Additive Manufacturing Project Cluster

IMS – Additive Manufacturing Project Clustering

Those interested in the AM Project Cluster may access project summaries, exploitable results, and presentations here.

Download Page

 

IMS Workshop Summary

11 May, 2016

INTRODUCTION

Picture2

Abraham Tijerina, IMS Chairman

The IMS Project Clustering Platform facilitates on-going projects to share knowledge, provide broader solutions in less time, reduce research costs, and expand networks through building international coalitions to combine and coordinate project research activities. IMS selects a member region to lead each cluster, and the European Union volunteered to shepherd the Additive Manufacturing Project Cluster. Held in conjunction with the IMS World Manufacturing Forum, the workshop took place 2 May 2016 in Barcelona, Spain, and was facilitated by a local organizer and participant, Fundacio CIM.

Picture1

Lorenzo Valles, European Commission

To start the process, the European Commission found seventeen on-going projects willing to share exploitable results with other IMS regions at a workshop. IMS searched its network to find twenty-two projects and industrial partners from Mexico (8), South Africa (10), and the United States (4) that expressed interest in the projects and would also offer exploitable results to share. Due to the high level of interest, the Additive Manufacturing theme was divided into three subthemes; metals, polymer-ceramics-biomaterials, and generic technologies. Through the IMS network, the thirty-nine projects shared their exploitable results and respective TRL levels with each other. Prior to the meeting, IMS asked the projects to rate their interests in other projects. When these interests were analyzed by IMS, several possible project clusters became apparent. Because some projects expressed interest in multiple projects, yet most were represented by only one person, a methodology was applied to the workshop to help participants narrow their choice to one project. Using a methodology and materials developed by the IMS team, the participants self-assembled into clusters, and each cluster then identified its members, leadership, goals and objectives, and work plan.

Picture3

Workshop Support Team

Six clusters were formed as a result of the workshop collaborative process. Three were formed in the metals session, one in the polymers session, and two in the generic technologies session. The six clusters were given IMS standard MOA templates in case the cluster was able to commit to their work immediately. One cluster, “Titanium Aero Structures – AM (TAS-AM)”, signed the MOA and noted that there may be additional cooperation. Additionally, other clusters noted that their initial collaboration would build trust, and additional collaborations in more sensitive areas could develop.

 

 

 

 

 

METALS SESSION

Chair/facilitator: Andrea Gentili, EC RTD

Rapporteur: Mark Carlisle, IMS Regional Secretariat

Garth Williams, IMS Delegate

Picture4Participants in the metals session of the clustering workshop included sixteen metals-related projects as well as three from the “generic technologies” group.  The results of pre-workshop efforts to define and align areas of mutual collaborative interest held up well as the participants voted themselves (via a three-round process) into what turned out to be three working groups for the afternoon portion.  Once the participants became comfortable with the dot-voting process, the process proceeded quickly.

If there was a glitch, it was the fact that the group that coalesced around the AMAZE project did not include the AMAZE representative.  He eventually graciously agreed, however, to move back into that cluster.

The three working groups had quite different paces and group dynamics.  This was likely due in some degree to personalities, but almost certainly also because of the varying quality of “fit” of the projects within each group.

Picture5In the end, participants agreed to collaborate in three clusters: “Titanium Aero Structures – AM” (TAS-AM), “Metals for AM”, and “Industrially Robust AM Chain”.

Picture6 

Cluster 1: Industrially Robust AM Chain

EXOVA was selected by IMS as the central project where a possible cluster could form based on the feedback from our inquiry prior to the workshop.

Picture7Cluster formation process: Round 1 interest from Questek, Exova, FORMING, MedAERO, FRISA, REProMag, AATiD, NANOTUN3D, OXIGEN, NDTLBM, FOFAM, MANSYS.

Round 2 interest from Questek, Exova, FORMING, MedAERO, SISAMex, , OXIGEN, NDTLBM, FOFAM, MANSYS.

Round 3 commitments from Questek, Exova, AMAZE*, Borealis, NDTLBM, FOFAM, MANSYS.

IMS regions represented: EU, SA, US

In the end, the AMAZE representative graciously allowed himself to be pulled from this group by another coalition of projects interested in working with AMAZE. However, AMAZE may still join this cluster.

 Picture8

 

Cluster formed: Industrially Robust AM Chain

Champion: Prabir Chaudhury (Exova), [email protected]

Members will thrive to develop an industrially robust Metal Additive Manufacturing (MAM) supply chain in order to establish AM as a main stream manufacturing technology. Work will include development of cost effective and performance specific raw materials, properties database, machine capabilities, testing and qualification protocols, NDT techniques and in-situ quality testing. This cluster will involve users of the MAM technology and its supply chain from raw material to finished and qualified metal parts.

Cluster 2: Metals for AM 

Picture9AMAZE was selected by IMS as the central project where a possible cluster could form based on the feedback from our inquiry prior to the workshop.

