Scanning the press on the topic of Additive Manufacturing, there’s a lot said about the features and capabilities of equipment. Data shows the primary applications of additive manufacturing. The overwhelming use of the technology is in the form of prototyping/iterating. Of course, it makes total sense. Equipment performance is now to the point where we can iterate physical things almost as fast as we can iterate digital things.  

However, AM manufacturers and pundits strive to see additive manufacturing take on a more prominent role in end-use part production. Adoption in this role would be a shot in the arm for the AM industry as a whole as unit sales and consumables would dramatically increase. AM sales organizations are intimately involved in sales activities on the ground. They are pressured by manufacturers to pursue implementation of their equipment at production levels and pressured by potential customers to resist these initiatives.  

This blog asks, “Are We Asking the Wrong Questions?”

Minimum Viable Product (MVP) in Additive Manufacturing

Minimum Viable Product (MVP) – seeks to launch products that satisfy requirements without any ancillary features. In software, this could be something as simple as a website with a single button that just says, “buy”. It’s easy to pursue this in code as it’s “just” code. Changing is easy. Implementing this concept for physical products is a bit more challenging. Mechanical Engineers are challenged to let go of the perceived ‘industry practice’ that is considered the foundation of product development. Never mind that many of these perceptions are decades old and have never been put into question. Rather than accepting “This is how we’ve always done it”, MVP asks, “Do we need to do it that way?” For instance, take a device that has a number of injection molded parts. Several of these parts may exist internally. Things like fan brackets, routing clips, mounting fixtures, etc. may never see the light of day. Yet, it’s generally accepted that these components would be injection molded. In most instances, the choice of material is made with minimal consideration. Opting for PC-ABS is a common, effortless decision, as its capabilities usually exceed the necessary requirements. This material is readily available, and its affordability makes it an even more attractive option. An engineer’s time is expensive and taking a deeper look at such nominal components to see if other materials or processes could be used is not seen as valuable. In other words, seeing what the minimum viable design for this component is, may not seem viable in the grand scheme of the overall product. 

Engineers are hesitant to dive into other possibilities not just because it may take more time to analyze but also because the downstream functions including testing, quality control/inspection, assembly, etc. are more familiar with the performance of these ‘traditional’ materials and methods. Not to mention that certain industries have rigorous criteria for conforming to regulatory requirements. 

Capabilities of Additive Manufacturing

Manufacturers, industry press, and AM Sales organizations put a lot of effort into focusing on the features and benefits of their products. Rightly so. The AM product offerings today are staggering. Consider that there are over 2000 manufacturers of AM devices, many of which have very niche applications. The quality, accuracy, and performance of these machines rival (and sometimes exceed) traditional processes such as casting, injection molding, and machining. When someone makes the claim, “you can’t use 3D printed parts for production” they are likely basing their view on an experience they had with a consumer-grade solution and have not witnessed the capabilities that exist today in the commercial market.  

Sales organizations lead with capabilities. They ask potential customers about their current equipment capabilities and happily report how much better the capabilities are of the latest and greatest. And customers are grateful to hear about this. They are astounded to hear how this will increase their ability to iterate faster during development. Or, how much better their jigs/fixturing will be when they implement these improved capabilities. This approach does nothing to address the desire to transform volume production by implementing this technology. That’s because it is no longer about capabilities. 

A Shift in Additive Manufacturing

Sales and Marketing organizations need to re-tool their approaches. They need to take a more holistic approach to the industry to begin asking the right questions. Organizations that implement additive manufacturing see the benefits of their development efforts. The equipment is easily managed by a single person or a small team that doesn’t require full-time care. Small to medium-sized manufacturers may only print 10-15 parts/month. This is hardly fulfilling the promise of additive to be transformational.  

When the conversation turns to using this equipment for production devices, there is immediate pushback. For good reason. The sales pitch promises the ability to produce on the same machine that you proof. The ability to manage quality in line. And the ability to change quickly if needed. None of that is appealing to a manufacturer who has spent months/years developing a product, making sure it meets all requirements and conforms to all regulatory needs. 

When a product is developed, typically outside vendors are selected early in the process. These are vendors that appear on their “Approved Supplier” list. Getting on that list involved a great deal of effort on behalf of both parties. Often, manufacturers appear onsite with the vendor to ensure their processes and equipment are validated. Understanding their process control and inspection capabilities is important.  

