Looking back, the good news is that there have been significant advances in 3D printer materials. This has helped the industry to grow into what it is today. Looking forward, the news is even better. There is so much more that can be done and tremendous opportunity for innovation.
Consider that 3D printing is unrivaled in the diversity of methods and equaled only by machining in the range of materials processed. Can you think of any other manufacturing method that can process plaster, photopolymer, thermoplastic, ferrous metals, non-ferrous metals, ceramic, sand and glass? Can you name another manufacturing method that is as diverse as 3D printing — binding, curing, extruding, melting and laminating with inkjets, lasers, electron beams, LEDs and extruders? Can you name any other process that can combine two materials on the fly in varying ratios?
The diversity of 3D printing processes, with more likely to arise, will yield even more materials and perhaps even new, never-before-seen material classes.
But there is a big hurdle in our way. We have a chicken-and-egg scenario to overcome before this bright future unfolds.
Materials are expensive to develop, so manufacturers focus on those where high demand exists or is forecast. While 3D printing invites the development of new types of materials, the demand, relatively speaking, is very low, so there is little incentive for materials research.
This is complicated by the demand for materials that match or mimic what is being processed in an injection molding or die casting machine, for example. 3D printing users are asking manufacturers to replicate what is already working with other manufacturing methods. Effectively, we are imposing the material processing constraints of conventional methods on 3D printing and then applying the constraints imposed by 3D printing methods.
Take, for example, plastics for injection molding. If they don’t have good melt/flow characteristics, they can’t be used. From the long list that can be processed, many don’t work well in 3D printing. This is why your thermoplastic options are limited to ABS, polycarbonate, nylon, styrene, polyphenylsulfone and engineered plastics under the names of ULTEM, PEEK and PEKK.
To realize the full potential, to have an amazing range of material options, three things need to happen:
Users
1. Increase the consumption of 3D printer materials, which gives manufactures more incentive to create new ones.
2. Get creative; specify materials by the needed properties instead of those on the spec sheets of what you already use. This creates a demand-side push for new materials, which provide incentive for manufacturers.
Manufacturers
3. Consider 3D printing for its unique processing characteristics. Leverage these as strengths for processing new material formulations.
I believe that a single material with amazing properties that can’t be processed without 3D printing could propel our industry to new heights as a manufacturing solution. But I don’t believe that there will be only one if we overcome the hurdles.
I also believe that there are formulations and compounds that have been shelved because there is no way to mold, cast, form or machine them. If someone would just dust off those research notes and consider them through the lens of 3D printers, we would all be grateful.