![]()
Two broad categories of rapid tooling
(RT) exist. One category involves indirect
approaches that use RP master patterns to produce a mold and the other
category is a direct approach,
where the RP machine builds the actual core and cavity mold inserts. The demand for faster and less
expensive tooling solutions has resulted in an impressive number of RT
methods being developed worldwide. Many companies are pursuing the
development and commercialization of RT because of its market potential.
Each of the processes comes with a set of strengths countered by
limitations. Typically, this results in solutions that cater to niche
applications. Yet, because of their possible impact, these developments
are causing a flurry of inquiries from companies in the Americas, Europe,
Asia and other developed regions. Meanwhile, countless manufacturing
companies are working hard to determine if the time is right to phase in
one of these approaches.
Several pattern-based processes have
been developed for creating a mold rapidly, with varying costs, leadtimes
and process capabilities. The accuracy of these processes depends in part
on the accuracy of the RP process used to create the pattern.
One of the most popular tooling
applications for RP is the production of room temperature vulcanizing
(RTV) silicone rubber molds. Silicone is a versatile material (although
somewhat expensive) that can be molded around a master pattern to produce
a cavity. With the advent of rapid prototyping techniques, master patterns
are often an RP model. Silicone rubber molds are used to produce urethane
or epoxy prototypes. The process of making a rubber mold
consists of making a master pattern, finishing the pattern to the desired
appearance and casting RTV silicone rubber around the pattern to form the
mold. Using the transparent material the model is suspended within a box
and silicone rubber is poured to fully surround the model. After the
silicone rubber has solidified, the parting line is cut with a scalpel and
the model removed, leaving the required cavity. It is then possible to mold two-part
thermoset materials within the cavity. One of the most popular is
polyurethane, which is available in a variety of mechanical properties and
can mimic the mechanical and thermal properties of elastomers, ABS, nylon
and other popular thermoplastics. Polyurethane is usually poured into the
silicone rubber cavity under vacuum to avoid air bubbles in the molded
component. The silicone rubber tool will generally produce about 20
polyurethane parts before it begins to deteriorate. This will depend on
the amount of detail in the tool and the type of polyurethane being
molded. Flexible polyurethanes require longer post cure times within the
mold, which is placed in the oven at 149° F (65° C).
This prolonged contact dries out the surface of the silicone rubber and
renders it more brittle. Once this occurs, fine detail on the inner
surface of the mold starts to break off and subsequent molded parts
reflect this loss. Silicone rubber tooling provides fast,
inexpensive molds, excellent part cosmetics, and the option of using
multiple materials. The process is suitable for small or large parts. The
primary weakness of the process is that the properties of the urethane
materials are different from those of the thermoplastic materials used in
production. Due to material cost and labor demands, individual part prices
are relatively high. Even with its limitations, silicone
rubber tooling can be used as a production process. Bastech (Dayton, Oh)
currently uses silicone rubber tooling to make an instrument case that has
high cosmetic requirements, including texture, but very little strength
requirements. In this project, the customer required only 100 parts per
year. Measuring 350 x 300 x 20 mm (14 x 12 x 2 inches), the case would
have required a significant investment in hard tooling.
Plastic parts are vacuum cast by
placing a silicone tool in a vacuum chamber with a polyurethane resin. The
two-part resin is mixed and de-gassed before being poured into the
silicone cavity. After pouring, the vacuum is released and the tool is
removed to a post-curing oven for up to two hours depending on tool size.
Following an exothermic reaction of the two-part resin, the cavity is
opened and a polyurethane part removed. The silicone cavity is then closed
and the process repeated.
Unlike vacuum casting, the Reaction
Injection Molding (RIM) process does not rely on expensive vacuum chambers
and mixing units. The process uses a simple resin injection system with
two pressurized chambers. Using an injection nozzle, a silicone tool is
filled at atmospheric pressure until excess resin is driven up through a
series of riser holes. The cure reaction time is much shorter than in
vacuum casting. There is no thermal cycling and the contact time between
the resin and silicone rubber is much shorter; therefore, the tools can
last for up to 100 shots.
