3d printing analysis Archives - Perfect 3D Printing Filament

3D Printing in India: Slow Adoption & What the Future Holds

Researchers from India are exploring the economic potential of 3D printing technology globally, and in relation to their own country, releasing the findings of their study in ‘A Study on The Entrepreneurial Opportunities, Global and Indian Economy in 3D Printing Sector.’

Taking a look at Industry 4.0 and the transformative nature of 3D printing in manufacturing, the authors consider the future, and especially the opportunities that should be available within India. This is especially true as digital fabrication has evolved substantially from a rapid prototyping tool to a catalyst for change in manufacturing complex, functional components—many of which are already critical to organizations like NASA, the military, automotive companies, and more.

India has been slower to embrace 3D printing, with the exception of medical applications where progress has been notable—especially in the area of implants (check out the case we followed on their 3D printed ear).

3D fabricated implantable ears [Image courtesy of: Times of India]

As 3D printing and accompanying technologies continue to evolve at an accelerated rate, they are impacting many industries in India; however, the authors point out the realities of converting from traditional methods to more progressive technologies—mainly that within the scientific realm—embracing such change can be overwhelming and many are resistant.

The construction industry in particular has a long way to go in India, along with other applications where 3D printing remains surprisingly unused in comparison with Europe and the US. As for startups, the authors realize that, while they may be entirely focused on 3D printing, it may not be “sufficient to show significant GDP growth.” Affordability and accessibility to technology are still needed in India, along with “more knowledge, and developmental work in terms of performance.”

3D printing service bureaus may prove to be profitable for some entrepreneurs, and in some cases, it may be the only technological service they offer, while yet others still have a stronger focus on conventional methods of manufacturing parts. The researchers also mention the importance of “3D printing groups” as users encourage each other to innovate further. In the midst of such evolution and revolution, the usefulness of prototyping should not be downplayed either.

In referring to data from a previous annual Wohlers report, the authors cite the following data:

“… more than 278,000 desktop IMAGES printers (less than $5,000) were purchased worldwide this past year. The additive manufacturing (AM) markets were up 25.9% by the Wohlers Review 2016 to $5.165 million in 2015.”

Their 2018 report shows the following:

“In 2017 the AM industry was generally about 21 trillion, with nearly all AM goods and services around the world exceeding $7,336 billion. The rise in 2017 will be comparable to a 17.4 percent increase in 2016 if Airbus, Adidas, Kia, Toyota, Stryker and many other rms, big and small, achieved a $6.063 and a $25.9 percent growth by 2015. This entire industry estimates $7.336 billion excluding domestic sales.”

Materials have also been up significantly, according to the most recent report, showing that revenue from the metal 3D printing realm grew 41.9 percent, in line with a five-year growth trend over 40 percent each year. Wohlers Associates also stated that “this kind of strong activity among materials suppliers and customers is a telling indicator of the increasing use of AM for production applications.”

It is interesting to note in other recent news (and opinion) also, that the country seems to be on the precipice of entering the market further, but they aren’t there quite yet, citing further 2018 Wohlers data:

“Industry analysis from the Wohlers Report, published in 2018, shows that India accounts for roughly 3% of total units installed across the Asia Pacific region when China hits 35% and Japan 30+%,” says Rajiv Bajaj, managing director, Stratasys India.

Overall, the authors see a “new phase” for 3D printers in India, and recent accessibility to printers like those of HP just introduced in the country last January show definite progress—and in terms of affordability too.

Along with stating that considering the true potential of the future of 3D printing “could make the least materialistic person drool,” the authors point out that there are still questions as to how manufacturing will really be impacted. While they do not expect traditional factories to be eliminated, it is certainly feasible that they will experience a “massive makeover.”

“The moment AM technology will dissipate as typical production procedures, it is rational to expect the decrease of AM systems expense, and consequently, soon the breakeven point will be expected to shift towards the creation of larger production amounts than the one considered. Under Indian native economic circumstances, a large GDP growth has been achieved. In addition, AM systems replace conventional and common production technology,” concluded the researchers.

Other researchers project that India’s presence in the 3D printing market will approach $79 million by 2021, but this depends on further education regarding the technology and whether the average consumer or business owner understands the benefits.

Bahubali’s Mahishmati empire arrangement [Image courtesy of: Sahas Softech][Source / Images: ‘A Study on The Entrepreneurial Opportunities, Global and Indian Economy in 3D Printing Sector’]

The post 3D Printing in India: Slow Adoption & What the Future Holds appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

3DP AIPerfecter Offers Part Analysis to 3D Printing Service Bureaus

Service bureaus offer the ability to have prototypes and parts fabricated on professional equipment (especially important as some designers may not have access to any 3D printing resources) and in most cases bring extensive expertise to the table to help with design and manufacturing plans.

The PrintSyst.ai, team, founded in 2017 and headquartered in Israel, understands the benefits and the challenges in offering 3D printing services as the founding brothers—Eitan and Itamar Yona—not only had a lot of work in their beginning stages, but a lot of questions from customers, too. As they began educating their customers further, they also gained a deeper understanding of the processes and continued to learn through their experiences and mistakes.

The 3DP AI-Perfecter dashboard

The results of their work and learning have evolved into an automated workflow system that, according to PrintSyst.ai, “turns 3D service bureaus and manufacturing engineers into instant 3D printing experts.” The 3DP AIPerfecter was developed over the last two years for industrial users involved in 3D printing applications like aerospace, defense, and automotive.