Cluster formation process:  Round 1 interest from DEDREF, AMAZE, RepAIR, BOREALIS, OXIGEN, Metalsa, NDTLBM.

Round 2 interest from DEDREF, SISAMex, NANOTUN3D, OXIGEN, NDTLBM.

Round 3 commitments from DEDREF, FORMING, SISAMex, NANOTUN3D, OXIGEN, (At the request of these committing projects, the AMAZE representative returned to this group.)

IMS regions represented: EU, SA, MX

Picture10

Cluster formed: Metals for AM

Champion: David Wimpenny (MTC), [email protected]

Members will define and complete project template by the end of June, and will share Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) assessments and exchange comments by the end of the year.

 

Cluster 3: TAS-AM  (Titanium Aero Structures AM)

AATiD was selected by IMS as the central project where a possible cluster could form based on the feedback from our inquiry prior to the workshop.

Picture11Cluster formation process:  Round 1 interest from Questek, FORMING, MedAERO, REProMag, RepAIR, AATiD, NANOTUN3D, OXIGEN, FOFAM.

Round 2 interest from Questek, FORMING, MedAERO, REProMag, RepAIR, AATiD, NANOTUN3D, FOFAM, MANSYS

Round 3 commitments from, NIU,MEDAERO, REProMag, RepAIR, AATiD, FOFAM

IMS regions represented: EU, SA, US

Cluster formed: TAS-AM  (Titanium Aero Structures AM)

Champion: Daniel Safranchik, Technion, [email protected]

Members will collect and consolidate existing Ti AM technology, with the goal of creating a “comprehensive multi-national specification guideline”.  This will include Ti material properties (throughout production), qualification/certification/testing, and AM technologies and processes.  Gaps will be identified and, if possible, addressed.  Members will investigate external funding opportunities and recruitment of additional collaborators. An MOA was signed and is on file.

Picture12

POLYMER- CERAMICS-BIOMATERIAL PARTS SESSION

Chair/facilitator: German Esteban, EC RTD

Rapporteur: Steve Ray, IMS Coach

The polymers session was a small, fairly homogeneous group that quickly found its central interest and experience in the area of bioactive materials used in medical applications, forming a single collaborative cluster. There was no issue of reconciling conflicting interests, but rather just the issue of capturing the many challenges surrounding the use of additive manufacturing artifacts in the human body. The point was made that the majority of sales in additive manufacturing today are for polymer-based products, which raised the question of why there were so many more attendees representing metals AM rather than the robust and growing polymers sector.

Picture13Seed project: RAPIDOS

Round 1 interest from ToMAX, BIOSCAFFOLDS, HYDROZONES, UNAM-MADIT, POLYAM, RAPIDOS.

Round 2 interest from ToMAX, BIOSCAFFOLDS, HYDROZONES, POLYAM, RAPIDOS.

Round 3 interest from ToMAX, BIOSCAFFOLDS, HYDROZONES, UNAM-MADIT, POLYAM, RAPIDOS

Picture14Cluster 1: BioAMplant or IamI                                  

Champion: Dirk W. Grijpma, University of Twente (EU), [email protected]

Leaders from other regions:

Gerrie Booysen – South Africa, [email protected]

Leopoldo Ruiz-Huerta – Mexico, [email protected]

Members will collaborate on developing bioactive printable materials and additive manufacturing methods, either organic or inorganic, that are resorbable by either bone or soft tissue in the human body.

 

GENERIC TECHNOLOGIES SESSION

Chair/facilitator: Joaquim Minguella, Fundación Centre CIM, Spain

Rapporteur: David Romero, IMS Coach

Participants in the Generic AM technologies (including software, laser and new materials) session of the clustering workshop submitted thirteen projects, which merged into eleven projects for the workshop activities.Picture15

The results of pre-workshop efforts highlighted the following individual research and development lines as well as exploitable results: Skills-sets curricula for AM, Non-destructive testing for AM, DFX – Design for AM (DfAM), Materials characterization for AM, Occupational-health and Safety for AM, AM as an industrial manufacturing process, AM technologies characterization, CAD and CAE solutions for AM, Maturity Level of AM technologies, Supply Chain Management for AM, Control systems for AM, Optimization technologies for AM processes, and Hybrid approaches for additive and subtractive manufacturing machines.

Picture16During the workshop, to further define and align areas of mutual collaborative interest, participants held a three-round voting process that resulted in two working groups: (WG1) Assistive Tools for Extending Additive Manufacturing, led by the FOFAM project, with a strong focus on developing a toolkit (assistive tools) to support and facilitate the adoption of AM in industry, and (WG2) Additive Manufacturing Knowledge based Decision Support for Industry, led by the iBUS project, with the aim of enabling industry to have access to quality assurance and quality control for AM.

The two working groups had different dynamics for developing their work and action plans, but both were able to present their plans and next steps at the closing session. WG1 was able to bring together the three IMS regions required to become an IMS AM cluster (with the signature of a MOU as next step).   WG2 will pursue the integration of other IMS regions into their cluster, so for now is considered a cluster in-formation.

