When Nathan Huber moved to Arizona from Colorado to join PADT he learned a lot, and one of the things he learned fast was that the inside of cars get very hot in the summer here. In fact, the shift knob on his car was untouchable in July. This coincided with his learning more about metal 3D Printing and an idea occurred, what about 3D Printing a metal shift knob designed to cool off faster, and that looked cool. Oh, and use ANSYS to drive the design.
The most important discussions around installing and operating a metal 3D printer involve safety. The requirements can be difficult to pin down since they depend on several things: whether you are using reactive or non-reactive alloys (read a previous post on this subject here), the risk perception of your local building safety director and fire marshal, local regulations (and exceptions) and the volume of material you are dealing with. As with all things safety and more so because of how nascent metal 3D printing technology is, I list a few disclaimers at the bottom of this page.
There is so much to say about safety in this process that half-way through writing this post, it became clear it would not fit in one post. Therefore, I have split the content into two: in this post (3A) I talk about the risks: where they come from and why they matter. In the next post (3B), I will discuss how these risks can be mitigated.
1. Sources of Risk
Broadly speaking, I like to think of two sources of risk in this process since as an operator of these machines you have to think differently about how you interact with these sources.
1.1 Metal Powder
Metal 3D printing involves fusing together powder in a bed. Typical metal powders used for laser based 3D printing are spherical in shape and range from 10-70 microns in diameter, as shown in Figure 1. At this size, a metal can be prone to fire and explosion (under the right circumstances) and there is also the physiological concern of long-term inhalation of, and contact with, these powders. The powder also has a long life cycle and requires human interaction at many steps – from arriving in a container (as shown in Figure 2), through multiple recycling steps through final disposal. These risks come into play just when handling the powder (independent of its use in the process) – an additional risk comes from the melting process itself.
1.2 The Laser Fusion Process
The powder in the bed described before is fused together into a solid using a laser that locally melts the powder one layer at a time. This is conducted in an inert atmosphere (Argon or Nitrogen) and is the second source of risk since these gases can displace Oxygen from a closed environment. Additionally, the process of laser melting of metals creates vaporized soot (see video below), some of which deposits on the process chamber and in the extraction module and filter. The smoke particles can be even finer than the powder itself, and need to be cleaned out with care on a regular basis.
There are 4 main risks arising from the laser powder bed fusion process: fire and explosion, powder inhalation and contact, inert gas asphyxiation and the environmental impact of the wastes generated.
2.1 Fire and Explosion
In May 2014, OSHA cited a 3D printing company for 10 violations deriving from the workplace safety standards surrounding the operation of a metal 3D printer (including not having the proper Class D fire extinguisher). The disregard of multiple safety measures during a routine build setup procedure resulted in a fire which caused life-threatening burns to the operator of the printer. While this incident was the result of gross negligence, it is nonetheless a cautionary tale that should drive us to understand the fundamental reasons why a metal 3D printer can cause fires and to appreciate the underlying reasons for why suppliers recommend the safety measures they do.
Fire and explosion require a combination of conditions as shown in the commonly cited image below used by OSHA and other agencies to communicate risks of powder handling.
As shown in Fig. 3, when handling powder in ambient atmospheres (with oxygen), all that is needed is a suitable ignition source to initiate a fire. Further, if this occurs in the presence of a dust cloud with many particles dispersed in a contained area (such as a small room or an air duct), this could lead to a more damaging explosion.
Fire: When handling metal powder, the user needs to be aware that she/he already has 2 of the 3 requirements of a fire met and the main aim must be to ensure protection against any ignition source. There are several sources that could cause an ignition, the most likely one for a user of a metal 3D printer is static electricity. Additionally, it is possible that a fire can be initiated by hot surfaces, flames, hot gases and particles, mechanically generated sparks and strayelectrical currents.
Explosion: With regard to explosions, in addition to the 3 requirements above, dust clouds in contained areas can exacerbate any ignition to a much larger impact within milliseconds. Therefore, the prevention of the formation of metal dust clouds (as unlikely as that may seem), is of paramount importance.
In addition to the requirements above, there are levels associated with each requirement that need to be met together for an actual fire or explosion to occur. The risk of ignition increases with reducing particle diameter and given a certain particle size, the most significant factor governing risk is the nature of the metal. Reactive metals (Aluminum alloys, Titanium and its alloys, as well as smoke particles from both reactives and non-reactives) pose much higher risk than non-reactive metals (steels, Inconels, bronze, Cobalt Chrome alloys) – this is a subject I wrote about in more detail in a previous post.
