Massimo Bricchi

This is an interview with Massimo Bricchi who is Kuraray Europe’s Regional Marketing Manager. Kuraray Europe is involved in the production of Chemicals and resins, fibers and textiles, high-performance material, and medical products. In this interview, the discussion is focused on the 3D printing biodegradable materials that Kuraray has been manufacturing.

Take us through your organization and a brief introduction to the service and products you offer?

The Kuraray Group is an expanding, stock exchange-listed specialty Chemicals Company headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, with around 8.500 employees and annual sales of over EUR 4 billion. Kuraray Europe GmbH is a wholly-owned subsidiary headquartered in Hattersheim and Main and has around 850 employees. Kuraray is the world’s largest producer of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) and an international leader in the development and use of innovative high-performance materials for many industries.
From our PVA resin catalog, our R&D Labs in Frankfurt have developed our family of water-soluble compounds called MOWIFLEX™ which can be used in various other applications like a sausage casing, injection molding, and frac balls. For 3D Printing, we have 2 specific grades called Mowiflex 3D 1000 and 3D 2000 which are specifically designed for water-soluble support material.

Besides PVA, we sell PVB resin to produce solvent-soluble filaments for FFF. PVB has similar mechanical properties as PLA, is very transparent and can be polished, after printing by spraying it with alcohol that dissolves the surface of the objects, therefore, giving that shiny look.

For the future we are planning to introduce to 3D printing also other Kuraray products like high-temperature PA (Nylon) and elastomers.

What is the significant aspect of your 3D printing water-soluble materials and how important are they in 3D printing?

The main features that differentiate our material from the competition are:

• They are 100% soluble in tap water. No need for any additive.
• Moreover, they are certified by TUV Austria as biodegradable in water
• Low Moisture uptake. This makes our filaments quite rigid, which is beneficial for better print-ability

How compatible are your filaments with the 3D printers in the market, are there specific printers to use on?

Our filament can be used on any Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM), or Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF).

Do you see 3D printing biodegradable material as another crucial material in 3D printing for the future?

3D printing biodegradable materials will be a crucial material especially if you consider the microplastic issue. The market is also now focused on the pure technical performance of support materials.

Mowiflex water soluble filament

What is your vision with the Africa 3D printing market? Do you have plans for it?

Kuraray does not have a clear vision yet. We have exhibited at various 3D Printing fairs but hardly got visitors from Africa. We have no idea of the potential market in Africa, for our support material but would be glad to learn more about it.

And lastly, how do you see 3D printing in the future?

We are now in an early phase of the market where you see many players, from very small family companies to large enterprises continuously offering new products and technologies.

But we already see that the market is moving from a hobby-like approach to real industrial use of 3D Printing. You can see it also by looking at big companies like BASF or Henkel investing a lot into 3D printing.

We expect a future consolidation of the market where only bigger companies having the capability to develop new and reliable products will survive.

Unpolished and Polished PVB Bottle

Researchers from Germany are exploring democratizing bioprinting with their findings outlined in ‘Nydus One Syringe Extruder (NOSE): A Prusa i3 3D printer conversion for bioprinting applications.’ Recognizing the promise of this new technology and all that surrounds it, the authors focus on the potential for eliminating animal testing in the pharmaceutical industry, along with the ability to offer patient-specific treatment in nearly every area of medicine. But, applications could extend far beyond these.

In this study, the research team studies the performance of a Prusa i3 converted with a Nydus One Syringe Extruder (NOSE), allowing for hydrogel extrusion and ‘tunable deposition precision’ with a syringe holder. Projects like these are possible because of open-source technology, and here, the team was able to alter their low-cost 3D printing hardware to experiment in bioprinting. The combination of NOSE and the Prusa i3 platform in an open source bioprinting package is a potentially powerful one that could democratize bioprinting worldwide. Building on CMU’s FRESH research that has already lead to tissues being made on low-cost printers this is really a potentially groundbreaking moment in bioprinting.

So far bioprinters have been niche and cost 100,000’s or tens of thousands. With FRESH CMU already has demonstrated for three years that low-cost bioprinting for $500 to a $1000 is possible. But, this GPL licensed research combined wit the popular Prusa i3 open source 3D printer could be the thing that makes bioprinting accessible. What this paper does is give you a step by step guide on how to bioprint using a modified Prusa printer and some extra parts. In one fell swoop, hundreds of thousands of Prusa operators could potentially now experiment with bioprinting.

No matter what type of hardware, software, or materials are used though, challenges still abound in bioprinting as researchers must work hard to keep cells alive in the lab. Open sourcing allows for smaller labs to forge ahead in bioprinting also as they can bypass the cost of commercial hardware which could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Modifications to the Prusa i3 with the NOSE offer many benefits, to include:

• A RepRap basis and GPL license allowing modifications and opening the door to support in a large 3D printing community.
• Specialized P.I.N.D.A. calibration routine for user-friendliness, and ease in reproducing prints
• Open-source software
• Accessibility and affordability for users
• Validated conversion for use with cell lines, stem cells, and FRESH printing for complex structures

Once parameters are set, the researchers promise an algorithm delivering a ‘collision-free path.’ They must be set carefully and correctly, however, and the team suggests that users practice first by fabricating and experimenting with basic samples. If desired, the printer mainframe can also be replaced with a RebelliX frame.

The research paper also includes information regarding:

• Operation instructions
• One-time setup
• Software requirements and downloads
• Slic3r setup
• Bioprinting routine
• Ink preparation
• Support removal

A selection of the most commonly used bioprinting techniques: a) Inkjet bioprinting describes the deposition of biomaterials (and cells) in a low viscosity range by production and depositioning of drops in the 1-100 pL range. b) Extrusion Bioprinting: a continuous thread of biomaterial containing cells is extruded through a needle and deposited on a print surface. A broad range of viscosities is possible. c) Laser-induced forward transfer: the biomaterial is deposited on a gel ribbon. Laser impulses then initialize the release of small drops onto a receiver plate. The choice of the printing technique depends on the desired resolution, the type of biomaterials and the cell-type and -density.

Costs for converting the Prusa i3 into a comprehensive bioprinter are minimal, and the FRESH method means that users can print complex geometries, using concentrated hydrogels for bioprinting purposes. The researchers did note, however, that the NOSE system was lacking in some areas:

“A completely screw-based extruder assembly would enhance the modifiability for following iterations,” stated the researchers. “Rapid infill motions caused by the high center of mass might increase the material fatigue. One potential solution here could be the placement of the servo closer to the y-carriage. Extra mechanical-endstops would improve the user-friendliness, by automatizing the repositioning of the mechanical press. Additionally, thermal extrusion control or UV-emitting diodes could increase the cross-linking capabilities and thus the range of hydrogels in future.”

The NOSE bioprinting setup exhibited an 81 percent survival rate of HEK293 cells during experimentation and promising 85 percent rate for embryonic stem cells (mESC). Again, however, some major issues did arise as the FRESH microgel proved to be ‘non-ideal’ for cells exposed over 30 minutes.

The NOSE modification consists of four 3D-printed parts: (1) the mounting part of the y-carriage and adapter for the modular syringe holder (“main adapter”), (2) a syringe holder with a diameter suitable for common 10 mL disposable syringes (“syringe holder”), (3) part to mount a NEMA17 servo engine (“servo mounter”), (4) the press part to move the syringe-piston (“mechanical press”). All parts have been printed using 0,01 mm layer height using support structures. Any support structure leftovers or unfitting hinges were gently polished using fine sandpaper.

“Overall these findings open up further optimization of the embedded bioprinting method by creating a physiological environment,” concluded the researchers. “Our bioprinting approach is protected with the GPLv3 license, hence we invite you to reproduce our data and modify our approach.”

Bioprinting may be much more common in research labs around the world today, from microfluidic platforms to scaffolds for bone regeneration and more, but for most scientists, the ultimate goal is that of 3D printing human organs. Impressive strides have already been made, however, with cellularized hearts, human brain tissue, animal brains, and many other spectacular models.

Given that the Prusa i3 is an inexpensive 3D printer capable of high-quality 3D prints this development could potentially democratize bioprinting. If the NOSE nozzle works well then this could make the i3 an affordable bioprinting platform, for some bioprinting applications, for use in the lab and classroom. The Prusa i3 is the predominant FDM system architecture and hundreds of thousands of Prusa and Prusa clones are scattered across the earth. With the NOSE nozzle and the i3 bioprinting could now become affordable for many people worldwide. Sometimes a moment changes everything, sometimes that moment is this one.

A selection of the most commonly used bioprinting techniques: a) Inkjet bioprinting describes the deposition of biomaterials (and cells) in a low viscosity range by production and depositioning of drops in the 1-100 pL range. b) Extrusion Bioprinting: a continuous thread of biomaterial containing cells is extruded through a needle and deposited on a print surface. A broad range of viscosities is possible. c) Laser-induced forward transfer: the biomaterial is deposited on a gel ribbon. Laser impulses then initialize the release of small drops onto a receiver plate. The choice of the printing technique depends on the desired resolution, the type of biomaterials and the cell-type and -density.

[Source / Images: ‘

’]

Hollowed Bunny printed with our method, using only 2.2% of material inside (compared to a filled model). The supports use 316 mm of filament over a total of 1,622 mm for the print).

In 3D printing, every layer of material must be supported by the layer below it in order to form a solid object; when it comes to FFF 3D printing, material can only be deposited at points that are already receiving support from below. French researchers Thibault Tricard, Frédéric Claux, and Sylvain Lefebvre, from the Université de Limoges (UNILIM) and the Université de Lorraine, wanted to look at 3D printing hollow objects, and proposed a new method for hollowing in their paper “Ribbed support vaults for 3D printing of hollowed objects.”

The abstract reads, “To reduce print time and material usage, especially in the context of prototyping, it is often desirable to fabricate hollow objects. This exacerbates the requirement of support between consecutive layers: standard hollowing produces surfaces in overhang that cannot be directly fabricated anymore. Therefore, these surfaces require internal support structures. These are similar to external supports for overhangs, with the key difference that internal supports remain invisible within the object after fabrication. A fundamental challenge is to generate structures that provide a dense support while using little material. In this paper, we propose a novel type of support inspired by rib structures. Our approach guarantees that any point in a layer is supported by a point below, within a given threshold distance. Despite providing strong guarantees for printability, our supports remain lightweight and reliable to print. We propose a greedy support generation algorithm that creates compact hierarchies of rib-like walls. The walls are progressively eroded away and straightened, eventually merging with the interior object walls.”

Figure 2: A Stanford bunny model is hollowed using a standard offsetting approach. The resulting cavity (R) will not print properly due to local minima (red) and overhanging areas (orange).

While most people think of 3D printing supports as external ones that support overhanging parts of an object, the interior of an object may also need support structures.

“Hollowing a part is not trivial with technologies such as FFF,” the researchers explained. “In particular, the inner cavity resulting from a standard hollowing operator will not be printable: it will contain regions in overhang (with a low slope, see Figure 2) as well as local minima: pointed features facing downwards. There is therefore a need for support structures that can operate inside a part.”

Inner supports should occupy a small amount of space with the print cavity, and the impact on overall print time should be slight. Other researchers have contributed a variety of ideas in terms of support structures with 3D printed hollowed objects, including:

• sparse infills
• self-supported cavities
• external supports as internal structures

“We propose an algorithm to generate internal support structures that guarantee that deposited material is supported everywhere from below, are reliable to print, and require little extra material,” the researchers wrote. “This is achieved by generating hierarchical rib-like wall structures, that quickly erode away into the internal walls of the object.

“Our algorithm produces structures offering a very high support density, while using little extra material. In addition, our supports print reliably as they are composed of continuous, wall-like structures that suffer less from stability issues.”

Hollow kitten model printed with our method and split
in half vertically.

The researchers explained how to support a 3D object by “sweeping through its slices from top to bottom” and searching for any unsupported parts, then adding necessary material below them in the next slice; this material doesn’t need to cover the entire unsupported area, and can take any shape.

“The amount of material added can also be larger than the area needing support. Depositing more material than necessary comes at the price of longer printing times, but can be interesting to significantly improve printability,” the researchers explained. “Large, simple support structures often are faster to print than complex, smaller structures. Indeed, when multiple disconnected locations need to be supported, it is in many cases more effective to print a single, large structure. It encompasses and conservatively supports many small locations. This is more effective than supporting isolated spots, which individual support size may be very small and therefore difficult to print, and which will inevitably increase the amount of travel and therefore print time (taking nozzle acceleration and deceleration into account).”

The team then explained their algorithm for ribbed support vault structures. The idea is to use three main operations to produce supports: propagating and reducing supports from the above slice, detecting areas that appear to be unsupported in the current slice, and adding the supports needed for it.

“Our inspiration comes from architecture, where supports are generally designed in an arch (and vault) like manner. In particular, vaults tend to join walls in any interior space, with only a few straight pillars directed towards the floor. Similarly, many vault structures present hierarchical aspects. Such hierarchies afford for dense supports while quickly reducing to only a few elements – much like trees,” they wrote.

“Within each slice we favor supports having a rectilinear aspect: they provide support all around them while eroding quickly from their ends. Thus, within a given slice, we seek to produce rectilinear features covering the areas to be supported.

“We propose to rely on 2D trees joining the object inner boundaries. Through the propagation-reduction operator, the trees are quickly eroded away (from their branches). Taken together across slices, the trees produce self-supported walls that soon join and merge with the object inner contours, much like the ribs of ribbed vaults.”

The team 3D printed a variety of PLA models with the same perimeters on different systems. Orange models were fabricated on an Ultimaker 3, while the yellow Moai was printed on an Ultimaker 2 and the octopus on a CR-10. A Prima P120 was used to make white models, the blue Buddha was printed on an eMotion Tech MicroDelta Rework, and a dual-color fawn was made on a Flashforge Creator Pro.

Demon dog printed using our method for external support.

The quality of these prints matches models with a dense infill, thanks to the full support property offered, and the algorithm generates multiple small segments that require individual printing, which led to many “retract/prime operations surrounding travels.”

“Depending on the printer model used, the quality of the extrusion mechanics, the user-adjustable pressure of the dented extrusion wheel on the filament, as well as the brand of the filament itself, a small amount of under-extrusion may happen,” the team explained.

“To compensate for this, we perform a 5% prime surplus at the beginning of each support segment: if the filament was retracted by 3 mm before travel, we push it back by 3.15 mm after travel. Because the extra prime may create a bulge, we avoid doing it when located too close to perimeters, so as to not impact surface quality.”

The team also evaluated how much material their method needed, and compared this with materials used for iterative carving and support-free hollowing methods. They also noted how layer thickness impacted support size, and recorded processing times.

Comparison with Support-Free Hollowing and Iterative Carving. The input volume represents the volume (in mm3) and height (in mm) of the model.

“While producing supports of small length, our algorithm is clearly not optimal. This is revealed for instance on low-angle overhangs,” the team wrote. “The inefficiency is due to the local choice of connecting support walls to the closest internal surface, ignoring the material quantity that will have to appear in slices below. While a more global scheme could be devised, it could quickly become prohibitively expensive to compute.”

The researchers concluded that their algorithm ensures complete support of deposited material, which can be helpful for extruding viscous or heavy materials like concrete and clay. They believe that their method for 3D printing hollowed objects through generating ribbed internal support structures could one day lead to novel external support structures as well.

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

The New Balance 990

While I’m not much for recreational jogging these days, I’ll always remember my first real running shoes – a pair of dark gray Sauconys, which I got to pick out from the store when I made the track team in seventh grade; a short-lived activity, as I was neither fast enough for sprinting nor strong enough for shot put. Shoes have changed dramatically since then in their looks and features. Manufacturing processes have only recently begun to change with new weaving techniques, more use of polymers, and 3D printing. With the way things are going these days, it may not be long before everyone’s favorite pair of athletic shoes is of the 3D printed variety, no matter which manufacturer they come from.

Back in 2015, Boston-based athletic leader New Balance announced that it was teaming up with 3D Systems to create the first 3D printed running shoe. The company released its Zante Generate shoe a year later, and while it wasn’t the first 3D printed shoe ever created, it was the first to be made commercially available.

Now, New Balance has launched a brand new premium 3D printing platform, called TripleCell, which is powered by SLA technology from Formlabs and a completely new material.

“3D printing is changing how companies approach manufacturing, with this announcement New Balance is pioneering localized manufacturing. By eliminating the dependence on molds and direct printing for both prototyping and production, their team shifts from months to hours in the development and production cycles,” said Dávid Lakatos, Chief Product Officer of Formlabs. “We’re moving towards a world where design cycles are closing in on the whim of the consumer and it’s exciting to be on the frontlines of this with New Balance.”

It all started last year, when the two Massachusetts companies announced an exclusive relationship focused on creating high performance hardware and materials, in addition to a manufacturing process for athletic footwear. They wanted to create a 3D printing production system, with unlimited design freedom, that would open up opportunities for innovation in the athletic footwear sector – a high inventory, high volume business that involves plenty of craftsmanship and manual labor. But as more people clamor for customized products, it’s getting harder to produce them without embracing modern technology.

Katherine Petrecca, New Balance General Manager of Footwear, Innovation Design Studio, said in a Formlabs blog post, “We saw innovation with 3D printers and materials and started to envision the future of how this could come together in consumer products.

“When you’re able to use techniques like 3D printing to turn to more of an on-demand manufacturing model, that’s a game changer. There are advantages both for the consumer and for New Balance as a manufacturer. On the consumer side, the ability to design and what you can fabricate with printing is well beyond what we can do with molding. It really opens up a lot of opportunity for us to make better parts than we’re making now with foam and plastic.”

Formlabs worked closely with New Balance to develop a production system to bring TripleCell to life

New Balance realized it would need a specific material that didn’t yet exist in the industry. The new TripleCell platform can deliver components that are pretty close to traditional performance cushioning, thanks to the proprietary photopolymer Rebound Resin that was developed as a result of the partnership. Rebound Resin was designed in order to make resilient, springy lattice structures with, according to a Formlabs press release, “the durability, reliability, and longevity expected from an injection molded thermoplastic.”

“TripleCell will deliver the industry’s pinnacle expression of data to design with seamless transitions between variable properties underfoot. This new, cutting edge, digitally manufactured technology is now scaling exclusively within New Balance factories in the U.S. further establishing us as a leader in 3D printing and domestic manufacturing,” said Petrecca. “Formlabs has been an integral partner to bring this to life. We’re really going to be able to disrupt the industry not only in performance, but also in athlete customization and speed to market.”

Rebound Resin has a higher tear strength, energy return, and elongation than any other Formlabs SLA material. Most foam components in current footwear are made with compression or injection molding, which limits design possibilities. But using 3D printing for prototyping and production has allowed New Balance to open brand new opportunities in the fabrication of its footwear.

“What we could do to date is engineer the outside of the shoe and rely on the inherent properties of the material to provide all the performance benefits we’re looking for,” explained New Balance Senior Additive Manufacturing Engineer Dan Dempsey. “Any degree of what you could consider customization is disparate pieces of foam glued or molded together, with a lot of assembly steps on the back end. Using additive manufacturing, we can essentially vary the lattice structure to really change localized properties inside of a single form, giving us the ability to engineer throughout the entire volume of the shoe; we can design a system from the inside out.”

Using the new TripleCell platform for both prototyping and manufacturing allows the creation of shoes with a high cushion zone, which transitions to an area of high stability, within a single design, using a single material. It also helps decrease the time to market.

New Balance Animation

“The traditional timeline for our product cycle from paper initiation to delivery in market is 15-18 months. And when we’re building tools and waiting for foam or rubber parts, we’re looking at 4-6 week lead times. By eliminating molds, we can save months of development time,” said Petrecca. “TripleCell technology makes it possible to easily produce multiple designs at the same time, reinventing the traditional iterative testing approach. We had the ability to generate and edit thousands of options before landing on the high-performance, running focused structures you see today.”

This week, New Balance launched the first product from its new platform – the limited edition $185 990 Sport, which is now shipping and features TripleCell technology in the heel for a cushioning experience on par with its classic silhouette, but is 10% more lightweight than the 990v5 shoe.

The $175 FuelCell Echo shoe will come in September, and the first full-length high performance running product will launch in 2020.

Petrecca said, “The TripleCell 3D printed components deliver more lively, spring-like cushioning than you’ve ever experienced in foam, with the ability to ultimately be produced on-demand in our own facilities in Massachusetts.”

Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below.

[Source/Images: Formlabs]

Related posts

• Setting the Goals for Your Marketing Automation Program
• Four Unconventional Ways to Improve Conversion Rates

Just recently Stratasys launched Blueprint. Stratasys has had a consulting arm for a number of years now. The firm wanted to present and establish the Blueprint as independent-minded however. Application development and getting customers from standstill to up to speed in 3D printing is a hugely challenging task. It is rare that people can bridge both the technical side of things and business enough to translate needs into appropriate strategies. Industrializing processes and new materials is also very challenging and each new market or material has its unique challenges. Blueprint will have to also maintain its independence and independent thought while still being a part of one of the largest 3D printer OEMs in the field. Will the team succeed? This responsibility is on the shoulders of the very bright Kunal Mehta, whom we interviewed.

What is Blueprint?

We’re the world’s leading 3D printing consultants. We have 15 years of experience helping clients across virtually every industry. We’re engineers, innovators, analysts, and strategists. We are laser-focused on helping our clients make sense of 3D printing.

So, I pay you and then you tell me to get a Stratasys Printer?

No. We’re technology agnostic. We help our clients find where 3D printing will deliver the most value in their business and make recommendations based on that. Sometimes, the answer isn’t a printer; it could be a relationship with a service bureau, a change in operating model, or upskilling a department. In fact, in the last few projects, our recommendations led to new business models, including suggesting competitors printers.

What kind of engagements have you done?

We’ve done engagements ranging from high-level strategy and innovation, to deeply technical design optimization, at startups and Fortune 500 companies alike. Generally, our engagements fit into one of our seven offerings:

• Strategic Impact, helping senior leaders understand how 3D printing will impact their business
• Product Innovation, helping professionals understand how 3D printing can drive top-line growth through innovation
• Additive Deployment, creating the model for deploying additive in organizations
• Operational Improvement, diving deep into processes to help clients learn how additive can make operations leaner and smarter
• Application Validation, validating the business case for specific additive applications before committing to a manufacturing process
• Design Optimization, diving deep with engineers to realize their design intent using 3D printing
• Think Additively, teaching clients how to understand design for additive manufacturing with a business mindset

For what kinds of customers would you like to work with?

We bring the most value with engaged clients that are forward thinking and looking to really innovate in their businesses. Those are the types of clients that are willing to take a leap of faith, trust us, and trust what the technology can deliver. These types of clients can be new to additive or can be established power users, and they can be big or small.

What kind of experience do you bring to the table?

The origin of our group was Econolyst, a world-leading additive consultancy, started over 15 years ago, which Stratasys acquired in 2015. That said, the Blueprint team has worked with hundreds of clients and has developed a deep bench of methodologies, tools and thought leadership; but what’s really special about us is that we have deep experience in additive combined with a diverse array of talent. On our team, we have customer experience experts, people who have experience in supply chain, industrial engineers, and we even have a person with a degree in model making.

So, what advice would you give me if I’m a firm looking to use 3D printing?

Start by understanding why you want to use 3D printing and what 3D printing is being used for in your industry and related industries. Spend time thinking about your business case for additive before you start looking at machine specs. Figuring out how 3D printing makes sense for your business is much harder than purchasing a machine. Then come to us to help you understand your business case and generate concepts, ideas and applications.

And if I want to use 3D printing for production?

That’s a risky proposition unless you’re already using it for applications like prototyping, jigs and fixtures, and tooling. You need to get your hands dirty and use the technology for some prototypes or tools first. You need to botch a few builds and learn from that. You’re not going to paint the Mona Lisa the first time you pick up a paintbrush.

On what technologies do you advise customers?

We help clients find the business case for 3D printing. Our methodology informs our technology recommendations. If 3D printing has value for a company, we analyze what is available today and what is on the horizon; we don’t limit the scope by technology, material, manufacturer, or supplier. Case in point, we developed the 6 Business Driver Framework for 3D printing which is described in our recently released book – “The Little Blue Book of 3D Printing,” that can be downloaded directly from our website.

How does a typical engagement work?

We start with a conversation. We start by understanding what our clients are looking to solve. We then create a bespoke approach and leverage our arsenal of tools to deliver.

We live by our values. We are Trusted. We are Enablers. We are Human. That means we’re motivated by our clients’ success, we take a genuine interest in helping and we never forget that we’re working with people. At the end of the engagement, we’ve all learned something, we’ve created demonstrable value, and we’ve had some fun.

What stumbling blocks do companies entering 3D printing often encounter?

If you ask engineering, you’ll hear something about materials. If you ask procurement, it’s all about cost. The truth is that the biggest stumbling blocks are very human issues. Based on talking to our clients and our experience, we have the data on this. Lack of talent, management focus, project ownership, change management… These are the same things that affect every initiative.

Also, there’s a tendency to believe the hype around any technology, but a big part of the story that gets left out is how anything worth doing takes time, effort, and focus. If it didn’t, you’d already be doing it. Consequently, companies often bite off more than they can chew, and they’re the ones who end up getting bitten.

Why is it difficult to design for additive?

Remember, additive manufacturing is a very new tool. Additive has only been technically viable for production for maybe a decade. Like any new technology, it takes time to learn. It took 40 years for computers to become commonly used tools in business… and in many cases, the jury’s still out on whether we’re more effective with computers on our desks. It will take time for most engineering organizations to build up this experience.

More to the point, additive manufacturing grants you a unique set of design freedoms, but it also imposes some constraints. Being effective with additive will require designers and engineers to understand the freedoms and constraints. We’ve created a training offering around this. It’s called “Think Additively.”

From an organizational perspective, why do 3D printing implementations go wrong?

Silos. The most impactful and interesting opportunities in additive manufacturing are at the intersection of engineering, supply chain, and manufacturing, but these groups often don’t work together. It requires a fundamentally different way of collaboration.

Also, people have unrealistic expectations. There is no one silver bullet technology or machine and you’re not going to see an immediate return on investment the first time you print something. Anyone who tells you differently is probably selling something.

What materials are you looking forward to seeing?

More than materials, we’re looking forward to seeing processes improve. Being able to build faster, cheaper, and more consistently, is what is going to be the enabler. Also, we’re looking forward to seeing more process certifications. Once heavily regulated industries like aerospace and rail become comfortable with the consistency of the available printing processes, we’re going to see some interesting stuff.

Where will Blueprint be in five years?

Probably mostly on planes, en route to our clients. But, in general, we want to be a household name in the manufacturing industry. And we want to be able to say that we had a hand in changing a few industries for the better.

Jithin Prabha of Purdue University explores AM processes using 2 photon polymerization, useful for a variety of applications such as optics, along with metamaterials and surfaces, microfluidics, tissue engineering and bioprinting, and further exploration of innovative ways to deliver drugs. Prabha outlines his work in ‘3D Printing of Nanoantenna Arrays for Optical Metasurfaces,’ discussing how nanostructures can be fabricated in what could be referred to as ‘true 3D printing.’

In this study, Prabha employs 2 photon fabrication to make a metasurface printed via diabolo antenna arrays on a glass substrate, then coated in gold. While microfabrication can be performed in numerous ways, Prabha points out that multiphoton absorption is superior due to the capability for 3D printing complex geometries with just one laser beam.

“The process can be considered as the real 3D printing as the structure can be formed in a truly three-dimensional manner with the 3D scanning of the focal spot compared to other methods of additive manufacturing which are done layer by layer,” states Prabha. “Two photon absorption based free radical photopolymerization is what enables this remarkable feat. Two photon absorption is the simultaneous absorption of two photons to increase the energy level of a molecule from one state to a higher excited state.”

An 800nm femtosecond laser was used to create the nanoantenna arrays, which were consequently studied using a scanning electron microscope and a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (FTIR).

“For structures that are very small and are printed with a higher resolution by adding the quencher, the conventional style of slicing explained above leads to the structure being thicker at the edges and not smooth on the top. For such structures like the nano antennas like the diabolo antenna a new type of scanning method called overscanning is devised,” states Prabha.

(a) linear excitation vs two photon excitation (b) Spatial intensity profiles in the center of the beam axis for the two cases. The profile of excited molecules integrated in the transverse direction is shown at the left of each 3D plot [1].

In using this method, the antennas were designed in

and then sliced into layers using

. The array of antennas was printed at 40×40 µm or 50×50 µm on a coverglass substrate, coated with gold of 55nm in thickness by e-beam evaporation. Varied optimization parameters included:

• Height of the structure
• Periodicity in x and y
• Bowtie length and breadth
• Neck length and width
• Thickness of gold coating

(a) simulation model for diabolo antenna showing gold structure of thickness T on glass, other dimensions as shown and electric field polarization direction, (b) Magnetic field enhancement (G = T = 50 nm, D = 310 nm, λ = 1940 nm) excited result showing central hotspot with peak magnetic field enhancement of 220 normalized with the magnetic field without the gold structure [12].

 “The antenna parameters are optimized by simulations and effects of variation of critical parameters are shown in the plots and a zero reflection at resonance condition of 4.04 µm is calculated. Absorbance is calculated using the volumetric loss density equation,” concluded the author. “The absorption in the antenna and polymer is negligible and absorption in the aperture peaks at 50% at the resonance condition. Transmittance plot shows that there is a transmittance peak close to the reflectance dip at resonance and ~50% of the light gets transmitted at resonance. FTIR experiments show a polarization dependence dip to 40% at a wavelength of 6.6 µm. This change in location of the dip and shallower dip might be due to errors in fabrication like small variations in the dimensions and locations of antenna with respect to each other.”

“The fabrication method discussed in this work which includes two photon printing and e-beam evaporation is found as a viable way for printing nanoantennas. More complicated 3D geometries for antennas can be fabricated easily in this method as the first step is a 3D printing process.”

3D printing is applicable in nearly every industry today but is extremely useful to researchers and scientists endeavoring to create complex geometries and structures, and often on the nano- or micro-scale from fabricating metal structures to making high-resolution parts, and devices for more streamlined microfabrication. What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

(a) Sections of microvalves for microfluidics[8] (b) Micro-caged device for drug
delivery [9] (c) An example of a metamaterial – ultrastiff ultralight micro-lattice [10] (d)
electrostatically tunable plasmonic device using high order diffraction modes on multi-photon
polymerized three-dimensional micro-springs [11].

(a) The top view of the cad model of the diabolo antenna with dimensions, (b) the
tilted view of the antenna with a height of 400nm, (c) the conventional scan pattern for a layer,
(d) the over-scan pattern for the layer, the red lines indicate that the laser is on.

[Source / Images: ‘

’]

Four years ago, specialty chemical and advanced materials developer Arkema announced that it would increase its focus on 3D printing materials research; this was followed two years later by a major investment plan, together with its advanced liquid resin solutions subsidiary Sartomer, for advanced 3D printing materials. The company, which operates in nearly 55 countries around the world, continues its materials focus today, and is partnering up with Silicon Valley-based company Carbon to help increase adoption of digital manufacturing and deliver a new supply chain model and cycle of materials performance for Carbon’s manufacturing partners.

“Since Carbon’s early days, Arkema has been an important partner to us,” said the CEO and Co-Founder of Carbon, Dr. Joseph DeSimone. “It’s rewarding to see all the amazing outcomes of our work together over the years bringing new, innovative materials to market.”

Using its innovative Digital Light Synthesis (DLS) technology, which is enabled by its proprietary CLIP process, Carbon is working to reinvent how we design, engineer, and manufacture polymer products, such as automotive and mobile protection solutions, parts for medical devices, shoes, and even blender nozzles. Since it was founded, the company has shared a similar goal with Sartomer – to drive innovation in order to scale resin manufacturing and process technology, so that DLS 3D printed parts can be more cost-competitive and reliable.

Thierry Le Hénaff, the Chairman and CEO of Arkema, said, “We are eager to continue and strengthen our joint efforts in delivering Carbon next generation products and full solutions to our partners & customers, disrupting the way parts are mass manufactured and accelerating new market opportunities.”

Through this new strategic partnership between Carbon and Arkema’s Sartomer business line, which was announced through an investment in the startup’s capital, the two companies will help disrupt the existing supply chain model, deliver new technologies to help bring digital manufacturing more into the mainstream, and deliver advanced materials.

As additive manufacturing continues to advance and mature, we will keep seeing the way that products are designed and fabricated change across industries…and partnerships like this one between Arkema and Carbon are at the forefront of these changes. Already, their collaboration has been responsible for creating some, according to a press release issued about the partnership, “holistic solutions” that are changing things up in the consumer goods, dental, and sporting markets.

Earlier this week, Carbon announced that it had received $260 million in additional investments after a round of growth funding; one of the participants in this round was Arkema, which invested $20 million in Carbon’s Growth Funding Round. This funding will help Carbon support its next generation of integrated digital manufacturing platforms, solutions, and materials. As the two companies have a similar vision for the AM industry, their growing partnership is a great way for them to use advanced materials technology to grow their collective pipelines of production applications.

What do you think? Discuss this story and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the Facebook comments below.

Mark Wrigley

Inspired by the Apollo moon landings, Mark Wrigley embarked on a career in physics in the early 1970s. Initially specialising in optics and infra-red pyrometery his social skills soon took his career into program management, sales, marketing and product management. He is a great communicator and can transcend boundaries with his ability to explain technically complex issues to a wide audience. Operating at the forefront of disruptive technological change, he participated in the explosive growth of the mobile digital communication industry. In 2011 he set up his own company; Elektric-Works which explores the way disruptive technology and making can empower individuals and startups.

Give us some background and how it has influenced your career.

Firstly, I like social mobility. When I was a child my grandfather was a coal miner. He had the ethos of education being the gateway to a better life. It led me to working in physics. With 3D printing I want to show people that technology is a great thing. I find disruption amazing as well. When I was doing my physics degree, digital was not heard of at the time. Throughout my career I have seen stuff that changes the game completely. It is amazing to see how these technological advances make changes to the industry.

What benefits do you see in terms of being creative in the artistic sense and tech sense?

When people say art it is a form of communication. It may be that you are communicating emotions. Art is a sophisticated way of communicating. If you leave some of us physicists to only communicate it may become too boring. I always gravitate to ultra realism.

Mark Making

Talk about some of your outreach work you do?

I started doing it 7 years ago. I do stuff with the institute of Physics. We generally are at science fairs with various experiences. We try to make things oriented toward teenagers. We want to make engaging experiences. This is how we are able to incorporate maker events. People sit down and build projects and it is engaging. This gives people a tangible thought process on this type of work. We have an ethos of addressing people that are disadvantaged. About 3 years ago I became the chair of the Yorkshire branch. I was a trustee before this time.

What are your thoughts on the Maker Movement?

It is interesting. The term maker gets used for a lot of things. I came across it 4 years ago. To me I think of laser cutting, 3D printing, raspberry pi’s, and various things. There are two ways it has developed. Anyone who can make something thought of themselves as a maker. This refers to any type of artform. I have mixed feelings as it brings people in to a technical maker movement ideal as well. The word is getting diluted. My partner is part of a committee that set up a makerspace in her hometown. I have to say that some maker events are just something to do with your kids. I think that dilutes things. I would rather be in a place where makers inspire people.

Pikon Device made by Mark

How important is passion to the work you do?

I was 25 years and I read the book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. The book talks a lot about gumption. It even talks about a gumption trap. It is important to be filled with quality. This stayed with me a lot. I see it a lot in society that people are not excited about things. I feel privileged as I have done my grind doing the 9-5pm work to be financially stable. There is a fear factor people have and it stops them from pushing for their dreams.

Moon Photo Taken by Mark

What are some things that you want all makers to know?

It is important to embrace disruption. Whatever is new can be used in a bad way, but it also can be used in beneficial manners. Because I am a physicist, I work on learning life and the universe. It is important to understand existence. There is an ethos that embodies exploration.

How did your science career fuel your sense of exploration?

I think it went the other way. When I got into physics I had large questions about consciousness. When I got into my career I got more into the application of my degree into specific things. This is what allowed me to appreciate disruption. I got into instrumentation at the time PCM and Digital became a thing. In the back of my mind, I am always impressed and in awe of scientific discoveries being made. I have started with large goals and then I have come down to certain specifics. If I look at my career in reverse, there is no way I could have predicted certain things like mobile communication. I just have a curiosity. I think the human species has multiplied due to this curiosity. This applies to science and new technology.