Home » Posts tagged 'DfAM'
Tag Archives: DfAM
ISO/ASTM definition: “material extrusion, —an additive manufacturing process in which material is selectively dispensed through a nozzle or orifice.”
Material Extrusion can also be known as (in alphabetical order):
➢ Direct Ink Writing or DIW
➢ Extrusion Freeform Fabrication or EFF
➢ Fused Deposition Modeling or FDM® (Stratasys Inc.)
➢ Fused Filament Fabrication or FFF
➢ Glass 3D Printing or G3DP
➢ Liquid Deposition Modeling or LDM
➢ Micropen Writing
➢ Plastic Jet Printing or PJP (3D Systems Corporation)
➢ Robocasting or Robotic Deposition, 
In 1988, Scott Crump invented a new AM process based on candle wax and a hot glue gun while making a toy for his daughter in the kitchen. The next year he started the company Stratasys, which became one of the largest AM companies in the world. In 2005, in the United Kingdom, Adrian Bowyer at the University of Bath started the RepRap project based on the technology that made Stratasys so successful. His goal was to be able to make use of expiring patents that would make FFF available to everyone, and create an open source 3D printer that was capable of replicating rapidly (RepRap) itself, or at least make as many parts for itself as it could. This first open source printer was released in 2008 and inspired many companies to make their own versions based on the RepRap platform. One company, MakerBot, was founded in 2009 and later acquired by Stratasys in 2013. This open-source design along with the expired patents allowed hundreds of different printer designs and companies to emerge since then. This recent development has contributed to the public’s general awareness of AM technology, even though the core technology started over 30 years ago. Most desktop 3D printers in the world are of this type and are what most people think of when they think 3D printer.The core principle of this technology is that any material that is in a semi-liquid or paste form can be pushed through a nozzle and used to draw the 2D cross-sections of a sliced 3D model. Similar to how a hot glue gun heats a rod of glue and the trigger selectively pushes the material through the nozzle, material extrusion works exactly the same way. The material that is extruded doesn’t need to be plastic or even heated. While the vast majority of these printers use a plastic like ABS (Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene) or PLA (Polylactic acid), any material that can be pushed through a nozzle (heated or not) and afterwards retain its shape can be used. Other examples include cement, chocolate, ceramic pastes or slurries, metal clays and metal filled plastics, ground-up and blended food, or even biocompatible organic cellular scaffolding gel. The technology is scalable and is only limited by nozzle size and supporting machine structure. This supporting machine structure can take many different shapes such as a delta robot configuration or multi-jointed robot arms. This printer structure can also be built using traditional scaffolding structures to create some of the largest printers in the world. Two examples are a 2014 Chinese built 12m x 12m x 12m printer in the city of Qingdao, and a 2016 12m tall delta printer in the Italian town of Massa Lombarda, both of which are large enough to print a small house. There are plans to build printers that move on a rail system enabling an almost infinite build length in one direction. Multiple print heads can be installed on the same machine thus enabling multi-material printing, but there can be challenges with calibration between heads; thus, more than 2 heads on a machine is rare.The greatest advantage of this process is the extensive range of materials it can use. Almost all types of thermoplastics can be used, from the standard plastics like ABS to more engineering plastic grades like nylon, all the way up to advanced engineering plastics like polyether ether ketone also known as PEEK. These plastics have superior dimensional stability and can be used as actual end-use parts like in the Boeing 787 where many parts (mostly air ducting) are 3D printed from FDM processes. The mechanics of this type of printing are fairly simple and easy to modify especially due to the availability of open source designs; thus people have taken these principles to print anything that can fit into a syringe or that can be made into a filament.Some disadvantages are that this process is slow as only one nozzle operates at a time and the entire layer must be subdivided into actual tool paths to trace out the whole 2D slice. This tool path causes the fill factor to be less than 100% due to geometric constraints and nozzle diameter. Parts generally have anisotropic material properties, and the same part can exhibit different strengths depending on how it was printed. Layer heights are generally larger than other AM processes and are thus more visible and contribute to a higher surface roughness. Support materials and structures need to be used, otherwise, considerable sagging can occur depending on geometry. Removing these supports is either a manual and labour intensive process, or a process which requires dissolving and rinsing of parts in a chemical bath of some sort. Generally, only one material is used, with one main material and one support material being quite common. Anything more than one material and support is rare, it usually requires specialised print heads or specialised calibration techniques.
 “ISO/ASTM 52900:2015(en), Additive manufacturing — General principles — Terminology,” International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
 Lewis J. A. and Gratson G. M., “Direct writing in three dimensions,” Materials Today, vol. 7, no. 7–8, pp. 32–39, Jul. 2004.
 Calvert P. D., Frechette J., and Souvignier C., “Gel mineralization as a Model for Bone Formation,” in MRS Proceedings, San Francisco, California, USA, 1998, vol. 520, pp. 305–401.
 Crump S. S., “Apparatus and method for creating three-dimensional objects,” U.S. Patent 5,121,329, 09-Jun-1992.
 Jones R., Haufe P., Sells E., Iravani P., Olliver V., Palmer C., and Bowyer A., “RepRap – the replicating rapid prototyper,” Robotica, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 177–191, Jan. 2011.
 Klein J., Stern M., Franchin G., Kayser M., Inamura C., Dave S., Weaver J. C., Houk P., Colombo P., Yang M., and Oxman N., “Additive Manufacturing of Optically Transparent Glass,” 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 92–105, Sep. 2015.
 Postiglione G., Natale G., Griffini G., Levi M., and Turri S., “Conductive 3D microstructures by direct 3D printing of polymer/carbon nanotube nanocomposites via liquid deposition modeling,” Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing, vol. 76, pp. 110–114, Sep. 2015.
 Morissette S. L., Lewis J. A., Clem P. G., Cesarano III J., and Dimos D. B., “Direct-Write Fabrication of Pb(Nb,Zr,Ti)O 3 Devices: Influence of Paste Rheology on Print Morphology and Component Properties,” Journal of the American Ceramic Society, vol. 84, no. 11, pp. 2462–2468, Nov. 2001.