2.2 Powder Inhalation & Contact
As discussed before, most metal 3D powder particles range in size from 10-70um. This is at the very edge of what is considered respirable and damaging to our lungs. While contact physically is to be avoided since it may initiate irritation and potential dermatitis, there is greater concern about the long-term inhalation exposure risks of these powders. Particles of the size range in this process can get deposited in the tracheo-bronchial region per Jenson  and Goldich . Ultimately, these particles are discharged from the body or swallowed, but effects of long term exposure for the wide range of metals and alloys is not fully studied – which is why suppliers insist on respirators (more on that in the next post). It is worth pointing out though, from the work published by Jenson and Goldich, that it appears that while metal 3D printing powders are small enough to travel past the nasal cavity if inhaled, their sizes are large enough that respiratory damage in the lungs is highly unlikely – only particles under 2 microns are at risk of making it all the way to the alveoli and causing lung disease .
2.3 Inert Gas Asphyxiation
Inert gases are used in laser metal 3D printers to reduce the reactivity of the metal for processing purposes. Most metal 3D printers either use Nitrogen or Argon. Inert gas asphyxiation is the main risk due to oxygen being displaced by either of these gases that have leaked for some reason. Since both gases are not detectable by humans, victims do not realize that they are inhaling air depleted of oxygen and as a result this can have a serious impact. The human body is used to atmospheric percentages of oxygen (21%) and values below 19.5% can be harmful and are defined as oxygen-deficient per OSHA . Thus, any user of nitrogen or argon gas (and this applies not just to any process using inert gases), especially in small spaces such as a closed room, needs to be aware of this risk and protect against it.
2.4 Environmental Impact
A key challenge with powder based processes lies in collecting and disposing the stray or “fugitive” powder from different locations such as the tool, PPE, containers and vacuum systems into temporary storage, during which the above risks of fire/explosion and inhalation remain. Additionally, the storage typically results in loose powder and solid waste as well as water with powder particles, both of which need to be disposed into the outside world and could pose an environmental hazard. I will discuss this further in a future post, when I attempt to look at some of the environmental aspects around this technology.
This is intended to supplement the supplier training you must receive before using the equipment and not meant to replace it – in case of conflicting information, your supplier’s training and equipment requirements override any discussion here. PADT assumes no legal responsibilities for any decisions or actions taken by the readers of this document.
My personal experience derives specifically from the use of Laser-based metal 3D printing tools, specifically Concept Laser’s MLab Cusing R equipment. I expect majority of this information to be of use to users of other laser based powder bed fusion metal systems and to a lesser extent to Electron Beam systems, but have no personal experience to vouch for this.
Local, state and federal regulations vary, and are important – partner with your local fire marshal (or equivalent authority) as a starting point and take them along with you every step of the way. If in the US, familiarize yourself in particular with OSHA’s guidance on dust explosions  and NFPA 484 , the National Fire Protection Association’s standard for combustible metals (links below).
In part 3B, I will address mitigation strategies to address the risks described in this post. In the meantime, please read my prior posts below if you haven’t already, or send your inputs to me via message on LinkedIn. Thank you!
The project to keep a 1944 P-51 Mustang flying was covered again, this time in 3D Metal Printing Magazine (Pg 23-33). Concept Laser worked with PADT to reverse engineer and print the exhaust manifold from a P-51 to keep it flying. Unlike the other article and video on the project, this reporter used this example as a great way to look at the readiness of military aircraft, and not just antique planes.
As PADT’s Rey Chu says ““This was a great exercise that’s suitable for numerous military applications and very relevant to the future use of 3D metal printing to maintain fleets in the field,” Chu says. “Maintaining spare-parts inventory has become a significant challenge, for example, to the Air Force. Additive manufacturing could be the solution.”
This is part 2 of a 5-part post on the lessons we learned installing our first Metal 3D printer, a Concept Laser MLab Cusing R. Please read the first post if you haven’t already, where I listed all the different equipment (in addition to the 3D printer itself) one needs to run this process, available at this link.
A reminder at the outset: these posts are meant to be informative only, to give you a sense of what questions you need to ask and get answers to. Specific requirements will vary by equipment and your site specific needs.
Most metal 3D printers, including the Concept Laser machines, are manufactured in Europe and have electrical requirements that differ from what most American machine shops are setup for (which is the scope of this section). If you have installed 230 V European equipment before and know what L-N and PE stand for and how they differ between European and American systems, you can skip this section. If not, read on.
There are two key items here one needs to be aware of: first of course is the fact that these pieces of equipment typically run on single-phase 230 V (3-phase 400V for the very large machines like Concept Laser’s XLine 2000R) as opposed to the standard 110V. Secondly, and this is easier to miss, European electrical connections have one “hot” line (L) for a single-phase, one Neutral line (N) and one Protected Earth (PE) – this is different from the US standard where you have 2 “hot” lines and 1 ground. The reason for these differences and how to address them electrically is beyond the scope of this post (or my understanding), but the main point is to have an electrician familiar with European codes review this early on. A dedicated custom transformer for all your European 230V equipment is one solution, and the one we employed here at PADT, as shown in Figure 1. (I rarely give shout-outs, but our experience with Fargo Electric on procuring a custom, affordable transformer was one of the best transactions I have ever had.)
