Canada is lagging behind. New technologies have launched a modern industrial revolution and we are barely part of it. Educators should be concerned; will the next generation be properly equipped? This technology is having profound impact across a wide swath of industries, from health sciences to architecture. But at this point in time, Canada trails other major economies in implementation of new technologies; likewise, we register proportionally less patents on new inventions and innovations. Additional evidence of this disturbing trend:
As our way of combatting this growing disparity, we’d like to introduce the CANARI: The Canadian Academic Research Incentive. It’s our Canadian company’s scheme to give Canadian education and Canadian research initiatives a bit of a boost: cutting edge 3D printing tech at the best possible price.
WHAT IS IT?
The CANARI is an aggressive price discount for qualifying educational institutions and research initiatives.
WHO GETS IT?
Any academic institution using or wanting to incorporate additive technologies to further educational goals. Additionally, any organization that intends to use additive technology for research and development.
the schoolteacher planning hands-on and motivating ways to teach
the researcher studying new building materials
the innovator who needs a prototype
the architect considering additive technology in residential construction
the company trying to modify a design to better meet client needs
the shop designing jigs for a new product
WHAT PRODUCTS OR SERVICES DOES IT APPLY TO?
The CANARI can be applied to all of our products! (Price discounts vary by item and quantity; please contact us for more information.)
It is our hope that Canadian researchers and educational institutions will take advantage of the CANARI discount to advance Canadian manufacturing innovation and to equip the next generation.
This is an account of two industrial machine-tooling and sales companies and how they each choose to produce the same new product. Both make intelligent and strategic choices. Yet those choices are very different — because the two companies and their respective access to the market are different. While the companies named here are fictitious, the details are true, and we believe you will gain some insight into when and how your own organization might incorporate additive technology. Or, why it might reasonably choose not to! (Only one company in our account does use 3D printing; yet, as we will see, both companies have chosen wisely.)
This is how the story begins. Two industrial machine-tooling and sales companies, Tried-and-True Inc. and New-to-You Corp., each come across a design for a new retaining clip that will secure safety equipment to safety helmets. Both companies recognize the growth potential in providing the clips due to increased and mandated use of personal protection equipment.
Now, safety clips are high stress items; they are prone to breaking and require replacement fairly routinely. Consequently, while each company is open to considering various materials, certainly they will both be looking for a combination of toughness, chemical and heat resistance. Both companies expect the market will bear a final retail price of $25 for 3 sets.
But if the two companies agree on what they are producing, they differ on the means of production. Let’s take a look.
Tried-and-True Inc. has a wholesaling division and has established itself with a growing number of retailers across the country. Tried-and-True is a wholesaler and not an actual manufacturer. However, this company has periodically sought the production of items — some functional, some promotional — and so has a modicum of experience with direct production.
Tried-and-True decides to investigate production of the clips by injection molding. Injection molding (IM) is one of the most efficient and commonly used technologies in the world.
From past experience, Tried-and-True recognizes that the geometry of the clip may require modification. There are a number of variations in material thickness, which could cause stress and distortion during the cooling cycle.
Tried-and-True picks three reputable IM molds producers and solicits an estimate for a mold that will contain one left and one right clip (for one complete clip set).
New-to-You Corp. works with a couple offices in larger cities, but is largely focused on internet-based sales and supply. On occasion, when it has not been able to source a needed item from manufacturers in its network, it has arranged to produce that item. New-to-You has not been able to source suitable clips, so is now investigating production.
New-to-You has been hearing more and more about the uses of 3D printing. The company has heard varying stories about speed and quality, but has decided to explore the potential of producing the clips using additive technologies.
The clip design – as is – does not pose any problem for additive processes and does not require any modifications. New-to-You reaches out to three companies that offer 3D printing services, each one using a different medium: FDM printing, SLA printing or SLS printing .
Both companies decide to make use of FDM 3D printing to produce a series of prototypes to ensure the end product will meet expectations.
Both companies take reception of the 3D printed prototypes at roughly the same time. The prototypes now allow for functional testing, but also permit the two companies to do more market research to confirm expected demand.
And the similarities end there.
When Tried-and-True approaches the mold producers, the decision about what material to use has not yet been finalized. The clips must have some flexibility, so they are contemplating polypropylene, polyethylene or possibly polyamide (nylon).
Anticipated sales are a consideration for material choice for the clips; greater sales volume may justify a higher quality material. Sales potential is also considered when determining mold design, as it may impact how many cavities each mold should have. Because Tried-and-True has an established network of potential distributors, anticipated sales are fairly high — 10,000 sets within a 12 month period.
Three mold producers submit estimates. All advise Tried-and-True that the design is fairly complex, with a number of sharp corners and changes in geometry. Quotes range from $31,500 to $37,500 per set.
BREAKING IT DOWN…
The cost of producing each set will depend greatly on the material chosen. But the cycle time for each set is approximately 45 seconds. This means that one complete set can be produced every 45 seconds, or 80 sets per hour. Assuming a 12 hour production period, 960 sets can be produced per day.
Estimated material cost per set varies with the quote, but averages $0.40/set. Consultants place an extra $0.10 per set for post processing, so $0.50/set.
Tried-and-True does not have a injection press and will have to contract a 3rd party to produce the components. The low-end shop rate for a 65 ton press is around $65/hour, or $0.81 per set.
Cost estimates per set therefore total roughly $1.31 per set. Packaging and shipping costs are estimated to add an additional $0.60 per set to a total of $1.91. On the other hand, if the mold were designed with cavities for three full sets, every three sets would cost roughly $5.73. But this isn’t Tried-and-True’s first time around the block; it increases this estimate by 20% to account for unforeseen expenses and cost variations. Estimated cost of production for three sets of clips is $6.88.
