Additive Manufacturing and Automation

Additive Manufacturing and Automation

Will 3D Printing Displace Automation Technologies?

October, 2012

Additive Manufacturing and Automation

Table of Contents

Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1

I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

II. Definition…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4

III. How AM Works…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5

IV. AM Technologies………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 6

V. The AM Market…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 8

VI. Assessment of AM’s Current Advantages and Disadvantages………………………………….. 15

VII. Current State of AM……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 16

VIII. The Dispersion of AM Technologies and the Factory…………………………………………..…… 18

IX. The Interplay between AM and the Automation Technologies of Machine Vision, Motion Control and Robotics…………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 X. Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 24 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26

Additive Manufacturing Study – October 2012

Copyright A3 Association for Advancing Automation 2012 ‐ Copying and Reproduction Prohibited Page 1

Additive Manufacturing and Automation Executive Summary

Many are heralding Additive Manufacturing (AM), a.k.a. “3D printing”, as a disruptive technology that will revolutionize production and displace automation equipment, including machine vision, motion control and robotics. Others have labeled these claims as “futuristic hype”. In this study we assess AM’s potential as a transformative technology for manufacturing and explore its probable impact on industrial automation technologies within the broader context of the “factory of the future”. We do this by defining AM, explaining how it works, outlining its various forms and explaining its current advantages and shortcomings. We also look at the AM market and the factory of the future. AM is a software‐driven mode of production that “prints” products by laying down successive layers of material and fusing them together. It is the opposite of “subtractive manufacturing” where an object is produced by removing material from a solid block of material through drilling, cutting or other means of material removal. It also differs from casting, forming and molding. AM is not a single technology but instead encompasses a range of technologies involving lasers, electron beams, heat, adhesives, liquid binders and ultrasound for fusing together different base materials, such as titanium alloys, metallic powders, thermoplastics, ceramic powders, metal foils, plaster and photopolymers. AM has also been described as consisting of three basic types of applications: rapid prototyping, rapid tooling and rapid manufacturing, which differ in terms of whether the object produced is utilized as a prototype, finished good, or a mold used for manufacturing an end product. Although still largely embryonic, the worldwide AM market is presently sized at $1.3 billion and expanding at double‐digit rates. At least eleven companies are manufacturing 3D printers, which are used primarily for production of prototypes. Companies using AM to produce finished goods have established a major toehold in the medical industry with custom orthodontics, custom hearing aids and bone implants. End user markets poised for penetration by AM‐produced products are aircraft and aircraft components, medical devices and automobile components. After having examined the advantages and shortcomings of AM and the interplay between AM and automation technologies within the context of the factory of the future, the study concludes that additive manufacturing is a new, exciting, but still largely nascent mode of production that holds great promise. That promise stems from its capability to construct highly customizable, complex, lightweight objects with embedded circuitry, minimal assembly, maximum design freedom, intricate geometries and shorter times to market. Because of these advantages over subtractive manufacturing, it may one day prove highly disruptive. However, before that happens, AM must overcome some significant limitations. These include the high cost of base materials, limited scalability due to longer production cycles, size constraints where the size of objects is limited by the dimensions of the 3D printer, the inability to create objects of heterogeneous composition and the potential for theft of intellectual property by illegally downloading proprietary CAD files. Because of this mix of advantages and shortcomings, it is unlikely that AM will replace automation‐assisted forms of subtractive manufacturing except in a limited range of industries. A more probable outcome is that AM will complement current modes of manufacturing, becoming integrated with them in the factory of the future. All present indications are that AM will not displace automation technologies but instead benefit from them. For example, advancements in the capabilities of motion control components would probably



give rise to more sophisticated 3D printers. Moreover, the use of robotic arms and gantry robots may enable 3D printers to overcome size constraints, increasing not just the dimensions but also the types of objects (such as homes) that can be “printed”. Additionally, 3D scanners manufactured by machine vision (MV) companies are already enabling 3D printers to replicate objects. Finally, because of the increasingly important role that automation technologies will most likely play in the evolution of 3D printers, new market opportunities will open up for manufacturers of motion control components, lasers, 3D scanners, MV inspection and process control systems and robotic arms and gantry robots. In short, automation companies need not fear the ascendancy of additive manufacturing but instead should vigorously embrace it. Paul Kellett AIA/MCA/RIA Director – Market Analysis October 2012



Nickel Alloy Part Manufactured by an EOS 3D Printer

Source: Design News, “Additive Manufacturing

Technology Expands”, Dec. 15, 2010

Additive Manufacturing and Automation I. Introduction Many are heralding additive manufacturing (AM) as a disruptive technology, but will it in fact revolutionize production and displace automation equipment, specifically machine vision, motion control and robotics? AM, a.k.a. “3D printing”, is a technology that enables the “printing” of products. The first commercial 3D printer was based on an AM technology called “stereolithography” that was invented by Charles Hull in 1986. While AM has been around for nearly 30 years, it has only recently captured attention and won some major proponents. The influential magazine “The Economist” believes that AM “has the potential to transform manufacturing” with decentralized, low‐cost, highly‐customizable production. “(It) may have as profound an impact on the world as the coming of the factory did....Just as nobody could have predicted the impact of the steam engine in 1750—or the printing press in 1450, or the transistor in 1950—it is impossible to foresee the long‐term impact of 3D printing. But the technology is coming, and it is likely to disrupt every field it touches.” Similarly, the Atlantic Council finds that “AM offers a new paradigm for engineering design and manufacturing “, which will profoundly affect production and distribution within the global economy.

Why do important opinion leaders believe in AM’s potential to disrupt current production and distribution processes? A somewhat futuristic example in a recent Forbes article explains the heightened interest in AM. Imagine a ship crossing the Pacific on its way to unload cargo at San Francisco when suddenly its diesel engine stops. The chief engineer informs the captain that the ship is dead in the water because a critical pump valve has failed. Because it’s too intricate to make a replacement in the ship’s machine shop with traditional milling and forming techniques, and since there’s no spare part onboard or available within miles, the chief engineer uses an application of AM known as “rapid manufacturing”. He accesses the ship’s database of CAD (computer aided design) files for spare parts and

using a 3D printer onboard prints a replacement part in a matter of hours. The part is installed and the ship is then able to get underway. In the example, avoiding the need to helicopter in the part from some distant, on‐shore warehouse eliminated the need for distribution, and “printing” the spare part onboard instead of manufacturing it in a factory rendered traditional production unnecessary. Other examples illustrating the promise of AM as a means of decentralized, highly‐customized production include the reported interest of the U.S. military in printing replacement parts in the field for tanks and aircraft instead of waiting for part shipments to combat zones. Medical researchers are also showing interest. San Diego‐based Organovo believes that one day medical companies will be able to harvest stem cells from an adult and then using a “specialized 3D printer build an organic, polymeric scaffolding in the shape of an organ or tissue that needs to be replicated and literally grow the kidney, heart or lungs within a matter of days or weeks.”



But are these examples merely futuristic hype? Actual uses of AM suggest that might not be entirely the case. Today, AM is used to satisfy a growing demand for custom‐made, one‐off items such as hearing aids and dental crowns and bridges. A patient requiring a crown, for example, goes into a dentist’s office where an image of the tooth is taken. The image is converted into a computer file and fed into an onsite 3D printer, which “prints” the crown to exact specifications. In the case of a hearing aid, an image of the ear channel is taken and a custom‐fitted hearing aid is printed. Are these actual uses a sign of things to come on a much broader scale? Purpose The purpose of this study is to assess AM’s potential as a transformative technology for manufacturing and explore its probable impact on the industrial automation technologies of machine vision, motion control and robotics within the broader context of the “factory of the future”. To achieve this purpose, we must first define AM, explain how it works, outline its various forms and explain its current advantages and disadvantages. We also need to look at the AM market and the factory of the future. II. Definition ASTM International (formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials) defines additive manufacturing as the “process of joining materials to make objects from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing processes such as traditional machining. Synonyms include additive fabrication, additive processes, additive techniques, additive layer manufacturing, layer manufacturing and freeform fabrication”. Essentially, AM is a form of manufacturing where an object is created by laying down successive layers of material. In this fundamental sense, it is the opposite of “subtractive manufacturing” where an object is produced by removing material from a solid block of material through drilling, cutting or other means of material removal. Since objects are created by adding material one cross‐sectional layer at a time, AM is also different than casting, forming, molding, and machining. Klas Boivie, author of “Introduction to Additive Manufacturing Technology: Basic Concepts, Applications and Possibilities Subtractive Shaping”, goes one step further by distinguishing between three types of production:

“Subtractive shaping”: Shaping a raw material by successive subtraction of pieces of the original block of material; i.e. machining, grinding, drilling

“Formative shaping”: Shaping a raw material by the application of pressure to the material; i.e. forging, pressing, bending, casting

“Additive shaping”: Shaping by the successive addition of raw material(s); i.e. additive manufacturing technologies

These different forms of manufacturing need not be mutually exclusive. The editors of Modern Machine Shop magazine and Andrzej Grzesiak, head of the Fraunhofer Additive Manufacturing Alliance, believe that additive manufacturing can coincide with and complement other forms of manufacturing in a production environment creating the best of worlds. Basic Types of AM Applications We can further define AM by explaining three basic types of applications:



Computer generated images used for rapid

prototyping Source: http://microship.com

Rapid Prototyping (RP)

Rapid Tooling (RT)

Rapid Manufacturing (RM) 1. Rapid Prototyping RP, the earliest and still most prevalent, type of AM application, involves the use of AM for the fast production of prototypes, which can be used for visualization, communication of ideas and functional testing. The promise of RP is a reduction in cycle time for product development (particularly but not exclusively for designs not possible with traditional methods) and thus an increase in speed to market. 2. Rapid Tooling According to Factories of Factories, RT “describes a process that is the result of combining Rapid Prototyping techniques with conventional tooling practices to produce a mold quickly or parts of a functional model from CAD data in less time and at a lower cost relative to traditional machining methods….Typically, RT uses either a Rapid Prototyping (RP) model as a pattern or uses the Rapid Prototyping process directly to fabricate a tool for a limited volume of prototypes.” 3. Rapid Manufacturing RM involves the direct use of additive manufacturing for finished products; that is, for end use purposes. (As Klas Boivie notes, it’s the use of the product that determines the difference between RM and RP and RT.) With many of its processes still unproven, RM is still very much in its infancy. However, advances in the use of materials that are appropriate for the manufacture of finished goods, such as metal, are being made. III. How AM Works AM is a software‐driven manufacturing technology. The starting point is a CAD (computer‐aided design) or animation modeling file, which can be created by a designer manipulating the design parameters of the software or, where an object is to be duplicated, by a 3D machine vision scanner. The CAD file is exported to an AM machine in a STL format and processed, which includes dissection of an image of the object to be created into thin, horizontal cross‐sections. To create an object, a 3D printer prints successive layers corresponding to the cross‐sections defined by the CAD or animation modeling file. The approach for fusing together the different layers laid down by the 3D printer varies by the AM technology that is used and the type of base material. For example, a powder can be deposited onto a tray and then solidified in the required pattern with a squirt of a liquid binder or by sintering it with a laser or an electron beam. Other approaches involve depositing filaments of molten plastic. Regardless of the approach, 3D printing involves the depositing and fusing together of layer upon layer of base material, where the “build tray” in which the layering occurs is lowered by a fraction of a millimeter for each successive layer. (This sometimes is done “upside down” with the build tray being raised.) Operationally, a 3D printer thus differs from an inkjet printer in two fundamental respects: First, the material laid down is plastic or metal instead of ink, and second, multiple layers are printed in contrast to a single layer of ink in a letter created by an inkjet printer.



IV. AM Technologies At least seven AM technologies exist. They differ in terms of how the successive layers of an object are built. For example, some use melting or softening of materials to produce the layers, while others lay down liquids that are then cured.

Exhibit 1: Overview of Additive Manufacturing Technologies

AM Technology Base Material

Selective laser sintering (SLS) Thermoplastics, metal powders, ceramic powders

Direct laser sintering (DLS) Metal

Fused deposition modeling (FDM) Thermoplastics

Stereolithography (SLA) photopolymer

Electron beam melting (EBM) Titanium alloys

Plaster‐based 3D printing (PP) Plaster, Colored Plaster

Ultrasonic Consolidation (UC) Metal foils

1. Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) Patented by Dr. Carl Deckard at the University of Texas in the 80′s, SLS is an AM technique that uses a high power laser (typically a pulsed laser) to fuse layers of small particles of plastic, metal, ceramic, or glass powders into a mass that has a desired 3‐dimensional shape. SLS is similar to Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) except that the powders are heated to enable the laser to reach the melting point quickly. 2. Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS)

DMLS is an additive metal fabrication technology jointly developed by Rapid Product Innovations (RPI) and EOS GmbH, starting in 1994, as the first commercial rapid prototyping method to produce metal parts in a single process. (Note: DMLS is EOS’ branded name. Generically, the process is known as Selective Laser Melting.) According to Wikipedia, “The DMLS machine uses a high‐powered 200 watt Yb‐fiber optic laser. Inside the build chamber area, there is a material dispensing platform and a build platform along with a recoater blade used to move new powder over the build platform. The technology fuses metal powder into a solid part by melting it locally using the focused laser beam. Parts are built up additively layer by layer, typically using layers 20 micrometres thick.”

Source: http://www.martello.co.uk/rapid_prototyping.htm

Source: Science Direct

Direct Metal Laser Sintering



3. Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) Developed by Stratasys in the late 1980s and commercialized in 1990, FDM is used in traditional rapid prototyping and other types of applications. To form an object, a FDM printer uses a plastic which is forced through a heated extrusion nozzle that melts and controls the flow of the material.

As the material is melted, stepper or servo motors move the nozzle in accordance with the X,Y,Z parameters of the CAD file to deposit successive layers of small beads of material as the build tray is lowered. The molten polymer used is often Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), Polycarbonate (PC), Polylactic acid (PLA), PC/ABS, Polyphenylsulfone (PPSU) or Ultem 9085. 4. Stereolithgraphy (SLA) Stereolithgraphy was patented by Chuck W. Hull of 3D Systems in 1986. SLA uses an ultraviolet laser to cure layer‐by‐layer a photopolymer resin located in a

vat. With each pass of the light source on an additional layer of resin, the build plate moves down an increment until the object is built. The liquid polymer is then drained from the vat, leaving the solid object. 5. Electron Beam Melting (EBM) EBM builds objects by melting metal powder (such as titanium) layer by layer with an electron beam in a high vacuum. According to Arcam, a company that created EBM, “During the EBM

process, the electron beam melts metal powder in a layer‐by‐layer process to build the physical part. The Arcam EBM machines use a powder bed configuration and are capable of producing multiple parts in the same build. The vacuum environment in the EBM machine maintains the chemical composition of the material and provides an excellent environment for building parts with reactive materials such as titanium alloys. The electron beam’s high power ensures a high rate of deposition and an even temperature distribution within the part, which gives a fully melted metal with excellent mechanical and physical properties.”

Source: CalRAM

Electron Beam Melting (EBM)

Source: Mindtribe

Stereolithgraphy (SLA)

Source: Efunda

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM)



6. Plaster‐based 3D Printing (PP) Invented and developed by Z‐Corporation (later acquired by 3D Systems), PP involves a head moving over successive layers of powder (similar consistency to corn starch or flour) with an ink‐jet like head that deposits liquid binding material to build an object. (A similar process invented by MIT has been licensed to ExOne and Voxeljet.) 7. Ultrasonic Consolidation (UC) UC is an additive manufacturing technique invented in 1999 by Dawn White of Solidica Inc., an Ann

Arbor, Michigan‐based company (www.solidica.com/ UltrasonicConsolidation.html) which provides UC technology with its “Form‐ation” machine. Sometimes referred to as Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing, or

UAM), UC uses high frequency (ultrasonic ) sound waves to create a solid state weld of metal foils. To create the required shape for the given layer, CNC (computer numerical control) contour milling is then used. This process is followed repeatedly until a solid component has been created or a repair or addition to an object has been performed. An important advantage of UC is the ability to join dissimilar metal materials of different thicknesses at relatively low temperatures. V. The AM Market To understand the current AM market, we consider available estimates of its size and growth, trends, market participants, products and applications. 1. AM Equipment ‐ Market Size and Growth According to Wohlers Associates, the worldwide AM market was $1.3 billion in 2010 and grew at a rate of 24.1 percent. In 2011 the market grew to $1.7 billion for a growth rate of 30.8 percent. Over its 24‐year history, the market grew at a compound annual rate of 26.4 percent. By

