Present and future of Additive Manufacturing

A study regarding the barriers and the potential of metal Additive Manufacturing

Nutid och framtid inom Additiv Tillverkning

En studie om hinder och potentialen med Additiv Tillverkning för metaller

Christopher Bäckström

Salar Mohammed Ali

Industrial Engineering and Management

Master´s Thesis

30ECTS

Johan Quist

Term: Autumn 2019

i

Abstract

3D printing was invented the early 1980’s, however it was in the last decade that

3D printing started growing in the industrial sector. 3D printing has mostly

focused on materials like polymers, but now in the later year metal in 3D printing

has begun to industrialize. This new interest formulated the purpose of this study,

to investigate why the implementation of metal Additive Manufacturing is not

going faster e.g. barriers, what possible benefits can be found using 3D printing as

a manufacturing method and how it’s regarded from a sustainability perspective.

The method used for this study was a qualitative method in form of interviews

with selected persons. The interviews were held in a semi-constructed manner so

that no information would be missed, and the selected persons were categorized

into two groups; Theorists and Practitioners. Data analysis was completed and

presented using a thematical approach, and five themes were generated where the

empirics were presented. Barriers that were found in theory and empirics were the

following; design competence, high investment cost and a need for a more

trustworthy process i.e. standardization. Benefits with 3D printing were found to

be, cost in form of time and money that can be saved, e.g. when creating a product

that consists of one single component but were previously created in conventional

methods in multiple components which later needed to be merged together. As a

conclusion it is clearer why it is taking time and what needs to be done in order to

overcome these barriers. From the sustainability perspective it is known that life

of a product created in Additive Manufacturing is circular i.e. everything is

recyclable as long as the correct precautions are followed.

ii

Sammanfattning

Under det senaste decenniet har 3D-printing använts mer flitigt inom den

industriella sektorn men det är en uppfinning som har funnits sedan tidigt 80-tal.

Tekniken har tidigare fokuserat på material som polymerer men nu på senare tid

så har användningen av metaller vid 3D-printing införts i industrier, med hänsyn

till detta har denna studie uppkommit. För att undersöka varför additiv

tillverkning inte implementeras snabbare och vad för typ av hinder som står i

vägen, men även för att undersöka om det finns några fördelar ur ett

hållbarhetsperspektiv. Studien genomfördes med ett kvalitativt förhållningssätt

där man intervjuade kvalificerade kandidater som var av intresse. För att inte

undgå betydelsefull information så var intervjuerna av semi-strukturerad karaktär.

Personerna kategoriserades i två grupper, Teoretiker och Praktiker. Insamlade data

analyserades och presenterades genom fem teman där empirin redogjordes. De tre

typer av hinder som identifierades var design kompetens, höga

investeringskostnader och opålitlig process (avsaknad av standardisering). En

fördel som identifierades var besparingar i form av tid och pengar genom

möjligheten att kunna skapa en fullständig komponent istället för flera olika

delkomponenter som måste sammanföras i senare skede. Ur ett

hållbarhetsperspektiv så är livscykeln för en produkt tillverkad genom additiv

tillverkning cirkulär det vill säga att allt är återvinningsbart så länge man använder

sig av rätt procedurer. Studien kom fram till vad bakomliggande orsaker kan vara

för att additiv tillverkning inte har implementerats snabbare i industrier samt hur

man möjligtvis kan ta sig förbi dessa hinder.

iii

Acknowledgement

Christopher – I want to thank my family for their support throughout this past

year, continuously encouraging me to carry on. I want to thank all the interviewee

who allowed us to collect the data that made it possible to write this thesis. I

specially want to thank our supervisor Johan Quist for constructive feedback,

Pavel Krakhmalev for helping us to get in touch with relevant people and Nader

Asnafi for allowing us to attend a world conference in metal AM. Lastly I want to

thank my co-author who have been patient and allowed a flexible working

schedule.

Salar – Being born in another place with no rights to study at university, this essay

means a lot more than many can fathom. First of I want to thank my parents

making this possible by going against the odds and providing me with these

opportunities. I also want to thank Sweden as a country for letting me in and

making me a part of the society. Writing this thesis has been very enlightening

and I want to thank all the Interviewed participants for taking their time to answer

our questions. During this time, I have had a lot of support from my three loving

brothers, thank you. Last but not least a special thanks to my co-author, it has

been a pleasure writing this thesis with you.

iv

Abbreviations

3D – Three Dimensional

3DP – Three-Dimensional Printing

AM – Additive Manufacturing

CAD – Computer Aided Design

CAM – Computer Aided Manufacturing

CO2 – Carbon Dioxide

DfAM – Design for Additive Manufacturing

DMLS – Direct Melting Laser Sintering

EBM – Electron Beam Melting

PBF – Powder Bed Fusion

SLM – Selective Laser Melting

STL – Standard Triangle Language

VR – Virtual Reality

v

Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................... i

Sammanfattning ...................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................. iii

Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... iv

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background ............................................................................................. 1

1.2. Problematization ..................................................................................... 3

1.3. Purpose .................................................................................................... 5

1.4. Research Questions ................................................................................. 6

1.5. Limitations .............................................................................................. 6

2. Theory ............................................................................................................. 8

2.1. Additive manufacturing .......................................................................... 8

2.1.1. Metal powder bed fusion ................................................................. 9

2.1.2. Identified barriers .......................................................................... 11

2.2. Process Chain ........................................................................................ 12

2.2.1. Design ........................................................................................... 14

2.3. Sustainability in AM ............................................................................. 15

2.3.1. Environment for operators ............................................................ 18

3. Method .......................................................................................................... 19

3.1. Theoretical Framework ......................................................................... 19

3.2. Research Approach ............................................................................... 20

3.3. Data Collection ..................................................................................... 20

3.3.1. Sampling ....................................................................................... 20

3.3.2. Semi-structured interviews ........................................................... 22

3.4. Analyzing the collected data ................................................................. 23

3.5. Validity and Ethics ................................................................................ 24

4. Results ........................................................................................................... 26

4.1. Design competence ............................................................................... 26

4.2. Sustainability ......................................................................................... 29

4.3. Technology ............................................................................................ 32

4.4. Economic benefits ................................................................................. 34

4.5. Future of AM ........................................................................................ 35

5. Analysis ......................................................................................................... 38

5.1. Design Competence .............................................................................. 38

5.2. Sustainability ......................................................................................... 39

vi

5.3. Technology ............................................................................................ 40

5.4. Economic benefits ................................................................................. 42

5.4.1. Investment cost .............................................................................. 43

5.5. Future of AM ......................................................................................... 44

5.6. Summary ................................................................................................ 45

6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 47

6.1. Future research ...................................................................................... 49

References ............................................................................................................. 51

Appendices ............................................................................................................ 55

Appendix I ......................................................................................................... 55

Appendix II ........................................................................................................ 57

Appendix III ...................................................................................................... 59

1

1. Introduction

This chapter starts with introducing the reader to some background knowledge

around the subject and is followed by a problematization, explaining the research

gap. At last the purpose of this research is explained and in the limitations section

it is explained what has been left out.

1.1. Background

The first industrial revolution was the start of globalization, but the second

industrial revolution was a breakthrough in manufacturing, earlier all crafting was

entirely manually handled but the second industrial revolution brought out the

technology to mass-produce. New innovations led to the third industrial

revolution where the internet and electronics were the major innovations, and the

third revolution was the start of an automated production (Skilton & Hovsepian

2018). This has had a positive impact and led to lowering costs, speeding up

production and setting standards. The digital revolution has evolved

manufacturing from focusing on only single technologies to more widely

integrated systems (Silva et al. 2019).

For the past 50 years, businesses in the manufacturing industry have seen

tremendous economic and innovative growth with evolutionary technology in the

manufacturing processes (Lauwers et al. 2014). Recently the innovations that is

following the fourth industrial revolution contains “the usage of cyber-physical

systems (CPS) or, in other words, the linkage of real objects and people with

information-processing/virtual objects via information networks” (Devezas,

2017). The fourth industrial revolution has a very wide scope and CPS is only one

element that is adopted in what is called industry 4.0 which is what the latest

revolution is referred to. These innovative digital evolved technologies with a

connected, intelligent and decentralized production are a part of Industry 4.0

(Silva et al. 2019).

The term “industrie 4.0” went from being a strategic approach from German

politics to becoming a term suggesting a new industrial revolution globally and

has an aim to create “whole automatic factory”, aiming to minimize human

2

interactions in dull, dirty and dangerous operations (Ceruti et al. 2019).

Technological innovations in Industry 4.0 improves the manufacturing industry by

dealing with global challenges that orientates around digital and virtual

innovations and consists of real-time data interchange which enables a customized

production (Reischauer 2018).

Industry 4.0 is a wide concept referring to automation in production with smart

manufacturing that is enabled to communicate in real time with the systems

connected, both virtually and physically. There are ten types of technologies that

are the pillars of Industry 4.0 (Buchi et al. 2020), one of the cyber-physical

systems that is already in use and under development is Additive Manufacturing

(AM) also known as 3DP (Three-dimensional printing). AM has also been

mentioned as a potential catalyst of industry 4.0 due to its technical characteristics

(Kleer 2019).

AM is described to be a process where you join various materials and creating

objects layer upon layer instead of subtracting from the workpiece as most of the

traditional manufacturing processes (Jiang et al. 2017). Pereira et al. (2019)

explains that traditional manufacturing process are divided in subtractive

manufacturing and formative manufacturing. Subtractive manufacturing is when

material is removed by processes such as drilling, milling, lathe turning or

grinding techniques. Formative manufacturing uses processes like pressing,

stamping, injection molding and die casting to form materials.

By not having to create molds or changing tools AM technology can get off

unnecessary costs, additionally the technology can produce one whole product

instead of different pieces that require assembly (Weller et al. 2015). Bergman

(2012) mentions that with 3D technology it is much faster to produce initial

products and no matter the size of the production run the costs per part are fixed.

Traditional manufacturing processes have a decreasing “cost per part” when the

volume gets larger due to the high set up costs, it is preferred to go with these

types of methods when the volume is large while 3DP is more suited when there

is a low production volume.

3

One of the companies that have had a great success with 3DP is General Electric,

by implementing 3DP in their manufacturing process they have reduced the total

product weight by 25 % due to not having to assemble different pieces into a final

product (General Electric Aviation 2018).

Since AM technology was first commercialized in 1980s a lot has been improved

and there has been a growth in number of applications in different areas. This has

to do with the high degree of maturity that AM technology has been showing

lately (Yi et al. 2019).

The 3DP market is anticipated to mature within this decade and the main areas

will be within production processes of low volume, customized and high-value

products (Gebler et al. 2014).

1.2. Problematization

Kurth et al. (1998) describes that using 3DP for prototypes is a fast way and it is

possible to change complex designs and manufacture new prototypes on short

notice. About two decades later a lot has changed in terms of development in the

world of 3DP. In the early stage of AM, its main area of application was to rapidly

produce prototypes and has for long been applied for that type of purpose.

However, recent studies focus more on replacing conventional manufacturing

technologies with AM (Weller et. al 2015).

In recent years there has been an increased interest in metal AM, in the period

from 2006 to 2016 there has been a 590% increase within sales of AM systems for

metal parts sold. The following year of 2017 reports showed that there had been

an increase of nearly 80% from the previous year (Wohlers 2018). The statistics

imply that there is some sort of upcoming trend from some metal manufacturing

industries to start using AM, it is argued that one of the big reasons is that a lot of

the major patents in AM has recently expired (Attaran 2017).

