Additive Manufacturing (AM) has made significant strides in the last two decades, evolving from a niche technology primarily used for prototyping into a manufacturing proess with the potential to shift many multiple business models and value propositions.
Yet, despite its remarkable potential, additive manufacturing excels in some applications while faltering in others. This paradox isn’t due to any inherent flaw in the technology itself but rather due to the complex interplay of factors such as material requirements, production scale, design freedom, and economic viability.
Let’s examine why additive manufacturing performs admirably in certain contexts while struggling in others.
Table of Contents
The Strengths of Additive Manufacturing
Additive manufacturing’s primary advantage lies in its ability to produce highly complex, custom parts without the need for expensive molds, tooling, or intricate setups. This design freedom, combined with low-volume production capabilities, makes AM particularly well-suited for applications where traditional manufacturing methods struggle. Its key strengths are in:
1. Customization and Complexity
AM allows to produce geometrically complex structures that would be virtually impossible or prohibitively expensive to create using traditional methods such as injection molding or machining. This is evident in industries such as aerospace, medical devices, and automotive, where intricate parts with high performance demands are often needed.
Take, for instance, the aerospace industry. In 2017, General Electric (GE) successfully developed a fuel nozzle for its LEAP engine using 3D Printing. This nozzle, composed of 20 individual parts in the traditional manufacturing process, was reduced to just one part through AM, leading to improvements in both performance and cost. The part’s complex internal geometries, which allow for better fuel flow and cooling, would have been incredibly difficult to achieve through conventional methods.
Similarly, in the medical field, additive manufacturing has revolutionized the creation of custom prosthetics, implants, and surgical guides. The ability to tailor a device to a patient’s unique anatomy using a CT scan or MRI as a blueprint allows for a level of personalization that traditional manufacturing simply cannot provide.
2. Rapid Prototyping and Iteration
The iterative nature of additive manufacturing also makes it an excellent tool for rapid prototyping. This is particularly valuable in industries where product designs evolve quickly or need to undergo continuous refinement, such as in product development for consumer electronics or automotive design.
AM reduces the time from concept to physical prototype, allowing for faster testing, feedback, and modifications. It also eliminates the need for expensive tooling or molds, which significantly lowers the barrier for experimenting with new designs. For example, automotive companies like Ford and BMW use 3D Printing for rapid prototyping of vehicle parts, enabling them to reduce development timelines and improve the speed at which they can bring new models to market.
3. Supply Chain Flexibility
In situations where supply chains are disrupted, additive manufacturing offers an invaluable level of flexibility. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many manufacturers turned to 3D Printing to produce critical medical supplies such as face shields, ventilator parts, and personal protective equipment when traditional manufacturing sources were unable to meet demand.
Additionally, AM can support decentralized manufacturing, enabling on-demand production close to the end user. This can be a game-changer for industries facing long lead times and high transportation costs. For instance, aerospace companies have used AM to produce spare parts on-site for remote locations or military operations, reducing the dependency on global supply chains and associated risks.
The Weaknesses of Additive Manufacturing
Despite these compelling advantages, additive manufacturing is not a one-size-fits-all solution. There are several limitations that do not position it as the ideal option in widespread adoption, especially in high-volume production settings or for parts requiring specific material properties. Some key areas where AM struggles are:
1. Material Limitations
While AM has seen tremendous advancements in material science, it still faces significant limitations when compared to traditional manufacturing processes. For example, metals such as titanium and aluminum are commonly used in AM, but the material properties may not always match the performance characteristics of those produced through traditional methods like casting or forging.
The thermal properties, strength, fatigue resistance, and surface finish of 3D Printed metal parts can often fall short in critical applications. This is why AM is less commonly used in heavy industries, like the manufacturing of high-volume car engine blocks or large structural components for civil engineering. In these cases, conventional methods such as die-casting or machining still dominate due to the ability to work with a wider range of materials with superior mechanical properties.
2. Speed and Cost at Scale
Although AM excels in producing low-volume, complex parts, it struggles when it comes to scaling up for high-volume production. The additive manufacturing process, particularly with metal 3D Printing, tends to be slower and more expensive per part compared to traditional methods such as injection molding or stamping.
For instance, while a plastic part can be injection molded at high speed and low cost once the mold is created, 3D Printing that same part might take hours or even days, depending on its size and complexity. The cost per part decreases as the production volume increases with traditional methods, while AM costs per part remain relatively consistent after it crosses a certain low volume threshold. This makes additive manufacturing a poor choice for applications where economies of scale are paramount.