The company suggests that, with this new pre-printing evaluation tool, customers may see a considerable improvement in the quality and strength of their parts while also enjoying faster turnaround in production, greater affordability, and less need for labor. The AI system offers users the ability to analyze parts before printing—an element of the process that is becoming recognized as more critical—and especially in metal 3D printing.

“Analyzing parts before printing is a crucial step that requires a lot of time from highly skilled engineers and bears significant risks to a company’s reputation and ability to meet the desired lead times and regulations,” explained the PrintSyst.ai team in a recent press release.

Without automated analysis, far too many parts result in dysfunction. 3DP AI Perfecter is meant to offer relief for users with automated part analysis which the PrintSyst.ai team claims saves “more than 99 percent of the preparation time and cost.” It was developed with scalability, user-friendliness, and simplicity in mind for customers engaged in complex digital fabrication projects. The AI tool also provides a streamlined dashboard for monitoring the printing process—and can be used to “scale and optimize” operations further. Not only that, but it can also be modified according to the needs of the customer.

Users may save more than 99% of prep time with the 3DP AI-Perfecter

[Source / Images: AviTrader]

The post 3DP AIPerfecter Offers Part Analysis to 3D Printing Service Bureaus appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Scott Dunham: SmarTech Industry Forecasts for Metal and Medical/Dental 3D Printing

The 2020 Additive Manufacturing Strategies (AMS) event ended earlier this week in Boston. The summit was focused on the business of 3D printing in medical, dental, and metals, so it makes sense that Scott Dunham, the Vice President of Research at SmarTech Analysis, was on hand to give everyone a sense of where we are in these industries, just like at last year’s AMS. SmarTech provides the additive manufacturing industry with industry analysis reports and consulting services, and Dunham began with the company’s metal additive quarterly advisory services. These reports are compiled using data from 10-12 consecutive quarters.

Dunham noted that the messaging and adoption rates have changed for metal AM, and that while we’re all still “working towards the same goals,” we are “drilling down to specific solutions and challenges.”

“Metal additive manufacturing is in a strange place right now,” he said. “From 2016 to 2018, there was lots of hype, lots of investments and growth and attention paid, and the growth was aggressive and accelerated. But now, the past couple of years, we’re in this period where people are saying, ‘What’s happening? We though this technology was supposed to revolutionize things.’ Growth rates don’t always line up with perceptions.”

He got into some of the specific factors that are going into the challenges the metal AM market is facing. There’s a large disparity between metal AM hardware and metal powder sales, which Dunham said tells us that metal 3D printers are viewed much differently than the machine tool systems to which people compare them.

“Right now, the machines are not viewed or utilized in the same way that other popular manufacturing tools are, so people are still looking at this as a longer-term opportunity that still needs development work and may not necessarily always be the right tool for high-volume serial production,” he explained. ” Users now understand they can’t just drop it on the shop floor like a CNC machine. This in some ways is a barrier to growth. There are still plenty of investments being made, though, but maybe we don’t expect those days to last forever now. We may be ending the phase of early adopters and innovators who want to make these investments.”

In the years 2014-2016, the sale of metal machines was averaging just below 30%, then climbed up closer to even, but are now dropping again a bit. According to SmarTech, non-metal 3D printers are still generating most of the hardware sales, but Dunham said we should see more of a 50/50 split into the mid 2020s.

SmarTech has a theory that this leapfrog effect is due to the current two-tiered market scenario. The advanced market focuses on serial applications and high-volume production, while the legacy market consists of applications that have around for a long time, maybe resembling a factory floor, such as injection molding and tool inserts, jigs and fixtures, prototyping or limited series, medical and dental models, and one-off high volume components. Dunham said these markets are both important, but that they each have a “different set of considerations.”

He pointed out that this advanced market will soon grow to over $4 billion worth of AM hardware sold.

“We consider this side of things a little bit further ahead of polymer machine sales,” Dunham explained. “That’s why there’s so much focus on metals.”

So, where is all this growth in the metal AM market coming from? Dunham said that hardware sales is a “good indicator of the pulse of the industry,” and that SmarTech is seeing a lot of growth on what Dunham called “the fringes,” like some of the new companies coming up over the last few years, as well as the legacy manufacturing companies adopting the technology for the first time. He referred to the newer companies, such as Desktop Metal, HP, Markforged, Trumpf, and VELO3D, as “challengers,” while the legacy companies were called “incumbents.”

Next, he talked about metal 3D printing service bureaus, which see a global market of a little over $2 million.

“It’s a pretty big opportunity on the metals side, but not as big as we think it should be, or as big as polymer service bureaus,” Dunham said. “But the footprint of metal additive manufacturing in the healthcare industry is very important, and will continue to be so.”

Dunham pulled up a slide about powder bed fusion technology, noting that because the dental industry was so mature in terms of AM adoption, it actually skews the production data in the top two graphs

Bound metal processes, like binder jetting, are currently used often for tooling, and SmarTech forecasts that applications for this technology in prototyping and end-use components will rise. Dunham said that powder-based DED 3D printing is currently “heavily skewed” towards end-use components, in addition to prototyping, and that the “vision of this will likely not change much in the future.

Moving on to the market value of metal parts produced with 3D printing, Dunham said that this number is “hard to assign,” but that investments by end users are likely just south of $5 billion. However, there are lots of high-value parts to consider, which contributes to that number.

