Researchers in Germany are showcasing sustainable climate-control technology at the Hannover Messe show.

The team from Saarland University and the Saarbrücken Center for Mechatronics and Automation Technology (ZeMA) conceptualized it around elastocaloric technology.

Through stretching and releasing special “shape memory” metal wires, the system creates heat or cold without using harmful chemical gases.

This provides a greener, simpler way to control temperature compared to standard air conditioning and heating.

Use of nickel-titanium

As global cooling demands surge due to climate change, elastocaloric technology offers a highly efficient, electric-powered alternative to existing systems.

Recognized by both the European Commission and the World Economic Forum as a top emerging innovation, this method relies on the unique physical properties of a nickel-titanium alloy.

These alloys reduce harmful emissions and improve energy efficiency, advancing sustainable, carbon-neutral temperature control.

Interestingly, this new work has evolved from simple wires to complex 3D-printed shapes that maximize surface area to boost cooling power.

Researchers tested various designs to ensure the metal performs at its best for maximum cooling and heating power.

For this, intricate, “striking” metal cubes were designed for maximum energy efficiency. While these 3D-printed structures look like decorative art, their complex geometries are engineered to optimize heat transfer within the system.

Engineers can efficiently “pump” thermal energy out of spaces like cooling chambers by stretching the metal to release heat and absorbing cold.

“This is the next stage in the development of elastocaloric technology. The research we are currently undertaking on these new structures is still in the realm of basic research—but we are already thinking about practical use and developing solutions for real-world applications,” explained Professor Paul Motzki.

Long-term stability

Nickel-titanium is a shape-memory alloy that switches between two crystal structures to transfer heat.

When the metal is stressed, it releases heat to its surroundings (exothermic); when the stress is removed, it absorbs heat, causing it to cool down (endothermic).

This mechanical heartbeat allows the material to act as a heat pump without complex machinery.

Also, because the metal’s electrical resistance changes when it is stretched, it essentially feels its own movement. This allows the system to automatically track its own position and status, without requiring any additional sensors.

The next version of these devices will cool more effectively by using a porous metal structure with much greater surface area.

This design allows the cooling medium—either air or water—to flow directly through the material, enabling much faster, more effective thermal energy transfer than traditional methods.

To make this tech ready for homes and stores, the team is focusing on making it tough enough to last for years and easy to fix. This ensures it can work reliably in everyday appliances like refrigerators.

Experiments are also being conducted to ensure the technology survives the rigors of daily use, aiming for a lifespan of over one million cycles.

To keep the parts from breaking, researchers are fine-tuning the metal to withstand constant stretching and squeezing.

Furthermore, maintainability is also prioritized, recognizing that all materials eventually wear out. For this, modular components can be designed for quick, easy replacement. It will ensure the system remains reliable for long-term commercial deployment.

The technology is currently being showcased at Hannover Messe from 20 to 24 April (Hall 11, Stand D41).

The post New 3D-printed tech uses metal wires instead of gases for sustainable cooling appeared first on CTO ROBOTICS Media.

The urgency for sustainable and rapid construction solutions has never been higher, as the world grapples with a deepening housing crisis and the increasing frequency of natural disasters. Traditional construction methods, particularly those relying on cement, contribute significantly to global carbon emissions and are inherently slow. However, a groundbreaking innovation from Oregon State University (OSU) is poised to revolutionize the building industry with a fast-setting, clay-based material designed for 3D printing.

The Future of Construction: Instant Strength and Sustainability

Researchers at OSU, led by Assistant Professor Devin Roach and doctoral student Nicolas Gonsalves, have developed a green construction material that promises to make instant 3D-printed homes a reality. This breakthrough addresses the twin challenges of environmental impact and construction speed, offering a viable substitute for traditional concrete.

At the core of this innovation is a unique clay-based ink, mixed with common, readily available materials like soil, hemp fibers, sand, and biochar. Biochar, a carbon-rich substance derived from organic waste, not only offers structural integrity but also effectively sequesters carbon, significantly reducing the material’s environmental footprint compared to energy-intensive cement production.

Revolutionizing Speed with Frontal Polymerization

One of the most remarkable features of this new material is its rapid curing process, facilitated by a chemical reaction known as frontal polymerization. Unlike conventional concrete, which can take up to 28 days to achieve full structural strength, the OSU material cures instantly as it’s extruded from the 3D printer. This immediate hardening capability allows for the construction of unsupported openings, such as door and window frames, without waiting for the material to set.

