A Round Up of Formnext 2019: Some Additive Manufacturing Highlights & A Reality Check

November means one thing in my world — heading to Frankfurt where the additive manufacturing industry converges for Formnext. Since the very slick and lovely organisers, Messago, first opened the doors on Formnext in 2015, they have very capably filled the gap that the Euromold show left, with this event dedicated to the ecosystem around additive technologies. This was its fifth iteration and the most immediate and striking feature was how big and how fast it has grown. This year the exhibition almost filled four Halls at the Frankfurt Messe, having moved to Halls 11 & 12 (upstairs and down) from its original single Hall 3 setting in 2015. 852 exhibitors presented additive manufacturing hardware, software, materials, post-processing and services to 34,532 visitors across the four days, according to the figures published, post-show, by Message. 

So with that in mind, no human being can cover all of the individual company news from Formnext in a single round-up article — if you’re looking for that sort of insight you’re best off heading over to one of the news sites such as Fabbaloo, 3DPMN, 3DPI, etc, who had teams covering the show. This is just my personal impression from the show and the limited number of conversations I was privy to.

Having grown up in this industry myself over the last *cough* 24 years, its growth— viewed as a single entity — is gratifying to see. It is also overwhelming at times, and such growth also reduces the traditional community feel of the AM industry which is a little bit sad but wholly inevitable. This is also why I have changed my approach to it — to protect my sanity, but still keep things real, in a way that fits into my life. 

Anyway, onto my biggest takeaways from this year’s exhausting event, which was also lots of fun for an additive addict. 

The rate of growth is testament to lots of new developments across the sub-sectors of the AM ecosystem — the aforementioned hardware, software, materials, services and post-processing — and comes in various forms with new companies entering the sector, established big and bigger companies joining the industry with a new additive focus, as well as existing AM companies expanding rapidly. 

In terms of AM processes themselves, invariably the new developments can be viewed as incremental progress that builds on existing and proven technologies. The core processes — laser / electron beam powder bed fusion (PBF), direct jetting, binder jetting, direct energy deposition, vat photopolymerisation, direct extrusion and sheet lamination are all being improved upon in various ways by various and increasing numbers of organisations. As you would expect, the companies with the greatest longevity in this industry are further ahead in terms of being proven and commercial uptake, with the scientific data to back that up.

The key driver for new developments is increasing the productivity of AM, or, another favourite way of phrasing it, the industrialisation of AM. Basically, these are developments that improve throughput in terms of repeatability, reproducibility and traceability as well as increasing part volume throughputs. Approaches to this vary through improvements to the hardware, software, parameter settings, material handling and/or overall workflow and were in evidence right across the show floor.  

But there is incremental progress, and then there is step-change progress. Focusing on the latter, there were a few real stand-out developments highlighted at Formnext for me. It should be noted that all of the following are based on scientific developments and only 1 is commercially available, and even that is only in part:

The first, with a prototype machine on the show floor, was from Russian company Microwave Additive Technologies. This was actually presented within a consortium of Russian hardware companies on a stand hosted by Triangulatica. I was helpfully pointed to the microwave AM platform as a must-see because it is a completely novel approach to the PBF process, utilising focused microwave radiation rather than either lasers or electron beams to selectively melt the powder material. The terminology adopted here is, unsurprisingly “selective microwave melting” or SMM. The claim is that using microwaves as the heat source reduces the cost of the hardware by a factor of 10 while increasing productivity by a factor of 100, all while negating part scalability issues. Bold claims, and no specific data to back them up at this point — however I suspect it will be, as it ever was, application specific. But definitely a potential step change development and one to watch. 

Another company with a real demo of pre-commercialised hardware, alongside its already commercialised PostPro3D hardware, was Additive Manufacturing Technologies (AMT) Ltd. It’s not AM hardware, but rather everything that comes after. The UK company is wholly focussed on the post processing stages of the AM workflow, and is one of a handful of (relatively) new companies dedicated to AM post processing such as Dyemansion and PostPro Technologies. Also in evidence at Formnext, however, were a number of traditional post processing / finishing equipment suppliers extending their portfolio for AM parts. It is hard to overstate how important the growth of this AM industry sub-sector is. With any traditional manufacturing process and likewise with AM, it is invariably the dirty (literally) and hidden part of the process chain. The companies named here have all developed / are developing automated hardware solutions for finishing 3D printed parts. However, this belies the other post processing steps often required with AM, such as unpacking, de-powdering and inspection / quality control — as well as the finishing itself. This is where AMT sets itself apart and is joining the dots with a fully automated, robotic digital manufacturing system (DMS) that encompasses all of the post processing stages. 

