Interface Issues of Data Exchange between CAD

and Rapid Manufacturing Applications

S. Danjou, P. Köhler

University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of Product Engineering,

Computer Applications in the Design Process
Lotharstrasse 1, 47057 Duisburg, Germany
Phone: +49 (0)20 33 79 39 35 Fax: +49 (0)20 33 79 43 79
E-mail: stephane.danjou@uni-due.de, peter.koehler@uni-due.de

ABSTRACT
Whereas process improvements of rapid technology applications are increasingly subject of actual develop-
ments, the IT integration of RP into the CAx landscape is still not feasible without any problems. For almost 20
years the STL file format has represented the standard interface between CAD and LM applications. Despite ob-
vious insufficiencies of that exchange format and numerous new developments to accurately transmit CAD ge-
ometry to RP systems, a format changeover actually seems to be nearly impossible. This paper examines the rea-
sons for this interface problem and points out possible alternatives of lossless data transfer. The de facto RP inter-
face format (STL) will be analyzed regarding upcoming requirements (e.g. color, higher accuracy, etc.) and com-
pared with improved exchange formats. Furthermore, this paper examines to what extent different methods of
layer contour determination (Slicing / Direct Slicing) take effect on the data exchange process. The consideration
of manifold influences on the selection of an adequate data exchange format for rapid technology applications
ought to finally accentuate the need for a standardized interface between CAD and RP applications. The scope of
this paper is to sensitize RP user to the interface problem and the overdue need to define a standardized interface
format.

Keywords: data exchange, STL, interface format, RP, STEP

1 INTRODUCTION
With the help of Rapid Prototyping (RP) generated parts show big potentials for physical product verification
within the product development process which, in addition to the manufacturing of design prototypes, geometry
prototypes and functional prototypes (Concept Modeling), are increasingly used for manufacturing pre and small
series tools (Rapid Tooling).

Figure 1: Data transfer of design data to RP applications

 Continuative developments deal with the use of the RP technology for tool-free manufacturing with close-to-
production properties (Rapid Manufacturing), whereas present industrial application still remains limited on niche
applications in small-batch manufacturing. Adjacent to the rapidly progressing development of layered manufac-
turing processes, the connection of this technology to the CAx landscape, as an integral part of the product devel-
opment process, still causes difficulties. From data flow view the basis of every Rapid Prototyping application
forms a closed form of description of the geometry to be created whereas necessary information can be taken
from the most different sources (see Figure 1). Thus depending on procedures for data capturing or data produc-
tion (3D scanning in the sense of Reverse Engineering, cross-sectional imaging or 3D CAD modeling) a suitable
representation form of the prototype (surface or volume model) can be generated with more or less efforts in data
processing. The operative point is to transmit these representations to RP applications without loss.

2 DATA PROCESSING SUITABLE FOR RP

Rapid Prototyping describes a generatively manufacturing process, i.e. prototypes are built up in layers under
use of physical and/or chemical effects with the help of shapeless or form-neutral material. The whole process of
Rapid Prototyping is based on the generation of layer data of the geometry, the so-called Slicing of the geometry
representation, to recover necessary layer information, to identify paths for laser scanning and material deposition
respectively and to prepare post processing (Figure 2). In this connection, basically two different approaches es-
tablished, slicing of RP interface formats (STL, CFL, VRML, PLY, …) and neutral interface formats respectively
(STEP, IGES, SAT, …), as well as direct slicing, thus the immediate layer decomposition of the native CAD
model. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages and therefore, in any case, the right to exist. How-
ever, actually there is no satisfactory solution at the market which fulfills the needs of the users to total satisfaction.