 Cesarano III J., Segalman R., and Calvert P. D., “Robocasting provides moldless fabrication from slurry deposition,” Ceramic Industry, vol. 148, no. 4, Business News Publishing, Troy, Michigan, USA, pp. 94–100, 1998.
 Cesarano III J. and Calvert P. D., “Freeforming objects with low-binder slurry,” U.S. Patent 6,027,326, 22-Feb-2000.
 Gibson I., Rosen D. W., and Stucker B., Additive Manufacturing Technologies. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2010.
 Khoshnevis B., “Automated construction by contour crafting—related robotics and information technologies,” Automation in Construction, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 5–19, Jan. 2004.
 Li P., Mellor S., Griffin J., Waelde C., Hao L., and Everson R., “Intellectual property and 3D printing: a case study on 3D chocolate printing,” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 322–332, Apr. 2014.
 Nickels L., “Crowdfunding metallurgy,” Metal Powder Report, Nov. 2015.
 Periard D., Schaal N., Schaal M., Malone E., and Lipson H., “Printing Food,” in Proceedings of the 18th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (SFF), Austin, Texas, USA, 2007, pp. 564–574.
 Mironov V., Boland T., Trusk T., Forgacs G., and Markwald R. R., “Organ printing: computer-aided jet-based 3D tissue engineering,” Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 157–161, Apr. 2003.
 Song X., Pan Y., and Chen Y., “Development of a Low-Cost Parallel Kinematic Machine for Multidirectional Additive Manufacturing,” Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, vol. 137, no. 2, p. 21005, Apr. 2015.
 Khoshnevis B., Bodiford M., Burks K., Ethridge E., Tucker D., Kim W., Toutanji H., and Fiske M., “Lunar Contour Crafting – A Novel Technique for ISRU-Based Habitat Development,” in 43rd American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, USA, 2005, vol. 13(1), no. January, pp. 5–19.
 Bagsik A. and Schöoppner V., “Mechanical Properties of Fused Deposition Modeling Parts Manufactured with ULTEM 9085,” in Proceedings of the 69th Annual Technical Conference of the Society of Plastics Engineers 2011 (ANTEC 2011), Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 2011, pp. 1294–1298.
Directed Energy Deposition
ISO/ASTM definition: “directed energy deposition, —an additive manufacturing process in which focused thermal energy is used to fuse materials by melting as they are being deposited. “Focused thermal energy” means that an energy source (e.g., laser, electron beam, or plasma arc) is focused to melt the materials being deposited.”
Directed Energy Deposition or DED can also be known as (in alphabetical order):
➢ 3D Laser Cladding
➢ Cold Gas Dynamic Spray*
➢ Cold Spray*
➢ Direct Laser Deposition or DLD
➢ Direct Laser Fabrication
➢ Direct Metal Deposition or DMD® (DM3D Technology, LLC)
➢ Directed Light Fabrication or DLF
➢ Electron Beam Additive Manufacturing or EBAM ™ (Sciaky, Inc.)
➢ Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication or EBF3
➢ Focused Ion Beam Direct Writing or FIBDW
➢ Metal Powder Application or MPA (Hermle Maschinenbau GmbH)
➢ Laser Chemical Vapor Deposition or LCVD
➢ Laser Consolidation or LC 
➢ Laser Deposition Welding
➢ Laser Engineered Net Shaping or LENS® (Sandia National Labs), 
➢ Laser Metal/Melting Deposition or LMD
➢ Laser Powder Forming
➢ Laser Rapid Forming
➢ Powder Fusion Welding
➢ Shape Welding
➢ Shape Deposition Manufacturing or SDM
➢ Three-Dimensional Welding
➢ Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing or WAAM
*An additive manufacturing process in which kinetic energy is used to fuse materials by plastic deformation as they are being deposited. “Kinetic energy” means the energy contained by the material that is being deposited at high velocity and is released at the time the material contacts a solid surface.
From 1994-1997 in New Mexico USA, Sandia National Laboratories developed a new AM technology which they called LENS. It differed quite a bit from all other AM technologies at the time and spawned a number of similar processes like DMD, which was commercialized in 2002 by POM Group based in Michigan USA. These other processes use many different names in an attempt to differentiate themselves; DLD, LC, LMD, DLF and more, but can be understood the same as LENS. LCVD is a completely different process from LENS and has its origins in the 1980s, but it wasn’t used to build actual 3D parts until the early 1990s. Three-dimensional welding has its roots in 1960s Germany where parts were built up using welders, but it wasn’t specifically used in AM until in the 1990s. In 2002, engineers at NASA developed a system that uses electron beams and solid wire feedstock to create parts that could potentially be made in space without gravity called EBF3. Since 2013 researchers have been investigating the use of cold spray techniques in AM as an alternative to thermally based fusion methods.
Figure 1: Example of a directed energy deposition system’s basic components, LENS (top) and EBF3 (below)
Directed energy deposition processes look very different between each method, but the premise is the same in each case. First, there is a focused area of intense energy, usually a thermal energy source like a laser, electron beam, or TIG welding torch. A feedstock material is introduced into that intense energy area causing it to bond to the surrounding material. This feedstock can be introduced either through blowing powder into that area like with the LENS or cold spray process, by pushing a solid wire into that area like with EBF3 and WAAM, or by introducing a special gas into the build chamber like with LCVD or FIBDW. The bonding mechanism varies in each process as well. In LENS and related methods, the powder enters into a melted pool of material and initially sticks to it and then melts to join the melt pool which will then cool and solidify. With EBF3 and WAAM, the wire melts and binds to the previous layers and then cools and solidifies. With LCVD and FIBDW, either a laser or an ion beam heats a spot on the build surface to a high enough temperature to thermally decompose a halide gas compound. This special gas then deposits half of itself onto the build surface, while the other half combines with a reducing chemical in the air like hydrogen to form a secondary gas compound. With the cold spray process, material is deposited at very high velocities onto the build surface and then plastically deforms and bonds onto the part.