“By 2025, we expect that all metal 3D printed parts will exceed 20 billion,” he stated.

In terms of project applications for metal AM, healthcare leads the pack, with crown and bridge substructures and hip implant components at the top of the list. If you remove medical applications from the equation, we’re looking at using the technology to repair high-value turbine blades and aircraft parts, valves and pumps in the oil & gas & energy sector, and more medium-sized industrial components.

“If you’re a supplier in the industry, these are what will succeed,” Dunham said. “The incentive here is to invest in different approaches to metal additive manufacturing.”

Dunham summed everything up by saying that while metal AM is still demonstrating value, entry barriers, such as financial reasons, are also high, which does deter growth somewhat, and that a multidisciplinary approach to it is necessary for growth to continue.

Then I followed Dunham out and into the next room for the SmarTech medical 3D printing forecast, which was wisely titled “Healthcare – the Backbone of Additive Manufacturing.”

“Within the healthcare segment, there are many ways that AM has been and will continue to be leveraged,” he stated. “There are some very industrialized serial, serious manufacturing applications in healthcare, so emphasis is put on the customization of these devices.”

He noted AMS 2020 has a theme of looking at business cases, which is why it’s so heavily focused on dental and orthopedic 3D printing applications.

“We don’t think these are more impactful or important, but these are areas that we’re seeing more challenges and work here,” Dunham explained.

Excluding software numbers, the healthcare portion of the AM market – combining medical and dental applications – is a little over $3 billion dollars; truly, “the backbone of the industry.” These revenue numbers have gone down a bit, because there’s a lot of attention being paid to industrial markets, but Dunham said that SmarTech forecasts a stabilization, stating that healthcare will “continue to be important to overall industry structure for at least the next several years, and into decades.”

As has been previously mentioned, in comparison to other industries, dental is “fairly mature overall in its adoption of additive manufacturing.” If you’re looking at metal AM used in healthcare, you get into the orthopedic sector, which means you’re looking at implants.

“The longer that we can gather clinical evidence for these implants the better,” Dunham said, noting that this will help ‘build confidence’ with metal 3D printing in the medical field.

Some OEMs are bringing AM in-house, so that they can better control the process to try and ensure a good outcome. A lot of factors go into making medical implants, and if something goes wrong, “clinical efficacy is damaged.”

As of yet, there isn’t a huge push by OEMs for non-metal 3D printed implants, but SmarTech believes this is coming later, for materials like ceramics, and especially for craniomaxillofacial (CMF) implants.

There are plenty of business use cases for metal orthopedic 3D printed implants, and while the hip is still in the lead, about a third of 3D printed implants made now are are spinal. But Dunham said that hip implants won’t dominate the production numbers forever, as the 2025 forecast shows more diversification coming.

Moving to the dental side of things, companies are seeing a lot of success with high speed vat photopolymerization technologies, which Dunham said was expected. But what they didn’t count on was the aligner segment looking to get into powder bed fusion.

“No one process has everything locked down, and we can all benefit from more competition to push the technology forward,” he said.

Dunham said we should expect that 3D printing will ultimately follow the “trend of machines in dentist offices.”

“We expect a pretty healthy growth in investment by dental offices and clinics, though dental labs are still where it’s at from a hardware perspective.”

Dunham pulled up a slide that showed numbers from 2018, and forecast out to 2027, that show specifically what’s going to keep driving the sale of materials and hardware for dental applications. Looking at things like direct aligners and aligner tools, models, surgical guides, and denture bases and trays, it’s clear that he’s correct when he said that there is a lot of “diversification going on out there.”

Stay tuned to 3DPrint.com as we continue to bring you the news from our third annual AMS Summit.

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

[Photos: Sarah Saunders]

The post Scott Dunham: SmarTech Industry Forecasts for Metal and Medical/Dental 3D Printing appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

The Promise of 3D Printing Sustainable Society & Development

Italian researchers are exploring the ongoing pervasiveness of 3D printing and additive manufacturing and what that really means for the future in ‘Investigation of the Impact of Sustainability on 3D Printing Technologies.’ While they understand much about performance in terms of software, hardware, and materials—along with a wide range of peripheral products now being produced to accentuate sales in a burgeoning industry—the research team considers how 3D printing can play a role in the ‘sustainable society.’

Defining 3D printing as a method for ‘joining or solidifying’ materials under computer control, the researchers remind us that the technology was not meant for the enjoyment of the masses originally; after all, at first there was no concept of how other users would grasp the magnitude of what can be accomplished with such processes. Meant as an engineering tool to further rapid prototyping in industrial and commercial applications, 3D printing has been behind many designs for companies like NASA. Today, users of all ages and with a variety of different interests are enjoying the affordability and accessibility of 3D printing—often sharing Fab Labs which are equipped for groups to enjoy a common creative space.

“However, uncontrolled industrial, commercial and new ‘informal’ 3D Printing applications – intended as new distributed socio-technical forms of production – might produce unsustainable impacts on the ecosystems. In the perspective of a Sustainable Development defined as ‘a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (UN WCED, 1987), it is important to control this type of innovations to mitigate the anthropic impacts on ecosystems both at micro-and at macro-scale,” state the researchers, encouraging a more ‘systemic approach’ for sustainability-oriented technology following a vertical direction in mono-disciplinary research, and cross-fertilization.

