3D Printing Design for Automotive to Be Supported by Lehvoss & FENA

3D printing materials provider Lehvoss North America, part of the LEHVOSS Group of chemical companies operating under parent company Lehmann&Voss&Co., announced that it is partnering up with Forward Engineering North America (FENA), a new division of global engineering and consulting firm Forward Engineering. This collaboration between the two is for the purposes of supporting the automotive industry through Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM), helping to translate the performance characteristics of both 3D printed and injection molded components.

(Image courtesy of Forward Engineering)

Forward Engineering’s particular specialty is helping to include cost-effective parts, made out of fiber-reinforced polymer composite materials, in serial mass-produced automotive structures. As Lehvoss is something of a materials expert, it makes sense for FENA to partner with the group in order to teach how DfAM can positively benefit automotive components.

“Local support and bringing expertise around 3D printing together will create a hub for the 3DP value chain further strengthening the region and accelerating the deployment of additive manufactured components at automotive OEMs and tier suppliers,” stated Martin Popella, Sales & Business Development Manager at Lehvoss North America.

Germany-headquartered Forward Engineering has long supported clients in North America, which is why it opened the division in Royal Oak, Michigan. FENA, which offers production-based design and engineering services to meet the growing demand for cost-effective and automated solutions, works with technology partners in the area to speed up the adoption of “composite intensive mixed material solutions.”

We’ve definitely seen AM used for automotive applications, but materials that offer the same high-performance properties and characteristics as filled structural and semi-structural injection molding grade resin components can be difficult to find. But Lehvoss has expanded its reach, and is now offering its materials, such as Luvosint and Luvocom 3F, in North America.

3D printed automotive structural component (Image courtesy of Lehvoss North America)

Lehvoss materials have many application-specific properties, such as flame retardance, and can be custom compounded to fit specific requirements from customers, so that they can meet any necessary industry standards and requirements. One of its lines of high-performance compounds, available for FFF and powder bed fusion technologies in filament, pellet, and powder formats, definitely meet the criteria needed for automotive OEM applications.

Forward Engineering is helping OEMs and automotive tier suppliers translate specific product requirements so they can 3D print functional, structural 3F parts that mimic how the injection molded twin part performs. The 3F Twin Process that the firm developed will help engineers quickly develop and validate their concepts, and then interpret them for production parts.

“Automotive OEMs and suppliers want to accelerate product development through the production of functional structural prototypes with Additive Manufacturing (AM),” Popella explained. “3F Printing offers a relatively fast and cost-effective means to produce these functional structural prototype parts that meet demanding performance requirements. However, the right materials and process parameters must be selected to deliver quality parts that meet targeted requirements including quality, consistency and repeatability.”

(Image courtesy of Lehvoss)

As a result of their partnership, FENA and Lehvoss have set up a joint additive manufacturing lab, also in Royal Oak, Michigan, that will offer support to product development and automotive manufacturing engineers. These engineers can work directly with the Lehvoss/Forward Engineering team to determine the processes and materials that will best suit automotive applications, and even help them create functional prototypes on site.

“Successful product development requires the right mix of design, material and process,” said Adam Halsband, Forward Engineering North America’s Managing Director. “The Lehvoss/Forward Engineering collaboration and establishment of the AM lab in the center of the North American automotive product development region brings these resources together in a responsive package that is accessible to the engineers that need them.”

(Source: JEC Group)

The post 3D Printing Design for Automotive to Be Supported by Lehvoss & FENA appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

RAG & Gavco Partnership Shows Potential for 3D Printing Bridge to Injection Molding

Broken Arrow, Oklahoma-headquartered companies Rapid Application Group (RAG), and Gavco Plastics have announced a partnership that will combine their complementary expertise in manufacturing.

RAG, founded in 2017 by a group of seasoned military and additive manufacturing specialists, has grown quickly in offering customized solutions of “meticulous quality” for its customers. Gavco Plastics, founded in 1976, is a family-owned company founded on conventional technology like injection molding. Together, the two firms plan to combine AM with injection molding to benefit and protect supply chains in a variety of industrial applications to include aerospace and automotive.

