WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 11436
    [post_author] => 1
    [post_date] => 2019-10-09 09:16:26
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-10-09 08:16:26
    [post_content] => Material science in additive manufacturing is rapidly evolving, with silicone 3D printing being a particularly exciting development for the industry. Silicone is a versatile elastomeric material, known for its biocompatibility, thermal conductivity and heat resistance.  
 
Swiss company, Spectroplast, aims to push the envelope when it comes to silicone 3D printing. Following years of research, conducted at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH Zurich), Spectroplast launched its silicone 3D printing service bureau in September last year. 
 
In this week’s Expert Interview, we’re joined by Spectroplast’s Founder and CTO, Petar Stefanov, discussing the unique benefits of silicone 3D printing, the most promising applications for the technology and the realities of operating a 3D printing service bureau. 
 

Could you describe Spectroplast and the company’s mission? 

Spectroplast logoSpectroplast originated from several years of research of multiple PhDs at ETH Zurich, one of the world's leading technology universities. With the launch of Spectroplast, our goal was to translate this research into a commercial opportunity.   The core competence of our company lies in material science. We’ve developed material chemistry that enables 3D printing of pure silicone.   In addition to this, we’ve also achieved quite substantial development on the process, as well as on the hardware. So, we cover the entire value chain needed to bring silicone from raw material all the way to a finished 3D-printed part.  

What are the benefits of using 3D printing to produce silicone parts as opposed to traditional methods?

Conventionally, silicone parts are produced by injection moulding, a process which is tailored to a high throughput production and standardised designs. There are a lot of fixed costs attached to that process, due to the need to design and manufacture a mould. Also, the validation of the mould itself is quite costly and time-intensive.    With injection moulding, we are talking about 8 to 12 weeks from when you place an order until you can see your first parts. The cost can go well above $100,000 for the mould alone.   If you want to change your design after seeing your first part, then you'd have to reiterate the mould, further adding to the cost and time.    Spectroplast offers a complementary process to silicone injection moulding by using Additive Manufacturing (AM). Our process is tailored to the mass customisation of parts. This means that we can customise each individual part to produce the given specifications, while also saving material and energy.    With injection moulding, some projects have scrap rates around 40% to 50%. This is quite significant, as it means that only every second piece works. We reduced scrap rates to almost zero, as well as the energy requirements.    The ultimate benefit of AM is that with our process, shape complexity comes for free. Therefore, we can produce much more complex designs than is possible with injection moulding.    To summarise, injection moulding is lacking in two key areas: the first is low to mid-volume runs, which is around 50 to 100,000 pieces per year. That's the minimum required amount for injection moulding to be commercially viable.    Second is the shape complexity. Complex parts that are either too expensive or too complex in general to mould can be more cost-effective when produced with AM. [caption id="attachment_11439" align="aligncenter" width="700"]Silicone 3D printed part  [Image credit: Spectroplast][/caption]  

What are some of the possible applications with silicone 3D printing?

Silicone 3D printing has applications across many different industries. If you're in an office, most of what you see around you contains some sort of silicone part.   This is due to the material’s properties: silicone is an elastomer, a soft and stretchable material, and it's non-toxic. It's also biocompatible and resistant to heat, UV light and chemicals. It's gas permeable, insulating and inert which makes it suitable for a variety of applications.    Currently, Spectroplast is targeting higher-value healthcare applications like customised medical devices. These include devices like hearing aids, hearing protection, customised headphones, etc.   Other medical wearable devices, like masks, prosthetics, prosthetic liners — in particular shoe insoles — all the way up to customised medical implants, can benefit from 3D-printed silicone, due to its biocompatibility and softness. For example, tracheal stents and heart valves can be fully customised to the patient’s needs, thanks to AM.  

You mentioned that you're specifically focusing on healthcare applications at the moment. Could you explain the reason for that?

We believe that healthcare is a field where we can add the most value to our customers. To pinpoint one application, we're very excited about the added value of customised prostheses, specifically customised breast prostheses for breast cancer patients.   After a mastectomy, part of the breast gets removed and most patients need to opt for an external prosthesis, essentially a silicone object that's worn in a bra. Today, these come in a few standardised sizes and even fewer standardised shapes and usually don’t fit the anatomy of the patient perfectly.  The symmetry is lost, and this has a major effect on the well-being of the patient. What we enable is the complete customisation of the prostheses to fit an individual patient and retain the original symmetry.   

Can you highlight specific examples of how you've helped your customers?

Talking about breast prosthetics, we have just partnered with the University Hospital of Zurich, which recommends that patients try our service. That's our latest partnership that we're very proud of. It's important to be exposed to patients in need and get their feedback directly.   While I’ve mainly spoken about healthcare applications, we're also active in other industries. Typically, these are uncertified applications, which we can immediately access, including automotive and aerospace customers.   

What are some of the challenges associated with 3D printing silicone specifically, since it's very different from metal or polymer 3D printing?

The key challenge of printing silicone lies in the viscosity of the material. Silicone, in its natural state, is a highly viscous, almost gel-like substance, which is very difficult to process using conventional AM approaches.    People are using different extrusion-based processes to print silicone. Examples include Robocasting and drop on demand, processes that involves extrusion of the material. Due to the material's high viscosity, extrusion can be done right down to a specific resolution level, which cannot be further improved. Since the material is so viscous, almost like honey, extruding it through a tiny orifice has its limitations.   So essentially, the level of resolution, and therefore surface finish, as well as a range of accessible silicones, is limited by these conventional methods. What we’ve managed to do at Spectroplast is we adapted the material to a Stereolithography-compatible approach, or more specifically, a Digital Light Processing method, which yields a much greater resolution and therefore, improved surface finish.    We’ve managed to improve the existing resolution level by a factor of 20. So, from around the millimetre tolerance, which was existent on the market, we brought it down to 50 microns.    On the scalability side, existing methods of printing silicone aren’t industrially scalable in terms of speed and throughput. However, we’ve managed to increase the speed by at least 10 times compared to conventional 3D printing methods for silicone.    We believe this combination of exceptional surface finish, together with the high throughput process, makes this the first AM technology for silicone that is tailor-made for use on an industrial scale. [caption id="attachment_11442" align="aligncenter" width="700"]Silicone 3D-printed part_Spectroplast [Image credit: Spectroplast][/caption]  

What is it like to run a service bureau as a business? What are the day-to-day challenges?

The one word I would use to describe it is exciting. It never gets boring. This has to do with all the different client requests that we get daily. Spectroplast was incorporated in September last year. Since then, we have more than 150 B2B customers, and all of them have very different applications.   Every day we learn from our clients about new ways that our technology can be used, which we would never have thought of ourselves. This is invaluable because it helps us to develop the technology further in a direction that is needed on the market, rather than push something to the market which has already been developed.    With that comes its own challenges. As we are getting so many different applications from our customers daily, we need to constantly adapt to each new application that comes in as an order.   

How would you describe the current status of 3D printing? And how do you see it evolving in the next few years?

We are at the tipping point, where AM is finally starting to become a viable manufacturing process.    Finally, we have the technologies and workflows, as well as software out there, that can support the adoption of AM for serial production. However, don't confuse this with very high-volume serial production. I don't think we're there yet.    I believe there is a special place for AM as a complementary process to conventional methods, and it finds its own place in terms of production volumes and value.  

Are there specific trends that you're seeing?

Absolutely. For example, we noticed that the order volumes are increasing. We're moving from simple prototyping and tooling to end-part production.   From the demand side, we see that product life cycles are becoming shorter, and products are getting more and more diversified. This means that fewer pieces of every design are being manufactured, which is very good for AM because this is exactly where it can add value. So, diversifying product designs and lowering the series volume of products is something we’ve noticed in various industries.   

Spectroplast recently received 1.4 million CHF in seed funding. What does this investment mean for your company going forward?

As I mentioned, we're already serving more than 150 customers, and that customer base is growing daily. The investment will help us with upscaling our production capacity. We are investing in additional machinery and personnel, which will help us to support the larger and returning orders.    On the other hand, the investment also helps to further develop the technology and to launch a new generation of materials on the market.    All in all, we are pushing the quality level that our service bureau provides to the level comparable to injection moulding standards, which our clients naturally expect.   To learn more about Spectroplast, visit: spectroplast.com [post_title] => Expert Interview: Petar Stefanov, Founder & CTO of Spectroplast AG, on the Benefits of Silicone 3D Printing [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => expert-interview-petar-stefanov-founder-cto-of-spectroplast-ag-on-the-benefits-of-silicone-3d-printing [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2019-10-18 09:08:39 [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-10-18 08:08:39 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://amfg.ai/?p=11436 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 11357
    [post_author] => 1
    [post_date] => 2019-10-03 09:29:00
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-10-03 08:29:00
    [post_content] => In an era of Industry 4.0, greater efficiency and product innovation are key priorities for manufacturers. 3D printing is one technology that is being leveraged to provide both. 
 
One way 3D printing can help is through the production of ergonomic tooling and manufacturing aids that can accelerate the assembly process and create a safer working environment for operators on the production floor. 
 
Eckhart is a US-based company that specialises in the design, engineering and manufacture of factory automation equipment. At the forefront of Industry 4.0, the company has adopted 3D printing, alongside robotics and other automated solutions, to do just that. 
 
In this week’s Expert Interview, we speak with Robert Heath, Eckhart’s AM Application Engineer, to discuss the benefits of 3D-printed tools, the need for education when it comes to AM, as well as the advantages of automation.  
 

Could you tell me a bit about Eckhart? 

Eckhart logoEckhart is an Industry 4.0 leader specialising in industrial automation. We create, among other things, lift assists, secure tools and autonomous guided vehicles.   Much of what we focus on is collaborative robots and 3D printing. We help companies automate repetitive tasks and enable operators to better do their jobs on the assembly line.   We have a wide range of customers, including automotive companies, as well as some of the heavy industrial and agricultural companies like John Deere and Caterpillar.   

What are some of the challenges your customers come to you with?

[caption id="attachment_11359" align="alignright" width="300"]Eckhart Additive Manufacturing Application Engineer, Robert Heath Robert Heath, Additive Manufacturing Application Engineer at Eckhart[/caption] It can be industry-specific. However, a lot of the challenges do have the underlying issue of either ergonomics or looking to improve the cycle time and quality of the part.   What I work on the most is developing ergonomic solutions for hand tools. That's really what we’re focused on with 3D printing in our company.    A lot of these hand tools were made out of aluminium and so they're still heavy and right at that ergonomic limit of what an operator should be lifting repetitively or reaching with.    We've been implementing 3D printing in those situations where we can take further weight out of the tool to make it lighter and a little bit more operator-friendly. We can print the geometry to make the tool more ergonomic, thus giving operators a better tool than what was previously available.  

What was the reason for bringing 3D printing in-house and what has the process of adopting the technology been like?

We purchased the printers in 2017. Before buying the 3D printers, we were outsourcing a significant amount of jobs to other companies to 3D print parts for us.    So it was a cost reduction move as well as a strategic business move to get into the AM space and to start promoting additive manufacturing with our customers more. By using 3D printing in-house, we have a better cost and quality control over the parts.   Also, as a company, we don’t produce anything that you can just look up in a catalogue and buy. Everything we make is completely custom. So it made sense to adopt 3D printing because we do a lot of one-offs.  

Could you elaborate on the solutions Eckhart is developing when it comes to automation?

