New orders, production and employment growing; supplier deliveries slowing; inventories contracting.
Economic activity in the manufacturing sector expanded in March, and the overall economy grew for the 94th consecutive month, say the nation's supply executives in the latest Manufacturing ISM Report On Business.
The report was issued today by Bradley J. Holcomb, CPSM, CPSD, chair of the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) Manufacturing Business Survey Committee: "The March PMI registered 57.2%, a decrease of 0.5 percentage point from the February reading of 57.7%. The New Orders Index registered 64.5%, a decrease of 0.6 percentage point from the February reading of 65.1%. The Production Index registered 57.6%, 5.3 percentage points lower than the February reading of 62.9%. The Employment Index registered 58.9%, an increase of 4.7 percentage points from the February reading of 54.2%. Inventories of raw materials registered 49%, a decrease of 2.5 percentage points from the February reading of 51.5%. The Prices Index registered 70.5% in March, an increase of 2.5 percentage points from the February reading of 68%, indicating higher raw materials prices for the 13th consecutive month. Consistent with generally positive comments from the panel, all 18 industries reported growth in new orders for the month of March."
Of the 18 manufacturing industries, 17 reported growth in March in the following order: Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Printing & Related Support Activities; Furniture & Related Products; Textile Mills; Machinery; Primary Metals; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Wood Products; Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Plastics & Rubber Products; Paper Products; Transportation Equipment; Chemical Products; Computer & Electronic Products; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Fabricated Metal Products; and Petroleum & Coal Products. No industry reported contraction in March compared to February.
MANUFACTURING AT A GLANCE March 2017
Manufacturing ISM Report On Business data is seasonally adjusted for the New Orders, Production, Employment and Supplier Deliveries Indexes. *Number of months moving in current direction.
COMMODITIES REPORTED UP/DOWN IN PRICE AND IN SHORT SUPPLY
Commodities up in price Acetone; Acrylates; Aluminum (5); Butadiene (3); Caustic Soda (2); Copper (5); Corrugate (6); Corrugated Boxes; Corrugated Packaging; Foam; HDPE; Nylon; Plastic Resin; Polypropylene (2); Rubber — Natural (2); Scrap Metal (2); Stainless Steel (12); Steel (15); Steel Tubing (2); Steel — Carbon (4); Steel — Cold Rolled (5); Steel — Hot Rolled (4); and Titanium Dioxide (4).
Commodities down in price None.
Commodities in short supply Capacitors; Electronic Components; and Methacrylates.
Note: The number of consecutive months the commodity is listed is indicated after each item.
PMI Manufacturing expanded in March as the PMI registered 57.2 percent, a decrease of 0.5 percentage point from the February reading of 57.7 percent, indicating growth in manufacturing for the seventh consecutive month. A reading above 50 percent indicates that the manufacturing economy is generally expanding; below 50 percent indicates that it is generally contracting.
A PMI above 43.3 percent, over a period of time, generally indicates an expansion of the overall economy. Therefore, the March PMI indicates growth for the 94th consecutive month in the overall economy and the seventh straight month of growth in the manufacturing sector. Holcomb stated, "The past relationship between the PMI and the overall economy indicates that the average PMI for January through March (57 percent) corresponds to a 4.3 percent increase in real gross domestic product (GDP) on an annualized basis. In addition, if the PMI for March (57.2 percent) is annualized, it corresponds to a 4.4 percent increase in real GDP annually."
Average for 12 months – 53.2 High – 57.7 Low – 49.4
New orders ISM's New Orders Index registered 64.5% in March, which is a decrease of 0.6 percentage point when compared to the 65.1% reported for February, indicating growth in new orders for the seventh consecutive month. A New Orders Index above 52.3%, over time, is generally consistent with an increase in the Census Bureau's series on manufacturing orders (in constant 2000 dollars).
All 18 industries reported growth in new orders in March, listed in the following order: Wood Products; Printing & Related Support Activities; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Paper Products; Plastics & Rubber Products; Primary Metals; Furniture & Related Products; Machinery; Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Transportation Equipment; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Textile Mills; Chemical Products; Computer & Electronic Products; Fabricated Metal Products; Petroleum & Coal Products; and Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products.
