Hubbry Logo
3D printing3D printingMain
Open search
3D printing
Community hub
3D printing
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
3D printing
3D printing
from Wikipedia

Timelapse of a three-dimensional printer in action

3D printing, also called additive manufacturing, is the construction of a three-dimensional object from a CAD model or a digital 3D model.[1][2][3] It can be done in a variety of processes in which material is deposited, joined or solidified under computer control,[4] with the material being added together (e.g. plastics, liquids, or powder grains being fused), typically layer by layer.

In the 1980s, 3D printing techniques were considered suitable only for the production of functional or aesthetic prototypes, and a more appropriate term for it at the time was rapid prototyping.[5] As of 2019, the precision, repeatability, and material range of 3D printing have increased to the point that some 3D printing processes are considered viable as an industrial-production technology; in this context, the term additive manufacturing can be used synonymously with 3D printing.[6] One of the key advantages of 3D printing[7] is the ability to produce very complex shapes or geometries that would be otherwise infeasible to construct by hand, including hollow parts or parts with internal truss structures to reduce weight while creating less material waste. Fused deposition modeling (FDM), which uses a continuous filament of a thermoplastic material, is the most common 3D printing process in use as of 2020.[8]

Terminology

[edit]

The umbrella term additive manufacturing (AM) gained popularity in the 2000s,[9] inspired by the theme of material being added together (in any of various ways). In contrast, the term subtractive manufacturing appeared as a retronym for the large family of machining processes with material removal as their common process. The term 3D printing still referred only to the polymer technologies in most minds, and the term AM was more likely to be used in metalworking and end-use part production contexts than among polymer, inkjet, or stereolithography enthusiasts.

By the early 2010s, the terms 3D printing and additive manufacturing evolved senses in which they were alternate umbrella terms for additive technologies, one being used in popular language by consumer-maker communities and the media, and the other used more formally by industrial end-use part producers, machine manufacturers, and global technical standards organizations. Until recently, the term 3D printing has been associated with machines low in price or capability.[10] 3D printing and additive manufacturing reflect that the technologies share the theme of material addition or joining throughout a 3D work envelope under automated control. Peter Zelinski, the editor-in-chief of Additive Manufacturing magazine, pointed out in 2017 that the terms are still often synonymous in casual usage,[11] but some manufacturing industry experts are trying to make a distinction whereby additive manufacturing comprises 3D printing plus other technologies or other aspects of a manufacturing process.[11]

Other terms that have been used as synonyms or hypernyms have included desktop manufacturing, rapid manufacturing (as the logical production-level successor to rapid prototyping), and on-demand manufacturing (which echoes on-demand printing in the 2D sense of printing). The fact that the application of the adjectives rapid and on-demand to the noun manufacturing was novel in the 2000s reveals the long-prevailing mental model of the previous industrial era during which almost all production manufacturing had involved long lead times for laborious tooling development. Today, the term subtractive has not replaced the term machining, instead complementing it when a term that covers any removal method is needed. Agile tooling is the use of modular means to design tooling that is produced by additive manufacturing or 3D printing methods to enable quick prototyping and responses to tooling and fixture needs. Agile tooling uses a cost-effective and high-quality method to quickly respond to customer and market needs, and it can be used in hydroforming, stamping, injection molding and other manufacturing processes.

History

[edit]

1940s and 1950s

[edit]

The general concept of and procedure to be used in 3D-printing was first described by Murray Leinster in his 1945 short story "Things Pass By": "But this constructor is both efficient and flexible. I feed magnetronic plastics — the stuff they make houses and ships of nowadays — into this moving arm. It makes drawings in the air following drawings it scans with photo-cells. But plastic comes out of the end of the drawing arm and hardens as it comes ... following drawings only"[12]

It was also described by Raymond F. Jones in his story, "Tools of the Trade", published in the November 1950 issue of Astounding Science Fiction magazine. He referred to it as a "molecular spray" in that story.

1970s

[edit]

In 1971, Johannes F Gottwald patented the Liquid Metal Recorder, U.S. patent 3596285A,[13] a continuous inkjet metal material device to form a removable metal fabrication on a reusable surface for immediate use or salvaged for printing again by remelting. This appears to be the first patent describing 3D printing with rapid prototyping and controlled on-demand manufacturing of patterns.

The patent states:

As used herein the term printing is not intended in a limited sense but includes writing or other symbols, character or pattern formation with an ink. The term ink as used in is intended to include not only dye or pigment-containing materials, but any flowable substance or composition suited for application to the surface for forming symbols, characters, or patterns of intelligence by marking. The preferred ink is of a hot melt type. The range of commercially available ink compositions which could meet the requirements of the invention are not known at the present time. However, satisfactory printing according to the invention has been achieved with the conductive metal alloy as ink.

But in terms of material requirements for such large and continuous displays, if consumed at theretofore known rates, but increased in proportion to increase in size, the high cost would severely limit any widespread enjoyment of a process or apparatus satisfying the foregoing objects.

It is therefore an additional object of the invention to minimize use to materials in a process of the indicated class.

It is a further object of the invention that materials employed in such a process be salvaged for reuse.

According to another aspect of the invention, a combination for writing and the like comprises a carrier for displaying an intelligence pattern and an arrangement for removing the pattern from the carrier.

In 1974, David E. H. Jones laid out the concept of 3D printing in his regular column Ariadne in the journal New Scientist.[14][15]

1980s

[edit]

Early additive manufacturing equipment and materials were developed in the 1980s.[16]

In April 1980, Hideo Kodama of Nagoya Municipal Industrial Research Institute invented two additive methods for fabricating three-dimensional plastic models with photo-hardening thermoset polymer, where the UV exposure area is controlled by a mask pattern or a scanning fiber transmitter.[17] He filed a patent for this XYZ plotter, which was published on 10 November 1981. (JP S56-144478).[18] His research results as journal papers were published in April and November 1981.[19][20] However, there was no reaction to the series of his publications. His device was not highly evaluated in the laboratory and his boss did not show any interest. His research budget was just 60,000 yen or $545 a year. Acquiring the patent rights for the XYZ plotter was abandoned, and the project was terminated.

A US 4323756 patent, method of fabricating articles by sequential deposition, granted on 6 April 1982 to Raytheon Technologies Corp describes using hundreds or thousands of "layers" of powdered metal and a laser energy source and represents an early reference to forming "layers" and the fabrication of articles on a substrate.

On 2 July 1984, American entrepreneur Bill Masters filed a patent for his computer automated manufacturing process and system (US 4665492).[21] This filing is on record at the USPTO as the first 3D printing patent in history; it was the first of three patents belonging to Masters that laid the foundation for the 3D printing systems used today.[22][23]

On 16 July 1984, Alain Le Méhauté, Olivier de Witte, and Jean Claude André filed their patent for the stereolithography process.[24] The application of the French inventors was abandoned by the French General Electric Company (now Alcatel-Alsthom) and CILAS (The Laser Consortium).[25] The claimed reason was "for lack of business perspective".[26]

In 1983, Robert Howard started R.H. Research, later named Howtek, Inc. in Feb 1984 to develop a color inkjet 2D printer, Pixelmaster, commercialized in 1986, using Thermoplastic (hot-melt) plastic ink.[27] A team was put together, 6 members[27] from Exxon Office Systems, Danbury Systems Division, an inkjet printer startup and some members of Howtek, Inc group who became popular figures in the 3D printing industry. One Howtek member, Richard Helinski (patent US5136515A, Method and Means for constructing three-dimensional articles by particle deposition, application 11/07/1989 granted 8/04/1992) formed a New Hampshire company C.A.D-Cast, Inc, name later changed to Visual Impact Corporation (VIC) on 8/22/1991. A prototype of the VIC 3D printer for this company is available with a video presentation showing a 3D model printed with a single nozzle inkjet. Another employee Herbert Menhennett formed a New Hampshire company HM Research in 1991 and introduced the Howtek, Inc, inkjet technology and thermoplastic materials to Royden Sanders of SDI and Bill Masters of Ballistic Particle Manufacturing (BPM) where he worked for a number of years. Both BPM 3D printers and SPI 3D printers use Howtek, Inc style Inkjets and Howtek, Inc style materials. Royden Sanders licensed the Helinksi patent prior to manufacturing the Modelmaker 6 Pro at Sanders prototype, Inc (SPI) in 1993. James K. McMahon who was hired by Howtek, Inc to help develop the inkjet, later worked at Sanders Prototype and now operates Layer Grown Model Technology, a 3D service provider specializing in Howtek single nozzle inkjet and SDI printer support. James K. McMahon worked with Steven Zoltan, 1972 drop-on-demand inkjet inventor, at Exxon and has a patent in 1978 that expanded the understanding of the single nozzle design inkjets (Alpha jets) and helped perfect the Howtek, Inc hot-melt inkjets. This Howtek hot-melt thermoplastic technology is popular with metal investment casting, especially in the 3D printing jewelry industry.[28] Sanders (SDI) first Modelmaker 6Pro customer was Hitchner Corporations, Metal Casting Technology, Inc in Milford, NH a mile from the SDI facility in late 1993–1995 casting golf clubs and auto engine parts.

On 8 August 1984 a patent, US4575330, assigned to UVP, Inc., later assigned to Chuck Hull of 3D Systems Corporation[29] was filed, his own patent for a stereolithography fabrication system, in which individual laminae or layers are added by curing photopolymers with impinging radiation, particle bombardment, chemical reaction or just ultraviolet light lasers. Hull defined the process as a "system for generating three-dimensional objects by creating a cross-sectional pattern of the object to be formed".[30][31] Hull's contribution was the STL (Stereolithography) file format and the digital slicing and infill strategies common to many processes today. In 1986, Charles "Chuck" Hull was granted a patent for this system, and his company, 3D Systems Corporation was formed and it released the first commercial 3D printer, the SLA-1,[32] later in 1987 or 1988.

The technology used by most 3D printers to date—especially hobbyist and consumer-oriented models—is fused deposition modeling, a special application of plastic extrusion, developed in 1988 by S. Scott Crump and commercialized by his company Stratasys, which marketed its first FDM machine in 1992.[28]

Owning a 3D printer in the 1980s cost upwards of $300,000 ($650,000 in 2016 dollars).[33]

1990s

[edit]

AM processes for metal sintering or melting (such as selective laser sintering, direct metal laser sintering, and selective laser melting) usually went by their own individual names in the 1980s and 1990s. At the time, all metalworking was done by processes that are now called non-additive (casting, fabrication, stamping, and machining); although plenty of automation was applied to those technologies (such as by robot welding and CNC), the idea of a tool or head moving through a 3D work envelope transforming a mass of raw material into a desired shape with a toolpath was associated in metalworking only with processes that removed metal (rather than adding it), such as CNC milling, CNC EDM, and many others. However, the automated techniques that added metal, which would later be called additive manufacturing, were beginning to challenge that assumption. By the mid-1990s, new techniques for material deposition were developed at Stanford and Carnegie Mellon University, including microcasting[34] and sprayed materials.[35] Sacrificial and support materials had also become more common, enabling new object geometries.[36]

The term 3D printing originally referred to a powder bed process employing standard and custom inkjet print heads, developed at MIT by Emanuel Sachs in 1993 and commercialized by Soligen Technologies, Extrude Hone Corporation, and Z Corporation.[citation needed]

The year 1993 also saw the start of an inkjet 3D printer company initially named Sanders Prototype, Inc and later named Solidscape, introducing a high-precision polymer jet fabrication system with soluble support structures, (categorized as a "dot-on-dot" technique).[28]

In 1995 the Fraunhofer Society developed the selective laser melting process.

2000s

[edit]

In the early 2000s 3D printers were still largely being used just in the manufacturing and research industries, as the technology was still relatively young and was too expensive for most consumers to be able to get their hands on. The 2000s was when larger scale use of the technology began being seen in industry, most often in the architecture and medical industries, though it was typically used for low accuracy modeling and testing, rather than the production of common manufactured goods or heavy prototyping.[37]

In 2005 users began to design and distribute plans for 3D printers that could print around 70% of their own parts, the original plans of which were designed by Adrian Bowyer at the University of Bath in 2004, with the name of the project being RepRap (Replicating Rapid-prototyper).[38]

Similarly, in 2006 the Fab@Home project was started by Evan Malone and Hod Lipson, another project whose purpose was to design a low-cost and open source fabrication system that users could develop on their own and post feedback on, making the project very collaborative.[39]

Much of the software for 3D printing available to the public at the time was open source, and as such was quickly distributed and improved upon by many individual users. In 2009 the Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) printing process patents expired. This opened the door to a new wave of startup companies, many of which were established by major contributors of these open source initiatives, with the goal of many of them being to start developing commercial FDM 3D printers that were more accessible to the general public.[40]

2010s

[edit]

As the various additive processes matured, it became clear that soon metal removal would no longer be the only metalworking process done through a tool or head moving through a 3D work envelope, transforming a mass of raw material into a desired shape layer by layer. The 2010s were the first decade in which metal end-use parts such as engine brackets[41] and large nuts[42] would be grown (either before or instead of machining) in job production rather than obligately being machined from bar stock or plate. It is still the case that casting, fabrication, stamping, and machining are more prevalent than additive manufacturing in metalworking, but AM is now beginning to make significant inroads, and with the advantages of design for additive manufacturing, it is clear to engineers that much more is to come.

One place that AM is making a significant inroad is in the aviation industry. With nearly 3.8 billion air travelers in 2016,[43] the demand for fuel efficient and easily produced jet engines has never been higher. For large OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) like Pratt and Whitney (PW) and General Electric (GE) this means looking towards AM as a way to reduce cost, reduce the number of nonconforming parts, reduce weight in the engines to increase fuel efficiency and find new, highly complex shapes that would not be feasible with the antiquated manufacturing methods. One example of AM integration with aerospace was in 2016 when Airbus delivered the first of GE's LEAP engines. This engine has integrated 3D-printed fuel nozzles, reducing parts from 20 to 1, a 25% weight reduction, and reduced assembly times.[44] A fuel nozzle is the perfect inroad for additive manufacturing in a jet engine since it allows for optimized design of the complex internals and it is a low-stress, non-rotating part. Similarly, in 2015, PW delivered their first AM parts in the PurePower PW1500G to Bombardier. Sticking to low-stress, non-rotating parts, PW selected the compressor stators and synch ring brackets[45] to roll out this new manufacturing technology for the first time. While AM is still playing a small role in the total number of parts in the jet engine manufacturing process, the return on investment can already be seen by the reduction in parts, the rapid production capabilities and the "optimized design in terms of performance and cost".[46]

As technology matured, several authors began to speculate that 3D printing could aid in sustainable development in the developing world.[47]

In 2012, Filabot developed a system for closing the loop[48] with plastic and allows for any FDM or FFF 3D printer to be able to print with a wider range of plastics.

In 2014, Benjamin S. Cook and Manos M. Tentzeris demonstrated the first multi-material, vertically integrated printed electronics additive manufacturing platform (VIPRE) which enabled 3D printing of functional electronics operating up to 40 GHz.[49]

As the price of printers started to drop people interested in this technology had more access and freedom to make what they wanted. As of 2014, the price for commercial printers was still high with the cost being over $2,000.[50]

The term "3D printing" originally referred to a process that deposits a binder material onto a powder bed with inkjet printer heads layer by layer. More recently, the popular vernacular has started using the term to encompass a wider variety of additive-manufacturing techniques such as electron-beam additive manufacturing and selective laser melting. The United States and global technical standards use the official term additive manufacturing for this broader sense.

The most commonly used 3D printing process (46% as of 2018) is a material extrusion technique called fused deposition modeling, or FDM.[8] While FDM technology was invented after the other two most popular technologies, stereolithography (SLA) and selective laser sintering (SLS), FDM is typically the most inexpensive of the three by a large margin,[citation needed] which lends to the popularity of the process.

2020s

[edit]

As of 2020, 3D printers have reached the level of quality and price that allows most people to enter the world of 3D printing. In 2020 decent quality printers can be found for less than US$200 for entry-level machines. These more affordable printers are usually fused deposition modeling (FDM) printers.[51]

In November 2021 a British patient named Steve Verze received the world's first fully 3D-printed prosthetic eye from the Moorfields Eye Hospital in London.[52][53]

In April 2024, the world's largest 3D printer, the Factory of the Future 1.0 was revealed at the University of Maine. It is able to make objects 96 feet long, or 29 meters.[54]

In 2024, researchers used machine learning to improve the construction of synthetic bone[55] and set a record for shock absorption.[56]

In July 2024, researchers published a paper in Advanced Materials Technologies describing the development of artificial blood vessels using 3D-printing technology, which are as strong and durable as natural blood vessels.[57] The process involved using a rotating spindle integrated into a 3D printer to create grafts from a water-based gel, which were then coated in biodegradable polyester molecules.[57]

Benefits of 3D printing

[edit]

Additive manufacturing or 3D printing has rapidly gained importance in the field of engineering due to its many benefits. The vision of 3D printing is design freedom, individualization,[58] decentralization[59] and executing processes that were previously impossible through alternative methods.[60] Some of these benefits include enabling faster prototyping, reducing manufacturing costs, increasing product customization, and improving product quality.[61]

Furthermore, the capabilities of 3D printing have extended beyond traditional manufacturing, like lightweight construction,[62] or repair and maintenance[63] with applications in prosthetics,[64] bioprinting,[65] food industry,[66] rocket building,[67] design and art[68] and renewable energy systems.[69] 3D printing technology can be used to produce battery energy storage systems, which are essential for sustainable energy generation and distribution.

Another benefit of 3D printing is the technology's ability to produce complex geometries with high precision and accuracy.[70] This is particularly relevant in the field of microwave engineering, where 3D printing can be used to produce components with unique properties that are difficult to achieve using traditional manufacturing methods.[71]

Additive Manufacturing processes generate minimal waste by adding material only where needed, unlike traditional methods that cut away excess material.[72] This reduces both material costs and environmental impact.[73] This reduction in waste also lowers energy consumption for material production and disposal, contributing to a smaller carbon footprint.[74][75]

General principles

[edit]

Modeling

[edit]
CAD model used for 3D printing
3D models can be generated from 2D pictures taken at a 3D photo booth.

3D printable models may be created with a computer-aided design (CAD) package, via a 3D scanner, or by a plain digital camera and photogrammetry software. 3D printed models created with CAD result in relatively fewer errors than other methods. Errors in 3D printable models can be identified and corrected before printing.[76] The manual modeling process of preparing geometric data for 3D computer graphics is similar to plastic arts such as sculpting. 3D scanning is a process of collecting digital data on the shape and appearance of a real object, and creating a digital model based on it.

CAD models can be saved in the stereolithography file format (STL), a de facto CAD file format for additive manufacturing that stores data based on triangulations of the surface of CAD models. STL is not tailored for additive manufacturing because it generates large file sizes of topology-optimized parts and lattice structures due to the large number of surfaces involved. A newer CAD file format, the additive manufacturing file format (AMF), was introduced in 2011 to solve this problem. It stores information using curved triangulations.[77]

Printing

[edit]

Before printing a 3D model from an STL file, it must first be examined for errors. Most CAD applications produce errors in output STL files,[78][79] of the following types:

  • holes
  • faces normals
  • self-intersections
  • noise shells
  • manifold errors[80]
  • overhang issues[81]

A step in the STL generation known as "repair" fixes such problems in the original model.[82][83] Generally, STLs that have been produced from a model obtained through 3D scanning often have more of these errors[84] as 3D scanning is often achieved by point to point acquisition/mapping. 3D reconstruction often includes errors.[85]

Once completed, the STL file needs to be processed by a piece of software called a "slicer", which converts the model into a series of thin layers and produces a G-code file containing instructions tailored to a specific type of 3D printer (FDM printers).[86] This G-code file can then be printed with 3D printing client software (which loads the G-code and uses it to instruct the 3D printer during the 3D printing process).