Let’s take automotive as an example, as we work a lot with automotive companies. Their job rate is maybe 60 jobs per hour, so operators are getting a new vehicle every minute.   One of the things we’ve done with 3D printing is develop a lug nuts starter tool. This tool is used by the operator, who holds it in one hand and places all of the lug nuts into the sockets on this tool. The operator can then put it to the tyre and all of those lug nuts are started at once.    While it's not a full-on robotic solution, we did further automate the process because the operator no longer has to hold one lug nut at a time and twist them with their fingers to hand start them onto all the vehicles.   Operators are doing this repeatedly up to 60 times an hour for an eight-hour shift. If you multiply that by five days, that’s a lot of twisting with your fingers. We were able to alleviate the stress on the operator's body with this 3D-printed tool.    We also run the whole gamut of collaborative robots. For example, we had an application with a company where it was looking to increase the cycle time when pulling a metal injected part out of the mould.    One of the difficulties they were experiencing was that the part was incredibly hot because it was metal injection moulded. So there were safety factors to consider. We were able to develop a robotic solution that can pull out the part without an operator needing to handle the part.   Also, since the part is hot, it’s still a little bit pliable when it comes out of the mould. So we had to use a special grip to only squeeze the part with the right amount of force just enough to hold it but not enough to deform it.   So with robotics and automation, we were able to dial in those settings to our requirements. And one of the side benefits of that particular robot installation was that the quality of the part increased dramatically because the mould wasn't cooling as much as it was with a regular operator there.    The company has been able to increase their cycle time, their quality has gone up and now they've got an employee that can do more value-added work instead of just standing at a press pulling parts out of a machine all day. That’s all thanks to automation.  

How do you typically work with customers?

One of the things we push for is to have a workshop where a team of representatives from Eckhart meet with the customer and we visit their facility.    We like to meet a customer’s designers, as well as the manufacturing engineers, technicians or operators — the shop floor people that are going to be using this tool or these solutions. Then we sit down and go over what additive is.    Some of the questions we need to ask are what are the challenges the operators are facing? What is the customer looking to gain?   Working in these small teams, we are able to identify a lot of opportunities with each customer. After that, we work with the customer to develop a strategy to implement any number of those ideas.  [caption id="attachment_11360" align="aligncenter" width="713"]Eckhart_3D_Lab Image credit: Eckhart[/caption]

Can you share any examples of how you've helped a client achieve their objectives with 3D printing?

Whenever we design a tool for a customer and get the design approved, we build and test it internally with their product. Then we show the customer how it works and how the tool interacts with their product.   Going back to that lug nut starter tool that we produced, we consider that to be a huge success. The customer was incredibly ecstatic about how beneficial this tool was going to be for their use.   

When speaking with your customers about additive manufacturing, have you found that they are very knowledgeable about the technology? Or do you have to do a lot of educating as well?

We do have some customers who are very knowledgeable and have prior experience with 3D printers, whether in their current role or in a previous role.   Then there are many others who need much more educating. I would say that more often than not I’m doing some educating on 3D printing and what its capabilities are.    To that point, when I have to educate there is often also a bit of resistance and trepidation on the customer's side, as they’re not sure if it will work. In traditional manufacturing, we tend to stick with what works.  

So would you say that when it comes to AM, there is still a tendency to think in terms of traditional manufacturing as opposed to the needs of additive manufacturing?

Yes. Once I get a customer to work with additive, the next step then is to say, “This is what we're manufacturing here and here's how we can make the part better.”    If we take a part that was designed with traditional manufacturing methods, it is almost always going to be cheaper to manufacture that part with traditional methods.    But if we take that same part and redesign it so that it is made for additive manufacturing, then we're able to look at which way will be cheaper, and it winds up being better overall for the AM process.  

In your view, what more needs to be done to accelerate the adoption of 3D printing?

EckhartThere needs to be more education on the materials and their actual properties. I get a lot of questions like, "Can you print me a part out of UHMW (Ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene)?”   My response is always, “No, I can't print UHMW. But I can make something similar so that.”    So my biggest challenge is probably the lack of knowledge of materials or the testing on some of the materials.   We have a partnership with Stratasys and work with them frequently. They're very good at knowing how the materials work and how they are processed through the printers, while we’re good at knowing the part function. So it's a good partnership for us both.  

How do you see additive manufacturing evolving over the next few years?

I see a wider range of materials being developed. We're much more able to refine the actual processing of the material through the machines, and we're getting better with the materials that we already have.    The industry is also looking at those other materials that are perhaps not as easy or “AM-friendly” as something like PLA which is a pretty common material.   I also think we’ll see an increase in machine capabilities and speed in the next few years.  

What’s next on the horizon for Eckhart?

We’re always trying to push the boundaries with AM. We’re thinking outside the box on what else we can do with the technology and we’re constantly trying to use it in applications that we never thought we would use it.   For example, we recently completely 3D printed a lift assist tool to pick up an aluminium cast housing for one of our customers, and this is starting to sprout a couple more opportunities for lift assists.    So we're excited about that and looking forward to solving other complex challenges with additive manufacturing.   To learn more about Eckhart, visit: https://www.eckhartusa.com/   [post_title] => Expert Interview: Eckhart’s Additive Manufacturing Application Engineer, Robert Heath, on 3D Printing, Automation and Industry 4.0 [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => expert-interview-eckhart-additive-manufacturing-application-engineer-on-3d-printing-automation-and-industry-4-0 [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2019-10-18 09:08:51 [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-10-18 08:08:51 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://amfg.ai/?p=11357 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 11158
    [post_author] => 1
    [post_date] => 2019-09-17 08:53:50
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-09-17 07:53:50
    [post_content] => Oerlikon logoOerlikon, a global technology and engineering group, serves some of the most safety-critical industries, including aerospace and defence. Increasingly, additive manufacturing has become a key part of its offerings, with the company establishing a $55 million Innovation Hub & Advanced Component Production facility in the US earlier this year. 
 
In this week’s Expert Interview, we sit down with Matthew Donovan, Principal Engineer for Additive Manufacturing at Oerlikon, to discuss how it continues to develop an end-to-end AM production facility, exciting AM trends to watch out for and why standards are critical for the future of the industry. 
 

Could you tell me about Oerlikon?

Oerlikon is a global company and a manufacturing leader in both its Surface Solutions and Manmade Fibers segments. Part of the Surface Solutions segment, Oerlikon AM, provides additive manufacturing solutions, from metal powders to prototyping and series production.  

How did you first become involved in additive manufacturing?

[caption id="attachment_11324" align="alignright" width="298"]Matthew Donovan, Principal Engineer of AM at Oerlikon Matthew Donovan, Principal Engineer of AM at Oerlikon [/caption] My background is in aerospace. Before coming to Oerlikon, I spent the last 20 years working, primarily, on gas turbine engines, hot section components and combustion section components.    I have a background in fuel delivery systems, mainly for aerospace gas turbine engines, but also for industrial gas turbines and fuel cell reformers. I’ve also worked on various R&D efforts with NASA and other companies. So I’ve had experience working with high-strength, high-temperature materials for very demanding environments.   I began as a manufacturing engineer, learning the ins and outs of how to manufacture and build parts and spent time as a quality engineer doing field investigations for those same components.    I started working in advanced manufacturing in 2006. I began to encounter challenging geometries and components that we couldn't really make with conventional manufacturing.    At that point, I was working with Morris Technologies on metal 3D-printed components. We started developing components for fuel injectors using additive manufacturing.    Over the years, I developed a few components using additive manufacturing. I worked for United Technologies, assisting the entire enterprise in developing and implementing AM technologies, mainly with a focus towards flight certification hardware.    As we were working to implement these components, one of the major gaps I discovered was that there was a complete lack of standards on how to make parts and how one certifies them.   
Much of the cost associated with aerospace isn’t necessarily the components themselves, but the certification. We must provide complete traceability for every component that we make. Developing the standards for how we do that and implement that for additive was quite a challenge.
I started to work on AM standards with ASTM F42 around 2009. I've helped draft some standards and subsequently served on a few committees. I co-authored the design guide for metal powder bed fusion by laser, ISO ASTM 52911, with ISO/TC 261 and ASTM F42.    Through that work with United Technologies, working with many highly talented people and having access to a number of great resources, we were able to come up with various innovations and develop some really leading-edge products for AM metal powder bed.   

What does your role at Oerlikon entail?

I began at Oerlikon in 2017, and my role, now, is Principal Engineer for AM. My role has been focused heavily on the implementation and development of production-ready AM metal technologies.    We started as a start-up division of the Surface Solutions Group. We’ve built a new facility in Huntersville, North Carolina, which we moved into a little under a year ago.   It's a 120,000 square foot facility which currently operates 18 metal powder bed systems. On-site, we have HIP (Hot Isostatic Pressing) and vacuum furnace capabilities, as well as post-processing, powder handling and inspection capabilities.   
The goal has been to establish this facility as a true end-to-end AM production workflow, with control of every aspect of the supply chain, so that we can provide traceability for our customers. 
  My role in that has been, chiefly, in machine certification. I work closely with the machine OEMs on the installation and qualification of our machines and then getting them certified for their capability and cross-capability for components across different machines.    We’re then able to understand the machine capabilities, the tolerance and the precision of an individual machine to produce geometric tolerance of an AM component and the differences between our machines and then tune them so we can deliver the same product across multiple machines. [caption id="attachment_11169" align="aligncenter" width="740"]Oerlikon_Optimized_Bracket Bionically optimised bracket for aerospace application. Image credit: Oerlikon AM[/caption]  

Standardisation has been a really big talking point, especially for industries like aerospace. How have things developed over the time you’ve been involved in the industry, and what is the current status of AM standardisation?

There have been some very good developments.    We need standards, especially in aerospace, but also in other safety-critical areas like medical, nuclear and energy. The key thing about standards is that they allow everybody to speak the same language and understand what a product is capable of.    With the absence of standards, everybody was effectively building parts and performing their work in often very similar ways, but not in the same way. They weren't talking the same language. It's very common for people to refer to different terms to mean the same process, or refer to the same term and mean radically different processes.    Developing standards allows you to talk in the same language across the board and understand what you mean when you refer to, say, a qualification build, or feedstock, or machine qualification level.    In aerospace, if you don't have a standard that you can certify a part against or typically, multiple standards to identify the part that you're making, its mechanical properties, performance and tolerances and to be able to trace it back to the original lot it came from, all the way back to the chemical composition of the elements that went into it, then you can't put it on an aerospace platform.   We can do incredibly complex geometries and make parts with AM that just are not physically possible any other way. We can save a lot of weight, time, material and cost by making parts through AM.   The design and manufacturing freedom AM provides us is clear. But the drawback is that it's great if you can make the part, but if you can't prove that it's a good part, it doesn't do anybody any good.  
Standards are what get us across that line to be able to manufacture and sell parts and be able to use them in production for aerospace. 
So aerospace standards are one of the key pieces of the puzzle before you can make parts.    There have been various development organisations that have been working very hard in this area for a long time. I've been working as a volunteer on ASTM standards for about 10 years now, and I have seen the benefits of what we do.    As I mentioned, I contributed to the original titanium standard for powder bed fusion. That first one took me (and several other people), a little over two years to get that first one validated. Subsequently, we've been able to turn around additional ones in about half that time.    Things are really starting to accelerate now. ASTM recently launched its Center of Excellence based in Auburn, Alabama, in conjunction with Auburn University.    The intent behind that was to apply targeted research and development funding and effort through collaboration partners to achieve more standards quickly. There’s been much industry and government body collaboration to identify the gaps and standards that we perceive in the industry, which is what we need to move forward.    You may have heard about the ANSI roadmap. It's a very good document that some of us in the industry have contributed to, in order to identify what our key gaps are, that we need to fill to achieve true production for additive manufacturing.    On the latest version of that roadmap, I believe there were 91 gaps identified, largely in standards areas, and some of them are very high priority ones. The ASTM Center of Excellence is one vehicle that's being used to apply R&D to close those gaps in standards.    In another area, SAE International has its Aerospace Materials Specification (AMS). The first ones for additive powder bed fusion were AMS 7000, 7001, 7002 and 7003 for nickel alloy 625, which was recently released.    Those are excellent bodies of work that will yield a lot of results. Many of us are using these standards already to develop production parts.   [caption id="attachment_11167" align="aligncenter" width="740"]Oerlikon Aerospace_case-study Sentinel Satellite Antenna Bracket produced with AM. Image credit: Oerlikon AM[/caption]  

With your experience of adopting AM, what have been some of the challenges in integrating the technology internally and how have you navigated that process?

