Leveraging 3D Printing to Drive Thermoforming Innovation

Brian (00:00):

We’re going to focus on low pressure molding. We have videos of thermoforming parts.

Speaker 2 (00:04):

They’re so good.

Brian (00:05):

We’re obviously nerds, and we love the process and manufacturing. And we love the problem solving. Change is a part of our daily lives, and this stuff is a lot of fun for us.

Speaker 2 (00:16):

It’s a lot of fun.

(00:17):

Solutionology is about being unyielding with perseverance to get to the solution.

Speaker 3 (00:23):

To not give up and to constantly drive for better. So even when we deliver 100%, I want to deliver 110 next time.

Brian (00:30):

And for me, the constraints of that project are the most important because that’s what drives us to a solution. It’s all about painting a picture and getting all the details in.

Speaker 2 (00:38):

How do we develop a tool that helps share our journey, educate others, and bring more light to the realities of additive manufacturing? Solutionology Podcast.

Brian (00:52):

We’re going to review some low pressure molding applications, where we use additive and other technologies to solve a problem. The journey is a little bit long, but what we do have is we have videos of thermoforming parts.

Speaker 2 (01:05):

They’re so good.

Brian (01:06):

Where you can watch the plastic get sucked into all those crevices. I think that’s-

Speaker 2 (01:09):

Hot plastic too.

Brian (01:11):

Everyone loves thermoforming. Watching thermoforming happen, it’s such a low technical process. But there’s something magical about seeing it in real time.

Speaker 2 (01:20):

It’s like, makes me think of you know when you get glue on your arms and you peel it off? It’s like that, but in reverse.

Brian (01:28):

Less painful.

Speaker 2 (01:30):

Yeah, right. Yeah. So it’s going to get hot in here. We’ve got a lot of hot plastic, and great examples of accelerating innovation with a combination of traditional manufacturing methods and additive manufacturing.

Brian (01:44):

And a lot of our product today is Multi Jet Fusion. So we’re talking about how Multi Jet Fusion supports us in solving problems in the low pressure molding change management. Adjusting existing product lines, and creating products from scratch, brand new products.

Speaker 2 (02:03):

And the best parts of the video, the best parts of the video.

Brian (02:06):

So thanks for joining and we hope you enjoy today’s technical discussion.

Speaker 2 (02:12):

Thanks for tuning in.

Brian (02:13):

Welcome back to the Solutionology Podcast by DI Labs. On this episode, we’re going to be reviewing our approach to using multiple technologies to solve a problem. We’re going to focus on low pressure molding, so that’s thermoforming. It could be using blow molding, and possibly gas assist, some other low pressure applications.

(02:37):

So we’re going to go through, we’re going to talk about our approach. When we receive a problem like this, what is our approach, and how do we try to maximize our capabilities to solve a problem in an efficient manner?

(02:52):

We have got a few examples that we’re going to walk through on ways that we’ve used additive and specifically Multi Jet Fusion solve this problem that we come across in either new product development or change management within an existing product. And then we’ve got a very specific example we’ll run through, where large scale tooling where we had to solve a brand new product, it’s not existed before. How do we test this in the final manufacturing method so that we know that the results are good before we go and cut tooling? And we validate a process before we go down that journey. So we’ll start with our approach.

Speaker 2 (03:34):

A key takeaway from today’s podcast and what we’re talking about here is that… And we talked about this beforehand, additive manufacturing isn’t always the best solution for prototyping. It isn’t always the best solution for the problem at hand. And these examples we have on the table and the stories that we’ll share today are great examples of where we levered for an aspect of it, but in some cases not the traditional way of prototyping.

(04:02):

And the first project, we can go broad, right? The first project is developing this mold. So this is a mold that was made for thermal forming. The way thermoforming works is that we’ve got essentially a vacuum table the mold sits on. It’s got a hole in the top so the vacuum can travel through the part. And then we’ve got hot plastic that’s draped over the top of the part. And then as soon as the hot plastic makes contact with the mold, it’s sucked down over the mold. And then that mold is what forms the plastic, and then the plastic cools on the mold and then it gets removed and trimmed afterwards. So this is essentially the entire mold for a vacuum forming or thermoforming process.