Production ISM's Production Index registered 57.6% in March, which is a decrease of 5.3 percentage points when compared to the 62.9% reported for February, indicating growth in production for the seventh consecutive month. An index above 51.4%, over time, is generally consistent with an increase in the Federal Reserve Board's Industrial Production figures.
The 17 industries reporting growth in production during the month of March — listed in order — are: Textile Mills; Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Furniture & Related Products; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Machinery; Printing & Related Support Activities; Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Fabricated Metal Products; Primary Metals; Transportation Equipment; Chemical Products; Petroleum & Coal Products; Plastics & Rubber Products; Paper Products; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; and Computer & Electronic Products. No industry reported a decrease in March compared to February.
Employment ISM's Employment Index registered 58.9% in March, an increase of 4.7 percentage points when compared to the February reading of 54.2%, indicating growth in employment in March for the sixth consecutive month. This is the highest reading since June 2011, when the Employment Index registered 61.3 percent. An Employment Index above 50.5%, over time, is generally consistent with an increase in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data on manufacturing employment.
Of the 18 manufacturing industries, the 14 reporting employment growth in March — listed in order — are: Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Printing & Related Support Activities; Furniture & Related Products; Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Primary Metals; Paper Products; Machinery; Transportation Equipment; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Computer & Electronic Products; Plastics & Rubber Products; Fabricated Metal Products; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; and Chemical Products. The three industries reporting a decrease in employment in March are: Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Petroleum & Coal Products; and Textile Mills.
Supplier deliveries The delivery performance of suppliers to manufacturing organizations was slower in March, as the Supplier Deliveries Index registered 55.9%, which is 1.1 percentage points higher than the 54.8% reported for February. A reading below 50% indicates faster deliveries, while a reading above 50% indicates slower deliveries.
The 12 industries reporting slower supplier deliveries in March — listed in order — are: Textile Mills; Machinery; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Chemical Products; Petroleum & Coal Products; Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Plastics & Rubber Products; Computer & Electronic Products; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Transportation Equipment; and Fabricated Metal Products. Six industries reported no change in supplier deliveries in March compared to February. No industry reported faster supplier deliveries in March compared to February.
Inventories* The Inventories Index registered 49% in March, which is a decrease of 2.5 percentage points when compared to the 51.5% reported for February, indicating raw materials inventories are contracting in March. An Inventories Index greater than 42.9%, over time, is generally consistent with expansion in the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) figures on overall manufacturing inventories (in chained 2000 dollars).
The eight industries reporting higher inventories in March — listed in order — are: Textile Mills; Furniture & Related Products; Printing & Related Support Activities; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Primary Metals; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; and Computer & Electronic Products. The six industries reporting lower inventories in March — listed in order — are: Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Fabricated Metal Products; Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Transportation Equipment; Chemical Products; and Machinery.
Customers' inventories* ISM's Customers' Inventories Index registered 47% in March, which is 0.5 percentage point lower than the 47.5%reported for February, indicating that customers' inventory levels are considered too low in March for the sixth consecutive month.
The two manufacturing industries reporting customers' inventories as being too high during the month of March are: Primary Metals; and Transportation Equipment. The nine industries reporting customers' inventories as too low during March — listed in order — are: Textile Mills; Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Plastics & Rubber Products; Paper Products; Chemical Products; Machinery; Fabricated Metal Products; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; and Computer & Electronic Products. Six industries reported no change in customer inventories in March compared to February.
Prices* The ISM Prices Index registered 70.5% in March, an increase of 2.5 percentage points when compared to the February reading of 68%, indicating an increase in raw materials prices for the 13th consecutive month. The March reading is the highest since May 2011, when the Prices Index registered 76.5%. In March, 47% of respondents reported paying higher prices, 6% reported paying lower prices, and 47 percent of supply executives reported paying the same prices as in February. A Prices Index above 52.4%, over time, is generally consistent with an increase in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Producer Price Index for Intermediate Materials.
Of the 18 manufacturing industries, the 16 that reported paying increased prices for its raw materials in March — listed in order — are: Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Plastics & Rubber Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Textile Mills; Fabricated Metal Products; Primary Metals; Paper Products; Chemical Products; Machinery; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Transportation Equipment; Furniture & Related Products; Computer & Electronic Products; and Petroleum & Coal Products. No industry reported paying lower prices during the month of March compared to February.