2. Inert Gas
Laser melting of powder metals needs to be conducted in an inert atmosphere. Most suppliers recommend using Argon for Aluminum and Titanium alloys, but that Nitrogen is fine for the non-reactive alloys such as steel, Inconel and Cobalt-Chrome alloys. At PADT, we leveraged our existing nitrogen generator and added an additional line running to our metal 3D printer (Figure 2). Before doing this, you need to add up all the consumption rates for the machines (at their peaks) to make sure you don’t exceed the generator’s capabilities. It is a good idea to demarcate space for Argon cylinders should you need them at a later stage.
3. ESD Mats or Floors (for Reactive Metals)
As we will see in the next blog post in this series, avoiding charge dissipation into metal powder is a key safety requirement for operating metal 3D printers – this is achieved through a range of strategies like ESD (Electro Static Discharge) armbands, grounding wires etc. If you plan on running reactive metals and especially if you expect to have many operators, an ESD coated floor with ESD shoes or boot straps, along with an ESD meter (like the one Honeywell installed at their facility) is a good strategy. From personal experience with ESD boot straps, I know these can be fickle in passing an ESD meter test. Connecting the ESD meter to the entryway door so entry is only provided after passing the test is one way to ensure only those with functioning straps enter the workspace. For those without this strategy, grounded ESD mats and ESD armbands connected to the machine are also alternative strategies which I will discuss in more detail in the next post. From a facilities standpoint, if you do want to enable ESD coated floors, boot straps and ESD meters, you need to plan this early, which is why I have included it here.
Access to running water is essential for cleaning the wet separator (vacuum) that is used for sucking up fugitive powder – ideally the water source is near your liquid waste storage so you can clean out the wet separator and pour the powder-contaminated water into storage. Alternatively, you can also use a garden sprayer for smaller machines, like we do at PADT. Fill up the sprayer with water and use it to rinse out the wet separator right on top of the waste storage bin.
Another reason you need access to water is to passivate the filter. While not all OEMs recommend water passivation, Concept Laser does and we find it to be very user friendly, as I demonstrate in the video below (video starts 2:58 in, which is when I discuss filter passivation with water).
5. Access Control
It is important to restrict access to your metal AM laboratory through badge scanning or key pad entry to those who are trained on using the machine, and your building facilities team. It also helps to provide as much visibility through glass windows so that folks that are entering can study what activity is in progress before entering.
6. Structure & Ventilation
Here I move into the subjective (gray area) domain – I request anyone who has more specific information on these matters to kindly share them with me for inclusion in this post (with due credit). I have heard anecdotally that in some places the city has required the supplier to install blast walls and other explosion resistant infrastructure – yet others have not required such infrastructure (including ours). I am not well informed in this space and can only emphasize the need to have these discussions out in the open in the early stage of planning your facility and ask your city’s building safety person if the walls you have planned (or already have installed) are adequate or not – this is likely to be a function of the amount and reactivity of the powder you are handling, proximity to vulnerable areas, human occupancy and other concerns. With regard to ventilation, the more open the space the better (these machines can heat up a small, closed room) – at the same time the space needs to be sealed off from the elements including wind. I know this too is a subjective matter, so discussions with city representatives are the best way to go.
What equipment does one need for metal 3D printing?
This is the first in a five-part series that brings together the different lessons we learned installing our first metal printer, a Concept Laser MLab Cusing R at PADT, shown in Figure 1. In this post I list the different equipment needed to enable metal 3D printing end-to-end, along with a brief explanation of its purpose. In subsequent posts, I deal with (2) Facilities, (3) Safety, (4) Environmental & (5) Housekeeping aspects of the technology. I hope this information adds to the conversation in a meaningful way and help those who are thinking about, or in the process of installing a metal 3D printer.
The specifics of some of this information will vary depending on the equipment and materials you handle, but my hope is the themes covered here give you a sense of what is involved in installing a metal 3D printer to aid in your preparation for doing the same and for having good discussions with your equipment supplier to ensure these are addressed at a minimum.
One way to look at classifying the equipment needed (beyond the obvious metal 3D printer!) is by its purpose, and I do so here by dividing it into two broad categories: Ancillary Equipment (necessary to the printing itself) and Post-Processing Equipment (focused on the part).
At the outset, it is crucial that the difference between reactive and non-reactive metal alloys be comprehended since a lot of the use of the equipment differs depending on what kind of metal alloy is being used. A previous blog post addressed these differences and these terms will be used in the following sections.
1. Ancillary Equipment
1.1 Wet Separator
The wet separator is essentially a vacuum cleaner that is designed to safely vacuum stray (“fugitive”) metal powders that cannot be cleaned up any other way. When dealing with powders, the typical recommendation is to first brush whatever you can into the overflow bin so you can reuse it. The next step is to try and wipe up powder with a moist lint-free cloth (to be covered in the housekeeping post). The wet separator has a water column that passivates the metal powder and renders it non-reactive to allow for easier disposal (to be covered in the environmental post). Wet separators require a significant amount of maintenance, particularly when dealing with reactive metals like Titanium and Aluminum alloys, where the supplier recommends the wet separator be cleaned out on a daily basis. At least one company has developed a kit to help with wet separator cleaning – which gives you an indication of how significant of an issue this is. Most suppliers provide a wet separator along with their equipment.