Figure 2: Rapid Prototyping process chain

2.1 STL as a standard interface format

The detection of necessary layer information is carried out by a mathematical (virtual) decomposition of the
geometry representation with the help of an interface format. A widespread procedure is the use of the STL data
format (STL – originally STereoLithography, today Surface Tessellation Language, also known as Standard Tri-
angulation Language) as a de facto standard for Rapid Prototyping applications. In this connection, the surface of
a 3D model is being tessellated, more exactly triangulated and thus covered with triangles of different sizes. Set-
ting parameters (e.g. chord height) control the size of the triangular facets and therefore the accuracy of the ap-
proximation. Even though this interface has never been standardized, the STL format established in all areas of
the Rapid Technology. One the one hand because of easy mathematical description of the faceted surface and on
the other hand because of the publication of the interface description at an early stage, the rapid spreading of this
file format was brought forward, so that nearly every CAD system and every RP software supports the STL inter-
face. However, exactly here is an essential problem, because the requirements for interface formats for RP pur-
poses have risen, while the STL format was not developed or only barely [1]. In the course of processing im-
provements and new developments of today's RP applications the following disadvantages of the STL format
emerged:

ƒ Due to the polygonal representation the STL format is just an approximation of the original geometry. The
possibilities for finishing STL parts are limited because of the deviation from the original model.
ƒ The algorithms realized in CAD systems for the conversion in the STL format deliver no consistently high
quality. Conversion errors and syntactic representation errors (gaps, overlapping triangles, incorrect orienta-
tion of the normal vectors, etc.) frequently occur [7]. The underlying faceting algorithms originate from the
time before the generative manufacturing technique and have primarily been developed for the visualization
of geometry in the computer technology, in particular for games and graphics applications which did not re-
quire closed and properly oriented surfaces. This often necessitates partly laborious post processing with suit-
able RP software or the front end software of the RP system.
ƒ STL files can reach a multiple of the original file size. This can be traced back to the fact that storage of the
triangular coordinates and the normal vectors is redundant. Every triangular facet is defined by the storage of
the three vertices and the normal vector. Every point is stored at least three times because not less than three,
according to part complexity even more, triangles have a common corner. With the help of the right hand
rule the direction of the normal vector could already be determined and makes explicit information dispensa-
ble. The increasingly reachable accuracy (resolution) of modern RP systems will increase the STL file size
more and more.
ƒ Information suitable for modern RP applications with respect to color, textures or materials cannot be stored
or just sufficiently in STL format and even then this information would be connected to the whole triangle.
ƒ Numerical data is represented by data types with insufficient accuracy. This leads to rounding errors in the
case of subsequent processes. The fact that facet coordinates always have to consist of positive values (posi-
tive octant) intensifies this effect.
ƒ In the case of big STL files, subsequent slicing of the faceted body can turn out to be very time-consuming
due to missing topology.

These inadequacies as well as the fact that even with explicit specification of setting parameters for the triangu-
lation refinement and therefore at last for the accuracy of the approximation, noteworthy deviation can occur af-
ter the slicing process (Figure 3), from today's view is not enough any more for the increased requirements of the
RP technology.

Figure 3: Tessellation and slicing error

2.2 Advancements and improvements of the STL format

The evident shortcomings of the STL format have been recognized during the last few years, so advancements
have been pushed [11]. Thus WU and CHEUNG present an enhanced STL format (enhanced STL) where triangu-
lar facets are substituted for tetrahedrons to increase approximation accuracy (see Figure 4) [13]. For this purpose
two thitherto unused bytes of the STL format will be occupied to store additional information whose evaluation is
necessary for the creation of the tetrahedrons. First byte is to store the height of the tetrahedron and the second
byte covers other data, e.g. information with regard to color or markers. Today’s software manufacturers (CAD,
RP) generally only support the STL and VRML format for data exchange with RP applications. Therefore this ab-
solutely interesting approach offers, beside the mentioned improvements, a high spreading degree as well as a
high user's acceptance.

