incentives for product repairs using 3d ......incentives for product repairs using 3d printing...

Incentives for product repairs using 3D printing and digital manufacturing spaces – Synthesis | PAGE 1

INCENTIVES FOR PRODUCT REPAIRS USING 3D PRINTING AND DIGITAL MANUFACTURING SPACES

Current Status and Future Action

SYNTHESIS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We extend our thanks to all the people who contributed to this study, and in particular to the workshop participants.

Erwann Fangeat and Simon Cousin (ADEME)

Jean-Philippe Allain (Boulanger)

Laurent Falconieri (La Compagnie du SAV)

Yves Lecoq (Eco Logik Art)

Olivier Guillou and Smaïl Boudou (IdeoKub)

Alain Pautrot (Seb)

Mathilde Berchon (TechShop)

Gabriel Jobin (Trira)

CITATION OF THIS REPORT

ADEME, Deloitte Développement durable, O. JAN, D. CHATEAU, D. PERNOT, P. BEURET, F. MACCARIO, P. KUCH,

M. LOUBIERE. 2017. Incentives for product repairs using 3D printing and digital manufacturing spaces. 20 p

This report is available online at www.ademe.fr/mediatheque

Any complete or partial representation or reproduction carried out without the consent of the author or his successors in title or assignees is prohibited according to the French Intellectual Property Code (art. L122-4) and constitutes an infringement punishable by the Criminal Code. Only copies or reproductions strictly reserved for the copyist's private usage and not intended for collective usage are authorized (art. 122-5), as well as analyses and quotations of short passages that are justified by the critical, educational or informational nature of the work in which they are incorporated, subject, nevertheless, to compliance with articles L 122-10 to L 122-12 of the same Code, as relates to reprographic reproduction.

This document is distributed by ADEME

20, avenue du Grésillé

BP 90406 | 49004 Angers Cedex 01

Contract number : 1502C0153

Study conducted for ADEME by Deloitte Développement Durable (Olivier JAN, Didier

CHATEAU, Delphine PERNOT, Pierre BEURET, Florent MACCARIO)

Technical coordination - ADEME : Marie HERVIER-COLLAS

Circular Economy and Waste Division / Department of Products & Material Efficiency

http://www.ademe.fr/mediatheque


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1. Background ................................................................................................................................. 5

1.2. Objectives of this study ............................................................................................................... 6

2. Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 6

3. An overview of current repair practices that involve digital manufacturing techniques .................... 7

3.1. Digital manufacturing repairs are still a rare occurrence. ........................................................... 7

3.2. How can 3D printing and digital manufacturing spaces boost repair activity? ........................... 8

3.3. Various constraints and barriers are identified by players, depending on position and approach

to repair issues – commercial activity, experimental projects or social awareness campaigns. 9

4. Environmental and health impacts and legal repercussions of digital manufacturing for product

repair .............................................................................................................................................. 10

4.1. Environmental impacts ............................................................................................................. 10

4.2. Evaluation of health risks .......................................................................................................... 11

4.3. The legal stakes of digital manufacturing ................................................................................. 12

5. Ways to encourage repair work and associated organizational models ........................................ 12

5.1. Complementary organizational models .................................................................................... 13

5.2. Conditions required for the success of all models .................................................................... 15

6. Measures to expand the repair activity chain ................................................................................. 15

7. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 16

Index of tables and figures .................................................................................................................... 18

Glossary ................................................................................................................................................. 18

Abbreviations and acronyms ................................................................................................................. 20


ABSTRACT

This study is a first look at the practices of repairing consumer goods using 3D printing and repairs at digital

manufacturing spaces. We hope to shed light on the capacity of these new technologies and new places to expand

current repair activities. This report also identifies further data needed to confirm the environmental benefits of this

technology and to assess associated health risks. Our aim is to suggest organizational models to enhance the

development of repairs using these technologies and spaces, and to determine steps to drive implementation of these

models.


1. Introduction Product repair, a fundamental pillar of the circular economy, could be invigorated by 3D printing and digital manufacturing spaces.

1.1. Background

Repairs are at the core of the circular economy. Repairs prolong product life, and thereby reduce the environmental impact of manufacturing (products not replaced) and of waste management. Repair activity contributes to the circular economy.The term "repair" is used in its common sense of returning a product to an operational state so that the owner can use it and does not have to discard and/or replace it.1 Manufacturers, retail distributors and repair enterprises are the main players in the repairs economy. There are three main circuits for repair activity: self-repair, when a product is repaired by the owner; repair by a professional service, for products under warranty, and repair by professionals for products not under warranty.

The emergence of 3D printing is driving a new concept of decentralized and on-demand production that opens the way to applications relevant to repair activity.