In addition to two-part resin molding,
silicone cavities also are suitable for low-pressure injection molding of
waxes for investment casting. Using a low pressure, injection system,
semi-molten wax is forced into the silicone cavity until full. The cavity
is then chilled until the wax has fully solidified. The wax is then
removed from the cavity and the process repeated. However, due to the
fragility of the investment casting wax material, extreme care must be
exercised when removing wax parts from the silicone tool. The advantages of RTV silicone rubber
tooling is that it is quick to produce, reproduces detail impressively
well and it's fast for producing a limited number of plastic parts.
Disadvantages are poor tool life, cost of silicone rubber and lengthy
cycle time. Also, it does not use the final production material (except
for wax) or final manufacturing process.
An interesting application of silicone
rubber as a mold material is available from a company named Technicast
Moulds Ltd. (Watford, Herts, England). The tools used in this process are
made from vulcanized rubber with several models located in a radial
fashion in a disc-shaped tool. This process makes it possible to cast
polyurethane or zinc-based alloys. To aid in the filling of the cavity,
the tool is rotated so that the centrifugal force pressurizes the cavity. This is an ideal process for forming
small zinc castings that will ultimately be produced by die-casting. If
handled carefully, spin-cast tools can produce in excess of 100 replicated
parts before degradation of the tool. Parts also are produced in a range
of low melting point alloys. The advantages of spin-casting include
the option of processing a variety of materials that range from
polyurethanes to zinc; the process is relatively quick and the equipment
is relatively inexpensive. Disadvantages include size limitations, the
fact that it is not a production process and the mechanical properties of
the zinc castings are not the same as with die-casting.
This is one of the simplest and most
economical methods of producing a tool for the injection molding of
thermoplastic parts. It consists of mounting a pattern within a mold box,
setting up a parting line, and then painting and later pouring resin over
the pattern until there is sufficient material to form one half of the
tool. After completing the first half, the process is repeated for the
other half of the tool. There are many tooling resins available with
different mechanical and thermal characteristics – with epoxy being one
of the most popular. The resins are often loaded with aluminum powder or
pellets to improve the thermal conductivity and compression strength of
the tool and to reduce the cost of the resin. Cast resin tools are usually
used for 100 to 200 molded parts, although it's possible to get up to
1,000 parts – depending on the material being molded. The advantages of this process are that
it's fast, relatively simple, and can be used to mold common
thermoplastics such as polypropylene and ABS. A disadvantage is the low
mechanical strength of the molds, especially when the mold includes small
thin features. For this reason, this method of rapid tooling is only
suitable for relatively simple shapes. Also, the low thermal conductivity
of the mold material lengthens the molding cycles times.
Metal spraying is used for the
production of soft tooling. It involves spraying a thin shell of about
0.080 inch (2 mm) in thickness over a pattern and backing this with epoxy
resin to give it rigidity. Several metal spraying techniques are
available. With most RP techniques, the models produced have a low glass
transition temperature (i.e., the temperature where the material starts to
change to a soft amorphous structure). Therefore, it is important to keep
the pattern temperature as low as possible when spraying. If the
temperature of the model increases sufficiently it will start to relax and
distort, which results in an inaccurate tool. The most popular techniques for use
with RP models are spraying low melting point alloys (lead- /tin-based)
with a gun similar to a paint sprayer and metal deposition with an arc
system. The arc system feeds two wires into a gun and an electric arc is
struck between them. This causes the wire material to melt and then a
compressed gas atomizes and sprays it onto the pattern. The higher the
melting point of the wire material, the more difficult it is to keep the
pattern cool. Therefore, it is common to spray zinc or aluminum based
alloys directly onto RP models. It also is possible to spray higher
melting point materials onto RP models, but it is necessary to be a little
devious. One technique is to apply a metallic coating by using electroless
plating or physical vapor deposition. Once there is a metallic coating on
the model, heat will be transmitted more readily across its surface. One problem associated with metal
spraying is that it produces shells with high internal stresses. It is
possible to counteract these by simultaneously shot-peening the sprayed
shell. Steel shot fired at the shell during spraying induces compressive
stresses that counteract the tensile stresses. Metal spraying is typically used on
models that have large gently curved surfaces and is indeed most suited to
this type of geometry. It is very difficult to spray into narrow slots or
small diameter holes. When
these types of features are included on the model, it is common to make
brass inserts, locate them in the model and spray around them. When the
model is removed from the shell, the inserts are permanently fixed into
the shell. These inserts also are stronger than the shell material, which
is weak and breaks easily if formed as a tall, thin feature. Spray metal tools can produce more than
1,000 parts depending on the process, material being formed and the amount
of tender loving care given to the tool. Clamping and injection pressures
for metal-sprayed injection tools are usually less than those for steel or
aluminum tools and may affect the mechanical properties of the
injection-molded part. And because the shell is very thin and generally
backed up with an epoxy-based resin, the thermal conductivity of a
metal-sprayed tool is less than that of an aluminum or steel tool. This
also will affect the mechanical properties of the injection-molded
components and will increase cycle time. Some plastics are much more
corrosive and abrasive on tool faces. This can be partially overcome by a
variety of techniques, such as plating the tool surface with nickel or
chrome, or using aluminum or steel inserts. Spray metal tools have been used in
many applications including sheet metal forming, injection molding,
compression molding, blow molding and pre-preg sheet lay up. Various
plastics have been molded including polypropylene, ABS, polystyrene and
difficult process materials such as reinforced nylon and polycarbonate. The main advantage of spray metal
tooling is that you can produce large tools quickly. The main disadvantage
is that it may be difficult or impossible to spray into narrow slots or
deep holds – meaning that the part geometry must be relatively simple.
