ASM Handbook, Volume 21: Composites Copyright © 2001 ASM International®

D.B. Miracle and S.L. Donaldson, editors, p383-387 All rights reserved.
DOI: 10.1361/asmhba0003397 www.asminternational.org

Rapid Prototyping
David L. Bourell and Joseph J. Beaman, Jr., The University of Texas at Austin
Donald Klosterman, University of Dayton
Ian Gibson, University of Hong Kong
Amit Bandyopadhyay, Washington State University

RAPID PROTOTYPING (RP)—also known to each other and to the build platform at all Powder Sintering. Selective laser sintering
as solid freeform fabrication, automated fabri- times during the build process. Overhanging part (SLS) uses powder as the raw material (Fig. 2).
cation, layered manufacturing, and so forth— features must therefore be connected using ad- Parts are built on a platform, which indexes
consists of a range of technologies that are ca- ditional support structures, which are fabricated downward as more powder is added at the top.
pable of taking computer-aided design (CAD) at the same time. A laser melts or sinters the powder particles ac-
models and converting them to a physical form
or part. This process is automatic, generally in-
dependent of the model geometry, and does not
require special tooling or fixtures. Complex,
three-dimensional (3-D) contours are quantized
in the form of stacks of two-dimensional, finite
thickness layers or cross sections. If these layers Mirror
are very thin, then the parts made will be suffi- system
ciently accurate to suit a range of applications. Laser
Nearly all RP parts can be characterized by a
stair-step effect that approximates the original Ultraviolet beam
cures liquid
shape, which is most obvious on shallow slopes
and curves. A most comprehensive classification Computer
of RP processes was proposed by J.P. Kruth (Ref
1), in which the focus is on the initial state of Model
the raw materials used, namely solid, liquid, and Base to support structure
powder-based manufacture. Other sources for
Elevator platform
more detailed information are included as Ref 2
to 6. Liquid photopolymer tank

Fig. 1 Stereolithography (SLA) rapid prototyping system. Courtesy of Milwaukee School of Engineering
Review of Processes

Photopolymer Systems. Stereolithography

(SLA) (Ref 7) is regarded as the first commercial
RP process and uses liquid-based photopolymer
resin as the raw material (Fig. 1). Polymerization
occurs at a specific frequency of light, supplied
by a laser source, which scans across the surface
of the photopolymer. The laser intensity is
matched to the absorption of the photopolymer
so that solidification is limited to a short depth,
representing the layer thickness. Parts are built
on an elevator platform, which increments down
from the surface as layers are added. Stereolith-
ography was first commercialized by 3D Sys-
tems and is registered to their machines. There
are, however, a number of variations from other
companies that also use photopolymer resins.
Parts made using SLA are surrounded by liquid
resin during the build so there is a need to ensure
that all layers, and parts of layers, are connected Fig. 2 Selective laser sintering (SLS) rapid prototyping system. Courtesy of DTM Corporation
384 / Engineering Mechanics, Analysis, and Design
cording to the cross section at a particular layer.
Each layer cools rapidly, and laser penetration is
such that it thermally bonds to the layer below.
The powder material must therefore be thermo-
plastic in its behavior. The use of powders means
that part surfaces have a granular texture, and
there is also a tendency for parts to be porous.
Loose powder surrounds the solid part, thus
eliminating the need for specific support struc-
tures. Thermal processing also leads to very
good part strength. Selective laser sintering is
registered to machines manufactured by DTM
Corporation (Ref 8), but similar machines are
also made by EOS GmbH in Germany (Ref 9).
Hot Melt Extrusion. Fused deposition mod-
eling (FDM) material comes in solid form as a
filament. This is extruded through a heated noz-
zle, which deposits a thin “road” of material
(Fig. 3). First, roads are extruded to form the
outline of the part. These roads are then filled in
to complete the layer. Since the material is op-
timally softened and not fully liquefied when it
exits the nozzle, FDM generally uses amorphous
polymers. Fused deposition modeling must also
use support structures for overhanging features.
