Purpose This paper aims to investigate the effect of post-processing techniques on dimensional accuracy of laser sintering (LS) of Nylon and Alumide® and fused deposition modelling (FDM) of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) materials. Design/methodology/approach Additive manufacturing (AM) of test pieces using LS of Nylon and Alumide® powders, as well as the FDM of ABS materials, were first conducted. Next, post-processing of the test pieces involved tumbling, shot peening, hand finishing, spray painting, CNC machining and chemical treatment. Touch probe scanning of the test pieces was undertaken to assess the dimensional deviation, followed by statistical analysis using Chi-square and Z-tests. Findings The deviation ranges of the original built parts with those being subjected to tumbling, shot peening, hand finishing, spray painting, CNC machining or chemical treatment were found to be different. Despite the rounding of sharp corners and the removal of small protrusions, the dimensional accuracy of relatively wide surfaces of Nylon or Alumide® test pieces were not significantly affected by the tumbling or shot peening processes. The immersion of ABS test pieces into an acetone bath produced excellent dimensional accuracy. Research limitations/implications Only Nylon PA2200 and Alumide® processed through LS and ABS P400 processed through FDM were investigated. Future work could also examine other materials and using parts produced with other AM processes. Practical implications The service bureaus that produce prototypes and end-use functional parts through AM will be able to apply the findings of this investigation. Originality/value This research has outlined the differences of post-processing techniques such as tumbling, shot peening, hand finishing, spray painting, CNC machining and chemical treatment. The paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each of those methods and suggests that the immersion of ABS test pieces into an acetone bath produced excellent dimensional accuracy.

A Living Lab is a new way to deal with community-driven innovation in real-life contexts. The Living Lab concept is fuelled by knowledge sharing, collaboration and experimenting in open real environments. This research explores the sustainable development of community Living Labs within a South African context. The members of rural communities need sustainable development support in order to create jobs and alleviate poverty. In order to do so they need an open multidisciplinary research and systems thinking support environment which is facilitated in the Living Lab environment. The Living Lab approach provides its user group with an opportunity to develop a much deeper understanding of how the various components in their functional environment operate and interrelate. In the research community the Living Lab concept seems to be gaining increasing acceptance as a way to deal with innovation and to get insight into the innovation process. Several Living Labs are currently connected in a network of Living Labs, both in Europe and in South Africa aiming to share best practices and lessons learned. Creating an innovative software based management model for Living Labs for the greater South African region is also part of the research objectives. This paper presents two interrelated frameworks for the establishment of a Living Lab within a South African context. The paper also highlights the important role of holistic Systems thinking in a Living Lab environment.

Many patients are affected by facial deformities due to trauma or congenital disorders. Reconstruction using bone transplants has been the standard procedure to address many of these defects. In modern times, synthetic materials such as polymers have become widely used in facial reconstruction as medical implants to reconstruct the defective facial bony features. Conventional manufacturing methods can be used to produce polymeric implants, but literature has shown them to be limited in their applications. Many of these limitations can now be overcome by additive manufacturing technologies. This review paper presents an overview of different processes and polymeric materials that can be used to produce cosmetic facial implants.

The uptake of laser powder bed fusion for polymers has remained limited mainly because the interaction between material properties and process parameters is not well understood. The constraints of experimentally determining the optimal process parameters for new polymers in laser powder bed fusion include high expense, time-consumption, errors, and considerable effort. Hence, the need for using analytical and numerical models as alternatives. This paper starts with a summary on laser powder bed fusion of polymers, reviews the aspects of the process requiring the use of analytical and numerical tools, limitations, and possible improvements of the existing studies on the analytical models, and finally briefly explores approaches for numerical modelling of laser powder bed fusion of polymers. Some of the key aspects of the process that have been identified as being amenable to modelling include powder spreading and deposition of the layers, interaction between the laser beam and powder particles, melting and fusion of the particles, powder bed surface temperature, heat transfer through the powder, cooling phase, and the properties of printed parts. It is suggested in the study that the existing analytical and/or numerical models can be improved by increasing relevant variables (process parameters and material characteristics) used in them.