“The printed material has a buildable strength of 3 megapascals immediately after printing, enabling the construction of multilayer walls and freestanding overhangs like roofs,” explains Professor Roach. Even more impressive, it surpasses the 17 megapascals required for residential structural concrete in just three days—a stark contrast to the weeks or even months required for standard cement-based alternatives.

A Greener Blueprint for a Better Planet

The environmental advantages are substantial. Cement production, a critical component of traditional concrete, is responsible for approximately 8% of the planet’s carbon dioxide emissions, largely due to the massive industrial kilns that consume vast amounts of fossil fuels. By largely replacing cement with earth-based, carbon-sequestering materials, the OSU team has created a more sustainable path for construction.

This eco-friendly approach makes the material particularly valuable for quickly providing shelter in disaster-hit areas, where both speed and resource availability are paramount. “Especially with the frequency of destructive natural disasters, we need to be able to get shelter and other structures built quickly—and we can do that with a material that’s readily available and is associated with comparatively little emissions,” Roach emphasizes.

Paving the Way for Automated, Sustainable Construction

While the immediate cost of this advanced material is currently higher than standard concrete, the research team is actively working to reduce production expenses. The next crucial steps involve adhering to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards to ensure safety and obtain regulatory approval. This development is not just about a new material; it represents a significant leap forward in automated construction processes, pushing the boundaries of what’s possible with robotics and additive manufacturing.

This pioneering research from Oregon State University marks a pivotal moment, charting a clear path toward a future where homes are printed not only at unprecedented speeds but also with significantly less environmental impact, transforming how we build and sustain our communities.

The post Game-Changing Breakthrough: Oregon State Unveils Rapid, Eco-Friendly 3D-Printed Construction Material appeared first on CTO ROBOTICS Media.

The difference between additive and traditional manufacturing techniques can be summarized in two simple words: addition and subtraction.

Traditional manufacturing is often “subtractive” in that the manufacturing process requires the removal of material to create the desired outcome.

In some cases that means that manufactured parts or components often require further machining after the part has been formed, which removes unnecessary materials or parts of the shape that were required during the production process but not needed in the final product.

In other cases, the traditional manufacturing process takes pieces of solid material, often metal, and carves the material into the desired shape usually using a computer numerical control (CNC) machine. A common example of this process is found in the automotive industry, where specialty manufacturers take large blocks of high-quality metal known as billet blocks and machine them into the desired shape by removing large amounts of material from the block.

In the additive manufacturing process, material is added in various ways during the production process. This method of manufacturing allows for objects and components of simple to complex geometry to be produced more efficiently than with previous manufacturing techniques. Additionally, by adding material, additive manufacturing techniques allow for the repair of already completed parts or components whereas in traditional manufacturing a damaged part would have to be completely replaced.

Different Forms of Additive Manufacturing

Additive manufacturing includes a wide variety of techniques and materials that range from highly complex industrial methods to desktop-sized 3D printers. The techniques detailed below are some of the most common methods used across numerous industries.

Binder Jetting

Binder jetting is an additive manufacturing process that takes materials including metals, sand, ceramics, and even composites in a powdered form and binds them together one layer at a time using a liquid binding agent.

Binder jetting is considered an efficient and cost-effective method as it doesn’t require large amounts of energy, offers quick production time, and leverages economical materials enabling simplified output scaling for organizations.

How Binder Jetting Works

The binder jetting process combines the steps of baking a layer cake and the technology of an inkjet printer. Within a binder jet machine, the build platform (where the parts are formed) is coated with the chosen material in a powder form. Then using a computer-aided design (CAD), the machine’s nozzle(s) deposits drops of the liquid binding agent along with coloring ink if the part requires it. Once the design layer has been completed, the build platform shifts downward based on a predetermined layer height value. The build platform is then coated again with more material power using what is known as a recoating blade and the process is repeated until the design is complete. Excess powder is then removed, and the part is either completed or moved on to the finishing stages depending on requirements and material type.

Solid-State Cold Spray

Solid-state cold spray is a low-temperature technique that takes material, commonly metal, and accelerates it through a focused nozzle along with blended gases onto a part. This process uses pressure and force to bind material together rather than heat or binding agents.

