Meltio: An International Joining of Forces to Revolutionize the 3D Market

Meltio is a new company specialized in applying additive manufacturing and 3D scanning to industrial sectors such as aerospace, architecture, automotive, medical, education, electronics, and machining. It was set up in mid-2019 as a joint venture with the participation of Additec, an American company based in Las Vegas, Nevada, Sicnova, a Spanish company with a vast history in the 3D field, and with a significant participation of metallurgical giant ArcelorMittal.]

Its goal is to boost the industry by improving productivity, by means of a wide portfolio of connected and scalable technological solutions based on advanced 4D manufacturing and 3D inspection. All this can be summarized with the introduction of its 3E Technology concept: Easy, Efficient and Expandable.

Meltio’s product portfolio offers several complementary alternatives, turning Meltio into a global partner for companies willing to implement 4.0 solutions targeted to make their workflows more efficient. The products catalog includes large format FFF 3D printers, 3D digitalization solutions for inspection and quality control, and also hybrid systems (CNC/robotic engines or modules). This way Meltio will enable the acquisition of digital 3D files to producing plastic prototypes or metal end use parts with great surface finish, and ultimately controlling the quality of the parts with automated inspection systems.

Meltio is soon launching at Formnext2019, one of its flagship solutions: Meltio M450 3D printer. This new printer is based on LMD technology previously used by Additec in its µPrinter. MELTIO M450 uses a high-power multi-laser printhead able to handle metal wire or powder without changing the nozzle. The printer features a very compact format which makes it suitable for desktop environments, with a build volume of 200x150x450 mm.

In the words of the CEO of the company Ángel Llavero, “the joining of forces of Additec, Sicnova and ArcelorMittal will make possible a democratizing access to direct metal 3D printing, by allowing its use to many companies that could not afford it until now”.

Meltio has set up since the beginning as an international company with a clear global vision and offices in United States and Spain. The main headquarters and factory are located in Linares, Jaen (Spain), with the R&D centers in both, the US and Europe.

The company is led by several names with extensive experience in 3D technologies sector. The CEO is Ángel Llavero (also CEO in Sicnova since 2007) and the main board also includes Brian Matthews (CEO of Additec). Also the CRO is Oscar Meza, former Vice-President of Global Sales at Shining3D, Executive Vice-president of Worldwide Sales at Creaform and Vice-President of Sales in Asia-Pacific at Faro Technologies.

Currently Meltio is closing international deals for distributing its portfolio worldwide. The complete range of products will be showcased at Formnext (stand C111, hall 12.1), where it will also host an official presentation the first day of the event (Tuesday, 19th November at 2.30 PM). You can get invitations for visiting the stand at Formnext through Meltio’s website: meltio4d.com.

The post Meltio: An International Joining of Forces to Revolutionize the 3D Market appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Custom Prototypes Creates a Unique Metal 3D Printed Faucet

This week a Toronto based 3D printing company, Custom Prototypes, revealed an impressive metal 3D printing project, an intricately designed bathroom faucet 3D printed in stainless steel.

Over the past couple of months, Custom Prototypes has been busy fulfilling an urgent request from an interior design company to help aid with a special project. Custom Prototypes was asked to help design and build a one of a kind bathroom faucet for a new house construction.

The interior design company had been planning the look of this house for years and wanted to push the boundaries of traditional design. Each room was set to tell a unique story and draw inspiration from all of the home owner’s life travels. 

For the house’s main floor bathroom the vision was to recreate the experience of feeling like you were in a water garden. As a child growing up in Kashmir, India, the house owner had spent endless hours paddling the rivers and picking lotus flowers.

Custom Prototypes took the symbolic Lotus flower and used it to guide their design thought process. The goal for them was to achieve a product that could act as a standalone art piece even when not being used.

Once the general idea was proposed, they began to sketch up some abstract ideas on paper eventually starting to digitally sculpt it using Freeform.

One of the biggest challenges they had to face was to make sure the faucet not only achieved the aesthetic the house owner and interior design company were aiming for, but also to make sure they would actually be able to build it. The design of the base had six very small winding structures which were all hollow to allow water to flow freely, making metal 3D printing the only option.

The faucet was 3D printed in stainless steel on a DMLS (direct metal laser sintering) machine. They managed to print the entire part with no internal supports making it possible to remove any excess metal powder left inside.

If you have any questions about metal 3D printing or would like Custom Prototypes to guide you in creating your own custom product, please email info@customprototypes.ca

ABOUT Custom Prototypes:

Custom Prototypes is a rapid prototyping company located in Toronto, Canada. They are a local service bureau specializing in 3D printing working for industries ranging from automotive, to medical to general consumer product.

They have made international headlines and received a variety of awards over the years with a broad scope of projects. They are best known for their 2018 AMUG award winner with an entry of their creation of Marc Antony’s helmet using only 3D printing materials. Other well-known projects include their award winning reproduction of Van Gogh’s Starry Night and their stained glass window made only with 3D printing.

The post Custom Prototypes Creates a Unique Metal 3D Printed Faucet appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Markforged Metal X Now Lets You 3D Print in Inconel 625

Metal and composite 3D printer manufacturer Markforged has now released Inconel 625 for the Metal X system, bringing a high-performance nickel superalloy to many more users.

