Additive manufacturing (AM) has already racked up many jaw-dropping achievements in its relatively short history, especially in the past decade. So, it’s easy to forget the first baby steps were taken in the late 1980s. Even the most optimistic observers of the industry could not have imagined that AM parts today would routinely be found in planes, rockets, cars and human bodies.
AM has developed from a cottage industry led by diehard visionaries into a legitimate and varied ecosystem of manufacturing processes, with a wide range of supporting tools and services. Even so, AM parts represent a small fraction of the manufacturing world. Those in product development and manufacturing continue to grapple with how and what can be produced and when it makes sense.
Although AM has grown dramatically in recent years—and likely will continue to do so—significant challenges remain. As companies struggle to lower costs and turn a profit, the industry is poised for consolidation and transformation.
AM has made important strides in producing a range of materials with improved properties. The dominant technology in metals remains laser-powder-bed fusion (PBF-LB). New and improved materials are routinely introduced into the market. Systems with multiple lasers are becoming common. They are more expensive but provide important productivity advantages. Due to their cost, they are most suitable for large parts or when making many parts at one time.
PBF systems with an electron-beam energy source (PBF-EB) have been available for many years but have gained less traction. They offer some per-part cost advantages compared to PBF-LB, but feature detail is weaker. Also, metal powder can become permanently trapped in fine holes and internal channels due to the partial sintering that can occur from high temperatures. Over the past two years, the industry has seen an increase in manufacturers of PBF-EB systems.
Another interesting area of development is directed-energy deposition (DED). Many types of DED systems are now available and selling into the market. They are based largely on established technologies, including robotics and welding. This makes it easier to design, manufacture and commercialize a machine, compared to PBF-LB and PBF-EB. The main disadvantage is that most parts require extensive finishing, usually by machining, to produce the final shape.
The properties of 3D polymers are also improving. They are processed on systems based on PBF, material extrusion (MEX), binder jetting (BJT), material jetting (MJT) and vat photopolymerization (VPP).
Fried Vancraen, founder and former CEO of Materialise, once commented on the importance of AM applications. He said they will drive the future growth of the industry. The big successes in AM indeed revolve around applications. A successful early example is custom-fit shells for in-the-ear hearing aids. Another is orthodontic aligners. Consider also orthopedic implants, such as acetabular hip cups and spinal cages from several medical device manufacturers. Applications in aerospace, especially rockets, have seen impressive expansion over the past two years. Applications provide a focus that can turn into commercialization and industry growth.
The use of 3D printing to manufacture end-use automotive parts has yet to develop in a significant way. Even so, major OEMs have begun to use AM to produce parts for high-end models in volumes as high as a few thousand per year. This recent development could serve as a stepping stone to much more impressive quantities in the future.
General Motors is 3D printing 115 different aluminum, stainless steel and polymer parts for its Cadillac Celestiq electric sedan that starts at $340,000. The steering wheel center is the largest production metal part GM has printed, while the adjustable seatbelt guide loop is its first safety-related AM part. The company is using metal-binder jetting, metal PBF and HP Multi Jet Fusion to manufacture the parts.
Divergent Technologies is also pioneering the use of AM in the auto industry. The Los Angeles-based company is producing a range of parts, such as topology-optimized braking and suspension systems, for eight premium car brands, including Aston Martin, Ferrari and Mercedes-AMG. However, the expense of machines, materials and other products and services likely will prevent further growth of automotive AM applications until pricing is driven down.
Heat exchangers are an area of great potential because of their design complexity. Some recent computational design software tools can generate gyroids that result in more efficient systems. These designs offer a large surface area and cause significant turbulence, which improves heat dissipation. With metal AM, they have a distinct advantage of being self-supporting, meaning that additional metal that is otherwise processed and later removed is not needed. These highly efficient heat exchangers are now being produced for serious products. For example, one design has been certified for use on the F-35 fighter jet.
We are seeing more design software products that help users automate the creation of families of products. This software is being used to create aerospace parts, orthopedic implants, sand-casting tools and other types of products. Examples of this type of software are nTop, Hyperganic, Gen3D from Altair and PicoGK from Leap 71. The workflows are mostly created by each user, which can be a time-consuming and intricate process. As software, applications and workflows develop, they will become easier to use.
A recent trend in PBF-LB, initially developed and commercialized by Velo3D, is the making of parts with minimal support structures. Several manufacturers of metal-AM machines now offer solutions to reduce the need for these structures, which are used to anchor features of parts to the build plate. The requirement of these structures depends on several factors, including the types and orientation of features being produced. As this trend towards a reduction in support structures continues, it will reduce production, post-processing time and costs, and will help increase the adoption of metal AM.
Recently, a range of low-cost VPP machines that use an LCD instead of a laser have become available. They cure photopolymer beneath a vat as the developing parts are gradually lifted upward, one layer at a time. An LCD screen is a fraction of the cost of a laser and galvanometer, so system prices range from a few hundred dollars for small machines to a few thousand dollars for larger ones. The print resolution and surface quality that are now being achieved with these low-cost machines is impressive. Even so, the low-cost systems are mostly being used for product development and are not replacing industrial systems.