Solid-state cold spray differs from other techniques listed here in that it is often used to add additional material onto already completed parts rather than build new ones. This technique can be used in repairing in-service parts as it adds material to a part while also protecting a finished product that might be sensitive to high temperatures that are seen used in other types of additive manufacturing.

How Solid-State Cold Spray Works

Solid-state cold spray takes small particles of material and mixes them with carrier gases such as nitrogen and heats the particles to a malleable point (rather than their full melting point). The particles are then accelerated to high speeds and applied to a part or component. Once the material has been added, it is altered and modified to the required shape and strength requirements.

Directed Energy Deposition

Directed Energy Deposition (DED) replies upon a focused energy source, commonly an electron beam, laser, or plasma arc within a nozzle which melts and deposits selected materials onto a substrate or an in-production part.

DED is a complex process, often requiring specialized chambers to increase effectiveness. However, it allows organizations to build or repair essential parts of multiple sizes, provides the ability to define the grain structure of a finished product, and enables the creation of multi-material components.

How Directed Energy Deposition Works

Guided by a CAD model, the DED process takes selected material, usually weldable metals or polymers, and melts them down within a nozzle. This nozzle then deposits the melted material onto the working surface where it cools and solidifies into a structure. The nozzle is often attached to a control arm which allows the nozzle to deposit material across multiple axes. The DED process is very similar to the way a hot glue gun melts a glue stick into a liquid form and pushes it through a nozzle.

Material Extrusion

Perhaps the most widespread and easily accessible of mainstream additive manufacturing techniques, material extrusion involves a heated nozzle placing melted material, typically polymers, which bond using chemicals or temperature adjustments one layer at a time onto a build space.

Material extrusion has the lowest entry barriers of the common additive manufacturing techniques in that materials and equipment are low-cost. Additionally, while this technique is not as precise or quick as others, it provides an easy way for organizations to build simple prototypes easily and efficiently.

How Material Extrusion Works

Material extrusion is a relatively  simple process in which layers of heated material are added by a moving nozzle onto a build platform on which the layers of material fuse together until the designed object is complete. Typically, the nozzle moves horizontally while the build platform shifts vertically.

Powder Bed Fusion

Powder bed fusion encompasses several subcategories which are based on the energy source (typically a laser or electron gun) and material types. This additive manufacturing technique is comparable to two of the previously mentioned sources. Powder bed fusion, like directed energy deposition, uses an energy source to bind materials together but the material is deposited on the build platform prior to the energy source being applied. Powder bed fusion works with the same general concept as binder jetting in that the selected material, which is always in powdered form, is placed on a build platform and joined in a specific pattern by a solidifying agent, in this case, an energy source rather than a liquid.

How Powder Bed Fusion Works

Powder bed fusion in practice is very similar to binder jetting. The build platform is coated with the chosen material in a powder form and a CAD design directs the energy source, usually a laser to bind the material together either by melting or sintering. Once the layer is complete, the build platform shifts downward and is then coated again with more material power, and the process is repeated until the part is completed.

Sheet Lamination

Sheet lamination, sometimes referred to as ultrasonic consolidation, is a process in which many sheets of thin material are joined together using ultrasonic welding. Sheet lamination is a low-temperature technique used to join materials such as metal or polymers of different types, sizes, and colors to form a finished product which is then milled or shaped to a final product. Sheet lamination can offer an organization a large build surface and quicker production while limiting potential hazards or material damage that would occur with a higher temperature technique. However, there are often additional steps required after the layers are joined together.

How Sheet Lamination Works

Sheet lamination takes thin sheets of material onto a build surface and binds them together one layer at a time using ultrasonic welding which works by sending high-frequency vibrations onto a component which binds the materials together at a lower temperature than other technologies. Once all the layers have been joined, a part is then completed or moved to a finishing process in which excess or unnecessary material is removed and can often be reused in another lamination process.

Vat Polymerization

Vat polymerization is an additive process that takes a liquified material, typically a polymer resin, and builds a component through a process called photopolymerization which uses a source of ultraviolet light to bind the resin together into a solid shape.

Vat polymerization is considered one of the first additive manufacturing techniques, dating back to the 1980s, and is seen as a cheap and effective way to build highly detailed parts quickly.