The AM Industry is asking customers to become their own suppliers. To do this, manufacturers will need to acquire the equipment, spend time qualifying the machines and processes, establish rigorous processes to maintain that qualification as well as ensure the equipment is maintained. This requires employees, facilities planning, and ongoing expenses that they never had to worry about when just selecting an approved supplier. Not to mention the increased overhead required in their ERP/MRP systems to ensure the process runs smoothly. 

Addressing the entire ecosystem of Additive Manufacturing

Until the industry addresses the entire ecosystem around additive manufacturing and engineers become more comfortable with exploring contemporary alternatives to material and design, it’s going to be a challenge to fully adoption AM for production. 

A key component to making this happen will be establishing partnerships with leading, innovative organizations that can guide manufacturers through consultation and assessment of their current state. From there, a trusted partner can ensure viable equipment selection and process improvement will result in future success.

The top processes in Additive Manufacturing (AM) can be generally categorized as filament-based, resin-based, or powder-based. While there are some variations in these processes, the vast majority of materials fall within these three categories. Additive Manufacturing has a wide range of materials that fit many different applications and industries. From aerospace, engineering, automotive, medical, and so many more, looking at different properties can help you decide what material is best for you and your specific needs

1. Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF)

Filament-based materials are typically housed in a spool format. Filaments are commonly found in two diameters: 1.75mm and 3mm with the former being the most common. By far the largest variety of materials for AM are available as filament. The most common include:

PLA (Polylactic Acid)

PETG (Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol)

ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene)

Filament-based materials are also available in some interesting variations including:

PEI and PAEK materials have exceptional thermal and mechanical properties making them ideal for aerospace and medical applications. They require very high temperatures in an enclosed environment in order to print well. They are also available as composites with carbon fiber and glass fiber.

2. Powder-Based Materials

These materials are available in fine powder. The powder is used in processes such as SLS (Selective Laser Sintering), MJF (Multi Jet Fusion), DMLS (Direct Metal Laser Sintering), and Binder Jetting.

The most common powder-based materials include:

Nylon (polyamide or PA)

Polypropylene (PP)

Thermoplastic Urethane (TPU)

3. Vat Photopolymerisation Materials

These materials use a photoreactive resin that solidifies when exposed to a particular wavelength of light. The most common processes include SLA (Stereo Lithographic Apparatus), MSLA (Masked SLA), and DLP (Digital Light Processing). One of the challenging aspects of these resin-based processes is the classification of materials. Unlike filament and powder, resins derive their properties from chemical reactions that do not rely on heat. As a result, resin materials are generally classified based on the physical characteristics of their final (cured) state.

Elastomeric

Clear

Durable

Rigid

Tough

For those who have worked with 3D printers in the early days of 3D printing over 30 years ago, their first exposure to 3D printed parts was likely a photopolymer part. In those days, the parts were extremely brittle and could barely be used for more than a visual representation of a part. Over the last few years, that has changed dramatically. Resin-based parts can hold their own when compared to other AM processes.

The amount of materials available for Additive Manufacturing is enormous and covers a wide gamut of performance, aesthetics, and practicality. That said, there is a narrow band of materials that are most popular. Manufacturers of these materials encourage AM users to explore beyond this narrow selection in an effort to promote end-use adoption of AM as a viable production solution. There are many cases where 3D-printed parts have matched (or even exceeded) the performance of parts produced using injection molding or machining. By selecting a material that can be used for both prototyping and end-use, the development and production processes can be seamless.

In the ever-changing landscape of manufacturing, additive manufacturing (AM) is transforming the way companies are designing, and manufacturing products. Its promise of design flexibility, cost efficiency, speed, and sustainability makes it an attractive option for manufacturers across various industries.

With around 2 million people worldwide using 3D printers, the technology’s adoption reflects a growing trend towards more customized, on-demand production methods. However, before diving headfirst into the adoption of this technology, it is essential to take a step back and thoroughly assess your current processes. This foundational step ensures a seamless integration and optimization of AM technology, ensuring you gain the maximum return on your investment. Below, we dive into the significance of assessing your current processes as a gateway to the effective adoption of additive manufacturing solutions.

Understanding the Current Process

The first step in any significant change is understanding where you currently stand. Conducting a comprehensive assessment of your existing processes provides a clear picture of your manufacturing operations. This includes evaluating your production methods, supply chain, workforce capabilities, and overall business objectives. By gaining a deep understanding of your current state, you can identify areas where additive manufacturing can bring the most value and pinpoint potential challenges that need to be addressed.