Several different processes fall into this category, so advantages depend on the process. With the powder blowing method, powders can be changed or mixed mid-build thus creating multiple materials in a build, even creating a gradient between two different materials in the same build. This can also occur in LCVD or FIBDW by evacuating the build chamber from one gas, and putting in a different one thus making multiple materials possible. LENS type processes are able to aid in the repair of damaged parts that normally could not have been repaired using traditional methods. It can roughly add material to the damaged areas which are then cleaned up and machined to tolerance afterwards. Some of these processes like EBF3 and WAAM can also be used to develop near net shape parts that can then be machined to final tolerance without the traditional waste associated with subtractive manufacturing from a solid block. Some of these processes can also be used in space without the need for gravity like EBF3 and cold spray.
Again disadvantages range between processes. All of these processes require material to be deposited one spot at a time, and cannot do entire layers all at one time; tool paths are needed to complete each layer. Consequently build speeds are limited and somewhat slow. LCVD is especially slow due to the decomposition process and limited material deposited by it. These processes do not lend themselves to create support structures, so certain geometries with overhangs may not be created. Resolutions are generally very low and have a rough surface finish that may need post-processing like machining to get tight tolerances.
 “ISO/ASTM 52900:2015(en), Additive manufacturing — General principles — Terminology,” International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
 Murphy M. L., Steen W. M., and Lee C., “The Rapid Manufacture of Metallic Components by Laser Surface Cladding,” in Proceedings of the Laser Assisted Net Shape Engineering Conference (LANE’94), Erlangen, Germany, 1994, vol. 2, pp. 803–814.
 Sova A., Grigoriev S., Okunkova A., and Smurov I., “Potential of cold gas dynamic spray as additive manufacturing technology,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 69, no. 9–12, pp. 2269–2278, Dec. 2013.
 Lupoi R. and O’Neill W., “Deposition of metallic coatings on polymer surfaces using cold spray,” Surface and Coatings Technology, vol. 205, no. 7, pp. 2167–2173, Dec. 2010.
 Gu D. D., Meiners W., Wissenbach K., and Poprawe R., “Laser additive manufacturing of metallic components: materials, processes and mechanisms,” International Materials Reviews, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 133–164, May 2012.
 Taminger K. M. and Hafley R. A., “Electron Beam Freeform Fabrication for Cost Effective Near-Net Shape Manufacturing,” in Specialists’ Meeting on Cost Effective Manufacture via Net Shape Processing (NATO/RTO AVT-139), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006, p. 16:1-10.
 Matsui S., Kaito T., Fujita J., Komuro M., Kanda K., and Haruyama Y., “Three-dimensional nanostructure fabrication by focused-ion-beam chemical vapor deposition,” Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B: Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures, vol. 18, pp. 3181–3184, 2000.
 Williams K., Maxwell J., Larsson K., and Boman M., “Freeform fabrication of functional microsolenoids, electromagnets and helical springs using high-pressure laser chemical vapor deposition,” in Proceedings of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS ’99), Orlando, Florida, USA, 1999, pp. 232–237.
 Xue L. and Islam M. U., “Laser Consolidation – A Novel One-Step Manufacturing Process for Making Net-Shape Functional Components,” in Specialists’ Meeting on Cost Effective Manufacture via Net Shape Processing (NATO/RTO AVT-139), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006, p. 15:1-14.
 Kaierle S., Barroi A., Noelke C., Hermsdorf J., Overmeyer L., and Haferkamp H., “Review on Laser Deposition Welding: From Micro to Macro,” Physics Procedia, vol. 39, pp. 336–345, 2012.
 Griffith M. L., Keicher D. M., Atwood C. L., Romero J. A., Smugeresky J. E., Harwell L. D., and Greene D. L., “Free Form Fabrication of Metallic Components Using Laser Engineered Net Shaping (LENS),” in Proceedings of the 7th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (SFF), Austin, Texas, USA, 1996, pp. 125–132.
 Liu Q., Leu M. C., and Schmitt S. M., “Rapid prototyping in dentistry: technology and application,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 29, no. 3–4, pp. 317–335, Jun. 2006.
 Bohrer M., Basalka H., Birner W., Emiljanow K., Goede M., and Czerner S., “Turbine blade repair with laser powder fusion welding and shape recognition,” in Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Metal Powder Deposition for Rapid Manufacturing, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 2002, pp. 142–150.
 Dickens P. M., Pridham M. S., Cobb R. C., Gibson I., and Dixon G., “Rapid Prototyping Using 3D Welding,” in Proceedings of the 3rd Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (SFF), Austin, Texas, USA, 1992, pp. 280–290.
 Fessler J., Nickel A., Link G., Prinz F., and Fussell P., “Functional gradient metallic prototypes through shape deposition manufacturing,” in Proceedings of the 8th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (SFF), Austin, Texas, USA, 1997, pp. 521–528.
 Spencer J. D., Dickens P. M., and Wykes C. M., “Rapid prototyping of metal parts by three-dimensional welding,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, vol. 212, no. 3, pp. 175–182, Jan. 1998.
 Wang F., Williams S., Colegrove P., and Antonysamy A. a., “Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Wire and Arc Additive Manufactured Ti-6Al-4V,” Metallurgical and Materials Transactions A, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 968–977, Feb. 2013.
 Frazier W. E., “Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review,” Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1917–1928, Jun. 2014.
ISO/ASTM definition: “binder jetting, —an additive manufacturing process in which a liquid bonding agent is selectively deposited to join powder materials.”