How Vat Polymerization Works

Like other techniques, vat polymerization works by taking a large amount of unaltered material and binding it together in some way. In this particular process, a build surface is plunged into a reservoir of liquified photopolymers, material that can be affected by ultraviolet light, and a UV light source is focused and adjusted in a controlled pattern that works layer by layer to build a solid structure. After each layer is built, the build surface is moved either further into the reservoir in a bottom-up build process where the light or heat source is below the material or further out of the reservoir in a top-down process where the surface is moved progressively layer by layer away from the binding tool. Once the part has been completed, the finished product is removed from the build sheet and any supporting structures or portions of the part used during the build process are removed.

Benefits and Drawbacks of Additive Manufacturing

Like any manufacturing technology or technique, additive manufacturing offers a range of benefits along with some drawbacks that need to be considered for any organization exploring additive manufacturing.

Benefits of Additive Manufacturing

• Complex Geometry
  Most additive manufacturing processes build components from the ground up and for that reason, parts with complex geometry are much easier to produce as traditional design or production limitations are not a factor for an additive manufacturing process, so organizations can expand or advance their designs beyond traditional concepts.
• Rapid Prototyping
  The speed and simplicity of most additive manufacturing technologies mean that an organization can design, produce, and test different component designs quickly. Because there is less need for large quantities or tooling, organizations can generate and test different ideas or concepts efficiently.
• Reduced Waste
  Traditional manufacturing processes often take a large amount of material to cut or shape it to the required size or require excess material during the molding or production cycle. Additive manufacturing techniques use only the amount of material that is required with very little extra or remaining material which reduces both the amount of material an organization needs to produce a part and the amount of wasted material during the production of a part.
• Increased Repair Opportunities
  Because additive manufacturing processes involve adding material rather than taking it away, worn or damaged parts can potentially be repaired using additive techniques rather than scraped or replaced, saving both time and resources.

Drawbacks of Additive Manufacturing

• Unknown Lifespan
  While additive manufacturing is not a new technology, there are still many unknowns about the lifespan of additive-manufactured parts as compared to traditional manufacturing. For this reason, risk adverse  industries or industries with high certification standards such as aerospace will need to continue to be cautious when considering or using additive techniques.
• Flaw Detection Difficulty
  Additive manufacturing produced parts are built in such a way that is often more difficult to identify faults or defects within a part as opposed to traditional techniques in which production errors are often well-known or readily apparent. The use of multilayered parts and different alloys and materials means that flaws can be hidden under the surface or be deep within the structure of a part requiring specialized NDT testing to identify them. Additive-produced parts provide unique flaw challenges that differ from the challenges organizations encounter during traditional manufacturing methods.
• High Start-Up Costs
  At an organizational level, adopting additive manufacturing as part of a product process is likely to be a resource-intensive process not just from a financial standpoint but an operations standpoint as well. Additive manufacturing machines are often very expensive, and they require skilled engineers to properly calibrate and operate them, which could be cost-prohibitive for smaller organizations.
• Material Limitations
  The materials that can be leveraged using current additive manufacturing techniques are limited because almost all current additive manufacturing methods require a material that can melted and liquefied. Not all materials are able to meet those requirements, and, in some cases, a manufacturer might not want to affect a material in that way meaning some materials cannot be used for additive manufacturing.
• Part Size Limitations
  While traditional manufacturing techniques allow for the production of parts that are significant in size, additive manufacturing has not advanced to the point where large parts are efficient or possible to create. Most additive manufacturing equipment has a limited build space and/or requires specific environments as opposed to traditional manufacturing methods which can be adjusted to meet different part size needs.  Because these build spaces are often not very large, that means the parts that are being produced must fit on that limited build space which in turn limits the size of the part.
• Scaling Challenges
  Additive manufactured parts are typically produced one at a time or in small batches because of the previously noted limitations with existing additive technology. Because of these limitations, for larger organizations with the need for high volumes, additive manufacturing is very difficult to scale as the required equipment and production time would likely limit any of the positive impacts that adopting additive manufacturing processes would provide.

The post What is Additive Manufacturing? appeared first on CTO ROBOTICS Media.

Formnext is over, and as usual it did not disappoint. Although the metal AM industry has been, as a whole, a bit growth challenged over the past several quarters, I believe the formnext show was effective in putting to bed any concerns about the long-term viability of additive manufacturing that may have begun to arise after some soft industry performance. The sheer scope and buy-in from large multinationals, combined with meaningful progress in the areas of automation, post processing solutions, machine productivity, and material development, continue to paint a very exciting picture for the future even as shorter-term speedbumps have continued to present challenges.

