A FRAMEWORK FOR 3D PRINTING

QUALIFICATION
Sukhdev Balaji, Thanga Jawahar, Arockiam Daniel
Tata Consultancy Services Limited, India
sukhdev.balaji@tcs.com
thanga.jawahar@tcs.com
arockiam.daniel@tcs.com
ABSTRACT - Recently there has been a lot of attention given by the
media to 3D printing as a technology that holds many possibilities
not just in the near future, but even as you are reading this paper.
In fact President Obama also mentioned about 3D printing as one
of the most promising technologies, in his presidential address. Due
to this sudden attention given to 3D printing, the lines between fact
& fiction about 3D printing have been blurred.
The authors of this paper have attempted to create a framework to
help the users or potential users of this technology to separate the
facts from fiction and help them take an informed decision on the
applicability of this technology as an alternate manufacturing
process. It is important to note that this framework considers only
the current state of the art relating to 3D printing & not the future
possibilities, which are definitely many.
Keywords 3D printing, Additive Manufacturing, Rapid
Prototyping,
Rapid
Manufacturing,
3D
printing
for
manufacturing, Evaluation of 3D printing as a manufacturing
process, qualification of 3D printing for manufacturing.

I.
INTRODUCTION
For the purpose of clarity, this paper considers all
forms of additive manufacturing under the umbrella of 3D
printing. There are many forms of commercially active additive
manufacturing processes. Almost all of these processes use a 3D
CAD model as an input that is exported into slicing software
in the form of STL file. The slicing software then slices the
CAD model into thin slices along the height of the built part /
assembly. The sliced data is then sent to the 3D printer that
builds the part by each slice or layer as per the data. Hence such
processes are popularly called as 3D printing. Though additive
manufacturing has been around since the eighties, the recent
developments in the machine & material capabilities of these
processes, have spurred the imagination of the media on the
future possibilities with 3D printing. Some of the recent success
stories are:

CFM (a GE Snecma JV) has tested a jet engine with

nozzles made from a special ceramic composite that
can be 3D printed. These are much lighter than the
earlier nickel based nozzles thus saving close to USD 1
million worth of fuel annually, per plane [1].

Solid Concepts has manufactured the worlds first 3D

printed metal gun using direct metal sintering of powdered
metal [2].

A 3D printed titanium pelvis implant has been working well

within the patient for the last three years [3].

Cleveland Golf uses 3D printing for the manufacture of

its golf clubs that are extremely difficult to mold [4].

3D Printed Eyewear has been built with perforations & built

in hinges [5].

To summarize, 3D printing is breaking the barriers of

conventional manufacturing and opening up new possibilities to
create highly personalized products on demand for consumers in
aerospace, automotive, healthcare, consumer goods and similar
industries. This has created lots of hope (read hype) on the art of
the possible with 3D printing. However, there are certain
limitations of 3D printing that need to be kept in mind before
qualifying the product for this process. Hence there is a need for
a frame work that can help us in the qualification of a particular
product, part or assembly for 3D printing.
II.
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE ART
Though initially 3D printing was conceived to verify /
validate products early in the conceptualization & engineering
phases, it has now matured into an alternate form of
manufacturing, though with a lot of limitations.
Some of the commercially active 3D printing techniques like
Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), Poly jet 3D printing, SLA,
Direct Metal Sintering have a wide range of materials, though
not at all as exhaustive as the universe of materials available for
traditional manufacturing techniques. [6] [7] [8]
This limited range of materials that can be 3D printed as on
today, is one of the biggest limitations of the process. There is
lot of research work being carried out to overcome this
limitation & include even biomaterials for printing of food,
tissues & organs (for implants & drug testing).
One of the advantages of 3D printing is consolidation of
geometry / parts, without worrying much about the
manufacturing limitations. The flip side of this is the lack of
flexibility in the repair of maintenance of individual parts /
assemblies. It should also be remembered that some assemblies
of parts require relative motion between the components (like

gears, pulleys, etc.) and this is not always possible to achieve

once parts are integrated. Hence, these points have to be
carefully thought through before recommending 3D printing as
the process of choice.
3D printers also have build size limitations. For example the
largest production grade 3D metal part that can be printed using
Direct Metal Sintering, is around 250mm x 250mm x 300mm
[8]. In exceptional cases, the build size can be as high as 900mm
x 1500mm x 900mm [13]. This means that larger parts have to
be either split into manageable sub parts & then assembled or
built using other processes.
It should also be kept in mind that most 3D printing processes
today cannot produce excellent surface finishes. Most of them
require some secondary finishing operations to get the required
surface finish.
Another big advantage of 3D printing is its ability to personalize
or customize a product depending on user needs. However this
can also be a limitation from the point of view of maintenance
or spares, which will once again have to be 3D printed, if
required. This is another aspect that needs to be factored in
before zeroing in on 3D printing.
Designing parts for 3D printing requires a good amount of
knowledge on the process capabilities with respect to accuracy,
tolerance stack up, surface finish, part consolidation, etc. Most
product designers are still learning to appreciate the differences
between traditional manufacturing processes & 3D printing.
A big challenge with 3D printing is the lack of a regulatory
framework to protect intellectual property and also to control the
printing of unregulated medical devices, surgical equipment etc.
One has to be careful not to violate any of such regulations.
Finally, one has to work out the economics of going for 3D
printing in lieu of traditional manufacturing processes. As on
today, the cost of materials & the 3D printers is still very high
for high volume production.
To summarize, in order to successfully use 3D printing as a
manufacturing process, one has to take care of all the above
factors.
III.
THE FRAMEWORK
As can be seen from the previous sections, 3D printing
can be a very useful manufacturing option if it is applied to the
right type of product. The challenge lies in identifying the right
candidate for 3D printing. To overcome this challenge, we have
come up with a simplified qualification framework. To explain
the usage of the framework, a sample sub assembly of a multipurpose cleaning brush has been used as shown in Fig 1.
The framework is based on identifying key parameters that
influence the decision making process like scope for part
consolidation, impact of consolidation, number of
manufacturing steps, production quantities, material influence
on function, size of the part, surface finish, manufacturing
tolerances, number of manufacturing steps, production