The term 3D printing is commonly used to designate additive manufacturing (AM), a process based on successive application of material to create an object. The three techniques most frequently used today are material jetting, the depositing of successive layers of material; powder bed fusion and photopolymerization. Additive manufacturing has been increasingly used by manufacturers since the late 1970s, initially for rapid prototyping, and then for full-scale production of components. Starting in the 2000s small and low-cost "office" 3D printers came on the market, enabling small enterprises and the general public to appropriate this technology. These devices apply just one type of material, generally plastic, unlike industrial devices that for the most part use metals. Today 3D printing means that a replacement part can be immediately made to order to replace a defective component, as long as logistics circuits are in place to handle geographically dispersed needs. Online 3D printing, printing services in stores or digital manufacturing spaces are options that could potentially be developed to supplement conventional chains for replacement parts, and respond to consumer demand for repair solutions, as people are increasingly inclined to change their product consumption habits.2

Digital manufacturing spaces can contribute to repair activity by making these digital techniques available to experienced "do-it-yourselfers" and to the general public.

The term "digital manufacturing space" encompasses all types of facilities, studios and workshops that make digital manufacturing technology available to users. These spaces exist under several designations today: FabLab, i.e. fabrication laboratory; hackerspace and TechShop. These are places where people make things and can be called makerspaces. By recent count there are 200 such digital manufacturing spaces in France, fairly evenly distributed across the country. Digital manufacturing spaces are used by "do-it-yourself" (DIY) enthusiasts. Digital manufacturing for repairs fits perfectly into this trend because it can be used to model and produce replacement parts. This movement also frequently involves tutorials to help users diagnose defects, and to take apart and reassemble products. Digital manufacturing spaces attract people who like challenges and groups them into a community that stimulates innovation and repair activity. Repair professionals and individuals alike could have recourse to this community and to members of digital and electronic manufacturing spaces. The technology and the tools for repairs onsite in these digital manufacturing spaces make them potential players in repair activity.

1 Brochure Réemploi, réparation et réutilisation, ADEME, 2015. 2 L’ObSoCo / Le Groupe La Poste, DPDgroup, MAIF, PICOM. 2015.

– Manufacturers, who in their capacity as product designers directly influence product repairability, and are responsible for making replacement parts available;

– Retail distributors, who can encourage sale of repairable products, and of second-hand products that have been repaired, and who in some product chains (household appliances) are in charge of collecting used products;

– Players directly involved in repairs and reuse: independent repair trades, social economy and solidarity enterprises, consumer "self-repair" groups.

Consumers are a key factor in expanding repair activity, via their implication in "responsible behaviour".

Better assessment of devices and components that have been discarded,

collected and sorted, to determine those that can be reused or repaired

(e.g. checking functional status).


1.2. Objectives of this study This study aims to determine how 3D printing can facilitate access to replacement parts for common consumer goods. This work is articulated around three poles:

Survey of the ways in which 3D printing and digital manufacturing spaces are currently implicated in repair practices;

Analysis of the environmental, health and legal impacts of these activities;

Proposals for future development and organizational models to expand repair activity, and analysis of their economic and social consequences.

In conclusion this report outlines possible action to guide all stakeholders in repair activity as well as government authorities towards the most appropriate measures to encourage repair practices via digital manufacturing spaces and 3D printing.

2. Methodology This study is based on information gathered from various sources: a literature review, discussions with stakeholders and specialists in the field, an online questionnaire and feedback from outside experts. Analysis of this information has yielded the following findings:

An overview of current repair practices that involve digital manufacturing (phase I);

Analysis of these practices, their environmental impacts, evaluation of health risks, legal issues (phase II);

Potential organizational models and their socio-economic impacts (phase III). The phase III findings were also discussed and explored in a workshop with stakeholder representatives to refine the suggested models and draw up recommendations for ways to develop repair activity by using additive manufacturing techniques and digital manufacturing spaces.

Figure 1 – General methodology

Methodological approaches used in each phase are described in detail in the full study report.


3. An overview of current repair practices that involve digital manufacturing techniques

This overview looks at digital manufacturing repair practices, e.g. using digital manufacturing (3D printing, digital milling tools, 2D laser) to produce a part to replace a defective component in mass consumer goods. These practices are found across several product repair stages (see Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Product repair stages involving component replacement by a traditionally manufactured part (injection moulding) or

a digitally produced part (3D printing)

3.1. Digital manufacturing repairs are still a rare occurrence This overview is based on interviews and on a questionnaire distributed to digital manufacturing spaces, professional 3D printing services, manufacturers, retail distributors, repair professionals, proponents of self-repair, institutional actors and more broadly specialists of digital manufacturing. In all 92 people were interviewed for this study. Over half of them stated they had never or rarely encountered repair work involving digital manufacturing techniques. Over half of those who had encountered digital repair work stated that there were fewer than 25 repair jobs involving digital manufacturing in their enterprise or institution in 2015. Use of 3D printing to produce replacement parts is still marginal, whether in digital manufacturing spaces or elsewhere, and the scope of application varies with the sector (type of product, repair activity, volume). The occurrences of 3D printing repair practices involve mainly household appliances and home furnishings (decorative objects, dishware, tools, furniture) for which there is considerable consumer need and which often comprise plastic exterior components that can be reproduced. It is generally easier to repair a readily accessible exterior ornamental item made of plastic such as buttons, ventilation grills, casing and housings that do not determine the functioning of the device, than to repair a motor part made of metal. Hence digital manufacturing has little place in the automobile industry, given the exacting standards for manufacture and certification of replacement parts, and digital manufacturing times that are long compared to traditional mass production processes. In this repair sector the use of second-hand parts is the preferred option for replacement.