Identifying Inefficiencies the Current Process

Every manufacturing process has its inefficiencies, whether it’s excessive material waste, long lead times, or high production costs. Assessing your current processes allows you to identify these inefficiencies and determine how additive manufacturing can help mitigate them. For instance, if your production involves a lot of material wastage due to subtractive methods, Additive Manufacturing’s layer-by-layer approach can significantly reduce waste. Similarly, if long lead times are a bottleneck, the rapid prototyping capabilities can speed up your production cycles.

Evaluating Cost-Benefit Ratio

Implementing additive manufacturing technologies requires an investment in equipment, training, and potentially reengineering your production workflows. By assessing your current processes, you can conduct a cost-benefit analysis to determine the financial viability of adopting Additive Manufacturing. This involves comparing the costs associated with traditional manufacturing methods against the potential savings and added value that it can bring. Factors such as reduced material costs, lower inventory requirements, and increased production efficiency should be considered in this analysis. Companies have seen a 40% reduction in material costs and a 70% reduction in overall product costs by implementing these technologies only increasing their cost to benefit ratio!

Ensuring Compatibility with Existing Systems

One of the critical aspects of integrating additive manufacturing into your operations is ensuring compatibility with your existing systems. This includes your design software, production equipment, and supply chain processes. Assessing your current processes helps identify any gaps or incompatibilities that need to be addressed. For instance, you may need to upgrade your CAD software to support the complex designs enabled by AM or reconfigure your production floor to accommodate new 3D printing equipment. Ensuring seamless integration minimizes disruptions and maximizes the impact of your new manufacturing setup.

Workforce Training and Skill Development

Adopting additive manufacturing technologies often requires a shift in skill sets and knowledge within your workforce. This critical step of assessing your current processes includes evaluating the readiness and capabilities of your employees to work with AM technologies. Keeping in mind that 42% of companies state that the lack of expertise and understanding of AM technologies is the biggest barrier to its adoption, it’s crucial to identify skill gaps and develop a training plan. Equipping your workforce with the necessary knowledge and expertise is not just about a smooth transition, but it is also key to maximizing the benefits of AM. By investing in training and skill development, you’re not only setting the stage for a more effective integration but also empowering your employees to fully leverage the potential of additive manufacturing.

Aligning with Business Objectives

Every business has its unique set of objectives, whether it’s improving product quality, reducing costs, or increasing production speed. Assessing your current processes helps ensure that the adoption of additive manufacturing aligns with your overarching business goals. By understanding how AM can contribute to these objectives, you can develop a strategic implementation plan that maximizes its impact. For example, if your goal is to enhance product innovation, focus on how AM’s design flexibility can drive creative solutions. If cost reduction is a priority, emphasize the potential savings from reduced material waste and streamlined production processes.

Pilot Testing and Iterative Improvement

Before fully integrating additive manufacturing into your operations, it’s prudent to conduct pilot tests. These tests allow you to evaluate the performance of AM technologies in a controlled environment and identify any unforeseen challenges. By assessing your current processes, you can select appropriate pilot projects that provide valuable insights into the practical implications of AM. Pilot testing also offers an opportunity for iterative improvement, enabling you to refine your processes and address any issues before full-scale implementation.

Building a Robust Implementation Plan

A thorough assessment of your current processes provides the foundation for a robust implementation plan. This plan should outline the steps required to integrate additive manufacturing into your operations, including equipment acquisition, workforce training, process reengineering, and timeline management. By having a clear and detailed plan, you can ensure a systematic and organized transition to additive manufacturing, minimizing disruptions and maximizing the benefits.

Conclusion

The promise of additive manufacturing is undeniably compelling, offering a new era of innovation and efficiency in manufacturing. However, to truly harness its potential, it is essential to assess your current processes before diving into implementation. The assessment will provide a clear understanding of your existing operations, identify inefficiencies, evaluate the cost-benefit ratio, ensure compatibility with existing systems, and align with your business objectives. By taking this crucial step, you can pave the way for a successful transition to additive manufacturing, positioning your business at the forefront of technological innovation and operational excellence.

Embracing additive manufacturing is not just about adopting new technology; it’s about transforming your manufacturing processes to achieve greater efficiency, sustainability, and competitiveness. By assessing your current processes and planning strategically, you can unlock the full potential of additive manufacturing and drive your business toward a brighter, more innovative future.