Binder Jetting can also be known as (in alphabetical order):
➢ Three Dimensional Printing or 3DP[2,3]
➢ ColorJet Printing or CJP (3D Systems Corporation)
➢ Digital Metal® (Höganäs AB)
➢ Ink Jet Printing or IJP
➢ Multi Jet Fusion™ (Hewlett-Packard Development Company)
➢ Plaster-based 3D Printing or PP
➢ Powder Bed And Inkjet Head 3D Printing or PBIH
In 1989, researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) developed a process called 3D printing[2,3] and in 1993 licensed it to a number of different companies. These included ZCorp in 1994 (later acquired by 3D Systems in 2011) and Ex One in 1996. In 2014 traditional 2D printer company HP developed a new method of binder jetting with an integrated heater claiming a 10-time speed increase over other AM technologies like laser sintering. Even though binder jetting isn’t the first AM technology to be invented (as that distinction goes to Stereolithography), it has been known as 3D printing the longest. This leads to minor confusion as most instances of 3D printing talked about in the media do not actually mean the binder jetting process, but rather AM in general.This process most resembles traditional 2D printing. First, rather than printing onto a sheet of paper, a thin layer of loose powder between 0.05mm and 0.5mm is smoothly spread flat over a build platform. Then a traditional inkjet print head moves back and forth over this powder and deposits a binding material rather than an ink onto the areas that are to be made solid. This clear or coloured binder is initially a liquid and causes the powder material to bind together usually involving a chemical reaction. This chemical reaction depends on the method and materials used and occurs either when the binder comes into contact with the raw powder, comes in contact with the air and evaporates, contacts another chemical that is mixed into the powder or is activated by heat. In the next stage of printing the build platform changes height, a new layer of powder is deposited, and the process is repeated layer by layer until the part is complete. The print heads used are exactly the same types that exist in 2D printers, namely piezoelectric or thermal print heads. These print heads require the binder to exhibit similar properties to the original ink. Typically, the binder needs to be a low viscosity (usually in the tens of centipoise range) so that it can be jetted through the very small nozzles located in the print head. A piezoelectric print head has a piezoelectric mechanism connected to a diaphragm which pushes material out of the nozzle to form a droplet. Thermal print heads are also known as bubble jet print heads since a thermal heating element starts to boil the binder which rapidly forms bubbles in the print head chamber which cause the binder to be pushed out of the nozzle and form a droplet. In the case of the new HP process, a heat activated binding agent is initially applied with a detailing agent being applied before the heat which neutralizes any potential binding resulting in a very clear separation of fused and unfused material which yields a nicer surface finish. Because HP’s binder is heat activated, the resulting parts have slightly higher material strength than normal binder jetted parts.Advantages of this process are that the materials and binders used can be very inexpensive, which allows a very low cost per part. Traditionally a gypsum powder and water/alcohol mix were some of the very first powder/binder combinations, but now a variety of materials can be printed such as metals like stainless steel alloys and copper, plastics, and glass. Parts can be also created very quickly; nearly at the same speeds a 2D printer is able to print paper. Print heads can also be combined and different colours can be added to the binders in order to create full-colour 3D printed parts. Due to laying down material over the entire build platform at once, there is no need for support structures. This process is also scalable to produce large build envelopes, such as with the Exerial™ machine from ExOne which has a build envelope of 2.2m x 1.2x x 0.7m. It is used in creating sand cores and molds for casting and allows the mass production of traditional castings using AM technology.Disadvantages include a very weak final part, especially when no external energy like heat is used to bind parts. These green parts generally need to be post-processed by infusing them with another material like Cyanoacrylate glue or bronze to give the final part more strength. Parts that are not infused are also not very dense, and if made from metal, are usually sintered in an oven to give some additional strength without adding other materials. Depowdering a part (taking the final part out of the powder bed build area) can be very messy. Also as the powder is very fine and can be an inhalation hazard; special respiratory equipment is usually needed.
 ISO/ASTM 52900:2015(en), Additive manufacturing — General principles — Terminology, International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:69669:en (accessed December 17, 2015).
 E.M. Sachs, J.S. Haggerty, M.J. Cima, P.A. Williams, Three-dimensional printing techniques, U.S. Patent 5,204,055, 1993. https://www.google.com/patents/US5204055.
 M.J. Cima, E.M. Sachs, T. Fan, J.F. Bredt, S.P. Michaels, S. Khanuja, A. Lauder, S.-J.J. Lee, D. Brancazio, A. Curodeau, H. Tuerck, Three-dimensional printing techniques, U.S. Patent 5,387,380, 1995. https://www.google.com/patents/US5387380.
 E.M. Sachs, M.J. Cima, P. Williams, D. Brancazio, J. Cornie, Three Dimensional Printing: Rapid Tooling and Prototypes Directly from a CAD Model, Journal of Engineering for Industry. 114 (1992) 481. doi:10.1115/1.2900701.
 M. Cotteleer, J. Holdowsky, M. Mahto, The 3D opportunity primer: The basics of additive manufacturing, Deloitte University Press, Westlake, Texas, USA, 2014. http://dupress.com/articles/the-3d-opportunity-primer-the-basics-of-additive-manufacturing/ (accessed May 18, 2016).
 M. Iliescu, E. Nutu, K. Tabeshfar, C. Ispas, Z Printing Rapid Prototyping Technique and Solidworks Simulation: Major Tools in New Product Design, in: Proceedings of the 2Nd WSEAS International Conference on Sensors, and Signals and Visualization, Imaging and Simulation and Materials Science, World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS), Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA, 2009: pp. 148–153. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1736242.1736269.
 HP, HP Multi Jet Fusion technology, HP Development Company, L.P., 2015. http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetDocument.aspx?docname=4AA5-5472ENW.
 I. Gibson, D.W. Rosen, B. Stucker, Additive Manufacturing Technologies, Springer US, Boston, MA, 2010. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1120-9.
 R. Bogue, 3D printing: the dawn of a new era in manufacturing?, Assembly Automation. 33 (2013) 307–311. doi:10.1108/AA-06-2013-055.
 S.P. Michaels, E.M. Sachs, M.J. Cima, Metal Parts Generation by Three-Dimensional Printing, in: Proceedings of the 3rd Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (SFF), Austin, Texas, USA, 1992: pp. 244–250. http://sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/Manuscripts/1992/1992-28-Michaels.pdf.
 Y. Bai, C.B. Williams, An exploration of binder jetting of copper, Rapid Prototyping Journal. 21 (2015) 177–185. doi:10.1108/RPJ-12-2014-0180.
 3D Systems Corporation, 3D Systems First to Deliver ProJet® 4500 Full-color Plastic 3D Printer, [Online Press Release]. (2013). http://www.3dsystems.com/press-releases/3d-systems-first-deliver-projetr-4500-full-color-plastic-3d-printer (accessed January 15, 2016).
 G. Marchelli, R. Prabhakar, D. Storti, M. Ganter, The guide to glass 3D printing: developments, methods, diagnostics and results, Rapid Prototyping Journal. 17 (2011) 187–194. doi:10.1108/13552541111124761.