Material jetting 3D printing is the digital manufacturing technique most often used to create replacement parts for repairs. This is correlated with the dissemination of affordable office printers, with prices starting at around €500. The quality of production,however, does not meet users' expectations for visual and thermomechanical characteristics. Digital manufacturing spaces are inherently aimed at creative work, and repair work constitutes an experimental approach. Repair workshops are offered in partnership with self-repair advocates who have not yet themselves invested in this technology, and who want to develop this activity using digital manufacturing. Digital manufacturing spaces also propose other digital manufacturing techniques such as subtractive manufacturing (see Glossary). These other techniques have limitations (notably compatible materials and size restrictions), and for the time being are capable of producing only simple parts, compared to 3D printing. Professional 3D printing services, equipped with 3D printers, have positioned themselves in digital production of replacement parts. Some professionals produce over 500 components annually, a volume that is 20 times more than the average production of the other producers we interviewed (digital manufacturing spaces, repair professionals, manufacturers and distributors, self-repair advocates). Traditional repair service providers (independent technicians and artisans, certified repair services and distributors' after-sales services) have for their part adopted the stance of observers of the 3D printing trend), and they are waiting for more assurances regarding the quality and profitability of this activity. The practices we have observed are not yet widely integrated into the after-sales services of manufacturers and retail distributors. There are two exceptions in France, however: The SEB brand and the Boulanger retail chain have deployed 3D printing with the aim of securing customer loyalty. The short-term objective for SEB is to produce some of its replacement parts using 3D printing. The company has pledged to repair its products during the ten years following withdrawal of a product from the market. SEB intends to draw on a stock of traditionally produced parts during the first five to six years of this guarantee period, and rely on 3D printing to supply parts during the final four years. Retailer Boulanger launched its Happy3D platform in June 2016; this general-public platform provides digital blueprints for some replacement parts for Boulanger's two store brands (Listo and Essential B) and lets users share their own files. Self-repair advocates and enterprises that refurbish used equipment for reuse have not yet turned to digital manufacturing for replacement parts, due to the immaturity of these techniques and their high cost.

3.2. How can 3D printing and digital manufacturing spaces boost repair activity? The declining activity of the repairs sector, and more broadly the limited scope of home appliance and consumer device repairs in France, are due to restrictive factors that have been identified in several studies. These factors constitute constraints in economic, organizational or technological domains, and are manifested in different ways, depending on the type of appliance or device, and the nature of the repair enterprise. Digital manufacturing spaces and 3D printing can potentially remove some of these constraints and limiting factors.

Under certain conditions 3D printing can lower the cost of replacement parts for manufacturers, when

it is used to supplement traditional manufacturing, for parts that are no longer produced. Evaluation of

this cost reduction is a complex operation, because indirect cost reductions must be taken into account

(storage, transport).

3D printing can make certain parts more rapidly available when they are no longer in stock, on an

as-needed basis, to the extent that blueprints or plans exist and if the parts can be produced by 3D

printing techniques.

Digital manufacturing spaces can simplify repairs for certain products, by making tools and know-

how available.

Digital manufacturing spaces and 3D printing can improve the attractiveness of repair trades by

imparting an image of innovation and contributing to the higher skills levels that come with mastering

new technology.

3D printing can be an economically viable and relatively fast solution for producing parts that are no longer available, or hard to find.


Digital manufacturing spaces and 3D printing can act as levers for repair practices in their present form. The innovative and transformative aspects of 3D printing can encourage manufacturers and distributors to appropriate this approach and integrate it into their after-sales service strategy. 3D printing technology is rapidly evolving, as seen in improved print quality, shorter production times, and the possibility of printing on an ever wider range of materials. Some of these innovative techniques could lead us to rethink the ways in which products are repaired, for example if 3D printing could be used to make electronic circuit boards it would be possible to produce electronic components that are the source of a growing number of failures. In sum, this technology has spurred the emergence of 3D printing services and entrepreneurs, some of whom are a driving force for production of replacement parts for repair activity. Digital manufacturing spaces host advocates of DIY activities, as well as a target audience of people who are eager to take on challenges. When grouped together this community stimulates innovation. Repair issues could be part of this universe, seen through the lenses of innovation and challenge. This would be all the more powerful in that repairs would be approached by non-specialists who do not have preconceived notions about repair work. Repair professionals and individuals alike could have recourse to this community and to members of digital and electronic manufacturing spaces. Some digital manufacturing spaces are looking for economic models and sources of revenue, and want to cut back their dependence on public subsidies. For the time being these spaces focus on creating new products and artistic works, and do not put a priority on developing services using digital manufacturing for repairs, but this could change if these practices were to develop and become profitable. There are intrinsic limitations to 3D printing and digital manufacturing that for the moment restrict their domain of application. At present it takes significantly more time to produce a component by 3D printing than by traditional techniques, and this can be costly. As the thermomechanical properties of 3D-printed components generally have not been considered in the design stage, the parts produced are not suitable for use, in most cases. Despite recent progress 3D-printed parts are for the most part poorly finished, with rough, unpolished surfaces and irregularities of form that are an obstacle to use in visible components. In addition to the technology they offer, these studios are collaborative working spaces where the reigning concept is diversity of projects and where the high volume strategy that is key to production on an industrial scale is not likely to take hold. For similar reasons these spaces will probably multiply in number rather than grow in size. In this light it would seem that repair activity will be restricted to experimentation or upcycling of objects in this kind of digital manufacturing studio. Digital manufacturing spaces dedicated to repair activity and its model of operations remain to be invented.

