EAB Roundtable: What are the Biggest Obstacles Facing RP/RM?

The biggest obstacles facing RP/RM are the results of their successes! As with many new technologies the majority of promoters are chartered with selling the process or systems. These promoters are not always technical in nature and have the task of interpreting how the technology will perform on an undefined application. If the results are not what were anticipated, the process gets a bad reputation which can be hard to overcome. This is not to say the process(es) could not perform for the application, simply that the interpretation of expectations may have gotten misconstrued in-between requester and processor. These complications can be anticipated with any new technology in its infancy.

Another large obstacle could be an effect of the speed at how these technologies move. Most of the equipment and materials for sale on the market have short lives and will probably be improved or obsolete in only a few years. In light of this factor, manufacturing process controls are not as stringent as would be found in most mature machine markets. This makes process repeatability and subsequent process improvement difficult to take to higher levels. Considering typical manufacturing expectations, most of these processes are not seen as a viable alternative. This means that RP/RM will have a difficult time penetrating the much larger markets associated with production. The few successful applications are very beneficial to the manufacturer and create high returns that result in very confidential success stories. Without applications and demand from industry, RP/RM manufacturers may not be inclined to address productions needs. However, without being able to successfully apply these technologies in manufacturing, industry may not be as quick to adopt and apply these technologies.
Carl Dekker, Met-L-Flo, Inc. (Sugar Grove, IL)

Speaking from the perspective of someone who has done RP/RM in aerospace for 17 years, I am amazed at the number of people with so many new ideas and so many aware engineers who are ready to bring additive manufacturing into the production environment. However, only a few limited champions are willing to take this to the next level. I have been giving talks at numerous conferences in the last few years that I have entitled, “Rapid Manufacturing: The Silent Revolution” because so many people have no idea that it is on its way.

One problem in the past has been the lack of production-ready RM systems in our industry—machines that can create parts with repeatable material properties throughout the part-bed, as well as materials that meet all the requirements for flight. This has changed just in the last few years. There is still work to be done, but for many types of parts, production should be in place now, but it is not, due to hesitancy at the higher levels of decision making.

Some problems also exist due to the lack of understanding of designers on how to convert sheet metal and other metal parts into properly designed plastic parts with major weight-savings as well as time savings. The hearing aid industry was the first to convert to RM in the last few years, and aerospace with its ideal scenario of small lot production parts is next. Once the hurdle of upper management hesitancy to use this new technology for flight-worthy parts is overcome, there won’t be enough RM systems in existence to handle all of the orders. I strongly believe that this breakthrough is inevitable within the next five years.
Boris Fritz, Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems (El Segundo, CA)

This question proved to be surprisingly difficult to answer. Just a few years ago, the key obstacles to growth were obvious. Everyone cited accuracy, speed, materials, price and 3D CAD adoption as hurdles. Happily, there have been major improvements in each of these areas; yet, all but 3D CAD adoption can still be listed as obstacles to RP/RM. We have come a long way, but industry still demands more from the technology. In some instances, the limitations are truly barriers to adoption and use, but in others they may simply be logical objections that mask the real reason for reluctance to use RP/RM—resistance to change.

Another aspect of RP/RM that makes the question difficult to answer is that there is a lot of segmentation. You can no longer offer one reply as the answer for all applications and all industries. For example, rapid prototyping is much more mature than rapid manufacturing, so the needs, wants and obstacles are different. While additive fabrication is somewhat established in prototyping of mechanical components, we are only beginning to establish footholds in manufacturing applications. Similarly, the want and needs of architects, designers, engineers, doctors and dentists vary greatly.

The answer to this question has become personal. Each of us must answer it with respect to our needs, applications and goals. But as long as the pace of new developments remains brisk, the RP/RM industry will continue to chip away at the obstacles and objections that prevent each of us from applying the technology in new and exciting ways.
Todd Grimm, T.A. Grimm & Associates (Edgewood, KY)

Today, our biggest challenge to move from the RP concept of our systems to the RM concept is to get everyone in the manufacturing environment to think out of the box. We need them to determine how some of their applications can be used in this environment and get them to move from the traditional ways of manufacturing to the DDM world and to realize how beneficial this would be for them to do this. We also have a very big challenge in reaching the correct people in manufacturing and helping them to understand and training them appropriately. There is a big arena out there, but how to capture their attention is the most challenging and difficult part.
Terry Hoppe, Stratasys, Inc. (Eden Prairie, MN)

In general, the biggest obstacles still faced today are: speed, size, material, variety of materials available, surface finish and price.