Tried-and-True distributors all see value in offering the 3-pack of clips and have agreed to stock the item. They respect the $25 price point set by Tried-and-True, but would like a minimum 35 points, so the agreed upon distributor price is $16.25.
Tried-and-Truewill realize $9.35 on each sale, net of promotions, overheads and shrinkage.
This means that breakeven point to recover the cost of the molds is between 3,300 and 4,000 sales,. Based on the company’s initial projections of 10,000 sales in 12 months, it anticipates recovering its initial capital investment within the first half.
New-to-You Corp. believes that while the design will do well, volume will likely not exceed 500 units per month because the clips are mount-specific. Meanwhile, New-to-You has heard back from different companies about using 3D printing to produce the components.
BREAKING IT DOWN…
Company A boasts the use of a small farm of FDM (Fused Deposition Modeling) printers. FDM offers the widest range of thermoplastic polymers. Drawbacks of FDM printing are speed and possibly aesthetics, since the layer lines are typically visible. Because the design of the clips is not ideally suited to FDM, printing them will require fairly extensive support, which in turn will require extra time. Company A offers 5 printers.
Production Time: 48 minutes per pair + 10 minutes of post processing. Anticipated rate of production is 5 per hour. Material weight: 8.10 grams (@30% infill))
The cost of each pair is dependent on desired material, but can range from $4.60 to $6.20 per pair. It will take 100 hours to produce 500 units, using all 5 machines working on the same project. This includes post-processing.
Company B offers production via a mid-sized SLA (Stereolithography) printer with a decent build volume (350mm x 350mm x 300mm). SLA printers use thermoset resins that catalyze when exposed to specific UV radiation like that of a laser. The process is considerably faster than FDM printing and can be less expensive. The finish is much finer than FDM — almost injection-mold quality — but a drawback is limited material choice. Additionally, post-processing may be needed if aesthetic changes (such as pigmentation) are required.
Production Time: 60 pairs every 171.8 minutes (1 pair every 2.86 minutes). Cleaning and post processing is estimated to add an extra 2 minutes per pair.
As with FDM, the exact cost of each pair is dependent on the chosen material, but ranges from $3.83 to $5.65 per pair. It would take approximately 40 hours to produce all 500 units using one machine. This includes post-processing.
Additionally, the SLA producer offers the option of resin casting. In that case, the SLA printer would first create a mold of the desired units, and then cast the units using silicon or urethane.
Company C produces parts via an SLS (Selective Laser Sintering) printer. The print size is excellent (380mm x 380mm x 500mm). There are not as many sintering powders in the market as there are SLA resins and thermoplastic filaments. However, SLS machines offer a variety of polyamide and TPU materials that will suit the project’s needs well. SLS printing offers a number of benefits. The powder used acts as a natural support; it is possible to fill the entire build volume in one build with no or minimal component supports. The drawback is that, similar to FDM prints, the final aesthetic of the product reflects the layered build. The print also often feels powdery.
Production time: All 500 pairs can be produced in one print. It will take 21.1 hours (2.53 minutes per pair). Cooling time adds an additional 14 hours (1.69 minutes per pair).
Note that the cost per pair is a little tighter because material choice does not vary related costs by a significant amount. It would take approximately 35.5 hours to produce all 500 units using one machine. This includes post processing.
Aesthetics are deemed fairly important in an end-use consumer product and SLA offers a solid combination of aesthetics, speed and price. The final price per pair is $4.74. Packaging and shipping are estimated to add an extra $0.60 per set, or total $5.34 per pair, and $16.02 for 3 sets. New-to-You builds in a 20% margin for unforeseen variables, which increases the price to $19.22. If each set is sold at $25, New-to-You would earn $5.78 — a little more than 30%.
New-to-You decides to proceed with the project, ordering 500 sets of 3. New to You will receive 1,500 pairs at $4.74 each, for a total of $7,110 (not including overheads and incidental cost).
Since most of the company’s business is generated online, New-to-Youbegins preliminary marketing for the clips.
New-to-You takes reception of the 500 full sets. The project was queued for 2 days, and it took the producer 5 days to print. Packing took an extra 3 days plus shipping. Total price works out to $17.62 per set.
Initial marketing efforts have generated interest, and before any clips were received, presales were already at 75 sets. A decent start. Sold units are sent out upon arrival.
The mold ordered by Tried-and-True has been produced, and trial runs have been successful.
While waiting for the mold’s completion, Tried-and-True has reached out to its distributors. The company has successfully managed to pre-sell 100 sets to each of three distributors. Moreover, each distributor expects to order an additional 100 sets within 30 todays.
Not a bad start.
Tried-and-True has received its first 1,000 units and has begun distribution.
However. Tried and True has recently become aware that, unfortunately, New-to-You Corp has already entered the same market weeks ago
Fortunately, Tried-and-True‘s production margins allow it flexibility for a promotional effort. Tried-and-True will offer distributors a matching discount to create a special introductory price that will help establish the Tried and True clip in the market.The new introductory price will be $20; both Tried-and-Trueand its re-sellers agree to share the reduction evenly.
Based on those arrangements, the re-sellers double their initial orders.
New-to-You has received a generally positive response to sales efforts. The company is averaging 75 sets a week with a decent upward growth trend as word spreads. Based on that information, plans are laid out for another 500 to be placed in a week’s time.
In addition to the online sales, one of the other offices has shown some interest and requested samples. But it is not necessary to physically transport samples; instead, a digital file is transferred to the office and they will have a local 3D service provider print the samples for them.
Feedback from end-use clients is beginning to provide some very key insights. Some are asking if New-to-Youoffers clips that can fit a different safety hat and PPE combination. This same inquiry occurs with sufficient regularity that management decides to investigate further.
Dropping the price for the clips from $25 to $20 has been positive in boosting sales and raising interest in the Tried-and-True clip. The company has, of course, kept a close eye on its main competitor and it seems that New-to-You Corp is unwilling or unable to match its $20 promotion price. Tried-and-True decides to extend that price indefinitely.