Inconel 625 is used in many high-performance applications where corrosion resistance and temperature resistance are sought qualities. 625 is used in turbines, piping, valves, specialized industrial equipment, hydraulics and in flow applications. It is used in the nuclear and defense industry as well as aerospace, oil, power, chemical, and the marine industry. 625 has already been available on the Exone systems for a few years and recently was made available for Digital Metal. Sandvik, Hoganas, and AP&C already offered 625 for the Powder Bed Fusion market. SLM Solutions, Admatec, 3D Systems, GE and EOS machines let you print in the material. You could order 3D printed 625 parts from Stratasys Direct and others as well.

The systems and setups you would need to successfully print Inconel 625 would be quite extensive and expensive, however. Conventionally manufacturing 625 was often also complex. What Markforged is now doing is making this material an option for many more applications and users. The Markforged Metal X is available for around $100,000. This is a fraction (15% to 5%) of what you’d need to spend with other manufacturers to be able to 3D print 625. Along with a washing, debinding and sintering step the Metal X lets you in a relatively affordable way print parts. Binder jetting metals is still difficult with new geometries and different wall thicknesses and sizes leading to different shrinkages. So ten thousand of the same or similar parts should not be a problem but 10,000 completely unique parts would be. Traditionally as well we think of Powder Bed Fusion as providing us with higher performance more accurate parts than binder jet.

The Metal X set up (is it ten or X, I’ve never asked)

But Markforged is opening a niche here in manufacturing which is a very exciting one. Yes, there is a burgeoning market for Powder Bed Fusion for qualified parts for nuclear, marine and aviation. This market alone in the relatively exotic 625 material is potentially huge. An even broader market exists around this market in processing, marine, automotive, flow, power, defense and oil and gas. This market is huge. Localized production of defense products in-country at the base or at the oilfield alone is a vast market. In light of recent events in Saudi Arabia, 5% of global crude production has been halted for a number of weeks or perhaps months. The Abqaiq attack exposed Aramco to loses of $200 million per day. In that kind of money no object, scenario local production of replacement parts, valves, pipes, and fittings would be a welcome addition for Aramco and many other NOCs. We think that we’re always so cool in 3D printing but our effects and uses represent a considerable impact on small elements of industries to which ours is a rounding error. If the loses from Abqaiq last as much as two months, one firm Aramco, will have forgone in revenue from one damaged site what our entire industry generates in revenue per year.

The US navy seems intent on putting 3D printers on aircraft carriers and other ships. For some reason, they have a penchant for Powder Bed Fusion. I think putting a laser and powder system which needs argon to run onboard an aircraft carrier is lunacy. But, a Metal X system may be much easier for the Navy to operate safely. Surely it will tend to explode less? At the same time, one would expect fewer problems with the whole you know, moving boat thing. Given what is at stake in the Navy with delays, the potential of underway replenishment is also considerable. Onboard 3D printing also makes a lot of sense for some commercial shipping and offshore.

I’m on the whole very skeptical of binder jet but very bullish on the prospects of 3D printing for marine and oil and gas applications. There is incredible unexploited potential there. On time, small series, weight-saving or flow-optimized parts produced in place is exactly the sweet spot of 3D printing. I really believe that Markforged has real potential here to open three multi-billion-dollar markets for 3D printing: in defense local spares, marine and oil, and gas. Apart from Ivaldi, some work by Voestalpine, SLM and Aidro, no one is paying attention to oil and gas or marine. In April we looked at shipboard 3D printing but while this area is expanding it lags significantly behind aviation and even automotive in the adoption of 3D printing.

Jon Reilly, VP of Product at Markforged says that, 

“Inconel is traditionally a difficult and expensive material to work with. Before Markforged, many would have to wait for a contract supplier, invest significantly in mold creation, or purchase a powder-based process that requires intensive facility build-outs and highly trained technicians, Now manufacturing Inconel is fast, safe, and affordable.”

The launch customer is also Nieka Systems which makes “sample preparation equipment for the mining and cement production industries” and has “3D printed Inconel crucible clips to hold samples in place while rapidly and repeatedly cycling between high and low temperatures. The team can now print the same batch of parts in-house 10x cheaper and in just a few days instead of waiting four weeks for the 3D printed parts to be delivered from a third-party supplier.”

You can read more on the case study here.

There is a lot to be stated for this kind of in time local production by regular industry as well. Whereas I’m super skeptical about metal binder jet being used for many different unique parts, using it for standardized parts, replacement parts and consumables to me has a really exciting future. I’d love for ruggedized Metal X systems to be offered certified for use onboard vessels and able to produce certified and qualified parts for oil and gas as well as marine applications. For now, being able to cost-effectively print 625 moves us all a bit closer to where we want to be.

The post Markforged Metal X Now Lets You 3D Print in Inconel 625 appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Interview with Guy Ofek of GF Machining Solutions on Integrating Metal Additive in Manufacturing

Guy J. Ofek has spent over 16 years helping companies find the best manufacturing solutions throughout Asia. Nearly 11 years of those were in 3D Printing for Stratasys and other vendors. This has made him a seasoned veteran in the field. Guy now works for GF Machining Solutions, a leading provider of machine tools, solutions, and services that is bringing automation and integrated manufacturing to 3D Printing. We’re all becoming aware that the current area of expansion in 3D printing is on the concrete floors of manufacturing facilities worldwide. Companies are taking the lab boxes that were made to discover new materials and print prototypes and try to turn them into production devices. Whereas in the marketing copy and press releases everyone is a professional and focused on manufacturing, very few companies are actually manufacturing using 3D Printing. Those who do, quickly find out that they need to integrate this foreign process into tried and true systems, facilities and processes. This is difficult and leads to tough projects worldwide that need new thinking, new processes, and new machinery.