Last week I also learned about two other companies that have developed step-change developments for AM processes. One more advanced than the other. 

The former comes from Wayland Additive. Another UK company, the fundamental science behind this development is about getting the electron beam melting (EBM) PBF process under control — or, to put it another way, they have neutralised it! The patented NeuBeam technology (in long hand, neutral beam technology) overcomes the charge transfer instabilities of the existing electron beam process that results in difficult, time-consuming and sometimes prohibitive de-powdering requirements of existing EBM that limits the materials that can be used and the geometrical forms that can be produced. The NeuBeam technology has been through years of R&D with a team of scientists and engineers, with a background in the semi-conductor industry and metallurgy, that have developed a new metal AM system from the ground up. The system — located in Huddersfield — is demonstrably working, and I handled parts off it last week. The parts themselves were fairly typical, complex geometries as would be expected at an AM show, it was the time taken to produce and post process them that caused a brow to rise — a lot quicker and much greater productivity / process efficiency. Moreover, the team is claiming that this process can create fully dense parts, with tailored metallurgy — without the need to stress relieve them after the build, all with complete in-process control and transparency. More bold claims, and I am looking forward to seeing the machine, in person, in the new year. 

And finally, the least visible step change development I heard about came from some long standing friends in AM. This new venture, called Meta Additive, is based on the extensive research of Dr Kate Black from Liverpool University. Kate, who completed her PhD under Professor Paul Chalker, focused her research on unique materials for additive and has harnessed this into a commercially viable new binder jet process that goes beyond single material use and incorporates smart technology. The new business venture is headed up by Simon Scott, previously of MTT and later Renishaw, along with Professor Chris Sutcliffe. At this point the science and precise details are still under wraps, but with this combined scientific and business pedigree, it would be silly to assume that Meta Additive will be anything other than impressive. Also, there is a clue in the name.

What all of these developments have in common (apart from “Additive” in their names) is science – years of research that are nearing commercial reality (or reached it in the case of AMT) to enable the next generation of AM capability with fewer limitations and greater productivity. It's exciting to peep towards the horizon, but realistically, we're not there yet.

(I wonder how many times I 've written that over the last decade?)

Another Reality Check

Drilling down into the many conversations at Formnext, and moving past the invariable positive vibes about the growth, the busyness and business as well as collaboration that was going on, I found that a historical theme is still bubbling away under the surface — materials (polymers / metals / ceramics – all of them). 

Yes, there are incremental developments here too — new polymers and additional metal alloy variations, are being added to various platform capabilities. Notably, the emergence of copper parts was a big talking point for a number of companies at Formnext, including GE, EOS, Spee3D, Optomec and Farsoon. 

Despite this, however, Formnext conversations saw the issue of materials keep coming back to bite, from various different sources. One conversation in particular really focused the mind, in that it brought up how many people are aware of additive as a manufacturing method but they do not understand the reality of how to industrialise it for their given application. Thus, they have the vision for said application, one that the news and the case studies tells them makes it possible, but head towards the realities of R&D and actually the materials still don’t exist to make their vision a reality with AM. 

On the upside, there are many, many more material scientists working on this now compared with even a couple of years ago (DSM has been doing it for years, but add in all the other blue-chip materials companies taking AM seriously; as well as the vendors themselves such as Carbon, GE, EOS etc that have strong materials focus; and new companies such as 6K Additive) and it is likely the results of this work will come to market at a much faster rate in the near future. The point I’m making though, is that the reality is still not meeting expectations when it comes to materials for AM. 

On a lighter note, after catching a stand strapline on the first night after a glass of wine or 3, I took a picture and posted it on Twitter because I found it hysterically funny at the time (no judgement, please – on this or my crap photography skills) …. 

…. but it prompted me to take a look at some other straplines headlining the stands around the show. These are the words that companies choose to put alongside their names and branding to identify themselves, their capabilities or otherwise set them apart amidst an ocean of competition for people’s attention. I literally then spent any spare moments I had on this project because it fascinated me and I now have hundreds of pictures to show for it. But never fear, they’re not all going here – but I will share some of them (in no particular order) to represent the various categories I identified, namely: 

·      Simple Elegance

·      To the Point

·      Lost in translation

·      Vague

·      Deceptive 

·      Just weird.   