Printer resolution describes layer thickness and X–Y resolution in dots per inch (dpi) or micrometers (μm). Typical layer thickness is around 100 μm (250 DPI), although some machines can print layers as thin as 16 μm (1,600 DPI).[87] X–Y resolution is comparable to that of laser printers. The particles (3D dots) are around 0.01 to 0.1 μm (2,540,000 to 250,000 DPI) in diameter.[88] For that printer resolution, specifying a mesh resolution of 0.01–0.03 mm and a chord length ≤ 0.016 mm generates an optimal STL output file for a given model input file.[89] Specifying higher resolution results in larger files without increase in print quality.

3:30 timelapse of an 80-minute video of an object being made out of PLA using molten polymer deposition

Construction of a model with contemporary methods can take anywhere from several hours to several days, depending on the method used and the size and complexity of the model. Additive systems can typically reduce this time to a few hours, although it varies widely depending on the type of machine used and the size and number of models being produced simultaneously.

Finishing

[edit]

Though the printer-produced resolution and surface finish are sufficient for some applications, post-processing and finishing methods allow for benefits such as greater dimensional accuracy, smoother surfaces, and other modifications such as coloration.

The surface finish of a 3D-printed part can improved using subtractive methods such as sanding and bead blasting. When smoothing parts that require dimensional accuracy, it is important to take into account the volume of the material being removed.[90]

Some printable polymers, such as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), allow the surface finish to be smoothed and improved using chemical vapor processes[91] based on acetone or similar solvents.

Some additive manufacturing techniques can benefit from annealing as a post-processing step. Annealing a 3D-printed part allows for better internal layer bonding due to recrystallization of the part. It allows for an increase in mechanical properties, some of which are fracture toughness,[92] flexural strength,[93] impact resistance,[94] and heat resistance.[94] Annealing a component may not be suitable for applications where dimensional accuracy is required, as it can introduce warpage or shrinkage due to heating and cooling.[95]

Additive or subtractive hybrid manufacturing (ASHM) is a method that involves producing a 3D printed part and using machining (subtractive manufacturing) to remove material.[96] Machining operations can be completed after each layer, or after the entire 3D print has been completed depending on the application requirements. These hybrid methods allow for 3D-printed parts to achieve better surface finishes and dimensional accuracy.[97]

The layered structure of traditional additive manufacturing processes leads to a stair-stepping effect on part-surfaces that are curved or tilted with respect to the building platform. The effect strongly depends on the layer height used, as well as the orientation of a part surface inside the building process.[98] This effect can be minimized using "variable layer heights" or "adaptive layer heights". These methods decrease the layer height in places where higher quality is needed.[99]

Painting a 3D-printed part offers a range of finishes and appearances that may not be achievable through most 3D printing techniques. The process typically involves several steps, such as surface preparation, priming, and painting.[100] These steps help prepare the surface of the part and ensuring the paint adheres properly.

Some additive manufacturing techniques are capable of using multiple materials simultaneously. These techniques are able to print in multiple colors and color combinations simultaneously and can produce parts that may not necessarily require painting.

Some printing techniques require internal supports to be built to support overhanging features during construction. These supports must be mechanically removed or dissolved if using a water-soluble support material such as PVA after completing a print.

Some commercial metal 3D printers involve cutting the metal component off the metal substrate after deposition. A new process for the GMAW 3D printing allows for substrate surface modifications to remove aluminium[101] or steel.[102]

Materials

[edit]
Detail of the Stoofbrug [nl] in Amsterdam, the world's first 3D-printed metal bridge[103]

Traditionally, 3D printing focused on polymers for printing, due to the ease of manufacturing and handling polymeric materials. However, the method has rapidly evolved to not only print various polymers[104] but also metals,[105][106] chocolates,[107] and ceramics,[108] making 3D printing a versatile option for manufacturing. Layer-by-layer fabrication of three-dimensional physical models is a modern concept that "stems from the ever-growing CAD industry, more specifically the solid modeling side of CAD. Before solid modeling was introduced in the late 1980s, three-dimensional models were created with wire frames and surfaces."[109] but in all cases the layers of materials are controlled by the printer and the material properties. The three-dimensional material layer is controlled by the deposition rate as set by the printer operator and stored in a computer file. The earliest printed patented material was a hot melt type ink for printing patterns using a heated metal alloy.

Charles Hull filed the first patent on August 8, 1984, to use a UV-cured acrylic resin using a UV-masked light source at UVP Corp to build a simple model. The SLA-1 was the first SL product announced by 3D Systems at Autofact Exposition, Detroit, November 1978. The SLA-1 Beta shipped in Jan 1988 to Baxter Healthcare, Pratt and Whitney, General Motors and AMP. The first production SLA-1 shipped to Precision Castparts in April 1988. The UV resin material changed over quickly to an epoxy-based material resin. In both cases, SLA-1 models needed UV oven curing after being rinsed in a solvent cleaner to remove uncured boundary resin. A post cure apparatus (PCA) was sold with all systems. The early resin printers required a blade to move fresh resin over the model on each layer. The layer thickness was 0.006 inches and the HeCd laser model of the SLA-1 was 12 watts and swept across the surface at 30 inch per second. UVP was acquired by 3D Systems in January 1990.[110]

A review of the history shows that a number of materials (resins, plastic powder, plastic filament and hot-melt plastic ink) were used in the 1980s for patents in the rapid prototyping field. Masked lamp UV-cured resin was also introduced by Cubital's Itzchak Pomerantz in the Soldier 5600, Carl Deckard's (DTM) laser sintered thermoplastic powders, and adhesive-laser cut paper (LOM) stacked to form objects by Michael Feygin before 3D Systems made its first announcement. Scott Crump was also working with extruded "melted" plastic filament modeling (FDM) and drop deposition had been patented by William E Masters a week after Hull's patent in 1984, but he had to discover thermoplastic inkjets, introduced by Visual Impact Corporation 3D printer in 1992, using inkjets from Howtek, Inc., before he formed BPM to bring out his own 3D printer product in 1994.[110]

The most common polymers for personal 3D printers are polylactic acid (PLA) and PETG.

Multi-material 3D printing

[edit]
A multi-material 3DBenchy

Efforts to achieve multi-material 3D printing range from enhanced FDM-like processes like VoxelJet to novel voxel-based printing technologies like layered assembly.[111]

A drawback of many existing 3D printing technologies is that they only allow one material to be printed at a time, limiting many potential applications that require the integration of different materials in the same object. Multi-material 3D printing solves this problem by allowing objects of complex and heterogeneous arrangements of materials to be manufactured using a single printer. Here, a material must be specified for each voxel (or 3D printing pixel element) inside the final object volume.

The process can be fraught with complications, however, due to the isolated and monolithic algorithms. Some commercial devices have sought to solve these issues, such as building a Spec2Fab translator, but the progress is still very limited.[112] Nonetheless, in the medical industry, a concept of 3D-printed pills and vaccines has been presented.[113] With this new concept, multiple medications can be combined, which is expected to decrease many risks. With more and more applications of multi-material 3D printing, the costs of daily life and high technology development will become inevitably lower.

Metallographic materials of 3D printing is also being researched.[114] By classifying each material, CIMP-3D can systematically perform 3D printing with multiple materials.[115]

4D printing

[edit]

Using 3D printing and multi-material structures in additive manufacturing has allowed for the design and creation of what is called 4D printing. 4D printing is an additive manufacturing process in which the printed object changes shape with time, temperature, or some other type of stimulation. 4D printing allows for the creation of dynamic structures with adjustable shapes, properties or functionality. The smart/stimulus-responsive materials that are created using 4D printing can be activated to create calculated responses such as self-assembly, self-repair, multi-functionality, reconfiguration and shape-shifting. This allows for customized printing of shape-changing and shape-memory materials.[116]

4D printing has the potential to find new applications and uses for materials (plastics, composites, metals, etc.) and has the potential to create new alloys and composites that were not viable before. The versatility of this technology and materials can lead to advances in multiple fields of industry, including space, commercial and medical fields. The repeatability, precision, and material range for 4D printing must increase to allow the process to become more practical throughout these industries. 

To become a viable industrial production option, there are a few challenges that 4D printing must overcome. The challenges of 4D printing include the fact that the microstructures of these printed smart materials must be close to or better than the parts obtained through traditional machining processes. New and customizable materials need to be developed that have the ability to consistently respond to varying external stimuli and change to their desired shape. There is also a need to design new software for the various technique types of 4D printing. The 4D printing software will need to take into consideration the base smart material, printing technique, and structural and geometric requirements of the design.[117]

Processes and printers

[edit]

ISO/ASTM52900-15 defines seven categories of additive manufacturing (AM) processes within its meaning.[118][119] They are:

The main differences between processes are in the way layers are deposited to create parts and in the materials that are used. Each method has its own advantages and drawbacks, which is why some companies offer a choice of powder and polymer for the material used to build the object.[120] Others sometimes use standard, off-the-shelf business paper as the build material to produce a durable prototype. The main considerations in choosing a machine are generally speed, costs of the 3D printer, of the printed prototype, choice and cost of the materials, and color capabilities.[121] Printers that work directly with metals are generally expensive. However, less expensive printers can be used to make a mold, which is then used to make metal parts.[122]

Material jetting

[edit]

The first process where three-dimensional material is deposited to form an object was done with material jetting[28] or as it was originally called particle deposition. Particle deposition by inkjet first started with continuous inkjet technology (CIT) (1950s) and later with drop-on-demand inkjet technology (1970s) using hot-melt inks. Wax inks were the first three-dimensional materials jetted and later low-temperature alloy metal was jetted with CIT. Wax and thermoplastic hot melts were jetted next by DOD. Objects were very small and started with text characters and numerals for signage. An object must have form and can be handled. Wax characters tumbled off paper documents and inspired a liquid metal recorder patent to make metal characters for signage in 1971. Thermoplastic color inks (CMYK) were printed with layers of each color to form the first digitally formed layered objects in 1984. The idea of investment casting with Solid-Ink jetted images or patterns in 1984 led to the first patent to form articles from particle deposition in 1989, issued in 1992.

Material extrusion

[edit]
Schematic representation of the 3D printing technique known as fused filament fabrication; a filament "a)" of plastic material is fed through a heated moving head "b)" that melts and extrudes it depositing it, layer after layer, in the desired shape "c). A moving platform "e)" lowers after each layer is deposited. For this kind of technology, additional vertical support structures "d)" are needed to sustain overhanging parts.

Some methods melt or soften the material to produce the layers. In fused filament fabrication, also known as fused deposition modeling (FDM), the model or part is produced by extruding small beads or streams of material that harden immediately to form layers. A filament of thermoplastic, metal wire, or other material is fed into an extrusion nozzle head (3D printer extruder), which heats the material and turns the flow on and off. FDM is somewhat restricted in the variation of shapes that may be fabricated. Another technique fuses parts of the layer and then moves upward in the working area, adding another layer of granules and repeating the process until the piece has built up. This process uses the unfused media to support overhangs and thin walls in the part being produced, which reduces the need for temporary auxiliary supports for the piece.[123] Recently, FFF/FDM has expanded to 3-D print directly from pellets to avoid the conversion to filament. This process is called fused particle fabrication (FPF) (or fused granular fabrication (FGF) and has the potential to use more recycled materials.[124]

Powder bed fusion

[edit]

Powder bed fusion techniques, or PBF, include several processes such as DMLS, SLS, SLM, MJF and EBM. Powder bed fusion processes can be used with an array of materials and their flexibility allows for geometrically complex structures,[125] making it a good choice for many 3D printing projects. These techniques include selective laser sintering, with both metals and polymers and direct metal laser sintering.[126] Selective laser melting does not use sintering for the fusion of powder granules but will completely melt the powder using a high-energy laser to create fully dense materials in a layer-wise method that has mechanical properties similar to those of conventional manufactured metals. Electron beam melting is a similar type of additive manufacturing technology for metal parts (e.g. titanium alloys). EBM manufactures parts by melting metal powder layer by layer with an electron beam in a high vacuum.[127][128] Another method consists of an inkjet 3D printing system, which creates the model one layer at a time by spreading a layer of powder (plaster or resins) and printing a binder in the cross-section of the part using an inkjet-like process. With laminated object manufacturing, thin layers are cut to shape and joined. In addition to the previously mentioned methods, HP has developed the Multi Jet Fusion (MJF) which is a powder base technique, though no lasers are involved. An inkjet array applies fusing and detailing agents which are then combined by heating to create a solid layer.[129]

Binder jetting

[edit]

The binder jetting 3D printing technique involves the deposition of a binding adhesive agent onto layers of material, usually powdered, and then this "green" state part may be cured and even sintered. The materials can be ceramic-based, metal or plastic. This method is also known as inkjet 3D printing. To produce a part, the printer builds the model using a head that moves over the platform base to spread or deposit alternating layers of powder (plaster and resins) and binder. Most modern binder jet printers also cure each layer of binder. These steps are repeated until all layers have been printed. This green part is usually cured in an oven to off-gas most of the binder before being sintered in a kiln with a specific time-temperature curve for the given material(s).

This technology allows the printing of full-color prototypes, overhangs, and elastomer parts. The strength of bonded powder prints can be enhanced by impregnating in the spaces between the necked or sintered matrix of powder with other compatible materials depending on the powder material, like wax, thermoset polymer, or even bronze.[130][131]

Schematic representation of stereolithography; a light-emitting device a) (laser or DLP) selectively illuminate the transparent bottom c) of a tank b) filled with a liquid photo-polymerizing resin; the solidified resin d) is progressively dragged up by a lifting platform e)

Stereolithography

[edit]

Other methods cure liquid materials using different sophisticated technologies, such as stereolithography. Photopolymerization is primarily used in stereolithography to produce a solid part from a liquid. Inkjet printer systems like the Objet PolyJet system spray photopolymer materials onto a build tray in ultra-thin layers (between 16 and 30 μm) until the part is completed.[132] Each photopolymer layer is cured with UV light after it is jetted, producing fully cured models that can be handled and used immediately, without post-curing. Ultra-small features can be made with the 3D micro-fabrication technique used in multiphoton photopolymerisation. Due to the nonlinear nature of photo excitation, the gel is cured to a solid only in the places where the laser was focused while the remaining gel is then washed away. Feature sizes of under 100 nm are easily produced, as well as complex structures with moving and interlocked parts.[133] Yet another approach uses a synthetic resin that is solidified using LEDs.[134]

In Mask-image-projection-based stereolithography, a 3D digital model is sliced by a set of horizontal planes. Each slice is converted into a two-dimensional mask image. The mask image is then projected onto a photocurable liquid resin surface and light is projected onto the resin to cure it in the shape of the layer.[135] Continuous liquid interface production begins with a pool of liquid photopolymer resin. Part of the pool bottom is transparent to ultraviolet light (the "window"), which causes the resin to solidify. The object rises slowly enough to allow the resin to flow under and maintain contact with the bottom of the object.[136] In powder-fed directed-energy deposition, a high-power laser is used to melt metal powder supplied to the focus of the laser beam. The powder-fed directed energy process is similar to selective laser sintering, but the metal powder is applied only where material is being added to the part at that moment.[137][138]

Computed axial lithography

[edit]

Computed axial lithography is a method for 3D printing based on computerised tomography scans to create prints in photo-curable resin. It was developed by a collaboration between the University of California, Berkeley with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.[139][140][141] Unlike other methods of 3D printing it does not build models through depositing layers of material like fused deposition modelling and stereolithography, instead it creates objects using a series of 2D images projected onto a cylinder of resin.[139][141] It is notable for its ability to build an object much more quickly than other methods using resins and the ability to embed objects within the prints.[140]

Liquid additive manufacturing

[edit]

Liquid additive manufacturing (LAM) is a 3D printing technique that deposits a liquid or high viscosity material (e.g. liquid silicone rubber) onto a build surface to create an object which then is vulcanised using heat to harden the object.[142][143][144] The process was originally created by Adrian Bowyer and was then built upon by German RepRap.[142][145][146]

A technique called programmable tooling uses 3D printing to create a temporary mold, which is then filled via a conventional injection molding process and then immediately dissolved.[147]

Lamination

[edit]

In some printers, paper can be used as the build material, resulting in a lower cost to print. During the 1990s some companies marketed printers that cut cross-sections out of special adhesive coated paper using a carbon dioxide laser and then laminated them together.

In 2005 Mcor Technologies Ltd developed a different process using ordinary sheets of office paper, a tungsten carbide blade to cut the shape, and selective deposition of adhesive and pressure to bond the prototype.[148]

Directed-energy deposition (DED)

[edit]

Powder-fed directed-energy deposition

[edit]

In powder-fed directed-energy deposition (also known as laser metal deposition), a high-power laser is used to melt metal powder supplied to the focus of the laser beam. The laser beam typically travels through the center of the deposition head and is focused on a small spot by one or more lenses. The build occurs on an X-Y table which is driven by a tool path created from a digital model to fabricate an object layer by layer. The deposition head is moved up vertically as each layer is completed. Some systems even make use of 5-axis[149][150] or 6-axis systems[151] (i.e. articulated arms) capable of delivering material on the substrate (a printing bed, or a pre-existing part[152]) with few to no spatial access restrictions. Metal powder is delivered and distributed around the circumference of the head or can be split by an internal manifold and delivered through nozzles arranged in various configurations around the deposition head. A hermetically sealed chamber filled with inert gas or a local inert shroud gas (sometimes both combined) is often used to shield the melt pool from atmospheric oxygen, to limit oxidation and to better control the material properties. The powder-fed directed-energy process is similar to selective laser sintering, but the metal powder is projected only where the material is being added to the part at that moment. The laser beam is used to heat up and create a "melt pool" on the substrate, in which the new powder is injected quasi-simultaneously. The process supports a wide range of materials including titanium, stainless steel, aluminium, tungsten, and other specialty materials as well as composites and functionally graded materials. The process can not only fully build new metal parts but can also add material to existing parts for example for coatings, repair, and hybrid manufacturing applications. Laser engineered net shaping (LENS), which was developed by Sandia National Labs, is one example of the powder-fed directed-energy deposition process for 3D printing or restoring metal parts.[153][154]

Metal wire processes

[edit]

Laser-based wire-feed systems, such as laser metal deposition-wire (LMD-w), feed the wire through a nozzle that is melted by a laser using inert gas shielding in either an open environment (gas surrounding the laser) or in a sealed chamber. Electron beam freeform fabrication uses an electron beam heat source inside a vacuum chamber.

It is also possible to use conventional gas metal arc welding attached to a 3D stage to 3-D print metals such as steel, bronze and aluminium.[155][156] Low-cost open source RepRap-style 3-D printers have been outfitted with Arduino-based sensors and demonstrated reasonable metallurgical properties from conventional welding wire as feedstock.[157]

Selective powder deposition (SPD)

[edit]

In selective powder deposition, build and support powders are selectively deposited into a crucible, such that the build powder takes the shape of the desired object and support powder fills the rest of the volume in the crucible. Then an infill material is applied, such that it comes in contact with the build powder. Then the crucible is fired up in a kiln at the temperature above the melting point of the infill but below the melting points of the powders. When the infill melts, it soaks the build powder. But it does not soak the support powder, because the support powder is chosen to be such that it is not wettable by the infill. If at the firing temperature, the atoms of the infill material and the build powder are mutually defusable, such as in the case of copper powder and zinc infill, then the resulting material will be a uniform mixture of those atoms, in this case, bronze. But if the atoms are not mutually defusable, such as in the case of tungsten and copper at 1100 °C, then the resulting material will be a composite. To prevent shape distortion, the firing temperature must be below the solidus temperature of the resulting alloy.[158]

Cryogenic 3D printing

[edit]

Cryogenic 3D printing is a collection of techniques that forms solid structures by freezing liquid materials while they are deposited. As each liquid layer is applied, it is cooled by the low temperature of the previous layer and printing environment which results in solidification. Unlike other 3D printing techniques, cryogenic 3D printing requires a controlled printing environment. The ambient temperature must be below the material's freezing point to ensure the structure remains solid during manufacturing and the humidity must remain low to prevent frost formation between the application of layers.[159] Materials typically include water and water-based solutions, such as brine, slurry, and hydrogels.[160][161] Cryogenic 3D printing techniques include rapid freezing prototype (RFP),[160] low-temperature deposition manufacturing (LDM),[162] and freeze-form extrusion fabrication (FEF).[163]

Applications

[edit]
The Audi RSQ was made with rapid prototyping industrial KUKA robots.

3D printing or additive manufacturing has been used in manufacturing, medical, industry and sociocultural sectors (e.g. cultural heritage) to create successful commercial technology.[164] More recently, 3D printing has also been used in the humanitarian and development sector to produce a range of medical items, prosthetics, spares and repairs.[165] The earliest application of additive manufacturing was on the toolroom end of the manufacturing spectrum. For example, rapid prototyping was one of the earliest additive variants, and its mission was to reduce the lead time and cost of developing prototypes of new parts and devices, which was earlier only done with subtractive toolroom methods such as CNC milling, turning, and precision grinding.[166] In the 2010s, additive manufacturing entered production to a much greater extent.

Food

[edit]

Additive manufacturing of food is being developed by squeezing out food, layer by layer, into three-dimensional objects. A large variety of foods are appropriate candidates, such as chocolate and candy, and flat foods such as crackers, pasta,[167] and pizza.[168][169] NASA is looking into the technology in order to create 3D-printed food to limit food waste and to make food that is designed to fit an astronaut's dietary needs.[170] In 2018, Italian bioengineer Giuseppe Scionti developed a technology allowing the production of fibrous plant-based meat analogues using a custom 3D bioprinter, mimicking meat texture and nutritional values.[171][172]

Fashion

[edit]
3D-printed necklace

3D printing has entered the world of clothing, with fashion designers experimenting with 3D-printed bikinis, shoes, and dresses.[173] In commercial production, Nike used 3D printing to prototype and manufacture the 2012 Vapor Laser Talon football shoe for players of American football, and New Balance has 3D manufactured custom-fit shoes for athletes.[173][174] 3D printing has come to the point where companies are printing consumer-grade eyewear with on-demand custom fit and styling (although they cannot print the lenses). On-demand customization of glasses is possible with rapid prototyping.[175]

Transportation

[edit]
A 3D-printed jet engine model

In cars, trucks, and aircraft, additive manufacturing is beginning to transform both unibody and fuselage design and production, and powertrain design and production. For example, General Electric uses high-end 3D printers to build parts for turbines.[176] Many of these systems are used for rapid prototyping before mass production methods are employed. Other prominent examples include:

Firearms

[edit]

AM's impact on firearms involves two dimensions: new manufacturing methods for established companies, and new possibilities for the making of do-it-yourself firearms. In 2012, the US-based group Defense Distributed disclosed plans to design a working plastic 3D-printed firearm "that could be downloaded and reproduced by anybody with a 3D printer".[185][186] After Defense Distributed released their plans, questions were raised regarding the effects that 3D printing and widespread consumer-level CNC machining[187][188] may have on gun control effectiveness.[189][190][191][192] Moreover, armor-design strategies can be enhanced by taking inspiration from nature and prototyping those designs easily, using AM.[193]

Health

[edit]

Surgical uses of 3D printing-centric therapies began in the mid-1990s with anatomical modeling for bony reconstructive surgery planning. Patient-matched implants were a natural extension of this work, leading to truly personalized implants that fit one unique individual.[194] Virtual planning of surgery and guidance using 3D printed, personalized instruments have been applied to many areas of surgery including total joint replacement and craniomaxillofacial reconstruction with great success.[195][196] One example of this is the bioresorbable trachial splint to treat newborns with tracheobronchomalacia[197] developed at the University of Michigan. The use of additive manufacturing for serialized production of orthopedic implants (metals) is also increasing due to the ability to efficiently create porous surface structures that facilitate osseointegration. The hearing aid and dental industries are expected to be the biggest areas of future development using custom 3D printing technology.[198]

3D printing is not just limited to inorganic materials; there have been a number of biomedical advancements made possible by 3D printing. As of 2012, 3D bio-printing technology has been studied by biotechnology firms and academia for possible use in tissue engineering applications in which organs and body parts are built using inkjet printing techniques. In this process, layers of living cells are deposited onto a gel medium or sugar matrix and slowly built up to form three-dimensional structures including vascular systems.[199] 3D printing has been considered as a method of implanting stem cells capable of generating new tissues and organs in living humans.[200] In 2018, 3D printing technology was used for the first time to create a matrix for cell immobilization in fermentation. Propionic acid production by Propionibacterium acidipropionici immobilized on 3D-printed nylon beads was chosen as a model study. It was shown that those 3D-printed beads were capable of promoting high-density cell attachment and propionic acid production, which could be adapted to other fermentation bioprocesses.[201]

3D printing has also been employed by researchers in the pharmaceutical field. During the last few years, there has been a surge in academic interest regarding drug delivery with the aid of AM techniques. This technology offers a unique way for materials to be utilized in novel formulations.[202] AM manufacturing allows for the usage of materials and compounds in the development of formulations, in ways that are not possible with conventional/traditional techniques in the pharmaceutical field, e.g. tableting, cast-molding, etc. Moreover, one of the major advantages of 3D printing, especially in the case of fused deposition modelling (FDM), is the personalization of the dosage form that can be achieved, thus, targeting the patient's specific needs.[203] In the not-so-distant future, 3D printers are expected to reach hospitals and pharmacies in order to provide on-demand production of personalized formulations according to the patients' needs.[204]

3D printing has also been used for medical equipment. During the COVID-19 pandemic 3D printers were used to supplement the strained supply of PPE through volunteers using their personally owned printers to produce various pieces of personal protective equipment (i.e. frames for face shields).

Education

[edit]

3D printing, and open source 3D printers, in particular, are the latest technologies making inroads into the classroom.[205][206][207] Higher education has proven to be a major buyer of desktop and professional 3D printers which industry experts generally view as a positive indicator.[208] Some authors have claimed that 3D printers offer an unprecedented "revolution" in STEM education.[209][210] The evidence for such claims comes from both the low-cost ability for rapid prototyping in the classroom by students, but also the fabrication of low-cost high-quality scientific equipment from open hardware designs forming open-source labs.[211] Additionally, Libraries around the world have also become locations to house smaller 3D printers for educational and community access.[212] Future applications for 3D printing might include creating open-source scientific equipment.[211][213]

3D-printed sculpture of an Egyptian pharaoh shown at Threeding

Replicating archeological artifacts

[edit]

In the 2010s, 3D printing became intensively used in the cultural heritage field for preservation, restoration and dissemination purposes.[214] Many Europeans and North American Museums have purchased 3D printers and actively recreate missing pieces of their relics[215] and archaeological monuments such as Tiwanaku in Bolivia.[216] The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the British Museum have started using their 3D printers to create museum souvenirs that are available in the museum shops.[217] Other museums, like the National Museum of Military History and Varna Historical Museum, have gone further and sell through the online platform Threeding digital models of their artifacts, created using Artec 3D scanners, in 3D printing friendly file format, which everyone can 3D print at home.[218] Morehshin Allahyari, an Iranian-born U.S. artist, considers her use of 3D sculpting processes of re-constructing Iranian cultural treasures as feminist activism. Allahyari uses a 3D modeling software to reconstruct a series of cultural artifacts that were demolished by ISIS militants in 2014.[219]

Replicating historic buildings and architectural structures

[edit]
The Stoofbrug [nl] in Amsterdam, the world's first 3D-printed metal bridge[103]

The application of 3D printing for the representation of architectural assets has many challenges. In 2018, the structure of Iran National Bank was traditionally surveyed and modeled in computer graphics software (specifically, Cinema4D) and was optimized for 3D printing. The team tested the technique for the construction of the part and it was successful. After testing the procedure, the modellers reconstructed the structure in Cinema4D and exported the front part of the model to Netfabb. The entrance of the building was chosen due to the 3D printing limitations and the budget of the project for producing the maquette. 3D printing was only one of the capabilities enabled by the produced 3D model of the bank, but due to the project's limited scope, the team did not continue modelling for the virtual representation or other applications.[220] In 2021, Parsinejad et al. comprehensively compared the hand surveying method for 3D reconstruction ready for 3D printing with digital recording (adoption of photogrammetry method).[220]

The world's first 3D-printed steel bridge was unveiled in Amsterdam in July 2021. Spanning 12 meters over the Oudezijds Achterburgwal canal, the bridge was created using robotic arms that printed over 4,500 kilograms of stainless steel. It took six months to complete.[221]

Soft actuators

[edit]

3D printed soft actuators is a growing application of 3D printing technology that has found its place in the 3D printing applications. These soft actuators are being developed to deal with soft structures and organs, especially in biomedical sectors and where the interaction between humans and robots is inevitable. The majority of the existing soft actuators are fabricated by conventional methods that require manual fabrication of devices, post-processing/assembly, and lengthy iterations until the maturity of the fabrication is achieved. Instead of the tedious and time-consuming aspects of the current fabrication processes, researchers are exploring an appropriate manufacturing approach for the effective fabrication of soft actuators. Thus, 3D-printed soft actuators are introduced to revolutionize the design and fabrication of soft actuators with custom geometrical, functional, and control properties in a faster and inexpensive approach. They also enable incorporation of all actuator components into a single structure eliminating the need to use external joints, adhesives, and fasteners.

Circuit boards

[edit]

Circuit board manufacturing involves multiple steps which include imaging, drilling, plating, solder mask coating, nomenclature printing and surface finishes. These steps include many chemicals such as harsh solvents and acids. 3D printing circuit boards remove the need for many of these steps while still producing complex designs.[222] Polymer ink is used to create the layers of the build while silver polymer is used for creating the traces and holes used to allow electricity to flow.[223] Current circuit board manufacturing can be a tedious process depending on the design. Specified materials are gathered and sent into inner layer processing where images are printed, developed and etched. The etch cores are typically punched to add lamination tooling. The cores are then prepared for lamination. The stack-up, the buildup of a circuit board, is built and sent into lamination where the layers are bonded. The boards are then measured and drilled. Many steps may differ from this stage however for simple designs, the material goes through a plating process to plate the holes and surface. The outer image is then printed, developed and etched. After the image is defined, the material must get coated with a solder mask for later soldering. Nomenclature is then added so components can be identified later. Then the surface finish is added. The boards are routed out of panel form into their singular or array form and then electrically tested. Aside from the paperwork that must be completed which proves the boards meet specifications, the boards are then packed and shipped. The benefits of 3D printing would be that the final outline is defined from the beginning, no imaging, punching or lamination is required and electrical connections are made with the silver polymer which eliminates drilling and plating. The final paperwork would also be greatly reduced due to the lack of materials required to build the circuit board. Complex designs which may take weeks to complete through normal processing can be 3D printed, greatly reducing manufacturing time.

A 3D selfie in 1:20 scale printed using gypsum-based printing

Hobbyists

[edit]

In 2005, academic journals began to report on the possible artistic applications of 3D printing technology.[224] Off-the-shelf machines were increasingly capable of producing practical household applications, for example, ornamental objects. Some practical examples include a working clock[225] and gears printed for home woodworking machines among other purposes.[226] Websites associated with home 3D printing tended to include backscratchers, coat hooks, door knobs, etc.[227] As of 2017, domestic 3D printing was reaching a consumer audience beyond hobbyists and enthusiasts. Several projects and companies are making efforts to develop affordable 3D printers for home desktop use. Much of this work has been driven by and targeted at DIY/maker/enthusiast/early adopter communities, with additional ties to the academic and hacker communities.

Sped on by decreases in price and increases in quality, As of 2019 an estimated 2 million people worldwide have purchased a 3D printer for hobby use.[228]

[edit]

Intellectual property

[edit]

3D printing has existed for decades within certain manufacturing industries where many legal regimes, including patents, industrial design rights, copyrights, and trademarks may apply. However, there is not much jurisprudence to say how these laws will apply if 3D printers become mainstream and individuals or hobbyist communities begin manufacturing items for personal use, for non-profit distribution, or for sale.

Any of the mentioned legal regimes may prohibit the distribution of the designs used in 3D printing or the distribution or sale of the printed item. To be allowed to do these things, where active intellectual property was involved, a person would have to contact the owner and ask for a licence, which may come with conditions and a price. However, many patent, design and copyright laws contain a standard limitation or exception for "private" or "non-commercial" use of inventions, designs or works of art protected under intellectual property (IP). That standard limitation or exception may leave such private, non-commercial uses outside the scope of IP rights.

Patents cover inventions including processes, machines, manufacturing, and compositions of matter and have a finite duration which varies between countries, but generally 20 years from the date of application. Therefore, if a type of wheel is patented, printing, using, or selling such a wheel could be an infringement of the patent.[229]

Copyright covers an expression[230] in a tangible, fixed medium and often lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years thereafter.[231] For example, a sculptor retains copyright over a statue, such that other people cannot then legally distribute designs to print an identical or similar statue without paying royalties, waiting for the copyright to expire, or working within a fair use exception.

When a feature has both artistic (copyrightable) and functional (patentable) merits when the question has appeared in US court, the courts have often held the feature is not copyrightable unless it can be separated from the functional aspects of the item.[231] In other countries the law and the courts may apply a different approach allowing, for example, the design of a useful device to be registered (as a whole) as an industrial design on the understanding that, in case of unauthorized copying, only the non-functional features may be claimed under design law whereas any technical features could only be claimed if covered by a valid patent.

Gun legislation and administration

[edit]

The US Department of Homeland Security and the Joint Regional Intelligence Center released a memo stating that "significant advances in three-dimensional (3D) printing capabilities, availability of free digital 3D printable files for firearms components, and difficulty regulating file sharing may present public safety risks from unqualified gun seekers who obtain or manufacture 3D printed guns" and that "proposed legislation to ban 3D printing of weapons may deter, but cannot completely prevent their production. Even if the practice is prohibited by new legislation, online distribution of these 3D printable files will be as difficult to control as any other illegally traded music, movie or software files."[232]

Attempting to restrict the distribution of gun plans via the Internet has been likened to the futility of preventing the widespread distribution of DeCSS, which enabled DVD ripping.[233][234][235][236] After the US government had Defense Distributed take down the plans, they were still widely available via the Pirate Bay and other file sharing sites.[237] Downloads of the plans from the UK, Germany, Spain, and Brazil were heavy.[238][239] Some US legislators have proposed regulations on 3D printers to prevent them from being used for printing guns.[240][241] 3D printing advocates have suggested that such regulations would be futile, could cripple the 3D printing industry and could infringe on free speech rights, with early pioneers of 3D printing professor Hod Lipson suggesting that gunpowder could be controlled instead.[242][243][244][245][246][247]

Internationally, where gun controls are generally stricter than in the United States, some commentators have said the impact may be more strongly felt since alternative firearms are not as easily obtainable.[248] Officials in the United Kingdom have noted that producing a 3D-printed gun would be illegal under their gun control laws.[249] Europol stated that criminals have access to other sources of weapons but noted that as technology improves, the risks of an effect would increase.[250][251]

Aerospace regulation

[edit]

In the United States, the FAA has anticipated a desire to use additive manufacturing techniques and has been considering how best to regulate this process.[252] The FAA has jurisdiction over such fabrication because all aircraft parts must be made under FAA production approval or under other FAA regulatory categories.[253] In December 2016, the FAA approved the production of a 3D-printed fuel nozzle for the GE LEAP engine.[254] Aviation attorney Jason Dickstein has suggested that additive manufacturing is merely a production method, and should be regulated like any other production method.[255][256] He has suggested that the FAA's focus should be on guidance to explain compliance, rather than on changing the existing rules, and that existing regulations and guidance permit a company "to develop a robust quality system that adequately reflects regulatory needs for quality assurance".[255]

Quality assurance

[edit]

In 2021, first standards were issued, e.g. ASTM ISO/ASTM52900-21 Additive manufacturing general principles, fundamentals and vocabulary, and the above mentioned ISO/ASTM52900-15.[118][119] In 2023, the ISO/ASTM 52920:2023[257] defined the requirements for industrial additive manufacturing processes and production sites using additive manufacturing to ensure required quality level. Aforetime in Germany there was a draft of DIN norm issued, DIN SPEC 17071:2019.

Health and safety

[edit]

Polymer feedstock materials can release ultrafine particles and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) if sufficiently heated, which in combination have been associated with adverse respiratory and cardiovascular health effects. In addition, temperatures of 190 °C to 260 °C are typically reached by an FFF extrusion nozzle, which can cause skin burns. Vat photopolymerization stereolithography printers use high-powered lasers that present a skin and eye hazard, although they are considered nonhazardous during printing because the laser is enclosed within the printing chamber.[258]

3D printers also contain many moving parts that include stepper motors, pulleys, threaded rods, carriages, and small fans, which generally do not have enough power to cause serious injuries but can still trap a user's finger, long hair, or loose clothing. Most desktop FFF 3D printers do not have any added electrical safety features beyond regular internal fuses or external transformers, although the voltages in the exposed parts of 3D printers usually do not exceed 12V to 24V, which is generally considered safe.[258]

A video on research done on printer emissions

Research on the health and safety concerns of 3D printing is new and in development due to the recent proliferation of 3D printing devices. In 2017, the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work published a discussion paper on the processes and materials involved in 3D printing, the potential implications of this technology for occupational safety and health and avenues for controlling potential hazards.[259]

Noise level is measured in decibels (dB), and can vary greatly in home printers from 15 dB to 75 dB.[260] Some main sources of noise in filament printers are fans, motors and bearings, while in resin printers the fans usually are responsible for most of the noise.[260] Some methods for dampening the noise from a printer may be to install vibration isolation, use larger diameter fans, perform regular maintenance and lubrication, or use a soundproofing enclosure.[260]

Impact

[edit]

Additive manufacturing, starting with today's infancy period, requires manufacturing firms to be flexible, ever-improving users of all available technologies to remain competitive. Advocates of additive manufacturing also predict that this arc of technological development will counter globalization, as end users will do much of their own manufacturing rather than engage in trade to buy products from other people and corporations.[16] The real integration of the newer additive technologies into commercial production, however, is more a matter of complementing traditional subtractive methods rather than displacing them entirely.[261]

The futurologist Jeremy Rifkin[262] claimed that 3D printing signals the beginning of a third industrial revolution,[263] succeeding the production line assembly that dominated manufacturing starting in the late 19th century.

Social change

[edit]
Street sign in Windhoek, Namibia, advertising 3D printing, July 2018

Since the 1950s, a number of writers and social commentators have speculated in some depth about the social and cultural changes that might result from the advent of commercially affordable additive manufacturing technology.[264] In recent years, 3D printing has created a significant impact in the humanitarian and development sector. Its potential to facilitate distributed manufacturing is resulting in supply chain and logistics benefits, by reducing the need for transportation, warehousing and wastage. Furthermore, social and economic development is being advanced through the creation of local production economies.[165]

Others have suggested that as more and more 3D printers start to enter people's homes, the conventional relationship between the home and the workplace might get further eroded.[265] Likewise, it has also been suggested that, as it becomes easier for businesses to transmit designs for new objects around the globe, so the need for high-speed freight services might also become less.[266] Finally, given the ease with which certain objects can now be replicated, it remains to be seen whether changes will be made to current copyright legislation so as to protect intellectual property rights with the new technology widely available.

Some call attention to the conjunction of commons-based peer production with 3D printing and other low-cost manufacturing techniques.[267][268][269] The self-reinforced fantasy of a system of eternal growth can be overcome with the development of economies of scope, and here, society can play an important role contributing to the raising of the whole productive structure to a higher plateau of more sustainable and customized productivity.[267] Further, it is true that many issues, problems, and threats arise due to the democratization of the means of production, and especially regarding the physical ones.[267] For instance, the recyclability of advanced nanomaterials is still questioned; weapons manufacturing could become easier; not to mention the implications for counterfeiting[270] and on intellectual property.[271] It might be maintained that in contrast to the industrial paradigm whose competitive dynamics were about economies of scale, commons-based peer production 3D printing could develop economies of scope. While the advantages of scale rest on cheap global transportation, the economies of scope share infrastructure costs (intangible and tangible productive resources), taking advantage of the capabilities of the fabrication tools.[267] And following Neil Gershenfeld[272] in that "some of the least developed parts of the world need some of the most advanced technologies", commons-based peer production and 3D printing may offer the necessary tools for thinking globally but acting locally in response to certain needs.