GF Machining Solutions is a firm that has squarely put itself in between that problem and possible solutions for clients. It’s a bold and smart play for a 1,066 million Swiss franc revenue firm with close to 4,000 employees. GF Machining Solutions offers an extensive portfolio, ranging from Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM) solutions, Milling machines and Spindles to 3D Laser texturing machines, Additive Manufacturing and machines for Laser micromachining targeted at the aerospace, automotive and medical segments, among others. All of these areas have seen strong impacts from 3D printing. A few years ago, GF Machining Solutions, on the one hand, has found itself under possible disruption by 3D printing, while on the other has found its machining solutions being used extensively by the 3D printing industry. Wire-cutting EDM (WEDM, Wire EDM) is almost a necessary step for many metal 3D printed parts. The firm has since taken its many complementary skillsets and has begun offering integrated solutions for the 3D printing industry. With partnerships, devices and solutions, GF Machining Solutions seems to be one of only very few large industrial machine tool companies taking 3D printing seriously at the moment, so we thought it very prudent to find out what the firm is up to.

What is GF Machining Solutions?

GF Machining Solutions is the world’s leading provider of machine tools, diverse technical solutions and services to manufacturers of precision molds and tooling and of tight-tolerance, precision-machined components. The key segments we serve include the aerospace, automotive, medical, energy, information and communications technology (ICT) and electronics industries. Our extensive portfolio ranges from Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM) solutions, three- and five-axis Milling machines and Spindles, 3D Laser texturing machines, Additive Manufacturing and machines for Laser micromachining to solutions for Tooling, Automation, Software and Digitalization – all backed by unrivaled Customer Services and support. Based in Switzerland, GF Machining Solutions belong to Georg Fischer AG (FI/N: SIX Swiss Ex) and is present in over 50 countries with its own sales companies. In addition, we operate production facilities and research and development centers in Switzerland, the USA, Sweden, and China.

For a century and a half, GF Machining Solutions has been an innovator and a source of strength to customers. Our history of technology leadership includes expansion into technologies that have spurred our customers’ growth, and – with an eye to the future – we continue to innovate in order to advance the success of our customers in particular and the machine tool industry as a whole.
In Milling, EDM, Laser texturing and Automation technologies across a variety of segments from automotive, aerospace and aeronautics to Medtech, electronic components, and ICT, GF Machining Solutions’ customers worldwide depend on our application know-how and process expertise. Our customers range from small and medium-sized toolmakers to global corporations.

Why did you get involved with Additive Manufacturing?

GF Machining Solutions believe that Additive Manufacturing will play an important role in the future of manufacturing. Given our specific expertise in traditional subtractive manufacturing and Automation, we feel the latter can help bridge the gap between prototyping and manufacturing, especially since metal Additive Manufacturing today―and going into the future―will be all about hybrid manufacturing.
Hybrid production environments will include an additive technology, but also the relevant downstream processes such as Milling, EDM, wire-cutting EDM, Laser texturing solutions and so on, that are required to finish the part, and all these technologies need to be integrated and work in tandem to form the `factory of the future`.

Do you see it working closely with other machining operations?

Yes by all means, in particular when it comes to metal additive, as users must always separate the metal-made part from the metal build plate. This is an operation normally done by band saws or wire-cutting EDM machines, so as part of the GF Machining Solutions mission “To integrate and optimize metal additive workflow“, we will introduce a wire-cutting EDM machine dedicated to metal additive at the coming EMO show this September. It will allow manufacturers to separate parts from the build plate in a horizontal manner. This new AgieCharmilles WEDM product will use GF Machining Solutions’ fast-wire technology and is ready for integration with any other technologies, using its built-in System 3R clamping solution.

In addition, more often than not, the surface quality of parts out of any metal printer out there is insufficient to meet the Ra requirement of tool makers, aero-engine OEMs and many others, who use metal additive to produce final parts, hence the need for Milling technology and or EDM machines to better the surface up to the mark.

How does your extensive experience in machining help you?

It is no secret that the additive industry has been “living on an island”, so to speak, for most of its over 30 years of existence, having serviced mainly applications around product development―in other words, prototypes aimed for fit, form and functional testing. I say “living on an island”, because the additive industryin the past eight to ten yearshas been pushing towards the adoption of the technologies in manufacturing and production environments, which are “the mainland” or the 12 trillion “Holy Grail” if you like, and in this environment, the rules of the game are somewhat different. For instance, in the world of product development, one must employ absolute flexibility allowing to design and test as many variations as possible of that one specific product in order to establish which one actually works best.
Production environments, on the other hand, have almost the opposite mindset in the sense they allow zero flexibility and mandate tight tolerances. Their goal is always the same, to create as many versions as possible of that one specific product, all while assuring all products are identical and of the highest possible quality.

On top of that, elements such as productivity, robustness, cost efficiency, redundancy, Mean Time Between Visits (MTBV), response time and many more, all are very important when we talk about production, yet have far less importance, if any, in the world of product development.
Considering GF Machining Solutions’ leadership in high-speed Milling with its Mikron Mill machines and in EDM with its AgieCharmilles machines, we feel we have the capacity to better understand the unique needs and challenges of users out there battling the quest of adopting Additive Manufacturing in production environment.

