RP Process Selection for Rapid Tooling in Sand Casting

Wanlong Wang, James G. Conley, Henry W. Stoll, and Rui Jiang

Department of Mechanical Engineering
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL 60208-3111

ABSTRACT

The significant cycle-time improvements and geometrical capabilities of solid freeform

fabrication systems have led to applications in sand casting industry for design verification and
tooling. The time and cost effective deployment of rapid tooling processes using rapid
prototyping technology has thus becoming an emerging area to be studied. To make full use of
the advantages of rapid prototyping processes, the factors influencing the tooling approach must
be identified and understood. This understanding is then used to develop a decision-making
structure for RP process selection for rapid tooling in sand casting. In this manuscript we review
our work in evaluating and building a framework for tooling process selection for sand casting.

Key words: rapid tooling, process selection, tool path selection, sand casting, rapid prototyping

1.. 0 Introduction
A sand casting is produced by pouring molten metal into a mold cavity. The mold cavity is
created by packing sand around a pattern and then withdrawing the pattern. Since the pattern
imprint forms the cavity, the pattern creates the external shape of the cast part. If the part has
features or regions that are undercut relative to the parting line, these are formed by cores that are
placed in the mold cavity. The cores are supported by core prints and chaplets in some cases that
allow the molten metal to flow between the core and the mold wall. In addition, cores may be
necessary to produce a desired "zero" draft external surface depending on the parting .• line
selected. Figure 1 illustrates the tooling process for. sand casting. Generally speaking, sand
casting is a low cost approach to creating low volumes of parts with few restrictions on
geometric complexity.

Rapid tooling (RT) has evolved from rapid prototyping technology and its applications. It uses
the rapid prototyping model as a tooling master to create the patterns and cores through director
intermediate tooling processes. Rapid prototyping and tooling have/found wide spread
application in sand casting design verification and tool making in recent years.

In practice, there are three kinds of tooling processes used: traditional manual pattern making,
computer numerical control machining, and rapid prototyping. The method selected for making
the pattern and cores, which we call "tooLpath selection", is determined by a series of decisions
regarding the fabrication method,material, and tooling approach to be used. There are a number
of publications that address a particular rapid toolil1gprocess in sand casting [1-5]. To our
knowledge, however, studies on tool path selection for sand casting are very few. Related works

19
include Mensing and Gibson's [6] build time comparison study of large parts using SLA,
Sanders, Stratasys, SLS, LOM and milling processes, and Paxton's [7] benchmarking study on
rapid tooling processes. These investigations mainly focus on the time or cost comparison of the
different processes,. but do not address a methodology for decision-making. Stoll, et al [8] have
done initial research in this area. Their work discusses decision variables, decision factors,
decision structures and a decision process. A complete and integrated method to investigate the
tooling path selection is presented. But article focuses on tool path selection at the macro-level,
and does not present much detail on the selection of a particular rapid prototyping process.

Engineering
Drawing or Other
Input Data Set

3 CAD
Solid Model

-Select Parting Line

-Add Shrinkage
-Add Draft

Computer Numerical Fast Freeform

Control Machining Fabrication

Figure Tooling process for sand casting

In this paper, we first review the process characteristics of RP processes and then discuss the
basic principles of tool path selection for sand casting. We then investigate criteria to select a RP
process, determine the decision factors, organize the decision structure and develop integrated
decision process. The present investigation is limited to tooling master fabrication. As such, we
do not address direct tooling processes.

2.0 Review of Rapid Prototyping Processes

There are a number of rapid prototyping processes that find wide spread application in industry.
Each process has its own characteristics, advantages and disadvantages. To make a "best"
decision of RP process selection, one must have a clear understanding of those processes and
their respective advantages and disadvantages.

20
Stereolithography Apparatus (SLA) involves selective curing of a photo-curable polymer using a
laser beam directed by the computer in accordance with the tessellated version (.STL) of the
CAD model. This process is generally highly accurate and can provide parts and/or pattern
elements with good surface finish. The mechanical properties of the photo-cured polymer do not
match most production engineering materials and shrinkage and warpage may occur in the post-
processing process. Additionally, pre-building of a support base is needed [9]. This process is
especially suitable for complex parts with thin-walls or lug features, small size or high precision
requirements.

Laminated Object Manufacturing (LaM) stacks layers of thin sheets of paper to make the
prototype. Each layer is cut to match a cross-section of the model. The finished model has the
surface finish and consistency of wood. It is especially suitable for complex, large or bulky parts.
The strength of the LaM model is above average. This process does not need support generation.
Since post-processing is done manually, waste material removal is time consuming. Another
disadvantage of this process is that the waste material can not be reused [10].

