A Study of Mixed Manufacturing Methods in Sand Casting Using 3D Sand Printing and FDM Pattern-Making Based On Cost and Time

A Study of Mixed Manufacturing Methods in Sand
Casting Using 3D Sand Printing and FDM Pattern-making
Based on Cost and Time
by
Ram A. Gullapalli
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of
Master of Science
in the
Industrial and Systems Engineering
Program
Youngstown State University

Dec, 2016
A Study of Mixed Manufacturing Methods in Sand Casting Using
3D Sand Printing and FDM Pattern-Making Based on Cost and
Time
By
Ram A. Gullapalli
I hereby release this thesis to the public. I understand that this thesis will be
made available from the OhioLINK ETD Center and the Maag Library
Circulation Desk for public access. I also authorize the University or other
individuals to make copies of this thesis as needed for scholarly research.
Signature:
Ram A. Gullapalli, Student Date
Approvals:
Dr. Brett Conner, Thesis Advisor Date
Dr. Darrell Wallace, Committee Member Date
Dr. Eric MacDonald, Committee Member Date
Dr. Sal Sanders, Dean of Graduate Studies Date

Abstract
Sand casting has long been known to be an effective manufacturing method
for metal casting and especially for parts of large dimensions and low
production volume. But, for increasing complexity, the conventional sand
casting process does have its limitations; one of them mainly being the high
cost of tooling to create molds and cores. With the advent of additive
manufacturing (AM), these limitations can be overcome by the use of a 3D
sand printer which offers the unique advantage of geometric freedom.
Previous research shows the cost benefits of 3D sand printing molds and
cores when compared to traditional mold and core making methods. The line
of research presented in this thesis introduces the idea of additive
manufacturing at different stages of the sand casting process and investigates
the decision-making process as well as the cost-based effects. This will enable
foundries and manufacturers to integrate the use of AM machines more
smoothly into their production process without the need for completely re-
engineering the existing production system. A critical part of this thesis is the
tooling cost estimation using a casting cost model that is significantly
accurate to industry standard quotes. Based on these considerations, this
thesis outlines three approaches for achieving this goal apart from traditional
mold and core making methods. The first approach integrates 3D Printing at
the pattern making level where the patterns and core-boxes are “printed” on
i
an FDM printer. This eliminates the tooling costs associated with a traditional
sand casting method. The second approach integrates 3D Printing at the core-
making level by “mixing” traditional mold-making process and 3D sand
printing process for core-making. The third approach, the 3D sand printer is
used to create both the molds and the cores, thereby eliminating the need for
traditional methods. An initial hypothesis is created which states that, for a
given production volume, with increased complexity of the casting,
additively manufacturing only the cores and conventionally manufacturing
the molds is cost-feasible when compared to traditional manufacturing or 3D
sand printing. It is finally concluded that the initial hypothesis is valid when
part geometries are highly complex and production volumes range between
medium to high. It is also concluded that a decision making tool based on the
methodology provided can help determine a specific mixed manufacturing
method for the manufacturer.
ii
Acknowledgements
First off, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Brett Conner, without whom I
would never have had the opportunity to attend school at YSU let alone perform
research. Coming from a background with limited experience in manufacturing,
his constant guidance and support has pushed my research further. I would also
like to thank my defense committee: Dr. Darrell Wallace and Dr. Eric MacDonald
whose inputs have proved valuable to improving my thesis.
I would also like to thank America Makes, Youngstown Business Incubator and
Youngstown State University for funding my research and inspiring me to
continue my journey in Additive Manufacturing.
Humtown Products and their Sales Manager Brandon Lamoncha deserve a
separate mention. Brandon’s inputs and suggestions have provided me with an
in-depth perspective on the costs associated with tooling manufacturing. Also,
special thanks to Ashley Martof for providing the costing data on the Fortus 900
machine.
I thank my friends who are the closest to family I have here in the United States.
They have seen me through my ups and downs and were always ready to help
me. And finally I am extremely grateful to my parents Jyothi Gullapalli and
Surya Kumar Gullapalli, who live in India, and have shown unflinching support
even when I doubted my own capabilities. Their words of advice and
encouragement have empowered me to constantly improve myself.
iii
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ iv
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................vii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Metal casting ........................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Sand Casting ........................................................................................................... 3
1.2.1 Process components ........................................................................................ 3
1.2.2 Tooling costs ..................................................................................................... 8
1.2.3 Reworking costs ............................................................................................. 11
1.3 Additive Manufacturing ..................................................................................... 12
1.3.1 Additive manufacturing for pattern making: FDM Pattern-making ..... 15
1.3.2 Additive manufacturing for mold and core making: Binder Jetting...... 18
1.4 Implementation and Adoption of AM for mold and core making ............... 20
1.4.1 Traditional Manufacturing (TM) ................................................................. 21
1.4.2 3D Sand Printing of molds and cores (3DSP) ............................................ 21
1.4.3 3D Sand Printed Cores (3DSPC) .................................................................. 21
iv
1.4.3 FDM based pattern-making (FDMP) .......................................................... 22
1.5 Complexity Measurement for CAD models..................................................... 23
1.5.1 Shape complexity estimation for cast parts ............................................... 23
1.5.2 Shape complexity estimation using layer-by-layer technique ................ 27
1.6 Research Objectives.............................................................................................. 29
1.6.1 Rationale for the study .................................................................................. 29
1.6.2 Hypothesis ...................................................................................................... 30
1.6.3 Analysis Goals ................................................................................................ 32
Chapter 2 Methodology ................................................................................................ 34
2.1 Description of Case Studies ................................................................................ 34
Case Study 1: Train Air Brake ............................................................................... 34
Case Study 2: Turbo Charger ................................................................................ 36
2.2 Complexity Calculations ..................................................................................... 36
2.3 Tooling Cost Estimation ...................................................................................... 37
2.3.1 Industry Quote ............................................................................................... 37
2.3.2 Using Online Estimator................................................................................. 38
2.3.3 Casting Cost Estimation in an integrated product design environment40
2.4 Cost Studies........................................................................................................... 42
v
2.4.2 3D Sand Printing (3DSP)............................................................................... 44
2.4.3 3D Sand Printed Core (3DSPC).................................................................... 46
2.4.4 FDM Pattern-making (FDMP) ..................................................................... 46
2.5 Time Studies.......................................................................................................... 47
2.5.2 3D Sand Printing (3DSP)............................................................................... 49
2.5.3 3D Sand Printed Cores (3DSPC) .................................................................. 49
2.5.4 FDM Pattern-making (FDMP) ..................................................................... 49
2.6 Application for complexity calculation............................................................. 50
Chapter 3 Results, Analysis and Discussion .............................................................. 54
3.1 Tooling Costs ........................................................................................................ 54
3.2 Cost Studies........................................................................................................... 56
3.2.1 Cost per Part vs. Complexity Factor at each production volume........... 56
3.3 Time Studies.......................................................................................................... 63
3.3.1 Lead Time to Manufacture vs. Manufacturing Method........................... 63
Chapter 4 Conclusions and future work .................................................................... 70
References........................................................................................................................ 74
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Complexity factor calculation for each case study and their sub-cases .. 37
Table 2: Foundry Tooling Quote for Two Case Studies ........................................... 38
Table 3: Cost Estimator Results for Both Case Studies ............................................. 40
Table 4: Tooling Cost Calculation using Casting Cost Model ................................. 41
Table 5: Tooling Cost Comparison Between Three Estimates ................................. 54
Table 6: Single Factor ANOVA .................................................................................... 55
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Tooling cost components ................................................................................. 8
Figure 2: Traditional sand casting process ................................................................. 17
Figure 3: A typical binder jetting process ................................................................... 18
Figure 4: 3D Sand Printing process using a binder jetting system ......................... 20
Figure 5: Decision criteria for 3D Sand Printing ........................................................ 30
Figure 6: Train Air Brake Side and Angular View .................................................... 35
Figure 7: Train Air Brake Stage-wise Core Increase ................................................. 35
Figure 8: Turbocharger Stage-wise Core Increase ..................................................... 36
Figure 9: Sand Casting Cost Estimator ....................................................................... 39
Figure 10: Complexity Calculator User Interface ...................................................... 51
Figure 11: Macro Button for Complexity Calculator ................................................ 52
Figure 12: Example Calculation for Train Air Brake with 8 Cores ......................... 53
Figure 13: Final Output in MS-Excel ........................................................................... 53
Figure 14: Train Air Brake- Cost per Part vs. Complexity at Q=1 .......................... 56
Figure 15: Train Air Brake- Cost per Part vs. Complexity at Q=30 ........................ 57
Figure 16: Train Air Brake- Cost per Part vs. Complexity at Q=100 ...................... 58
Figure 17: Train Air Brake- Cost per Part vs. Complexity at Q=1000 .................... 59
Figure 18: Turbocharger- Cost per Part vs. Complexity at Q=1.............................. 60
Figure 19: Turbocharger- Cost per Part vs. Complexity at Q=30............................ 61
Figure 20: Turbocharger- Cost per Part vs. Complexity at Q=100.......................... 62
Figure 21: Turbocharger- Cost per Part vs. Complexity at Q=1000........................ 63
viii
Figure 22: Train Air Brake- Lead Time vs. Complexity at Q=1............................... 64
Figure 23: Train Air Brake- Lead Time vs. Complexity at Q=30............................. 65
Figure 24: Train Air Brake- Lead Time vs. Complexity at Q=100........................... 66
Figure 25: Turbocharger- Lead Time vs. Complexity at Q=1.................................. 67
Figure 26: Turbocharger- Lead Time vs. Complexity at Q=30................................ 68
Figure 27: Turbocharger- Lead Time vs. Complexity at Q=100.............................. 69
ix
Chapter 1 Introduction
In 2013, a total of 103.2 million metric tons of metal castings were produced
globally, which was a 3.4% increase when compared to 2012.[1] The United
States metal casting industry is made up of 1961 facilities and the industry
capacity is 15.3 million tons.[1] The total industry sales are expected to reach
$30.6 billion in 2018.[1] Also, the U.S. is second in the world in casting shipments
based on tonnage with China in first place and India in third. To increase their
competitiveness, it is imperative for foundries to take advantage of new
technologies like AM and eradicate the technological barriers that exist within.
Implementing additive technologies requires a re-thinking of existing modeling,
simulation and process control systems. But the pre-requisites of implementation
imply that the organization/ foundry are aware of the benefits this technology
provides. A reduction in knowledge gap keeps the organization in sync with
rapid advancements in the industry and also plays a key role in faster adoption.
The challenging part of adopting AM is changing the traditional mindsets in
organizations. [2] This thesis is an attempt to reduce a similar knowledge gap
between traditional sand casting practices and AM. The motivation for this thesis
is to work within the confines of the current foundry processes and determi ne a
way to bring AM into these existing processes in a less intrusive way.
1
The foundation of this thesis depends on having a good fundamental
understanding of the metal casting process and the AM process. Hence, the aim
of the next two chapters is to provide an in-depth understanding of metal
casting, specifically the sand casting process, and also the adoption of AM in the
casting sector. The final chapter also discusses existing cost models and methods
to calculate the complexity of a 3D CAD model.
1.1 Metal casting
Metal casting is a production process which involves molten metal being poured
into a mold made of sand, metal or ceramic to form geometrical shapes. The
global production output in 2014 is more than 105 million metric tons. [3]. Metal
casting inherently lends itself to the formation of parts which are intricate, rigid
and frequently unobtainable by other fabrication processes. [4]
A casting can be defined as a metal geometric shape obtained by allowing molten
metal to solidify in a mold cavity. This method provides inherent advantages,
which makes casting preferable over other shaping process. [5] Some advantages
are:
1. Externally and internally intricate shapes can be formed which results in
the minimization or elimination of other operations such as machining,
forging or welding.
2
2. This process is highly adaptable for mass production. An example of such
a requirement is in the automotive sector.
3. It is possible to cast objects in a single piece which otherwise would
require construction in several pieces.
4. It is economically feasible and easy to cast heavy and extremely large
metal objects. Parts weighing up to 200 tons in hydroelectric plants are a
primary example.
Recent advancements in metal casting have greatly improved the quality of
castings. Based on proper selection of materials, correct heat treatment, and
careful foundry control, castings of uniform high quality can be
manufactured commercially. Also, through increased cooperation between
the designer and foundry, stronger castings can be obtained without being
penalized by high production costs which are usually a by-product of poor
material selection or faulty design. [4]
1.2 Sand Casting
1.2.1 Process components
There are a number of casting methods, which differ in the technique and the
equipment used, but all of which require the following systems: [5]
1. Patternmaking (including core boxes)
3
A pattern is used to create the mold shape and is the actual shape of the
metal part that needs to be created. A core-box is used for the creation of
cores which form the interior geometries of the casting.
Traditional pattern-making requires precise skills in woodworking and
also knowledge of metal casting. Metallurgical concepts like shrinkage
rates and solidification for different metals become important for the
pattern-maker when preparing the pattern. Patterns are needed to make
molds which, in turn, are made by packing molding sand (in the case of
sand casting) around the pattern.
There are two kinds of patternmaking: one that happens in foundries and
one that happens in pattern shops. Most foundries are concerned with
modifying existing patterns and preparing them for molding while most
pattern shops produce new patterns and cores. The pattern shops operate
as a separate business from the foundry.
Manually building a pattern requires the skill of a pattern maker who can
read two dimensional drawings and create a three dimensional part. A
variety of different pieces are glued or fastened together to construct the
shape of the pattern. A certain amount of draft is added to the pattern
which makes the process of removal from the sand mold easier. This also
ensures that extra metal is casted intentionally which can be removed via
4
machining. A key factor in pattern designing is that the pattern must be
able to withstand the repeated ramming of the molding process in the
foundry.
The patternmaker is also in-charge of deciding the shape and number of
cores required and also the design and build of the core-boxes. Hence, the
skill of an excellent patternmaker is the ability to visualize the negative
shape of the part and then realize how the internal geometry would look
like. Hence, a high level of expertise is expected of a patter-maker who, for
example, might be working in a foundry which does a lot of automotive
or aircraft engine work, where the complexity of the cast part would be
high. Another patternmaker working at a foundry which produces frames
may not be as experienced with core-box fabrication.
2. Core-making
Cores are usually made of sand and then placed inside a mold cavity to
form the interior surface of the castings. Thus the void between the core
and the mold-cavity forms the actual shape of the casting. These cores can
be made of metal, plaster or core sand. But to achieve the utmost intricacy
in castings, the primary requirement is that after pouring and cooling of
the metal, the cores have to be collapsible.
Cores provide the casting process with the ability to make the most
intricate shapes, eliminate a lot of machining, and produce shapes which
5
would be impossible to machine. In addition, cores serve a number of
other purposes:[5]
 Complete molds may be assembled of core mold forms. This
practice is useful when the intricacy of the casting makes it
impractical to use a mold.
 Cores can be used to form a part of the mold.
 Cores strengthen or improve a mold surface
 Cores can be used as a part of the gating system
 Ram-up cores are used for several purposes. These cores are
located on the pattern and rammed up along with the molding
sand, the core then forming a part of the mold face.
A core sand mixture consists of sand grains and organic binders which
provide green strength, cured strength and collapsibility. These mixtures are
then molded into cores by using a mixture of manual labor and machines like
jolt machines, shell-core machines and core-blowers.
3. Molding
Molding requires specialized equipment and the form is achieved in one
of several ways:[5]
 By compaction of the aggregate around the pattern
 By free flow of dry aggregate around the pattern using shell
molding techniques
6
 By free flow of slurry or liquid aggregate around the pattern.
Green sand molding is done by compacting aggregate around a pattern by
ramming, squeezing, jolting, vibration or a combination of these. This
work is carried out as bench molding, machine molding, and floor and pit
molding.
4. Melting and pouring
There are many different kinds of furnaces used for melting pig iron and
make it ready for pouring. But the most common ones are cupolas, open
hearths, air furnaces, electric arc furnaces, and crucible furnaces.
Once the metal has been melted and is ready for pouring, steps have to be
taken to ensure proper pouring which will result in a sound casting.
Although it may seem relatively simple, many factors go into achieving a
good quality cast. The solidification characteristics of metals and alloys
must be accounted for while designing the gating system which is an
integral part of the pouring process.
5. Cleaning
The series of operation in a cleaning department are as follows:[5]
a. Removal of gates and risers- rough cleaning
b. Surface cleaning, exterior and interior of casting
c. Trimming- the removal of fins, wires, and protuberances at the gate
and riser locations
7
d. Finishing- final surface cleaning, giving the casting its outward
appearance.
e. Inspection
1.2.2 Tooling costs
Tooling is essentially the creation of patterns and core-boxes. The tooling costs
are generally a result of the sand casting tool design and fabrication process. The
part design is communicated via a 3D model or a set of 2D drawings or any other
means which can convey the design intent.
Figure 1 Tooling cost components
Given this initial part design and a general understanding of the cost, lead time,
accuracy and production volume, the tool builder must decide on the best
approach for constructing the tooling. Some of the primary considerations for
tool building are: [6]
8
 Functionality of the casting
 How to best achieve the specified external and internal shape of the
casting
 How molten metal will flow during filling and feed during solidification
of the casting
 How the casting will shrink during solidification and cooling to room
temperature
 Where the parting line should be located to best facilitate foundry
operations
 Where and how much draft should be applied
 Where and how much extra material should be provided for machining
 What type of pattern should be used
 What fabrication process should be used to construct the pattern
 What pattern material should be used
Rapid Tooling is the process of creating tools quickly and with minimum direct
labor. Tool-making approaches that apply additive, subtractive, and pattern-
based processes come under rapid-tooling. Hence it can be considered a much
more modern approach to the creation of tooling. There are two kinds of rapid
tooling: [7]
 Indirect Tooling - Where molds are produced by the creation of a pattern
first. Using SLA, FDM and LOM techniques in additive manufacturing
9
master patterns can be created to fabricate a silicone rubber mold, which
can then be used for making multiple hard patterns from poly eurathene
and epoxy rubber. [8]
 Direct Tooling – Where additive processes build the actual tooling. This
includes epoxy patterns in SLA systems, ABS plastic patterns in an FDM
system or paper patterns in a LOM system. [8]
In this thesis, the tooling costs associated with direct tooling approaches using an
FDM based system to create patterns will be analyzed. Also tool-less
manufacturing using the binder jetting technology to directly 3D print the molds
and cores shall be analyzed.
The tooling cost estimates received from the industry were a singular number
and a break-down of individual components was unavailable. Hence, an attempt
has been made to show the tooling costs in finer detail. The following
components have been determined to have the most effect on the total tooling
cost:
 Tool design labor costs
 Tool manufacturing labor costs
 Re-working costs
 Additional costs such as materials, reworking, maintenance and energy
costs
10
Since the tool design and manufacture is a highly laborious process in the
traditional foundry environment, labor costs have been calculated based on the
hourly rate paid to the workers.
Two mechanical engineers and two tool and die makers are assumed to be
working on this project. The tool design labor cost is assumed to be $45.0 per
hour based on the 2015 Median Pay for experienced mechanical engineers. [9]
Similarly, the manufacturing labor cost is assumed to be $30.0 per hour based on
the hourly mean wage for experienced tool and die makers in the aerospace
manufacturing industry. [10]
1.2.3 Reworking costs
The majority of the reworking costs occur due to the presence of casting defects
in the sand casting process. [11] Casting defects usually manifest in the foundry
as reworking costs or casting scrap costs.
With the combination of a 3D CAD model, simulation techniques and rap id
tooling methods these reworking costs can be avoided and in some cases
eliminated. [6]
This thesis incorporates the cost of reworking into the final tooling costs based on
data obtained from Humtown Products. For the conventional mold and core
making processes, the rework costs have been included in the tooling costs. Also,
11
for the methods involving 3D sand printing, Humtown suggests that a mold and
core design is reworked for a maximum of two times if at all required.
1.3 Additive Manufacturing
Additive manufacturing is the technical term used to describe what used to be
rapid prototyping and what is now popularly known as 3D Printing. The term
rapid prototyping was used to describe a process used to create prototypes or
representation of parts that would be the basis for further models, eventually
leading to the final product which would then be commercialized. [12]. In a
product development and manufacturing context, rapid prototyping describes
process used to create quick physical prototypes directly from digital CAD data
with less focus on the quality of the prototype and more focus on the visual
aesthetic.
Due to the recent technological advancements made in this field, the term “rapid
prototyping” failed to encapsulate the emerging new processes and the increase
in quality of output. A new term was needed to describe these processes which
capable of producing directly manufacturable parts with high quality. Rapid
prototyping also fails to describe the underlying principle of such technologies,
which are based on an additive approach. Due to these reasons, the new term
“Additive Manufacturing” was proposed by ASTM International. [12]
The basic principle behind AM is that a 3D CAD model can be fabricated directly
without the requirement of any kind of process planning. Where other

