Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Workshop 3: 3D Printing State of the Art: Industrial

2,618 views

Published on

3dconfny16

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

Workshop 3: 3D Printing State of the Art: Industrial

  1. 1. 3D Printing State of the Art: Industrial John Hornick April 2016
  2. 2. What Is It?
  3. 3. 3 What Is It?  Not Yoda head
  4. 4. 4 What Is It?  Not Yoda head
  5. 5. The Name Game
  6. 6. 6 The Name Game  AKA: – 3D printing – Additive Manufacturing (AM) – Direct Digital Manufacturing – Rapid prototyping
  7. 7. 7 The Name Game  3D Printing v. AM
  8. 8. 8 The Name Game  Subtractive v. Additive
  9. 9. 9 The Name Game  Subtractive v. Additive – old v. new
  10. 10. 10 The Name Game  Subtractive v. Additive – old v. new – injection molding, casting, weaving
  11. 11. 11 The Name Game  Subtractive v. Additive – old v. new – injection molding, casting, weaving  old and additive
  12. 12. 12 The Name Game  3D printing/AM v. “traditional”
  13. 13. 13 The Name Game  3D printing/AM v. “traditional”
  14. 14. 14 The Name Game SLA SLS DMLS DLP FFF FDM
  15. 15. 15 The Name Game Binder jetting Directed energy deposition Material extrusion Material jetting Powder bed fusion Sheet lamination Vat photopolymerization
  16. 16. 3DP Today
  17. 17. 17 3DP Today Price Range: ASP: Industrial Base:
  18. 18. 18 3DP Today Price Range: $5K to $5M ASP: Industrial Base:
  19. 19. 19 3DP Today Price Range: $5K to $2M ASP: $87K ($90K) Industrial Base:
  20. 20. 20 3DP Today Price Range: $5K to $2M ASP: $87K ($90K) Industrial Base: ~80K
  21. 21. 21 3DP Today
  22. 22. Binder Jetting
  23. 23. 23 Binder Jetting  aka Digital Part Materialization
  24. 24. 24 Binder Jetting  Materials: – polymer, metal, glass, sand  Post-processing: curing, sintering, infiltration  Color (in plastic)
  25. 25. 25 Binder Jetting: Plastics 3D Systems ProJet (US)  acrylate powder  infiltrated with cyanoacrylate  full color parts  $16K to $114K
  26. 26. 26 Binder Jetting: Plastics Voxeljet (Germany)  continuous build  acrylic polymer, sand  room temperature cure (no heat distortion)  $150K to $1.8 million
  27. 27. 27 Binder Jetting: Metals ExOne (US)  2.5 x 1.6 x 1.3 ft.  Bronze, Inconel, iron, stainless steel, tungsten, glass, sand  Post-processing: Metal parts: – sintered – binder burned out – infiltrated with bronze  $145K to $1.6 million
  28. 28. 28 Binder Jetting: Metals  Hoganas (Sweden) – Small – Precise
  29. 29. 29 Binder Jetting: Licenses  Developed by MIT (“3D Printing”) – Licensed to:  ExOne  Z Corp. –(acquired by 3D Systems) – Sublicensed:  3D Systems to Voxeljet
  30. 30. Directed Energy Deposition
  31. 31. 31 Directed Energy Deposition  aka: –Blown Powder AM –Laser Cladding –$350K to $1.5M
  32. 32. 32 Directed Energy Deposition  Optomec (US) – Laser Engineered Netshaping (LENS)  ≤ 3 x 5 x 3 ft.  ≤ 1 kW
  33. 33. 33 Directed Energy Deposition  LENS – Multi-metals simultaneously  graded materials/parts  on the fly – Multi-axis head – Unlimited substrates
  34. 34. 34 Directed Energy Deposition – Sciaky (US)  Electron beam (EBAM)  Wire feedstock  9 x 4 x 5 ft.  Titanium, tantalum, Inconel, SS, Cobalt alloys, Nickel alloys, copper nickel alloys  Fast  Very rough parts
  35. 35. 35 Directed Energy Deposition – Accufusion “Laser Consolidation” – AM3D – BeAM (Irepa Laser) “EasyCLAD” – eFesto “Laser Cladding” – Honeywell Aerospace “Ion Fusion Formation” – INSSTek – NASA/Penn State Radiant Deposition – Trumpf TruLaser – Xi’an Bright Laser Technologies (China)