(04:52):

We did this several years ago and the effort was, it’s a small mold. Let’s make a small concept mold for thermoforming. We had a customer thermal core that had a new part. They wanted to manufacture it before making an aluminum mold. And so we made this prototype mold for them to make the part and then understand how the process worked, how many cycles we could get out of it, and that was the first project.

(05:24):

And we learned a lot from that. One of the biggest learnings was that actually, the glass bead reinforced nylon 12 does really well serving as a mold in this application. We had dozens and dozens of parts removed from the mold, and it really didn’t share or show anywhere.

Brian (05:44):

And we choose glass bead because of its thermal properties. So as we’re navigating these challenges, we’ve got a number of materials we can choose from. Glass bead was a great material for this because it has low thermal expansion, and it dissipates heat better than other nylon materials because of the glass bead component in it. So in this case, glass bead was the best choice that we had for managing that.

(06:11):

And we knew going into this molding test that our speed of production is going to be slow, because we have to manage the heat aspect from part to part so that we can cool that part down and form it to the correct shape. So we knew that going into it, and the experience allowed us to correlate what that really is like in real time.

(06:38):

And the result was we could produce this at low volume and high numbers, but at a slow speed. Which in this case of new product development or product optimization, it’s a great use case. Because we can rapidly produce a part, we can iterate on that part, and then produce as many parts as we need for most testing applications.

Speaker 2 (07:02):

And in an aspect like this, the reason that we didn’t produce those end use parts with additive manufacturing is that it wasn’t cost-effective. We didn’t have the right materials at our disposal. So this was a scenario where using the end use manufacturing method was absolutely critical because of cost and material properties. But we still had a place for additive, and that was making the mold. And we were able to do that faster than using traditional methods, and it was more effective for the concept mold.

Brian (07:35):

So that’s one example. It uses a completely additively manufactured part. That was the most efficient way for us to approach it from a timeline standpoint. We have other examples here, where we combine additive with CNC machining, with off the shelf components, so that we can the thermoform or low pressure mold the final product, test different features on it, and be able to iterate the complex components that are important for the product to function.

Speaker 2 (08:10):

Let’s dive in. So these semicircular components that we have on the table here, they’re a good example of… This was also a new product. It wasn’t a new product development project as much as it was a product optimization initiative. This is a case where there were existing aluminum molds for low pressure forming, and we needed to be able to change the product, but we needed to understand how that change would impact the product before we cut new molds.

Brian (08:40):

And we needed to have the final material used. We couldn’t calculate the offset of using an additive manufactured material. We needed to be able to structurally test the final material and the final shape.

Speaker 2 (08:54):

Right. So using the final manufacturing method was the only option. But going to the expense of having a new CNC tool, it was too risky. And having CNC machined inserts took too long.

(09:08):

So what we did is we developed these inserts. This one in fact is rev too. We designed these inserts so that they would be structural, they would withstand the pressure from the vacuum forming, and also have the vacuum slots to be able to have the surface area contact with the part.

(09:31):

And this was a success. So this was fastened into the aluminum molds with traditional hardware and then run in a manufacturing process, several dozens of cycles to be able to produce the product and validate that this design change would positively impact the product design.

(09:55):

And that was a successful endeavor. A great mix of using glass bead nylon 12 with aluminum tooling and an existing manufacturing process, to validate the hypothesis for the product changes before actually investing in new steel.

(10:14):

And there was actually several… That was one example, but we’ve gone through several examples of that. We’ve only got one to share today, but we’ve gone through several examples of that, where we have either used adhesive or we’ve used traditional hardware fasteners to modify existing aluminum molds with glass bead PA12 successfully. So it’s a great resource for making modifications to an existing mold to change an existing product.

Brian (10:45):

And in some places, we are pretty scrappy when it comes to being able to test some of these add-on features. So this is a fastened in component. Of course, if we’re working with an existing product or manufacturing method, we scan the tooling so that we’ve got the geometry, the base geometry we’re working with. In this case, there was a pocket machine so that we can insert a new design or new feature.