Sustainability of 3D printing has a better chance of thriving when all the elements are considered, to include:

Material supply
Design of solutions
Processes simplification
Design based in sustainable conditions

“Accordingly, as the need of sustainable solutions is still high, the evolution of 3D Printing’s paradigms toward network-based, hybrid PSS-based and SLOC-oriented scenarios, can surely meet the Design Research in the field of Design for Sustainability and the technology-driven research of 3D Printing industry,” concluded the researchers.

“… the results here achieved can be useful to develop a new design awareness, which can be used by designers, makers, entrepreneurs and stakeholders to address the future development of new proactive printable sustainable solutions for new emerging markets and countries.”

As 3D printing exploded into the mainstream several years ago, its level of sustainability has been a central topic within the industry. And while the technology has certainly proven to be far more than a one-hit wonder or a fad, researchers are still exploring the promise and potential of what seems to be an infinite realm ripe with innovation.

While there may have been many critics of 3D printing at first, world leaders in a wide range of industries have made their interest in this progressive technology known, from GE to HP, to automotive manufacturers like BMW and retailers like Adidas or Nike.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

Fablabs are cropping up around the world (from ‘We Need to Talk About Fablabs‘)

[Source / Images: ‘Investigation of the Impact of Sustainability on 3D Printing Technologies’]

The post The Promise of 3D Printing Sustainable Society & Development appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Recycled PLA Shows Highly Variable Strength

3D printing, as well as 4D printing, have opened up an ever-expanding realm of hardware, software, and unique methods for constructing complex geometries. Along with that though also comes a vast array of materials which is continually growing—but many researchers and engineers still use the old standbys like ABS and PLA.

Efforts to recycle 3D printed items are a constant source of study too, as researchers worry about the amount of plastic that could be left sitting in landfills, even if it is eventually biodegradable, as is the case with PLA. In ‘A comparison between mechanical properties of specimens 3D printed with virgin and recycled PLA,’ Italian researchers Antonio Lanzottia, Massimo Martorelli, Saverio Maietta, Salvatore Gerbino, Francesco Penta, and Antonio Gloria further explore the realities of using recycled PLA for functional parts.

An image of the filament extrusion

PLA is popular in comparison to ABS because it is a bio based polymer. The authors point out that composting the material is probably not a very realistic solution due to the amount of time it takes parts to degrade. But, what if we could recycle PLA? How feasible is this and how does this affect the material? What happens to mechanical strength of material that has been recycled—especially if it has been recycled repeatedly:

“Specifically, it has been proved that the use of a filament recycled twenty times through an extrusion-based process minimally affected the tensile strength and modulus of PLA,” state the researchers. “In addition, a study on recycled polypropylene blends in injection moulding procedure was performed and an appropriate blending ratio of virgin and recycled polymer was assessed, showing that the decrease in the mechanical properties of devices fabricated from recycled polymers may be improved optimizing the process parameters during the injection moulding.”

Further studies also showed that weakening in mechanical properties was minimal in recycled PLA, motivating the authors to form an intense study comparing both virgin PLA and recycled PLA, testing both interlaminar properties and short-beam strength. PLA samples were printed at 200°C using a Prusa I3, with a .4 mm nozzle. The first set was tested, then ground up and recycled with a homemade extruder into 1.75 mm material. It was then used to make new samples for mechanical property testing.

Schematic representation of the experimental setup – horizontal shear load diagram (adapted from ASTM D2344)

The researchers included three different recycling phases, with testing for short-beam strength on both virgin and recycled material. They noted that the PLA recycled once and even twice over was not ‘significantly’ affected in short-beam strength, but after that it did experience substantial degradation. In the samples that had been recycled three times, there was ‘great variability.’

In conclusion, the researchers offered more specific data:

“The one-time and twice recycled specimens showed a short-beam strength (106.8 ± 9.0 MPa and 108.5 ± 9.9 MPa, respectively) which was similar to that of the virgin specimens (119.1 ± 6.6 MPa). However, a third recycling process negatively affected the values of the short-beam strength also producing a great variability in the results (75.0 ± 16.2 MPa).”

3D printing, in existence since the 80s, has only just begun to really hit its stride—and the study of materials science has become of substantial interest to many, whether they are interested in using PLA or recycled materials to create items like energy storage devices, prosthetics, sustainable thermoplastics, and so much more. What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source / Images: A comparison between mechanical properties of specimens 3D printed with virgin and recycled PLA]

Results from mechanical tests: typical failure modes

University of Texas Thesis Improves Tensile Strength of FDM Parts Through Annealing and Pressure

Improving strength in parts is a topic of ongoing study in 3D printing, and thesis student, Rhugdhrivya Rane, at The University of Texas at Arlington, recently tackled the subject further in ‘Enhancing Tensile Strength of FDM parts using Thermal Annealing and Uniaxial Pressure.’ Rane opens by discussing the revolutionary and disruptive qualities of 3D printing but points out that there are obvious challenges in producing parts that are strong enough for many applications.

‘Inherent deficiency of weak tensile strength’ is often caused by weak polymer interfaces, with insufficient mechanical properties found in the z-plane direction.

“This deficiency in mechanical properties is due to the weak Inter-laminar bonding in the adjacent layers of FDM parts leading to an overall reduction in part strength,” states Rane. “Thus, to enhance the use of FDM parts in actual engineering application and not just artistic renderings, the overall anisotropy of the parts has to be reduced while increasing the strength.”

