Archive — This feature records the views of Authentise, AMendate and Volume Graphics in 2019. Software integrations, roles and development plans refer to that period.
As additive manufacturing moves from individual builds towards connected production, data must travel between design, preparation, manufacturing and inspection systems. For this 2019 feature, experts from Authentise, AMendate and Volume Graphics discussed the obstacles and possible approaches.
Interoperability is the ability of systems to exchange information and use it meaningfully. In additive manufacturing, this includes geometry, design intent, process information and inspection results. Receiving a file does not by itself establish that its contents have been preserved or interpreted correctly.
Philip Sperling, Product manager Additive Manufacturing at Volume Graphics defines interoperability in AM as “the connection between different hardware and software components of the AM process chain.” “If you are looking at the complete AM process chain, e.g., for the powder bed fusion technologies, you will find a lot of equipment and software necessary to get to the finished part”, adds Philip Sperling.
In this vein, issues related to platform interoperability can be observed from and between design, manufacture, and post-process. An assertion that Dr Thomas Reiher, CEO and Co-Founder of AMendate GmbH confirms:
“Additive Manufacturing (AM) enables a digital process chain and thus fosters smart manufacturing. To be successful, the interoperability of AM is a fundamental factor. Consequently, the digital creation process has to be combined with actual manufacturing. There has to be an integrated process from and between design, manufacture, and post-processing.”
For Andre Wegner, Founder & CEO at Authentise, we speak most frequently about interoperability of data. For example, interoperability of design files, interoperability of machine data, etc. However, as we have seen in the literal definition, he laid emphasis on the fact that the term goes beyond the software level and can be studied in other fields.
Interoperability at the software level: Dependencies and related standards
At software level, the interviewees identified two recurring situations: integrating new manufacturing functions into existing tools, and exchanging information between separate tools during a design workflow.
The use of new features in software
CAD exchange can lose information such as construction history, parameters or constraints when a format or receiving system does not support it. The loss is not an inevitable consequence of using a standard: the exchanged content and its interpretation must be checked.
Such hurdle often results from the migration of some functions generally found in AM specific software to CAD software. Those functions might be “part placement in the build environment, design of support structures, or setting a build orientation.”
These functions are still a part of the AM process, but eventually will become a CAD design function. So, CAD software companies now develop those capabilities or integrate existing AM software into their software. “There is a need to capture the information associated with those functions in a [single] file for interoperability and long-term archiving and retrieval.”
This describes a development direction discussed in 2019, not a claim that every AM preparation function has since become a CAD function.
The use of several tools/ software during the design process
A complex part may require several applications for optimisation, simulation and build preparation. Each handover must preserve the information needed by the next stage.
“For highly complex parts, you have to make a lot of considerations when designing your part regarding the function and how to make it “printable”. During this process, you have to use different software solutions that cover single design steps, e.g., the topology optimization, the lattice design, positioning of support structures, force and build simulation, as well as build preparation. These different solutions may not integrate properly to convey original design intent”, explains Volume Graphics Product Manager Additive Manufacturing.
The integration of AM has certainly the potential to reduce time and cost during the production process. However, “it’s currently still too cumbersome to move a part from idea through design, through manufacturing preparation and production. Multiple tools are involved [and] interoperability allows us to reduce the number of tools, the number of steps and effort required”, adds the founder & CEO of Authentise.
In this specific case though, manufacturers still have a long way to go before reaching stable compatibility between all processes. For AMendate GmbH’s CEO, the understanding of the issue seems clear in theory but, in practice, “continuous and thorough integration is usually more difficult than expected to implement and many small details cause major problems. However, compatibility [between solutions] is only really interesting and seamless if we also embrace the physical level of production and post-processing. On the one hand, data must arrive at the machine entirely and correctly and [must] be processed. On the other hand, though, it is also important to ensure that findings from production flow back into the software. When we have a constant flow of information back here and [when we will] continuously adapt and align the software [for] production, we will have a stable compatibility in the future.
Nowadays, compatibility is more important than ever. Intensive cooperation takes place at various levels. Data, processes and products must be exchanged efficiently to carry out this cooperation effectively and quickly. Compatibility is the lubricant of a well-functioning system. [A few years ago, the improvements were not as significant as expected on the compatibility of different machines, software and companies]. Nowadays, in terms of Industry 4.0 and smart factory, this is a significant advancement. Companies such as Hexagon are working on a broad basis for interoperability of software and machines and thus guide the engineers in their daily business.”