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) uses a spool of filament that feeds into the unit's heated
extruding head like wire feeds into an automatic welder. The product has good dimensional
accuracy and surface finish, and fast building speed. The material strength is low. Supports are
needed in this process. [11]

Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) deposits and sinters a layer of heat-fusible powder to form the
cross-section area of a model. An initial cross-section of the object under fabrication is
selectively 'drawn' on the layer of powder by a heat generating CO 2 laser. This process achieves
average accuracy and has multiple material choices. It can fabricate very strong metal composite
inserts or molds used for injection molding. In sand casting, it can directly produce the sand
mold using SandForm Zr II (zircon) or Si (silica) sand casting materials. This process does not
need support generation thus is easy for post-processing. [12,13]

Solid Ground Curing (SGC) uses a glass photo-mask and an ultra-violet floodlight to build a
model slice on a solid environment. This eliminates curling, warping, support structure, and any
need for final curing. It is a high precision process. But the building time and cost is above
average for the current RP market. [14]

Three Dimensional Printing (3DP) uses a technology similar to the ink-jet printing to spray a
binder materials on a thin distribution of powder spread over the surface of a powder bed. The
binder material joins particles where the object is to be formed. The accuracy is average, as is the
strength. No support generation is needed. [15]

Sanders Prototype (SP) involves a liquid to solid inkjet plotter with a separate z-axis input. The
dual inkjet subsystem rides on a precision x/y carriage and deposits both thermoplastic and wax
materials on the build substrate under program control, according to the path generated by STL
model. These droplets may be placed at any desired .location upon the build-substrate within
0.00025 inches (0.007 mm) in the x and y directions. The droplets adhere to·each other during
the liquid-to-solid phase transition to form a uniform mass. The drying process is fast enough to
allow milling of the layers immediately following the deposition cycle. This process is claimed

21
as the most accurate amongst the RP processes. Support materials are required to support
overhangs and cavities in the model during the model build sequence. [16]

3.0 Tool·Path·.· SelectlonforSand)Casling

In considering the tool path that selected for a particular sand casting, one must consider the
dimensions of decision space: fabrication method, tool materials and tooling approach. There are
three kinds of fabrication methods: manual, computer numeric control (CNC) machining and
rapid prototyping (RP). Regarding the tool materials, there is a variety of materials that can be
used, such as mahogany, pine, urethane plastic, synthetic materials, metals, and FFFF materials
(e.g. polymers, papers, ABS plastics, and metal powders). For the tooling approach, loose
pattern, gated pattern, match-plate pattern and cope & drag tooling are the mainstream methods
of the foundry tooling industry.

The second consideration of tool path selection are the decision factors and constraints. It is a
complex mental excise to comprehensively consider each aspect of the tooling process from the
engineering drawing to the final foundry production. In this process, a tool engineer or decision
maker must consider data status, production volume, state of development, the direct user of the
tooling, part geometry, critical features, pattern shop capability, tool cost, lead-time, casting
tolerance and accuracy, and tool durability. He must understand what are independent and
dependent factors and the relationship or tradeoff among these factors.

For example, the decision-maker must know that each of the tool path selection factors imposes
constraints on the selection process by eliminating certain decision variable combination from
further consideration. Independent decision factors (e.g. production volume, geometric
complexity, no draft allowed) typically impose rigid constraints that must be satisfied. A
production quantity of 30 units is a rigid constraint, the tool must be capable of producing 30
acceptable castings. While the dependent factors (e. g. cost, time, accuracy, and durability) are
negotiable because of the complex couplings and tradeoffs that exist between these factors. For
example, there are many tool path alternatives that are capable of producing 30 castings. The tool
path that is eventually selected will typically result in the most desirable tradeoff between cost,
time, and quality. This, in tum, is likely to depend on the relative importance of the dependent
decision factors.

The third consideration of tool path selection is the decision structure and process. decision
structure involves how to organize the decision space and factors, how to determine the possible
decision options for tool path, and how to evaluate the criteria for optimal decision making. Once
sufficient information is available, a rational decision process is necessary to make the final
decision for tool path selection. Based on the industry practice, an integrated decision-making
process is proposed by Stoll, et al [8]. The reader is referred to this paper for a more in-depth
discussion on this topic. Figure 2 shows an example flowchart of the decision-making process
for tool path selection for sand casting.

4.0 RP Process Selection for Tool Making

Selecting the best RP process for a given application involves a similar decision process. RP
process selection is defined as the selection of an appropriate commercially available process
by careful evaluation of the decision factors and customer's requirements.
 Data Status:
• Solid Model
• If no, can part be modeled

1
Geometry Independent Requirements:
• Prototype or production?
• If prototype, will part ever go into production?
• If production, what is the volume?
• Lead-time?
• Foundry?