One of the most potentially interesting announcements of the show, however, came not in the form of a new machine, printable metal, innovative new software package, or exciting new application (though pretty much all of those things were being announced or demonstrated at the show). Instead, what really should have metal additive stakeholders really interested and planning around, is perhaps the first sign of real head-to-head competitiveness between two increasingly important metal additive technologies in the future.

For the last two years the bound metal printing segment has dominated the limelight with big competitive company entries, investments, and new product announcements.  Despite all of this, bound metal technologies like metal binder jetting significantly lag metal powder bed fusion (and even directed energy systems) in commercial implementation. The promises and dollars behind the metal binder jetting segment, however, have at least stimulated conversations from the powder bed fusion segment concerning where metal binder jetting technologies might have a play and to what degree that might affect the existing status-quo of powder bed fusion based systems. Ultimately, these conversations helped spark SmarTech Analysis’ latest market opportunity analysis related to metal binder jetting and bound metal deposition printing technologies.

A recently announced partnership between high caliber metal AM service provider GKN Additive and “industrial burner” supplier Kueppers Solutions might be the first publicly recognizable sign that the established thinking on how metal binder jetting and powder bed fusion technologies will play together longer term is largely wrong. For most of the last few years, powder bed fusion suppliers have, for the most part, dismissed the market swell of interest in metal binder jetting technologies on the basis that these processes (as they develop) would not be directly competitive with powder bed technologies in terms of applications due to expected significant differences in the achievable mechanical properties of both approaches. After all, one is based on welding, and the other sintering -two very different metallurgical processes. There’s no getting around the fact that, indeed, both processes will produce parts with different mechanical performance profiles.

Total Projected Bound Metal Printing AM Opportunities, by Opportunity Category ($USM), 2014-2029

Source: Bound Metal Additive Manufacturing Market Outlook – Metal Binder Jetting and Bound Metal Deposition

However, inside the announcement of the GKN/Kueppers partnership to produce burner tips was one tidbit of information that may have been mostly overlooked -the partnership will begin with a ramp up of an additively produced mixing unit in natural gas powered burner systems using laser powder bed fusion, but a next generation version of the part is eventually planned to be produced using metal binder jetting technology. Information from the two companies noted that metal binder jetting was considered an ideal match for this particular application.

It’s worth noting that powder bed fusion has made few major inroads into the industrial front, one of the most significant being gas turbine power generation and engine systems. This is one of the first -if not the first -publicly announced instances of metal binder jetting technology being planned for an application in these systems, for a part that will no doubt be exposed to a harsh operating environment, which is a role almost exclusively (until now) thought of for parts made via powder bed fusion when it comes to AM.

The implications of this, should it actually come to pass, are clear and wide reaching. Perhaps most notably, despite the metallurgical differences between the two processes method of forming parts from a metal powder, metal binder jetting will in fact be utilized for parts of a high-value and possibly critical nature -perhaps not in highly regulated industries like aerospace, but certainly in other areas which may have lower regulations as well as stricter economic constraints. Additionally, those stakeholders in powder bed fusion need to prepare for a future where their businesses may in fact become impacted by the adoption of binder jetting technology.

Most companies we’ve spoken to about this possibility over the last few years have largely dismissed the possibility. Others, such as GE Additive, may have already recognized the future implications, and are developing binder jetting solutions to complement their existing portfolio of powder bed fusion systems. Ultimately, the two technologies will likely become very complimentary, such as the scenario described by the roadmap of the GKN/Keuppers partnership. But when not in a position to benefit from this relationship, companies dedicated to one process or the other may find themselves increasingly competing for similar applications.

The post Bound Metal Printing As a Competing Metal Additive Technology appeared first on CTO ROBOTICS Media.

Additive manufacturing (AM), or 3D printing, technologies create three-dimensional parts from computer-aided design (CAD) models by successively adding material layer by layer until a physical part is created.

While additive manufacturing technologies have been around since the 1980s, the industry went through its most striking hype cycle during the early 2010s, when promoters claimed that the technology would find broad usage in consumer applications and reorder businesses from The Home Depot to UPS.

Since the breathless hype subsided a few years ago, professional 3D printing technologies have been rapidly maturing in many concrete ways. Recent advances in machinery, materials, and software have made 3D printing accessible to a wider range of businesses, enabling more and more companies to use tools previously limited to a few high-tech industries.

Today, professional 3D printers accelerate innovation and support businesses in various industries including engineering, manufacturing, dentistry, healthcare, education, entertainment, jewelry, and audiology.

