used as an objective function in GA and simulated
annealing (SA) algorithm to derive the best SLA setup pa-
rameters. These optimal process parameters are very useful for
SLA operators and may help them make more accurate parts
with less trial and error.

2. SLA process principles

SL is the oldest but still the most detailed additive manufac-
turing process and shows the highest surface quality. The parts
are created by photo-polymerization. The build space contains
a liquid monomeric resin. Each layer is contoured by a UV
radiation emitting laser that hardens the resin by instantaneous
polymerization. After solidification of a layer, an elevator on
which the model is fixed is lowered by the amount of one
layer thickness. New resin is spread over the surface and the
following layer is to be solidified. The process continues until
the model is finished. SLA needs supports that have to be
added to the data set and to be removed manually after the
build-up [8].
To make the SLA process more useful in the manufacturing
industry, the dimensional accuracy of the produced parts
should be very high. But due to the nature of the polymeriza-
tion process and the mechanism of laser scanning, distortions
are inevitable [3]. There are five causes for dimensional errors
in the SLA process: CAD/CAM model, control of laser de-
vices, materials, manufacturing setup parameters and post-
curing [1]. In this study, we just work on the major cause of
dimensional inaccuracy: SLA setup parameters. Through the
fine selection of setup parameters, SLA can build parts more
accurately. Fig. 1(a) shows several strands of a built part gen-
erated by laser scanning. As indicated in Figs. 1(b)-1(d), proc-
ess parameters include layer thickness (LT), hatch spacing
(HS), fill spacing (FS), border overcure (BO), hatch overcure
(HO) and fill cure depth (FCD).
Layer thickness is the depth of a layer, the region that is so-
lidified at each elevation. Spacing is the distance between a
couple of adjacent strands, which are the narrow regions so-
lidified by the laser scanning. If the strand is located at the top
or bottom surface of a part, spacing is called ‘fill spacing’ or
otherwise ‘hatch spacing’. Cure depth is the depth of the
strands. If the strand is located at the top or bottom surface of
the part, the cure depth is called the ‘fill cure depth’. Overcure
is the depth that a strand pierces into the lower adjacent layer.
If it is located at the lateral boundaries, overcure is called
‘border overcure’; otherwise it is called ‘hatch overcure’.
3. Experiments
3.1 Choosing a standard shape for measurement
To calculate dimensional accuracy in SLA parts, it is essen-
Fig. 1. Parameters of SLA process: (a) part building strands; (b) HS
and HO; (c) BO; (d) FCD and FS [2].
Fig. 2. Geometry of used H-shaped part for manufacturing by SLA [2].
tial to choose a simple and effective geometry. Lee et al. [2],
whose measurements data have been used in this work, chose
a standard ‘letter-H’ geometry which was proposed by Pang et
al. [9].
Fig. 2 shows the geometry of the H-shaped part. The shape
of the H part is so simple that it is easy to build, measure and
analyze. In addition, it is possible to perform a number of
fabrications with less cost, and the H part can reliably indicate
both distortion and shrinkage characteristics of the SLA. Its
five characteristic dimensions are used to define the dimen-
sional accuracy of SLA products in this paper. The character-
istic dimensions are denoted by ‘H-top’, ‘B-top’, ‘Waist’,
‘Ankle’ and ‘Lateral’, among which the ‘Ankle’ is utilized to
replace the ‘Foot’, presented in Fig. 3, because of relatively
poor repeatability of the latter.
Previous studies by Jayanthi et al. [3] and Lee [10] investi-
gated the influence of process parameters on curl distortion in
photopolymer model using the analysis of variance (ANOVA).
They found that layer thickness (LT), hatch overcure (HO)
and hatch spacing (HS) are the most influential variables de-
termining the variation of the part geometry. Therefore, in this
study these parameters have only been considered as input
parameters and the other ones are constant as listed in Table 1.
Considering that the up and down facing surfaces of the
borders only possess a small portion of the H-part, it is ra-
tional that hatch (HS, HO) is more important than border (BO,
FS, FCD). Based upon this analysis, without much loss of
 E. R. Khorasani and H. Baseri / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 27 (3) (2013) 857~863 859

Table 1. Ranges of process parameters [2].

Parameter Range (mm) Nominal value (mm)

Layer thickness 0.1 ~ 0.25 0.15
Hatch overcure 0.1 ~ 0.05 0.075
Hatch spacing 0.05 ~ 0.25 0.1
Fill cure depth Constant 0.225
Fill spacing Constant 0.1
Border overcure Constant 0.175

accuracy, we may have reasonable results. Fig. 3. MSE vs. number of neurons for two different transfer functions.