(11:12):

In other cases when we can’t be destructive of the existing product line, we’ll still scan the tool. But rather than fasting it in, we will use it adhesive to bond new either structural ribs or features within that tool that we’re looking to improve the part performance. We’ll do that in real time. When we’re done, we pull those parts off, and the tool, there’s no modification. So we have to take different approaches depending on what our constraints are to navigate that, either the change management or the product development.

Speaker 2 (11:44):

And essentially, we’re talking about making product changes in real time on a manufacturing line, without making permanent changes to that manufacturing line, and without disrupting current production. And that’s a significant benefit of leveraging additive manufacturing for these types of inserts. And you’re doing it with such a quick turnaround, that you’re able to learn so rapidly, that you can take the next generation of product to the market quite quickly.

Brian (12:19):

So really, maybe the most challenging aspect of the change management in this case is scheduling the production downtime saying, “We’re going to have this machine off for one day or two day or three days. We’re going to do R&D trialing. We’re going to add our components, trial the new features to see how it impacts the final product,” and then the production return to normal after that cycle. So it’s the most challenging aspect, and scheduling is not that difficult. So it comes out to be a smooth experience for trialing updated features.

Speaker 2 (13:05):

And the real benefit there is when you get the final mold and the modified mold on the machine, there’s a very high certainty level that it’s going to work, so that you don’t have this cascading impact of having a mold that has to be changed, schedule more time on the machine, and so on and so forth. It allows you to get to the finish line more consistently and confidently when that time comes, with a modified tooling.

Brian (13:34):

And our goal in that case is maybe we have to schedule two production times where we’re pausing because we’re trialing. We learn something in the first run, we’re applying it on the second run. And the goal there is once that tooling is pulled out of production and it’s modified, once it goes back in, we generally understand the process parameter changes that have to occur. And we’re doing final tweaks, rather than hoping that that geometry that we’re changing is going to result in the change that we’re looking for. We can use the R&D run to understand what process parameters might be impacted, before we go to move to that total production change.

Speaker 2 (14:17):

So these examples that we’ve been talking about so far, of course we use glass bead reinforced nylon 12. But we could have also used additively produced aluminum inserts, right? Why would you choose one over the other?

Brian (14:35):

Or steel, or tooling steel-

Speaker 2 (14:36):

Or steel, yeah.

Brian (14:37):

But the point there is that we can actively produce these in metal if the demand requires it. So in these cases, we were looking at short-term testing fixes to change the final part geometry. If we were in a situation where we created geometry that wasn’t reproducible and short enough lead time with traditional CNC, utilizing metal powder, powder-based additive, we could produce long-term tooling that would have the thermal dissipation that we’re looking for, or have the abrasion resistance that we’re looking for so that it’s the final part. That’s the part that’s used in the tool to make these changes long term.

Speaker 2 (15:23):

So as we’re navigating these different projects and problems, it’s all about balancing the desired outcome with oftentimes the economic constraints. And not every project has the budget for additively produced metal inserts. In some cases, the plastic equivalent performs just as well, and it’s significantly more cost-effective.

(15:47):

So as we’re going through these different scenarios, it’s all about understanding what not only the desired outcome is, but also what the budget constraints are. And then, we’re constantly trying to massage the scope so that it fits within that budget constraint. Because all of this stuff could be produced in metal, but in most cases, it would make it cost prohibitive to invest in the endeavor.

Brian (16:14):

I think that really highlights our approach to new product development. We listen carefully to our customers’ challenges and the story that they’re currently in. Where are they today? What problem are they trying to solve? And we navigate that with them. And it’s not about one method is right or a different method is right, but it’s about understanding the total picture, and then helping navigate the steps through that so that the timeline is short as possible, and we learn as much as possible with the least amount of input. So I think that’s just how we solve problems.

Speaker 2 (16:48):

Well, that’s really a great transition and lead in to the final project that we’ll talk about, which is the most substantial of all the projects we’ve got today. And that is a large thermoformed part.

Brian (17:04):

In this case, we’ll pull up some images of the tool. In this case, we led the product design. And we’re at a stage in this project where thermoforming was a potential solution to mass produce the product. But we had to make sure that the manufacturing process was the right one for the features we had to create.

(17:29):

We had some challenging features. For thermoforming, we had to have overhangs. We needed action in the tooling to compensate for those overhangs, so we could produce the features. And we needed to make sure the geometry performed in the final material that was required.