Supports are extruded through a second nozzle
and can therefore be held at a different tempera-
ture or made from a different material. This al-
lows the supports to come away from the part
easily. A recent development is the use of a sol-
uble support material that can be removed with
a minimum of mechanical damage to the part.
Fused deposition modeling is currently com-
mercialized by Stratasys Inc. (Ref 10).
Filament
Drive wheels
Liquifier
Direction
Tip
Vector motion
Fig. 3 The fused deposition modeling (FDM) hot melt
extrusion process. Courtesy of Penn State Uni-
versity
Laser optics gantry
CO2 laser
Cross hatch
Cut-out window
Heated roller
Part block
Waste material Platform
take-up roll
Fig. 4 Sheet lamination using the laminated object
manufacturing (LOM) process.
Sheet Lamination. Laminated Object Manu-
facturing (LOM) (Ref 11) uses solid sheets of
material, which are sequentially bonded together
and cut to form the part (Fig. 4). The thickness
of the sheet material, which is normally paper,
represents the layer thickness. After each layer
is bonded and cut, the part is separated from the
feed material by cutting it around the outline.
Further cuts or “cross hatches” are required to
permit easy removal of the waste material after
the entire part is complete. Thus, LOM parts are
surrounded by solid material and do not require
support structures during the building process.
LOM was first commercialized by Helisys Inc.,
which used the approach described previously to
cut and bond adhesive-backed paper that was de-
livered on a continuous roll. Another laminating
machine, which uses single sheets of paper for
each layer, photocopying technology to apply
the adhesive, and a blade to cut the part outlines,
is made by Kira in Japan (Ref 12).
Solid Ground Curing (SGC) (Ref 13), a pro-
cess developed by Cubital in Israel, also fabri-
UV light source
Fig. 5 The solid ground curing (SGC) process from Cubital. Courtesy of Penn State University
Spread powder
Material
feed roll
Intermediate stage
Fig. 6 The basic three-dimensional printing (3DP) process. Courtesy of MIT
cates parts from photopolymer resins but in a
different way than stereolithography (Fig. 5).
Resin is spread onto a platform, which is then
exposed to ultraviolet light through a mask,
which is printed from the layer data onto a glass
plate. Uncured resin is vacuumed away, and the
space is filled with molten wax. The wax solid-
ifies and the whole layer is machined, level to
the required layer thickness. Parts are therefore
a combination of resin and wax and do not re-
quire supports. Wax is removed using a chemical
bath or autoclave. Solid ground curing can be
considered a hybrid system since it uses solid
wax and liquid resin.
Three-Dimensional Printing (3DP). Devel-
oped and licensed by the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (Ref 14), 3DP can be found in a
number of commercial forms. Powder is spread
onto a build platform (Fig. 6). Liquid is then
printed from an ink-jet print head. The liquid
dries and binds the powder particles together to
form the layer. 3DP is therefore another hybrid
process using powders and liquid. Like SLS, the
• Spray resin
• Develop photomask
• Expose mask
• Vacuum uncured resin
• Spray wax
• Mill flat
Print layer
Drop piston
Repeat cycle
Last layer printed Finished part

use of different powders results in different ap-
plications. The most common machine is the
Z402 from ZCorp, which uses multiple nozzle
ink-jet print heads to print large areas in one
pass, making it possible to create parts quickly.
Like SLS, parts exhibit a granular texture and
are porous. Three-dimensional printing parts
generally require strengthening using a resin-
based infiltrant.
Drop-on-drop systems, like 3DP, FDM, and
others, use nozzles to create parts. The Sanders
ModelMaker (Ref 15) (Fig. 7) and Thermojet
(registered to 3D Systems) processes deposit
material in a molten droplet form. This material
then solidifies rapidly to allow further droplets
to be applied. These processes generally use wax
as the raw material. Sanders machines use two
types of wax, one for support structures that can
be removed from the part material at low tem-
perature. Thermojet systems create supports
from the same material, resulting in compara-
tively rough, down-facing surfaces.
