Head-to-Head Evaluation of FDM and SLA in Additive Manufacturing: Performance, Cost, and Environmental Perspectives
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper conducts a comprehensive experimental comparison of two widely used additive manufacturing (AM) processes, Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) and Stereolithography (SLA), under standardized conditions using the same test geometries and protocols. FDM parts were printed with both Polylactic Acid (PLA) and Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) filaments, while SLA used a general-purpose photopolymer resin. Quantitative evaluations included surface roughness, dimensional accuracy, tensile properties, production cost, and energy consumption. Additionally, environmental considerations and process reliability were assessed by examining waste streams, recyclability, and failure rates. The results indicate that SLA achieves superior surface quality (Ra≈2μm vs. 12–13μm) and dimensional tolerances (±0.05mm vs. ±0.15–0.20mm), along with higher tensile strength (up to 70MPa). However, FDM provides notable advantages in cost (approximately 60% lower on a per-part basis), production speed, and energy efficiency. Moreover, from an environmental perspective, FDM is more favorable when using biodegradable PLA or recyclable ABS, whereas SLA resin waste is hazardous. Overall, the study highlights that no single process is universally superior. FDM offers a rapid, cost-effective solution for prototyping, while SLA excels in precision and surface finish. By presenting a detailed, data-driven comparison, this work guides engineers, product designers, and researchers in choosing the most suitable AM technology for their specific needs.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes · Bone Tissue Engineering Materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Research Center for Natural Resources, Environment and Society (CERNAS), Polytechnic University of Coimbra, 3045-601 Coimbra, Portugal
Research Center in Digital Services, Polytechnic of Viseu, 3504-510 Viseu, Portugal
Funding
National Funds through the FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P. · FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P.
References (23)
Show source-provided references
1. Gibson, I., Rosen, D., and Stucker, B. (2015). Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, Springer. [2nd ed.].10.1007/978-1-4939-2113-3 ↗
2. Crump, S.S. (1992). Apparatus and Method for Creating Three-Dimensional Objects. (US5121329A), U.S. Patent.
3. Hull, C.W. (1986). Apparatus for Production of Three-Dimensional Objects by Stereolithography. (US4575330A).
4. Anisotropic material properties of fused deposition modeling ABS10.1108/13552540210441166 ↗
5. A review on stereolithography and its applications in biomedical engineering10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.04.050 ↗
6. Surface improvement of Fused Deposition Modeling parts by Barrel Finishing10.1108/RPJ-10-2013-0105 ↗
7. A general photoiniferter approach to the surface functionalization of acrylic and methacrylic structures written by two-photon stereolithography10.1039/D2NR06627K ↗
8. O’Donahue, A., Mendenhall, R., Fouladi, K., and Eslami, B. (November, January 29). Multiscale Study on Fused Deposition Modeling and Stereolithography 3D Printed Parts: How to 3D Print Better?. Proceedings of the ASME 2023 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, New Orleans, LA, USA.10.1115/IMECE2023-114519 ↗
9. Effect of processing conditions on the bonding quality of FDM polymer filaments10.1108/13552540810862028 ↗
10. Evaluation of dimensional accuracy of 3D printed mandibular model using two different additive manufacturing techniques based on ultralow dose multislice computed tomography scan data: A diagnostic accuracy study10.4103/jioh.jioh_210_21 ↗
11. Dimensional accuracy and surface finish of 3D printed polyurethane (PU) dog-bone samples optimally manufactured by fused deposition modelling (FDM)10.1108/RPJ-12-2021-0328 ↗
12. Nguyen, X.H., Chen, C., Le, H.T., and Lee, H.Y. (2022). Enhancement of a Single-Axis Femtosecond Laser Scanning System by Using Two Galvanometers to Improve the Telecentricity and the Effective Scanning Length on Laser Process. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app122312434 ↗
13. Zapico, P., Rodríguez-González, P., Robles-Valero, P., Fernández-Abia, A.I., and Barreiro, J. (2023). Influence of Post-Processing on the Properties of Multi-Material Parts Obtained by Material Projection AM. Polymers, 15.10.3390/polym15092089 ↗
14. Comparing repeatability and reproducibility of topographic measurement types directly using linear regression analyses of measured heights10.1016/j.precisioneng.2024.02.009 ↗
15. Mechanical properties of components fabricated with open-source 3-D printers under realistic environmental conditions10.1016/j.matdes.2014.02.038 ↗
16. A review on 3D micro-additive manufacturing technologies10.1007/s00170-012-4605-2 ↗
17. Wetting properties of polymer additively manufactured surfaces – Multiscale and multi-technique study into the surface-measurement-function interactions10.1016/j.triboint.2024.110394 ↗
18. An experimental and theoretical investigation of surface roughness of poly-jet printed parts10.1080/17452759.2014.999218 ↗
19. Arrizubieta, J.I., Ukar, O., Ostolaza, M., and Múgica, A. (2020). Study of the Environmental Implications of Using Metal Powder in Additive Manufacturing and Its Handling. Metals, 10.10.3390/met10020261 ↗
20. Rooney, S., Pitz, E., and Pochiraju, K. (2021, January 1–5). Detection of Jamming and Filament Breakage in FDM Using Vibration of Feeder Stepper. Proceedings of the ASME 2021 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Virtual.10.1115/IMECE2021-71283 ↗
21. Examining the mass loss and thermal properties of 3D printed models produced by fused deposition modeling and stereolithography under elevated temperatures10.1108/RPJ-01-2022-0007 ↗
22. Selection for additive manufacturing using hybrid MCDM technique considering sustainable concepts10.1108/RPJ-06-2021-0155 ↗
23. Mendoza-Muñoz, I., Montoya-Reyes, M., Maldonado-Macías, A., Jacobo-Galicia, G., and Vargas-Bernal, O.Y. (2024). A Hierarchical Axiomatic Evaluation of Additive Manufacturing Equipment and the 3D Printing Process Based on Sustainability and Human Factors. Processes, 12.10.3390/pr12061083 ↗