Figure 4: Increase of approximation accuracy by tetrahedron formation

With this method the risen requirements will be rudimentally fulfilled, however, for example the problem of re-
dundant storage and therefore nonessential high data volume still exists. One further problem arises when slicing
the model. In contrast to the STL format tetrahedrons will be cut, so that a more precise polygon chain results,
however, more computational effort must be pursued. Furthermore, zigzag characteristics can appear (Figure 5).
To smooth the contour chain those zigzag characteristics have to be eliminated in an additional optimization step.
WU and CHEUNG number the approximation error to about one quarter in comparison to the conventional STL
format when slicing tetrahedrons. Even if the enhanced STL format sounds promising at first, it does not turn out
to be the ideal interface format concerning the data transfer between CAD and RP applications because of the
existing inadequacy.

Figure 5: Different slicing situations on tetrahedrons

A further format is the RPI format (Rapid Prototyping Interface) which has been developed and brought to life
at the beginning of the 90s at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute [10]. On account of an existing upwards com-
patibility the STL format can be carried over to the RPI structure. This fact promotes the enforceability of an area-
wide spreading. The excellence of the RPI format is the flexibility due to the possibility to add topological informa-
tion to single triangular facets as well as the extensibility of the format. The advantage of the flexibility is a crucial
disadvantage at the same time. This can lead to complications and expenditure of time in subsequent processes
such as slicing. As well, topological information must be derived from the unsorted facet data of the STL format
with an increased computational effort. Nevertheless, the storage of triangular data itself is carried out without
redundancy (low file size). Furthermore, the RPI format enables the representation of some CSG primitives (Con-
structive Solid Geometry) and therefore the representation of faceted bodies as well as pure CSG solids.

CHUA et al developed the LMI format (Layer Manufacturing Interface) which is to be understood as an ad-
vancement of the STL format as well [2]. The basis forms the STL format whereas redundancy is avoided by re-
structuring and B-reps (B-rep – Boundary Representation) of faceted as well as of precise models are possible by
adding topological information. In addition, the enrichment with topological information simplifies the validation
of model consistency but also reduces time and effort for subsequent processes (e.g. slicing). When slicing, for
every single layer one has to determine which facets will be cut. Without topology information every single trian-
gle must be checked for every layer. This leads to a time consuming computation.

Improvements of the STL format, such as the increase of the representation accuracy or the storage of color
information for colored prototypes, generally will lead to a refinement of the meshing and therefore to an increas-
ing file size. To give consideration to these problems, ZHANG et al developed the CS format (Compressed STL). In
this approach, the common 32-bit integer (enables the storage of 4 billion vertices) are substituted with 14-bit in-
teger or 20-bit integer, so that storage of unnecessary blanks is not applicable. This leads to considerably lower file
sizes. However, basically the fundament of the compressed STL format is also a conventional STL format and
therefore the above mentioned inadequacies also appear. So there are no other advantages than the reduction of
memory requirements.

2.3 Further 3D interface formats

As a result of the mentioned inadequacies of the STL format numerous interface formats have been developed
during the last years which can turn out to be a better alternative depending on the use case. However, up to now
no format could establish oneself as a universal interface format for RP applications. An already early recognized
alternative to STL is the VRML format (Virtual Reality Modeling Language). This format stores color information
and texture information, can represent complex geometry and shows no redundant storage of data. However,
originally this format has also been developed for web oriented virtual 3D worlds, so that, regarding the complex-
ity of its structure, it is not optimized for RP applications, in particular not for layer decomposition. This format
can simply represent surfaces, however, not bodies (solids). This leads to the fact that the VRML format is very
well suitable for the generation of colored prototypes [6], but not enough for the fulfillment of future requirements
with respect to the representation of solids. This format still shows good qualities, so that it is up for discussion
since a long time to be a possible standard interface for RP applications. However, VRML files are often subject to
errors due to inadequate converters in CAD systems. Therefore a substitution of the STL format by VRML nowa-
days seems to be implausible.