Backlog of orders* ISM's Backlog of Orders Index registered 57.5% in March, an increase of 0.5 percentage point from the 57% reported for February, indicating growth in order backlogs for the second consecutive month. Of the 89 percent of respondents who reported their backlog of orders, 27% reported greater backlogs, 12% reported smaller backlogs, and 61% reported no change from February.
The 13 industries reporting growth in order backlogs in March — listed in order — are: Textile Mills; Wood Products; Furniture & Related Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Plastics & Rubber Products; Transportation Equipment; Machinery; Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Paper Products; Computer & Electronic Products; Chemical Products; Fabricated Metal Products; and Primary Metals. The only industry reporting a decrease in order backlogs during March is Miscellaneous Manufacturing.
New export orders* ISM's New Export Orders Index registered 59% in March, an increase of 4 percentage points when compared to the 55% reported for February, indicating growth in new export orders for the 13th consecutive month. This is the highest reading since November 2013, when the index registered 59.5%.
The 11 industries reporting growth in new export orders in March — listed in order — are: Wood Products; Furniture & Related Products; Transportation Equipment; Chemical Products; Paper Products; Computer & Electronic Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products; Fabricated Metal Products; Machinery; and Miscellaneous Manufacturing. The only industry reporting a decrease in new export orders during March is Plastics & Rubber Products. Six industries reported no change in new export orders in March compared to February.
Imports* ISM's Imports Index registered 53.5% in March, a decrease of 0.5 percentage point when compared to the 54%reported for February, indicating that imports are growing in March for the second consecutive month.
The 10 industries reporting growth in imports during the month of March — listed in order — are: Textile Mills; Paper Products; Furniture & Related Products; Fabricated Metal Products; Nonmetallic Mineral Products; Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components; Chemical Products; Transportation Equipment; Miscellaneous Manufacturing; and Computer & Electronic Products. The four industries reporting a decrease in imports during March are: Apparel, Leather & Allied Products; Plastics & Rubber Products; Machinery; and Food, Beverage & Tobacco Products.
* The Inventories, Customers' Inventories, Prices, Backlog of Orders, New Export Orders and Imports Indexes do not meet the accepted criteria for seasonal adjustments.
Buying policy Average commitment lead time for Capital Expenditures decreased in March by 1 day to 140 days. Average lead time for Production Materials decreased by 2 days to 59 days. Average lead time for Maintenance, Repair and Operating (MRO) Supplies decreased by 2 days to 31 days.
Frank Reinauer, head of innovation and production of biomaterials at Karl Leibinger Medizintechnik, consistently relies on additively manufactured implants to manufacture patient-specific implants.
The name Karl Leibinger Medizintechnik has been synonymous since 1979 with implants in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Karl Leibinger Medizintechnik is a company that belongs to the KLS Martin Group. Resorbable implants were added in 2000. The most recent development are patient-specific individual implants for correction through distraction and osteosynthesis in the event of traumas or deformities. Initially manufactured by conventional means, since 2013 these implants have also been manufactured additively. This is based on the LaserCUSING process from Concept Laser, whose M2 cusing machine is used at Karl Leibinger Medizintechnik. Behind this lies a simple basic approach, which has the ability to transform surgery for the individual patient rather than being a standard solution. To manufacture patient-specific implants, Frank Reinauer, head of innovation and production of biomaterials at Karl Leibinger Medizintechnik, now consistently relies on additively manufactured implants.
Distraction osteogenesis and titanium osteosynthesis Distraction osteogenesis can be traced back to the Russian surgeon Gavril Ilizarov, who used it for the first time in the 1950s in Russia. Distraction osteogenesis involves the extension of bones. Sometimes a bone forgets to grow. The distraction reminds the bone to grow again. It is encouraged to fulfill the genetically prescribed blueprint. For this reason, it is usually sufficient, for example in the pediatric treatment of craniosynostosis, to perform a one-off operation in order to open and distract the ossifying skull so that the brain is given the space it needs to grow. The procedure also became established in the West at the end of the 1980s.