3.2 Experimental data for training of ANN

To construct an artificial neural network, which we expect
to reliably model the shrinkage in SLA process, first we need
to form our input and output matrices. Based on previous dis-
cussion, we can write the input matrix for ANN as:
lt  layer − thickness 
   
Input =  ho  =  hatch − overcure  .
 hs   hatch − spacing 
And similarly the output matrix (five categories of dimen-
sional errors) as:
dH − top   error(H − top) 
   
dB − top  error(B − top) 
Output = dWaist  = error(Waist)  .
    In this research, we used MATLAB to generate all the
dAnkle  error(Ankle) 
dLateral  error(Lateral) 
    ing the type of the problem and existing data, is the back-
In the output matrix, d in the front of each array represents
the difference between the desired value and the measured one.
For example, dH-top is the error in the H-top dimension.
The objective of these experiments is to obtain the correct
sets of training and test data needed for the neural network. To
achieve satisfactory modelling performance within the usable
parameter range of an SLA machine, it is necessary to do a
series of experiments within that range. The experiments are
composed of three steps. First, the ranges of the parameters
LT, HO and HS were defined as shown in Table 1, while the
other three parameters were kept constant.
As represented in Table 1, each process parameter has a
specific range that is divided into some levels. For example,
we have seven levels for LT, starting from 0.1 and ending at
0.25:
Level(LT) = 0.1,0.125,0.150,0.175,0.2,0.225,0.25
Similarly for HO and HS, we have:
Level(HO) = [− 0.1,−0.05,0,0.05]
Level(HS) = 0.05,0.1,0.15,0.2,0.25
Multiplying the number of levels for three variable factors,
we will have 140 (= 7 × 4 × 5 ) sets of the network inputs and
outputs. Second, under these conditions the H parts were built
in a rapid prototyping system (3D systems SLA 250); the resin
used was SLA 5170. There were 140 parts in total. Third, the
built parts were measured by a CMM and these measurements
yielded the dimensional errors.
To make the network model as accurate as possible, with a
limited number of sample fabrications, 100 sets were used for
training purpose, 25 sets for validation and the remaining 15
sets were used for the testing process.
4. Results and discussion
4.1 Design of neural network structure
software codes needed. The network adopted here, consider-
propagation neural network (BPNN).
There are many parameters affecting the reliability, predic-
tion accuracy and convergence speed of an ANN. Here we
tried to vary the most important structural parameters of our
ANN to obtain an optimal structure in order to generate exact,
repeatable results in an optimum time. These parameters are:
number of hidden layers, number of neurons in each hidden
layer and hidden layer transfer function.
First, we tried a neural network including just one hidden
layer and Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) learning rule for the
training step. Fig. 3 shows the diagram of mean square error
(MSE) versus number of neurons for an ANN in the testing
step with one hidden layer and two different transfer func-
tions: hyperbolic logarithmic sigmoid (logsig) and hyperbolic
tangent sigmoid (tansig).
As shown in Fig. 3, the number of neurons varies from 1 to
100. The results show that using the tansig transfer function
(green line) leads to lower MSE during a training step and also,
instability in the results occurs after increasing the number of
neurons to more than 45. Considering the higher MSE using
logarithmic sigmoid function and more limited range of stabil-
ity (< 30 neurons), it is reasonable to adopt tansig as the trans-
fer function for the hidden layer.
860 E. R. Khorasani and H. Baseri / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 27 (3) (2013) 857~863

Table 2. MSE and epoch number for different transfer functions and
hidden layers with training method of Levenberg-Marquardt.

Transfer function Hidden layer(s) MSE Epochs No.

Logsig 23 0.0027 28
Logsig - Logsig 23 - 23 0.0036 11
Logsig - Tansig 23 - 23 0.0073 10
Tansig - Logsig 23 - 23 0.0046 10
Tansig - Tansig 23 - 23 0.0037 12
Tansig - Tansig 10 - 10 0.0026 13 (a)
Tansig - Tansig 8-8 0.0026 20

