State of 3D Printing. Survey Results. A review of 3D Printing in southeastern Wisconsin

Transcription

1 State of 3D Printing Survey Results A review of 3D Printing in southeastern Wisconsin

2 Introduction In December of 2017, Big Systems conducted an online survey entitled The State of 3D Printing in Southeastern Wisconsin. Its purpose is to help local manufacturers benchmark their progress with this game-changing set of technologies against their peers. It explores: Specific additive manufacturing technologies that manufacturers are using today, Top priorities for 3D printing during the next year to year-and-a-half, The benefits of 3D printed parts, Local manufacturers current applications of 3D printing, Their estimated 2018 budgets for 3D printing, Their current use of service bureaus, and The extent to which 3D printing represents a competitive advantage. Executive Summary Nearly 80% of the manufacturers surveyed believe 3D printing represents a competitive advantage. Almost two-thirds of them are already using it to produce prototype parts. Presentation models are the next most popular application, followed closely by jigs and fixtures. In addition, just over 50% of the manufacturers surveyed cited accelerating product development as one of their highest priorities for Reducing tooling costs by 3D printing molds will also be a big area of focus, according to just over one-third of manufacturers. This use case is quite compelling: Machined tools are time consuming and costly to produce. In just days or even hours, you can 3D print patterns, molds, or tool masters directly from CAD data, saving manufacturers significant amounts of time and money. Survey respondents also gave high marks to producing complex part designs that cannot be made using conventional machining and milling methods. Nearly two-thirds of respondents cited it as an area of high interest. This survey also revealed that a significant number of local manufacturers are experimenting with 3D printing, but are taking a careful, measured approach to investing in it. Just over one-third of respondents said their budget for 3D printing will remain the same in 2018 as it was in One in five plan to increase their spend during the next year. What does this mean? If your company sees the potential of 3D printing and invests in it aggressively, you should be able to gain a significant competitive advantage over your conservative, risk-averse peers.

3 1. What are you doing with 3D printing in-house now? Results were evenly split: 48.7% of respondents said they re not doing any 3D printing in-house, while 47.9% are currently doing 3D plastic or resin printing. Only 3.4% are currently doing metal printing not surprising, because it requires a greater investment and more support infrastructure. Finally, 2.5% are doing plastic and metal printing. The most likely scenario is that they started to develop their expertise in 3D printing via a higher-end resin printer like FDM or SLA, and then expanded into metal printing when they realized that it s the key to manufacturing high-precision production parts. The good news is that lower-cost 3D printing options are coming to market in l We re not doing 3D printing in-house l 3D plastic/resin printing l 3D plastic and metal printing l 3D metal printing

4 2. Which 3D printing technologies are you currently using? Below are the top five 3D printing technologies used by survey respondents: 1. Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM/FFF) 41.8% 2. Stereolithography (SLA) 23.1% 3. MultiJet Printing (MJP) 18.7% 4. Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) 13.2% 5. Digital Light Processing (DLP) 6.6% Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is a common entry point for manufacturers and other users of 3D printing, because these printers are very affordable. They use resin in the form of filaments which are melted and deposited in layers to form an object. But their ability to produce fine details and a decent surface finish are somewhat limited. Stereolithography (SLA) printer technology provides significantly better fine details, surface finishes and physical properties than FDM, and is ideal for presentation modeling and printing functional parts. SLA printers can create accurate parts with repeatable dimensions. This is essential for these types of functional applications. The fact that one out of every five respondents is using this additive manufacturing technology shows a significant level of sophistication on the part of local manufacturers. l Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM/FFF) l Stereolighography (SLA) l MultiJet Printing (MJP) l Selective Laster Sintering (SLS) l Digital Light Processing (DLP) l Other l Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS/DMP) l ColorJet Printing (CJP) l Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM) MultiJet Printing (MJP) is also well-suited for producing prototypes and for presentation modeling. It also has the advantage of enabling design engineers to print any geometry without the constraints of support material. Wax provides structural support during printing, which can be melted away in post-production. Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) is another sophisticated 3D printing technology that supports complex part designs, a variety of material finishes and rugged mechanical characteristics. Most additive manufacturing processes require specialized support structures to fabricate designs with overhanging features. Selective laser sintering does not require support structures because unsintered powder surrounds the parts during printing. Watch for SLS to be used used by more manufacturers in the years ahead. For Digital Light Processing (DLP), a vat of photoreactive liquid resin is selectively exposed to light in order to form very thin solid layers that stack up to create one solid object. An arc lamp, an LCD panel or a deformable mirror device flashes a single image of each layer across the entire platform at once, generally making it faster than SLA. Only a shallow vat of resin is required to print an object using DLP; that usually translates into less wasted resin and lower running costs.

