Navigating the dynamic landscape of 3D printing

The 3D printing industry is continuously developing in a very dynamic manner. This is due to the competition between different 3D processes and the technical progress being made in machine and process technology. Dr.-Ing. Vincent Morrison, CEO of AIM3D GmbH in Rostock, sheds light on these rapid advancements and the evolving market dynamics.

In this interview, Dr. Morrison delves deeper into these trends, offering insights into how AIM3D GmbH is navigating the challenges and opportunities within the rapidly evolving 3D printing industry.

Would you say that AM strategies are currently becoming established in the industry?

Morrison: After more than 20 years of development, 3D printing has evolved from a prototyping strategy (rapid prototyping) to a small to medium series strategy. The reasons for this are primarily the increasing build rates and improved precision. The high speeds combined with increased precision result in an increasingly better competitiveness with respect to conventional processes. AM now complements the range of established processes. Many tier 1 and tier 2 industry suppliers have now developed a good understanding of the capabilities and limitations of AM processes. In addition, research institutes, universities and companies specialising in start-up support are assisting users who are new to the AM world or are optimising their processes. Expert knowledge enables a faster entry into the market, but also shortens the time-to-market cycle.

How are AM strategies being driven in academia?

Morrison: One example among many is scientist Faye Mills from the Manufacturing Technology Centre (MTC), a non-academic research institution in Coventry (UK). The MTC works with industrial customers to bridge the gap between new manufacturing strategies and specific applications. Faye Mills uses our CEM system for end-customer projects to test new materials in the metal sector, to develop component design guidelines, and to optimise sintering cycles in an application-oriented manner. There are a variety of such facilities in many countries.

How far has the establishment of 3D printing processes progressed so far?

Morrison: We are in a new lifecycle phase of 3D printing. Nowadays, industry and research have the industrial know-how to avoid support structures and the right methods to perform a cost-effective post-processing of the parts. Therefore, AM has increasingly become one of many process steps within the production chain and is no longer seen as the only process step. The keyword here is the integrated, digital 3D process chain. The industry has also succeeded in transferring this knowledge from the process and prototype level to the design phase and in the communication with end customers. At the same time, we also need to evaluate the unique strengths of an additive strategy, such as tool-less manufacturing, geometrical freedom, bionic designs or production on demand, to mention just a few keywords. In the future, keeping 3D technology in mind already during the design phase will lead to innovative component designs that break free from the constraints of conventional manufacturing strategies. This is where undreamed-of and numerous potentials still lie to be leveraged today. The state of the art in 3D printing is a very dynamic factor. We are currently seeing a competition between various processes due to the advancements made in systems technology.

What development do you see through the use of marketable granulates when it comes to plastics and metals?

Morrison: With the help of pellet 3D printers, companies can develop their prototypes from scratch to production readiness using identical, commercially available materials and machines. The new generation of industrial pellet material extrusion (MEX) printing systems is the key to this. They not only close the development loop from prototype to series for polymers for the first time in the AM industry, but also enable the growth of AM series production volumes in the future.

What advantages do you see for granulate-based 3D printers?

Morrison: In terms of the printing process, pellet MEX printers are very similar to the well-known filament MEX/FFF process. For this reason, they can be quickly adapted to the respective industries. In addition, pellet printers will not only reduce unit costs, but will expand the number of available polymer materials in the AM world from several 100 to over 10,000. Furthermore, many of these printers can use two or three materials at the same time during one print job, so they are multi-component capable. For example, a part made of polyamide-6 with 50% glass fibre (PA6-50GF) and a TPE seal can be printed absolutely economically and competitively using a soluble carrier material. The options offered by this system technology also enable process combinations with hybrid components, where one component is manufactured in a conventional manner and a second component is printed. This results in many perfect solutions for almost any industrial application.

What is your assessment on the future market development?

Morrison: The CEM process (Composite Extrusion Modelling) and pellet 3D printing with a multi-material printer result in the user being able to choose from a wide range of materials at high printing performance. The cost-effectiveness results particularly from the possibility of processing conventional polymer granulates instead of filaments. The dimensions in relation to an exemplary component are: a) printing speed (for example PA6 GF30: filament: 50 mm/s vs. granulates: 500 mm/s, that is, approx. a factor of 10) and above all b) material price (filament: 200 EUR/kg vs. granulates: 10 EUR/kg, that is, approx. a factor of 20). Both dimensions, or rather relations, explain the potential of economic efficiency in a MEX approach. The current machine and equipment technology in 3D pellet printing leads to good mechanical performance, high gas and media tightness at low wall thicknesses and good electrical insulation. These properties are confirmed by tier 1 suppliers from the automotive and aerospace industries. Therefore, an above-average mid-term market growth of the MEX market segment is to be expected.

What are the key technical challenges of the 3D printer market in the medium to long term?

Morrison: The first and central challenge is optimising scrap rates. Despite the high recycling rates in material extrusion and powder bed fusion processes, additive manufacturing (AM) still faces higher scrap rates compared to conventional production methods. This results in lost processing time and energy. To compete with traditional methods, AM must reduce scrap rates to below 2%, aligning with the current 2-2.5% rates in automotive and aerospace sectors. Reducing these rates is crucial, especially given the higher unit costs of AM compared to injection molding.

The second challenge is the high number of process parameters that need continuous monitoring during printing. Traditional in-process part inspections with laser sensors are too slow for the dynamic build process. Therefore, machine and equipment suppliers must innovate in process control. Current approaches include high-performance PLCs, new sensor technologies, and complex AI neural process controls to manage the vast amounts of process data.

Addressing these challenges requires significant effort from the AM industry. The extent to which these issues are resolved will ultimately determine the technical potential and profitability of AM manufacturing strategies.

Source: Guido Radig, Provvido PR & Communications