TUM Purchases AMT’s PostPro3DMini for Post-Processing 3D Printed Medical Device Parts

UK-headquartered Additive Manufacturing Technologies (AMT) is a vertically integrated technology development and manufacturing company that creates automated digital solutions to help its customers unlock the potential of industrial 3D printing. In 2017, when the company was founded, it introduced its PostPro3D commercial offering, which automatically smooths elastomeric and nylon 3D printed parts. The patent-pending technology, which was officially released last year, provides an automated and sustainable post-processing solution for high volume, production 3D printed parts, and works on all types of filament- and powder-based 3D printing methods.

Now, AMT has announced the first sale of its new PostPro3DMini system, which was introduced to the market earlier this year. The Institute of Micro Technology and Medical Device Technology (MIMED) of the Technical University of Munich (TUM) confirmed that it has purchased one of AMT’s automated PostPro3DMini post-processing systems, which it plans on using to support its ongoing medical device research.

“We are really pleased to be working with the Mechanical Engineering department at TUM. This is a prestigious research institute that has been working on the progression of AM for many years. The fact that they have purchased the PostPro3DMini to support this research, and for such a demanding application in the medical device sector, is a real testament to the capabilities of the PostPro3D platform and how it can meet the demands for such applications that previously have not been met,” stated Joseph Crabtree, the CEO of AMT.

All of AMT’s post-processing systems are both UL- and CE-certified. The PostPro3DMini is based on the company’s proprietary, automated BLAST (Boundary Layer Automated Smoothing Technology) process, and offers all of the original PostPro3D’s advantages in a more compact unit. It’s a great size for design studios, research institutions, STEM programs, and smaller production runs, and is just as safe and sustainable for polymer 3D printed parts.

Speaking of safety and sustainability, AMT holds these as paramount to its philosophy, and so completed tests on EOS PA2200 3D printed parts processed with its PostPro3DMini. The results conform with all necessary cytotoxicity tests, in addition to skin irritation tests to normative references: ISO 10993-10 (2013), ISO 10993-1 (2018), and OECD TG 439.

The new PostPro3DMini system provides excellent smoothing and surface modification, which is able to achieve a surface quality that’s at least equal to injection molding for 3D printed polymer parts, if not even better. Rather than using water, the process uses a single, recyclable, non-toxic agent instead, and AMT’s automated post-processing hardware is well-suited for applications in medical devices.

The ISO:13485-certified MIMED at TUM has embraced 3D printing as a viable development and production method for its continued research into new medical devices. That’s why the department was on the lookout for a commercially available system for post-processing when it discovered AMT’s PostPro3DMini.

MIMED is currently developing individualized instruments for different medical applications using EOS PA2200 material; obviously, as this material is what was tested on the PostPro3DMini, the institute sees a lot of potential for the system. The PostPro3DMini will be integrated into MIMED’s 3D printing process for creating medical devices, in order for the institute to increase its range of SLS medical device parts.

Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the Facebook comments below. 

[Images: Additive Manufacturing Technologies]

The post TUM Purchases AMT’s PostPro3DMini for Post-Processing 3D Printed Medical Device Parts appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Researchers Investigate Applicability of Using 3D Printing for Mass Production of Satellites

[Image: Tomsk Polytechnic University]

As the world works to find faster, more cost-effective ways to get to space, it’s necessary to test out innovative, modern technologies, such as 3D printing, rather than stick to the more conventional but expensive methods. Most current 3D printed thermoplastic satellites are developed as part of academic projects that have a low budget, such as the small Tomsk-TPU-120, and it’s very important to achieve fast, flexible, and automated serial production of reliable satellites for less money.

This is the subject of a paper, titled “Material Characterization of Additively Manufactured PA12 and Design of Multifunctional Satellite Structures,” that was written by a collaborative group of researchers from the the German Aerospace Center (DLR), the Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation (IPA), and the University of Stuttgart Institute of Space Systems (IRS).

Exploded view of the technology demonstrator with GPS receiver unit.

