ETH ZurichHugely overvalued and yet underestimated – additive manufacturing

---

„The art is to find the right uses for it.“

---

---

At the invitation of Wirtschaftsstandort Vorarlberg GmbH, he gave a presentation at 1zu1 Prototypes about the opportunities and risks associated with 3D printing.

---

3D printing is undoubtedly surrounded by plenty of hype right now. If you read the newspapers, everything will soon be coming out of a 3D printer – from cars and houses to food. In your estimation, what opportunities and risks are associated with 3D printing?

Mirko Meboldt: Additive manufacturing is simultaneously overvalued and underestimated to a huge degree. The opportunities are obvious – it is opening up a multitude of new possibilities in design and logistics. In my opinion, the greatest risk is that people misjudge the possibilities of the technology for certain applications. In a nutshell, the art is to find the right applications.

Will additive manufacturing fundamentally change the production process?

Meboldt: This is the question that always comes up. Is additive manufacturing a disruptive innovation? There is no clear answer. The question is always what to do with it. There are examples where additive manufacturing is having a truly disruptive effect – for example in dental implants. Additive methods have now become generally established in that field.

These processes will certainly become ever cheaper in the coming years. Right now they are still very expensive. Which means you need to find applications in which the benefits justify the high price. It is in these niche areas that these technologies will prevail – and these niches will grow.

At 1zu1 Prototypes, we increasingly receive inquiries seeking to replace existing manufacturing processes with additive methods. That's hardly ever profitable.

Meboldt: The additive processes do not require tooling, i.e. they work without tools. You therefore have a process advantage in terms of time and costs. That's why these methods have been used in prototype construction for 20 years. However, we always design for a different process that will later be used in series production. For example, say I design a casting. I would only use the additive manufacturing process if I don't yet have the tool shape and the design is not yet one hundred percent compete.

If I use additive processes in series production, I can also benefit from design-related advantages. I can realize geometries that are only possible with these methods. The well-known examples of successful additive manufacturing – such as the small milling cutter with internal cooling from MAPAL – exploit precisely this design advantage.

In other words: Existing components can't simply be copied, instead the design and value-added chain need to be re-imagined from the ground up. After all, nobody would consider turning a turned part into a cast part without first adapting the design. The task is always to integrate the advantages of the manufacturing process into the construction and design.

The prices for 3D printing are continuously falling, making this method increasingly attractive.

Today, most companies are faced with the challenge of knowing about this technology, but not knowing how they can use it in a meaningful way. Therefore, you first need to find an application area in which the technology generates real added value. It's a learning process.

General Electric is always mentioned as one of the world leaders in additive manufacturing. This group is already successfully using components produced in this way, for example in the injection nozzles of aircraft engines. But they've been at it for over ten years and have gone through a real learning curve. Many companies underestimate this effort.

Primarily, it's the product developers who must undergo this learning process.

Meboldt: Exactly. The first step is not about the construction process itself. Many service providers and technical colleges currently offer design training courses. In my view, this is not a useful first step. It's critically important to evaluate where the technology can generate added value. The number of people actually designing for additive manufacturing is typically very small. Even today, most of the experts in certain production processes, such as injection molding, are usually found at the suppliers.

For me, the most important thing is that the companies must understand when and where the technology can be used sensibly. Then, if they still lack the required in-house expertise, they can go to the experts to develop the component with them.

How can companies identify which components are suitable for additive manufacturing?

Meboldt: We've developed a procedure for this together with SWISSMEM, the Swiss industry association for mechanical engineering. We help companies to identify viable parts and to set up an initial project in the shortest possible time frame. Once a company has explored this route, the seed is planted. Then, usually a few months later, comes the second, third and fourth part.

The leap to AM is presumably even more difficult for small companies?

Meboldt: We work together with many SMEs. They can't afford to invest a lot of time and energy without adding direct value to their product portfolio. That's why we suggest taking small steps and always creating projects with a short duration and clear, quantifiable results. This also strengthens their confidence in the technology.

How do you proceed in specific terms?

Meboldt: We start by thinking about where we can use the technology. The companies develop up to 80 ideas for additively manufactured solutions and components. Then we give the developers systematic feedback as to why a particular part is suitable or not. In this way, the company's employees learn to evaluate the technology in relation to their own fields of application. Finally, we select the most promising subsystem or component to be implemented in the next step.