Oerlikon AM has aimed to provide AM solutions that meet the requirements of the most demanding industries, such as aerospace and medical among others.   Across our various facilities we have the right quality systems in place, such as AS9100 for aerospace and ISO 13485 for medical. But regarding integrating all the systems needed to get there, that has been a challenge, although there are some solutions out there that provide pieces of the puzzle.    I would say that there is no one solution that covers every single aspect of what we need, end-to-end. But there are a lot of good tools that cover portions of that whole end-to-end supply chain.   So one of our challenges is to identify the solutions that cover different aspects of our supply chain, bring onboard those that cover the aspects that we need and integrate them.   For example, some solutions handle financial and inventory very well, but they don't do very well for manufacturing workflows. Others handle manufacturing workflows and production planning well, but don't handle, say, build time estimation, material review issues, or geometric component issues, such as blueprints and 3D models.   So there are a lot of different aspects, and our challenge is integrating all those different pieces to have a seamless end-to-end solution. It's a pretty manual process presently, but we're working to make it a lot more automated as we go forward.   

Are you able to share any success stories of how you've used AM in production?

While I can't specifically refer to those customers without getting their authorisation, we do have several components that are actively in production. Some that I can think of, off the top of my head, are aerospace and defence-related components.    So one is a flight component that is part of a mission system on a military helicopter. We've been in production for that component for two years now and have successfully delivered over 200 units to date.    We also make another component that is used for a ground sensor, where you have an integrated system of 80 different individual components into one monolithic piece. That one has also been in production for nearly two years.    We do have a number of other production components we make ⁠— for oil and gas and subsea exploration areas, that are in active production for undersea robotics ⁠— for another of our customers that we are making parts for, that are actively used both in oil and gas, drilling and exploration, and undersea robotics.  

How do you see additive manufacturing evolving over the next five years, both in terms of the technology and the industry overall?

 
Over the next five years, I see technology evolving with more multi-laser systems, which will enable parts to be produced faster, thereby driving down the cost of components. This will further drive the implementation of AM parts. 
The cost of parts is a key factor, and laser time is your main driver for the cost of an AM component. So, if you can squeeze more lasers into a part and be able to certify the components, using those multi-laser systems, you'll be able to build the same part faster and therefore cheaper.    The other evolution is that we'll have better in-process monitoring systems. There are a few different ones currently available by different manufacturers, but my impression is that while many of them are good systems, they're not yet at the level of capability that users, such as I, would need to be able to implement them at a true production rate.    My hope is that we’ll soon have true in-process monitoring, so that we can monitor what is happening in the machine during the process and be able to identify issues with a component before it leaves the machine.   The ideal scenario would be to have intelligent software that can identify issues and potentially make corrections with engineering support on the fly. Of course, better still would be to have truly robust machines that don't have any issues and are just running 24/7.  

Are there any trends that you're excited about?

I'm excited about various developments, with in-process monitoring systems, like I mentioned, being one.   
There are also some new materials that are being developed and launched. We are developing a few different materials that enable certain of our customers to make some very revolutionary components. 
  The other thing I'm excited about, is that there is much more diversification in manufacturers across the world. Early on, most AM machines were being produced in a handful of countries in Europe. Now there are new manufacturers and various countries that are applying different and novel approaches to building machines.    They're driving down the cost of the machines, and they're learning, from their use across the industry, to make them more intuitive for the operators.    My experience for the first few years with these machines, was that they are very fussy and require a lot of attention and “babysitting”. And frankly, a lot of the machine design wasn't very manufacturing friendly.    I see a lot of user-friendliness being built into the machines now, as machine manufacturers get feedback from their users.    But also, the increased competition from different manufacturers across the planet is, I think, helping to drive innovation in the systems, drive the cost down and drive the usability up for the machine systems.   [caption id="attachment_11170" align="aligncenter" width="740"]Oerlikon_Additive manufactured inter-locking end fitting for load introduction into a hybrid driveshaft Additive manufactured inter-locking end fitting for load introduction into a hybrid driveshaft. Image credit: Oerlikon AM[/caption]

What's next for Oerlikon, especially for the facility that you're helping to oversee and run?

Our short-term goal for this facility is to get all the equipment we've purchased installed and certified. So we have 18 metal powder bed systems online and operational presently, and we’re doing production hardware on many of those systems.    Our next step for those, is to complete material properties for all our material systems across all our machines and the data sets for them. But that is very time consuming and expensive.    Fortunately, we have a lot of very talented people here with a lot of materials, metallurgy and engineering experience, and I'm very proud to be a member of that team.   The other goal is to stand up all the other equipment to achieve that true end-to-end manufacturing production facility.    We've recently brought our HIP furnace and vacuum furnace online, and we're working to get those certified.   We’ve also brought in some CNC equipment, and we have a substantial number of additional furnaces and CNC equipment for post-processing to bring in as well. So, the goal is to get all this equipment installed, certified and operationally integrated to create a complete, cohesive manufacturing system.   To learn more about Oerlikon, visit: https://www.oerlikon.com/en/   [post_title] => Expert Interview: Oerlikon's Principal Engineer for AM, Matthew Donovan, on 3D Printing for Aerospace [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => expert-interview-oerlikon-matthew-donovan-principal-engineer-on-3d-printing-for-aerospace [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2019-09-25 06:57:45 [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-09-25 05:57:45 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://amfg.ai/?p=11158 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 11022
    [post_author] => 1
    [post_date] => 2019-09-11 09:26:13
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-09-11 08:26:13
    [post_content] => Jigs, fixtures and other tooling aids form the backbone of any production floor. However, it’s not uncommon for these tools to take weeks to produce, causing bottlenecks in the production workflow. 
 
To overcome this, companies are increasingly adopting 3D printing to speed up tooling fabrication. UK automotive manufacturing firm, Dunlop Systems and Components, is one such company. 
 
Dunlop integrated Markforged’s composite 3D printing technology into its business at the end of 2018. Fast forward nine months, and the company is now 3D printing tooling parts and prototypes in just a few days.
 
In this week’s Expert Interview, Mark Statham, Production and Engineering Manager at Dunlop, joins AMFG to discuss the process of adopting 3D printing and how the technology is helping to streamline areas of the company’s production processes.
 

Could you tell me a bit about Dunlop Systems and Components? 

Dunlop Systems was born out of the original Dunlop company in the 1960s and started out producing all types of suspension systems. This began with the mini Metro and then, progressively over the decades, we introduced air suspension onto different vehicle manufacturers’ platforms, including Land Rover, GM, Isuzu and Renault trucks, as well as specialist vehicles.    More recently, we’ve entered smaller niche markets, for example, we went into the ambulance market (Renault, LDV) and the wheelchair access market, where you have vehicles that can accommodate wheelchairs.    In 2014, we moved into a purpose-built facility and this created an opportunity to launch ourselves in new markets under the Dunlop Systems brand.   

What type of customers and industries does Dunlop serve?

We mainly serve the automotive industry. For example, we manufacture vehicle suspensions for all the high-end Land Rovers, Discoveries, etc. and we do Renault and Dennis Specialist Vehicles as well.   We also serve the train industry; Bombardier is one of our customers. One of the products we produce for this sector is valves.   We do have some customers who buy our products and use them for machinery moving so they can raise machinery in the air, on an air suspension, and move it around quite easily.    Our products are also used in the industrial sector for both vibration suppression and movement. One unusual application is the use of convoluted bellows for fairground rides — so we serve a wide range of sectors.   

What prompted the company’s decision to consider additive manufacturing?

Dunlop receives enquiries and interest from new customers to have our air suspension systems (ECAS) fitted to their vehicles. Customers are needing shorter lead times, from conception through to SOP, and as a result, there was a need to speed up all parts of the design and manufacturing process.    Budget constraints are quite tight because we are trying to support our customer programme without overspending. We were also trying to fund new development work to attract further new customers. So, when I was sent to look at 3D printing, it was with the thought that it would help us save money and perhaps help generate new business as well. That's where we first entered 3D printing.  

When it came to proposing the idea of additive, was it difficult to get buy-in at first, or was the whole company on board from the outset?

Engineers in our design engineering department had already had a look at 3D printing a few years prior.    We have our own test facility where we design and build suspensions and then put them on an endurance test. Obviously, these suspensions must last a million miles. They're put on high endurance rates at high frequency and high velocity and they're on there for about two weeks, which simulates the lifetime of the suspension unit.    When our engineers first looked at 3D printing, they found that they couldn't achieve that sort of lifespan with the materials that were available. But we hadn’t written off the technology.    Last year, my director approached me and asked if I would participate in an online seminar to see if, and how, we could use 3D printing. The seminar, run by Markforged, showed the technology and materials they had and, more importantly, how others have used it. That’s when I thought 3D printing could be of benefit to us as well.   But to truly make a business case for it, I had to examine what parts were due for repair, what needed an overhaul, or replacing and then put a spreadsheet together with what it would cost us.    Some parts are replaced yearly, others are replaced when they break. It became clear that having a 3D printer onboard wouldn't completely replace all the tooling because we have some high-use, high-temperature, high-impact tooling.    But it was going to provide us with the replacement option. Factoring in the costs of acquiring the printer and the monthly costs of running it, I calculated that we’d easily see the return on investment within two years.    I compiled a list of about 100 tooling parts, that I thought we could replace and that needed replacing, or that we couldn't afford to replace. Based on that, we were able to justify the expenditure.   About three weeks later we had our printer delivered and we had the payback within six months.  

What was the process of deploying the technology like in the early days? 

When the 3D printer arrived, we were up and running within about an hour. We began by going through the list of our most important criteria.    We didn't want it to run overnight at that point. We wanted to keep things simple and focus on the simple tools that were on the priority list.    For example, we have high-quality suspension items that go on high-end vehicles like Bentleys, Audis and Porsches. One of our main customers buys our modules and adds their own components to create a complete air strut.    Because these are high-quality vehicle components, we have nylon tooling to hold them in place during our process to protect the parts. These nylon tools wear out, get dirty and they're not very attractive, so the replacement nylon parts were the first items that we printed. We replaced white nylon with Markforged’s Black Onyx.   That was well received because we were getting parts straight away within hours. Normally, if we need to replace a part, we must first find the drawing, send it out for quotation and wait for the quotation from the toolmaker to come back, which can take days.    Just getting the paperwork to raise the order took about a week to two weeks. Then for them to make the part, depending on how complex it was, could take another week.   You're looking at a turnaround of a minimum of two weeks, whereas we were printing parts daily.  That’s when our colleagues on the shop floor really saw the benefits of 3D printing.   The very first printed parts were very simple parts. Then we started going through the parts and learned how light, but at the same time how strong, the 3D-printed parts were. That opened a wide range of tooling that we could replace.    It was very well received in the first week; the shop floor was getting parts in days and hours, rather than weeks. And because we're IATS standard, it takes longer for the quality department to inspect the part than it does for us to print it.   

You said that you started off simply. Has your use of 3D printing evolved over the nine months you've had the 3D printer?

Yes. Now we can make very complex parts and tooling and we’ve developed methods of fixing two 3D-printed parts together.    We have a lot of small niche customers who produce wheelchair access vehicles. We have developed partnerships with these companies and part of this is to support their relatively small budgets. Other smaller customers were receiving tooling we had utilised from obsolete tools; it didn't look attractive, but it still did the job.    Now, for those customers, we can 3D print very complex work holding parts that fit snugly to their parts and protect their parts better than before. That also means we can get the part to them more quickly, with less risk of damaging it, because it's now a proper engineered tooling.    We’re also experimenting with different joining techniques. For example, because we mould all our products in-house, our product needs to be expanded before it goes into the moulding process.   We have an expanding machine on the shop floor which cost us about £14,000 to develop in-house. We call it “the rocket” because it's about two metres long and it stands about two metres high. It points at an angle towards the operator, so the operator can load and unload the product quite easily from it. But the actual working area is only about half a metre long. But it's all the actuation of that machine that makes the product expand.    For the working area, we've now 3D printed a half-metre tube and it's printed in six different parts that we’ve joined together.    We’ve done the first trial of expanding a product in this half-metre tube instead of on the larger machine. But this prototype fixture is only £600, a fraction of the cost.    Because we're now a supplier to a new automotive manufacturer, we’re likely to need about six of these machines. If this works, we can save a lot of money.  