A further exchange format, developed at the Stanford University, is the PLY format (Polygon File Format),
also known as Stanford Triangle Format. This format, primarily developed for the exchange of graphical 3D ob-
jects from scan data, describes an object as a collection of points, surfaces as well as other elements with stored
properties like color information, surface normals, transparency, texture coordinates, etc. The structure resembles
that of a VRML file. A list (vertex list) contains coordinate triples of the corners of the triangles (vertices), a second
list (facet list) describes the facets by referring to the vertex indices of the vertex list. Therefore data is stored free
of redundancy as in VRML and keeps the file size low. In addition, the PLY format permits the definition of other
elements (e.g. edges, cells, materials). On account of the easy file structure and the possibility to store different
properties of a polygon (here: triangle) the PLY format is an elegant alternative to STL and VRML. While this
format is already in use for 3D printing, it could not totally establish itself due to complicated post processing.

The CFL format developed by Cubital Ltd. (Cubital Facet List) shows a polygon-based representation of an
object. The single facets consist of n-sided polygons and not necessarily only of triangles. Storage of facet data
happens free of redundancy, because, as with VRML and PLY, facets and vertices are listed separately. The de-
scription of the polygons vertices is also carried out by referring indicated elements of the vertex list. This leads to
much smaller file sizes. The file structure permits the storage of additional user-defined information. The format is
simple and fulfills as far as possible the same requirements like STL, but however, it could not establish itself on
the market.

One further actual development is the ETL format introduced by WANG et al [12]. In this connection, the pre-
sented approach focuses on representation accuracy issues, easy layer decomposition, as well as the possibility to
store color information and texture information. The ETL format consists of two parts: one file to describe the
model geometry (GDF – Geometry Description File) and another file to describe surface details such as color and
texture (TMDF – Texture Mapping Description File). Nevertheless, this leads to inexpedient handling in the course
of data transfer. In addition, the file size also could not be reduced significantly. The assertiveness of this file for-
mat as a future standard interface for RP applications remains doubtful.

Similar considerations for the reduction of memory requirements led within the scope of the OpenRP initiative
to the RP format (openRP File Format). However, in addition to the huge compression of up to 95% and the pos-
sibility of encoding, this format also does not offer any noteworthy advantage compared with the STL format.
Other formats, which indeed lead to a considerably reduction of memory requirements but still show the same
problems like the STL format, are, e.g. STH (Surface Triangles Hinted Format) developed by Brock Rooney &
Associates or also the SIF format introduced by MCMAINS (Solid Interchange Format).

2.4 21/2D Layer Data Representations

After the preparation of the 3D geometry layer decomposition (slicing) occurs, i.e. the provision of layer infor-
mation (contour data, layer thickness, process information, etc.). Despite of some developments of layer data
formats nowadays no standard exists for this process. Often the slicing process is carried out in the front end soft-
ware of the RP system, so that the user gets no insight into the data flow. However, a standardized format should
enable the exchange of layer data without loss. Some formats which are used for applications of the RP technol-
ogy will be introduced in the following.

The CLI format (Common Layer Interface) was developed within the scope of a European BRITE/EURAM
project and is aimed at a simple, efficient and well-defined representation method. In addition, the CLI format
contains the definition of supporting structures and filling structures (hatches). While CLI is already supported in
many RP systems, this format shows a lack of necessary accuracy of the contour representation because CLI only
supports polylines. Nevertheless, this simplifies the handling and the correction of error-prone layer data. A fre-
quently appearing problem is for example the equivocal definition of the inside and outside contour.

The development of the LEAF format (Layer Exchange ASCII Format) began at the Helsinki University of
Technology within the scope of a BRITE/EURAM project and was continued at the Fraunhofer Institute in Stutt-
gart. In addition to geometry data (contour data) LEAF can also store machine and process specific information.
Beside polylines it also supports arcs, so that the original contour can be approximated very well. In contrast to
the STL format the structure of LEAF turns out to be very complex. That is the reason why special interpreters for
the transfer to RP systems are necessary. Beyond, converting STL to LEAF is not possible. Hence, at the moment
it is still questionable whether the LEAF format fulfills the requirements of all RP processes and establishes itself.
At present it is supported by none of current CAD or RP systems.

