Prof Richard Hague, chair of the Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing International Conference, talks myths and modelling
As someone who’s been living and breathing additive technologies for the best part of 20 years, it will come as no surprise that I am not a fan of all the hype surrounding consumer 3D printing. For me, it’s a relief to see a marked decrease in stories on the ‘wonders of 3D printing’ appearing in the tabloids and mainstream media on a regular basis.
Cynical as this may sound, I have good reason: we are still constantly dispelling the ‘plug-and-play’ myths that have led to frustration, disappointment and unmet expectations with the technology. However, in spite of the confusion it may have caused, I also acknowledge that much of the hype surrounding 3D printing has also played an important role in advancing the technology.
The increased exposure has helped to attract the attention of a wider spectrum of companies looking at how they can benefit from additive manufacturing (AM), which has also opened an opportunity to better educate industry and governments about where the technology fits and what it can achieve.
The conversation about AM has moved from taking place almost exclusively in labs and on manufacturing shopfloors into business boardrooms. With management teams taking notice, AM is attracting more strategic buy-in and investment. Business and industry are starting to take it seriously.
Where business goes, governments also begin to follow. No one wants to be seen to be left behind, so in a drive to be the leader in profiting from additive technologies, governments – as well as industry – are starting to dedicate serious resource to developing strategies around AM.
So why does all of this matter? Does AM need to be a topic discussed in the boardroom if it works just fine in the manufacturing plants? Do governments really need to be paying attention to its potential? Is this not just another form of the dreaded hype around the technology?
The increased awareness of the strategic value of AM we’re seeing is different from the hype – people are putting their money where their mouths are. We’re beginning to see companies designing products specifically with AM in mind.
Automotive applications
The automotive industry is a good example of this. After mainly focusing on these technologies for prototyping purposes, it has not previously entertained the use of AM for end-use parts as costs proved too high and the materials just weren’t available. Automotive companies are exploring next-generation AM systems and virtually every major car company is investigating serial productions. Cost is still a major factor, but with faster builds and more materials available, we’ll soon be seeing the industry’s return to embracing additive technology for larger volumes.
And speaking of materials, the growing awareness of the opportunities in additive has not been lost on the material companies. Greater investment has fuelled further research and development, and we are beginning to see a lot of exciting advances in materials, especially in metals.
We’re seeing wider applications with titanium in everything from custom competitive cycle handlebars to defence technologies. Speakers at this year’s Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing International Conference will be discussing the benefits of printing metals over more traditional methods and materials such as carbon-fibre moulding.
Advancements such as those recently seen in metal AM and other materials cannot happen without research. This is where the need for greater awareness and government funding really comes to the forefront. It helps us continue to innovate and move the technology forward for maximum benefit to industry and society.
Modelling efforts
Increased efforts on modelling are essential in driving development in additive. Closed feedback control modelling will help ensure repeatability of the processes, which is absolutely key for all AM.
And the innovation doesn’t appear to be stopping with processes. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is speaking at this year’s conference about pushing the AM boundaries. It has built a prototype for ultra-rapid 3D fabrication that fabricates mm-scaled structures to be printed all at once, rather than the layer-by-layer approach from which additive manufacturing derives its name.
AM has always been a disruptive technology, even before – and now after – the hype of consumer 3D printing. Education, training and success stories will only help to strengthen this perception, helping the industry to continue to develop, evolve and thrive.
Want to hear first-hand about new developments in AM? Engage with the experts and dispel the myths at the Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing International Conference on 11-13 July
In some ways 3D printing mimics Laser and Ink jet printing. First released to the public, both were clunky, difficult to use well and needed expensive maintenance. They rarely justified the investment.
I recently bought an office quality Inkjet printer for the house for £80 including wireless scanner and fax.
I also went on-line the other day to buy a small plastic part for a garden strimmer, it retains the plastic line but wears out quickly due to contact with the ground. There were none in stock but there was a downloadable file for a 3D printer to make one yourself. Needless to say, a half decent 3D printer that can produce ABS parts are between £300 – £500, for a £5 part.
When both converge, i.e. cheap 3D printers and companies offering easy to use files for spares production, they may well provide not only useful and easy to use, but indispensable as manufacturers see the opportunity to dispense with stock holdings of spare parts kept for decades to service, by then, obsolete equipment.
DMR makes very valid points: but thank goodness we Engineers can still ‘conn’ HMG and the jumped-up-clerks-in-high-places who presently have their hands in the tills, to at least part with some of ‘our’ (taxpayer’s) money! At least there is the possibility that it might end up being useful, unlike that given almost with check to the shams! Knowing the whole ‘life’ cost of anything is surely the key. In my field, it was the advent of cheap and very rapid air-freight to anywhere on our planet which removed the need for ‘stocks’ of ‘spares’ in textile processing world-wide. [I differentiate between ‘spares’ and consumables, as I expect most operations do. ]
I noticed a PC retailer here in the UK is now offering a free 3D FDM printer to customers who buy a dozen reels of plastic feedstock…….. But even so, at the moment I’ll stick with my little desktop Stepcraft CNC machine for my hobby work. Still waaaaay more flexible, accurate, cheap to run, even if I am only making model aeroplane parts for myself!
And this is coming from someone who has been using 3D printers industrially for the last 15 years. Or, perhaps more accurately, BECAUSE I’ve been using 3d printers etc etc!
The simple rule of thumb for for spotting AD hype is asking “Does this sound like a Star Trek replicator?”
3D printers will never be able to beat the efficiency of purpose built tooling for most products but just as general purpose computers have allowed niche tasks to be automated as needed general purpose fabricatiors allow certain products to he made that otherwise would have had to been handmade or stockpiled.
So not exactly “Tea, Earl Grey, hot.” but certainly not to be sniffed at.
Well – the kids in the STEM program got 4 cams made on their FDM printer in a couple of hours that in the same time I had only managed to cut and square off the blocks. My Deckel mill would have needed a load of specialized clamping and the rotary table mounted and would have taken hours.
” but certainly not to be sniffed at.”
JE -someone is going to offer you a 3D nose to print if you are not careful!
Isn’t the hype (and let us point the ‘finger’ where it belongs, at the popular ‘meja’) the main issue. Pieces to camera or in print developed by journalists who have NO knowledge or training/ education in even the simplest concepts of technology. Which even ban**rs, politicians and other meja cannot help by see, even if they do not understand it! The blind leading the cor-blimy?
I wouldn’t be so sure, J Eyre – if you take into account the full end-to-end process of design, tooling up, setting to work, manufacture and post-production, AM/3DP is already proving more efficient, faster and cheaper than purpose-built tooling. Against that comparator, AM/3DP has the obvious advantage that it isn’t also locked into only producing the one item with no further adjustment to tooling, something that traditional manufacturing techniques cannot claim.