I’ll leave you to figure out which goes in what category ……. 

Siemens is Serious About Serial Production with AM — Materials Solutions is Just One Case in Point

Throughout 2018 reports (and opinions) about additive manufacturing (AM) processes evolving into true production-ready technologies have escalated significantly. As I reported post Formnexta few weeks back, many AM OEMs and ecosystem partners are now promoting their equipment and technologies as production capable. Supporting this trend is an increasing number of visible applications, with plenty of evidence to suggest significantly higher number of this type of application still in stealth mode. 

As fast as this narrative has intensified this year, I suspect we have barely scratched the surface and this trend is only going to increase into 2019 and beyond. It was perhaps fitting then, for Materials Solutions to host the grand opening of its new dedicated AM factory in Worcester this past week, witnessed by a host of VIPs and clients. The following day, Materials Solutions, a Siemens company, following the latter’s acquisition of the former in 2016, welcomed a press contingent to the site to tour the new facility and get a briefing on the direction and vision of the company — all centred around production applications of AM. 

As 2018 closes out and the new year dawns it was an apposite visual manifestation of the production evolution with AM. The last time I visited a Siemens AM facility, in Finspang (Sweden) last year, I made no secret of the fact that I was impressed with the company, its’ realistic approach to AM for production, and the specific application it revealed– the critical burner component for its gas turbines. At that time, while there was reference to the acquisition and collaboration with Materials Solutions, but no clear evidence of alignment. A year later and that has all changed – indeed, for me it was the one of the main take-aways from the visit. 

The alignment of Siemens as a leading and experienced user of metal AM processes, as well as a service provider working in collaboration with OEMs and their supply chains was crystal clear. Across three divisions based out of the Sweden, Germany and the UK, Siemens’ approach is realistic, holistic and unified. 

Unified

Believe it or not, for such a large company, this is rare. I’ve lost count of the number of times I have been speaking with people from large OEMs who seem oblivious to the AM capabilities within a different division of the same organization, particularly if it’s in a different geographic region. 

From Thursday’s press briefing and conversations with division leaders, namely Markus Seibold (VP AM Siemens Power and Gas, Germany), Vladimir Navrotsky (CTO Siemens Power Generation, Sweden) and Phil Hatherley (General Manager of Materials Solutions, UK) I was left with the distinct impression that Siemens continues to expand and deliver its vision for metal AM through application development and production applications with a strategic roadmap for implementation. In particular, Navrotsky’s understanding of and passion for the capabilities of metal AM are a key driver, I suspect.  

The new Materials Solutions digital factory is a major milestone on that roadmap. Material Solutions itself has an almost 10-year history, dating back to 2009 when the company was founded by Carl Brancher, with the aim of solving complex issues with metal AM. In the early days, the focus was very much on application development, qualification and proving the selective laser melting (SLM) process within manufacturing environments. The new factory continues to build on this heritage with a marked paradigm shift towards serial production, according to the three division leaders who were all very much on the same page. Of course, this was a press event, and this narrative was likely coordinated and planned, but beyond the rhetoric there is a great deal of visible action — not to mention the results coming out of Siemens. And once again, what can be seen, is just the tip of the iceberg. 

Realistic 

Listening to Markus, Phil and Vladimir during the sit-down session, another key take-away was the focus on serial production. In Sweden, lead by Vladimir, they’re already doing it with cost savings and added value. Phil is committed to bringing these same advantages to Materials Solutions’ partners and clients. Again, it did not come across as rhetoric, and it was interesting to hear Phil define serial production in terms of “certified parts” and the ability to produce any volume of certified parts repeatably and reliably, with every stage of the process (design, build, material, traceability, qualification and post processing) dialled in. 

In terms of applications, there is a keen understanding at Materials Solutions that identifying the right applications to maximize the time and cost efficiencies of AM is vital to successful production applications. To highlight this point, during the tour, Phil showed the press delegation a highly complex part that one would assume would be a great fit for AM. However, due to its size (it was big) it too 39 DAYS to build. The EOS machine it was built on handled it without issue, the part was proven and qualified, but the time and cost of a 39-day build was just not acceptable.  

Holistic 

While the focus of the large new Materials Solutions factory was certainly the AM capabilities (currently 19 metal systems, with the capacity for 50 in total), the set-up went to illustrate an end-to-end digital process, with increasing levels of automation being built in too. The facility also offers design and scanning capabilities, process simulation through new software development from Siemens other key division, qualification services, build, inspection, certification and post-processing. Moreover, there was no hiding from the fact that growth and evolution is still ongoing, particularly on the automation side. Materials Solutions is working with Solukon on more automated post-processing of AM parts. But, as Phil delightedly pointed out, “sometimes we just use one of these” . 