Numerous manufacturers of RP systems have developed proprietary layer data formats. In spite of miscellane-
ous differences they are all known as the SLC format (Slicing Contour Format). The SLC format is an easy repre-
sentation of the part and is generated directly from 3D data. It is prepared for future use by a space reserve for
storage of 256 bytes. However, the SLC format just describes an approximation to the real model due to the ex-
clusive support of polylines and disallows any exchange between RP systems because of system specific addi-
tional information. In practice it is also disadvantageous that the contour oriented data sets cannot be scaled any
more afterwards. This necessitates reprocessing in the native CAD format.

Other interesting developments are, e.g. the LFF format introduced by ZHENG (Layered File Format) which
also supports elliptical arcs and splines (also NURBS) beside polylines and permits local attachment of material
information by the definition of layer regions and the LSIF format introduced by MCMAINS (Layered Solid Inter-
change Format). The latter offers the possibility to store variable layer thicknesses and therefore is generally suit-
able for the adaptive layer decomposition. Besides, the LSIF format permits the storage of color information.
However, it is not suitable for accurate approximation of original contours because of the exclusive support of
polylines.

2.5 Neutral interface formats

IGES (Initial Graphics Exchange Specification) is an international standard for the exchange of graphic infor-
mation between CAD systems since 1981. IGES covers CSG representations as well as boundary representations
(B-rep) and is accepted by numerous RP systems. This format enjoys high degree of popularity and contains all
elements for a precise representation of the CAD model. Nevertheless, one serious disadvantage is the redundant
storage of information and missing support of faceted representations. Besides, IGES is very slow in the case of
big file sizes because of sequential processing.

STEP (Standard for the Exchange of Product Data) is an international standard (ISO 10303) for the exchange
of product life cycle data, i.e. beside the description of physical data this format takes into consideration functional
aspects from all areas of the product development [3]. STEP is a worldwide established and proven neutral data
exchange format which is subject to continuous enhancements. For a wide variety of application areas application
protocols (AP) are provided (e.g., AP 203 defines an information model for the exchange of parts and assemblies
as well as configurations alternatively with associated 3D geometry). Nowadays, no application protocol exists for
layered manufacturing whereas these attempts were initiated some years ago and still continue till today. Already
now STEP fulfills a huge number of requirements for data exchange suitable for RP by providing appropriate
modules (IR – Integrated Resources, AIC – Application Interpreted Constructs) [3,4,5,8]. Table 1 shows already
containing resources which fulfill the essential requirements of the RP technology.

Table 1: STEP resources suitable for RP

As a matter of principle STEP offers the possibility to store layer data as well. Thus proven parts of the STEP
resources, as for example IR42 for the definition of contours and layer filling methods, IR45 for material informa-
tion or also IR49 for transfer of process information, can be used for the data exchange suitable for RP. The only
disadvantage of the STEP format is that to some extent information is stored redundant and STEP includes multi-
tudinous information which is uninteresting for the RP process. This requires special interpreters for the exchange
of data between CAD and RP systems.

3 CONCLUSIONS
During the last 15 years numerous advancements in the STL format were carried out as well as concepts of an
alternative interface format were developed. These led to more or less considerable improvements compared with
the original STL format, however, but are not established to date. Besides, the rapid development of the Rapid
Technology has led to the fact that optimization of single processes would be possible with additional model in-
formation. Especially the automation of process planning needs more geometrical and topological information
[1,9]. The purely geometrical STL format cannot offer this any more, whereas some new approaches take into
consideration the transfer of topological, process, color or material information (Table 2).