 You’ve partnered with EOS and 3D Systems?

Indeed, in the past, we collaborated with EOS in order to promote a specific metal-printing machine (AM 290 Tooling) to the mold and die segment given our strong affinity to the segment. Later in 2018, we announced a strategic cooperation with 3D Systems for jointly developed and integrated manufacturing solutions based on 3D printing. The first product of this cooperation  – the DMP Factory 500 metal Additive Manufacturing solution – was launched in September 2018 during IMTS in the US. Now, 11 months after we inked this partnership, we are very happy with the developments made thus far and feel there is much we can do to bring our shared vision of integrated and optimized metal additive workflow to our customers looking to integrate metal additive into their production environments.

You are developing “integrated manufacturing solutions” with 3D Systems, what does that mean?

As GF is a full partner in the design, development and production of some of  the co-branded 3D metal printers, the goal of both companies is to jointly develop solutions able to close the gap between the current stand-alone metal AM machines, and the “factory of the future”, where all elements of Industry 4.0 are fully integrated.  In other words, in order to be able to realize our shared vision, which have driven the additive industry for years now, and see end-to-end additive solutions actually being integrated into the shop floor, we believe it’s vital to make adjustments to the existing hardware and software environments to enable a seamless and efficient workflow.

For example, at present Additive Manufacturing machines, as well as the much-required post processing―whichever it may be―are very labor intensive, as the entire process is manual. Even if additive manufacturing is not meant for mass production, all agree that automation, of some sort, must be introduced in order to improve the workflow, increase operators’ safety and create a cost-efficient process all together. For these purposes, we took the first step by integrating a System 3R Delphin chuck into the DMP Factory 500, thereby allowing the operator to seamlessly move the build plate (which sits on-top of the chuck) from the metal additive machine onto a wire-cutting EDM or Milling machine for further processing. This saves time in clamping and making dedicated tooling after the part has been separated from the build plate.

Is 3D printing a threat to casting, or will it augment traditional casting operations?

Historically, there were only two traditional ways to turn a raw material into a shape that was as close as possible to the desired product: Forging or Casting, and each had its own pros and cons. With Additive Manufacturing, we now have a third method, which opens new possibilities and as such, is very exciting. Additive, however, has its own limitations, and it is because of that it is perhaps very complementary to Casting.

The Sales Manager of GF Additive SA (AMotion Center) in Switzerland, Mr. Marco Salvisberg, recently noted that on the one hand, 3D printing certainly poses a threat to some investment casting applications, as parts that used to be produced by investment casting are already being 3D-printed today, and one can only expect the scale to grow in the future. This depends on the segment, but with regard to aviation and IGT (Industrial Gas Turbine) business, 10-40% of today’s portfolio of casted parts will be printed in the AMotion Center in the long term.
On the other hand, as Marco added, 3D printing is a great opportunity for the foundries. Wax, ceramic cores and polystyrene printing can drastically reduce development times and tooling costs. In addition, 3D metal printing is a good way for foundries to expand their production portfolio. Printing itself is only a small portion of a long production process, which includes finishing, surface treatment, heat treatment, none-destructive testing etc., the components of which many foundries already have.

Is more automation needed in 3D Printing, and if so, where?

Automation is of course required in 3D printing, much like in any other process or technology, in order to foster productivity and improve workflow efficiency. Automation comes in two basic forms, internal and external, and we foresee that additive, in time, will adopt both. A simple example of internal automation is an Automatic Tool Changer (ATC) in a CNC machine, while an example for external automation could be an integration of a robotic arm―stationary or on a slide base―into a production cell, turning it into a Flexible Manufacturing System (FMS).
The integration of a chuck system into an additive machine, as previously suggested, is the first step when it comes to industrialization of the AM process, in particular for metal additive. It requires the separation of the printed metal part from the metal build plate, as well as several post processes and treatments, which are all aimed at turning a part on a plate into a finished product.

How do you wish to partner with customers in 3D Printing?

Ideally, we see ourselves collaborating with companies and organizations having existing metal additive experience, as those very often understand far better not only the benefits the technology has to offer, but also the challenges and complexities involved in moving from prototyping and R&D to the production floor.

For such users, we believe we bring the most value considering the robustness of our co-branded metal additive solutions – such as the DMP Factory 350 – in addition to the built-in automation it incorporates, which is translated directly to maximum powder utilization and providing a safer environment for the operator.

At the end of the day, the additive process in itself is merely 30% of the entire production workflow, so special attention should be paid to additional downstream processes.

What can you offer them?

As a group, drawing from the combined knowledge and experience in precision engineering and industrial automation, as well as the accumulated expertise in the provision of various casting solutions (iron sandcasting, aluminum and magnesium pressure die casting, precision casting) and additive technologies, we have the unique ability to offer clients far more than just a metal 3D printer.

GF Machining Solutions sees itself as a provider of end-to-end value, ranging from consulting, part design, powders and parameters optimization, rapid prototyping using LPBF, EBM and DMD technologies and part certification (NADCAP) all the way to bridge and serial production of AM parts including processes for surface treatment, machining and coating and supply chain management.

Do you wish to sell machines, solutions, parts?

As our name suggests, GF Machining Solutions is all about solutions rather than selling individual machines or technologies. What sets us apart is our unique ability to offer a wide range of technological solutions on top of our metal additive machines, in conjunction with the ability to integrate such solutions using our System 3R automation product line to create a workflow-optimized metal additive production environment.