1.2 Glove Box
A glove box is a useful piece of equipment for dealing with reactive metals in particular. The glove box allows an operator to manage all the powder handling in the build chamber to be done in a closed environment. For non-reactive metals this is not a necessary piece of equipment but it is highly recommended for reactive metals. The glove box when used in concert with reactive metals will allow for inert gas flushing out of oxygen to low PPM levels prior to operator intervention, and also includes grounding connections for the box to the machine. The nice thing about having a glove box is it reduces the amount of time you need to have a respirator on by allowing you to add powder and unpack builds in a closed environment. The glove box may also be integrated into the machine itself – ours is a stand alone device on wheels that we roll over to the machine when we need it.
1.3 Powder Sieve
Unless you plan on disposing all the powder in each build after it is completed, you need a sieve to separate out the larger particles and contaminants from the powder you wish to reuse in subsequent builds. The sieves are also typically provided with the machine and can be enabled with inerting capability (as shown in Fig 4 on the left, or as shown on the right, come as a small desktop unit that can sieve about 3-5 lbs of powder at a time). While the sieve on the left may be used for reactive metal sieving, it is uncertain if one can safely use the desktop sieve for the same, even with grounding the table it sits on and the operator – this is a gray area and I am keen to hear thoughts on this from those that have the expertise/experience in this space.
1.4 Ultrasonic Cleaner
The purpose of the ultrasonic cleaner is to remove as much trapped powder as possible before the part and the build plate are subjected to any post-processing – this is to minimize the risk of trapped powder getting airborne during downstream processes – which cannot be completely eliminated (which is why PPE should be used all the way through till the final part is in hand after cleaning).
The Ultrasonic cleaner is used twice: first before the parts are removed from the build plate, and again after they are removed. Sometimes I will even use it a third time after all supports have been removed, if the part has internal p. I typically use the 40 kHz and 60 C temperature setting but have not sought to further optimize the parameters at this time.
2. Post-Processing Equipment
The purpose of the furnace is to relieve residual stresses built in the parts prior to removing them from the build plate. So this is the first step after the parts and the plate come out of the ultrasonic cleaner. We use a furnace that allows for nitrogen or argon flushing, and place our parts wrapped in stainless steel foil in a gas box. Instructions for heat treatment (time and temperature profile) are typically provided on the technical specifications that come with the material. Metals like stainless steel can be stress relieved in a nitrogen atmosphere but Inconels and Ti6Al4V for example require higher temperatures of between 800-1000 C and argon atmospheres – so you need to be setup for both gases if you are considering running more than 1 metal in your operation.
2.2 Support Removal
All parts are connected to the build plate by between 3-5mm of supports that need to be removed. This is a two step process: the first step involves removing the parts with supports off the build plate, and this is most commonly done with a table saw or a wire EDM. At PADT, we stumbled upon a third way to do this, using an oscillating hand tool and a carbide blade – which works well for small parts (<3″ in X-Y space). It is important to always wear gloves and a supplier recommended (N95 or higher) respirator while removing supports since there could be trapped powder in the supports that was not removed with the Ultrasonic cleaner. The second step is to use hand tools to pry out the supports from the part – this is why it is important to design supports that have weak mechanical connections to the part itself – ideally you can tear them off with hand tools like a perforated sheet of paper [Video below courtesy Bob Baker at PADT, Inc].
2.3 Die Grinder
A carbide die grinder is then used to grind away the support-model interface – for tiny parts, this can be achieved with a hand file as well for some parts but is easier to do with a die grinder. For large parts, this need can be eliminated by designing in regions that are to be machined later and aligning these regions with supported regions, so as to reduce the need for finishing on these surfaces.
2.4 Face Milling
This may come as a bit of a surprise, but you also need some way of replenishing the build plates after use so you can re-use the plates – this involves using a face milling technique to remove all the remnant supports on the build plate and take off a thin slice at the top of the build plate, while retaining flatness to within 100 microns (0.004″). Having this capability in-house will greatly speed-up your ability to start successive prints and reduce the need to keep large inventories of build plates [Video below courtesy Bob Baker at PADT, Inc].
2.5 Surface Finishing
A combination of techniques can be used for surface finishing. At a minimum, you must have the ability to do glass bead blasting – this is both for the printed parts, but also for the build plate itself – a bead blasted finish is recommended to improve the adhesion of the first layer of powder to the build plate.
2.6 Other Capabilities
The list above is what I would consider a minimum list of capabilities one needs to get started in metal 3D printing, but is not comprehensive and does not include facility, safety, environmental and housekeeping requirements which I will cover in future posts. Additional CNC equipment for machining metal AM parts, heat treatment and HIP, and superior surface finishing and cleaning techniques are often called upon for metal AM production, but these are highly dependent on application and part design, which is why I have left them out of the above list.