quantities, part costs, lead time, manufacturing scrap rates, need

for personalization, need for recycling, etc. The parameters
could also be customised for a particular application or product.
Each of these parameters can be assigned a weightage (either
relative weightage or weightage arrived through paired
comparison using the predetermined minimum point method).
In the example of the multi-purpose motorized cleaning brush
shown in Fig 1, for each of the identified evaluation attributes, a
relative weightage is assigned at the sub assembly level. The
scoring for each part is done relative to other parts in the sub
assembly. The summation of all such scores on a weighted
average basis indicates the potential of the part / assembly for
3D printing.
The cut off percentages for Red can be <50%, Amber- 50% to
75% for Amber, Green - above 75%, tentatively. These cut off
values can be tweaked if we have enough historical data based
on real life experiences.
The interpretation of the Red, Amber, Green scores is
as
follows:
Red: Part is not a good candidate for 3D printing, with the
current state of the art
Amber: Part can be reviewed & redesigned to make it suitable
for 3D printing
Green: Ideal candidate for 3D printing.
In the case of the considered example of the brush assembly, the
scores for the parts lie between 50 & 55 (Amber zone), which
means that though these parts are not the best candidates for 3D
printing as a manufacturing process but can be reviewed &
redesigned (if possible) for 3D printing techniques.
The advantages of using this framework are:
Objective identification of potential candidates for 3D
printing
Separate the myth from the facts and hence avoid
disappointment much later in the product life cycle, when
change in process could be costly & time consuming
Less dependency on 3D printing vendors and hence
unbiased & neutral qualification
Identify more candidates that could be 3D printed and
hence personalized
Identify parts that can be printed close to the point of use
rather than a far off location like China, thereby reducing
time & shipping costs
Identify parts that can be economically 3D printed without
incurring tooling costs & the related long lead times

techniques rather than traditional manufacturing processes. It is

also important to consult third party consultants like TCS, who
have a good understanding of the various 3D printing processes,
to create a customised frame work and do the qualification in an
impartial and neutral way. It should also be noted that the
framework should be dynamically updated to keep in sync with
the latest developments in the 3D printing processes. Such a
framework can open up more possibilities for 3D printing and at
the same time bring sanity to the basis of rejecting candidates
that are not exactly suitable for 3D printing.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
All examples shared in the paper are taken from the
public domain and we wish to acknowledge the valuable
information provided by all the websites mentioned in the
references section. The authors also wish to acknowledge the
contribution of TCS internal training department, for sharing
the example of the multi-purpose cleaning brush for
demonstration purposes.
REFERENCES
[1]

Fig.1: Example of qualification of a multipurpose cleaning brush

assembly by using the framework

IV.
CONCLUSION
As the lines between traditional manufacturing
methods & 3D printing methods are blurring and with lot of
hype surrounding the 3D printing processes, it is very important
to have a clear cut frame work for qualifying components /
products that could be manufactured using 3D printing

http://3dprintingindustry.com/2013/05/31/can-3d-printed-jet-engine-partssave-us-from-global-warming
[2] http://www.solidconcepts.com/industries/firearm-componentmanufacturing/
[3] http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/02/12/pelvis-proves-3d-printedimplants-stand-test-time/
[4]
http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/02/05/cleveland-golf-teesenvisiontec-3d-printers/
[5]
http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/02/11/3d-printing-eyewear-newplatform-makes-inclusive-easy-anyone/
[6]
http://www.stratasys.com/materials/,
[7]
http://www.3dsystems.com/materials/professional,
[8]
http://www.3dsystems.com/3d-printers/production/prox-300
[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing
[10] http://readwrite.com/2013/10/07/3d-printing-factories-layoffsclosures#awesm=~owjBFA8nMmQSRo
[11] http://3d.about.com/od/3d-Electronics/tp/Roadblocks-And-ImplicationsFor-3d-Printing-The-Future-Of-3d-Printing.htm
[12] http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2013/07/limitations-of-3d-printing/
[13] http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?dfpPParams=ind%5F183%2
Cindustry%5Faero%2Cindustry%5Fgov%2Cindustry%5Fmedical%2Cai
d%5F271188&dfpLayout=article&doc_id=271188&page_number=1