3d printing - Disruptive

Transcription

DisruptiveMagazine.com | Issue 2 | 06.2015
QUANTIFYING
AN EXPLOSION
TODAY’S METAL
ADDITIVE
MANUFACTURING
MARKET
DESIGNING
FOR 3DExpert
PRINT
tips
for better
results
GROWING
PAINS
Navigating the
rapid expansion
of the industry
MUSEUMS
& HERITAGE
Protecting
the past with
future tech
DisruptiveMagazine.com | Issue 2 | 06.2015 | 3
FROM THE EDITOR
MAKING
MEANINGFUL
THINGS
This, the second issue of Disruptive magazine, offers readers a
broad range of perspectives of the 3D printing ecosystem and
delves into some of its most interesting facets. The subtle but
over-arching theme of this edition of Disruptive has revealed
itself in meaning — making real things and making them mean
something!
From Scott Dunham, this month, comes the lead feature
— a timely round-up of the industrial metal 3D printing sub-sector.
Scott, like many other people I have spoken with, believes this
market is only going to increase in dominance across many vertical
sectors. The growth of the entire 3D printing ecosystem, (and
individual companies within it, both large and small), is a subject
that fascinates me personally. It is the focus of my article this month and draws on conversations and
interviews with a range of industry players. I worked on this article when I attended the Materialise
World Conference in April, and it’s really got me thinking about personal growth too…
Elsewhere in this issue, Kerry Stevenson takes a timely look at adoption in museums and
their role in protecting some of humanity’s greatest and most valuable artefacts. While it is certainly a
positive application of 3D tech, Kerry poses some provocative ideas on how we could, and should, take
this application beyond what are often marketing gimmicks.
RichRap has also been concentrating on the front end of the 3D printing ecosystem, with
some in-depth commentary on preparing designs for desktop 3D printers. From Faith Robinson, there
is a fantastic, thoughtful and thought-provoking feature article that explores digital humanities and
the role of 3D printing technologies within this abstract, but vibrant, discipline.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of our contributors — the people that
write and the people that read are what make this endeavour mean something to me. As ever, please
feel free to contact me about anything in this issue or, indeed anything else. Interaction with you guys,
the readers, is the highlight of my day(s). Onwards…
Rachel Park
Editor | Disruptive Magazine
[email protected]
@DisruptiveMag | @RPES12
disruptive-magazine
Disruptive Magazine
Cover Image Credit
MTI gear by 3D Systems
Publisher
Disruptive Magazine is
published 10 times a year by
3D Printshow.
Address
21 Victoria Street,
St Albans, Herts Al1 3JJ
Contact Number
[+44] 01727 866 516
Company Reg Number
7910136
Subscription Rate UK
For all Subscription offers
and overseas prices, visit
dusruptivemagazine.com/
subscriptions
For all advertising
enquiries, please contact
Jonathan Connelly
+44 (0) 1727 891 035
jonathan@
disruptivemagazine.com
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication
may be reproduced in any
form, stored in a retrieval
system or integrated into any
other publication, database or
commercial programme without
the express permission of the
publishers in writing. Under
no circumstances should this
publication and its contents be
sold, land out or used by way of
trade, or stored or transmitted
as an electronic file without the
publishers written approval.
Graphic Design
United Agency
www.unitedagency.co.uk
While Disruptive prides
itself on the equality of the
information its publications
provide, the company reserves
the right not to be held legally
responsible for any mistakes
or inaccuracies found within
th text of this publication.
Disruptive Magazine is an
independent publication and
as such does not necessarily
reflect the opinions of
manufacturers or distributors
of the products contained
within. All trademarks are
acknowledged.
FEATURE ARTICLE:
Quantifying an
Explosion: Today’s Metal
Additive Manufacturing
Market
06 |
By Scott Dunham
FEATURE ARTICLE:
Digital Humanities:
Spurred by 3D Printing
14 |
By Faith Robinson
FEATURE: INDUSTRY INSIDER
A Modest Proposal For
Ending A Digital Wrong
20 |
By Kerry Stevenson
FEATURE: ON THE DESKTOP
Design for 3D Printing
26 |
By Richard Horne
FEATURE:
FOCUS ON ARCHITECTURE
How 3D Printing
Continues to Disrupt
Architecture: An
Insider POV
34 |
By Piet Meijs, AIA
FEATURE: 3D PRINTING
An Industry in the
Process of Growth
40 |
By Rachel Park
DESIGN COLLECTION:
Thorsten Franck
48 |
By Dave Marks
STUDIO VISIT & INTERVIEW
Selassi 3D Print
56 |
63 | News Round-up:
A commentary round-up of
the latest news from across the
3D printing ecosystem.
6 | Feature Article | Analyst Insight | Scott Dunham
Feature Article
ANALYST INSIGHT
QUANTIFYING
AN EXPLOSION:
TODAY’S METAL
ADDITIVE
MANUFACTURING
MARKET
Scott Dunham, Senior Analyst, SmarTech Markets
MTI Gear by 3D Systems
State of the Metal AM Industry
3D Systems - Creating functional parts with
Direct Metal Production 3D Printers
Strength, complexity and efficiency:
Examples of Arcam’s EBM technology.
There is much to be excited about in the 3D
printing industry these days. Various sectors of the market continue to grow by leaps
and bounds, bringing the concepts of additive manufacturing (AM) to new industries
through new applications on a monthly basis.
The evolution that 3D printing has begun to
undergo from a product development tool to
a potential full blown production tool represents the future for this industry. And while
there is still a multitude of ways that the more
mature 3D printing technologies — utilizing
plastics and polymers — can be evolved into
production equipment, ultimately the area
that is expected to lead 3D printing into the
21st century is in metal AM.
In 2014, metal AM grew at an explosive pace, surpassing even the most generous
of market estimates. To be clear, the technology still has a really long way to go before its
full potential can be realized, but growth and
investment in metal AM technology at the
current rate indicate that it truly is simply a
matter of time until these processes become
a staple for vertical manufacturing industries
worldwide. Interest in this particular segment
of the market has driven SmarTech to divulge
an entirely new industry report series on the
topic and create new market models for tracking key growth data for the industry to utilize.
The most basic indicators of growth for the metal AM
sector soared last year. Machine sales, which often outpace the machine provider’s ability to produce these systems, grew an estimated 89 percent according to SmarTech’s ongoing market assessment in metal 3D printing.
That translated to an astounding 790 units sold last year
– of which we estimate 80 to 90 percent were actually
delivered to clients and are capable of operation today.
Most people now know the history of growth
in the 3D industry, one that has — virtually without fail
—managed to grow between 20 and 30 percent annually for the better part of three decades. But the market
for metal technologies today is smashing that growth
trend, with nearly every current competitor in this area
benefitting. (see Figure 1)
What’s powering this explosive growth? As a
broad technology category, several metal 3D printing
processes are beginning to graduate out of research and
development environments in both academic and private
manufacturing institutions with nearly a decade of testing, improvement and application development starting
to create serious commercial potential. This is not to say
there is not still a whole lot of evolution left for these specific technologies, but in general, we are now beginning
to see the potential for technologies such as Direct Metal
Laser Sintering (DMLS), Electron Beam Melting (EBM),
and Selective Laser Melting (SLM) become directly applicable in solving manufacturing challenges. This is best
characterized by a slow but steady movement from extreme low-volume or critical one-off metal parts, towards
more serial components with steady demand.
The current competitors in development of metal powder bed fusion AM systems run the gamut in terms of
approach to market as well as specific reputations in various niches of metal additive manufacturing. Here we will
consider the performance of some of the main players:
Arcam
Arcam continues to outperform itself year over year
selling its Electron Beam Melting (EBM) technology. In
2014, the company reported unit sales of a whopping 42
units – which average over half a million dollars each. Results in early 2015 have already been strong as well, with
the company reporting it sold 5 systems to one customer
in January alone.
EOS
EOS, the company with the most installed metal AM systems in the world, is also reporting explosive growth in
metal systems as it continues to introduce new products
in this area. The company has reported it is selling metal systems at a rate of 4-to-1 when compared to its polymer laser sintering technology. The recent release of the
EOS PRECIOUS M 080 system is unique in the market
for metal AM as the first system truly designed from the
bottom-up to process precious metal powder materials
for applications in jewellery 3D printing – but the potential applications for this system expand far beyond just
jewellery.
SLM Solutions
SLM Solutions was the most surprising story in metal
AM in 2014, going public and selling an immense number
of systems relative to its past performance. With 62 units
sold in 2014, the company smashed even its own projections. SLM Solutions is gaining a reputation within the
market for aluminium applications, which apparently are
growing rapidly based on the demand for SLM’s products
last year.
3D Systems
Figure 1.
Source: Opportunities in Metal Additive Manufacturing 2014,
SmarTech Markets Publishing
3D Systems’ purchase of Phenix Systems in mid 2013 has
been paying dividends, with the world’s most diverse 3D
printing company buying its way in just ahead of what is
likely to be a massive growth in metal 3D printing technology. While many other competing systems often get
recognized for their quality and innovation, 3D Systems
Direct Metal Printing technology (developed by Phenix)
has seen rapidly increasing adoption and is often praised
Concept laser:
Systems for metal printing on various scales
Exceptional Performance:
Arcam Electron Beam Melting
That’s not to say that the current players in metal 3D
printing aren’t watching out for their own best interests.
But it is interesting to see a market that seems to be so
acutely aware of itself. While the giants of the North
American market and polymer 3D printing seem to be
less sure of exactly where they’re heading, metal 3D
printing is exciting partly because it seems to have a distinct plan for its future.
While there is increasing activity around development of metal print processes outside of the popular
powder bed fusion processes that encompass the vast
majority of the market today, the market has thus far coalesced around technologies that utilize a bed of powder
metal materials. Thus, we’ve collected some key observations around these technologies that are forming into
trends that will likely significantly influence the future of
metal AM.
System Development Trends Point
to Major Manufacturing
for its special powder compacting powder bed recoating
system that allows for very fine grain powders and subsequently excellent surface finishes on final parts. As a result, 3D Systems reported selling 167 percent more printers in 2014 than in 2013 (including Phenix’ independent
results from before the acquisition).
signs of growth as well, including noticeably increasing
activity from companies with a variety of manufacturing-oriented backgrounds. This is creating an interesting
market dynamic that is both moving towards bonafide
establishment with powder bed technologies, but at any
moment seems ripe for continued disruption with alternate technologies and new developments taking hold.
Concept Laser
Concept Laser, an independent company that forms part
of the Hofmann Innovation Group in Germany, sold a
staggering 110 systems in 2014 on a 75 percent increase
in total revenues. The company’s LaserCusing systems
(the proprietary name given to its laser-based powder
bed manufacturing process) range from lab-oriented machines of small size all the way up to immensely large systems aimed at production volume utilizing multiple laser
energy sources.
Powder Bed Technologies
Powder bed technologies aren’t the only game in town for
metal 3D printing, however – even if they are currently
the most popular and widely used. Other approaches to
metal additive manufacturing are showing encouraging
Metal 3D Printing Is a Market Acutely
Aware of Itself
A stark contrast to the traditional 3D printing industry
involving polymer/plastic powder technologies, metal
additive manufacturing system providers’ current views
of one another more closely resembles that of professional colleagues rather than direct competitors. This is due
to the nature of current metal AM technologies having
distinct strengths and weaknesses, which minimize the
likelihood of customers picking one particular technology over another – rather, many customers either are best
served by a single specific technology where others generally cannot apply, or they are best served by having a
multitude of capabilities and therefore adopt a variety of
different companies products.
A product of the market-wide self-awareness can be easily seen in the direction that metal system providers are
taking with future development of their metal 3D printers towards viable serial production platforms. The primary development trends being undertaken by all major
names in the industry revolve around process monitoring
and control features. These features are being demanded
by current customers in those industries where the integrity of 3D printed parts has to be concretely verifiable