Move on to part 2 of this series where I discuss the facilities requirements for metal 3D printing (electrical, inert gas etc.). Did I miss anything or do you have a better way of doing the things described above? Please send your thoughts to firstname.lastname@example.org, citing this blog post, or connect with me on LinkedIn.
Acknowledgements: Garrett Garner at Concept Laser, Inc and Bob Baker at PADT, Inc. for their insight and expertise that helped us select and bring in the above capabilities at PADT.
What do you do when you want to replace the exhaust on a 1944 P-51D Mustang warbird and you also happen to be a pioneer in additive manufacturing? You work with Concept Laser and PADT to can and print a replacement stainless steel part. In “Metal Additive Manufacturing Keeps Legend Flying” Engineering.com details the project that involved blue light scanning and 3D Printing of new metal part in modern Stainless Steel, replacing the three-piece weldment with a single part.
They also did a fantastic video about the effort:
If you would like to learn how PADT can help you reverse engineering your legacy geometry and recreate it using Additive Manufacturing, contact us.
There is something about a kid running down a hallway screaming “mom, you HAVE to see this!” #openhousegoals.
Last night was our annual event where we open up the doors of PADT with a family oriented event sharing what we engineers do. We also invited some students from high school and University to share their engineering activities. With over 250 attendees and more than one excited kid running down the hall, we can safely call it a success.
Attendies were able to see our 3D Printing demo room including dozens of real 3D printed parts, learn about engineering, explore how 3D Printing works, and check out our new metal 3D Printer. They were also able to learn about school projects like the ASU Formula SAE race car as well as a prosthetic hand project and research into cellular structures in nature from BASIS Chandler.
Oh, and there was Pizza.
Pictures speak louder than words, so here is a galary of images from the event.
Attending AeroDef this year in Fort Worth? Make sure you register to tour Concept Laser on March 6th before AeroDef! You’ll hear an update on the GE acquisition and presentations on customer applications and machine safety. Registration ends February 24th, 2017, so don’t miss this opportunity!
Speed, superior quality monitoring, and an open architecture that enables innovation – that is what makes Concept Laser’s Direct Metal Laser Melting (DMLM) technology a leader in the metal additive manufacturing industry. Come and hear about how Concept Laser is investing to bring you innovation through new products and processes that will lead to revenue-generating opportunities for your business.
The Tour is March 6th from 8:30am to 11:30pm and includes round trip transportation from the conference and more.
What you will see on the tour:
Direct Metal Laser Melting
In-situ Quality Assurance
Best-in-class safety guidelines when interacting with reactive and non-reactive materials
Metal 3D Printing is one of the more exciting areas of additive manufacturing, and we are learning a lot about how to safely operate our new system. Our very own Dhruv Bhate, PhD shared those lessons learned in this new video:
The video stresses the importance of keeping an inert environment to keep part quality and to ensure a safe operating environment. Our Concept Laser Metal 3D Printer uses high powered lasers to melt metal powder one layer at a time to build 3D Parts. This process produces soot that is highly flammable.
Dhruv shows the process we use to break the part from the machine, clean the chamber of soot, and replace the filter that captures the soot.
To learn more about PADT and how we can help you with your 3D Printing, product development, or Numerical Simulation needs, please visit www.padtinc.com
Use this link to see all of our blog posts on Metal 3D Printing
Our 10-page article on “Modeling the Mechanical Behavior of Cellular Structures for Additive Manufacturing” was published in the Winter 2016 edition of the Metal AM magazine. This article represents a high-level summary of the different challenges and approaches in addressing the modeling specific aspects of cellular structures, along with some discussion of the design, manufacturing and implementation aspects associated with AM.
Click HERE for link to the entire magazine, our article starts on page 51. Digital editions are free to download. Swing by PADT in the new year to pick up a hard copy or look for it at our table when you visit us at trade shows.
To stay in touch with the latest developments at the intersection of AM and Cellular Structures, connect with me on LinkedIn, where I typically post 1-2 blog posts every month on this, or related subjects in Additive Manufacturing.
I have always had an issue with leaving well enough alone since the day I bought my Subaru. I have altered everything from the crank pulley to the exhaust, the wheels and tires to the steering wheel. I’ve even 3D printed parts for my roof rack to increase its functionality. One of the things that I have altered multiple times has been the shift knob. It’s something that I use every time and all the time when I am driving my car, as it is equipped with a good ol’ manual transmission, a feature that is unfortunately lost on most cars in this day and age.
I have had plastic shift knobs, a solid steel spherical shift knob, a black shift knob, a white shift knob, and of course some weird factory equipment shift knob that came with the car. What I have yet to have is a 3D printed shift knob. For this project, not any old plastic will do, so with the help of Concept Laser, I’m going straight for some glorious Remanium Star CL!
