Kurt Nordlund President Seco Tools, LLC
www.secotools.com
ViewPoints T
oday, a great deal of excitement, speculation and, in some cases, concern exists about the use of 3D printing technol- ogy for part manufacturing. Consumers are especially excited about the technology because it has the potential to let them replace broken household parts—moderately accurate plastic components—by printing new ones. The scope of such component processing capability, however, is quickly broadening.
In its first stages of development, 3D printing had a few limitations for major manufacturing applications in regards to strength, speed, materials and accuracy. Typically, parts made through 3D printing carried very low loads, so they weren’t structural components, per se. However, as the technology improves, 3D printing is capable of generating parts with mechanical properties reasonably close to those of traditional materials, making it possible to produce load-carrying components. Major manufacturers, such as General Electric, Boeing and Ford, continue to evaluate, test and push the limits of 3D printing technology in efforts to produce parts with structural integrity—and they have done so with amazing levels of success. Additionally, more manufacturers are using 3D technology to bring innovative part designs to life that would otherwise prove impossible to produce using traditional machining methods. Instead of competing one- on-one with traditional methods, 3D technology stretches the boundaries of manufacturing capabilities in terms of part complexity. Perhaps the best current industrial applications of 3D printing still involve the production of one-offs or prototypes. In fact, Seco used 3D printing more than 10 years ago for prototyping in tool development. The machine ran overnight and provided a plastic part the next morning. In some instances, 3D printing helped speed the development process. Instead of performing trial and error with the material intended to be used in the final tool, a prototype produced through 3D printing could help verify the tool’s configuration and manufacturability. The process was a valuable tool for Seco, but we have since largely replaced it with sophisticated visualization capability from today’s 3D CAD systems. The use of 3D printing equipment continues to grow, but the technol- ogy’s use in the cutting tool manufacturing business, for instance, remains
120
ManufacturingEngineeringMedia.com | February 2014
Exploring Manufacturing’s 3D Future
extremely minimal—mainly because of the processes used to produce cutting tools. With cutting tool inserts, for example, most tool materials are composites of metal powders including hard constituents and binder phases. Those elements are discreet, not intermixed into one blend. The powders are pressed to the shape of an insert and sintered in a furnace. Granted, there is some work going on in 3D printing with composites and mixed materials, but to be able to handle the complexity of cutting tool manufacturing with 3D printing appears to be a little tricky at this time. In the production of molds, the speed of 3D printing hinders its use. 3D printing is a shortcut that will provide a fast prototype part without having to make a mold and inject it with plastic. But molds and injection molding systems are required when hundreds and thousands of parts are needed. 3D printing is going to be a very important technology for shortening lead times in developing and evaluating products, but it is going to take time for the process to evolve as a viable alternative for producing high-volume items.
The usefulness of 3D printing is improving all the time, but limitations remain—for now.
Accuracy, another issue of current 3D printing processes, improves
continually. When Seco was working with 3D printing, the process was surprisingly accurate. But as is always the case in manufacturing, the more accuracy that is desired, the more cost involved, both in terms of equipment expense and time. To determine the usefulness of 3D printing for a particular application, manufacturers should first develop a grid or matrix to track relating factors such as the quantity and accuracy of parts required, their function, mate- rial and the time and money available to produce them. More long-term projections about future advancements in 3D printing technology should be included as well because the development of the process is so dynamic. 3D printing provides flexibility and speed for certain applications, but many manufacturers continue to be skeptical about it replacing all existing technology. They do agree, however, that the technology should be closely watched in terms of any new future manufacturing process value. ME
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124