One of the advantages of using 3DP are minimized inventory, improved working

capital and no need for operators to continuously monitoring the operation

(Bergman 2012). This allows manufacturing companies to put their resources in

4

more needed places e.g. in the R&D department allowing them to stay innovative

and ahead of the competition. Kobryn et al. (2016) mentions that the complete

understanding of value stream for AM allows companies to engage more in AM,

one of the values frequently mentioned is the current technologies in the design of

components using 3DP would have a positive impact of implementing 3DP as

manufacturing method.

3DP as manufacturing method is going to reduce waste material by 40%

compared to subtractive technologies, and you can recycle 95% - 98% of the

waste materials (Bergman 2012). About one fifth of all global CO2 (Carbon

Dioxide) emissions and total final energy consumption is due to industrial

activities, by being more resource efficient in production the industrial sector is

going to be able to work towards sustainability (Gebler et al. 2014).

Paris et al. (2016) states that using 3DP as a manufacturing method will reduce

waste and save time compared to other manufacturing options. Reducing waste

and being able to recycle is improving companies to work towards sustainability.

Senthiil et al. (2019) discusses the importance of green manufacturing and how

consumers force the industries into a more environmental approach, by

diminishing emanation and use of assets to reduce the contamination of the earth.

Some other potential benefits of AM are reduced product weight, transportation

and material losses but it is argued that the total environmental improvements in

this current state are moderate or negligible due to the high energy use (Böckin

2019).

With a widespread interest and promising digital approach AM is opening a new

manufacturing solution alternative to traditional subtractive technologies, but

there are also some uncertainties due to the barriers and lack of knowledge around

AM. The lack of knowledge about the powder’s metallurgic, the printing process,

and the microstructure and mechanical properties of AM makes the process to

reach the required final shape of the product very complex (Qi et al. 2019). AM is

often mentioned having a high design freedom, but critics are a bit skeptical due

to the factor that most AM technologies lack of fundamental design guidelines

(Pereira et al. 2019), the authors further explain that it is the AM manufacturers or

5

the actual software that are the ones currently offering recommended design

optimization.

Not all companies have the resources to invest in a 3D-printer since the cost is

rather high (Mellor. 2014). Some other issues can be low production throughput

speed, required additional surface finish and lack of common quality control

standards (Weller et al. 2015). Another known limitation of implementing AM is

the variety of materials available for designers to choose from (Holmström et al.

2017; Niaki 2017). Bergman (2012) expects 3DP expanding in the market when

AM overcomes these obstacles in the future. Kobryn et al. (2006) explains that the

barriers of implementing AM are the lack of a clear knowledge on how to use

3DP efficiently and cost benefit for using it. Ilg et al. (2019) argues that the lack

of competence and experience are some of the barriers to why many companies

are having a hard time to evaluate potential benefits and limits of what AM has to

offer.

Of what has been mentioned above it seems like AM has a lot of potential of

replacing or to be an alternative to some of the conventional methods used in

industries today, but there also some uncertainties and barriers standing in the

way.

1.3. Purpose

Previous research has been in terms of progressing the development of AM in

different areas but there is still called for research as how to integrate AM

technology in manufacturing companies (Yi et al. 2019).

In a competitive market it is highly necessary for companies to try to keep up with

the competition in order to stay profitable. New innovations and improved

technology can be a useful tactic for companies that are set to develop or optimize

their business strategy. In terms of not being a threat to the environment

companies must strive to have a sustainable approach when trying to implement

their business model.

6

In recent years there has been a huge interest in AM and many large companies

are trying to study if 3DP can be of use in terms of sustainability and profits. As

the technology and the knowledge surrounding the issue is continuously

improving a larger and more lucrative gap occurs for companies to start

considering 3DP as an option.

The purpose of this study is to investigate why the implementation of metal

Additive Manufacturing is not going faster i.e. barriers. To study what possible

benefits can be found using 3D printing as a manufacturing method and how it’s

regarded from a sustainability perspective. This study is made to get an insight on

opportunities that the technology may provide but is also of great importance for

the development of the technology.

This will also hopefully be of use for small and medium enterprises to get a better

understanding on how the technology works, and see if they find their own niche

within AM.

1.4. Research Questions

Therefore, it is of interest to know:

RQ1: What type of barriers exists within AM for metals?

RQ2: What benefits can be seen using 3DP as manufacturing option?

RQ3: How is metal AM regarded from a sustainability perspective?

1.5. Limitations

This report will only focus on the metal side of AM, all other materials used with

AM has not been included in this research. Theory gathered focuses on metal

powder bed fusion as method of AM, this due to the acceptance of the method in

today’s industry (Metal AM 2018). However, there are different types

applications for metals in powder bed fusion, two of these will be involved in this

study i.e. Laser fusion and Electron Beam fusion.

7

8

2. Theory

Herby follows theoretical background which will provide a clearer understanding

of the findings from previous research. Theoretical framework will consist of AM

and traditional ways of manufacturing and narrowing down to barriers of

implementing 3DP as a manufacturing option. Theory for this paper will be

gathered through articles that is being provided by Karlstad University and other

platforms that provides peer reviewed articles.

2.1. Additive manufacturing

3DP which is also known as AM or rapid prototyping has been around for

decades, but it is now in the 21th century that it is becoming more available in the

global market since the drastic cost decrease from the original price when it was

first introduced in 1984 (Bogue 2013; Attaran 2017). The 3D printer is based on

the same principle as its predecessor the standard ink writing 2D printer, however

instead of adding layers of ink on a piece of paper the 3D printer uses materials to

add up to a 3D object (Attaran 2017).

The layers that is used to add up to a 3D object are approximately 0.001 to 0.1

inches in thickness per layer depending on the material used, common materials

used are plastics, rubbers, ceramics, concretes and metals (Wohlers Associates

Inc., 2013; Bogue, 2013). Attaran (2017) mentions in the article that the concept

rapid prototyping refers to the application of the technology, which would reduce

the time for products to reach certain markets. Reducing the time can be assisted

by creating a prototype that would be launched in the market before the actual

good. The prototype will be tested to see if it fits the market or if adjustments are

required before production starts.

Most commercial 3D printers have similar functionality. The printer uses a

computer-aided design (CAD) to translate the design into a three-dimensional

object. The design is then sliced into several two-dimensional plans, which

instruct the 3D printer where to deposit the layers of material (Wohlers 2015).

9

2.1.1. Metal powder bed fusion

While there are seven acknowledged methods by SS-EN ISO 52900:2016

standard, i.e. Vat photopolymerization, Material jetting, Binder jetting, Powder

bed fusion, Material extrusion, Directed energy deposition and Sheet lamination.

Powder bed fusion is also predefined by ASTM (2017) among the most relevant

categories of AM processes.

Powder bed fusion is a process where powder is melted with the help of a laser in

a specific pattern and allowing it to solidify according to the pattern that is based

on many thin layers.

Application of laser is done mainly through two methods, Direct Melting Laser

Sintering (DMLS) and Selective Laser Melting (SLM) (Thomas and Venkat

2016). Metal powder in combination with a laser of high watts is used to sinter an

object in the process of DMLS. DMLS uses uncoated pre-alloyed metal powders

as the sintering material (Gratton 2015). However, due to porosity post treatment

is often required before it may reach the final shape and mechanical properties of

the object. The other method with laser (SLM), is performed with a more

powerful laser than DMLS, thus allowing it to melt the powder more thoroughly

than DMLS which yield less or no porosity at all. Hence, using SLM in metal

powder bed fusion as an AM method provides better mechanical properties than

that of DMLS but follows a higher cost as result of more powerful laser (Thomas

and Venkat 2016).

10

Figure 2.1.1a, an illustration on how DMLS and SLM is performed (Thomas and Venkat

2016).

The other mentioned fusion method is Electron Beam Melting (EBM) which is a

method that requires vacuum space to create an object. Metal powder is heated in

a vacuum space where an electron beam is used to represent the laser used in

SLM, this electron beam melts the metal powder by electromagnetically scanning

and a pattern is formed layer by layer (Thomas and Venkat 2016). Benjamin et al.

(2011) mentions in their state-of-the-art paper that because of the vacuum space,

scanning at high speed is attained thus, allowing EBM to be capable of application

for a large quantity of materials. However, Patterson et al. (2017) states that EBM

is not as cost efficient as SLM and DMLS as an AM process.

11

Figure 2.1.1b, an illustration on how EBM is performed (Benjamin et al. 2011).

As mentioned SLM and DMLS is more cost efficient than EBM, it is also

compatible with wider sum of different materials, requires less posttreatment and

is industrially safer (Patterson et al. 2017). However, there is a barrier which is

resulting in a negative effect on the industrialization scale of the method that

needs immediate attention: The occurrence of stress surge in unwanted places in

the object and the certainty that the object needs support structures i.e. parts of the

object that exist only for creation process and will later be removed (Patterson et

al. 2017; Dakota et al. 2017). Dakota et al. (2017) also mentioned in their article

that since the size of the build is on average the highest 500 x 500 x 500 [mm],

this can hinder some businesses from using metal AM.

2.1.2. Identified barriers

Yi et al. (2019) arranged a workshop with nine participants whereof three

academia researchers, three project managers from three commercial vehicle

manufacturers and three project managers from three suppliers to discuss the AM

technologies. This research was aimed towards the users of AM technologies from

the commercial vehicle industry. At the end of the day these four types of barriers

were discovered: the lack of know-how, high investment cost, organizational

transformation and unpredictable value and risk. The lack of knowledge,

12

guidelines and standards makes it hard for companies with no previous experience

to enter the market. Industrial metal AM machines are still very expensive and

there are some additional costs in terms of materials, safety precaution and post-

processing tools. Another issue is that companies must adapt to AM by making an

organizational transformation from the conventional technologies, by doing so

there is a need for reorganization of supply chain. Also, companies struggle to

make a prediction on what type of benefits AM can provide which makes the

process a bit unpredictable and risky.

2.2. Process Chain

Chua and Leong (2015) describes in five steps how all AM techniques approach

the same type of process chain which is shown in figure 2.2.

The first step is to come up with a 3D CAD (Computer-aided design) model, this

step is described as the most time-consuming part of the process. The Authors

describe that most beginners assume that “what you see is what you get” but that

is a common fallacy because different AM machines can have different

requirements and capabilities. It is utterly important to take some considerations

into account when it comes to overhanging elements, holes or small slots,

orientations of parts, supports of parts and difficult-to-build part structures such as

thin walls. It is also required that the 3D model has a closed volume.

The second step is to convert the 3D CAD model into STL (Standard Triangle

Language) file format, by using tiny triangles the surface of the model is

approximated. How large the STL files can get depends on the structure of the

model, if there are many curves than the file is going to get larger due to that

curved surfaces requires many triangles. This step is the fastest because most of

the CAD-CAM (Computer Aided Manufacturing) vendors supply CAD-STL

interface, so the conversion time depends on how big the file is and the

performance of the computer converting the file.

The third step is called checking and preparing, the AM system computer will

analyze the STL file and slice the model into cross-sections. This step sounds not

too difficult, but the authors implies that the conversion is not often that smooth

13

because of frequent failure. This type of failure occurs because the system implies

there are something wrong with the CAD model. It can be solved by using a repair

program called Magic, but the process overall can be very time consuming.

The fourth step is the building step, it's at this point the AM system get to work

and for most this step is fully automated, meaning that the machine can run by

itself without any provision from an operator. When the part is fabricated most of

the AM systems will use some sort of remotely type of communication to inform

that the part is completed. The time for this process can be different depending on

the numerous parts, size and what type of AM system that is being used.

The final step is post processing meaning that the product needs further work to

establish the final state that is required. For this step an operator is mostly needed

to do the final task, this can mean removal of excess parts, cleaning, post curing

and finishing. Post curing is not required for non-liquid AM methods, and

finishing refers to doing some secondary process such as painting or sanding.