12
manufacturing processes require a detailed analysis of the part geometry to
determine how the individual features can be manufactured and then fit into an
assembly to create the final product, an AM based technology simply requires a
basic understanding of the AM machine and materials needed to create the part.
The official ASTM definition of additive manufacturing is as follows, "Standard
Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies defines Additive Manufacturing
as the process of joining materials to make objects from 3D model data, usually layer
upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing methodologies. Synonyms: additive
fabrication, additive processes, additive techniques, additive layer manufacturing, layer
manufacturing, and freeform fabrication.”[13]
As estimated in 2015, the total value of the AM industry including all products
and services were $5.165 billion. Also in 2015, Israel is responsible for 41.1% of
total industrial AM systems and the US shares 16.7% of the same total. [2] These
systems are categorized into seven types based on the various processes. [14]
1. Binder Jetting
2. Direct Energy Deposition
3. Material Extrusion
4. Material Jetting
5. Powder Bed Fusion
6. Sheet Lamination
7. Vat Photo polymerization
13
Each of the process has different weakness and strengths which are based on
characteristics such as: [2]
 Materials that can be utilized
 Build speed
 Surface finish quality and dimensional accuracy of produced parts
 Material properties
 Machine and material costs
Hence, these properties or characteristics also determine which market each
process may be suited for. These markets are divided into:
 Prototyping
The earliest use of additively manufactured parts was for the strict
purposes of prototyping. The primary use cases were either as visual aids
or as presentation models to explain a specific concept in detail. Further as
the material properties improved and newer compact machines were
introduced into the market, additively manufactured parts became
integral to the iterative product design process.
 Tooling
This application for AM parts will be discussed in detail in Section 1.4.1 as
it is significant to the overall thesis.
 Direct part manufacturing
14
The application of AM for the creation of direct end-use parts is probably
the fastest growing market since 2010. Whereas rapid prototyping and
tooling are a step in the overall manufacturing production process, direct
part manufacturing essentially simplifies a particular manufacturing
process to a single step. This can be termed as the holy grail of AM.
 Maintenance and repair
For damaged parts, which have a long lead time, additive manufacturing
has been increasingly seen as a way to repair them at a faster rate. Also
parts made in the additive way provide a metallurgical bond with the
base material, which reduces the heat affected zone in the nearby material.
This feature is useful for parts that have a high sensitivity to heat
distortion. [15]
1.3.1 Additive manufacturing for pattern making: FDM Pattern-making
Although we are aware of sand printing offering great cost and quality
advantages for casting parts, there are significant benefits to creating patterns
using a 3D printer. Until 2011, the rapid prototyping technique for producing
prototypes of models rather than direct-to-use parts was seen as expensive and
of low accuracy. [16] But it was also known that rapid prototyping technique can
produce high complex functional parts directly from CAD data. This simplifies
the process of pattern-making and also reduces redesign costs associated with re-
working of a pattern.
15
As discussed previously, traditional pattern making costs are much more
expensive than the actual costs of pouring in a casting run. Also, the l ead time to
create the tooling for castings is usually in weeks. But using an AM technique
like Fused Deposition Modeling for creating patterns this lead time can be
reduced to days at just a fraction of the traditional pattern-making cost. [17].
The available literature on the energy consumption and advantages of using a 3D
Printer for creating patterns which can be used in sand casting give us general
insights but do not provide specific data. [18]
Several case studies are available on the websites of Stratasys and 3D Systems
which have machines capable of printing patterns for sand casting. Based on
these case studies, it has been determined that FDM is a great fit when: [19] [20]
 Casting production volumes are less than 5000
 The pattern dimensions are less than the build envelope of the FDM
systems
 The casting designs are moderate to highly complex
 All surfaces are accessible for smoothing, sealing or coating
The benefits of using an FDM system for pattern-making are:
 Average lead time reduction of 30% to 70%
 Average cost reduction of 60% to 80%
16
 Part geometry and gate/runner system can be redesigned to take
advantage of FDM
 Production of patterns can be automated and hence burden on pattern-
shop can be reduced. Also pattern production can be made in-house.
 As shown in the figure below, the traditional process of sand casting
requires almost no change in the process, except for the addition of an
FDM system to the pattern-making process.
Make Pattern
Make sand mold and cores
Assemble molds and cores
Pour metal and cool
Remov e sand
Cut off gates and runners
Finish to specification
Figure 2: Traditional sand casting process
A Fortus 900mc 3D Printer is used to analyze the cost of 3D printing the patterns
using a Poly-Carbonate material both supplied by Stratasys.
17
1.3.2 Additive manufacturing for mold and core making: Binder Jetting
AM enables the direct production of molds without the need of a pattern.
Specifically the binder jetting process is used to fabricate these molds and cores
which can then be assembled to create the final mold and core assembly. [21]
The binder jetting process prints a binder into a powder bed to fabricate a part.
Hence, only a small portion of the part material is delivered through the print
head and the rest consists of powder in the powder bed. The binder droplets
form spherical agglomerates of binder liquid and powder particles and provide
bonding to the previous layer. Once a layer is printed, the powder bed is lowered
and a new layer of powder is spread onto it. [22]
Figure 3: A typical binder jetting process
Due to the fact that binder jetting processes can be economically scaled by simply
increasing the number of printer nozzles, it is scalable and also has a high
deposition speed. [23]
Materials
18
The commercially available powder from 3D Systems is plaster based and the
binder is water based [24]. Since these printed parts are typically weak, infiltrants
like ColorBond, which is acrylate based, StrengthMax, and SaltWaterCure are
used to strengthen them.
On the other hand, Voxeljet supplies a poly-methyl methacrylate (PMMA)
powder and uses a liquid binder that reacts to room temperature. They
recommend that parts remain in the powder bed for several hours so that the
binder is completely cured. [25]. Voxeljet also offers silica sand with inorganic
binder for smoother process integration into existing foundries.
ExOne supplies a silica sand and two part binder, where one part is coated onto
the layer and the other part is printed onto the layer, which causes a
polymerization reaction binding the sand particles together. [26] ExOne claims to
use only standard foundry materials which ensure easy integration into existing
manufacturing practices.
By using a binder jetting system, the process of pattern-making can be totally
eliminated, and the molds and cores can be created directly from their design
files. Removal of the pattern-making process can bring the cost of tooling
significantly (which will be shown through this thesis).
19
Make sand mold and cores
Assemble molds and cores
Pour metal and cool
Remove sand
Cut off gates and runners
Finish to specification
Figure 4: 3D Sand Printing process using a binder jetting system
An S-Max 3D Sand Printer manufactured by ExOne is used by the foundry to
create the molds and cores. Hence the costs and build times
1.4 Implementation and Adoption of AM for mold and core making
Depending on which stage AM can be implemented in the Sand Casting Process
particularly in the mold and core creation, this thesis defines two additional
mixed manufacturing methods apart from the traditional mold and core making
method, and the purely additive method of creating molds and cores.
It is also assumed that the adoption of 3D sand printing or FDM pattern-making
will have minimal or no influence on the cost per casting in post-fabrication
operations including pour, shakeout and secondary operations such as heat
treatment, machining and inspections. Hence, these costs shall not be considered
20
in the cost and time study of this thesis. However, it should be noted that
consolidation of number of required cores (through 3D sand printing) could
eliminate flash which tend to add additional finishing and inspection operations.
The following four definitions are inherent to this thesis and describe each
process from the creation of tooling to the final mold and core assembly.
1.4.1 Traditional Manufacturing (TM)
Traditional Manufacturing is defined as the traditional process of mold and core
making. This includes the creation of the patterns and core-boxes, creation of
molds and cores using traditional foundry techniques, and finally assembly of
the molds and cores.
1.4.2 3D Sand Printing of molds and cores (3DSP)
3D sand printing is defined as the process of 3D printing the molds and the cores
using a binder-jetting process. These molds and cores are directly printed from
their respective design files and therefore the creation of patterns becomes
unnecessary. This also eliminates any tooling costs incurred due to the creation
of patterns. The cost benefits of this method have already been discussed in [27]
1.4.3 3D Sand Printed Cores (3DSPC)
For the purposes of this thesis, 3D sand printed cores imply the use of traditional
techniques to create the mold and a binder-jetting system to fabricate the cores.
There are certain advantages to 3D printing cores such as: [28]
21
 At the design stage, complex geometries can be created without worrying
about manufacturing limitations. Mold parting design, draft angles and
core locks are no longer necessary.
 In the CAM-tool manufacturing stage, core-boxes and assembly jigs are
not required.
 At the sample testing phase, no additional adjustments are necessary and
dependence on binders eliminates the need for core drying and finishing.
 Tool maintenance and storage costs, and tool insurance costs are
eliminated.
 Possible elimination of assembly depending on the design.
 Tool wear is non-existent and machine operation is highly user friendly.
1.4.3 FDM based pattern-making (FDMP)
This is defined the creation of patterns using the Fused Deposition Modeling
technique described in Section 1.3.1 and the traditional method of creating molds
and cores described in 1.2.1 which finally results in a mold and core assembly.
The distinct advantage of FDM pattern-making is the fact that a set of patterns
can be grouped together and printed in a single build. This parallel processing of
parts implies that the lead time for tooling is drastically reduced and the tooling
costs are extremely low.
22
1.5 Complexity Measurement for CAD models
The cost for traditionally manufacturing a part is a function of its complexity and
its manufacturability, when compared to AM which is not bound by the
complexity of the part. [29][27] Hence to compare a traditional and an AM
process it becomes significant to define how we measure complexity.
There is very limited research on this subject, especially since the complexity of a
part changes based on which manufacturing process is used. Based on available
literature, two estimation methods have been discussed, which have been proven
to be good indicators of complexity.
1.5.1 Shape complexity estimation for cast parts
For this thesis, the complexity of the various case studies described in Section 2.1
are calculated based on a formula developed using regression analysis and
detailed in the paper titled “Quantifying the shape complexity of cast parts” by
Durgesh Joshi and Bhallamudi Ravi. [29]
Although there is plenty of research on the determination of shape complexity
factor, most of it has been for specific manufacturing processes such as axis -
symmetric forged parts, or for extrusion based manufacturing processes. [30]
Also, initial shape complexity factors did not take into account the tooling cost
which can be a great indicator of complexity. Hence, a quantitative evaluation of
shape complexity was developed by Ravi and Chougale which indirectly
considered the tooling cost based on geometric features of the part. The logic
23
behind this decision is that the geometric features influence, design of the
tooling, complexity and as a result the cost of the tooling.