Source: Z‐Corporation

Plaster‐based 3D Printer (PP)

Source: ScienceDirect

Ultrasonic Consolidation (UC)

Exhibit 2: AM Market Size: 2010 to 2019 in $ Millions

Source: Wohlers Associates and Interpolation



2015, the market is expected to grow to $3.7 billion and surpass $6.5 billion by 2019 as shown by Exhibit 2. Sales of professional grade industrial systems, measured in units, grew by 5.4% to 6,949 units in 2011. Personal 3D printers (priced under $5K), on the other hand, grew 289 percent to 23,265 units. Use of AM for finished products, grew from zero in 2003 to 24 percent of total market revenues in 2011. Note: Industrial 3D printers (such as Stratasys’ Dimension and Z‐Corp’s) units cost in the $20K to $60K range. Deloitte Touche offers a somewhat different view of the AM market: “In 2012, Deloitte predicts that 3D printers will likely become a viable segment in several markets including the $22 billion global power tools market, and the industrial manufacturing market with growth rates of greater than 100 percent versus 2011. 3D printers are also expected to enjoy success in several niche areas such as the ‘do it yourself’ home hobbyist market and various after‐market support chains with long tail characteristics (such as small appliance and auto repair). There is also significant interest in the application of 3D printing in the biomedical sector. However, total combined printer sales will likely remain in the sub $200 million range . . .”.

2. Regional Distribution of Deployed AM Systems According to Wohlers, 36.9% of all industrial AM systems in 2010 were sold in the US, followed by 14.7% in Germany, 2.6% in the UK with the remainder spread among other countries. Of total installed systems 41.1% in 2010 were deployed in the US and 10.2% in Japan. 3. AM Industrial Equipment Market Structure – Application Areas The AM industrial equipment market can be broken down by application. As Exhibit 3 shows, AM equipment is used for a wide range of applications. However, most applications involve some form of prototyping, while the manufacturing of finished goods (rapid manufacturing) represents only 11.7% of all AM applications. This reflects the nascent stage of development of this market. 4. AM Industrial End User Markets A number of industrial end user markets may be addressable by AM products. These include automotive components, aircraft components, custom orthodontics and medical devices.

• Automobile components: While AM is not yet suitable for mass production of automotive components, its potential has been demonstrated in the case of high‐end, specialized automobiles. Formula 1 race cars, for example, have used engine parts that were fabricated using direct metal laser sintering.

Exhibit 3: AM Market Structure by Application

Source: Wohlers Report 2007 State of the Industry Worldwide Progress Report



Aircraft: Aircraft designers are interested in AM because of its ability to create lightweight, structurally sound parts. As a rule, a reduction of 1kg in the weight of an airliner saves around $3,000‐worth of fuel a year and thus promises not only operational efficiencies but also lower carbon dioxide emissions. AM could thus help build greener aircraft—especially if all the 1,000 or so titanium parts in an airliner could be printed. Although the size of printable parts is limited for now by the size of 3D printers, EADS (European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company N.V.) believes that a larger 3D printer could be built and positioned on 35‐meter‐long gantry to build composite airliner wings.

• Aircraft components: Large aerospace companies, such as Boeing, GE Aviation and Airbus are hard at work qualifying AM processes and materials for flight. Boeing reportedly has 200 different AM part numbers on 10 production platforms, including military and commercial jets. The F‐18, for example, uses AM parts for its environmental control system duct. Importantly, AM not only built the assembly but also enabled its redesign, reducing its number of parts from sixteen to just one.

• Custom orthodontics: Unlike the automotive and aircraft component markets, which might represent promising markets for AM in the future, the market for dental crowns and bridges is currently being served by AM. For example, Align Technology, Inc. uses AM to create clear, custom braces for hundreds of thousands of patients across the globe. To fabricate molds from 3D scan data of each patient’s dental impressions, stereolithography is used. FDA‐approved polymer is thermoformed onto pattern that is made with SLA. According to EOS, up to 450 individual dental crowns can be manufactured in one day by a single machine.

• Custom hearing aids: Another market currently served by AM is custom hearing aids. To quickly fabricate custom hearing aids, Siemens and Phonak utilize laser sintering, directed by data obtained from 3D scans of impressions of the ear canal. Units manufactured in this manner are perfectly sized, fitting snugly in the patient’s ear.

Medical – Bone Implants: According Arcam AB, the use of AM, specifically Electron Beam Melting, is beneficial for implant manufacture: “The EBM technology is a cost‐efficient process for manufacturing both press‐fit and cemented implants. For press‐fit implants specifically, the EBM process lends itself for high volume production. Solid and porous sections of the implant are built in the same process step, eliminating the need for expensive secondary processes for

applying other porous materials. Medical implants manufactured by AM have been certified and are becoming commercially available with some dramatic introductions. The BBC, for example, reported that in 2011 an 83‐year‐old woman with a bone‐wasting infection became the recipient of the world’s first successful 3D‐printed jawbone implant.

Source: http://www.additive3d.com/pow/pow17.htm

AM‐created Hearing Aids

Source: Arcam AB

CE and FDA Certified Implants Manufactured by AM



5. AM Industrial Equipment Market Participants Market participants include AM equipment manufacturers and companies using AM to manufacture products. 5a. 3D Printer Manufacturers, AM Materials Suppliers and Related AM Companies Leading providers are: 3D‐Micromac AG – This company (www.3d‐micromac.com) offers selective laser sintering technology aimed at the fabrication of micro devices. The company, which uses Coherent lasers, describes its business as “ophthalmic and microsintering manufacturing and solution provision”. The company’s products consist of laser structuring, cutting, drilling and marking systems. It does not appear to offer 3D printers. 3D Systems ‐ Founded in 1986 by Chuck Hull, with the invention of the first stereolithography rapid prototyping system, 3D Systems (www.3dsystems.com) is a global company that develops and sells systems, materials, and software for solid imaging. Its products are meant to make manufacturing processes more efficient, without requiring tooling. 3D Systems creates product concept models, precision and functional prototypes, master patterns for tooling, as well as production parts for direct digital manufacturing. 3D Systems acquired Z‐Corporation, another 3D printer manufacturer, in January 2012. Arcam AB – Arcam (www.arcam.com) is a Swedish company founded in 1997 that utilizes electron beam melting technology (EBM). According to the company, it “offers complete portfolio of EBM® machines, auxiliary equipment, software, powder metals, service and training to support our customers” and has about 80 installations throughout the world involving primarily aerospace and implant applications. DSM Somos – DSM (www.dsm.com), describes itself as “a world leader in high‐performance stereolithography material innovation, has developed a full line of Somos products that replicate production materials, saving time and money. Somos offers materials for multiple applications including: functional models, fit/assembly, general purpose, investment casting, snap fit, injection molding/direct tooling and wind tunnel testing.”

envisionTEC – envisionTEC (www.envisiontec.de), a German company, uses DLP technology to solidify photo‐curable resins. EOS GmbH – Founded in 1989 and headquartered in Germany, EOS (www.eos.info/en/home.html) calls itself “the world leader in laser sintering ‐ an additive layer manufacturing technology and the key technology for e‐manufacturing”. The company sees itself as an enabler of “ the fast, flexible and cost‐effective production of products, patterns or tools directly from electronic data. The process accelerates product development and optimizes production processes”.