Additive manufacturing (AM) has been called the next Industrial revolution–. It is a recent technology that encompasses a wide range of different processes and materials. It is changing industries like aerospace by adjusting how engineers think about designing complex parts–. This revolution can take designs that have gone unchanged for decades and improve them.
AM was first conceived of in the 1970s with the first parts made in the 1980s and has had many names over the years.
- Layer manufacturing or LM
- Rapid manufacturing or RM
- Rapid tooling
- Rapid prototyping or RP
- Laser rapid prototyping
- Solid freeform fabrication or SFF
- Direct digital manufacturing or DDM
- 3D printing or 3DP
Initially, AM was used as a tool to create prototypes much more rapidly than could be done by other means and aided in the development of bringing new products to market, . It then helped create tooling, tooling inserts, jigs and fixtures that were used in the manufacturing of end-use parts, . It has continued to evolve and now is being used in making end-use parts such as low-volume production plastic casings, high-end consumer in-ear music monitors, GE LEAP jet engine fuel nozzles, and SpaceX SuperDraco rocket engine chambers and Falcon 9 main oxidizer valve bodies which have gone into space.
While AM has been around for three decades, it has yet to be utilized in the manufacturing of electric motors. Since the late 1800s, electric motors have seen only a small number of improvements, most of which have come from new and improved materials and new manufacturing techniques–. Yet the core design of motors has been relatively unchanged –. There is an evident opportunity to research how AM can change electric motor design. AM has the potential to produce new electric motors that can increase motor efficiencies and power densities.
Review of Additive Manufacturing
There are many different types of AM processes. Each has specific strengths and capabilities with unique areas of specialization. Regardless of the process, there are some fundamental principles that all follow.
Subtractive manufacturing usually starts out with a solid chunk of material that is larger than the final desired shape or part. Then using different tools, material is removed (or subtracted) until the final shape or part is achieved. It is important to note that casting is not considered additive or subtractive, but rather a formative process, as an existing mould or pattern is needed to create the final part.
Compared to subtractive, AM works in the opposite way. Instead of removing material to get the final desired shape or part, material is added to a build platform bit by bit. Most forms of AM follow these basic steps:
- Take a 3D model
- Slice model into layers and generate computer code
- Print first 2D slice and supports (if needed)
- Increment height
- Print next layer
- Repeat steps 4-5 until finished
- Post process (if needed)
A minor exception to these steps is when an AM process can deposit material in three-dimensional space. It is then not limited to just printing 2D layers one at a time–. AM can be a faster and more economical way to make parts, especially when the part is complex and/or made from an expensive material. These steps are still quite broad and have many details that can provide deeper insight.
AM process steps
Step 1: 3D model
The process begins with a computer-generated 3D model of the desired final part. The model needs to be capable of being printed, which means that it needs to occupy a defined volume. The part can’t be a single surface with a wall thickness of zero. Once it has thickness and volume, it then needs to be an enclosed watertight solid. This means that if water is put in the interior volume of the model, there are no holes from the inside volume to the outside surface. Even objects like a Möbius band or Klein bottle can be printed as long as the single surface is thickened to have a defined watertight volume.
Figure 1: Klein bottle and Mobius band show a surface with no thickness
Once the model is generated correctly, it needs to be saved to a specific file format. These specific file formats are needed in order for it to be prepared properly for printing. Thus it needs to be saved as either an STL file, AMF file or 3MF file. The STL file format has been the de facto standard since it was created in the late 1980s. However, it does have limitations which cause some problems. It does not store the units of measurement of the original model so they need to be assumed. Also, the file size becomes very large when trying to save a model with a high level of surface curvature. In response to these limitations, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) introduced the AMF file format in 2011. Then in 2013, Microsoft intended to do the same with its own 3MF format. This format became natively supported in all Windows operating systems since Windows 8.1. 3MF has since garnered considerable support from large companies such as HP, 3D Systems, Stratasys, GE, Siemens, Autodesk and Dassault Systems although it is unknown how many actively use this file format. Thus STL is still the file format of choice for almost all 3D printing. However, a newly signed liaison agreement between ASTM and the 3MF Consortium may bridge some differences between AMF and 3MF and create one new standard file format to replace STL.
Step 2: Prepare for printing
Secondly, special software is needed to turn that 3D model into data that a 3D printer can recognize and use. This usually involves cutting or slicing the model into many digital layers. Each layer is then converted into either a 2D image or into a set of 2D tool paths. The spacing between these slices will determine the printed thickness of the layers that will be seen in the final part. These layers partially determine the final surface quality and surface roughness of the final part, as well as how long the part will take to print. This height is an important compromise between print speed and surface quality, thus they are generally very thin. An average across several processes is around 100 µm or 0.1mm. Depending on the AM process, the range of layer heights is vast. In two-photon polymerization, layer features as small as 40nm or 0.00004mm can be created which is smaller than the wavelength of ultraviolet light. Microwave sintering can create layers up to 5cm or 50mm in depth. Regardless, when working in a process, the thicker the layer, the faster the build speed but the rougher the exterior becomes. Hence layer height is a trade-off between speed and quality.
Figure 2: T shaped structure with supports
Depending on the geometry of the model and the AM process involved, support structures may be needed. These support structures anchor overhanging areas of the final part to the build platform or other solid portions of the part. Imagine printing a 3D letter “T” starting from the bottom moving up to the top. The 3D printer would be able to print the main body of the letter without any issue. But as soon as it gets to the top, it would have a significant challenge to print the rest properly. The reason being there is nothing that would support the outreached arms of the letter. Thus some type of support structure is needed to be built up at the same time as the main body. When it reaches the point to print the arms, it would then be able to print on top of the main body and the support structure. An alternative option is to design the part for AM so that it does not need supports. For example, if the arms of the “T” were angled upward from the main body, the main body then becomes the support structure. The part would look more like the letter “Y”. Thus the letter Y could be considered a 3D print-optimized version of the letter T that doesn’t need support.
