Stereolithography (SLA) is a high-precision additive manufacturing process based on slot photopolymerization, which utilizes ultraviolet (UV) light to selectively cure liquid photosensitive resins to build solid structures layer-by-layer, achieving extremely high molding accuracy (±25 μm) (Formlabs, 2024). The superior surface finish (Ra < 0.5 μm) and higher dimensional accuracy of SLA compared to extrusion additive manufacturing technologies such as fused deposition modeling (FDM) make it a standout in applications with complex geometries and high smoothness requirements. In addition, continued innovations in resin materials have further expanded the range of SLA applications, with some resin formulations offering optical transparency approaching that of PMMA, tensile strengths up to 55 MPa (comparable to ABS), and heat deflection temperatures in excess of 200°C. These improvements in material properties, coupled with a gradual decrease in equipment costs, have allowed the technology to expand from traditional prototyping to end-product production (Formlatting) in a variety of industries. End-product production in multiple industries (Formlabs, 2024)
In the construction sector, SLA3D printing technology shows great promise for its ability to produce fast, accurate, consistent, and customized manufacturing.
For example, SLA-printed construction molds can achieve dimensional tolerances of ±0.1%, compared to about ±2% for conventional processes, dramatically improving the accuracy and efficiency of the construction process (Gibbons & Williams, 2004). However, the application of this technology in the construction industry is still constrained by two main limitations: high material costs: photopolymer resins are 40-60% more expensive than the thermoplastics used in FDM (Finnes, 2015). Limited print size: the standard print size of mainstream SLA equipment is 33.5 × 20 × 30 cm³, which somewhat limits its application in the fabrication of large structural components (West et al., 2001).
Utilizing SLA 3D printing technology into the construction workflow has greatly improved efficiency.Delays in manufacturing and assembling molds in traditional construction account for 60-80% of the total project duration (Park et al., 2005). In contrast, SLA-printed molds can reduce lead times by 30-40% by optimizing thermal regulation and reducing labor (Lim et al., 2016). For example, in the manufacture of complex architectural columns, the SLA workflow reduced production time by 22% over steel molds while maintaining ±0.1% dimensional accuracy (Gibbons & Williams, 2004).
For large-scale construction components, the precision and consistency of SLA printing provide distinct advantages. Lim et al. (2016) demonstrated that by employing curved-layer printing paths optimized for SLA, material waste can be reduced by 15–20% while still preserving the structural integrity of components exceeding 8 m³. Moreover, the high dimensional stability of SLA-printed parts—achieving tolerances within ±0.1%—greatly reduces the need for post-production rework and can cut maintenance costs by approximately 25% compared to traditional construction methods. This level of precision is especially critical for fabricating components with tight tolerances, such as interlocking structural elements or façade panels.
Despite the high accuracy of SLA 3D printing, its use in large-scale construction is limited by the volume of the build. west et al. (2001) found that parts larger than 1 cubic meter had to be printed in smaller sections, which then had to be assembled manually. This division poses two major challenges in comparison: Alignment accuracy - the bonding surfaces must be aligned to less than 0.02 mm, which requires specialized tooling. Mechanical consistency - the joints between segments have 18-23% less flexural strength than if printed as a single piece, which affects the overall structural performance.
FDM is proving to be a cost-effective alternative to SLA in applications where structural durability is higher than ultra-high precision. Field data from Zongheng3D (2025) showed a 200% increase in impact resistance of FDM printed parts (15 kJ/m² vs. 5 kJ/m²) and a 40% reduction in material costs (25€/kg for ABS vs. 65€/kg for industrial resins). In addition, accelerated ageing tests by Finnes (2015) have shown that FDM parts retain 85% of their load-bearing capacity after the equivalent of 10 years of weathering, while SLA parts retain only 62% of their load-bearing capacity. These properties make FDM particularly suitable for non-critical structural components such as temporary scaffolding or conduit housings.
SLA 3D printing technology will achieve "targeted adoption" rather than "full-scale replacement" in the construction sector: Its core strength lies in addressing demands for ultra-precision, highly complex components unattainable through conventional methods, while continuous optimization of material and equipment costs will drive its transition from a "luxury resource" to a cost-effective solution. With escalating industry requirements for customization and sustainability, SLA is projected to cover 15–20% of the global precision architectural component market by 2035, collaborating with FDM to establish a tiered additive manufacturing ecosystem.
Reference
Finnes, A. (2015).
Comparative Analysis of Material Costs and Durability in Additive Manufacturing Technologies.Formlabs (2024).
Technical Specifications and Application Guidelines for Stereolithography Systems.
Formlabs White Paper. https://formlabs.com/Gibbons, R. & Williams, T. (2004).
High-Precision Mold Fabrication Using Stereolithography in Architectural Applications.
Journal of Construction Innovation, 12(3), 45-60.Lim, S., Le, T., & Buswell, R. (2016).
Curved-Layer Printing Optimization for Large-Scale Construction Components.
Automation in Construction, 68, 21-31.Park, M., Lee, H. S., Kwon, H., & Wang, X. (2005).
Time Efficiency Analysis in Traditional Construction Workflows.
Construction Management and Economics, 23(7), 721-735.West, A. P., Sambu, S., & Rosen, D. W. (2001).
Scale Limitations and Assembly Challenges in Stereolithography-Based Manufacturing.
Computer-Aided Design, 33(1), 65-80.Zongheng3D (2025).
Cost-Benefit Analysis of FDM vs. SLA in Construction Additive Manufacturing.
Zongheng3D Industry Report. https://zongheng3d.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment