Re: benchmarking

From: Douglas A. VanPutte (
Date: Thu May 01 1997 - 06:33:53 EEST

There is probably a good reason for having many benchmark part
geometries as there are applications for rp & rt. I chose the so-called
Kodak benchmark part geometry over 5 years ago because it represented
some of the types of geometry we design into packaging components in the
Kodak Park Division. It was used to benchmark the commercial rp systems
at the time and it has been used several times subsequently to benchmark
new processes or improvements to older processes. It would probably not
be the geometry of choice for the Kodak Equipment Mfg. Division.

As I have indicated previously, the Kodak benchmark injection mold was
developed from the part above. I felt I needed our typical injection
mold geometry for the purpose of benchmarking direct and secondary rapid
tool processes for our division. I continue to use it to benchmark any
new tool process or tool process improvements. Some of this data is
published, some is not, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which
is time.

While the specific mold geometry I use would not be the choice of
others, for me it serves a purpose similar to the stereolithography
users group part. The user part gives us a common reference point at
various points in time as to the improvements in rapid prototyping and
the capability of new rp processes. I feel that those who do not think
that benchmark parts are important may not have considered this aspect.

Douglas A. VanPutte	           Manufacturing, Research, and Engineering
Eastman Kodak Company          Tel. 716.477.1492
1669 Lake Avenue               Fax. 716.722.0810
Rochester, NY 14652-4102       E-mail:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jun 05 2001 - 22:39:32 EEST