Speaker 2 (17:47):

And there were also functional for this product that would be mass-produced. So there’s actually a series of prototyping that had been done to validate the functional performance of the parts using 3D printing. So we’ve got some components here that we’ve prototyped using MJF. And then we got to this stage where now we’re melding the functional results that we achieved with the manufacturing method, and can we scale this? And that’s where the core part of the project comes to the table.

Brian (18:22):

So we’re at the turning point in the project, where we’ve got the functional components dialed in. We know they’re going to work. So as we’re transitioning to final manufacturing testing, we needed to create a large tool.

Speaker 2 (18:41):

And this tool is something like four and a half, five feet long, and 36 inches wide, and 12 inches deep. So a fairly large tool. In fact, we’ve got a video of it here. And the way that we approach this tool is the main body could have been printed in components from any of the technologies we produce with additive manufacturing.

(19:08):

And the issue was that that main body wasn’t the most critical aspect to the tool. So for us, it made the most sense to have that machine using traditional methods, using a foam core, foam board, having that laid up and then machined. And then for the areas that are most critical, it made the most sense to use additively produced components. And I’ll share the video. And each of these components had a purpose.

Brian (19:37):

So the overhang that we had a form in the part was formed on these removable parts. This was essentially the action in the tool. As the part was removed after being formed, these parts would slide off as well, so that we can create our geometry and have a cost-effective components that was additively manufactured.

Speaker 2 (20:03):

So the way that this tool was set up is it’s got a vacuum manifold on the inside of that pink main body, and it’s pulling vacuum from the base. And then there’s vacuum ports that you could see here on the side of the tool, that then transfer the vacuum to the mold inserts.

(20:20):

So these mold inserts, they have vacuum ports in them that then go from the backside to the front side, and that pulls the plastic into these areas that Brian’s talking about are the overhangs or undercuts.

(20:33):

So it’s sucking plastic into this part. It’s sitting like this on the mold, it’s pulling the plastic up into it. So it locks the plastic into the mold. You wouldn’t be able to pull it off without that action that you’re talking about. So these are then designed to slide out of the mold with the tool, similar to what’s being shown here in this video.

(20:56):

And using glass bead nylon on these parts was really critical, because the tolerances, as you could imagine, the fit was really tight so that we could maintain a close surface-to-surface contact and also maintain the vacuum draw through the inserts.

Brian (21:16):

So when we initially installed the parts onto the tool, everything had ambient temperature. We’re at room temperature. And as we start to form plastic over the tool, everything is warming up. And through that transition, we need to make sure that the tolerances remain as close as possible. And that’s what that glass bead does. It gives us the best tool to prevent thermo expansion, manage thermo expansion next to the foam board.

Speaker 2 (21:42):

Doesn’t grow with heat.

Brian (21:43):

Yeah.

Speaker 2 (21:44):

As much

Brian (21:44):

As much.

Speaker 2 (21:46):

So this is a great example of that process in process, where there’s a sheet of plastic that’s being heated up in an oven here. It’s being slid out. You could tell it’s draping, so it’s quite warm. And then as soon as it’s being pulled around the perimeter of the part, it pulls vacuum and shrinks the plastic down into the mold.

(22:15):

This is a prototype set up. And so a set up for this specific run, we’ve got some of this temporary fixturing here to help the plastic form. That’s not uncommon for full production. But in this case, it’s more of a temporary setup.

Brian (22:32):

And this was our initial trial with this tool, to get a baseline. Is this a go, or are we going in the wrong direction? Is this something that it’s just going to hit all the checkboxes as we’re working through our product development process?

Speaker 2 (22:49):

So we made these runs with different different materials, different material thicknesses, and different process conditions to understand how all those different variables impacted the final product performance. And in fact, we even changed out some of the inserts in the next run. So this was the first one. We had some learnings. And then in the next run, we changed out some of the design features to add strength in different areas.

Brian (23:21):

So we took our first parts and realized, “Okay, these are good, but these are areas we can improve. How do we improve? What do we do? We’ve got an existing tool. We don’t want to machine a new tool. So how can we use our approach to minimize the cost impact, and shorten the lead time so that we can continue down our iterative process?”