Metal Systems. All of the above commercial
systems concentrate on polymeric materials or
materials with low melting points. A number of
processes have been adapted so that they can
process metals, but few of them have reached
commercial status to date. It is not difficult to
see how FDM, LOM, and SLS can be developed
into metal systems. Direct sintering of metal
powders is possible with the EOSint M machine,
although the metals are, admittedly, relatively
low melting point. The Laser Engineered Net
Shape (LENS) directed material-deposition pro-
cess commercialized by Optomec, Inc. (Ref 16)
feeds metal powder into a head, which then melts
and deposits in a similar manner to FDM.
StratoConception (Ref 17) uses machining to
create metal sheet laminates, which are bonded
together like LOM. Obviously, high power, tem-
perature, and atmosphere considerations make
these direct methods difficult tasks to achieve.
Direct Fabrication of
Composite Structures
Significant advances in the technology of
rapid prototyping during the 1990s have pro-
duced a new capability for directly fabricating
advanced material prototypes and end-use com-
ponents. The list of advanced materials includes
particulate and fiber-reinforced polymer, ce-
ramic-matrix composites (CMCs), and metal-
matrix composites (MMCs). Adapting the vari-
ous RP processes for direct fabrication of
ceramic materials has received the most effort
because, compared to techniques for fabricating
metals and polymers, traditional techniques for
small-lot fabrication of complex-shaped ceramic
components are difficult, time consuming, labor
intensive, and expensive. Thus, RP technology
was expected to yield the earliest and greatest
payoff for direct fabrication of ceramic materi-
als. Great strides, however, were also made with
direct fabrication of polymer and metal compo-
nents during this time period. Currently, a wide
variety of RP processes exists for direct fabri-
cation of particulate and fiber-reinforced com-
posites.
Fiber-Reinforced Composites. Of all the RP
techniques, LOM is the only one well-suited for
direct manufacture of fiber-reinforced compos-
ites. Because LOM is essentially a sheet-pro-
cessing method (Fig. 4), it is capable of handling
common sheet preforms such as fabrics and pre-
pregs that are traditionally used in composite
fabrication.
Recent research efforts have established the
viability of LOM for direct fabrication of con-
tinuous-fiber reinforced polymer-matrix com-
posites (PMCs) and CMCs. With PMCs, a full
discussion of the various issues involved is given
elsewhere (Ref 18, 19). The general approach is
to use the LOM machine to lay up and shape a
green (partially cured and consolidated) com-
posite, followed by additional off-line consoli-
dation and cure using a heated vacuum bag or
autoclave. Glass fiber/epoxy composites made
with LOM using a commercially available pre-
preg, Scotch Ply (3M), exhibited approximately
85% of the strength (tension, compression, flex-
ure, and interlaminar shear) of an autoclave
cured panel. Figure 8 is a photograph of some
PMC parts. The standard CO2 laser of the LOM
machine can be used without modification to cut
glass fiber/epoxy prepregs. However, for higher
performance fibers such as carbon or silicon car-
bide, an entirely different cutting mechanism is
required. To this end, researchers have demon-
strated high-quality cutting of continuous sili-
con-carbide (SiC) fibers via photoablation using
a copper-vapor laser in a bench-top LOM pro-
cess (Ref 20).
For CMCs, the LOM machine is used again
only to lay up and shape a green composite. Ce-
ramic-matrix composite prepregs must contain a
Fig. 7 Drop-on-drop system (Sanders ModelMaker)
print jets, showing the two jetting heads above
sample parts. Courtesy of Sanders Prototype International
Rapid Prototyping / 385
polymer-ceramic precursor resin of sufficient
tack, or a tackifier can be used in between pre-
preg layers. One study demonstrated the use of
a novel preform comprised of a layer of SiC fi-
ber/furfural unidirectional prepreg adhered to the
top of a SiC ceramic tape (Ref 21). Regardless
of the preform type, the green CMC must un-
dergo significant postprocessing involving high-
pressure consolidation, high-temperature resin-
to-ceramic conversion, and possibly infiltration
or reinfiltration with additional ceramic precur-
sor resin or liquid metal.