Steps 3-6: Printing
The specifics of printing depend on the process involved and will be described in much more detail further on in the report. Regardless, the 3D printer uses the computer code generated in the previous step to create an initial solid layer of material onto a build surface. The build surface could be a solid platform onto which the part is printed or a layer of unsolidified material that will support the part. This first layer is the first slice of the original 3D model that was calculated by the computer software in step two. Once the first layer is printed, the machine increments to the next height ready to print the next layer. This new height corresponds to the second slice of the original 3D model. The printer then creates a new solid layer based on that second slice. This new solid layer bonds to the previous layer making it one solid piece. The process repeats layer by layer until the final layer is finished. If the bonds between layers are weak, the build could fail or result in a structurally weak part. These anisotropic material properties can manifest as a weaker bond between layers than within layers– but can lead to beneficial properties for magnetic applications. There are some processes strategies,  and research projects that are addressing this concern with strength.
Step 7: Post-process
Finally, once a part is finished, it is removed from the build chamber and post-processed. This post process could take any number of forms. Some processes require removing support materials, . A few need to post cure the material to ensure a fully solid part. Laser melted parts need heat treating to relieve internal stresses that build up in the build process. Binder jetted parts can be placed in an oven to remove a sacrificial binder used in printing. Others are placed in ovens and sintered to increase the strength and density of the part. Infiltrants like glues or metals can be added to give more strength and higher density to the part, . Parts can undergo a chemical reaction to change the material for different material properties. Parts can be smoothed by chemicals, by blasting or tumbling to remove layer lines. Or parts can have some artistic flourish through hand painting, hydrographics, or even electroplating.
Methods and processes
Only recently was a standard designed for classifying the different ways something can be made using AM. In 2009, the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) created a committee to define standards in AM technology. In 2010 they defined seven main technologies used in AM. This was given the standard designation: F2792–12a. As of December 2015, these ASTM standards were replaced with a new standard. ASTM joined with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to form ISO/ASTM 52900:2015. Despite having seven uniquely defined categories, there are many different processes within each category. Regardless, the overall method and the underlying principles discussed previously still apply. Variance exists only with the materials, deposition of layers, and methods of adhesion.
These seven categories will be explored in depth with their:
- alternate industrial or trade names
- a brief history
- description of method and materials
- advantages and disadvantages
These seven categories are (in alphabetical order):
- binder jetting
- directed energy deposition
- material extrusion
- material jetting
- powder bed fusion
- sheet lamination
- vat photopolymerization
The following are some common terms that are used when talking about these processes. They come from the ISO/ASTM definitions and are used throughout the seven category descriptions.
3D printer: the machine used for 3D printing.
Build chamber: the enclosed location within the 3D printer where the parts are fabricated.
Build platform: a base which provides a surface upon which the building of the part is started and supported throughout the build process.
Build space: the location where it is possible for parts to be fabricated, typically within the build chamber or on a build platform.
Build surface: the area where material is added, normally on the last deposited layer or for the first layer, the build surface is often the build platform.
Build volume: the total usable volume available in the machine for building parts.
 N. Hopkinson, R. Hague, and P. Dickens, Rapid manufacturing: an industrial revolution for the digital age. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2006.
 T. S. Srivatsan and T. S. Sudarshan, Additive Manufacturing: Innovations, Advances, and Applications. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, 2015.
 B. Berman, “3-D printing: The new industrial revolution,” Business Horizons, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 155–162, Mar. 2012.
 B. Lyons, Additive Manufacturing in Aerospace: Examples and Research Outlook, vol. 42, no. 1. Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy of Engineering, 2012.
 A. K. Misra, J. E. Grady, and R. Carter, “Additive Manufacturing of Aerospace Propulsion Components,” Additive Manufacturing for Small Manufacturers, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, Oct. 2015.
 J. Coykendall, M. Cotteleer, J. Holdowsky, and M. Mahto, “3D opportunity in aerospace and defense: Additive manufacturing takes flight,” Deloitte University Press, Westlake, Texas, USA, Jun. 2014.
 G. N. Levy and R. Schindel, “Overview of layer manufacturing technologies, opportunities, options and applications for rapid tooling,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, vol. 216, no. 12, pp. 1621–1634, Jan. 2002.
 G. N. Levy, R. Schindel, and J. P. Kruth, “Rapid Manufacturing And Rapid Tooling With Layer Manufacturing (LM) Technologies, State Of The Art And Future Perspectives,” CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 589–609, Jan. 2003.
 M. Shiomi, A. Yoshidome, F. Abe, and K. Osakada, “Finite element analysis of melting and solidifying processes in laser rapid prototyping of metallic powders,” International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 237–252, Feb. 1999.
 J. J. Beaman, J. W. Barlow, D. L. Bourell, R. H. Crawford, H. L. Marcus, and K. P. McAlea, Solid Freeform Fabrication: A New Direction in Manufacturing. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Springer US, 1997.
 I. Gibson, D. W. Rosen, and B. Stucker, Additive manufacturing technologies: Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2014.
 J.-P. Kruth, M. C. Leu, and T. Nakagawa, “Progress in Additive Manufacturing and Rapid Prototyping,” CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 525–540, 1998.
 G. N. Levy, “SLS-Layer Manufacturing a Powerful Complementary Technology In the RPD (Rapid Product Development) Cycle,” Journal for Manufacturing Science and Production, vol. 3, no. 2–4, pp. 159–166, Jan. 2000.
 A. Bernard and A. Fischer, “New Trends in Rapid Product Development,” CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 635–652, Jan. 2002.
 W. Tong, Mechanical design of electric motors. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, 2014.
 A. Hughes and B. Drury, Electric motors and drives: fundamentals, types and applications, 4th ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Newnes Press, 2013.
 R. C. O’Handley, Modern Magnetic Materials: Principles and Applications, vol. 830622677. New York, New York, USA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2000.
 O. Gutfleisch, M. A. Willard, E. Brück, C. H. Chen, S. G. Sankar, and J. P. Liu, “Magnetic Materials and Devices for the 21st Century: Stronger, Lighter, and More Energy Efficient,” Advanced Materials, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 821–842, Feb. 2011.
 W. J. King, “The development of electrical technology in the 19th century,” United States National Museum Bulletin, vol. 228, pp. 233–407, 1962.
 M. Doppelbauer, “The invention of the electric motor 1800-1854,” [Online], 25-Sep-2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.eti.kit.edu/english/1376.php. [Accessed: 04-Dec-2015].
