25th issue am magazine march by Additive Manufacturing Technologies Magazine

The

AM –14/15 Vol.05 Issue 25

Magazine

Website: www.ammagazine.in

on the cover: The ‘Complex Core and Casting by ExOne’

latest updates: 24.

Press Release: EOS M 400 – Additive Manufacturing System for the Industrial Production of HighQuality Large Metal Parts

26. Press Release: Stratasys – Introduces 3D Printer to Provide Low Cost Entry to Advanced Digital Dentistry 27. Press Release: LayerWise metal 3D printing helped rebuild motorbike crash survivor’s face

regulars: 4.Editorial Insight 5. White Paper: 3d Printers VS. 3D Production Systems: 10 Distinguishing Factors to Help You Select a System

11. Case study: Dana Corporation -Stratasys

12. Case Study: Revolutionizing Facial Reconstruction Using 3D Printing and 3D Haptic Design

14. ExOne – Molds and Cores digital production by using ThreeDimensional Printing for Sand Casting Applications

20. Case Study: Automotive – Easing to Victory – The Rennteam Uni Stuttgart Wins The Formula Student Germany with EOS support

23. Intake manifold: 3D Printing of sand Moulds: Voxeljet

Editorial:

3D‐ Printing a Dream yesterday a revolution today..!!! An exciting dream is becoming a reality. 3D‐ printing by the process of additive manufacturing has brought a new light to the manufacturing industry. Parts which were prepared in a year it’s just a matter of days today. This is a paradigm shift where manufacturing was always about removal of material but in additive manufacturing, we build physical objects layer by layer from digital models just like a desk jet printer. The technology is ever‐evolving and today’s 3‐D printing machines can produce complex shapes using various materials like steel, aluminium, plastics and sand. The printer reads the file, then shoots out layer upon layer of raw material through a print head in the specified shape to create the z‐axis resulting in the functional parts directly. Besides cutting time to market drastically, this technology will require less material for production than through a conventional process reducing material wastage. In addition, inventory stock as we know today can be reduced and in future eliminated. Service parts and spares can be produced on demand without excessive cost and time needed for tooling. Now, designers can unshackle their imagination and employ unorthodox shapes and materials to maximize efficiency. Parts can be drilled, assembled, and screwed together to create a large part without a compromise in precision with virtually endless possibilities increasing productivity. The inter‐connected sub‐assemblies can 3D print complex parts giving far more flexibility to the designers and optimizing their efforts. One significant area where 3D printing is gaining substantial ground is sand cores and moulds printing. The flexibility and speed of printing the cores and molds when combined with a foundry set up gives a significant edge to the development teams across the world for parts such as cylinder heads, covers, transmission cases and such die‐cast parts. However 3D printing does have limitations in terms of cost, materials and speed of printing. The 3D printers are expensive and are a long term investment. The parts are near final shape and machining of the parts is inevitable to achieve the final shape. Material is another challenge and new materials have to be experimented all the time to achieve better efficiencies and structurally sound parts. The speed of printing is like a mindset and the consumer will always demand a faster machine to process ever‐increasing complex parts. Despite these three limitations, the 3D printing is still very successful tool in prototyping, demonstration units, bio‐medical applications, small volume production. 3D printing stands today at the cross‐roads of being an accepted production method or only an experimental prototyping and development tool‐ this needs to be seen. This is the biggest challenge today in the 3D printing world and no one has a crystal ball to tell how fast the technology will change but it has to‐to make 3D printing a game changer, we will need cheaper machines, faster printing, material flexibility and highest product quality.

Director Global Axis (Partner to ExOne GmbH) New Delhi India

White Paper: 3D Printers Vs. 3D Production Systems: 10 White Paper: 3D Printers Vs. 3D Production Systems: 10Distinguishing Factors to Help Distinguishing Factors to Help You Select a System You Select a System

By Joe Hiemenz, Stratasys, Inc. When planning to purchase an additive manufacturing system, buyers will find capabilities and a price range wider than products from most any industry. Systems can range from several hundred dollars for a hobbyist unit to nearly $1 million for some high‐performance systems. It’s no wonder there is confusion with respect to the product segments. This paper addresses the capabilities, roles and positioning of systems geared for professional use. Beginning with the most basic information — the definition of 3D printers — this white paper positions the two product classes. 3D Production System 3D Printer While clarifying the “typical” roles and strengths of each, it also shows that there is overlap between the 3D printers and their bigger brothers, sometimes referred to as 3D production systems. As additive manufacturing system prices have decreased, interest has swelled in owning a system to produce rapid prototypes, patterns, tooling and manufactured goods. Further fueling that interest is an increase in the number of technologies, systems and options available. Choice is the operative word, and those choices include entry‐level systems priced below $15,000 (USD) as well as machines selling for more than $900,000 (USD). With so many options, how do organizations know which is the best choice? How do they know what is a reasonable investment for an additive manufacturing system that will do their job right? To answer these questions, they begin with an understanding of the differences between 3D printers and 3D production systems. Knowing the distinctions between the two classes of systems allows informed decision‐making that balances needs, wants, and budget. It is important to note that 3D printers and 3D production systems, at their core, work on the same principle. The term 3D production system is used because these higher performance systems are used to produce finished goods as opposed to making only prototypes. There are 10 general factors that distinguish 3D printers from 3D production systems. For some, the first factor, price, may be the only consideration. But for those with some flexibility in their capital equipment budgets, the other nine factors will guide the selection process. But this does not necessarily mean that more money will be spent. Many companies are pleasantly surprised to find that they can do all that they want with a low‐price 3D printer. Many others happily invest more in a 3D production system that offers higher performance. And countless others invest in both—running 3D printers and 3D production systems side‐by‐side. 3D Printers

3D Production Systems

• Compact • Low price

• Many materials

• Easy to use

• High performance • Large Capacity Figure 1

What are 3D Printers and 3D Production Systems? Additive manufacturing systems were once called rapid prototyping machines and simply labeled as “low‐end” or “high‐ end,” and distinguished by price. When opting for a “low‐end” machine, there was a big price to pay in quality or performance.