Molds are not particularly strong and the process requires special
equipment and special operating environment.
The Sprayform sprayed steel process is
similar in method to traditional sprayed metal tooling, in that atomized
material is deposited using a spray gun. However, the main difference is
in the mechanization of the process, as multiple spray heads are involved.
The process produces much harder tools and is therefore a much more useful
process than traditional sprayed metal tooling The Ford Motor Company (Dearborn,
Michigan) has purchased the technology behind the sprayed steel process,
which was developed by Sprayform Holdings Ltd. of the UK. Currently, Ford
is licensing the process to other companies. The primary advantage of the Sprayform
process is that it works well for large tools, especially as sheet metal
stamping dies. It offers a high deposition rate and is less expensive
compared to conventionally machined steel tooling. The cost of the
equipment and the licensing fees, as well as the limitation of spraying
into holes and slots are disadvantages.
Another steel spray process is
currently in development at Idaho National Environmental and Engineering
Lab (INEEL) called Rapid Solidification Process (RSP). It differs from
other sprayed metal processes in that it can deposit hundreds of pounds of
material per hour, while the conventional wire-feed systems deposit
approximately 15.4 lbs. (7 kg) per hour. This means that, potentially, the
RSP process could be used to build the entire tool as opposed to a thin
shell that requires back filling. Global Metal Technologies, Inc. (Solon,
Ohio) has entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA)
with INEEL (Idaho Falls, Idaho) and intends to use RSP tooling in its
production facility. The company claims that RSP tooling lasts 20 percent
longer than conventional dies and can lower tooling costs by 20 percent. INEEL has been successful in spraying
H13 and P20 tool steels onto a ceramic take-off of an RP master pattern. A
limitation at present is the size limitation of about six inches (150 mm).
Plaster mold casting is a prototype
manufacturing process for simulated die-castings. Although there are
several variations of this process, it usually begins with a master shape
of the die-casting. It is not absolutely necessary to include draft in the
walls at this stage, but it can help. A silicone rubber reversal is then
molded over the master. A second silicone rubber is molded into the first.
This provides a silicone rubber positive of the original model. Plaster is
molded around the second silicone rubber positive to provide a plaster
cavity. Metal is poured into the plaster cavity. After solidification of
the metal, the plaster is broken away. The rubber version of the master is
required so that it can easily be withdrawn from the plaster mold. It is
also possible to mold epoxy off of the master and pour plaster over this.
The epoxy molds will have a greater life than those made from rubber. Typical leadtimes from the manufacture
of the master model to manufacture of 10 castings is about 8 days, and two
weeks to produce 30 to 50 castings. However, three to four weeks is a more
typical delivery time. The cost of prototyping with this process is about
two to five percent of the cost of a production die, so it is considered
to be a good insurance. The advantages of the process are low
mold cost and good surface detail. Also, it's possible to produce
reasonably large parts with this process. One disadvantages is lower
cooling rates, which means poorer mechanical properties. This can lead to
parts with a yield strength that is 20 percent lower than conventional
die-casting. Another disadvantage is that you must produce a new mold for
each casting. And finally, slightly different alloys are used for plaster
casting compared to die-casting
Electroforming involves electroplating
a thick shell (several millimeters thick) onto a master pattern. Before
plating can commence, the surface must be made electrically conductive. A
simple technique to achieve this is to spray a conductive lacquer onto the
model. After plating, the shell is removed and then backed with a suitable
material. This is a technique used to produce
tools for shoe soles with complicated patterns from original wax models.
