3Dresyns Material Selection & Ordering Guide
This guide explains how engineering teams can select, evaluate and order material systems across the broader 3Dresyns® portfolio.
Material selection in additive manufacturing is not a simple comparison of datasheet values. Final performance depends on the interaction between material formulation, technology route, geometry, process parameters, post-processing and workflow control.
3Dresyns® provides a structured engineering approach for selecting, validating and ordering material systems across photopolymer resins, inkjet materials, powder systems, indirect AM routes, binders, feedstocks and advanced additive manufacturing workflows.
Start here
Choose the right starting point
If you are not yet ready to enter full engineering selection logic, start from the most reliable input available.
Practical guidelines for selecting the right material system
Selection principle
Selecting a 3Dresyns® material means selecting a system combining material, version, technology, process and geometry.
- Define the application: function, environment, mechanical demand, dimensional requirements and lifecycle.
- Select a material system: not a single product name, but a formulation, version and workflow combination.
- Check process compatibility: printer type, exposure or energy-delivery conditions, layer thickness, post-processing and workflow constraints.
- Interpret properties correctly: values are reference responses obtained under defined conditions, not universal constants.
- Validate in real conditions: test using the final workflow, geometry, orientation and post-processing route.
Engineering principle: material behaviour is system-dependent and geometry-driven, not intrinsic to the raw material alone.
The 3Dresyns® material selection framework
Eight decision layers
Engineering selection of additive manufacturing materials can be understood as progressive uncertainty reduction.
- Application envelope definition
- Selection entry point
- Material platform identification
- Manufacturing route and process compatibility
- Exposure, energy-delivery or process calibration
- Mechanical and workflow validation
- Technical data and documentation interpretation
- Controlled ordering, versioning and traceability
1. Defining the application envelope
The first step is defining the operational envelope of the part or workflow.
- Functional role: end-use component, tooling, casting pattern, mold, support material, formulation additive or research material.
- Mechanical demand: stiffness, toughness, impact resistance, elasticity, thermal stability or structural durability.
- Environmental exposure: temperature, chemicals, UV, humidity, sterilization or biological contact.
- Dimensional constraints: tolerance requirements, resolution, surface quality and feature scale.
- Lifecycle expectations: temporary vs durable components, sacrificial vs permanent functions, screening vs production use.
2. Choosing the right entry point
Material selection should begin from the most reliable input already available.
3. Identifying the correct material platform
The 3Dresyns® portfolio is structured into major material families and process-linked platforms.
- SLA / DLP / LCD photopolymer resins
- Additives & auxiliaries
- Inkjet resins
- Advanced photopolymers including 2PP, NIL, VAM and LMM-related systems
- Injection, casting, mold-making and sacrificial systems
- Ceramic, metal, polymer and glass powder feedstock slurries
- SLS powders and related powder routes
4. Engineering material comparison
When comparing candidate materials, engineers typically examine mechanical, thermal, physical and processing properties.
- Young’s modulus
- Tensile strength
- Elongation at break
- Shore hardness
- Heat resistance
- Viscosity, flow, jetting, powder or feedstock behaviour where relevant
These values represent reference measurements under controlled conditions. They do not automatically predict the structural behaviour of printed, molded, cast, sintered or process-shaped components.
5. Process compatibility in additive manufacturing
Material systems are highly process-dependent. The same material family may behave differently depending on the manufacturing route and process window.
- Printer or manufacturing technology
- Optical wavelength, thermal conditions or energy-delivery strategy
- Exposure intensity, layer thickness, jetting parameters or powder-processing conditions
- Peeling mechanics, recoating behaviour, powder flow, mold filling or feedstock rheology
- Vat film, support strategy, post-processing route or downstream manufacturing sequence
6. Process calibration and validation
For photopolymer systems, exposure time and light intensity determine cured layer thickness and degree of polymerization. For powder, feedstock or indirect workflows, equivalent process control may involve powder flow, rheology, mold filling, thermal conversion, debinding or sintering behaviour.
Proper calibration is essential for dimensional accuracy, stable processing and consistent material behaviour.
7. Mechanical behaviour and structured validation
Printed, molded, cast, sintered and process-shaped systems may exhibit anisotropy, orientation sensitivity, geometry-dependent stress distribution and workflow-dependent performance.
- Compare candidate materials using consistent test logic.
- Observe structural response and failure behaviour.
- Identify trade-offs between stiffness, toughness, elasticity, processability and dimensional control.
- Reduce uncertainty before full production validation.
8. Material system versions, documentation and ordering
Material systems are frequently optimized for different implementation priorities.
- Resolution vs print speed
- Viscosity vs process stability
- Stiffness vs toughness
- Surface quality vs throughput
- Handling ease vs performance window
- Direct vs indirect manufacturing route
3Dresyns® materials are often supplied as versioned systems designed for specific implementation windows. Ordering should consider the intended application, printer or technology, workflow route, documentation requirements and validation expectations.
Geometry-driven material selection
Why geometry matters
The same material can feel rigid or flexible depending on wall thickness, minimum feature size and part geometry. Material selection should therefore consider structural behaviour, not only nominal material properties.
For deeper guidance on geometry, thickness, Shore hardness and structural response, use the dedicated geometry-driven selection pages.
Engineering questions frequently asked during material selection
Is the strongest material always the best choice?
No. Structural performance depends on geometry, layer adhesion, curing or process conditions, part orientation and workflow stability. A material with slightly lower nominal strength may produce more reliable components in certain workflows.
Why do printed parts behave differently from bulk plastics?
Additive manufacturing introduces layer interfaces, directional properties, process-dependent microstructure and post-processing sensitivity. These factors influence stress distribution and failure modes.
How can engineers reduce uncertainty in material selection?
Combining engineering property comparison, process compatibility review, calibration where relevant, documentation alignment and structured screening protocols such as SMSP enables more reliable material validation before production implementation.
Engineering tools and resources
Continue through the system
Use these resources to move from material selection to implementation, validation and ordering.
Engineering support
Request technical guidance
If you would like assistance selecting an appropriate material system and implementation pathway, please share your application, printer or manufacturing technology, process parameters, geometry, post-processing route and workflow constraints.