Direct metal laser sintering by RAG (Image: RAG)

In collaborating, both RAG and Gavco are on a mission not only to make certain that production is not disrupted for customers but also allow them to enjoy the benefits of 3D printing, as well as traditional methods. Parts can be produced faster, more affordably, and in many cases may offer better quality and performance. In close proximity to each other, the manufacturing partners plan to create a project group to work together in prototyping, printing, and analyzing iterations of parts. Afterward, they plan to enter into low rate initial production (LRIP) and then move on to mass production via injection molding.

“2020 has demonstrated that additive manufacturing is suitable for production-grade parts, at a low volume,” said Jason Dickman, COO, Rapid Application Group. “It can fill the need for parts while mold tooling is being created, giving customers the time and flexibility to figure out just how many parts will be needed.”

Not only have supply chains been extremely vulnerable, due to greater exposure in news and social media many individuals and businesses have continued to come together to try and close extremely concerning gaps in production; for instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries were in need of protective gear like masks and face shields, as well as important medical devices like ventilators for patients. The development and manufacturing of swabs have become central for some companies who were otherwise engaged in other innovations previously and in some cases completely shifted their focus to fill a critical need in the medical realm.

FDM 3D printing by RAG (Image: RAG)

As RAG and Gavco continue forward, their hope is to help customers recover their equilibrium while still adjusting to recent changes in the national and worldwide “norm” and economy. Outlined in their partnership are the following plans for aerospace customers:

  • Prototyping and re-working designs for new parts, experimenting with materials that will then be used n mass production (thus saving time in production overall)
  • Decreasing time and expense with the use of AM processes with LRIP
  • Producing short runs without tooling
  • Using injection molding for mass production to meet demands in supply chain

“Gavco Plastics, like RAG, is part of the Oklahoma State effort to become one of the US’ top 10 states in GDP. This kind of partnership will help make the state one of the most responsive hubs for manufacturing OEMs,” said Terry Hill, CEO, Rapid Application Group.

[Source / Images: finanzen.net]

The post RAG & Gavco Partnership Shows Potential for 3D Printing Bridge to Injection Molding appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

JCRMRG’s 3D Health Hackathon Aims for Sustainable 3D Printed PPE

As we’ve mentioned many, many times over the last few months, the 3D printing community has really stepped up in a big way to help others as our world got turned upside down due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The crisis hasn’t passed either, and makers are still offering their support in any way they can.

We’ve been telling you about all of the virtual events and webinars taking place in the industry as we struggle to remain connected, including a virtual nationwide 3D Health Hackathon, hosted by the United Way-sponsored Jersey City Rapid Maker Response Group (JCRMRG) and sponsored by several industry partners, including 3DPrint.com.

This all-volunteer collective has an interesting back story. JCRMRG was just formed in April, as the result of a Reddit post regarding personal protective equipment, or PPE. The post was a call to arms for 3D printing hobbyists to organize, in order to create and deliver face shields for medical workers and first responders in New Jersey and New York.

JCRMRG volunteers delivering face shields to hospitals

“I’m creating the jersey city rapid maker response group. calling all local makers and professionals with 3dprinters, laser cutters, etc, to come volunteer remotely…together. It’s time for us to get organized and help supply our local healthcare workers more efficiently, as a group,” the post states.

“if we band together, we will be able to get much more efficient at our production and distribution, and will be able to supply larger numbers to needed places quickly, addressing local needs in a smarter way.”

Since then, the group has engaged over 50 volunteers, responsible for 3D printing 5,000 face shields. JCRMRG has since switched to injection molding, and more than 75,000 face shields have been delivered to healthcare workers all around the US. Now it’s raising the bar with the virtual hackathon, which aims to take on PPE-related wearability, sustainability, and supply chain issues.