Regardless of the material type, LOM and
other RP processes are limited to building with
flat, horizontal layers. While it is true that com-
plex, curved geometries can be created with this
process, they must be built up from thin, flat lay-
ers and then postmachined to get the final part.
Thus, flat-layer RP processes are incapable of
addressing the larger geometrical issues in-
volved with fiber composite fabrication, namely
fiber orientation and continuity. In response to
this need, the first curved-layer RP process was
developed. The new process, referred to as
curved LOM, was motivated by the need for
rapid fabrication of fiber-reinforced structures
containing sloping, curved surfaces, especially
thin curved-shell components. It is crucial to
maintain fiber continuity along the curved sur-
faces of these components.
Details of the curved layer process are found
elsewhere (Ref 22). It begins with production of
a matched tool or mandrel for the intended part.
This tool can be generated by any of several
other RP processes, including the standard LOM
process using LOM paper. The finished LOM
mandrel is mounted to the flat building platform
in the curved LOM machine. Size limitation is
approximately 30 by 30 by 5.5 cm (12 by 12 by
3 in.). Sheets of the desired build material (e.g.,
composite prepreg) are loaded onto an external,
rotatable feed table, picked up with a vacuum
chuck, and shuttled to the mandrel. A flexible
thermoforming mechanism laminates each new
layer to the curved mandrel with steady, uniform
vacuum pressure and heat. After the laminator
retracts, a CO2 laser cuts each layer, accounting
for the sloped surface. The fiber orientation can
be varied from layer to layer by programming
the rotatable feed table. The process proceeds
one layer at a time until the part is finished. If
necessary, the laminator can be used to provide
additional post cure to the final part. Subse-
Fig. 8 Parts made with glass fiber/epoxy prepreg using
laminated object manufacturing (LOM). The part
on the right has been fully cured.
386 / Engineering Mechanics, Analysis, and Design
quently, the part is removed from the mandrel,
and the excess material is manually stripped
away (decubed). Suitable postprocesses are then
performed to obtain a fully consolidated, cured,
and/or densified PMC or CMC.
The viability of using curved LOM for pro-
duction of PMC (Ref 23) and CMC (Ref 21, 22)
structures has been established. Curved-layer
CMC components are shown in Fig. 9. Wide-
spread industrial use of LOM or curved LOM
for direct fabrication of PMCs had not occurred
by the year 2001, most likely because of size
limitations and the availability of automated tape
placement (ATP) machines (Ref 24) used in the
aerospace industry (see the article “Automated
Tape Laying” in this Volume). However, com-
pared to ATP, the cost and ease of use of LOM
machine is favorable for production of small
(e.g., 60 by 30 by 15 cm, or 24 by 12 by 6 in.)
articles. Thus, with regards to PMCs, LOM
holds the most short-term potential for the con-
sumer-goods industry. Ceramic and CMC arti-
cles are often not as large as PMC structures, and
thus the potential benefits of LOM for these ma-
terials still remain for all applications.
Particulate-Reinforced Metal- and Ce-
ramic-Matrix Composites. Processing of
MMCs and CMCs presents unique opportunities
for RP techniques due to the inherent nature of
high-cost, low-volume production needs of
value-added products. Net-shape fabrication of
controlled microstructure parts has already been
demonstrated, utilizing some of the commercial
RP systems. Although extensive research and
development work is still pending for tailoring
these approaches to mature commercial tech-
niques for industrial-scale production, some of
the initial results show significant promise and
are herein discussed.
Magnesium/Silicon Carbide Composites.
Wohlert and Bourell (Ref 25) utilized the SLS
process to fabricate particulate Mg/SiC metal-
matrix composites (Fig. 10). In their approach,
polymer-coated commercial SiC powders were
used to produce porous SiC ceramic preforms.