For clients looking for part production, application development and such other services, we normally suggest they work with our AMotion Center, which is geared toward consultancy and many other services. Those range from application, powder and parameter development all the way through design for AM, prototyping, bridge and serial production using multiple additive technologies (DMLS, EBM, DED), and above it all, they are NADCAP certified for aerospace and aeronautic companies.

Can you build me a 3D printing factory?

I am confident our decades-long experience and leadership in precision engineering and industrial automation can and will play a part when it comes to offering our clients integrative approach to metal additive. Producing metal additive parts require professionalism and expertise, and considering the fact many additional technologies are required in order to see a finished part, GF I believe is an ideal partner for anyone making his first steps into this fascinating technology and in particular for advanced users looking to move into series production. Such step requires finding ways to lower cost per part, enablement of operation and productivity excellence and reduction of total cost of ownership and I fundamentally believe the metal AM production units we produce, are designed to deliver not only very high quality parts, but also to do so over lengthy periods allowing maximum uptime leading to lower cost per part and a solid return on investment.

What is the AM market like in Asia?

Asia is a mixed bag as you may know, and as such, one can see all the shades of the rainbow when moving from north to south or east to west. When it comes to metal additive, we see a nice and steady adoption in China and Japan, where users in segments such as aerospace, energy, medical and tooling are using metal additive more and more in an effort to create lighter parts, better functional designs and speed up their lead times. Other than that, we also see interesting opportunities in Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and India, with innovative users looking to either adopt metal additive, or even step up and move into production-related applications, after their R&D departments have been exploring the technology and created viable applications for the past years.

What advice do you have for companies who wish to manufacture with 3D Printing?

Additive is all about customization, different ways to design products and making products in a completely different way compared to what we’ve grown accustomed to, which leads me to believe there is no “one size fits all”. Having said that, what I see separating the winners from the rest of the pack is an innovative spirit, a “can do” attitude, coupled with a drive to learn and develop, and yes, also to fail.

Additive is an industry where everyone is learning and exploring, and in such an environment there are no “Plug-and-Play” solutions. Hence, in order to manufacture with 3D printing, one must first make sure one is in the game, and one willing to fail and unlearn – not only because failure to do so could be detrimental to the viability of the business in the long run, but mainly because the rewards one stands to reap as a result of incorporating additive into the process chain may very well be significant.

 

The post Interview with Guy Ofek of GF Machining Solutions on Integrating Metal Additive in Manufacturing appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Interview With Honeywell’s Dave Dietrich on Implementing Additive Manufacturing for Businesses

Dave Dietrich is an Engineering Fellow at Honeywell Aerospace. There he was involved with the systems and defense firm’s 3D printing effort. His job is to guide, help and train his fellow engineers in adopting 3D printing for aerospace in the firm. He advocates for a DfAM approach whereby one identifies and designs for the advantages of Additive Manufacturing from the start of a design and development project and indeed this is also the approach that we favor. In previous roles he was an adjunct professor Engineering Management and worked at Boeing as a materials process and physics engineer and later as an Oak Ridge National Laboratory fellow on 3D printing metals. He was also the metal 3D printing technical lead at Boeing and initiated Boeing’s internal metal 3D printing training program.

Dave has now written a book, Additive Manufacturing Change Management: Best Practices. He told us that, “The target audience of this book would be managers/project managers/executives who may not know how or why their company should implement AM.” He also believes that “barriers holding AM back from becoming a widely adopted manufacturing technology within industry has just as much, if not more, to do with business and organizational challenges than technical challenges.” This is a very timely book that could help a lot of firms evaluate and adopt 3D printing in their organization. We asked Dave a number of questions to learn more.

Often there is a lot of institutional resistance to adopting AM in industry. How does one overcome this problem? 

As change agents for AM within industry, my co-authors and I have each had common experiences with respect to institutional resistance. From our experience, it seems that there are deeper underlying currents that have more to do with resistance to changing the company culture than AM technology itself. AM is disruptive. It challenges every notion of typical manufacturing practices, design practices, quality inspection practices, and generally accepted notions of supply chain behavior. As such, overcoming this resistance it has more to do with understanding change management philosophy than breaking through specific AM technical hurdles. Luckily, there’s lot of written documentation in the field of industrial change management, namely, Lean Manufacturing and Six Sigma quality systems. Our book adapts lessons learned from Lean and Six Sigma fields and uses some of those tools when installing AM cultural changes.

For some reason, if customers select a test part for 3D printing its always the wrong one, why is this? 

Often, it is a lack of understanding of the technology. Perhaps they didn’t select the correct process, material, or post-processing requirements for the part, or perhaps the engineer involved with the part didn’t think about the ramifications of poor surface finish. Alternatively, perhaps that specific test part was design for a conventional technology and not adapted to AM capabilities at all. There could be many reasons. About 5 years ago, someone once told me that AM is the wild west of manufacturing. I’d like to hope it is becoming a little more civilized (perhaps more Sheriffs now?), but there is still an enormous education gap regarding the technology capability. I also blame marketing pieces from competing companies designed to highlight the enormous benefits of AM. Of course, these media publications don’t highlight the many pitfalls the company went through to gain a good part. Based on this media blitz, competing companies will often head off to build their own AM test parts in an effort to stay competitive without management understanding the true pitfalls of the technology. Our book directly addresses these challenges.