  36. 36. 36 Hybrids  DMG Mori Sieki  Germany/Japan – Laser Deposition Welding  DED  5-axis mill  25” x 25” x 22”  2 kW
  37. 37. 37 Hybrids  Yamazaki Mazak DED Milling Interchangeable tool heads
  38. 38. 38 New on the Block  Toshiba: – 2017 – Laser Metal Deposition – 10x PBF – large parts – 110cc/hr
  39. 39. Material Extrusion
  40. 40. 40 Material Extrusion  aka: – Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) – Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF)
  41. 41. 41 Material Extrusion  Post-processing: removal of supports, surface finishing  Prototypes, simple plastic parts  Most-used process
  42. 42. 42 Material Extrusion  Thermoplastics – ABS – PLA – Polycarbonate – PC/ABS blend – Helian/Eastman ColorFabb XT – ULTEM
  43. 43. 43 Material Extrusion  Consumer: – 2009: watershed – ~300 – $500 to $5000
  44. 44. 44 Material Extrusion  Stratasys/Objet (US/Israel) – Filament spools  ABS  PLA  Support material – $9500 to $500K
  45. 45. 45 Material Extrusion  Arburg (Germany) “Freeformer” – Stationery nozzle – 3/5 axis – Deposits droplets at high speed  Similar to BPM – Thermoplastic pellets
  46. 46. Material Jetting
  47. 47. 47 Material Jetting  Types: – Aerosol Jet/Direct write – Cold Spray – Ballistic Particle Manufacturing (BPM) – Polyjet
  48. 48. 48 Material Jetting Aerosol Jet/Direct Write 2.5D
  49. 49. 49 Material Jetting Post-processing: heat or chemical treatment Unlimited: substrates shapes Circuitry Extreme precision $200K to $500K
  50. 50. 50 Material Jetting  Direct Write companies: – Optomec (US) Aerosol Jet – Lawrence Livermore (US) – nScrypt (US) – CamTek (Israel) – Nano Dimension (Israel) – Neotech (Germany) – XJet “Nano Metal Jetting” (Israel) – Argentum (US)
  51. 51. 51 Material Jetting  Cold Spray – CSIRO – Flexible Robotic Environments – Trinity College
  52. 52. 52 Material Jetting  Ballistic Particle Manufacturing (BPM) – Build method:  inkjet-like nozzle  fires thermoplastic at high speed  solidified into desired shape – Applns: prototyping
  53. 53. 53 Material Jetting  Companies: – BPM, South Carolina (defunct) – Incremental Fabrication Technologies (defunct?)  metal particles – Similar to:  cold spray  Arburg Freeformer
  54. 54. 54 Hybrids  Hermle MPA 40 – Thermal metal spray  3X – 5 axis CNC – Intermediate milling – Alloys on the fly
  55. 55. 55 Material Jetting  Polyjet
  56. 56. 56 Material Jetting – Materials: photopolymers, casting materials, support – Multi and graded materials on the fly – Post-processing: remove supports, extra powder – Finished parts
  57. 57. 57 Material Jetting  Multi-jet Modeling – Multi materials in different proportions  Some ProJet machines (5500X) – $60K to $225K
  58. 58. 58 Material Jetting J750 –Digital materials –6 different resins –360,000 colors –2X
  59. 59. Powder Bed Fusion
  60. 60. 60 Powder Bed Fusion
  61. 61. 61 Powder Bed Fusion  aka Laser Melting – Direct Metal Printing (DMP) (3D Systems/Phenix, U.S.) – Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) (EOS, Germany) – Metal Laser Melting (MLM) (Renishaw (UK))  Licensed by EOS for U.S. – Selective Laser Melting (SLM)(SLM Solutions, Germany)  Licensed by EOS for U.S. – Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) (Fonon, US) – laserCUSING (Concept Laser, Germany)
  62. 62. 62 Powder Bed Fusion  Other companies: – Aspect (Japan) – Beijing Longyuan (China) – Blueprinter (Denmark) (Selective Heat Sintering) – Hunan Farsoon (China) – Realizer (Germany) (precious metals) – RPM Innovations (US) – Shaanxi Hengtong (China) – Sisma Spa (Italy) – Trumpf (Germany) – Wuhan Binhu/Huake (China) – Xi’an Bright Laser Technologies (China) Price: $160K to $5.0 million
