Elastomer Prototyping: Silicone 3‑D Printing vs. Urethane Casting

-

Soft parts once forced designers into long‑lead steel compression molds, but additive elastomer platforms and room‑temperature urethane casting now produce functional gaskets within days. Direct silicone printers extrude two‑part platinum‑cure compounds, delivering fully cross‑linked parts ready for testing straight off the build plate.

Silicone printing excels at complex geometries, integral internal channels, and variable durometer zones. However, per‑part cost rises steeply beyond a few dozen units, where urethane casting in 3‑D‑printed molds gains the advantage. Casting also affords a broader palette of shore‑A values and color matching, critical for consumer‑facing wearables.

Choosing between silicone printing and urethane casting boils down to part complexity and volume. Hybrid workflows often print the first article for fit checks, then migrate to casting for pilot runs, ensuring elasticity and tactile feel match final specifications.

References

Formlabs, “Silicone vs. Urethane Prototyping,” 2025; Elastomers & Composites Journal, “Additive Manufacturing of Soft Polymers,” March 2025.

Target Keywords: elastomer prototyping, silicone 3D printing, urethane casting, soft tooling, rapid iteration 

About This Blog

Mantix Engineering curates these articles to spark fresh thinking around mechanical design, prototyping, and advanced manufacturing. Topics rotate intentionally, so whether you model injection‑molded parts, tune CNC tool paths, or explore next‑generation additive processes, you’ll always find something new to learn.

Need hands‑on support for your next project? Visit Mantix Engineering to see how our engineers can accelerate your product from concept to production.

 

Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Let us know what you think!

Popular posts from this blog

Rapid Prototyping Playbook: When to Choose 3D Printing vs. CNC Machining

-
When a concept must impress investors next week or a housing needs a form‑fit‑function check tomorrow, engineers instinctively reach for either additive manufacturing or subtractive CNC machining. Both methods deliver tangible parts quickly, but their strengths diverge sharply once geometry, tolerance, and budget enter the discussion. Polymer 3‑D printing often ships the same day, and even metal sintering usually arrives in under a week. By contrast, CNC machining demands setup and fixturing, so a single complex part may take longer. However, once cutters start spinning, ten identical machined parts frequently appear before a single high‑resolution print finishes, making subtractive technology the faster option for small batches. Additive manufacturing liberates designers to embed internal channels, lattice infill, and organic curves that a milling cutter cannot reach. CNC machining counters with tighter tolerances—commonly ±0.025 millimeter—and a surface finish polished enough for...
Read more

From Sketch to Solid: How PartCrafter Turns 2-D Images into Manufacturable 3-D Parts

-
Image
PartCrafter burst onto the scene in June 2025 as the first open-source platform that generates multiple semantically distinct 3-D parts from a single RGB image, using a compositional latent-diffusion transformer instead of the two-stage segment-then-reconstruct pipelines common in academic labs. The GitHub project—maintained by researchers from Peking University, ByteDance, and Carnegie Mellon—outputs watertight meshes in OBJ or STL, ready for import into mainstream CAD or slicing software. Early benchmarks show inference times under thirty seconds on a consumer GPU, making it fast enough for real-time design ideation.   Mechanical designers quickly realized that structured output matters as much as speed. Because PartCrafter tags each generated sub-mesh with a part label, users can assign material properties, shell thickness, or draft angles individually—vital when transitioning from concept art to injection-moldable geometry. Reviewers at Tom’s Hardware note that the tool can “...
Read more

Raspberry Pi DAQ: Turning a $60 SBC into a Precision Test Rig

-
Image
Raspberry Pi 5 ships with PCIe connectivity and a quad-core Cortex-A76 at 2.4 GHz, giving mechanical test benches enough horsepower to sample analog signals at kilohertz rates while running edge analytics locally. Engineers bolt a 24-bit simultaneous-sampling HAT onto the 16-lane FFC connector, map GPIO interrupts in Python, and stream synchronized acceleration, strain, and thermocouple data to an InfluxDB instance. The bill of materials—including a heat-sink case and industrial device-tree overlay—comes in under 250 dollars, a fraction of proprietary data-acquisition modules yet offering comparable 104 dB SNR for mid-band applications. Prototyping loops tighten when acquisition hardware fits in a jacket pocket. A machinist rough-cuts an aluminum bracket, mounts it on a shaker table, and wires piezoelectric accelerometers to the Pi HAT. Within minutes, a Grafana dashboard visualizes peak-to-peak acceleration, letting the designer tweak rib geometry and rerun the test before shop clean...
Read more