 B. Drury, Control techniques drives and controls handbook, 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: The Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2009.
 P. F. Yuan, H. Meng, L. Yu, and L. Zhang, “Robotic Multi-dimensional Printing Based on Structural Performance,” in Robotic Fabrication in Architecture, Art and Design 2016, D. Reinhardt, R. Saunders, and J. Burry, Eds. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 92–105.
 X. Song, Y. Pan, and Y. Chen, “Development of a Low-Cost Parallel Kinematic Machine for Multidirectional Additive Manufacturing,” Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, vol. 137, no. 2, p. 021005, Apr. 2015.
 F. B. Coulter and A. Ianakiev, “4D Printing Inflatable Silicone Structures,” 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 140–144, Sep. 2015.
 R. J. A. Allen and R. S. Trask, “An experimental demonstration of effective Curved Layer Fused Filament Fabrication utilising a parallel deposition robot,” Additive Manufacturing, vol. 8, pp. 78–87, Oct. 2015.
 K. Polthier, “Imaging maths-Inside the Klein bottle,” plus magazine, vol. 26, Cambridge, England, 2003.
 J. Allison, “Re: History of .stl format,” [Online email], 15-Jan-1997. [Online]. Available: http://www.rp-ml.org/rp-ml-1997/0091.html. [Accessed: 05-Feb-2016].
 J. D. Hiller and H. Lipson, “STL 2.0: A Proposal for a Universal Multi-Material Additive Manufacturing File Format,” in Proceedings of the 20th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (SFF), Austin, Texas, USA, 2009, no. 1, pp. 266–278.
 “What is 3MF?,” 3MF Consortium, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.3mf.io/what-is-3mf/. [Accessed: 11-Jan-2016].
 L. Li, R. R. Gattass, E. Gershgoren, H. Hwang, and J. T. Fourkas, “Achieving λ/20 Resolution by One-Color Initiation and Deactivation of Polymerization,” Science, vol. 324, no. 5929, pp. 910–913, May 2009.
 D. Halliday, R. Resnick, and J. Walker, Fundamentals of physics extended, 10th ed., vol. 1. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
 L. A. Taylor and T. T. Meek, “Microwave Sintering of Lunar Soil: Properties, Theory, and Practice,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 188–196, Jul. 2005.
 D. Buchbinder, W. Meiners, N. Pirch, K. Wissenbach, and J. Schrage, “Investigation on reducing distortion by preheating during manufacture of aluminum components using selective laser melting,” Journal of Laser Applications, vol. 26, no. 1, p. 012004, 2014.
 B. E. Carroll, T. A. Palmer, and A. M. Beese, “Anisotropic tensile behavior of Ti–6Al–4V components fabricated with directed energy deposition additive manufacturing,” Acta Materialia, vol. 87, pp. 309–320, Apr. 2015.
 A. Bagsik and V. Schöoppner, “Mechanical Properties of Fused Deposition Modeling Parts Manufactured with ULTEM 9085,” in Proceedings of the 69th Annual Technical Conference of the Society of Plastics Engineers 2011 (ANTEC 2011), Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 2011, pp. 1294–1298.
 W. Cooke, R. Anne Tomlinson, R. Burguete, D. Johns, and G. Vanard, “Anisotropy, homogeneity and ageing in an SLS polymer,” Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 269–279, Jun. 2011.
 M. Garibaldi, I. Ashcroft, M. Simonelli, and R. Hague, “Metallurgy of high-silicon steel parts produced using Selective Laser Melting,” Acta Materialia, vol. 110, no. MAY, pp. 207–216, May 2016.
 B. A. Fulcher, D. K. Leigh, and T. J. Watt, “Comparison of AlSi10Mg and Al 6061 Processed Through DMLS,” in Proceedings of the 25th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (SFF), Austin, Texas, USA, 2014, pp. 404–419.
 P. Mercelis and J. Kruth, “Residual stresses in selective laser sintering and selective laser melting,” Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 254–265, Oct. 2006.
 S. Fathi, P. Dickens, R. Hague, K. Khodabakhshi, and M. Gilbert, “Jetting of Reactive Materials for Additive Manufacturing of Nylon Parts,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Digital Printing Technologies and Digital Fabrication (NIP 25), Louisville, Kentucky, USA, 2009, vol. 2009, no. 2, pp. 784–787.
 S. S. Crump, J. W. Comb, W. R. Priedeman Jr, and R. L. Zinniel, “Process of support removal for fused deposition modeling,” U.S. Patent 5,503,785, 02-Apr-1996.
 S. Upcraft and R. Fletcher, “The rapid prototyping technologies,” Assembly Automation, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 318–330, Dec. 2003.
 E. Brandl, U. Heckenberger, V. Holzinger, and D. Buchbinder, “Additive manufactured AlSi10Mg samples using Selective Laser Melting (SLM): Microstructure, high cycle fatigue, and fracture behavior,” Materials & Design, vol. 34, pp. 159–169, Feb. 2012.
 J.-P. Kruth, G. Levy, F. Klocke, and T. H. C. Childs, “Consolidation phenomena in laser and powder-bed based layered manufacturing,” CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 730–759, Jan. 2007.
 A. E. Jakus, S. L. Taylor, N. R. Geisendorfer, D. C. Dunand, and R. N. Shah, “Metallic Architectures from 3D-Printed Powder-Based Liquid Inks,” Advanced Functional Materials, vol. 25, no. 45, pp. 6985–6995, Dec. 2015.
 Y. Zhang, C. Yin, C. Zheng, and K. Zhou, “Computational hydrographic printing,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) – Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2015, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 131:1–131:11, Jul. 2015.
 W. E. Frazier, “Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review,” Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1917–1928, Jun. 2014.
 “ASTM F2792-12a, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing Technologies, (Withdrawn 2015),” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA, 2012.
 “ISO/ASTM 52900:2015(en), Additive manufacturing — General principles — Terminology,” International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland, 2015.