Larry Summers wrote about the "devastating consequences" of 3D printing and other technologies (robots, artificial intelligence, etc.) for those who perform routine tasks. In his view, "already there are more American men on disability insurance than doing production work in manufacturing. And the trends are all in the wrong direction, particularly for the less skilled, as the capacity of capital embodying artificial intelligence to replace white-collar as well as blue-collar work will increase rapidly in the years ahead." Summers recommends more vigorous cooperative efforts to address the "myriad devices" (e.g., tax havens, bank secrecy, money laundering, and regulatory arbitrage) enabling the holders of great wealth to "a paying" income and estate taxes, and to make it more difficult to accumulate great fortunes without requiring "great social contributions" in return, including: more vigorous enforcement of anti-monopoly laws, reductions in "excessive" protection for intellectual property, greater encouragement of profit-sharing schemes that may benefit workers and give them a stake in wealth accumulation, strengthening of collective bargaining arrangements, improvements in corporate governance, strengthening of financial regulation to eliminate subsidies to financial activity, easing of land-use restrictions that may cause the real estate of the rich to keep rising in value, better training for young people and retraining for displaced workers, and increased public and private investment in infrastructure development—e.g., in energy production and transportation.[273]

Michael Spence wrote that "Now comes a ... powerful, wave of digital technology that is replacing labor in increasingly complex tasks. This process of labor substitution and disintermediation has been underway for some time in service sectors—think of ATMs, online banking, enterprise resource planning, customer relationship management, mobile payment systems, and much more. This revolution is spreading to the production of goods, where robots and 3D printing are displacing labor." In his view, the vast majority of the cost of digital technologies comes at the start, in the design of hardware (e.g. 3D printers) and, more importantly, in creating the software that enables machines to carry out various tasks. "Once this is achieved, the marginal cost of the hardware is relatively low (and declines as scale rises), and the marginal cost of replicating the software is essentially zero. With a huge potential global market to amortize the upfront fixed costs of design and testing, the incentives to invest [in digital technologies] are compelling."[274]

Spence believes that, unlike prior digital technologies, which drove firms to deploy underutilized pools of valuable labor around the world, the motivating force in the current wave of digital technologies "is cost reduction via the replacement of labor". For example, as the cost of 3D printing technology declines, it is "easy to imagine" that production may become "extremely" local and customized. Moreover, production may occur in response to actual demand, not anticipated or forecast demand. Spence believes that labor, no matter how inexpensive, will become a less important asset for growth and employment expansion, with labor-intensive, process-oriented manufacturing becoming less effective, and that re-localization will appear in both developed and developing countries. In his view, production will not disappear, but it will be less labor-intensive, and all countries will eventually need to rebuild their growth models around digital technologies and the human capital supporting their deployment and expansion. Spence writes that "the world we are entering is one in which the most powerful global flows will be ideas and digital capital, not goods, services, and traditional capital. Adapting to this will require shifts in mindsets, policies, investments (especially in human capital), and quite possibly models of employment and distribution."[274]

Naomi Wu regards the usage of 3D printing in the Chinese classroom (where rote memorization is standard) to teach design principles and creativity as the most exciting recent development of the technology, and more generally regards 3D printing as being the next desktop publishing revolution.[275]

A printer was donated to the Juan Fernandez Women's Group in 2024, to support women in the remote community to be able to create parts to fix broken equipment, without having to wait for a ship to import the needed components.[276]

Environmental change

[edit]

The growth of additive manufacturing could have a large impact on the environment. Traditional subtractive manufacturing methods such as CNC milling create products by cutting away material from a larger block. In contrast, additive manufacturing creates products layer-by layer, using the minimum required materials to create the product.[277] This has the benefit of reducing material waste, which further contributes to energy savings by avoiding raw material production.[278][279]

Life-cycle assessment of additive manufacturing has estimated that adopting the technology could further lower carbon dioxide emissions since 3D printing creates localized production, thus reducing the need to transport products and the emissions associated.[280] AM could also allow consumers to create their own replacement parts to fix purchased products to extend the lifespan of purchased products.[281]

By making only the bare structural necessities of products, additive manufacturing also has the potential to make profound contributions to lightweighting.[277] The use of these lightweight components would allow for reductions in the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of vehicles and other forms of transportation.[282] A case study on an airplane component made using additive manufacturing, for example, found that the use of the component saves 63% of relevant energy and carbon dioxide emissions over the course of the product's lifetime.[283]

However, the adoption of additive manufacturing also has environmental disadvantages. Firstly, AM has a high energy consumption compared to traditional processes. This is due to its use of processes such as lasers and high temperatures for product creation.[284] Secondly, despite additive manufacturing reducing up to 90% of waste compared to subtractive manufacturing, AM can generate waste that is non-recyclable.[285] For example, there are issues with the recyclability of materials in metal AM as some highly regulated industries such as aerospace often insist on using virgin powder in the creation of safety critical components.[277] Additive manufacturing has not yet reached its theoretical material efficiency potential of 97%, but it may get closer as the technology continues to increase productivity.[286]

Despite the drawbacks, research and industry are making further strides to support AM's sustainability. Some large FDM printers that melt high-density polyethylene (HDPE) pellets may also accept sufficiently clean recycled material such as chipped milk bottles. In addition, these printers can use shredded material from faulty builds or unsuccessful prototype versions, thus reducing overall project wastage and materials handling and storage. The concept has been explored in the RecycleBot.[287] There are also industrial efforts to produce metal powder from recycled metals.[288]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, is a fabrication method that constructs three-dimensional objects by successively depositing or solidifying in layers based on a digital model, contrasting with subtractive processes that remove from a solid block. This approach allows for the creation of intricate geometries with reduced waste, as is only added where needed. The technology originated in 1984 when Charles Hull invented , using ultraviolet light to cure liquid photopolymers layer by layer, leading to the first commercial 3D printer by in 1986. Subsequent developments include fused deposition modeling (FDM), which extrudes thermoplastic filaments, and , which fuses powder particles with a —key processes that expanded accessibility and applications. Initially confined to prototyping, 3D printing has advanced to produce functional parts in industries like , where it enables lightweight, complex components for engines and airframes, and , facilitating custom implants, prosthetics, and surgical guides tailored to patient anatomy. Notable achievements include NASA's use of 3D-printed rocket components for rapid iteration and cost savings, alongside bioprinting experiments toward , though full organ printing remains experimental due to biological complexities. Controversies arise from challenges, as digital files enable easy replication bypassing traditional controls, and the potential for untraceable "ghost guns" via home printers, raising public safety concerns despite legal restrictions on designs. Despite hype, empirical limitations persist in speed, material strength for high-volume production, and scalability compared to conventional methods, underscoring its niche yet transformative role.

Terminology

Core Definitions

Additive manufacturing refers to processes that fabricate three-dimensional objects by joining materials layer by layer, guided by data from a digital geometric model, in contrast to subtractive methods that remove material from a solid block or formative methods that reshape material through molding or . This definition, established in ISO/ASTM 52900:2021, emphasizes the sequential deposition or consolidation of material, typically achieving resolutions from 0.025 to 0.5 millimeters per layer depending on the process. The term "3D printing" emerged from Charles ("Chuck") Hull's 1984 U.S. patent application for , an early additive process using ultraviolet laser to cure liquid into solid layers, marking the first documented use of the phrase in technical literature. Hull's invention, commercialized via in 1986, applied the concept to , where objects are built from (CAD) files sliced into cross-sectional layers via software like STL format, introduced in 1987 for triangulated surface representation. Although frequently synonymous in casual usage, "additive manufacturing" denotes industrial-scale applications with standardized quality controls under ISO/ASTM frameworks, while "3D printing" often highlights accessible, desktop-scale extrusion techniques like fused deposition modeling (FDM), which melt filament through a heated at rates of 50-300 mm/s. This distinction arises from additive manufacturing's focus on end-use parts with mechanical properties comparable to traditional methods—such as tensile strengths exceeding 50 MPa in metal-printed components—versus 3D printing's prototyping emphasis, though overlaps exist in processes like (SLS) for powder-based fusion.

Evolution of Terms

The terminology surrounding 3D printing originated with process-specific descriptors in the early 1980s, reflecting the nascent, technique-focused development of layer-by-layer fabrication methods. Charles Hull coined "" in his 1984 patent application for an apparatus that cured liquid layer by layer using ultraviolet light, marking the first commercializable additive process. Concurrently, other inventors introduced terms like "" for Carl Deckard's 1987 method of fusing powder with a and "fused deposition modeling" for S. Scott Crump's 1989 extrusion-based technique. These names emphasized the mechanical and material mechanisms rather than a unified category, as the technologies were patented independently amid competing efforts to accelerate model creation. By the mid-1980s, as multiple processes converged on similar goals of quick physical model generation from digital designs, the umbrella term "" emerged to describe their primary application in and testing. The first commercial systems, including Hull's SLA-1 machine released in 1988, solidified this phrasing, which highlighted speed over traditional subtractive machining or . This term dominated industry discourse through the 1990s, with events like the inaugural Rapid Prototyping & Manufacturing conference in 1993 institutionalizing it, though it implied limited scalability beyond prototypes. The shift toward "additive manufacturing" gained momentum in the early as applications expanded to functional end-use parts, emphasizing material addition in contrast to subtractive or formative methods. This terminology addressed rapid prototyping's connotation of disposability, aligning with growing industrial adoption in and sectors. Standardization efforts formalized it: ASTM International's F42 committee, formed in 2009, adopted "additive manufacturing" in early standards, culminating in the joint ISO/ASTM 52900:2015 specification defining it as "the process of joining materials to make parts from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer." Updates in 2021 refined classifications by application, process category, and material. Parallel to this, "3D printing" evolved as a more accessible, consumer-oriented synonym, particularly post-2010 with open-source initiatives like (2005) and affordable desktop printers. While Hull's work is retrospectively linked to its inception, the term's widespread use surged with hobbyist and educational adoption, often interchangeably with additive manufacturing but critiqued in professional contexts for implying lower precision or scale. By the , both terms coexisted as umbrellas—additive manufacturing favored in standards and engineering for its breadth across seven process categories (e.g., powder bed fusion, directed energy deposition), while 3D printing persisted in media and . This duality reflects causal distinctions: additive manufacturing underscores production viability, whereas 3D printing evokes democratized prototyping, with ASTM/ISO frameworks resolving ambiguities through hierarchical definitions.

History

Pre-1970 Concepts

Early efforts to conceptualize automated fabrication of three-dimensional objects through sequential layering predated modern additive manufacturing by nearly a century. In 1892, Joseph E. Blanther, an Austrian inventor residing in , received U.S. 473,901 for a method to manufacture contour relief-maps. This apparatus employed a mechanical system to deposit layers of material—such as or —corresponding to topographic contours derived from drawn profiles, building up the model incrementally from base to peak. The process relied on manual or semi-automated guidance via templates, producing scaled representations of terrain elevations accurate to the input data, though limited to simple geometries and requiring post-processing for cohesion. Blanther's invention demonstrated the feasibility of additive layering for physical replication of two-dimensional data into three dimensions, a core principle echoed in later 3D printing techniques, albeit constrained by the era's mechanical precision and material brittleness. Literary foresight also anticipated layered object construction in the mid-20th century. author (pseudonym of William Fitzgerald Jenkins) described a rudimentary 3D printing analog in his 1945 short story "Things Pass By," published in Astounding Science Fiction. The narrative featured a "plastic constructor" device that interpreted blueprints to extrude and solidify "magnetronic plastics" layer by layer, fabricating complex structures like spaceship hulls or buildings from one end to the other without manual intervention. Leinster's depiction involved a or depositing molten material guided by electronic patterns, curing it via magnetic fields to form durable objects, presciently outlining digital-to-physical translation and automated deposition—elements central to contemporary extrusion-based processes. While fictional and unaccompanied by prototypes, this concept highlighted speculative causal pathways for scalable, blueprint-driven fabrication, influencing later inventors amid post-war interest in automation. These pre-1970 ideas remained conceptual or niche applications, lacking integration with or that would enable practical . Blanther's topographic focus served cartographic and educational purposes, with no evident beyond prototypes, while Leinster's vision operated in imaginative realms detached from empirical testing. Absent electrical controls or polymers, such methods could not achieve the resolution or speed of subsequent innovations, underscoring the dependence of additive fabrication on interdisciplinary advances in and chemistry. No widespread occurred, as subtractive techniques like milling dominated prototyping until digital modeling emerged in the .

1970s Foundations

In 1971, French inventor Pierre A. L. Ciraud filed a describing a process for three-dimensional objects of arbitrary by successively projecting layers of particulate material—such as —onto a substrate using , followed by fusion through heat or other means to bind the layers. This approach represented an early formalization of additive layer deposition, distinct from subtractive , though practical implementation was hindered by the era's limited precision in and control systems. Ciraud's method aimed at efficient production of complex shapes without molds, foreshadowing later extrusion-based techniques, but it did not result in commercial devices due to technological constraints. That same year, another foundational patent emerged for the "Liquid Metal Recorder," developed by Johannes F. Gottwald, which utilized a continuous inkjet to deposit molten metal droplets layer by layer, enabling the creation of topographic or three-dimensional metal models from . This inkjet precursor demonstrated the potential for automated, data-driven material extrusion in metals, aligning with emerging capabilities, yet it remained experimental as inkjet reliability and metal solidification control proved challenging without advanced nozzles and feedback mechanisms. In 1974, British chemist and inventor David E. H. Jones further advanced the theoretical groundwork in his "Ariadne" column in New Scientist, outlining a conceptual system for constructing solid models by stacking ultra-thin layers of material—such as or —under computer guidance, using a modified to trace and deposit each slice based on cross-sectional data from a digital model. Jones emphasized the efficiency of this additive approach over traditional sculpting, predicting its utility for prototyping complex geometries, though he noted dependencies on precise automation not yet realized. These contributions established core principles of layer-wise fabrication from digital instructions, setting the stage for prototypes despite lacking immediate hardware realization.

1980s Advancements

The 1980s saw the invention of core additive manufacturing technologies that transitioned conceptual layer-by-layer fabrication into patentable, commercializable processes, primarily for in . These advancements built on 1970s computational modeling by introducing precise material deposition methods, enabling physical objects from digital designs without subtractive waste. In 1981, Japanese engineer Hideo Kodama developed an early photopolymerization technique using ultraviolet light to solidify layers of , filing a for a system that layered objects from photosensitive material, though it remained uncommercialized due to funding limitations. Charles "Chuck" Hull advanced this paradigm in 1983 by devising (SLA), inspired by ultraviolet curing of tabletop coatings, where a selectively solidifies liquid in a vat layer by layer to form solid parts. Hull filed the foundational on August 8, 1984 (issued March 11, 1986, as US 4,575,330), coining "" and describing an apparatus for producing three-dimensional objects via controlled photopolymerization. In 1986, Hull founded Inc. as the first dedicated 3D printing company, launching the SLA-1 commercial machine in 1987, which achieved resolutions down to 0.1 mm and build volumes of approximately 25 x 25 x 25 cm using epoxy-based . Concurrently, S. Scott Crump invented fused deposition modeling (FDM) in 1988 while seeking to prototype a custom injection mold; he extruded a heated thermoplastic filament—initially a polyethylene-wax blend—through a nozzle to deposit material in controlled paths, fusing layers via thermal bonding. Crump filed the patent in 1989 (issued June 9, 1992, as US Patent 5,121,329), emphasizing thermoplastic extrusion for robust prototypes. He and his wife Lisa established Stratasys Inc. in 1989, releasing the first FDM machines in 1990, which operated at extrusion temperatures around 200–300°C and supported materials like ABS with layer thicknesses of 0.25 mm. In 1989, Carl Deckard patented (SLS), using a CO2 laser to fuse powdered materials—such as or —layer by layer without supports, as unbound powder acts as , broadening applications to metals and polymers. These inventions, protected by over a dozen early patents, spurred industrial adoption for functional prototypes, reducing design iteration times from weeks to hours in sectors like , where SLA and FDM enabled precise, isotropic parts for fit-testing.

1990s Commercialization

The 1990s represented a pivotal era for the commercialization of additive manufacturing, as pioneering technologies transitioned from laboratory prototypes to market-available industrial systems, primarily targeting rapid prototyping applications in engineering and design. Companies focused on scaling production, improving reliability, and expanding material options, though machines remained expensive and suited mainly for professional use in sectors like aerospace and automotive. Stratasys, founded in 1989 by , advanced fused deposition modeling (FDM) by releasing its first commercial 3D printer in 1992, enabling the extrusion of thermoplastic filaments to build parts layer by layer for prototyping purposes. This system addressed limitations in earlier manual processes by automating deposition, though initial models were large and costly, with build volumes around 12 x 12 x 12 inches and prices exceeding $100,000. Concurrently, DTM Corporation, stemming from Carl Deckard's University of Texas research, launched the world's first (SLS) machine in 1992, which fused powdered materials like using a , offering stronger, non-brittle prototypes compared to liquid resin methods. 3D Systems, established by Chuck Hull, built upon its 1988 SLA-1 stereolithography apparatus by iterating on vat photopolymerization systems throughout the decade, incorporating enhancements in laser precision and resin formulations to produce finer surface finishes and larger parts. By mid-decade, acquisitions like UVP in 1990 bolstered its portfolio, facilitating broader adoption for patterns and functional models. Emerging players further diversified the market: introduced its Stereos SLS system in 1990, while Solidscape debuted wax-based in 1993, and Z Corporation licensed binder jetting technology from MIT in 1995 for color-capable prototypes. Despite these advances, faced constraints including high costs (often $200,000–$500,000 per unit), lengthy build times (hours to days for complex parts), and limited , restricting widespread use to high-value industries where prototyping speed offset expenses—reducing design cycles from weeks to days. Industry growth was evident in the proliferation of service bureaus offering on-demand printing, yet the market remained niche, with annual revenues for leading firms like climbing steadily but totaling under $50 million by decade's end.

2000s Expansion

The 2000s marked a phase of broadening accessibility and technological maturation for 3D printing, driven by the expiration of foundational patents from the and , which lowered entry barriers for new manufacturers and reduced equipment costs from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands of dollars. This enabled wider adoption in prototyping for industries like and automotive, where rapid iteration on complex parts proved advantageous over subtractive methods. By the mid-decade, commercial systems from companies such as and incorporated improved materials like ABS plastics and supported larger build volumes, facilitating applications in functional testing rather than solely conceptual models. A transformative event occurred on March 23, 2005, when Adrian Bowyer, a lecturer at the in , initiated the project to develop an open-source, self-replicating 3D printer affordable for widespread replication. The initiative emphasized fused deposition modeling (FDM) with readily available components, targeting a printer cost under $500 that could produce 50-70% of its own plastic parts. This effort galvanized a global community of hobbyists and developers, culminating in the 2008 release of the Darwin prototype, which demonstrated partial self-replication and spurred derivative designs like the Prusa Mendel. RepRap's principles accelerated the shift toward desktop-scale printers, influencing subsequent commercial entrants by prioritizing modularity and community-driven improvements over proprietary hardware. Applications diversified beyond manufacturing, with medical advancements including the 2000 fabrication of the first 3D-printed kidney model using layered deposition techniques, enabling precise anatomical replicas for surgical planning. Early explorations in bioprinting emerged around 2003, involving extrusion of cellular hydrogels to form tissue scaffolds, though limited by material viability and resolution. In research, institutions adopted the technology for custom tooling and small-batch production, while emerging consumer interest laid groundwork for later democratization, evidenced by growing online forums sharing STL files for printable objects by 2007. These developments underscored 3D printing's potential for on-demand fabrication, though scalability and material limitations constrained industrial displacement of traditional methods.

