Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
http://www.designnews.com/article/7233Rapid_Manufacturing_s_Role_in_the_Fact
ory_of_the_Future.php
Rapid prototyping machines and materials are evolving into “direct digital” manufacturing systems that produce
production parts right from CAD files
Greg Morris doesn’t spend much time wondering about the factory of the future. He already runs it.
His company, Morris Technologies, specializes in tough-to-manufacture metal components for aerospace, medical
and industrial applications. At first glance, Morris seems to operate a conventional machine shop full of high-end
CNC machines. Next to the machine tools, though, Morris quietly runs a bank of EOSdirect metal laser-sintering
(DMLS) machines, which build up parts from successive layers of fused metal powder.
With six machines, Morris has the world’s highest concentration of DMLS capacity. And he has been using those
machines not just to make prototypes but also to turn out production parts. It’s a practice that goes by many
names — including rapid manufacturing, direct digital manufacturing, solid freeform fabrication and low-volume-
layered manufacturing. All of the names refer to the use of additive fabrication technologies, which were initially
intended for prototyping, to make finished goods, instead. Morris believes additive fabrication systems will soon
occupy an increasingly prominent space on our shop floors. “We’re on the verge of a revolution in how things are
made,” he says.
He’s not the only one on the front lines of that revolution. Boeing, for example, has made extensive use of rapid
prototyping machines to produce parts, tooling and manufacturing aids for the F18 and other military aircraft.
“We’ve just touched the tip of the digital manufacturing iceberg,” says Jeff De Grange, an engineering manager
with Boeing's Phantom Works. Direct digital manufacturing has also become standard practice in the hearing aid
industry. “Literally millions of hearing aid shells have been produced on our stereo lithography systems,” says Abe
Reichental, CEO of 3D Systems.
Other less prominent users have jumped on the digital manufacturing bandwagon, too. Terry Wohlers, an analyst
who publishes an annual report on the state of the rapid prototyping industry, estimates nearly 12 percent of the
additive fabrication users now derive some of their revenue from manufacturing. In 2003, that figure was just 3.7
percent. “Rapid manufacturing is a hot topic right now,” he says.
It may soon get a lot hotter. A handful of additive fabrication technologies are already poised to make the jump
from prototyping and one-off jobs to full-fledged manufacturing. But before the additive technologies can gain
wide acceptance in manufacturing environments — and win over design engineers — they will have to overcome
significant technical barriers.
Material Shortcomings
The biggest barrier in the coming years relates to materials. Conventional wisdom holds that the additive parts
simply don’t measure up to their molded, machined and cast counterparts when it comes to tensile and other
mechanical properties.
And in the case of additive plastics systems, there’s some truth to that wisdom. “The difference in properties
varies with the type of machine, the specific material and even the orientation of the part on the build platform,”
says Tim Gornet, manager of operations for the University of Louisville's Rapid Prototyping Center. In general,
though, he believes the laser-cured photopolymers used on SLA machines have tensile and impact properties
best suited to no-load or light-load applications. Thermoplastic additive materials, such as those used by
Stratasys' fused deposition modeling or 3D Systems’ selective laser sintering systems, close the gap with molded
plastic properties to some degree. But a gap in properties typically remains. “We never tell anyone that our
materials are a one-to-one replacement for molded plastics. We do say we get close,” says Fred Fischer, product
manager for Stratasys’ fused deposition modeling systems, which build up parts from layers of extruded
thermoplastics. With ABS, for example, Fischer says the FDM part is typically within 70 to 80 percent of the
molded properties. Other data shows a wider properties gap. With additive metals processes, by contrast, there’s
growing evidence properties don’t really suffer compared to casting. Morris says his aerospace and medical
customers have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on mechanical property testing as part of their efforts to
qualify the DMLS process for their applications. The results are confidential, but Morris does report that the
process’ tensile properties — ultimate tensile strength, yield strength and elongation — are very similar to wrought
properties and “better than casting in many cases.” The same goes for fatigue properties, he says.
Another material issue involves freedom of choice. With additive technologies, engineers currently have to settle
for a limited materials line-up. As Morris puts it, “There are hundreds if not thousands of alloys for casting and
machining. DMLS currently has four.” That lineup consists of cobalt chrome, 17-4 stainless, a bronze alloy and a
new maraging tool steel. EOS users have also been beta testing a titanium alloy that should be ready to go in a
few months. Arcam, makers of a powder-metal system that uses an electron beam to melt the build material,
likewise has a limited materials line-up that currently consists of two titanium alloys and cobalt chrome.
Or consider there are tens of thousands of commercial thermoplastic grades available today, but only a few dozen
grades of thermoplastics and photopolymers are available for additive plastic systems. The material choice
limitations won’t necessarily cause any difficulties in applications that rely on common plastics. Additive machines,
for example, are capable of running variants of nylon, ABS, polypropylene and other common thermoplastics.
“Where you start to notice the difference is in the speciality materials,” Gornet says, citing the lack of flame-
retardant, conductive, impact-modified, glass-filled and high-temperature grades in the additive fabrication world.
“We’ll need a much broader menu of materials for these machines to become more widely adopted,” he says.
Design Data Needed
A persistent lack of design data presents another barrier to the adoption of direct digital manufacturing. As Gornet
explains, it’s not so much that current prototyping materials have some shortcomings as the fact engineers have
no way of knowing exactly what those shortcomings are. “There’s burning need for design allowables,” Gornet
says. He and other prototyping experts cite a lack of long-term creep and environmental data for additive plastic
parts and fatigue data for metals as the most glaring examples of this data deficiency.
Ronald L. Hollis, president and CEO of Quickparts, believes the lack of design data makes it easy to overlook the
fact additive fabrication systems already can and do turn out parts whose properties are good enough for many
applications — even if they don’t exactly match the properties of a conventional manufacturing method. “It all
depends on how you want to use the part,” he says. Even though the print may specify an ABS, an SLA
photopolymer or selective laser sintered (SLS) nylon may still do the trick. “A prototyping material may very well
satisfy the application requirements, but engineers will need access to more data to know whether that’s the
case,” Hollis says.
Rapid manufacturing observers expect more and more data will become available as direct digital manufacturing
becomes more popular. In the meantime, large OEMs with stringent manufacturing requirements have worked to
develop their own property data. Morris says his larger customers have started this process. Boeing has likewise
conducted extensive mechanical testing to support its work with direct digital manufacturing, according to Brian
Hastings, a materials and process engineer responsible for the aerospace company’s SLS machines.
Stratasys will, in the next few months, make its mechanical property data, accuracy specs and testing protocols
public on its website. According to Fischer, inconsistencies in how different companies test their additive parts
create “an enormous range” in properties. “We want to take a leadership position in standardizing how some of
this data is developed,” he says.