Preforms were binder removed and sintered,
prior to metal infiltration. Porous SiC preforms
were infiltrated with commercial die-casting
AZ91D magnesium alloy under controlled nitro-
gen environment via pressureless metal infiltra-
Fig. 9 Aircraft engine flame holders. The piece on the
left illustrates the poor surface finish obtained
with the flat-layer LOM process compared to the curved
layer LOM process.
tion. Composites with fine features having 40 to
50 vol% of SiC particles were successfully pro-
cessed via this approach. The Mg/SiC composite
microstructure showed little or no residual po-
rosity for structures where the pore sizes were
uniform and smaller in size. One of the problems
in this two-stage approach is the selection of
metal-ceramic combination. For the pressureless
infiltration process to be successful, the surface
tension of the liquid infiltrant must be lower than
the surface energy of the solid matrix. Usually
the surface energies of the ceramics tend to be
quite low, causing difficulties in selecting the
matrix metal for preforms of different ceramic
compositions.
Metal-Ceramic Composites. Bandyopadhyay
et al. (Ref 26, 27) reported the fabrication of in-
terpenetrating phase metal-ceramic composites
using FDM. Interpenetrating phase composites
are those where both the metal and the ceramic
phases are connected to itself in all three direc-
tions. In this approach, controlled porosity ce-
ramic preforms were fabricated using the indi-
rect FDM. Polymeric molds of desired parts
were fabricated using ICW wax with different
tool path variations. Molds were infiltrated with
mullite (Al6Si2O13) ceramic slurry or gel, and
dried. The structures were then subjected to a
binder removal and sintering cycle. The poly-
meric roads of the mold formed the pores in the
controlled porosity mullite preform. By varying
the tool path and the slice thickness of the mold,
size, shape and distribution of the pores in the
ceramic preform can be varied. Mullite preforms
were then infiltrated using an Al metal via pres-
sureless reactive metal infiltration to form mul-
lite-Al or alumina-Al composites in which the
metal phase filled the designed pores of the pre-
forms. Uniform and functionally gradient com-
posites with 20 to 50 volume percent metal con-
tents were fabricated having various shapes and
sizes. By varying the metal and the ceramic
phases in the composites, the properties of the
final part could be tailored for specific applica-
tion.
Ceramic-Matrix Composites. Ceramics are
hard and brittle, difficult to machine, and have
low-volume production in numerous applica-
Fig. 10 Particulate composite parts produced by SLS processing of SiC preforms followed by liquid-metal infiltration
of a magnesium alloy. Source: Ref 25
tions. During the mid- to late 1990s, extensive
research was focused in the development of di-
rect RP systems for ceramics and ceramic com-
posites. The SLS is one of the commercially
available processes where ceramic parts can be
produced directly using polymer-coated ceramic
powders. The parts require postprocessing, such
as binder removal and sintering. In fused depo-
sition of ceramics (FDC) (Ref 28), ceramic par-
ticle loaded thermoplastic filaments were used
with commercial FDM systems to directly pro-
duce green ceramic components. In situ rein-
forced Si3N4, alumina, and lead zirconium titan-
ate (PZT) are some of the ceramic materials that
have been produced using this process. Postpro-
cessing such as binder removal and sintering is
necessary for the green FDC parts. Due to high
volume fraction of thermoplastic binder content
of the green part, parts greater than 15 mm (0.6
in.) thick are difficult to binder remove. The 3DP
process was utilized to fabricate different struc-
tural, electronic, and bioceramic monoliths and
composites. For small parts, most of these direct-
deposition techniques are capable of achieving
98% theoretical density, but cracking and
warpage during full densification of complex-
shaped, large-size parts are still serious concerns.
Attempts have also been made to directly pro-
duce functional ceramics and composites using
other RP processes, and some of the efforts are
still continuing for numerous applications.
