Blog

Technology changes fast.

Sales teams want to convince users that their newest product or process is revolutionary.

From the startup perspective of early stage manufacturing or product development, the lean method is to prototype with the cheapest available materials to prove the concept.

Prototyping is where 3D printing, or additive manufacturing (AM) has long (>10 yrs) filled a obvious need.

Generally in maker spaces, the next step for startup founders is to begin working with large scale manufacturers (usually abroad) on tooling for injection molding or CNC milling that requires a fixed product design and tooling that costs upwards of $1000 for development.

Is this really the best next step for development that we can offer? For startups capital is usually limited at early stages, and when fundraising, a almost working prototype is important to demonstrate feasibility.

What about the early stage designs that require iteration as IOT software is developed and integrated?

What about early stage material choice changes that reflect the user experience preferences?

What about early stage polymer chemistry compatibility differences with thermal profiles and thus require a major change in process altogether?

These questions, and many more (please readers, share and comment any of yours), have been observed by Dr. CC of CArtLab Solutions while working within mHub’s ecosystem and maker space; we believe we can offer a middle next step without getting on any international phone calls.

At the scale of 1 product–> 100 products before the scale change from 100s –> 1000s, there is an opportunity for AM to be utilized, as discussed in the literature via case studies and Fortune 500 companies over the past ~5-10 years.

For example, an interview with Menno Ellis Senior VP of 3D systems published by Michael Petch at 3Dprintingindustry.com in 2017 discussed trends of end use printed parts by this giant in the AM industry. Specifically, he suggested that AM is being used in several industries for end use parts ranging from “the first 100 or 1,000 new products are 3D Printed to shorten time-to-market before tooling, etc. is ready.” These specific industries that are using 3D printed parts for this production scale include medical and dental particularly proesthetics, aerospace manufacturing of high-end components with ideal strength to weight ratio, in jewelry, and even with the industrial goods application of a heat exchanger.

It’s not just 3D systems promoting their AM solutions for end use parts, other companies recently like Formlabs in 2022 describe this “sea change” in manufacturing (https://formlabs.com/blog/3d-printing-change-end-use-parts/), or Statrays in a recent white paper reference a “digital transformation” owing to the success of end use parts through additive manufacturing (https://www.stratasys.com/en/resources/whitepapers/end-use-parts/). Further, AMFG in 2021 discusses their adoption of this technology for end use parts through their work with Fortune 500 companies like Ford Motor Company using Carbon’s DLS technology for an HVAC part or like Lockheed Market using an EBAM (electron beam additive manufacturing) method to create titanium domes for aircrafts, alongside other examples (https://amfg.ai/2021/08/30/why-companies-embrace-3d-printing-for-end-part-production/).

Fortune-500 companies have pulled off using these AM technologies for production parts in a variety of materials from organics to metals, but is it all a smoke show?

Are AM methods ROI positive for end use parts? What about for any plastic parts?

In 2019 Carlotta V. at 3DNatives dives into these materials in the comparison of traditional methods to AM technologies like fused filament fabrication (FFF)/ fused deposition modeling (FDM), or sterolithography (SLA) and digital light projector (DLP), or selective laser sintering (SLS) and multi-jet fusion (MJF). CArtLab Solutions specializes in plastics, polymers, and biopolymers so these are all methods offered through our technical consulting services.

For using FFF or FDM in the applications of medical devices or jigs/fixtures/brackets both parameters of time and money can be saved in production runs around 100 parts using commodity and engineering thermoplastics.

For SLA or DLP the application of customized razor blade handles using thermoset and engineering grade resins in clear and colored versions could be created at smaller volumes ~50 parts in significntly less time and money than traditional injection molded versions.

For SLS or MJF in nylon (PA 11/ PA12), carbon-filled nylon, or thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) of money and time can be cut in half from vacuum molded parts and still save on both categories compared to injection molded parts in volumes <500 units.

In product development, plastic parts in smaller to medium volumes are best budgetted through 3D printed/ AM processes.

Inquire at CArtLab Solutions today to discuss your small to medium volume plastic parts!