2010s Democratization

The project, initiated in 2005 but gaining significant traction in the 2010s, promoted democratization through its open-source designs for self-replicating 3D printers capable of producing many of their own components from low-cost materials like plastic filament. This approach reduced by enabling hobbyists and small-scale builders to assemble printers for under $500 using readily available parts, fostering a global community of contributors who iterated on designs via shared repositories. By mid-decade, RepRap derivatives accounted for a substantial portion of entry-level printers, shifting the technology from industrial exclusivity to accessible prototyping for individuals and makerspaces. MakerBot's launch of the Cupcake CNC in April 2009 represented a key early commercialization of RepRap principles. Founded by Zach "Hoeken" Smith, whose RepRap contributions included electronics designs, alongside Bre Pettis and Adam Mayer, the Cupcake was heavily based on RepRap architectures, offering DIY kits that further lowered entry barriers for hobbyists. Commercial developments amplified this accessibility, exemplified by MakerBot's Replicator launched in 2012 at approximately $1,750 for the base model, which brought reliable fused deposition modeling (FDM) printers to desktops without requiring extensive technical expertise. The expiration of key patents around 2009 spurred competition, driving average prices for consumer-grade FDM printers down from several thousand dollars in the early to under $400 by 2016, making ownership viable for educators, startups, and home users. This affordability enabled widespread experimentation, with printers integrated into classrooms and libraries by 2015, though print quality and material limitations persisted for non-professionals. Online platforms further accelerated democratization by facilitating free design sharing; , launched in 2008, experienced explosive growth in the , reaching over 2.3 million registered users by 2018 with annual organic increases averaging 149%. Users uploaded millions of STL files for printable objects ranging from tools to prosthetics, embodying open-source principles that bypassed traditional manufacturing gatekeepers and empowered non-experts to customize and iterate locally. High-profile endorsements, such as President Barack Obama's 2013 speech highlighting 3D printing's potential for revitalizing American manufacturing, underscored its cultural shift toward grassroots innovation, though actual household penetration remained niche due to usability hurdles.

2020s Maturity and Integration

The 2020s represented a maturation phase for 3D printing, with the technology achieving deeper integration into industrial supply chains and production workflows, driven by demonstrated reliability in crisis response and economic scalability. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, additive manufacturing enabled rapid fabrication of personal protective equipment (PPE), including face shields, masks, and ventilator parts, addressing global shortages through decentralized production capabilities. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supported this by issuing guidance for non-traditional manufacturers and authorizing emergency use of 3D printed medical products, highlighting the technology's agility in emergency contexts. Market data underscored this maturity, with the global 3D printing industry valued at $15.39 billion in 2024 and projected to reach $16.16 billion in 2025, growing to $35.79 billion by 2030 at a (CAGR) of 17.2%. In , adoption accelerated as firms certified complex, lightweight components for flight-critical use; allocated $650 million in 2024 to expand 3D printed parts production for LEAP engines, incorporating intricate fuel nozzles and other assemblies. integrated nearly 300 additively manufactured components per GE9X engine in the 777X aircraft, which achieved its in 2020, while advancing 3D printed solar array substrates to shorten production cycles by up to six months as of 2025. Integration extended to civil infrastructure and space, exemplified by the MX3D stainless steel pedestrian bridge—a 12-meter span installed over an canal in July 2021, marking the first fully 3D printed metal bridge certified for public use. launched in 2023, the first rocket predominantly constructed via large-scale additive manufacturing, which successfully reached Max-Q despite not achieving , validating 3D printing for structural rocketry. In , FDA frameworks facilitated growth in 3D printed implants and devices, with significant investments from 2020 to 2025 enhancing precision applications like custom prosthetics. Indicators of industry maturity included surging , process , and regulatory certifications enabling serial production, shifting 3D printing from niche prototyping to core manufacturing paradigms across sectors. This evolution supported , as seen in automotive and defense integrations reducing lead times for bespoke parts. Early 2026 developments further highlighted consumer accessibility, with CES 2026 recognizing Creality's SPARKX i7 as the top 3D printer for its AI-integrated multi-color capabilities. Trends emphasized mainstream multi-material printing and swarm configurations deploying multiple printers for efficient large-scale production.

Fundamental Principles

Digital Design and Modeling

Digital design and modeling constitute the foundational step in additive manufacturing, where engineers or designers create a virtual representation of the intended physical object using specialized software. This process typically employs (CAD) tools to define geometry, dimensions, and features through parametric equations, direct manipulation, or subdivision surface modeling. Parametric modeling, common in professional applications, allows precise control via variables and constraints, enabling modifications without rebuilding the entire model, as seen in software like Autodesk Fusion 360 or . Models must account for additive manufacturing constraints, such as layer adhesion and material flow, differing from traditional subtractive methods where internal voids are irrelevant. For instance, designs should minimize overhangs exceeding 45 degrees to reduce reliance on support structures, which add post-processing time and material waste; walls thinner than 0.8-1.2 mm for fused deposition modeling (FDM) risk fragility or printing failure due to insufficient extrusion coverage. Manifold geometry—ensuring surfaces are watertight, non-self-intersecting, and oriented consistently—is essential to prevent slicing errors, as non-manifold edges can cause incomplete toolpaths or artifacts in the final print. Upon completion, models are exported in formats optimized for 3D printing, with the format predominating since its development in the late for early stereolithography systems by . STL approximates curved surfaces as a of triangular facets, facilitating compatibility across printers but introducing potential inaccuracies from resolution; finer meshes increase file size and processing demands without proportional print quality gains. Alternatives like AMF or 3MF support color, materials, and textures, addressing STL's limitations for multi-material prints. Preparation for fabrication involves slicing software, which interprets the mesh into layered G-code instructions specifying toolpaths, layer height (typically 0.1-0.3 mm for FDM), density (10-100% for strength versus weight), and supports. For enhanced load support and durability, prioritizing more perimeters or walls (4-6 or more) and thicker top and bottom solid layers contributes more to overall strength than increasing infill density alone. Programs such as UltiMaker Cura or PrusaSlicer enable optimization for specific printers, simulating prints to predict issues like warping from uneven cooling. This step bridges design intent with machine execution, where causal factors like gradients influence success; empirical testing via prototypes refines models iteratively. Standards like ASME Y14.46, updated in 2022, guide documentation of print-specific tolerances, such as varying by orientation.

Layered Additive Fabrication

Layered additive fabrication constitutes the core mechanism of additive manufacturing, wherein three-dimensional objects are constructed by sequentially depositing and solidifying in thin, contiguous layers derived from a digital geometric model. This process contrasts with subtractive manufacturing, which removes from a solid block, and formative methods like , which deform or mold bulk into shape; instead, it enables direct material addition with inherent efficiency in utilizing feedstock and accommodating intricate internal geometries without tooling. The fabrication begins with computational slicing of the digital model—often represented in STL or similar triangulated formats—into a stack of two-dimensional cross-sectional layers, typically oriented perpendicular to the build direction. Each layer is then materialized through process-specific deposition, such as , fusion, or ; key technologies include fused deposition modeling (FDM/FFF), which melts plastic filament (e.g., PLA, ABS) and extrudes it through a nozzle, stereolithography (SLA) or digital light processing (DLP), which uses UV light or laser to cure liquid resin layer by layer for high-detail parts, and powder bed fusion techniques like selective laser sintering (SLS) for plastics or direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) for metals, which fuse powder particles with a laser—ideal for strong, functional parts without supports. followed by precise alignment and to the preceding layer, with the build platform incrementally lowering to accommodate subsequent additions. This iterative stacking inherently introduces directional dependencies, as material bonds form primarily at interfaces, potentially resulting in anisotropic mechanical where tensile strength and are diminished along the vertical (Z-axis) relative to in-plane (XY) orientations due to incomplete fusion, gradients, and microstructural alignments induced by layer-wise . From a causal standpoint, the layer interfaces serve as planes of microstructural discontinuity, where rapid during deposition can trap defects like voids or weak welds, exacerbating failure under perpendicular loads; empirical studies confirm that parts exhibit up to 50% lower elongation-to-failure in the build direction compared to horizontal orientations in processes like . To mitigate such limitations, designs often incorporate oriented build strategies or auxiliary supports for overhangs exceeding 45 degrees, preventing during fabrication, while post-processing like annealing can enhance inter-layer diffusion and . This layered , while enabling topological optimization, demands rigorous process parameter tuning—such as deposition speed, , and layer height—to balance resolution, which governs and feature fidelity, against build time and structural integrity.

Material Science Basics

Materials in additive manufacturing encompass polymers, metals, ceramics, composites, and specialized feedstocks like , selected based on compatibility with specific deposition mechanisms such as , powder fusion, or photopolymerization. Polymers, particularly thermoplastics and photopolymers, constitute the most accessible category, with (ABS) and (PLA) extruded as 1.75 mm or 2.85 mm diameter filaments in material processes, offering tensile strengths ranging from 20-50 MPa depending on print orientation. Metals, including titanium alloy (density 4.43 g/cm³, yield strength ~880 MPa after ) and Inconel 718 (melting point ~1336°C), are processed as spherical powders with particle sizes of 15-45 μm to optimize absorption and layer density exceeding 99% in powder bed fusion. Ceramics, such as alumina (Al₂O₃) or zirconia, enable high-temperature applications with compressive strengths up to 2000 MPa but require binders for initial forming and debinding steps to achieve near-full density. Rheological properties govern material flow and deposition fidelity; for instance, thermoplastic melts must exhibit shear-thinning behavior with viscosities dropping from 10⁴-10⁶ Pa·s at rest to under 100 Pa·s under extrusion shear rates of 10²-10³ s⁻¹, preventing nozzle clogging while ensuring uniform layer extrusion widths of 0.4-0.6 mm. Thermal characteristics, including conductivity (e.g., 0.2 W/m·K for PLA versus 21 W/m·K for Ti-6Al-4V) and coefficients of thermal expansion (typically 50-100 × 10⁻⁶/°C for polymers), critically influence residual stresses from rapid heating-cooling cycles, which can induce warping unless mitigated by controlled cooling rates below 1°C/min. Photopolymers for vat processes demand low viscosity (<500 cP at 25°C) and rapid curing under UV wavelengths of 355-405 nm, yielding cross-linked networks with elongations at break of 5-20% but inherent brittleness due to volumetric shrinkage of 3-8% during polymerization. Mechanical performance in printed parts arises from microstructural features distinct from wrought materials, such as anisotropic grain orientations from directional solidification, leading to interlayer shear strengths 20-50% lower than in-plane values without optimization. Powder feedstocks require narrow size distributions (D50 ~30 μm, span <1.0) to minimize defects like keyhole porosity in directed energy deposition, where melt pool depths reach 0.5-2 mm at power densities of 10⁵-10⁶ W/m². Composites, blending polymers with carbon fibers (moduli up to 50 GPa), enhance stiffness but demand precise fiber alignment to counter delamination risks from thermal mismatches exceeding 10⁻⁵/°C. These properties necessitate empirical validation through standards like ASTM F3184 for biocompatibility or ISO 10993 for medical-grade materials, underscoring the empirical tuning required for functional equivalence to subtractive counterparts.

Post-Processing Requirements

Post-processing in additive manufacturing encompasses a series of operations performed after the initial build to refine surface finish, remove artifacts, enhance mechanical properties, and ensure part functionality, as as-printed components typically exhibit layer lines, support structures, residual powders or resins, and internal stresses that compromise aesthetics and performance. These steps are essential because additive processes inherently produce anisotropic properties and rough surfaces, with surface roughness often exceeding 10-50 micrometers Ra depending on layer thickness, necessitating finishing to meet tolerances below 5 micrometers for high-precision applications. Techniques are categorized into subtractive methods (e.g., sanding, machining), additive methods (e.g., coating, plating), and transformative methods (e.g., heat treatment, curing), with selection driven by material, process, and end-use requirements. Support structure removal is a universal initial requirement, involving manual tools like pliers or automated cutting for fused deposition modeling (FDM) and stereolithography (SLA), while selective laser sintering (SLS) parts may require blasting to dislodge powder-embedded supports; incomplete removal can lead to stress concentrations and part failure under load. For SLA prints, excess uncured resin must be washed away using solvents like isopropyl alcohol, followed by ultraviolet post-curing for 10-60 minutes to achieve full polymerization and hardness up to 80-90 Shore D, preventing tackiness and improving tensile strength by 20-50%. In SLS, unsintered nylon powder is removed via compressed air or sieving, often followed by infiltration with epoxy to seal porosity, which can reduce permeability by orders of magnitude and boost compressive strength. Surface finishing addresses visible layer lines and roughness, with abrasive methods like manual wet sanding with progressively finer sandpaper grits—preferred for 3D printed plastic models to achieve smooth finishes while avoiding overheating and melting, unlike rotary tools which can generate excessive friction heat—progressing from coarse (80-120 grit) to fine (400+ grit) abrasives reducing FDM surface deviation from 0.2-0.5 mm to under 0.05 mm, though this is labor-intensive and risks warping if overheating occurs. Chemical vapor smoothing, applicable to ABS in FDM, exposes parts to acetone vapor for 10-30 minutes to dissolve outer layers, achieving sub-10 micrometer smoothness but potentially shrinking dimensions by 1-2% and weakening interiors if overexposed. Media blasting or tumbling smooths SLS parts by abrading with glass beads or walnut shells, improving aesthetics while preserving tolerances within 0.1 mm, whereas metal parts from powder bed fusion undergo heat treatment at 800-1100°C for stress relief, followed by CNC machining to remove 0.5-1 mm oversize allowances for final geometry. Property enhancement through post-processing mitigates printing-induced defects like residual stresses causing up to 0.5% distortion; annealing or hot isostatic pressing (HIP) in metal printing applies 100-200 MPa at 1100-1200°C for 2-4 hours, reducing porosity from 1-5% to below 0.5% and increasing fatigue life by 2-3 times. Coatings such as electroplating add 10-50 micrometers of metal layers for conductivity or wear resistance, though adhesion challenges arise from print porosity, requiring pre-sealing. These operations can extend production time by 20-50% and costs by 10-30%, underscoring the need for design optimization to minimize post-processing demands, such as orienting parts to reduce support volume by up to 70%.

Manufacturing Processes

Material Extrusion Methods

Material extrusion encompasses additive manufacturing techniques that selectively dispense material through a nozzle or orifice to form objects layer by layer, with fused filament fabrication (FFF), also known as fused deposition modeling (FDM), serving as the predominant method. In this process, a continuous filament of thermoplastic is fed into a heated extruder, melted, and extruded onto a build platform, where it solidifies upon cooling to create successive layers guided by a digital model. FDM represents a trademarked term owned by , while FFF denotes the open-source equivalent, with no substantive technological differences between them beyond branding and occasional variations in industrial versus desktop implementations. The foundational FDM technology originated in 1989 when S. Scott Crump invented the process, patenting it and establishing to commercialize extrusion-based printing using thermoplastic filaments. Initial development aimed at rapid prototyping, with the first commercial machines released around 1990, enabling layer thicknesses typically ranging from 0.05 to 0.3 millimeters and nozzle diameters of 0.2 to 1.2 millimeters for precision control. Over time, the patent expiration facilitated widespread adoption in hobbyist and desktop printers, evolving from industrial systems to accessible devices capable of producing functional prototypes with build volumes up to several meters in large-format variants. In operation, filament advances via drive gears into a liquefier zone heated to 180–280°C, depending on the polymer, where shear thinning reduces viscosity for extrusion; the nozzle traces the toolpath, depositing material that bonds via thermal fusion to prior layers, while the platform or head moves in X-Y axes and Z-axis adjustments occur between layers. Key parameters include extrusion temperature, speed (often 20–100 mm/s), layer height, and infill density, which influence mechanical properties such as tensile strength, often exhibiting anisotropy with interlayer shear strengths 20–80% lower than in-plane due to incomplete fusion and voids. Post-extrusion cooling, sometimes aided by fans, mitigates warping from thermal contraction, though materials like ABS require enclosed builds to minimize stresses. Variants extend beyond filament-based FFF to include pellet extrusion, which feeds raw plastic granules directly into the extruder, bypassing filament production for cost savings in large-scale printing—reducing material expenses by up to 50%—and direct powder or paste extrusion for metals, ceramics, or biomaterials, though these demand higher temperatures and debinding/sintering post-processing. Direct-drive extruders position the motor at the hotend for improved control over flexible filaments, contrasting bowden systems where tubing introduces backlash, potentially enhancing precision in fine features. Common thermoplastics encompass polylactic acid (PLA) for low-temperature ease, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) for durability, and polyethylene terephthalate glycol (PETG) for impact resistance, with filament diameters standardized at 1.75 or 2.85 mm. Advantages of material extrusion include affordability, with entry-level printers under $300 and materials costing $20–50 per kilogram, alongside versatility for prototyping and functional parts using engineering polymers reinforced with carbon fiber for stiffness up to 1.5 GPa modulus. However, limitations persist: visible layer lines demand post-processing like sanding, dimensional accuracy hovers at ±0.1–0.5 mm, and parts achieve only 20–60% of bulk material strength due to porosity and poor interlayer adhesion, rendering them unsuitable for high-load applications without optimization. Toxic fumes from materials like ABS necessitate ventilation, and slower build rates compared to powder bed methods constrain throughput for complex geometries.

Powder Bed Fusion Techniques

Powder bed fusion (PBF) encompasses additive manufacturing processes that selectively consolidate powder particles into solid objects using a focused energy source, such as a laser or electron beam, applied layer by layer within a powder bed. The process begins with a thin layer of powder—typically 20–100 micrometers thick—spread evenly across a build platform via a recoater blade or roller. The energy source then scans the surface according to a digital model, fusing particles by sintering or full melting, after which the platform descends for the next layer; excess powder supports overhangs and is recycled post-build. This enables the production of complex geometries with minimal material waste, achieving buy-to-fly ratios superior to subtractive methods. Key variants include selective laser sintering (SLS), which uses a carbon dioxide laser to sinter polymer powders like nylon without full , resulting in porous parts suitable for functional prototypes but with mechanical properties inferior to fully dense components. Selective laser melting (SLM), often termed direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) for marketing purposes, employs a high-power fiber laser (typically 200–1000 watts) to fully melt metal powders such as titanium alloys, stainless steel, or aluminum, achieving near-full density (>99%) under inert atmospheres to prevent oxidation. beam (EBM), operating in a at elevated temperatures (700–1000°C), uses an beam to melt metals like or , promoting rapid solidification and reduced residual stresses but with coarser resolution (50–200 micrometers) compared to SLM's finer detail (20–50 micrometers). Multi-jet fusion (MJF), a polymer-focused , applies fusing agents to powder before heating, enabling faster throughput and colored parts with good surface finish, though limited to non-metals. Materials for PBF span thermoplastics (e.g., 12 for SLS/MJF) and metals (e.g., for SLM/EBM), selected for flowability (spherical particles <100 micrometers) and to minimize defects like balling or . Advantages include freedom for internal lattices and topology-optimized structures, reduced lead times for low-volume production, and material efficiency, with recyclability rates up to 95% for unused . Limitations encompass high equipment costs (often exceeding $500,000), anisotropic due to layer-wise build, and post-processing needs like or surface to address roughness (Ra 5–20 micrometers as-built). SLS originated in 1987 from Carl Deckard's at the of , while SLM and DMLS advanced in the through Fraunhofer and innovations, driving metal applications in by the 2000s.