White Paper: 3D Printers Vs. 3D Production Systems: 10Distinguishing Factors to Help Distinguishing Factors to Help White Paper: 3D Printers Vs. 3D Production Systems: 10 You Select a System You Select a System

As the market and technologies matured, a new term, “3D printers,” sprang up. But instead of replacing “low‐end” as a class descriptor, it became an over‐used catch phrase that muddied the waters. To this day, there isn’t universal agreement on the definition of 3D printers. For some, the term covers all additive manufacturing technologies. However, the majority defines 3D printers as compact, low cost, and easy to use. With this understanding, a 3D printer is analogous to a desktop paper printer that is dedicated to one person or shared among a small team of co‐workers. Conversely, a 3D production system is similar to a centralized copy machine with higher document output, more controls, and which serves an entire company’s needs. They are the “high‐end” systems in 1990s lingo. In general, they offer more capability and higher performance with a larger price tag. Yet, the distinctions between the two classes are not that clear cut. To appreciate the subtle differences, consider the 10 distinguishing characteristics. FDM® Technology 3D Printers:

3D Production Systems:

Dimension® line

Fortus® line

Figure 2 10 Distinguishing Characteristics 1. Price: 3D printers: $10,000 to $50,000 3D production systems: $50,000 and above The base price of machines is the simplest and most obvious differentiator between the two classes. Low‐price is essential to the 3D printer definition, so price is a primary distinguishing characteristic. Generally, 3D printers have a base price — for just the machine — that ranges from $10,000 to $50,000. Anything over $50,000 typically moves an additive manufacturing system into the high‐performance system class. In the additive manufacturing market, low price does not translate to low value. Value is determined by considering all the characteristics to find the system that can do the job while bringing the best return on investment. 2. Capacity / Build Envelope:

3D printer: Normally less than 10” x 10” x 10” 3D production system: Normally greater than 1’ x 1’ x 1’

The size of a machine’s build envelope determines its capacity, typically both in terms of part size and total throughput. 3D printers, which are designed more for office use or desktop operation, have smaller build envelopes suited for small‐ to mid‐sized parts. These devices typically have build capacities that do not exceed 12 inches in any dimension. 3D production systems, on the other hand, have the capacity to build parts that are measured in feet. In this class, two to three feet is a common measurement for the length, width or height of the build envelope.

Capacity is an important consideration because it is best to avoid building parts in pieces that have to be bonded together. Sectioning parts to fit in a build chamber adds time, labor and cost while decreasing quality. Also, running an additive manufacturing system multiple times to make one part decreases efficiency and machine availability.

To increase operational efficiency and total throughput, consider systems with the capacity to build many parts in a single run. So, even if a smaller 3D printer can handle a product’s biggest parts, it can be a smart decision to go with a 3D production system that can build complete assemblies or dozens of parts. As more parts are consolidated in each run,

White Paper: 3D Printers Vs. 3D Production Systems: 10 Distinguishing Factors to Help You Select a System

operational costs decrease while efficiencies rise. A bonus is that a lot of parts can be packed into a single run that is launched Friday night and left to run unattended over the weekend. 3. Materials:

3D printers: One or two 3D production systems: Eight or more

Material properties play a role in every process selection. Whether the application is for a “down‐and‐dirty” concept model or a high‐caliber production part, there will be some degree of consideration given to the materials that are available. In every case, the application needs a material that will perform well. 3D printers typically do not offer broad material selections. Most give users a choice of just one or two general‐purpose materials. In this class, the systems offer adequate, rather than exceptional, mechanical and thermal properties. In stark contrast, a strength of 3D production systems is the number of materials offered and the breadth of properties available. 3D production system users can specify a material that matches the specific needs of an application by selecting from a range of options that include specialized, highly engineered thermoplastics like ULTEM® 9085.

In general, the material offerings of 3D production systems make them better suited for functional testing, field testing, product trials, and creating manufacturing tools or finished goods. Each part in an assembly can be produced from a different material that is selected for the right combination of advanced material properties. 4. Speed:

3D printers: Not applicable 3D production systems: Not applicable The speed of the additive manufacturing process is an important consideration, but it is not one that clearly distinguishes 3D printers from 3D production systems. In this area, bigger investments do not guarantee shorter build times. For example, there are 3D printers that for one‐tenth the price can build parts ten times faster than some 3D production systems. On the other hand, there are 3D printers that take days to build what can be completed in hours with certain 3D production systems. For a manufacturer that offers both 3D printers and 3D production systems that do not share a common technology — there is no correlation between the speed of the process and the price tag. However, for a manufacturer with a technology that spans both classes, there is a direct link between speed and price. FDM (fused deposition modeling®) is one example in which 3D printers and 3D production systems share a common technology. In this case, the higher performance systems’ software offers sophisticated build parameter options, allowing the user to optimize the machine and wring out efficiencies that add up. Depending on these build parameters and the part geometry, the FDM 3D production system will outpace the FDM 3D printer by roughly 2 to 10 times. If speed is measured in terms of throughput, 3D production systems will again outpace 3D printers. Combining build speed with capacity, the larger systems will, in general, deliver higher production rates on a weekly or monthly basis. This is an important point when faced with high‐volume prototyping demands, and it is a critical factor when considering the technology to manufacture end products. 5. Ease‐of‐Use:

3D printers: Occasional user 3D production systems: Trained operator

White Paper: 3D Printers Vs. 3D Production Systems: 10 Distinguishing Factors to Help You Select a System

If a 3D printer isn’t easy to learn and easy to use, it should not be called a 3D printer. Ease‐of‐use is imperative for these devices since they are intended to be used as a CAD‐output tool. The occasional user is not a skilled machine operator and cannot afford to spend days in training or hours preparing and operating a machine. From start to finish, the process must be simple, straightforward and effortless. A vision shared by most 3D printer manufacturers is to make their machines as transparent and unnoticed as the process of printing a document. Admittedly, these systems are not quite to this level, but some are close. From CAD output to finished parts, some are almost as labor‐less as the process of printing a few dozen two‐sided pages on a standard paper printer. In other words, it’s not quite as simple as clicking print, but it requires only a few extra steps and minimal thought. A vision shared by most 3D printer manufacturers is to make their machines as transparent and unnoticed as the process of printing a document. Admittedly, these systems are not quite to this level, but some are close. From CAD output to finished parts, some are almost as labor‐less as the process of printing a few dozen two‐sided pages on a standard paper printer. In other words, it’s not quite as simple as clicking print, but it requires only a few extra steps and minimal thought. To gain higher performance and greater functionality, 3D production NOTE: systems generally sacrifice ease‐of‐use. The advances in processes, materials and controls place additional demands on the user. To get Always evaluate the total process time for a the most out of 3D production systems, there will be operators technology. Build times alone are deceiving. So, who are responsible for the oversight, maintenance and operation include all time and labor needed on the front end to prepare a machine and on the back end to of the machines. These technicians will have undergone advanced remove and finish the parts. training on the system and will continue to learn the subtle nuances of operations with each part that it produces. The technicians will also learn the unique processing requirements for each of the materials they use. Figure 3 There is an exception, however. For the scalable technologies, like FDM, that are used in both 3D printers and 3D production systems, ease‐of‐use is possible in both classes. For everyday parts, the 3D production system can be run as easily as a 3D printer. However, when advanced capabilities are needed, someone other than a casual user may be called upon to leverage all that the system offers. 6. User Options:

3D printers: Minimal 3D production systems: Substantial In return for ease‐of‐use, 3D printers remove most of the operator control and user options. Instead of a computer screen filled with user‐defined variables and selections, the casual user is presented with a limited number of pre‐programmed routines and only a few options. And the choices must be applied globally to a part or across the entire job. In this way, 3D printers are analogous to point‐and‐shoot cameras. 3D production systems, on the other hand, are more like the sophisticated digital SLR cameras that have swappable lenses, variable flash settings, F‐stop adjustments and ISO settings. 3D production systems, like their camera counterparts, give operators control of a multitude of variables to fine‐tune part quality, adjust part characteristics and influence production rates. Unlike their 3D printer counterparts, the most advanced systems in this class allow the user to apply many control parameters at the feature level of the part. For example, to save time and material, the machine can make an ornamental feature hollow and a functional feature solid. This level of control, combined with material selection, is why 3D production systems are the likely candidates for advanced applications in prototype development and manufacturing. 7. Accuracy:

3D printers: Acceptable to Good 3D production systems: Good to Excellent

White Paper: 3D Printers Vs. 3D Production Systems: 10 Distinguishing Factors to Help You Select a System

“Geometry dependent” is the qualifier on any statement of dimensional accuracy and repeatability for additive manufacturing systems in both technology classes. Yet, it is safe to assume that in the case of accuracy and repeatability, buyers will get their money’s worth. Overall, 3D production systems are more accurate and offer greater repeatability than their lower priced 3D printer siblings. This is not to say that 3D printers cannot make parts with reasonable dimensional accuracy. They can. There is just less emphasis on this attribute and less user influence over it. 3D printers are designed to be simple, cost‐effective machines targeted for early models and prototypes where looser tolerances are acceptable. With this target in mind, 3D printer manufacturers place less priority on accuracy. And as noted previously, the simplified user interface removes the option of fine‐tuning to dial in parts for better quality. With higher expectations of part quality, the manufacturers of 3D production systems are investing in high‐grade components, tight process controls and precise calibration. No longer just for prototyping, the best 3D production systems are designed and manufactured as if they were any other machine on the manufacturing floor. Tight and repeatable tolerance is a reasonable expectation when investing in this class of additive manufacturing technology. Although the quality difference may be difficult to see with the naked eye, they will show up when parts are scrutinized by quality control. It will also become apparent when seeking confirmation of a machine’s accuracy capabilities. For 3D printers, there are general tolerance claims but no exhaustive studies that qualify accuracy and repeatability. For 3D production systems, it is reasonable to expect a study that is thorough, rigorous and statistically sound. Without this level of data, buyers would find it difficult to trust that a 3D production system could actually be used for production. 8. Facilities:

3D printers: Office‐like environment 3D production systems: Lab or shop environment The allure of 3D printing has been the vision of producing models and prototypes where the design and engineering work is being done. To make this vision a reality, the 3D printing process must be clean, quiet, cool, and odorless. Requiring no more than a wall outlet and network connection, the 3D printing process becomes an in‐office output device. Major advances toward this goal have been made in recent years. Although the vision for 3D printers is not quite a reality, there are several units on the market that fit nicely in an office environment. But even the most office friendly 3D printer will likely have a separate workspace in a nearby room for part finishing. Access to a water supply and drain; well‐lit and roomy work surfaces; and supply storage areas are conveniences those are likely to be located outside of the engineering offices. 3D production systems, for the most part, are located in workshops and labs or placed on the manufacturing floor. These machines are big, not something that most want in their offices. They often have shop‐oriented requirements for power, compressed gas, temperature control, humidity control, vibration dampening or debris containment. For most 3D production systems, the projects often dictate that the parts go through secondary operations that may employ a variety of shop tools and supplies. This work must be kept in the shop. The added facility requirements for3D production systems will have an effect on the initial system investment and ongoing operating expenses. 9. Centralized Operations:

3D printers: Distributed 3D production systems: Centralized Additive manufacturing offers two modes of operation: centralized and distributed. Companies may choose to distribute machines throughout the organization or centralize them in one area that is managed by a dedicated staff. Some want the flexibility and independence that a distributed network of systems offers. Others prefer the control, oversight and efficiencies of a centralized grouping of systems.

White Paper: 3D Printers Vs. 3D Production Systems: 10 Distinguishing Factors to Help You Select a System

The distributed network is the domain of 3D printers. In this operating mode, designers and engineers have direct access to their prototyping tools. Instead of sending jobs off to be scheduled and built, the engineering team gains the independence and control that comes from deciding its own priorities and making its own parts. In a centralized operation, the shop staff receives all part requests, schedules production, manages runs, and oversees post processing. This department takes on the work of making models and parts for the whole organization. With responsibilities to maximize efficiencies, minimize cost, and maximize responsiveness, the build schedule has priorities beyond the urgent need for a single part. So, a rush job may be bumped to a later time because there are other priority jobs already in queue. 10. Overhead:

3D printers: Minimal 3D production systems: Moderate to high Distributed, self‐serve operations do not place additional overhead burdens on an organization. The staffing remains the same since those who need the parts are those who build and finish them. Centralized operations require someone to manage day‐to‐day operations, including the production schedule. When applying the 3D production systems to advanced applications, such as tooling and finished goods production, there will be additional demands for skilled technicians that can leverage the controls that these systems offer. Finally, depending on the complexity of the system, there may be a need for someone to perform post processing, part finishing, and secondary operations. As the application progresses from simple concept models to advanced manufacturing, more is expected from the additive manufacturing systems and more is needed from the team that tends to their operations. Subtle Differences With additive manufacturing, organizations can get a lot of capability affordably. Being less expensive does not mean that a 3D printer is an inferior solution to a 3D production system. It is simply a different solution. Using the 10 differentiating factors, a solution may be found to best match the organization’s needs, budgets, and operating style. Choosing between 3D printers and 3D productions systems is not like picking a two‐wheel scooter or an 18‐wheel big rig. It is more like picking from a selection of compact cars, luxury sedans, SUVs and pickup trucks. The application will drive the decision. And continuing with this analogy, ultimately companies may find the need to have one for commuting and another for towing the pleasure boat, which is to say that they may find themselves running both 3D printers and 3D production systems.

