1. Time & Cost comparison in Product Development of custom designed product
by 3D Printing and GFRP Moulding in India
Akhil Mohan1
and Dr. C.A.Shajahan1
1
Department of Mechanical Engineering, TKM College of Engineering, Kollam - 5, Kerala, India
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
The advancement in manufacturing techniques has helped us shift production from massive factories to the confined spaces of our
garage or even to our table tops. The movie fantasy to create 3D objects with the click of a button is now a reality. Still, developing
countries like India are in the nascent stage in adopting these technologies in comparison to rest of the world. This inspired us to
investigate the reasons why a custom designed product for cosmetic modification of a car would be preferred to be moulded in
GFRP composite rather than 3D printed. Here we shall compare the Time consumed and Cost of production of a simple product,
produced in two different ways to manufacturing. The first being by 3D Printing in Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) by
Fused Deposition Modelling technique. The second by GFRP moulding by creating a permanent mould and hand layup or rein-
forcement over matrix layers. In GFRP Moulding we incorporate 3D printing in the prototyping stage and see whether it can bring
any considerable advantages when compared to the production by 3D printing alone. This would help to validate reasons as to why
customers choose a particular process over the other and which could be their potential future choice in Rapid Prototyping during
Product Development.
Keywords: 3D Printing, Fused Deposition Modeling, Rapid Prototyping, Product Development, ABS, GFRP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Introduction
The evolution of 3D printing is studied along with its place
in any product development process. Rapid Prototyping by 3D
Printing could be the perfect alternative to traditional casting
approach during the Product Development (PD) stages. A
study was undertaken to compare the total cycle time, total
cost and process steps for 3D printing and that for traditional
casting. This helped to validate reasons as to why customers
choose a particular process over the other and which could be
their potential future choice in Rapid Prototyping during
Product Development of a custom designed product.
The Design of the product was first done in paper by
hand drawn sketches. Then using SOLIDWORKS a 3D mod-
el was created. The choice of production traditionally would
be by GFRP moulding. But we are here to compare the factors
of time and cost with an advanced technology.3D printing
using Fused Deposition Modelling process was our first meth-
od of production. This was done in ABS material provided
by the Machine manufacturer – Ultimaker. The second pro-
duction procedure was by normal hand laying up procedure
used in Permanent Mould Casting in Glass Fibre Reinforced
Plastic (GFRP) material.
The major objective of this work was to compare side by
side the differences in Time required for each stage in its
product development. Compare the cost of manufacture, la-
bour and materials required in each stage of product develop-
ment.
A basic Product development consists of various stages.
When a product is designed for a Custom need such as the one
we are focusing, we do so in the following steps. The product
we have chosen is a cosmetic enhancement product that is
used among vehicles. It is called “Shark Fin Antenna” in the
industry. We shall look at a market available shark fin antenna
and assume a situation where a customer needs a custom de-
signed product to suit the same purpose.
Figure 1.1 Product Development stages comparison

2. 0000 G. Bell et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 00 (2010) 0000~0000
2. Product Development
2.1 Designing product
The market available prod-
uct would be designed in
similar fashion. This prod-
uct was then designed ac-
cording to our customer
needs. The sketches were
converted to an accurate 3D
CAD model using
SOLIDWORKS software.
The 3D model is then converted into an .STL file for 3D print-
ing purpose.
2.2 3D Printing setup
The Next stage is to 3D print the product that has been de-
signed to dimensions and specification of the customer. For
this we use the Ultimaker 2+ machine. This is an ideal choice
for FDM 3D printing. This compact machine can print in var-
ious materials but today we shall do so with the Ultimaker
supplied ABS filament (White). Slicing software used was the
free software provided by the Ultimaker itself called ‘Cura’.
3D Print Material : Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
3D Printer Machine : Ultimaker 2+
Layer thickness : 200 microns (0.2 mm)
Nozzle Diameter : 0.4 mm
Print Speed : 50 mm/s
No. of Shells : 1
Bed Temperature : 100 o
C
Nozzle Temp. : 255 o
C
Infill Percentage : 50 %
Printing Time : 5 hours 45 minutes
Once the print is done, a little bit of post processing is done.