One of the great things about metal 3D printing is that during the design process, I was not bound by the traditional need for a staple of design engineering, Design For Manufacturing (DFM). The metal 3D printer uses a powder bed which is drawn over the build plate and then locally melted using high-energy fiber lasers. The build plate is then lowered, another layer of powder is drawn across the plate, and melted again. This process continues until the part is complete.
The design for the knob was based off my previously owned shift knobs, mainly the 50.8 mm diameter solid steel spherical knob. I then needed to decide how best to include features that would render traditional manufacturing techniques, especially for a one-off part, cost prohibitive, if not impossible. I used ANSYS Spaceclaim Direct Modeler as my design software, as I have become very familiar with it using it daily for simulation geometry preparation and cleanup, but I digress, my initial concept can be seen below:
I was quickly informed that, while this design was possible, the amount of small features and overhangs would require support structure that would make post-processing the part very tedious. Armed with some additional pointers on creating self supporting parts that are better suited for metal 3D printing, I came up with a new concept.
This design is much less complex, while still containing features that would be difficult to machine. However, with a material density of 0.0086 g/mm^3, I would be falling just short of total weight of 1 lb, my magic number. But what about really running away from DFM like it was the plague?
There we go!!! Much better, this design iteration is spec’d to come out at 1.04 lbs, and with that, it was time to let the sparks fly!
Here it is emerging as the metal powder that has not been melted during the process is brushed away.
The competed knob then underwent a bit of post processing and the final result is amazing! I haven’t been able to stop sharing images of it with friends and running it around the office to show my co-workers. However, one thing remains to make the knob functional… it must be tapped.
In order to do this, we need a good way to hold the knob in a vise. Lucky for us here at PADT, we have the ability to quickly design and print these parts. I came up with a design that we made using our PolyJet machine so we could have multiple material durometers in a single part. The part you need below utilizes softer material around the knob to cradle it and distribute the load of the vise onto the spherical lattice surface of the knob.
We quickly found out that the Remanium material was not able to be simply tapped. We attempted to bore the hole out in order to be able to press in an insert, and also found out the High Speed Steel (HSS) was not capable of machining the hole. Carbide however does the trick, and we bored the hole out in order to press in a brass insert, which was then tapped.
Finally, the shift knob is completed and installed!
How can the mechanical behavior of cellular structures (honeycombs, foams and lattices) be modeled?
This is the second in a two-part post on the modeling aspects of 3D printed cellular structures. If you haven’t already, please read the first part here, where I detail the challenges associated with modeling 3D printed cellular structures.
The literature on the 3D printing of cellular structures is vast, and growing. While the majority of the focus in this field is on the design and process aspects, there is a significant body of work on characterizing behavior for the purposes of developing analytical material models. I have found that these approaches fall into 3 different categories depending on the level of discretization at which the property is modeled: at the level of each material point, or at the level of the connecting member or finally, at the level of the cell. At the end of this article I have compiled some of the best references I could find for each of the 3 broad approaches.
1. Continuum Modeling
The most straightforward approach is to use bulk material properties to represent what is happening to the material at the cellular level [1-4]. This approach does away with the need for any cellular level characterization and in so doing, we do not have to worry about size or contact effects described in the previous post that are artifacts of having to characterize behavior at the cellular level. However, the assumption that the connecting struts/walls in a cellular structure behave the same way the bulk material does can particularly be erroneous for AM processes that can introduce significant size specific behavior and large anisotropy. It is important to keep in mind that factors that may not be significant at a bulk level (such as surface roughness, local microstructure or dimensional tolerances) can be very significant when the connecting member is under 1 mm thick, as is often the case.
The level of error introduced by a continuum assumption is likely to vary by process: processes like Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) are already strongly anisotropic with highly geometry-specific meso-structures and an assumption like this will generate large errors as shown in Figure 1. On the other hand, it is possible that better results may be had for powder based fusion processes used for metal alloys, especially when the connecting members are large enough and the key property being solved for is mechanical stiffness (as opposed to fracture toughness or fatigue life).
2. Cell Level Homogenization
The most common approach in the literature is the use of homogenization – representing the effective property of the cellular structure without regard to the cellular geometry itself. This approach has significantly lower computational expense associated with its implementation. Additionally, it is relatively straightforward to develop a model by fitting a power law to experimental data [5-8] as shown in the equation below, relating the effective modulus E* to the bulk material property Es and their respective densities (ρ and ρs), by solving for the constants C and n.
While a homogenization approach is useful in generating comparative, qualitative data, it has some difficulties in being used as a reliable material model in analysis & simulation. This is first and foremost since the majority of the experiments do not consider size and contact effects. Secondly, even if these were considered, the homogenization of the cells only works for the specific cell in question (e.g. octet truss or hexagonal honeycomb) – so every new cell type needs to be re-characterized. Finally, the homogenization of these cells can lose insight into how structures behave in the transition region between different volume fractions, even if each cell type is calibrated at a range of volume fractions – this is likely to be exacerbated for failure modeling.