to exacting internal and regulatory standards, in order to
meet safety requirements.
Interestingly enough, the development trend
around process monitoring and control features in metal
3D printing systems may actually unlock another highly valuable aspect of additive manufacturing that is only
minimally possible today – highly controllable metal
manufacturing capabilities down to the microstructure
level. Traditional metal manufacturing processes that
are often compared against additive manufacturing (such
as casting or forging) have little ability for control of the
components at the microstructure level. Since additive
manufacturing builds parts layer by layer at the micron
level, better process monitoring and control features
could potentially allow engineers to fully manipulate the
microstructure of metal parts in the future, in a way never before possible, creating extreme performance across
a number of potential characteristics for parts made with
additive techniques.
"many customers
either are best
served by a single
specific technology
where others generally
cannot apply, or they
are best served by
having a multitude of
capabilities and therefore
adopt a variety of
different companies
products."
Overall expenditures for research and development to
improve current metal additive manufacturing systems
is increasing significantly industry-wide. Lots of these
dollars are going toward better control and monitoring
of the systems themselves, so that users will be able to
know for certain the part they are printing will perform
and behave to a specific standard. These developments
should only increase the future potential of metal AM
systems as they move towards serial production of metal
components.
Immense Growth Reveals
Serious Challenges
There’s really only one downside to such explosive
growth at a relatively early stage. The higher the industry
sets its sights, the more hurdles it will have to climb to get
there. Nobody would be this excited about metal additive
manufacturing if its goal was to forever stay relegated to
the research institution for special one-off research and
development projects. Instead, metal AM is heading rapidly towards a seriously disruptive future, but in order to
get there, several things need to be addressed which often get lost in the enthusiasm and excitement.
Laser-based metal powder bed processes can be
inconsistent and heavily reliant on trial and error for new
part designs. While additive manufacturing cuts down on
waste in principal, the tribulations of perfecting a new
metal part via additive manufacturing currently can end
up generating much more waste than necessary, thanks
to broken parts through internal stresses, tolerance shifts
and other challenges. For the most part, these can be
avoided through extensive expertise and foresight in the
design and build setup process.
But the idea of a world of distributed manufacturing
through metal 3D printing has no room for such finicky
characteristics.
Another often overlooked complication for metal AM is simply the variations in print processes across
the market today – despite the popularity of laser-based
powder bed fusion systems, they certainly aren’t the answer to every additive manufacturing question. Due to
the variety in approach to metal additive processes, the
complications in being able to set certification standards
for parts, market-wide, is extremely complex from an
end-customer point of view. If we agree that no single
additive manufacturing technology is capable of serving
all applications, then customers with multiple systems
in-house that need certifiable standards for parts coming off their machines are now faced with an exponentially larger problem. Unless we want to be certifying
individual parts one at a time (like today), we are going
to need more consistency and control over metal AM
processes.
Next Steps
If we looked simply at growth indicators from last year
alone, I doubt that anyone would say much, other than
‘the sky’s the limit’ – and it would be difficult to argue
that. Realistically, even with challenges arising as more
and more customers are testing these systems, it’s pretty clear that metal additive manufacturing is destined
for big things. The broader powder metallurgy industry
(which consists of a variety of non-additive techniques
utilizing metal powder materials) dwarfs metal AM by
comparison today, but the good news here is that there’s
a serious global presence for the metal powder industry
and adoption for these processes at serious global scale in
big industry.
Scott Dunham
Scott Dunham is Senior Analyst for SmarTech
Markets Publishing and has been studying additive
manufacturing and 3D printing markets since 2011.
Scott has published over 10 unique in-depth studies
on 3D printing applications and markets, giving him a
broad and global perspective on the technology. Scott
has been a featured speaker at 3D printing events
worldwide including 3D Printshow, RAPID, Additive
Disruption and others.
Figure 2 shows SmarTech’s previous market estimates
from November of 2014, which illustrate that the revenue from metal 3D printing materials (including some
non-powder materials) will reach $1.3B within the next
eight years. And these figures are based on the organisation’s models of anticipated growth in metals from last
year – which, I believe, may very well underestimate the
opportunity today as growth last year already exceeded
our original (very bullish) predictions.
Even if metal AM remains a niche within the
broader powder metallurgy market as it is today, metal
AM will be worth a few billion dollars within a decade.
But suppliers of metal powders who deal with hundreds
of thousands of short-tons of powder each year for powder
metallurgy processes like sintering, hot-isostatic pressing
and metal injection moulding, are already taking note of
AM as a significant future growth market.
The reality is, however, despite several metal
AM processes and systems having been utilized in R&D
for a decade already, we’re really just at the beginning
of true commercial impact. Plenty of big industries are
eagerly waiting to see how rapidly it will mature, while
others are diving in to help drive it forward themselves.
The data from this article was pulled from the most recent
SmarTech report on metal additive manufacturing materials.
For more information visit www.smartechpublishing.com.
Figure 2.
Source: Opportunities in Metal Additive Manufacturing 2014,
SmarTech Markets Publishing
14 | Feature | 3D Printing & The Creative Industries | Faith Robinson
Feature Article
3D PRINTING AND
THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES
DIGITAL
HUMANITIES
SPURRED BY
3D PRINTING
Faith Robinson
Technology continues to blur the boundaries between disciplines.
This article explores the burgeoning field of Digital Humanities, and considers
how 3D printing is both a driver and a physical embodiment of this concept.
There is an essential idea, one
that is often overlooked in
many corners of the 3D printing industry: that new technologies have always existed.
For thousands of years, novel
innovations have changed the
course of human interaction
and development, dictating
everything from the nature of
objects to concepts of knowledge.
For many, art remains
the most appropriate arena to
explore and understand the
human relationship with technology, but what may be even
more important to acknowledge is that technology and engineering have always played a
prominent role in the investigation of not only art, but of
the humanities themselves.
Navigating the new
networks of our lives through
the technologies that we so
freely explore can sometimes
be difficult, and digital humanities (as an academic and
artistic study) continue to produce fascinating insights into
how we live and interact with
others. For many, however,
the term 'digital humanities'
alone can produce a puzzled
response and even for those
engaging with it as a discipline,
it can be tricky to define.
A
quick
internet
search proved helpful: "Digital Humanities is an area of
research and teaching at the
intersection of computing
and the discipline of humanities" (thanks Wikipedia). It
certainly sounds quite simple
when placed into such a Google-search-friendly sentence,
but as the ambiguity of that
definition suggests, the relationships at play between humans and the technology they
employ is far more complex.
The World Wide Web
stands proudly as the initial,
disruptive technology that
kick-started a public interest
in contemporary digital humanities, and the Internet to
a large extent remains fluid
and at times unclear in the influence it exerts within global
society.
Instant communications have changed the way
the world works, while simultaneously providing new spaces and contexts for us all to live
out our digital lives. As that
discourse deepens every day,
new technologies — in particular, 3D printing, threaten to
disturb the social order further
still by presenting the potential to instantly transfer physical information and objects.
Within
the
Arts
track at 3D Printshow Berlin
in March 2015, one speaker
demonstrated these ideas in
an especially memorable way.
Patrick Baudisch is the Professor and Chair of the Human
Computer Interaction Lab at
Hasso Plattner Institute, Potsdam, and his work explores the
nature of spatial interaction
(via interactive devices).
To him, a modified
version of the 3D printer presents the closest thing we have
to teleportation. By pairing
two 3D printers (the first was
fitted with a milling device
that worked in sync with the
printhead of the second ma-
chine) Baudisch ‘teleported’ a
physical object (in this case, a
heart-shaped pendant printed
on a MakerBot) from one place
to another. As the original object was being destroyed while
its likeness was recreated, the
item was not truly replicated, and critically retained its
uniqueness. Baudisch's project
stands as a magical way to explore new notions of possession and objecthood, as presented via the medium of 3D
printing.
Many people would
disagree with the notion that
a 3D printer could be seen as
a teleporting device – at least
in the way that our sci-fi imaginations might expect. New
machines come and go within
the 3D printing industry, yet it
is our communal expectation
and our vision of the future of
this technology that drive the
development of it. Running
alongside the dreamy public
interest, there is also a very
large real-life market interest
in the products that the 3D
printing ecosystem produces:
products that introduce new
ways of thinking about 'things'.
Fuel3D presented an accessible, affordable, hand-held
point-&-shoot 3D scanner via
Kickstarter in 2013, and today
continue to drive the digital
humanities discourse by enabling high-quality scanning
for 3D printing across a wide
variety of industries.
Originally developed
for the medical market, the
scanners are being utilised
across a variety of academic and artistic sectors — and
16 | Feature | 3D Printing &
The Creative Industries | Faith Robinson
perhaps most interestingly (for
this article at least) within museums. The reconstruction of
valuable / forbidden / precious
artefacts through 3D printing
technology is slowly becoming
canonical within the digital
humanities arena, and the possibility of scanning an ancient
object in order to physically
interact with it is incredibly
exciting.
Sketchfab is another
company that is working hard
to advance such progress in
cultural heritage. The company’s software enables virtual
interaction with 3D scanned
objects, and for many, exists
as the 'YouTube' of 3D models.
Rather than 3D printing a scan
or model, Sketchfab allows users to engage directly with virtual creations, in three dimensions. In a collaboration with
the British Museum, models
of ancient artefacts are available online to be explored at
will. The implications of such
a re-appropriation of our notion of objecthood are surely
far-reaching and profound.
Stills from “The 3D Additivist
Manifesto”, 2015, by Morehshin
Allahyari and Daniel Rourke.
It is not only the development of commercial offerings that extend this debate. As always, independent
theorists, researchers and artists alike contribute to
the present and future realities of how technologies
are commonly understood and used, and as expected,
something that disrupts so many paradigms can produce a wide range of reactions.
In an effective attempt to introduce a new discourse, Morehshin Allahyari and Daniel Rourke are
the artist/activist duo responsible for The 3D Additivist
Manifesto, a research project that hopes to transcend
current understandings and definitions of 3D printing
as a movement felt in a variety of different spaces.
Standing as a 10-minute video offering, its
combination of a net art aesthetic, rendered landscape
and audio accompany a spoken-word essay, outlining
the #Additivism venture. The manifesto acts as a call
to action for its audience, welcoming anyone watching
it to contribute to The 3D Additivist Cookbook, a publication launching in 2015, which seeks to extend the
debate.
As expected, the opening clause of the manifesto sets the tone for a powerful proposal:
"Derived from petrochemicals boiled into being from the
black oil of a trillion ancient bacterioles, the plastic used in
3D Additive manufacturing is a metaphor before it has even
been layered into shape."
Setting the scene with such an apocalyptic notion of 3D printing technology feels at once quite bizarre — especially for those of us working within the
industry and recognising it as an interesting and overwhelmingly positive space. But it's through this drastic, almost romanticised language that the #Additivism
message finds its arguably worthy place.
What is essential to this project is that it is not
all about the technology. In a Skype conversation with
both Allahyari and Rourke a tumultuous assortment
of ideas were addressed: "What is the radical potential
caught up inside the 3D printer, and how do we unlock that?"