Case Study: Early Detection Saves Time‐ Stratasys Stratasys Case Study: Early Detection Saves Time

Real Challenge FDM Helps Automotive Products Dana Corporation, a Tier One automotive supplier, assumes responsibility for Supplier Streamline Design designing components to meet its customer requirements. Validating these designs with prototypes from conventional machining and casting methods “Spending a few thousand dollars required weeks or months and tens of thousands of dollars. The time and on a prototype saves us months in expense limited Dana’s use of prototypes. engineering time”. ‐ Bruce Vansacker, Dana Corporation The FDM prototype of an automotive clutch helped Dana identify and fix problems with the initial design concept. Real Solution “By the time a conventional prototype can be made, it’s possible to invest large amounts of time and money in a design that doesn’t work,” says Bruce Vanisacker, designer for Dana’s Rapid Prototyping/CAE Services. Contrasting fused deposition modeling (FDM) to conventional methods, he says, “FDM enables us to produce accurate and specialized functional rapid prototypes in a few days. A physical part gives everyone the opportunity to hold and touch and feel the part and determine exactly where we stand.” Dana’s products include under‐the‐hood filtration systems, cooling systems, differential cases, carriers and housings. “It’s often difficult to determine, just by looking at one of our complex assemblies on a computer screen, whether or not it meets key form and fit requirements,” Vanisacker said. “But in the past, when we prototyped new concepts using conventional methods it took too long and was expensive.” Seeking a better way, Dana investigated prototype technology options. “We took a cross‐section of parts from all of our divisions and sent them to five rapid prototyping system suppliers,” Vanisacker said. “We decided that the Fortus system produced the best parts because it could produce highly accurate and much stronger parts in multiple colors. FDM is also very easy to use and quite economical.” Dana has found that its Fortus system excels at making accurate rapid prototypes of complicated assemblies like the clutch assembly shown. “During the design, we add colors to the components to make the most important ones stand out. Then we build the prototypes in the same colors,” says Vanisacker. Dana also uses FDM for more than visualization. “FDM prototypes are so strong that in some cases we even use the prototypes to help evaluate the performance of the part.”

This clutch prototype demonstrated that the initial design concept would not fit the application. Discovering this at an early stage in the design process kept Dana from spending additional time or money on the concept. It also provided a head start in moving towards a new design that did meet the customer’s requirements.

“FDM rapid prototypes have become a regular part of our product development process because they take just a few days and about one‐tenth the cost of conventional machining and casting methods,” Vanisacker says. “Spending a few thousand dollars on a prototype saves us months in engineering time.” Award‐winning model: Dana’s rapid prototyping lab won highest honors from design industry peers for the featured clutch assembly at a recent FDM user group conference prototype competition.

Assembly CAD model Component CAD Model Close‐up view of clutch components

Revolutionizing Facial Reconstruction Using 3D Printing and 3D Haptic Design

‐ Geomagic Freeform enables rapid iteration of implant design “ The amazing modelling tools in Geomagic and surgical planning. Freeform make it ideal for custom designed implants, since every person is different”, said ‐ 3D Systems’ ProJet, SLA and MultiJet 3D printing Eggbeer. “within minutes yu can have a technology used for prototypes, surgical practices and concept design for a custom device or implant surgical guides. completed”.

Maxillofacial reconstructive surgery reportedly began as far back as the American Civil War, (1861 – 1865) where doctors began treating facial fractures in soldiers. In the 150 years since, it has come a long way. But even as recently as a few years ago, successfully reconstructing a damaged face or head was notoriously difficult, with surgeons often having to be highly reactive to unforeseen complications during surgery.

‐The CARTIS team combines industrial designers and surgeons. From left: Dominic Eggbeer, Dr. Adrian Sugar, Sean Peel.

The Centre for Applied Reconstructive Technologies in Surgery (CARTIS), an innovative partnership between surgeons and design engineering experts in Wales, is leading the way in revolutionizing this kind of surgery by researching and developing new ways, technology and processes to prepare for successful surgery. This unique combination of skills and talents has successfully developed new approaches and solutions that are changing the way facial reconstructions are carried out. “This is groundbreaking work,” said Adrian Sugar, Consultant Cleft and Maxillofacial Surgeon at Morriston Hospital. “The combination of being able to use the patient’s own data from CT scans, being able to ‘feel’ bone fragments in the virtual world, model implants, and manufacture custom‐designed devices and implants is changing the way we approach surgery and is significantly reducing surgery times.” It is also allowing us to introduce a degree of pre‐surgical planning and more accurate outcomes for the patient which was previously not achievable. Combining technologies, skills and best practices, CARTIS was formed in 2006 to research and innovate ways to streamline facial reconstruction surgery, make it less intense on the patient and improve outcomes. The Centre aspires to be a world leader in maxillofacial reconstructive surgery, is an alliance between the Maxillofacial Unit at Morriston Hospital in Swansea, Wales, and the National Centre for Product Design and Development Research (PDR) at Cardiff Metropolitan University. This combined Welsh team uses many 3D software packages as well as “haptic” design software, which gives a sensation of touch during the design process, and 3D printing technology, which enables the creation of perfect physical representations of the patient and implant data. The team has, since early 2012, worked with increasing efficiency on the most complex mid‐facial reconstruction projects. One particular project that has been receiving international media attention is the planned reconstruction of a patient’s face after it was crushed in a motorcycle accident. The team has a number of similar complex projects lined up for which they are designing surgical guides, “Image right, the surgical guides and implants.Image left: the implants remaining after thesurgical guides have been removed.”