After interacting with toolmakers and designers, the researchers concluded that
the tool manufacturing cost depended on number of cores, volume and surface
area of part, core volume, draw distance and variation in section thickness. These
parameters can easily be determined from a given CAD model. Based on these
features, the geometric criteria were determined as follows:
Part Volume Ratio (CPR):
This is the ratio of volume of part to the volume of bounding box. The bounding
box is given by the maximum length, width, and height of the part geometry.
When the volume of part is close to its bounding box, less material removal is
required, resulting in lower machining cost. Higher difference in these volumes
leads to a higher manufacturing cost. This criterion is defined as:
Here, is the part volume and is the bounding box volume of the part.
Area Ratio (C AR):
This is the ratio of surface area of an equivalent sphere (with the same volume as
that of the part) to the surface area of the part. This ratio is based on the fact that
sphere has minimum surface area as compared to any other geometry.
24
Where, As is the surface area of the imaginary sphere with a volume equal to
that of the part, given by: . Ap and V p are surface area and
volume of the part.
Number of Cores (CNC):
Cores are required for hollow portions of the part and regions that hinder
pattern withdrawal during molding. Each core requires a separate tooling; hence
more the number of cored features higher will be the tooling cost. The criterion
for number of cores is defined as follows, considering that rate of increase in
shape complexity gradually decrease with an increase in the number of cored
features:
Where Nc is the number of cored features
Core Volume Ratio (CCR):
Larger cores require larger size and incur higher tooling cost. Hence the ratio of
core volume to bounding box volume is included as another measure of
complexity.
Where, is the volume of the i th core and V b is the volume of the parts bounding
box.
Thickness Ratio (CTR):
25
This is the ratio of minimum and maximum thickness of the part. A tooling with
thin section will be more complex and is more difficult to machine as compared
to one with more thick sections. This criterion is defined as:
Where, Tmin and Tmax are minimum and maximum thickness of the parts
respectively.
Depth Ratio (CDR):
The draw distance, which is maximum depth of the tooling, affects the tooling
manufacturing time and hence its cost. The actual draw distance is compared to
the minimum possible draw distance, which is half the minimum dimension of
the part. The criterion designed such that parts with higher depth ratio will
indicate higher complexity.
Where, L,W and H are the length, width and height of the part respectively and
Dd is the draw distance of the tooling.
The final shape complexity obtained using regression analysis is:
 Eq. 1
26
This equation has been validated by determining the actual Complexity factor
(CFactual) which is the ratio of additional cost of machining to the cost of
machining a cube of differential volume.
1.5.2 Shape complexity estimation using layer-by-layer technique
The thesis, authored by Dr. Martin Baumers, discusses the economic aspects of
AM usage through the effect of its nature on economic and environmental
performance measurement. Also, the ability of AM processes to efficiently create
parts is discussed. One component of this thesis is to quantify the shape
complexity of an object. [31]
The direct link between the complexity of a design and its traditional
manufacturing cost demands that there is an economic benefit to reduce the
complexity of the part/design. But using AM, it is effectively possible to obtain
this complexity for free, eliminating the need to simplify a particular design and
as a result reducing the effect of complexity of design on the manufacturing cost.
[32]
However, a weak connection between part geometry and laser scan time has
been demonstrated when the part volume and part height are left unchanged in
an AM process. [33] There is a possibility that this can be linked to the
complexity and hence “complexity is free” may as well be an ideal scenario.
In this thesis, shape complexity is viewed as a subjective experience. The author
analyses a paper by Psarra and Grajewski which measures the complexity of
27
two-dimensional shapes. They define these 2D shapes as “configurations
consisting of edges and corners defining a continuous perimeter line.”[34]
According to their analysis, the shape complexity is inversely related to the
degree of convexity of the perimeter shapes. Full convexity is the property that
every point in the perimeter can be connected to every other point without
crossing the perimeter of the shape as opaque walls. Hence, all points are visible
from every location in a convex shape.
Based on this definition, three measures are defined by Psarra and Grajewski for
shape complexity:
 Mean Connectivity Value (MCV) describes the mean proportion of
perimeters cells visible from each location. Fully convex shapes have MCV
= 1 and MCV = 0 is impossible for closed perimeters.
 The next measure is the standard deviation of the connectivity values
present in the cells of the perimeter.
 The final measure is derived from the rate of fluctuation found in
connectivity when travelling along the perimeter of the shape. This
characteristic is captured by recording the horizontal distance between the
intersections of the graph of connectivity with the MCV line. Psarra and
Grajewski then measure the standard deviation of this distance to arrive at
a measure that describes the degree of fragmentation, repetitiveness or
rhythm present in the shape.
28
This forms a relatively simple and pragmatic way to quantify the shape
complexity of engineering designs. But it is only valid for two-dimensional
surfaces. Baumers’ thesis utilizes this concept to calculate the complexity of the
different layers in a sliced three-dimensional part.
1.6 Research Objectives
1.6.1 Rationale for the study
Historically, sand casting has been a very popular method producing the greatest
tonnage of castings used in any country. Any developments in the foundries
have only been to improve process parameters through the use of high quality
materials or to increase production capacity through automation. AM
revolutionizes these foundries by bringing in a layer-by-layer method of creating
cast parts.
Hence in order to assist foundries in adopting AM for mold and core making, the
Youngstown Business Incubator (YBI) was awarded a research project by
America Makes in 2014 to develop a framework for establishing a 3D sand
printing regional network for the US foundry industry titled “Accelerated
Adoption Of Additive Manufacturing Technology In The American Foundry
Industry” [35]. Apart from YBI, Youngstown State University, the University of
Northern Iowa, the American Foundry Society, ExOne, Jenney Capital Market,
and Humtown Patterns Corporation have vested interest in this project.
29
1.6.2 Hypothesis
This thesis is built upon the paper titled “Quantifying the Role of Part Design
Complexity in using 3D Sand Printing for Molds and Cores”. The paper
evaluates when to use the ever evolving AM sector versus the traditional pattern
making. This was done by examining the cost of molds and cores as a function of
part design complexity quantified by a complexity factor for two case studies.
The complexity of each case study was varied systematically by changing the
geometry and the number of cores. The tooling and fabrication costs were
estimated for both 3D sand printing and traditional pattern-making. Once the
breakeven points were identified, it was shown that 3D sand printing is cost-
effective for castings with complexity factor values greater than that of breakeven
points.
Figure 5: Decision criteria for 3D Sand Printing
30
One particular idea, mentioned in the future work section of the paper discussed
above, was to examine the combinations of traditional pattern-making and 3d
sand printing. In other words, until now, 3D sand printing and traditional
pattern-making were treated as separate use-cases i.e. the analysis was limited to
entirely 3d printing the molds and cores or entirely manufacturing the molds
and cores in the traditional way. But a potential way to integrate AM into the
foundry industry would be to analyze the benefits of mixing different methods.
Mixing different methods can mean either replacing the traditional pattern-
making process with a 3d printing process where the patterns are fabricated
using an FDM printer or replacing the traditional core-making process with a 3d
printed core process.
To elaborate further, the first method analyses the effects of integrating an FDM
printer for pattern-making in the traditional mold-making process [Section 1.4.4].
The second use-case analyses the effects of integrating a 3D sand printer
specifically for manufacturing cores. [Section 1.4.3]
Based on these observations, an initial hypothesis is formed which is stated as
follows:
“For a given production volume, with increased complexity of the casting,
additively manufacturing only the cores and conventionally manufacturing the
31
molds is cost-feasible when compared to traditional manufacturing or 3D sand
printing.”
This thesis will go on to show that fabricating patterns on an FDM printer
eliminates the cost of tooling incurred during a traditional sand casting process
and also fabricating cores using a 3D sand printer in the traditional sand casting
process eliminates the need for using core-boxes which reduces the costs further.
It is assumed that part design complexity will have minimal or no influence on
the cost per casting in post-fabrication operations including pour, shakeout and
secondary operations such as heat treatment, machining and inspections.
1.6.3 Analysis Goals
Ultimately, the goals of the thesis are as follows
1. Establish a cost estimation method for tooling design and manufacture
cost which can eliminate the dependence on an online tool or a historically
generated quote from a foundry.
2. Determine the costs for molds and cores for different families of castings
and draw conclusions from the cost per part vs. shape complexity using
four different methods of manufacturing at production volumes of 1, 30,
100, and 1000:
a. Traditional Manufacturing of molds and cores
b. 3D Sand Printing of both molds and cores
32
c. 3D Sand Printing cores and traditionally manufactured molds
d. 3D Printing the patterns using an FDM printer
3. Determine the lead times taken for each process from pattern creation
stage to the final mold and core assembly
4. Create an application which enables manufacturers to utilize the
conclusions drawn from this thesis and help make decisions on which
manufacturing method will best suit their needs. This application will be
created using MS Excel and VBA.
33
Chapter 2 Methodology
This chapter will describe the methodologies and tools used to achieve the stated
research objectives. The first section describes the five case studies utilized for
the analysis and the unique features of each case study. Section 2.1 describes the
case studies used in this thesis. In section 2.2 the shape complexity calculations
used to calculate the shape complexity factor for each case study is shown.
Section 2.3 describes the associated costs of manufacturing taken into
consideration for these various case studies. Finally the last section looks at how
the entire data can be collated to determine the cost per part and an estimation
tool can be created in excel.
2.1 Description of Case Studies
These case studies were created with an attempt to study the variation of cost
with an increase in complexity. Each case study is sub-divided into sub-cases by
increasing the complexity in increments for each sub-case. [27]
Case Study 1: Train Air Brake
This case study is provided by Humtown Products for the purpose of this thesis
and contains the mold and core design package needed to cast a Train Air Brake.
34
The design package consists of 1 mold design and 8 core designs. Hence a total of
9 sub-cases are created by beginning the first sub-case with one mold and
incrementally adding one extra core.
Figure 6: Train Air Brake Side and Angular View
Figure 7: Train Air Brake Stage-wise Core Increase
35
Case Study 2: Turbo Charger
This case study, also provided by Humtown Products consists of a mold and
core design to obtain a casted part of a Turbocharger.
In this model, as in the previous case study, the complexity is changed by
varying the number of cores. Hence we create 4 sub-cases, where each sub-case
has an additional core.
Figure 8: Turbocharger Stage-wise Core Increase
2.2 Complexity Calculations
The shape complexities of these five case studies are calculated using the
methodology outlined in Section 1.7.1. Provided below are the shape complexity
factors for the five case studies including their respective sub-cases.
36
Table 1: Complexity factor calculation for each case study and their sub-cases
Number Cores Wall Imaginary Actual