To define the exact number of neurons of the hidden layer,

a number of trials were done and the most precise and repeat-
able choice was 23. There are three better results in higher
number of neurons in this trial, but they were not adopted
since it was probable the ANN overfits the sample data, i.e., it
fits well under the conditions of the sample data, but poorly
under other conditions. The adopted number of neurons (23) is
fairly far from the instable border and leads to 0.0025 MSE in (b)
training that is an acceptable answer.
Although it is not wise to increase the number of hidden
layers when an ANN with one hidden layer shows exact and
repeatable results in the training step, we examined many
other configurations with one or two hidden layers and also
different number of neurons and transfer functions to be cer-
tain of our choice.
Table 2 shows some of these trial results. Since there was
not a significant improvement in MSE value in any other cas-
es, the (3-23-5) with tansig transfer function and LM learning
rule is selected as best BPNN. Fig. 4 shows the BPNN pre- (c)
dicted values and corresponding measured values of outputs
for 15 random test data. It is evident that the (3-23-5) network
can respond to new input data as well. Using this well trained
network, it is possible to accurately relate the input parameters
to the dimensional error of the SLA parts and also use this
ANN as an objective function for optimization algorithms.

4.2 Optimization procedure

After finalizing a suitable structure for our neural network,

the optimization algorithms are used to obtain optimal SLA (d)
setup parameters. In fact, now we are able to optimize the
input matrix of our ANN to achieve the minimum dimensional
error, which can be derived from the output matrix.
There are two essential requirements needed for an optimi-
zation to be accomplished: the optimization algorithm and the
objective function. In this study, we employed two famous
and powerful optimization algorithms that have been shown to
work reliably: genetic algorithm (GA) and simulated anneal-
ing (SA) algorithm [11].
We used the designed ANN in the previous subsection as an
(e)
objective function. ANN has five outputs and it is necessary to
define a single objective function for parts dimensional error Fig. 4. Measured and BPNN predicted values of SLA outputs.
 E. R. Khorasani and H. Baseri / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 27 (3) (2013) 857~863 861

Table 3. Optimization results by GA with different GA parameters. Table 4. Parameters of GA optimization which led to the best result.

GA parameters Optimized values Population size 30

Population

Stall generation
Creation function Constraint dependent
Crossover frac-

Migration frac-
Population size

HO ( mm)

HS (mm)
LT (mm)
Scaling function Rank
tion

tion Objective
function Selection Function Stochastic uniform
value Elite count 2
Reproduction
20 0.8 0.2 50 0.01064 0.109 -0.1 0.181 Crossover fraction 0.8
20 0.8 0.2 100 0.01064 0.109 -0.1 0.181 Mutation fraction Constraint dependent
20 0.9 0.2 100 0.01052 0.132 -0.044 0.25 Crossover function Scattered
20 0.9 0.3 100 0.01533 0.116 0.026 0.25 Direction Forward
30 0.8 0.2 100 0.01040 0.1 -0.038 0.25 Migration Fraction 0.2
30 0.9 0.2 100 0.01040 0.1 -0.038 0.25 Interval 20
30 0.8 0.3 100 0.01040 0.1 -0.038 0.25 Constraint Initial penalty 10
40 0.8 0.2 100 0.01064 0.109 -0.1 0.181 parameters Penalty factor 100
50 0.8 0.2 100 0.01064 0.109 -0.1 0.181 Generations 150
60 0.9 0.3 100 0.01040 0.1 -0.038 0.25 Stopping criteria Stall generations 100
60 0.8 0.2 100 0.01064 0.109 -0.1 0.181 Function tolerance 1.00E-06
60 0.8 0.2 100 0.01052 0.132 -0.043 0.25
30 0.8 0.2 100 0.01040 0.1 -0.038 0.25
30 0.8 0.2 50 0.01041 0.1 -0.039 0.25 lations for each generation and minimum stall generations. It
30 0.8 0.2 100 0.01040 0.1 -0.038 0.25 was reasonable to adopt 50 for stall generation number, but in
some cases, there was little improvement after the 50th gen-
eration and it was safer to adopt 100.
using the outputs of ANN as follows: There are some other operators which influence the GA per-
formance and are assumed constant in our optimization. Table
F= (dH − top)2 + (dB − top)2 + (dWaist)2 + (dAnkle)2 + (dLateral)2 4 shows a complete set of important GA options which led to
(1) the best results in this research. Considering the minimum
value for the objective function (= 0.01040), the optimal val-
where the values of dH-top, dB-top, dWaist, dAnkle and dLat- ues for SLA setup parameters are as follows:
eral are obtained from the output of ANN. Also, the ranges of
process parameters used to obtain the optimized values are the Optimal LT = 0.1 mm
same as those previously mentioned in Table 1. Optimal HO = -0.038 mm
Optimal HS = 0.25 mm
4.2.1 Optimization results using GA
In this phase, we tried to obtain the optimal results from GA Here, in the optimal case we can see that LT is at its mini-
by examining many options. We changed population size, mum acceptable value, HO is near its minimum and hatch
crossover fraction, migration fraction and stall generation. spacing is at its maximum acceptable value. These results are
Table 3 shows the results obtained in each case. It is obvious in accordance with the other researchers’ outcomes which
that in some cases GA is trapped in local minima and the final mention that LT and HO have negative effect and HS has
objective function value is far from the minimum value and positive effect on the total dimensional inaccuracy of SLA
even increasing the population size does not help us overcome parts [1-5, 9].
this drawback. However, in most of the trials, GA was reliable It is also interesting that a very near optimal result is ob-
and the convergence speed was so high that before reaching tained in some cases. The value of objective in this near opti-
50 generations, the best result was obtained. mal case is 0.0106 (just 0.0002 higher than the best result) but
It is almost impossible to be certain about the best options the SLA setup parameters are quite different (LT = 0.109; HO
for GA optimization, considering plenty of operators that in- = -0.1; HS = 0.181 mm). In this case, the value of LT is near
fluence its accuracy and convergence speed, but from the re- minimum, HO value is absolute minimum and hatch spacing
sults gathered in Table 3, we can conclude that the most pre- is near maximum. This result is also compatible with previous
cise and reliable mode may be as follows: population size = 30, studies and shows there may be near optimal results that can
crossover fraction = 0.8, migration fraction = 0.2 and stall help in the situations with special limitation. For example,
generation = 100. These values for GA operators were manufacturing time may be reduced in this near optimal case
adopted and corresponded to the case with the minimum value by increasing the LT from 0.1 to 0.109 mm.
for objective function with high repeatability, minimum calcu-
862 E. R. Khorasani and H. Baseri / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 27 (3) (2013) 857~863