The other project underway, involves a mezzanine level of the factory, which is currently not being used. However, the plan is to integrate an automated material handling system, using LPW’s huge material hoppers, which will automatically feed the machines on the factory floor, and negate manual filling of the machines. 

Siemens really is serious about AM, moreover it is a company leading by example with application development, collaboration and supply chain awareness. Sharing expertise through Materials Solutions and further driving the vision for a digital factory enabled by AM. 

An Overview from Formnext 2018

Progress and Growth 

                               

The annual gathering of the global additive manufacturing (AM) and 3D printing sector took place in Frankfurt last week, for Formnext, which is now, indisputably, the de-facto event on the calendar. 

The physical size of the show – should visible proof be required — was testament to the expansion and growth of the AM and 3D printing sector. More than 600 exhibitors congregated within Halls 3 and 3.1 of the Frankfurt Messe, with some prominent AM companies hosting stands that were comparable in size to small mansions. Moreover, I understand that the floor space for the 2018 edition of Formnext was sold out over 10 weeks before the start of the show, with a waiting list of more than 20 companies looking to fill any late cancellations, most were left disappointed and attended the show as visitors. This goes some way to explain the move that Formnext will be making next year — a shuttle ride away, as in the Euromold days of yore — to halls 11 and 12. I have mixed feelings about this as I will be sorry to lose the natural light of Hall 3/3.1 as well as the identity that Formnext has established in these halls. On the flipside, however, I will not miss the logistical inelegance of navigating three sets of elevators between meetings or press conferences, often at speed and madly tweeting or messaging my next appointment to apologize for being late. The health and safety issues are not inconsiderable and thus remaining on the ground floor throughout the show will be welcomed. 

Visitor numbers were up too, to almost 27,000 and the busy aisles and stands, not to mention literally bumping into people at a frequent rate, attested to the increasing interest in this technology set for designers, engineers and manufacturers identifying solutions for their industrial applications.  

Some Highlights 

Most of these are based within the context of a continued evolution of progress — through hardware development / extended features, increasing numbers of dedicated materials and a definite thrust with AM software development. Overall, the theme that came through is one of developing and offering holistic AM solutions. Countless numbers of conversations at Formnext, both on and off the record, pointed to this. Notable this year, was that there were very few announcements of anything really new in the here and now (although there is plenty new in the pipeline – see later in this post). 

Renishaw has things coming, that were not ready for this show, but they will probably emerge early in the new year. The imposing Renishaw stand was a great demonstrator of how far this engineering company has come in making AM more reliable, more productive and just better — by joining the dots and getting involved in application development. A stand out example here is the collaboration with Betatype on the production of higher volumes of parts through intelligent and powerful software.  

BigRep unveiled two new large scale industrial machines (the Pro and Edge 3D systems) that extend the capabilities of its portfolio courtesy of them being compatible with high performance materials and featuring the company’s innovative metering extruder technology (MET) which reportedly permits higher print speeds along with increased precision and quality parts.  

High resolution, full colour 3D printers also made a resurgence at Formnext this year, with two notable developments; one from Japanese company Mimaki, with its binder jetting system: the 3DUJ-553 (ultra jetting, with build size of 500 x 500 x 300 mm). The system was launched last year but is now commercially available with more than 1 million colour options. Mimaki’s strong credentials in the 2D printing sector with advanced technology and processes have served it well, and it has to be said, the output from the machine is impressive, if creepy at times. 

RIZE also showcased its new full colour system based on its augmented deposition process. The XRIZE 3D printer is the planned progression from the RIZEOne 3D printer and introduces the same fast and precise build capabilities with minimal post-processing for functional prototypes, tools and end use products with the option to select from a colour palette of more than 800k colours (CMYK). In a nice twist, the company was offering a free RIZEOne 3D printer to anyone purchasing an XRIZE, which will be shipping in the next few months. The deal is still live, but not for much longer and was a new one on me. 

As I mentioned in my previous post, the dominant narrative across every aisle I traversed (numerous times) at Formnext was about production – whether that was 'real', serial or increased. 

One company doing this to its own tune, and admirably so, is Carbon. The company offers a sophisticated AM solution for production with polymers using its Digital Light Synthesis process and intelligently joins the dots with an emphasis on software and, most pertinently, materials to make it perform. Moreover, the company is keeping its promises in lowering operating costs for production applications. Just ahead of Formnext, Carbon announced it was slashing the cost of bulk volume orders of its most widely used resins, from $150 down to $50 per litre. Phil DeSimone, co-founder of Carbon with his father, wasn’t at the show but messaged me when I posted a picture of the many pairs of Adidas FutureCraft trainers on their stand (still tickles me, but there were no pink ones!). Phil told me: “Since Carbon first installed a 3D printer in 2016 we have gone from $300 to $150 [and now] to $50 based on the back of large scale production applications like Adidas; and based on the fact that our printers are being used and used a lot (97.5% of our install base prints every month). We firmly believe in providing this savings back to our customer base in order to drive digital manufacturing further and to blur the lines for when one needs injection molding. Our competitors have been in business for 30 years and over that time no one has been able to drive down costs of materials (roughly remaining the same price over that time frame) because no one has been able to get to production at scale.”

I’ve quoted this at length because I agree with his assessment. Material costs are a vital part of the business equation of AM for serial and higher volume production applications. Until a similar path emerges on the metal side of the industry that contributes to significantly reduced cost-per-part, wider adoption and growth will remain slow. It won’t stop, by any means, but I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard someone say “cost-per-part” is the ONLY thing that matters for production. It’s not actually the “only” thing, but it’s probably top. 

I also attended meetings and/or press conferences for a whole host of other leading AM companies and without fail the emphasis was on growth, expansion and progress. 

XJet, just the week before Formnext had a breakthrough with supports for its metal process as well as expanding its ceramics business and company headquarters. Dror Danai was his effervescent self as he informed a packed press conference of the latest developments, including a show and tell to demonstrate the safe means of support removal they have achieved. His hospitality, along with the rest of this smart team at the stand party later that evening, was equally engaging. This was conducted in collaboration with contract manufacturer Oerlikon, who last year invested in the first Xjet ceramic system and continues to grow its AM channel business with full integration of AM systems into its wide ranging capabilities. A conversation I had with Dan Johns of Oerlikon more than a year ago now, continues to ring true in terms of how important it is to get the integration of AM right. This company is a beacon in that regard, I believe. 

Desktop Metal remains bullish about its metal production system, citing installations with partners in 2019 and positive responses from partner application development projects. Progress at Voxeljet, 3D Systems, and SLM Solutions was evident through collaborations and significant application development. VJ, CEO at 3D Systems could not overstate the importance of partnerships to drive applications, even while introducing system portfolio extensions. At SLM Solutions, the traditional vast stand was an eye-catcher, but I can’t quite put my finger on what’s going on there. I do know a lot of people have left or are leaving. The rumour mill is rife with theories and opinions, which I am not prepared to repeat or comment on. But from my own experience of the the press conference, I will say that the company does seem to have lost its way a little. There was the familiar narrative, of production and growth, but it was literally read from a script. 

OR Laser has taken a different route to secure growth with its respective metal AM developments. The company, now under the umbrella of Coherent Inc, continues to drive its accessible AM portfolio of metal systems and showcased the latest developments for reactive materials as well as mobile flexible units. Talking with Uri Resnik about the transition was both enlightening and encouraging. 

Catching up with Neil Siddons and Sean Wootton at GE is always a pleasure, those two just make me smile, without fail and we made plans for some deeper insights away from Formnext. But even getting down to the serious, albeit brief, discussions at the show the dominant theme from GE is currently about consolidation — “making what we have even better,” as Neil put it, and this is being driven by customers and partners. 

AddUp is another company that is very quietly and industrially going about its business. Of course, this strength and belief comes from the insider knowledge – proven, high volume application of metal AM for Michelin, which was the very foundation of the company. The growth here, from the company’s launch just a couple of years ago is telling, including the acquisition of BeAM. 

It’s probably getting a bit boring now, but HP’s Formnext narrative was similarly all about new partnerships, growth and progress. The “new” metal system remains years from being commercially available, even while it teased with some metal parts. Lots of new applications with MJF were on show – for prototyping, tooling and manufacturing (as opposed to production) applications. 

So even while the messaging is bordering on repetitive and boring, what this goes to show, I believe, is that there is a real consolidation taking place across the industry — of technology, processes and adoption. And even while there are a growing number of new and joining players, the technology is becoming increasing “normal” and embedded across industry sectors. 

Software Development 

Another stand out theme from the show was the progress around software development specifically for AM. 

Simulation software definitely dominated here, but there are other software disciplines that are also being recognized and developed at pace, albeit by fewer players. I mentioned the increase in visibility of AM-specific simulation software after the TCT show in September, when Materialise, ANSYS, Autodesk through its Netfabb brand and GE were all promoting significant developments with this genre of software. At Formnext these companies were all talking it up, joined, notably by Siemens and ESI.  

Siemens’ main driver at its Formnext press conference was the launch of its simulation software. Not at all surprising, and the software capabilities have been driven by the company’s own internal and prolific application development with metal AM. Not surprisingly it came over as an extremely robust and intelligent solution for improving workflow and reducing failed builds. There was also news of the new AM manufacturing centre opening in December in the UK. However, the nugget of news that really caught my eye from Siemens was in the form of its financial services offering. Siemens has identified investment and financing as a barrier to adoption of AM and is proposing financing solutions and extended payment terms through colloaboration with OEMs in the AM sector. Don’t get me wrong, this is one small step on a very long (probably painful) journey, but it is to be applauded and more financial institutions and OEMs need to be looking at initiatives like this. 

My first appointment of the entire show was with start-up co-founder Lee-Bath Nelson of LEO Lane. I’d done a bit of background checking to have my ducks in a row when sitting down with Lee, I’ll confess, I was a tad intimidated to learn that she had been a VC for a large part of her career, but I was also intrigued to understand more about this patented software development for AM workflow process control for serial production applications. As it turned out this was one of the most insightful and delightful interviews of the week, followed up by an in-depth conversation later that evening at the Women In 3D Printing gathering, post-show hours, and with a glass of wine in hand. 

Lee is highly intelligent, extremely knowledgeable when it comes to AM (having invested in 3D printing companies over the years, including but not limited to Objet) and, best of all, really open and easy to talk to. The proposition LEO Lane offers is a workflow system that can be easily incorporated into existing production workflows, but specifically builds in IP protection and consistency enforcement through automated parameter and settings analysis for AM processes, as well as archive a digital inventory and track everything. Lee summed it up as “software-as-a-service, that allows management to sleep at night AND save money.” She was also effusive about “playing nice with others,” supporting this statement by telling me about certified partnerships with SAP and Materialise. There are others, but none that can yet be discussed in the public domain. Any company looking to integrate AM for production, should not overlook this development — particularly if peace of mind is an important factor.  

Looking Ahead: New Products & Processes on the Horizon (Not Commercially Available)

When I said above that there was nothing really new at Formnext this year, that was not to say that there are not new and interesting things in development. Some of these were introduced or revealed in more detail at the show last week — but it is really important to make a distinction here between what is new and commercially available to the market now, and what is “potentially” on the way to market. I’ve been around the block enough times now to understand that exciting new processes, with genuine potential to disrupt the status quo don’t always scale up and make it to market, and even when they do, it invariably takes longer than originally planned and/or stated.  

Stratasys teased the introduction of its new, metal AM process earlier in the year. Details were sparse, to say the least, but at Formnext the company drew back the curtain a little further on the details. Layered Powder Metallurgy, or LPM, was described by Andy Middleton, Stratasys’ EVP as “unlike any other metal AM process to date and offering very competitive economics.” And as more of the details were revealed at the company’s press conference, I would concur with the former and am keeping an open mind on the latter. LPM is a metal powder bed process, but unlike powder bed fusion (PBF) or binder jetting, it uses compression and a “secret sauce” jetting material around the outside of the metal part. No other material other than the metal powder makes up the part composition. Parts are reportedly 99.9% dense but do require subsequent sintering. Moreover, the company is only releasing the process with Aluminium material to begin with, a strategic decision based on customer demands and a current pain point across the industry. This, again, according to Mr Middleton. But other materials are destined to follow. Still very much in development, Stratasys reported that Beta LPM systems will be installed in 2019, with commercial availability remaining a question mark. 

Another company that generated a great deal of interest with a new ‘in development’ additive manufacturing process was EOS. When it comes to robust reputation and market penetration, EOS is right up there with its polymer and metal industrial laser sintering / melting systems. So it is right to take the introduction of the LaserProFusion system seriously. This system is all about reaching the potential of serial production with AM through increased productivity and automation, through the increased use of lasers (up to a million, the company quoted) which results, with some clever number crunching, in producing production polymer parts in high volumes that compare with injection moulding. Each part (as shown in the picture) is reportedly produced in 7 seconds. (100 parts per build, in 700 seconds = 7 seconds per part [I think!]). However, this system is [at least] two years from commercial availability, according to EOS. I added the ‘at least’ because one assumes this is 'if' all goes according to plan. With such hardware developments, it rarely does. 

Other interesting developments, some way off commercialization, could also be found at Formnext from Aurora Labs (Australia) for large components produced in metal alloys on the fly, the Fraunhofer Institute with its innovative TwoCure process, V Shaper with its 5D printing proposition (based on 5 axis machining), LSS and Aerosint.

One issue I do believe needs to be raised here is that while I do love discovering and reporting on these new technology developments — they are amazing with some very driven people working on them with passion and belief — these breakthroughs can be misleading for uninitiated and/or new visitors to a vast event like this. You would hope that common sense would prevail, but in today’s world that is not something that can be taken for granted, so it is important to clearly distinguish between what is possible now and how long potential users may have to wait for a solution that is in development that may work for them. Sometimes even seasoned professionals (industrial and press) struggle with this. Moreover, there are marketing people that (sometimes intentionally) blur the lines, which is unhelpful. 

In Conclusion

Full disclaimer, despite the inevitable wordy and unwieldy nature of this post, I barely made a dent in what was on show at Formnext during my two and half days. I should have gone for the full four days!  

Main point here, though, for visitors and non-visitors alike, read overviews like this — find the nuggets that may be interesting for your work. Then follow up, talk to other people, create internal and external networks, collaborate. And keep pushing the industry on through new and improved applications, whether for prototyping, tooling, manufacturing or production. That’s the real value in Formnext for the AM and 3D printing sector, and it comes after the boot pounding. 

The other best bit is the people. I met up with so many lovely people, new friends and old. Thank you one and all. You’ve all given me lots to think about. 

Additive Manufacturing for “Real” Production: Where are we?

Here’s my take following Formnext 2018 and a year of evolving insight ...

There was one word that was used more than any other at this year’s edition of Formnext in Frankfurt, which took place this week. You guessed it: PRODUCTION. It was invariably accompanied by other words, usually “serial” or “high-volume” — all within the context of additive manufacturing (AM) processes. This is, and has been for a while, the ultimate application goal with AM. Indeed, now more than ever, it appears to be within reach, with some evidence, and plenty of hearsay, to suggest it is happening right now. 

For context, and following the changes of the industry as I see them, I am now differentiating between manufacturing and serial production applications of AM, as well as the well-established prototyping and increasing tooling applications.Specifically, I find myself categorizing applications as follows:

Product Development / Prototyping:using AM/3DP processes for developing new products – to prove concepts, improve design integrity through fast iterations and determine form, fit and function. Material selection and identification can also be included here – prototyping in the end use material, or close. 

Tooling:Using AM/3DP processes to produce rapid tooling and/or investment casting parts to speed up the production process for small to medium volume parts and to overcome many of the limitations of traditional tooling methodologies including but not limited to very long lead times and extortionate costs. 

Manufacturing:using AM/3DP for single use / very low volume products and parts. Examples from this category can be found right throughout the supply chain – from large OEMs down to individual “cottage industry” type companies. It also includes using AM for general and customized jigs and fixtures etc. 

Production– medium to high volumes (serial), high quality (to regulatory standards) repeatable production of products / parts. 

I know this is far from perfect, most notably how manufacturing and production can be used interchangeably and there is the potential for confusion here, but when offered with context and perspective, this is the best I’ve come up with, so far, at least. [Feel free to let me know any thoughts on this ….] 

Anyway, back to Formnext and the opinions that framed the conversations around production during the course of the week were many and varied — even vastly contrasting in some cases. 

For instance, one conversation was beyond bullish, and included the statement: “Serial production with AM is proliferating, everyone is doing it.” I raised a brow, and challenged that with my own thoughts that it is growing, but most serial production applications of AM are not visible; but it is far from “everyone.” 

Another conversation, was the converse, including the proposition that: “’REAL’ production with AM will take decades.” Guess what? I raised a brow, and challenged that with my own thoughts that it is growing, but most serial production applications of AM are not visible yet; but there is real progress, with evidence and I cited the usual. 

It was weird to find myself using virtually the same argument to counter two such contrary points of view. I have no idea if I left a lasting impression or tempered either of these views in any way, but you never know. To be fair, however, the majority of conversations were more in line with my position of growth and expansion around application development as well as AM being integrated into real production workflows at increasing volumes, albeit most still not in the public domain. The general consensus I picked up on this week is that serial production applications with AM processes offer the biggest opportunities for the growth of the sector. 

As you would absolutely expect, the AM Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are ‘bigging’ up the production narrative. The OEMs offering metal were leading the way, but there was also plenty of the same from the polymers side as well, notably Carbon, HP, Stratasys and 3D Systems. The latter currently offers both metal and polymer AM solutions while Stratasys and HP will, at some point in the next couple of years (maybe longer), also commercialize their metal systems that are currently in development to complement their industrial polymer AM solutions.  

The real / serial production narrative was everywhere in various forms, including but not limited to “increased productivity”, “increased / improved production workflows” and so on. So, while I do, generally, agree that this is the direction the industry is heading in terms of growth; it does not and should not in any way take away from the prolific and still proliferating prototyping, tooling and manufacturing applications with additive processes (as defined above). They are here to stay and will continue. The fact that this different narrative is generally understated — because it is now the norm for most companies that develop new products — is actually a good thing in many ways, but I am not convinced it should be quite so understated at an event like Formnext. 

The standard, well-documented production applications of AM are still highly visible and being cited as the “proof” cases. You know the ones – the GE LEAP engine bracket (metal) and the Carbon / Adidas FutureCraft shoes (polymers). It is hard to keep the frustrated tone at bay here, but this is where we are for one good reason — these are pretty much the only applications that have approval for publication and to be out in the public domain. Although, on that, there is another, albeit under-used example, that I was beautifully reminded of this week, by Lee-Bath Nelson, co-founder of LEO Lane. And that is Michelin. I can’t put it any better than Lee, so I am going to quote her: “Michelin opened the kimono on their use of metal AM production. They’re producing a million metal AM parts per year, which is incredible.” 

Michelin, however, had the means and the wherewithal to develop their own systems to achieve their goals. This was not an off-the-shelf solution, and there are not many other companies across the world with the financial standing to do this, or subsequently invest in a new company / partner to commercialize the resulting system (AddUp, which has now also acquired BeAM). 

But here is the rub, while these are the stories that continue to be told, there are actually many others that the OEMs can’t talk about in the public domain. It’s long been the case as far as ‘case studies’ are concerned, but this week I specifically asked OEMs about the “invisible applications” in generic terms – most, if not all agreed that compared with what they can talk about, there was >80% production applications, many serial production, not visible. A large majority also agreed that it was highly frustrating, particularly for the industry as a whole. 

Their inability to talk, invariably comes from their customers’ fears of losing a competitive advantage - probably rightly - if frustratingly, so. I’ve been clued in on a couple on trust, most wouldn’t go beyond talking about this generically. However, for me this does, up to a point, justify the increasing narrative and rhetoric around AM for production. There are many more happening than can be seen and the OEMs are scaling up to generate more based on what they already know but can’t say. 

Of course, there are still challenges across the entire production workflow – some specific to AM capabilities and some to do with integration. It is important to remember that not all AM processes (still, currently seven categories) have the capabilities to meet the requirements of serial production applications. And, even for the AM processes that can, they are rarely, if ever, going to provide a standalone solution, so integration into existing workflows can be a real bottleneck that has to be overcome. Costs also remain a major barrier to adoption — both capital and per-part. To date the production applications that are out / emerging utilize the capabilities of AM to justify the costs through added value that overcomes the cost either over the lifetime of the product / part (eg GE / Michelin) or through higher volumes (eg Carbon & Adidas). 

However, until costs come down, which I believe they will, wider adoption throughout the supply chain is unlikely to increase dramatically. Financing, too, can be brought in here, but I saw one chink of light on this issue, this week – from Siemens, believe it or not. Another barrier that remains is build speeds - EOS might have an alternative and interesting answer to this with its introduction of polymer LaserProFusion process this week, but it’s not an imminent solution for the market. On the metal side, GE and Betatype and others are working on solutions for speed. Other limitations are being overcome before our very eyes too, issues such as simulation, qualification and verification are key here. 

As ever – the reality of AM for production is a conundrum of positive progress and frustrating reservation. However, I believe the evolution is happening out there, right now.

This issue was so dominant at Formnext, I have chosen to write this post separately from the general overview of the show, which will include specific news, highlights and other themes touched on here. It will follow soon, and include more details on the companies, products and people I have referenced in this post, such as LEO Lane, LaserProFusion, GE, Siemens, Carbon etc.