Vat Photopolymerization Processes

Vat photopolymerization encompasses additive manufacturing techniques that selectively cure liquid resins into solid structures using light exposure, typically (UV) wavelengths, within a vat containing the uncured . The process builds objects layer by layer, with a build platform incrementally lowering or raising to form successive layers, achieving resolutions as fine as 25-50 micrometers depending on the system. This method, first commercialized in the , excels in producing intricate geometries with smooth surface finishes due to the isotropic curing properties of photopolymers. The foundational variant, (SLA), was invented by Charles Hull in 1983 and patented on March 11, 1986 (U.S. Patent No. 4,575,330), utilizing a UV to trace and solidify resin point by point across each layer's surface. Commercial SLA systems emerged in 1987 via , enabling with high fidelity. Digital light processing (DLP), an evolution leveraging ' digital technology developed by Larry Hornbeck in 1987, projects entire layer images simultaneously via a digital projector, accelerating cure times for flat surfaces compared to SLA's scanning approach; DLP-based 3D printing gained traction around 1999 for its efficiency in medium-sized parts. Advanced iterations address traditional layer-by-layer limitations. Continuous liquid interface production (CLIP), introduced by Carbon3D on March 16, 2015, employs an oxygen-permeable window at the resin vat's base to create a "dead zone" inhibiting cure directly below the window, allowing continuous upward pulling of the build platform at speeds up to 100 times faster than conventional SLA while minimizing layer lines for smoother parts. Materials are predominantly acrylate- or epoxy-based photopolymers, offering properties from flexible elastomers to rigid engineering resins, though brittleness and UV sensitivity often necessitate post-exposure curing for full mechanical strength. Key advantages include superior detail resolution and surface quality, ideal for applications in , jewelry, and , with build volumes up to 150 x 150 x 200 mm in commercial systems. Drawbacks encompass limited material versatility—primarily to photocurable liquids—extensive post-processing like and secondary UV/ curing, and higher costs from specialized and , restricting scalability for large-volume production. Emerging two-photon variants enable nanoscale features below 100 nm via nonlinear absorption, though at slower speeds suited for rather than industrial throughput.

Binder Jetting Approaches

Binder jetting is an additive manufacturing process that selectively deposits a liquid binding agent, typically via an inkjet printhead, onto successive layers of material to form a solid object. The process begins with a thin layer of —spread evenly across a build platform—followed by the precise jetting of binder droplets, which adhere particles together in the desired cross-section. Unbound remains as support, enabling overhangs without additional structures. Layers are repeated until the part is complete, after which excess is removed, and the "green" part undergoes curing and post-processing such as for metals to achieve density. Developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1993 by Emanuel Sachs and colleagues, binder jetting integrated inkjet technology with powder beds to enable . Commercialization followed in 1998 with ExOne's launch of the first metal binder jetting system, licensed from MIT patents. The technology has since evolved to support high-volume production, with machines capable of build volumes up to 1,600 x 400 x 400 mm and layer thicknesses of 50-380 μm, depending on the system. Materials for binder jetting include metal powders such as stainless steel 316L, , and tool steels; ceramics like alumina or silica; for casting molds; and polymers including or ABS. Binders are often water- or polymer-based solutions that evaporate or burn off during post-processing. For metal parts, initial green density is around 60%, requiring at temperatures up to 1,400°C to reach 95-99% density, though shrinkage of 15-20% must be accounted for in design. binder jetting uses or phenolic binders for applications, while ceramic variants enable high-temperature parts without melting. Approaches vary by material and application: metal binder jetting emphasizes post-sintering for functional components, as in Desktop Metal's systems producing parts with tensile strengths meeting MPIF standards but potentially lower than wrought materials. Sand binder jetting, as used by Voxeljet for castings, prioritizes speed for mold production, achieving surface roughness of 5-10 μm. Full-color binder jetting with polymer or powders supports visual models via multi-jet heads depositing colored binders. Post-processing is critical across variants, including infiltration for non-sintered parts to reduce , which can otherwise limit mechanical performance to 80-90% of fully dense equivalents. Advantages include operation at ambient temperatures, minimizing thermal stresses and warping; high throughput for , with speeds up to 10-20 times faster than powder bed fusion for large volumes; and cost-effectiveness due to low material waste and no need for lasers or chambers. It supports complex geometries and multi-material printing in some setups. Disadvantages encompass resolution limits (typically 20-50 μm feature size), dependency on post-processing for strength—metal parts may exhibit 5-10% post-sintering—affecting resistance, and challenges with fine powders leading to agglomeration. Industry adoption, led by firms like ExOne and HP's Multi Jet Fusion variant, targets sand molds and low-to-medium volume metal parts, though scaling to high-performance alloys remains constrained by binder-material interactions.

Directed Energy Deposition Systems

Directed energy deposition (DED) is an additive manufacturing process that builds components by directing focused to melt and fuse feedstock material—typically metal powders or wires—onto a substrate or previously deposited layers, forming a melt pool where solidification occurs. The energy source creates precise deposition, enabling near-net-shape fabrication, repairs, and feature addition to existing parts, with typical layer thicknesses ranging from 0.5 to 2 mm and deposition rates up to several kilograms per hour for large-scale systems. This method contrasts with powder bed fusion by allowing material addition in open atmospheres or , often via robotic arms or CNC machines for multi-axis control. Key variants of DED systems differ by energy source: laser-based systems, such as , use high-power or CO2 lasers (typically 1-10 kW) to achieve fine resolution for intricate repairs; systems, like Electron Beam Additive Manufacturing (EBAM), operate in with beams up to 60 kW for high deposition rates and minimal oxidation in reactive metals; and plasma arc or wire arc systems (e.g., Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing or WAAM) employ electric arcs (currents of 100-500 A) for cost-effective, high-volume deposition of wires, suitable for aluminum and alloys. Material feedstock is coaxially or off-axis fed, with powders enabling blending for custom compositions, while wires reduce waste and support larger builds up to several meters in scale. parameters, including beam power, scan speed (0.1-2 m/min), and standoff distance, critically influence melt pool dynamics, microstructure (e.g., columnar grains from epitaxial growth), and mechanical properties like tensile strength exceeding 1000 MPa in . Development of DED traces to the late 1980s, with early laser cladding applications for surface enhancement, evolving into full volumetric deposition by the 1990s; Sandia National Laboratories licensed Laser Engineered Net Shaping (LENS) in 1997 as one of the first commercial DED platforms for titanium and nickel superalloys. By the 2000s, systems integrated hybrid machining for in-situ finishing, and standards like ASTM F3187 (updated 2024) guide implementation across electron beam, laser, and arc variants for metals. Advantages include site-specific repairs reducing downtime by up to 50% in aerospace components, multi-material gradients for functionally graded parts, and lower material waste compared to subtractive methods, with deposition efficiencies over 90% for wire feeds. However, DED systems exhibit limitations such as anisotropic properties from , leading to variable fatigue life; common defects include (up to 1-2% void fraction if parameters are suboptimal), lack of fusion, and rough surfaces (Ra 10-50 µm) necessitating post-processing like CNC milling or . Resolution is coarser than powder bed processes (minimum feature size ~0.5 mm), restricting it to medium-to-large parts, and high energy inputs can induce residual stresses requiring support structures or controlled cooling. Applications predominate in high-value metal sectors: for repairs (e.g., adding overlays) and prototyping large structures like nozzles; oil and gas for cladding wear-resistant coatings on valves; and defense for restoring military hardware, where DED's repair capabilities have demonstrated cost savings of 60-80% over full replacements. Emerging uses include biomedical implants with gradient and automotive tooling, supported by software for path planning to minimize defects.

Emerging and Hybrid Processes

Hybrid manufacturing processes integrate additive manufacturing (AM) with subtractive techniques, such as computer numerical control (CNC) milling or grinding, on a single platform to address limitations in , dimensional accuracy, and inherent to standalone AM methods. In these systems, deposition occurs layer-by-layer, followed by immediate or interleaved to refine features, enabling the production of complex geometries with tolerances as low as 0.01 mm and reduced post-processing needs. This approach leverages the design freedom of AM while utilizing the precision of subtractive processes, resulting in parts that exhibit hybrid microstructures with enhanced mechanical properties, such as improved fatigue resistance in metal components. Hybrid setups often employ directed energy deposition (DED) for metals, where or beam is paired with multi-axis , allowing for repair of high-value parts like blades by adding only where needed before finishing. Recent advancements in hybrid systems include the Ambit Xtrude platform, introduced by Hybrid Manufacturing Technologies in October 2025, which focuses on large-scale polymer composite printing with integrated and subtractive capabilities for military applications, achieving deposition rates up to 10 kg/hour for structural components. Similarly, Rapid Fusion's system, debuted in March 2025, merges high-speed material deposition with precision for industrial-scale production, supporting multi-material workflows and reducing cycle times by up to 50% compared to sequential AM-subtractive pipelines. These platforms demonstrate causal advantages in efficiency, as in-situ processing minimizes fixturing errors and thermal distortions, though challenges persist in toolpath optimization and machine rigidity for hard materials like . Emerging processes extend beyond traditional hybrids by incorporating novel energy sources or formative methods. The HyFAM technique, developed at and detailed in May 2025, combines AM for detailed features with casting for bulk volume, using 3D-printed molds filled with molten metal to accelerate production of intricate castings by factors of 5-10 while achieving near-net-shape accuracy. In parallel, dual-light 3D printing systems, advanced by University of researchers in June 2025, employ and visible in custom resins to enable stretchable and devices with sub-micron resolution and , activating distinct reactions for multi-functional gradients. Other developments include AM hybrids, which integrate droplet-based deposition with for conductive structures, and 5-axis hybrid printing for non-planar layer paths, reducing support structures by up to 70% in curved geometries. These innovations prioritize empirical validation through , revealing trade-offs like increased energy consumption in hybrids versus pure AM, but offering verifiable gains in part integrity under load-bearing conditions.

Applications

Industrial Prototyping and Production

![3D printed turbine component]float-right In industrial settings, 3D printing facilitates by enabling the quick production of physical models from digital designs, allowing engineers to evaluate form, fit, and function iteratively without extensive tooling. This process reduces development time compared to traditional methods like CNC machining or injection molding, as prototypes can be fabricated in hours or days rather than weeks. Empirical data from industry applications show that fused deposition modeling (FDM), (SLA), and (SLS) are primary technologies for prototyping, supporting materials from plastics to metals for . Beyond prototyping, 3D printing has transitioned to low-volume production of end-use parts, particularly for complex geometries unattainable or uneconomical via subtractive manufacturing. For instance, GE Aviation employs direct metal laser melting to produce fuel nozzle tips for LEAP engines, consolidating 20 assembled components into a single printed part that is 25% lighter and fully dense, with over 100,000 units shipped by 2021 from its Auburn, Alabama facility. Similarly, Boeing integrates more than 300 3D-printed parts in its 777X aircraft, including engine components, and has begun printing Apache helicopter rotor system parts for fatigue testing against forged alternatives. The industrial additive market, encompassing prototyping and production, was valued at approximately USD 13 billion in 2024, driven by adoption in and automotive sectors for customized, on-demand parts that minimize waste and inventory needs. These applications leverage 3D printing's ability to create intricate internal structures, such as lattice supports in turbine blades, enhancing performance metrics like weight reduction and heat resistance without compromising structural integrity. However, production-scale use remains limited to high-value, low-volume scenarios due to slower build times and challenges compared to conventional .

Medical and Bioprinting Uses

Custom orthopedic implants produced via 3D printing, such as porous structures for integration, entered clinical use around 2007, enabling patient-specific designs that match anatomical contours derived from CT scans. These implants promote through lattice architectures that mimic trabecular , reducing rejection risks compared to off-the-shelf alternatives, with reported success rates exceeding 90% in hip and knee revisions by 2024. Cranial implants, often fabricated from biocompatible polymers or metals, have been implanted in over 10,000 patients worldwide since the early 2010s, shortening surgery durations by up to 30% via precise fit. Prosthetic devices represent a major application, with 3D printing enabling low-cost, customizable limbs for amputees, particularly in resource-limited settings. Open-source designs like the e-NABLE prosthetic hands, printable using consumer-grade FDM printers, have been distributed to thousands of users since 2013, costing under $50 per unit versus $5,000 for traditional models. Clinical outcomes show improved functionality and patient satisfaction, though durability remains a limitation for high-load applications, with printed sockets requiring replacement every 6-12 months under regular use. Surgical guides and tools, printed from sterilizable resins, assist in precise osteotomies and placements, reducing intraoperative errors by 20-40% in orthopedic and maxillofacial procedures as of 2024. Bioprinting extends these capabilities by incorporating living cells into hydrogels or bioinks to construct tissue analogs. Techniques like extrusion-based bioprinting have produced viable equivalents for burn victims, with the first clinical trials for autologous skin grafts occurring in 2017, demonstrating vascular integration and wound closure comparable to conventional methods. and scaffolds printed with stem cells show promise for regenerative therapies, achieving 70-80% cell viability post-printing in lab settings by 2025. Recent advances include functional models printed in September 2025 using sacrificial inks for lumen formation, enabling nutrient in multi-layer tissues, though scalability limits production to centimeter-scale constructs. Despite progress, bioprinting faces causal barriers to widespread adoption, including inadequate vascularization for thick tissues, which causes central due to limits beyond 200 micrometers, and regulatory hurdles requiring years of validation. No fully functional organs have been bioprinted for transplantation as of 2025; applications remain confined to and early-phase trials, with commercial scaffolds approved only for non-load-bearing uses like testing. Material issues, such as immune responses to synthetic bioinks, further constrain clinical , underscoring the technology's empirical emphasis on iterative refinement over premature deployment.

Aerospace and Transportation

![HCC 3D printed turbine view][float-right] In , 3D printing enables the production of complex, lightweight components that enhance and reduce assembly time, such as intricate parts and structural elements previously impossible with subtractive methods. For instance, GE Aviation developed a 3D-printed for the , consolidating 20 separate components into a single cobalt-chrome alloy part that is 25% lighter and five times more durable than its predecessor. This , produced via direct metal laser melting, entered production in 2016, with GE shipping its 100,000th unit by August 2021; each LEAP incorporates 18 to 19 such nozzles. Similarly, utilizes additive manufacturing for titanium parts on the 787 Dreamliner, including environmental control ducting, yielding cost savings of $2 to $3 million per aircraft through reduced material waste and simplified supply chains. employs metal 3D printing for Raptor components, leveraging (DfAM) to integrate multiple parts into monolithic structures, as seen in the Raptor 3 announced in 2024, which features seamless manifolds and reduced interfaces for improved performance. These applications extend to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and satellite components, where 3D printing facilitates and customization of antennas, heat exchangers, and brackets, minimizing weight while maintaining structural integrity under extreme conditions. In transportation sectors beyond , 3D printing supports automotive through quick iteration of prototypes, jigs, fixtures, and end-use parts like custom brackets and high-performance components, enabling automakers to test designs faster and incorporate complex geometries for better and weight reduction. For rail systems, it addresses challenges with obsolete spare parts by on-demand printing of interiors such as armrests and seats, or structural elements, cutting lead times from months to days and reducing inventory costs. Overall, these implementations demonstrate empirical gains in efficiency, with 3D-printed parts often achieving 10-20% weight reductions that directly correlate to lower fuel consumption in operational testing.

Construction and Architecture

3D printing in construction involves large-scale additive manufacturing techniques, primarily material extrusion of concrete or metal, to fabricate building components or entire structures layer by layer, enabling rapid assembly with reduced labor and waste. Early precursors date to 1939, when William Urschel developed a machine that extruded concrete layers to form walls in Valparaiso, Indiana, marking the first documented concrete extrusion akin to modern 3D printing processes. Contemporary applications emerged in the 2010s, with companies like Apis Cor demonstrating a 38-square-meter house printed in 24 hours in Reutov, Russia, in 2017 using mobile robotic arms and concrete mixtures. ICON, a Texas-based firm, has advanced residential construction through its Vulcan printer, completing the East 17th Street Residences community in Austin in 2021, featuring two- and four-bedroom homes printed with Lavacrete material for enhanced durability. In , COBOD printed the BOD office building in in 2017, recognized as the continent's first 3D-printed structure, while Project Milestone in the delivered Europe's first inhabited 3D concrete-printed house in 2021, followed by additional units emphasizing multi-story potential by 2025. Commercial milestones include Dubai's first 3D-printed office building in 2020, constructed onsite with a 6.15-meter-high printer using recycled materials. Architectural applications extend to infrastructure, exemplified by MX3D's 12-meter stainless steel pedestrian bridge in , fabricated via wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) and installed in July 2021 over the Oudezijds Voorburgwal canal, though removed in 2023 after its two-year permit expired for further research. These projects highlight customization for complex geometries, such as curved facades or lightweight trusses, unattainable efficiently with traditional methods. Despite progress, adoption faces barriers including high initial equipment costs exceeding millions per printer, limited material options primarily to specialized concretes lacking long-term performance data, and regulatory hurdles as building codes lag behind, requiring case-by-case approvals. remains constrained by printer size and speed for multi-story buildings, with empirical tests showing vulnerabilities in interlayer bonding and seismic resilience compared to concrete. The global market for 3D-printed is projected to grow significantly, yet widespread use is tempered by these technical and economic realities, positioning it as a niche supplement rather than a full replacement for conventional techniques as of 2025.

Consumer and Hobbyist Domains

The consumer and hobbyist domains of 3D printing have expanded significantly due to the development of affordable fused deposition modeling (FDM) printers, enabling widespread personal fabrication. The project, initiated in 2005 by Adrian Bowyer at the , pioneered open-source designs with the goal of , releasing the Darwin printer in 2008 capable of producing many of its own components. This initiative spurred a rapid decline in prices, with desktop FDM printers dropping from thousands of dollars in the early 2000s to $200–$500 by 2025, driven by commoditization and improved manufacturing. In 2025, entry-level models dominate the market, such as the Ender 3 V3 SE at $218, praised for reliability in basic printing, and the Bambu Lab A1 Combo at around $479–$559, offering faster speeds and multi-material capabilities suitable for hobbyists. The personal 3D printers segment reached $6.17 billion in market value in 2025, projected to grow at a 6% CAGR to $10.47 billion by 2034, reflecting increased adoption for non-professional use. Consumer-grade equipment specifically is valued at $2.5 billion in 2025, with over 60% of units sold under $500, facilitating entry for individuals without industrial needs. Hobbyists commonly employ these printers for prototyping custom tools, replacement parts for household appliances—including on-demand production of discontinued items such as knobs, gears, or brackets that can be sold through online platforms with low inventory, capitalizing on the scarcity of such components—and personalized gadgets like organizers, cable clips, and succulent pots. Other applications include toys for children, props, and home decor items such as intricate light fixtures or modular storage, leveraging free designs from repositories to enable rapid iteration without specialized skills. Functional prints often address practical needs, such as custom phone stands or repair brackets, where traditional would be cost-prohibitive for small quantities. Online communities sustain this domain through platforms like , where users share and download parametric models, fostering collaborative design refinement based on real-world print feedback. Slicing software such as or PrusaSlicer, often free and open-source, democratizes preparation of models for printing, allowing hobbyists to experiment with materials like PLA for its ease and low warping. This ecosystem emphasizes empirical testing, with popular benchmarks like used to calibrate printers for consistent layer adhesion and dimensional accuracy.

Defense and Security Applications

Additive manufacturing enables the U.S. military to produce spare parts on-demand in forward operating environments, reducing reliance on lengthy supply chains vulnerable to disruption. The has identified this capability as essential for contested logistics, allowing troops to fabricate components locally rather than awaiting shipments that can take weeks or months. In 2023, the U.S. Army integrated additive manufacturing into sustainment operations, including 3D printing tools and brackets for like the Black Hawk helicopter during field exercises. Naval forces have deployed portable 3D printers aboard ships and to manufacture replacement parts, such as fittings and tools, minimizing downtime for vessels at sea. The U.S. Navy's use of metal additive for components, initiated in programs like those at Naval Undersea Warfare Center Keyport, has produced over 100 unique parts by 2025, yielding cost savings and faster turnaround compared to traditional . Similarly, the has printed obsolete components for B-52 bombers, addressing diminishing sources for legacy aircraft maintained in active service. In ground operations, the U.S. Marine Corps employs 3D printing for custom drones and buckles, enhancing tactical flexibility in austere locations. The Army's initiatives include printing bunker modules and elements, cutting construction time from days to hours and conserving manpower. Protective applications extend to custom-fitted and gear, where additive manufacturing allows personalization for improved mobility and coverage without excess weight. Medical sustainment benefits from on-site printing of prosthetics and field devices, ensuring rapid response for injured personnel. Beyond official programs, non-state actors have adapted 3D printing for improvised weaponry in asymmetric conflicts, such as rebels producing functional firearms in 2024 to supplement captured arms against junta forces. Ukrainian forces printed explosive "candy bombs" in 2024 to counter ammunition shortages amid Russian advances, demonstrating the technology's dual-use potential in . These cases highlight security risks from unregulated proliferation, though military-grade applications prioritize certified materials and processes to meet durability standards unmet by consumer printers. The U.S. Department of Defense's scaling efforts, including 2025 contracts for strategic readiness, focus on vetted additive systems to mitigate such vulnerabilities while enhancing operational autonomy.