3. Member Modeling
The third approach involves describing behavior not at each material point or at the level of the cell, but at a level in-between: the connecting member (also referred to as strut or beam). This approach has been used by researchers [9-11] including us at PADT  by invoking beam theory to first describe what is happening at the level of the member and then use that information to build up to the level of the cells.
This approach, while promising, is beset with some challenges as well: it requires experimental characterization at the cellular level, which brings in the previously mentioned challenges. Additionally, from a computational standpoint, the validation of these models typically requires a modeling of the full cellular geometry, which can be prohibitively expensive. Finally, the theory involved in representing member level detail is more complex, makes assumptions of its own (e.g. modeling the “fixed” ends) and it is not proven adequately at this point if this is justified by a significant improvement in the model’s predictability compared to the above two approaches. This approach does have one significant promise: if we are able to accurately describe behavior at the level of a member, it is a first step towards a truly shape and size independent model that can bridge with ease between say, an octet truss and an auxetic structure, or different sizes of cells, as well as the transitions between them – thus enabling true freedom to the designer and analyst. It is for this reason that we are focusing on this approach.
Continuum models are easy to implement and for relatively isotropic processes and materials such as metal fusion, may be a good approximation of stiffness and deformation behavior. We know through our own experience that these models perform very poorly when the process is anisotropic (such as FDM), even when the bulk constitutive model incorporates the anisotropy.
Homogenization at the level of the cell is an intuitive improvement and the experimental insights gained are invaluable – comparison between cell type performances, or dependencies on member thickness & cell size etc. are worthy data points. However, caution needs to be exercised when developing models from them for use in analysis (simulation), though the relative ease of their computational implementation is a very powerful argument for pursuing this line of work.
Finally, the member level approach, while beset with challenges of its own, is a promising direction forward since it attempts to address behavior at a level that incorporates process and geometric detail. The approach we have taken at PADT is in line with this approach, but specifically seeks to bridge the continuum and cell level models by using cellular structure response to extract a point-wise material property. Our preliminary work has shown promise for cells of similar sizes and ongoing work, funded by America Makes, is looking to expand this into a larger, non-empirical model that can span cell types. If this is an area of interest to you, please connect with me on LinkedIn for updates. If you have questions or comments, please email us at email@example.com or drop me a message on LinkedIn.
Updated (8/30/2016): Two corrections made following suggestions by Gilbert Peters: the first corrects the use of honeycomb structures in radiator grille applications as being for flow conditioning, the second corrects the use of the Maxwell stability criterion, replacing the space frame example with an octet truss.
Within the design element, the first step in implementing cellular structures in Additive Manufacturing (AM) is selecting the appropriate unit cell(s). The unit cell is selected based on the performance desired of it as well as the manufacturability of the cells. In this post, I wish to delve deeper into the different types of cellular structures and why the classification is important. This will set the stage for defining criteria for why certain unit cell designs are preferable over others, which I will attempt in future posts. This post will also explain in greater detail what a “lattice” structure, a term that is often erroneously used to describe all cellular solids, truly is.
Honeycombs are prismatic, 2-dimensional cellular designs extruded in the 3rd dimension, like the well-known hexagonal honeycomb shown in Figure 1. All cross-sections through the 3rd dimension are thus identical, making honeycombs somewhat easy to model. Though the hexagonal honeycomb is most well known, the term applies to all designs that have this prismatic property, including square and triangular honeycombs. Honeycombs have a strong anisotropy in the 3rd dimension – in fact, the modulus of regular hexagonal and triangular honeycombs is transversely isotropic – equal in all directions in the plane but very different out-of-plane.
1.2 Design Implications The 2D nature of honeycomb structures means that their use is beneficial when the environmental conditions are predictable and the honeycomb design can be oriented in such a way to extract maximum benefit. One such example is the crash structure in Figure 2 as well as a range of sandwich panels. Several automotive radiator grilles are also of a honeycomb design to condition the flow of air. In both cases, the direction of the environmental stimulus is known – in the former, the impact load, in the latter, airflow.
2. Open-Cell Foam
Freeing up the prismatic requirement on the honeycomb brings us to a fully 3-dimensionalopen-cell foam design as shown in one representation of a unit cell in Figure 3. Typically, open-cell foams are bending-dominated, distinguishing them from stretch-dominated lattices, which are discussed in more detail in a following section on lattices.
2.2 Design Implications Unlike the honeycomb, open cell foam designs are more useful when the environmental stimulus (stress, flow, heat) is not as predictable and unidirectional. The bending dominated mechanism of deformation make open-cell foams ideal for energy absorption – stretch dominated structures tend to be stiffer. As a result of this, applications that require energy absorption such as mattresses and crumple zones in complex structures. The interconnectivity of open-cell foams also makes them a candidate for applications requiring fluid flow through the structure.