Freeform Tooling for
Composite Part Lay-Up
While some inroads have been made in the
area of composite part production using freeform
techniques, another strong area of application of
these technologies is in production of tooling for
composite part lay-up. This has been alluded to
earlier in this article with the treatment of curved
LOM. In the commercial sector, tools for injec-
tion and compression molding of composites
represent a significant process expense, and lim-
ited success has been achieved in the application
of toolless manufacturing processes to tool pro-
duction. One example is SLS of epoxy-infiltrated

Fig. 11 Selective laser-sintered tool using stainless
steel infiltrated with bronze. Courtesy of DTM
Corporation
metal molds (Ref 29). Freeform fabrication may
also be used to produce tools for a large number
of “half-mold” processes including hydroform-
ing, diaphragm forming, vacuum forming, resin-
transfer molding, manual/mechanically-assisted
lay-up and electroformed nickel tooling.
Virtually any freeform fabrication technique
may be used to produce short-run tooling. Ep-
oxy-backed SLA molds have been demonstrated
for aerospace applications in a resin transfer
molding (RTM) operation (Ref 30), and SLA
parts have been used for a variety of soft tooling
mold applications including RTM and vacuum
forming (Ref 31, 32).
A limited number of commercial freeform-
fabrication techniques are capable of producing
metallic tools that can be operated for extended
numbers of parts. These include selective laser
sintering (DTM Corporation, EOS GmbH) and
direct metal deposition (Optomec) (Ref 33). A
sample tool is shown in Fig. 11. Here, Type 420
martensitic stainless steel powder is coated with
a polymer binder and SLS processed. The part,
composed of approximately 60% metal, is fired
to burn off the binder and to infiltrate with a
bronze alloy. The final part has tolerances as high
as 0.51 mm (0.020 in.), so critical surfaces must
be finished by some form of machining opera-
tion.
REFERENCES
1. J.P. Kruth, Material Increases Manufactur-
ing by Rapid Prototyping Techniques, An-
nals of the CIRP, Vol 40 (No. 2), 1991, p
603–614
2. C.L. Thomas, Rapid Prototyping, ASM
Handbook, Vol 20, Materials Selection and
Design, ASM International, 1997, p 231–
239
3. P.D. Hilton and P. Jacobs, Rapid Tooling,
Technologies and Industrial Applications,
Marcel Dekker, Inc., 2000
4. J.J. Beaman, J.W. Barlow, D.L. Bourell,
R.H. Crawford, H.L. Marcus, and K.P.
McAlea, Solid Freeform Fabrication: A
New Direction In Manufacturing, Kluwer
Academic Press, Boston, 1997
5. M. Burns, Automated Fabrication—Improv-
ing Productivity in Manufacturing, Prentice
Hall, 1993
6. Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium
Proc. (Austin, TX), University of Texas,
Aug 1990–2001
7. P.F. Jacobs, Stereolithography and other
RP&M Technologies, Society of Manufac-
turing Engineers, 1996
8. DTM Corporation, www.dtm-corp.com, In-
ternet research
9. Electro Optical Systems (EOS) GmbH,
www.eos-gmbh.de, Internet research
10. Stratasys Inc., www.stratasys.com, Internet
research
11. J. Park, M.J. Tari, and H.T. Hahn, Charac-
terization of the Laminated Object Manu-
facturing (LOM) Process, Rapid Prototyp-
ing Journal, Vol 6 (No. 1), 2000, p 36–49
12. Kira Corporation, www.kiracorp.co.jp, In-
ternet research
13. Cubital, www.cubital.com, Internet research
14. Three Dimensional Printing (3DP) Labora-
tory, Laboratory for Manufacturing and Pro-
ductivity, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, anxiety-closet.mit.edu/afs/athena/
org/t/tdp/www/index.html, Internet research
15. Solidscape, Inc., www.solid-scape.com, In-
ternet research
16. Optomec Inc., www.optomec.com, Internet
research
17. StratoConception, CIRTES (Centre
d’Ingénierie de Recherche et de Transfert de
l’Esstin à Saint-Dié-des-Vosges),
www.cirtes.fr/strato/index.htm, Internet re-
search
18. D. Klosterman, B. Priore, and R. Chartoff,
Laminated Object Manufacturing of Poly-
mer Matrix Composites, Proc. Seventh In-
ternational Conference on Rapid Prototyp-
ing, April 1997 (San Francisco, CA),
University of Dayton, p 283–292
19. B. Priore, “Fabrication of Polymer Compos-
ites Using Laminated Object Manufactur-
ing,” M.S. thesis, University of Dayton, Dec
1996
20. A. Lightman and G. Han, Laser Cutting of
Ceramic Composite Layers, Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium, Aug 1996 (Austin,
TX), University of Texas, p 291–298
21. D. Klosterman, R. Chartoff, N. Osborne, G.
Graves, A. Lightman, G. Han, A. Bezeredi,
and S. Rodrigues, Direct Fabrication of Ce-
ramics and Composites through Laminated
Rapid Prototyping / 387
Object Manufacturing (LOM), Proc. 43rd
International SAMPE Symposium & Exhi-
bition, 1–4 June 1998 (Anaheim, CA)
22. D. Klosterman, R. Chartoff, N. Osborne, G.
Graves, A. Lightman, G. Han, A. Bezeredi,
and S. Rodrigues, Development of a Curved
Layer LOM Process for Monolithic Ceram-
ics and Ceramic Matrix Composites, Rapid
Prototyping Journal, Vol 5 (No. 2), 1999, p
61–71
23. D. Klosterman, A. Popp, R. Chartoff, M.
Agarwala, I. Fiscus, E. Bryant, S. Cullen,
and M. Yeazell, Direct Fabrication of Poly-
mer Composite Structures with Curved
LOM, Proc. Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, Aug 1999 (Austin, TX), Uni-
versity of Texas, p 401–409
24. W.P. Benjamin, The Fiber Placement Path
Toward Affordability, SAMPE J., Vol 34
(No. 3), May/June 1998
25. M. Wohlert and D.L. Bourell, Rapid Proto-
typing of Mg/SiC Composites by a Com-
bined SLS and Pressureless Infiltration Pro-
cess, Proc. Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, Aug 1996 (Austin, TX), Uni-
versity of Texas, p 79–88
26. A. Bandyopadhyay, Functionally Designed
3-3 Mullite-Aluminum Composites, Ad-
vanced Engineering Materials, Vol 1 (No.
3–4), 1999, p 199–201
27. R. Soundararajan, R. Atisivan, G. Kuhn, S.
Bose, and A. Bandyopadhyay, Processing of
Mullite-Al Composites, J. Am. Ceram. Soc.,
Sept 2000
28. M.K. Agarwala, A. Bandyopadhyay, R. van
Weeren, P. Whalen, A. Safari, and S.C. Dan-
forth, Fused Deposition of Ceramics: Rapid
Fabrication of Structural Ceramic Compo-
nents, Ceramic Bulletin, Vol 11 (No. 60–
65), 1996
29. J.J. Beaman, J.W. Barlow, D.L. Bourell,
R.H. Crawford, H.L. Marcus, and K.P.
McAlea, Solid Freeform Fabrication: A
New Direction in Manufacturing, Kluwer
Academic Press, Boston, 1997, p 143–151
30. S. Hayse, RTM Aerospace Components De-
veloped Using Rapid Prototype Tooling,
Proc. 43rd International SAMPE Sympo-
sium, 31 May–4 June 1998, p 1715–1723
31. M.R. Snyder, Rapid Toolers, Prototypers
Aim to Eliminate Time-Consuming Steps,
Mod. Plast., April 2000, p 24–28
32. J. Male, H. Tsang and G. Bennett, A Time,
Cost, and Accuracy Comparison of Soft
Tooling for Investment Casting Produced
Using Stereolithography Techniques, Proc.
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium,
Aug 1996 (Austin, TX), University of
Texas, p 1–8
33. P. Dickens, Rapid Prototyping and Tooling:
Update on Rapid Manufacturing, Vol 8 (No.
6), Time-Compression Technologies, 2000,
p 56–58