Today it is impossible to imagine the clinical practice of CMF surgery without it. What is more: Distraction osteogenesis is the procedure of choice in many cases. KLS Martin has come up with numerous innovative distraction systems to help to establish this technique globally in operating rooms for craniomaxillofacial surgery. There is hardly any problem that KLS Martin cannot solve with a distractor specially designed for it. Distraction is usually carried out in the midface and on the jaw. KLS Martin is one of the world’s leading suppliers of many of the essential items for operations in CMF surgery – ranging from plates, meshes, screws, pins, distractors, patient-specific implants through to lasers, HF equipment, surgical lights, and sterilization containers.
The second key concept is titanium osteosynthesis. This involves giving the bone new stability. The impetus for this advanced development in the field of osteosynthesis was provided by Professor Maxime Champy. Thanks to his revolutionary observations in relation to the biomechanics of the cranium, KLS Martin is one of the world’s leading specialists in this field. Particularly in orthognathic and reconstructive surgery, nowadays doctors must constantly face up to new challenges. A high degree of ambition and vision in combination with many years of experience is therefore absolutely crucial for developing suitable solutions. KLS Martin meets these high requirements with state-of-the-art manufacturing technologies and perfect collaboration between scientists and users.
For each individual patient rather than a standard solution A surgeon today essentially decides between three types of craniomaxillofacial implants: plastic implants, for example made of polyether ether ketone (PEEK); deep-drawn metal sheets, titanium mesh, titanium solid; and now also additively manufactured titanium implants. Due to its excellent biocompatibility and its high resistance to corrosion titanium has gained immense popularity and has successfully established itself as the material of choice in the medical field. Other than PEEK, where there is absolutely no bone ingrowth, it allows the bone to grow and is therefore the perfect material for implants in combination with lattice structures made by additive manufacturing. Depending on the indication, titanium implants are developed individually and manufactured conventionally as a mesh or as a high-strength solid reconstruction version.
There was the obvious thought of why manufacture by conventional means if an additive approach was also possible.
“We have of course long had our eye on the additive approach. But we also had very precise notions of what the machine needed to be capable of. After the first decade of 3D metal printing, the time seemed to have come to get involved,” Reinauer says.
However, initially there was the hurdle of investing in AM (additive manufacturing) to overcome.
“If you make a decision based purely on economics, then you shy away from the risk and tell yourself to let others try it first. But in our case – we are an owner-managed company – the management quickly recognized the future opportunities that lay in store for us. The decision to get involved was made for strategic reasons, and this was absolutely the right decision. We purchased our first AM machine from Concept Laser in 2013,” Reinauer says.
This decision, balancing the desire for innovation and the assessment of risk, proved to be a fruitful one: The complex part requirements for medical implants, even in light of very complicated rules and regulations, meant that the AM machine very quickly paid for itself. Given the pressure of time for an operating room, the amount of time saved with tool-free manufacturing should also not be underestimated. But above all the strategic decision was an important driver because an additively manufactured titanium implant for an individual patient is a giant leap forward for clinical practice. The increasing spread of these implants around the world is also reflected in the fact that they are now a significant revenue driver for the company.
Embarking upon additive manufacturing with metals When embarking upon 3D metal printing, according to Frank Reinauer, it was necessary to overcome initial hurdles in process validation.
“It took us around nine months to get through this preparatory phase because the regulations and general conditions in medical technology are extremely meticulous,” Reinauer says.
Initially the CE mark has to be acquired. In addition, DIN Standard 13485 and the guidelines of the United States Food and Drug Administration have to be complied with.
“There are then also special regulations for certain countries. The versions of the Medical Devices Act and the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) also provide a basis. In addition, there are of course also audits by authorities that we are required to undergo. However, once you have actually gone through this stage, this also teaches us a great deal as a manufacturer and thus gives us a crucial competitive advantage,” according to Reinauer.
Titanium as the benchmark: implants made to measure After we started using 3D metal printing, it very quickly became apparent that laser melting was the method of choice for titanium osteosynthesis. Now it is even possible to produce large-scale reconstructions with complex geometries. In addition, the geometric freedom can also cater for specific esthetic requirements. For the surgeon, it is not just about restoring functionality, but also always about the esthetic look. The parts have high strength, and the material is biocompatible. Even those with allergies can receive titanium extremely well.
“From numerous aspects we view titanium as providing the benchmark for implant technology,” Reinauer says.