Revolutionizing Facial Reconstruction Using 3D Printing and 3D Haptic Design

creating practice environments, and 3D printing prototype bone models and actual implants. “As part of most projects, the specialist design engineers sit with the surgeons and prosthetist, and view the patient’s CT scan data in 3D on Geomagic Freeform,” said Dr. Dominic Eggbeer, Unit Manager, Surgical and Prosthetic Design, PDR. Geomagic Freeform is a 3D design and sculpting software that uniquely works with a haptic or “force‐feedback” device. Reading in the pre‐processed CT scan data model, Freeform includes tools to design organic and unusually shaped objects that are not able to be created using CAD software. The software also has tools for removing undercuts and other fabrication preparation capabilities, so implants can be quickly produced. PDR and the Maxillofacial Unit at Morriston Hospital have been using Geomagic Freeform since 2001, and CARTIS has been using it since it was founded in 2006. The team works quickly with the surgeons to assess and touch the 3D data, plan what bones need to be cut and moved to adjust the skull, and design a solution for the required implants. As importantly, they also start design on the surgical positioning guides. These are templates, custom built to the patient’s data, that inform the surgeon exactly where to place screws, drill into bone, and cut into tissue during the surgery. The surgical guides are regarded as critical tools for the surgery to be a success, and they are removed at the completion of the surgery, leaving the implants and bones exactly where they were planned to be. “Viewing the patient’s data in Freeform, we can immediately see where displaced or damaged bone needs to be moved to match the uninjured areas, and where screws for the implants can be seated correctly for a successful outcome,” said Sean Peel, Design Engineer, PDR. “We can quickly design the perfect bespoke surgical guides, custom implants, and set up virtual scenarios for practice sessions with the surgeons.” With some practice, the combined team can now create implant and surgical guide designs within a few hours, and be ready to start 3D printing within the day. The team uses a suite of 3DSystems technology to fabricate prototypes of the devices and replica models of the anatomy within a few hours. This includes using ProJet®ColorJet 3D printers, SLA systems and MultiJet printing. “The full‐colour prints from the ProJet are especially useful in practice sessions,” commented Peel. “We give bone fragments different colours in Freeform, and this is printed in full color on the 3D printer. The surgeons then have a very easy‐to‐translate reference for practice sessions.” SLA and MultiJet technologies are used to fabricate models and implant prototypes that can be cut, drilled and practiced on. As soon as the surgeons feel that the design is going to have a successful outcome, the implants and surgical guide data is sent for fabrication ‐ sometimes in‐house (in SLA Accura ClearVue resin), sometimes externally (in titanium or cobalt chrome). “SLA ClearVue materials are perfect since the models can be cleaned extremely well before being sterilized ready for surgery,” said Eggbeer. The team has learned so much of the process, and built the skills to optimize the technology, that they can go from CT data to complete, printed implants with prototypes, practice models and surgical guides all in place within seven days. “The way we are approaching this type of reconstructive facial surgery means that we can perfectly translate the surgical plan from start to finish, having already anticipated many of the problems that would need to be tackled,” said Eggbeer.

ExOne ‐Molds and Cores digital production by using Three‐Dimensional Printing for Sand Casting Applications

Abstract Metal castings are ubiquitous in consumer and military products and are increasingly being evaluated for cost‐effective applications in new product development programs. All castings are currently produced using a “pattern” technique, which is a critical and integral step of the casting process. The “pattern,” typically the item with the longest lead time, represents considerable expense, is produced from a diminishing pool of skilled trade resources and imposes a lack of agility to new product development programs. Three‐dimensional printing technology continues to develop new materials, processes and equipment for emerging markets, and create novel applications as a means to decrease costs and lead time compared to conventional manufacturing techniques. Three‐dimensional printing of sand is a systems approach to manufacture sand molds and cores without the requirement to manufacture a pattern or series of patterns. Since the process does not require a pattern to produce the casting, low volume service parts that do not have available tooling, low volume product development applications and low volume niche production are ideal candidates when response time, set‐up charges for small batch production and tooling costs must be minimized. ExOne Technology ‐ Introduction The Ex One Company (ExOne) has developed a line of 3D sand printing equipment to manufacture sand molds and cores without the requirement to manufacture a pattern or series of patterns. Using the technical principles embedded in 3D printing technology, complicated sand molds and cores are 3D printed in the 1.8M x 1.0M x 0.70M job box using conventional foundry sand, resin binder and an activator. An integrated material handling system transports the job box from the 3D printing process station, by means of powered material conveyance equipment, to the unloading station, where the molds and cores are removed. Simplicity in the system design enables alternative layouts and the ability to reconfigure the equipment as production requirements change. Overview of Three‐Dimensional Printing (3DP) Technology Using a generative process, the 3DP equipment automatically builds sand molds and cores for casting metal directly from computer aided design (CAD) data. Standard foundry industry materials are used, enabling easy integration of the new equipment into existing manufacturing and foundry procedures. The large building volume and high building rate combine to make patternless production for metal‐based prototypes and small‐scale production. The molds and cores are built in a layer‐wise fashion. Each layer is comprised of foundry materials added sequentially: 1. Foundry sand, which is mixed with an activator just before spreading. A re‐coating mechanism applies the sand mixture onto the entire job box, layer by layer. 2. Binder, which is selectively “jetted” onto the sand mixture. This is analogous to an inkjet printer, where the print head dispenses the binder onto the activated sand mixture, based upon computer instructions per each layer. The binder and activator chemically react and harden to form the 3D sand mold or core. Shown below is the S‐Max & S‐Print System, with integrated material conveyance, unloading station Fig.1.S‐Max System with 1.8M x 1.0M x 0.7M printable S‐Print System with 0.8M x 0.5M x 0.4 M printable volume job box volume job box

ExOne ‐Molds and Cores digital production by using Three‐Dimensional Printing for Sand Casting Applications

Also shown is a job being printed in the print station (Figure 2). Figure 2. Print Station Fundamental Change to the Process of Acquiring Castings The following graphical representations (Figure 3) provide a comparison to help demonstrate the inherent flexibility of the process. Left hand side process represents the conventional sand casting process where a pattern is created to produce sand molds. Right hand side represents the 3DP process. No pattern needs to be created to produce the molds since the molds are not pulled from a pattern, but are produced (3D printed) directly from the CAD file. Therefore, eliminating a number of process steps Figure 3. Process Steps

ExOne ‐Molds and Cores digital production by using Three‐Dimensional Printing for Sand Casting Applications

The unbound sand is removed using an industrial vacuum system followed by brushing the loose sand from the finished cores. Also, component size is not limited to the build box size. Since the printed objects are created in a CAD environment, multiple pieces can easily be interlocked allowing for large molds to be pieced together. All thread bolting and lifting provisions can be created in the printed pieces. Figures 4‐7 below show various sand molds and cores printed in the job box during one production build. This demonstrates the flexibility of the process to produce multiple, patternless sand molds and cores directly from CAD files Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7

ExOne ‐Molds and Cores digital production by using Three‐Dimensional Printing for Sand Casting Applications

Applications and Examples Many successful castings have been made from the process. A few examples are shown below in Figure 8. Figure 8 Overview of the Information Flow A 3D solid CAD file of the part is required. From this part file, a 3D solid CAD file of the mold package is designed and then converted to .STL files. The .STL files are checked for integrity (edges and surfaces) and are then used as the input information to the software. The .STL files, which represent the parts in the mold package, can be rotated, panned and translated easily with the Rapix3D software. Rapix3D then transforms the 3D CAD file (.STL) to a .CLI file, thereby converting the 3D parts of the mold package into a sequence of slices. The CLI file is loaded into the S‐Max process station over a standard network connection. The intuitive menu display allows for easy job setup, management and monitoring. Optionally, a copy of each job can be kept locally on the machine, allowing jobs to be repeated. System Configurations and Attributes The ExOne equipment is designed and built to produce sand molds and cores. The system equipment is not modified from rapid prototyping equipment – it is designed and built for use in production on the production floor. The following describe some of the key characteristics of the system design:

ExOne ‐Molds and Cores digital production by using Three‐Dimensional Printing for Sand Casting Applications

•

System is modular – a standard mechanical interface with standard electrical inter‐connects with standard length conveyors

•

System is reconfigurable – equipment layout can easily be changed to allow for stand alone, workstation, cell, or an integrated manufacturing system System is flexible – an integrated material conveyance design with integral queues allowing for asynchronous production

•

System is scalable – system can increase in size/productivity by easily adding additional process stations and unloading stations via conveyors to the programmable rotary turn table

•

System employs minimally tended manufacturing – designed for 24/7 usage, with minimal operator intervention

•

System is customizable – using a “plug and play” approach for system layout design, dozens of configurations can be designed using the standard equipment, therefore unique requirements (floor space, facility layout, etc) can be implemented without the cost and time delays of requiring “specials”

Benefits The following summarizes the benefits of the ExOne 3DP process: Eliminates the need for use of patterns to create sand molds and core • This will reduce/eliminate the high cost of labor and human errors associated with pattern making. And with skilled pattern makers in short supply, the process will provide productivity improvement while decreasing the need for additional skilled labor. • Customers can experience dramatically reduced lead‐times (design through casting) by as much as 50%, prototype production can be doubled thus saving floor space that additional conventional equipment would require • For high volume casting requirements, molds for match plates may be generated. Since the tooling data is in digital form, the aluminum match plates may be discarded after the production run thus eliminating the need for pattern storage. Also, if a design change occurs between production runs, the digital file is easily manipulated to produce the latest revisions • Cope and drag fabrication times can be reduced further by reducing the mass of the casting components (such as cores) by adopting hollow designs • Future component ECO’s can be incorporated into the existing mold tooling (match plates) in a modular approach o This will reduce the time to produce revised molds and cores for sand castings by typically 50% o This will reduce the price and lead time to the end customer while reducing the cost of mold/core production, potentially increasing margins • The ability to produce better parts faster when casting dynamics are understood earlier in the design cycle, allowing for changes prior to committing to production tooling Direct digital production of molds and cores • Production of the sand molds and cores is driven directly from the CAD data •

Multiple design iterations can be achieved in a matter of days to determine the optimal mold/core design

•

Understanding of shrinkage, porosity and solidification parameters prior to purchasing expensive, long‐lead production tooling

•

Elaborate, thin wall, delicate or lacy cores can be produced, heretofore not achievable

ExOne ‐Molds and Cores digital production by using Three‐Dimensional Printing for Sand Casting Applications

•

Small design changes in the CAD file for the part and mold can create a family of parts

•

Mass customization, e.g., unique serialization or traceability codes can easily be added in the software Compete on a new level Allows for an “unlevel” playing field – changes the competitive equation from direct labor to lean manufacturing

•

Allows for distributed manufacturing and flexible manufacturing

•

Enables e‐manufacturing

•

Changes the basis to achieve financial success from time and material to value

•

Customer Case Study Automotive: Easing to Victory‐The Rennteam Uni Stuttgart Wins The Formula Student Germany with EOS support

Facts The Challenge: Build a reliable, reliable light weight axle pivot with high rigidity, in the shortest possible time. Solution: Production of a topology optimized steering stub axle using EOS technology.

Results: • Optimized: perfect form and contouring for a reduced weight by 35% and an increased rigidity by 20% • Speedy: significant shortage in development and production time • Safety: reliable on the track

In the construction the student engineers employed for the first time an additive manufacturing process and the car went on to win the title. (Source: Rennteam Uni Stuttgart).

Young engineers choose additive manufacturing to tap the full potential of the part

Short profile The Rennteam Uni Stuttgart is an The greater the force in play, the greater the resulting counter‐force – a relatively independent club composed of basic rule of physics. Such rules are particularly relevant in motorsports, where the highly motivated students from a stresses placed on the utilized materials are extreme. Taking the circuit at high broad range of fields. It takes part speeds exposes both driver and car to the effects of such forces. The young in the Formula Student racing Constructors of the Rennteam Uni Stuttgart are constantly striving to optimize the series, a competition for young construction process and the use of materials. engineers, across Europe, as well as being involved in other More and more the sport demands that not only should the driver pilot the car international competitions. ever quicker around the track but, within the principles of the Formula Student Address Germany series, he should do it safely. In the construction of the successful 2012 Rennteam Uni Stuttgart model the student engineers employed for the first time an additive Pfaffenwaldring 12 70569 manufacturing process in the building of the knuckles ‐ and the car went on to win Stuttgart (Germany) the title. EOS supported the team through its victorious Formula Student Germany www.rennteam‐stuttgart.de season. Challenge The knuckle – also called the axle‐pivot – connects the wheel axle with the wishbones and the track rod via a bearing. The braking system is then likewise fixed to it. The part conducts all the forces and momentum absorbed from the wheels to the wishbones and the tie rod, and on to the vehicle chassis itself. On the one hand, every constructor of an axle‐pivot has the task of developing a part with the highest possible stability – otherwise the safety of the vehicle as a whole would be undermined. Besides a fracture, part deformation can also have serious consequences, as the kinematic design and, as a result, the drivability, would be negatively impacted. On the other hand, the wheel mounts cannot, for a number of reasons, weigh too much. Every additional gramme increases lap times, and the wheel mounts belong to the so‐called unsprung mass of a vehicle. The less there is of this mass, the better the suspension and shock absorption will function. A low wheel‐mount weight allows the car to sit better

Customer Case Study Automotive: Easing to Victory‐The Rennteam Uni Stuttgart Wins The Formula Student Germany with EOS support

on the track – important for fast laps and safe racing. As a consequence, constructors are faced with the tricky task of finding the perfect balance between rigidity and weight. Previous production technologies offered the Stuttgart race team too little room to maneuver in the search for this perfect balance. “The wheel mount we'd been using over the last few years had already achieved a good balance between weight and rigidity, but we were sure we could improve on it,” explains Yannick Löw from the Rennteam Uni Stuttgart. “We produced the part using the classic precision casting process. This, of course, led to limitations in freedom of form, which meant that the part's potential could never be fully realized. Even back then we'd decided that for the 2012 season we'd investigate new, innovative ways of manufacturing the steering stub axle.” It didn't take long for the team to decide upon the path to take: The EOS‐technology. Thanks to additive manufacturing, the weight of the knuckles was reduced by 660 grammes in all. Numbers that were translated into faster lap times and reduced fuel consumption (Source: Rennteam Uni Stuttgart).