“Our goal is to be responsible partners in the eco-system that we are currently a part of, while acting as a catalyst for innovation, and we are the only all volunteer PPE group in the country doing an event like this. We want to pay it forward, and enable our hackers to walk away with enough feedback and support to launch their own successful ventures that can continue to support the battle against COVID, and combat supply chain disruption through maker-led initiatives,” said JCRMRG’s founder Justin Handsman.

JCRMRG’s Laura Sankowich told me that as of now, 25 hackathon teams from around the country have signed up, and the event will kick off at 6 pm on July 10th with a Zoom call between the panelists and judges. Initial design ideas will be presented in one of three categories — sustainable PPE, modular solution labs, and day-to-day PPE — and then the hacking will begin.

“The Jersey City Rapid Maker Response Group is making a huge impact on a local and national level. First by providing PPE to frontline medical workers, and second by engaging people to think about how we can empower the maker movement to continue to address both COVID and future crisis related challenges. As a co-host and advisor of the event, and leader of a tech organization with more than 2,500 members, I am confident that the hackathon will have a positive, long-term impact in terms of the ideas, and potential businesses it will produce,” stated Ben Yurcisin, Founder of the Jersey City Tech Meetup, who is also serving as the event advisor.

A JCRMRG volunteer set his system to 3D print 40 face shield visors at once.

From July 11-12, teams will work on their projects, whether they’re designing PPE for daily use in schools, business, and public transportation, figuring out ways to reduce waste in the PPE production process, or developing mobile manufacturing labs that can be deployed quickly and easily in healthcare, emergent, and even educational settings.  Teams of experienced mentors will support the hackers, offering support and coaching, as well as advice on design and functionality capabilities and creating value propositions for their ideas.

“This hackathon represents the next phase in our mission to use technology for humanitarian causes. Our hackathon is bringing together the brightest minds and leaders in technology, business, and additive manufacturing to help participating teams develop solutions to address the ongoing needs surrounding supply chain disruptions in healthcare and emergent situations,” Handsman said. “We are also focused on encouraging the development of safe, sustainable solutions related to the manufacturing and use of PPE since millions of face shields, masks, and pieces of protective gear are ending up in landfills across the country after a single use.”

In addition to Handsman, there are eight other Hackathon judges:

  • Michael Burghoffer, Founder and CEO of PicoSolutions
  • Alda Leu Dennis, General Partner at early stage VC firm Initialized Capital
  • Christopher Frangione, COO of TechUnited:NJ
  • Thomas Murphy, Sr. Product Manager at Shapeways
  • Rob Rinderman, SCORE Mentor, Founder, Investor
  • Tali Rosman, General Manager and Vice President of 3D Printing, Xerox
  • Nora Toure, Founder of Women in 3D Printing
  • Dr. David Zimmerman, Stevens Venture Center, Director of Technology Commercialization, Stevens Institute of Technology

A variant of the open-source Prusa face shield, modified and produced by JCRMRG

The winning hacks will be announced on July 16th. The third place team will receive $1,500, while second place will get $2,500, and first place is $3,500. Several strategic partners and sponsors are supporting the hackathon, including 3DPrint.com, Asimov Ventures, DesignPoint, Indiegrove, PicoSolutions, Dassault Systèmes, PSE&G, PrusaPrinters, TechUnited, Stevens Venture Center, Devpost, Women in 3D Printing, and the Jersey City Tech Meetup.

Once the hackathon is over, JCRMRG plans to follow and support the teams, as well as the maker community, by connecting makers with resources and mentors, and coming up with more initiatives to use 3D printing and injection molding to make face shields for the brave men and women working on the front lines of the pandemic in the US.

JCRMRG donated 875 face shields to Zufall Health Center in New Jersey

(Source/Images: Jersey City Rapid Maker Response Group)

The post JCRMRG’s 3D Health Hackathon Aims for Sustainable 3D Printed PPE appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Freeform Injection Molding Service by Mitsubishi Chemical Advanced Materials

Previously Danish startup Addifab had announced that it was working with its investor Mitsubishi Chemical to develop and offer more materials for its Free Form Injection Molding process, which combines injection molding with 3D printing. Now, Mitsubishi Chemical will be offering FIM as a service.