3. Closed-Cell Foam
3.1 Definition As the name suggests, closed cell foams are open-cell foams with enclosed cells, such as the representation shown in Figure 6. This typically involves a membrane like structure that may be of varying thickness from the strut-like structures, though this is not necessary. Closed-cell foams arise from a lot of natural processes and are commonly found in nature. In man-made entities, they are commonly found in the food industry (bread, chocolate) and in engineering applications where the enclosed cell is filled with some fluid (like air in bubble wrap, foam for bicycle helmets and fragile packaging).
3.2 Design Implications
The primary benefit of closed cell foams is the ability to encapsulate a fluid of different properties for compressive resilience. From a structural standpoint, while the membrane is a load-bearing part of the structure under certain loads, the additional material and manufacturing burden can be hard to justify. Within the AM context, this is a key area of interest for those exploring 3D printing food products in particular but may also have value for biomimetic applications.
Lattices are in appearance very similar to open cell foams but differ in that lattice member deformation is stretch-dominated, as opposed to bending*. This is important since for the same material allocation, structures tend to be stiffer in tension and/or compression compared to bending – by contrast, bending dominated structures typically absorb more energy and are more compliant.
So the question is – when does an open cell foam become stretch dominated and therefore, a lattice? Fortunately, there is an app equation for that.
Maxwell’s Stability Criterion
Maxwell’s stability criterion involves the computation of a metric M for a lattice-like structure with b struts and j joints as follows:
In 2D structures: M = b – 2j + 3
In 3D structures: M = b – 3j + 6
Per Maxwell’s criterion, for our purposes here where the joints are locked (and not pinned), if M < 0, we get a structure that is bending dominated. If M >= 0, the structure is stretch dominated. The former constitutes an open-cell foam, the latter a lattice.
There are several approaches to establishing the appropriateness of a lattice design for a structural applications (connectivity, static and kinematic determinism etc.) and how they are applied to periodic structures and space frames. It is easy for one (including for this author) to confuse these ideas and their applicability. For the purposes of AM, Maxwell’s Stability Criterion for 3D structures is a sufficient condition for static determinancy. Further, for a periodic structure to be truly space-filling (as we need for AM applications), there is no simple rigid polyhedron that fits the bill – we need a combination of polyhedra (such as an octahedron and tetrahedron in the octet truss shown in the video below) to generate true space filling, and rigid structures. The 2001 papers by Deshpande, Ashby and Fleck illustrate these ideas in greater detail and are referenced at the end of this post.
Video: The octet truss is a classic stretch-dominated structure, with b = 36 struts, j = 14 joints and M = 0 [Attr. Lawrence Livermore National Labs]
4.2 Design Implications Lattices are the most common cellular solid studied in AM – this is primarily on account of their strong structural performance in applications where high stiffness-to-weight ratio is desired (such as aerospace), or where stiffness modulation is important (such as in medical implants). However, it is important to realize that there are other cellular representations that have a range of other benefits that lattice designs cannot provide.
Conclusion: Why this matters
It is a fair question to ask why this matters – is this all just semantics? I would like to argue that the above classification is vital since it represents the first stage of selecting a unit cell for a particular function. Generally speaking, the following guidelines apply:
Honeycomb structures for predictable, unidirectional loading or flow
Open cell foams where energy absorption and compliance is important
Closed cell foams for fluid-filled and hydrostatic applications
Lattice structures where stiffness and resistance to bending is critical
Finally, another reason it is important to retain the bigger picture on all cellular solids is it ensures that the discussion of what we can do with AM and cellular solids includes all the possibilities and is not limited to only stiffness driven lattice designs.
Note: This blog post is part of a series on “Additive Manufacturing of Cellular Solids” that I am writing over the coming year, diving deep into the fundamentals of this exciting and fast evolving topic. To ensure you get each post (~2 a month) or to give me feedback for improvement, please connect with me on LinkedIn.
 Ashby, “Materials Selection in Mechanical Design,” Fourth Edition, 2011
 Gibson & Ashby, “Cellular Solids: Structure & Properties,” Second Edition, 1997
 Gibson, Ashby & Harley, “Cellular Materials in Nature & Medicine,” First Edition, 2010
 Ashby, Evans, Fleck, Gibson, Hutchinson, Wadley, “Metal Foams: A Design Guide,” First Edition, 2000
 Deshpande, Ashby, Fleck, “Foam Topology Bending versus Stretching Dominated Architectures,” Acta Materialia 49, 2001
 Deshpande, Fleck, Ashby, “Effective properties of the octet-truss lattice material,” Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids, 49, 2001
* We defer to reference  in distinguishing lattice structures as separate from foams – this is NOT the approach used in  and  where lattices are treated implicitly as a subset of open-cell foams. The distinction is useful from a structural perspective and as such is retained here.
The Committee aims to meet once a month, our second meeting occurs Monday, July 11 2016 at the ASU Polytechnic Campus and is open to anyone in Arizona that works in Additive Manufacturing and has an interest in promoting its growth statewide through collaboration. For more info, connect with me on LinkedIn or send a note to firstname.lastname@example.org and cite this blog post.