My key takeaways on Additive Manufacturing for the year 2021
We’re nearing the end of 2021, or in another word — The 2nd year of the Covid-19 pandemic. As the world is heading towards endemic, the manufacturing scene is too, slowly heading back to pre-pandemic times.
Even so, the developments of the AM scene has not waivered in it’s pursuant for development and adoption. Slowly but surely, the topic of AM is no longer a means of replacement for conventional manufacturing. Nor is it just exploring AM as prototyping to the conversion of production.
Events such as AMTC2021, one of the biggest AM C-level international conference, the conversations are now towards topics in Industrialization for AM.
Find out more here: AMTC | AM Technology Conference
In this article, I’ll share my 2 key takeaways on what I think are the big focuses of Industrialization for AM.
1. AM is now going into modularization.
In the past when AM wasn’t standardized into the 7 types, AM OEMs used to customize their AM technologies to fit certain customers and their specific industrial needs. Nowadays, the focus of innovations for these AM technologies are looking at enabling suitable modules to fit different industrial needs. An example would be an OEM targeting large parts for Oil & Gas customers by productizing their PB-F machine into a large format printer. Largely, there are some of the module options from OEMs:
a. Machine Type / AM Technology
b. Size of machine
c. Material selection
d. Software selection
Apart of this, AM practitioners have begun to look at modularization in terms of upgrading and retrofitting. This also includes the ability to fit AM into a company’s automation systems and/or transportation systems. Some OEMs such as SLM Solutions has even begun looking at trade-in programs. Mainly, people are no longer looking at huge innovation drives, but rather small burst of innovation cycles to create robustness and reliability.
2. War on Standardization.
Standards are key to push the industrialization of AM. This is especially useful for newbies in the industry. Even having standards for digitalization of AM (DIN NA14504) is critical for safety and interchangeable protocols between different AM machines, just think of the use of G-Code in all CNC machining.
Unfortunately, there are too many Standards in the industry for a single process type.
I.E. Assurance in the additive manufacturing world | LR Singapore
Imagine this: In a workshop, there’s an AM machine available, but the data set prepared earlier was optimized for another machine therefore can’t be used. In Japan, the workaround for companies tend to force a ‘One Part-One Machine’ workflow, hence no data set switching issue.
Additionally, some companies withhold information of parameters like powder composition, not even to their operators. This makes it even harder to establish material-to-part Standards even for a similar part in the industry.
An important point to make is that a Standard should be an overarching basis for assurance for customers, that so long a manufacturing service bureau follows this standard, they are assured the minimal quality is met. Basically, everyone has their own philosophy, but the Standard is like the minimum requirement that everyone should abide. Therefore an example would be that for a certain printing of a part, every AM bureau will have their own definition of “Best solution” and then it’s up to the customer to decide what is best for their own product.
“Think of the Standard like the law set by the Ministry of Manpower (MoM) and every company will have to abide this law.”
This brings to a ‘political’ issue — what if there are many different “MoMs from different countries”? Therefore, who set the standards — TÜV SÜD, BSI NIST, ISO, ASTM, DIN, CEN? Even standards for AM from different industries are being established such the Aerospace by Nadcap or ASD-STAN, Mobility by SAE international, Oil & Gas Industry by American Petroleum Institute (API) standards.
Therefore, is it an unfortunate situation of controlling the market based on individual constraints?
The good news is that standards institution such as TÜV SÜD has a German expert that converts DIN to ISO and then ASTM. Or the other way round — From ASTM or ANSI to ISO. Basically think of the conversion between metric and imperial.
Currently there are some consolidated standard for AM such as ASTM F42 and ISO — ISO/TC 261 — Additive manufacturing that is supported by DIN. More companies realize that joining in on this standards allow them to be more competitive, especially if standards are being drafted based on their contribution and knowledge of AM. This healthy sharing of IP will definitely grow the industrialization of AM, with a current number of 20 standards within TC 261 to 50 standards in the next few years.
What about areas of standards AM should focus on examples like Design, Build, Material, Post-Processing, or Setup/Safety? I’ll discuss more on this in another article.
Conclusion
The world has closed up for the last 2 years to heal. With reduced trades between countries, industries looked towards their local manufacturers to continue the flow of their own economy. Thankfully, in this smart, digital world we are living in, has enabled the continual development of AM and with the good sharing of knowledge from all over the world such as AMTC2021, AM industrialization continues to grow.