As the researcher investigated thermal annealing, and thermal annealing with unidirectional mechanical pressure in the Z direction, Rane’s overall goal was to figure out how to increase inter-bead bond strength overall, 3D printing a variety of specimens in ABS and testing them in different temperature ranges and pressure gradients. He also studied bond lengths and resulting effects on tensile strength.

FDM 3D printing was chosen as the method for testing due to its increased popularity in the mainstream today, which Rane attributes to simplicity and affordability—along with the use of ABS as a material, due to its potential in so many applications. His research delves further into why there are issues with FDM parts, but also how strongly they are affected by parameters chosen by the user. Rane states that such parameters played a large part in his study, especially as they allowed for comparisons in settings and post printing. Attention was also payed to infill percentages and patterns, as they are closely related to strength.

Different infill patterns used in FDM

Other parameters connected closely to strength include:

Perimeter shells
Print orientation
Layer height
Flow rate

While there are many benefits in FDM 3D printing, Rane points out that it causes many restrictions too, with one of the main issues being that FDM parts often miss the mark considerably in comparison to those still being produced conventionally—as in injection molding. Deficiencies in FDM 3D printing relate to the ever-challenging issues with porosity, but also more specifically, imperfect weld lines. The researcher states that realistically, techniques in producing FDM parts must be significantly improved before they can be seriously considered as final use parts.

Parts printed using varying numbers of perimeter shells

He further explores bond formation and strength, along with the varying degrees of intimate contact between parts, thermoplastic healing, why polymer chains become disengaged, and how temperature affects viscosity.

Temporal disengagement of polymer chains from the initial tube

Parts were tested using custom specimens.

“The parts were printed using two different sets of print parameters: high and low settings, to investigate the effect of heat treatment on both sets of print parameters. The values of temperature, time and applied pressure during heat treatment were varied to obtain a detailed comparative study and the correlation between the given variables and the increase in ultimate tensile strength.”

“A cross-sectional view of the parts was obtained under a microscope to study the changes in the mesostructure of the parts after the post processing. This provides us with the means to explain the increase in the strength based on visible physical changes in the mesostructured.”

Printing of Dogbone specimens in Z- direction.

Tensile testing of dogbone specimens

Each specimen was printed individually. Rane stated that this allowed for the maximum in interlaminar bonding, along with reducing the thermal gradient. Dogbone specimens were tested with a custom aluminum fixture meant to avoid deformation, along with supplying necessary pressure in the build direction. Overall, Rane discovered that higher temperatures and longer exposure to heat produced better tensile strength, along with increased ductility.

“Though thermal annealing and uniaxial pressure cause an increase in the strength of the parts, the print parameters play a vital role in determining the initial mechanical properties of the parts. When the parts are fabricated with a higher values of flow rate and extrusion temperature, they exhibit significantly higher mechanical properties as compared to parts printed with substandard setting,” concluded the researchers. “Thus, by controlling the print parameters and using the right values of temperature and pressure we can see substantial increase in strength of FDM parts.”

Trying to improve materials in 3D printing is almost as a vast a topic as that of the innovations being brought forth today. Scientists have delved into tensile strength, along with investigating tensile properties of PLA specimens and other issues like creating new materials for large-scale parts. Find out more about research into textile strength in FDM 3D printing here.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

Print Parameters used to print the dogbone specimens

Interlayer Adhesion Improvements for 3D Construction Printing

Interlayer adhesion is a common problem that users often battle in 3D printing, and Swinburne University of Technology researchers Taylor Marchment, Jay Sanjayan, and Ming Xia address the topic further in ‘Method of enhancing interlayer bond strength in construction scale 3D printing with mortar by effective bond area amplification.’

Since 3D Printing builds up objects layer by layer parts will fail at the weakest point: there where the layers bond. 3D Printed parts under stress will tend to come apart at these points. Any improvement to inter layer bonding will be an improvement to the strength of the part.

The authors point out that 3D printing is still relatively new in terms of development—and especially 3D construction printing (3DCP) with numerous challenges to meet, and especially in extruding with cementitious materials. This type of weakness is attributed to localized voids within the mixture created between the time that layers are deposited by the 3D printer. The goal of the research team was to find a way to strengthen interlayer bonds with a cementitious paste.

Lack of reinforcement for providing tensile strength and weakness due to application of layers are the primary challenges in 3D printing durable structures.

“3DCP brings about many new constraints and factors that can create a weak interfacial bond or often termed “cold joint” due to the lack of intermixing between layers,” state the researchers. “Predominately major influencing factors are the stiffness/dryness of the deposited layer, and the time gap between successive layer depositions.”

Swinburne University of Technology

Interlayer strength may deteriorate by as much as 50 percent due to drying out during the process:

“As the phase change requirements of the 3D printed concrete are succumbed to shape retention and the sequential loading of fresh layers, the interlayer strength quality becomes a balancing act of the drying rate.”

Adhesion may occur either in mechanical or chemical bonds, either in relation to physical layer attributes or the hydration and bonding of cement particles, respectively. Mechanical factors causing voids are due to surface roughness and stiffness of layers. In the research study, the team used a flatbed scanner to examine layer issues further.

Because drying is such an issue, the research team realized they would have to either decrease the void structure or increase the contact area, with the hope that better moisture levels would encourage improved adhesion. Previous analysis techniques have not only been time intensive but have also proven to damage samples and sometimes cause ‘misleading results’ too. The researchers decided to use flatbed scanners for examining issues in a less invasive but also cheap and fast method.