Solution As early as the conceptual design phase, the engineers utilized the CAD‐Software from EOS‐Partners Within Technologies Ltd. Within is a young company, whose programmers wrote their software specifically for the additive manufacturing process. The program makes possible the optimization of latticed micro‐structures of variable densities following examples found in nature. Thanks to this tool the constructors were able to match the part perfectly to the structural requirements. In this way, they were able to give the knuckle precisely the required physical properties – lightweight plus rigidity. “By the simplified, so called, 3D‐Print process, our machine honed powdered metal granules with the help of a laser, layer by layer, into the required part,” explains Nikolai Zaepernick, Business Development Manager Automotive at EOS. “The victorious team from Stuttgart decided on our partner Within’s software for the construction of the CAD model, as it was the most suited for the part and its purpose. The information for the manufacture of the part was provided for the direct metal laser‐sintering (DMLS) machine from our universally deployable software, which had, so to say, translated the information from the existing 3D‐CAD‐model. The result was amazing and showed just how much the young engineers already understand about their subject.” Once the team had designed the steering stub axle, the production of the first component parts followed immediately. The fact that the development and production time could be significantly shortened when compared to previously utilized processes was important for the team. There were a number of reasons for the time savings. One is that with additive manufacturing the need to build negatives or mould forms falls by the wayside. In addition the entire process, from design through fabrication is more precise, meaning that often no reworking or refining is required. In this case the constructors

Customer Case Study Automotive: Easing to Victory‐The Rennteam Uni Stuttgart Wins The Formula Student Germany with EOS support

from Stuttgart reached a high production quality in a very short time with minimal honing for fit, so that the part was almost immediately race‐ready. Results The advantages can be summed up in concrete figures: The weight of the part was “We are thrilled to have been reduced by 660 grammes, saving the Rennteam Uni Stuttgart 35%. At the same time able to bring the Formula the engineers succeeded in increasing the rigidity by 20% ‐ big numbers for Student Germany 2012 title to motorsports, and numbers that translate into faster lap times and reduced fuel Stuttgart. The freedom in the consumption. The best testimony was delivered by the team with the result in the final construction process offered by race of the series – a victory at the Hockenheimring that crowned the Stuttgart race the DMLS technology from EOS has been played an important team as Formula Student Germany Champions 2012. role in our success”. “We are thrilled to have been able to bring the Formula Student Germany 2012 title to ‐Yannick L Löw, Rennteam Uni Stuttgart. The freedom in the construction process offered by the DMLS technology Stuttgart from EOS has played an important role in our success,” says Löw. All those involved have shown with this victory that the engineering profession can be a lot of fun – and ultimately, that there are a multitude of interesting and exciting ways of responding to the shortage of technical specialists. And the allure of new technologies, such as additive manufacturing, can play a role in this, inspiring down the line more and more young people to take a serious look at a career in engineering.

Intake manifold: 3D Printing of Sand Moulds: Voxeljet

Composite intake manifold

Solution:

The form design is equivalent to a later series solution: all cores and Results: molds are conventionally produced in the same way. The sand process is used to save time and costs compared to expensive tools. Purpose: Prototype of a racing intake manifold Challenge: Many undercuts and cores, complex design Single parts of the intake manifold Solution: Splitting of the mould into four parts without any consideration of undercuts and distortions Sand Moulds Castings Total size (mm) 850X606X212 Total size (mm) 850X606X212 Weight (kg) 208,2 Weight (kg) 407,87 Finished casted part Individual pieces 4 Material Aluminium Material Sand Lead time (weeks) 3 0,3 Layer thickness (mm) Lead time (days) 5 Build time(hours) Sand mold 15 Technical data: Sandcasting: fast, patternless, close‐to production Voxeljet produces moulds for casting from dataset. Through implementing the Generis Sand Process the user benefits from crucial time and cost savings. Based on 3D CAD data the moulds are made fully automatically without tools using the layer building method in the required mould material. The laborious and costly route to the otherwise necessary mould set‐up is dispensed with. Our ability to produce moulds with dimensions of 4 x 2 x 1 meters is unique worldwide.

Press Release: EOS M 400

Additive Manufacturing System for the Industrial Production of High‐Quality Large Metal Parts EOS, the German market and technology leader for design‐driven, integrated e‐Manufacturing solutions for Additive Manufacturing (AM), first launch the new EOS M 400 Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) in Euromold 2013. A new system generation for the already established metal technology, this modular, extendable platform gears additive manufacturing up for application in industrial production environments. A number of factors contribute to this: The system enables the manufacture of larger components, productivity of this technology can move into new dimensions, and the level of automation is increased still further. In addition, the EOS M 400 delivers improved quality assurance and is made easier to use, thereby answering key requirements of our series production customers. The commercialization of the basic model begins in Q2 2014, with the global distribution planned from 2015. “EOS is pursuing a platform‐based strategy for the metal technology and is able to support its customers from the research and development phase, through to the series production. The EOS M 400 represents the key to the industrial series utilization of Additive Manufacturing. If the EOSINT M 270 and EOSINT M 280 models have set the technical benchmarks, then the EOS M 400 takes these a step further. The new system supports users not only in the context of its qualification for production, but also in actual manufacturing applications. “We won't be drawing the line at a single solution. We will be expanding the platform with successive performance modules”, says Adrian Keppler, Managing Director at EOS. EOS M 400 metal Additive Manufacturing systems Oil separator, material EOS Aluminum AlSi10Mg Source: EOS GmbH Source: Formula Student, Race Team University of Stuttgart, Germany

A modular system for new manufacturing dimensions The EOS M 400 is based on a modular concept. The manufacturing solution is initially available with both set‐up, and process stations. Within a year, an automated unpacking station will also be on offer. With this extension of the system, an exchangeable frame, including components and residual powder, is moved, following the build process, from the process station to the unpacking station. Here, the job will quickly be cleaned of all loose and excess powder by way of a clean‐up program comprising rotation and vibration. The modular concept makes it possible to incorporate the unpacking station retroactively to expand on the set‐up and process stations. Users thereby gain a future oriented e‐manufacturing solution designed for application‐specific, modular extension. A further key innovation of the EOS M 400 is the volume of the building chamber, which measures 400x400x400 mm so that larger components can now be produced. This fact broadens the scope for new applications within the field of industrial series production. The first extension to the basic model, with its corresponding processes, will initially be offered with the EOS Aluminum AlSi10Mg and EOS NickelAlloy IN718 materials and is thereby particularly suited for use in the automobile and aerospace sectors. Processes for further materials are still in the development phase, including both tool steel and titanium. Whatever the application requirements: Manufacturing solutions with single/multiple lasers In the EOS M 400 the laser has a performance of up to 1,000 watts. It allows the use of new materials that require more powerful lasers. A new user interface with touchscreen, developed out of talks with many customers, further simplifies the system usability. The complete handling has been optimized. Additionally, the filter from the air filtration system is automatically cleaned and has a significantly longer use‐life. EOS has also further optimized both the monitoring and

Press Release: EOS M 400

reporting functions, enabling the user to enjoy advancements in quality control. All of these innovations are aimed at meeting the requirements of series production and represent a further important step in making this a reality. From 2015, EOS is planning to offer in addition to the EOS M 400 the EOS M 400‐4 which will come with four lasers. While the single‐laser version opens the way for the development of new applications, the focus of the multi‐mode variant lies in achieving productivity increases of qualified production processes that have been already achieved for the EOSINT M 280. For more information please visit www.eos.info.