Table 5. Optimization results by SA with different SA parameters.

5. Conclusions
SA parameters Optimized values
There are many causes for dimensional inaccuracy in the

( mm)
Initial
temp.

(mm)

(mm)
SLA process. In this paper, based on previous works done in

HO
Objective

HS
LT
Start point
function this area, we investigated the effect of three important SLA
value setup parameters (layer thickness, hatch overcure and hatch
[0.175,-0.025,0.15] 100 0.01062 0.1 -0.033 0.25
spacing) on the shrinkage and distortion of H-shaped parts
[0.125,-0.075,0.1] 100 0.01053 0.1 -0.034 0.249
manufactured by SLA250, and to find the optimal values that
[0.15,-0.05,0.2] 100 0.01052 0.102 -0.039 0.25
would lead to the minimum dimensional error in SLA parts.
[0.15,-0.1,0.2] 100 0.01053 0.103 -0.039 0.25
Since an analytical approach to solve this problem is very
[0.15,0.025,0.2] 100 0.01053 0.1 -0.042 0.249
difficult due to the complexity of the process, a multilayer
[0.15,-0.1,0.1] 100 0.01052 0.102 -0.039 0.25 perceptron was used to precisely and reliably relate three input
[0.1,-0.1,0.1] 100 0.01040 0.1 -0.038 0.25 parameters to five outputs (H-shaped parts measured dimen-
[0.1,0,0.1] 100 0.01040 0.1 -0.038 0.25 sions). After establishing a well-trained neural network (using
[0.25,0.05,0.05] 100 0.1052 0.1 -0.039 0.249 140 sets of inputs and outputs), it was possible to accomplish
[0.2,0,0.15] 100 0.1053 0.102 -0.039 0.25 optimization phase using GA and SA methods. Based upon
[0.2,-0.025,0.2] 100 0.01040 0.1 -0.038 0.25 these optimization results, the following conclusion can be
[0.175,-0.025,0.15] 150 0.01058 0.1 -0.032 0.25 realized:
[0.15,-0.05,0.2] 150 0.01058 0.105 -0.032 0.25 The proposed neural network (with one tansig hidden layer
[0.125,-0.075,0.1] 200 0.01046 0.1 -0.035 0.25 and 23 neurons) is found to reliably and precisely model the
[0.175,-0.025,0.15] 100 0.01062 0.1 -0.033 0.25 dimensional error (shrinkage + distortion) in SLA process.
The optimal values for SLA setup parameters using both
GA and SA methods were equal (layer thickness = 0.1; hatch
Table 6. Constant values used for SA optimization. overcure = -0.038; hatch spacing = 0.25) which can be con-
firmed by the results of previous works done by different re-
Annealing function Fast annealing
searchers. They mention that layer thickness and hatch over-
Reannealing interval 100
cure have negative effect and hatch spacing has positive effect
Temperature update function Exponential
on the total dimensional inaccuracy of SLA parts.
Max Function evaluations 9000 In the present study, both of the optimization algorithms
Function tolerance 1.00E-06 used (GA and SA), were suitable and found the optimal result.
Stall iterations 1500 GA worked fast and exactly, but in some cases was trapped in
local minima. It is essential to increase the number of trials
with GA to be certain of achieving the best fit point. SA
showed that it is a slow but precise and reliable method and
4.2.2 Optimization results using SA not easily trapped in local minima.
In the optimization with SA method, we tried different start Finally, it is considerable the presented model is only valid
points with various initial temperatures. Since the results were for SLA of H-shaped parts. To model the other shapes, first
very close and precise, it was not necessary to vary other SA the critical characteristics should be defined and measured,
operators. Table 5 shows the optimization results with differ- and then the optimization methods can be applied.
ent start points. Also, Table 6 shows the SA constant values