More good news: The clip’s initial success has motivated additional distributors to come on board and carry the clips.
It certainly seems that the price reduction was the right decision. Yes, it will take longer for the project to break even, but its capacity to reduce pricing should will strengthen Tried-and-True‘s efforts to achieve market dominance with respect to PPE safety clips.
Tried-and-True’s lower price point has taken the edge off the increased sales of the clips for New-to-You. Rather than growing to 100 sets per week as had been hoped, New-to-You continues to average 75 a week. While the end production cost of the first batch of 500 was a little less than anticipated, the company finds it does not have the margin to match Tried-and-True’s introductory pricing generally. It does agree to price match on a case by case basis for customers who request it.
Investigations into production of an alternative clip variation have yielded an interesting opportunity.
The general geometry and size of these clips is roughly the same as the first, so production costs would likely be flat. Company B, which had produced the first design for New-to-You, is willing to produce a smaller run of these clips concurrently with the the next order of the first design, with no extra tooling cost.
New-to-You sees a market advantage here. It can now offer a more diverse line of products at little to no tooling cost.
These examples can be carried on at length! But of course, the further into the future they are projected the more speculative such examples become. Obviously, production and costing are not the only factors in a product’s success.
That acknowledged, two broad differences can be identified.
with PRICING FLEXIBILITY
Injection molding is the most efficient means of mass-producing polymer components, hands down. A company willing and able to front the tooling capital cost likely finds itself in the enviable position of being able to produce a desired component very quickly, and very inexpensively.
However, design complexity is one of the main drivers of mold cost. Additionally, the design is more static; changes to the product require the expensive production of a new mold.
with DESIGN FLEXIBILITY
While some 3D printing mediums are able to produce much faster than most people realize, it is unlikely that 3D printing will overcome injection molding anytime soon, either by way of speed or cost of production.
But it may not have to.
Mediums like SLA and SLS already offer a decent production speed and a growing array of available materials. These mediums are capable of highly complex design — and efficient iterations of that design — at a fraction of the costs associated with injection molding. For many companies, 3D printing is the intelligent choice.
You can click on any of the links above to jump to those specific sections.
Additive manufacturing (AM) has – and continues to – evolve dramatically in the sophistication of its technologies, processes, and materials. A broad range of industries ranging from aerospace to consumer products is using AM to refine the development and production of products. The explosive growth in AM and how practitioners are deploying it is supported by a wide number of metrics, including the 20 fold gown in AM-related patents and the astounding growth in the sale of industrial AM systems over the past 4 years.
Fueled by growth of Industry 4.0 and the digital thread, AM has emerged as a catalyst in reshaping underlying assumptions about product complexity, supply chain logistics, and possibly even the manufacturing business model itself.
DEFINITION – Industry 4.0 : Industry 4.0 is a reference to what might otherwise be called the the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This is the ongoing automation of traditional manufacturing and industrial practices, using modern smart technology. Large-scale machine-to-machine communication (M2M) and the internet of things (IoT) are integrated for increased automation, improved communication and self-monitoring, and production of smart machines that can analyze and diagnose issues without the need for human intervention.
DEFINITION –Digital Thread: Tech Target defines the digital thread as “a communication framework that connects traditionally siloed elements in manufacturing processes and provides an integrated view of an asset throughout the manufacturing lifecycle.”
However remarkable the growth thus far, challenges lie on the horizon that if unaddressed could impede broader implementation of AM in industrial settings. And among those challenges, the lack of a widely accepted comprehensive set of technical standards within AM looms large.
Why do standards matter?
Standards are necessary to ensure that such rules of the game are established, adhered to, and respected by all parties. Standards have been a fundamental part of the manufacturing background for decades, they are essential as they outline the parameters that must be met to deliver a quality product.
It’s no different for AM
In many ways, AM is a ‘democratization’ of the production process. A digital file designed by one person can be modified and produced differently by a hundred different people by changing any number of settings used in the items creation. Given the capacity for endless variations, standards become all the more important because they define quality, provide benchmarks and best practices.
Quality end-use, functional parts are already being produced via AM but widely adopted standards would help the quality over longer production runs. Ongoing efforts to establish AM standards should define the requirements for AM production, helping to enhance operational consistency and ensure quality as production and market adoption grows. As standards help assure quality for a larger volume of parts, the AM industry can scale, reach new levels of efficiency, and garner additional benefits from AM use.
Quality standards can also be particularly important for AM because there are arguably more factors to consider than for conventional manufacturing; now, digital design standards, interoperability standards, layer-by-layer material/build process parameters, microstructure strength, porosity, and post-processing/curing standards, among others, should all be considered. In a complex industry with a host of variables at play, AM standards should provide the “guidebook” for implementation.
Below is a shortlist of potential benefits that can arise from the application of standards to the use of AM:
Risk Mitigation: While standards will not mitigate all risks associated with any manufacturing process, adopting them can mitigate and control risks in ways that cross many domains such as worker safety, security of information, intellectual property, the manufacturing process, and supply chain management.
Improved Repeatability: In the highly customizable environment represented by AM, standards can define key parameters — materials, print process, material storage, etc. In effect, standards should provide a sense of predictability and repeatability within the AM ecosystem.
Quality Benchmarks: Quality is explicitly “the use of a standard against which other things of similar kind are compared.” As such, standards provide the benchmark criteria against which the quality of a company’s AM process—and products of that process—can be compared. A primary aim of standards should be ensure that designs, printers, and settings achieve a desired quantifiable and quality outcome.
Greater Efficiencies: By virtue of helping to accomplish the first three benefits, AM standards may also provide an opportunity for companies to focus their processes and practices in a more optimally efficient and less wasteful way. For example, the use of a standard output file format for the instructions needed to print a part would reduce the need to develop a custom file format and, in the process, enable greater interoperability—and efficiency—among different players across the AM ecosystem. This can also reduce the need for rework during production, thus again reducing waste and improving return.