Press Release: Stratasys Introduces 3D Printer to Provide Low Cost Entry to Advanced Digital Dentistry

New Objet Eden260V Dental Advantage 3D Printer Produces Highly Accurate Dental and Orthodontic Models, as well as Surgical Guides For dental labs seeking faster treatment and an enhanced profit model, the Objet Eden260V Dental Advantage 3D Printer produces surgical guides and dental models in‐house directly from intraoral scanner output. Similarly, orthodontic labs may reduce costs by 3D printing accurate and smooth models for orthodontic appliances, which can help them increase their competitive edge The new 3D printer features a custom‐tailored materials package and a build tray that is 20 to 40 percent larger than that of alternatives for the dental sector. This allows users to improve workflow and optimize productivity by printing more models in a single build. The 3D printer also features printing speeds up to 33 percent faster than other dental 3D printing products. Based on Stratasys' successful Eden platform, the Objet Eden260V Dental Advantage 3D Printer harnesses Stratasys' pedigree of innovation to enable production of ultra‐high resolution 3D models. These benefits are enhanced by the 3D printer's small copier‐sized footprint, which makes it ideal for convenient and unobtrusive operation in any lab or dental practice. "Stratasys continues to make digital dentistry happen and is fully committed to this market," said Avi Cohen, Director of Global Dental at Stratasys. "The Objet Eden260V Dental Advantage 3D printer is a cost‐ effective solution package that is designed to increase productivity and turnaround times while delivering precision prototypes and production parts." Fig1. The Objet Eden260V Dental Advantage 3D Printer offers dental and orthodontic labs affordable access to advanced digital dentistry

The Objet Eden260V Dental Advantage 3D Printer Offers:

•

Professional grade technology

•

Consistent, accurate results

•

Easy‐to‐use operation with fast turnaround times

•

Clean, safe materials

•

Small, copier‐size footprint with quiet operation

Press Release: LayerWise metal 3D printing helped rebuild motorbike crash survivor’s face

The Belgian company LayerWise produced patient‐specific titanium implants as part of a pioneering facial reconstruction Motorcyclist Stephen Power was severely injured in an accident near Cardiff, UK. He broke both arms and his right leg was damaged so badly it required a bone graft. Stephen also suffered major injuries to his head and face. He regained consciousness after several months in the hospital. Treatment with computer‐aided technologies Consultant maxillofacial surgeon Adrian Sugar explains that a specialist team at the Morriston Hospital in Swansea, UK, successfully dealt with all facial injuries, with the exception of his left cheek and eye socket. The patient’s cheekbone was too far out and his eye was sunk in and dropped. Due to the close proximity of critical and sensitive anatomical structures, the team applied a more accurate expertise approach. This strategy ensured no further damage to his eye in order to maintain his eyesight. The expertise approach entailed the latest 3D computer‐aided practices applied by PDR and innovative 3D printing of the titanium implant and fixation plate by LayerWise. Perfect‐fit implants through 3D printing innovation LayerWise manufactured the implant and fixation plate in medical‐grade titanium (Ti6Al4V ELI) in accordance with the ISO 13485 standard. “The 3D printing technology mastered by LayerWise is perfectly suited for producing this kind of ultra strong, precise and lightweight titanium implants,” says Peter Mercelis, Managing Director of LayerWise. “The reconstructive orbital floor plate plays an essential role in the repositioning of the eye in light of the targeted facial symmetry and eye alignment,” explained Romy Ballieux from LayerWise’s Medical Business Unit. “LayerWise produced the floor plate, and polished its upper surface to minimize friction with soft tissues. The floor plate was fixated to the zygomatic bone through the plate’s dedicated slip with attachment holes. The digital 3D printing technology successfully maintained the accuracy of the precise medical imaging data, pre‐operative planning and implant design. The 0.1 millimeter (4 mils) geometric accuracy of the floor plate’s freeform surfaces could not be achieved using traditional manufacturing methods.” Accuracy is even more critical with regard to the fixation plate. This fairly long, slim, curved 3D printed plate requires precise positioning to be able to tie together many fractured bone pieces of the cheek region. A custom‐fitting guide was used to fit securely around the anatomy, with slots located to guide the surgeon’s movement when positioning the plate. The fixation plate restored the correct anatomical connection between the frontal, zygomatic and temporal bone. This connection contributed to the successful reconstruction of the patient’s anatomy, providing the best possible facial symmetry. Ballieux noted: “Dedicated medical engineering specialized in the production aspects of metal 3D printing were key in achieving the impressive facial reconstruction in such a short time span. The digital process resulted in the 3D printed implant and fixation plate produced in a single manufacturing step in only a couple of hours.” Custom‐fitting guide holding the LayerWise titanium fixation Reconstructive titanium orbital floor plate, produced by LayerWise plate in the correct position, and the polished orbital implant

Press Release: LayerWise metal 3D printing helped rebuild motorbike crash survivor’s face

Life‐changing patient experience After his recovery, Stephan Power experiences the results of the surgery as ‘totally life changing’. Instead of using a hat and glasses to mask his injuries, he is now able to do day‐to‐day things, go and see people, walk in the street, and even go to any public areas. The improved facial symmetry and alignment of his eyes, achieved with the LayerWise implant and fixation plate, clearly made a big difference to the patient. “We are confident that our metal 3D printing technology is capable of improving the quality of life of many more patients,” Ballieux concluded. “The fast‐turnaround digital process, from medical imaging up to the finalized 3D printed implants, delivers the required implant geometry and precision to obtain such great facial reconstructions.” These implants were the result of a close collaboration beween LayerWise specialists and PDR design experts Sean Peel and Dr. Dominic Eggbeer. PDR has a formal collaboration with the Maxillofacial Unit at Morriston Hospital: cartis (Centre for Applied Reconstructive Technologies in Surgery).