One of the things companies often tell us, is their need for AM expertise internally to be able to successfully adopt the technology. Was this an issue you faced?

We have five people in my team and our department runs and maintains the 3D printer. Everybody in our department quickly picked up on the technology and we're trying different things.    Other departments are slowly getting used to the technology. For example, we’ve printed some gauges for our quality department. The quality department needs to check that certain parts are within tolerance. Since they're not highly critical, we have 3D printed some gauges for them. So, our quality department has taken on board some of this 3D-printed tooling.    We’ve also produced some prototype parts for our design team. Prototype parts are normally very expensive because you must machine them from either solid steel or solid aluminium.    On a vehicle’s air suspension you normally have gaiters, which stop the stones hitting the suspension and rupturing the air bag. This gaiter is supported onto the struts using a plastic collar. Since it is a prototype, it couldn't be moulded because nobody would design a mould for a prototype. It could have been machined from solid, but the design is so complex that it would probably take a specialised CNC machine.    As a result, we've 3D printed some prototype collars and, because it's 3D printing, we can achieve the required tension because it needs to twist and move with a vehicle.  That's been quite successful.    However, when you're looking at potentially 50,000 vehicles a year, that’s 100,000 of these products, it's not quite in our realm of possibility yet, because we only have one printer. We’re not a 3D manufacturing company currently.    So now the design team is still looking at moulding these parts and getting a plastic moulder. 3D printing has been fine for development but it’s still a slow process.  

What’s Dunlop’s vision for the technology going forward? Do you see your use of 3D printing expanding to other applications?

Currently, we are focusing on tooling because we need to completely recreate a new line of tooling within the next 12 to 18 months. We are in the process of designing this with 3D printing.    We have all the current designs, which worked well for our current line. With 3D printing, you need to do a slight conversion to make the part stronger in certain areas and we can now add carbon fibre. So that’s our focus for now.   However, because we design suspension parts from the 1960s, we still have customers who buy them. So the train industry buys our old-designed levelling valves. These are an element in body which uses a basic lever system to move air from one part of the train to the other, so that it tilts around bends. It’s used by customers like Virgin Trains and Bombardier.    This part was designed in the 1960s and early ‘70s. The original casting, which is in aluminium, is wearing out, so we’re looking at trying to refurbish that casting, which is quite expensive. But then there's also the option of 3D printing the body for it to then utilise the system. That’s one possibility. We’ll certainly need more printers for that.     Something else we’re looking at is whether we can recycle some of our products because the moulds are getting so old.   

What does the next year hold for Dunlop?

It’s going to be a very busy year for us, as we've got a new electric vehicle platform launch coming up. We must also support our increasing business on ECAS systems for other OEMs’ achieved IATF 16949 accreditation. Also, we will focus on the important aftermarket, which has been a long-time business model for us.    Our company focus will be on OEM high volume production, smaller aftermarket production and the further development of our industrial range of Anti Vibration components.    Regarding 3D printing, we’re overworking our 3D printer — it hasn’t stopped running. So we’re also looking to purchase a new, larger printer. That means we’ll have two printers running, which will give us more throughput.   To learn more about Dunlop Systems, visit: https://www.dunlopsystems.com/   [post_title] => Expert Interview: Dunlop Systems and Components Mark Statham on Adopting 3D Printing for Tooling [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => expert-interview-dunlop-systems-and-components-adopting-3d-printing-for-tooling [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2019-09-11 09:50:21 [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-09-11 08:50:21 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://amfg.ai/?p=11022 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 10722
    [post_author] => 1
    [post_date] => 2019-08-20 13:18:49
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-08-20 12:18:49
    [post_content] =>  

The need for specialised skills and expertise is within additive manufacturing is crucial for the technology’s adoption. However, mastering the principles of additive is no mean feat, as it involves a steep learning curve and considerable time investment. One company looking to alleviate this problem is The Barnes Group Advisors, a US-based additive manufacturing consultancy firm. 
 
Founded in 2017 in Pittsburgh, The Barnes Group Advisors (TBGA) is focused on helping companies strategise and solve problems associated with the industrialisation of additive manufacturing. For this, the company not only provides advisory services, but also offers a training programme. 
 
In this week’s Expert Interview, we’re joined by John Barnes, the company’s founder and Managing Director, to learn why workforce development is key for the growth of the industry and what is needed to get the most of additive manufacturing.  
 

Could you tell me a bit about The Barnes Group Advisors and the services you provide?

[caption id="attachment_10726" align="alignright" width="300"]John Barnes, Founder of The Barnes Group Advisors John Barnes, Founder of The Barnes Group Advisors[/caption] We started the company two years ago because we saw the change and growth in additive manufacturing, and we saw the technology becoming more and more industrialised.    At TBGA, we all have an engineering background, and so we've been active in the qualification and certification of different industries’ approach to additive manufacturing. In most cases, we've facilitated the adoption of the technology. For example, when I was with Arconic, we qualified the first titanium series production parts for the Airbus A350.    We're currently a team of 13 people, many of whom have held executive-level positions, including myself — I was previously Vice President at Arconic. Our Leader of ADDvisor® Services is Laura Ely, who was the former Head of Technology for GKN Aerospace.    With this expertise, we’re able to translate technical requirements into a strategic approach. We fill the niche between explaining additive manufacturing to a CEO or a Vice President of Engineering etc. so that they're working on things that are relevant to their strategy.    Based on what a client does, we look at where they fit in the supply chain and then we try to provide advice on how they can either participate in additive manufacturing or use additive manufacturing.    We’ve also developed a training programme. This was partly based on requests we had to talk more about additive. At the same time, we had one client who asked if we could put together a training programme. They’d decided to launch a large AM business, hiring a lot of engineers.   But the engineers didn’t know how to design for the process, and without that knowledge, the company would never meet its financial goals. So we created the training programme.    We generally take a requirements-based approach. First, we have a discussion with our client about what the requirements for their products are.     Very often these are mature products, and the people who originally designed them aren't around anymore. So we’re not there to sell additive manufacturing, we're there to help you make a better or more affordable part. And additive is a solution. But you need to start with a requirements-based approach, which makes the rest is a little bit easier.   [caption id="attachment_10745" align="aligncenter" width="840"]The Barnes Group Advisors Image credit: TBGA[/caption]

How did you become involved in additive manufacturing?

I first worked for what is now Honeywell Aircraft Engines, which had signed up to a project with Sandia National Labs and with nine other companies.   A few scientists from the lab were taking an entrepreneurial leave of absence to form a company around a technology that is now known as a directed energy deposition technology, and used powder as a feedstock. That company today is called Optomec. So it was successful and it still exists today.   Being part of the project was a fantastic opportunity, and that’s how I got my start.    I then made a move over to Lockheed Martin and ran what we call Manufacturing Exploration & Development for Skunk Works™. At that point, we were very active in every form of additive manufacturing.   For defence and aerospace, additive has the potential to answer so many questions. So we were actively exploring polymer systems, sheet lamination systems, directed energy systems, powder bed systems, and that went down a path exploring metal powders in depth.    Then I was fortunate enough to take an assignment with the national science agency in Australia, CSIRO. I was a director of their high-performance metals programme. At that point, additive came calling once again, as they wanted — as many national labs want — to have a presence in additive manufacturing.    In Australia, additive is a brilliant technology because it does solve a lot of manufacturing issues. The country doesn’t have a massive manufacturing output and additive is a way to approach smaller, efficient manufacturing quantities.    We set up Lab 22; it’s an innovation facility with different types of additive technology. With this lab, we set up a path for companies to come in and access the machines and try to develop their product.    We did considerable research on that. The small to medium enterprise landscape in Australia is large, and they simply don't have the money like a larger firm to just take a bet on a machine and spend a million dollars on it. So we were giving industry access to this new technology.   When I came back to the US in 2015, I went to work for a company called RTI International Metals, which later was bought by Alcoa, and then turned into Arconic. The CEO had recognised that titanium production wasn't going to grow it at the rate that the shareholders wanted to see.   So she started to invest in downstream manufacturing capabilities like forming, precision machining, and also an additive manufacturing facility in Texas. My skillset, which encompassed titanium powders and additive manufacturing, was pretty valuable here.    So I took over the R&D side for the advanced manufacturing segment. As I mentioned, we ultimately won the project from Airbus, and then we had to qualify parts for the  Airbus A350.   
It's a hard business making aeroplane parts. And it's also very difficult to transition from a facility, which has historically been in prototyping work, into a manufacturing environment. It’s one thing when you're making one part, one shape, one time. When you're manufacturing, you're making one part, one shape but 1,000 times, so there's a lot more paperwork, there's a lot more getting qualified for special processes.
 

You’ve touched on the potential of AM specifically for aerospace and defence. How do you see the current state of additive manufacturing within those industries and what are the key challenges?

Additive manufacturing is a disruptive technology, and both the blessing and the curse of disruptive technologies is that they are not for the meek. You've got to make a commitment, otherwise you won't get the value out of it.    There's a workforce development component to this. If you don't know how to design for the process, you're never going to make your business case. Design for additive is counterintuitive for most engineers who are classically trained to remove metal from a block. So you have to turn things around.    It's very difficult to take a risk-averse industry, like aerospace, defence or medical, and try to get them to adopt something disruptive.    However, the good news is that they're doing it. The medical, aerospace and defence industries have all been early adopters of additive. We're continuing to see that progress.   
If I bring it down another level, that workforce element is really critical right now. There are not enough engineers, managers, executives who truly understand the technology well enough to work and develop a strategy to get what they need to get out of it. 
  This is not a new phenomenon. It's also true with traditional technologies. For example, when you have to retool, you have to make a significant commitment to retool. And that impacts the company from bottom to top. Additive isn't any different.  

Why is knowing how to design for additive manufacturing so important?

If you don't know how to design for additive, you’re not going to get the cost performance benefit from additive.    People generally only tend to adopt a new technology when there’s a cost reduction or benefit involved. So a new technology has to do everything the existing technology did, but it must do it better, faster and cheaper. If the business case doesn’t pass that, there is no point in doing the project.    We make the analogy that weight is money. And in the world of additive, weight equals time and time always equals money. So the more material you have, the longer it's going to take to print and, therefore, the more it's going to cost.    This is a difficult concept.
You can't control the price of the machine and you can't control the price of the materials. But what you can control is your design. Your design determines how long your machines will be running, as well as all the post-processing that goes on afterwards. And if you don't do that right, you’re never going to achieve cost objectives. 
  In our training, as well as talking about additive, we also go through the cost drivers in additive manufacturing because engineers need to be aware of how costs can build up with an additive part.     

What can be or is being done to address this skills gap within AM?

The good news is that there are more resources every year. There are even online resources now.    For example, my company, through Purdue University, has put together an online certificate for people interested in AM. There is both an engineer/manager track as well as an executive track. You don't have to know anything, you don't have to have an engineering degree to surpass the course. And it’s available online.    MIT has also done an online course and I think we see AM similarly, it creates choice for the student. With Purdue, we designed the course with an eye towards people who are working professionals and don't have copious amounts of time.    So there is high-quality online content, which helps to get people from no background in additive to, let's say, an intermediate level.   The nature of learning today is changing. Accessing high-quality information and education in very remote areas is now possible through the internet. What I like about it is that the access to the online now doesn't biased towards a certain socio-economic background or gender.    One of the things I really like about additive is that it has brought a lot of young people into manufacturing because they don't consider additive manufacturing to be manufacturing. It's just cool.    We try to nurture that because the more brains you have on a situation, the better it's going to be.  [caption id="attachment_10724" align="aligncenter" width="700"]TBGA's Activate AM workshop TBGA's Activate AM workshop, a programme developed to help companies integrate AM [Image credit: TBGA][/caption]

 

The industry is steadily shifting towards end-part manufacturing. What are your thoughts on that? What more do we need to do to get to that point?