With Addifab’s process, molds are 3D printed out of photopolymer resin and then cured. This mold is then filled and later dissolved similar to lost wax casting. Because it uses molding, Addifab makes it possible to perform short-run manufacturing with many more materials than are possible with just 3D printing. Start-up costs are lower than actual molding and the lead times are faster, as well. Especially if you work with materials in conventional molding that you just can’t get in 3D printing, Addifab would be a boon. At higher volumes, conventional molding would be more advantageous, of course, and 3D printing would be possible in a lot of geometries where Addifab would not be. Like other technologies such as RIM (reaction injection molding), Thermoforming, thermoplastic injection, and cast Urethane, Addifab provides an alternative for runs between 1 and 10,000 parts.

Mistubishi Chemical will begin by offering FIM services at three locations worldwide: Mesa, Arizona; Tielt, Belgium; and in Tokyo, Japan. The Japanese chemicals giant will offer FIM as a service in Arizona in early Q3 and somewhere toward the end of the year at the other locations.

Randy White, Chief Innovations Officer, Mitsubishi Chemical Advanced Materials, said of the partnership:

“Mitsubishi Chemical Advanced Materials is leading the field of metal replacement polymers. We quickly realized that Freeform Injection Molding would allow us to offer entirely new levels of light-weighting, and we have been working with AddiFab to bring our KyronMAX materials onto the FIM platform. When we were able to drive an 8,000-pound pick-up truck onto a KyronMAX lattice weighing only 70 grams, we knew we were onto something”.

AddiFab CEO Lasse Staal noted:

“We have brought 3D-printing lead-times and start-up costs to the injection molding industry, without compromising on the choice of materials”.

An Addifab mold and the resulting ABS part.

The company is primarily targeting this replacement service at the capital goods industry. It seems to have identified a need and market for machine tool makers, process equipment vendors, and the machinery industry for just the types of parts that Addifab can make. Spare parts have always been a huge imagined opportunity in 3D printing, much funded by the EU in particular.

It is very nice to see a company target this market commercially. Consumables and spare parts are a huge market in the industrial sector. The replacement parts market is not transparent or indeed really global. Often logistics or warehousing unpopular parts is a huge cost element and the combination of Addifab and Mitsubishi Chemical Advanced Materials could bring real change to such a market. Spare parts, consumables, and replacement materials on demand could be a very interesting business model. For now, in certain geographies for certain parts, it could make sense.

If designers and engineers take replacement through Addifab into account during the design stages, then things could really get interesting. Firms would have less of an outlay in certain parts initially. Less upfront investment in part development may improve cashflow in some cases or at some times. Firms would still have to make sure that they wouldn’t overpay in parts, however. An entirely or partially outsourced, or flexible, replacement parts service would be a considerable advantage to many firms. Companies would have much less capital tied up in spare parts. It would also be easier for them to develop specialized and niche versions of existing products, while still being able to support them.

PMMA, PBT and ABS Addifab parts.

Will the new service only work with OEMs? That could be the case, but if it does not, then we may see other firms get into the spare parts business. By making it relatively straightforward to make spares and by democratizing molded parts, it could be easier for service companies, for example, to get into the spares business. If I already service trucks in Indonesia, I could now offer less expensive spare parts for those trucks to my existing customers. Likewise, someone could offer much less expensive spares in the Chilean bus market or for the industrial machinery of one particular company. Capital goods and industrial B2B markets are considerable in revenue and value, but do not often experience the glare of the media or of new disruptive technologies. Overall, this seems to be a particularly timely and well-chosen market entry into a high volume opportunity of many parts.