Metal printing is touted as the future of manufacturing. Meanwhile, it consists of a guy with a brush and a vacuum cleaner cleaning off powder while another takes a circular saw to saw off parts. How do you reconcile that? 

Again, I think it gets down to the overmarketing of the technology. AM itself is not a product. AM itself is not an end to a solution. AM is a tool in the engineering toolbox to solve manufacturing problems. Albeit, an incredibly disruptive one. It also just so happens to be the “most shiny” tool right now. But beware, when the engineer reaches for that tool, they better know how to use it properly! There will always be heat treatments, cutters, hot isostatic pressing, and yes, even folks with brushes and vacuums. Pieces of this will evolve to automation over time, but often over marketing can lead to misperceptions of the technology, which leads to the confounding conclusions you point out in your question.

QA is still a huge problem in 3D Printing, what are some best practices for this?

Yes, there is an inherent conflict between highly optimized AM structures that are beautifully designed and practical inspection and machining of these parts. For metallic AM parts, CT inspection has always been an expensive, but not always a practical solution to this problem. White light scanning is also used to a semi-effective result. Dye penetrant inspection of machined surfaces, in-situ build process monitoring, and other traditional inspection techniques have been used somewhat effectively. There are also challenges on the software side comparing what has been printed, in terms of dimensional conformance, to true CAD definition. I think this is an area that needs more development in the future as AM becomes more production hardened.

What needs to be improved on the 3D printers themselves? 

Recently, I believe we are beginning to see a more hyper-competitive landscape for the metal AM powder bed fusion technology. At Formnext, each year, I see exponential growth in the number of new machine manufacturer entrants into AM. I think this hyper competition will create faster, larger machines with more lasers. This seems like an incremental step, not necessarily a leap frog type of improvement. I’d like to see the other technologies, like Directed Energy Deposition or Wire Fed AM technologies, become more flexible to adapt to geometries with higher complexity. Or, perhaps a completely different type of machine/feedstock/energy delivery system architecture? In other words, I’ve been waiting for that one technology to drop that will shatter AM machines as we know it.

What is one thing that we need to do that we as an industry are not doing? 

 We need to stop promoting the technology itself as the key to world peace, while at the same time, expecting it to exhibit repeated performance of manufacturing technologies that have been around for decades or hundreds of years (castings, machining, injection molding, etc). As discussed in the book, many things within industry and within individual companies needs to change for this to be production hardened. In other words, bridle the enthusiasm a bit.

If I’m a company wishing to manufacture using DMLS, what advice would you give me? 

I would start with a series of questions that gets back to my point earlier that the technology itself is not an end. Why did you pick DMLS specifically? Did you research alternative AM technologies? What is the product you are wanting to produce? Is DMLS the most effective way to produce it? Are you wanting your product to be competitive from a cost standpoint, performance standpoint, etc? What is the objective of this product? By focusing on the product that ultimately gets sold to a happy customer, then DMLS may be a solution, or may not. By asking these types of questions first, we are more likely to arrive at better solution for the company. If DMLS is indeed the right technology choice; then drawing from the book, I would go down a road of preparing the company for the cultural, certification, organizational, talent management hurdles they would face.

What are the biggest hurdles to adopting AM? 

  1. Organizational Culture and Executive Long Term Commitment
  2. Certification Adherence
  3. Lack of Training (technician, engineers, executives)

Whats a good war story? I twice had a machine catch fire. 

That is interesting! Our AM war stories covered in the book are more aligned to cultural or organizational hurdles we’ve faced within companies. We had a lot of fun writing this section of the book and we enjoyed labeling each of the stories as they capture the essence of the challenges. For example, some stories are labeled, “Panning for Gold in Kansas”, “Pathfinder to Nowhere”, “Suckers for Sunk Costs”, “Who’s in Charge Here?”, “Engineering Rigor Mortis”, “Innovate NOW!” and many others. Each story is 100% true, company names were omitted and people’s names changed. They each are not only entertaining to read, but each has its own message relative as to what not to do when industrializing AM. For example, the “Panning for Gold in Kansas” story describes a company’s effort to scour existing products to convert to AM for cost savings potential only to discover later that the true value in AM in not directly building parts that were designed for conventional manufacturing, but rather re-designing the part for AM from the start to exploit AM design advantages, only then do cost savings occur.

Desktop Metal Raises $438 Million Total With Additional $160 Million Round What Does It Mean?

Desktop Metal is becoming quite the VC darling. The Massachusets based metal printing firm has now raised a total of $438 million by virtue of its latest funding round of $160 million. This round led by Koch Industries’ Disruptive Technologies investor gives the company a valuation of over $1.5 billion.

 

Desktop Metal CEO Rik Fulop said that,

“We are at a critical juncture in the advancement of metal 3D printing and additive manufacturing. We are excited about Koch being an investor, customer and capability provider in this round. This new funding will fuel the continued development of our metal 3D printing technology and rich product roadmap, the scaling of operations to meet a growing demand of orders, and the financing of major new research and development initiatives. Combined, this will set us on a trajectory to become a global leader in metal 3D printing, a key pillar of Industry 4.0.”

While Chase Koch of Koch Disruptive Technologies stated that,

Desktop Metal’s 3D printing solutions can redefine prototyping and mass production of metal products, which has profound disruptive implications for manufacturers like Koch Industries.” “We are very bullish about the prospects of Desktop Metal, not just as an investor, but also as a customer and partner.”

What is significant about this? 