Additive manufacturing with metal also offers the opportunity to manufacture specific partial surface roughnesses of the implant so that it can fuse with the bone very quickly at the edges of the implant.
“But there is another very important aspect in favor of additively manufactured titanium implants: the patient-specific geometry and precision fit. Ultimately this means a high level of functionality,” Reinauer explains.
The surgeon can use imaging techniques such as CT (computed tomography) or MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) to cater for the specific anatomy of an individual patient. The engineers from Karl Leibinger Medizintechnik process this data to create STL data which serves as the initial data for 3D construction and manufacturing on a M2 cusing from Concept Laser.
Manufacture of laser-melted individual implants One can refer to a digital process chain at Karl Leibinger. The parts are built up on the M2 cusing very promptly, and even large-scale parts can be accommodated in a build envelope of 250mm x 250mm x 280 mm (X, Y, Z). The M2 cusing is designed in line with ATEX guidelines and thus makes it possible to process reactive materials like titanium or titanium alloys safely.
“When it comes to processing reactive materials, Concept Laser has undoubtedly set the benchmark for safety and with a contamination-free concept for manufacturing additive parts,” Reinauer notes.
Like all machine solutions from Concept Laser, for reasons of user-friendliness and safety the M2 cusing also features physical separation of the process chamber and handling area. It is robust and suitable for three-shift operation. After the parts have been built up, the parts are heat-treated to reduce tension, and then sterilized and packaged in a Class 7 cleanroom.
Demand is growing The use of these implants is expanding. There are currently more than 20 engineers employed worldwide on handling assignments for clinics. Karl Leibinger Medizintechnik offers surgeons a transparent order handling system. It is a web-based platform which is controlled via an APP. On the clinic site the surgeon stipulates the patient data, geometric demands and the date of the operation. In addition to the patient-specific implants, anatomical models for optimum presurgical planning can also be requested on this site. It is often also necessary to cater for special requests in the construction, for example when removing a tumor that needs to be planned on a larger scale. For complicated interventions, Karl Leibinger Medizintechnik then also offers a complete implant kit which can be installed very quickly and precisely in an operation. Before making the decision to fabricate, the doctor sees a draft design and a price quotation. This means we are able to supply additively manufactured implants for an operation within a week. The specific geometry and precision fit are crucial in the operation because they shorten the operating time, reduce the risk of the operation, and the surgeon can concentrate on the actual operation itself. The patient benefits from a safe operation and a quicker recovery.
Aspects of additively manufactured, patient-individual implants made of titanium
CAD/CAM software helps contract design house NOVO Engineering create stable designs that it transfers to contract manufacturers around the globe.
For the past 14 years, NOVO Engineering’s creative, yet practical solutions have formed the basis for a variety of popular medical devices, life science automation, digital imaging equipment, and commercial products from clients such as Medtronic, Synthetic Genomics, Hewlett- Packard, and TaylorMade. NOVO engineers appear as inventors on a broad range of patents, with commercial rights usually assigned to clients. The company’s start-to-finish contract design service offers concept development, engineering, prototyping, fabrication, testing, and transition to manufacturing.
“We do a lot of prototyping and fabrication as part of our ISO-13485 certified product development process. We are not a contract manufacturer but are ISO-9001 certified for prototype builds including medical devices used for human clinical trials,” says NOVO President and Chief Technology Officer Dr. Rajan Ramaswamy. “We have helped many clients create stable designs, and then assisted them in transferring these designs to contract manufacturers all over the world.”
The company has a 26,000ft2 facility in Vista, California, and a 12,000ft2 design, testing lab, and prototype shop in Eden Prairie, Minnesota. The prototype shop offers CNC turning and milling, fused deposition modeling (FDM) and PolyJet 3D printing technologies and other processes including surface grinding and welding. More than 50 design engineers use SolidWorks as their primary 3D mechanical computer-aided design (MCAD) platform. Completed designs are submitted electronically via the company’s network to the machine shop for prototyping, and are directly imported into Mastercam, CAD/CAM software from CNC Software based in Tolland, Connecticut.
NOVO’s team of engineers and machinists must take a methodical approach to tackling complex projects such as this nest plate for a thermal cycler.