In attempting to make a glue for stronger adhesion, the research team used four OPC-based paste mixtures, with a water to binder ratio of 0.36, used between the layers.

“The paste mixtures were developed to primarily increase the effective bond area, with a more malleable interface compared to conventional layer by layer construction,” said the researchers. “Three admixtures including retarder, viscosity-modifying agent and slump-retention agent were used in this study.”

(a) Mortar mix being extruded from 45° angle nozzle without a paste mixture between, (b) 50 mm (L) × 30 mm (W) × 30 mm (H) samples with and without a paste mixture applied between layers. (c) A schematic of the proposed twin nozzle extruder depositing the paste layer and 3D printed layer.

A customized 3D printer, developed with a piston-based extruder, was used in the research, with a time gap interval of 15 minutes in between each layer. Samples were left to cure at ambient temperature for seven days and cut into 50 mm (L) × 30 mm (W) × 30 mm (H) blocks for testing. Adhesion of bonds was tested by using clamps with two centrically loaded pin connections.

The 3D printed paste proved to have the highest resistance to flow, and the lowest average compressive strength, at 34 MPa.

“The analysis is done on the basis that the compressive and tensile strengths are strongly correlated,” state the researchers. “The 3D printed mix will have an inherently lower interlayer bond capacity therefore, samples fabricated with no paste applied at the interlayer, we must factor this difference and contact area.”

The researchers note ‘uniform fracture’ at the interlayer for all samples, along with fractures in between both the overlay and paste layer. They also note that fractures occurred on the areas exposed to the most surface drying. Data also showed that interlayer strength increased with the paste layer:

“The addition of pastes containing additives shows and interlayer strength increase of 26% to a 59%. The highest increase was observed with the addition of superplasticiser. These results replicate similar trends observed in the flowability and compressive strength tests.”

The researchers considered the concept—and the strength—of brick and mortar as they brushed on a variety of cement pastes between the layers with different color schemes for ease in analyzing the images. In the end, they realized the following:

Using paste with higher, sustained flow characteristics increases strength in layers during 3D printing.
More reliable and consistent results were available in analysis due to the addition of color in the layers.
The effective bond area and interlayer strength are closely related.

“The assumption at first was that the higher flowability of the paste mixtures would allow for a greater malleable surface area, in turn creating a greater effective bond area,” concluded the researchers. “However, through this study further evidence is produced to suggest that it is not only the flowability/malleability of the paste which is critical, but the surface moisture retention is also another critical factor. The effects of this may be lack of moisture decreasing the degree of hydration and lowering of strength.”

The study of materials and strength in 3D printing is becoming a priority to researchers seeking better quality and predictability in parts, along with research into other areas like concerns about toxins and emissions. What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts; join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

Results of application of colour thresholding. (a) Top Image before thresholding, (b) Top Image after thresholding, (c) Bottom Image before thresholding, (d) Bottom Image after thresholding.

[Source / Images: ‘Method of enhancing interlayer bond strength in construction scale 3D printing with mortar by effective bond area amplification’]

Lot of One: Will Warehouses Sit Empty as 3D Printing Customization Kills Mass Manufacturing?

John Jordan, of Penn State University, understands the vast implications of 3D printing technology on the world and industrial production. Manufacturing as we know it, along with how we create more complex geometries and present them, is being, and will be further disrupted by a technology allowing for innovations to be created faster, better, and more affordably—but also in ways we never expected before. Jordan focuses on the changes we will see in organizational design, concerning decisions in volume of production at the managerial level and which parts will be 3D printed, how options in customization will continue to grow, and what level of education will be required for businesses and their employees adopting new practices in the digital age.

John Jordan (Photo credit: Penn State University)

Jordan is careful to evaluate 3D printing and its relative impact realistically, understanding there is no guarantee that it will ‘force a shift,’ or even begin to replace conventional mass production as we know it. He understands that humans, in their most basic forms of creating and manufacturing, have three choices: add, mold, or subtract. 3D printing and additive manufacturing have come along and offered us new choices for on-demand, on-site production—and often in remote locations; great examples of this are developing countries, military installations, and the oil and gas industry.

Opportunities are vast in customization, and Jordan points to examples in the hearing aid and orthodontic markets. The sudden availability of technology for producing complex geometries that can be created through 3D modeling and refined as needed, quickly and affordably, offers extensive latitude also—and not only to businesses but to anyone who is designing and engineering parts, pieces, or prototypes.

In his research, Jordan looks to industry automotive leaders like Mercedes and Porsche, both of which are making use of 3D printing in polymers and metal, as well as fabricating parts that have become obsolete and would be very difficult to order or find today.

“Moving the locus and scale of production in turn affects the size and activities of the purchasing organization, the inventory management function, and of course factories,” states Jordan. “Previously impossible repairs (such as rebuilding broken teeth on a large, complex, and/or obsolete gear) can become feasible. Forecasts may need to become much more granular, responsive, and localized to reflect smaller production facilities closer to end demand.”

3D printed engine by Porsche (photo: Formlabs)

Most consumers get excited about customizations. Just as 3D printing is allowing the medical field to become ‘patient-specific’ and allowing for a higher quality of life for patients, within the consumer realm, this means that shoes and a variety of different size-reliant purchases could feasibly in the future be tailor made every time. Undeniably, however, manufacturers and retailers—as well as buyers—are deeply entrenched in conventional processes, and Jordan predicts that ‘the supply chain will need to be reconceived and reconfigured, with significant organizational implications.’ He also states that currently the ‘defining capabilities’ of 3D printing are not being used to their potential, which many will concur with, and possibly consider it a vast understatement as well.