resounded as a particularly key message from Rourke.
Environmental, social, political, technical,
economical, emotional... the numerous ways in which
3D printing can be considered only demonstrate the
many ways that it can have an effect, and it is this power that #Additivism seems interested in (and perhaps
intimidated by).
"The 3D printer as a technology has the ability to cross
many boundaries," explained Allahyari. "We're using
The 3D Additivist Manifesto to recognise the technology
as a common language that brings all these worlds together." Throughout my own experience with the technology and the industry, I continue to delight at how
my interest in 3D printing has created an entry point
into so many fascinating fields.
“The 3D Additivist Manifesto and forthcoming
Cookbook blur the boundaries between art, engineering,
science fiction, and digital aesthetics. We call for you - artists, activists, designers, scientists, and critical engineers
- to accelerate the 3D printer and other Additivist technologies to their absolute limits and beyond, into the realm of
the speculative, the provocative and the weird.
Additivism can emancipate us.
Additivism will eradicate us.
Answer the call.”
Despite the strength of the project, it certainly offers
only one of countless opinions on what the technology is and what it is doing. The 10 minute Additivist
Manifesto video was premiered at TRANSFER Gallery, Brooklyn on Thursday 16 April — a date that coincided with 3D Printshow New York, 2015. Despite
being unable to attend, I found the (visual) discourse
remarkably relevant to some of the artwork we curated
at that show: a collection of 3D printed 'spills' by Brussels-based duo Pussykrew.
Pussykrew (Polish artists Andrzej Wojtas &
Ewelina Aleksandrowicz) work in a variety of different
media (including CGI and moving image) and use 3D
printing (and Fuel3D scanning) to bring their virtual,
Tumblr-worthy motifs of post-human forms and liquid
simulations into physical existence.
Returning to the context of digital humanities, their work has always captivated me in its upfront
delivery of the tension between real and not-real: between existing virtually on the internet and existing
physically in the gallery. As a result, the material practice of their work provides a message just as powerful
as the manifesto offered by #Additivism, albeit in a
very different way.
18 | Feature | 3D Printing & The Creative Industries | Faith Robinson
THE WOLFPACK
IS EXPANDING
And so the dialogue continues. In the same
way that it is difficult to define, it is difficult
to summarise. Something so constantly in
flux and yet in sync with the ever-moving
pace of technological developments can never occupy one position for too long, and there
are so many different positions and projects
to document.
What is clear is that 3D printing
offers new opportunities for those of us involved in the digital humanities conversation and beyond. By allowing what is virtual
to become physical (either quite literally or
through different creative codes), the technology continues to answer (and ask) more
and more questions which investigate contemporary society and the human condition
itself.
It is a fascinating discussion to explore, and regardless of whether or not you
have a strong interest in digital humanities,
anyone that interacts with 3D printing has
become a part of it.
Stand out from the pack with us
today and become one of our
European Airwolf 3D resellers!
Acknowledgement:
A special thanks to Rich from Prosthetic
Knowledge for continuing to steer me in the right
direction.
prostheticknowledge.tumblr.com
additivism.org/manifesto
pussykrew.niochnioszki.net
Mimicry by Pussykrew, 2015
/hawk3dproto
@hawk3dproto
01924 869 610
Faith Robinson
With an academic background in History of Art, Faith Robinson is
the Conference Manager at 3D Printshow. She loves aesthetics, and
alongside writing, Faith maintains a long-term dedication to the creative
industries and the aspects of digital humanities involved.
Hawk 3D Proto is part of Cutwel Limited, a leading
UK supplier of engineering cutting tools, work holding
systems, metrology and much more! www.cutwel.co.uk
www.hawk3dproto.co.uk
[email protected]
20 | Feature | Industry Insider | Kerry Stevenson
Natural History Museum, London
Feature
INDUSTRY INSIDER
A MODEST
PROPOSAL
FOR ENDING A
DIGITAL WRONG
Kerry Stevenson
As 3D scanning of museum collections becomes seemingly
more popular, Kerry Stevenson asks some pertinent, and deep,
questions about this practice.
3D printing is, in fact an ecosystem. It is not merely a hardware item
- a 3D printer, that sits on a desk or on a factory floor. Rather, it is the
combination of digital 3D content and 3D printing, that makes the
magic we are all so fascinated with.
The hardware does not do anything without digital content created in software, (which, in this case, is expertly formed 3D
models, digital representations of an idea or object), that ultimately
instruct a 3D printer to replicate it in the physical world.
Content is the most difficult part of this equation, as the
method of 3D printing is, more or less, simply “pressing the button”
to commence the print. It’s 90% content design and 10% making. Or
even less, depending on the complexity of the 3D model.
So where does this
digital content come
from?
A digital representation of Venus.
There are many avenues. Our 3D models may be custom designed by skilled 3D modellers using fancy software packages, who are able to implement amazing
and robust designs. Alternatively, the 3D model may
be generated by specialized software leveraging mathematical equations to create a shape from a carefully
composed formula. Another route involves simply perusing any number of online 3D model repositories to
buy or download an existing, useful 3D model.
There is also 3D scanning. Digital 3D models
can be created by employing 3D cameras to digitally
capture the shape of an existing object. These devices may use lasers, structured light, infrared beams or
even plain old images, but regardless of the technique,
a 3D model emerges from the scanning process.
Such 3D scans can not only be 3D printed, but
also stored, distributed, modified or even mixed with
other digital 3D components.
3D scanning previously demanded very specialized equipment costing thousands of dollars (or
pounds or euros), but recently much more inexpensive
mechanisms have become available for use by anyone.
There are even sophisticated 3D scanning services available that incur no charge at all. Autodesk’s
popular 123D suite of web apps includes 123D Catch,
which uses a series of images taken from a 360-degree
circuit around a subject to compute the true 3D shape
by inference of the optical background. A variety of
similarly easy-to-use 3D scanning services exist for
anyone to try out.
Some of them even work on mobile smartphones, enabling anyone to carry a relatively capable
3D scanner in their purse or pocket.
But back to 3D model sources
for 3D printing...
Venus De Milo, 3D printed by Cosmo Wenman,
on display at 3D Printshow London 2013
One very popular class of 3D prints, particularly for
hobbyists, is sculptures. For many of us, this means
finding them in repositories, since your typical user
isn’t a Michelangelo or Rodin, able to create incredible
sculptures themselves. Thus, you will often find hobbyists scouring various repositories for digital representations of famous historical sculptures.
Many such 3D models do exist and are available for download. Perhaps the most notable producer
of such 3D models is Cosmo Wenman, whose 2013 project to bulk 3D scan numerous notable European sculpture replicas housed at Skulpturhalle Basel resulted in
a variety of highly accurate 3D models, many of which
are available for download from public repositories.
But why did Wenman have to perform these
3D scans himself? Why don’t the museums do them?
In fact, many museums have been 3D scanning the artefacts that they hold. Some museums have
used these 3D scanning projects to gain publicity by
issuing news releases of their “digital strategy”, which
are often received warmly by the unknowing public.
However, what I’ve observed, almost without
exception, is that the 3D models generated by these
digital scanning projects are very rarely made available to the public. In most cases, they show up on a web
page where you can see the model in 3D form and perhaps even twirl it around for a full view, but you can’t
download it. And that means you cannot 3D print it,
either.
Occasionally you may see a smattering of
downloadable 3D content from a museum, but it is
always an incredibly small portion of said museum’s
holdings. Today, for example, if you visit the Smithsonian’s 3D site, you will find a paltry twenty-six 3D models presented and available for download. To put this in
perspective, this particular institution holds approximately 138 million items.
The Winged Victory of Samothrace by Pythokritos of Lindos
One hundred and thirty-eight MILLION items!
That means that the organisation has scanned and
made available only 0.0000188% of their holdings.
For sure, the available twenty-six are excellent
3D models and it would obviously not be financially
feasible to 3D scan millions of items, but how difficult
would it be to scan a few hundred? A few thousand? I
think it could cost almost nothing, as interested members of the public would probably volunteer to do most
of the work.
Cosmo Wenman asked this institution directly whether they’ve scanned a number of notable sculptures, and found they had not.
This is not a phenomenon exclusive to the
Smithsonian: the venerable British Museum, holder of
some eight million works, has released an embarrassingly low fourteen 3D models for educational use. They
beat the Smithsonian on percentage points, however,
at 0.000175%.
I’ve recently run into this scenario myself, where I had arranged to 3D scan a number of
Winged Victory, the Nike of Samothrace, 3D printed by Cosmo Wenman, on
display at 3D Printshow London 2013
"...for some reason the museum custodians
feel they own not only the sculpture itself, but
the design of the form, too."
Crea-zarus 3D & Arketyp 3D: A great
example of 3D printing bringing detail
and depth to museum pieces.
Destruction of the Mosul Museum in Iraq.
sculptures from a major European museum on tour, but while the local gallery
expressed great interest in doing so, they were unable to obtain permission
from the touring exhibition’s owner.
Why are museums reluctant to 3D scan their collections? You’d think
they would want to do so, as their mandate is to expose these works to the public. Why not do it in a 21st century digital way?
I suspect that it’s about money. As the custodian of these ancient sculptures, these organizations
may feel they need to maintain tight control over these
sculptural forms in order to support the “monopoly”
they effectively have. If they are the only source for
the shape, they must believe, then, that they can wring
more cash from leveraging them in every way possible. Perhaps they fear that if a digital representation of
“their” sculpture became publicly available, then fewer
people would be willing to pay to see them in real life.
This is misguided thinking, to use polite language.
The original sculptors in almost all cases are
long dead and their descendants are not readily identifiable. The sculptures may be centuries old, long past
any reasonable duration an artist could hold rights for,
yet for some reason the museum custodians feel they
own not only the sculpture itself, but the design of the
form, too.
One exception to this protective attitude can
be found at African Fossils, who purposely collect and
deploy printable 3D models of ancient African fossils,
including bones from many of our prehistoric ancestors. Currently, they deliver over 100 digital downloads,
because that is their very purpose.
It is my belief that museums containing objects should very strongly consider comprehensive 3D
scanning projects to digitize their entire collections —
and find an effective way to deliver them to the world.
Making a 3D model public would not detract in any
way from the validity or heritage of an original object.
Indeed, if a digital model becomes popular, it’s likely to
draw additional visitors to see the original in person,
much like pirated music has been shown to lead to additional sales for musicians.
Kerry Stevenson
A key focus for Kerry is the
previously impossible idea of
replicating physical objects
directly from digital data. In
2007 Kerry created Fabbaloo
now one of the internet’s
oldest blogs exclusively
dedicated 3D printing, which
follows developments and
implications of replication
technology. @fabbaloo
Recently, individuals from the Islamic State entered
the Mosul Museum in Iraq and proceeded to destroy
countless priceless and irreplaceable artefacts from
history in the name of their extreme interpretation of
a religion. This museum’s artefacts have been utterly
destroyed, lost forever to mankind. There is a project
underway to attempt a reconstruction using leftover
still images, but this is not likely to produce extensive
results.
But what if the Mosul Museum had previously
3D scanned their entire collection? Yes, the originals
would still be lost to the world, but we would have at
least a digital representation of the artefacts, from
which we could produce replicas. It is not perfect by
any measure, but it is infinitely better than having
nothing at all besides fond memories — which will, one
day, fade from living memory.
I believe museums should 3D scan their collections not only for public presentation, but also for disaster recovery. Artefacts are, in the language of engineers, a “single point of failure”. They can be destroyed,
lost, mangled or eroded.
Digital copies can last forever.
But there’s another darker reason to do this.
Cosmo Wenman / Africanfossils.org
Devastation left behind in Mosul.
26 | Feature | On the Desktop | Richard Horne