5 3. What are your top priorities related to 3D printing in the next months? For this question, we gave respondents a list of possible outcomes that 3D printing can produce, and then enabled them to check as many as apply to their business. This let them list multiple priorities. Here are their top 5 priorities: 1. Accelerate product development/ time to market 50.6% 2. Reduce tooling cost and risk 38.5% 3. Increase production flexibility 22.0% 4. Eliminate design constraints 20.9% 5. Other 19.8% It s not surprising that accelerating product development and reducing time to market for new products is the number one response in this survey. 3D printing is widely recognized as a technology that can help manufacturers to develop prototypes and iterate new part designs, and to do so much faster than conventional methods (sending CAD drawings to an outside supplier to have a prototype part machined via CNC). Reducing machine tooling cost is a related benefit. If manufacturers don t need to create expensive machine tooling or if they can wait until a part s design is finalized before doing so the result is much less wasted time and cost. Eliminating design constraints is another big benefit of 3D l Improve spare parts management printing. Several additive manufacturing technologies, including MultiJet Printing (MJP) and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) make it possible to print complex designs that could never be machined or fabricated using conventional designs or they might require multiple assemblies. Examples include living hinges, conformal cooling channels (located just below the cavity of a mold to help maintain consistent mold temperature) and parts with complex internal structures. Clearly, this data shows that the majority of survey respondents believe that 3D printing represents a competitive advantage. Other priorities specified include: Increase production output Creating prototypes Educating internal engineers on the opportunity offered by 3D printing Reverse engineering Special fixtures for machined parts l Accelerate product development/ time to market l Reduce tooling cost and risk l Increase production flexibility l Eliminate design constraints l Other l Offer customerized products l Buy a 3D printer l Reduce material waste l Optimize demonostrator product expenses l Enable co-creation

6 4. How confident are you in your current knowledge of 3D printing techniques, materials and methods? The confidence of survey participants in their knowledge of 3D printing techniques varied widely, with almost an equal split between those who are confident in their knowledge of 3D printing (54.9%) and those who are not (45.1%). A full one-fourth of respondents said they are very not confident or moderately not confident. This seems to suggest that there s a significant amount of 3D printing education still to be done in southeastern Wisconsin. One recent conversation with the manager of a local 3D printing service bureau suggests that the majority of local manufacturers still need help in one key area: understanding how to design parts for 3D printing. l Very confident l Moderately confident l Somewhat confident l A little not confident l Moderately not confident l Very not confident