Volume Surface of Cores Volume Thickness Depth Sphere Bounding Complexi
Part Name Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Volume Box Volume ty Factor
Imported No core 0.23 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.13 170.40 270.39 19.66
Imported 8 0.40 0.55 0.29 0.17 0.98 0.13 144.00 270.39 41.35
Imported 8,3 0.47 0.65 0.42 0.24 0.98 0.13 133.15 270.39 50.10
Imported 8,3,2 0.51 0.70 0.50 0.29 0.98 0.13 125.22 270.39 55.41
Imported 8,3,2,5 0.54 0.73 0.55 0.32 0.98 0.13 119.68 270.39 58.93
Imported 8,3,2,5,4 0.56 0.74 0.59 0.33 0.98 0.13 117.66 270.39 60.88
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7 0.58 0.76 0.62 0.35 0.98 0.13 113.58 270.39 63.14
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7,6 0.61 0.79 0.65 0.38 0.98 0.13 108.08 270.39 65.60
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7,6,1 0.62 0.80 0.67 0.39 0.98 0.13 106.55 270.39 66.72
Comp. NO core 0.59 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 84.01 176.00 27.64
Com. Cubic core 0.65 0.60 0.29 0.06 0.97 0.00 75.13 176.00 41.62
Com. Cylinderical Core 0.65 0.60 0.42 0.06 0.97 0.00 75.53 176.00 45.73
Orginal core 0.82 0.81 0.50 0.26 0.98 0.00 48.12 176.00 59.81
Iron Housing 0.60 0.81 0.71 0.31 0.98 0.97 6016.81 109582.48 66.29
Steel Structure 0.66 0.82 0.67 0.24 1.00 0.97 2336.12 31533.38 63.93
Vcast 0.69 0.82 0.76 0.20 0.98 0.97 3344.01 58563.63 66.03
2.3 Tooling Cost Estimation
The tooling cost quotes received from Humtown Products are compared with
two different methods of tooling cost estimation. As discussed in earlier sections,
tooling cost estimates can vary extensively from foundry to foundry. These
foundries often base their estimates on historical data and experience. Hence a
reliable way of calculating these costs would prove useful in providing more
accurate estimates for the customer.
Only the reworking costs, tool design and manufacturing costs are incorporated
into the data since, the online cost estimator provides the tool manufacture cost
and the integrated
2.3.1 Industry Quote
The breakdown of the industry quote is listed in Section 1.2.2. Based on these
quotes, the tool design and manufacture costs are isolated and detailed in the
table below.
37
Table 2: Foundry Tooling Quote for Two Case Studies
Tooling
Tooling creation Quoted
Material,
time: Tooling Tool Tooling:
Tool Design Maintenance
Part Name or Number Rework Cost design+ tooling Manufact Design + Total Quoted Tooling
Labor and Energy,
manufacture ure Labor Manufacture
overhead
(hours) Labor costs
expenses
Imported No Core 200 34.10 2148.30 613.80 2962.10 12037.90 15200