Workshop: Design for Additive Manufacturing Presented by Réseau Québec-3D, CME Canada Makes & McGill University
This half-day workshop will feature presentation from some of Canada’s leading experts in additive manufacturing (AM) and offer the chance to network with some of Canada’s AM professionals. The workshop’s goal is to help industry personnel understand one of the most important components of AM, designing for additive manufacturing DfAM.
Additive Manufacturing is changing your sector whether you like it or not, be ready!
It is no secret that AM is disrupting key sectors of Canada’s economy and Réseau Québec-3D and Canada Makes are working together to bring you the expertise and knowledge needed to help understand how you can use this powerful new technology to your advantage and be ready to adapt.
As usual, networking will be a primary focus of this workshop so we plan on including breaks and a networking lunch so you can ask questions face-to-face. Experts from Altair, Renishaw, Expanse Microtechnologies and the CRIQ will offer insightful discussions in their area of expertise. We look forward to seeing you there!
Sign up now as seating is limited.
Date: March 21, 2018
Time: 8 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Location: McGill University
Macdonald Engineering Building, Room 267
817 Sherbrooke Street West McGill University,
Montreal, Quebec H3A 0C3
Cost: $25 Réseau Québec-3D & CME Canada Makes Members
|8:00 – 9:00 a.m.||Registration and Networking coffee|
|9:00 – 9:30 a.m.||Welcome Remarks & DfAM||Fiona Zhao, McGill University|
|9:30 – 10:00 a.m.||Design for Additive Manufacturing||Ross Myher, Altair Canada|
|10:00 – 10:30 a.m.||Impact of new AM capability and adoption method/point||Félix-Etienne Delorme, Renishaw|
|10:30 – 10:45 a.m.||Networking Break|
|10:45 – 11:15 a.m.||Révision de la conception pour la fabrication additive, étude de cas||Denis Lépine, CRIQ|
|11:15 – 11:45 a.m.||Pushing Limits in Design for AM through Smart use of uCT||James Hinebaugh, Expanse Microtechnologies|
|11:45 – 12:00 p.m.||Special announcement – Finalists Canada Makes 3D Challenge||Frank Defalco, Canada Makes|
|12:00 – 1:30 p.m.||Networking lunch|
|1:30 – 2:30 p.m.||Canada Makes’ Additive Manufacturing Advisory Board (AMAB) AGM||Note: Only AMAB members|
Frank Defalco, Manager Canada Makes
Last month Canada Makes reported on the finalists for the Additive World Design for Additive Manufacturing Challenge 2017 and we are pleased to announce that Cassidy Silbernagel once again won in the students’ category.
“I’m honoured to be selected a second time as the winner in the student category,” said Silbernagel. “This competition offered the opportunity to show that additive manufacturing (AM) can take old designs, such as a carburetor, and make them new again with added benefit and features like part reduction, decreased size and weight, and improved performance.”
On Wednesday March 15, the Jury announced the two winners of the Additive World Design for Additive Manufacturing Challenge 2017. From a group of 76 contestants, both professionals and students, 3 finalists were selected per category. The two winners selected best achieved the goal of making a new design or redesign an existing product for additive manufacturing.
The ‘Chocolate Shock Prevention Team’ of Lareka Confectionery Equipment from The Netherlands won in the professionals’ category with their redesigned ‘Sealer Arm’ for a chocolate bar packaging line. The redesigned and 3D printed sealer arm successfully combined a substantial increase in the quality of chocolate packaging because of better temperature regulation with a reduction of 50 parts.
Cassidy Silbernagel, representing the University of Nottingham, won with redesigned carburetor including integrated moving parts, floats, lightweight internal lattice structures and optimized design to reduce the number of support structures.
Cassidy said, “software like the University’s FLatt Pack for lattice generation is speeding up the workflow from idea to creation is becoming easier and quicker and greatly decreases development time for new products. The use of these new software options is crucial to new AM design creation.”
“Although AM is an amazing technology,” stated Cassidy. “It isn’t a magic hammer that solves all manufacturing needs. It is just one of many tools in a designer’s tool chest that can be utilized, but first designers need to know that they have this tool, and they need to know how to use it. I’m happy to see that this competition along with organizations like Canada Makes and Additive Industries are helping teach designers this fact, and I’m proud to also aid in this educational goal.”
Canada Makes salutes the winners and all contestants. Challenges like Design for Additive Manufacturing Challenge helps showcase the vast potential of Additive Manufacturing for industry.
A graduate of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Calgary, Cassidy is in the UK currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Nottingham. He is researching the possibility of using AM in electric motors, specifically using AM to create coils/windings using a conductive metal like copper or aluminum and an insulating material like ceramic.
Last years’ winning design was an innovative electric motor casing to fit into an existing crankshaft case of a regular motorcycle enabling electrification. Silbernagel’s design reduced eight parts to one lightweight component and integrated room for heat transfer and well-rounded wiring tunnels.
For this years’ contest designers were asked to tailor their designs, to eliminate manufacturing difficulties, reduce the number of parts, minimize assembly or lower logistics costs, often combined. Designs were submitted from all over the world including the US, the Netherlands, Germany, UK, Spain, India, Russia and Italy representing different sectors, advanced food processing, the aeronautics industry, automotive as well as high-tech.
About Design for Additive Manufacturing Challenge
In order to grow the number of examples and inspire many other industries to develop dedicated applications for industrial 3D printing, Additive Industries has launched the Additive World Design for Additive Manufacturing Challenge. Competing in two categories, both professionals and students were encouraged to redesign an existing conventional part of a machine or product for 3D printing.
Partners in the Design for Additive Manufacturing Challenge are leading CAE technology provider (e.g. Topology Optimization) – Altair Engineering and consumer 3D printer manufacturer Ultimaker. Contestants are to be supported by Additive Industries’ AddLab team in topology optimisation during the design process. Winners in both categories take home the latest Ultimaker 2+ 3D printer and Autodesk’s NetFabb software. All finalists receive a licence of Altair’s Inspire software and Autodesk Fusion 360 and award winning designs will be printed in metal by AddLab.
About Canada Makes
Canada Makes is a network of private, public, academic, and non-profit entities dedicated to promoting the adoption and development of additive manufacturing in Canada. For more information on Canada Makes, please visit www.canadamakes.ca or contact Frank Defalco at email@example.com