NOVO Engineering was a Beta test site for Mastercam 2017. When NOVO’s Machinist Leo Castellon ran into challenges programming such small parts, he found the Mastercam Beta forum to be invaluable when seeking advice on how to work with unconventional specifications.
When the most unusual of parts comes through, he can go to one of the many Mastercam forums and someone will give advice.
“It’s hard to find other software or CAD/CAM program companies that have such a large user base with sharable knowledge,” says Castellon, who also notes that he talks to the software’s developers on the forums.
Ramaswamy emphasizes that NOVO’s focus on research and development generates unique challenges and the team of engineers and machinists must take a methodical approach to tackling these projects.
“These parts are unusual, with complex geometries and tight tolerances, and careful planning of the machining activity is a big part of getting it all right,” he says. “Unique and one-off parts do not lend themselves to the speed and volume that traditional shops rely upon to turn a profit, but are a good fit for NOVO.”
Each of NOVO’s industry sectors generates different challenges. Drug delivery systems, such as wearable injectors, routinely use tiny components; scientific instruments require high precision or unusual materials; and optical devices rely on tight assembly tolerances. Engineers design parts in SolidWorks and transfer to Mastercam via the SolidWorks plug-in feature. Design changes are simple to make and don’t trigger extensive reprogramming.
“We do a lot of iterations of our parts, so if we make a change in SolidWorks, we can quickly pick it up in Mastercam and regenerate the model to create the new geometry. Mastercam will pick up the right code,” notes Leo Castellon, machinist at NOVO.
With Mastercam, engineers can streamline design changes, regenerating a model to create the new geometry. An example was a prototype part for a beam splitter. The material was a soft plastic that would be exposed to direct light, and a smooth surface was required to avoid image distortion.
Through systematic trial and error, the team came up with a prototype that had a surface smooth enough to meet the optical requirement, yet strong enough to withstand the impact of a drop onto concrete. The team went through six iterations of that design, and while it sounds time-consuming, NOVO President and CTO Dr. Rajan Ramaswamy is quick to point out how the Mastercam plug-in supports rapid iteration.
“Regardless of the improvements made in computer simulation tools, prototype and test iterations remain an essential part of the development process for the types of products that NOVO develops,” Ramaswamy says. “This is especially important when developing medical products that require extensive FDA testing, often necessitating the fabrication of dozens of prototypes to support all the required verification and validation tests.”
Many of the parts NOVO engineers work on require tolerances within 0.002", on small features. For example, drilling 0.008" diameter holes through stainless steel or plastics.
“With medical devices, you’re working with parts where the hole diameter is frequently well below 0.040". Orders for some of the parts have us going through 0.120" of material with an 0.008" diameter hole,” Ramaswamy notes.
Frequently asked to innovate on parts fabrication, NOVO engineers collaborate directly with machinists to figure out design changes, fixturing, or machining changes that will help make a part feasible for fabrication. Mastercam’s toolpath selections offer more options to machinists on challenging parts.
Castellon explains that each machinist notes the required tolerances and geometries, designs any workpiece fixtures, sets up the CNC machines, machines the part, inspects it, and then releases it for assembly and testing.
“We use the Dynamic toolpaths because they’re so efficient in removing a large volume of material,” Castellon says.
Proprietary algorithms in the software intelligently detect changes in the geometry, allowing the tool to have greater engagement with the material for higher material removal rates. Machinists also find Mastercam’s 12+ plus surfacing toolpaths useful on complex parts because one toolpath typically can’t perform all the functions required. When machining plastic, the Dynamic toolpaths have often taken the machining time down from 10 min. to 30 sec.
“It’s much more efficient in the way it uses the tool,” Castellon says. “Plus, it’s much easier to program with Dynamic toolpaths – there is less geometry creation because they are intelligent.”
A frequent question Ramaswamy is asked is why they do not use 3D printing for all plastic parts. He responds that while NOVO uses 3D printing extensively, the technology “isn’t quite there yet” for creating many geometry/tolerance/material combinations required to prototype complex medical devices. In those cases, CNC machining is the preferred process.
For parts thinner than 0.020" the team does not use Dynamic toolpaths.“The controller can’t keep up with the processing speeds and that’s a limitation with our CNC machine,” says NOVO Engineering’s Machinist Leo Castellon. “The machine has to catch up. So, when I use the Dynamic toolpath at the smallest, I am using maybe a 0.0625" diameter end mill. Anything less and there are problems with not being able to process the code fast enough to keep up.” Instead, Castellon uses 3D legacy toolpaths for the smaller parts.