Such as removal of Support material and final finishing with
sand paper would give a finished look. The product is now
ready to use.
2.4 3D Printing Costs
Table 2.1 3D Designing Costs
Description
Unit Price
(Rs/hr.)
Time Price (Rs)
3D Model + STL conversion 500 2h 00m 1000.00
Table 2.2 3D Printing Cost
Description
Unit Price
(Rs/hr.)
Time Price (Rs)
3D Printing in Ultimaker 100 5h 45m 575.00
Table 2.3 Material Costs
Description
Unit
Price
(Rs/kg)
Qty Price (Rs)
ABS Material (2.85mm) -
White
1500 63.00g 95.00
Table 2.4 Total Production Cost
Description Total Price (Rs)
3D Designing Costs 1000.00
3D Printing Cost 575.00
Material Costs 102.00
Total Cost 1670.00
2.5 3D Printing Time
Table 2.5 Total Time Consumption
Description Time
3D Designing 2h 00m
Prototyping 0h 00m
3D Printing 5h 45m
Total Time 7h 45m
2.6 GFRP Moulding
This technique is an old method. GFRP composites are known
for their strength and lightweight. It is used for many products
in the construction, marine, engineering sectors. Although it is
not as strong and stiff as composites based on carbon fiber, it
is less brittle, and its raw materials are much cheaper. Its bulk
strength and weight are also better than many metals, and it
can be more readily molded into complex shapes.
Figure 2.1 : Market available
Shark Fin Antenna
Figure 2.2 : Custom Designed Shark Fin Antenna
Figure 2.3 : 3D Printing in ABS - Shark Fin Antenna

3. G. Bell et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 23 (2009) 1261~1269 1263
The Matrix : Polyester Resin
Reinforcements : Chopped Strand Mat (Glass Fibre)
Catalyst : Methyl Ethyl Ketone Peroxide
Accelerator : Cobalt Naphanate
The design is same as the one made for 3D printing. But for
the next stage of Prototyping we use the rapid prototyping
technique to reduce time and cost. This is done by FDM 3D
printing using PLA (Poly Lactic Acid) material. This being
cheaper than ABS and also bio degradable, we use this for
prototyping needs.
3D Print Material : Poly Lactic Acid
3D Printer Machine : Ultimaker 2+
Layer thickness : 200 microns (0.2 mm)
Nozzle Diameter : 0.4 mm
Print Speed : 50 mm/s
No. of Shells : 2
Bed Temperature : 70 o
C
Nozzle Temp. : 210 o
C
Infill Percentage : 20 %
Printing Time : 13 hours and 30 minutes
Figure 2.4 : 3D Printed Prototype in PLA - Shark Fin Antenna
After Prototyping, the next phase is mould making, fol-
lowed by the GFRP moulding by hand layup technique. Here
each layer of matrix is followed by a layer of reinforcement.
This continues until we attain the right dimensions.