Nickel is a common material for electroforming and has good thermal
conductivity and strength. The process gives faithful reproductions of the
master, but can be limited when plating into deep narrow slots or holes.
Electroplating builds up more material on exterior corners and narrow
slots can be closed at the top before they have plated enough at the
bottom. This can be partially overcome by reducing the current, but this
increases the time to produce the shell. Express Tool (Warwick, Rhode Island) is
developing an electroforming process that it plans to commercialize. The
company typically produces the patterns by machining graphite. This
material is an excellent conductor and it machines many times faster than
aluminum. Another benefit to using graphite is that it serves as a natural
release due to its lubricant properties – making it easier to separate
it from the nickel shell. An advantage of electroforming is that
it is very good at the reproduction of detail. Disadvantages are that the
process is not particularly fast and it's not possible to do deep slots or
holes.
For higher production volumes and more
aggressive polymers, it is critical that the tool material has a high
degree of mechanical hardness. Using molten metal casting techniques, it
is possible to cast around an accurate pattern with either aluminum- or
zinc-based alloys with a two-week leadtime. Given the casting temperature of both
aluminum and zinc it is important to replicate the initial pattern into a
material capable of withstanding such heat. Using silicone tooling, as
detailed earlier, a cavity is produced around the model. However, rather
than a resin copy being made, the silicone cavity is then filled with
ceramic. After drying, the ceramic facsimile is placed into a bolster and
covered with the molten metal. Cast aluminum and zinc kirksite tooling
offer a simple and low-cost method of tooling. Disadvantages include a
distortion of tools, accuracy problems due to shrinking, and geometry
limitations (i.e., no fine features).
Some companies have used investment
casting with RP models to produce metal tooling. Most of the tools cast so
far have been in aluminum, but there are some examples of tool steel
molds. If a steel or hardened alloy cavity is required, either for
mechanical strength and thermal cycling or due to high-volume production,
investment cast tooling can offer an alternative to open cast tools, such
as the kirksite process. By making a sacrificial RP model of the desired
cavity, the lost wax process can be used to replicate the part in a metal.
The RP pattern is first invested in
multiple layers of ceramic slurry, which are allowed to dry between coats.
After the shell has dried, the ceramic shell and invested part are fired.
The firing process sinters the ceramic shell and causes the invested model
to be burned out. After firing, any ash residue is washed from the ceramic
shell. The molten alloy of the tool material is then poured through a
gating system into the void left by the RP pattern. After solidification
and cooling, the ceramic shell is fractured and the newly formed metal
cavity is removed and post-process machined. Investment cast tools have been used
for injection mold cavities and die casting tools. However, due to the
unpredictable contraction of the casting process, it is difficult to
maintain a high level of accuracy with this tooling process. An advantage to the process is that you
can get better detail than with cast aluminum or kirksite tooling.
Distortion, limited accuracy and the need for finish machining are
disadvantages.
The 3D Keltool process typically starts
with a CAD design of the core and cavity mold inserts, followed by the
creation of the core and cavity patterns with stereolithography or some
other RP process. Once these core and cavity patterns have been finished
to the desired surface, silicone rubber is cast against them to create
molds into which a mixture of metal powder and binder is poured, packed
and cured. The metal mixture consists of finely powdered A6 tool steel and
even finer particles of tungsten carbide. At this point, the cast core and
cavity inserts exist in a green state. These green inserts are fired in a hydrogen-reduction
furnace to burn away the binder, sinter the metal particles and infiltrate
copper into the inserts. This produces solid metal inserts that are
approximately 70 percent steel and 30 percent copper with physical
properties similar to that of P20 tool steel. The inserts are
finish-machined, drilled for ejector pins and fitted into mold bases. The tools from this process show very
good definition and surface finish. Lead-time is typically shorter than
conventionally produced tooling. The primary disadvantage is size
limitation. The maximum size of a mold insert is 150 x 215 x 100 mm (5.9 x
8.5 x 4 inches). The length in the z-direction
can extend to 145 mm (5.75 inches) when the x
and/or y dimensions are shorter.