Generally, we can see chemical and polymer companies increasingly toy with the idea of moving from selling chemicals and polymers to parts. Victrex, for example, has moved towards a service model whereby, for some medical parts, it sells the components themselves and not resin. While still staying in the PEEK business, Victrex’s Invibio unit moves up the food chain and is now helping people develop and get approval for medical devices made out of PEEK.

Is this a similar move by Mitsubishi? In some ways it is, but, rather than carve out a niche that it won’t let others into, the Japanese company has extended its offering into more parts as a service. Such an approach would seem to make a lot of sense. There are much higher margins to be found in parts and one can work more on developing a, by its very nature more strategic, relationship with customers. By moving away from bulk and even specialty chemicals toward parts, polymer and chemical companies could be doing their bottom lines a whole world of good.

The Addifab Printed Molds

Molds Being injected.

Finished Parts.

There is risk: perhaps existing customers could feel alienated because their supplier now competes with them? This has happened before in 3D printing, for example, with OEMs who have started services. If their existing business was adjacent, then such a move could lead to a decline in some revenues that hopefully would be compensated by parts revenue. If Mitsubishi has been careful to avoid that issue, then their move of helping a company it has invested in with entering the global service business through making parts out of Mitsubishi polymers seems like a very solid play aimed at a more end product oriented future.

The post Freeform Injection Molding Service by Mitsubishi Chemical Advanced Materials appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Making Injection Molding Cost-Effective: How Many Units Do You Need to Order?

Injection molding is typically described as a cost-effective manufacturing process… when ordering large quantities of parts.

The reason for this is simple: with injection molding, the initial tooling costs are very high, while the actual plastic molding costs are very low, which means the effective cost-per-unit becomes lower when more units are required.

For example, imagine that a stainless steel mold for a toy car costs $5,000, and each plastic toy car made with the mold costs $0.50. In this scenario, ordering 1x unit of the toy car would cost $5,000.50, ordering 2x units would cost $5,001, and ordering 1,000x units would cost $5,500.

In all of the scenarios, the mold accounts for the bulk of the cost, so the total cost does not vary greatly.

However, in these three scenarios, the effective cost-per-unit does vary greatly:

Scenario in which mold costs $5,000 and each molded part costs $0.50
Units Total cost ($) Cost-per-unit ($)
1 5,000.50 5,000.50
2 5,001.00 2,500.50
1,000 5,500.00 5.50

 

As you can see, there is a dramatic reduction in cost-per-unit when the unit quantity increases, since the extra units amortize the high cost of the mold.

Ordering more units of the toy car clearly represents better value for money. (In fact, ordering a single unit would appear to be a colossal waste of money.)

But just how “large” do we mean when we say that injection molding is suited to large quantities of parts? 100? 1,000? 10,000? A million? As a company deciding between multiple manufacturing processes for a medium-size order of prototypes or end-use parts, we want to know at what point injection molding becomes more cost-effective than the alternatives such as 3D printing.

And while there is no simple formula for determining the point at which injection molding becomes more cost-effective than 3D printing, there are certain factors we can take into account that will help us make the right decision.

3ERP, an expert in injection molding and other on-demand manufacturing services, here provides advice on choosing between injection molding 3D printing based on the required order size.

Injection molding vs 3D printing: First considerations

For companies looking to complete prototyping or production of plastic parts, both injection and 3D printing may seem like tempting options, and it may seem hard to weigh up the respective benefits of each.

However, before getting into any precise calculations, it’s worth pointing out some situations where one manufacturing process is clearly preferable to the other.

Let’s start with a scenario in which a company needs a very small number of prototypes (perhaps just one), and the material and aesthetic properties of the prototype(s) are of negligible importance. Perhaps the in-house R&D team simply wants to see, very loosely, how a yellow plastic casing looks on its new electronic device.

In such a scenario, 3D printing would be the obviously preferable choice: it would be significantly cheaper, and any technical deficiencies in the prototype would not matter.

Alternatively, imagine a scenario in which just a handful of prototypes (perhaps just one) are needed, but the company is looking to pitch its product to an investor, who needs to be convinced that the end-use part (to be made with injection molding during mass production) will function properly for its intended purpose.