RichRap considers some of the many issues around designing
products for desktop 3D printers and shares many helpful insights and
best practices for achieving optimal results.
Feature Article
ON THE DESKTOP
DESIGN FOR
3D PRINTING
Richard Horne
52 Shapes: Beautiful lamps and light fixtures designed for 3D printing. Image: Kerry Stevenson/Fabbaloo
Unfortunately, the limitations of
'You can 3D print anything!' —
the basic technology really start
This is still said a lot and bandied
to stand out like a sore thumb
around as though anything and
when they put it into practice.
everything is possible with just
Most of the issues are with print
the click of a button. Unfortunatetime, but also the need to quickly
ly, it’s just not true, especially for
design, process and reliably print
desktop 3D printers. What you
(ideally in just a few minutes) in
can 3D print and what will also
front of waiting customers crelook good after it has been printates incredible limitations and in
ed, takes a lot of thought — and a
many cases damages the image
skilled designer.
of 3D printing, particularly when
Almost all 3D printers are
things go wrong.
really quite dumb, they are not
Sadly, I have observed many
aware when a print has failed or
clients stating that 3D printing is
the nozzle has clogged; even 2D
not ready and not mature enough
paper printers let you know when
All 3D printers fail, good model design
for printing even trivial, ‘pointthe paper gets jammed. We still
can assist in making the print process more
likely to succeed.
less’ objects. As a result, the whole
have to pack a lot more intelliconcept of novel and unique 3D
gence and technology into the average 3D printer before it becomes aware of issues the printing on demand is subsequently rubbished due to
a few setbacks and the misunderstood, or, more accuuser may not currently care about until it’s too late.
For now at least, the job of the model designer rately, miss-sold capabilities of the technology.
Not everything can, or should, be 3D printed.
has been to acknowledge the many issues that standard desktop 3D printers face, and be sympathetic to That’s a message yet to be accepted or fully apprecithese when creating objects destined for 3D printing. ated by many people, but we are now slowly starting
Before we look at the way 3D model designers are sup- to get over the magic marketing hype of 3D printing
porting the limitations of desktop 3D printing, let’s ex- capabilities being reported for dramatic effect. Still,
plore some of the background on the misuse and mis- every so often reality goes out of the window and panic
or fantasy (over what is possible with 3D printers) goes
understanding of 3D printing.
“3D printing is hot right now!” — that was said into overdrive yet again. Recently, entertainer and 3D
to me just the other day by an excited and over-caf- Systems’ Chief Creative Officer Will-i-am called for
feinated marketing executive. 3D printers seem to be ethical codes and legislation for 3D printing humans,
the ‘in thing’ for agencies to suggest using it as a great getting overexcited and suggesting an imminent fumarketing gimmick. This often includes 3D printing ture where 3D printing can do something it is unlikely
name-tags, drinks stirrers or small personalised trin- to ever do. It was not a great endorsement for 3D Systems, but hardly a surprise either.
kets on demand.
Going back a little further, one of the most memorable
and amusing instances of hype and disillusioned panic over the impact of 3D printing occured in 2013. It
still makes me cringe and feel somewhat sorry for the
guy. The person in question was Maurice Williamson
(New Zealand’s Customs Minister) who commented on
the ‘hot topic’ of 3D printing live on a morning radio
station. Maurice not only generated widespread misunderstandings about 3D printed guns, border controls
and people 3D printing their own illegal drugs, but
continued being concerned about household molecular
3D printing and other new technologies for the rest of
that year.
In his ‘insightful’ technology awareness update video on driverless cars, 3D printing and more,
around nine minutes in, Williamson describes being amazed by a 3D printing video showing the light
scanning of a crescent wrench, and reprint of an exact working copy. Now, I can assure you it takes much
more than a quick optical scan across an object to pick
out all the moving parts and hidden mechanisms used
in even a basic crescent wrench.
Any rational person may have asked a few
more questions before being astounded by this feat of
(marketing-hype) ‘technology’. Mr Williamson even
states that this powder printed crescent wrench is 50%
stronger than reinforced steel. That’s not even close to
being accurate, and it’s just irresponsible to state “facts”
in this way without a basic understanding of what you
are talking about. I’m just happy to see that eighteen
months later, his video still only has forty views. That’s
actually quite an under-achievement considering it has
‘3D printing’ in the YouTube title. Williamson resigned
from his ministerial post in 2014.
The reality is that 3D printing is still quite a
crude way to manufacture many common things, and
the process of designing a 3D object is vastly more
complicated than producing a quick 2D sketch.
Designing Out Issues
Many of the more recent iconic 3D printed desktop objects have been designed specifically to be 3D printed.
What I mean by this is that these products don't just
accidentally happen to 3D print well, rather they have
each been thought about, and shaped, positioned or
modified to optimise the chances of printing out well
on many different desktop machines. This does mean
that certain choices have to be made when thinking
about a model or the design of an object, and some of
these decisions can have quite an impact on what you
can and can't print on the average desktop 3D printer.
Almost any organic object (including people,
animals, insects, trees or flowers) is going to cause major issues for a 3D printer. This is particularly true if
you want to 3D print a part like this in one piece. One
of the biggest issues is encountered when any part of a
model sticks out at a 90˚ angle with nothing connecting the other end. You can span plastic directly across
two points very nicely, in fact it's used very often for
building mechanical objects. Due to the way hot plastic
shrinks a little as it's being extruded, you can span long
gaps straight across, but only if both ends are anchored
like a 'bridge'.
Imagine that we want to design and print a
figure of a witch. We want to put her in a striking pose
on a broomstick, with a wide and pointy hat, wand and
flowing cape. That's certainly possible to 3D design,
and with the right tools it can be quite easy and fun.
But expecting a desktop 3D printer to be able to print
the model is another thing entirely.
A skilled designer will start to look at the
problems and work on solutions for each one. Take the
arms outstretched from the body, they are floating in
thin air. The layers of plastic have nothing to affix too
and thus starts making a mess of your model. You can
add support material, but that can be hit-and-miss for
many 3D printers, it wastes plastic and can leave marks
on the model after removal. A smart designer could
make use of the witch’s cape, draped over the arms and
down the body. This could give the 3D printing process
something to slowly build out, little-by-little each layer
jutting out around a 45˚ angle. The outstretched arms
now have some handy support in the cape and can be
built as desired. Of course the lazy solution is to have
the arms at the sides of the body.
What about the hat? This has a wide brim
from the head that's not going to print well with a desktop plastic layering process. After some considerations
to support, or tilting the head back so the bottom of the
hat could be connected to the back, it's just easier to
print the hat separately. The same goes for her magic
wand, just print it separately, as a flat model and attach
it to the hand afterwards.
It doesn’t stop there, the head and facial features are a big issue, we have an overhanging chin and
maybe in the case of a witch, a big pointy nose. Even
eye sockets, an open mouth or hair is a design issue and
a big problem for a desktop 3D printer. Ears are not so
tricky, as you can grow them outwards at a steady angle thanks to the ear lobes.
Having used the witch to illustrate some common problems, lets take a look at a model that was
specifically designed to be 3D printed with FDM/FFF
desktop and SL resin-based machines.
The image shows Aria the Dragon by Louise
Driggers. Louise is an accomplished, self-taught 3D designer and not only does this dragon model show great
artistic skill, it's also perfectly designed to be printed
easily on almost any desktop 3D printer with minimal
fuss. If you can't successfully print this dragon, simply
put, your 3D printer is not set up very well.
This model does not require any support material, or changes of orientation to be printed. What is
clearly noticeable about Aria is that the pose is sympathetic to the 3D printing layering process; you start to
see this in 3D models and also quickly notice any areas
that could cause issues while designing a part or model.
3D printed ‘Aria the Dragon’. Image courtesy of Louise Driggers.
3D design images of ‘Aria the Dragon’.
Courtesy of Louise Driggers
If we look more closely at Aria, it is possible to see the
column base is sculpted so that it gently curves out at
the top and the tail wraps about the base, but does not
overhang. The feet and legs go straight up and where
the lower joints meet the body, it's a gentle slope. Most
notable are the wings going straight up, leaning only
slightly out and all the detailed features like wing claws
point upwards at less than a 45˚ angle. The head, ears
and horns are all angled upwards for a very easy and
successful 3D printing process.
If Aria's neck was sticking out or the head angled down, it would suddenly turn this model into a
very complex printing process indeed.
This model went viral over Christmas, in part
because it was easy to print, people could just download, slice, print and show a finished model. Lots of
people printed out Aria, so the model was being ‘mass
manufactured’ in every size and colour you could
imagine, on hundreds of different 3D printers.
There were also a few debates between Louise
and others about the value of 3D printing so many plastic dragons. Fine, it's not life saving or a 'vital' object.
However, I do believe that the enjoyment and satisfaction for Louise and so many other people who decided
to print and share, has a unique value.
I was extremely happy printing them for my
kids at Christmas, but what did bother me was that
some people simply did not understand or acknowledge
the skill involved in designing such a beautiful object
that 3D prints so well, for so many people across different machines. If nothing else, I wanted to highlight the
skill involved and congratulate Louise for keeping cool
with some rather negative comments flying about.
Months later, people are still printing out Aria
and I was delighted to see a picture of one with folded-down wings. I had to know if this was a different
model. It was not, just a rather clever idea by one user
to heat the wings after printing and re-position them
into a wider and more dramatic pose.
You could even print out jigs to allow the heating and exact bending of objects after 3D printing — of
course this may require a custom jig for each model,
but we have 3D printers, so that's not a problem. The
bigger opportunity highlighted here is that there are
ways to work around the limitations of 3D printers and
they may involve lo-tech solutions. Just be prepared to
think.
Many of Louise’s other designs highlight the
art of breaking up a model design into separate parts
for construction after printing - this is very often still
the best way to construct and print many things, rather
than trying to model and print in one go.
The Scarab beetle box by Louise Driggers is made
up of 12 parts, printed in different colours and assembled
to form a working secret compartment.
"there are ways
to work around the
limitations of 3D
printers and they
may involve lo-tech
solutions. Just be
prepared to think."
The Tudor rose box by Louise Driggers consists of ten separate
parts that need to be joined together after 3D printing. This allows
much more freedom in the design stages and a much easier print
process without the need for support material.
If you wish to read more about the design process Louise uses for support-free 3D models, I can recommend
her post on the Flapper (search for ‘The Flapper’ on
www.southquay3d.com). It details many common issues and innovative solutions to achieve the final look
Louise wanted.
Pushing the design and 3D printing boundaries while still creating an easy-to-print design is a real
art form. Some spectacular examples of working, articulated models that print in one piece and still form
complex assemblies can be seen in some of the work by
designer Emmett Lalish.
The fully articulated blossoming lamp is a perfect example
of an easy-to-print model that
requires no assembly and can
simply transform and function
beautifully.
Professional laser sintering nylon powder based 3D
printing systems have a major
advantage for designers. All of
the spare powder that's not being fused acts as a support material, so even complex interlinking objects floating in mid
air, with tiny fine details (like
chain links) can be 3D printed.
Most of these systems do not
fit on a desktop and are very
expensive to buy and run, but
they are almost able to print
'anything.'
However, the point here is that
even for professional systems,
it's still not easy to print out
these models — that takes a
skilled operator, choosing the
best orientation for strength
and spacing of models. Hours
later, the finished object is
complete inside a hot powder