Some toolmakers have press fit two or more inserts side-by-side – in a
mold base – to create larger tools.
All of the previous methods of rapid
tooling involve the indirect production of a master pattern from which the
tool is produced. One of the concerns of producing a tool is the time it
takes to produce and finish this pattern.
Also, replication techniques, such as these can lead to
inaccuracies. Ultimately, companies want to produce the tooling directly,
although most of the direct tooling methods are not without limitations. Using additive "layer
manufacturing" techniques, it is possible to include additional
features in the tool that are impossible to achieve with conventional
tooling techniques. The most significant of these is conformal cooling (or
heating) channels that allow the cooling or heating of the tool at points
where it is required – not only where the channels can be conveniently
drilled, as in conventional cooling. Investigations have shown that
conformal channels can cut injection mold cycle times by up to 40 percent.
Rather than making a master
stereolithography pattern around which a material is cast, it also is
possible to build the cavity directly on the stereolithography machine. 3D
Systems (Valencia, CA) has named this process Direct AIM. (AIM stands for
ACES Injection Molding. ACES stands for "Accurate Clear Epoxy
Solid," which is a stereolithography build style.) Although not
nearly as strong or hard as conventional tooling, it is possible to inject
a range of thermoplastics into these cavities and produce useable parts.
At present, only less abrasive and lower melting point polymers are being
molded, although research is underway to improve this application. Stereolithography tools are generally
produced with the standard commercially-available stereolithography resin.
Up to 500 parts have been molded from a single tool, although 10 to 50
parts is more typical. Research into the development of high temperature
and filled resins also is being undertaken by several organizations. The process is quick and it produces
parts using production thermoplastics. Low tool strength and the risk of
failure are disadvantages.
In the same way that a cavity can be
generated directly by stereolithography, it also is possible to build tool
cavities directly using the laser sintering process. With DTM's RapidSteel
(also referred to as RapidTool), digital models of the core and cavity
geometries are created and sent to a Sinterstation machine for fabrication
in RapidSteel powder. This material consists of particles of mild
stainless steel that are coated with a thin layer of a polymer binder
material. The Sinterstation produces green parts that are then fired in a
furnace. The furnace removes the polymer binder and infiltrates bronze
into the mold inserts through capillary action. This process produces a
fully dense tool that consists of about 60 percent steel and 40 percent
bronze. The inserts are then finished, drilled for ejector pins, and fit
to a mold base. The process produces a durable mold
that can be used for injection-mold tooling, as well as die-casting
applications. RapidSteel molds have been used to cast hundreds of
aluminum, zinc and magnesium parts. The process allows for complex
geometries and RapidSteel molds can withstand the conditions of injection
molding. However, RapidSteel requires finish machining and polishing that
can be time consuming The advantages are speed, good tool
strength and its use for injection molding and die-casting. Disadvantages
are equipment cost and size limitations.
The Copper Polyamide tooling process
from DTM (Austin, Texas) involves the selective laser sintering of a
copper and polyamide powder matrix to form a tool. All of the sintering is
between the polyamide powder particles. The process boasts an increase in tool
toughness and heat transfer over some of the other soft tooling methods.
These characteristics are provided by the copper and can give the user the
benefits of running a tool with pressure and temperature settings that are
closer to production settings. The primary disadvantage is the low
material strength.
Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS)
from EOS involves the direct processing of metal powders in a laser
sintering machine. Typically, the machine is used for the production of
tool inserts, but it also is possible to produce metal components. Two
materials are available for the DMLS process: 1) bronze-based materials,
which are used for injection molding of up to 1,000 parts in a variety of
materials, and 2) steel-based material, which is useful for up to 100,000
plastic injection molded parts. This process was used to produce
injection mold tooling for a Germany appliance manufacturer. Seven mold
inserts were produced in 20 hours using the bronze-based material. Several
thousands molded parts were produced in 30 percent glass-filled polyamide.
The tool took two weeks to produce compared to 10 weeks for a machined
tool and cost about $6,800 compared to $8,200 for the machined tool. DMLS offers good feature definition,
although the surface definition of the steel-based powder needs improving.
Also, the steel material builds slowly.