Jordan again brings forth the example of the hearing aid industry:

“To design a mass customization process from scratch, the key is to begin with unique units of demand: what is it that is being customized and to what parameters? The hearing aid market is instructive in this regard: local audiologists measure the customer’s hearing loss and ear dimensions, then feed this data into the process,” states Jordan. “In the absence of a steady stream of such customized orders, the ‘mass’ in mass customization fails to materialize at economically attractive levels. Where else can customizable goods find willing buyers, who can be served by fitters and configurators with access to 3D printing capacity in some shape or form?”

When business owners do realize that 3D printing is a possibility, and they begin expanding on the benefits, ‘processes are redefined.’ It is somewhat staggering to consider that with such extreme customization available, rather than lots of tens or hundreds or thousands, lots could commonly be reduced to just one.

Jordan envisions an ‘additive-native organization’ as one that will ‘give way to agile generalists,’ featuring products ‘closer to end customers’ and warehouses that will become quite empty due to consumers beginning to rely on items made specifically to their size and taste.

As an added boon for businesses and profitability levels, he also sees overall available capital increasing too as conventional and expensive methods such as tooling may not be necessary, and materials can be much cheaper, depending on the textile or metal.

“Finally, the capital investment in additive manufacturing equipment is highly adaptable: it is a thing that can make many different things. In contrast, stampers, molds, and dies are tightly constrained and difficult or impossible to adapt as market conditions change. Thus, the finance and accounting organization will face new parameters, potentially related to flexibility as well as cost,” states Jordan.

“These internal measures will eventually be judged by outside investors and analysts. Eventually, equity markets will expect new performance targets, so earnings guidance will evolve, putting pressure on traditional financial analysis and reporting.”

The availability of so many new materials is bringing 3D printing further into the fold also, and Jordan points to 3D printing in running shoes, with companies like Adidas and Carbon working together, as well as on the larger scale in aerospace with GE developing 3D printed aircraft engine nozzles.

GE’s forays are notable and vast in the 3D printing and additive manufacturing, but in the case of an innovation like the nozzles, GE demonstrates a long list of benefits from savings in cost, development time, and more, to include fuel expense. The elements of design involved are deemed inexpensive by Jordan, but financially, the ‘learning curve of parts consolidation’ would have to be navigated and in studying this project, Jordan makes the astute observation that if we look at 3D printing in the mass manufacturing mindset, there will be obstacles.

GE is 3D printing massive nozzles for aircraft engines. (Photo: GE Reports)

“Rather, with an expanded range of possibilities, existing assumptions will need to be tested. For example, in the realm of decentralization, 3D printing should not be assumed to drive most production from centralized facilities out to the periphery, but neither can centralization continue to be taken as the default. In short, each of the four domains [discussed] represents a set of decisions that organizational designers and managers will now need to address with conscious deliberation rather than previously constrained assumptions. The interrelationships among these domains of change—and others that will emerge—remain to be discovered,” states Jordan.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source: ‘Additive manufacturing (“3D printing”) and the future of organizational design: some early notes from the field’]

SmarTech Analysis Reports on Projections for 3D Printed Eyewear Industry from 2019-2028

SmarTech Analysis is peering into the world of eyewear, with projections for the industry over the next decade in ‘Markets for 3D-Printed Eyewear 2019-2028.’ The company, a leader in commercial analysis, has turned their sights toward additive manufacturing in eyewear, which they predict will grow into an industry of $3.4 billion by 2028. Overall today, the ophthalmic eyewear industry brings in more than $100 billion per year and is growing due to increasing demand for a variety of styles and the obvious new opportunities for frames and glasses that are tailored specifically to consumers.

SmartTech foresees this massive profit potential being driven by final parts production in 3D printing, marking a turning point for the technology’s use in true manufacturing rather than just rapid prototyping with a continued reliance on conventional production techniques. And while eyewear may be only a sliver of what the 3D printing industry will be offering, the forthcoming financial projections show the potential for definite disruption in what has been a very structured business model previously without customers having nearly as much interaction in design, not to mention enjoying drastic speed in turnaround, and in many cases, price.

Current analysis is also designed to give industry stakeholders a summary of what types of technologies exist in additive manufacturing to include a wide range of materials and potential services, of which 3D capturing and online customization will play a major role as consumers seek goods that are made specifically to their needs, and fit. The report also goes into further detail regarding conventional methods such as tooling and casting—along with the benefits of 3D printing at the desktop for both production in volume and prototyping during the design process.

Currently, the most popular technology being used to create eyewear is material jetting, along with 3D printing in metal with powder bed fusion and the use of nylon 12 (PA122) most commonly.

“Vat photopolymerization is also used today mostly for lost wax casting processes (and some part production) while filament extrusion is used for basic desktop prototyping and some end-use internal parts,” said SmarTech in a recent press release.

Highlighted companies in the SmarTech report include Carbon, DWS, EOS, Formlabs, Fuel 3D, Glasses USA; Hoet, Hoya, HP, Luxexcel, Luxottica, Materialise, MONOQOOL, Mykita, Protos, Safilo, Sculpteo, Seiko, Sfered, Sisma, Specsy and more.

