Materials Solutions, a Siemens business, has received accreditation from the National Aerospace and Defense Contractors Accreditation Program (NADCAP) for additive manufacturing in the aerospace sector. A reported first for a UK 3D printing company in this industry Phil Hatherley, General Manager at Materials Solutions, comments, “We knew that in order to deliver the highest quality parts for the aerospace sector we needed to get the NADCAP accreditation to show we were serious about working in the sector.”
It is universally recognized and incorporated by the aerospace industry for risk mitigation activity as it validates compliance with industry standards, best practices, and customer requirements. Both Italian metal 3D printing service provider Beam IT and QC Laboratories, Inc., a non-destructive testing (NDT) services company, have NADCAP approval for aerospace production.
Global standards developer ASTM International has announced the second round of funding to support the research and development of standards for the additive manufacturing industry.
Comprising an investment of $300,000 and in-kind contributions, the funding will aid ASTM International Additive Manufacturing Center of Excellence (AM CoE)’s objective to address the needs for technical standardization in the growing additive manufacturing industry.
The investment covers nine research projects helping to expedite standards in additive manufacturing. Dr. Mohsen Seifi, ASTM International’s Director of Global Additive Manufacturing Programs, explains that each project contributes towards different standard gaps in design, feedstock, process, post-processing, testing, and qualification. Seifi adds,
“WE ARE THRILLED TO FUND SOME OF THE MOST CRUCIAL AND HIGH-IMPACT RESEARCH PROJECTS IN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING TO ACCELERATE STANDARDIZATION.”
With additive manufacturing (AM), novel parts can be designed and built with optimized topologies, eliminating the need for machining individual pieces and then assembling them. Many are hopeful that this technology will benefit the environment through a decrease in the amounts of energy and raw materials required to make components in all sorts of industries.
The Additive Report discussed 3D printing and its place in sustainable manufacturing with MIT Professor Timothy Gutowski, head of the university’s Environmentally Benign Manufacturing (EBM) research group. EBM focuses on examining the environmental effects associated with manufacturing products.
Additive Report: Can you provide an overview of the benefits of 3D printing in terms of sustainability?
Tim Gutowski: Any benefits depend a lot on the details. For lifecycle analysis claims, you’re setting up some version of additive manufacturing versus some version of a conventional manufacturing process. And one problem is that we have a better idea of the waste numbers for conventional manufacturing processes than we do for additive, because the latter is still a work in progress.
The Center for Additive Manufacturing at Auburn University, Alabama, is now home to a $1.5 million x-ray CT system. The new machine is to be applied to the nondestructive testing (NDT) of 3D printed parts, essential to the university’s programs to produce “mission critical” parts for aerospace and aviation industries.
The system was acquired with a grant from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Professor Bart Prorok, Director of Auburn’s Analytical Microscopy Center, is principal investigator on the NIST grant, and has called the x-ray CT system “a real game changer” for the center’s additive manufacturing research.
“With this new system,” Professor Prorok explains, “we can take two-dimensional x-ray pictures of a metal structure for real-time process monitoring or a series of 2D images in 360 degrees of rotation that are then reconstructed into a 3D representation of the build.”
3D printing classified as a manufacturing process means some retailers are liable for IPI excise tax
The International Tax Review reports that a tax ruling issued by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service on whether 3D printing should be classified as a manufacturing process for a business could mean retailers are liable for excise taxes. These are indirect taxes on the sale of a particular good or service such as fuel, tobacco and alcohol. Indirect means the tax is not directly paid by an individual consumer — instead, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) levies the tax on the producer or merchant, who passes it onto the consumer by including it in the product’s price.
The growth of the digital economy is the result of transformative processes brought about by information and communication technology (ICT) and is changing business models. This is very important from a tax perspective. and can have implications all over the world. In fact, Because of this, the OECD issued BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) Action 1, which deals with the tax challenges of the digital economy. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) promotes policies that seek to improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world. It provides a forum in which governments can work together to share experiences and seek solutions to common problems.
In their recently published paper, ‘What Shall we do with the Drunken Sailor? Product Safety in the Aftermath of 3D Printing,’ Klaus Heine and Shu Li discuss how a disruptive technology like 3D printing can also upset other more peripheral areas such as legal issues and product liability. Safety mechanisms must be in place to protect the public, and the authors question why there is not more concern over potentially ‘harmful 3D printed products,’ with an analysis of why ‘incumbent product liability law does not incentivize optimal deterrence.’
Focusing on the many novel 3D printing startups and business models associated with 3D printing as the ‘trigger,’ the authors point out how little informational content regarding ‘specific producers’ is provided.
Any new technology, however promising, must be assessed for its environmental sustainability. This applies to 3D printing, also called additive manufacturing (AM), which is being developed as an alternative manufacturing technology in many fields of production. Clean technology is defined in terms of the lifecycle, greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, toxic materials, and the use of non-renewable resources.
At present most 3D printing is carried out on a small scale. However, it is expanding quickly as tools and materials become more affordable, process quality improves, and innovative techniques emerge.
Digital supply chain software company Identify3D is introducing its latest suite of software solutions to enable manufacturers to facilitate additive manufacturing and decentralize manufacturing models. The software update addresses intellectual property protection, manufacturing repeatability and traceability in order to secure the digital manufacturing process from ever-evolving security threats.
The software suite includes Identify3D Protect, Identify3D Manage and Identify3D Enforce applications, which together offer a comprehensive and encompassing solution for protecting the digital supply chain.
GE Research has developed a quantum-secure Blockchain Network for 3D printing which is capable of managing digital transactions, from powder to finished part. The novel technology was recently recognized by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) which awarded GE Research a 2019 Manufacturing Leadership Award for Supply Chain Leadership.
As a mostly digital-driven process, additive manufacturing can benefit greatly from a blockchain-enabled supply chain, which offers an effective framework for securely managing additive manufacturing transactions for critical industrial parts.
In industries such as aerospace and energy especially, where critical metal components designed specifically for AM are produced, a sophisticated, secure and reliable system must be established for every step of the supply chain, from powder, to manufacturing floor, to post-processing.
3D printing has taken off at lightning speed, with innovations emerging around the world continually—and virtually unregulated. While there may be some serious discussions and expectations regarding ownership and common sense regarding designs, most of the legal angles are still in the embryonic stages. And that brings us to tissue engineering. Jamil Ammar tackles a provocative subject that has the potential to become much more complex over the years, in ‘Defective Computer-Aided Design Software Liability in 3D Bioprinted Human Organ Equivalents.’
The creative aspect of 3D printing is one important part of potential intellectual property rights, but in relation to legalities, there are serious liabilities that could be connected to defects in bioprinting. Ammar leads us through the process of bioprinting, from CAD software design to CAD designs to scanning of organs, and the eventual bioprinting of such complex tissue. While there are still so many challenges to overcome before actual organs are created and implanted in humans, worrying about the legalities may seem like jumping the gun; but Ammar does bring up important issues regarding the ‘what ifs’ surrounding software or a design that could be defective.