An editorial review of 2023, published in January 2024. Announcements, observations and expectations refer to that period.
Updated on January 4, 2024: the ARBURG solution was added to section 4.
2023 has been a very interesting year both from a business and a technology perspective. Whether it was through participation in trade shows, conversations with industry insiders and coverage that encompasses the adoption across vertical industries or companies’ latest developments, there was a lot to see and learn about. In this article, we have decided to highlight 10 important technology highlights that have marked 2023. Hopefully, they will provide some food for thought on how you should approach 2024.
1. A broader, more demanding DfAM toolbox
It all starts with design. Design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) requires an understanding of the available tools and how they contribute to part requirements. Our feature on the DfAM toolbox explored several approaches, including computational engineering models.
As Matthew Shomper told us, computational design is not for the faint of heart. The tools are rather inaccessible (with large learning curves) and it usually requires a dual knowledge of designing for requirements and aesthetics at the same time. Good design sense is a must, regardless of what’s being created, and computational design is not a ‘shortcut’ to get around solid engineering principles.
Understanding where these tools apply and where their limits lie can help shorten development, without removing the need for verification.
2. The expanding reach of ceramic 3D printing
Ceramic 3D printing particularly caught my attention in 2023. It was often less visible than metals and polymers in our conversations, but ceramics are not new to industry: they have long been used in demanding technical applications.
Artistic applications and technical ceramics should be distinguished. The porcelain filament offered by Nanoe and Cerinnov illustrates the former, rather than the full industrial scope of ceramic materials.
In energy, the European HyP3D project, launched in January 2023 with 3DCeram’s participation, aimed to develop 3D-printed solid oxide electrolysis cells for pressurized hydrogen production. Feedstocks such as zirconia 8Y, printing parameters and heat treatments are part of this development. These were research and validation objectives, rather than evidence of widespread industrial deployment.
3. New manufacturing approaches
Processes that caught our attention in 2023 included those from Rosotics and Fabric8Labs.
Rosotics presented “rapid induction printing”, using induction heating of conductive metal feedstock. Its Mantis prototype targeted large parts. Simplicity, energy efficiency and safety were manufacturer objectives; a comparison requires defined test conditions and measurable criteria.
Fabric8Labs develops Electrochemical Additive Manufacturing (ECAM), based on electrochemical metal deposition at room temperature. The company describes producing copper components without powder, wire or lasers, including on heat-sensitive substrates such as circuit boards. Building these geometries is distinct from simply applying a metal coating to an existing part.
Both concepts are intriguing and have raised debates across the community. Beyond delivering on their promise, will they address the challenges of speed and mass production, existing industrial 3D printers have to cope with?
Another 2023 development was Cold IOB, presented by voxeljet in June, combining sand and an inorganic binder for foundry moulds and cores. It avoids microwave treatment but still requires drying outside the printer.
4. Multi-material opportunities and limitations
The appeal of multi-material 3D printing is combining several materials in one part, without necessarily depositing them simultaneously. Challenges include compatibility, interfaces, material changes and, depending on the process, differences in shrinkage during subsequent treatment.
Lithoz announced the CeraFab Multi 2M30 in December 2020; its Formnext 2023 appearance was a trade-show premiere, not the machine’s initial launch. Lithoz described ceramic–ceramic, ceramic–polymer and ceramic–metal combinations. Their implementation depends on compatible materials and treatment conditions.
With the freeformer, ARBURG Plastic Freeforming (APF) processes qualified thermoplastic granules into deposited droplets. Depending on the configuration and materials, it supports multi-material parts and soluble support structures.
Other approaches also deserved attention: Quantica’s NovoJet OPEN and, separately, Aerosint’s selective powder deposition, acquired by Schaeffler in 2023. These technologies do not use the same process.
5. AI applications to evaluate
The year 2023 brought generative artificial intelligence, including ChatGPT, to wider attention. Text assistants should nevertheless be distinguished from the other AI applications already being explored in additive manufacturing.
