There’s little argument that 3D printing took prototyping to another level and forever changed the product development process for the better. However, prototyping is just one facet of the bigger manufacturing picture. Does additive technology really have a place at the manufacturing table alongside traditional methodologies?
To get a pulse on where things stand, we connected with Stratasys Chief Technology Officer Guy Menchik and asked him for his perspective on the state of 3D printing within manufacturing. Menchik is undoubtedly well-suited to address the topic. As a 30-year veteran of the additive manufacturing industry, his experience runs deep. He was part of the team that developed PolyJet technology and was Stratasys’s VP of R&D for nearly 20 years. He’s also the holder of 80 patents, with more pending.
What follows are several questions we put to Menchik and a summary of his replies.
Additive manufacturing (AM) started mainly as a rapid prototyping tool. What challenges need to be overcome for it to be more widely adopted within manufacturing?
“If you asked me the same question 10 years ago, I would say that definitely, the barrier was the material, the type of material, and the material properties, which weren’t sufficient to meet the end-use part requirements. Today, I don’t think it is a barrier anymore because we’ve managed to overcome that challenge either with new materials or through the printing technology. Today, the focus or the effort is more around the cost-per-part. This is the challenge. If we look at our SAF or P3 technologies in terms of mechanical properties and part qualities, we are there.
I think the effort now to win more use cases is around the cost per part. It’s a mutual effort that we need to be part of with the customer producing the parts because a lot has to do with the design-for-additive-manufacturing (DFAM) aspect. But it also depends on the technology. If you look at the FDM technology where usually the advantage is large parts and the mechanical properties being served for tooling and for jigs and fixtures for the production line, the sensitivity for cost is less. But when you look at SAF or P3 where end-use parts for mass manufacturing is the objective, definitely the focus is on cost per part, which is being driven by the hardware cost and by the material price.”
So, how will we accomplish a lower cost-per-part for FDM technology?
“I see at least three knobs we can adjust to drop the cost per part with FDM. One is the price of the material. Material prices are high, but the main reason is that they require a substantial investment to develop and produce these materials in scale. By increasing the volume, we can lower the cost to our customers. That’s one knob.
The second knob is better utilization of the printer. Improving the throughput – printing faster – you’ll get more parts per day or per year. When considered against the amortization of the printer cost, the result is a lower cost per part.
The third knob is the cost of the hardware. As the hardware cost comes down, again, based on the printer amortization, the cost per part is reduced. These are the three areas that I see, and more or less, we are working on all three of them. For example, when we look at the F3300, the team used the two knobs of hardware price and the throughput to reduce the cost per part.
Regarding material price, the efforts we are making are being achieved through our material partners in developing lower-cost materials and the scale-up of production. Eventually, it gives us the kind of holistic package of the three main knobs required.”
What role should Stratasys play in helping our customers with DFAM?
“Yes, that’s a very interesting topic. I have to admit that in the past, I was against taking the role of the CAD system developer since we are a 3D printing company. In other words, we focused on giving the customer the full package of printing capability but did not design the part for them. However, for print optimization, you need to control the CAD. But again, although I’m not offering that we be a CAD company, we definitely need to have tighter connectivity with the CAD aspect of the print process. That includes better integration of the CAD system into our GrabCAD software and our hardware. We need to be able to send print parameters to the CAD so the CAD can run FEA simulations and better understand the printing process to give the user better design guidance.
This is an ongoing effort, and I look at the GrabCAD team, and I know that those efforts are happening. I think today, there is much more openness to working with CAD systems. An example is the pairing of KeyShot rendering software with GrabCAD Print for our PolyJet technology. So tighter integration with the design tool is important to let the customer enjoy the full benefits of additive manufacturing.”
How do you reply to skeptics who question the capabilities of polymer 3D printed parts (vs. conventionally fabricated metal parts)?
“My reply is that it’s probably very similar to how plastic injection molding or some other way of traditional plastic manufacturing eventually took over many metal-part applications. Usually the parts are not structural parts but there was still a very big shift from metal parts to polymer parts. There are ways to reinforce the polymer parts in traditional manufacturing, and there are also ways, or even better ways, to reinforce additively manufactured polymer parts. It’s through continuous carbon fiber or chopped carbon fiber or having the right structure or having the right ratio between weight and mechanical properties. In some areas, we need the design engineer to dare and make the shift, and in some fields, they will not take the risk and keep the traditional path, and that’s understood.
It’s very difficult for people who design products that have traditionally been made with metal to think about polymers. But that’s becoming more prevalent because now they have different challenges, such as increased production volume or cost reduction. It’s here that we can bring some value.
What are manufacturing customers and prospective customers telling us they want or need from us?
“Usually, they want consistency. We are a high-end company but there are still low-level failures that occur. Our customers want to have the ability to press print and to be 100% sure they are getting the part right the first time at the right quality. They want to trust the machine and trust the outcome. I think some customers want bigger and faster, but mostly, it’s around being able to trust the machine and the outcome. Then you know you can put the machine on the battlefield or an aircraft carrier, and you know you will get the part you need. That’s what they want.”
What is your advice to companies that are reluctant to embrace AM due to the belief that current manufacturing methods are “good enough?”
“My advice for them comes in two parts: first of all, start to learn how to design for additive manufacturing – DFAM. Second, start working with a service provider like Stratasys Direct (SDM). SDM or an equivalent can serve as an entry-level solution for those customers who want to sense additive manufacturing and don’t want to spend the high capex but need a high-end solution and they want a reliable partner to start doing the evaluation. I think in these situations SDM is a very important partner for those customers. The capability we have at SDM includes very experienced and smart people who know how to take AM to its limits. The proximity of SDM to our R&D allows us to improve our solution and, of course, improve the outcome with SDM. So that would be my recommendation. If you are not into AM, start learning DFAM and start working with SDM.”
Why should manufacturers listen to Stratasys? What differentiates us, in your view?
“I think it goes back to our DNA. It’s in our DNA to build robust systems, and we are good listeners. I mean, when we say “customer first,” we really mean it. We listen to the customer, and we focus our efforts on making sure that the customer is happy with our equipment. It’s important that we are trustworthy and we have a reputation and we defend that reputation, not because we want to defend the reputation, but because this is who we are.”
We want to thank Guy Menchik for taking the time to provide his perspective on the state of 3D printing for manufacturing. If you’d like to learn more about manufacturing with Stratasys 3D printing technology, visit our Manufacturing Application web page.