Imported 8 200 83.10 5235.30 1495.80 6931.10 10068.90 17200
Imported 8,3 300 83.10 5235.30 1495.80 7031.10 11968.90 19300
Case Study I
Imported 8,3,2 300 96.10 6054.30 1729.80 8084.10 11915.90 20300

Imported 8,3,2,5 400 96.10 6054.30 1729.80 8184.10 12815.90 21400
Imported 8,3,2,5,4 400 108.10 6810.30 1945.80 9156.10 12843.90 22400
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7 500 121.10 7629.30 2179.80 10309.10 12690.90 23500
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7,6 600 133.10 8385.30 2395.80 11381.10 12618.90 24600
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7,6,1 600 133.10 8385.30 2395.80 11381.10 13618.90 25600
Comp. NO core 300 34.10 2148.30 613.80 3062.10 5937.90 9300
Case Study II
Com. Cubic core 400 47.10 2967.30 847.80 4215.10 6784.90 11400
Com. Cylinderical Core 500 55.30 3483.90 995.40 4979.30 7020.70 12500
Orginal core 600 61.10 3849.30 1099.80 5549.10 6450.90 12600
The tooling creation time between design and manufacturing is split in the ratio
0.7 to 0.3 assuming that 70% of the time is spent in designing the part and 30% of
the time is spent manufacturing.
2.3.2 Using Online Estimator
The online cost estimator [36] utilizes a feature based calculator to determine the
tooling, material and production cost for a sand casted part. The cost estimator
utilizes data based on industry averages and typical manufacturing processes
and the actual costs may vary based on equipment, specific manufacturer and
market conditions.
Hence, comparing these costs with an actual foundry quote would provide a
basis for further utilizing this tool.
38
As shown in Figure 9, the production quantity, material of the cast part, the
envelope (or the bounding box) of the part, volume and number of cores are the
inputs required.
Figure 9: Sand Casting Cost Estimator
The results are given in the table below.
39
Table 3: Cost Estimator Results for Both Case Studies
Online
Online Estimated
Estimated
Tooling Cost : Tool
Part Name or Number Tooling Cost :
Manufacture+Tool
Tool
labor
Manufacture
Imported No Core 1380.00 3528.30
Imported 8 1722.00 6957.30
Imported 8,3 2101.00 7336.30
Case Study I
Imported 8,3,2 2857.00 8911.30

Imported 8,3,2,5 3339.00 9393.30
Imported 8,3,2,5,4 3914.00 10724.30
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7 4574.00 12203.30
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7,6 5091.00 13476.30
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7,6,1 5646.00 14031.30
Comp. NO core 2206.00 4354.30
Case Study II
Com. Cubic core 2312.00 5279.30