Three areas deserve particular attention, with results to be assessed for each application:
- Predictive maintenance can use operational data to anticipate some interventions. Its effectiveness depends on the data, model and integration into maintenance practice.
- In design, exploring alternatives can help meet defined constraints. It does not guarantee superiority over every human design. Bias in data and objectives requires particular care, including for product accessibility for people with disabilities.
- In manufacturing, machine learning can help automate repetitive tasks, including in customization workflows. Suitability depends on the task, available data and human oversight.
Authentise introduced 3DGPT in June 2023, an assistant for querying additive-manufacturing publications and standards, providing references for some technical answers. Such a tool may help users find information, but its output does not replace reading the sources or engineering validation.
6. From process monitoring to part inspection
Quality assurance was already a focus in my 2022 review. In 2023, companies including Materialise, Phase3D and ZEISS continued to highlight inspection solutions. Monitoring during a build, analysing layer data and inspecting finished parts, including by computed tomography, should be distinguished: they are not all “real-time” inspection.
Earlier defect detection can avoid some operations on parts that will be scrapped. The benefit depends on the process, detectable defects and required inspections. Monitoring alone does not qualify a part.
7. Sharing parameters while retaining validation
In my 2023 conversations, including with Honeywell Aerospace experts, the lack of comparable characterization data was a recurring concern. The parameter marketplace developed by Rosswag, covered in our reporting from 2022, offered one approach to sharing data and reducing repeated development work.
The offer discussed at the time concerned laser powder bed fusion (LPBF). Extending the approach to other processes could be useful, but parameter sets do not transfer automatically: machine, powder, geometry and quality requirements must be considered and validated.
8. Continuing material development
Given the importance of materials in the manufacturing value chain, and the gap that still needs to be filled to develop materials for specific AM processes, I don’t think we will ever see an end-of-year review without any new material developments.
Tantalum did not make its AM debut in 2023. That year, Croom Medical and Global Advanced Metals presented their collaboration on its use in medical devices. The material has a history of medical applications; this does not establish that a new printed implant reduces clotting or revision surgery. Such benefits require evidence for the specific device and intended use.
We also followed environmental initiatives by producers such as Evonik and developments in bio-based materials. Bio-based origin alone does not establish a lower environmental impact: production, use, lifetime and end of life need to be assessed on a comparable basis.
9. Understanding adoption contexts
Conversations at US and European trade shows revealed different interests among individual participants. Thermwood’s approaches—Cut Layer Additive, assembling cut layers, and LSAM, depositing material—were among the subjects discussed. These field observations are not a representative measure of adoption by continent.
Some participants started with a comparison against a conventional process; others first considered AM’s specific capabilities. These differences cannot be reduced to nationality: sector, application, experience and financial constraints also matter.
Chinese manufacturers such as BLT and Eplus3D, including their international activity, were also part of our coverage. This should not be treated as a regional growth ranking without comparable data and a defined period.
Comparing markets therefore requires explicit applications and criteria, rather than assuming that every user on a continent adopts AM in the same way.
10. Comparing the total cost of solutions
Cost remains central. Comparing AM with another method requires consideration of volumes, equipment, materials, staffing, post-processing, inspections and yield. Speed, reliability and repeatability remain essential, measured against application requirements and the total cost per acceptable part.
What about you? What have been your key highlights of 2023?
Discover Part 1 of our 2023 review. This article has first been published in the November/December edition of 3D ADEPT Mag. Featured image: A variety of designs produced by Matthew Shomper. Credit: Matthew Shomper.
THE 3D ADEPT WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
The industry moves fast. Stay ahead.
Every week, the latest additive manufacturing news, in-depth features and real-world applications, straight to your inbox. Plus, be the first to know when a new issue of 3D ADEPT Mag is out.
Free · One email a week · Unsubscribe anytime
Clicking loads our email provider’s sign-up form, including its analytics and Google’s anti-bot protection. You’re only subscribed if you complete the sign-up. Read our privacy policy.