Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, students will be able to:
- Describe and prioritize the impact of the digital thread in file processing.
- Explore various software solutions for AM file management.
- Identify opportunities and impacts of AM-based distributed manufacturing on the digital thread.
- Understand the basic intellectual property and information security considerations of additive manufacturing.
The previous section highlighted the process of producing 3D printing ready files and the data concepts that go into their production. As we move into the next part of the workflow, we want to focus more precisely on the connection that the file has to the broader 3D printing process and business model for the organization. While 3D printing has a heritage in prototyping, the fact remains that the push for most organizations, involved directly or indirectly with the industry, is for production. This means that the volumes of parts are going to be potentially higher (meaning more data loads) and higher stakes for data management throughout the lifecycle of the parts. For instance, medical device parts would require a lifelong traceability story that connects the part with the manufacturer and ultimately the patient. Also, those that are operating manufacturing facilities for 3D printing will certainly have multiple projects, customers, and part requirements. These elements need to be documented correctly to maintain operational stability but also to more fully understand the business of 3D printing. Data points such as printer up time, material usage, and reject rate are important for users to assess how well their operations are functioning.
3D printing Job Management
One of the biggest advantages of 3D printing is the fact that no tooling is required to build an individual part. Conceptually, you are able to produce a set of parts every build that is produced on a given printer. This has many implications including the ability to customize components for several customers in a single job or do small batch production in a cost effective manner. However, as you start to think about the combinations of parts, build data, cost, material usage, and customers, it gets overwhelming quite quickly. As the industry moved along the transition from prototyping to production, many companies had built solutions by hand in spreadsheet software to document some of these values. However, more machines and builds makes some of these basic approaches challenging.
One of the first steps for many production manufacturing operations is building in a tool to connect their printer usage and the cost of operations. This step is often required as part of basic operations for many companies because the upfront investment in equipment is on the order of several hundred thousand or even millions of dollars. The most common approach is to build a cost model for each printer that calculates the cost of each part in the build based on a set of variables such as material, recycling rate, build geometry, number of parts in the machine, machine cost, time, post-processing, and finishing requirements. Building an exact cost model can be quite challenging and even more complex at the organizational level because there may be several types of printers involved in the production process. The outputs from these cost models typically have two functions. One is to provide insight for the printer operator on how much usage the organization is getting out of the machine as well as to guide things like personnel required or material ordering. The other critical use is the understanding of how much to charge a customer.
A good way to understand how some of these models work is by exploring the websites of service bureaus around the industry. These companies enable their customers to submit a digital design online and will print the part for a fee. There are large service bureaus that have multiple printers, materials, and technologies in which you can select the appropriate fit for your part. Pricing will often differ based on those selections along with the lead time required.
AM is not a one-size-fits-all solution for every physical part. It is better to consider AM as one of several manufacturing processes. With that in mind, the cataloguing and management of parts and inventory already has a digital environment built around it. Database companies such as SAP, Oracle, Microsoft, Salesforce, JobBOSS, and IBM have created products that allow for end-to-end supply chain management for organizations to track customer orders and manufacturing. Many of those products were built prior to widespread AM integration into that industry or application, so the integration between these legacy platforms and the information generated during the AM process and customer requisitions was not always connected. It is also the case that the methods of production that are unique to AM don’t always align with traditional manufacturing tools or could quickly overwhelm the systems. The other challenge has been that there is limited software integration between the printers themselves and management software tools requiring manual entry of data.
There are several companies in the additive manufacturing industry that have built solutions to address these problems. The companies are listed below along with links to their websites showing a more complete view of their feature set. Fundamentally, these companies are aiming to add another link in the additive manufacturing digital thread to connect the full story of the digital design with the business of operating a facility where manufacturing is taking place.