That seems like a big list of features and you would be right to ask…how exactly?
Part Design: AM enables the creation of parts that can exceed traditional design limitations, even mimicking a variety of organically shaped, nongeometric bio-inspired design. These new designs allow parts to exceed previous constraints and demonstrate increased feats in strength, weight reduction, and even product performance. But in order to allow a quality assurance process to gauge whether the production is being controlled, for instance, traditional standards may not suffice.
Revised and new standards have begun to evolve to bridge industry specific gaps to reflect design within the AM ecosystem.
Production and Materials: Many traditional manufacturing standards are well established and may be applied to AM as well. However, there are areas where additional research is required address uncontrolled variables introduced by AM production processes. For instance, powdered bed fusion metal printing processes may trap miniscule amounts of gases within the printed material creating potential anomalies in the final part. Analysis and the introduction of production standards would be beneficial to account for such anomalies.
Since materials used in AM are commonly found in traditional manufacturing processes, standards related to storage, handling, and transportation are relatively well articulated. It is still important consider what the printing process itself does to the material, and how this may be used to improve the product. For example, AM may introduce inherent molecular deformations which can actually prove beneficial in high-stress end-use cases where temperature, pressure, or material can actually be balanced out by the material stresses.
This would require standards against which materials, printing processes, and inherent material stresses can be judged.
Digital Thread: Applying standards on the data produced from the AM processes is the final and perhaps most challenging area. Our digital world is developing at an exponential pace as data formats and processing requirements seem to evolve every few years. With the “thread” approach to manufacturing becoming increasingly pervasive, it could be almost essential to consider the longevity of the AM digital presence and how rapidly anything we produce digitally will likely no longer be transferrable to the next file format.
While standards such as the .STL—a standard format for sending instructions to the 3D printer— exist and are widely applied today, there is an ever-present desire for something better. A major challenge facing the application of data standards is how to build in longevity into the standard. Thus, AM should begin to invest effort in producing data and information standards that can be easily updated and copied to the next generation of hardware and computers.
Recognizing your organization’s need to identifying
Needs Assessment:This first step is likely the most important. Define your parameters and conceptual benchmarks and steps in the process where the company needs a standard. This includes determining your expectation of success.
Determine the Variables: As an example, determine printer settings available, then print using each variable and measure the outcome to understand the impact of the setting on the part printed.
Data Collection: Determine how you will measure the results of each pass of your process and variable settings. An example might be to identify how you will measure if your additively manufactured part met reliability requirements or how you plan to measure the humidity inside a printer during operation.
Experiment: Run your experiment several times, testing each variable in isolation, and measure your results.
Observe and Analyze: Analyze the data collected to see which variable settings provide the best outcome or best achieves your AM objectives. The best settings may likely become your new standard where industry standards do not exist.
Partial List of Existing Standards
Despite its relative newcomer status on the manufacturing stage, AM has garnered a fair amount of attention from standards organizations globally and a fair amount of work has already been done to bridge the gap in standards. Below is a partial list of of AM related standards and the organizations that have fostered them. Both the ASTM (F42) and ISO (ISO/TC 261) have formed committees that meet regularly to review and discuss modifications and additions to additive standards.
ISO/ASTM 52900 – Additive Manufacturing General Principles: co-publication between the American Standards for Technology and Materials and the International Organization for Standardization replaces the now cancelled ASTM F2792 Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies and serves as the basis for subsequent standards development.
ISO/ASTM 52901: 2017 – Additive Manufacturing General Principles – Requirements for Purchased AM Parts: gives guidelines for the elements to be exchanged between the customer and the part provider at the time of the order, including the customer order information, part definition data, feedstock requirements, final part characteristics and properties, inspection requirements and part acceptance methods.
ISO/ASTM 52910: 2018 – Guidelines for Design for AM – This document gives requirements, guidelines and recommendations for using additive manufacturing (AM) in product design.
ISO/ASTM 52921: 2013 – Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing, Coordinate Systems and Test Methodologies – includes terms, definitions of terms, descriptions of terms, nomenclature, and acronyms associated with coordinate systems and testing methodologies for additive manufacturing (AM) technologies in an effort to standardize terminology used by AM users, producers, researchers, educators, press/media, and others, particularly when reporting results from testing of parts made on AM systems.
ASTM F3049 – 14 – Standard Guide for Characterizing Properties of Metal Powders Used for Additive Manufacturing Processes
ASTM F3122 – 14 – Standard Guide for Evaluating Mechanical Properties of Metal Materials Made via Additive Manufacturing Processes
AWS D20.1/D20.1M:2019 – American Welding Society Specification for Fabrication of Metal Components Using Additive Manufacturing – This specification provides the general requirements for fabrication of metal components using additive manufacturing. It provides guidance for the interaction between the Engineer and the Contractor. It includes the design, qualification, fabrication, inspection, and acceptance of additively manufactured components. A commentary for the specification is included.
DNVGL-ST-B203 – Additive Manufacturing of Metal Parts – This is the first Standard to provide an internationally accepted framework for producing and using high quality additively manufactured metal parts for the oil & gas, maritime and related industries. It introduces approaches to manage the quality of additively manufactured metal parts, with each approach adapted based on the criticality of a part’s function. This helps to ensure predictability in the supply chain, reducing lead time and cost.
FDA – Technical Considerations for Additive Manufactured Medical Devices – Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
Based on years of 3D measurement experience and market demand, SHINING 3D innovatively integrates blue LED light and blue laser into EinScan HX handheld 3D scanner. The hybrid laser and LED light sources make EinScan HX compatible with a wider range of object sizes, meeting multiple needs of users. High efficiency and reliable result give EinScan HX more application possibilities.