2.7 GFRP Moulding Costs
Table 2.6 3D Designing Costs
Table 2.7 : Moulding Cost
Description Unit Price (Rs/hr.) Time Price (Rs)
Labour Charges 170 10h 00m 1700.00
Table 2.8 : 3D Printing Prototype in PLA
Description Unit Price (Rs/hr.) Time Price (Rs)
3D Printing 65.00 13h 30m 882.00
Table 2.9 : Materials Cost
Table 2.10 : Total Production Cost
Description Total Price (Rs)
3D Designing Costs 1000.00
3D Printing Prototype Cost 882.00
Labour Charges – GFRP Moulding 1700.00
Material Costs (PLA + GFRP) 300.00
Total Cost 3882.00
2.8 GFRP Method Time
2.11 : Total Time Consumption
Description Time
3D Designing 2h 00m
Prototyping 13h 30m
GFRP Moulding 10h 0m
Total Cost 25h 30m
Figure 2.5 : GFRP moulding - Shark Fin Antenna
Description Unit Price (Rs/hr.) Time Price (Rs)
3D Designing 500 2h 00m 1000.00
Description Unit Price Qty Price (Rs)
PLA Material (2.85mm) -
Black
1200 Rs/kg 66g 79.00
Polyester Resin GP - 002 130 Rs/kg 500g 65.00
Catalyst 300 Rs/lt 30ml 9.00
Chopped Strand Glass
Fiber Mat 300
175 Rs/kg 200g 35.00
Surface Tissue Mat 40 Rs/mtr 50g 5.00
Cobalt Accelerator 500 Rs/lt 30ml 15.00
Wax 450 Rs/kg 100g 45.00
Gel Coat 125 Rs/kg 250g 32.00
Chalk Powder 32 Rs/kg 100g 5.00
Green Pigment 385 Rs/kg 25g 10.00
Total Material Costs 300.00

4. 0000 G. Bell et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 00 (2010) 0000~0000
3. Results
The above results give a complete idea of the total cost incurred
for creating a custom designed product by two production
methods. We also have the time for both product development
cycles. Let us analyze these data to find out which one has the
upper hand and the amount of savings one gains by choosing
the better method.
3.1 Cost Comparison
The primary factor when it comes to purchase any product is its
Price tag. It’s after this that we measure the worth of the product.
We evaluate if its worthy of the price tag t bears. When people
research on technologies to better the manufacturing process,
reduction of costs is a primary objective. When man is replaced
by machines, people pay the price in return for the consistent
accuracy and faster process capabilities brought forward by
machines.
Here while focusing on the Product Development of a custom
designed product, we look upon 4 different costs based on the
Steps involved.
Designing Cost
The first stage of product development completes with well
thought of design. The design should not only have aesthetic
appeal, but also should satisfy the demands of production. The
product must not find itself impossible to manufacture by the
desired technique. All of this requires the expertise of a profes-
sional designer and his time, for which he charges. Thus the
designing cost covers all the work from rough sketches to ready
to manufacture drawings or 3D CAD models.
Since both the 3D priming and GFRP composite products
are using the same design, we shall take this time and cost to be
the same. As you may see in the Figure, the Designing costs
remain the same.
Prototyping Cost
The necessity of a prototype is seen only with GFRP Mould-
ing. As in 3D printing, if the product is designed as per customer
requirements in the CAD software, then the chances of devia-
tion in specifications after printing is almost nil.
Table 3.1 Cost comparison ABSproductv/sGFRPproduct
But prototyping byconventional methods is replaced and
rapid prototyping by3D printing is used for GFRP moulding.
This is to further decrease cost and time.
The 3D printing process since does not require a prototyping
stage we directlyarrive at the final product. Therebythe cost of
prototyping in this methods stands at zero.
The GFRP Moulding method consists of a prototyping stage,
for the need to create a mould to cast the product byhand layup
technique. And here we used 3D printing to create the prototype.
Production cost
Figure 3.1 Bargraph with costcomparison stage by stage
This includes all the labour charges and machine usage costs
that is involved in production. In the process of 3d printing, the
production cost involves the machine rental charges. Since the
use of software could be done by oneself, we only considered
the charges for renting the machine.
Figure 3.2 Histogramof costcomparison
In the event one does not understand the 3D printing parameters.
It is possible for a CAD modeler to set the right parameters n
convert it into .STL file for the print.
Material Costs
Like in any product development process, we require high qual-
ity raw materials for the proper production of desired products.
This requires painstaking procurement. Once the trial of product
Prices
In INR.
Design
Prototyp-
ing
Produc-
tion
Mate-
rial
To-
tal
3D
Printing
1000 0 575 95 1670
GFRP
Casting
1000 960 1700 300 3882
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Designing Prototyping Production Materials
Cost(inIndianRupees)
Cost elements
3D Printing GFRP Casting
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
3D Printing GFRP Casting
Cost(inIndianRupees)
Method ofProduct Development
Designing Prototyping Production Material

5. G. Bell et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 23 (2009) 1261~1269 1265
is decided and the process of production is finalized. It is easy to
create of list of materials. Whereas 3d printing requires only the
ABS print filament. GFRP moulding requires a long list of
chemicals and other materials to create the final product.