| Company | Relation to digital thread | Application or use case |
|---|---|---|
| Link3D | Link3D helps organizations scale their manufacturing process and automate their workflows. | EOS North America performs benchmark studies for its customers to gauge how additive manufacturing can be used in a distributed manufacturing model. In an effort to enhance this process, EOS looked to Link3D’s AMES and Additive Workflow Software. The software helps speed up order turnaround time, maximize machine utilization, and allows for all engineers to gain access to the supply chain. EOS has also used Link3D’s Build Simulation software to provide quotes for clients. |
| 3YOURMIND | 3YOURMIND optimizes end-to-end AM processes and provides the tools for efficient scheduling and tracking. | Erpro 3D Factory has utilized 3YOURMIND to streamline their production of high quantity products, such as 17 million mascara brushes they produce for Chanel. Erpo was able to consolidate their various tracking systems into a single tool, helping reduce potential for human error that can arise with the complexity of organizing so many parts. |
| SAP | SAP enables collaboration, streamlining the entire process of part certification | US manufacturer Jabil has been using SAP to support its supply chain and manufacturing operations |
| Materialise | Materialise Stremics is a software system that helps to automate, centralize, and streamline the additive manufacturing workflow. | Nissan Motor Company uses 3D printing to prototype and experiment with new vehicle shapes. However, due to the print bed limitations, larger parts need to broken down into smaller, separate prints. The process of manually dividing parts into subparts was time consuming and inefficient. Using Materialise Magics, Nissan was able to reduce the time required for this process by over 50%. Magics comes with a feature that allows for the easy splitting of a part at a specified location, along with the ability to automatically create positioning pins, reducing the final assembly time. |
Distributed Manufacturing
The concept of distributed manufacturing states that a single product can be made in parallel from multiple manufacturing sites that are closer to the end customer. Thinking about this in the context of AM, we come to the definition of a single digital file being able to be manufactured at multiple locations on similar or the same equipment. This is in contrast to most conventional manufacturing approaches where a part is mass-produced at a singular location, then shipped to multiple customer or warehouse locations. The advantage of AMin this equation is that by having a series of locations that are able to produce 3D-printed products on demand is that supply chain challenges offered by traditional approaches such as high inventory costs and over producing products becomes more manageable. The model for 3D printing allows for a more nimble approach to manufacturing that could result in the product being closer to the end customer and leaves companies with flexibility to better manage their stream of product. From a digital thread perspective, this fully relies on the ability to transfer data between multiple organizations in a consistent manner without compromising the quality of the product.
Some companies such as Fast Radius and UPS have teamed up to apply this model in a real-life context by having printing facilities near regional air distribution centers that give companies the ability to print a part during the day and ship it to anywhere in the US overnight. Ultimately this success of this model would require end-to-end connectivity with the digital design, printer, and material information but just as important is the communication between all the parties involved to manage quality along these dimensions to incorporate the approach into a sound business model.
Security and IP Considerations
The digital nature of the AM process has many positives that enable the flexibility in production approaches, rapid collaboration, and the ability to produce parts without costly tooling. However, one of the implications of this flexibility is the reliance on digital files that on the surface do not have much in the way of intelligence built into them. A standard CAD, STEP, or STL file may dictate geometric requirements, but other details such as materials, quantity, and who (or who is not) authorized to print the file are not controlled as a default. Compared to traditional manufacturing, this has profound implications for manufacturers as they think about AM as an end-to-end solution for production and how it relates to the security of their product designs as well as intellectual property.
From a design security standpoint, we have to take a step back to understand the different models that organizations may use to produce 3D printed products. The first approach may be to have an internal 3D printing production capability that allows them to control the full process from start to finish. In this scenario, the main security considerations remain internal to the employees and systems of the organization. An alternative approach to fully internalized AM is the scenario where the printing is done externally at a contract manufacturer. This tends to organize itself in which the parent organization develops and owns the engineering designs and shares these digital files with a manufacturer. Users should make sure that they fully define the extent of these relationships and how much leeway the final manufacturer has in building the parts. For example, defining the full extent of the production process is very important. Aspects such as build orientation, printer, and material parameters should be well defined and documented in any relationship. It should also be made clear that there are strict limitations on production of the parts to the amount ordered.
This brings us to a second and important consideration for the digital thread: intellectual property (IP). The wider availability of AM technologies, due to lowered costs and increased quality, has increased access to the machines and materials. The ability to produce an individual design is available to far more people and organizations. This means that control of the digital designs, especially those with critical IP design data, opens up new risks for manufacturers. One risk is that someone or a competitor may copy a design and produce it on their own 3D printing system. Additionally, someone may take a design and produce it in such a way that was not intended. For example, a part could be counterfeited or produced on a subpar printing process; if subsequently delivered to a customer, the lower-quality, knock-off part if it could cause injury or equipment damage. In such a case, it is not always clear where the liability or fault lies: Is it the design owner, the material supplier, or machine operator/manufacturer? While these are all serious concerns, there are companies such as Identify3D who are looking to enhance the security of the 3D printing file process.
An alternative risk is the one posed by the technology capabilities itself. For example, 3D scanners were developed in part to capture the geometry of existing parts. When used within an organization, there is no IP risk. However, the same devices can be used to copy other designs and completed products in order to counterfeit them or repurpose the design. To counter some of these efforts, companies can use novel materials or create elements that show authenticity. For example, the geometric flexibility of 3D printing allows also unique markings to be made on the inside/outside of the part in such a way that it cannot be easily scanned or replicated. With other types of IP theft, such as copying the materials mix, companies may protect information and issue non-disclosure agreements among their employees, contractors, and suppliers. There are even practices of inserting tracer materials to show the authenticity of a build.