3.3. Various constraints and barriers are identified by players, depending on position and approach to repair issues – commercial activity, experimental projects or social awareness campaigns.

Most approaches stem from self-repair practices, a movement hampered by low consumer awareness of repairs in general, due to lack of interest or simply out of ignorance that repairs are possible. This hurdle is perceived by all stakeholders, even if it is not identified by all as the principal barrier. Digital manufacturing spaces see poor repairability of mass consumer goods as a major obstacle, while

manufacturers, distributors and repair technicians do not identify this as a barrier.3 The positions of the

different players also diverge on the significance of non-competitive costs and unsuitable technology. Users of digital manufacturing spaces are not as sensitive to these factors as are manufacturers looking to attain a profitability threshold. In relation to this constraint, objects made with today's digital manufacturing technology are considered to be

subject to degradation over time and sensitive to outdoor conditions.4

Cost competitiveness: The direct unit cost of additive manufacturing for a replacement part is currently much higher than the cost of a traditional bulk manufacturing process that has not been halted (injection

moulding), due to the cost of materials and services. 5 It can be noted that volume production strategies put in

place by some professionals have already brought down costs through economies of scale on the cost of raw materials and equipment output. Furthermore, as mentioned above, storage and transport costs are presumably lower for additive manufacturing, increasing its cost competitiveness.

3 Poor repairability indicators are the impossibility of manufacturing a replacement part, disassembling a product and/or pinpointing defects

and failure, as well as low economic attractiveness. 4 Pîrjan A., The impact of 3d printing technology on the society and economy, 2013. 5 Pîrjan A., The impact of 3d printing technology on the society and economy, 2013.


According to manufacturers, distributors, repair enterprises and 3D printing services, legal risks are a threat to the future development of these practices. These stakeholders feel that the legal framework is fuzzy, and that the absence of jurisprudence prevents them from fully investing in this activity chain, for reasons related to producer liability and counterfeit production (see section Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.). Some questions still remain pertaining to the technical characteristics and reliability of components created by additive manufacturing, and producers' reputations are at stake. Competition with traditional repair technicians and artisans and repair enterprises such as Repair Cafés is not seen as a threat. The low volume of work taken in by these trades and enterprises and the different market segments targeted explains the fact that players do not for the moment fear competition from this quarter. The emergence of 3D manufacturing is in fact often seen as a supplementary service that they themselves could use. Inversely, 3D printing manufacture of replacement parts could compete with the activity of traditional parts makers.

4. Environmental and health impacts and legal repercussions of digital manufacturing for product repair

4.1. Environmental impacts A quantitative life cycle analysis was carried out to compare the environmental impacts of two scenarios for repairs in a workshop.

3D printing scenario: design and manufacture of a replacement part made of ABS plastic by 3D printing directly in a repair shop, followed by the repair work;

Reference scenario (traditional process): manufacture, ordering and storage of a replacement part made of ABS plastic (produced by moulding in a factory), followed by repair work.The findings of this analysis are the following:


Figure 3 – Findings of simplified LCA

Our simplified LCA shows that energy consumption, and impacts on climate change and water pollution

(fresh water eutrophication) of the two models are comparable; the difference between the two models was

not significant. The reference scenario was found to have a lesser impact on fresh water eutrophication, but

even in this scenario the impact was non-negligible, and in both scenarios the impacts were of the same order

of magnitude. It is interesting to note that shipping (to/from owner of the product to be repaired, of

replacement parts) is not a significant factor in the overall environmental impact. There are certain limit

to this analysis. Even if overall findings and impacts are given for each stage of the product life cycle, the lack

of primary data and exhaustive references in the literature make it hard to establish a true comparison between

the two models.

We were not able to draw any conclusions on comparative waste generation, due to a lack of primary data

on the loss of raw materials in the 3D printing process (e.g. discarded template materials), on the number of

components manufactured but ultimately discarded because they were not needed, or on the comparative life

span of parts made by 3D printing or by traditional processes. We can nonetheless state that:

Digital manufacturing generates little waste in a unitary production model, whereas traditional processes

have advantages in environmental terms for mass production of parts once a mould is created.

Consequently it appears that the two techniques have distinct applications, and are complementary

rather than one substituting for the other.

Digital manufacturing eliminates the need to keep replacement parts in stock, and improves the repair

process by making parts more readily available, and thereby reduces waste.