 

Cluster 1: Assistive Tools for Extending Additive Manufacturing

DESIGN was selected by IMS as the central project where a possible cluster could form based on the feedback from our inquiry prior to the workshop.

 

Picture17Cluster formation process:  

Round 1 interest from EDUCATE, SAND, UASLP, CIATEQ, UANL, CAxMAN, CASSAMOBILE, DESIGN, NEXTFACTORY, VITRO, FOFAM.

Round 2 interest from EDUCATE, DESIGN, SAND, CIATEQ, UASLP, VITRO, CAxMAN, CASSAMOBILE, UANL, NEXTFACTORY

Round 3 final interest was expressed from UASLP, CIATEQ, UANL, CAxMAN, CASSAMOBILE, DESIGN, NEXTFACTORY, VITRO, FOFAM.

 

IMS regions represented: EU, MX, SA

  

Cluster formed:  Assistive Tools for Extending Additive Manufacturing

Champion: Paula Queipo, FOFAM, [email protected]

Regional Leaders:

Deon De Beer – DESIGN

Paula Queipo – FOFAM

Hugo Medellin – UASLP

HIGHLIGHT: Technology packaging and transfer to Industry.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:Picture18

  • Extending AM technology and knowledge for market deployment.
  • Seamless integration at all levels (integration with conventional technology).
  • Broader applications.
  • New materials availability.
  • Competitive decentralized tools and services for enhancing AM take-up.
  • Interoperable services in a decentralized marketplace.
  • AM for society.
  • Enhancing AM capabilities for new markets.
  • Development of open accessible platforms.
  • Reduce cost of technologies and materials.

KEY ACTIVITIES + SCOPE:

  • Technology and market pooling.
  • Integrate AM + Conventional technologies.
  • Design for AM education.
  • Predictable characteristics.
  • R&D of new processes and technologies for AM.
  • Technology packaging.
  • Manufacturability and design capabilities for AM.Picture19
  • Material localization.
  • Technological limits to broad applications.

WHAT STEPS:

  • Define collaborative projects/actions.
  • Exploring mechanisms of collaboration.
  • Link projects’ databases.
  • Mapping of AM capabilities and needs.

HOW:

  • IMS Conference / Workshop.
  • Linking research communities.
  • Contact pool / project pool.
  • “AM-Motion” H2020 CSA tools / events to keep interaction.
  • Connecting existing / ongoing activities.
  • Web-base.

BY WHOM:

  • IMS
  • Regional leaders
  • Paula Queipo – FOFAM

BY WHEN:

  • September 2016
  • February 2017
  • End 2017

HOW MEASURE SUCCESS

  • Best practices examples.
  • # Future actions.
  • Running web-base

Cluster 2: Additive Manufacturing Knowledge based Decision Support for Industry

CAXMAN was selected by IMS as the central project where a possible cluster could form based on the feedback from our inquiry prior to the workshop.

Picture20Cluster formation process:  

Round 1 interest from EDUCATE, NDTLBM, DESIGN, CIATEQ, CAXMAN, FOFAM, UASLP, VITRO, UANL

Round 2 interest from NDTLBM, DESIGN, HYGIENE, CIATEQ, CAXMAN, FOFAM, UASLP, UANL.

Round 3 final interest was expressed from iBUS, MANSYS, NDTLBM, CAxMAN.

IMS regions represented: EU

  

 

Cluster formed:  Additive Manufacturing Knowledge based Decision Support for Industry

CHAMPION: Jens Pottebann – iBUS (Interim)

[email protected]

 

Regional Leader:

Hans Van Toor – MANSYS (EU)

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:

  • Interoperability along product lifecycle.
  • Enabling industry with access to quality assurance and quality control for additive manufacturing.
  • Quality assurance.
  • Cloud based system.
  • Rules for design from metrology.
  • Quality vs. Feasibility vs. Economics Trade-offs.
  • Decision Support Software (DSS).
  • AM + Supply Chain Management (SCM).

KEY ACTIVITIES SCOPE (1/2):

  • Investigate potential for integration of cloud-based systems.Picture21
  • Packaging exiting tools with cloud-based systems.

KEY ACTIVITIES SCOPE (2/2):

  • As a starting incentive to share knowledge.
  • Incentives for knowledge sharing by industry.
  • Codifying knowledge.

WHAT STEPS:

  • Explore common interests in the group.
  • Identify opportunities for collaboration.
  • Decide on formalizing collaboration (in terms of IMS clustering).

HOW:

  • Discuss with FOFAM.
  • Discuss within consortia.
  • Utilize AM EU Consortium meetings.

BY WHOM:

  • Consortium leaders / representatives:

o   iBUS (EU)

o   MANSYS (EU)

o   CAxMAN (EU)

o   FOFAM (EU)

BY WHEN:

  • End of June (cp. CECIMO / AM platform events).

HOW MEASURE SUCCESS

  • Develop a roadmap for the cluster.

NEXT STEPS:

  • Partner search in other IMS Regions.