Hybrid Blue Laser & LED Light
Innovatively integrated with dual blue LED light and blue laser, improves scanning materials adaptability with less limitation for a wider range of applications. LED light scanning allows rapid 3D scanning. Laser scanning, which is less sensitive to ambient light, gives better performance to reflective and dark color surface.
The high resolution and accuracy meet the needs of most industrial applications for reverse engineering and measuring.
Minimum point distance 0.05 mm
Accuracy up to 0.04 mm under Laser Scan
Processing speed of EinScan HX under Rapid Scan Mode is up to1,200,000 points/s, and multiple blue laser lines under Laser Scan Mode makes scanning of most objects in minutes for reverse engineering, CAD/CAM, 3D printing and etc.
Portable & Easy Operation
EinScan HX is plug and play with user friendly software, which is easy to operate, no matter you are newbie or with professional experience in 3D scanning. The portability and flexibility use of EinScan HX has been considered to its ergonomic design for a more efficient and comfortable scanning experience.
With built-in color camera, it supports
full color texture capturing and tracking by texture.
EinScan HX Reverse Engineering Design Bundle
A hybrid light source 3D scanner with reverse engineering and CAD capabilities.
Exhaust pipes are an auto component few of us ever think about…until a faulty one wakes up the neighborhood!
Despite it’s low profile, the exhaust pipe is an important part of vehicle performance. It not only dampens engine noise, but the flow of gases emitted from the vehicle also affects overall vehicle performance. Traditional design and production process for mufflers requires the formation of components that must be soldered together through a variety of steps. The need for soldering requires a relatively simple design. The automotive industry must create hundreds of thousands of exhaust pipes every year, so design must bow to mass production.
The end result of simple exhaust pipe design is inefficient air flow and power loss. Engine operation is less efficient than might otherwise be possible.
Can the exhaust pipe be improved?
Absolutely. Customers wanting to enhance their vehicles by investing in performance muffler systems can absolutely do so…at a cost. That shouldn’t come as a surprise. However, more efficient exhaust pipe designs are correspondingly more complex and have proven too difficult and costly to produce in the numbers required.
Most mufflers are reactive, or reflective. That is to say, that they create backpressure to cancel out most of the sound created by the engine, and this is what causes performance loss. As you can see from the picture on the left, a typical exhaust pipe consists of four key components: the intake pipe, resonating chamber, perforated pipes and the outtake – exhaust – pipe. Gases are taken into the muffler via the intake pipe. Most of the engine sound is cancelled out in the resonating chamber before the gases are pushed out into the perforated pipes which deals with low frequency noise before final exhaust.
The less gases are forced to undergo directional changes (creating backpressure), the less the effect will be on performance. Thus if gases are allowed to free flow straight through a muffler, performance will be unimpeded.
The challenge and solution
The challenge is how to create a free-flow dissipative muffler that will still absorb as much sound as possible.
Working with a third party autoparts manufacturer, Shining 3D has successfully developed and customized a 3D printed auto exhaust pipe. As you have likely already guessed, the new device is created using additive manufacturing, which has allowed a more complex geometry to be introduced to the design.
1. First, Shining 3D designed a 3D model using Rhino (a professional design software). The internal structure of the new exhaust pipe would be optimized by 3D printing technology. It would be smaller but greatly increase operation efficiency.
2. Next, a prototype was created using SLA 3D printing technology. Shining 3D used the SLA-A line of 3D printers to accomplish this, and allowed for inexpensive, preliminary product testing and initial client feedback which would then result in more effective collaboration toward the end product.
3. Once the final design was decided, Shining 3D received approval and a product order. Production of the final print using stainless steel, was achieved using the EP-M250 printers.
How is it different from the one in your vehicle?
1. It has a more powerful acoustic wave. If that description sounds cool, so does the result. Because its structural design has been optimized, the new exhaust pipe is much more powerful than conventional models — and you can hear it.
2. It weighs less. By about 67%.
3. It has a power guarantee. When a vehicle is operating at high speeds, if the exhaust pipe cannot fully emit the exhaust gas, the engine’s power output decreases. However, the new 3D printed model efficiently channels exhaust outside the vehicle. Engine power is maximized.
This new exhaust pipe design already has proven so successful that Ford Motor Company intends to install it in the Mustang for trial assembly. The sales order was thereby expedited and Ford Motor Company could receive delivery of the exhaust pipes sooner.
It’s not just purr. It’s power, baby, and the exhaust pipe of the future.
Score another win for additive manufacturing and Shining 3D!
What do all of the companies to the left have in common?
All have integrated additive manufacturing into their business operations!
Of course these are large corporations, but an increasing number of sole proprietorships are coming to appreciate the advantages additive manufacturing offers them. Certainly, this technology is a boon to the auto and airplane maker, but not less so to the local plumber down the street.
No matter what your business produces, no matter how large or small your organization, additive manufacturing can streamline your processes and save you money.
Why is this?
BENEFITS OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING (AM)
Additive manufacturing (AM) is an innovation in manufacturing processes that mitigates existing production and product development trade-offs. The result? Reduced capital is required to affect scale and scope of production.
Less capital is required to achieve economies of scale.
Barriers to entry into a given product market are lowered.
Return on investment is maximized.
Greater production flexibility and product customization is available per unit of capital.
Marketplace differentiation is maximized.
That’s the big picture!
More specifically, here are some of the ways AM can impact producers:
AM streamlines scheduling efficiencies
Rapid prototyping: Traditionally, prototype development involves custom tooling, coordination with external suppliers, and multiple hand-offs. Along with the delays, there is risk of miscommunication. AM largely eliminates these delays and risks.
Rapid design iteration: Reworking of a design ordinarily involves substantial effort and time since the production process must start again from the beginning. AM allows for seamless prototype creation and expedites design iteration.