used in all trials.
Here, the best result is equal to the previous optimization
References
using GA. The interesting point is that, referring to the results [1] J. G. Zhou, D. Herscovici and C. Chen, Parametric process
in Table 5, SA comes to the final answer in much higher itera- optimization to improve the accuracy of rapid prototyped
tion numbers, but it is not trapped in local minima and all of stereolithography parts, International Journal of Machine
the results are in the same range with very little difference. In Tools and Manufacture, 40 (1999) 1-17.
fact, the final value for the objective function is just 0.0002 [2] S. H. Lee, W. S. Park, H. S. Cho, W. Zhang and M. C. Leu,
higher in the worst case. Besides, it is obvious that SA is not A neural network approach to the modelling and analysis of
sensitive to changing the start point or even the initial tem- stereolithography processes, Proceedings of Institution of
perature. Also, the near optimal result found by GA is not seen Mechanical Engineers Part B, 215 (2001) 1719-1733.
here that shows how powerful and reliable the SA method is. [3] S. Jayanthi, M. Keefe and E. P. Gargiulo, Studies in stereo-
These results confirm the optimal value for SLA setup pa- lithography: Influence of process parameters on curl distor-
rameters obtained in the previous optimization by GA. We can tion in photopolymer models, Proceedings of the Solid Free-
say that SA is good for researchers who are seeking a slow, form Fabrication Symposium, USA (1994) 250-258.
repeatable and precise method. [4] P. Minetola, The importance of a correct alignment in con-
 E. R. Khorasani and H. Baseri / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 27 (3) (2013) 857~863
tactless inspection of additive manufactured parts. Interna-
tional Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing,
13 (2) (2012) 211-218.
[5] B. S. Raju, U. Chandrashekar, D. N. Drakshayani and K.
Chockalingam, Determining the influence of layer thickness
for rapid prototyping with stereolithography (SLA) process,
International Journal of Engineering Science and Technol-
ogy, 2 (7) (2010) 3199-3205.
[6] S. L. Campanelli, G. Cardano, R. Giannoccaro, A. D. Ludo-
vico and E. L. J. Bohez, Statistical analysis of the stereo-
lithographic process to improve the accuracy. Computer-
Aided Design, 39 (1) (2007) 80-86.
[7] G. C. Vosniakos, T. Maroulis and D. Pantelis, A method for
optimizing process parameters in layer-based rapid prototyp-
ing. Proceedings of Institution of Mechanical Engineers
Part B, 221 (8) (2007) 1329-1340.
[8] A. Gebhardt, E-manufacturing based on additive manufac-
turing technology (rapid prototyping, rapid tooling, rapid
manufacturing), Aachen, Germany (2005).
863
[9] T. H. Pang, M. D. Guertin and H. D. Nguyen, Accuracy of
stereolithography parts: mechanism and modes of distortion
for a ‘letter-H’ diagnostic part. In Proceedings of the Solid
Freeform Fabrication Symposium, USA (1995) 170-180.
[10] S. H. Lee, Optimal selection of process parameters and in
process measurement of cross-sectional shapes of products
in stereolithography process. MS thesis, Korea Advanced In-
stitute of Science and Technology, Korea (1998).
[11] S. S. Rao, Engineering optimization: theory and practice,
John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey (2009).
Hamid Baseri is an assistant professor
of mechanical engineering in Babol
university of technology in Iran. He has
ten years experience in manufacturing
research. The subjects of his interest
include machining process and intelli-
gent technologies.