Laminated tooling is an alternative to
building cavities directly on an RP machine. Using the similar principles
to the Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM) process, layers of sheet metal
are cut to replicate slices through a CAD model. Laser cutting or water
jet technologies generally produce the profiles. To produce a mold tool, the CAD model
must take the form of the required cavity. By cutting all of the slices of
the cavity in sheet metal, a stack of laminates can be made to replicate
the original CAD model. Using either clamping or diffusion bonding, it is
possible to create a pseudo-solid cavity in hardened tool steel without
the need for complex post process cutter path planning. Due to the use of
relatively thick laminates – typically
0.040 inch (1 mm) – the surface finish of the tools is generally
poor; therefore, some form of finish machining is generally required. Laminated tools have been used
successfully for a variety of techniques including press tools, blow
molding, injection molding and thermal forming. Research also is being
performed into the use of laminate tools in pressure die-casting. Tool
life is a function of the initial sheet material, which can be hardened
after cutting and lamination. However, part complexity is bounded by layer
thickness. One significant advantage of laminated
tooling is the ability to change the design of parts quickly by the
replacement of laminates (if un-bonded). Conformal cooling channels also
are easily incorporated within the tool design and laminated tooling is
good for large tools as well. The need for finish machining to remove the
stair steps is the main disadvantage of this process.
The Laser Engineered Net Shaping (LENS)
system from Optomec (Albuquerque, New Mexico) –originally developed at
Sandia National Laboratories – builds parts using a metal powder feed
into a laser, essentially laser cladding. The LENS process injects metal
powder into a pool of molten metal created by a focused Nd:YAG laser beam.
The fabrication process occurs in a low-pressure argon chamber for
oxygen-free operation. A motion system moves a platform horizontally and
laterally as the laser beam traces the cross-section of the part being
produced. After forming a layer of the part, the machine's powder delivery
nozzle moves upward prior to building the next layer. Like other RP techniques, LENS is an
additive fabrication method – although it produces fully dense metal
parts. To date, parts have been fabricated in 316 and 304 stainless steel,
in nickel-based super-alloys such as Inconel 625, 690 and 718, H13 tool
steel, tungsten, Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy and nickel aluminides. The primary advantage is 100 percent
dense parts. The disadvantages are poor surface finish and small feature
definition.
Albrecht Röders GmbH & Co KG (Soltau,
Germany) has commercialized a process called Controlled Metal Buildup (CMB).
The basic technology was originally developed at the Fraunhofer Institute
for Production Technology – IPT (Aachen, Germany). Last year, the
company sold three systems. The process involves laser cladding and
milling that results in 100 percent dense parts. CMB deposits the material
from a steel wire and a 1-2 kW HDL laser welds the steel onto the surface
of the work piece. A high-speed cutter flattens each layer before a new
layer is deposited.
ExtrudeHone's (Irwin, Pennsylvania)
ProMetal Rapid Tooling System – named RTS-300 – is the commercial
realization of MIT’s Three Dimensional Printing (3DP) process for
manufacturing metal parts and tooling. The machine is capable of creating
steel parts up to 12
´
12
´
10
inches (300
´
300
´
250
mm) in size. ProMetal applications include tooling for plastic injection
molding, vacuum forming, blow molding, lost foam patterns and the direct
fabrication of powder metal components ExtrudeHone sold its first commercial
RTS-300 to Motorola, which was installed in early 1999. Motorola joined a
collaborative effort consisting of several industrial members, all part of
MIT's Three Dimensional Printing Consortium. Although early reliability
problems delayed the implementation effort, recent advances have provided
acceptable results.
Many rapid tooling methods are
available. Most of them require a master pattern, although a growing
number offer a direct path to fabricating the tooling. In the short term,
indirect methods of RT will continue to flourish because these methods are
the most developed. However, in the long term companies will lean toward
direct methods of tooling because they eliminate a step – the use of a
pattern – that can help reduce the time it takes to produce the tooling
and improve the accuracy of the process. For more
information contact Dr.
Philip Dickens, a
professor in the Department of Engineering & Technology at De Montfort
University (Leicester, England); Dr.
Richard Hague a senior
research fellow in the Department
of Engineering & Technology at De Montfort University at +44
(0)116 257 7689; or industry
consultant Terry Wohlers, president of Wohlers Associates, Inc. (Fort Collins, Colorado) at (970)
225-0086. |
||
|
|