Strategic alignment: 3D printing new product designs not only enables technical validation, but also accelerates your organization’s alignment on that new design—a key success factor, but often overlooked.
AM reduces costs
Less need for outsourcing: Traditional manufacturing methods (including creating manufacturing prints and layouts, programming CNC machines, and designing tooling) have historically defined the cost structure. However, with AM, prototypes can now be created inexpensively and in-house, without need for change orders.
Material reduction: Elimination of scrap and tooling often offset the higher per-volume costs of raw materials. AM can therefore dramatically reduce a prototype’s total material cost.
AM enhances product
Iterative design: Accelerated prototyping means more design and review cycles during product development.
Designer empowerment: Faster and cheaper prototyping reduces barriers to testing new product concepts. This cultivates innovation.
Stakeholder input: Because AM allows in-house product development, stakeholders inside and outside the company can more easily discourse with the designer and each other.
Market responsiveness: Producers can respond faster to market and customer demands, fix design flaws, and counter the competition.
AM simplifies manufacturing
Improved part characteristics: A design’s geometric complexity can be improved without great expense. In-house designers can incorporate complex curvatures, nonstandard and varying wall thicknesses, and low-density volumetric filling easily and inexpensively.
Customer-specific product creation: Product iterations can be made-to-order for a given customer.
Decreased system complexity:Components that previously needed assembly can often be 3D printed as a single unit — reducing system complexity and enhancing quality.
Nontraditional sources of design information: As product designs become increasingly digitized, opportunities for reverse engineering increase.
AM Reduces Constraints
Production location: Design and manufacturing can now happen virtually anywhere. Companies can dramatically reduce the cost and logistics of moving products from manufacturing locations to end users.
Tooling constraints: Product design is no longer constrained by mold and tooling requirements. The design process is now accessible and there is headway for invention.
Batch size: A truly single-unit minimum batch size allows on-the-spot production of short-run components as users wear them down in the field or imagine ways to customize them.
Waste: Material waste is minimized as designers and manufacturers find ways to complete tasks with less material and energy, and as AM components replace tooled parts.
It’s an impressive list, isn’t it?
With such a vast array of benefits, you might be asking yourself how and where AM would fit within your organization.
The introduction and effective use of of a new process is not merely a matter of an equipment purchase. i3D can walk you though a Seven-Step Assessment to help determine where additive manufacturing can best fit in your organization. We will help you maximize its benefits within your organization so you can chart a path to the future.
3D Printing for Healthcare: Advantages & Cautionary Notes
You don’t need to be a news junkie to know the background.
On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic. Within days, country after country came face to face with the stark reality that it was completely unprepared for the task ahead. The global shortage of medical supplies and personal protection equipment (PPE) continues to make headlines as governments scramble to obtain desperately needed equipment. Reactions from various countries have ranged from extreme rationing to assignment of emergency powers.
Among the too-few positive news items of this new era is the staggering philanthropic response of the global 3D printing community. Within days, if not hours, designers had uploaded digital files of 3D-printable PPE; much of this is free and available to anyone with a 3D printer and a desire to help. Some of the more popular designs (the Prusa face shield, for example, or the Copper 3D Nanohack mask) have seen thousands of downloads, and hundreds of thousands of prints and donations to regional health authorities.
Some of the most powerful benefits of additive manufacturing are now on full display. One current example illustrates this especially well: The American government contracted a 3D printing company to deliver 1,000 specially designed clips for disinfectant spray carriers. Originally these components had been injection-molded, but they had been rendered obsolete by the original manufacturer and medical authorities urgently needed an alternative. Within 48 hours, new clips were designed, approved, produced and post-processed at a final cost approaching only $1.00/component.
The technology is indeed revolutionary in its capacity to meet urgent demands such as those medical facilities now face. But yes, there are drawbacks to the application of additive manufacturing to health care needs in the current crisis. It is precisely because the technology is so new and not widely understood that it can sometimes be used to create products that are actually poorly suited to their intended use.
At i3D, we applaud all those pitching in to help. We do however believe a few cautionary notes are in order, and they pertain to guidelines and standards.
In the first weeks of the pandemic, most of the designs produced and made available over the internet were created with little to no oversight from (or even consultation with) the medical community. Obviously medical authorities need to be certain that donated items will perform to medical standards for design. In a healthcare setting, not just any face mask design will do.
Suitable design is not the only consideration, however. Material must also be relevant to the end use setting and needs. For example, the vast majority of 3D-printed PPE was produced by enthusiastic members of the 3D printing community in the most commonly available FDM polymers: polylactic acid (PLA) and polyethylene terephthalate (PET). However, these polymers cannot be subjected to many widely used sterilization protocols in clinical settings. (This is only very recently changing, as we discuss HERE.) Consequently, healthcare institutions have been understandably reticent to accept some PPE donations. Those that were accepted by medical institutions were mostly designated single-use plastics. (Recyclable of course. But.)
So knowing healthcare requirements for these prints is essential. This will allow us, as a community, to provide materials that are truly effective in the fight against COVID-19 — and truly beneficial to frontline workers.
3D Printing and the Supply Chain Concern
The most current news of the hour is the potential jeopardy of value and supply chains and how that may threaten the way we live and do business for months to come.
In this context, the value of integrating additive and digital manufacturing technologies is now in sharp focus. Digital manufacturing refers to automated manufacturing and can include any CNC device including lathes, cutters, breaks, etc. (Additive manufacturing, 3D printing, is a sub-category of digital manufacturing. For a short primer of the additive process, click here.)
Can additive manufacturing help resolve supply chain concerns?
Without a doubt.
Let’s look at how the unique benefits of 3D printing can be part of the solution.
Efficient Supply Chains
Additive manufacturing gives us‘Just-in-Time’ production in the most literal sense. Production of key components can be localized, and delivery can be just hours or days away. Moreover, digital manufacturing can reduce costs connected to overstocking and associated risk as suppliers gain better insight into supply chain issues (e.g. inventory levels, delivery status and demand cycles).