I think we're close. We're seeing fewer headlines like “this group made the first-ever 3D-printed, left-handed screwdriver handle” and a little bit more of “this company adopted additive manufacturing for this car or this train”.    This shift represents a lot of hard work that isn't so much fun to talk about when you get into specifications, work instructions and especially supply chain initiatives that have to go along with it.    Also, a lot of Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers and even relatively small machining houses are getting involved now. They’re coming to us asking,  “Is it now time for us to be involved? Where are we at? What should we do?”   We have a standard process that we call the “Four Lenses”: machines, materials, the digital space, which would include your product and all the data, and finally people.    We couple that with the TBGA AM maturity model. We try to balance product requirements and skills needed to use AM. We have a five-level matrix, where you look at the product requirements, and then you need to be able to match that with skills and capabilities as you move up that path.    At level zero, that's the prototyping world. You don't have to have a lot of work instructions, specifications or huge skills in additive manufacturing to meet those product requirements.    Then you go into tooling and shop aids, and there you have to know a little bit more. But because you're not delivering a part to a customer, it's a bit easier.    And then you get into part replacement and part consolidation. At the top, you can only make this part with additive. As you move up that scale, your capability, understanding and training have to increase with additive. Otherwise, it becomes a very risky proposition.    We see most people become very proficient at level zero and level one. They're now moving into this substitution where they are trying to swap out an additive part for the existing one. And that's tough because the parts are designed for different processes. If it's not designed for additive, it’s very difficult to make a business case for it.    Moving off of that requires additional risk because now you're disrupting your supply chain in your manufacturing process. And that's where we see a lot of people are right now. They're trying to figure out when they can make that move from a level two to a level three part, where the business side of it gets easier.   

Are there any developments in additive that you're excited about?

Generally, what we see is a lot of science is now catching up to this world. We now have a better understanding of what processes work, and the machines are getting much faster. So that’s all very positive.   
As a materials engineer, myself, I see the huge potential for materials in this space, both in polymers and metals. The potential is great because now you're not beholden to have huge amounts of material to manufacture something. I think the people who’ll benefit most from this are design and materials engineers — I think this is their time to shine. 
  Additive manufacturing is really improving in all aspects and it looks like more solutions are being developed to fill in some of the gaps. It's all part of the industrialisation path. Everything's improving with additive, and that to me is exciting.    People are moving into the post-processing side, coming up with modifications to existing equipment that they've used for other industries.    The software side is also coming in very strongly with new design tools and MES/workflow software systems.    Another exciting thing is the second generation of photopolymerisation technologies. We deal with a fair amount of startups and everybody's got a new idea, a new twist, a new way of thinking about the process.  

You briefly mentioned MES or workflow software systems. What is your view on the importance of MES and workflow software and how it can contribute to the industrialisation of AM? 

Anything that can help us manage the AM process, the risk and also improve the working inventory helps on the business side of things.    Aerospace and medical have very good quality and safety records. They're not willing to put that at risk for a new technology, and I think that's where the systems come into play.   With MES systems, I also see huge opportunities in being able to better protect intellectual property, as well as the ability to monetise different processes.    I think now with some of the new tools that are out there, there are better ways to track where 3D printing files go and make sure that they're the right ones. Common quality assurance issues become better with such management software tools.   To learn more about The Barnes Group Advisors, visit: https://www.thebarnes.group/   [post_title] => Expert Interview: John Barnes, Founder of The Barnes Group Advisors, on the Future of Additive Manufacturing [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => expert-interview-john-barnes-founder-of-the-barnes-group-advisors-on-the-future-of-additive-manufacturing [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2019-08-20 13:20:41 [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-08-20 12:20:41 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://amfg.ai/?p=10722 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 10525
    [post_author] => 1
    [post_date] => 2019-08-14 08:45:51
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-08-14 07:45:51
    [post_content] => Adopting metal 3D printing can be challenging due to the need to develop applications, qualify materials and processes. To overcome these challenges, German company, Aconity3D, provides flexible laboratory metal 3D printing systems that enable its customers to experiment with process parameters and research new applications for the technology. 
 
In this week’s Expert Interview, Yves Hagedorn, Managing Director at Aconity3D, discusses the benefits of hardware systems with open architecture and why design software is one of the key challenges in metal 3D printing. 
 

Could you tell me about Aconity3D?

[caption id="attachment_10527" align="aligncenter" width="700"]Co Founders in front of a system left to right_Hendrik_Blom Yves_Hagedorn Andreas Goerres Co-founders of Aconity3D, left to right: Hendrik Blom, Yves Hagedorn, Andreas Goerres [Image credit Aconity3D] [/caption]   At Aconity3D, we offer everything that’s needed for metal additive manufacturing.    We provide special machine components and different modules, which can be combined to create equipment designed for specialised applications. That’s because we believe that there is no one system that can suit all possible applications in the whole market.    Our customer journey starts with consulting. For example, a customer might approach us to see if it’s possible to 3D print magnesium. In this instance, we’d do some research in our second business unit, which is material distribution, and find out for our customer where to get the specific material in question.    At our third business unit, we’d do some testing to ensure that the material is feasible for being processed with additive manufacturing. And if that all works, and a customer is satisfied, we’d act as a job shop and manufacture that specific application for the customer.    In the long run, the customer might decide to buy our equipment which has been designed for that specific application.    Our approach enables our customers to conduct efficient research in terms of extending the scope of the applicable materials.    If customers have certain materials for special applications which are not yet qualified, they can do a lot of research towards qualification with our equipment. They can use various parameters, they are completely free from the software side and can also perform changes on the hardware, depending on the parameters they need.    Ultimately, we want to be a one-stop-shop for customers. However, selling equipment is our main business.  

What was the motivation behind founding the company?

Well, if you want to extend the scope of additive manufacturing, either in terms of applicable materials or by increasing productivity or dimensional accuracy, you need full access to the hardware and to all possible parameters in the process.    We saw that there was no system on the market that will allow you to do this. And that was when we came up with the idea to provide customers with the possibility of finetuning their process. That's when Aconity3D was born.    We soon realised that we have a real asset and that we can actually fulfil a real customer need to have access to both the hardware and software.   

Are there specific industries that would benefit the most from the technology and services that Aconity3D provides?

There is no specific industry, since the industrial applications for additive are as manifold as the possibilities.    Let’s take the medical industry, where there’s a huge field of applications. For example, you can have titanium implants or even magnesium, which is bioabsorbable. There are also applications in the medical sensor industry.    The same is true of aerospace. The aerospace industry has an interest in extending the scope of applicable alloys for plating, for instance, or high-temperature alloys.    Automotive is also another interesting example because the industry is very cost-conscious. This means that automotive companies only want to pay for what they get.    Our value proposition is our high flexibility, which allows us to leave out everything that isn’t needed for that specific application. This allows us to compete with traditional manufacturing technologies.  

When it comes to metal 3D printing, which applications are best suited for the technology, and how can companies begin to identify the right types of applications?

It's good to consider additive manufacturing if you have components of small sizes and complex structures. Another reason to use additive may be to combine new materials where it was previously impossible to do so — take copper and chromium as an example.   The main hurdle here is that for almost all applications, producing a part is more expensive with additive manufacturing when compared to milling or other traditional manufacturing technologies.    One exception is dental restorations: for these, additive manufacturing is cheaper than milling. That’s why it was one of the first industrial applications for powder-based laser melting. Another exception is glasses frames, which is also a great application for additive.   But for all the others, there’s often a conflict between the business case and product life cycle costs. That's the main hurdle because a lot of customers simply have no idea about their product life cycle costs.    To put it differently, you’re now able to have a functional integration. So for instance, you can integrate cooling channels into a housing, but it's really difficult to put a price tag on that. So the main challenge is to do the part screening and find a valid business case for your additive application and production.  

What are the key challenges of metal 3D printing, and how have you addressed them? 

In my opinion, one of the key challenges lies in part design and the according software solutions for data preparation. When it comes to additive manufacturing, standardisation is still a challenge and I believe this is in part due to the fact that the software is not really standardised. For instance, take the many different data formats for each individual system provider. Also, in terms of part design there are limited to no guidelines as a consequence of the sheer flexibility of additive production. This is also the reason, why dental restoration frameworks were the first true industrial application: A completely automated part design and data preparation framework – a precondition for series production of single lot size parts.   For the first time since the 70s, we’re now in a situation where we can build more complex parts than we can actually design or simulate.    Thus, design and data preparation are still a bottleneck in this industry while the emphasis is put on higher productivity hardware systems, with intelligent software solutions being excluded from this equation. Preparing parts so that they are suitable for additive manufacturing is a key skill and also needs quite a lot of time.    I’ve seen examples where part design and data preparation took more than two weeks, while printing the part took only two days. This is simply inefficient to design a part for that amount of time. And that's where the problem comes in, in my opinion.  

Could you share any of your customer success stories?

Yes, definitely. We’ve had customers who are now producing magnesium parts for medical applications. We have others who’ve won FDA approval for their titanium implants.    In the automotive industry, we had a specific request for a high productivity system. So we provided a four-laser system with full overlap on a 400-millimetre diameter plate. I think we're the only ones in the market who were able to do so, and it has a significant impact on productivity.    Further customers exploit the possibility of high-temperature preheating for expanding the scope of applicable materials towards highly alloyed tool steels, Titanium Aluminides and certain nickel-based superalloys.  

How do you see the AM industry evolving over the next few years?

The industry has definitely matured in the 12 years I’ve been involved in additive. When I first started, there was a lot of hype. Now, the hype has abated somewhat.     The evolution of the technology has helped to unlock many applications for additive manufacturing, but all these applications still require a high level of expertise.    Today, you can buy certain desktop 3D printers for less than 1000 euros, which makes many people believe that you can buy industrial tooling machines, like those expensive powder-based laser melting systems, press play and you’ll immediately have your business case.    Obviously, that’s not the case with industrial additive manufacturing. There is a major challenge in training and developing expertise. And I think that's where the whole industry will need to continue to evolve.    Having more expertise within the industry and, most of all, having more standardised processes and reliable products will be key for industrial adoption of additive manufacturing.   

Are there any developments in the AM industry that you're excited about?

Yes, definitely. We have a strong focus on not only in-process monitoring, which means using different sensors to obtain as much information as possible out of your process, but also on using that information to do in-process control.   I think that's the Holy Grail for AM because with in-process control you’re able to almost immediately react on deficiencies within your process.    This will make the systems a lot smarter.   

Could you talk a bit more about in-process monitoring and control, and what Aconity3D is doing in that space?

[caption id="attachment_10529" align="aligncenter" width="700"]in-process monitoring in 3D printing In-process monitoring [Image credit: Aconity3D] [/caption]   Our company is a spin-off from the Fraunhofer Institute for Laser Technology, where powder bed laser melting originated.    With that background, we were able to implement different optical sensors to go with the processing laser. And that allows you to draw a lot of information immediately from the interaction zone, melt pool and laser.    This, however, leads to other challenges associated with Big Data. What do you do with that huge amount of recorded data? How do you make sure you skip the data you don't actually need? And how do you distinguish between useful and useless data?    I think that's where the industry is currently at. And that's what we’re also doing. We use a high-speed camera to look inside the process and learn from it, and we also have different sensors enabling a closed-loop in process control.   So if you have that system in place, you can detect if your melt pool is too hot or too large, and you can regulate that through laser power, thus reacting to that signal from the process.    That's really fascinating to me. And I think there's still a lot of potential here.   

Aconity3D has recently announced a partnership with Aerosint. What does this partnership mean for your company going forward?

Ever since I've been in the industry, people have been interested in multi-material metal parts. And it was always the problem of what should come first, the application or the technical development.    For some time, nothing really happened in that direction. And then we met with Aerosint, a Belgian company that has developed a powder deposition device capable of laying down two different materials in the X and Y dimensions on a powder bed. This is basically what has been lacking in multi-material additive manufacturing.    Now we come into the equation with the ability to react to the altered powder pattern or material pattern on our build plate by changing the required process parameters for each individual material.    This means that both partners, Aconity3D and Aerosint, have a strong foundation to make that multi-material AM dream come true.  