At the last two Formnext shows in Frankfurt, we noticed a trend in companies producing robotic and gantry MEX systems that accept polymer pellets as the feedstock for printing large parts. Pellets, which are used for injection molding, cost much less than filament. Using pellets also opens the possibility of more interesting and sustainable products.
The Wohlers Report tracks the number of manufacturers producing industrial AM systems. In 2013, this amounted to just 34 companies worldwide. Ten years later, we identified 286 manufacturers making these systems. The promise of AM has attracted hundreds of entrepreneurs and fueled a significant increase in new companies.
The growth in startups has created fragmentation, which has resulted in a trend toward consolidation. The established AM players have acquired young companies to gain intellectual property, diversify their offerings and increase market share. Even so, consolidation to date has not been significant, and many of the hundreds of small companies are struggling.
Stratasys and 3D Systems are the two largest pure-play companies, each with annual sales of more than $500 million, yet both fail to be profitable. Stratasys has produced modest growth in recent years, while 3D Systems’ sales are flat. Stock prices are trading at their lowest level in many years. And share prices of companies going public in special-purpose-acquisition-company financing in 2021 and 2022 are trading at all-time lows. Several are actively seeking strategic options such as merging with one or more companies.
Venture capital investments into AM-related companies grew substantially in 2021-2022, but declined last year. Even so, AM venture funding remains strong. In the early days of AM, the focus was on new processes, where timelines were long and risk was high. Today’s investors are focusing on a broader range of solutions, including applications of AM in which entrepreneurs can show business potential using developed materials, processes and software.
The total size of the market for AM is an extremely thin sliver of all manufacturing activity worldwide. In fact, it represents less than 0.13% of the $14 trillion worldwide manufacturing economy, according to the Wohlers Report. Even so, the growth trajectory of AM over a period of decades has been mostly consistent, coupled with significant innovations across the AM spectrum. Many industries would be thrilled to post an annual average growth rate of 23.3% over the past 10 years (2013-2022), which is what AM has enjoyed.
Even with all its impressive achievements, the AM industry faces several challenges that are impacting the technology’s adoption for production applications. Some of the challenges are not merely technical, which tend to follow a developmental timeline. Instead, they are a question of business and resource choices that affect the deployment of AM more widely. Focusing constructively on them is part of a process that can help advance the industry.
A lot has been said about the need to develop applications that can take full advantage of the unique benefits of AM. A prime example is highly complex shapes and designs with customer- and patient-specific dimensions and features. A recent meeting revealed that many CEOs of manufacturing companies are unaware of AM’s recent progress. Consequently, the impetus to adopt AM is generally not felt from the top down, even when the technology is considered important at lower management levels.
A key factor in unlocking the potential of AM is understanding design for AM (DfAM) and why it’s important. Progress has been made in educating the engineering community on how to design parts that more fully benefit from AM. Yet more could be done to integrate this thinking into a company’s culture. For broader adoption to occur, senior engineering managers will need to invest in DfAM while showing a top-down commitment.
Although great efforts have been made to advance and improve AM processes, many system manufacturers have not developed end-to-end processes and solutions that include post processing. Customers are left to their own devices to reduce the time and cost of removing support material and finishing parts. The effort can involve a wide range of steps and represent a significant percentage of the total cost of a part. Failure to address post-processing and some hidden costs often results in projects becoming economically unfeasible.
System manufacturers are not alone in failing to address total costs. Material prices are often too high to justify AM for many production applications. It is understandable that producers of materials want to maximize profits to recoup r&d costs, but more aggressive pricing would help justify higher productions volumes of parts made by AM.
Qualification and certification are challenges for many companies, especially those in highly regulated industrial sectors, such as aerospace and healthcare. It can take years to qualify materials and processes, and certify new designs based on them. Regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration and Food and Drug Administration, are working with AM industry experts to help ensure the production of safe products—this includes regularly attending industry events.
The development of industry standards is another important area of development. Work continues by standards development organizations, including ASTM International Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies and ISO Technical Committee 261 on Additive Manufacturing.
Even so, gaps remain. The latest roadmap for AM standards was published in July 2023 by the ANSI Additive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative and America Makes. The number of gaps identified by this group grew, compared to the previous version of the roadmap. In part, this is because the cumulative experience gained provided a better understanding of what remained unaddressed.
Wohlers Associates has watched AM develop from its start 37 years ago. The company has witnessed cycles of hype and bust over this period. The inherent benefits of AM have always provided fuel to keep the engine humming.
Future development and application of the technology will help propel the industry into something much bigger. The rate of growth will ultimately depend on industry’s willingness to adopt and innovate. Clarity on the challenges we face as an industry will serve as motivation, coupled with a determination to tackle problems that unlock new opportunities and markets.
Connect With Us