In such a scenario, while 3D printing the prototype may be cheaper, it might still be worthwhile for the company to create an injection molded prototype in order to demonstrate the viability of its end-use product.

Key economic differences between injection molding & 3D printing

It is difficult to compare the costs of injection molding and 3D printing because the processes are fundamentally different — not just in terms of how they work, but in how their respective costs are determined.

In general terms, injection molding is a process with high startup costs: metal molds are expensive to make, and that preliminary step can be an insurmountable hurdle for some small businesses. However, once a mold has been fabricated, the cost of each injected “shot” of plastic is very low.

3D printing is different because, unlike injection molding, it is a one-step process. No tooling is needed, and the finished part comes straight out of the printer. This means there are no obstructive startup costs.

That being said, the cost of a single plastic 3D printed part is generally higher than a shot of injected plastic. This is because 3D printing filament (for FDM printers) is more expensive than plastic pellets, and because the sheer slowness of 3D printers means that service providers must charge more for their operation.

With that in mind, the most importance difference between the two processes is that the cost-per-unit of injection molding is dynamic: it decreases as the number of units increases. With 3D printing, on the other hand, the cost-per-unit is static: parts will usually cost the same amount whether you order one or 1,000 of them.

This means that 3D printing in small quantities is cheaper than injection molding, while injection molding in large quantities is cheaper than 3D printing. That also means, logically, that there is some specific quantity at which the “best value” option switches from 3D printing to injection molding.

Finding that quantity depends on several factors.

How many parts to be cost-effective: Factors to consider

The mold

When evaluating the potential costs of injection molding and 3D printing, it is worth starting with potentially the most expensive part of the project: the mold.

Molds can cost thousands of dollars, since they are machined from metal and need to last a long time — potentially hundreds of thousands of plastic shots. However, it is possible to drastically reduce the cost of molds through rapid tooling, the creation of prototype-grade molds with CNC machines or metal 3D printers.

The cost of molds can also be reduced by using aluminum instead of steel. Aluminum is less durable than tool steel, but is still capable of producing high-quality molded parts from non-corrosive materials.

If the cost of the mold can be reduced, the number of molded parts required to be cost-effective decreases.

As an example, imagine that a steel mold for a toy car costs $5,000, that an aluminum mold costs $1,000, and that the cost per plastic shot with either mold is $0.50. Imagine, also, that a 3D printed version of the toy car costs $20.

In this example, the potential costs of the project would be as follows:

Steel mold IM Aluminum mold IM 3D printing
Units Total cost ($) Cost-per-unit ($) Total cost ($) Cost-per-unit ($) Total cost ($) Cost-per-unit ($)
1 5,000.50 5,000.50 1,000.50 1,000.50 20 20
2 5,001.00 2,500.50 1,001 500.50 40 20
50 5,025.00 100.50 1,025 20.50 1,000 20
60 5,030.00 83.83 1,030 17.17 1,200 20
300 5,150.00 17.17 1,150 3.83 6,000 20

 

In this scenario, a 50-unit order is cheaper with 3D printing, but a 60-unit order is cheaper using injection molding with an aluminum mold. (Meanwhile, the more expensive steel mold becomes more cost-effective than 3D printing just above the 250-unit mark.)

Plastics

Another consideration that will affect the calculation is the plastic used to make the part, and there are several variables to consider here.

One factor to consider is that not all 3D printable plastics are moldable, and vice versa. Another is that 3D printing filament is by and large, more expensive than the plastic pellets used for injection molding, since it must be precisely shaped by the material manufacturer.

Importantly, the cost of plastics may not be consistent between pellet and filament formats: materials like Nylon and Polycarbonate, for example, remain relatively premium products in the 3D printing filament market, so a relatively small number of Nylon parts would be required to make injection molding more cost-effective than 3D printing. (A common 3D printing material like ABS, however, would require a much larger number.)

The type of plastic used to make the parts may therefore determine which manufacturing process is more economical for a given order volume.