What new applications could be opened up with the possibility of multi-material metal 3D printing?

One industry that could really benefit is the jewellery industry.    Creating graded materials, from copper to chromium, may be another opportunity. Those could be used for tooling within the moulding or forging industries. For example, with multi-material 3D printing, you could use copper to create cooling structures and chromium or steel to create the outer surface of the part.    If you have gradients, you may also be able to grade your mechanical properties. This could be useful in the medical field for the reduction of stress shielding. This effect occurs when metal implants are too dense, causing a bone to lose its strength. Stress shielding could also be reduced by changing the mechanical properties of the implant with the help of multi-material 3D printing.    However, before new applications are developed, I think there needs to be a technological push to show the capabilities similar to the current capabilities of additive manufacturing.   

What does the future hold for Aconity3D?

We’ll continue to expand the scope of applicable materials which, similarly to multi-materials, will allow us to offer new applications for our industrial partners. We want to dive deep into specialised series applications.    We understand that with niche applications, it can be really difficult to qualify new materials, especially when it’s only for one customer. However, our bread and butter is to ensure that our customers are satisfied and can exploit the applications that they have in mind.    We ultimately want to be the enabler for innovation for our customers.   To learn more about Aconity3D, visit: aconity3d.com    [post_title] => Expert Interview: Aconity3D Managing Director Yves Hagedorn on Helping Companies Innovate with Additive Manufacturing [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => expert-interview-aconity3d-managing-director-yves-hagedorn-on-helping-companies-innovate-with-additive-manufacturing [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2019-08-14 08:47:45 [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-08-14 07:47:45 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://amfg.ai/?p=10525 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 10134
    [post_author] => 1
    [post_date] => 2019-08-06 09:24:17
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-08-06 08:24:17
    [post_content] => Photocentric is a UK-based manufacturer of 3D printers and materials. The company, founded in 2002, is known for its unique and innovative approach to 3D printing, which it calls Daylight Polymer Printing.
  
In contrast to similar resin-based technologies like Stereolithography (SLA) or Digital Light Processing (DLP), Photocentric’s Daylight Polymer Printing technology does not use a UV laser or projector to produce 3D-printed parts. 
  
Instead, its technology uses light from LCD screens to create 3D-printed parts by curing liquid photopolymer resin layer by layer. These Daylight resins, also manufactured by Photocentric, solidify when exposed to light from its printers’ LCD screens. 
  
Notably, Photocentric’s 3D printers use LCD screens from mobiles, televisions and tablets, making them more affordable than SLA/DLP technologies, but offering the same quality. 
  
To learn more about Photocentric’s unique technology and examples of it in use, we speak with Paul Holt, Photocentric’s Managing Director. 
  

Could you tell me about Photocentric and your mission as a company?

[caption id="attachment_10135" align="alignright" width="250"]Paul Holt, Photocentrics Managing Director Paul Holt, Photocentrics Managing Director[/caption] Photocentric was originally founded to manufacture a patented package of photopolymers. Since then, our company has grown to enter a variety of markets, and we apply our photopolymer innovations to a diverse range of industries — including 3D printing.   Innovating photopolymer technology lies at the very core of our business. In 2005, we invented the concept of using LCD screens for 3D printing. In 2014, we developed our first LCD prototype. We’ve just released our seventh LCD printer, with plans for more in the pipeline.    The users of our technology include jewellery designers looking to speed up production or make unique geometrical pieces with 3D printing, dental technicians who need a high-capacity, accurate printer for patient-specific models and manufacturers, engineers and inventors who want to turn their design concepts into tangible prototypes or end-use functional parts.    Ultimately, our mission is to change global manufacturing – not just 3D printing. We’re doing this by making 3D printing affordable, large-scale and functional, and by enabling custom mass manufacture globally.  

How does your Daylight Polymer Printing technology work, and what sets it apart from other resin-based machines available on the market?

Daylight Polymer Printing uses our in-house formulated Daylight liquid photopolymer resin. The resin is cured layer by layer when exposed to our high-resolution, LCD screen-based 3D printers.     A part is created once every layer of resin has been hardened by the light emitted from the LCD screen.    One of the key differentiators of our technology is the quality of our machines. Every stage of our products goes through a thorough quality control procedure to ensure that our customers get the best experience and product available.    Furthermore, our approach is designed to reduce the cost of 3D printing and enable the wider application of the technology. Everyday screens, like phone or TV screens, have become the core of our 3D printers. These LCD screens are reliable and low-cost digital imaging devices.    That, coupled with our photopolymer resin, means we can offer an affordable 3D printing package. Many 3D printing companies do the engineering and then outsource the chemistry – we do everything in-house.   We also offer the largest build volume LCD screen-based printer on the market, with our Liquid Crystal Magna machine, so we’re able to achieve a high level of accuracy on a large scale.  

Which industries could benefit the most from your technology?

We’re able to provide 3D printing solutions to industries like dentistry and jewellery, where small and accurate applications are typical, as well as provide solutions for industries where large scale components and prototypes are required.    In particular, we feel that there is huge potential in the dentistry field for Photocentric. After visiting the IDS 2019 show this year, we saw a huge demand for LCD printing in this sector.    That’s why a huge chunk of our research and development is dedicated to producing dental-specific products, such as Liquid Crystal Dental – our optimised dental printer for chairside or lab due for release later this year.   On the other hand, our technology is also suitable for large component applications within the automotive and entertainment industries. The scope is huge, especially considering the versatility of our LCD printer developments. [caption id="attachment_10147" align="aligncenter" width="640"]Photocentric lab Image credit: Photocentric[/caption]  

Could you share one or two successful applications of how your technology has been used?

One unique customer is Quimbaya Orfebreria, an Argentinian goldsmith that produces craft special pieces for its customers.   As demand began to outweigh supply and they faced design limitations, Quimbaya decided to push traditional methods aside and introduce 3D printing into their workflow. They chose to use our high-resolution LC Precision 1.5 desktop printer.    By using 3D printing, they were able to reduce their manufacturing time by 80%. Their production also increased by 400% and they are now able to produce more intricate and complex designs for their clients.    Closer to home in the UK, another example is the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital in Oswestry, a specialist orthopaedic hospital with a long tradition of innovation in the treatment of their patients.    With the use of models printed on the LC Pro, the predecessor of LC Magna, a surgeon was able to help plan a complex femoral osteotomy in a juvenile patient who had a hip deformity. The necessary cuts were planned in advance, along with pre-shaping the implant needed for successful correction. These 3D prints ultimately saved the NHS over £1000 and saved an hour of in-theatre time.  

What are some of the challenges that need to be overcome to accelerate the adoption of additive manufacturing?

The greatest challenge is the lack of material properties.    When we first started in 3D printing, we found that three key issues were preventing the wider adoption of 3D printing: 1) the extremely high cost, 2) the lack of manufacturing scalability and 3) the lack of functional properties.   LCD screens have certainly changed the first problem, with thousands of lower-cost mobile screens offering extremely high-resolution printing. Large-format LCD screens have started to answer the problem of scale, however, the issue around material properties is yet to be properly addressed.    We’re currently working with BASF to develop the widest range of resins offering durable properties than can be used functionally in industry.  

How do you see additive manufacturing technologies and the industry evolving?

For us, LCD screens are truly disruptive and will change the game for SLA printing.    Through LCD screens, we can enable the custom mass manufacture of parts, either through single large screens that can produce large parts in a fraction of the time of technologies using lasers or projectors, or a series of smaller, higher-resolution screens that produce lots of smaller parts.     I also see all machines becoming automatic, removing the need for manual intervention.  I expect that functional 3D-printed plastic parts will be used in production lines within 2 years, as the benefits of the absence of tooling, custom designs and freedom of geometry are utilised industrially.    The other change I see transforming the manufacture of ceramic and metal parts is the creation of the green body via 3D printing with subsequent sintering to deliver solid and viable ceramics and metals. This process is both less energy-intensive and lower cost, enabling wider custom manufacture of these materials.  

Photocentric recently announced its new Liquid Crystal Magna 3D printer. Could you take us through some of the specs and the benefits of this machine?

[caption id="attachment_10137" align="aligncenter" width="640"]LC Magna Machine Photocentric's LC Magna 3D Printer [Image credit: Photocentric][/caption]    The vision behind our LC Magna machine is to enable custom mass manufacture and large component prototyping at a cost-effective price. LC Magna can create hundreds of custom parts at significantly low costs.   LC Magna has a large build volume and offers highly accurate printing, which makes it ideal for custom mass manufacture. Its build volume is 510mm x 280mm x 350mm — which makes it the largest LCD screen-based 3D printer currently available.    LC Magna also has a 23.4” 4K Ultra HD screen, coupled with a custom-built backlight. These two elements work together to ensure extremely high print accuracy and detail. The brightness of the backlight enables the printer to expose 100-micron layers from 3-8 seconds.    The machine is mainly targeted at dental technicians, product designers, engineers and manufacturers, who’ll be able to increase their throughput, speed up assembly productions and reduce lead times.   For example, a glasses manufacturer can now mass-produce 36 optical frames within 12 hours that’s less than 20 minutes for each set. A dental technician who needs a high volume of patient-specific models can now print 46 flat arches in just over 1 hour – these cost less than £1.06 per arch when used with our in-house Daylight dental model resin.   

What do the next 12 months hold for Photocentric?

We believe that the 3D printing industry opens up lots of opportunities — it impacts every aspect of manufacturing. Given the wide variety of unexplored possibilities in this area, we’re heavily involved in a range of exciting projects.    For example, we’re working on a range of new 3D printers to produce plastics, ceramics and metals.    We’re also expanding our team, particularly in the R&D department, to dig deeper into 3D printing metal and ceramics. This will have a dramatic impact on our approach to manufacturing materials.   To learn more about Photocentric, visit: https://photocentricgroup.com/   [post_title] => Expert Interview: Exploring Photocentric’s Daylight Polymer Printing Technology with Managing Director Paul Holt [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => expert-interview-photocentric-paul-holt [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2019-08-06 09:24:17 [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-08-06 08:24:17 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://amfg.ai/?p=10134 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 10060
    [post_author] => 1
    [post_date] => 2019-07-30 14:03:52
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-07-30 13:03:52
    [post_content] => [Image credit: Fortify]
 
[caption id="attachment_10066" align="alignright" width="232"]Josh Martin, CEO of Fortify Joshua Martin, Fortify CEO[/caption]

Fortify is a Boston-based startup that has developed a new approach to composite 3D printing. This approach combines magnet alignment of composites with Digital Light Processing (DLP) technology, enabling users to produce high-quality composite parts that would be otherwise impossible to manufacture.
 
The technology, called Fluxprint™, powers Fortify’s Digital Composite Manufacturing (DCM) platform. The platform is firstly aimed at enabling companies to produce durable tools like injection moulds and end-use production parts. 
 
In today’s interview, we’re joined by Fortify’s CEO, Dr. Joshua Martin to learn more about Fortify’s exciting technology and discuss what is driving the growth of composite 3D printing. 

 

Could you tell me a bit about Fortify?

Fortify is a Boston based additive manufacturing company bringing to market the next-generation platform for composite printing.   At Fortify, we focus on combining the performance you get from fibre-reinforced materials with the resolution you would traditionally expect from photopolymer technologies such as SLA and DLP.   We founded the company because we were tired of having to choose between form and function. Traditionally, there has been a trade-off between having a prototype that looks like the real thing but is typically poor in terms of performance, or having a part that is a functional prototype but is very far away from the fit and finish of a production-ready material.   At Fortify, we believe that polymer chemistry alone can only reach a small part of the property space needed by engineering applications. Within photopolymers, a lot of the baseline materials haven't really changed in the past few decades. For the last 25 to 30 years, it's been pretty much based off the same sorts of chemistry, although things have been accelerating in the last five years or so.    Fortify is bringing to the table a technology that allows us to fill the high-resolution chemistries with reinforcing additives, with the critical benefit of being able to control the alignment of the reinforcing particles.   If you look across all existing 3D printing technologies, SLA/DLP based platforms have come the farthest in terms of surface finish and accuracy of parts when they come off the printer.    We have developed a technique that allows us to magnetically orient fibres within a fluid medium. The parts we are printing are essentially the highest resolution composites produced to date. When compared to other forms of additive composites, you’re typically relying on shear forces to align particles to optimise for strength. However, shear is not always the easiest directed force to control.    With the magnetic assembly, we’re able to control multiple properties like strength, stiffness, thermal conductivity in three dimensions within each voxel.  