KDT’s investment is notable in size but also notable in that other firms such as Ford and GE have invested in the firm as well. Especially in 3D printing, we are starting to see an outsized impact from manufacturing/industrial companies and their venturing arms. Companies such as Stanley Black and Decker are even collaborating on funding series of firms. That 3D printing will be a disruptive force in industry is well understood by us inside the industry but is becoming more commonplace outside of it also.

Many believed that the mighty Desktop Metal engine was running on fumes so this investment is timely, to say the least. It propels Desktop Metal to new heights. If they can unlock all of this capital then they can easily outspend much larger established 3D printing companies in R&D for example.

HP is a behemoth and one could easily assume that they would have the reach and resources to be outspending everyone in the metal printing race. This investment clouds this for the near term and could give Desktop Metal edge.

This kind of investment should also mean that MarkForged could seek more capital if it wants to engage in an arms race with Desktop Metal.

Will companies such as Xjet and Exone also increasingly target more desktop machines in order to not have a kind of Innovator’s Dilemma problem and be surpassed from below?

Rik Fulop’s mastery in obtaining cash could give the company a huge war chest to see of new competition in inkjet while keeping established firms at bay.

What does this not change? 

Binder jetting metal or FDM combined with wax/polymer metal is not a race that is run. It is also not a filter for my phone pictures or a social network. We’re talking about very difficult hardware, materials and software challenges that have yet to be solved.

Acceptance is key in 3D printing and people are buying machines to help them in an organized way manufacture. Hype will fan the flames but peter out if the performance is not there.

So in adoption, there will be challenges in scaling the Desktop Metal service offering and the quality, output, and yield of machines over time. A lot of capital will have to be deployed there or partners will have to pick up the slack in service at least.

The MIM industry has been trying to solve shrinkage rates on injection molded metal parts for decades. They have not been able to do so successfully. In testing parts I’ve always remained skeptical of binder jetting metals or in wax/polymer FDM for metals. I predict that shrinkage differences in part size, across wall thicknesses and geometries, will continue to be problematic for users.

Distortion on parts, stringing, misprints in the FDM step are also potential issues with the Desktop Metal process.

This well-capitalized company with a lot of candle power is also up against Xjet which has a wealth of inkjet knowledge and one of the global homes of Inkjet prowess HP. Meanwhile, Markforged continues to grow hard making this binder jetting metals space a very competitive one.

There are however other inkjet patent heavy firms that may see this investment as an enticement to also make a similar system. It also may deter them.

GE will join this space, but who else will as well?

As well as companies that are working with similar technologies we have Digital Alloys and other new entrants that are also playing in this space.

People often forget that DLP and SLA machines make tens of millions of metal cast parts as well per year. Could increased automation make these systems competitive for many types of shapes as well?

Will Fused Deposition Modeling companies look more towards looking to metalized filaments for creating similar parts than Desktop Metal can make?

We will need to verify part densities, repeatability and how these parts function in the real world to really know how productive either Studio or larger production units can be for firms.

Will many companies continue to bet on HP because they have an established name? Or will Desktop Metal be able to parlay this move into inertia and inevitability?

The company has repeatedly missed launch deadlines and implementation dates with customers.

Experience with part production by others is very limited with Desktop Metal systems. There are few verifiable metal printed parts available at client sites and there is little data on the real world performance of Desktop Metal systems.

Outlook 

Investors seem to believe that the inexpensive metal printing opportunity is huge and that it may be winner takes all. Is it though? It is far too early to tell but I would assume that many tens of thousands of factories and design firms worldwide would profit from having on-site tooling and parts in metals. In prototyping, bridge manufacturing, tooling, and unique parts this could mean that we have thousands of machines as an opportunity. How many of those firms want the staff to do the debinding and sintering in house? If we add the labor cost, and the trouble will we really all have machines on site? Companies now don’t do their own HR and IT but Bob is going to get a room to print parts in on site?

This in my mind is a real unknown and would really depend on what the local metal printing service offering is and what parts people need when. How many have the right volume in parts to warrant this specific system? Yes, pizzas are the future but where and when will I opt for Dominos and when to make my own pizza? I’m confident that inexpensive metal parts for industry is a huge potential segment but what will be the form factor and throughput of machines in this area?

All in all I think that the hype in this particular area is over-optimistic money wanting desperately to plant a flag somewhere. There is an opportunity but this opportunity is not as self-fulfilling as it is in online video or social networks. There are fundamental complexities with binder jetting metals/extrusion with polymer metal filaments that will continue to be challenging. Desktop Metal has not demonstrated that they meet these challenges in real-world production. At the same time, many FDM firms could attempt something much less expensive that does work for a certain set of customers. I’m not convinced that Desktop Metal has the crown planted firmly on its own head at the moment. If the team continues to outperform and executes well in the year to come however then they could turn themselves into the company in pole position in metals.

 

 

MX3D Metal 3D Printed Bridge on Display in Eindhoven During Dutch Design Week

MX3D has been working for a number of years on a metal printing technology specifically for bridges and large metal items. Incorporating machine learning and AI into the build process the company uses robot arms to layer by layer deposit metal. The company is using off the shelf robots and welding technology in combination and they can deposit over one Kilogram per hour per robot arm. By using six axis robots they tout their degrees of freedom they will have with these robots but they could potentially not be accurate (stiff as well as positioning accuracy) enough to give really stellar results.