The abstract reads, “Increasing cost pressure on satellite builders and their suppliers push the motivation to open up for new designs and processes. This paper investigates the applicability of thermoplastic additive manufacturing for mass production of satellites. First, the potential of the cost-effective 3D-printing material Polyamide 12 for space structures is examined. Tests include mechanical and thermal-vacuum properties. In the second step, a multifunctional technology demonstrator is designed and a first qualification test is performed. This demonstrator integrates electronic and thermal management components and shows considerable volume savings. Additionally, the automatable processes used for manufacturing enable further cost reductions in series production.”

The researchers worked to demonstrate the potential of their multifunctional, inexpensive, 3D printed satellite, first by testing how usable PA 12 – an easily processed thermoplastic material – is for mass-produced aerospace applications like satellites, and then by designing and testing a multifunctional demonstrator, which is basically a “sandwich with a 3D-printed honeycomb core.”

“On the one hand, this makes so far unusable design space available,” the researchers said about their demonstrator’s structure. “On the other hand, it can be manufactured by highly automatable and flexible processes, for example by a combination of FFF printing and automated fiber placement (AFP). The demonstrator structure is used to show the possible solutions for integrating functions into the structure by 3D-printing. Furthermore, it demonstrates the potential of multifunctional structures for future satellites. To demonstrate the applied integration concepts, an additional shaker specimen is designed and tested.”

In order to test out both FDM and SLS 3D printing, the team used Stratasys’ carbon fiber-reinforced polymer Nylon 12CF and PA 2200 from EOS for their research, and performed mechanical, outgassing, and thermal vacuum tests on specimens produced in three different orientations in order to measure the Young’s Modulus and tensile strength. In regards to the thermal vacuum cycling test, the mechanical properties of the 3D printed specimens were slightly improved, though elongation at break decreased.

Tensile strength of SLS processed PA 12 and short carbon fiber reinforced FFF
processed PA 12.

“The SLS processed pure PA shows mechanical properties very similar to the manufacturer specifications. It also does not show significant anisotropy with respect to the printing orientation. The carbon fiber reinforced PA, on the other hand, shows a strong anisotropy,” the researchers explained. “Regarding the in plane and sideways specimens, tensile strength is drastically increased by the reinforcement. The standing specimens, on the other hand, show reduced strength. Similar behavior can be observed regarding the Young’s Modulus. Young’s Modulus of the reinforced material, however, is always above the pure PA. Furthermore, it can be noted, that the standard deviation off all tests is less than 5 %.”

Test component for vibration testing; (a) the
printed honeycomb core with integrated electronics; (b) test component mounted on the shaker.

The team concluded that the PA materials do show good potential for inexpensive space applications, though an elaborate test program will be necessary for a true qualification process.

A technology demonstrator, which includes 3D printed cable ducts that integrate coaxial cables and cable bundles, was used to verify both the functionality and feasibility of the 3D printed satellites’ function-integration for electronic, propulsion, and thermal management components, and the researchers determined that, at least in this project, an integration of propulsion components was not feasible.

The researchers produced and submitted a test component, complete with a gyroscope sensor, connector, ultrasonic embedded wire, and other planned functions, to vibration testing. The component was made with a PETG honeycomb core, in order to “ensure that results on the functionality of the concept are available before the optimization of the printing process for the PEI honeycomb core.”

After the vibration test, the team detected no visible damage or change to natural frequency, and could verify the electronic system’s total functionality.

“The technology demonstrator points out the capability of multifunctional sandwich structures for satellites. The concept makes so far unusable design space accessible and can generate considerable volume savings. A First successful vibration test confirms the design,” the team concluded. “A weight reduction, on the other hand, is unlikely since printed honeycomb is not lighter than standard aluminum honeycombs. However, the multifunctional structure offers further cost saving by an automated production suitable for mass production and reduced assembling costs.”

The researchers determined that several additional steps, such as a comprehensive cost analysis, are required in order to present a “holistic evaluation of the presented concept”

Co-authors of the paper are Simon Hümbert, Lukas Gleixner, Emanuel Arce, Patrick Springer, Michael Lengowski, and Isil Sakraker Özmen.

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