For the time being parts made using 3D printing tend to degrade over time and are sensitive to outdoor

exposure.6

Within the limits mentioned above, and recognizing that more in-depth analysis is necessary, these findings

show that 3D printing does not appear to have clear environmental advantages over traditional

processes, and that these benefits remain to be demonstrated. The impacts of resource depletion and

waste generation in particular call for attention, notably during phases that have been little studied: production

of ABS pellets and filaments for printed electronics, post-production reprocessing, and end-of-life treatment.

4.2. Evaluation of health risks Atmospheric pollutants (gases and particles) are emitted during 3D manufacturing of replacement parts. This is probably the stage for which impacts show the greatest difference compared to traditional manufacturing. Different ways of using 3D printers engender different impacts. Use in a FabLab studio is non-intensive use that entails acute exposure to risk, whereas industrial processes entail chronic exposure linked to intensive use of equipment. Production of raw materials and shipping of replacement parts are nearly identical for the two models, and the associated risks were not analysed.

6 Pîrjan A., The impact of 3d printing technology on the society and economy, 2013.


A simplified evaluation of health risks was based on simulated use in a FabLab space with acute exposure of two hours a day for five days, in a shop area of 45 m². In this scenario:

Simplified evaluation of risks linked to emission of atmospheric gases supports the conclusion of an absence of health risk.

At this time it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding risks related to nanoparticles. Precautionary principles should be applied, with several possible measures: operating 3D printers under air extraction hoods and chimney stacks equipped with filters; individual protective wear and devices for operators and users. It can be noted that emission filtering equipment is offered by some enterprises.

It also emerged from our interviews that work should be done to evaluate the toxicity of plastics that come into contact with foodstuffs.

4.3. The legal stakes of digital manufacturing

Contrary to common belief, existing regulations are favourable to repair work using digital

manufacturing. The current legislative framework is favourable to repairs and to the production of replacement

parts of all sorts, and hence to digital manufacturing as well as traditional processes.

EU legislation pertaining to automobile repairs aims to make sure consumers have a wide choice of replacement parts.

National legislation in France requires product manufacturers and vendors to provide consumers with information on the length of time during which replacement parts will be available for the product purchased, and to supply parts during this same period.

Programmed obsolescence is punishable by law, giving further incentive to manufacturers to make component parts available to consumers so that products can be repaired.

Stakeholders in repair activity have pointed out a risk of fraud and counterfeit production. This view should be tempered with some moderation, however, as it is often legal to use digital manufacturing to make replacement parts without the original manufacturer's consent.

Many component parts are not protected and are not eligible for protection under intellectual property law. Only rights to drawings, plans and models, and authors' rights (to a lesser extent) can be used by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to claim exclusive rights to component parts. The scope of these legal protections is restricted, as it does not apply to visible parts that are ornamental in nature.

The "private copy" exception gives consumers the right to copy and manufacture components to be used for self-repair of their own products.

Professional repair enterprises can legally request authorization from OEMs to reproduce/manufacture by digital means the replacement parts they need for their activity. Consent depends on the manufacturer's decision, and on condition that the manufacturer possesses digital blueprints.

The second major legal risk identified by stakeholders pertains to liability in the event a replacement part is defective. This risk is shared by all stakeholders in the production chain, as is the case for traditional production of replacement parts.

The producers of the part and of the supporting digital file, as well as vendors of parts or files, may be considered to be manufacturers, and thus may be held liable.

In the case of liability for a defective part, either the raw material, the physical object or the digital file may be considered to be products engaging the producer's responsibility.

5. Ways to encourage repair work and associated organizational models The spread of digital manufacturing equipment, the flourishing of digital technology for the sharing of plans and blueprints and wider access to this type of equipment could drive decentralized manufacturing of replacement parts, to the benefit of smaller enterprises. Digital manufacturing is the point of departure enabling new players such as digital manufacturing spaces and professional 3D printing services to position themselves in repair activity. It has also allowed some traditional enterprises to procure the means to make certain types of spare parts.


These developments call into question the traditional organization of repair activities and open the way to

new organizational models that support development of this sector.7 Factors that work against repair

activity, as described in the detailed assessment above (see section 3.3) lead us to imagine four possible models that would remove these obstacles and boost product repairs by 3D printing.

5.1. Complementary organizational models Model 1 : Digital manufacturing companies offer 3D printing services as subcontractors to OEMs This model could soon be put in place, but would necessitate adoption of quality standards for 3D printing and for repair operations. This model could in time evolve towards professional 3D printing services to produce replacement parts for repair professionals (model 2).

Figure 4 – Professional 3D printing services subcontract to manufacturers (model 1)

7 The term "organizational model" refers to the coordination of entities in the value chain, to the flow of information, replacement parts,

digital plans, and to the production of parts as well as the repair work itself.


Model 2 : Digital manufacturing services produce replacement parts for repair professionals The strong point of this model is that it relies on professional 3D printing services for distribution, and is thus close to customers, reducing delivery times, costs and environmental impacts.

Figure 5 – Professional 3D printing services subcontract to repair enterprises (model 2)

Model 3 : Professional 3D printing services produce replacement parts for individual consumers This model stands alongside the others, enabling consumers to order replacement parts directly from 3D printers, eliminating intermediaries. This model can be implemented without delay, and independently of the first two models. It is likely to remain marginal as it depends on consumer self-repair, a low volume market.