Here we can clearly see the differences in cost in various are-
as. The only similarity in costs lie in the area of designing. Pro-
totyping stage shows a 100 % cost savings in the product devel-
opment by 3D printing in comparison to GFRP moulding. We
saved 68.3 % in material costs by 3DP over GFRP moulding.
Whereas the production costs saved by 3DP process was
66.2 % compared to the GFRP moulding.
Therebywe achieved an overall Cost savings of 57 % by
3DP in comparison to the GFRP moulding technique, to create
a custom designed product
Table 3.2 Time Comparisonof 3Dprinting &GFRPmoulding
Figure 3.3 Histogramof time comparisonbetweenprocessesstageby stage
3.2 Time Comparison
Time consumption better defined as the cycle time for
this product development from the drawing board to fin-
ished product goes through 3 stages.
The Designing phase
This is a common phase for both kinds of product devel-
opment. Be it by 3D printing or by GFRP Moulding. It
includes the Design sketch made in paper and also the
CAD modelling time in SOLIDWORKS.
The Prototyping phase
This is only needed for the GFRP moulding process.
Here we used 3D printing in PLA material to create the
Prototype.
Production Phase
This is the main phase where labour and all materials
are utilized to create the final product a per customer
need. For 3DP, we rely on the machine from the word go.
Once the printing is over, removal of support material
and few polishing would give us the finish product.
While, the GFRP moulding takes place in a step by step
process. Involving the permanent mould making and then
the hand layup moulding process.
Figure 3.4 Histogram of Time comparison between the ABS product
v/s GFRP product
Thus we clearly have an advantage here. The product
development process by 3D printing alone is almost 70 %
faster than by using the traditional GFRP moulding. The
interesting fact is even after using 3D printing for Proto-
typing needs in GFRP moulding, 3D printing technique
clearly has the upper hand in terms for Time consump-
tion.
Thus we conclude that to create a custom designed prod-
uct like this or a one of a kind product. If the material is
available, 3D printing is the best method to create the
final product. If not it is the best method to create a pro-
totype before your production process.
Nomenclature
3DP : 3D Printing
ABS : Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene
GFRP : Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastic
CAD : Computer aided Designing
STL : Stereo-Lithography (file format)
Time for ABS GFRP
Designing 2h 00m 2h 00m
Prototyping 00m 13h 30m
Production (Machine + Labour) 5h 45m 10h 00m
Total 7h 45m 25h 30m
0
5
10
15
Designing Prototyping Production
Time(inhours)
Method ofProductDevelopment
3D Printing GFRP Casting
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
3D Printing GFRP Casting
Time(inhours)
Method ofProduct Development
Designing Prototyping Production

6. 0000 G. Bell et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 00 (2010) 0000~0000
FDM : Fused Deposition Modeling
References
[1] Pranjal Jaina, A. M. Kutheb, Feasibility Study of manufac-
turing using rapid prototyping: FDM Approach, Procedia
Engineering, 63, (2013) 4–11.
[2] Babak Kianiana, Sam Tavassolib and Tobias C. Larssona,
The Role of Additive Manufacturing Technology in job cre-
ation: an exploratory case study of suppliers of Additive
Manufacturing in Sweden, Procedia CIRP 26, (2015), 93–98.
[3] Michael Dawoud, Iman Taha, Samy J. Ebeid, Mechanical
behaviour of ABS: An experimental study using FDM and
injection moulding techniques, Journal of Manufacturing
Processes, 21, (2016), 39–45.
[4] Bingheng Lu, Dichen Li, Xiaoyong Tian, Development
Trends in Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing, Engi-
neering – March Issue, (2015), 85–89.