Part shape and size

The design of the part may also affect its potential cost for injection molding and 3D printing. A part with overhangs, for example, may be significantly cheaper to 3D print, since injection molded parts with overhangs require more complex tooling.

In other words, if your part design is not suited to injection molding, you’ll probably need to order more parts to make injection molding cost-effective.

Manufacturing process

FDM remains the most common 3D printing process, but alternative options include Stereolithography and Selective Laser Sintering. These other processes are more expensive than FDM, which naturally affects their affordability in comparison with injection molding.

For example, 200 FDM parts may be cheaper than 200 equivalent injection molded parts, but 200 SLS parts may be more expensive than 200 injection molded parts.

Conclusion

Since the cost-per-unit of plastic parts is dynamic for injection molding and static for 3D printing, it can be difficult to assess which option is the best value for money for a given order.

Numerous factors, including mold creation, part material and part shape can affect the cost of the order — and to different degrees depending on the manufacturing process.

With that in mind, the best solution to the dilemma may be simply requesting a quote for both processes.

3ERP has expertise in both injection molding and 3D printing, and can assess projects on a case-by-case basis to see which represents the best value for money.

Get in touch and we’ll get your project up and running.

The post Making Injection Molding Cost-Effective: How Many Units Do You Need to Order? appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

3D Printing and COVID-19, April 19, 2020 Update

Companies, organizations and individuals continue to attempt to lend support to the COVID-19 pandemic supply effort. We will be providing regular updates about these initiatives where necessary in an attempt to ensure that the 3D printing community is aware of what is being done, what can be done and what shouldn’t be done to provide coronavirus aid.

3D printing is a great tool for short, fast production runs, but, as Dr. Beth Ripley from the Veterans Affairs department pointed out, it is a stop gap measure while mass manufacturers retool for larger, less expensive batches. Steve Cox,  a 3D technologies consultant, posted an open design for an injection mold meant for producing face shield headbands. The tool was designed in Autodesk Fusion 360, while Inventor was used to analyze the flow of polypropylene flow and filling within the mold. Those interested can contact him for the file.

An injection mold for 3D-printed face shield headbands by Steve Cox.

After the Chief of Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) put out a request for personal protection equipment donations, a local 3D printing company called GSC stepped in to produce new filters for the police force. MPD required 600 new filters, including the actual filter material. While Milwaukee Tool donated 600 HEPA filters from their vacuum line, Bradley Corp donated 600 O-rings for sealing them (as well as 600 extra from Viking Masek).

A face mask with 3D-printed filter attachment supplied to the Milwaukee Police Department. Image courtesy of GSC.

With the safety supplies in place, GSC prototyped an adapter for the filters to attach to MPD’s existing masks. In just five-and-a-half days, the 3D printing firm was able to get the device in the field, 3D printing the adapters on its HP 5200 3D printer printing at a rate of 125 to 250 parts daily. While the design files are available online, they are specific to MPD’s masks; however, talented designers and engineers should be able to modify them for their own use.

The Portland 3D Printing Lab is now 3D printing face and eye shields for local hospitals in Portland, Oreg. So far, 220 makers with 380 printers has produced 5,000 pieces of PPE for hospitals and partners, establishing what the group refers to as a “pop-up supply chain.”

Through MakerForce.org, local hospitals can request PPE, at which point community members can connect with them and begin making items from a catalog of parts. The group can either perform small 100-unit runs or production jobs of 200 to 5,000 units using its Rapid Assistance Database, a method for maker members to “select verified units of work, 3D print them, and drop off in bins outside three local businesses.” Using this complex method, which you can learn more about here, the group has been able to perform 9,000 hours of work in less than three weeks, delivering 1,000 pieces of individually wrapped face shields in less than a week.

Physicians at Providence Willamette Falls Medical Center’s ER with their new face shields with parts 3D printed by MakerForce.org. Image courtesy of Sean Stone.