Read on for an in-depth overview of five key trends that have defined the additive manufacturing industry and the outlook for the future.

Metal 3D Printing

Metals have always floated at the top of the additive manufacturing market, and investment in the metal 3D printing market has grown tremendously in the last several years.

Metal 3D printing offers the allure of exceptionally high-performance parts made from steel, titanium, nickel alloys, and aluminum with exotic geometries for demanding, high-value industries like aerospace and medical devices. These industries are able to take full advantage of 3D printing in fabricating metal parts—in particular generatively-designed, highly latticed parts and other complex geometries that decrease material needs and part weight.

The most common traditional metal additive processes are selective laser melting (SLM) and direct metal laser sintering (DMLS). Just like plastic SLS, these processes create objects from thin layers of powdered material by selectively melting it using a heat source. But given the higher melting point of metals, they require much more powerful lasers and an industrial environment.

Until very recently, the extraordinary cost and complexity of these metal 3D printers has made them impractical outside a somewhat narrow range of high-value, low-volume applications. DMLS and SLM metal printers start at $400,000 and go well beyond $1,000,000, and they require highly skilled operators and carefully controlled environments. Unlike plastic SLS prints, laser-sintered metal parts require support structures. Post-processing is labor-intensive, and some parts need further machining steps to meet final requirements.

The metal 3D printing field has been the subject of active investment in the last several years. In 2016, GE acquired two leading metal AM companies, Concept Laser and Arcam. Several venture-backed companies, including Desktop Metal, Markforged, and Xjet, are pursuing new metal 3D printing processes that promise to lower cost-per-part and make metal 3D printing affordable for a wider range of applications.

Aiming to disrupt the market from the low end, Desktop Metal and Markforged have developed compact, accessible systems that work similarly to FDM, but use composite materials made from metal powder bound in a plastic matrix. After printing, the parts are cleaned and sintered in a furnace to remove the binder and fuse the metal powder into solid metal parts. With prices that begin around $100,000 for a complete system, these systems are much less expensive than traditional laser-based metal additive manufacturing systems.

Desktop Metal’s second, higher-end production system combines proven materials from metal injection molding with a technology similar to binder jetting to jumpstart its ecosystem and decrease costs considerably. XJet’s metal jetting technology suspends metal particles in liquid and dissipates them with heat to form solid metal and ceramic parts.

While these technologies will not (yet) bring metal 3D printing to the masses, they’ll lead to much wider adoption of additive manufacturing in a range of low- and medium-volume industries, and will modernize prototyping and product development processes for metal parts.

Automation and Streamlined Workflows

Counterintuitively, labor is the costliest component of most additive processes. A 3D printer isn’t a magical box that produces a pristine part at the push of a button; technicians must remove parts from printers and perform some degree of post-processing. This could involve anything from a light brushing to extensive solvent-washing, heat treatment, abrasive polishing, and coating processes. In order to gain a foothold on the factory floor, additive manufacturing systems have to decrease labor needs and fit into existing manufacturing workflows.

Workflow and technology improvements promise savings on labor costs. Some FDM printers with dual nozzles offer soluble supports that can be easily washed away in solvents. Some SLA systems simplify post-processing with automated cleaning and post-curing stations. Because plastic SLS prints require no support structures, their post-processing workflow tends to be less labor intensive than with other processes, and more parts can be packed into the build volume as well, decreasing the amount of handling required per part. Metal AM manufacturers increasingly offer modular, semi-automated systems that simplify post-processing workflows including powder handling and extraction, heat treatment, and part removal.

Just as computing shifted from mainframes to desktop PCs in the 1980s, 3D printing systems are also shifting from monolithic to distributed. Formlabs, Stratasys, 3D Systems, and Mass Portal have all introduced cells of automated, compact, modular printers for plastics. Robotic arms and gantry systems carry out part removal to reduce operator tasks, allowing the printers to run 24 hours a day for continuous production in a “lights-off” setting. Smart cell management software optimizes print queues, provides remote monitoring, and integrates with factory CRM, ERP, and MES systems. An array of sensors detects print failures and protects operators. Modular systems also have the added benefit of redundancy—if one machine breaks down, the others can distribute the workload and continue production without interruption.