'cake.' After maybe another
day of cooling down, the fragile models needs to be carefully dug out and cleaned of
spare powder. It's not easy, or
plug-and-play 'automatic' by
any sense of the word, and it’s
messy.
Quite often models
still need to be split down into
many parts and assembled later. Many of the impressive 3D
prints you see have had at least
as much time post processing
and/or assembling by hand
as it took to print them. One
stunning example that goes
against the assembly route,
however, is Nervous System’s
Kinematic bodice and dress
(see picture on Page 32). These
conceptual, albeit fully functional (and beautiful) products are designed specifically
for 3D printing. They are 3D
formed (wrapped) into a tight
cube that fits the 3D printer’s
available build space. Once
the print is complete and has
been cleaned of the spare nylon powder, the fully-formed
bodice/dress can be unfolded
into an articulated and flowing
garment that can be worn.
Mazzo di fiori by Joshua Harker.
Image courtesy of Joshua Harker.
Kinematic Dress 2014 by Nervous System.
Image credit Steve Marsel.
There are also many design
rules when using a professional
3D printing system or 3D printing service provider. Thinking
about the way a model prints
is important for the designer
and also the machine operator
— whether in-house or a supplier. Regardless of the hyperbole, 3D printing at this level
requires many manual tasks.
It is critical to check a model carefully or it could end up
as a costly mistake, or require
many prints to get a successful
result.
As just one example,
when using a laser sintering
system with powder, it's easy
to get unsintered powder
trapped inside hollow parts
of an object. If that volume of
trapped powder has not been
accounted for in the costing of
the job, it can impact the budget significantly. It is common
for small holes to be added to
parts, ensuring that trapped
powder can be blown out and
used again. However, if this
has not been done during the
design stage it can cause issues
downstream for everyone.
As things stand at
the moment, professional 3D
printing systems are still sig-
nificantly more capable than
desktop FDM/FFF or SL/DLP
resin-based machines. Soluble
support materials are still not
in widespread use, so careful
design within the limitations
of the process is a requirement
for most designers working
with desktop 3D printers.
Of course their are
many calibration and test objects purposely designed to be
difficult to print — these can
be used to help test the capability of a 3D printer. Attempting to print some of these is
highly recommended. In doing
so, you will learn more about
your 3D printer and the many
improvements you can make,
from the slice-processing of
model files to adding cooling fans to allow faster layer
cooling.
There are many tricks
and techniques that can be
used to reinforce objects - designing for model strength and
use in a specific application
is a complex area that we will
explore in a future article on
materials.
Sadly, many designers
still don’t share how they do
things, so when you find advice or examples of a process
or technique, it’s good to pick
up a few tips. As more people
attempt to design and model
in 3D, we should start to see
more sharing of knowledge
and experiences in 3D model
creation. Successful design for
3D printing is far more complicated than it seems, and we are
not going to get many shortcuts in the process for quite a
while.
Scanning can only
give us a starting point and
‘App’ based simple tools will
only offer a certain level of
creation. We should all be
prepared to have some failures and learn from the great
design techniques of others.
From there we can start to
really understand the capabilities of current desktop 3D
printers and how best to use
them.
Richard Horne
Richard Horne is well
known in the 3D printing
community as RichRap.
Rich is a highly passionate
advocate of 3D printing
for all uses in industry,
education and the
desktop. Since joining
the open-source maker
movement and then the
RepRap project in 2009,
Rich has been blogging,
developing and sharing
ideas for the greater global
interest in 3D printing.
34 | Feature | Focus on Architecture | Piet Meijs
Feature
FOCUS ON ARCHITECTURE
HOW 3D PRINTING
CONTINUES
TO DISRUPT
ARCHITECTURE:
AN INSIDER POV
Piet Meijs, AIA
CoDe: Built
Working in New
York as an architect,
Piet Meijs has great
insight into how 3D
printing is used within
this vertical sector.
His firm, Rietveld
Architects, invested
in the technology seven
years ago and has benefited
greatly from having a
3D printer in-house.
3D printing has become increasingly ‘mainstream’ during the
past few years, but I believe when
using this term it is important to
provide context: Many people
have now heard about 3D printing, read about it, seen it on TV
shows or on the news. Often these
reports are about the capabilities
of 3D printing technology and invariably highlight a new, usually
amazing application. There is no
denying that 3D printers are capable of doing astounding things in
the right hands, but mainstream
news reports rarely distinguish
between the higher and the lower
end of the 3D printer market. At
the lower end, 3D printers are certainly more widely available, more
affordable and (relatively) easier to use than just five years ago,
and more people are engaging
with them across the spectrum.
So now the question is: For what
are we going to use these capable
machines?
As an architect, I have a profound interest in 3D printing and how it can support my daily work activities.
Indeed, seven years ago my firm, Rietveld Architects
in New York acquired a high-end Polyjet 3D printer.
Selecting a 3D printer at that time was not an easy
task. As a company, we reviewed and researched the
different 3D printing technologies, including, initially,
the more common FDM and powder/binder jetting 3D
printers. The lower cost machines and materials appealed for obvious economic reasons, but after closer
review, they proved inadequate for our business.
This had to do with how we intended to apply the 3D printer in our architectural practice. Rietveld wanted a 3D printer for the accurate production
of physical, scale architectural 3D models. Previously,
models were always made by hand using paper, cardboard and plastic. Building these models was both a
complex and laborious task. Some models could take
two people up to two months to build, meaning that
the cost of such a model was significant. Because these
issues always featured in the decision making process, it was often hard to know when to start making a
model.
The architectural process is not linear. Rather,
it is an exploration of possibilities. It is by constantly
trying new approaches, leaving behind the failures and
improving on the successes that a design is developed.
Thus, picking the right moment to spend two months
on a model is challenging, because you never know
if a design will take a drastic turn in a new direction
during the building time. For this reason, models in
our office were traditionally only built at the end of the
actual design process, whereby the models served as a
conclusion of the design process and were really meant
for presentation only, not for development/study/improvement purposes.
So, when the opportunity came for us to acquire a 3D printer at Rietveld Architects, we knew exactly what we wanted it to do for us. We wanted it to
become an integral part of the design process, rather
than only a tool to be used at the end, or outside of the
design process. In terms of how we applied 3D printing,
a good way of describing it is “rapid.” We were already
able to build quality architectural models in our office,
but we lacked the speed necessary to make it useful
during the design process. The 3D printer obviously
disrupted this process dramatically, and for the better.
CCU model: A part representation of the Utrecht Convention
Centre design model, 3D printed in two pieces. Image courtesy
of Rietveld Architects LLP New York.
3D modelling on a computer is nothing new for an architect. Architects have used 3D computer software for
years to visualize and develop their designs. More recently, increased use of Building Information Management (better known as BIM), is common for architects.
BIM is a 3D computer model that stores not only 3D
geometrical information, but also non-geometrical information. Indeed, BIM technology is rapidly becoming the standard in the architectural industry, and is
even mandated on many large scale and government
projects. Because architects already know how to create 3D computer models, the step towards 3D printing these models is not as big a leap as for some other
industries.
The same was true for our office. During the
time that we were seeking to implement 3D printing,
we were using multiple 3D software packages to work
out our designs. Different programs had different features, and we could use them either in isolation or in
tandem with each other. Thus, when we acquired the
3D printer we had enough software knowledge to create 3D printable geometry — but we had to adapt.
That may sound obvious now, but at the time
it certainly wasn't. The 3D modelling we were doing
prior to that was geared towards design and visualization. The programs for that are much more forgiving
towards the computer model. Our 3D printer was not.
Even the slightest mistake or oversight in the 3D geometry would lead to misprinted parts, with inexplicable shapes through the model that wasted time, money
and material.
We were not alone and as 3D printing has continued to become more mainstream across architecture (and other industry sectors), software developers
are now starting to meet the needs of 3D printer users
by having the software check, repair or adjust the computer model to become printable. I believe it is only a
matter of time before we will see a "build" button just
below the "print" button.
With all of the components in place, we were
ready to start introducing 3D printing into our design
process. We quickly understood that we could use the
3D computer model to experiment with various designs, making sure to design the computer models in
such a way that they could be easily adjusted for the 3D
printer. The speed of the 3D printer also meant that we
could build overnight and not lose design time.
AM2 model: The 3D printed design for a 215 metre tall
office tower in Amsterdam. Image courtesy of Rietveld
Architects LLP New York.
CoDe Model: 3D Printed model of the InHolland
University building. Image courtesy of Rietveld
Architects LLP New York.
3D printing is both disrupting and democratizing the
field of architecture. Traditionally, only trained professionals could read and fully understand architectural
designs. Now, anyone can be empowered to review and
judge a design before it’s too late. Better communication between architects and their clients is leading to
better and more informed discussions, which eventually lead to better designs. Early understanding of the
design prevents a design going in the wrong direction
and having to revert back, which invariably causes
delays and cost overruns. Simply put, at Rietveld, the
3D printer has given the architect a new tool in their
toolbox to communicate with their clients, and we are
not alone.
However, I do believe that there are still big
challenges ahead of us. After using a 3D printer for
scale models, the next obvious question an architect
should ask themselves is: ‘Why not print the design at
actual scale?’
Why not indeed? Architects generally build
"one-offs" out of raw materials. 3D printing is, in its
purest form, outstandingly suited to building one-off
designs. The current barrier is scale, but I believe it is
only a matter of time before 3D printers will make it
into the construction industry. And architects will be
ready for it!
Piet Meijs
Piet Meijs is Associate
Partner at Rietveld
Architects New York, a
mid-sized architectural
firm based in Manhattan
that specialises in both
American and Dutch
building projects. Piet has
authored a book, entitled
“Rapid Prototyping and 3D
Printing in Architecture”
highlighting some of the
inspirational buildings
his firm has worked on,
showcasing how 3D
printing featured in the
development process.
MaMo model: 3D printed model for a Conference Hotel Design in
Rijswijk. Image courtesy of Rietveld Architects LLP New York.
It was now possible to send the model to the 3D printer
at the end of the day, have the model 3D printed overnight, and thus have a physical model of the previous
day’s work in our hands the following morning. The
key benefit of this, I believe, is that a physical model
more clearly shows possibilities and/or problems that
are easily hidden in the virtual world of the computer.
These progress design models became a very
important tool for Rietveld during client design meetings. The latest model of the not-yet-finished design
was always presented to the client to show them the
direction the design was going in. This was especially
useful for non-construction professionals, as reading
architectural drawings is challenging and often impeded communication. For many architects that solely
use drawings, it can be difficult to know if clients fully grasp the design at this point in the process. Only
once the design is thoroughly visualized can they realize something that they want changed, which is always a costly process for the architect. It is therefore
highly beneficial that the client fully understands the
design as it progresses - even though it may not yet be
finished.
At the end of client design meetings at Rietveld, the physical 3D printed models were always left
with the client. Apart from meeting their needs, they
also served as a promotional tool for us, because clients would show off their project to their potential new
clients. The next meeting we would always swap out
the old model for a new model and bring the old model
back to the office for display purposes, but also as reference models for new projects.