Com. Cylinderical Core 2523.00 6006.90
Orginal core 2878.00 6727.30
The tool design labor cost estimated in Section 2.3.1 has been incorporated into
this model to normalize the data for comparison.
2.3.3 Casting Cost Estimation in an integrated product design environment
This cost estimation model is based on the paper titled “Casting cost estimation in
an integrated product and process design environment“[37]. This estimation is driven
by the solid model of the part and its attributes and is useful for cost reduction in
the early stages of design.
This costing model attempts to provide a module to calculate tooling costs based
on product geometry, tooling material and order quantity. A parametric
methodology is used to generate accurate tooling costs.
40
According to this paper, the tooling costs are calculated as follows:
Crel_tool_cost = exp(0.629*V cast + 0.048*Cac + 0.023*Cs + 0.739
Ctooling = cindex * Crel_tool_cost / Q
Where,
Crel_tool_cost = Relative tooling cost for cast iron tooling
Ctooling = Amortized cost of tooling
Cindex = Tooling cost index that varies with manufacturer, currency and time
V cast = Casting volume in m3
Cac = Accuracy index on 1-100 scale, assumed as 90 for this thesis
Cs = Casting shape complexity
Q = Order quantity
Again, the resulting tooling cost has been normalized by adding the tool design
labor cost and given below.
Table 4: Tooling Cost Calculation using Casting Cost Model
Estimated
Integrated Casting
Relative Tooling Tooling Cost
Casting Accuracy Volume of Cast (in Production Actual relative Individual Cost Estimation
Part Name or Number Complexioty Cost Cost Index based on
Volume index (Cac) m3) Volume (Q) tooling cost ($) cost index model including
Crel_tool_cost($) Integrated
tool design labor
model ($)
Imported No Core 209.16 19.66 90 0.0034 1000 1.38 3542.64 0.39 0.36 1274.26 3422.56
Imported 8 162.49 41.35 90 0.0027 1000 1.722 5830.71 0.30 0.36 2097.25 7332.55
Imported 8,3 144.47 50.10 90 0.0024 1000 2.101 7130.35 0.29 0.36 2564.72 7800.02
Case Study I
Imported 8,3,2 131.76 55.41 90 0.0022 1000 2.857 8055.36 0.35 0.36 2897.44 8951.74
Imported 8,3,2,5 123.11 58.93 90 0.0020 1000 3.339 8732.70 0.38 0.36 3141.07 9195.37
Imported 8,3,2,5,4 120.01 60.88 90 0.0020 1000 3.914 9134.43 0.43 0.36 3285.57 10095.87
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7 113.83 63.14 90 0.0019 1000 4.574 9619.72 0.48 0.36 3460.12 11089.42
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7,6 105.66 65.60 90 0.0017 1000 5.091 10179.45 0.50 0.36 3661.45 12046.75
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7,6,1 103.43 66.72 90 0.0017 1000 5.998 10445.67 0.57 0.36 3757.21 12142.51
Comp. NO core 72.41 27.64 90 0.0012 1000 0.978 4250.17 0.23 0.36 1528.75 3677.05
Case Study II
Com. Cubic core 61.23 41.62 90 0.0010 1000 1.326 5860.91 0.23 0.36 2108.11 5075.41
Com. Cylinderical Core 61.73 45.73 90 0.0010 1000 1.76 6441.99 0.27 0.36 2317.13 5801.03
Orginal core 31.39 59.81 90 0.0005 1000 2.24 8904.51 0.25 0.36 3202.87 7052.17
Average: 0.36
41
2.4 Cost Studies
This study estimates the costs for four different methods of manufacturing molds
described in Section 1.4 and cores starting with the creation of the patterns to the
assembly of molds and cores in order to find the cost per part at various
complexities. The break-even points at which two methods become equally
feasible are also analyzed through which conclusions can be drawn.
Also, the cost per part for each process has been determined for each sub -case
and also at various production volumes (Q) of 10, 30, 100, and 1000 units. The
notation used for denoting the costs consists of a subscript and a superscript.
The subscripts always refer to either to the various components of the total cost
such as mold cost, core cost, tooling cost etc. For example: CM is the cost of mold-
making (M).
The superscripts always refer to each manufacturing method. For example: C TM
is the cost of traditional manufacturing (TM).
The TM costs are calculated based on the tooling, mold and core cost estimates
received from Humtown Products. The tooling costs provided were isolated to as
much fine detail as possible and incorporated into the Cost per Part (C P)
calculations.
42
Among the several cost factors in sand casting, the two major components are
tooling and fabrication costs which involve a variety of operations to produce the
molds and cores. In previous research, the tooling making costs were generated
using an online estimator for sand casting process. [27] But this estimator
provides just the cost of manufacturing the tooling and does not consider the
rework costs, the tool design or even the tooling material costs which are
essential components of a tooling cost. Hence, estimates for each sub-case were
obtained from Humtown Products and were incorporated to provide an accurate
and finer analysis.
Tooling Costs:
Since tooling cost is determined for a set production volume, the tooling cost per
part is determined as follows:
CTP = (CT)/Q  Eq. 2
CT = Ctm + Cac + Ctd  Eq. 3
Where,
CTP is the tooling cost per part
CT is the total tooling cost for a given production volume
Q is the production volume required
Ctm is the cost associated with tool manufacturing
43
Ctd is the cost associated with tool design
Cac is the additional cost of energy, labor, overhead and material procurement
Mold and Core-making Costs:
CMCTM = (CMTM + CCTM) * Q  Eq. 4
Where,
CMTM is the mold making cost per part for a TM process
CCTM is the core making cost per part for a TM process
CMCTM is the total cost of mold and core making for a given production volume Q
Cost per part calculation (CP):
CPTM = (CMCTM)/Q+ CTP  Eq. 5
Where,
CPTM is the cost per part for a TM process
2.4.2 3D Sand Printing (3DSP)
The data for cost of 3D sand printing has been obtained from [27], which utilizes
the same methodology described in Section 2.1.
For both mold and cores, the fabrication costs are estimated using the industry
quotation methods based on the size of casting, number of cores etc. [27]
CMC3DSP = (V a + V b,m + V b,c) * Cbj  Eq. 6
44
Where,
CMC3DSP is the cost of mold and core making
V b,m is the volume of the bounding box of the mold
V a is the volume of the additional sand required around the part
V b,c is the bounding box of the cores
Cbj is the volumetric cost of binder jetting process including consumables, labor,
energy, depreciation and overhead
For this thesis, the Cbj is taken as $0.17 per cm3 which is the estimated cost used
in previous research as well. [27]
The total cost of mold making for a production volume Q is CM3DSP *Q
The total cost of core making for a production volume Q is CC3DSP *Q
The tooling costs associated with 3D sand printing is zero since there is no
creation of patterns or core-boxes.
Therefore the cost per unit production volume (or cost per part) is
CP3DSP = ( (CM3DSP *Q) + (CC3DSP *Q) )/Q or
CP3DSP = CM3DSP + CC3DSP  Eq. 7
This result shows that the 3DSP cost per part is independent of the production
volume.
45
2.4.3 3D Sand Printed Core (3DSPC)
A combination of equations is used to calculate the cost of a 3DSPC process.
The cost components of a 3DSPC process are:
 Tooling cost for mold-making CM is obtained from the first use-case of
each case study which consists of no cores, (CTP)no-cores
[insert cost for no cores CS1 and CS2]
 Mold making cost using traditional techniques, CMTM * Q
 Core making using the binder jetting process, CC3DSP * Q
There is no additional cost of tooling for core making, since core -boxes are
eliminated by the use of a binder jetting system.
Hence, the total cost per part for 3DSPC is calculated as:
CP3DSPC = (CTP)no-cores + ( (CMTM *Q) + (CC3DSP * Q) ) / Q
Or
CP3DSPC = (CTP)no-cores + CMTM + CC3DSP  Eq. 8
2.4.4 FDM Pattern-making (FDMP)
The following are the cost components required to calculate the cost per part for
FDM based pattern-making:
 Cost of printing patterns in an FDM printer, CFDMP
The cost of printing FDM patterns is
46
 Cost of traditional mold making, CMTM
 Cost of traditional core making, CCTM
Therefore, the cost per part is calculated as follows:
CPFDMP = (CFDMP / Q) + CMTM + CCTM  Eq. 9
2.5 Time Studies
The lead time calculation is done based on industry estimates for traditional
manufacturing techniques and build rates per hour for any AM processes used in
the thesis. The following components are defined to calculate the final lead times
for the four methods described in Section 1.4:
 Lead time for tool design (T td) and tool manufacturing (Ttm) to create the
patterns and core-boxes based on quotes obtained from Humtown
Products
 Time to create the molds (TmTM) and cores (TcTM) from setup of tooling to
the final assembly, also obtained from industry
 Build time for molds (Tm3DSP) and cores (Tc3DSP) on an S-max printer,
based on build volume of the machine and also the build rate provided by
the machine supplier
 Pre (Tpre) and post (Tpost) processing times for S-max printers
 Build time for patterns for a Fortus 900mc printer TFDMP
47
Utilizing two or more machines would ideally reduce the lead time due to
parallel processing but would also require more capital investment for the
foundry. Hence for the purposes of this thesis, it is assumed that only one 3D
sand printer and only one FDM printer are available for the foundry.
The total lead time to create a mold and core assembly is the sum of the time to
create tooling (from design to manufacturing) and the time to create the mold
and cores conventionally.
The quote from Humtown provides the total time for tooling including the times
for purchase of tooling material, tool design, tool manufacture and the customer
approvals. The tool design and manufacturing time have been isolated from
these numbers by taking into account the fact that it takes 1 day to purchase the
material and 5 days for customer approvals.
Therefore,
TleadTM = Ttm + Ttd + (TmTM + TcTM)/8  Eq. 10
TleadTM is the total lead time for manufacture
TmTM + TcTM is the time to create the molds traditionally + time to create the cores
traditionally
Ttm + Ttd is the total time to design and manufacture the tooling
48
2.5.2 3D Sand Printing (3DSP)
For 3DSP, the lead time is calculated (in days) as follows:
Tlead3DSP = (Tm3DSP + Tc3DSP + Tpre + Tpost)/24  Eq. 12
The build times for molds and cores are calculated based on the total build
height after parts are nested in the machine and the height build rate specified
for an S-Max printer.
T3DSP = hbuild / rbuild  Eq. 13
Where,
hbuild is the build height after part nesting measured in inches
rbuild is the height built rate for S-max which is estimated to be around 1 in/hr
2.5.3 3D Sand Printed Cores (3DSPC)
For a 3DSPC method, the total lead time (in days) is a combination of time for
creation of mold and the times to 3D print the cores on an S-max.
Tlead3DSPC = (TmTM /8) + Ttd + (Tc3DSP + Tpre + Tpost)/24  Eq. 14
2.5.4 FDM Pattern-making (FDMP)
The total lead time (in days) for a FDMP method is a combination of the time to
build the patterns in a Fortus 900 and the time to traditionally create the molds
and cores.
TleadFDMP = (TmTM + TcTM )/8+ (TFDMP /24)  Eq. 15
49
TFDMP is the build time to the patterns in a Fortus 900 FDM printer. For each case
study, it is assumed that the mold and all cores are printed together in one build.
This build optimization saves time and cost and it’s a more sensible way of
creating patterns than fabricating each mold and core separately.
2.6 Application for complexity calculation
Based on the data accumulated, creation of a tool which would estimate the
complexity factor, build times and associated costs would greatly serve the
purpose of automating all the calculations shown above.
Since Microsoft Excel has been used to store the data generated from the
methodologies discussed above, a tool built inside Excel is a logical choice.
Hence, Visual Basic Applications (VBA) has been used to create a user interface
which can be used to enter the inputs line by line and subsequently generate the
complexity factors.
The following are the features that have been identified as initial inputs for the
tool:
 Part Name
 Part Volume
 Surface Area
 Number of Cores
 Volume of All Cores
50
 Minimum thickness of the part
 Maximum thickness of the part
 Length
 Width
 Height
The user interface is created in VBA using textboxes and data fields. Three action
buttons (“OK”, “Clear” and “Cancel”) are provided for control as shown in the
figure below.
Figure 10: Complexity Calculator User Interface
In Figure 11, the highlighted portion is a click button titled “Complexity Calculator”. This button
acts as a macro and upon clicking; it connects to the user interface show in Figure 10.
51
Figure 11: Macro Button for Complexity Calculator
Once the values have been entered and the user presses the OK button (as shown
in figure 12), the complexity number is calculated in the excel sheet and
displayed in the far right column (shown in Figure 13).
52
Figure 12: Example Calculation for Train Air Brake with 8 Cores
Figure 13: Final Output in MS-Excel
53
Chapter 3 Results, Analysis and Discussion
Based on the formulas and equations defined in Chapter 2, the various costs and
times are calculated for the sub-cases in each case study.
To understand the variation of costs with respect to complexity, the production
cost per part with respect to an increasing change in complexity factor is
analyzed for the four manufacturing methods (TM, 3DSP, 3DSPC, and FDMP).
Also, the same cost variations vs. complexity factor are analyzed based on
changing production volumes (1, 30, 100, and 1000) as well.
3.1 Tooling Costs
Table 5: Tooling Cost Comparison Between Three Estimates
Integrated
Casting Cost Online Estimated Quoted Tooling:
Estimation Tooling Cost : Tool Design +
Part Name or Number
model including Manufacture+Tool Manufacture
tool design labor Labor costs
labor
Imported No Core 3422.56 3528.3 2962.1
Imported 8 7332.55 6957.3 6931.1
Imported 8,3 7800.02 7336.3 7031.1
Case Study I
Imported 8,3,2 8951.74 8911.3 8084.1

