Using total specific cost indices to compare the cost performance of additive manufacturing for the medical devices domain. (March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Baumers, Martin; Wildman, Ricky; Wallace, Martin; Yoo, Jae; Blackwell, Brett; Farr, Phil; Roberts, Clive J
• Is Part Of: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Volume 233:Number 4(2019)
• Page Start: 1235
• Page End: 1249
• Publication Date: 2019-03
• Subjects: Additive manufacturing -- cost estimation -- cost indices -- build failure -- cost model -- build volume packing -- material jetting -- vat photopolymerization; Mechanical engineering -- Periodicals; Engineering -- Management -- Periodicals; Manufacturing processes -- Periodicals; 629.8
• DOI: 10.1177/0954405418774591
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0954-4054

Abstract

The label additive manufacturing, also known as three-dimensional printing, serves as an umbrella term for a number of technologies designed to deposit product geometries directly from build materials and digital design information. However, as a relatively recent addition to the spectrum of manufacturing processes, the relationship between process type, system characteristics and cost performance is still broadly unclear for several technology types. To address this gap, the current research develops comprehensive and robust additive manufacturing cost models for two less-studied polymeric additive manufacturing technology variants, material jetting and mask projection stereolithography. Despite sharing the fundamental principle of photopolymerization, the operating processes of both systems are markedly different. This is reflected in the constructed cost models, which incorporate process maps to capture ancillary process elements, ensure efficient capacity utilisation through optimised build volume packing and approximate the expected cost impact of build failure. On this basis, this article estimates a set of specific cost indices reflecting the overall total cost performance of the investigated systems in an example application from the medical devices domain. Specific cost results range from £2.01 to £1.19/cm 3 deposited on the Objet Connex 260 system and from £1.59 to £1.00/cm 3 of material deposited on the Perfactory system. These results are discussed in the context of similar cost indices extracted from the empirical engineering literature. This article shows that next to increases in build speed, improvements in overall process automation and process stability are needed to enhance the commercial proposition of the investigated technology variants.