7 5. What benefits of 3D printed parts are of greatest interest to you? (each rated one on a scale of 1-5, where 1 is not interested and 5 is very interested) Lighter weight Improved durability Produce unique parts Part consolidation On-demand printing Manufacture parts with custom features Faster design and production This question aims to dig deeper into the factors that are motivating local companies to explore and invest in 3D printing not only the factors, but also their relative importance. Faster design and production cycles for new parts got the biggest response of any question in this section of the survey, with 57% of respondents rating it a 5 the highest importance. l Not interested - 1 l Somewhat interested - 2 l Moderately interested - 3 l Interested - 4 l Very interested - 5 Combining the two highest answer categories of 4 and 5 (very interested and somewhat interested) into one reveals some interesting patterns: The ability to produce parts that cannot be made using conventional milling or machining methods. Nearly two-thirds (66.3%) of respondents agreed that this capability is very or somewhat important not surprising, because this is one of the most valuable uses of 3D printing. Complex interior structures, such as conformal cooling, can t be created using conventional manufacturing methods. It s encouraging that such a large percentage of respondents recognize the importance of this benefit of 3D printing. In other words, they don t do it now, but view it as desirable to enhance the products they can design and produce in the future. The ability to manufacture parts with customized features. 63% of survey respondents said this capability is very important or somewhat important to them. Manufacturing parts with customized features isn t the same as creating all-new part designs. Rather, it speaks to the ability to manufacture a common set of parts, but to make small modifications to them to meet specific customer needs. This appears to be a desirable capability for manufacturers, based upon this high level of response. The ability to do on-demand manufacturing of parts. This capability is almost as popular as manufacturing parts with customized features. 61.1% of respondents indicated that it s very important or somewhat important. The ability to do this opens up huge opportunities for manufacturers to sharply reduce the inventory of old machine parts they must keep on hand. Rather than maintain an extensive inventory of old and discontinued parts, manufacturers can simply print and ship them on demand to customers.

8 Several areas showed surprisingly little interest: Only 11.5% of respondents viewed light weight as very important. That may be because for industrial components, weight isn t as big of a factor as it is in higher-tech applications, such as aircraft or spacecraft. The ability to consolidate a number of components into a single 3D printed assembly was only cited as very important by one-fifth of respondents (21.6%). This is a major benefit of 3D manufacturing. But many local manufacturers are still trying to understand the basics of designing for 3D printing. Parts consolidation requires another mental leap beyond the basics of additive manufacturing. We predict this percentage will increase in the years ahead as manufacturers become more comfortable with 3D printing and what it makes possible. A significant percentage of local manufacturers are looking for ways to design and print new parts faster.

9 6. What applications are you currently using 3D printing for? Prototyping parts and assemblies is clearly the favorite application for additive manufacturing, by nearly a two-toone margin. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (65.9%) say they re doing it now. Presentation models are the next most popular application, at 45.1%. That s followed closely by jigs and fixtures for manufacturing at 42.3%. It is interesting to note that one-third of respondents (35.2%) say they re already using 3D printing for functional parts. Normally, this requires a more advanced set of equipment and materials (e.g., at least a Multi-Jet Printer (MJP) and a reinforced resin material that can withstand the rigors of movement, vibration and other environmental stresses. We suspect the term functional parts may have been somewhat ambiguous, causing some respondents to confuse creating parts for prototyping or presentation with use in commercial products. l Prototypes l Presentation models l Jigs and fixtures l Functional parts l None l As a bridge to tooling for injection molding l Patterns for metal casting and prototype tooling l Physical A/B testing l Other

10 7. How will your budget for 3D printing change in 2018? Are local manufacturers wary about doubling down on 3D printing? So it would seem, according to the answers to this question. Just over one-third of respondents (38.5%) said their budget for 3D printing will remain the same in 2018 as it was in % plan to increase their spend, with 11% betting big on it by increasing their budget by 100%. Approximately one in four of manufacturers surveyed (28.6%) remain on the sidelines, not budgeting any funds for 3D printing. Naturally, we believe that s a mistake. Considering the learning curve required to extract the full value from additive manufacturing, those companies that invest now in learning by doing complete with trial and error will be able to leverage the greatest strategic value from it. Is this bold statement limited to 3D printing? Not at all. It s simply the nature of technology. Those firms that invest early in new technologies tend to learn how to gain value from them before anyone else - and are often able to use that perspective to leap ahead of their competitors. While this approach is somewhat risky, it s actually less risky than standing still and staying on the sidelines. l Stay the same as the last 12 months l We are not budgeting any funds for 3D printing l Decline l Increase by 100% l Increase by 50% l Increase by 25% Those companies that invest now in learning by doing complete with trial and error will be able to leverage the greatest strategic value from it.