Analysis of 3D printing has become almost as popular as the actual innovative activity itself, a technology that lends itself to great fascination regarding the future—and most importantly, outlook and finances for many industries. Eyewear is certainly a market being revolutionized due to the myriad benefits of 3D printing, whether you are an athlete using custom eyewear, a fashion designer creating innovative frames, or a user looking for sunglasses. Find out more about SmartTech and their projections within the 3D printing industry here, and keep an ‘eye’ out here at 3DPrint.com for more on truly progressive frames and glasses.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

Companies like GlassesUSA even allow consumers to 3D print their own eyewear frames. [Photo credit GlassesUSA and Sinterit]

https://youtu.be/R5_O8SR0lXo
[Source: SmarTech]

3Dprint.com is an equity holder in SmarTech

Russia: Researchers Examine Porosity Issue in 3D Printing

3D printing opens up infinite new realms of creativity to innovators around the world, whether they are bioprinting or making surgical implants, cars, rocket engine components, or running shoes. Along with all that wonderful opportunity for invention, however, comes pressure. While it is understandable that some objects are still works in progress, most of us want the end product to be as perfect as possible—not only out of self-respect, but also out of respect for a technology just coming into its own in the mainstream, and a need for proper aesthetics, functionality, and productivity.

Now, researchers from the Russian Academy of Sciences have found ways to improve upon 3D printing, outlined in ‘Improvement of quality of 3D printed objects by elimination of microscopic structural defects in fused deposition modeling,’ by Evgeniy G. Gordeev, Alexey S. Galushk, and Valentine P. Ananikov. Porosity issues are a reason for many failures in FDM 3D printing, despite its usefulness in so many different applications, to include medicine, biochemistry, engineering, chemical sciences, and more. Issues with structural weakness and porosity often make the use of FDM 3D printing challenging though, whether just in prototyping or other manufacturing processes.

In assessing FDM 3D printing, the research team used materials such as PLA, ABS, PETG, PP, Nylon (polyamide), and carbon-filled Nylon while they examined the following:

Filament feed rate
Wall geometry
G-code defined wall structure

(A) cylindrical test tube, (B) hollow entity of cubical shape, (C) spherical flask. In the top view, arrows indicate outgassing.

As they optimized feed rate and structure, the researchers were able to significantly improve 3D printing quality—even with more basic hardware and materials. In evaluating, they printed with a Picaso 250 Designer Pro (PICASO 3D) with a 0.3 mm diameter nozzle, creating objects like cylinders, cones, spheres, pyramids, and cubes—all of which they performed numerous experiments on.

“It turned out that under standard conditions cylindrical objects had the minimum number of pores and the best quality of 3D printing,” stated the researchers. “Conical objects had larger pores uniformly distributed over the surface. For a spherical shape, the largest number of pores was observed in the region of poles lying on the axis perpendicular to the planes of the layers, while the equatorial region retained impermeability.”

“A combination of cylindrical and conical shapes in one object resulted in a uniform distribution of a small number of pores in the wall of the cylindrical portion, and a much larger number of pores in the conical portion. In plane-faced products (e.g. hexagonal pyramid and cube), the most porous areas were found at the edges, that was, in the neighborhood of the joints between the faces. The observed dependence of porosity on the geometric shape or its specific area is explained by the corresponding differences in the mode of layer positioning: in cubical and cylindrical products, the layers are arranged exactly one above the other, so the interlayer contact is most effective. In conical products, the layers are arranged with a certain offset, that is, stepwise, which makes the interlayer contact less effective.”

Functional assessment of 3D printing quality for objects of different shapes.
All objects are printed with identical parameters at k = 0.9 from PLA: (A) cylinder, (B) cone, (C) sphere, (D) compound shape, (E) pyramid, (F) cube. The diagrams below show the distribution/densities of the pores. Red areas have maximal porosity/permeability; green areas are relatively impermeable; blue color designates junctions with the air compressor.

The team states that they found ‘edges and vertices’ to have more defects than other shapes in the experiments.

“Among the shapes with smooth outlines, conical and spherical elements of irregular curvature are most vulnerable, whereas flat and cylindrical surface areas are most resistant to the pore formation,” stated the researchers.

The researchers also discovered that thin-walled objects became ‘untenable’ in terms of sealant. Reversing this with thicker walls allowed for less pores and better success in 3D printing:

“Thus, to minimize the porosity, the proper filling of the inner space should be additionally controlled by verification of the G-code suggested by the slicer software. The more homogeneous the intermediate layer of the wall is, the more impermeable the wall of the product will be, since all the seams will be securely insulated from each other.”

Permeability was shown to be greatly affected by the following conditions:

Extrusion multiplier
Wall thickness
Internal filling
Temperature
Materials
Shape

“The product properties can be affected by the feeder construction, presence/absence of a closed case, heating mode of the working platform, extruder cooling system, etc.,” concluded the researchers. “Despite that, with proper optimization of printing conditions, commercial desktop 3D printers can be suitable for the production of sealed containers for various applications. The proposed quality assessment procedure allows the gradual improvement of the quality of 3D printed objects by elimination of structural defects.”

Find out more about the research conducted at the Russian Academy of Sciences here.

PP tubes as chemical reaction vessels in comparison with conventional glass test tubes. Values of k are given below for each 3D-printed tube. Performance in the studied chemical transformation is illustrated by product yield (in %) in each studied case, where ≥ 90% efficiency corresponds to excellent performance.

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.