Digital storage and transmission of design files for parts, components and products allows for production WHEN needed, WHERE needed. (The Prusa face shield, for example, was developed in Czechoslovakia, but they are being printed all over the world.)
Similarly, parts suppliers in remote locations (such as Fort McMurray, AB, or Juneau, AK, or smaller islands, for example), can literally download an approved file and have the part(s) ready to deliver within hours.
No storage, no shipping. Reduced overhead and reduced wait. That can spell relief in times of crisis.
Design collaboration and improvement is simplified and faster.
An example: the Nanohack mask.
Within days of the pandemic being officially declared, Copper 3D released the Nanohack 1.0 mask. The Nanohack design adopted an innovative means of blending the benefits of Copper 3D’s core strength – its unique antibacterial filament – with the properties of the base polymer, in this case PLA. The design could be printed flat on a build plate, and then thermoformed with relative ease to fit the wearer’s face. A great start! But over the following days, some limitations became apparent (mostly the difficulty achieving proper sealing and of insufficient airflow with the lone vent). Feedback from the medical community and other 3D designers quickly birthed the Nanohack 2.0, a considerable improvement over the first iteration.
In addition to human feedback and input into the design process, digital manufacturing also allows for predictive analytics, machine learning, connectivity and 3D modeling. All invaluable tools in a continuous cycle of development and innovation.
Automated, cloud-based solutions streamline processes and improve product quality. Analytics are more accessible, reducing costly rework and downtime. Detailed product representations are possible, performance monitoring is simplified and delivery to the market is expedited.
Efficient Use of Resources
The additive manufacturing process is inherently ‘lean’ and ‘green’. Incrementally building a part ‘up and out’ – layer by layer – ensures that only the right amount of material is used. This stands in stark contrast to subtractive manufacturing processes which generally result in a fair amount of waste. A CNC lathe making a spindle or a gun barrel creates a mound of waste metal chips (“swarf”; our word for the day!) These chips are not easily recyclable as they are contaminated with cutting fluid and often cross-contaminated with other metals.
A Call to Action…
Additive manufacturing is beginning to flex its muscles. The days of watching multi-hour FDM prints and questioning reliability and production capacity are fading fast, and are being instead replaced with ‘what’ and ‘how many?’
In order to unleash the full potential of additive manufacturing however, industry and use-specific standards must be developed. When additive manufacturing is used simply for prototyping or non-functional components, designers are free to use whatever settings and materials they deem most suitable. However, where additive manufacturing is producing functional end-use components, industry standards are needed to ensure safety and performance. Organizations such as ASTM, ASME and the FDA have done significant work already in standards development for additive manufacturing. However the sheer breadth of applications for additive technologies, the seemingly constant addition of new methods and new materials all present moving targets.
Is your business looking to create end-use products for health care institutions or otherwise? It will be worthwhile to invest a little time researching needs. Identify any industry standards that may already be in place and go on to ensure that materials and design meet the needs of the end-user and the governing body’s requirements.
Can you see the potential for additive manufacturing to step up to the plate to address the risk to your own supply chain? We’d love to talk with you about how your business or organization can boost efficiency by integrating additive manufacturing into your operations.
Perhaps more than ever before, those of us who are not medically trained are coming to understand the necessity of disinfecting high-use items in order to prevent the rampant spread of viruses.
Clinical sterilization is even more critical in the maintenance of medical implements. Clinical sterilization processes must eliminate, remove, kill, or deactivate ALL forms of microorganisms and biological agents from medical tools and devices (including fungi, bacteria, viruses, spores, unicellular eukaryotic organisms and prions). There are a number of physical and chemical processes used in health care facilities to achieve sterilization: pressurized steam, dry heat, ethylene oxide gas, hydrogen peroxide gas plasma, and chemical solutions.
Items printed in common polymers like PLA and PETG simply cannot withstand traditional clinical sterilization processes.
Until now, this has rendered them at best into disposable one-use items and severely limited the utility of 3D printed medical components. (Note: It should be said that if you print a mask using one of these filaments using the 3D printer in your basement, you can use warm water and soap to disinfect it fairly effectively between uses. But boiling or bleaching may damage the integrity of the mask. And of course, hospitals have far more stringent sterilization requirements.)
The good news is that a new sterilization protocol may allow personal protection equipment (PPE) for medical personnel, and medical devices made with these filaments, to achieve clinical sterilization. Advanced Sterilization Processes (ASP) , in collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has developed a the new protocol for their STERRAD® Sterilizers. The STERRAD System uses hydrogen peroxide gas (H2O2) at relatively low temperature settings (only 50 degrees Celsius) to achieve sterilization. This allows implements made with polylactic acid (PLA) and polyethylene (PET) to be sterilized effectively. Both materials are resistant to H2O2, and have a glass transition points in excess of 50 degrees and so are not adversely affected by high temperatures.
It is no exaggeration to say that this could be a game-changer. Specialty filaments are now not necessarily required. The result? It is now faster, easier and cheaper for medical institutions and others to mass-produce PPE that can be used and re-used.
An electric race car with 3D printed components. [Slow whistle.]
This story began when SHINING 3D provided its state-of-the-art SLM 3D printing technology to students at a leading research university in China — the Harbin Institute of Technology. SHINING 3D has developed a growing expertise in automotive 3D printing, so their staff worked closely with a student team to produce an electric race car for the 2018 Student’s Formula Electric China. It won third place.
One of the 3D printed components designed specifically for this race car was the radiator.
Defining the Challenge
The smooth functioning of the radiator is critical to the operation of the engine and affects vehicle longevity.