Fig. 2.2. Process chain of Additive Manufacturing systems, Author’s own illustration based

on the one provided by Chua and Leong (2015).

Companies that handle small batch size production with different type of products

can especially benefit from AM technology due to shorter process chain than

conventional manufacturing. Because no matter the complexity of the product

AM technology will still have the same process chain, whereas in conventional

manufacturing, the process chain will have to adjust, and more tools and

manufacturing steps are required (Yi et al. 2019).

14

2.2.1. Design

In the article of Oyesola et al. (2019b) the authors describe how the design in AM

differs from traditional design process as following.

Thanks to the innovative way of manufacturing AM can offer a high degree of

freedom of design that allows to recombine parts, which previously were multiple

parts that required assembly due to the limitations of conventional manufacturing.

In order to establish the best outcome of AM there is a need to comprehend the

manufacturing constraints and the design requirements simultaneously. This way

it is easier to early detect different types of wastages of raw materials, improve the

cycle time and increase productivity and profitability.

Designing for AM differs from designing for conventional manufacturing and

there are some challenges with trying to create complex shapes. It is possible to

take help from freeform modelling tools that uses complex algorithms to

determine material distribution to create complex shapes, but even this can be

tricky since this will require some type of expertise on handling this advanced

software.

With the help of topology-optimization whereas great algorithms can calculate

where material should be added to carry on different types of load, it is possible

for designers to save material and reduce weight to the product. Generative design

is a design process where the designer can put in the required parameters (desired

weight, maximum stress strain) to generate different types of design alternatives

that will match the requirements of the designer. This is done by the help of

infinite computer power and topology-optimization. “However, as CAD solutions

get smarter, even a design algorithm still requires skillful engineers to determine

the relevant specifications as input within accurate decisions.”

Even though different CAD tools are supporting in preliminary stage and later

stage of design, there are still some unresolved issues within the design for AM

that must be fixed so that it doesn’t restrict the applicability of AM.

15

To ensure that a product designed for AM is of good conditions and is not

addressing any manufacturing concerns it is of great importance to have some

design guidelines, so that it can satisfy the requirements set for the product. These

guidelines are a way to fulfil the certification requirements of a product.

2.3. Sustainability in AM

Although the industrial sector is not the largest energy consumer it was estimated

that the industrial sector represented around 20-25% of global energy

consumption in the years 2010-2015 (Tao et al. 2018). Hence the focus has

developed towards sustainability to become less environmentally impactive.

Approximately a century after the second industrial revolution the issue of

sustainability was brought forth due to negative environmental impact the

industrialization had. Studies are constantly being conducted regarding the

environmental impact of manufacturing methods, although some of the impacts

are complex and measurements can be difficult to interpret. Therefore, practicing

sustainability in AM should provide a guide to a less environmentally impactive

method (Gebler et al. 2014). Jawahir et al. (2007) defines a 6R concept for the

three sustainability dimensions i.e., economic, social, and environmental namely;

reduce, recover, recycle, reuse, redesign, and remanufacture.

Fig. 2.3. Time graph of sustainability (Tao et al. 2018).

16

Florian (2014) describes AM as green technology i.e. is working to benefit the

environment by abiding to a set of standards e.g. having reduced logistics through

local or decentralized manufacturing; saving materials by adding instead of

subtracting; production is made from demand and not mass production; reduced

environmentally harmful emissions compared to conventional technology etc.

Following standards from green technology, AM has potential in reducing life

cycle impacts and thus enabling greater functionality from an environmental

perspective compared to conventional methods. In a study by Liang et al. (2010) it

is mentioned that AM is fundamentally changing the ways of manufacturing i.e.

changing the product design, material process and more aspects. Attaran (2017)

implies that by reducing the need for logistics through digitalization AM could

have good impacts on the environment, this by transferring the design digitally

instead of transporting gods to the destination or somewhere close. This will also

be economically beneficial because logistical costs will be reduced.

Tao et al. (2018) describes in their study that secondary materials and components

are required in AM to create an object, however, compared to conventional

manufacturing it uses fewer secondary materials and components. Hence, AM has

in theory more than 90% material use efficiency (Tao et al. 2018). However, the

energy consumption can be higher due to low production of single parts, yet this

can be viewed from a wider perspective since when using AM several single parts

can be integrated as one which will not require different manufacturing

technologies as it would in conventional manufacturing (Kellens et al. 2017).

When looking at the life cycle assessment of AM it has become an interesting area

of research for the last 10 years. Tao et al. (2018) argues that this is due to the

barrier of knowledge concerning materials, mechanics, physics and the possible

benefits of AM. Hence, if more familiar knowledge is acquired around the

components of AM, it would be known that AM is not only assisting in reducing

environmental impacts and a more widespread acceptance of the technology

would occur (Kellens et al. 2017). Tao et al. (2018) also mentions that an EU-

funded program has been initiated called “Additive Manufacturing Aiming

Towards Zero Waste and Efficient Production of High-Tech Metal Products

17

AMAZE” which is working towards eliminating the environmental impacts of

AM.

AM has the potential to remove a major step in the LCA compared to

conventional manufacturing, i.e. the long transportation routes in the supply chain

from raw material to end customer (Cindy 2015). Cindy (2015) also mentions

that the emissions from transportation would reduce since transportation would

only be required in short routes which only involve finished product to customer.

3DP could be placed in many different places with a stock of powders which

would reduce the distance from manufacturing place and customer, the 3DP

would not be used by a single company, it would be a part of the industrial

industry allowing more widespread industrialization of AM. However, there is

currently a barrier which is hindering this free utilization that allows short

transports and less storage in general, and the barrier is that there is not any ready

AM process that can produce an object without having post treatment before it

can reach the customer (Mellor et al. 2014). Henceforth in the future, due to the

convenience of not having to deal with a transition of tools in-between production

of one product to another there are no switching costs. This enables productions

hubs to take place around the world and instead of having products being

manufactured and spread globally the manufacturing can instead take place

locally at the nearest production hub (Oyesola et al. 2019a).

Gebler et al. (2014) explains that a market segment which is more likely to be

beneficial of the 3DP technique is that of spare parts. Often when a product is

outdated spare parts are more unlikely to come by, this can often lead to that the

product is no longer of use and must be scrapped. That is not so environmentally

friendly and 3DP is a solution to access spare parts without the need for inventory.

One of the advantages of 3DP is designing and manufacturing products with

complex geometries which enables weight reduction. This is something that can

lead to lowering energy demands and CO2 emissions of airplanes. In a previous

case study, it has been shown that by reducing the weight of some components in

an airplane has led to savings in energy and CO2 emissions with 63% over the

entire life cycle of the product (Gebler et al. 2014).

18

2.3.1. Environment for operators

Traditional ways of manufacturing have proven to be unhealthy for operators

since long, however it has evolved to a safer environment with the newest

technologies e.g. CNC where the operator is not physically involved in the

manufacturing process. In terms of being environmentally friendly, 3DP has no

need for harmful substances such as lubricants or coolants. By only adding the

amount of material that is required studies has shown that waste of raw material

can be avoided by 40%, and 95-98% of the unfused raw material can be reused

(Gebler et al. 2014).

However, the conventional machines need constant maintenance e.g. the usage of

cutting tools which has proven to be toxic when exposed to humans over time

resulting in chronic diseases (Faludi 2015). The environmental impact on human

health for operators of AM was too difficult to determine from the lack of

literature, however, AM is expected to reduce CO2 emissions by approximately

500 M tones by 2025 (Tao et al. 2018).

19

3. Method

In this chapter the methodology exercised will be presented, how the approach for

this study was completed. It commences with an overview of the gathered

theoretical framework, which will be the pillar of motivation for the research

approach. The authors will present the progress as thoroughly possible providing

a clear overview for the reader, thus allowing this to be reciprocated. Data

collection and analysis methods will be presented and discussed, as well as

ethical considerations.

3.1. Theoretical Framework

To establish a clear foundation of theoretical framework and thus being able to

applicate the most effective research approach, the authors reviewed literature that

were provided by Karlstad University and platforms providing peer reviewed

articles. Potential keywords were formed to achieve relevant information, among

these keywords were “3DP as manufacturing”, ”Additive Manufacturing” , “3DP

vs traditional manufacturing”, “Implementing AM”, “Barriers of implementing

AM” “Sustainability in AM” and more.

The found existing literature was inconclusive in regards towards this paper’s

research questions. The subject is relatively new and previous studies found were

limited. However, studies found provided a deeper understanding in the subject of

implementing 3DP as a manufacturing method. The understanding functioned as

an origin in the research for further information, and thus aiding in forming the

keywords accounted for above. To get a deeper understanding on the chosen

topic the theoretical framework was created with help of a critical way of

reflecting on the found research. It commenced with researching 3DP in

manufacturing versus traditional methods of manufacturing led on to

sustainability in AM and narrowed down to barriers of implementing 3DP as

manufacturing method.

Since AM is a relatively evolving concept changes are happening constantly, it

was decided to prioritize articles and information that were published within the

last ten years, thus increasing the chance of gaining insights that would still be of

relevance today. However, some articles found useful were published before

20

2009. As mentioned, the current available studies were limited, However, by

reading the gathered information it was determined that the research yielded an

understanding of the most common and explanatory concepts that can be applied

to this paper.

3.2. Research Approach

When writing a paper on higher level, to facilitate validity, making it possible

replication or simply understanding, it is crucial to outline the research approach,

or in other words, to explain and justify the way that empirical material and theory

relate to one another (Bryman & Bell 2012). Based on formed theoretical

framework, the research approach can be inductive, deductive or abductive

(Saunders et al. 2012).

This paper followed an abductive research approach which is an iterative process

that moves back and forth between theory and data, and combines aspects of both

(Saunders et al, 2012). Essentially, it begun with the observation of an interesting

fact, then worked out a plausible theory of how it could have occurred (Saunders

et al, 2012). Because of abduction it was possible to gain insights that had not

initially been accounted for (Saunders et al, 2012)

3.3. Data Collection

The data has been collected through both theory and empirics. The theory was

gathered by reviewing relevant literature, which was found in journals, books,

articles etc. This study followed a qualitative approach; hence, the empirics was

gathered through conducting interviews with carefully selected participants. The

new data was collected to provide knowledge in areas where theory was not

enough (Bryman & Bell 2015).

3.3.1. Sampling

When performing a sampling of a qualitative study it is beneficial to use a non-

probability sampling i.e. the observations that will be made will not be random

(Saunders et al. 2012). Therefore, it was chosen to use a non-probability sampling

which allowed the authors to be subjective and judge which potential interview

21

persons would be appropriate to answer the chosen research questions (Bryman &

Bell 2015).

Non-probability sampling contains different sub-section sampling technologies;

thus, a choice was made to use the one most suited for this study and that was

purposive sampling (Saunders et al. 2012). Since the AM industry is rather new

and the authors had no prior relationships regarding AM, it was beneficial to use

small sample groups and handpicking interview persons depending on their

known expertise in the field.

To achieve a grade of generalization it was decided to use different perspectives

on AM, hence the sample consisted of two sub-groups; Theorists – persons who

are researching about AM in different institutions, and Practitioners – companies

who are currently working with 3DP. This provided data from two perspectives,

thus aiding in answering the research questions (Bryman & Bell 2015). The

Theorists were chosen from Karlstad University, Örebro University and other

institutions where the interesting persons were found in relevant articles regarding

AM. The Practitioners were chosen by researching on which companies are

currently working with AM and later contacted. Researchers and companies who

were deemed not to have enough knowledge to provide useful information were

filtered away.