1
Geometry Analysis:
• Critical features?
• Critical tolerances?
• Parting lines?
• Draft?

1
Develop alternative
tool path proposals

1
ICustomer Selects I
Figure 2. The tool path selection process.

4.1 Decision Factors

The decision factors associated with RP processes include part geometry and critical features,
post-processing, building materials (strength and durability), production volume, time, cost and
accuracy. There are also some factors that are common to all RP processes such as the data status
(generally a 3D CAD model required), building orientation selection, slicing strategy (constant
or variable thickness), and so forth.

4.1.1 Part Geometry and Critical Features

Part geometry constrains and underlies the selection of the best RP process. It constrains because
only those processes that are capable of generating the desired geometry can be considered. It
underlies· the decision because each tool path that is favorable for producing the desired
geometry will also be more or less suited for producing particular features or aspects of the
geometry. Deciding on the right RP process for a given part geometry is therefore very
dependent on the decision..maker's experirnce . and juqgrnent.. For ~xalIlple'1118strx.Prrience~
tool builders can look at a part andirnmediatrly determine that SLA is the best fabrication
method or thatLOM wouldnotV:0J;kiv:ell''rhetoolbuilder does this by noting specific features
of the part geometry and then mentally filtering. the possibilities based on learned experience.
This mental evaluation is the "essence" of the tool path selection process.

23
In making the evaluation, the> decision-maker l'l"A11,A1"'''l considers several aspects of the part
geometry. These include:

l1li Wall thickness

• Aspect ratio
l1li Special features such as fillets, lugs, small holes, and undercuts
• Surface complexity

Thin walls and severe aspect ratios can be a problem for some RP processes such as LOM.
Conversely, a bulky part may. be very suit(ible for the LOM process. Cross-section geometry
such as fillets, rounds andtransitions betweerrfeatures may be difficult for all RP processes if the
angles between the Z-axis direction (layering direction) and the surface normal are bigger than
45°. Small lugs or holes may be suitable for the Sander technique. The tool-maker must
understand the critical features of the parts so that an optimal process is chosen based on the part
geometry and its application.

4.1.2 Post-processing
Post-processing is necessary for most RP processes. It generally includes two aspects: removing
the support structure and·finishing the surface. The amount of post-processing work required to
achieve a level of surface finish differs widely amongst the processes. For example, it may be
very difficult to remove the support materials from an internal cavity of a LOM model, while the
same task may be relatively easy for the SLS or 3DP methods.

4.1.3 Building Materials (Strength and Durability)

There are a variety of building materials used in different RP processes such as paper, polymer,
ABS plastic, wax, metal or ceramic powders, etc. Since different materials demonstrate different
mechanical strength and durability, the building material will eventually affects the tool life and
accuracy. To select the appropriate process, the tool-maker needs to know the production volume
and how sand ramming of the pattern will influence tool life and tool wear.

4.1.4 Production Volume

The tooling material selected and the tooling approach used depends to a large extent on the
production volume, which is the number of castings to be produced over the lifetime of the tool.
If a large number of castings are to be produced, then the tooling material and approach is likely
to differ from that used for a short production run. For example, if only a few castings are to be
poured «10), then many RP process may be acceptable. If moderate production volumes (10 to
300) are anticipated, then some RP processes cannot be used only bec(iuse of material strength
and durability limitation. For large production volumes (>300), few tool "paths" can be used. For
example, the RapidSteel process of SLS can produce highly durable metal molds.

4.1.5 Time, Cost and Accuracy Trade-Off

Time, cost and accuracy are dependent factors that affect the decision-making process. This is
particularly true for RP processes because of the nature of layered manufacturing. The decision-
maker needs to evaluate the trade-offs between these factors to find the best or most acceptable
combination.
4.2 Decision Structure
The decision space must be investigated in making a RP process selection for tool making. More
specifically, a tool engineer or decision-maker must understand what set of possible decision
combinations are possible and what constitutes a "best" RP process selection.

4.2.1 Decision Space for RP Process Selection

Choosing RP process involves two independent decision variables: RP process and material.
Product requirements (time, cost and accuracy) generally determine which combination of RP
process and material is best. If we view each of these decision variables as a dimension of the RP
process selection process, we can envision a decision table as shown in Table 1.

T a hi e 1 DeClSlon
.. tabl e f or RP process se1ec fIon
SLA LOM SLS FDM SOC 3DP SP
Polymer X X
Paper X
Wax X X X
ABS Plastics X X X
Metal Powder X X
Ceramics X X X
Sand X
Composite X

In this table, there are 16 combinations of process and materials. For each material class, there
are several options to be considered.