ExOne ‐ ExOne (www.exone.com ) was founded in 2005 as a spin‐off of Extrude Hone Corporation. The company describes itself as “a total solution provider, forming partnerships with customers to facilitate

Source: www.mcortechnologies.com

Example of a 3D Printer: Mcor Matrix 300



the transition from ‘analog’ to ‘digital’ manufacturing.” It offers large printers for 3D printing of sand and metal materials. Materialise – Materialise (www.materialise.com) explains its mission as “work(ing) with others to put great products aimed at niche markets directly into the marketplace as well as helping make the prototypes of products later manufactured by the millions.” The company also provides software and offers an online service. Mcor Technologies ‐ Mcor Technologies was formed by brothers Dr. Conor MacCormack and Fintan MacCormack in 2005 in Louth, Ireland. Objet ‐ The company (www.objet.com) is an Israel‐based provider of 3D printing systems and materials. Objet has offices in North America, Europe, Japan, China, Hong Kong, and India. Object and Stratasys have announced an agreement to merge. Optomec – Optomec (www.optomec.com) is privately held, with headquarters in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Optomec introduced its first commercial AM system in 1997 and has now installed systems at 150 customer sites in 15 countries. One of the company’s technology allows it to print electronics into objects. Optomec offers LENS for direct metal deposition and Aerosol Jet for deposition of electrically conductive inks and bio‐materials. ReaLizer GmbH – ReaLizer (www.realizer.com) is a German company that develops and produces selective laser melting equipment (SLM) for the manufacture of plastic prototypes. The company's SLM technology was originally developed by the Fraunhofer Institutes and initial commercialization was done in Germany by Fockele & Schwartze. Stratasys ‐‐ Stratasys (www.stratasys.com) invented its patented FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling) technology in 1988 and says it has led the development of 3D printing technology ever since. Stratasys uses its FDM technology in both its Dimension 3D Printers, as well as its Fortus 3D Production Systems, developed for direct digital manufacturing and precision rapid prototyping. The company also operates Redeye On Demand, a digital manufacturing service.

Exhibit 4: Overview of Leading 3D Equipment Manufacturers and Materials Suppliers

Company Name Product Name

3D Systems ProJet 1000

ProJet

V‐Flash

ProJet SD 3000

ProJet HD 3000

ProJet CP 3000

ProJet MP 3000

ProJet 5000

ProJet 6000

ZPrinter 150

ZPrinter 250

ZPrinter 350

ZPrinter 450

ZPrinter 650

Arcam A1



Exhibit 4: Overview of Leading 3D Equipment Manufacturers and Materials Suppliers (Continued)

Company Name Product Name

Arcam A2

envisionTEC Aureus

Desktop Digital Shell Printer (DDSP)

Perfactory Digital Dental Printer (DDP)

Perfactory Mini Multi Lens

Perfactory Standard UV

ULTRA

ULTRA²

PerfactoryXede and PerfactoryXtreme

3D‐Bioplotter

Otoflash Post Curing System

EOS GmbH Formiga P 100

Eosint M 280

Eosint P 395

Eosint P 800

ExOne S‐Max

S‐Print

M‐Print

Orion

250mc

360mc

400mc

900mc

Mcor Matrix 300

Object Eden 250

Eden 260V

Eden 350/Eden 350V

Eden 500V

Object260 Connex

Object350 Connex

Object500V

Optomec Aerosol Jet Print Engine

Aerosol Jet Lab

ReaLizer SLM 50

SLM 100

SLM 250

Solidica Inc Form‐ation machine

Stratasys Dimension 1200es Series

Dimension Elite

5b. Companies Manufacturing Products with AM Technology Following is a partial list of companies employing AM. Most are focused on the production of prototypes, an indication of the nascent stage of development of additive manufacturing.



Exhibit 5: Companies (End Users and Service Bureaus) Deploying Additive Manufacturing

Company Name Final Product Prototype Website

Align Technologies Dental http://www.aligntech.com

AlphaPrototypes X http://www.alphaprototypes.com/

Amalgam Solid X http://asolid.com/

Boeing Aircraft Parts http://boeing.com/

CFM International/GE Global Research Center Aircraft Parts http://www.cfmaeroengines.com/

Design Prototyping Technologies X http://www.dpt‐fast.com

EMS X http://www.ems‐usa.com/

Forecast3D X http://www.forecast‐3d.com/

GE Ultrasound transducers

http://ge.geglobalresearch.com/

Harvest Technologies X http://www.harvest‐tech.com

Interpro X http://www.interpromodels.com/

Konica Minolta X http://sensing.konicaminolta.us

Laser Reproductions X http://www.laserrepro.com/our‐process/

Mack Prototype X http://www.mackprototype.com/

Materialise X http://prototyping.materialise.com/

Metropolis Design X http://www.metropolisdesign.com/

NeoMetrix Technologies X http://www.3dscanningservices.net/

Paramount X http://www.paramountind.com

Pierce‐Robers Rubber Company X http://www.pierceroberts.com

Phonak Hearing Aid http://www.phonak.com/

Protocam X http://www.protocam.com

Quickparts X http://www.quickparts.com

Rapid Prototype Company X http://www.rpparts.com/

Rapid Protyping Services X http://rapidps.com/

Rapid Quality Manufacturing Metal

Components http://www.rqmfg.com

Realiz X http://www.realizeinc.com/

Redeye X http://www.redeyeondemand.com

Siemens Hearing Aid http://hearing.siemens.com/us/en/home/home.html

Solid Concepts X http://www.solidconcepts.com/

Widex Hearing Aid http://www.widexusa.com

Xcentric X http://www.xcentricmold.com/

Xpress3d X http://www.xpress3d.com/

ZoomRP X http://www.zoomrp.com/

5c. Other Players Other players include industry trade associations, industry alliances, standards groups and government agencies. Excluded from the following list are R&D labs and universities. Industry Trade Associations

• AMUG: The Additive Manufacturing Users Group's origins date back to the early 1990s when the founding industry users group was called 3D Systems North American Stereolithography Users Group, a group solely focused on the advancement of stereolithography (SL) use with the owners and operators of 3D Systems' equipment. Today, AMUG educates and supports users of all additive manufacturing technologies.

• AMA: the Additive Manufacturing Association (AMA) aims to stimulate the adoption and exploitation of rapid product design, prototyping and manufacturing technologies in the UK and



provide a source of unbiased information from both industry experts and university research groups.

Industry Alliances

• AMC: The Additive Manufacturing Consortium (AMC) is a national group of industry, government, and research organizations engaged in the advancement of manufacturing readiness of AM technologies. It was initiated in 2010 by EWI who saw a need in the US to address global competitiveness in the disruptive technology field of additive manufacturing.

• Fraunhofer Additive Manufacturing Alliance: Based in Stuttgart and integrating ten institutes of the Fraunhofer Society across Germany, the activities of the Fraunhofer Additive Manufacturing Alliance involve the rapid and economic production of models, prototypes, tools and small‐series end products.

• CALM: Centre for Additive Layer Manufacturing is based at the University of Exeter, UK. Standards Groups

• ASTM International was formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials. The ASTM International Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies was formed in 2009 in response to the need for industry standards. The launch of this standards initiative was driven by a cooperative effort between ASTM International and the Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME).

Government Agencies

• Under the lead of the US Department of Defense (DOD), the US government is creating a major new pilot manufacturing center that will focus on the development and implementation of “additive manufacturing” technologies. Also involved is the Department of Energy (DOE).

VI. Assessment of AM’s Current Advantages and Disadvantages Following is a list of advantages and disadvantages that are alleged by proponents and critics of AM. (Needless to say, there is no overall consensus regarding the benefits and shortcomings of AM.) Advantages: AM proponents claim a number of important advantages over traditional, subtractive forms of manufacturing:

Efficiency: very little labor and very few steps are required to do AM. This means that self‐serve is possible and barriers to doing something are removed.

The capability to build complex, hollow geometric shapes that cannot be constructed via subtractive manufacturing: AM can create new, unique and complex products.

Design freedom: Designers basing their ideas on AM can create forms that follow function; that is, from the intention of the design. For example, a fully functioning clock can be built holistically instead of from discrete, prefabricated parts that are assembled. Since form follows function, batteries, as a further example, can be designed in any shape to fit any space.

No assembly: AM can create fully functioning parts without the need for assembly, saving both production time and cost.

Unlimited customization: By tweaking the CAD file for a particular object, the features of the object can be easily modified.

The capability to produce very lightweight, strong objects: In contrast to subtractive manufacturing, which produces objects that can be clunky and contain a surplus of material, AM with topology optimization (a mathematical approach for maximizing strength) deposits material in its build process only where it is needed for structural integrity. (This capability is especially important in the airline industry, where lighter weight planes can mean considerable fuel savings.)



Cost savings: Since AM enables the on‐site printing of objects, warehouse and logistical costs are lower. The decentralized deployment of AM could limit inventory and distribution costs to the base materials used in AM.

Speed to market: As consumer tastes change, 3D printers can be rapidly reprogrammed to produce different objects. Moreover, they can be more easily located closer geographically to the source of the demand.