Advantages

Customization and Innovation Benefits

3D printing facilitates customization by enabling the production of tailored components without incurring significant additional costs associated with retooling in subtractive manufacturing processes. Unlike traditional methods that require expensive molds or dies for variations, additive techniques allow modifications directly in digital models, supporting where each item can differ based on user specifications. This capability enhances through personalized experiences, such as custom-fit prosthetics or consumer goods adapted to individual preferences, reducing the need for of variants. In innovation, 3D printing accelerates prototyping by converting CAD files into physical models in hours or days, rather than weeks, permitting rapid design iterations and functional testing. This speed fosters experimentation, as engineers can validate concepts and gather stakeholder feedback before committing to production, thereby shortening development cycles. Moreover, the layer-by-layer construction supports complex internal geometries, lattices, and lightweight structures unattainable via conventional casting or machining, unlocking novel designs that improve performance in fields like aerospace and biomedicine. These benefits compound in hybrid approaches, where 3D printing integrates with other technologies to enable agile responses to market needs, enhancing organizational adaptability and competitive edges through iterative . Empirical studies indicate that such flexibility correlates with improved operational outcomes, as firms leverage customization for differentiated products and prototyping for risk-reduced advancements.

Economic and Supply Chain Efficiencies

3D printing enables on-demand production of parts, significantly reducing holding costs, which can constitute 20-30% of a company's total expenses for spare parts. By fabricating components locally as needed, firms minimize the need for large stockpiles of low-volume or custom items, potentially cutting costs by 50-90% for slow-moving parts according to an MIT analysis. This approach also lowers transportation expenses, with surveyed companies reporting up to 85% savings in shipping due to decentralized and a 17% decrease in costs overall. In operations, additive shortens lead times dramatically; for instance, on-site 3D printing can reduce spare parts time by up to 95% compared to traditional methods reliant on external suppliers. This enhances responsiveness to disruptions, as distributed production capabilities—enabled by the technology's flexibility—mitigate risks from global dependencies, such as those exposed during the . Empirical studies indicate that integrating 3D printing simplifies s by reducing resource use and lead times, fostering resilience through localized output rather than elongated international . Economic efficiencies extend to waste minimization and optimization, where 3D printing generates near-zero material scrap and allows cost-effective small runs; one application achieved 75% savings in by eliminating assembly steps for cores. Overall, these factors contribute to lower labor and warehousing demands, with broader adoption projected to streamline value chains by avoiding pitfalls and enabling just-in-time .

Empirical Performance Gains

Additive manufacturing enables the production of complex geometries unattainable through subtractive or formative traditional methods, yielding empirical improvements in mechanical performance metrics such as strength-to-weight ratios and functional efficiency. Lattice structures, feasible primarily via 3D printing, achieve superior strength-to-weight ratios compared to solid counterparts, with designs optimizing load distribution to minimize material use while maintaining or exceeding structural integrity under stress. In aerospace applications, 3D printed components demonstrate quantifiable gains in weight reduction and operational performance. For instance, General Electric's LEAP fuel nozzle, produced as a single integrated piece via additive , achieves a 25% weight reduction relative to its traditionally assembled 20-part predecessor, contributing to the 's overall 15% improvement in over prior models like the CFM56. Similarly, the GE9X incorporates over 300 additively manufactured parts, enabling a 12% enhancement in fuel consumption efficiency through optimized lightweight designs. Component-level studies corroborate broader aircraft-level potential, with topology-optimized 3D printed parts reducing weights by 30% to 50% without compromising requisite strength, as evidenced in metal additive for structural elements. A analysis further quantifies that widespread adoption of such techniques could decrease total weight by 4% to 7%, directly translating to proportional fuel savings and emissions reductions. Beyond , hydraulic system components redesigned via additive manufacturing have realized up to 80% weight savings by leveraging internal channel optimizations impossible with conventional or . These gains stem from causal advantages in material deposition, allowing precise control over and microstructure to enhance ; for example, the LEAP exhibits extended under high-temperature conditions due to integrated cooling features.
ApplicationPerformance MetricGainSource
LEAP Fuel NozzleWeight Reduction25%
LEAP Engine OverallFuel Efficiency15%
GE9X EngineFuel Consumption12% improvement
Hydraulic ComponentsWeight SavingsUp to 80%
Aircraft ComponentsWeight Reduction30-50%

Limitations and Challenges

Technical Constraints

3D printing processes impose fundamental limits on dimensional accuracy due to layer-by-layer deposition, with typical layer thicknesses ranging from 25 to 300 microns in systems and 0.1 to 0.32 mm in (FDM) for a standard 0.4 mm . Layer height cannot exceed 75-80% of the to ensure proper and , constraining vertical resolution (Z-axis) and often resulting in visible stair-stepping on curved surfaces. Horizontal (XY) resolution is similarly bounded by or spot size, typically achieving features no finer than 0.4 mm in FDM without specialized adjustments. Mechanical properties exhibit pronounced from interlayer bonding weaknesses, with FDM-printed parts showing tensile strength reductions of up to 50% or more to the build plane compared to parallel orientations due to incomplete fusion between layers. This directional variability, inherent to extrusion-based methods, limits load-bearing applications, as voids and poor z-axis cohesion reduce overall and resistance below those of traditionally manufactured equivalents. Infill patterns and printing orientation can mitigate but not eliminate these effects, with studies confirming that primarily impacts tensile strength rather than modulus. Geometric constraints necessitate support structures for overhangs exceeding 45 degrees from vertical, as molten material cannot bridge unsupported spans without sagging or collapse, increasing material use by 20-50% and requiring post-print removal that risks surface damage. Build remains a hard limit, with FDM printers capped at approximately 200-300 mm per axis, while industrial systems extend to meters but at exponentially higher costs and slower speeds. Material compatibility further restricts viability, as high-temperature metals or ceramics demand specialized powder-bed or binder-jet systems, excluding many polymers and composites from desktop processes due to thermal and rheological mismatches. Even with advancements, 3D printing cannot fully replicate the structural strength and integrated properties of traditional materials such as stone, wood, textiles, and certain composites, which often require processes beyond additive deposition. Production speeds are inherently low, often 10-100 times slower than subtractive methods for equivalent volumes, exacerbated by sequential layering that precludes parallelization without multi-nozzle arrays. These factors collectively hinder 3D printing's substitution for high-volume, isotropic, or precision-demanding manufacturing.

Scalability and Production Barriers

One primary barrier to scaling 3D printing for is its inherently slow build rates compared to subtractive or formative methods like injection molding or CNC , where production cycles can achieve thousands of units per hour. In fused deposition modeling (FDM), for instance, layer-by-layer deposition limits throughput to volumes unsuitable for high-demand applications, often requiring dozens or hundreds of parallel printers to match traditional output, which inflates operational complexity and energy use. Cost inefficiencies further hinder scalability, as per-unit expenses remain elevated for large runs due to high material waste rates—up to 90% in some powder-based processes—and prolonged machine occupancy per part. Industrial systems, particularly metal additive manufacturing setups, can cost $500,000 to over $1 million upfront, with raw powders adding $50–$200 per kilogram, making economic viability threshold typically below 10,000 units annually before traditional methods prevail. A 2023 industry survey identified material costs and production speed as top obstacles, cited by 23% of manufacturers struggling to integrate 3D printing into volume workflows. Limited build envelopes exacerbate these issues, with most commercial printers constrained to volumes under 1 cubic meter, necessitating part segmentation and assembly for larger components, which introduces points and additional labor—particularly challenging for materials like textiles or composites that require complex, integrated assembly steps not replicable at scale by 3D printing even in the near future. Achieving at scale demands rigorous parameter control across machines, yet variations in and powder lead to defect rates of 5–20% in metal printing, undermining reliability for automotive or series production. These factors collectively position 3D printing as complementary rather than substitutive for mass , viable primarily for low-volume or customized runs where flexibility offsets throughput deficits.

Quality and Durability Shortfalls

3D printed parts, particularly those produced via fused deposition modeling (FDM), often exhibit inferior surface finishes compared to traditionally manufactured components, with visible layer lines and increased roughness attributable to the layer-by-layer deposition process—necessitating extensive post-processing for surface treatments like polishing or painting to approach the quality of traditional materials such as wood or metals. Layer height emerges as the primary parameter influencing surface quality, where thinner layers (e.g., 0.1 mm) can reduce roughness but extend print times without achieving the smoothness of injection-molded surfaces. This results in higher friction coefficients and potential tribological issues in functional applications, as surface exacerbates uneven wear patterns. A core durability shortfall stems from material anisotropy, where interlayer bonding weaknesses lead to reduced mechanical performance perpendicular to the build plane. In FDM-printed polymers like PLA or ABS, tensile strength in the Z-direction (vertical) can be 20-50% lower than in the XY-plane due to voids and poor adhesion between extruded strands, falling short of the structural strength achievable in traditional composites or metals. Stereolithography (SLA) parts show similar directional variations, with studies reporting up to 30% differences in across orientations. These properties fall short of isotropic traditional methods, limiting 3D prints to non-critical loads unless post-processing like annealing is applied, which itself introduces risks of further . Thermal shrinkage during cooling causes warping and dimensional inaccuracies, particularly in larger FDM parts, with contraction rates of 0.5-2% in materials like ABS leading to interlayer or at edges. Empirical models predict warpage based on inhomogeneous shrinkage, exacerbated by rapid temperature gradients in uncontrolled environments, resulting in up to 1-3 mm deviations in 100 mm parts without enclosures or adhesion aids. Such defects compromise structural integrity, as residual stresses propagate cracks under cyclic loading. Fatigue resistance in 3D prints lags behind conventional parts, with FDM polymers displaying crack initiation at layer interfaces after 10^3-10^5 cycles under moderate strains, influenced by raster angle and density. For carbon fiber-reinforced PLA via FDM, fatigue life decreases by factors of 2-5 compared to unreinforced cast equivalents when loaded parallel to layers, due to void-induced stress concentrations. Overall, while optimized parameters can yield tensile strengths approaching 40-60 MPa in select resins, these remain 20-40% below injection-molded benchmarks for equivalent geometries, underscoring inherent process limitations in achieving uniform durability.

Consumer Adoption Barriers

Widespread adoption of home 3D printers faces barriers including the requirement for specialized skills in digital design, debugging print failures, and hardware maintenance, which deter non-expert users. Affordable consumer models primarily rely on thermoplastic extrusion, limiting materials to plastics like PLA and ABS that lack the durability or properties needed for diverse applications. Print durations for practical objects often extend to hours or days, reducing accessibility for casual use. Additionally, the absence of compelling everyday necessity for most households confines home 3D printing to a niche domain for enthusiasts, makers, and professionals, akin to specialized tools such as those in woodworking.

Health and Safety Issues

Emission and Toxicity Risks

Fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printers, which extrude thermoplastic filaments such as (ABS) and (PLA), release ultrafine particles (UFPs) smaller than 100 nanometers and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) through during printing. These emissions arise primarily from the heating of filaments to 200–250°C, generating particulate matter concentrations that can exceed 10^5–10^6 particles per cubic centimeter in unventilated spaces, depending on filament type and print duration. ABS filaments produce higher VOC levels, including styrene—a known —and other aromatics, aldehydes, and ketones, while PLA emits lower quantities of VOCs like but still significant UFPs. Inhalation of these emissions poses acute respiratory risks, such as , headaches, and , as evidenced by exposure studies linking FDM printing to elevated symptoms in poorly ventilated environments. Chronic exposure may induce , , and pro-inflammatory responses in cells, with rodent models showing impaired cardiovascular function from ABS emissions. UFPs, due to their small size, penetrate deep into the alveoli and potentially the bloodstream, amplifying compared to larger particulates, though long-term epidemiological data in 3D printing users remains limited. Variability in emission profiles depends on factors like , print speed, and use, with multiple printers or extended sessions (e.g., hours-long builds) exacerbating concentrations. Mitigation strategies emphasize engineering controls over reliance on personal protective equipment, as masks may not fully capture UFPs. Recommendations include operating printers in areas with at least 6–10 air changes per hour or using enclosures with high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration, which can reduce UFP emissions by up to 97%. No mandatory emission standards exist for consumer 3D printers as of 2025, but agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advise ventilation and monitoring to minimize risks, particularly in shared or occupational settings like schools and makerspaces. Selecting low-emission filaments like PLA over ABS and avoiding printing in occupied, unventilated rooms further limits exposure.

Mechanical and Operational Hazards

Mechanical hazards in 3D printing primarily arise from the dynamic components of printers, such as extruders, print heads, and build platforms, which can cause pinching, crushing, or entanglement injuries during operation. In (FFF) systems, the rapid movement of the print head—often at speeds exceeding 100 mm/s—and the reciprocating action of belts or lead screws create pinch points where fingers or loose clothing may become trapped, leading to lacerations or contusions. Heated components exacerbate these risks; nozzles typically operate at 200–300°C and heated beds at 60–110°C, posing severe hazards if contacted during filament loading, jam clearance, or . Operational hazards extend to user interactions with the printer, including manual interventions that bypass safety interlocks or enclosures. For instance, clearing filament jams or removing prints without powering down can expose operators to moving axes or sharp buildup edges on printed objects, resulting in cuts or abrasions. Post-processing steps, such as sanding or cutting supports with blades, introduce additional mechanical risks from handheld tools or automated cutters, where uncontrolled fragments may cause injuries. Electrical operational issues, including shocks from frayed power cords or exposed wiring in DIY assemblies, compound these dangers, particularly in non-commercial printers lacking UL certification. Data on injury incidence remains limited due to underreporting in consumer and small-scale settings, but institutional guidelines emphasize that unguarded violate general principles, analogous to those for industrial robotics. In controlled environments like universities, reported incidents often involve minor cuts or burns from direct contact, underscoring the need for operational protocols that prohibit overrides of protective features.

Long-Term User Health Data

Long-term health data on 3D printing users remains limited, as widespread consumer and occupational adoption of the technology dates primarily from the 2010s, precluding extensive longitudinal epidemiological studies. Cross-sectional surveys and exposure assessments indicate associations between prolonged printer operation and respiratory symptoms, but causal links to chronic conditions require further verification through cohort tracking. A 2023 explorative study of workers at companies using 3D printers reported that operating printers more than 40 hours per week correlated significantly with self-reported respiratory issues, including irritation and , potentially linked to chronic of ultrafine particles (UFPs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from filament materials like (ABS). Styrene, a known in ABS emissions, has been associated with genetic damage and elevated risk in analogous industrial exposures, raising concerns for additive users with sustained high-volume printing. However, direct attribution in 3D printing contexts lacks from user-specific long-term tracking, with current evidence relying on emission modeling and short-term biomarkers. For stereolithography (SLA) and resin-based printing, uncured photopolymer residues and VOCs pose risks of chronic sensitization and respiratory disorders upon repeated dermal or inhalational contact, as inferred from material safety data and acute exposure models, though multi-year user cohorts are absent. Metal additive manufacturing surveys, such as a 2023 assessment of Swedish facilities, highlight elevated metal particle exposure during post-processing but report no overt chronic health deficits in participants, underscoring the need for extended monitoring to detect latent effects like pneumoconiosis. Overall, while empirical parallels to established occupational hazards (e.g., welding fumes) suggest plausible long-term risks including asthma exacerbation and oncogenesis, definitive user data awaits maturation of the field.

Intellectual Property Enforcement

The advent of 3D printing has intensified (IP) enforcement difficulties due to the technology's capacity for rapid digital replication of physical objects, often bypassing traditional manufacturing controls. Scanning proprietary designs to generate printable files constitutes potential infringement under and laws, as it enables unauthorized reproduction without physical access to originals. Enforcement is hampered by the decentralized nature of home and small-scale printing, where detection relies on online rather than observable production, rendering comprehensive monitoring impractical. Copyright protection applies to original 3D model files and artistic elements of printed objects, but scanning a copyrighted item for replication—such as a branded or —may violate even for personal use, though prosecution typically targets commercial distribution. The (DMCA) facilitates takedown notices for infringing STL files hosted on platforms like , providing a primary tool for holders to curb online dissemination, yet it does not address privately printed copies or offline scans. In a 2025 case, successfully sued unauthorized printers of its Labubu designs, securing a victory that underscored vulnerabilities in digital replication but highlighted enforcement's dependence on visible commercial sales. Patent enforcement predominates in disputes over additive manufacturing processes and hardware, with industrial litigants pursuing claims more aggressively than against individual users. For instance, in April 2024, a U.S. jury ordered Markforged to pay Continuous Composites $17.34 million for infringing patents related to continuous fiber reinforcement in 3D printing, stemming from a 2021 lawsuit. Similarly, Stratasys initiated a patent infringement suit against Bambu Lab in August 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging violations in core printing technologies, which could influence hobbyist access if upheld. These cases illustrate causal tensions between innovation incentives and open access, as overlapping patents in filament deposition and layering methods complicate licensing, yet empirical data shows litigation concentrated among established firms rather than diffuse consumer activity. Trademarks face dilution risks from printed counterfeits mimicking brand identifiers, prompting brands like Nike to embed digital authentication in designs, though remains reactive via platform removals. Trade secrets, such as proprietary slicing algorithms, encounter leakage threats from reverse-engineering printed outputs, but is limited without contractual nondisclosure. Overall, while statutory frameworks exist, practical favors high-value commercial infringements over individual or open-source uses, reflecting the technology's causal disruption of scarcity-based IP models without viable technological countermeasures like embedded DRM in physical prints as of 2025.

Firearms and Weapon Regulations

In 2013, Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed successfully test-fired the Liberator, the first predominantly 3D-printed handgun, a single-shot .380 caliber pistol constructed from 16 printed polymer parts costing approximately $25 in materials, with its CAD files released for free download online. The U.S. State Department promptly ordered the files' removal under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), citing unauthorized technical data export, leading Wilson to temporarily comply and file a lawsuit challenging the export controls on non-exported files. Following a 2018 settlement with the U.S. government, was permitted to resume distribution of 3D-printable files through its website, , after paying $10,000 in fines, though subsequent payment processor restrictions limited commercial viability. In response, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2022 finalized a rule redefining "firearm frame or receiver" to encompass partially complete kits and 3D-printed components readily convertible to functional , mandating serialization, background checks, and record-keeping for manufacturers and dealers of such items, effective August 24, 2022. This rule targets "ghost guns"—unserialized, privately made including those produced via 3D —to enhance , though it exempts unfinished frames not substantially complete and applies primarily to commercial sales rather than individual hobbyist printing from downloaded files. At the state level, seven U.S. jurisdictions, including , New York, and , explicitly prohibit unserialized 3D-printed firearms as of 2025, often classifying them as illegal ghost guns requiring serial numbers and registration for any homemade weapons. Federal law under the already bans undetectable firearms without metal components, per the of 1988 (renewed through 2022), which 3D-printed plastic guns like early Liberator prototypes violate unless incorporating sufficient steel, such as a nail barrel liner. Legislative efforts, such as the 2023 3D Printed Gun Safety Act (S.1819), seek to criminalize online publication of 3D firearm blueprints, but these have stalled in committee without enactment. Internationally, the broadly prohibits manufacturing or possession of homemade firearms, including 3D-printed variants, under directives like the 2017 Firearms Directive requiring licensing and marking for all guns, rendering such production illegal across member states with penalties varying by nation. In practice, enforcement relies on monitoring file downloads and printer purchases, but digital dissemination via peer-to-peer networks circumvents bans, with noting 3D-printed guns as an emerging threat in criminal modifications of legal printers. Similar restrictions apply in and , where 3D-printed firearms are treated as prohibited weapons without exemptions for personal use. Empirical data indicate limited but increasing encounters—186 globally from 2014 to 2023—primarily involving hybrid designs combining printed and commercial parts, underscoring that while regulations impose barriers, the technology's enables proliferation among determined actors despite traceability mandates.