We always knew that this was how we wanted
to use the 3D printer in our office – it’s why we chose
the Objet Polyjet technology from Stratasys over alternative platforms.
The print resolution of the Polyjet 3D printer is
much, much higher than its competitors and we needed that. Due to the size of architectural projects, the
physical models made by architects are scaled-down
versions of the design. Scaling down the design of a
building 500 or even 1000 times is nothing unusual,
but it means that all of the architectural details on the
model become very, very small. For these details to still
be legible, and attractive, however, it‘s very important
that they’re printed in high resolution, or they simply
disappear. Luckily we realized this early on, and chose
the right 3D printer for us.
40 | Feature | 3D Printing | Rachel Park
Feature
3D PRINTING:
All young industries experience growth. Much attention is paid to the financial implications
of growth and scaling up, but in this article, the author considers some of the other scale-up issues
faced by the industry as a whole and the individual companies that comprise it.
Rachel Park
In recent years, the growth of
the 3D printing industry has
been eye-catching, to say the
least. Since 2009 awareness of
3D printing has spread exponentially. Furthermore, it does
not take too much imagination
to grasp the growth potential
of 3D printing technologies in
their current forms, or indeed
in the form of iterations that we
do not yet understand. Indeed,
the prospects for this technology ecosystem are vast, likely
beyond measure at this static
moment in time (and without
a crystal ball), but what we do
have to go on is evidence from
companies right across the
board that are currently seeing
rapid growth and scaling up
their operations in a number of
different ways.
Of course, many commentators across the 3D printing ecosystem invariably link
growth specifically with the
$/£/€ value of both the industry as a whole and individual companies. In just the last
couple of weeks, there have
been numerous new reports
estimating the value of the entire industry and sub-sectors
of it. Similarly, much has been
made of the fact that the cur-
rent big two companies — 3D
Systems and Stratasys — have
not grown revenues as fast
in the first quarter of 2015 as
many predicted. The financial
metrics certainly do provide a
measure of what is happening
within the industry and within individual companies. They
highlight when things go right
(and when they may not be going to plan), but while $ signs
provide indicators, I do not believe they offer the full story of
the phenomenal growth that
the 3D printing ecosystem has
experienced and will continue
to see. Other factors at the micro and macro level are just as
important, if not more so.
What is going on at
the heart of the industry to
facilitate those increasing figures - essentially the logistical
and cultural issues associated
with rapid expansion and the
scale-up of a young industry
- is where you find the real
issues and drivers for top-tobottom growth. One interesting caveat to note is that the
widespread awareness of the
technologies that now exists,
does not translate directly to
uptake (industry growth) but it
is a driver for high-end indus-
trial applications, prosumer
use among SMEs and also individual use.
Last month it was very
interesting to note some of
the initial results of the “CAD
Trends 2015” survey, in which
3D printing was shown to be
a trend with below average
adoption (22%). This was illustrated in relation to awareness
levels among the survey recipients, which was reported at
74%. There is a huge discrepancy here that simultaneously
indicates that:
• The industry has much to do,
• There are plenty of opportunities for further serious
growth.
Moreover, the observation also applies to the
general consumer, whereby
3D printing services, an integral part of the ecosystem, are
expanding too. As consumer
interest continues to gather
momentum, consumer-facing
services will likely be the first
point of interaction with the
technologies for most people
over 21. For those under 21,
their school is equally likely to
offer a first introduction to the
technology.
3D Systems have built a diverse technology portfolio,
using mergers and acquisitions to drive growth
Thus follows an increasing
need for more hardware, more
content and more materials —
filaments, resins and powders
of all varieties. While there
has been a proliferation of new
start-ups in all of these areas
pointing to whole industry
growth, individual members
of the ecosystem (old and new)
looking for successful longevity will have to grow/continue
to grow and respond rapidly to
shifting market dynamics. As a
long-time lurker in this industry, I’ve seen patterns emerge
and I’ve asked around about
some of these issues. It’s clear
that there are challenges, to
say the least. Rewards, certainly, but also some pain!
The point of this article is to give consideration
to many different companies
across the 3D printing indus-
try, highlighting the challenges they have faced and are still
facing to manage growth and
successfully scale up their organisations.
Considerations
include the internal culture
required to grow, either organically or by mergers and
acquisitions (M&A); establishing and working with new
partners to open new distribution channels, whether retail
or business to business (B2B);
finding the right people with
the right skills and personalities to integrate into a growing
business; and the geographical
challenges of growing a business model across borders and
continents.
Perhaps the most
obvious indicator of an individual company’s growth is
its physical size — in terms of
personnel and facility / office
locations. Growing in organisation size is something that
can be achieved organically
or by mergers and acquisitions
(M&A) or a combination of the
two. When it comes to M&A, 3D
Systems stands head and shoulders above the rest due to its
aggressive approach in this regard, having acquired in excess
of 30 organisations that fit into
its growth strategy. These comprise a series of professional
3D printing service companies,
notable software and content
companies such as Geomagic,
as well as previously competing 3D printer manufacturers,
including Z Corporation, Bits
from Bytes, Desktop Factory
and, more recently, Phenix Systems. All of these acquisitions
have extended the companies
capabilities and offering.
As strategies go, this is certainly a fast way to grow. When
I asked Avi Reichental, 3D
Systems’ President and CEO,
about it he told me:
“The capabilities of 3D
digital design and fabrication are
advancing at an exponential rate,
and that is creating an abundance
of new possibilities. We have spent
the last several years strategically
assembling the technologies, talents and global partners that can
help us catalyse and capitalize on
emerging high-growth applications—such as 3D printing-enabled personalised medicine—and
take 3D printing to the next level.
With these building blocks now in
place, we’re shifting our focus to
fine-tuning and unlocking synergies within our portfolio, creating an agile, global business that
can scale to meet the open-ended opportunities enabled by our
technology.”
3D Systems has also
used M&A to further Research
and Development and thus
reach into specific vertical
markets too, notably medical
(including dental) and aerospace.
There is no doubting
that 3D Systems’ approach has
contributed to its size and stature, and they are not the only
company to take this approach.
The other large company in
the space, Stratasys, has also
used M&A to promote growth.
The (in)famous acquisition for
which the company is most
known, was the high profile incorporation of leading desktop
3D printer brand MakerBot
into its fold. The ripples, even
two years later, of such a bold
move are still being felt. The
merger that really set Stratasys
on a multi-platform standing
however took place before the
MakerBot acquisition, when
the company merged with Israel-based Objet Geometries.
This was a much smoother ride
and even despite some bumps
incurred during integration, it
is one that has worked remarkably well.
Founder and Chief
Innovation Officer of Stratasys, Scott Crump, told me, in
generic financial and cultural
terms, about his take on the
company’s growth strategy:
"From both organic
growth and M&A, Stratasys,
(including Objet) grew from four
offices in 2000 to over 29 offices
today. Our manufacturing facilities doubled, and the production
space within those facilities much
more than doubled. Revenues
went from under $US50 million
in 2000 to $US750 million at the
end of 2014.
This dramatic growth
comes with intense change, and
it’s an understatement to say it’s
challenging. Change has been the
only constant at Stratasys – internal change, external change. To
grow is to deal with these changes successfully. You have to be
very strategic and execute your
plan well. I’d say one of our core
strengths is execution."
I would say that
many other companies operating within the 3D printing
ecosystem can identify with
“Change being the only constant…” Indeed, it is a life lesson
— apart from death, change is
about the only thing one can
guarantee!
Stratasys: From merging with Objet to expanding their own base
of operations, they’ve been meeting the challenges of scaling up.
Right place, right time: BigRep emphasises the
importance of finding the right people and successfully
integrating them into the business.
When talking with Dr Andrew Dent, CEO of UK based
filament manufacturer Faberdashery, I got some very interesting insight into further
issues involved with scaling
up a small business – a process
he has engaged in since founding the company four years
ago. Among the proliferation
of filament manufacturers
emerging in the last five years,
Faberdashery has established
and maintained a reputation
for high quality materials development and production.
Andrew told me that much
of Faberdashery’s business is
exports — outside of Europe,
with some new developments
in the pipeline. However, the
company is very careful about
working with distributors and
resellers. This is because experience has taught the team
that their careful emphasis on
quality products and quality
service can be lost if mutual
priorities are not agreed by
both parties.
Another issue Andrew raised is that the market
is very sensitive to currencies
and trading across borders can
fluctuate between favourable
and unfavourable results. Perhaps the most poignant point
that Andrew raised, was the
widely held assumption that
scaling up is a linear process.
He assured me that it isn’t rather each step is bigger than
the one before. As an example,
he explained how doubling
production is not simply a matter of doubling capacity, there
are exponentially more processes involved, including ex-
panding and improving quality control processes.
Another company that
provided some insight into its
growth strategy is voxeljet.
Rudolf Franz, the company’s
COO told me: “Our long lasting
and worldwide network of sales
partners has been crucial for our
growth. In strategic terms the
proceeds of our IPO at the NYSE
in 2013 and the following secondary enabled us to pursue our
strategy of growth further and
to invest more into research and
development as well as marketing activities. Thus, we started to
establish our own international
subsidiaries in the UK and the
US in 2014.”
Establishing relationships and working with partners to open new distribution
channels — whether in retail
for desktop machines or wholly business to business (B2B)
for industrial platforms as in
the voxeljet case — is one sure
way to establish awareness, develop uptake and thus promote
growth. The most successful
partnerships are based on mutual understanding, whereby
the distributor is able to disseminate and communicate
the ethos of the brand they
are selling. It does not always
happen that way though, as
Andrew pointed out above, so
the risks have to be weighed
up. Working with distributors
also helps to overcome geographical and currency issues
associated with moving into
new regional markets.
Electric Blue Filament by Faberdashery.
Local knowledge can prove to
be an invaluable commodity
in unfamiliar territories. One
company that has utilised this
business model brilliantly to
promote growth is Mcor Technologies. This Ireland-based,
family run business has scaled
up its production of SDL 3D
printers, to service an extensive global partnership programme that has seen the
company reach into every corner of the world.
Traditional
retail
channels are also proving to
be an important outlet for 3D
printer companies, specifically those with offerings in
the lower and mid range. The
increasing focus on retail is, I
believe, a result of the fact that
many desktop 3D printers now
look like a saleable / consumer product. What a retail outlet can offer, that the Internet
never can, is physical interaction and an understanding
of the product. Retail demonstrations and the more recent
trend of pop-up shops draw
physical customers closer to a
real 3D printer (as opposed to a
picture or a video of one).
I think it’s safe to say
that these days while the camera itself may not lie, anyone
adept at Photoshop and/or video editing might be inclined
to mask the truth of how challenging a 3D printer can be to
operate and augment the quality of parts coming straight off
a machine. Many retail outlets
look to provide a consumer-focused service with 3D printers
- think UPS Stores and Staples.
Whether it’s too early for retail channels to be a successful
outlet for 3D printers (or not)
remains to be seen.
Another
challenge
that features regularly when
discussing how to manage internal growth is the difficulty of finding the right people,
with the right skills and personalities, in the right location
and then subsequently integrating them successfully into
a growing business.
This was precisely the
conversation I had initially
with Rene Gurka, the founder