Even an electric engine generates a lot of heat – heat that if unchecked can cause premature wear or cause components to seize, crack or melt. In modern vehicles, the radiator is made of aluminum and located at the front of the engine compartment right behind the grill. This affords it the greatest access to air flow and enables it to disperse heat efficiently.
But traditional radiator design creates many little problems even as it attempts to solve the larger problem. The radiator core is fabricated by welding hundreds of thin aluminum fins to flattened aluminum tubes. A typical radiator actually has 10 to 15 fins per square inch! The coolant flows from the radiator inlet, through the aluminum tubes, to the outlet at the lower point of the radiator. During this process, the fins conduct the heat through the tubes to the air flowing through the radiator.
So a radiator is comprised of many individual parts fashioned together — hundreds of fins, many tubes and MANY soldered or welded intersections among them. With so many joints, it is not surprising that a common reason for radiator failure is corrosion of these joints. When the joints begin to fail, radiator fluid leaks and the radiator no longer functions as intended. If not quickly replaced, engine failure is the result.
Back to the race car.
The demands on a race car’s engine mean the integrity and efficiency of its cooling system are absolutely vital to its performance. Radiator redesign was therefore a strategic target as the original had been produced by conventional methods and had many welded components.
SHINING 3D recommended the student team consider 3D printing a metal radiator. This would allow for an integrated design to eliminate leakage concerns. The students agreed and together they and the SHINING 3D engineers spent many hours working on and optimizing the prototype. Many factors came into play.
The team decided that in order to protect the engine, the new radiators must not permit the coolant to exceed 48°C. With that as a starting point, it was calculated that the radiators must have the capacity to vent 12 kW.
Among the variables considered in the redesign were,
the reserved heat dissipation coefficient
the logarithmic mean temperature difference between the hot and cold feeds
water scale and oil pollution
allowance for ambient heat dissipation
a requirement that the dissipation area remain tight at 2.5 meters
With these variables and requirements in mind, the students and engineers set themselves to redesign the radiator. It was an exciting process. Additive manufacturing technology allowed the designers great latitude and offered a tight turnaround.
When the design was complete, the new radiator prototypes were printed out of aluminum alloy. The SHINING 3D EP-M250 SLM printer was chosen because of its large 200 mm x 250 mm x 300 mm build volume.
After post-treatment (heat treatment and sand blasting), the radiator prototype was installed and testing began.
Success! Test results demonstrated that the new design reduced coolant temperature by about 10°C compared to the original used in previous races. A very significant improvement in heat dissipation.
Of course a cooling system involves more than the radiator. Additional improvements were made to the car’s cooling system when SHINING 3D successfully created motor cooling water jackets and condenser parts.
This story was about a new cooling system for a pretty sweet race car. But the real story is that metal 3D printing opens up new frontiers for auto design, and its advantages are not restricted to high end or specialty vehicles. More conventional auto manufacturers also stand to benefit from the low cost, high efficiency and high quality improvements possible with metal 3D printing.
So while we cannot all anticipate a waving checkered flag in our future, quite likely one of your next vehicles will sport high-tech 3D printed auto parts. Maybe even a new radiator design!
Don’t get too revved up though. Quite likely the local police department’s fleet will also.
Reverse engineering is one of the most common applications for 3D scanning and printing.
We are now at the point where we can even reverse engineering parts of the human body. This is possible because 3D scanners capture organic and inorganic shapes alike; they expedite CAD design and are the ideal tool for prosthetics development. 3D scanners have also opened the door to previously unrealized degrees of customization in prosthetic solutions. The fit and form of a good prosthetic makes it more comfortable and consequently, more useful to the wearer and an aesthetically accurate prosthetic limb increases confidence.
High degrees of accuracy and customization are more accessible than ever before with the EinScan Pro and Pro 2X line of handheld 3D scanners and the SHINING 3D industrial 3D printers. The handheld capability of the scanners allows them to scan even car-size objects with ease. The EinScan Pro 2X Plus can scan a human leg in a matter of seconds and the captured scan data can be processed, customized, and 3D printed faster than has ever been possible.
Below is an example of how easy the process can be.
The process begins by taking a 3D scan of a patient’s current prosthetic leg, which can take a matter of seconds using the EinScan Pro+ Handheld Rapid Scan mode.
A separate scan of the patient’s other leg is taken as a reference. This gives us an accurate representation of the overall size and form of the patient’s leg.
Note that the goal is to make the prosthetic shell as close to the natural leg as possible. The collected scan data is accurate enough to allow for the creation of a customized prosthetic shell.
Once the data is captured and the scan completed, the file is exported directly into Geomagic Essentials.
3D System’s Geomagic Essentials is the ideal bridge for 3D scan to design solutions. Working with organic shapes in CAD environments can prove to be a difficult task for even very skilled CAD designers, but the tools provided in Essentials allow your scans to seamlessly transition into your native CAD platform.
First, the scan data from the prosthetic is imported into Essentials where the data can be processed and cleaned up.
Coordinates are assigned onto the 3D mode, making it easier to reverse engineer. The contours and overall shape and geometry of the piece are extracted and defined using the available tools.
Solid Edge is a professional CAD software that allows for the reverse engineering of 3D scans. The software allows both scans to be imported directly. The prosthetic is used as the mechanical part of the CAD model while the scan of the leg is used as the reference for the shell around the prosthetic. The design and shape of the shell is customized using the scan from the patient’s leg.
As you can see, the EinScan Pro line of handheld 3D scanners makes 3D scanning for medical applications more accessible than it has ever been.
SHINING 3D’s RED Bundle provides everything necessary for complete 3D Scan to Design solutions and industrial grade 3D printers like the EP-P3850 bring to these designs to life with amazing precision.
Customization has never been more accessible.
SHINING 3D brings you the complete 3D Scan-Design- 3D Print solution. For more information on pricing, specifications, or availability please contact your local sales rep at email@example.com or 800-659-2670.