Due to high cost and low budget, the interview persons that were located outside

Värmland were interviewed using a video calling platform. It was deemed

necessary to use video call for the purpose of giving the interviewed person the

ability to illustrate with other means than just words, as if they had been

interviewed in person (Bryman & Bell 2015).

The sampling resulted in a total of ten interviews, five with Theorist and five with

Practitioners. A brief description of the interviews follows below:

22

Table 3.3.1: Interviewees divided in the chosen groups

Organization Theorists nr 1-5 Practitioners nr 1-5 Respondent validation

Örebro University 1

Yes

Amexci AB

1 Yes

Karlstad University 2 Yes

Karlstad University 3

Yes

IUC Stål & Verkstad

2 Yes

Swerim Institut 4 Yes

RISE

3 Yes

Scania AB

4

Siemens AB 5 Yes

Karlstad University 5 Yes

3.3.2. Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews were chosen for this study due to fact that AM is

evolving rapidly and by using semi-structured interviews, information which were

23

not found in theory could possibly be gathered in the interviews. An interview

guideline was formed with questions that were primarily based from the theory in

order to answer the research questions, however, questions that were not stated in

the interview guideline were also asked so that no essential information would

unintentionally be left out (Bryman & Bell 2015). This was also done so that the

gathered empiric would have a chance to support the claim that there is need for

further research as theory is not enough. Semi-structured interview provided a

flexibility in the empirical investigation.

Since the sample consisted of two sub-groups, it was beneficial to contemplate

one interview guideline for each of the groups. Thus, allowing the interview

persons to answer questions that they were deemed to possess most knowledge

about. The questions that were included in the interview guideline were questions

regarding the barriers of implementing AM in the industry and the interview

persons were given the chance to provide barriers that were not mentioned earlier.

The interview guideline was noted after the first interviews not to be optimal for

all interview persons, thus, it was reviewed and edited so that it would provide the

interview persons an easier approach to answer the questions. The two different

interview guidelines will be found in Appendices.

3.4. Analyzing the collected data

For the data to be analyzed, all the interviews had to be transcribed first, thus

allowing the authors to read through the words that had been previously recorded.

Since the interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner there were

answers and information that had not been anticipated, hence, filling gaps left in

theory. It was chosen that a thematic analysis would be suited as an optimal

approach to analyze the collected data. Thematic analysis is a method that

identifies and analyzing themes (patterns) that aids in interpreting the collected

qualitative data (Gray 2017). These generated themes captioned vital aspects that

in relating to the chosen research questions. The topics of the themes were both

data and theory driven, this was possible since the collected data were similar to

the gathered theory. Gray (2017) describes in his book a simple step by step guide

24

on how to conduct a thematic analysis, where six steps are provided in detail. See

the following steps below (Gray 2017, p.697-698).

o Read through the transcribed data multiple times while noting down ideas

that can be presented as themes. Various ideas were noted down, to cover

all the transcribed data.

o Choosing themes that cover the previously noted down ideas. It was here

realized that some of the ideas could be integrated into a single theme

which covered all the different ideas.

o Making visual representation (e.g. a mind map on a whiteboard) of the

different themes to see how they linked to each other. 8 different themes

were connected.

o Checking if all themes were enough or if excess themes existed, here

another integration of themes were done, thus 5 themes were left.

o Naming the different themes and making sure that they are easily

understood with a pair of sentences.

o Producing the report by having the themes presented with relation to the

chosen research question and the gathered theory from literature review.

By following these steps (mentioned as phases in literature) a thematic analysis

commenced and were completed, the themes generated will be presented in the

following chapter 4. Results. The interviews were all of different quality, some

better than others. Thus, there are some interviews where the respondents

provided more relevant information, which will be shown in the following

chapter, that some respondents appear more frequently than others.

3.5. Validity and Ethics

Verifying the data was done in an iterative process, listening to the recorded

interviews multiple times, making sure that the transcribed data were transcribed

correctly. By handpicking the interview persons based on their known expertise

also allows a certain degree of validation since the data received from an

appropriate sample is reliable and of enough quality. Another thing that was

completed in this study was respondent validation which means in a simplified

manner that, before the transcribed data could be written in the actual paper, the

respected interviewed person was contacted to verify that the information was

correct. By completing this step, a higher degree of validation is achieved since it

25

is possible that some information is shared during an interview which was not

meant to be shared or is no longer valid, hence the information being validated is

regarded more trustworthy (Bryman & Bell 2015).

Regarding the reliability and the degree of repetitiveness of this study can be

discussed, however, all steps on how this study was conducted has been

thoroughly explained in this chapter, allowing it to be repeated. However, since

the data was collected through semi-structured interviews it can be argued to exist

information that will not reveal itself in another interview and the fact that the

studied subject is under constant evolution may also be a reason to present a

different outcome if this study were to be repeated.

Ethical consideration is always of most relevance when concluding any study, no

less this. Hence, certain guidelines were followed that was presented by Bryman

& Bell (2015) where they describe how to conduct an interview following good

ethics. Good ethics can be explained further into four categories:

• Participation: All the interviewed persons were well informed that it was a voluntary interview and they had the freedom to refuse to answer any given question.

• Recording: A brief introduction regarding the subject was provided and an explanation to why recording would help the authors was given before the start of each recording allowing the interviewee to give consent.

• Privacy: No invasion of privacy was committed; all individual names were kept confidential.

• Deception: The interview was performed in good faith, no attempt of deception was made, also, respondent validation was performed to ensure that no unwanted information was placed in this paper.

26

4. Results

In the following chapter, the collected empirics from interviews will be presented.

Most of the interviews were completed using Swedish language so quotes that are

presented here have been translated to English, this also includes metaphors. The

empirics shall be analyzed later in this paper in the next chapter.

Earlier in chapter three it has been mentioned that the collected empirics will be

presented using themes according to Gray (2017). In figure 4.0 a mind map is

presented of the themes that were generated following the six steps explained in

section 3.4.

Fig. 4.0 Mind map of the generated themes.

The illustrated mind map in figure 4.0 shows how the authors linked the different

themes together. The technology theme is in the center because it is linked to all

the surrounding themes. The four initial themes 4.1 to 4.4 are however directly

linked to 4.5 which is the “Future of AM”.

4.1. Design competence

One of the great aspects and the initiating point of AM is the design, this is where

the product is constructed and it's going to decide the outcome. Practitioner 3

explained that some companies when approaching AM has an existing product

that they want to manufacture through AM, the problem is that they want to use

the same existing design that is used when manufactured conventionally. Theorist

1 explains that there are great possibilities that can be unexploited if sticking with

the old way to design.

27

We have to design the component/products in a whole new way, and it is a

way that we have not worked on before. Of course, you can copy an existing

design, but the lead time will not be as short as it would otherwise have

been, and the cost will not be as low as they would otherwise have been if

you had designed the component in the new way. (Theorist 1)

This is a subject that has come up throughout many of the interviews and that

most of the participants agree on. And Theorist 2 said that “In order to print, one

should think AM”. By not having the knowledge and skills of design for AM

(DfAM) one can simply miss out on the full potential provided by this

manufacturing process. One of the Theorists gave a great example on the

differences when designing a node that is used in bridge columns by the

traditional way of designing vs. the new way of designing for AM.

You can copy the old design and 3D-print it, you can reduce lead time and

material usage by 25%, but if you redesign it with the new design tools you

can reduce the weight by 75% thus reducing material use by 75%, reduce

lead time by 75% and reduce costs by 90%. (Theorist 1)

By having the right type of competence in the new way of designing will show the

true potential of what AM has to offer. But in order to apply DfAM one must take

help of designing tools that are provided by different participants on the AM

market. Practitioner 3 explained that there are different types of software, and they

are often good in their own subdivisions. These types of software are often very

expensive and the ones that are free are not so optimal. Other interviewees also

mentioned the need of better software programs.

I think there is a need for better software programs for the design, right now

it may be that you must use several different programs to design a detail for

a manufacturing process, which means that there is HIGH focus on the

experience of the designer. Better programs that are meant for AM are

needed so that more designers can design for AM purposes. (Theorist 4)

When the subject of advantages of AM contra traditional manufacturing was

brought up, Practitioner 1 said, “The freedom of design, above all is the great

28

advantage of AM”. Even though there are big possibilities in AM not everything

is going to work out due to the lack of knowledge from designers.

When we sit down and design in CAD, we are making the model based on

turning and milling but this is a completely different way of thinking. Many

people think we can do just about anything, but it doesn't work in AM

either, there are many restrictions. In order to get heat transfer, creep and

residual stresses different knowledge is required. It is very much like

casting, but not many designers are good at casting. (Theorist 3)

Many of the participants mentioned different types of considerations that are

important when working with AM. One thing that was often mentioned was

regarding support structure. Theorist 4 stated that in order to avoid support

structures, you have to think about what position the detail is to be manufactured,

in order for it to be the most optimal. Theorist 2 mentioned that if you print

something with holes, the outcome will be different whether the hole is placed

vertically or if it is placed horizontally. Depending on which approach that is

chosen the product may require post machining in order to give the holes a

perfectly round shape. Others said:

Yes, there are many and there are some guides on the web. There are design

rules that you must follow, it is about how to handle sharp corners, when

you need support structure, how thick walls you should have, there are very

detailed design guidelines, but much is experience based. (Practitioner 3)

Yes, you must think about heat transfer, heat dissipation in the material,

smooth transitions just like casting. Instead of smoothing as it is in casting,

there are directions here to minimize support material. Does it need

material, or can we embed the support in the component so that we do not

have to do any finishing work. You need to think about the angle so that you

get a self-supporting model or that you get as little support material as

possible. You must consider the orientation of the detail when it’s in the

machine when manufactured. The orientation in the manufacturing machine

is something we must consider when we make the CAD model to get an

optimal product. (Theorist 3)

When asking about the barriers of implementing AM, one of the experts

expressed that design competence was one of them.

After all, it is the knowledge of the designer really, how should the detail

look to be compatible with AM to take advantage of AM. That's what really

29

is the first obstacle. Many designers do not know the difference between

different AM methods that exist either, many want a detail and build in

many directions from a surface, we cannot with our machine, there are other

methods to do it in AM as well. So, they find out that it's not only one type

of machine, there are a lot of different machines. Cutting machining is

neither one type of machine, there many different machines. So, knowledge.

(Theorist 3)

Design competence, knowledge is something that must be taught in order to make

designers better and aware on how to DfAM, today many companies must educate

their own staff because of lack of competence.

We do our own training because of the lack of training, so there have been

about 500 people doing training here. We have basic training in process,

design for AM and in-depth education design in AM. (Practitioner 1)

From a business perspective, it is the company management that must

immunize these activities, it is the development of skills. Then from a

university perspective, it is the universities that must make sure that these

new design tools are included in the courses that they hold for their students.

So, the students who come from the universities have read about

construction in their education must have learned the new tools. You must

take those initiatives from a management perspective from the companies

and from the universities. (Theorist 1)

4.2. Sustainability

Another subject that was discussed in the articles and many times “marketed” as a

positive benefit of AM was sustainability. Hence some sustainability questions

were discussed in the interviews mostly regarding waste. Something that came up

was regarding the powder, that it could be reused and AM having very little

material waste. Theorist 5 said “It is good that you only use the material you need

and that the powder that does not get used can be reused. Obviously, there will

always going to be a little waste, but it is still effective.” but there were some

variations in the answers from the participants.