Imported 8,3,2,5 9195.37 9393.3 8184.1
Imported 8,3,2,5,4 10095.87 10724.3 9156.1
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7 11089.42 12203.3 10309.1
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7,6 12046.75 13476.3 11381.1
Imported 8,3,2,5,4,7,6,1 12142.51 14031.3 11381.1
Comp. NO core 3677.05 4354.3 3062.1
Case Study II
Com. Cubic core 5075.41 5279.3 4215.1

Com. Cylinderical Core 5801.03 6006.9 4979.3
Orginal core 7052.17 6727.3 5549.1
54
The tooling costs estimated in Section 2.3 are now compared using a single factor
ANOVA (using excel data analysis) to determine if they are statistically
significant to each other. An alpha (α) of 0.05 is assumed.
The null hypothesis states that, there is no difference between any of the tooling
cost means is zero.
The alternative hypothesis states that, there are significant differences between
the three tooling costs.
Anova: Single Factor Table 6: Single Factor ANOVA
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Column 1 13 103682.4449 7975.572681 8684518.888
Column 2 13 108929.5 8379.192308 11680656.55
Column 3 13 93225.5 7171.192308 8495398.011
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 9833202.549 2 4916601.274 0.511071059 0.604139 3.259446
Within Groups 346326881.4 36 9620191.15
Total 356160083.9 38
The p-value obtained is 0.604 which is greater than 0.05. Hence, we fail to reject
the null hypothesis and reach a conclusion that the three tooling costs have no
significant differences between them. Therefore, the thesis is at liberty to use any
of the tooling costs calculated and for the purposes of this thesis use the industry
quote.
55
3.2 Cost Studies
3.2.1 Cost per Part vs. Complexity Factor at each production volume
The graphs below show the effect of increasing complexity on a manufacturing
method. The cost per part vs. complexity is plotted for each case study and every
graph considers a different production volume.
For a unit production volume, the 3DSP costs remain the lowest ($159.00-
$212.00) since the need for patterns is eliminated (bringing down the tooling cost
to zero). The cost per part for FDMP is in the range of $595.0 – $686.00 which is
higher than 3DSP but significantly lower than TM or 3DSPC for any value of
complexity.
Figure 14: Train Air Brake- Cost per Part vs. Complexity at Q=1
56
For low production volumes (30+), two break-even points can be observed. The
first break-even point is between TM and 3DSP at a complexity of 58.9 and cost
per part of $206.00. Hence, below the breakeven point, the TM method is more
cost feasible and 3DSP is more feasible above it.
The second breakeven point is between 3DSPC and FDMP methods. Here we
observe a break-even point of 32.5 and $70.8. Below the break-even point it is
feasible to 3D print the patterns and beyond the breakeven point, a core printing
approach makes more economics sense.
57
For medium production volumes, the 3DSPC costs are the lowest compared to
any other method for any level of complexity. This can be attributed to the low
cost of 3D sand printing of cores. The highest cost per part is for a 3DSP process
and can be attributed to the cost per part of 3d sand printing.
For high production volumes (1000+), the 3DSPC method is the most feasible
beyond a complexity of 19.4 and cost of $44.00. The cost curves for TM and
FDMP almost intersect since both have a tooling cost associated with them and
these tooling costs becoming negligible for high production volumes.
58
As in case study 1, a similar set of trends can be observed for case study 2.
For a unit production volume, the 3DSP costs remain the lowest ($127.00-
$160.00) since the need for patterns is eliminated (bringing down the tooling cost
to zero). The cost per part for FDMP is in the range of $543.0 – $605.00 which is
higher than 3DSP but significantly lower than TM or 3DSPC for any value of
complexity.
59
Figure 18: Turbocharger- Cost per Part vs. Complexity at Q=1
For low production volumes (30+), again two break-even points can be
observed. The first break-even point is at (55.4, $161.00), above which a 3DSP
process is more feasible.
The second breakeven point (52, $72.00), is between 3DSPC and FDMP methods.
Below the break-even point it is feasible to 3D print the cores and beyond the
breakeven point, a 3D printed pattern making approach makes more economics
sense.
60
For medium production volumes, break even points are observed at [19.7,
$36.60] and [44.6, $48.5]. The first breakeven point suggests that for parts with
complexity below 19.7, the TM process would be cost economical. The second
breakeven point suggests that beyond a complexity value of 44, a 3DSPC method
will yield more cost benefits.
61
For high production volumes (1000+), the TM and FDMP curves intersect
showing that the cost for these two processes are essentially equal at high
production volumes. A breakeven point is also observed at [44, $38.00] between
FDMP and 3DSPC. Interestingly below the breakeven point, the cost per part for
TM, FDMP and 3DSPC are almost equal. Hence beyond this breakeven point, a
3DSPC method is cost feasible.
62
3.3 Time Studies
3.3.1 Lead Time to Manufacture vs. Manufacturing Method
The lead time to manufacture the two case studies is defined from the creation of
the pattern and core-box (if required) to the final mold and core-assembly. These
lead times also include the pre and post processing times required for removing
and cleaning the molds and cores.
Figure 25 shows that for unit volume production, 3DSP provides the fastest lead
times (less than 2 days) up to a breakeven point of [65.6, 2.37 days] after which
an FDMP based approach would provide faster lead times. The TM method has
63
the longest lead times for any sub-case at any level of complexity. This is entirely
attributed to the time taken to design tooling for the molds and cores.
Figure 22: Train Air Brake- Lead Time vs. Complexity at Q=1
For small production volume (30+), 3DSP takes the longest lead time (15 days
for the lowest complexity and 90 days for the highest complex part). A breakeven
point is observed at [40, 12 days] beyond which the FDMP method provides
faster lead times.
64
For medium to high production volumes (100+), the TM method has the fastest
lead times since the binder jetting technology have a limited build volume and
speed. It is also observed that FDMP and TM have comparable lead times and as
the complexity increases the gap between their lead times reduces. Also the
breakevenpoint between 3DSPC and FDMP [27, 38.30 days] shows that, beyond a
complexity of 27, FDMP is capable of achieving faster lead times when compared
to 3DSP or 3DSPC.
65
Again, similar trends are noticed for case study 2.
For unit production volumes, 3DSP provides the fastest lead times regardless of
complexity. The TM method has the longest lead times beyond the breakeven
point [27.64 and 4.3 days].
66
Figure 25: Turbocharger- Lead Time vs. Complexity at Q=1
For small production volume (30+), the time curves for 3DSP and 3DSPC are
around 10-12 days apart. This means both the methods have lead times that are
close to each other. A breakeven point is observed at [32, 12.5 days], between
FDMP and 3DSP, beyond which the FDMP method provides faster lead times.
The TM method has the fastest lead times beyond the breakeven point [22.5, 6
days] between TM and 3DSP.
67
For medium to high production volumes (100+), again the TM method has the
fastest lead times among all four processes. However unlike the previous case
study, here it is observed that FDMP and TM have a large difference between
their lead times. Also the breakevenpoint between 3DSPC and FDMP [34, 37.60
days] shows that, beyond a complexity of 34, FDMP is capable of achieving faster
lead times when compared to 3DSP or 3DSPC.
68
69
Chapter 4 Conclusions and future work
The purpose of this thesis was to examine the adoption of a 3D sand printing
system or an FDM system at various stages of the sand casting process on the
costs and times of the two case studies. This was done by adopting an FDM
printer (Fortus 900) at the pattern-making stage creating a method defined as
FDMP (Fused Deposition Modeling of Patterns). Secondly, a 3D sand printer has
been adopted at the mold and core-making stage by the use of a 3D sand printer
(ExOne S-max). This is defined as the 3DSP (3D Sand Printing) method. Thirdly,
a 3D sand printer has been adapted only at the core-making stage, which has
been defined as the 3DSPC (3D Sand Printed Cores) method. The cost per part
vs. complexity graphs were generated for each method and compared on the
basis of production volume.
Among the major cost components presented in this thesis, the most significant
one has been the tooling costs. Foundries have mostly provided tooling cost
estimates based on their foundry experience or historical data. This is a
disadvantage for a customer who requires a low production volume of castings.
This problem has now been overcome by the use of a casting cost estimation
model described in Section 2.3.3 and has been proven to be significantly accurate
based on a Single Factor ANOVA.
70
In both case studies, it is observed that for a unit production volume the 3DSP
method is the most cost feasible option and also provides the fastest lead times
for any level of complexity. In other words, 3D sand printing the molds and
cores is economical both cost-wise and time-wise. The FDMP method is second
to 3DSP for parts with low complexity, but beyond a complexity factor of 66 for
case study 1 it is observed to provide faster lead times.
For short production runs of 10 to 30, the FDMP method has the least cost per
part for a large range of complexities. This implies that, printing the patterns on
an FDM printer is economically feasible for low volume production. But for case
study 1 (train air brake), the graphs for lead times show that FDMP is faster for
complexities beyond 40. Hence, if the requirement is a set of 10 train air brake
castings and the complexity factor is above 40, it is recommended to opt for an
FDMP method.
For medium production volumes (100+), 3DSP is clearly neither time nor cost
effective for both case studies. It is also noticed that the TM method is the most
time-effective but definitely not cost effective at higher complexities when
compared to 3DSPC and FDMP. Therefore, if time is of critical importance then
the TM method should be the preferred method for casting parts.
For large production volumes (1000+), both the case studies clearly agree on TM
method providing the fastest lead times. For case study 1, 3DSPC method has the
71
lowest cost per part beyond a complexity factor of 20 but has a larger lead time in
comparison to TM.
Hence, it is observed that based on the requirement of the manufacturer, a
specific method of manufacturing can be recommended to the manufacturer
based on the complexity of the final part and also its production volume.
The app for calculating complexity can be further expanded to include
generation of tooling cost using the casting cost estimation method and also the
final mold and core making costs for any method of mixed manufacturing.
Furthermore, the same app can be used as a decision making tools by
manufacturers with limited knowledge of 3D printing processes.
There are other 3D sand printers available in the market supplied by Voxeljet
and Viridis3D which supposedly offer faster build rates with more versatile
materials. The cost and time economics of using these printers can be a possible
avenue for exploration.
In Section 1.5.2, the idea of calculating complexity for every layer of a spliced 3D
object has been discussed. This algorithm can be potentially applied to study the
energy consumption of various 3D sand printers at each layer.
It is also known that FDM based parts have a significant distortion which may
alter the dimensions of the sand molds and cores. The effect of this pattern
distortion on the final casting is definitely worth looking at.
72
This study also assumes that 3D sand printing provides an equal surface fi nish
when compared to traditional mold and core making processes. Therefore,
testing the physical and mechanical properties could provide additional decision
making criteria for choosing a manufacturing method.
73
References
1. “2016 U.S. Forecast: Small Gains in Short-Term”, Metalcasting Design and
Purchasing. Web.
http://www.afsinc.org/multimedia/contentMCDP.cfm?ItemNumber=18
577. Accessed 24 Nov 2016
2. Wohlers, T., Wohlers Report, 2016. State of the industry, annual
worldwide progress report – Wohlers Associates, Inc., pp. 171
3. “49th Census of World Casting Production” Modern Casting, December
2015
4. American Foundrymen’s Association, Introduction, Cast Metals
Handbook (1944), p. 3
5. R. Heine, C. Loper, P. Rosethal, Introduction, Principals of metal casting, 5th
ed. (McGraw Hill,1967)
6. Stoll, H.W, and J.G Conley. "Tool Design and Construction for Sand
Casting." Rapid Tooling Guidelines for Sand Casting. By W. Wang. N.p.:
Springer Science Business Media, LLC, 2010. 20-36. Print.
7. Rapid Tooling Design, Fundamentals of Tool Design Study Guide,
DV08PUB3 – 5, www.sme.org
8. Rapid tooling route selection and evaluation for sand and investment
casting, Virtual and Physical Prototyping 2(4):197-207 · December 2007
74
9. Mechanical Engineers, Occupational Outlook Handbook. Web.
http://www.bls.gov/ooh/architecture-and-engineering/mechanical-
engineers.htm. Accessed 24 Nov 2016
10. Tool and Die makers, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2015.
Web. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes514111.htm. Accessed 24
Nov 2016
11. Alena, Marianna, Dana. Quality Control in Foundry – Analysis of Casting
Defects. (2013) 122-143
12. Gibson I, Rosen DW, Stucker B (2015) Additive manufacturing
technologies. Springer, New York. P.1
13. ASTM F2792-12a, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing
Technologies, (Withdrawn 2015), ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2012, www.astm.org
14. ISO / ASTM52900-15, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing
– General Principles – Terminology, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2015, www.astm.org
15. Hedges, Martin, and Neil Calder. 2006. Near Net Shape Rapid
Manufacture & Repair by LENS. Edited by Neotech Services.
16. Bílek, O., Rokyta, L. (2011) Rapid Prototyping in Casting Technology:
Case Study. Annals & Proceedings of 22nd DAAAM World Symposiums.
ISBN 978-3-901509-83-4. (In press).
75
17. Harry Jansen. Creating Casting Patterns Utilizing 3D CAD Data, Z-Corp
510 3D Printer and xlaFORM Resin Infiltration. Systrand Manufacturing
Corporation. August 29, 2008
18. T. Fresques, D. Cantrell, I. Fidan. The development of a framework
between the 3D printed patterns and sand-cast work pieces. International
Journal of Rapid Manufacturing 2015 5:2, 170-185
19. Sand Casting with PolyJet and FDM Patterns. Web.
http://www.stratasys.com/solutions/additive-
manufacturing/tooling/sand-casting. Accessed 24 Nov 2015
20. Case New Holland Uses Duraform and CasForm Materials for Casting.
Web.
https://www.3dsystems.com/sites/www.3dsystems.com/files/case_ne
w_holland_-_01-07-14.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2015
21. P. R. Beely, Foundry Technology. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2001.
22. Gibson I, Rosen DW, Stucker B (2015). Binde Jetting, Additive
manufacturing technologies. Springer, New York. P.205
23. Sachs EM, Cima MJ, Williams P, Brancazio D, Corie J (1992) Three-
dimensional printing: rapid tooling and prototypes directly from a CAD
model. J Eng Ind 114:481-488
24. Materials, 3D systems. Web.
https://www.3dsystems.com/materials/production .Accessed 24 Nov
2015
76
25. Materials for 3D Printers, VoxelJet. Web.
http://www.voxeljet.de/en/systems/material .Accessed 24 Nov 2015
26. Industry Grade Materials, ExOne. Web.
http://www.exone.com/Resources/Materials .Accessed 24 Nov 2015
27. Almaghariz, E.S., Conner, B.P., Lenner, L. et al. Inter Metalcast (2016) 10:
240. doi:10.1007/s40962-016-0027-5
28. Core Injection vs. 3D Core Printing. ExOne. Web.
http://www.exone.com/About-ExOne/News/View/ArticleId/52/Core-
Injection-vs-3D-core-printing. Accessed 24 Nov 2015
29. Josh, Durgesh, and Bhallamudi Ravi. "Quantifying the Shape Complexity
of Cast Parts." Computer-Aided Design and Applications 7.5 (2010 CAD
Solutions, LLC): 685-700. Print
30. Nagahanumaiah; Ravi B.; Mukherjee, N. P. “An integrated framework for
die and mold cost estimation using design features and tooling
parameters”. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 26, 2005, 1138-1149
31. Baumers, Martin. “Economic Aspects of Additive Manufacturing:
Benefits, Costs, and Energy Consumption.” 2012. Doctoral Thesis.
Loughborough University
32. Hague, R., Campbell, I., and Dickens, P., 2003. “Implications on design of
rapid manufacturing”. Proceedings of IMechE Part C: Journal of
Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 217, No. C1, 25-30
77
33. Ruffo, M., Tuck, C., and Hague, R., 2006b. “Cost estimation for rapid
manufacturing – laser sintering production for low to medium volumes”.
Proceedings of IMech E Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 220
(9), 1417-1427
34. Psarra, S., and Grajewski, T., 2001.” Describing Shape and Shape
Complexity Using Local Properties”. Proceedings, 3rd International Space
Syntax Symposium 2001. Atlanta, USA
35. Accelerated adoption of AMtech in American Foundry Industry, tech
volume:1-25 print
36. “Cost Estimator." Custompart.Net. Web.
http://www.custompartnet.com/estimate/sand-casting/
37. Chougule R.G., Ravi B., Dec 2005. “ Casting cost estimation in an integrated
product and process design environment”. International Journal of
Computer Integrated Manufacturing.
78