The company’s environment might be fast-paced – needing to turn prototypes around quickly – but that doesn’t prevent machinists from experimenting to find the ideal formula for swift product delivery.
Castellon relies on his colleagues who have more than 30 years of experience working with heavy metals for the more traditional machining jobs, but he usually handles the more complex surfacing work. All the machinists do their own programming, setup, and machining from start to finish.
Machinists use tool libraries to create their own tools. For example one project required a 4" diameter end mill, so machinists created it in the tool library, imported it to ensure clearances were right, and verified that it met the application needs. The company rarely does repeat jobs, if an application is akin to something they have done before, machinists locate a similar tool in the library, regenerate the geometry, and Mastercam will pick it up.
“This is such a fast-paced environment. When we bring in a solid model, we need to have a finished part the next day. It has to be really efficient and Mastercam helps us with that,” Castellon says.
NOVO’s focus on innovation and customer service have made it the go-to partner for some of industry’s top companies when they need design, prototyping, and testing for complex electromechanical products. The company’s development process and seamless transfer of CAD designs into CAM software allows experimentation and creativity that’s proven to generate quality results.
This article originally appeared in the April 2017 issue of TMD.
‘There is a feeling of optimism in the air that is backed up by the positive growth the cutting tool market data shows after the first 2 months of the year,’ says Steve Stokey, president of USCTI.
February U.S. cutting tool consumption totaled $174.98 million according to the U.S. Cutting Tool Institute (USCTI) and AMT – The Association For Manufacturing Technology. This total, as reported by companies participating in the Cutting Tool Market Report (CTMR) collaboration, was up 1.1% from January’s $173.05 million and up 0.6% when compared with the total of $173.88 million reported for February 2016. With a year-to-date total of $348.02 million, 2017 is up 4.5% when compared with 2016.
These numbers and all data in this report are based on the totals reported by the companies participating in the CTMR program. The totals here represent the majority of the U.S. market for cutting tools.
“There is a feeling of optimism in the air that is backed up by the positive growth the cutting tool market data shows after the first 2 months of the year,” says Steve Stokey, president of USCTI. “Manufacturing continues to be a hot topic and continues to have a seat at the table in the new Trump administration. The strong dollar will continue to challenge our ability to export but with the US automotive and aerospace markets remaining steady, it should provide a firm foundation for growth as the other industrial sectors rebound from a weak 2016. This should bode well for cutting tool manufacturers.”
Scott Hazelton, managing director of economics & country risk at IHS Markit adds that “The economy is enjoying improved business and consumer confidence, resulting in strong momentum in employment growth and single family housing as well as a rebound in nondefense capital spending, including the important energy sector. Consumption of cutting tools is forecasted to respond with increasing growth over the year. Acceleration of growth in 2018 is expected as tax reform and infrastructure investment enhance the investment outlook.”
The Cutting Tool Market Report is jointly compiled by AMT and USCTI, two trade associations representing the development, production and distribution of cutting tool technology and products. It provides a monthly statement on U.S. manufacturers’ consumption of the primary consumable in the manufacturing process – the cutting tool. Analysis of cutting tool consumption is a leading indicator of both upturns and downturns in U.S. manufacturing activity, as it is a true measure of actual production levels.
Historical data for the Cutting Tool Market Report is available dating back to January 2012. This collaboration of AMT and USCTI is the first step in the two associations working together to promote and support U.S.-based manufacturers of cutting tool technology.
Cutting tool market report FAQs what is the cutting tool market report? The Cutting Tool Market Report (CTMR) program measures gross cutting tool shipments each month based on data collected from manufacturers by the United States Cutting Tool Institute (USCTI) and AMT - The Association For Manufacturing Technology. The report provides national U.S consumption data of domestic and imported tools, including domestically produced and imported.
What are cutting tools? Cutting tools are used in machine tools to shape raw material into parts or remove additional material from existing parts. Examples of cutting tools include drills, countersinks, taps, milling cutters, boring bars, indexable inserts, and many others.