Well, if you think of a product for example, then AM is that you add

material needed so you reduce unnecessary waste by using only the material

needed, you can also recycle the powder that is not used in the machine for a

production so that it can be used for the next production. (Theorist 4)

It is said that we do not consume more material than needed but I think this

is a truth with modification, because if we are to have the right material, the

30

excess powder goes to recycling and we can aim to rerun it, but if we aim to

have low oxide levels then it’s not possible. As it is right now with the

machines we have right now, there is a lot of powder that goes to waste. So,

with better machines that can recycle the powder, with internal powder

handling which prevents that the powder oxidizes, then it will work.

(Theorist 3)

It is a very controversial question maybe because if you look at what people

usually put forward it is that it is a manufacturing method that you use very

little material, you only use the material that is needed to build your

component. Well, that is not always true. If you look at powder bed-based

processes, you get a part of the powder that you simply must throw away.

Then you can only recycle the powder a certain number of times, that is a

truth with modification, I think. (Practitioner 3)

Talking for example, about environmental effects this is a very good thing

because its powder and its recyclable and if it is manufactured and done in a

proper way then it’s a clean technology, it can be done in a closed loop so

that the powder never leave. From this perspective I think this technology is

good. (Theorist 2)

Many of the participants agreed that the reuse of the powder was a positive thing

in terms of sustainability but that the procedure today may need some adjustments

in order to be totally optimized. Another aspect is how energy consuming the

technology is and Practitioner 1 said that “With construction times and things like

that we can influence to a certain extent and it is the biggest energy thief we have,

that is the machine.”. While Practitioner 3 argued that “Yes, it is an energy

intensive process, but you need to look at the specific product and see if it will

have a positive impact when it is used in its function.”. Others mentioned that

when evaluating a product in terms of sustainability, one must look over the

whole life cycle of the product.

Yes, we are actually looking at it now and trying to do a comparative study

in environmental impacts, follow the process all the way from mining the

material to gas automation, to look at the total consumption of the product

and compare with existing product that is manufactured conventionally.

(Practitioner 1)

Let's say you have an injection molding tool that you make with AM and

you make cooling channels so that it becomes a much more efficient tool,

then you may be able to save a lot in the production of another product by

using the 3D-made tool. You must look at the entire value chain to see if it

is a sustainable process or not. (Practitioner 3)

31

One Theorist gave a great example on how one of the Swedish powders producing

companies has worked out a good solution for recycling.

Uddeholm is a very good example, you can buy powder material from

Uddeholm and make tools, production tools and then you use the production

tool as long as you need and when you do not need the tool anymore then

you can send the tool back to Uddeholm where you melt down this old tool

and manufactures new powder material. So that the method allows for

complete circularity in the economy and Uddeholm is a good example of

that. (Theorist 1)

Theorist 1 also claimed that “approximately 25% of all metal powder produced in

the world is manufactured in Sweden”, but Practitioner 1 said, “The powder is

supplied by the machine manufacturer where they guarantied the material

properties if you use their powder with their machine. This is something that is

changing as well. More and more companies are buying powder direct from the

manufacturer of the material.”.

Regarding the future of transportation in AM and local manufacturing Theorist 1

said:

But 3DP enables local production, we do not need to manufacture them in

China, we can manufacture them here. Examples of components previously

manufactured in China are now manufactured in Anderstorp, and this has a

major impact. We are on the road, not right now, but in 20-30 years 3DP

and such a 3DP machine will correspond to "Wi-Fi" e.g. when I come to

another place I can connect to your "Wi-Fi" and when others come to my

place then they can connect to my "Wi-Fi". This is predicted to happen with

3DP, machines will be part of the manufacturing industry's infrastructure.

You have the design on your computer and then your customer wants to

have such a component that is in a place far away from you, so the design is

sent to the customer and manufactured in a machine that is closest to the

customer.

Theorist 2 expressed that sustainability is also about working environment “If you

compare with cutting machining, you get away from cutting fluid which is not so

nice to handle.”.

What we have had the most to do with when we have built our lab out here

has been security. There is a lot of personal security. So, it may not be fully

thought out with certainty. So, the question is, how dangerous is it, nobody

knows at this moment. What material should we use. These are the things

you have to think about with sustainability, a sustainable work environment

32

all the way. It's not only about carbon dioxide emission, but also a safe work

environment. (Theorist 3)

The powder is so small, normally in fraction between 15-60 [um] so it

becomes airborne when you work with it. A lot of content is non-healthy

that you don't want in your body, so it's so small that they go through the

skin as well. We use gloves, powder filters and overalls, full bodysuit.

(Practitioner 1)

4.3. Technology

The interviewed participants had a similar view on that the technology in AM is

under continuous improvement. They mentioned that “The technology has

evolved rapidly in the last 5 to 10 years and it will continue to evolve more in the

near future.” (Theorist 1) and “It is less chance and more predicted outcome today

than what it was a mere 10 years ago.” (Theorist 4).

One practitioner commented regarding the printing time, how it has changed over

the last years.

When printing a certain object for a few hundred hours one really prays that the

outcome it useful. Going back ten years, the printing time was very long, and it

was no guarantee that the outcome would be useful. This is one of the main

aspects of the evolution of 3DP that is starting to change, printing is more rapid,

and it is no longer a process of chance. The process can be monitored, and this is

an area where big improvements are done. AI is a big part that is coming fast as a

support to handle and analyze the big amounts of monitoring data the machine

delivers. (Practitioner 1)

During the interview, when the interviewees were asked what they thought had

changed most in the technology many answers were like the following. “Powder

bed fusion has evolved towards a more repetitive process, but it still needs post

treatment and in some cases support structures.” (Practitioner 2), “It is hard to say

what has changed the most in general, but in my field where I research, I think that

the technology has advanced, and it is easier to find areas where AM is applicable

today.” (Practitioner 3)

The evolution has gone relatively fast, if we look back just a mere 10 years,

we could only print very small objects. While today we have the opportunity

to print larger objects and there are several different machines that can build

500x500x500 mm. However, we need more useful powder that can be used

in 3DP, we have more than we had but we still need more, with different

33

mechanical properties. I have no doubt that we shall have them in the near

future since if we look back 10-15 years on how the technology has

evolved, we can just imagine what will happen in 10-15 years ahead.

(Theorist 1)

“We are able to work with more powerful lasers which allows printing of thicker

layers that will lead to a reduced printing time.” (Practitioner 1) , the answers on

printing time were similar to the previous answer another answer was like this “I

feel like the printing speed is increasing, because the lasers are more powerful and

since we can choose in what direction we will create something in. However, I feel

like there is a need for more alloys that are more compatible with AM which will

make post treatment faster and production speed will increase even further.”

(Theorist 2)

It was clear that there was a common area of development that is needed for the

technology since when the interviewees were asked to describe what they believe

is needed the answers were quite similar.

A breakthrough for this technology to be more industrialized will be the

standardization, it is a huge effort that is required from all of us actors on

the AM field. It will be time consuming, a lot of different minds that must

agree and repetitive simulations. But when you can finally know what you

will get and that there is for example like an ISO to back your technology

and material, more actors will flock and start implementing AM.

(Practitioner 2)

“You will be afraid to buy something if you don’t know what you are buying,

whenever there is a certain certificate or standard to a product it automatically

becomes more attractive to purchase.” (Theorist 5), “I feel that an obstacle for the

evolution of the technology is perhaps; that the bigger fish that has more capital

and resources will try to hold on to their information and progress and the smaller

companies will fall behind. This will also lock the evolution of the companies that

are withholding their information from outside sources of expertise.” (Theorist 3)

We were forced (luckily we are a big enough organization to be able to

enforce) to put demands on our 3DP machine suppliers. The demands we

put were that we needed to know how the machine was working in order to

create a monitoring system, which monitored the whole process in real-time.

By having this monitoring system where we can set certain parameters and

34

run simulations to see how repetitive the processes are, we will be one step

closer to reach standardization. Where we can guarantee that with these

parameters the outcome will be exactly like this. (Practitioner 5)

Standardization is the word that is frequently mentioned by the interviewees when

they were describing what will make AM more industrialized.

4.4. Economic benefits

Since AM is method that is not viable for all products it must be evaluated

whether it is beneficial to use AM before implementing it. “The economic benefits

are not always clear to the common eye, the production might come at a higher

cost, however the outcome will have more value and provides an economical

benefit compared to a conventional way of manufacturing.” (Theorist 1) The

interviewees had different answers when asked what they thought about economic

benefits with AM, but one thing all agreed followed like this:

“Mass production with AM as a process is, compared to conventional machining,

an expensive process but, where the possibilities of the process is utilized, it has

no competition.” (Practitioner 1) “Smaller series of complex objects will be

economically beneficial when using AM.” (Theorist 4)

Another theorist that tried to summarize on when and how AM is economically

beneficial replied with the following.

The degree of complexity is something one needs to consider, we have the

possibility to create very complex objects with AM today. For example, let

me tell you about a manifold that has been manufactured with AM and

another conventional method, when creating the manifold with conventional

methods it needs to be created as seven separate parts which will later be

welded and undergo other post treatment for it to become the final product.

The total material used will be around 400 cm3, while creating the same part

with AM, it will be created as one single component and only require

material around 30 cm3. So, one will have used less material and needed

only one manufacturing method, allowing cost savings. (Theorist 1)

35

Complexity is something that is frequently mentioned when it comes to AM,

however there are still more aspects that are mentioned when it comes to

economic benefits in AM.

I think it is about choosing the right business case for AM, choosing the

right product to print. Lead time is something that can be drastically reduced

thanks to AM, I know that one company cut their lead time from 40 weeks

to 4 days when repairing gas turbines using AM. This means saving huge

amount of money. It is also possible to create more effective products, with

effective I mean effective in its area of use, this allows the product to be of

higher value which means that it will be sold at a higher price. (Practitioner

2)

“By being able to design with higher complexity and for example when creating

certain tool forms, one can create smarter cooling channels which will reduce the

cycle time of each tool being created, depending on the size a lot of money can be

saved, each reduced second in cycle time can be worth millions yearly.” (Theorist

1)

“Since the cost per product pretty much stays the same when ordering multiple or

making small adjustments, rapid prototyping is very beneficial from an economic

perspective. Small changes can be done without radically increasing the price, so

tests can be made before the final and correct product is created.” (Theorist 2)

“Using AM allowed us to create a better heat shield for one of our turbines which

resulted in that it could last much longer, and we could sell it at a higher price.”

(Practitioner 5)

It can be said that the interviewees agreed on the fact that common variable that

affect the economic benefits with AM are level of complexity, lead time, cycle

time, cooling channels and heat shields.