11 8. Do you consider 3D printing to be a competitive advantage in your industry? Four out of five respondents (79.1%) agree that 3D manufacturing represents a potent competitive advantage today. This would seem to contradict the results of the previous question, where nearly 30% of manufacturers aren t even budgeting for it. But actually these two sets of data aren t as far apart as they may seem. Just because a manufacturer isn t investing in 3D manufacturing doesn t mean it s completely ignoring it. On the contrary, they may be watching developments very closely, waiting for the right time to jump into it. They may also be seeking partners within their industry or allied fields with whom they can share development investment and learning. Or they may be conducting research and may dip their toes in the water, metaphorically speaking, during 2018 by sending their initial 3D printing projects to a local service bureau. There are many possibilities, which cannot be represented in manufacturers answers to the last several questions. l Yes l No What s most important about the answers to this question is that they represent a strong BELIEF in the current and future potential of additive manufacturing. And that s very encouraging. Local manufacturers show a strong belief in the potential of additive manufacturing. And that s very encouraging.

12 9. Are you currently using an outside service bureau to print 3D parts for you? Service bureaus are the entry point of 3D printing. They provide manufacturers with an affordable way to experiment with this nascent technology without having to make a large capital outlay in equipment and supplies, as well as a person to staff it. One-third of respondents (32.8%) say they re now using an outside service bureau to print 3D parts for them. That means they re taking the first steps in the direction of additive manufacturing. And that s a very good thing. l Yes l No Questions? Do you have questions about utilizing 3D printing in your business? We re here to help. Contact us at

13 3D Printing Technology Types FFF/CCF Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF) is a 3D printing process that uses a continuous filament of a thermoplastic material. This is fed from a large coil through a moving, heated printer extruder head. Molten material is forced out of the print head s nozzle and is deposited on the growing workpiece. Continuous Carbon Fiber (CCF) combines carbon fiber strands with extruded plastic filament for a light, strong material. Carbon fiber reinforcement is perfect for applications requiring exceptional stiffness and strength but is still light a feather. MJP MultiJet Printing (MJP) is an inkjet printing process that uses piezo printhead technology to deposit either photocurable plastic resin or casting wax materials layer by layer. MJP is used to build parts, patterns and molds with fine feature detail to address a wide range of applications. CJP ColorJet Printing (CJP) involves two major components: core and binder. A core build powder material is spread in thin layers over the build platform with a roller. After each layer is spread, color binder is selectively jetted from inkjet print heads, which causes the core to solidify. The build platform lowers with every subsequent layer which is spread and printed, resulting in a full-color three-dimensional model. SLA Stereolithography (SLA) is a form of 3D printing technology used for creating models, prototypes, patterns and production parts in a layer-by-layer fashion using photopolymerization, a process by which light causes chains of molecules to link, forming polymers, which make up the body of a three-dimensional solid. SLS Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) uses a laser as the power source to sinter powdered material (typically nylon/ polyamide), aiming the laser automatically at points in space defined by a 3D model, binding the material together to create a solid structure. ADAM Atomic Diffusion Additive Manufacturing (ADAM) creates a 3D part using a bound metal powder rod embedded inside a plastic filament. Heating the part allows the removal of the plastic and the sintering of the metal powder into a strong and dense part. DMP In Direct Metal Printing (commonly known as DMLS - Direct Metal Laser Sintering), fine metal powders such as stainless steel, Inconel (nickel-chromium-based superalloy), aluminum, cobalt-chromium, titanium and others, are fused layer-by-layer using a laser. Big Systems is a value-added reseller and integrator of a wide range of 3D printers, software, materials and services. Our offerings include the full range of products from 3D Systems, Markforged and Geomagic. Big Systems LLC W59 W14053 Bobolink Avenue Menomonee Falls, WI bigsys.com