  63. 63. 63 Powder Bed Fusion  Laser Melting – Lasers: 400 w to 1 kW – Materials: aluminum, copper, nickel, and titanium alloys, carbides, SS, tool steels – Post Processing: Heat treating, finishing – Structural finished parts – Complex geometries – Finer finish than EBM
  64. 64. 64 Powder Bed Fusion  Electron Beam Melting (EBM) – Arcam (Sweden) – same as LM, but with electron beam – BV: 14” x 14” x 15” – Laser: 3 kW
  65. 65. 65 Powder Bed Fusion  Electron Beam Melting (EBM) – Materials: Titanium (supported by Arcam) – Faster than laser – Less residual stress than LM – Applns:  structural finished parts, complex geometries – aerospace parts, orthopedic implants  less refined than LM
  66. 66. 66 Hybrids  Matsuura (Japan) – Powder Bed Fusion – CNC Mill  Mills every ten layers – 400W ytterbium fiber laser – $1 million  OPM Laboratory (Japan)  PBF + CNC mill
  67. 67. 67 Powder Bed Fusion  Sintratec – Switzerland – Nylon – €5K
  68. 68. 68 Powder Bed Fusion 20:1 25%
  69. 69. 69 Powder Bed Fusion  rtt
  70. 70. 70 Powder Bed Fusion
  71. 71. 71 Powder Bed Fusion  wfe
  72. 72. 72 Powder Bed Fusion
  73. 73. 73 Powder Bed Fusion http://www.flyingmachine.com.au/studio/
  74. 74. 74 Powder Bed Fusion http://www.flyingmachine.com.au/studio/
  75. 75. 75 Powder Bed Fusion http://www.flyingmachine.com.au/studio/
  76. 76. Sheet Lamination
  77. 77. 77 Sheet Lamination  Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM) –MCor Technologies (Ireland)  Full color models  $36K to $47K
  78. 78. 78 Sheet Lamination  Ultrasonic Lamination (UL) –Fabrisonic  Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing (UAM)  72” x 72” x 36”  Multi-axis machining  Embedded sensors  Joining dissimilar materials
  79. 79. Vat Photopolymerization
  80. 80. 80 Vat Photopolymerization 1980s
  81. 81. 81 Vat Photopolymerization
  82. 82. 82 Vat Photopolymerization  Digital Light Processing (DLP)  Envisiontec (Germany)  DWS, Lithoz (Ceramic-filled polymer), Asiga, Rapid Shape  Formlabs, Autodesk EMBER, B9, DWS XFab  Stereolithography (SLA)  3D Systems  Lawrence Livermore – Micro-stereolithography » Ultra-stiff, lightweight parts
  83. 83. 83 VPP for $86K
  84. 84. 84 Vat Photopolymerization Smooth-finish parts, jewelry molds, prototypes $5K to $600K Pauline/3D Varius
  85. 85. Game Changers Among Game Changers
  86. 86. 86 BAAM ORNL Local Motors Cincinnati Inc.
  87. 87. 87 BAAM ORNL UTenn
  88. 88. 88 Voxel8
  89. 89. 89 CBAM Process Overview Load CAD slices into printer and print bitmap of layer on fiber sheet Remove dry polymer powder Feed fiber sheet into inkjet printer Stack sheets, heat, and compress stack to final part height Remove un- bonded portions of fiber sheets to net final part Deposit polymer powder (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
  90. 90. 90 Impossible Objects  CBAM – Functional parts – ≤10x faster/stronger – Strength to weight
  91. 91. 91 Carbon  Continuous Liquid Interface Production (CLIP)
  92. 92. 92 Figure 4 Platform
  93. 93. 93
  94. 94. 94 High Speed Sintering/FACTUM
  95. 95. 95 High Speed Sintering/FACTUM
  96. 96. 96  s
  97. 97. 97 Who Else Wants In?  New resin-based lamination process – Fast – Precise  Rapid – Prototyping – Manufacturing
  98. 98. 98 Who Else Wants In? November 2015: PBF (polymers) $50-$150K ???
  99. 99. Patent Landscape
  100. 100. 100 Patent Landscape  USA 60%
  101. 101. 101 Patent Landscape  Top issuing: USA 60% – 2002 to 2014: 12,000