What is very interesting is that they say that their printers are significantly cheaper and that they also use steels that are $5 per kilo. Started by Joris Laarman and supported by Autodesk MX3D is a very interesting technology for large outdoor objects. I really like it as a technology for printing rebar like structures for reinforced concrete and think that this is a great application for it. In addition to Autodesk, the company also works with Lenovo, Arcelor Mittal, ABB, Air Liquide and Arup the engineering company that makes starchitect’s dreams come true. Especially that partnership and the one with ABB who are giants in robot arms and other industrial automation give MX3D a real leg up on the competition. Dutch Design Week is one of the largest design events in the world, taking place every year in Eindhoven it has over 300,000 visitors attending the hundreds of design events and showcases each year.

MX3D today has showcased its bridge on the Ketelhuisplein in Eindhoven so people can see the future of construction up close. It is not huge but it is very impressive. Competition in house and outdoor printing will be heating up over the next few years. Many more players want large-scale objects that are not viable with current industries. Especially in shipbuilding, industry, construction and oil and gas, this is a wish. Few 3D printing technologies are designed to be economical as well and this will greatly increase application areas for this technology. For large scale printing, the most players either seem to be focussed on polymers, metal welding or concrete.

The problem with the polymers is shrinkage, lack of control, rough and ugly objects and reinforcement. Essentially they’re using off the shelf materials to try to make outdoor structures which is silly. Instead they need to make materials specifically for outdoor 3D printing applications. In that way, they can insulate, build faster and build more functional objects. In welding process control is a real problem and objects are barely held together cheez whiz metal kinds of things.

Better closed loop type things and advances in machine vision and controlled cooling need to happen here. In concrete 3D printing, there are more liars than actual practitioners and we will need to lose the tricksters for that market to advance. Apart from that lack of good layer adhesion is an issue here. If this is the year of metal printing can 2020 be the year of large-scale printing?

Metal 3D Printing and Classic Foundry Techniques: Friends or Foes?

The first question that is often asked when a new technology is introduced is: what of the old way of doing things? Sometimes the answer is that it fades into oblivion — think: fortran and floppy disks — other times it falls out of use in mainstream society but becomes the domain of a small, especially devoted community, like calligraphy or pedal loom weaving. And in other cases, it simply shifts its focus and allows itself to flower as it removes extra ‘noise’ from the workflow. John Phillip Sousa wondered if the invention of the phonograph might cause human beings to lose their vocal chords as they would no longer have to sing any song they wished to hear, and an equally pessimistic (although slightly more realistic) group worried that the Kindle would eradicate books altogether.

What has happened is that humanity has access to more music than ever and book production may see a fall in the print of throwaway paperbacks, but there appears to be no reason to fear that beautiful books will be eliminated from publication. One new technology that is causing both concern and overinflated speculation is the introduction of metal 3D printing. The question is: what impact will this technology have on traditional foundries? Foundry work is not inherently antithetical to 3D printing as many have, in fact, been using 3D printing to create molds for years now and have found the technology to be quite helpful in their production.

Beyond the printing of 3D molds, metal 3D printing is demonstrating a capacity for directly creating metal objects that is improving with each passing project. Voxeljet, which recently produced a new design for aircraft doors using 3D metal printing, doesn’t think that this signals the end of the classic foundry, however. Instead, they see it as something akin to a separate track of printing. What made the doors they produced such a good candidate for 3D printing was the need for a precise internal geometry, something impossible to be produced in a foundry. So rather than stealing work from a foundry, they were doing work that otherwise would not have been performed at all. And there are other reasons not to see metal 3D printing as a threat to foundry work, as voxeljet explained in a statement:

“3D metal printing, such as direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), currently only competes with foundries in a relatively small segment. The build spaces of DMLS systems are ideally suited to smaller components. And 3D-printed components for aerospace require time-consuming certification, which metal casting has had for decades already. Direct 3D metal printing is also relatively expensive. This is not only due to the high cost of metal powder, but also the high cost of 3D printers and the comparatively slow building speeds.”

In addition to these factors, the products of 3D printing in metal require hand finishing which is labor intensive. All of these factors lead up to an average cost for 3D printed metal pieces that hovers around $160 per pound for aluminum, and $215 per pound for stainless steel, whereas pure cast steel has a price point of about $15 per pound. However, with the introduction of less expensive machinery, greater build bed sizes, and a more experienced workforce, the input prices for 3D printed metal are bound to come down. And so the question arises: will there be a change as the costs associated with metal 3D printing fall?

This uncertainty necessarily creates a degree of concern among those whose businesses and livelihoods depend upon a demand for foundry work. Rather than viewing the technology as an enemy to be shut out, perhaps the best solution is for foundries to get ahead of the game and embrace the tech, integrate it into their workflows and determine for themselves what makes sense to leave to a 3D printer and what can still only be produced at the hands of skilled foundry workers. As Ingo Edere, CEO at voxeljet, stated:

“3D sand and plastic printing are a perfect alternative for foundries, both in terms of cost, as well as the printable complexity. Foundries can manufacture equally complex components without having to change the process chain. Foundries do not have to purchase their own 3D printing systems as there are service providers worldwide supplying 3D sand or plastic printing.”

Clearly, a company such as voxeljet believes in the efficacy of this technology and its firm place as part of the landscape of future production. However, just because something can be 3D printed, doesn’t always mean that it should be, and discerning artisans and clients alike are the ones who will ultimately have to determine where that line lies.

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 or share your thoughts below.