Figure 6 – Professional 3D printing services produce replacement parts for individual consumers (model 3)

Model 4 : Digital manufacturing spaces as places to stimulate awareness and experimentation This last model gives digital manufacturing spaces a role in raising awareness and stimulating experimentation.


In this model the manufacturing space would not focus on direct production but on working with the general public and businesses that want to discover, learn, create and above all make repairs using digital manufacturing techniques. It would be complementary to the above three production models, and would continue the pursuit of digital manufacturing for leisure, innovation and discovery of new horizons.

Figure 7 – Digital manufacturing spaces as places to stimulate awareness and experimentation (model 4)

5.2. Conditions required for the success of all models The prime condition for all models is that replacement parts be of sufficient quality to be used in repairs. To ensure quality (durability, safety, etc.) only digital plans certified by OEMs should be used to repair malfunctioning products. Several types of organization are possible:

Authorized 3D printing professionals use only files supplied by OEMs;

OEMs certify their digital plans and reject all responsibility for production of replacement parts by third parties;

OEMs certify the quality of replacement parts printed by third parties, under certain conditions: printer type, calibration, raw materials, etc.

Digital manufacturing of parts must be economically viable for all entities in the value chain, from OEMs to 3D printers to consumers, including repair enterprises that are facing economic upheaval in their sector.

6. Measures to expand the repair activity chain Our overview of repair practices involving digital manufacturing shows that there is still uncertainty as to the role to be played by digital manufacturing in repair activity. The first three organizational models, which can be qualified as commercial business models because they imply volume and profitability, address this uncertainty to some extent, but their technical and economic viability remains to be proven. A first round of financial aid aims to support development of these models. ADEME, public authorities in general, and the stakeholders in repair activity all have a role to play in improving the playing field for repairs using digital manufacturing – standards, promotion, fiscal incentives, etc. Financial aid could be granted directly to innovative schemes under national financing programmes (e.g. the Investments for the Future programme in France), to better assess their potential to meet the objective of expanding repair activity, by prolonging product life, relocating jobs and consolidating economic activity.


The fourth model, assigning digital manufacturing spaces a role to stimulate awareness and experimentation, would both augment demand for repairs and encourage ongoing experimentation, an essential factor to ensure the emergence of new practices. A second round of financial aid aims to provide ongoing support for this model. Financial aid could be provided to digital manufacturing spaces via national and regional funding to build awareness of broad changes in consumer behaviour, not limited to just repair activity, and experimentation with repair techniques using digital manufacturing proposed by professionals. Incentives could be designed to encourage stakeholders to share and exchange good practices in repairs. The key element here, as seen in the overview and analysis of inhibiting factors, is the lack of maturity of 3D printing technology, in terms of cost, delivery times and quality, followed by a shortfall of skilled operators to apply these techniques for repairs. A third round of financing targets research and training. Public authorities have an important role to play to facilitate innovation, and to this end stimulate development and teaching of 3D printing technology. Applied research is also supported by facilitating experimentation in digital manufacturing spaces (second round of aid).

7. Conclusions This initial study focuses on the use of 3D printing and in digital manufacturing spaces for repair of common consumer products and devices in France. It provides the basis for assessment of the capacity of these new technologies and spaces to stimulate current repair activity. This work also identifies the data gaps that need to be filled in order to reach conclusions on certain aspects, notably the environmental benefits of this technology, and then to propose organizational models that stimulate repair activity through use of these techniques, and to outline measures to put these models into place. At present 3D printing seems suitable for local and on-demand production of parts in quantities that can be adjusted to needs. Orders could be filled more rapidly, the cost of replacement parts could diminish, and parts that are not available could be produced. Digital manufacturing spaces host this technology and could become prime poles for production of replacement parts. They are also frequented by "do-it-yourselfers" who could help consumers discover the pleasure of self-repair. Use of 3D printing to produce replacement parts is still marginal today, whether in digital manufacturing spaces or elsewhere, and the scope of application varies with the sector (type of product, repair activity, volume). Digital manufacturing techniques are not cost-competitive for most replacement parts today, compared to traditional manufacturing methods, nor do they ensure sufficient quality to meet the variable requirements of different product chains, within an acceptable time frame. The use of digital technology for self-repair continues to hampered by low consumer awareness of repair issues. According to stakeholders, manufacture of replacement parts is further hampered by other factors, depending on the context (commercial use, experimentation, awareness and advocacy). These include lack of a proper legal framework, absence of consumer awareness, non-repairability of products. Where legal matters are concerned, this survey has cleared up doubts about the risk of infringing counterfeit rules, as in many instances this risk does not exist. Nonetheless, while the technology has intrinsic limitations, it can be a catalyst for traditional repair activity by removing some obstacles to repair work, and thanks to its transformational capacity. It opens the way for new players, digital manufacturing spaces and professional 3D printing services, to enter the repair activity sector. It makes it possible for manufacturers, distributors and repair trades to produce parts for product repair locally and on an as-needed basis. The organizational model of the established repair chain has been called into question, and new complementary models can be envisioned to stimulate development of repair activity. Three models based on volume production and profitability could dispel uncertainty to some degree.

Professional 3D printing services subcontract to manufacturers;

Professional 3D printing services produce replacement parts for repair enterprises;

Professional 3D printing services produce replacement parts for repair enterprises. A fourth model, assigning digital manufacturing spaces a role to stimulate awareness and experimentation, would both augment demand for repairs and encourage ongoing experimentation, an essential factor to ensure the emergence of new practices.


3D printing has the potential to give a new impetus to the repair activity chain, but this will require an effort on the part of players in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors to remove obstacles that have been identified. Digital manufacturing spaces can act as host platforms to accelerate experimental work and stimulate awareness. This report includes recommendations for partnerships between digital manufacturing spaces and manufacturers, distributors and repair enterprises, to stimulate awareness and experimentation at digital manufacturing poles. Recommendations are also made for research and development support measures. Digital manufacturing practices are likely to develop in parallel with traditional processes in the short

and medium term. Technological advances in digital manufacturing must be achieved before these techniques

can have a real impact on the repair activity chain, with applications that go beyond visible parts that are

ornamental and decorative, to penetrate sectors such as the automobile industry as described in the report on

the future of additive manufacturing carried out by PIPAME.8 This report foresees that in ten years' time

replacement parts will be produced in shared mini-plants housing all the necessary equipment and jointly

operated by multiple manufacturers. In 15 years production will be gradually relocated or decentralized to

locations closer to demand.

8 PIPAME, Futur de la fabrication additive, 2017.


Index of tables and figures Figure 1 – General methodology .......................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 – Product repair stages involving component replacement by a traditionally manufactured part (injection moulding) or a digitally produced part (3D printing) .............................................................................. 7 Figure 3 – Findings of simplified LCA ................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 4 – Professional 3D printing services subcontract to manufacturers (model 1) ...................................... 13 Figure 5 – Professional 3D printing services subcontract to repair enterprises (model 2) ................................. 14 Figure 6 – Professional 3D printing services produce replacement parts for individual consumers (model 3) . 14 Figure 7 – Digital manufacturing spaces as places to stimulate awareness and experimentation (model 4) .... 15

Glossary This section provides definitions of the main terms used in this report. Words set in italics refer to other terms listed in the glossary.

3D printing : Term commonly used to designate additive manufacturing.

3D scanner : Digital equipment that scans and renders a 3D image of a form, including in some instances the appearance (colour, texture) of an object.

Additive manufacturing (AM) : Manufacturing technique consisting in depositing successive layers of material, also called 3D printing. This process forms objects by successive layering of material, and today is executed by digitally controlled machines guided by 3D models of the components to be formed. Several techniques exist, the most common being material jetting, powder bed fusion and photopolymerization.

Biohackerspace : Workspace dedicated to living organisms, biotechnology and agronomy that gives users access to laboratory tools.

Digital lathe: Machining technique consisting in using cutting tools to remove material from an initial

cylinder of material. The material is removed by the combined action of the rotation of the cylinder and the cutting of the lathe blade.

Digital manufacturing : Manufacturing process using digitally controlled machine tools. This includes 3D printing, digital milling, digital lathing and laser cutting.

Digital manufacturing space : Workspace that makes digital manufacturing technology available to users. In France these workspaces are for the most part similar to FabLabs or hackerspaces.

Digital milling : Manufacture of mechanical parts, singly or in bulk, by removal of material from blocks or preformed pressed or moulded stock, using a cutting device called a milling machine.

FabLab : Digital manufacturing space that follows the FabLabs charter established by MIT. This charter sets guiding principles, notably pooling of resources and dissemination of knowledge, know-how and projects. By extension, this term is currently (but erroneously) used to designate all digital manufacturing spaces.( http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/charter/)

Functional unit : Reference unit in a life cycle analysis used to quantify the service rendered by the system

under study.

Hackerspace : Collaborative workspace shared by a community of users with a common interest in open

source computing, electronics and manufacturing. Historically linked to militant and counterculture


movements, and centred on information technology, these spaces now often host the same array of technical and technological instruments as found in FabLabs, making them digital manufacturing spaces.

Laser cutting : Manufacturing technique that uses a laser beam to cut material. This is a subtractive manufacturing technique and can be used on a range of materials (plastic, wood, card and cardboard in particular).

Makerspace : Collaborative space where know-how, tools and machines are available to users interested in manufacturing. When this equipment is digitally controlled these workspaces can be called digital manufacturing spaces. FabLabs and hackerspaces can be called makerspaces.

Material jetting : Depositing of successive layers of molten material (plastic, wood or stone filaments,

ceramics and foodstuffs) that are extruded through a nozzle in order to "print" an object by building up a three-dimensional form horizontally, layer by layer. Related terms: fused deposition modelling (FDM) and fused filament fabrication (FFF). http://www.3dnatives.com/depot-de-matiere-fondue-fdm/

Photopolymerization : Process using ultraviolet (UV) laser rays. In this technique a photopolymer resin is

placed in a vat; the build platform is lowered by degrees and and the liquid polymer exposed to light to harden the material. The UV laser beam shapes an object horizontally, layer by layer. This process is repeated until the desired form is obtained.