Lower break even points: Batches can be cost‐justified with AM at lower quantities than is possible with conventional manufacturing.

Ability to print electronic circuitry into objects: Optomec says its equipment can print electronic circuitry into objects.

Disadvantages: According to its critics, AM has the following disadvantages:

Limited size: The sizes of objects produced by AM are limited by the size of the printer. (However, AM proponents note that there are some AM machines that build in the 2’x3’x2’ range and even up to 13’ in size, therefore sharing the same size limitations of milling machines.)

Unsuitable for large scale, mass production: Product ion batches are small due to the inherent limitations of AM. Specifically, AM takes longer to create objects because of the time needed to scan a laser, cure material and recoat each layer of an object being built. For example, AM may take an hour to produce a 1.5 inch cube, whereas an injection molding machine could create several cubes within the same time frame. Also, mass produced items are substantially much cheaper than AM produced items. For example, while it would be possible to print dinner plates at home, they would cost in upwards of thirty times more. (Proponents of AM note that this comparison does not take into consideration the hours required for tool design, tool making and set up in the case of subtractive manufacturing techniques.)

Weaker object strength: In some AM processes part strength is not uniform, with weakness following the direction of the build. While some exceptions exist, 3D printed objects are rarely as durable as their conventionally manufactured counterparts. A 3D printed wrench, for example, would not last as long as a drop forged one.

Higher costs for metal objects: Materials used by AM for production of metal objects are expensive, rendering AM non‐cost competitive with more traditional means of producing metal objects.

Inability to produce heterogeneous objects: AM produced objects are generally limited to the type of objects that are relatively homogeneous in composition. 3D printers cannot generally synthesize different raw materials to create objects of varying composition.

Theft of intellectual property: The advent of AM brings with it the increased risk of intellectual property theft. Because product designs are recorded in CAD files, it is not hard to imagine a black market where files are illegally copied and downloaded off the web much like music and video content today. Copyright laws could well prove incapable of protecting intellectual property rights within this new domain. (AM proponents claim this is a concern with any product design.)

VII. Current State of AM As we have seen, most companies deploying AM produce prototypes. This has been the case for two decades, as designers have used 3D printers to more quickly and less expensively create prototypes before incurring the expense of tooling up a factory for production of finished goods. With the gradual maturation of AM technologies, the emphasis in AM‐based production is slowly shifting to finished products. As a consequence, “Final products is now the fastest growing segment of



the AM market according to Terry Wohlers.” He estimates that “more than 20% of the output of 3D printers is now final products rather than prototypes.” He predicts this will rise to 50% by 2020. Still, as previously determined, the number of companies using AM for production of finished goods is relatively small. These companies are focused primarily on production of hearing aids and dental devices. Large aircraft companies are also increasing their involvement in AM, particularly as AM technologies become more suitable for the production of metal objects. Companies, such as Boeing, GE Aviation and Airbus are hard at work qualifying AM processes and materials for flight. Boeing now has 200 different AM part numbers on 10 production platforms, including military and commercial jets. Contributing to increased emphasis on final goods is the growing capability of AM to create metal objects. Today eleven companies reportedly offer AM equipment for 3D printing of metal products (seven based on power bed fusion technology and four on directed energy deposition technology). As the Atlantic Council reports, “Significant improvements in the direct additive manufacture of metal components have been made in the past five years. Engineers are now able to fabricate fully‐functional components from titanium and various steel alloys featuring material properties that are equivalent to their traditionally manufactured counterparts. As these technologies continue to improve, we will witness greater industrial adoption of AM for the creation of end use artifacts.” Deloitte Touche casts a more jaundice eye on the current state of AM. “Although 3D printers hold considerable promise, one must be wary of the hype surrounding the technology. Some have heralded 3D printers as the first step toward the ‘democratization’ of production, calling them ‘desktop factories’; others have speculated that consumers will soon be able to download open source designs for anything they can imagine and then use 3D printers to instantly fulfill their needs and desires. However, the current technology is subject to several significant limitations. While some of these will be overcome in the medium term, others are the result of fundamental constraints that are unlikely to be resolved.” As constraints Deloitte Touche cites many of the current disadvantages of AM mentioned in this white paper: the lesser durability of AM‐produced objects, the high cost of raw material needed by 3D printers, the lack of scalability and the inability to produce objects of heterogeneous composition. Despite these constraints, Deloitte Touch sees opportunities for AM. As 3D printers become less expensive, the consumer market is expected to grow. However, “most revenue will likely come from commercial users. Continued price pressure on commercial 3D printers with some products approaching the $10K price point can be expected. The diverse set of processes used within commercial 3D printers will help ensure a broad range of price points with technologies including multicolor thermoplastic extrusion . . . , photo‐catalyzed resins (using light to harden liquid plastics), deposited binders (applying resin binders to powders) and laser sintering (using lasers to melt powder together). “ Deloitte Touch adds, “The range of materials supported by 3D printing is expected to broaden, with some advanced processes allowing objects to be printed with extremely accurate dimensions, including those with moving parts. Businesses requiring rapid prototyping and highly customized or small production runs will likely continue to be the primary customers for commercial 3D printers in the near term, but new niches may begin to develop as prices and sizes begin to come down. One area where early adoption is likely in 2012 is in after‐market service industries that need to manage a long tail of large inventories made up of unique items with low individual demand, such as small appliance and automotive repair. Rather than having to stock rarely used replacement parts, or make customers wait



for ordered parts, the required parts could be printed on demand. In this scenario, it is not unreasonable to envision a 3D printer in a technician’s vehicle or garage allowing him to print parts as needed.” Importantly, while Deloitte Touch is generally skeptical of ebullient claims for AM, it concludes its assessment by finding that “several developments that might demonstrate the technology are becoming mature and have begun to ‘cross the chasm’. “ Still another view is offered by Ian D. Harris of the Edison Welding Institute, “The (AM) industry is on the threshold of a transition from a rapid‐prototyping heritage to one requiring robust manufacturing production for eventual widespread commercial exploitation. This transition requires large‐scale changes and investment to overcome barriers, from the development of standards, qualification of materials for design data, and establishment of supply chains; to robust, repeatable manufacture of products and consistent part tolerances produced from one machine to another.” He concludes by saying, “AM represents a new paradigm and offers a range of opportunities for design, functionality, and cost. Opportunities for many industries largely remain to be identified. AM is a dynamic, evolving field with many researchers and industrial users continually improving the state‐of‐the‐art, while moving to develop and qualify combinations of material and process for commercial exploitation.” VIII. The Dispersion of AM Technologies and the Factory As AM vies for a place in the future of production, it most likely will affect, and be influenced by, the evolution of the factory and the use of automation. We must therefore consider the interplay between new and current modes of manufacturing within the context of the evolving factory, instead of viewing the uptake of AM technology in isolation. 1. The Future of AM Technologies: the Emergence of a “Digital Production Plant”? As we have seen, there is a general consensus that AM technology is promising but there is disagreement as to extent of that promise and how quickly and to what extent AM will penetrate the manufacturing sector. Lisa Harouni, CEO of Digital Forming, predicts boldly that “…this technology is going to cause a manufacturing revolution and will change the landscape of manufacturing as we know it." Similarly, the Atlanic Council states, “Recent reports and developments suggest that AM development is gaining momentum and could be reaching a take‐off point within the next decade.” But “The Economist” adds, “Predicting how quickly additive manufacturing will be taken up by industry is difficult . . . . That is not necessarily because of the conservative nature of manufacturers, but rather because some processes have already moved surprisingly fast.” The growing acceptance of additive manufacturing will mean the emergence of a “digital production plant” according to Will Sillar of Legerwood, a British consulting firm . Manufacturers embracing this concept will benefit from the fact that considerable capital need no longer be tied up in tooling costs, work‐in‐progress and raw materials, and the time to take a digital design from concept to production will drop by as much as 50‐80%. Dr. Hopkinson of Loughborough University in the UK has already seen signs of this happening. He contends the AM process developed by his lab is already competitive with injection‐molding at production runs of around 1,000 items. With further development he reportedly expects that within five years it will be competitive “in runs of tens if not hundreds of thousands”. He believes that, once 3D printing machines are able to crank out products in such numbers, more manufacturers will look to adopt the technology.