Generally, there is a trade off between size and speed. Machines that build parts quickly have smaller build envelopes, while machines with larger build envelopes are slower.

Material selection is another limitation. While the materials available have seen a manifold improvement over the years, production materials are not readily available on most systems. So, in order to achieve the same feel and durability as a production part, it is necessary to add additional steps. This usually involves completely finishing one part and then making a mold and casting additional parts. This is also quite often the procedure if multiple parts are required. Systems are usually purchased based on the materials available at that time, but not all materials can be used on all machines. So if other materials are later desired, it may be necessary to add or replace machines. While that is not always a bad thing, it does mean more expenses.

That brings up surface finish. Once again, with the decrease layer thicknesses introduced over the years, better surface finish is being seen right out of those machines. However, many requestors want a surface finish that is closer still to what will be seen in a production piece.

Price is yet another obstacle. Although entry level machines are now available at affordable costs, the trade off for lower pricing is quite often lower quality part finish. Also, low purchase prices don’t always translate to lower cost for materials.
Doug Mitchell, Ford Motor Company Design (Dearborn, Michigan)

There are several huge obstacles facing expanded use of RP/RM technologies. An obstacle facing RP is the lack of usable consistent information on materials and processes. In addition to this, equipment and materials change frequently as advances in both areas keep changing at a seemingly ever increasing pace. With constant change, it’s difficult for companies offering RP services to identify what new equipment, materials and processes to purchase or offer, and end users of RP related parts and services find it difficult to understand the usefulness of advances in equipment and materials to their specific needs. Changes or improvements in materials or equipment don’t always equate to improved end use applications, further adding to the confusion.

RM, with unlimited future potential, faces an uphill struggle to gain acceptance. There is a significant lack of information on the technologies side, such as unknown material properties, machine accuracy and repeatability, long-term stability of RM materials and finished parts and their properties. There is also a significant lack of knowledge and little formal training available for engineers, designers and manufacturing professionals on these new technologies capable of direct manufacturing of finished parts. While there is no doubt that RM will play an ever increasing role in future products, our ability to properly train and educate current and future manufacturing professionals will play a big role in determining the impact RM will play in the future.
Scott Schermer, SC Johnson (Racine, WI)

The lack of available 3D data and the ease of use to create it. If customers were able to find and download a 3D file through the Web, localized 3D printers could allow for products to be produced on-demand at the point-of-sale. Solving the availability issue of 3D content will be a significant driving factor in DDM applications. With the purchase of Sketch-up by Google, people can now download a modeler for free. Most impressively, Cosmic Blobs was created as a 3D modeler for young children and sells for under $40 (U.S.). This program allows you to quickly create organic 3D color models. Moving from physical components to digital copies is much easier now too with less expensive reverse engineering tools like the NextEngine. In addition to reverse engineering techniques, a customer can also buy data from online companies like TurboSquid and 3DCafe. The real key to success will be allowing an average individual to easily find, create and modify 3D content.

Another item related to the expansion of DDM usage is materials cost. Most RP processes have a cost of about $3 to $10 per cubic inch (the Dimension/FDM is about $5 to $6). This goes back to the essence of when to use RP—only select applications that are very low quantity, small, complex and the exact material grade isn’t critical. Spending more money for convenience or for personalization will most likely be what helps alleviate the high cost of RP materials.

Build speed of additive fabrication is a very common complaint, however, it is important to realize how closely this is to build quality due to layer thickness and surface finish. An FDM system can go from double its layer thickness and significantly decrease build time. However, will the end result be useable? Maybe. In addition to improving the speed of machines in general, having a variable or variables that can be changed is very helpful similar to FDM, Polyjet and a few other technologies.
Mike Siemer, Mydea Technologies (Orlando, FL)

I guess it really depends on what you want to use it for. The obstacles are different if you are just using it for prototyping and visualization purposes versus direct manufacturing of end-products.

For prototyping/visualization, the main obstacles are cost-related. These include cost of the machines and cost of the materials. Every step downward in pricing will remove an obstacle for a new type of business to adopt RP for their prototyping/visualization/marketing/design needs.

For direct manufacturing, the main obstacles are material and speed related. We need materials with validated and repeatable properties and we need more types of materials. In addition, we need the processes to be faster so that they can compete with more traditional mass-production techniques. The faster they go, the lower the cost. Obviously cost is another main driver for direct manufacturing, but there are applications today where people would use RP/RM for direct manufacturing from a cost standpoint if they could just get it fast enough with the right material properties.
Brent Stucker, Utah State University (Logan, UT)