A Massachusetts team—made up of AFFOA, MIT, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, University of Massachusetts Lowell and the US Army Combat Capabilities Development Command-Soldier Center— is establishing a method for characterizing and analyzing materials and supplies used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The goals of the coalition include the following:

  • coordinating testing efforts for medical supplies
  • evaluating internationally sourced products based on their regulatory designations
  • testing and analyzing research work dedicated to product resterilization and re-use
  • Analyzing raw materials and product prototypes for PPE to establish a method for regulatory certification via NIOSH and the FDA
  • Analyzing new filter media

The group, led by AFFOA, is testing N95 respirators and masks, surgical masks, face shields, isolation gowns using the tests below. While the tests do not provide certification or pre-certification, the organization can provide connections to resources at NIOSH and the FDA. More about the effort can be found here. These tests are currently being offered for free with the organization prioritizing the tests based on need dictated by the pandemic:

A group of four medical device companies in Ohio, the Theken Group, developed a resuable, autoclavable, titanium 3D-printed N95-style face mask in a span of less than 10 days. Based off of 3D scans of human faces, 20 iterations of the mask design were first 3D printed using an FDM printer before an Arcam electron beam system was used to create the final part. The goal of the device was the ability to replace disposable cloth masks with a reusable counterpart, potentially addressing supply shortages.

The mask is now with the FDA for approval, but it does raise some questions about the viability of such a device. It weighs 60 grams, which is nearly six times the weight of a traditional, 12-gram N95 face mask, which could potentially be burdensome on the wearer. Moreover, the cost of the metal powders used with a metal powder bed fusion machines are notoriously expensive and, one would assume, cost prohibitive for these types of masks.

(L to R): 3D-printed N95 Respirator Straight Out of Printer; Finalized N95 Respirator; Cowan Moore, CTO of Theken Group wearing the Titanium 3D-printed N95 Respirator. Image courtesy of Theken Group.

As the pandemic continues to grip the world, we will continue to provide regular updates about what the 3D printing community is doing in response. As always, it is important to keep safety in mindremain critical about the potential marketing and financial interests behind seemingly good humanitarian efforts from businesses, and to do no harm.

The post 3D Printing and COVID-19, April 19, 2020 Update appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Short Carbon Fibre-Reinforced Polyamide Using FDM 3D Printing vs. Polymer Injection Molding

Researchers from Spain are investigating more effective 3D printing materials with different techniques in the recently released ‘Investigation of a Short Carbon Fibre-Reinforced Polyamide and Comparison of Two Manufacturing Processes: Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) and Polymer Injection Moulding (PIM).’

FDM 3D printing is extremely common for digital fabrication by users on all levels, beneficial due to affordability and accessibility—and offering a way to create complex structures for many different applications today, from medical to bioprinting, automotive, and aerospace. Selective laser sintering (SLS) and selective laser melting (SLM) are also methods preferred in manufacturing today, although the researchers note that FDM 3D printing is ‘more developed,’ with the following popular polymers:

  • Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)
  • Polylactic acid (PLA)
  • Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)
  • Polyamides (PA)
  • Polyether ether ketone (PEEK)

Poor mechanical properties are an ongoing issue, related to varying parameters, issues with adhesion, and materials which are not suitable. Composites are often used as a solution, with many different projects employing additives making up new materials like bronze PLA, composite hydrogels, and numerous metals. Carbon and glass are common additions used for strengthening the polymeric matrix, but the researchers note that they have not been the subject of comprehensive studies.

CarbonXTM CRF-Nylon was used with an Ultimaker 2 Extended + to fabricate the samples, designed with Autodesk Inventor, and sliced with Cura 3.5.1.

Stereomicroscope images (×1.25) of the appearance of the injected and different patterned printed samples.

The authors, comparing 3D printing and injection molding capabilities, evaluated fiber length first.

Results of the fibre length distribution in the raw material, injected and printed samples (A) and measurement of diameters in fibres using 400× with a microscope (B).

“The critical length obtained by Equation (1) was