4.2.2 Decision Constraints

Each of the factors discussed in Section 4.1 imposes constraints on the RP process selection by
eliminating certain decision variable combinations from further consideration. Independent
decision factors typically impose rigid constraints that must be satisfied. These constraints
include geometry, production volume, material strength, etc. A large size part with thin walls and
many lugs as critical features may not be a good candidate for the LOM process. A very large
volume production (>1000) may need RapidSteel to produce the master. For small or medium
production volumes, a number of the RP processes can be used to create the elements of the
tool.

4.3 Integrated Decision Process

RP process selection is a comprehensive mental exercise that is generally undertaken by an
experienced tool builder. In general, the procedure followed by each tool-maker will depend
upon both the decision-makers' knowledge and experience and upon the pattern shop facilities
available. The general flow of the RP process selection is shown in Fig. 3. It is important to note
that, although the process appears to be linear, in reality, it is highly iterative and non-linear and
may involve many conversations with the customer. Typically, theJinal decision emerges as the
customer and the tool-maker work together to evolve an acceptable approach.

25
 Data Status:
.. 3D Solid Model

Geometry Analysis:
1
.. Criticalfeatures?
.. Critical tolerances.?

1
Geornetrylnd~pendentiRequirements:
.. Production volume?
.. Post-processing?
.. Materials Strength and durability requirement?
.. Lead-time, cost and accuracy trade-off?

Develop alternative
1
RP process proposals

1
ICustomer Selects I
Figure 3 Integrated decision process for RP process selection

5.0 Conclusion
RP process selection for tool making, which involves the selection of a particular RP process and
material, is a sub-decision that must be made as part of the tool path selection process. This
paper reviews the general RP processes, discussed the tool path selection for sand casting, and
investigates the decision factors and decision-making process for RP process selection. This
investigation attempts to clarify the factors and their influences on the decision process so that a
further optimal decision support system may be developed based upon this understanding.

Acknowledgment
We would like to acknowledge the generous support of the US Defense Logistic Agency (DLA),
Clinkenbeard Associates in this research program.

References
1. R. Gustafson, E. Guinn, and D. Tait, (1995) "Rapid Prototyping for Pattern and Foundry
Tooling", Modern Casting. v 85 n 2 Feb 1995. p 48-50.
2. W. Wang, J. G. Conley and H. W. Stoll. "Rapid tooling for sand casting using laminated
object manufacturing". Accepted by Rapid Prototyping Journal, November 1998
3. W. Wang, J. G. Conley and H.W. Stoll, "Dimensional Variability Analysis In Post-
Processing Of Rapid Tooling", Proceedings of the 9th Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium, University of Texas at Austin, August 10-12, 1998, P 417-426.

26
4. R. Gustafson (1999) "Rapid Prototyping: A Tool for Casting Design and Verification",
Modem Casting. V 89 n 3. p44-47.
5. W. Wang, J. G. Conley and H. W. Stoll, "Rapid Tooling Error Analysis for Sand Casting",
Transactions ofthe AFS l02nd Casting Congress, Atlanta, GA, May 10-13,1998, P 567-571.
6. G. Mensing and I. Gibson, "Build time estimations for large scale modeling", Proceedings of
the 9th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, University of Texas at Austin, August 10-12,
1998, P 343-350.
7. J. Paxton, "Benchmarking rapid tooling process", Rapid prototyping and manufacturing '99 -
- Advanced product development Technologies in Action, Volume 3, April 20-22, 1999,
Rosement Convention Center, Rosement, Illinois. p 519-603.
8. H. W. Stoll, J. G. Conley, W. Wang and R. Gustafson, "Tool path selection for sand casting",
presented at AFS l03rd Casting Congress and CastExpo, America's Center, S1. Louis,
MO,March 13-16, 1999.
9. 3D Systems, Inc. Homepage: http://www.3dsystems.com/
10. Helysis, Inc. Homepage: http://helisys.com/
11. Stratasys, Inc. Homepage: http://www.stratasys.com/
12. DTM Corp Homepage: http://www.dtm-corp.com/
13. DTM Corporation, "The selective laser sintering process -- third generation desktop
manufacturing". Proceedings of National Conference on Rapid Prototyping, The Uinversity
of Dayton, June4-5, 1990, p5-10.
14. Cubital Homepage: http://www.cubital.com/cubital/
15. Sachs, M. Cima, J. Cornie. "Three dimensional printing: ceramic shells and cores for
casting and other applications," Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Rapid Prototyping, The Uinversity of Dayton, June 23-26, 1991, p39-54.
16. Sanders Prototype, Inc. Homepage: http://www.sanders-prototype.com/

27
28