Approaches to a connected workflow
The practical question is how to link tools and machines while preserving the information required at each stage.
A successful exchange must be tested against the intended workflow: geometric consistency alone may not preserve process settings, design constraints or inspection traceability.
The interviewees outlined different ways to approach these interfaces.
Their approaches share an integration objective, but do not necessarily deliver identical functions or results: connectors, common data formats and integrated optimisation tools address different parts of the workflow.
While Authentise’ Andre Wegner uses the words “Open Standards” to talk about the ideal way to reach interoperable manufacturing, Philip Sperling, on the other hand, talks about “a standardized, scalable file format for AM that enables interoperability through all the different process steps—design, printing, post processing, and inspection.”
Andre Wegner first explains his point:
“In the absence of open standards for machine data (or, rather, standards still being established), Authentise is working on interoperability by providing a connector to different machine data types. Currently, Authentise already integrates data from HP, EOS, SLM, Carbon, Stratasys, 3D Systems and many others.
In addition, Authentise’s open, modular infrastructure allows integration into existing IT systems as well as the integration of 3rd party modules, such as mesh healing and support algorithms. This means that users no longer have to interface with different systems, but can manage the pre-production processing for various machines in one, seamless interface.
Finally, the integrations Authentise has built into other 3rd party systems enable further interoperability. One example is the integration with Autodesk Netfabb, which allows users to switch seamlessly between CAD and production planning. Another example is our integration with Microsoft Flows, which enables additive interoperability between hundreds of different online services to empower operators to create their workflows.”
Philip Sperling clarifies his assertion:
“Since users have to work with different programs, they also have to work with different file formats and interfaces with many constraints between them – not to mention the added challenges of varying interfaces and workflows, and even interpretation of data and results.
As we are offering [a] software solution [that analyzes] industrial CT data sets, we get a lot of requests from the Additive Manufacturing industry. Sometimes we encounter some of the consequences of missing interoperability as users send us different files for the nominal-actual comparison with CT data. We then receive single files for the part, the lattice design and the support structures—all of which makes our process for completing the analysis more complicated.
We try to make our customers’ lives easier by supporting a lot of data formats to import and export in our software solution.”
Dr Thomas Reiher, on the other hand, still lays emphasis on the “compatibility” argument:
“The lack of compatibility was one of the triggers for the foundation of our company. When optimizing components, the conventional process is characterized by the fact that different software solutions are necessary to achieve a result with a lot of manual work. Data exchange between these programs, however, led to information losses due to data conversions, [which] degraded data situation.
With AMendate these conversions are no longer necessary. The software integrates all relevant steps in one software and automates them. The result is a fully integrated, automated optimization process in which compatibility for previous and subsequent operations plays a crucial role.
This considerably simplifies the work process. In the next step, we are working on integrating Simufact’ s production simulation into our design process. Once this is implemented, AMendate will foster the integration with other MSC products to enable a consistent data workflow with down- and upstream applications such as MSC Adams (multibody simulation), MSC Nastran (high detail FEM-Simulation) and CNC-machining.
In the end, our solution can be optimally leveraged directly on the selected machine, without any significant intermediate steps in a single, continuous digital chain.”
The integrations and future steps described in these interviews reflect the 2019 discussions. They are not a current compatibility list or confirmation that each planned integration was delivered.
What interoperability needs to achieve
An interoperable workflow should reduce avoidable manual transfers while preserving the information needed to design, manufacture and assess a part. It requires validation of data exchange; security and access control must also be addressed rather than assumed from connectivity.
This can involve a single integrated application or several connected tools. NIST’s systems-integration work identifies design information, geometry, process data, materials and traceability as related requirements across the manufacturing chain.
The interviews show why a common file format is only part of the answer. Manufacturers must define which information crosses each interface and verify how the next system uses it.
A few words on the participating companies:
Founded by Andre Wegner, Authentise provides the additive manufacturing industry with process automation software. Its tool automatically monitors active prints and identifies Key Performance Indicators in the production environment.
AMendate was founded by Thomas Reiher, Steffen Vogelsang, Anne Düchting and Gereon Deppe to automate design optimisation. On 24 June 2019, Hexagon announced an agreement to acquire the company for integration into its MSC Software business.
Volume Graphics develops software for analysing and visualising industrial computed tomography data. This supports inspection and quality assessment; the software alone does not guarantee a component’s conformity.
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.