Is this what comprises your Digital Composite Manufacturing (DCM) platform?

Yes. The DCM platform is everything that allows us to tune the fibre architecture to optimise it for performance. That covers hardware, software, and materials.    The specific magnetic alignment technology is called Fluxprint, which pertains more to applying magnetic fields to the build area to orient a magnetically sensitive material.  

Which industries and applications would be best suited for your technology?

We have a rollout strategy that enables us to first capitalise on the tooling space, as we work on certain benchmarking needs for end-use part production   In regards to tooling, our competitive advantage is that we can provide the same level of resolution you would expect from a photopolymer technology, with the ability to withstand temperatures close to 300°C, whilst maintaining best in class strength and stiffness.   We're very well poised to disrupt the injection moulding market, where tooling investments are significant and the manufacture of tooling takes a lot of time. The injection molding market has been primed for the last decade or so by other solutions that haven’t quite cracked the performance-resolution problem. We can print in an hour, whereas it might take 10 weeks to conventionally source that same tool.    We're driving heavily into the market because our tools are able to handle significantly more shots and cycles than competitive solutions. We’ll soon be able to demonstrate how they can handle low volume manufacturing for high-value applications.   That said, we have several active projects that will open up end-use part production using the DCM platform. Our technology enables us to augment physical properties beyond strength and stiffness, such as enabling high performance parts with certifications such as FST (flammability, smoke, and toxicity).    We believe that the future of adoption in the additive space relies on opening up the material palette to cover applications currently addressable by the standard suite of polymers. Cost and throughput are necessary of course, and there are no better examples of hitting proper marks than the photopolymer based technologies.  

What is your view on the current state of composite 3D printing, and how is the technology developing? 

[caption id="attachment_10068" align="aligncenter" width="740"]Composite parts 3D printed by Fortify Composite parts 3D printed by Fortify [Image credit: Fortify][/caption]    What's interesting is if you look at the 3D printing industry over the last 10 years and the areas where companies are investing, it's very asymmetric.    What I mean by that is that there are literally billions of dollars going towards polymer 3D printing companies and metal 3D printing companies. Just recently Carbon announced that they received over another $260 million in funding. That one company alone has raised over $600 million in roughly six years.    In the composite space, there are maybe five companies that are really exercising technology and producing parts in this segment, such as Markforged, Arevo, Continuous Composites and Impossible Objects. But Carbon alone, which is one of maybe 150 companies in the polymer 3D printing space, has raised more money than all of the composite 3D printing companies combined.   When you look at how this plays out, you have significantly more dollars going towards polymer 3D printing and metal 3D printing versus composites. But when you look at the market opportunities between plastics, metals and composites, they are very much similar.  They're all greater than $300 billion worldwide.   You have a massive polymer market, where you have a displacement of injection moulding, for example, and you have a massive metal market where you have a displacement of cut metals, cast metals and metal injection molding for some applications.    Then you have this massive market for composites, which consists of hand layup, injection moulding, fibre-filled plastics and so on.    They're all huge. But the investment on the 3D printing side is very much going to the older technologies like the extrusion of thermoplastics and light-based processes.   That said, the composite space is perhaps the newest segment in 3D printing. There are challenges that come with this, but there are also a lot of opportunities.    The way we see it is that most of the companies in the composite industry so far have been focused on extrusion-based techniques like FDM. The problem is that this doesn't really get around some of the major faults of FDM in the first place, which would be poor surface finish and anisotropy — where you have a material that's 10 times stronger one direction than it is in another.    There are going to be very strong applications for that but I think in the composite space, looking for ways to hit better levels of isotropy, predictability, better levels of control and performance that aren't just dictated by maximising strength in a couple directions, is going to be key.    Our mission at Fortify is to enable 3D printing on a high throughput scale, with materials that typically need to be cut or manufactured using traditional means.    There are, for example, a lot of materials that are traditionally either assembled by hand, or they're sourced in a huge block that's very expensive, and then machined down to get the part. We're building into our platform these types of materials so that you can 3D print them directly.   

Why has it taken this long for the industry to recognise composites as a great opportunity for 3D printing?

That’s a very good question. I think a lot of it is due to the maturity of the buying market. In other words, back in 2000 to 2014, the industry was in a state where there was much lower hanging fruit to grab.   When Formlabs introduced the Form1, it was the first real high-resolution desktop 3D printer at that price point. That's what their branding was able to capture. Now, there are 10s to 100 companies trying to do the same thing.    If you look at Markforged, they released the first composite 3D printer in 2014. On the other hand, FDM has been around for decades and SLA has been around since Chuck Hull invented it back in the 80s.    The industry wasn't necessarily ready to adopt composites because it’s still learning how to adopt 3D printing in general. There are a lot of barriers in terms of design and benchmarking, which is taking some time to resolve.   There's a reason why composites traditionally have only been used on very high-performance, very high-cost applications such as aerospace components or high-end recreational equipment such as car parts and bicycles.    If you look at the Gartner hype cycle, we're at a point now that applications in the industrial space are really starting to get their footing.    The general approach was to try and get 3D printing everywhere. Now this perspective has changed to focus much more on specialisation. The industry as a whole is becoming more specialised to ensure the scope for technology really fits with specific application needs. There’s more of a focused effort on solving very specific problems, and that is where composites are really beneficial.   

Thinking about the AM industry more generally, how do you see it evolving over the next five years?

[caption id="attachment_10069" align="aligncenter" width="740"]a composite part 3D printed by Fortify  [Image credit: Fortify][/caption]    If you participate in the annual circuit of industry conferences you can typically pick up in what direction all of the companies are really looking to take the industry.    Looking back to five years ago, that’s when we really started to hear whispers about industrial printing. The goal was no longer to take 3D printing technologies to the consumer, but to take them to high-end industrial settings, where we can do “lights-out” manufacturing.    Companies like Carbon have taken big strides in trying to make this happen, although there's still a long way to go. I think that one of the threads that we will be focused on within the next five years come from hardware, software and materials innovations.    To be specific, if you look at what the pharmaceutical industry has done with batch genealogy, that's starting to get implemented through the use of machine learning.    The idea is how to track the digital thread all the way from the batch number of your raw materials through all the processes the material experiences during the print to post-testing and validation. That's something that 3D printing has to take more seriously because it's pretty well defined in the traditional manufacturing space.    Another way to say this is that in the next five years, companies are going to need to focus on demonstrating high levels of repeatability and reliability.    The reason it's comforting to use different types of conventional materials is because if you source cold rolled steel, you know what to expect in terms of properties and performance and how to work with it.    The issue with 3D printing right now is that there’s still a large range of variability. For example, if you buy two of the same printers and you print for two weeks straight on both of those, you're just gathering specimens to test.    When you test all those specimens, you end up with a big cloud of data that, in some cases, is all over the place. So the question is how is an engineer supposed to exercise any level of predictability, especially if they’re to use the technology at scale.   So part of the machine learning process is to introduce a high level of repeatability and enable the user to more easily predict how performance is going to function.  

What are some of the challenges the industry will need to overcome?

Right now there is a lot of barriers in terms of having 3D printing realise the goal of Industry 4.0. We're talking about distributed manufacturing, for example, higher throughput, high repeatability and lower cost per unit.   To get to those goals, the industry needs to treat the machines less like 3D printers and more like manufacturing units, and put in place a lot of the checks and balances that a traditional manufacturing system would have.   If you go to the International Manufacturing Technology Show (IMTS), it's humbling because there are around 140,000 attendees, and about 90% of them come from traditional manufacturing. 3D printing is just a drop in the ocean.   You get a sense of how mature a lot of these traditional systems are. We’re getting there in the sense that AM machines are now starting to look and feel and have the same level of inputs and outputs that a traditional manufacturing system like a CNC would have.   

How long will it take the industry to get to the point of being more than just a small percentage of the overall manufacturing market? Or do you think the technology should be seen in its own lane, so to speak?

I think comparing the size of the AM industry with the overall manufacturing market isn’t the best way to look at it because the industry doesn't exist just to replace injection moulding or CNC. It would be a shame if the goal was simply that.    A lot of emphasis needs to be put on the new types of applications and new types of benefits that can only be achieved with additive.    That's a big part of what we're looking forward to at Fortify: the ability to use a variety of AM technologies to create a part that's very strong, has a unique geometry and also has a high level of thermal conductivity. That will create new markets.    But I do think it will take some time before we completely reach this goal — although, of course, it's not a zero-sum game.  

This year Fortify announced a funding round of $2.5 million. Could you talk a bit about what this investment means for Fortify going forward?

The funding round that we announced in January was a recap of funding that's already closed. The intent is to essentially get our system ready for beta testing, and put it in the hands of users that we've been working very closely with now. We have just closed an additional 10 Million dollar Series A, led by Accel Partners.   We want to get the system ready so that our customers, who are paying us to produce parts for their current manufacturing needs, can actually utilise it.    Our first two material systems gave us good feedback on the workflow between hardware software and materials.    So the next step is to deliver on the tooling opportunity and then start to identify and work on producing end-use parts for other engineering systems.  

Could you tell us more about your collaboration with chemical company, DSM? What does this partnership mean for Fortify and your customers going forward?

DSM logo DSM was the first partner on our open material platform. The idea behind this platform is that we don't want to own everything when it comes to material formulation. We want to be able to focus on the additives, the hardware systems and software control to allow customers to have more than one choice when it comes to suppliers.   When it comes to companies like BASF, DSM, Mitsubishi and Henkel, each has their unique advantages and unique applications within the additive manufacturing space. And we would love to work with them in a way that allows us to create more value than if we were to just control the entire supply chain.    With DSM in particular, we're looking at ways to take some of their systems that have applications in the under the hood space. They have reasonable amount of toughness, they can maintain strength and stiffness at maybe 100°C.   Layering on top of that, the Fortify technology platform can hit much higher levels of strength, stiffness, creep resistance and it can perform at higher temperatures. This would allow our material partners to provide solutions to their existing customer base that isn't necessarily getting everything that they want out of the technology.   For Fortify, it's great because DSM is one of the premier photopolymer producers in the world. We're excited to work with them. They're a great group of people and together we can go pretty far with our technologies.  

You’ve touched on the open materials model. Do you think that this is the future of 3D printing materials?

If you look at the computer industry in the 80s, it was vertically integrated. For example, IBM would make memories and processors and would also have to build software and peripherals.   Then the industry changed. Now, if you look at where it is today, there are companies specialising in each of these segments: software, processors, memory chips and so on. The market has been decompartmentalised.    In some ways, the 3D printing industry is following that trajectory, where you have traditional companies like Stratasys and 3D Systems building the hardware, developing the software and producing their own materials, meaning you can only buy within that supply chain.   However, there are a lot of customers that want to have more options. They want to be able to choose what materials they run and know that there's another option there.    The open materials model is going to take time to be standardised across the whole industry.   

What do the next 12 months hold for Fortify?

