by Melissa Donovan
Post-processing three-dimensional (3D) printed parts involve many processes, which depend on the material and print technology used. Multiple vendors provide hardware just for this purpose. However, 3D printer manufacturers are dipping their toes into post-processing to offer a full 3D printing ecosystem.
Above: Solukon’s depowdering systems are approved for safe and reliable processing of powder materials, including tough-to-handle and reactive metal powders.
For example, Formlabs—manufacturer of selective laser sintering (SLS) and stereolithography (SLA) printers—announced at Formnext 2023 the Fuse Blast. The fully automated part cleaning and polishing solution is billed as part of the Formlabs printing ecosystem. Formlabs’ line includes post-processing tools for both SLS and SLA 3D printing with the Fuse Sift, Fuse Blast, Form Wash, and Form Cure, enabling users to easily finish any Formlabs part with high-quality results.
Alternatively, OEM printer manufacturers also sanction collaborations with post-processing manufacturers after undergoing significant evaluations to ensure their printers work well with third-party vendors.
DyeMansion Inc. and Nexa3D recently announced plans to strategically partner and automate end-to-end AM workflows—from printing to finished parts. The partnership leverages DyeMansion’s automated post-processing hardware, the high-throughput capabilities of Nexa3D’s QLS 820 printer, as well as the printer’s Siemens PLC integration and powerful NexaX for QLS manufacturing software.
HP Inc. and Elnik Systems is another example. Elnik, a veteran in the debind and sinter furnace industry, collaborated with the HP team to help drive adoption of metal additive part making technology. It modified its standard metal injection molding debind and sinter furnace to accommodate the requirements demanded by the HP technology.
Benefits of Same Manufacturers
It’s nice to have options, whether it’s committing to a full-scale ecosystem or third-party partners.
When working with post-processing and 3D printing devices from the same manufacturer, users benefit from “improved simplicity, consistency, and ease of use at each step in the process—enabling simple planning, printing, and post processing,” explains Matt Ewertowski, hardware product manager, Formlabs.
“Throughout the 3D printing process, a complete solution from the same manufacturer provides continuity across the ecosystem, including software integrations, whole system support with compatibility across devices, and a smooth, consistent user experience, from purchase to onboarding, to post-sale support. These improved workflows can also unlock new opportunities for automation, yielding consistent and reliable results with reduced labor cost,” continues Ewertowski.
Andreas Hartmann, CEO/CTO, Solukon GmbH, agrees that “from a user’s point of view it might generally be beneficial to work with as few manufacturers as possible for printing and post-processing. But reality shows that, at least in the laser powder bed fusion process, not one provider can cover all process steps—i.e. printing and all post-processing steps.”
There are two main reasons for this, according to Hartmann. First, he mentions that post-processing equipment is considered “the dark side of AM,” meaning that it is somehow an unpleasant job compared to working on the parameters for the print job. “This perspective is obviously wrong since quality of post-processing directly affects part quality and performance.”
The second reason, “post-processing is quite challenging and it needs special focus to offer the best possible solution for the market,” continues Hartmann. Providing the example of Solukon’s specialty—depowdering—to post-process complex parts requires a “software that calculates the ideal motion sequence to get the powder of all cavities.” Solukon launched this in a joint project with Siemens in 2018 and continues to develop it on a constant basis.
“From my point of view, specialized post-processing companies are the way to go. This way post-processing matters get the attention they need without overlooking the printer manufacturers’ perspective and know-how of the production process. We at Solukon have strong partnerships with OEMs like AMCM, DMG MORI, EOS, Nikon SLM Solutions, and Velo3D,” explains Hartmann.
Third-Party Perks
As Hartmann alluded to prior, there are advantages to working with a third-party provider that’s endorsed by a 3D printing manufacturer.
Primarily, “the post-processing partner of choice has in-depth knowledge in their business field, from which the user benefits,” explains Hartmann.
Another advantage, the openness between post-processing device and printer. “A large amount of customers rely on printing systems from different manufacturers. Working with an independent, third-party post-processing company guarantees an openness that the post-processing equipment is compatible with printers of all brands,” shares Hartmann.
There are specific scenarios where a third-party option makes more sense. “One case where you are better served going outside the printer ecosystem is if your requirements or end-use applications are particularly niche and just aren’t compatible with the available configurations. Ecosystem manufacturers prioritize solutions that deliver the most value across their entire user base, and with so many potential post-processing options they must aggressively choose where to allocate resources, so some post-processing techniques or configurations just don’t make the cut. In these cases, going with a vendor that has built a solution for that specific need may be the only option,” notes Ewertowski.
Of course, there is also the argument about the disadvantages or risks. These include “relying on a separate company to support and service your equipment, with no guarantees on compatibility with your particular 3D printing process or application. Software solutions are not guaranteed to maintain compatibility in future updates, which means you may have to change your process later. If the third-party vendor chooses to stop supporting the product, you’ll also have to take on additional maintenance burdens,” advises Ewertowski.
The Future?
It’s a slippery slope when discussing the future of additive manufacturing (AM). There are many different post-processing techniques out there, so it’s hard to say if post-processing and 3D printing devices from the same manufacturer are the way of the future.
“The challenges in post-processing just like in the printing process itself are constantly rising. So do the manufacturing methods and the number and variety of materials. Especially in these politically and economically challenging times, it is better to place hope on several players instead of one,” stresses Hartmann.
Ewertowski admits that many 3D printer manufacturers do not offer complete ecosystems, however, “a thoughtful, end-to-end solution is the best way to ensure that users will receive a consistent and reliable experience, which ultimately leads to faster ramp up, higher printer utilization, and a better overall 3D printing experience. Formlabs is ahead of the curve in that respect, having already delivered a complete ecosystem that helps you go from design to finished part.”
Whatever the future holds, it’s an exciting time for 3D printing. If anything, the introduction of ecosystems like that from Formlabs shines a greater spotlight on just how instrumental post-processing is in the AM workflow to achieve a finished part.
Feb2024, Industrial Print Magazine