Table 2: Fulfillment of requirements by different formats

The unmanageable number of developments of a data interface presented suitable for RP contributes to the
uncertainty of the users and prevents the wish for changes. Despite all, on closer consideration the LMI format
seems to be a promising solution. As a result of the possible representation of faceted and precise models as well
(topology) and the economization of storage space, this format initially seems to be predestined for a substitution
of the STL format. Nevertheless, maybe the most promising approach is probably the development of a STEP
application protocol for Rapid Prototyping applications. STEP offers the most favorable preconditions for data
exchange without loss but with extensive product and process information and the possibility of a description of
faceted representations as well as a precise geometry description [4,5,8]. This leads to the fact that a model stored
as STEP could be already optimally oriented in the CAD system and sliced in layers [14]. If undesired, the model
can be transferred in a neutral format to RP systems. Besides, STEP could store layer data which can be trans-
ferred between CAD and RP systems or from RP to RP system. The fact that STEP has intensely and successfully
been used in many areas for many years favors the advance to extend STEP by aspects of Rapid Prototyping and
therefore to replace as an approved standard the up to now favored STL format.

4 FUTURE PROSPECTS
The most important first step is probably the preparation of recommendations and guidelines relevant for RP
which can be a basis for the formation of national or even international series of standards. For a successful sub-
stitution of the up to now used STL format by an extended STEP format, suitable precautions or preconditions
have to be managed on the part of the RP users as well as the manufacturers of CAD and RP systems. Beside a
wide user's acceptance the integration of necessary translators in CAD and RP software to support the improved
STEP format also contributes to an area-wide use of this interface suitable for RP. Furthermore, exemplary im-
plementations will become necessary to convince users of the necessity of a format change. Among RP user one
guideline still endures: If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

5 REFERENCES
[1] Bohn, J. H.: File Format Requirements for the Rapid Prototyping Technologies of Tomorrow, Interna-
tional Conference on Manufacturing Automation, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, 1997, 878-883.
[2] Chua, C. K.; Gan, G. K. J.; Tong, M.: Interface between CAD and Rapid Prototyping Systems - Part 2:
LMI - an Improved Interface, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 13, 1997,
571-576.
[3] International Organization for Standardization: Industrial Automation Systems and Integration – Product
Data Representation and Exchange – Part 1: Overview and fundamental principles, ISO 10303-1, 1994.
[4] Kumar, C. et al.: Towards STEP-Based Data Transfer in Layered Manufacturing, International IFIP, The
Globalization of Manufacturing in the Digital Communications Era of the Tenth proceeding, 1998.
[5] Kobayashi, K. G.; Fujii, M.; Prinz, F. B.: Conceptual Data Model for Advanced Rapid Prototyping, Initia-
tives of Precision Engineering at the Beginning of a Millennium, Springer US, 2002, 122-126.
[6] Ming, L. W.; Gibson, I.: Specification of VRML in Color Rapid Prototyping, International Journal of
CAD/CAM, 1 (1), 2002, 1-9.
[7] Nagy, M. S.; Matyasi, G. Y.: Analysis of STL files, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 38, 2003,
945-960.
[8] Patil, L. et al.: A Proposed ISO 10303 (STEP)-based Approach for Representing Heterogeneous Objects
for Layered Manufacturing, Rapid Prototyping Journal, 8 (3), 2002, 134-146.
[9] Pratt, M.; Marsan, A. L.; Kumar, V.; Dutta, D.: An Assessment of Data Requirements and Data Transfer
Formats for Layered Manufacturing, NISTIR 6216, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, 1998.
[10] Rock, S. J.; Wozny, M. J.: A Flexible File Format for Solid Freeform Fabrication, Solid Freeform Fabrica-
tion Symposium Proceedings, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1991, 1-12.
[11] Stroud, I.; Xirouchakis, P. C.: STL and Extensions, Advances in Engineering Software, 31 (2), 2000, 83-
95.
[12] Wang, D.-X.; Leng, H.-W.: Slicing of CAD Models in ETL Format, Rapid Prototyping Journal, 13 (1),
2007, 53-57.
[13] Wu, T.; Cheung, E. H. M.: Enhanced STL, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technol-
ogy, 29 (11-12), 2006, 1143-1150.
[14] Zhou, M. Y.; Xi, J. T.; Yan, J. Q.: STEP-Based Direct Slicing Algorithm for Rapid Prototyping, Shanghai
Jiaotong Daxue Xuebao, 37 (5), 2003, 737-740.