Why is the CTMR important? Cutting tools are a consumable product used to turn raw materials into intermediate goods and intermediate goods into finished goods. Because tooling needs to be replaced relatively frequently, trends in U.S. cutting tool shipments are a good measure of overall manufacturing activity. Official Census statistics on cutting tools are only published once a year, so the monthly CTMR figures are important to business owners and decision makers who need a more frequent indicator of market conditions. Cutting tools have much shorter lead times than machine tools and other capital equipment, which means sales figures are much less volatile from month to month and react more quickly to changes in manufacturing activity.
Who owns the CTMR? The report is a joint effort of the United States Cutting Tool Institute (USCTI) and AMT - The Association For Manufacturing Technology. Each organization collects and reports statistics via survey, and the CTMR figures represent a combined total after accounting for overlapping survey contributions.
It promises to enable myriad applications across biomedical devices, 3D electronics, and consumer products; it even opens the door to a new paradigm in product design.
(Photo, above: A lattice created by a multi-material 3D printer at Georgia Institute of Technology that can permanently expand to eight times its original width after exposure to heat. Photo credit: Rob Felt)
A team of researchers from Georgia Institute of Technology and two other institutions has developed a new 3D printing method to create objects that can permanently transform into a range of different shapes in response to heat.
The team, including researchers from the Singapore University of Technology and Design (SUTD) and Xi'an Jiaotong University in China, created the objects by printing layers of shape memory polymers with each layer designed to respond differently when exposed to heat.
“This new approach significantly simplifies and increases the potential of 4D printing by incorporating the mechanical programming post-processing step directly into the 3D printing process,” says Jerry Qi, a professor in the George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering at Georgia Tech. “This allows high-resolution 3D printed components to be designed by computer simulation, 3D printed, and then directly and rapidly transformed into new permanent configurations by simply heating.”
The research is reported in the journal Science Advances, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The work is funded by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the U.S. National Science Foundation and the Singapore National Research Foundation through the SUTD DManD Centre.
Their development of the new 3D printed objects follows earlier work the team had done using smart shape memory polymers (SMPs), which have the ability to remember one shape and change to another programmed shape when uniform heat is applied, to make objects that could fold themselves along hinges.
“The approach can achieve printing time and material savings up to 90%, while completely eliminating time-consuming mechanical programming from the design and manufacturing workflow,” Qi says.
To demonstrate the capabilities of the new process, the team fabricated several objects that could bend or expand quickly when immersed in hot water – including a model of a flower whose petals bend like a real daisy responding to sunlight and a lattice-shaped object that could expand by nearly eight times its original size.
“Our composite materials at room temperature have one material that is soft but can be programmed to contain internal stress, while the other material is stiff,” states Zhen Ding, a postdoc researcher at Singapore University of Technology and Design. “We use computational simulations to design composite components where the stiff material has a shape and size that prevents the release of the programmed internal stress from the soft material after 3D printing. Upon heating the stiff material softens and allows the soft material to release its stress and this results in a change - often dramatic - in the product shape.”
The new 4D objects could enable a range of new product features, such as allowing products that could be stacked flat or rolled for shipping and then expanded once in use, the researchers said. Eventually, the technology could enable components that could respond to stimuli such as temperature, moisture, or light in a way that is precisely timed to create space structures, deployable medical devices, robots, toys, and range of other structures.
“The key advance of this work is a 4D printing method that is dramatically simplified and allows the creation of high-resolution complex 3D reprogrammable products,” says Martin L. Dunn a professor at Singapore University of Technology and Design who is also the director of the SUTD Digital Manufacturing and Design Centre. “It promises to enable myriad applications across biomedical devices, 3D electronics, and consumer products. It even opens the door to a new paradigm in product design, where components are designed from the onset to inhabit multiple configurations during service.”
This research was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under grant 15RT0885, by the National Science Foundation under awards CMMI-1462894, CMMI-1462895, and EFRI-1435452, and by the SUTD Digital Manufacturing and Design Centre, supported by the Singapore National Research Foundation. The content is the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the sponsoring agencies.
CITATION: Zhen Ding, Chao Yuan, Xirui Peng, Tiejun Wang, H. Jerry Qi, Martin L. Dunn, “Direct 4D printing via active composite materials,”(Science Advances, 2017). http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602890.