  102. 102. 102 Patent Landscape  Top issuing: USA 60% – 2002 to 2014: 12,000 – Pending: ~4000 – Issued: ~8000
  103. 103. 103 Patent Landscape  Top issuing: USA 60%  Expiring: – 2003 to 2014: (225) – 2013 to 2014: ~16
  104. 104. 104 Patent Landscape Patents Applns
  105. 105. 105 Patents Issued 1991 to Early 2014 201 10 16 16 57 85 25 19 13 24 8 52 8 13 14 26 15 40 8 21 6 6 0 50 100 150 200 250 3D Systems Arcam Univ. of Texas Envisiontec Electro Optical Systems Stratasys Objet Optomec Nanotek Hewlett-Packard MakerBot Micron Technology BPM Technology DTM Corporation United Technologies Univ. of Southern Cal. Z Corporation Silverbrook Panasonic MIT VoxelJet GE # of Patents # of Patents
  106. 106. The Players
  107. 107. 107 3D Systems, DTM, & Z Corp  US  DDD  2001: acquired DTM Corporation  2012: acquired Z Corporation  BJ, ME, MJ, PBF, VPP
  108. 108. 108 Stratasys/Objet  Israel (US)  SSYS  2012: Merged with Objet  2013: Acquired Makerbot  ME, MJ
  109. 109. 109 Stratasys & MakerBot  Consumer/prosumer/RP printers  Lower cost machines (~$2000)  2013: acquired by Stratasys in $403M stock deal
  110. 110. 110 Arcam  Sweden  AMAVF  PBF (Electron Beam) – Focus: orthopedic implants and aerospace
  111. 111. 111 Concept Laser  Germany  PBF – Laser CUSING
  112. 112. 112 Electro Optical Systems  Germany  PBF
  113. 113. 113 EnvisionTEC  Germany  VPP  jewelry, hearing aid, dental, consumer, auto manufacturing, and design
  114. 114. 114 ExOne  US  XONE  Binder Jet
  115. 115. 115 HP  US  HPQ  Game changer among game changers  Multi Jet fusion
  116. 116. 116 Optomec  US  DED, MJ  LENS  Aerosol Jet  2.5D/parts/repair
  117. 117. 117 Voxeljet  Germany  VJET  Binder Jet  Big printers
  118. 118. 118 Companies  “Game changing technology”  Acquired Morris Technologies
  119. 119. 119 Companies  “Game changing technology”  Acquired Morris Technologies
  120. 120. 120 Companies  “Game changing technology”  Acquired Morris Technologies  Silverbrook Technologies (Australia) – ≥ 40 patents (BPM)
  121. 121. 121 Colleges and Universities  USC: ≥ 26 patents (5)
  122. 122. 122 Colleges and Universities  USC: ≥ 26 patents (5)  MIT: ≥ 21 (31)
  123. 123. 123 Colleges and Universities  USC: ≥ 26 patents (5)  MIT: ≥ 21 (31)  UTA/UTEP: ≥ 8 (7)
  124. 124. Who Else Wants In?
  125. 125. 125 Who Else Wants In? Epson: 5 years –“We want our machines to make anything”
  126. 126. 126 Who Else Wants In? Epson: 5 years –“We want our machines to make anything” Others ????
  127. 127. 127 Who Else Wants In?
  128. 128. 128 Who Else Wants In?
  129. 129. 129 Who Else Wants In?  yuu
  130. 130. 130 Who Else Wants In? Embedded ID Selective curing VPP Free-moving buildplate
  131. 131. 131 QUESTIONS?? john.hornick@finnegan.com
  132. 132. 132 Thank you for your time! john.hornick@finnegan.com www.finnegan.com FOLLOW MY TWEETS: @ JHornick3D1Stop
  133. 133. 133 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes to contribute to the understanding of U.S. intellectual property law. These materials reflect only the personal views of the authors and are not a source of legal advice. It is understood that each case is fact specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore, these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, the authors and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with the authors or Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. While every attempt was made to ensure that these materials are accurate, errors or omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed.

×