Certification and Standards Compliance

Additive manufacturing (AM), commonly known as 3D printing, relies on established standards from organizations such as and the (ISO) to ensure process reliability, material quality, and part performance. The joint ISO/ASTM 52900 standard, first published in 2015 and updated periodically, provides fundamental terminology and definitions for AM processes, facilitating consistent communication across the industry. Complementing this, ISO/ASTM 52920:2023 specifies criteria for AM processes, including characteristics like feedstock quality, machine calibration, and post-processing, applicable to technologies outlined in ISO/ASTM 52900. These standards aim to mitigate variability inherent in layer-by-layer fabrication, such as inconsistencies in fusion or , through defined test methods and guidelines. In regulated sectors, compliance extends to agency-specific certifications. For medical devices, the U.S. (FDA) oversees 3D printed implants and instruments under its general device regulations, requiring demonstrations of safety and effectiveness via submissions like 510(k) clearances or premarket approvals; as of 2023, the FDA has cleared over 200 such devices, often referencing ASTM standards for material and process validation. In , the (FAA) certifies AM parts through type certification processes, as seen in General Electric's Catalyst turboprop approved in 2020 with 3D printed nozzles and other components, demanding process specifications per FAA Order 8110.4C to address anisotropic properties and fatigue risks. The FAA's Additive Manufacturing National Team collaborates with industry to adapt existing regulations, emphasizing non-destructive testing and equivalence to traditional manufacturing. Emerging certification programs address broader compliance gaps. ASTM's Additive Manufacturing launched the AM Program in June 2025, partnering with OEMs to verify manufacturer adherence to process controls and metrics, targeting sectors like automotive and defense. certifications typically include and compliance with ASTM/ISO grades, ensuring from to final part. However, challenges persist due to AM's rapid evolution outpacing standardization; process variability, such as inconsistent layer adhesion, complicates uniform qualification, and sector-specific hurdles—like fire safety in 3D printed —lack tailored frameworks, often requiring case-by-case regulatory navigation. These issues underscore the need for ongoing empirical validation, as standards alone do not guarantee part integrity without rigorous, application-specific testing.

Economic Impact

Market Growth and Projections

The global additive manufacturing (AM) industry generated approximately $21.9 billion in revenue in 2024, reflecting a 9.1% year-over-year growth from $20.0 billion in 2023. This steady expansion follows a decade-long (CAGR) of around 18%, driven primarily by industrial applications rather than widespread consumer adoption, which has lagged due to limitations in speed, scale, and material versatility compared to traditional manufacturing. Key contributors include advancements in metal AM systems, with sales rising to over 3,800 units in 2023, and growing integration in sectors like and healthcare where customization and prototyping efficiencies justify premium costs. Projections for future growth vary across analysts, reflecting uncertainties in technology maturation and , but consensus points to sustained double-digit CAGRs through 2030. The Wohlers Report anticipates an 18% CAGR over the next decade, potentially reaching $115 billion by 2034, emphasizing service bureaus and materials as high-growth areas. MarketsandMarkets forecasts the market expanding from $16.2 billion in 2025 to $35.8 billion by 2030 at an 17.3% CAGR, while Grand View Research projects $88.3 billion by 2030 from a 2023 base of $20.4 billion, attributing momentum to cost reductions in hardware (now under $10,000 for entry-level industrial printers) and regulatory approvals for end-use parts. These estimates, however, should be tempered by historical overoptimism; for instance, desktop printing peaked in hype around 2012-2015 but has since stabilized at under 10% of total revenue, as practical barriers like print times exceeding hours for complex objects limit mass-market disruption.
Source2024 Market Size (USD Billion)Projected 2030 Size (USD Billion)CAGR (%)
Wohlers Report21.9~50 (extrapolated to 2030)18 (10-year)
MarketsandMarkets15.435.817.3
Grand View Research~23.5 (2024 est.)88.323.5
Growth enablers include post-2020 disruptions, with AM enabling on-demand production, and investments in hybrid systems combining AM with subtractive methods for higher throughput. Challenges persist, such as high material costs (e.g., metal powders at $100/kg) and hurdles for safety-critical parts, which cap adoption in regulated industries unless offset by lifecycle savings empirically demonstrated in case studies like GE Aviation's fuel nozzle components. Overall, while transformative in niches, AM's broader economic impact hinges on resolving scalability issues through innovations like multi-laser powder bed fusion and material extrusion processes gaining production momentum due to their economic viability and speed advantages, as highlighted in 2026 industry analyses focusing on integration and scalability.

Employment and Labor Market Effects

Additive (AM), commonly known as 3D printing, has demonstrated a net positive association with at the industry level across 31 countries from 2009 to 2017, according to econometric analysis using patent data as a proxy for AM . This relationship stems from market expansion effects and complementarity between AM technologies and labor inputs, with no significant evidence of labor-saving displacement in aggregate sectors. The estimated elasticity to AM ranges from 0.06 (conditional on controls) to 0.12 (unconditional), indicating modest but statistically significant growth, particularly benefiting middle-educated workers while showing limited impact on low-skilled labor. AM fosters job creation in high-skill domains such as , , and operation, with demand surging for roles like industrial designers, mechanical engineers, and applications engineers. Skilled 3D printing-related positions increased by 1,384 percent from 2010 to 2014 and by 103 percent from 2013 to 2014 alone. Projections suggest AM could generate 2 to 3 million new jobs globally by 2027, primarily through process innovations enabling customization and that expand market opportunities. However, these gains require workforce upskilling, as AM shifts labor demand toward technical expertise in software, , and machine maintenance, potentially exacerbating shortages in advanced where over 2.1 million U.S. jobs may remain unfilled due to skill gaps. In contrast, AM displaces routine, low-skill tasks in traditional and assembly, particularly where efficiencies are supplanted by on-demand printing. In construction, 3D printing reduces labor requirements substantially—potentially by solving shortages through fewer on-site workers—but at the cost of displacing manual roles like bricklaying and , while creating needs for specialized operators and technicians. Empirical studies confirm sectoral heterogeneity, with AM complementing rather than substituting labor in knowledge-intensive industries but pressuring unskilled segments vulnerable to synergies. Overall, while aggregate employment holds steady or grows, labor market transitions demand policy focus on retraining to mitigate uneven distributional effects across education levels and regions.

Global Manufacturing Shifts

The advent of additive manufacturing has facilitated a transition from centralized, offshore-dominated production models to more decentralized and localized systems, enabling on-site fabrication of parts and reducing dependence on long-distance supply chains. This shift addresses vulnerabilities exposed by events such as the , where global disruptions in 2020 halted imports of critical components, prompting firms to adopt 3D printing for rapid, domestic prototyping and small-batch production of items like . By layering materials additively rather than subtractively, 3D printing minimizes tooling needs and inventory stockpiles, allowing manufacturers in high-wage economies like the to compete by focusing on complex, low-volume geometries unsuitable for traditional injection molding or casting. Reshoring initiatives have gained momentum, with additive manufacturing cited as a key enabler for relocating production from to and , driven by risks, geopolitical tensions, and costs. For instance, U.S. firms leveraging 3D printing reported accelerated time-to-market for and OEM parts, bypassing overseas tooling delays that previously extended lead times by months. A 2020 MIT analysis indicated that integrating 3D printing into supply chains could yield up to 85% savings in and transportation expenses through on-demand local printing, contrasting with centralized models reliant on container shipping. Empirical models further show decentralized additive setups outperforming centralized ones in flexibility and suitability for variable demand, though they require upfront investment in printer fleets and skilled operators. This exerts downward pressure on global volumes for commoditized goods, potentially diminishing incentives in labor-intensive sectors of developing economies. Projections from economic analyses suggest 3D printing adoption in prosperous, transport-cost-sensitive regions could erode comparative advantages in low-wage hubs, with one study estimating a reversal in flows for printable components as local fabrication supplants imports. However, countervailing evidence indicates additive may augment rather than supplant in some cases, boosting overall volumes by 58% in sampled sectors over the 2010s through enhanced customization and niche exports, without fully inverting established advantages. As of 2025, the technology remains constrained to 10-20% of viable applications due to limitations and issues for high-volume runs, tempering its role in wholesale relocation while amplifying resilience in strategic industries like and medical devices.

Societal and Environmental Effects

Social Decentralization and Empowerment

3D printing facilitates social decentralization by enabling localized, on-demand production that bypasses traditional centralized manufacturing hubs and global s. This technology allows individuals, small communities, and makerspaces to fabricate custom objects using digital designs, reducing dependence on large-scale factories and distributors. For instance, during supply chain disruptions such as those exacerbated by the in 2020, distributed 3D printing networks produced and medical tools locally, demonstrating resilience and rapid adaptation without reliance on distant suppliers. Similarly, in scenarios of geopolitical tensions or trade barriers, on-site printing of spare parts for machinery like or turbines minimizes downtime and logistical vulnerabilities. The project, initiated in 2005 by Adrian Bowyer at the , exemplifies this empowerment through its open-source design for self-replicating 3D printers capable of producing most of their own components. By 2010, RepRap derivatives had evolved into affordable consumer printers under $1,000, enabling hobbyists and inventors worldwide to iterate designs collaboratively via platforms like , which hosts millions of shared models. This model democratizes access to prototyping, allowing non-experts to create functional prototypes—such as tools, prosthetics, or educational aids—without institutional resources, fostering a shift from consumer passivity to active production. Studies indicate that such distributed systems can lower energy use compared to conventional for polymer parts, further supporting sustainable, individual-scale operations. Makerspaces and DIY communities amplify this empowerment by providing shared access to printers and expertise, bridging skill gaps across demographics and promoting intergenerational . Originating from in the early 2010s, these spaces—numbering over 2,000 globally by 2020—encourage collaborative , where participants from diverse backgrounds co-design solutions like assistive devices or community tools, enhancing social participation and economic . In developing economies, 3D printing supports models by enabling micro-entrepreneurs to produce goods with minimal capital, potentially transforming local economies through reduced import needs. However, empirical assessments suggest that while 3D printing lowers , widespread distributed requires improvements in printer reliability and costs to fully realize socioeconomic shifts.

Resource Use and Waste Analysis

Additive manufacturing processes, including fused deposition modeling (FDM), consume thermoplastic filaments such as (PLA) and (ABS), with global filament sales exceeding 180,000 tons annually as of recent estimates. Material inefficiency arises from failed prints, support structures, and purging in multi-material setups, yielding a median waste rate of approximately 33% across user studies. This translates to substantial scrap, often destined for landfills or , exacerbating environmental burdens from non-biodegradable polymers derived from or feedstocks. Energy demands vary by and scale; desktop FDM printers typically draw 50-250 watts during operation, equating to 0.05-0.25 kWh per hour, with standby consumption between 0.03-0.17 kWh. For producing small batches, such as 10 printlets, total ranges from 0.06 to 3.08 kWh, often lower than traditional subtractive methods due to the absence of tooling and reduced post-processing. However, metal additive like laser powder bed fusion exhibit higher per-unit use, and high-volume production can amplify overall consumption compared to optimized conventional , where minimize inefficiencies. Waste generation in FDM includes brim, , and stringing artifacts, compounded by print failures that can exceed 20-30% for novice users under realistic conditions. Unlike subtractive techniques, which discard up to 90% of as chips, additive methods theoretically achieve near-100% utilization, but practical losses from process variability negate much of this advantage, particularly in non-optimized setups. and other resin-based techniques introduce additional from uncured photopolymers, posing disposal challenges beyond simple mechanical recycling. Recycling efforts focus on shredding and re-extruding failed prints into new filament, though mechanical degradation reduces mechanical properties after 2-3 cycles, limiting viability for high-performance applications. Specialized programs, such as those processing PLA and ABS scraps, demonstrate potential cost reductions of 70-80% for FDM components via , but widespread adoption is hindered by risks and lack of standardized protocols. Overall, while 3D printing enables resource-efficient on-demand production for low volumes—reducing and emissions—its environmental footprint intensifies with scale due to elevated and reject rates, underscoring the need for process optimizations like improved failure prediction algorithms.

Controversies

IP Piracy and Economic Disruption

3D printing facilitates (IP) infringement by enabling users to scan physical objects, reverse-engineer designs into digital files such as STL formats, and reproduce them without authorization, often shared via repositories. This process circumvents traditional controls, allowing decentralized production of patented components, ed models, and trademarked goods. For instance, protects the expressive elements of 3D model files like CAD designs as original works of authorship, while scanning and reprinting such files constitutes reproduction infringement unless the scan lacks sufficient originality. Patents face particular risks, as 3D printers can fabricate articles embodying patented inventions, including utility patents for functional processes and design patents for ornamental aspects, without needing industrial-scale facilities. A notable case involved Desktop Metal Inc. and Markforged Inc., where disputes arose over metal 3D printing technologies, highlighting conflicts in binder jetting and atomic diffusion additive manufacturing patents filed around 2017-2020. Trademarks and are also vulnerable, as 3D printing can replicate branded product appearances, potentially misleading consumers, though functional features remain unprotected. In one early instance, a 2014 Canadian lawsuit over unauthorized STL file use for 3D printing was settled out of court, marking one of the first such disputes involving digital model infringement. Economically, 3D printing exacerbates counterfeiting in high-value sectors; the global trade in fake goods reached $461 billion annually, representing 2.5% of world trade, with additive manufacturing amplifying risks for parts in , automotive, and fields. The alone, valued at $318.2 billion, is susceptible to replicated components that undermine genuine part sales. Analysts predicted significant IP losses, with forecasting at least $100 billion annually by 2018 due to widespread unauthorized printing, though actual realized impacts remain lower amid slower consumer adoption and material limitations. This disrupts revenue streams for IP holders by enabling low-cost, on-demand production that erodes market exclusivity, particularly for spare parts where shipping from manufacturers becomes obsolete. Enforcement challenges compound the disruption, as decentralized home or small-scale printing diffuses infringement across numerous users, inflating litigation costs against low-volume violators who may yield minimal damages like statutory awards of 750750-30,000 per work. Manufacturers face shifted business models, investing in authentication technologies such as chemical fingerprinting via to verify printed parts, yet tracing digital file dissemination proves difficult without robust platform monitoring. While private non-commercial printing often falls under limited exceptions like Article 30, commercial-scale replication threatens industries reliant on IP-protected designs, potentially reducing incentives for innovation if protections erode. Overall, these dynamics foster a tension between democratized access and sustained economic returns from proprietary technologies.

Weapon Accessibility Debates

The debate over 3D printing's impact on weapon accessibility intensified following the May 2013 release of digital files for the Liberator pistol by , a group founded by , enabling the production of a single-shot .380 caliber handgun almost entirely from ABS plastic using consumer-grade fused deposition modeling printers. The files were downloaded over 100,000 times in the first two days before U.S. State Department intervention under ITAR export controls temporarily halted public distribution, highlighting concerns that widespread could bypass traditional manufacturing and sales regulations. Proponents of unrestricted access, including Wilson and Second Amendment advocates, argue that 3D printing democratizes firearm production, aligning with constitutional rights to self-manufacture weapons for personal use without serialization or background checks, as affirmed in cases like (2008), and protected under the First Amendment for digital designs as speech. Critics, including organizations and security analysts, contend that "ghost guns"—untraceable, privately made firearms including 3D-printed models—facilitate proliferation to prohibited persons, criminals, and terrorists, evading detection in metal scanners if fully plastic and complicating tracing. Technical constraints temper the immediacy of these risks: fully plastic 3D-printed firearms like the Liberator exhibit low durability, often failing after one to eight shots due to material weaknesses under firing stresses, necessitating metal components such as barrels or bolts for functionality in hybrid designs, which require additional machining skills and non-plastic materials not universally printable at home. Consumer printers, typically limited to thermoplastics like PLA or ABS, lack the precision and heat resistance for reliable, high-volume production, with costs for viable setups exceeding $1,000 plus expertise in CAD design and post-processing. In response, U.S. federal regulations via the ATF's 2022 rule classify certain unfinished frames or receivers, including 3D-printed kits, as firearms requiring serialization and background checks when sold, upheld by the in Bondi v. VanDerStok (2025), though personal production for non-commercial use remains legal if compliant with the mandating detectability. Several states, including and New York, prohibit unserialized ghost guns outright. In the , possession of 3D-printed firearms violates strict licensing laws, but distribution of blueprints faces uneven enforcement, with calls for harmonized bans on files to prevent circumvention of controls. Empirical evidence of criminal use remains limited but rising: from 2013 to mid-2023, North American authorities recorded 166 arrests linked to 3D-printed firearms, primarily for possession or intent rather than discharge, with only eight global cases of firing confirmed, including a 2024 Des Moines shooting and the alleged 2024 assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson using a hybrid 3D-printed suppressor-equipped pistol. Law enforcement in major U.S. cities reported surges in recoveries since 2020, often in hybrid forms evading serial tracking, fueling debates on whether advancing printer capabilities—such as metal filament extrusion—will escalate threats or if regulatory focus should prioritize verifiable proliferation over speculative fears.

Ethical Boundaries in Advanced Uses

, an advanced extension of additive manufacturing that incorporates viable cells within bioinks to fabricate functional human tissues and organs, poses ethical challenges stemming from the integration of biological materials and the potential to replicate or enhance human physiology. Unlike inert 3D-printed objects, bioprinted constructs involve living components derived from human sources, such as induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) or donor tissues, raising questions about the moral status of engineered life forms and the boundaries of human intervention in biology. As of 2020, over a dozen companies, including Organovo in the United States and EnvisionTEC in , were actively developing these technologies, underscoring the proximity of clinical . A primary concern is for cell sourcing and implantation, complicated by the irreversible nature of procedures once tissues integrate into the body, making withdrawal from trials infeasible and heightening risks for vulnerable patients, such as those in emergencies or with diminished capacity. The risk-benefit assessment is further strained in applications like artificial ovaries, where benefits for treatment must be weighed against potential genetic or epigenetic harms to future , demanding rigorous, personalized evaluations that current regulatory frameworks struggle to standardize. Clinical trials, such as NCT04399239 for bioprinted ear cartilage initiated around , illustrate ongoing efforts to address , yet underscore the need for enhanced oversight to mitigate unproven risks. Ownership and property rights over bioprinted organs remain ambiguous, with debates over whether pre-implantation constructs constitute , , or communal biological resources, potentially enabling commercialization that commodifies human tissue and fosters patents or monopolies. Justice issues arise from unequal access, as high costs—likely exceeding those of conventional transplants—could confine bioprinting to affluent individuals, perpetuating and diverting resources from needs, a causal outcome observed in other biotechnologies without equitable policies. The distinction between therapeutic restoration and non-medical enhancement blurs ethical lines, as bioprinting could enable enhancements like superior organ function, prompting utilitarian arguments for permissibility in therapy but warnings of societal pressures for "upgrades" that undermine human dignity and identity by treating bodies as customizable machines. Regulatory gaps exacerbate these boundaries, with bioprinted products defying as drugs, devices, or biologics, as noted in analyses calling for responsible innovation frameworks to incorporate upstream stakeholder input and prevent black markets in custom tissues.

References

  1. https://drs.[illinois](/page/Illinois).edu/Page/SafetyLibrary/3DPrinterSafety
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.