Given the optimistic projections for AM’s penetration of manufacturing, the research arms of some companies are exploring how additive manufacturing will affect their business. GE, for example, is investigating how it might use 3D printing in its operations. It has thus far developed an AM system to print a small ultrasound scanner for medical purposes but that is –it must be noted‐ a long ways off from embracing AM as a disruptive technology. In the view of Deloitte Touche, AM will not upend current modes of production. “While the technology has several unique applications and is expected to experience considerable growth in the long run, for the foreseeable future it will likely remain a specialized application that for the most part will complement, not replace, traditional forms of production.” (emphasis added) Deloitte Touch is not alone in its view that AM and more traditional subtractive manufacturing approaches will coexist. Mark Albert, the Editor‐in‐Chief of “Modern Machine Shop” magazine, believes “…subtractive and additive processes can be combined to develop and innovate manufacturing methods that are superior to conventional methods…. It is true that additive processes…are likely to replace subtractive processes in some applications, at least in part. In that sense, the processes will compete with each other. Nevertheless, the focus should stay on the creative freedom enabled by their combination.” Andrzej Grzesiak, head of the Fraunhofer Additive Manufacturing Alliance, agrees that additive manufacturing will not put conventional machine tools out of work: “One should never say never, but I don’t think so. Both technologies simply have their own advantages that can be selectively utilized. There are, however, certain fields, such as dental prosthetics, in which the machine tool will in my estimation be replaced over the next couple of years.” Some manufacturing companies are already combining additive and subtractive manufacturing. Cybaman Technologies‘ “replicator”, for example, uses a laser‐based deposition system to build a basic shape which is then finished by machining. Another example is Matsuura’s “LUMEX Avance‐25 metal laser sintering / high‐speed milling hybrid machine tool”, which is configured with a 400w Yb fiber laser and a Matsuura 45,000 rpm spindle. If additive and subtractive manufacturing can coexist, it is logical to ask whether additive manufacturing can be integrated in automated process chains within the factory. Thus far, this integration has not occurred according to Andrzej Grzesiak, who nevertheless finds that “…the integration of new manufacturing methods into industrial process chains offers far‐reaching options for optimizing production operations . . . . There is a concomitant potential for streamlining, though of course this has to be supported by the correct organization. Additive manufacturing enables certain problems to be solved in conventional production structures, though the integration of these systems in the triangular mix of 1) time, 2) costs, and 3) quality is being rendered rather difficult by the current lack of comprehensive production models.” 2. AM and the Present‐Day Factory What impact might AM have on factories? The answer is far from clear. As we have seen, AM enables highly customized, decentralized production, which is very much the opposite of what currently occurs in present‐day factories, namely centralized, mass production. However, during a transitional phase, 3D printers could be integrated in factory production structures as complements to traditional manufacturing processes, including those based largely on automation. As we have seen from Andrzej



Grzesiak’s observations, this would assume the creation of a new production model. Although the outlines of such a model have not yet materialized, it is likely that both assembly lines and supply chains would be reduced or even eliminated for certain products. As the Atlantic Council notes, “The final product –or large pieces of a final product like a car‐ can be produced by AM in one process unlike conventional manufacturing in which hundreds or thousands of parts are assembled. And those parts are often shipped from dozens of factories from around the world‐ factories which may have in turn assembled their parts from parts supplied by other factories.” Thus, “Designs, not products, would move around the world as digital files to be printed anywhere by any printer that can meet the design paramters.” 3. AM and the Factory of the Future It is important to recognize that as AM transitions from a set of technologies capable of producing prototypes to a mature mode of manufacturing capable of producing finished goods, the factory itself is evolving.

Since the factory of the future is typically defined in contrast to the traditional factory, it is helpful to list the defining characteristics of the traditional factory. First of all, the traditional factory is designed for mass production instead of piece work, which allowed the realization of economies of scale. All commodities produced are identical and workers perform largely repetitious, limited roles. To achieve cost efficiencies, factories also have to operate at high capacity and are structured for linear work flows where commodities being produced pass through different work stations until completed. Similar equipment is located at the same work station, and large inventories of raw materials, work‐in‐progress and finished goods are maintained as a hedge against uncertainty in supplier delivery and quality, production rates and quality; and customer demand.

3a. Lean Manufacturing A major departure from the concept of the traditional factory is lean manufacturing. Derived from the Toyota production system, lean manufacturing is an operational strategy that aims at achieving the shortest possible cycle time by eliminating waste; that is, all non‐value added activities. Implicit in this approach is an ongoing, systematic analysis of work processes to identify waste in order to drive continuous improvement. This of course represents a major, strategic commitment of the organization, but the benefits are impressive: lower costs, higher product quality and shorter production cycle times, all of which are intended to promise greater customer satisfaction. Additional benefits include half the required manufacturing space, half the human effort, half the investment in tools and half the engineering hours.

3b. The Central Role of Information Technology The factory of the future also makes use of information technology (IT) to a much greater extent than heretofore. In fact, it is built around IT; hence the term, “digital factory” or “smart factory”. Within the digital factory, IT links hardware and software islands as well as the factory to customers, suppliers and other factories via the Internet. In this digital arrangement, IT is integrated with production equipment. Performance data are remotely collected across factories at different locations and monitored for benchmarking, production optimization and quality control. As part of the equipment mix, automation equipment is also networked and remotely monitored. Importantly, IT not only enables monitoring and analysis of performance but also customer‐driven production processes. In the digital factory, the customer occupies the front‐end of the production process. By means of the Internet, the customer communicates his/her product preference, generating



an order, which flows from work cell to cell, driving all necessary, internal plant processes along the way; and finally culminates in order fulfillment. 3c. Cellular Manufacturing As previously mentioned, work flows in the factory of the future are not linear (as in the case of the traditional factory) but instead are organized in cells. As a special grouping of machines, people and materials to manufacture products or product components, each cell is responsible for its own internal control of quality, scheduling, order and record keeping. Coordination between the cells occurs via a system called “kanban”, a signal that an item is needed by one cell from another. In Japanese factories, the kanban has been a card, but in a fully IT‐centric factory, the signal would expectedly be electronic. Whether paper‐based or electronic, the kanban serves to tie together the various cells for inventory purposes. As a form of just‐in‐time materials management, parts travel between cells in small batches when actually needed based on customer demand. In the example on this page depicting a cellular manufacturing layout, we see three cells, each with a

different configuration of tools (where some tools might be equiped with machine vision). In cell 1, component “A” is produced and in cell 2 component “B”. Both components are utilized in Cell 3 to create the finished product in accordance with the customer’s order. Where different cells produce different components, cellular manufacturing enables product modularity. 3d. Product Modularity Product modularity is an approach to product architecture where components are combined in the manufacture of products. Modular products are thus the opposite of integrated products where different functionalities cannot be broken down into separately identifiable parts with clearly defined boundaries. (Examples of modular and integrated

product architectures in the case of machine vision are PC‐based MV systems and smart cameras, where the latter has more or less integrated functionality and the former consists of distinct components, each of which can be removed and replaced.) It should be noted that both product architectures have their respective benefits. Integration of functions can enable smaller form factors, while