4.5. Future of AM

The future of AM is believed to be bright and wide by all the interviewed

persons, “AM has been growing around 30% every year for the past 5 years, last

year AM had about 10 billion us dollars in turnover, imagine how it will be in a

36

few years.” (Practitioner 2) “Since everything is in a constant change there is no

stability there, we do not know where all the technology will end up.” (Theorist 2)

Some believe that AM will get its own field of usage, and it will be known when

to use AM and when to not. “I believe that AM will be like any other

manufacturing option, in a workshop there will be a 3D-printer to use when

printing. I think it is just time for the technology to mature and process to come

down to a more attractive level, then it will be implemented in a higher scale, and

it will be like having another tool for manufacturing.” (Theorist 3) “3DP is an

opportunity for local production, we don’t need to import complex parts we can

manufacture them here. Many different components that was previously imported

from China is now manufactured in Anderstorp and other cities where 3DP

companies exist.” (Theorist 1)

We are on the right path, we are not there yet but I believe within the next

20 years, there will be a network of 3DP that will be a part of the industrial

infrastructure where any company can connect to the printer that is closest

to the respective customer. This will reduce the transportation radically

allowing companies to save on cost and CO2 emissions. Since the data is

stored on the cloud it can easily be transferred worldwide instantly, it just

needs a 3D-printer and powders. Another area where this will be applicable

and beneficial is spare part storage. Instead of having spare parts laying

around in a warehouse consuming space, aging and collecting dust, the

chosen spare part can be created when a customer order it. (Theorist 1)

I believe that AM will be a so called “on demand” manufacturing, storage

will be reduced noticeably. Only manufacture when something is ordered. I

also believe that AM will get its own area of usage, like it will be commonly

known that this type of product is best manufactured with AM, likewise

with products that are not optimally printed. However, some products may

be manufactured in a combination of methods, some parts with AM while

others with other conventional methods. (Theorist 4)

It is mentioned that some of the goals for the future include “common knowledge

on the benefits using AM” (Practitioner 4) and “A more widespread infrastructure

of AM.” (Theorist 1) . “The thing that needs to be done first is to get certificates

and standards, so that we can ensure customers that the product will meet the

requirements. When this is done, I believe AM will explode rapidly into the

industrial world.” (Practitioner 1)

37

In our organization we have developed a staircase with different goals for

each step, with a total of four steps. The plan is to reach our last step within

5-10 years from now since the plan commenced in 2017. The first step was

creating a network where we can put potential printing jobs very much alike

how it is with 2d-printer networks. After the first step was completed the

second step began in 2018, here the goal was to create a monitoring system

so that we can monitor the printing in real time. With this monitor we now

can repeat the process of printing since we can set certain parameters and

we will see from the real time monitoring that everything checks out then

we have a duplicate, we have a form of standardization. The third step that

we are currently working on is about automation, more specifically we are

trying to replace the humans who are in contact with 3DP and powders with

robotics which can be controlled remotely through VR. This will have two

great benefits, firstly no risk of human health and secondly it can make

digital warehouses possible. We can sit here in Sweden and print something

down in India without relying on staff operating the machine, simply using

VR to control a robot. The fourth and last step of our staircase is what we

call Autonomy. This means is simplified terms that there shall be no need

for or at least very small human work, parts that are created will have

sensors that can tell when it is time for a repair or if something needs to be

fixed. These sensors will in turn order by setting of an alarm in a system if

something needs new parts, the parts will be printed with the help of robots

and shipped to their destination. I believe that this will help save huge

amount of money that can be put in another place instead. (Practitioner 5)

With the help of AM, it can be possible to manufacture without having humans

risking their health.

38

5. Analysis

The data collected in chapter four will be analyzed together with the theory in

chapter two, to make the connections needed. This will help to come up with

conclusions answering the research questions in chapter six.

5.1. Design Competence

The first step in the process chain of AM is to come up with a 3D CAD model

(Chua and Leong 2015) and when proceeding with the design, there are some

standpoints to take into consideration. In the theory Oyesola et al. (2019b)

discusses the high degree of freedom of design in AM which is one of the major

reasons why companies want to use AM. This is something that was brought up

during the interviews and that one of the participants which uses AM in their

production agreed on.

A very central matter in this research regarding design is the fact that DfAM

differs from design for conventional manufacturing. The prerequisites are

different because in conventional manufacturing a piece of material is the basis

for machining, something that the designer is obligated to take into consideration.

In AM the designer does not have this type of restriction and possess a higher

degree of flexibility. Designers must take advantage of this flexibility that AM

provides in order not to miss out on the great potentials of AM, like reducing

wastages of raw material, improve the cycle time and increasing productivity.

The designer has different options of new software available, software that is

constructed for the special use of AM. By the help of new design tools such as

topology-optimization the weight of the product can be reduced. Even though this

type of software is getting more available it still requires guidelines, skills and

know-how. As mentioned in the results chapter, when designing for AM the

process requires different type of knowledge. Knowledge about machine

capability, different types of machine can differ technologically. The designer

must also have knowledge regarding the melting process of the powder,

knowledge similar to the one concerning casting, in order to acquire the best

possible outcome.

39

In the results it was mentioned that the 3D printers may have some quality

limitations and requiring post machining, this is also something that the designer

must take into consideration. Something else to consider is the orientation of the

product in the machine to avoid support material as much as possible.

A step towards making better designers is by creating guidelines and providing

education to the designers. There are different approaches to teach out design

regarding AM, one approach is to provide proper education in the universities.

5.2. Sustainability

The economical aspect is included under its own main category, therefore only the

social and environmental aspects are summarized under this category.

Tao et al. (2018) mentions that AM has a high degree of material usage in

production meaning there are in theory less than 10% waste. Something that the

interview participants had different views on, regarding the usage of powder when

3DP. A Few implied that only the powder needed for producing was used and that

the left-over powder could be reused for the next process. Others did not agree

meaning that this was only true theoretically, and that the powder was exposed to

oxygen, damaging the characteristics of the powder. This could however be

possible with state-of-the-art machines with internal powder handling, keeping the

powder in a closed loop. This would then prevent wastage of powder when 3DP.

The machines must also improve the quality of the products so that there is

minimal need for post treatment. Some products need support structure (Dakota et

al. 2017) and this is later removed, meaning that there is still going to be some

sort of waste left using AM.

AM is a manufacturing process that enables digitalization, Oyesola et al. (2019a)

mentions that the 3DP will enable production taking place locally, through hubs

located globally. So, instead of sending the products all over the world, one can

simply upload the design and sending it digitally to anywhere in the world

(Attaran 2017), then it can be produced in a 3D printer somewhere near the end

destination. This would have tremendous impact on the environment by reducing

40

CO2 emissions, in terms of transportation. Mellor et al. (2014) implies that post

treatment could be a barrier for this type of procedure. One Expert agrees that this

type of process is possible in the future.

It is stated that the environmental improvements are negligible due to the high

energy use (Böckin 2019) and in the results one Agency claimed that the

machines in AM take much longer time than conventional machines producing

the same product. But is argued by Experts that in terms of energy consumption

one must look on the entire value chain in order to determine the environmental

impact. Because the product produced by AM can sow the seeds for great

environmental impact in the life cycle of the product.

Gebler et al. (2014) remarks that AM provides a safer and healthier environment

for operators in contrast to e.g. CNC in terms of harmful substances such as

lubricants or coolants, which is something confirmed by an Expert in the

empirical data. Although other interview participants were concerned about

personal security. The technology is still under development and the powder is in

so small fractions that it may have a negative health aspect. At the moment full

bodysuits are used to prevent powder to interact directly with the operators.

5.3. Technology

In the literature it was mentioned by Patterson et al. (2017) that SLM was more

efficient in different aspects than EBM, this claim was confirmed in the empirics.

The interviewed persons all said that they were using either SLM or DMLS rather

than EBM due to the outweighing benefits of the prior two. The reason for the

majority of users in AM to choose SLM and DMLS can also be due to fact that

these two methods are the ones that are most evolved, currently the easiest and

most optimal choice of method for powder bed fusion. It shall be known that there

was no selection of interviewee whether they were using powder bed fusion or

not, this is a fact that was learned during the interviews. It can be argued because

of this fact that it is just SLM and DMLS that has evolved the most in the last

years making it the optimal choice for users.

41

The empirics included multiple sources saying that post treatment of products is

still a negative fact and that in some cases it is needed to create impractical

support structures in order to be able to create a certain product even though the

structures will later be removed. This is also somewhat backup by the literature

like what Dakota et al. (2017) mentioned in their article, even Patterson et al.

(2017) described post treatment and support structures as a barrier in AM. It is

believed that the need for post treatment will soon be a memory for products

manufactured with AM, since the evolution for the previous 5-10 years has made

the need for post treatment less and less for each year. It is also an aspect of how

the design is made, which was explained in the design competence section.

AM is not meant for all businesses, it requires general knowledge like for example

one restraint or barrier in AM is that the size of the manufactured parts can be

maximum 500x500x500 mm. One must be able to see when it is economically

beneficial to use AM. However, it is possible to build larger through multiple

processes but that is not something for the inexperienced person to try. Majority

of the interviewee claimed that it is not possible to do everything in AM, “one

must consider the known restraints” (Practitioner 1) such as barrier of a fixed size

(Dakota et al. 2017).

One thing that was found in the collected empirics that were lacking in the

gathered theory, is standardization. This was mentioned by all the interviewed

persons both practitioners and theorists, the importance of standardization should

not be neglected. It is believed by many of the respondents that making the

technology work in a standardized manner and being able to create products

backed up my certificates, will cause the “plug” to come loose i.e. the

industrialization of AM will accelerate in an extremely high pace. The authors

found it rare that a topic that is so interesting and relevant by the collected

empirics, is lacking totally in the literature.

42

5.4. Economic benefits

There were different opinions regarding economic benefits from the respondents,

but what was agreed upon was the fact that it is not always easy to determine

direct how something will be economically beneficial. It is very easy to say when

one should not use AM, that is whenever it is something close to mass production.

Printing is not cheap, and it is not like conventional methods, that it gets cheaper

when producing a larger quantity, price per unit will not decrease in the same way

as conventional methods. In the theory it is mentioned by Yi et al. (2019) that a

barrier for increased implementation of AM is the complexity of whether

something is economically beneficial or not. It is mentioned as unpredictable

value and risk, this view was not shared by the respondents, sure they believe that

it is not as easy to predict as conventional methods, but it is not unpredictable.

Gebler et al. (2014) describes in their article that it is economically beneficial to

use AM when conducting with the production of spare parts. They claim that this

is since spare parts are more of a “on demand” production and the need for storing

of products will be less. This claim is not fully accepted by the collected empirics,

it is partially approved due to future visions of digital warehouses which will be

discussed further in the next section. However, if the spare parts are customizable

in other words different from one another and there is a degree of complexity in

the design then one can claim that it is economically beneficial.

Lead time and cycle time was mentioned as contributing factors for reducing costs

and saving money. The lead time is shortened because it is now possible for a

product to now be manufactured as a single component and not of many different

components that has been assembled together, through welding and different

methods. Now a complete design can be produced using AM since it is too

complex to produce in conventional manufacturing methods. Depending on the

degree of complexity at the regarded products, it will be determined how many

components can be turned into one single component. Cycle time was mostly

mentioned when AM is used to manufacture a form e.g. form for tool production,

the forms will be created with high complexity and stronger cooling channels than

43

that of conventional methods. This will result in it taking less time to produce

tools using the form created with AM, meaning the cycle time for each tool is

reduced.

5.4.1. Investment cost

It is known by both theory and the collected empirics that AM is not applicable

for all products (Yi et al 2019; Ilg et al. 2019)(Theorist 1; Practitioner 1), there are

certain variables that have effect on the total benefit. The authors of this paper

wanted to provide an example with calculation on something that could be

relatable for metal AM in general. However, since it’s so complex and it differs

from case to case the authors did not deem it worthy to provide an example of

calculation of costs on production in AM versus conventional manufacturing.

Instead something that can be generalizable for all metal AM is the cost of a

machine, the same machine is used for the different cases. Henceforth, it can

provide worth to this paper on giving an example of investment cost of a 3D

printer.

It is well known that the investment cost for a 3D printer is high, and it can be

argued that it can be economically beneficial to use leasing instead of purchasing

a new machine. Since the technology is evolving rapidly and it is not beneficial to

end up with an out of date machine after just a few years. A hypothetical example

is given in Appendix III, where it shows that using a loan to purchase a new

machine rather than leasing might come with a lower cost per month. However,

there is still a down payment that needs to be paid directly and there is the risk of

having a 3D printer after 3 years that is far behind the new machines in

technology perspective, thus most likely have depreciated a lot in value. When

having a leasing contract, it can be possible to upgrade to the newest machine

when the contract is about to expire, thus not having to pay the full price of the 3D

printer.

44

5.5. Future of AM

Both in the gathered theory and in the collected empirics the visions for the

potential of AM is great and positive. It is mentioned several times in the

interviews when they were asked “where do you see AM in the future” that AM

will have its own place where it is of common knowledge when to use it and when

to not. It can be used as a combination of methods or as a single method,

depending on the requirements and design. However, the authors of this study

must have a critical mindset and approach to answers given by the interviewees.

Hence, is it perhaps so that theorist and practitioners wish everything relating AM

to be good, since they have a personal invest in the area.

As mentioned in earlier section that Gebler et al. (2017) that spare parts are

economically beneficial to produce using AM, it was argued that when having on

demand production with no storage the spare part section is viable. One example

was given of this from the empirics it followed like this:

“A global company whom shipped big machines worldwide felt the need to have

storages for spare parts scattered across the globe so that transportation would be

less. However, the spare parts were just collecting dust since the company had

only sold a mere 10% of the storage after a time of more than 20 years.” (Theorist

1) The company shut down all old their storages that was filled with old spare

parts and converted some of them to small workshops with 3DP. Where spare

parts could be printed on demand.

Automation is something that is believed to be achieved in AM soon, the process

will be operated without the need of direct human contact. Powders will be taken

by robotics and all actions that was previously carried out by a human will be

replaced with a robot. The robotics can be fully automatic, but they can also be

controlled through VR by human hands from a safe location, by compelling to this

there shall be no risk of the human health. This is a strong safety procedure since

theory lacked in the field of how it is really affecting the human health to be

operating 3DP, nor was it mentioned in the collected empirics. It was discussed by

the different respondents that this automation is something that will take place in a

45

near future, as companies and research institutes has already begun trying to

implement more and more of automation into AM. What is argued to come after

automation is the next level of automation that is mentioned as autonomy.

Autonomy refers to a working condition that is totally digital and is independent

of human actions, it has been described by the respondents that AM will exist in

an autonomous network. To simply this network an example will be given and

that is, let's say you have a car, in this car you have multiple sensors that is real

time monitoring the different components of the car. If any components should

start to fail or break down, a sensor will notice this and send an order to the

autonomous network for a repair of the given component, the car will be taken to

the closest mechanical garage where it will have the new part installed which have

been printed already. This saves time and work for humans.

However it should be noticed that this example was purely hypothetical and was

only meant to simplify the meaning of autonomy, the real implementation is

believed to begin at factories and industries before it reaches the B2C market.

5.6. Summary

Companies that want to go over to AM technology must in order to succeed have

the right competence. The design for AM differs from conventional designing and

operators must have competence that is relevant for AM and be provided with the

suitable guidelines and software. Designing for AM requires the designer to have

knowledge about the different machines and processes so that the product obtains

a great quality after machining. With great design competence the full potentials

of AM can be reached, and the product will require as little post machining as

possible. The freedom of design in AM provides many opportunities to optimize

existing products to be even more beneficial.

The machines must be provided with internal powder handling, keeping the

powder in a closed loop, so that the powder characteristics is maintained, and the

powder can be re-used. This will optimize and provide a more sustainable process

46

with none or very little waste. In order to see the full sustainable impact of AM

one must look at the entire life cycle of the product. The energy consumption of

the 3D printers is rather high, so the manufactures must develop better machines

that are faster and less energy consuming. There are some uncertainties to which

type of health impacts that the powder can have on the operators, now operators

are very precautious, wearing full bodysuits to avoid direct contact with the

powder.

SLM and DMLS are the most popular printing techniques in term of Powder bed

fusion processes. The negative thing about these methods are that they often need

post treatment, this is something that is getting reduced as the technology evolves.

The technology is also limited due to the size limitations enabling products not to

be larger than 500 x 500 x 500 [mm]. Empirical data suggested that

standardization could make way for new business opportunities, by implementing

standardization the technique will show higher degree of technical reliability.

AM has a fixed cost per part meaning that costs do not decrease with number of

products manufactured in contrast to conventional manufacturing. AM is suited

for low volume, customized and high-value products. A market that is anticipated

to be lucrative is the spare parts market, producing on demand and no need for

warehouses can be economically beneficial. Having a design flexibility that

allows multiple components merging into one single component will remove the

need to assembly, this will shorten the lead time which will reduce costs. Another

market that can benefit from AM is the market for production tools. AM can

modify production tools in a certain way so that they become more efficient and

saving money for the producing company.

The future of AM lies in a more digitalized world where the process is automated,

and the production is run by an autonomous network linked directly to the

customers. The usage of storage will not be necessary for the customers of AM

due to that they can order on demand without any extra costs.

47

6. Conclusion

In this section the conclusions for the study will be presented, answers to the

research questions shall be described. This study had three research questions

and they will be answered respectively.

RQ1: Identify existing barriers within AM for metals.

• Design competence: It is now known that design competence is essential

when manufacturing in AM, since the design approach is totally different

from conventional methods. Operators/designers must think in the means

of AM from the beginning, e.g. one cannot think in the means of

conventional method then later chose to create the product in AM, since

this will not be optimal for the product or the company.

• Size and volume of production: The build size is fixed and the maximum

size available today for metal AM is 500x500x500 [mm], which means

that not all products can be created directly today when using AM. The

cost per part is not decreasing in the same manner as conventional

methods when higher volume is produced, cost per part is more or less

fixed in AM. This means that products that are in high production volume

are not optimal for AM.

• Standardization: The robustness of the technology is today not in a level

where the process can be deemed unquestionably dependable, it has

improved in a greatly and rapidly over the last years. However, it still

needs more assurance of the process outcome and the process

repetitiveness. From the collected empirics, one Practitioner (5) claimed

that their company is almost there, they have managed to create a real time

monitoring system which ensures outcome and repetitiveness. Now lies a

question whether this information will be shared allowing global

industrialization or if the information will be kept secret to ensure

competitive advantage.

48

• Investment cost: It is known that the investment cost for AM is relatively

high, the 3D printer alone for metal with a large build area lies in the price

range of above 2 500 000 SEK (ALL3DP 2019). Not all companies have

such capital to invest in a new market and there is additional cost except

for the machine as well.

RQ2: What benefits can be seen using 3D-printing as manufacturing option?

• Design Complexity: The higher degree of design freedom compared to

conventional methods allows products to be manufactured with a complex

design. Hence, having more complex products may include one or all of

the four major benefits; reduced material used, reduced lead time, reduced

cycle time and more effective product. Reduced material used means that

only the required material will be used, and it will be less waste, this is

economically beneficial and especially if the material is expensive.

Reduced lead time can result in a huge reduce of costs, this is made

possible when a product is produces in AM as a single component but was

previously produced as multiple components in conventional methods.

Reduced cycle time is also cost saving, and this occurs normally when e.g.

tool forms with more effective cooling channels are created in AM, then

each tool created in the form will have a reduced cycle time. More

effective products compared to products manufactured using conventional

methods, means e.g. less weight yet same mechanical properties or

designed in such manner that the durability of the products becomes

extended, thus allowing the product to be more valuable to customers and

can be sold at a higher price.

• Digitalized and autonomous: Is digitalized to some extent as of today but

have the possibility to become fully autonomous and digitalized in the

near future, thus, removing the need of human actions in the process.

49

RQ3: How is metal AM regarded from a sustainability perspective?

It is argued that metal AM is a sustainable process from different aspects, e.g. the

product is totally recyclable and there is small or no waste when manufacturing

products. However, the standardization needs to improve for the processes to be

claimed more sustainable.

There is also the argument that in the near future 3DP will allow local production

globally by having small workshops around the world which produces on demand.

This will remove unnecessary storage of products and it will radically reduce

transportation distances which in turn reduce CO2 emissions.

There is limited previous research regarding how the health impact on humans

operating 3D printers is harmful or not. Operators are using precautions by

wearing special bodywear and going through certain safety passages to enter the

rooms where the 3D printers are. Even though these precautions are existing, there

is always the risk of humans not following them and if they really are guaranteed

safe. By implementing a more automation in the process and using robotics these

risks will be totally eliminated and humans are safe.

6.1. Future research

Two types of topics that are interesting for further research and that were brought

up during this research were standardization and knowledge around AM.

Standardization

In the interviews a hot topic was standardization, but the theory of standardization

was very limited. A future research on how to standardize AM processes is

needed, which will create a degree of quality assurance to validate the products.

Knowledge in universities

The second topic is how to start teaching AM in pre-existing engineering courses.

How is it implementable to start teaching something which the teachers may have

limited knowledge within?

50

51

References

All3DP (2019). How Much Does a Metal 3D Printer Cost in 2019?

https://all3dp.com/2/how-much-does-a-metal-3d-printer-cost/ [2020-01-02]

ASTM Standard 2792. 2012. Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing

Technologies. doi:10.1520/F2792-12A.

Attaran, M. (2017). The rise of 3-D printing: The advantages of additive manufacturing

over traditional manufacturing. Business Horizons, 60 (5), 677-688. Doi:

10.1016/j.bushor.2017.05.011.

Benjamin, V., Frédéric, V. & François, V., (2011). METALLIC ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING: STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW AND

PROSPECTS

Berman, B. (2012). 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business Horizons, 55,

155-162. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.003.

Bogue, R. (2013). 3D printing: The dawn of a new era in manufacturing? Assembly

Automation, 33, 307-311. doi: 10.1108/AA-06-2013-055.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2012). Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Böckin, D. & Tillman, A. (2019). Environmental assessment of additive manufacturing in

the automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 977-987. doi:

10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.086.

Ceruti, A., Marzocca, P., Liverani, A. & Bil, C. (2019). Maintenance in Aeronautics in an

Industry 4.0 Context: The Role of Augmented Reality and Additive Manufacturing.

Journal of Computational Design and Engineering, 6, 516-526. doi:

10.1016/j.jcde.2019.02.001.

Chen, D., Heyer, S., Ibbotson, S., Salonitis, K., Steingrímsson, J. & Thiede, S. (2015).

Direct Digital Manufacturing: Definition, Evolution, and Sustainability Implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 615–625. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.05.009.

Chua, C.K. & Leong, K.F. (2015). 3D printing and additive manufacturing: Principles

and applications. 4. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.

Cindy, K. (2015). Addressing sustainability in research on distributed production: an

integrated literature review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 654-668. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.039.

Dakota, M., Emmanuel, A. & Chris, H. (2017). Support Structure Development and

Initial Results for Metal Powder Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing. Procedia

Manufacturing, 10, 819-830. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2017.07.083.

52

Devezas, T., Leitão, J. & Sarygulov, A. (2016). Industry 4.0: Entrepreneurship and

Structural Change in the New Digital Landscape. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-49604-7.

Faludi, J., Bayley, C., Bhogal, S. & Iribarne, M. (2015), Comparing environmental

impacts of additive manufacturing vs traditional machining via life-cycle assessment.

Rapid Prototyping Journal, 21(1), 14-33. doi: 10.1108/RPJ-07-2013-0067

Florian, B. (2014), Changing the future of additive manufacturing. Metal Powder Report, 69(3), 37-40. doi: 10.1016/S0026-0657(14)70135-3.

Gebler, M., Schoot Uiterkamp, A. & Visser, C. (2014). A global sustainability

perspective on 3D printing technologies. Energy Policy, 74, 158–167. doi:

10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.033

General Electric Aviation (2018). New manufacturing milestone: 30,000 additive fuel nozzles.

https://www.ge.com/additive/blog/new-manufacturing-milestone-30000-additive-

fuel-nozzles [2020-01-02]

Gratton, A. (2012). Comparison of Mechanical, Metallurgical Properties of 17-4PH

Stainless Steel between Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS) and Traditional

Manufacturing Methods. Proceedings of The National Conference on Undergraduate

Research (NCUR), (1), 29-31.

Holmström, J., Liotta, G. & Chaudhuri, A. (2017). Sustainability outcomes through direct

digital manufacturing-based operational practices: a design theory approach. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 167, 951-961.

Ilg, J., Oehler, A. & Lucke, D. (2019). A Suitability Analysis Method for Additive

Manufacturing Technologies in Small and Medium-Sized Companies. Procedia CIRP,

81, 612-617. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.164.

Jawahir, I., Rouch, K., Dillon, J.O., Holloway, L., Hall, A. & Knuf, J. (2007). Design for

sustainability (DFS): new challenges in developing and implementing a curriculum for

next generation design and manufacturing engineers. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23 (6), 49-149

Jiang, R., Kleer, R. & Piller, F. (2017). Predicting the future of additive manufacturing: A

Delphi study on economic and societal implications of 3D printing for 2030.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 117, 84-97. doi:

10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.006.

Kellens, K., Baumers, M., Gutowski, T. G., Flanagan, W., Lifset, R. & Duflou, J. R.

(2017). Environmental Dimensions of Additive Manufacturing: Mapping Application

Domains and Their Environmental Implications. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21, 49-

68. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12629

Khorram, M. & Nonino, F. (2016). Impact of Additive Manufacturing on Business

Competitiveness: A Multiple Case Study. Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management, 28, 56-74. doi: 10.1108/JMTM-01-2016-0001.

53

Kleer, R. & Piller, F. (2019). Local manufacturing and structural shifts in competition:

Market dynamics of additive manufacturing. International Journal of Production Economics, 216, 23-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.04.019.

Kobryn, P.A., Ontko, N.R., Perkins, L.P. & Tiley, J.S. (2006). Additive Manufacturing of

Aerospace Alloys for Aircraft Structures. In Cost Effective Manufacture via Net-Shape

Processing, (3), 1-14.

Kruth, J-P., Leu, M.P. & Nakagawa T. (1998). Progress in Additive Manufacturing and

Rapid Prototyping. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, 47, 525-540.

Lauwers, B., Klocke, F., Klink, A., Tekkaya, A.E., Neugebauer, R. & McIntosh, D.

(2014). Hybrid Processes in Manufacturing. CIRP Annals, 63(2), 561-583. doi:

10.1016/j.cirp.2014.05.003.

Liang, H., Raymond, D., Strano, G. & Dadbakhsh, S. (2010). Enhancing the

sustainability of additive manufacturing. 5th International Conference on Responsive

Manufacturing - Green Manufacturing, (1), 390 – 395.

Mellor, S., Hao, L. & Zhang, D. (2014). Additive manufacturing: A framework for

implementation. International Journal of Production Economics, 149, 194–201. doi:

10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.008.

Metal AM (2018). Introduction to metal additive manufacturing and 3D printing.

https://www.metal-am.com/introduction-to-metal-additive-manufacturing-and-

3d-printing/metal-additive-manufacturing-processes/ [2019-11-16]

Oyesola, M., Mpofu, K. & Mathe, N. (2019a). A techno-economic analytical approach of

laser-based additive manufacturing processes for aerospace application. Procedia

Manufacturing. 35. 155-163. Doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.05.019.

Oyesola, M., Mpofu, K., Mathe, N. & Daniyan, I. (2019b). Development of an integrated

design methodology model for quality and throughput of Additive Manufacturing

processes. Procedia CIRP, 84, 688-693. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.177.

Paris, H., Mokhtarian, H., Coatanéa, E., Museau, M. & Ituarte, I. (2016). Comparative

environmental impacts of additive and subtractive manufacturing technologies. CIRP

Annals, 65(1), 29-32. doi: 10.1016/j.cirp.2016.04.036.

Patterson, A.E., Messimer, S.L. & Farrington, P.A. (2017). Overhanging Features and the

SLM/DMLS Residual Stresses Problem: Review and Future Research Need.

Technologies, 5(2), 14-15. doi.org/10.3390/technologies5020015.

Pereira, T., Kennedy, J. & Potgieter, J. (2019). A comparison of traditional manufacturing

vs additive manufacturing, the best method for the job. Procedia Manufacturing, 30, 11-

18. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.003.

Qi, X., Chen, G., Li, Y., Cheng, X. & Li, C. (2019). Applying Neural-Network-Based

Machine Learning to Additive Manufacturing: Current Applications, Challenges, and

Future Perspectives. Engineering, 5, 721-729. doi: 10.1016/j.eng.2019.04.012.

54

Reischauer, G. (2018). Industry 4.0 as policy-driven discourse to institutionalize

innovation systems in manufacturing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,

132, 26-33. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.02.012.

Ribeiro da Silva, E., Shinohara, A., Pinheiro de Lima, E., Angelis, J. & Gonçalves

Machado, C. (2019). Reviewing Digital Manufacturing concept in the Industry 4.0

paradigm. Procedia CIRP, 81, 240-245. doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.042.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students.

6th ed. Harlow: Pearson

Senthii, P. V.l., Aakash Sirussht, V. S.i & Satish, T (2019). Artificial intelligence based

green manufacturability quantification of a unit production process. International Journal

of Mechanical and Production, 9(2), 841-852.

Skilton, M. & Hovsepian, F. (2018). The 4th Industrial Revolution: Responding to the

Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Business. Cham: Springer International Publishing

Tao, P., Karel, K., Renzhong, T., Chao, C. & Gang, C. (2018). Sustainability of additive

manufacturing: An overview on its energy demand and environmental impact. Additive

Manufacturing, 21, 694-704. doi: 10.1016/j.addma.2018.04.022.

Thomas, D. & Venkat, R. (2016). 3D Metal Printing Technology. IFAC-PapersOnLine,

49(29), 103-110. doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.11.111.

Weller, C., Kleer, R. & Piller, F. (2015). Economic Implications of 3D printing: Market

structure Models in light of additive manufacturing Revisited. International Journal of

Production Economics, 164, 43-56. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.02.020.

Wohlers, T. (2015) Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing State of the Industry.

Annual Worldwide Progress Report, Published by Wohlers Associates.

Wohlers, T. (2018). Wohlers report 2018: 3d printing and additive manufacturing state

of the industry annual worldwide progress report. Fort Collins, Colorado: Wohlers

associates

Yi, L., Gläßner, C. & Aurich, J. (2019). How to integrate additive manufacturing

technologies into manufacturing systems successfully: A perspective from the

commercial vehicle industry. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 53. 195-211. doi:

10.1016/j.jmsy.2019.09.007.

55

Appendices

Here follow the appendixes that have been used in this study, for relevance they

have been mentioned in the study e.g. “see Appendix X”.

Appendix I

Interview guideline for Theorists in English (Translated from

Swedish)

• Introduction inform participants of recording and potential time frame.

• Inform of GDPR, anonymity disclosure and inform about Respondent validation.

• Start with presenting thesis, research questions and purpose of the interview.

• Let participants know that they are free to stop the interview at any time, and that they can chose not to answer any question.

• Start with formalities and go on with main questions.

• Thank the participants and end the interview.

Formalities

1) Tell me a little bit about your role in your organization, what are your main

tasks?

2) What type of AM are you using?

3) What got you interested in AM?

4) How long have you been working with AM?

Main Questions 1) What is your view on the current technology regarding the one you are using?

a) What is your view on how the technology has evolved until today?

b) Which field do you think require more focus of improvement?

2) What is your view on the progress of applicable/(useful) metals/powders for

AM?

a) Which metal/powder do you think can be used more and why?

3) How is AM in a sustainable development perspective?

4) What type of industry do you think AM has the greatest potential to be

implemented in?

a) Why do you think that is?

5) In which field do you think AM will face more challenge of being

implemented?

a) Why do you think that is?

6) From your experience in AM, which are the most known barriers you have

faced?

a) How did you solve this?

56

b) What would be required to generalize the solution?

7) Do you have knowledge to operate a 3D-printer?

(a) If Yes -> Do you have a certain education for this?

(b) If No -> What type of education would be required for this do

you think?

8) Is it something that needs to be addressed when operating with CAD for a

3DP purpose?

(a) What is it?

9) Are there clear differences from an economic perspective of using AM?

(a) Which are these?

10) What do you think will differentiate between AM and traditional

manufacturing methods in the future?

11) Is there anything that you feel we have left out in this interview,

something that you would expect to receive questions about, that you would

like to contribute?

57

Appendix II

Interview guideline Practitioners English (Translated from

Swedish)

• Introduction inform participants of recording and potential time frame.

• Inform of GDPR, anonymity disclosure and inform about Respondent validation.

• Start with presenting thesis, research questions and purpose of the interview.

• Let participants know that they are free to stop the interview at any time, and that they can chose not to answer any question.

• Start with formalities and go on with main questions.

• Thank the participants and end the interview.

Formalities

1) Tell me a little bit about your role in your organization, what are your main

tasks?

2) What type of AM are you using?

3) What got you interested in AM?

4) How long have you been working with AM?

Main Questions 1) What is your view on the current technology regarding the one you are using?

a) What is your view on how the technology has evolved until today?

b) Which field do you think require more focus of improvement?

2) What type of metal powders do you currently use?

a) Why these?

3) What type of industry do you think AM has the greatest potential to be

implemented in?

a) Why do you think that is?

4) In which field do you think AM will face more challenge of being

implemented?

a) Why do you think that is?

5) From your experience in AM, what are the most common barriers you have

faced?

a) How did you overcome this/these?

b) How would the solution be generalized?

6) What do you believe is important to consider before investing in AM?

7) Do you possess the knowledge to operate a 3D-printer?

a) If Yes – Have you went through any special education for this purpose?

b) If No – What type of education do you think is required for this?

8) Is it something that needs to be addressed when operating with CAD for a

3DP purpose?

58

a) What is it?

9) How is the knowledge level of the staff in your organization with regards on

operating a 3D-printer?

a) What happens if one or more persons become sick?

10) How do you operate your business with regards to a sustainability,. .

. perspective?

(a) Are there room for improvement?

(b) If Yes→ How, What?

(c) If No→ Why is that?

11) What do you think will differentiate between AM and traditional. .

. manufacturing methods in the future?

12) Is there anything that you feel we have left out in this interview,. . . .

. something that you would expect to receive questions about, that. . .

. you would like to contribute?

59

Appendix III

Example of loan vs lease cost, for a PBF 3D printer

The given values : Amount, Annual rate, Down payment and leasing per year

came from All3DP (2019) by contacting the support for a quotation on leasing.

The payment for loan was calculated with the following equations:

𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑝𝑎𝑦. = (𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡

1−(1+𝑟)−𝑛𝑟.𝑝

𝑟

) ; where r = Annual rate, nr.p = Nr of payments.

Total pay 3y. = Monthly pay. * 36.

Total pay 5y. = Monthly pay. * 60.

The payment for the leasing was calculated with the following equations:

𝑇𝑜𝑡. 𝑝𝑎𝑦 3𝑦. = 𝐿𝑃𝑌

(1+𝑖)1 +𝐿𝑃𝑌

(1+𝑖)2 +𝐿𝑃𝑌

(1+𝑖)3; where LPY = leasing per year, i = Annual

interest

Monthly pay = Tot. pay 3y. / 36.

Loan vs Lease

Annual rate 8% 8% Annual interest

Number of years 5 3 Number of years

Nr of pay. 60 36 Nr of payments

Amount 2 500 000,00 kr

Down. Pay. 15% 375 000,00 kr 600 000,00 kr Leasing per year

Monthly pay. 43 087,34 kr 46 387,75 kr Monthly payment

Total pay. 3yrs 1 551 144,16 kr 1 669 958,85 kr Tot. Pay. 3 years

Total pay. 5yrs 2 585 240,27 kr