These automation cells further transform the economics of 3D printing by turning clusters of desktop machines into production-run machines, offering high throughput at low cost. Additionally, they let engineers and designers use the same 3D printing platform to both prototype and manufacture, reducing costly design-for-manufacture processes and shortening product development cycles.

As automation systems improve, and gain the ability to handle irregularly-shaped, one-off workpieces, it will become possible to further automate other aspects of 3D printing. Robots could remove supports, apply coatings, and use adhesives to combine multiple 3D printed and conventional parts, going beyond digital fabrication into “digital assembly.”

Advances in Materials

Additive manufacturing systems are the Swiss Army knives of manufacturing tools. They work with a wide range of materials; by switching between them, a single machine is capable of producing parts for many different applications.

One of the best examples of this versatility is in resin-based polymer 3D printing processes, like stereolithography (SLA). The same compact, desktop SLA 3D printer can produce biocompatible splints and surgical guides in a small dental office, and jigs, fixtures, and temperature resistant molds for an automotive factory.

Other advanced 3D printing materials similarly allow the digitization of heretofore analog processes. High-temperature resins can be used in low-pressure plastic injection molding and can even be used to cast soft metals like pewter. Although molding quality might not match that of hard tooling, 3D printed molds satisfy a crucial need in small- and medium-run production where the cost of tooling might not otherwise be recoverable.

SLA, SLS, and FDM parts can be used to fabricate jigs and fixtures for industrial production lines, replacing costly subtractive manufacturing processes, such as machining. PEEK, ULTEM, and reinforced engineering thermoplastics for FDM provide improved mechanical properties and temperature resistance to replace even metal parts. And new ceramic SLA materials promise to deliver exceptional heat resistance and inert chemical interaction.

Improving Economics for Manufacturing

3D printing is not a cure-all for every manufacturing need; so far it has only made sense for the highest-value, lowest-volume, most-customized work. For high-volume production, conventional methods remain more cost effective. Nevertheless, the economics of 3D printing are improving, and the cost-per-part threshold is moving: it’s becoming practical to use the technology in incrementally lower-value, higher-volume applications. Fueled by technology innovation and improving material properties, additive manufacturing is bound to further expand beyond rapid prototyping toward end-use parts and mass production.

In many cases, 3D printing serves as an intermediate step alongside conventional manufacturing methods, also known as hybrid production. In the jewelry industry, for example, 3D printing is part of the investment casting process. Jewelry makers begin by designing a piece digitally, then 3D print it in a castable resin that can be immersed in a sand-like investment material and cleanly burned away in an oven, just like regular models made of jeweler’s wax, leaving a cast for precious metals.

A hybrid 3D printing process can also produce affordable custom earbuds. The process begins with a fast, non-intrusive digital scan of the customer’s ear canal using a 3D scanner. A technician edits the digital file into a 3D printable mold, and sends it wirelessly to an SLA 3D printer. Once printed, the parts are cleaned and the technician casts biocompatible silicone into the molds, removes the 3D printed shell, then finishes and coats the final product. 3D printing thus becomes an integral part of these traditionally artisanal processes, even though nothing in the final product itself is 3D printed.

Industries like dentistry, medical devices, and audiology are rapidly adopting 3D printing to produce final parts that conform to unique patient profiles. As 3D printing becomes standard in dental practices and labs, it will increasingly be used to produce splints and dentures directly from biocompatible materials. In audiology, most custom hearing aids are already 3D printed. The broader medical market also offers tremendous potential. For example, strong, biocompatible SLS parts can be used to produce custom orthotics and other devices that come into contact with skin.

As costs fall, additive manufacturing is also bound to appear in more conventional consumer products. In the highest-volume segments of the consumer electronics industry, for instance, injection molding is still the only practical way to produce plastic parts. But in the broad middle-volume segment of the electronics industry, 3D printing has begun to take hold. By using additive manufacturing instead of injection molding, electronics manufacturers are able to streamline product design and production, maintain flexibility, and, with no tooling necessary for 3D printing, reach break-even points with injection molding at volumes over 10,000 units.

Shoe companies like New Balance and Adidas have announced plans to mass produce custom shoe midsoles that are 3D printed from rigid polyurethane (RPU) within the next few years. Here, too, 3D printing will be combined with other manufacturing methods, producing the most critical and highly-customized parts of the product and leaving other parts to cost-effective traditional manufacturing and fabrication processes.

The post Additive Manufacturing: Industry Trends and Outlook appeared first on CTO ROBOTICS Media.