A Study of Mixed Manufacturing Methods in Sand Casting Using 3D Sand Printing and FDM Pattern-Making Based On Cost and Time

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of Mixed Manufacturing Methods in Sand Casting Using 3D Sand Printing and FDM Pattern-Making Based On Cost and Time

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of Mixed Manufacturing Methods in Sand Casting Using 3D Sand Printing and FDM Pattern-Making Based On Cost and Time

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of Mixed Manufacturing Methods in Sand

Casting Using 3D Sand Printing and FDM Pattern-making

Based on Cost and Time

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

Youngstown State University

3D Sand Printing and FDM Pattern-Making Based on Cost and

Ram A. Gullapalli, Student Date

Dr. Brett Conner, Thesis Advisor Date

Dr. Darrell Wallace, Committee Member Date

Dr. Eric MacDonald, Committee Member Date

Dr. Sal Sanders, Dean of Graduate Studies Date

Sand casting has long been known to be an effective manufacturing method

production volume. But, for increasing complexity, the conventional sand

manufacturing (AM), these limitations can be overcome by the use of a 3D

sand printer which offers the unique advantage of geometric freedom.

of research presented in this thesis introduces the idea of additive

manufacturing at different stages of the sand casting process and investigates

foundries and manufacturers to integrate the use of AM machines more

tooling cost estimation using a casting cost model that is significantly

accurate to industry standard quotes. Based on these considerations, this

making level by “mixing” traditional mold-making process and 3D sand

traditional methods. An initial hypothesis is created which states that, for a

given production volume, with increased complexity of the casting,

additively manufacturing only the cores and conventionally manufacturing

the molds is cost-feasible when compared to traditional manufacturing or 3D

methodology provided can help determine a specific mixed manufacturing

method for the manufacturer.

research. Coming from a background with limited experience in manufacturing,

whose inputs have proved valuable to improving my thesis.

Youngstown State University for funding my research and inspiring me to

continue my journey in Additive Manufacturing.

Humtown Products and their Sales Manager Brandon Lamoncha deserve a

separate mention. Brandon’s inputs and suggestions have provided me with an

in-depth perspective on the costs associated with tooling manufacturing. Also,

me. And finally I am extremely grateful to my parents Jyothi Gullapalli and

even when I doubted my own capabilities. Their words of advice and

encouragement have empowered me to constantly improve myself.

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................vii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................... viii

Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Metal casting ........................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Sand Casting ........................................................................................................... 3

1.2.1 Process components ........................................................................................ 3

1.2.2 Tooling costs ..................................................................................................... 8

1.2.3 Reworking costs ............................................................................................. 11

1.3 Additive Manufacturing ..................................................................................... 12

1.3.1 Additive manufacturing for pattern making: FDM Pattern-making ..... 15

1.4.1 Traditional Manufacturing (TM) ................................................................. 21

1.4.2 3D Sand Printing of molds and cores (3DSP) ............................................ 21

1.4.3 3D Sand Printed Cores (3DSPC) .................................................................. 21

1.5 Complexity Measurement for CAD models..................................................... 23

1.5.1 Shape complexity estimation for cast parts ............................................... 23

1.5.2 Shape complexity estimation using layer-by-layer technique ................ 27

1.6 Research Objectives.............................................................................................. 29

1.6.1 Rationale for the study .................................................................................. 29

1.6.2 Hypothesis ...................................................................................................... 30

1.6.3 Analysis Goals ................................................................................................ 32