Take the example of the automotive industry, where tens of thousands of identical components are required. The high setup costs and slower speed of AM mean that, unless the design involves significant complexity or customization, traditional manufacturing methods are typically more cost-effective.
3. Surface Finish and Post-Processing
Although AM can produce intricate geometries, the surface finish of parts often requires post-processing. Depending on the technology used, whether DED, SLS, FDM, parts often have visible layer lines, rough textures, or require additional finishing steps such as support removal, sanding, polishing, or coating.
This issue is especially critical for industries where smooth surfaces are vital, such as in consumer electronics or medical devices, where even minor imperfections can affect product functionality or aesthetic appeal. In these cases, the need for post-processing can negate some of the advantages of AM, particularly in terms of time and cost.
Value Proposition in Different Business Models
The success or failure of additive manufacturing often depends on how well it aligns with the business model of the industry it is being applied to. In some sectors, the advantages of AM – customization, design freedom, and rapid prototyping, align perfectly with the business needs. In others, traditional manufacturing models based on mass production and economies of scale remain dominant.
1. Mass Customization and Low-Volume Manufacturing
For industries where low-volume production or customization is critical, additive manufacturing offers a compelling value proposition. In medical device manufacturing, for example, AM allows for the creation of patient-specific implants and prosthetics, aligning well with the trend toward personalized healthcare. The same holds true for the aerospace and defense industries, where one-of-a-kind parts or small batches are often required.
These industries benefit from the flexibility and design freedom that AM provides, even if the process is more expensive than traditional mass manufacturing. The higher cost per part can often be justified by the added value of customization, functionality, and performance.
2. Supply Chain Disruption and On-Demand Production
Additive manufacturing’s ability to localize production and create on-demand parts makes it a powerful tool for industries facing supply chain disruptions or logistical challenges. Companies that embrace this model are shifting away from the just-in-time inventory approach and opting for a more decentralized model.
For example, spare parts in aerospace or military applications can be produced in the field using 3D Printing, reducing the need for large inventories and minimizing downtime due to part shortages. For businesses with extensive global supply chains, this ability to produce critical parts on demand offers significant advantages in terms of reducing costs and mitigating supply chain risks.
3. Mass Production of Simple, High-Volume Parts
In industries where large quantities of simple, identical parts are needed, additive manufacturing struggles to offer any tangible benefit. The economics of AM become less favorable in high-volume manufacturing, where the cost per unit typically decreases as production scales up.
Consider the example of producing plastic injection-molded components in the consumer goods sector. For a company like Procter & Gamble or Unilever, mass-producing simple plastic bottles or caps in millions of units is a task ideally suited for injection molding. The tooling for injection molding can be expensive initially, but once the molds are created, the production speed and unit cost are significantly lower than that of 3D Printing. A mold can produce hundreds of thousands of parts quickly and at a fraction of the cost per unit compared to Printing those same parts using AM.
Moreover, the surface finish and consistency of molded parts typically surpass those created by 3D Printing, where post-processing requirements often add additional time and cost. In mass production, AM’s relatively slower speed and higher material costs create a scenario where traditional methods provide superior value in both cost and throughput.
4. Low-Precision Industrial Components
In certain industrial applications where precision is not critical, additive manufacturing may fail to deliver the necessary performance at a competitive cost. AM excels when high precision is required or when a part’s geometry is too complex for traditional manufacturing methods, but for simpler components that only need to meet basic mechanical requirements, the technology can fall short.
A case in point is the manufacturing of low-precision industrial parts, such as certain structural components used in construction machinery or farming equipment. These components might need to meet basic standards for strength and durability, but they don’t require the kind of intricate design or customization that additive manufacturing offers.
For these parts, traditional manufacturing methods such as forging, stamping, or casting are much more cost-effective. These processes allow us to produce durable, simple parts at a fraction of the cost of 3D Printing. In the case of cast components, material costs and production times are typically lower, and the ability to produce parts in larger quantities makes the process far more economical for industries that require robustness but not complexity.
Conclusion: A Strategic Approach
The key to understanding why additive manufacturing excels in some applications and is not ideal in others lies in aligning the technology with the specific needs of the business.
AM is not a universal solution but rather a highly specialized tool that offers unique benefits in certain contexts. Industries that require customization, complexity, and rapid prototyping are well-suited for AM, while those focused on high-volume, cost-sensitive production still rely on traditional manufacturing techniques. It will always coexist with traditional manufacturing technologies, complementing them effectively.