of German company BigRep
when I met up with him in
Berlin recently. Even though
the growth potential for
BigRep and indeed the whole
3D printing industry was huge,
(his belief being that we have
barely scratched the surface,)
the skills gap that they are
seeking to fill within the company, which has experienced
rapid growth in the 18 months
since it was established,
has been one of his greatest
obstacles.
This conversation has
been reflected in subsequent
interactions with both EOS
and Arcam representatives.
Both have order book backlogs
and are recruiting across all divisions with some roles easier
to fill than others.
However, I think one
company within the 3D printing ecosystem that stands as a
beacon in this regard is Materialise. At 25 years old, the company has grown significantly
from its origins as a service
Materialise: Drawing strength from partnerships
bureau with one SLA machine
operating inadequate software
at a single location in Leuven,
Belgium. From the beginning
the company adapted to current limitations and worked
to eliminate those limitations
with a growing staff. That is
what the company continues
to do today, a quarter of a century later with 16 global office
locations and in excess of 1250
personnel. Software development for 3D printing and additive manufacturing remains
a core competency, as does
providing a 3D printing service. However, the company
has also developed many new
partnerships over the years,
both inside and outside of the
3D printing ecosystem.
Materialise is keenly aware
that applications and content are key drivers for their
growth and that of the 3D
printing industry in general
and has developed its business model accordingly. Wim
Michiels, Executive Vice President and head of Materialise’s
Malaysian office told me:
“3D Printing is a technology. What’s needed to make
it work and expand, are applications. While it is relatively
easy to scale up the availability
of the technology globally, the
challenge is more to get applications known, applied, integrated. So within a (regional)
organization, you need people
specializing in different application fields. While one person
might be able to cover the tech-
nological field, you need multiple people to cover the variety
of potential applications, and
that makes scaling up much
more challenging and less economical if you want to do this
in many places. Our teams in
the various offices have been
grown to become experts in
some application fields, and
truly understand and support
our customers with knowledge. That is then our reward
for managing our growth globally in this way: being close to
our customers and able to deliver true value for them.
Connected to that,
is the need to translate people-based activities (also includes application knowledge)
into (software) technology as
a challenge for scaling up. A
good example is the hearing
aid business [which] would
never have scaled up to the
same extent if not for the design automation investments,
which captured the knowledge
of technicians and automated
- and even improved it. Decentralizing production and supply also could only work thanks
to the fully integrated system.
Delivering high volumes of
customized products (like the
hearing aids, but also our medical products and many others)
needs to be streamlined and
managed via such integrated
customisation/order handling/
planning/management
systems, in order to always design,
produce and deliver the right
product for the right customer.
It’s a logistic nightmare for traditional manufacturing… most
companies underestimate the
complexities and investments
needed for scaling up and
dealing with these logistical
challenges, and think in the
first place about the hardware
investments. (This is of course
a well-known story from our
side).”
Focusing on comprehensive and vertical strategies,
the company now prints in excess of 140,000 parts per year.
Wim’s reference to the geographical challenges of growing a global business model is
another familiar challenge for
growing companies. One original example of success in this
regard is 3D Hubs. A relatively
new company in the 3D printing space at only two years old,
this company has experienced
phenomenal growth based
on the notion of providing local 3D printing services anywhere in the world. Since being
founded, the business model of
3D Hubs has enabled it to grow
a remote global network of 3D
printers in excess of 15,000
locations and is developing
highly regarded ecosystem
partnerships to strengthen its
foothold and promote further
growth.
However, as suggested at the outset, growth often comes with pain and unfortunately the most recent
illustration of this came from
a prominent proponent of the
sector. Just last month MakerBot, once the darling of the
industry, was forced to publicly
confirm it was scaling down its
operation. The pain MakerBot
has experienced is not all about
the growth factor, however it is
certainly a significant contrib-
utor. Increasing from circa 50
people to 600 in the two years
since the Stratasys acquisition, the ethos and the culture
of the organisation changed
dramatically. The recent announcement saw a 20% cut in
employees, as well as the closure of its three dedicated USbased retail outlets in favour of
3rd party retail channels and
distributors, marking a shift
in emphasis away from the
consumer to professional and
education markets. Had the
company not been acquired
by Stratasys, things would be
bleak, I think, but Stratasys
has a strong enough reputation to rescue the diminishing MakerBot brand. It needs
some strong management
though, which sources tell me
is exactly why Jonathan Jaglom secured the position, and
possibly brought under the
same roof — rather than operating as a stand-alone subsidiary. That remains to be seen
though.
The issues associated with growth are many and
varied, and navigating them is
not an easy task, but, for the
many companies that are succeeding, the rewards will be
many, and that’s not just financially speaking.
Rachel Park | Editor
Rachel is a passionate advocate of 3D printing technologies
and the industry that has sprung up around it. However, as the
hype and hyperbole has gathered momentum, her aim is always
to offer a reasoned voice in the midst of inflated expectations
and to cut through the noise in order to provide a realistic
outlook of how things are.
48 | Feature | Design Collection | Dave Marks
DESIGN COLLECTION
Dave Marks | Creative Reporter
Friday
The Digital Craft: Where tradition meets tech
Born in Hamburg in 1970, Thorsten Franck trained as a
carpenter and went on to gain a Master of Arts degree at
the Royal College of Arts (RCA) in London. Furniture is
his thing and it is here that he applies his obvious creative
talent and industrial design training. His understanding
— historically and in the present day — of form and function in the design of furniture has seen Thorsten’s work
evolve over time. As a high-end designer of new furniture
aesthetics, Thorsten has embraced numerous different
tools and technologies that allow him to explore different
synergies between fabrication, form and function.
In 2001, Thorsten established his own design
workshop in Munich and between then and now he has
received numerous international awards and been featured in many local and global exhibitions with his evolutionary work.
His latest project, entitled “7DAYS7STOOLS”
takes a design aesthetic that Thorsten originally created
and produced using traditional manufacturing methods
and highlights a new paradigm of furniture production
utilising 3D printing technology.
Franck believes that 3D printing technology is a
natural evolution of crafting techniques, hence his application of the term ‘The Digital Craft’ to his work. Thus, he
explained during a recent interview in Berlin, the manual
crafting part of his work is the digital creation that takes
place in the 3D modelling software along with all of the
preparation that entails, before utilising the 3D printer
for production. The Digital Craft of Thorsten Franck is
essentially a serious exploration of material and function,
craftsmanship and industrial production processes.
Thorsten’s choice of 3D printer is key to his work
— namely the Delta Tower that employs the FFF process, but with a distinctive build volume that enables his
designs to be produced in a single build and within one
day, but while still able to fit in his car. His scripted furniture pieces are physically produced locally, wherever he
chooses to be, with geometry and size customizable to
create pieces that each have an identity and personality
of their own. This nomadic production, while promoting
the notion of local manufacturing at the point of requirement, also plays with the beauty of the original characteristics of a 3D printed object — a functional stool.
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Sunday
Can you provide some insight
to your concept and why 7 days?
My project was called 7DAYS7STOOLS because it is not
nice to print over a week. I want to produce something in
a day — to start working after breakfast and have something to show by the end of the day. The concept behind
the project came when I grasped an idea, essentially that
urban space is different now to how it used to be. People
make and create in more isolated workshops and workspaces outside the city with little interaction but we do
want to be a part of something though.
My aim with these prints is to draw people together - I call it “Sitting in Motion.” Also, the construction and the aesthetic are equally important – there
needs to be a logic behind it and I believe that’s what I
have achieved with these, as well as proving the capabilities of the technology.
Has your industrial design background
influenced your current work?
Very much. I first studied industrial design in Germany
and then in London at the RCA. An industrial designer
looks to production methods and materials and we have
to take it and make one recipe — I see it as a bit like cooking! You really have to understand the dynamics of aesthetics and function, take all of the ingredients required
and make them work together.
Before I trained as an industrial designer, I was
trained as a carpenter and craftsman. I did a lot of different disciplines including casting metal. You can only design for a technique when you understand the materials
that you want to work with.
Why did you decide the time was
right to utilise 3D printing?
It all started in 2010 – when I produced the first stool in
this aesthetic but using different tools — that took a long
time to produce the end result. I wanted to find a way
to do it in a more industrial way. I had used 3D printing
services for prototyping, but not taken that much notice.
Then I brought an Ultimaker into the office - it wasn’t
great back then, but it has just got better over time. I
needed more from it, and attended a workshop with Florian Horsch, where we discussed how we could improve
it. The FDM/FFF process is a rapidly advancing, truly
versatile technology, and it is now mature enough to allow for the construction of high quality furniture.
Thursday
What specific 3D printing tools do you work with and why?
After meeting Florian, who was involved in the development of the Delta Tower, I found
a platform that could meet my needs in terms of build volume and capabilities. For materials on this installation, I work with colorFabb, which includes the XT version that has
a melting point ideal for end-use items. And colorFabb’s new carbon fibre material now
provides extra strength.
With FDM, all of the aesthetics you see here are perfect for the process, and
that produces really good quality end results. I was very keen to get the most out of the
least amount of material. I know when I produce these stools I have 451 g of material; it
takes some hours and before I start printing I can adapt the parameters (temperature /
speed etc.) to suit the design. I become like a Master Craftsman and I push the material
to its limits and get different results — for example I can select the temperature settings
to achieve a really glossy finish, or I change them again to produce a matt finish.
I am also interested in other processes - I would love to use sintering too, as
different processes allow me to think about different aesthetics for other projects. But,
of course it is still very expensive. This [FFF] is not cheap, but it is affordable.
We have a new freedom and so many opportunities
to get it right – each time I do it better.
Saturday
Dave Marks
Dave Marks is a selfconfessed tech nerd and
fills his life with as much
creative work as he can
fit. Alongside writing and
design, he leads a notso-secret double life as a
professional musician.
56 | Feature | Studio Visit & Interview | Rachel Park
STUDIO VISIT & INTERVIEW
As the new Selassi consumer-facing 3D printing
brand launches to great acclaim this month, the
origins of the brand actually date back to 2012.
Conceived as a high-end lifestyle brand, the
emphasis is wholly on quality products produced
using high-end 3D printing processes.
Despite the perception that 3D printing
is easy, it isn’t - particularly with SLS, which
requires significant skill. Selassi 3D Print comes
with the backing of longevity and a team that has
extensive experience and a deep understanding
of additive processes. The highly trained 3D
print team offers this expertise, together with
the opportunity to take original designs and
turn them into a 3D physical product.
The exciting thing about the Selassi
brand is that it gives consumers a number of ways
to engage — either as an end-product customer,
or as an interactive user who has the ability to
customise products. By way of the new Selassi
website, consumers can individually select and
automatically cost what is important to them
for their 3D printed product(s). This means that
they can prioritise timescale, cost, fine detail,
surface finish or colour to get the end result they
want and their order will be fulfilled, hassle free.