Example of a Cellular Manufacturing Layout

Product Variety in the Modular Approach



modularity supports greater product variety. (However, there is an exception to this generalization: If modularity is taken down to the sub‐component level, and the sub‐components are physically small, the benefits of product variety and a smaller form factor could co‐exist, allowing the best of both worlds.) Why is product variety an important objective of the factory of the future? The answer is simply that the greater the variety of products that can be produced, the better the manufacturer can respond to the specific needs of the customer. Said differently, product variety enables mass customization, another key characteristic of the factory of the future. 3e. Mass Customization Mass customization is the “mass production of goods with differing individual specifications through the use of components that may be assembled in a number of different configurations.” As its name implies, mass customization is a manufacturing approach that aims to combine customization, first afforded by the craftsman approach, with the cost efficiencies of mass production. By means of customization, companies hope to produce specialized or custom products at the speed, volume, cost and quality of standard products. Mass customization is the point at which the dominant characteristics of the factory of the future come together: lean and cellular manufacturing, strong reliance on IT and product variety through modular product design. Here’s how mass customization works in a nutshell: Based on a list of available product features corresponding to components, the customer selects a product via the company’s Internet website. By placing the order, the customer generates a work order that initiates various work activities in the factory that are handled by various work cells in accordance with the principles of lean manufacturing and just‐in‐time materials management. As it speedily progresses through the work process, the work order is electronically monitored and tracked until the finished product is ready for shipping directly to the customer. In the end, the customer receives a product that has been tailored to his/her specific needs, produced in a minimum amount of time (since production cycles are short) and for this reason with a minimum amount of cost (which allows the company to charge a lower price). The end result is maximum satisfaction for the customer (since the customer gets the exact product he/she needs, gets it quickly and pays a lower price). The company, in turn, is benefited by customer loyalty, revenue stability and increased sales through the positive image it achieves in the marketplace. In short, mass customization represents a “win‐win” outcome for the customer and the company. 3f. The Role of AM in the Factory of the Future: A Qualified Prediction If the capabilities of 3D printers evolve to the point where 3D‐printed objects have greater structural integrity, use lower‐cost base materials and have shorter production cycles, it is possible to envision a future, in which 3D printers operate alongside of automated, subtractive machine tools as integral components in production processes. There is every reason to believe that 3D printers with these enhanced capabilities would be easily integrated into the IT backbone of the factory of the future, since they are directed by digital files, which are easily transmitted via Ethernet networks within a factory and worldwide. These files, in turn, could be readily modified in direct response to specific customer needs, thus enabling customization. Current information suggests enhanced 3D printers could also work with subtractive machine tools by creating intricate internal forms of objects with the outer dimensions shaped by subtractive machine tools. (As we have seen, this arrangement is already being explored.) For example, 3D printers set up in



discrete cells could form the intricate, internal shapes of complex objects, which could then be brought to adjacent cells wherein subtractive machine tools –guided by machine vision and/or enabled by robots‐ shape the exterior form of the objects. These objects might then be assembled in still other cells by means of vision‐guided robots. As noted earlier, the exact means of integrating 3D printers in automated production processes have not yet been defined. However, the strengths of AM and its ability to complement subtractive manufacturing suggest that some form of integration will occur in the future. The digital nature of AM, its enablement of customization and its ability to form the heart of special‐function work cells also suggest that this integration will occur at some point in the future. IX. The Interplay between AM and the Automation Technologies of Machine Vision, Motion Control and Robotics A fundamental question raised in this white paper concerns the nature of interaction between AM and automation technologies. In response to this question we have already noted that it is unlikely that AM will replace subtractive manufacturing and the automation technologies that guide and enable this latter form of production. Because additive and subtractive manufacturing technologies have complementary strengths, we expect the factory of the future to utilize both types of manufacturing. In addition to working side‐by‐side in the factory of the future, AM will interact with automation technologies in other ways. These interactions may in some cases signify market opportunities for automation equipment manufacturers. Machine Vision Machine vision can be used with AM to replicate objects. 3D scanners can be used to generate a digital file of an object, which in turn can issue commands to a 3D printer. Where the scanner and printer are integrated into a single piece of equipment used to replicate objects, the equipment becomes in effect a type of application‐specific machine vision (ASMV) system. Higher‐powered versions of lasers used for 3D scanners might be used in 3D printers based on SLS or DMLS technology. Companies, like Coherent, that provide lasers for 3D scanners could also address SLS and DMLS 3D printer manufacturers. AM will also represent market opportunities for machine vision companies in other areas. For example, machine vision equipment can be used for process control and for non‐contact inspection, since AM still has a lot of variance. In the future AM may be used with machine vision in other ways. For example, if the base material costs of 3D printers can be cut and their production cycles lowered, 3D printers may be employed in the production of some MV subcomponents such as the housings of cameras, lighting units and smart cameras. Robotics Robotics may be the key to greatly increasing the size of items that can be produced by a 3D printer. Since the size of objects printed is limited by the size of the printer, larger printers would be required for production of objects such as aircraft wings. To create these large printers, gantry robots or robotic



arms could be utilized to position the deposition nozzles or lasers according to the digital commands of CAD files. Behrokh Khoshnevis from the Center for Rapid Automated Fabrication Technologies (CRAFT) recently announced that “Contour Crafting” will allow 3D printers to create the walls of entire homes. Contour Crafting, a form of 3D printing, uses robotic arms and nozzles to squeeze out layers of concrete or other materials, moving back and forth according to the digital instructions of a CAD file to fabricate the walls of a home or other large object. (Since the position of the robot would be controlled by a CAD file, robots probably would not need to be vision‐guided.) Robotics can also be used with 3D printing for smaller objects. Some hobbyists have attached the deposition nozzle of a 3D printer to a SCARA robot to create objects. A Dutch student named Dirk Vander Kooij, for example, uses a robot to print plastic furniture in a variety of colors and designs in just 3 hours using recycled materials from old refrigerators. As a possible sign of things to come, 3D printers could become an important, new market for robot manufacturers. In the future, it may also become possible for 3D printers to create small robots. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and other institutions are embarking on a project to fast‐track the production of robots by means of current 3D printing technology. The five‐year project is called "An Expedition in Computing for Compiling Printable Programmable Machines" and is being funded by the National Science Foundation to the tune of $10 million. The project aims to create small, affordable service robots. Finally, as previously mentioned, robotics might be integrated into cellular production flows along with 3D printers. Motion Control Since robots utilize servo mechanisms, motion control equipment manufacturers would also benefit from an uptake in robots from the 3D printer market. Additionally, the 3D printers typically utilize servos, controllers, electronic valves and software drivers. A growing demand for 3D printers thus suggests increased market opportunities for motion control component manufacturers. In the future, 3D printers may also create parts of motion control components, including circuitry that is printed into solid objects. X. Conclusions Additive Manufacturing is a new, exciting, but still largely nascent mode of production that holds great promise. That promise stems from its capability to construct highly customizable, complex, lightweight objects with embedded circuitry, minimal assembly, maximum design freedom, intricate geometries and shorter times to market. Because of these advantages over subtractive manufacturing, it may one day prove highly disruptive. However, before that happens, AM must overcome some significant limitations. These include the high cost of base materials, limited scalability due to longer production cycles, size

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Concrete is deposited in layers through a nozzle that moves around the building site with the help

of a gantry robot



constraints where the size of objects is limited by the size the 3D printer, the inability to create objects of heterogeneous composition and the potential for theft of intellectual property by illegally downloading proprietary CAD files. Because of this mix of advantages and shortcomings, it is unlikely that AM will replace automation‐assisted forms of subtractive manufacturing except in a limited range of industries. (As we have seen, AM already has a toehold in some industries.) A more probable outcome is that AM will complement current modes of manufacturing, becoming integrated with them in the factory of the future. All present indications are that AM will not displace automation technologies but instead benefit from them. For example, advancements in the capabilities of motion control components would probably give rise to more sophisticated 3D printers. Moreover, the use of robotic arms and gantry robots may enable 3D printers to overcome size constraints, increasing not just the dimensions but also the types of objects (such as homes) that can be “printed”. Additionally, 3D scanners manufactured by machine vision companies are already enabling 3D printers to replicate objects. Finally, because of the increasingly important role that automation technologies will most likely play in the evolution of 3D printers, new market opportunities will open up for manufacturers of motion control components, lasers, 3D scanners, MV inspection and process control systems, robotic arms and gantry robots. In short, automation companies need not fear the ascendancy of additive manufacturing but instead should vigorously embrace it. Paul Kellett AIA/MCA/RIA Director – Market Analysis October 2012 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Special thanks to Todd Grimm for his painstaking review of this white paper and helpful feedback. Todd Grimm is a 22‐year veteran of the additive manufacturing/3D printing industry. From his work as a consultant, writer, presenter, editor and advisor, he has been recently named as one of the top 20 most influential in the additive manufacturing industry. Todd is president of T. A. Grimm & Associates, an additive manufacturing consulting and communications company, and editor for ENGINEERING.com. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐



Bibliography Albert, Mark, “Subtractive Plus Additive Equals More Than”, Modern Machine Shop, Jan. 17, 2011 Brown, Bob, “Additive manufacturing – the transition from design testing to production methodology”, Cambashi, www.cambashi.com/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1909/page/2 Anthony, Sebastian, “What is 3D Printing?, Extreme Tech, www.extremetech.com/exteme/115503‐what‐is‐3d‐printing, Jan., 25, 2012 Barnatt, Christopher, “3D Printing”, ExplainingTheFuture.com, www.explainingthefuture.com/3dprinting.html Baxter, Pete, “Print Your Own Car”, The Guardian, June 13, 2012 Berezowsky, Taras, “The Phenomenon of Additive Manufacturing: Is 3D Printing Too Good to Be True? – Part One”, Metal Miner, www.agmetalminer.com/2011/02/25/the‐phenomenon‐additive‐manufacturing‐printing‐too‐good‐true/, Feb. 25, 2011 Boivie, Klas, “Introduction to Additive Manufacturing Technology” Basic Concepts, Applications and Possibilities”, NTNU SINTEF Campbell, Thomas et. al., “Could 3D Printing Change the World?, Strategic Forecast Report”, Atlantic Council, Oct. 2011 Bourell, David L. and Beaman, Joseph J. Jr., “The History of Laser Additive Manufacturing”, Laser Institute of America, www.lia.org/news/2012/04/13/the‐history‐of‐laser‐additive‐manufacturing/, April 13, 2012 Boyle, Rebecca, “New GE 3‐D Printing Facility Will Manufacture Parts for Ultrasound Machines, Airplanes and More”, Popsci, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011‐05/new‐ge‐3‐d‐printer‐lab‐will‐manufacture‐parts‐ultrasound‐machines‐airplanes‐and‐more, September 5, 2011 Bregar, Bill, “Additive Manufacturing Market Hits $1.7 Billion”, Plastics News, www.plasticsnews.com/headlines2.html|?id=25642 Excell, Jon, “The Rise of Additive Manufacturing”, The Engineer, May 21, 2010, www.the engineer.co.uk/in‐depth/the‐big‐story/the‐rise‐of‐additive‐manufacturing/1002560.article Flaherty, Joseph, “Roadmap for Additive Fabrication”, Replicatorinc, www.replicatorinc.com, July 20, 2009 Fuges, Christina M., “Embracing Both Additive and Subtractive Manufacturing”, Modern Machine Shop, July 3, 2012, http://www.moldmakingtechnology.com/articles/embracing‐both‐additive‐and‐subtractive‐manufacturing(2) G.P. Tromans Associations, “Additive Manufacturing Technologies: An Overview”, www.gptromansassociates.com



Harris, Ian D., “Additive Manufacturing: A Transformational Advanced Manufacturing Technology”, Advanced Materials & Processes, May 2012 Hessman, Travis, “The IndustryWeek Additive manufacturing Resource Guide”, IndustryWeek.com, www.industryweek.com/PrintArticle.aspx?ArticleID=26834 Kreemer, Allen, “Motor Trends: Additive Manufacturing Drives Production of Race‐ready Parts”, Stratasys, www.stratasys.com/Resources/White‐Papers/Motor‐Trends.aspx Lu, tien‐Fu and Torng, Jingsyan, “Development of a robotic Measuring System for 3D Range Data Acqusition”, 6th International Conference on Manufacturing Technology, 2001 Zelinski, Peter, “Additive Manufacturing Companies to Merge”, Modern Machine Shop, www.mmsonline.com, April, 17, 2012 McCue, T.J., “Additive Manufacturing Will Change in the Next 5‐10 Years”, Forbes, www.forbes.com, May, 2, 2012 Page, David, et. al., “3D CAD Model Generation of Mechanical Parts Using coded‐pattern Projection and Laser Triangulation Systems”, Assembly Automation, http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/emerald‐publishing/3d‐cad‐model‐generation‐of‐mechanical‐parts‐using‐coded‐pattern‐RYpEgN0N00 Sheman, Lilli Manolis, “Additive Manufacturing New Capabilities for Rapid Prototypes and Production Parts”, Plastics Technology, March 2009 Tate, Paul, “Additive Manufacturing: Can It Bring Manufacturing Home?”, Manufacturing Executive, http://www.manufacturing‐executive.com/community/leadership_dialogues/transformative_technologies/blog/2011/12/02/additive‐manufacturing‐can‐it‐bring‐manufacturing‐home, Dec. 2, 2011 Udroiu, Razvan and Nedelcu, Anisor, “Optimization of Additive Manufacturing Processes Focused on 3D Printing”, INTECH, www.intechopen.com, September 26, 2009 Wohlers, Terry, “Factory of the Future”, Direct Digital Manufacturing Conference, June 28, 2010 Wholers, Terry, “Additive manufacturing Advances”, Manufacturing Engineering, April 2012 Zelinski, Peter, “Redefining Plastics Manufacturing”, Modern Machine Shop, www.mmsonline.com/articles/redefining‐plastics‐manufacturing, January, 19, 2012 “Wohlers Associates Publishes 2012 Report on Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing”, Wohlers Associates, www.wohlersassociates.com/press56.htm “3D Printer Developed for Drugs”, BBC News Scotland, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk‐scotland‐17744314, April 17, 2012 “3D Printing – The Printed Word”, The Economist, February 10, 2011



“3D Printing is Here – But the Factory in Every Home Isn’t Here Yet!”, Deloitte, http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_GX/global/industries/technology‐media‐telecommunications/tmt‐predictions‐2012/technology/ab173e14447a4310VgnVCM1000001a56f00aRCRD.htm “3D Printing”, Wikipedia “3D‐printed Sugar Network to Help Grow Artificial Liver”, BBC News Technology, www.bbc.com/news/technology‐18677627?print=true, July 2, 2012 “Additive Fabrication”, Custompartnet.com, www.custompartnet.com/wu/additive‐fabrication “Additive Manufacturing – Solid Print”, The Economist April 21, 2012: 14-18 “Additive Manufacturing Group (AMG), AMT – The Association for Manufacturing Technology, www.amtonline.org/aboutamt/Committees/additivemanufacturinggrouo.htm, April 23, 2012 “Additive Manufacturing to Become $3.7 Billion Industry by 2012”, Advanced Technologies, http://blog.itc.mb.ca/tag/3d‐printing, May 7, 2012 “Additive Manufacturing”, Optomec, www.optomec.com/Additive‐manufacturing‐Technology/Overview “Additive Manufacturing”, Paramount Industries, wwwparamountind.com “Advancements in Additive Manufacturing Make it a Favorite for Molds & Prototypes”, 3d‐innovations.com, www.3d‐innovations.com/blog/?p=500, May 24, 2012 “Direct Metal Laser Sintering”, Production Machining, Dec. 28, 2009, www.productionmachining.com “Electron Beam Melting”, Wikipedia “EOS Products”, EOS, www.eos.com “Fraunhofer Additive Manufacturing Alliance”, Fraunhofer, www.fraunhofer.de/en/institutes‐research‐establishments/.../additive‐manufacturing‐alliance.html “Fused Deposition Modeling”, Wikipedia “Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM)”, Custompartnet.com, www.custompartnet.com/wu/laminated‐object‐manufacturing “NNMI Pilot Institute on Additive Manufacturing”, Advanced Manufacturing, Manufacturing.gov, www.manufacturing.gov/amp/polot‐institute.html “Rapid Growth of Additive Manufacturing disrupts Traditional Manufacturing Process, ExOne Digital Part Materialization, April 27, 2012



“Selective Laser Sintering”, Wikipedia “Setting the new Standard for 3D Printing”, OBJET, www.object.com “Stereolithography”, Wikipedia “Stratasys Teams with Oak Ridge National Laboratory to Advance Additive Manufacturing”, TMC Robotics Wire, www.robotics.tmcnet.com//mews/2012/07/05/6416421.htm, July 5, 2012 “The New Name in Additive Manufacturing”, Renishaw, www.renishaw.com/en/the‐new‐name‐in‐additive‐manufacturing‐‐15508, July 26, 2011 “Ultrasonic Consolidation”, Wikipedia “What is Additive Manufacturing?”, ExOne Digital Part Materialization “Will Additive Manufacturing Put Milling Machines Out of Work?, Canadian Metalworking April 28, 2011, http://www.canadianmanufacturing.com/metalworking/machining/will‐additive‐manufacturing‐put‐milling‐machines‐out‐of‐work‐31120 “Wohlers Associates Publishes 2012 Report on Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing”, Wohlers Associates, www.wohlersassociates.com/press56.htm “You dream it, we grow it”, GROWit Rapid Prototyping and Additive Manufacturing, www.growit3d.com

Additive Manufacturing and Automation

Documents