Speaker 2 (23:40):

And through these different steps, they probably could have been modeled using computer modeling like FEA, a type of mold flow. But the challenges for us were those methods, unless they’re calibrated, aren’t a given. The results aren’t a given.

(23:58):

So for us to go through this process, it was actually more effective to do it physically than do it through computer modeling because we had to be able to calibrate it somehow anyways. So understanding the real flow of the plastic and then the impact with the final process, how does it shrink, and what’s the warp, and things like that was really critical for us to get the big picture and not just do it through a desktop computer modeling.

(24:23):

And so in the later versions of this program, we added additional inserts.

Brian (24:30):

So on our second iteration of testing, we needed to add some different geometry to improve some of the product characteristics. So we used essentially these inserts that attached to the mold, and allowed us to change geometry in the areas that we wanted to make a change.

(24:54):

We had different versions, so that we can understand the impact different geometry would have. And we were able to trial these different versions in a single run, drop on different inserts. And we’d have a range of parts to test again to fine tune the total geometry.

Speaker 2 (25:14):

So these are examples of those inserts. And they have the different geometries, but they sit in the same pocket. So this was all about having these components sit between those ribs on the part and then form a different geometry. We wanted to understand if we changed that from the original, and then changed it more dramatically, how did that impact the performance of the part?

(25:44):

And essentially, it allowed us to do this in real time. So we had these inserts on site. We ran that whole variable mix, different wall thicknesses, different plastics, put the inserts in, and then changed the inserts and went through that process again.

(26:00):

And not only did it allow us to understand the finished product results, but also the impact on the manufacturing process. Does the plastic thin more? Does it thin less in these critical areas? So there was a lot learned, both from the process side and the finished product side.

Brian (26:18):

So we were able to leave the series of tests with a high degree of confidence that this is something that could result in a finished product. There’s things that need to be improved and fixed, if we’re going to continue down this journey. But it was a green light for us to say, “Okay, we’ve built some confidence. We’ve got parts that less technical individuals can hold.” So the value of having finished product that you can hold in the final material is that team members, stakeholders, leadership can hold those parts. They can feel it, they know what they’re signing up for. And you can build confidence to continue that journey, and continue investing in the eventual outcome.

Speaker 2 (27:03):

And this whole process, as you think about the work to develop the inserts, do the manufacturing process, and then go through that cycle again, that time was less time than it took for us to go through the analytics and make the decision for the direction to go forward.

(27:25):

So these are actually really effective methods to accelerate that portion of the project and dedicate more time than to the analytics and the assessment portion, which is really where the value happens. And oftentimes, what can happen, if you don’t go fast enough in this area, you’re cutting yourself short on the decision making areas. And I think that’s often overlooked. But the more time that you can afford the team to make sound decisions, assess and evaluate the data, the more sound the decision will be in the end.

Brian (28:01):

I think that’s the neat thing about additive, is that it’s a tool that we can use to help us better define the decisions that we’re making. We can build that confidence, so we can go into it either knowing that this is not going to work, we’ve got to do something different, or we can increase our confidence and say, “Okay, we’re on the right path. Let’s move forward.” And I think that can bring a lot of clarity to new product development teams, who we all experience some challenge with. “Are we doing the right thing? How much energy do I need to put into this? Is this the right results that we’re looking for?” And going through these activities, it’s really about bolstering that confidence, so that everyone can move forward in lockstep.

Speaker 2 (28:45):

And in this particular scenario, it drove us to go a different direction. It allowed us to understand the full picture, weigh the aspects of manufacturing costs, the product economics, the performance, weigh that against other options. And then ultimately, it gave us the confidence to choose other options. And that’s where the value is. Because without that, a different decision may have been made, which wouldn’t have been ultimately as successful. So it’s as much telling you what not to do as it is telling you what to do. This is a great image that shows how well the part was formed against the target geometry.

Brian (29:28):

At this point, as we’re trying product, of course we want to understand what the results are, changing process parameters. So in this case, we cross-section the part so that we can see a side view of how that geometry is formed against our parts.

