In our last blog post, we went over some of the primary printing processes used in additive manufacturing. Today, we will cover why we decided to go with an FDM printing process here at Slant3D.

So hopefully this post shed some light on why we decided to use an FDM printing process here at Slant3D. The existing materials base makes it an incredibly cost-effective and convenient process. The ease of scaling up to produce hundreds, or even thousands, of parts at one time. And, the ability to pull finished parts right off the printer and ship them without having to spend hours post processing. These are just a few of the many reasons why FDM printing is the best option when it comes to mass production 3d printing, and why we have chosen this process here at Slant3D. Dont forget to check out our video on this same topic down below.

When it comes to 3d printing, there are typically 3 primary printing processes that come to mind; FDM, Resin Based, and Powder Jetting. In this blog post, we will go over the strengths and weaknesses of each of these processes.

Any type of resin based 3​d printing, whether it be DLP (Digital Light Processing) or SLA (Stereolithography), typically all function under the same principle, using a light source to cure a liquid resin into a hardened plastic. In SLA 3d printing, a build platform is lowered into a thin layer of resin where a laser is used to draw out the first layer of the object. The laser hardens the resin and the build platform is then raised back up so a new layer of resin can be added. This process repeats until, layer by layer, the object is finished.

Much like resin based printing, powder jetting has many different types of processes that fall underneath it but they all work under the same basic concept. An industrial printhead selectively deposits a liquid binding agent onto a thin layer of powder. This powder then hardens and a new layer of powder is added so the printhead can deposit more binding agent and process repeats layer by layer until the object you are printing is finished. When its all said and done, your part is embedded in the powder like a fossil in the dirt. Then, you dig out your finished product, wash off the excess powder, and then put the parts through a ​post-curing process to strengthen them. 

In conclusion, each of these printing processes have their fair share of advantages and disadvantages. Some, like FDM, are better suited for large scale production. Whereas others, like resin based, are more suited for small scale, high quality parts. Selecting the right printing process comes down to accessing the advantages and limitations of each technology to your products most important requirements. Although there is no one size fits all solution, properly utilizing 3D printing technology throughout your product's development will reduce design risk and, ultimately, result in better products.

​Happy printing.

One of the strongest qualities of 3d printing, particularly FDM 3d printing, is it's ability to take the same material, with the same properties, but make the part itself behave very differently.

For example, both products in the above image are made from the exact same material, TPU (Thermoplastic Polyurethane). They are both a 95A durometer TPU which is a fairly reasonable stiffness, about as stiff as a pencil eraser. However, when printed, the product on the left came out about the same stiffness as a pencil eraser, whereas the one on the right is much more flexible and soft (Figure B). The reason behind this is is because with 3d printing we're actually able to change the macroscopic structure of the part, thus allowing them to have very different qualities. In Figure C, you can see how the product consists of a lot of little strings stacked up on top of one another, making it very soft and flexible.

Generally speaking, building a print farm can be a pretty expensive investment. Starting out, you would need to buy anywhere from 10-20 machines and scale up your farm from there. But, 10 machines, at around $500 each, would result in pretty high upfront costs. So how can you get the scale of the printing farm to where you can produce 100's or even 1000's of pieces, without actually having to buy all of those machines?

Well that's why 3D printing farm services such as Slant 3D were created, so that as businesses are scaling up, instead of having to invest all that money into machines, they can just use the service to grow their customer base and be able to support those orders as they increase. Then once they hit those milestones and generate more revenue, they can then begin to buy more machines and begin printing in-house. This is a huge benefit because an internal print farm gives you much quicker control of the design, as well as, allows you to control your supply base. This limits the amount of delays and supply chain issues you may run into otherwise.

Slant 3D has souced and created range of materials to suit different requirements, from flexible to castable, we have engineered materials to match the requirements of the market.

Our range covers industries such as ESD safe, aerospace, automotive, industrial, fashion and more. Each material has a unique quality, making it ideal for the individual industry.
​

Another option with 3D printing is to also fill your product with infill.  The reason for this is because it has the durability of a solid object but it is more cost effective because it uses less plastic.  Inside the product would look like a honeycomb pattern that is able to maintain excellent structural integrity but also be light weight and use less material. Injection molding cannot do this. ​

So if you have a solid part, we suggest that 3D printing is probably the right direction for you.  With 3D printing your product can be ready to ship directly off the printer rather than having a multi-step manufacturing process.  With 3D printing there is also no need to redesign your product in order to prevent deformation because that issue is no one that 3D printing has.  We are going to continue the conversation about 3D Printing versus Injection Molding in future blogs to come so make sure you are following Slant 3D on social media to see when we post our next blog post on the topic. ​

Many people think that 3D printing is more expensive than injection molding, but that is actually false. 3D printing materials costs break even with injection molding materials at about a quarter of a million parts, but whether it is cheaper as a whole than injection molding is really dependent upon your specific project. ​​

Now 3D printing can produce the same volume of parts as injection molding. At Slant 3D, we produce thousands of pieces for different clients, more cheaply than injection molding. The reason for that is because we don't have the mold cost up front, so a client is able to just email us a design and then we can produce up to hundreds of thousands parts. The per part cost is higher than injection molding when operating at lower volumes, but if you're making a quarter million small parts, 3D printing can make them for the same per part cost as injection molding. ​

3D printing has allowed people to produce rubber parts for a long time now by using TPU, or thermoplastic polyurethane. Printing with TPU is a little bit more expensive than using injection molding generally, depending on what your part is, but it is the easiest way to mass-produce rubber parts.​

​If you’d like to use TPU for your next project, just specify what durometer and what softness you’d like. We’ll then create several patterns and run some test prints to ensure that we end up with the exact texture you’re looking for. 3D printing provides the ability to easily create rubber items which have never been possible before. Get a quote from us today to see how fast we can manufacture your rubber parts.

3D Printing Farms, like those that Slant 3D deploys are able to produce 10,000 of parts at a time. Easily matching injection molding on cost and time to market, while reducing risk. Every once in  awhile we get to show off some of the projects that we are working on and discuss the process. Check out this conversation that our founder had on LinkedIn recently.