We're scaling the team to make sure we can achieve our product milestones. We’re hiring rapidly, and we want to scale the team further to be able to get our beta programs in place, sometime early to mid-2020.    Then we'll be able to scale up in terms of moving this platform to general availability.   We feel that we're in a position where we can deliver the technology in 2021. We will most likely be looking for a little more capital at the end of 2021 to get a system manufactured for late 2021, early 2022.    There's a lot of really exciting work in front of us. We're already in high touch engagements with customers.    If people are interested in getting involved early on there's capacity to do so. But we have our work cut out for us in terms of getting systems into the hands of people we are working with right now.    To learn more about Fortify, visit: https://3dfortify.com   [post_title] => Expert Interview: Fortify CEO Josh Martin on its Digital Composite Manufacturing Technology [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => expert-interview-fortify-josh-martin [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2019-07-30 16:46:41 [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-07-30 15:46:41 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://amfg.ai/?p=10060 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9979
    [post_author] => 1
    [post_date] => 2019-07-23 08:59:33
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-07-23 07:59:33
    [post_content] => This interview was first featured in AMFG’s State of the Industry Survey 2019: AM Service Providers. To download the 36-page report, click here.
[caption id="attachment_9980" align="alignright" width="273"]Christina Perla CEO of Makelab  Christina Perla, Makelab Co-Founder and CEO[/caption]

 
Christina Perla is the Co-Founder and CEO of Makelab, a New York-based service bureau that provides 3D printing services for a wide range of industries, including consumer goods, architecture and industrial goods. The company offers an even split of FDM and SLA technologies, using a fleet of in-house desktop machines. 
 
We spoke with Christina to learn more about the realities of running a growing service bureau, what is needed to succeed and her views on where the market is headed.
 

An ever-evolving industry

With a background in industrial design, Christina has been in the 3D printing industry long enough to witness the extent to which it has evolved first-hand. “The industry started out mainly with prototyping and iterative design applications,” she says. “Now the range of applications has broadened, and the industry is constantly growing. For example, a lot of our customers come to us wanting to prototype their newest IoT innovations and product and hardware designs.  
“Every month, there are new technologies coming out. I also see a lot of advancements in the medical industry, especially dental. What I find particularly impressive are the developments being made in printing biocompatible tissues for surgeries. The industry really has come a long way.”
In an industry that is constantly evolving, what does it take for a service bureau to succeed? For Christina, innovation is key. “There are a lot of 3D printing service bureaus that are trying to innovate, whether it’s tinkering with their machines to make them more like workhorses or continually trying to improve the workflow and their internal systems.”    “It's interesting because the market is still operating in kind of an unknown. Yes, it's manufacturing — but the workflows and software for traditional manufacturing are so different from additive manufacturing, partly because there are just so many steps.”  

Putting customers front and centre

[caption id="attachment_9981" align="aligncenter" width="700"]SLA 3D printing at Makelab [Image credit: Makelab] [/caption]   For Makelab, the early days of the company were focused on fully understanding the industries its customers operate in. This understanding — placing the customer at the heart of its strategy — remains a key point of differentiation for the company.   “We put a big emphasis on understanding our clients from the very beginning,” Christina explains. “We’re a team of designers and engineers, so we all understand the motivations behind creating and are able to really understand our customers. We’re heavily focused on the quality and reliability of our service, and how we can best deliver.   “Sometimes, in the beginning, you bend over backwards for customers, and that approach doesn't always fit with your business. It becomes a stressful situation because oftentimes you're not actually able to sell what you promised.    “But a lot of what we've done is trying to standardise everything so that there's a nice balance between providing an amazing service while being able to work efficiently.”  

A competitive landscape and the need for collaboration

Christina notes the increasingly competitive landscape for service bureaus, particularly as the cost of desktop machines continues to fall, lowering the barrier for entry for new businesses. “There are a lot of companies who entered the industry as makers, which is how my business partner and I came into it,” she says. “But I think that after some time, you’ll need to evolve into more of a business mindset, where you're looking at how to make your business sustainable and scalable.”   In spite of the competition, Christina says, collaboration is crucial for success.  
“Having a collaborative relationship is not only empowering and validating as a business owner, but it's also really effective and productive.” 
“When you're running a bureau, you’re really at the hands of your customers and what they want and need from your service. If you're targeting a new customer group, that's a whole new service sector — at least, that's how we think of it. When we do target a new customer group, we define a whole new set of needs. But if you can find someone to collaborate with and work with it, it makes perfect sense. So for us, it's really interesting to talk to others in the space, share ideas and be more collaborative rather than see others as competitors.”    Whether it’s considering the competition or managing internal operations, running a service bureau, like any business, is not without risk.   “There's always a risk factor,” says Christina. “For example, a big problem for us is factoring in print failures or machine downtime, and assessing how that affects the whole workflow. Another challenge is being able to predict how much you can do at once or how much you can manufacture in a day, for example.”  

Automation is key to a better service

[caption id="attachment_9982" align="aligncenter" width="700"]parts 3D printed at Makelab [Image credit: Makelab] [/caption]   One solution Makelab has found lies in digitising much of the company’s processes and workflows to streamline operations and gain efficiency. This has included implementing workflow software. “We’re working on digitising more and getting our software more aligned so that we can have more control over our operations, and bring certain processes down to just a few steps,” says Christina.    “With desktop printers, you have to often use an SD card and various different slicers just to get the files to the printer. But we're working on eliminating a few of those steps to make it a little bit more seamless and ensure that there's less room for human error.”    Embracing digitalisation has also helped Makelab better serve the needs of its clients. “For our customers that are more experienced with 3D printing, we use workflow software to provide an online portal through which they can submit their orders. We also have repeat clients who need a custom order or a bulk order. Some clients need to have something done within a day, others may require a print in a few different materials or they need things to be assembled. Creating a digital workflow using software helps us manage these different demands much more easily.”   Investing in new technologies is another common concern for service bureaus. Makelab, however, has taken a slightly different approach. “At Makelab, we look at this question from a perspective of scalability. The more machines and technologies you have in-house, the more materials you have to carry stock for and the more programs you need. To continually invest in new technologies requires quite a bit of change, so we’re trying to shift the focus and be a little bit niche.”  

Looking to the future

When it comes to the future of the service bureau landscape, Christina acknowledges the challenge of predicting what is still, in many ways, an unpredictable market. “The market is still like the wild west,” she says. “People are still finding out what works and what’s needed to succeed as a service bureau.   “At some point in the future, maybe not in the next 12 months, I see bureaus adapting their machines to work more for their particular business. It means a lot of extremely custom setup to make it work better.”    As for Makelab itself, expansion is a key focus for the months ahead. “We definitely want to scale,” says Christina. “In the first few years of our business, we were very much establishing the foundation for a great service, figuring out what works for us, what our clients want and what makes them come back.    “Now that we have that settled and we all feel confident about it, the next step for us is to see how much we can do.”   To learn more about Makelab, visit: makelab.nyc   [post_title] => Expert Interview: Makelab Co-Founder and CEO, Christina Perla, on Building a Scalable 3D Printing Business [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => expert-interview-makelab-christina-perla [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2019-07-23 09:46:31 [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-07-23 08:46:31 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://amfg.ai/?p=9979 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )
WP_Post Object
(
    [ID] => 9927
    [post_author] => 1
    [post_date] => 2019-07-16 09:41:28
    [post_date_gmt] => 2019-07-16 08:41:28
    [post_content] => This interview was first featured in AMFG's State of the Industry Survey 2019: AM Service Providers. To download the 36-page report, click here
 
[caption id="attachment_9938" align="alignright" width="200"]Neil van Es, Parts on Demand founder Neil van Es, Founder of Parts on Demand[/caption]

Founded in 2014 and based in the Netherlands, Parts on Demand is a 3D printing service bureau that specialises in series production, tooling, moulds and the production of machine parts. Automotive and automation applications, as well as machine building, currently account for between 80 and 90% of the company’s business. 
  We spoke with Neil van Es, Founder of Parts on Demand, to discuss the company’s decision to specialise in end-part production, the technological developments to watch out for and the particularities of the Dutch manufacturing market.   

Taking 3D printing to production

“As a business, we’re very focused on 3D printing for production," says Neil. "There are a lot of 3D printing companies that have their roots in model making and prototyping and have stayed in this space. Parts On Demand, on the other hand, is focused on end-part production. We strive to create better and more efficient products by leveraging the complexity of 3D printing for the parts we produce.   “Some of the parts we 3D print include components for production lines, tooling for the automotive industry and bridge manufacturing.”   Neil shares the common view that the additive manufacturing industry is steadily moving towards production applications, shedding its reputation as being solely a prototyping technology. “I think we’re definitely past the consumer 3D printing hype that took place a few years ago,” he says.
We're now gradually getting to the point where 3D printing is being adopted as a production technology rather than just a means of prototyping.”
However, this transition requires a shift in attitudes, as well as the need to educate the market on the possibilities and limitations of the technology — a key challenge faced by many service bureaus.   “While we’re seeing more production applications with 3D printing, this transition requires a lot of education — creating trust and showing what's actually possible with 3D printing if you use it in the right way,” says Neil. 
“The main challenge lies in educating customers and engineers on how to make proper use of the freedom in complexity you have with 3D printing. As a business, we have to be able to demonstrate to customers how 3D printing can help them create better, smarter and more efficient products.”
  This also includes highlighting the benefits that can be gained with 3D printing. “A lot of the manufacturing today is driven by technology like 3D printing. Production series are getting larger, so product development needs to be quicker if companies are to create more value,” says Neil.   “Product life cycles must, and are, getting shorter and shorter. We now have some customers making dynamic products which are, in essence, evolving with each production run.    “All of this is made possible thanks to 3D printing. If you receive feedback from clients and ask your engineering and product development teams to translate this feedback into a revision of your product, there’s no longer the need to wait months and years before a relaunch — you can simply relaunch the product in the next batch you produce. This is an example of how 3D printing is enabling dynamic product development, rather than the static approach to production we’ve become accustomed to over the years.” [caption id="attachment_9929" align="alignnone" width="700"]Parts on Demand Image credit: Parts on Demand[/caption]

Challenges

The shift towards production also makes process repeatability and quality control more important than ever, although this remains a challenge for many companies.   “The majority of service bureaus have their roots in prototyping. They may be really good at manufacturing a single part or a prototype but struggle with consistency and quality,” says Neil. “That's something that will need to be addressed for the market to evolve and grow, and to make 3D printing a more stable production technology.”     Metal 3D printing is another area that requires further development. “I think the metal AM market in the Netherlands is sluggish because there aren’t that many companies that can make proper use of metal 3D printing. 3D printing metals is much more expensive than polymer 3D printing, so we've been a bit cautious to adopt it. At Parts on Demand, we mainly focus on Selective Laser Sintering just because it's a good way to efficiently make parts.”   

Looking to the future

Challenges aside, there is a lot of excitement within the industry, particularly when it comes to new technologies. For service bureaus and OEMs alike, this offers an exciting opportunity to experiment and test the limits of 3D printing.    “I’m particularly excited about the new LaserProFusion technology announced by EOS,” says Neil. (EOS first announced its new technology for polymer 3D printing in November 2018.)   “If the technology works like the company says it will, I think it could be a real game changer. For us, that would certainly be a technology to look out for and invest in.”    But while much of the focus has been on the 3D printing systems, Neil suggests that greater potential may, in fact, lie in post-processing technologies.   “I think going forward, post-processing automation will become one of the major things to watch out for,” he says. “This is because the real step change will be in the ability to automate post-production. People are focusing a lot on the 3D printing technologies, but that's not necessarily the reason why improvements in quality or consistency are achieved. 
“You have to consider the whole process, and this idea is often neglected. Many people are trying to start a 3D printing business without understanding that it's not just 3D printing by itself. The whole process needs to be considered in order to achieve something of value.”
For Neil, it’s important for service bureaus to fully understand the market they’re operating in.   “If you look at the Netherlands, there are a lot of machine manufacturers and companies implementing automation, either in food or agriculture or packaging,” says Neil. “The Netherlands is really a market where a lot of production lines are being created. So a lot of what we do as a service bureau is tied to these sectors.    “In contrast, if you look at Germany, there are several large service bureaus there, mostly tailored to industries like automotive and industrial goods. So for us, it’s really important to understand our target markets in order to better serve our clients.”   To learn more about Parts on Demand, visit: https://partsondemand.eu/en   [post_title] => Expert Interview: Parts on Demand Founder, Neil van Es, on Taking 3D Printing to Production [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => expert-interview-parts-on-demand-neil-van-es [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2019-07-16 09:41:28 [post_modified_gmt] => 2019-07-16 08:41:28 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => https://amfg.ai/?p=9927 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )