Metal 3D printing is becoming a vital source of production for a wide range of industries today, and a unique underrstanding of the required materials continues to grow around it. To sift through the finer details of powder usage, German scientists Silvia Vock, Burghardt Klöden, Alexander Kirchner, Thomas Weißgärber, and Bernd Kieback reviewed current testing and evaluating methods in ‘Powders for powder bed fusion: a review.’

While there are numerous different categories for using powder in additive manufacturing, powder bed fusion is the main process considered in their paper. Consequent powder properties can be subdivided, beginning at the lowest level with individual properties, in bulk, and then regarding how it behaves under certain conditions (in-process performance). Testing powders on the single particle scale is a standard, inexpensive exercise, while evaluating bulk-particle behavior and in-process performance are more difficult.

As the research team began reviewing powders for suitability, they discussed flowability first, looking at how unique powders behave once they are put into a manufacturing process and possibly under pressure of different sorts. Flowability is interconnected with equipment and the actual processes underway. The researchers also remind us that even the smallest variation in powder could have a substantial effect on processability. Testing techniques such as the Hall flowmeter funnel (ASTM B213) and the Carney funnel (ASTM B964) are used, however, the researchers do not hold much stock in funnel tests, unless the materials are ‘superior flowing powders.’ Although ‘cohesive powders’ may be suitable for use, they are not easily tested with funnel tests either.

Other tests such as the Hausner ratio (HR) are found to be unsuitable also, as well as Round Robin testing, and angle of repose. The most promising manner for testing flowability is powder testing with a powder rheometer; however, the researchers state that more studies are needed. Particle size distribution is a property not dependent on other parameters, but the team points out that ‘several issues and limitations can occur.’ For good flow, the PSD must be narrow and for a bulkier density, there must be wide distribution.

“From the large amount of observed correlations between PSD and other process relevant aspects as well as final part quality reviewed above, it is clear that PSD is an important powder characteristic and has to be carefully tailored,” states the research team. “However, it is not a parameter which can be used without additional information to decide how the powder will behave in the process.”

Final part quality investigations have been uncommon so far, but the researchers note the obvious connection regarding issues such as morphology, impurities, moisture content, particle density, and bulk material properties.

“It can already be seen that contradictions can occur both, for one interconnection between part and powder property, as well as between powder property and different part quality aspects. While in the first case the reason of the contradiction has a methodological reason, the second case is a sign for the need of optimization to tailor the final part quality to fit the requirements,” states the research team.

Studying powder for measures of suitability in metal 3D printing is not only vital to successful production, but such determinations will help to continue expanding the availability of applicable materials. Manufacturers can work on more optimal powders and target larger markets, while users enjoy new and improved materials.

“For a more precise identification of crucial powder and bulk properties, the solution will be either a combination of various characterization methods for given process parameters or a more complex powder characterization technique exclusively designed for the specific PBF process,” concludes the research team.

Visualization of the relationships between powder properties, bulk powder behavior, powder performance in process and finally the manufactured part quality as elaborated by different research groups (Image: ‘Powders for powder bed fusion: a review’)

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Check out some of our other stories on 3D printing with metal, as it is featured in scenarios like Navy warships, presented as complex AM processes for other countries, and becoming important in applications like aerospace. Join the discussion of this article and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source:

]

Once again, 3D printing and robotics are to be called on as futuristic space plans are developed, this time by the Chinese as they look toward creating a solar power station to orbit the earth at 36,000 kilometers. In an effort to continue seeking alternatives for renewable energy, the Chinese government is studying ways to harness energy from the sun without other obstacles such as blockage from the atmosphere, or lack of sunlight due to seasons and darkness at night.

And while many projections for going to space are mere concepts, China’s Science and Technology Daily reported that construction has already begun on a space power plant in Chongqing, although it is still in the experimental stages; furthermore, Pang Zhihao, a researcher from the China Academy of Space Technology Corporation, states that the new space station offers enormous potential with the possibility of offering ‘an inexhaustible source of clean energy for humans.”

Chinese scientists will begin with a small- to medium-sized solar power station for creating electricity, sending it into space sometime between 2021-2025. After that, they plan to construct a megawatt space solar power station.

And as excitement builds, Li Ming, the vice president of the China Academy of Space Technology says he sees China as ‘the first country to build a space solar power station with practical value.’

Zhihao says that electric cars can be charged with such solar energy, and it could be provided nearly all the time—surpassing current, progressive solar energy farms on Earth by six times as the sun’s rays are transformed into electricity or microwave or laser beams.

Zhihao also envisions challenges for the renewable energy project but expects they will be overcome—including transporting a 1000-ton space station (in comparison to the 450-ton ISS) to space; however, with the assistance of futuristic, laboring robots and 3D printers pumping out construction materials, it may be possible to build the solar energy station in space—a topic which has been explored multiple times in terms of considering construction for habitats on the moon or Mars, with regolith or ‘space dirt’ usually playing a future role.

How space solar power works (Image: Jamie Brown)

As other countries begin to follow suit regarding such energy exchanges, the positive impact on the environment could be exactly what is needed, along with propelling China further in their quests for deep space exploration. 3D printing, already in the works for this space station, it would seem, could continue to play a major role in space due to the options it provides in self sustainability.

With a 3D printer in tow and the materials and tools for making parts, astronauts and space travelers can look forward to an entirely new experience—and eventually, residents of the moon or Mars will be part of colonization fabricated by machines using strong but lightweight alternative materials that can be carried into space, or perhaps found there.

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.

[Source / Images:

]

A prototype created by California Institute of Technology scientists to harness and transmit solar energy from space using light weight tiles.

Launcher and AMCM have just announced successful production of a large single-part 3D printed rocket, now available for direct purchase from aerospace companies. The E-2 liquid rocket engine chamber was created on AMCM’s M4K 3D printer—a customized EOS M400 series machine that can fabricate parts up to 45x45x100cm. This rocket features engine thrust with 10-ton force (22,000 lbf), height of 85cm (33.5 inches), and diameter of 40 cm (15.7 inches).

(Photo Credit: Launcher/John Kraus)

(Photo Credit: Launcher/John Kraus)

In a recent press release sent to 3DPrint.com, the Launcher team states that 3D printing both the rocket chamber and nozzle together as one part allows for the highest performance in cooling, along with reducing part count and complexity in production—along with other typical but extremely enticing benefits such as affordability and speed in manufacturing. Functioning as part of the EOS group, AMCM produces customized AM machines, and Launcher is the first customer of the AMCM M4K. Last we checked with the Brooklyn-headquartered space startup, they well re just beginning development and testing of 3D printed rocket engines and components.

VIDEO

AMCM is known not only for their AM manufacturing prowess, but also for employing a specialized team of mechanical engineers responsible for custom machine development, with over a dozen projects completed so far. AMCM also designs and constructs laser and optical systems, continuing to push boundaries in innovations spanning multiple industries.

While we don’t know what type of influence this type of rocket will have on aerospace overall as Launcher was only founded a couple of years ago and doesn’t plan to put a test vehicle in orbit until 2026, 3D printing technology has undeniably infiltrated both aerospace and aeronautics (plus just about every other industry imaginable). We have followed countless stories regarding 3D printing and space, however, with the technology expected to play a role in everything from creating spaceship parts to making life for astronauts easier (even in uniform fabrication) and colonizing homes on the moon or on Mars. Along with that, 3D printing in space—once a staggering concept—is now almost an expected part of International Space Station activities as astronauts find maintenance easier in fabricating on-demand tools, and even dabble in bioprinting as zero gravity benefits are further explored.

Orbex, headquartered in London, is another company recently endeavoring to put 3D printed rockets into space, and they may also be vying for the envied industry slot of having made the largest known, single-part design using the SLM 800 3D printer for large scale production parts. They’ve now been pipped by a larger Launcher part. Let’s hope we have a 3D printing space race on our hands. The UK spaceflight firm may have the cash since they  recently secured £30 million ($39.6 million) in funding for continued development of their orbital space launch systems.

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.

[Source / Images: Launcher]

[Photo Credit: Launcher/Alex Trebus]

(Photo Credit: Launcher/John Kraus)

Vermont-based A3DM Technologies, which has long contributed to multiple commercial 3D printing production processes, and GPA Innova, founded in 2015 in Barcelona, recently entered into a collaborative research and development agreement in order to further advance post-processing of metal 3D printed parts. The two companies will accomplish this using an award-winning dry electropolishing surface treatment process called DLyte, for Dry Electrolyte.

“We are a small research firm with 25 years of system and material contribution to major AM brands,” A3DM’s Steven Adler told 3DPrint.com.

“We develop next generation metal additive materials and processes for industry, academia, and government agencies.”

A3DM was founded back in 1996, and in addition to its new agreement with GPA Innova, the company is also focused on using induction plasma to synthesize spherical micron and nano metal powders for multiple technology applications, in addition to developing optimized laser plotting and other parameters for powder bed fusion 3D printers.

“A3DM Technologies brings decades of expertise in the development of process improvements for Additive Manufacturing,” said GPA Innova’s Patrick Sage. “We believe they will be instrumental in the advancement DLyte ‘Dry’ Electro-Polishing in this growing production application.”

GPA Innova created the patented DLyte process, which specifically targets surface roughness uniformly, while also sustaining small feature details and dimensional accuracy of metal 3D printed parts. The technology firm specializes in designing and manufacturing metal surface finishing machinery, and was originally founded in order to provide product design and process development solutions for industrial applications.

So, just what makes the DLyte process so special? We asked Adler to explain how it works, and he said that it can be considered a “disruptive engineering technology in electrolyte finishing” for several reasons.

“Electrolytic processes are sometimes termed ‘electro-polishing’,” he explained to us.

“Typical electrolytic systems are liquids which later become a hazardous waste product when exhausted …. To date there has never been a “Dry” method, which being environmentally friendly is a distinct advantage.

“Typical electrolytic systems polish unevenly based ion transfer of the item shape – corners and crevices are problematic. DLyte smooths evenly with the aid of solid body assisted ion transfer.”

DLyte is a unique, one-step automated process that grinds and polishes metal 3D printed parts using ion transport with free solid bodies, without using a liquid electrolyte. 3D printed parts made out of metals such as aluminum, cobalt chrome, nickel alloys, precious metals, steel and stainless steel, and titanium can all be used with the DLyte process in multiple industries, such as aerospace, automotive, dental, healthcare, and luxury.

We asked Adler why DLyte is different from other surface finishing or post-processing methods, like HIP or tumbling.

“HIP is a metal heat treatment that compresses internal structures,” Adler told 3DPrint.com.

“Tumbling is a mechanical process that erodes.”

According to the website, DLyte differs from traditional polishing in that it can not only preserve the initial shapes, but also penetrate into all of a part’s dead zones. Without having to rely on grinding patterns, the process creates a homogeneous polish across the surface, and can process complex geometries without leaving any micro-scratches on the surface.

The main benefits of using DLyte include:

• controlled costs and predictable lead times
• increases resistance to corrosion
• traceable industrial process
• leaves no trace of hydrogen on surface
• easy to process channels and cavities

“A3DM Technologies recognizes Dlyte as a truly disruptive technology for additively manufactured metal parts,” Adler said. “The unique ion transport process has the potential for high productivity with a significant reduction in our environmental impact over traditional electolytic processes.”

As part of its agreement with GPA Innova, A3DM Technologies will be working to develop optimized processing parameters for the DLyte process, specifically for metal alloys that are used in powder-based 3D printing processes.

 VIDEO

Discuss this news and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the Facebook comments below.

In ‘Layer-to-Layer Physical Characteristics and Compression Behavior of 3D Printed Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene Metastructures Fabricated using Different Process Parameters,’ Wright State University researcher Sivani Patibandla investigates how well ABS performs under pressure, measuring varied responses to temperature and speed, using a MakerBot 2X Replicator 3D printer.

Fabrication of phononic metastructures (often lattice or periodic structures) was examined in comparison to a multitude of previous studies regarding materials and 3D printing, as Patibandla used FDM 3D printing for this study employing several different types of hardness tests. Nine different 3D printed cubes were produced with 50 percent infill density using three different speeds. Samples were created in SolidWorks, fabricated on the MakerBot, and then compression tests were performed using INSTRON 5500R.

“Stress-strain curves are plotted for the samples and the modulus, yield and failure stress are compared. The physical characteristics such as the shape and the size of printed fibers in each layer, the fiber distance, and the fiber-to-fiber interface are investigated,” states Patibandla in her thesis. “In addition, their effects on mechanical characteristics of 16 of the printed samples are examined and interpreted with respect to the layer physical characteristics. The hardness test is done by using MICROMET 1 with a load of 25gf. The micro indenter is indented at contact of the fibers from top and cross section for all the samples to compare their effects with change in fabrication temperature and fabrication speed.”

Schematic diagram of FDM process

Each cube had a build size of 30 mm × 30 mm ×30 mm, with side shells removed via milling so that research could be more easily performed—ultimately resulting in dimensions of 24 mm × 24 mm × 30 mm. Patibandla points out that they were able to vary the following variables:

• Print fabrication speed
• Extrusion fabrication temperature
• Infill percentage
• Infill geometry
• Layer thickness
• Other parameters

Parts were built at temperatures of 210˚C, 230˚C, 250˚C and fabrications speeds of 100 mm/s,125 mm/s, and 150 mm/s. The cubes were viewed from the top using three different magnifications of 6.3, 18, and 20.

“For each sample, the readings are taken at 6 different locations and average value is considered to understand uncertainty. From the measured values it was observed that there is a large gap between the fibers at low fabrication temperatures and the gap decreased with increase in fabrication temperature,” stated the researcher.

Cross sections were also viewed at magnifications of 10,16, and 18. Patibandla noted that fibers from low fabrication temperatures seemed more uniform than those 3D printed at high printed temperatures. Compression testing was performed under displacement control of 0.5 mm/min, with each sample compressed up to 15 mm crush length, at 50 percent of heights.

Stress-strain curves were plotted to find the following:

• Modulus of elasticity
• Yield strength
• Failure strength

Vickers hardness test

In evaluating hardness, the Vickers test was used on all the samples.

“The first set of specimens were indented with a load of 25 gf from top at 3 different locations and the average value of results is taken to get accurate results. Whereas the second set of samples are indented with the same load of 25 gf from the cross section at the intersection point of the fibers. The test is done at 3 different locations and average value considered as the result. Since the surface is not flat while indenting from the top, only the length of indentation in the fiber length direction is recorded that is a function of hardness,” stated Patibandla.

In using three different 3D printing speeds at 100 mm/s, 125 mm/s, and 150 mm/s, the modulus increased as temperature increased from 210 ˚C to 250 ˚C.

“The maximum value is observed for condition 9 which Yield Strength Failure Strength 51 is at a fabrication temperature of 250 ˚C and minimum value at 210 ˚C. The maximum modulus of elasticity is about 321.8 MPa and minimum is 179.1 MPa. It is observed that there is a large increase in modulus from 210 ˚C to 230 ˚C of about 56.7% whereas a small increase of 14.6% from 230 ˚C to 250 ˚C,” said Patibandla.

All results pointed toward more yield and failure strengths in the presence of higher temperatures. The research also showed that speed did not affect any mechanical characteristics.

“From observing all the results and comparing them it is concluded that higher the fabrication temperature better the mechanical properties, and vice versa. However, the printed fibers are more uniform and well-rounded at lower fabrication temperature. It is also observed that the fabrication speed has no effect on any of the physical or mechanical characteristics,” Patibandla concluded.

“In case of physical characteristics from the optical microscopic images and measurements it is clear that at high fabrication temperature the distance between the fibers is less and more at low fabrication temperatures. It is concluded that to get the good or high mechanical properties high fabrication temperatures are preferable. Low fabrication temperatures can be used for acoustic type applications because of their uniformity.

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.

WARNING: We do wish to point out a word of warning here. Your actual printing temperature may be different from the one indicated. It is not uncommon to find desktop 3D printers that are printing +/- 20 Degrees C from their indicated temperature. The cause of this could de a number of things but it mostly related to the fact that many manufacturers do not test for the actual nozzle temp per individual unit using an external temperature probe (eg an infrared thermometer). This combined with the variability of mounting of temperature sensors on the head leads to differences between units. This means that printing at 240 C may actually mean that you may be printing at 260 or above. With 3D printing, in general, we would suggest that you use a fume hood to reduce the harmful chemicals and particles that you may inhale. Specifically, when printing right below, around or at the degradation temperature of any material we would urge caution. With ABS the thermal degradation temperature is around 260 C which means that an indicated print temperature on your printer of 240 C or above may actually mean that you are processing at 260 C and the ABS compound will at this temperature be releasing gasses such as but not limited to HCN. HCN or Hydrogen Cyanide is an extremely poisonous substance and contact with it should be avoided at all costs. We would urge all 3D printer users to use an external unit to measure actual nozzle temperature and to obtain a fume hood before printing. You wouldn’t want to drive your car without knowing what speed you’re going at.

Additional Reporting by Joris Peels (eg annoying but important warning)

[Source / Images:

]

While I do know how to mow my lawn, that’s a job my husband normally takes care of. We like to divide and conquer when it comes to household chores – I do the laundry, he mows the lawn, I vacuum and he mops, et cetera, et cetera. Maybe I would enjoy mowing the lawn if ours was bigger and I could use a mower of the ride-on variety…I don’t know for sure, but I always imagined this would be something like a way slower go-kart (if this is untrue, don’t tell me). But German mechanical engineer and maker Philip Read recently completed a project, using Arduino and 3D printing, that makes me want to get out there and get mowing, no matter the size of my yard.

“It’s a fully autonomous Robot Lawn Mower which can be 95% 3D printed,” Read told 3DPrint.com, noting that a few small connectors will have to be made for the wheels and mower disc.

“I see you have covered this type of project in the past, but I believe this is a real upgrade in terms of design and “makeability” due to the ability to 3D print almost everything.”

Read, a self-professed RC fanatic and scratch builder who goes by ReP_AL online, is not wrong – over the years, we have definitely written stories about 3D printed parts for lawn mowers, fully 3D printed lawn mowers, and even another 3D printed robotic lawn mower.

“Its been a long project and took a lot of my time to complete,” Read wrote on Thingiverse.

“I have had many requests for parts and code etc.. and decided to relocated the build instructions and code management to my new website.”

You can find all of the build instructions and details for the little robotic lawn mower, including code, videos, and a webshop, on his website, where he explains why he is passionate about building his own robots and other machines, such as his own 3D printer.

“I like to understand the mechanics, the programming and what the electrical components do. I would like to share this passion with you, so you can build the projects too and learn about robotics,” Read wrote.

“This site will guide you through the build process of these projects so you can enjoy making them yourself..  With detailed instructions and links to the components I used, my goal is to make it possible for anyone to complete a complex robotics project and enjoy the results.”

On his website, Read rates the difficulty of his 3D printed autonomous lawn mower robot as a 7 out of 10, noting that the required skills to make the machine include soldering and 3D printing.

“The mower navigates within the boundary wire which is positioned (pinned) around the perimeter of the garden,” Read explained. “Once the mower senses the perimeter wire, it stops reverses and moves off in a new direction. The mower also has 3 sonar sensors to detect objects in the mowers path. Once the mowers battery is exhausted, the mower uses the boundary wire to navigate itself back to the charging station. All this can be customised in the Arduino software or completely re-written to your personal preferences.”

Rear control panel

According to Read, a commercial lawn mower with these kinds of specifications would cost at least €600, if not more.

The equipment required to make Read’s robotic lawn mower includes PLA material, a 3D printer with a 330 x 330 x 400 mm bed, wire strippers, and various screwdrivers and Allen wrenches. He 3D printed the lawn mower parts at 50% infill, with a 0.4 mm resolution, and notes on Thingiverse that most parts can be printed without any supports.

He also added the STL files for his lawn mower, and its optional charging station, to Thingiverse.

VIDEO

Will you try and make your own 3D printed robotic lawnmower? Discuss this project and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts in the Facebook comments below.

Under contract with the European Space Agency, Athlone Institute of Technology will be creating a new, large-scale 3D printer capable of fabricating parts in a zero-gravity atmosphere. The innovative hardware will be used at the International Space Station (ISS) in connection with a European consortium to be known as ‘Project Imperial’ that includes Sonaca Group, BEEVERYCREATIVE, and OHB.

Experts in 3D printing, materials, and associated processes will be leading the consortium:

• Sean Lyons, Dean of Faculty of Engineering and Informatics
• Declan Devine, Director of the Materials Research Institute
• Dr Ian Major, Principal Investigator at the Materials Research Institute

The team of researchers involved with the consortium are tasked with the creation of a high-performance 3D printer (made of high strength, functional thermoplastics) which will then be tasked with making complex geometries even larger than its own frame.

“Traditionally, 3D printers are based around simple materials and applications. They might look the part but they’re not hard or strong enough to be fully functional. Using cutting-edge material science, we’re going to design components that can be modified or configured for printing in zero gravity conditions on board the International Space Station,” explained Dr. Sean Lyons.

“There are several applications for this technology, imagine a door handle breaks on the ISS, it’s not feasible to send a payload from France all the way to the International Space Station with a spare handle. Through Project Imperial, the astronauts on board the ISS will be able to print parts as and when they are required. They’ll also be able to print bespoke parts: say if an astronaut broke their arm and needed a cast plaster, they’ll have the capability to print it in space themselves in-situ.”

3D printing is still a mind blowing, exciting process—often even for the most experienced innovators. And although adding ‘in space’ to the equation takes us to another technological level, it is one that is becoming surprisingly commonplace too due to the benefits in self-sustainability while at a remote location, portability in hardware, software, and materials, and the opportunity to create parts on demand. Other 3D printers and bioprinters have come before the Project Imperial Concept, from companies like Tethers and Made in Space, but it sounds as if this consortium plans to make 3D printing in space a priority, and especially as the experts involved use an uplink connection to the ISS to understand operating constraints better.

“It’s not as simple as if the project was terrestrially-based. We obviously can’t go up to discuss our designs with the astronauts or train them how to use this technology in person,” said Dr. Lyons. “We’ll also have to ensure that the panels are multilingual because you have quite a diverse group on board the ISS.”

“We’re delighted to be collaborating on such seminal research with the European Space Agency and our European partners Sonaca Group, BEEVERYCREATIVE and OHB. It’s an amazing opportunity to demonstrate exactly what we’re capable of and the breadth of skills and expertise on offer at our award-winning institute,” concluded Dr. Lyons.

The team at AIT will also be examining how 3D printing in zero gravity is beneficial; for instance, scaffolds for bioprinting could be fabricated in space and then brought back to Earth for use in surgical procedures on humans. Currently, the researchers suspect that such cell scaffolds would offer better performance medically if they were not made within ‘gravity constraints’ found on Earth.

Project Imperial is scheduled to operate for two years, with ‘payload deployment’ projected for 2021. The consortium expects that new technology produced via this space program will serve as an example of how 3D printing in space creates potential for extra-terrestrial manufacturing, along with new ways to maintain parts and habitats.

High-tech advancements continue to make space travel possible, along with continued activities for astronauts away from terra firma for extended periods of time at the International Space Station (ISS). Over the past few years, we have learned what it will take to colonize both the moon and Mars, along with catching up on the latest 3D printed tools astronauts have been fabricating, or cosmonauts bioprinting.

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.

[Source / Image:

]

The latest collaboration in metal 3D printing has been announced today as Belgium’s Aerosint and Germany’s Aconity3D team up to develop more advanced laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) and added hardware and applications. Headquartered in Liège, Aerosint is a start-up dedicated to selective powder deposition technology. Aachen-based Aconity specialized in LPBF, along with post-processing equipment. Together, the two companies will be advancing the LPBF process in multi-metal applications, attempting to overcome current limitations.

As niche companies specializing in 3D printing hardware, software, and materials continue to evolve in the technology world, they often work together in furthering industry innovations. This is especially true in metal 3D printing and additive manufacturing processes as new materials and processes continually become available.

We followed Aconity3D as they opened offices in North America last year, embarking on a partnership with the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). Aerosint has, in turn, been on a parallel path, making strides in multi-material powder bed 3D printing, and financing their R&D efforts with additional funding.

Now, Aerosint and Aconity will be working together to expand the LPBF process from the ability to only print with one material at a time to multi-material capabilities. In a recent press release, the Aerosint team stated that such progress was previously just wishful thinking due to technical challenges that had to be overcome first.

“We are truly excited to partner with an OEM that has the same DNA as we have at Aerosint. Aconity is innovative and driven to solve challenges that haven’t been addressed yet,” said Edouard Moens de Hase, Managing Director of Aerosint. “Together we have all the technical expertise needed to develop very unique LPBF hardware and multi-metal applications.”

Long-term photo exposure of the LBM process

The main goal of the partnership between the two European innovators is to integrate Aerosint’s re-coating technology into the AconityONE LPBF printer as Aconity continues to research materials and processing parameters that are compatible.

“What Aerosint has invented is very unique. An LPBF system with multi-material capabilities is unseen in the industry,” said Yves Hagedorn, CEO of Aconity. “Our customers have been waiting for these capabilities and we are therefore excited to start working on a potential solution for them. Multi-material is for us the next evolution of 3D printing and we are happy we can be pioneers here together with Aerosint.”

As Aerosint and Aconity continue to create and refine meaningful applications during their research, it is hoped that the Aerosint module will become available to Aconity customers who are on the machine options list. The Aconity team states that other interested companies can reach out for more information as well.

Aconity3D is a systems provider for flexible application-specific additive manufacturing (AM) systems for metals, situated in Aachen’s high-technology surroundings near the RWTH University and Fraunhofer research institutes. Their focus is on extending 3D printing in metal, finding new solutions, and partnering with customers in this growing field of research.

Aerosint is a Belgian company established in 2016. The company has developed a selective powder deposition system to enable full 3-dimensional control over material placement in powder bed fusion printing processes. Effectively, the main invention is an alternate powder re-coating system that, instead of uniformly spreading just one single powder material, selectively deposits two powders to form a single layer containing two materials. The powder can be a polymer, a metal or a ceramic.

Founded in 2016, Aerosint has developed a selective powder deposition system to enable full 3D control over material placement in powder bed fusion printing processes. Their main invention is an alternate powder re-coating system that selectively deposits two powders to form a single layer containing two materials, rather than uniformly spreading just one single powder, which may be polymer, metal, or ceramic.

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.

[Source: Aerosint]

Powder re-coater prototype (left); multi-material powder layers with prototype (right)