Powder bed fusion, also called powder binding, binder jetting : Process in which the basic material, in powder form, is fused using various techniques. The prime advantage of fusion is that it can be applied to a broad range of materials, notably metals.

Reuse (EU Framework Directive 2008/98/EC) : Operation by which a product is given or sold by its owner to a another party who will use it for its original purpose. Unlike réutilisation as defined in France, the product retains its status of product, and at no time is labelled as waste. Reuse is not a waste treatment operation, but a stage in waste prevention.

Reuse centre : Place where used products are collected in order to be repaired, refurbished or repurposed for resale to the general public. These products are inspected, cleaned and repaired if necessary, to make them suitable for reuse.

Repair (EU Framework Directive 2008/98/EC) : Restoring function to a product or device. These can be

ordinary repairs, when the product remains the property of the owner, or a stage in preparation for réutilisation (French Environment Code). In this case the owner has given up ownership of an item that is no longer needed or wanted.

Repair Café : Periodic collaborative workshop devoted to repairing objects. These workshops are organized locally at a designated time and place by people who live or have activities in the same locality (neighbourhood or village, for instance). Tools are available and participants can repair items they have brought, with help from volunteers.

Repair out of warranty : When product failure is not covered by warranty, or the warranty period as expired, the product is repaired outside of the warranty conditions. The owner can obtain repairs through the distributor's after-sales service, but this is less frequently the case than when a product is under warranty.

Repair under warranty : When product failure is covered under the terms of the warranty and the warranty is still in effect, the product or device can be repaired without cost to the consumer. The consumer contacts the distributor's after-sales service or the product manufacturer to obtain repair service.

Ressourcerie® : This brand name is registered in France and designates enterprises that use waste

collection operations (collection of bulky items, recovery of ordinary industrial waste) that preserve discarded items in their original state so that they can by reused for the same purpose, repurposed for another use, or materials recycled if reuse is not possible. Ressourcerie® enterprises can be operated by entities with different legal forms, such as non-for-profit groups, local authority syndicates, cooperatives, etc.

Self-repair : Act of repairing a product oneself, possibly using tools and advice obtained beforehand. For the purposes of this report self-repair includes "co-repair", which can also be called collaborative or assisted repairs, when an outside person provides guidance to the person making the repairs.

Subtractive manufacturing : Manufacturing technique that consists of removing material from a block of material, by machining, abrasion, engraving or chemical means, to obtain the desired form.


Third space or third place : Location of convivial meetings that is neither a participant's home or workplace (café, library, bar, etc.). FabLabs and hackerspaces are considered to be third spaces.

Upcycling, repurposing, or creative reuse : Reusing items or materials that have been discarded in order to reintroduce them into the chain of consumer use, for a purpose significantly different from their original purpose. Upcycling retains initial material qualities, as opposed to downcycling, in which the recycled material obtained has modified properties (e.g. recycled paper).

Volatile organic compound (VOC) : Volatile organic compounds are often present as gases in the atmosphere. When VOCs are absorbed by an organism they can react with proteins or nucleic acids to produce toxic metabolites that spread to organs in the organism. VOCs are also indirectly detrimental to health, by contributing to the formation of ozone in the lower atmosphere, with known toxic effects.

Warranty : Guarantee that applies to a product covering a stated number of incidents affecting product function, for a given period of time. When product failure is covered under the terms of the warranty and the warranty is still in effect, the product or device can be repaired without cost to the consumer. The consumer contacts the distributor's after-sales service or the product manufacturer to obtain repair service.

Abbreviations and acronyms

3D : Three-dimensional ABS : Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene ADEME : Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie / French Environment and Energy Management Agency DIY : Do-it-yourself EEE : Electrical and electronic equipment FabLab : Fabrication laboratory FDM : Fused deposition modelling FFF : Fused filament fabrication GIFAM : Groupement Interprofessionnel des Fabricants d’Appareils d’équipement Ménager LCA : Life cycle analysis MIT : Massachusetts Institute of Technology PLA : Polylactic acid RTV : Reference toxicological value TVOC : Total volatile organic compounds WEEE : Waste electrical and electronic equipment

www.ademe.fr

INCENTIVES FOR PRODUCT

REPAIRS USING 3D

PRINTING AND DIGITAL

MANUFACTURING SPACES

This initial study focuses on the use of 3D printing and in

digital manufacturing spaces for repair of common

consumer products and devices in France. It provides the

basis for assessment of the capacity of these new

technologies and spaces to stimulate current repair

activity.

This work also identifies the data gaps that need to be filled

in order to reach conclusions on certain aspects, notably

the environmental benefits of this technology, and then to

Propose organizational models that stimulate repair

activity through use of these techniques, and to outline

measures to put these models into place.

What conditions must prevail in

order to ramp up use of 3D

printing and digital

manufacturing spaces for repair

of consumer goods?

This survey analyses the strengths

of these techniques and and

obstacles to their

implementation, and outlines the

conditions that will be needed to

stimulate and develop their use

for product repair.

incentives for product repairs using 3d ......incentives for product repairs using 3d printing...

Documents