Speaker 2 (29:45):

This had a couple purposes. Not only was it for assessing the forming of the part, but also for some post-processing as a fixture for post-processing activities. Because this part, the end of this part was not when it came off the line, but there was some hand post-processing that needed to be done in order to ready the part for its final testing. So this was a fixture that helped us with some of that post-processing. It was actually different fixtures that we had tried or different jigs, and this was one of those different options.

Brian (30:20):

Managing the trimming operation after forming. So these sorts of projects are right in our wheelhouse. They engage us in a way where there’s not always a clear path forward, and we’re navigating the tools that we have today. And that’s experience in other manufacturing methods outside of additive, being competent and both high pressure, low pressure plastic molding technologies, and then being very capable and utilizing additive from both a design and method standpoint, so that we can marry these technologies together, so that the result, it’s something that drives a decision. And that’s the process that we take at DI Labs, is navigating these ambiguous challenges to improve the condition on either change management or new product development.

Speaker 2 (31:17):

So oftentimes when we’re working on projects like this, we pull up a seat at the table, so to speak, and sit with our clients, and are part of the discussion of, what’s our budget? What do we want to achieve? What’s our tolerance for an investment in research and development? And then we become the shepherd, so to speak, of that project, to whatever degree we’re engaged, to drive the project, to meet the budget requirements. To drive the project to meet the outcome objectives for cost of product and performance. And it’s as if we’re acting on behalf of our clients to get to the best solution. And then we leverage the tools that we have available to make that happen.

Brian (32:04):

Because there’s different ways that we engage on projects. Sometimes, we’re just a technical support, and we’re helping our clients design teams make good decisions, either related to additive. Sometimes we’re supporting them on their own in-house manufacturing methods, and other times we have a greater ownership, and we’re the design lead in those projects. So we’re accustomed to managing both.

Speaker 2 (32:32):

And the fact that we can do that with doing it as though it’s us in the primary shoes of the project owner, because we’ve been through the journey ourselves in developing and launching products. So we’re looking at the project. And the whole big picture, the holistic endeavor as though it’s something that we are embarking on. And we can speak to those different aspects from marketing and business to the front end, all the way to the manufacturing on the execution side of it.

(33:03):

And these are great examples of where you might not think of leveraging additive manufacturing for these intricate types of components, but we should. Additive manufacturing should be a real considered player in that mix. And we’re a great resource to help identify where it’s best fit, in areas where it’s not really the best fit because of cost or other implications.

(33:34):

And we can help navigate those different aspects. And from our standpoint, our vested interest is driving to the best final solution. It’s not to sell 3D printed components, but our interest is to be locked arms with our clients, and help them get to the finish line with the most effective and most efficient approach. Sometimes that’s additive manufacturing and sometimes it’s not. And that’s okay, because we recognize if we are supporting the collaborative success, then we’ll be available to help on future initiatives.

Brian (34:13):

And in all these cases, we have HP Multi Jet Fusion as our primary use tool because of the size of parts, the resolution that we’re looking for, and also the complexity of geometry. There may be other technologies out there that can suffice, but the HP line of Multi Jet Fusion printers gives us the right amount of capability from a material selection standpoint, a resolution, and a speed of reaction standpoint, and a size of part, for us to bring together a solution that can oftentimes meet the project needs. In other cases, we have other technologies we can support on, but the Multi Jet Fusion is a key supporter for these sorts of projects.

Speaker 2 (35:01):

And to your point, it all depends on the application. In this case, for all the reasons that you mentioned, it was the primary resource, but also because just the sheer amount of parts that we produced. Because we’re just showing a few of them here on the table, but there was dozens and dozens of parts that we produced for the primary inserts, for the test inserts. And then for backups, should there have been a failure with a part dropping or whatever. So there was a lot of parts that we produced for this. In fact, I would almost argue that this was really a short run production of production prototypes.

Brian (35:39):

Well, if you made it this far, thank you for joining us on this technical discussion. We are obviously nerds and we love the process and manufacturing. And we love the problem solving. Change is a part of our daily lives, and this stuff is a lot of fun for us.

Speaker 2 (35:56):

It’s a lot of fun.

Brian (35:58):

So we hope to see you next time on our next episode.

Speaker 2 (36:01):

And you’re just lucky that we didn’t go on any further.