Managing consumer expectations – you
need to offer them a finished product
without the mess – they just need to get to
the end product in a way that meets their
timescale and quality expectations.
One of the things for us with Selassi is – it’s not about
timescale. There’s no rush to get a bespoke product. It’s
more about people having what they want – what they
have designed and getting that in a timely fashion, but
not instantly. Generally, the industrial world wants stuff
yesterday – it never gives itself enough time – it wants
to launch products yesterday so that the Chinese don’t
copy it. For the individual it’s different, they don’t have
that same pressure – if they can get something that’s
absolutely bespoke for them, they’ll be happy to wait,
within reason.
You don’t go to Savile Row and have yourself a
suit made in half an hour, do you? You go down there,
you get measured, you get fitted, you choose all your
materials etc. you have it made, you wait — 2 or 3 weeks —
it’s no different to having any other bespoke thing made.
And you pay for that exclusivity.
Perfect process: Mastery of the correct
conditions for successful prints allows Selassi
to create bespoke products.
A lot of our experience comes from industrial 3d printing
and model making and one of the key things that we’ve
learned is that the end-user really wants a bespoke
customised and quality service, so we soft launched the
new website in January, where customers can select
timescale, quality, finish, colour and resolution for
their designs.
It almost feels like a lot of the hype is beginning to die down, because we don’t see as
many toy robots at the shows anymore.
That’s because they’re of limited interest - they’re
great, they’re fun, they’re a great way of learning about
something, but they serve no purpose.
But you could say that about any toy.
A toy keeps a kid amused, a little trinket or a ‘Look what
I’ve made for my Xmas tree’ - it serves that one purpose,
but the following year, you’ll be wanting a better quality
Xmas decoration – because at the minute, the quality
of what you get off them isn’t up to much without
post finishing.
I suppose it’s the same if you want handmade furniture or pieces of art – these
things take time and require expertise.
The way that it’s been driven by the me-toos with endless
(relatively) low quality desktop 3D printers, they give
people a starter experience, but it becomes people’s
expectation that they can have a fully bespoke lovely
thing out of a really cheap piece of equipment. They
think that because they can print one little thing in a few
hours you can have a bigger, more complex thing, with
more finishing done in a few extra hours – that’s just not
true. It takes time to make a Saville Row suit; it takes
time to create a suite of Selassi lampshades. If you want
to populate a room with ceiling shades and table lamps,
it’s going to take time to make those.
It’s interesting to hear what you said
about simple machines vs. large industrial
machines – a lot of people think all 3D
printers are basically the same.
They are not the same thing at all. This is one of the
expansion things for Selassi – do we pick up on some of
those things and use them as an education experience?
We’ve written a whole bunch of FAQs for the website and
will add to that as people ask more questions.
The system is that people approach us through the
website, they purchase through the website and all of the
information is on the website… but we will still get people
who send us emails. We will answer them, but we’ll write a
fact to go on the website, so that there’s more information
there. There’s already quite a few links on the site to the
fact pages. In addition, we’ll be launching a blog, so that
people can actually communicate through the site – to
talk about 3D printing and talk about the issues they’ve
had. That is not available at launch, but will be available
fairly shortly.
Where do you see Selassi fitting into
the 3D printing ecosystem?
We think we’ve got a really good position. There are some
big competitors out there, without any doubt, but they do
it in a way that works for them - we think it isn’t right for
us. We want to be only putting bespoke, quality items in
the shop, which will be available after initial launch.
There are lots of people out there who want
to have something made for themselves. They don’t
necessarily want to sell it and for that reason, we don’t
want to sell it either, but we’re happy to make the part
for them to the same quality standards that we do with
anything.
But anything that stands out, we would offer:
‘Would you be interested in selling this in our webshop?’
but it would only be standout things. We’ve dealt with a
lot of products over the years and generally you can see
the difference between someone who has a good idea
of how to take something to market – a useful addition
to the world, if you like, and an idea that doesn’t fulfill a
need for anyone other than themselves.
But that’s the whole point of customisation.
Exactly – a lot of the other sites out there have a lot of
product, but much of it looks too individual to the person
who put it up there. I’m sure that there’s a lot of products
that go on these sites that never sells - and there’ll be a
whole bunch of stuff that lots of people pick, because it’s
nice - it stands out from the general crowd of things.
Having looked at a lot of it, you see good things
and you see a thing that obviously has meaning to
someone, but I would never look at it. There’s going to
be a lot of that - we just don’t want a shop full of 20,000
products, that’s not the idea. For us, it’s about producing
exclusive, high-quality products.
"You don’t go to Savile Row and have yourself a suit made in
half an hour, do you? You go down there, you get measured, you
get fitted, you choose all your materials etc. you have it made,
you wait — 2 or 3 weeks — it’s no different to having any other
bespoke thing made. And you pay for that exclusivity."
The powder bed: Selassi uses high-end 3D
printing technologies to ensure quality and detail
for bespoke products.
Selassi 3D Print leverages the power and
reliability of EOS technologies.
Disruptive editor Rachel Park
gets a tour of the Selassi 3D Print
studio with Dave Bennion (Left)
and Steve Willmott (Right).
v
NEWS
COMMENTARY
By the Editor
www.disruptivemagazine.com
Since the first issue of Disruptive launched, the 3D printing
industry has seen some turbulence, plenty of new applications
and some really inspiring stories. All the while, new start-ups and
alternative business models continue to emerge as incumbents
press on with R&D, launching new and/or improved iterations
of their products and services.
This past month has seen some notable developments at the
front end of the ecosystem from some software heavyweights
and new start-ups.
SUBSCRIBE AND
#GETDISRUPTIVE
• Industry Insight
• Expert Market Analysis
• Exclusive 3D Printing Feature Articles
Get Disruptive Magazine delivered to your door 10 times a year and
access exclusive online content for only £24.99 annually*
disruptivemagazine.com/subscriptions
[email protected]
UK only. See website for international delivery costs
Jeri, by James Stewart / Adobe
+44 (0) 1727 866516
Disruptive Magazine
@DisruptiveMag
Disruptive Magazine
#getdisruptive
Adobe has introduced and showcased new features that will soon be
available in Photoshop CC, specifically features that will allow users
to automatically adjust 3D object resolution; quickly and powerfully
convert images into bump maps that can be applied to the surfaces
of 3D objects; and more easily edit textures captured from 3D scans
within Photoshop.
64 | News Commentary | By the Editor
3D Shook
MakerBot scaling down
At the other end of the scale, start-up content platform 3D Shook is
taking a different business approach in terms of offering 3D models
for 3D printing — via a subscription service. For a daily, monthly or
annual fee, subscribers gain access to a growing cloud of specifically
designed and curated “perfectly printable” 3D models. The premise
here is that the subscription eliminates concerns about the price(s)
of any particular object(s) and the curation of the site eliminates the
need to trawl through thousands of ‘questionable’ 3D models to find
the 3D printable one you want.
It was also extremely sad to report the downsizing of MakerBot. After a couple of
years of phenomenal growth, it seems that the pace was unsustainable, and many
claim to have seen this move coming. As a result, the Brooklyn-based company has
cut its payroll by 20% and closed its three dedicated retail outlets in North America. This all took place during the first official week of Jonathan Jaglom’s tenure as
CEO at the company.
New York has indeed seen its fair share of 3D printing related turbulence
through April. That said, considering world events and the increasing turbulence
coming via natural disasters and extreme fanatical belief systems, it is important
to apply perspective and keep trying to do better personally and professionally, for
a better world.
Aerospace
Applications
Throughout the past month, Disruptive has been privy to some inspiring applications of 3D printing. Insight into the use of 3D printing at some leading companies continues to shine a light on brilliant
day-to-day activities that occur all around the world. Airbus Helicopters (previously Eurocopter) shared some of its stories at the
recent MWC event in Brussels. Aerospace applications for the tech
continue to emerge all around the world and this trend is only set to
continue. One company that understands this is Stratasys, which, in
the last month alone, has released two case studies from this vertical market with parts launched on rockets and also on the flagship
Airbus A350 XWB aircraft.
3D
HUBS
Joining up the dots across the ecosystem is 3D
Hubs, an organisation that is seeing extraordinary
growth as it adds one thousand new 3D printers to
its network every couple of weeks it seems. The latest total reached was the 16,000 milestone and with
the news that 3D Hubs has formed partnerships
with Instructables, SketchFab and Thingiverse, the
company is truly making the 3D printing ecosystem
more accessible — and local.
Looking to
the future
Another vertical market trend I
have witnessed is with eyewear.
There were quite a few small designer start-ups last year that identified eyewear as being a perfect
fit for utilising 3D printing processes, especially with a focus on
customisation capabilities. There were mixed reactions in terms
of material safety and the like, but I have seen a notable upturn in
this trend in the past month. Again, this comes largely from the
Materialise World Conference where two brands were front and
centre with new eyewear ranges — Hoet and Bawsome. Materialise are working with both companies and, after significant R&D
are providing a dedicated service for this application. I suspect
there is much more to come.
66 | News Commentary | By the Editor
3D Warehouse
On the 3D content front, Trimble (the owner
of SketchUp 3D modelling and design software) announced in the past month that its 3D
Warehouse repository, which contains more
than 2.7 million models, will enable easier 3D
printing of its models courtesy of a partnership with Materialise.
Essentially, Materialise’s new cloud
services will “power” Trimble’s 3D Warehouse’s new Printables feature, resulting in
“high-quality” STL files that employ technology capable of analyzing and fixing models to
“ensure printability.” This represents a huge
leap forward for a content platform that sees
its free and purchasable 3D printable models
outnumber both Sketchfab and Thingiverse.
The 3D
Manufacturing
Format
A major, potentially rather disruptive announcement about
software for 3D printing, came
from an unexpected source.
Some big names in the world of
software are collaborating on a
new 3D printing file format —
the 3D Manufacturing Format
(3MF). There are seven members of the 3MF consortium
at the outset of this venture,
namely: Dassault Systemes, Microsoft Corporation, Autodesk,
HP, Shapeways, SLM Solutions
and FIT AG/ netfabb. This is
an interesting move and brings
together some natural competitors with some long-standing
3D printing software experts
in a bid to overturn the current
industry standard, the .STL file
format.
I say interesting, particularly when considering the
previous industry wide, academically led attempt to do
the same thing with the AMF
format, which was/is running
under the ASTM F42 Committee. What this new consortium
has, however, is some significant software powerhouses behind it, together with a large 3D
printing service provider, and
two industrial machine manufacturers, one of which has not
launched commercially yet, but
has strong ties with Autodesk.
It bodes well that Netfabb is involved. What this company doesn’t know about 3D
printing software is probably not
worth knowing. The only other
significant point to ponder is the
lack of involvement from either
of the big two (3D Systems and
Stratasys) — did they choose not
to be involved or were they not
invited? Whether this collaboration can produce results that
knocks the STL format off its
top spot as industry favourite
remains to be seen. I wouldn’t
place a bet either way just yet,
but look forward to seeing how
this plays out.
HIGH ALTITUDE
APPLICATIONS
3D PRINTSHOW DUBAI 2015
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH
DUBAI AIRSHOW
RESERVE A STAND:
EMAIL [email protected]

3d printing - Disruptive

Transcription

Similar documents

Zeroing in on printer waste and document security

User Codes guide _MONO_ver1

INDUSTRIAL INKJET PRINTER

Industial ink jet printer - harsh environments

Software Installation

POD UV inkjet printing system for industrial use

How to Print Map from MapQuest: • Go to mapquest.com • Click Get

Technical information. Speedmaster XL 106.

DATACARD® CE840™ INSTANT ISSUANCE SYSTEM

C5250/C5450 - Colour Laser Printers