An Introduction to Additive

Manufacturing (AM)

Kevin A. MuAMhy-Steele M.Eng

Engineer, Technical Author and Illustrator
2.0 Introduction to Additive Manufacturing (AM)

The term Additive Manufacturing (normally abbreviated to AM) is generally used to

describe a family of advanced manufacturing technologies that are characterised by
the following:

● Parts are formed using by laying down layers of material

● The process relies solely on electronic data, therefore making it a
“paperless” manufacturing process
● Most AM technologies are completely automatic, requiring no operator
intervention during model fabrication

There are alternative names used for AM, some textbooks may refer to it as:

● Layered Manufacture
● 3D Printing
● Rapid Prototyping

Originally the term “Rapid Prototyping” (RP) was a common name for AM
technologies into the early 2010’s; however it has become increasingly obsolete as
the applications of AM have spread far beyond mere engineering visualisation, and
has matured into a manufacturing process in its own right. Moreover, AM
technologies are used within many non-engineering fields such as archaeology and
medicine.

3.0 The Justification for Early Product Visualisation

Product lead times have decreased significantly in the last 10 – 15 years. In the
consumer electronics industry for example, the gestation time for some products has
reduced to a matter of months rather than years. Up until recently in the automotive
industry, the complete development time of a new car would typically be of the order
of 4 – 5 years. Today it is not unusual for the lead time to be a mere 2 – 3 years from
concept-to-showroom.

The pressures on organisations to produce new products has placed more pressure
than ever before on the product development cycle to produce finished products in a
shorter space of time. The rewards and penalties associated with launching a
product on-schedule or late are high, one of the classical definitions being:

● If a new product is launched onto the market before its competitors, that
product will immediately attain 30% of that market
● If a new product is 6 months late to the market, then it will lose 33% of
that potential market

To make matters more complicated, the costs of development will always be high.
Experience has shown that a Pareto-style distribution exists when it comes to the
level of financial commitment versus the actual spend during design. It is estimated
that in the initial, conceptual design phase of the design process, some 70-80% of
the total development costs are committed, yet only 20-30% has actually been spent.

However, the vast majority of the actual spend during product development occurs
during the detail and tooling design stages. Figure 1 (overleaf) demonstrates this:

Figure 1: Committed – v – actual spend on a design project

This brings with it some basic implications. Given that most of the investment is
committed within the early stages of the design, a large potential exists for perfecting
and verifying the design during the conceptualisation phase. Reducing the level of
ambiguity and uncertainty early on in design will reduce the potential for mistakes,
oversights and resultant scrap/rework further on at the embodiment and tooling
design phases. Secondly the costs of rework can be very high towards the end of
the design process. With injection moulding for instance, the capital investment
associated with the manufacturer of dies can run into tens, and sometimes hundreds
of thousands of pounds, and scrap/rework during the creation of these can not only
be costly, but can seriously extend the lead time of a new product. Therefore, this
highlights a need for:

● Physical visualisation of the product as early in the design process as

possible
● Making sure that the design is “right first time”, or as close to the final
design as possible before the high level of capital investment is made in
manufacturing infrastructure.

There have been a multitude of different tools, methodologies and technologies that
are geared towards achieving these aims. From a tools point of view, the term
“Design for X” refers to a whole host of tools geared towards identifying and
proactively considering factors such as manufacturability, environmental effects,
ergonomics quality etc. during the design of products. Other approaches address the
management of the design process – Concurrent Engineering (CE) for example looks
at communication between, closer integration and overall organisation of individual
design functions so that more information is exchanged between those functions
early in the design process. However, what will be looked at here is visualisation
technology – the ability to evaluate designs physically at an early stage.
Concurrent (or Simultaneous) Engineering, as mentioned before seeks to integrate
the various stages of the design process more closely, by carrying out as many jobs
in parallel as opposed to in series:

Figure 2: Typical Design Process, showing parallelism of individual tasks

However, Additive Manufacturing technologies can be used to further increase the

level of integration of individual activities – for instance Concept Models can be
produced during the early stages of design, which allow engineers and designers to
iterate different ideas in a physical sense before committing to a particular
configuration at the evaluation stage.

Figure 3: Effect of Additive Manufacturing technology on the design process

Equally, more functional models can be made using AM at the detail design phase for
testing both form and fit, i.e. how individual elements fit together, the effectiveness of
attachment interfaces, and the arrangement of other internal componentry. AM
models can also be used to make master patterns for Rapid Tooling, which affords
the ability to make prototype, short-run moulding tools, which can be used for
manufacturing small quantities of the part in question for evaluation puAMoses in a
more representative material than the AM original.
4.0 Additive Manufacturing Process Path

As was mentioned at the outset, AM is a completely paperless manufacturing

process, relying solely on electronic data for output. There are two main routes to
achieving this, either through creating the desired geometry in a 3D CAD system or
through data capture by means of a 3D scanning system. In both instances, the
eventual output will be the STL file.

STL stands for Surface Triangulation Language and is the industry-standard export
format for driving AM processes. It can be output from all modern 3D CAD
applications and data capture devices. STL represents 3D surfaces as a mesh of
interconnecting triangles or facets, as shown in Figure 4:

Figure 4: CAD Model in STL format showing triangular mesh

An important point when considering the data exchange to AM is that the data must
be a 3D representation of the desired geometry. Even today, some still have the
misconception that a CAD file merely means a electronic 2D drawing of the desired
object, failing to recognise the fundamental difference between 3D CAD modelling
and 2D CAD draughting. One of the principal barriers to AM adoption among the
industrial community, and in particular, SME’s, is the lack of 3D CAD ability.

As far as 3D scanning is concerned – there are two basic classifications of

technologies which will be briefly described here, namely contact and non-contact
methods. Contact methods usually take the form of co-ordinate measurement
devices, which use a moving stylus that moves across the surface of the object,
generating a point cloud of XYZ co-ordinate information, which can be used to
construct a “data image” of the geometry. Non-contact methods are optical in nature,
either relying on laser-based measurement or photogrammetric (the use of
photographs to generate 3D data) means to generate the necessary 3D information.
X-ray devices such as CT and MRI scanning as used in medicine also come under
the banner of non-contact scanning methods – software does now exist that allows
the generation of an STL file from these data capture devices.

Some of the most prominent AM technologies that are available shall now be looked
at in greater detail.

5.0 SLA: Stereolithography – Overview

A company called 3D Systems Inc. introduced Stereolithography in 1987. Normally

abbreviated to SLA, it was the first AM technology to become available, and remains
the most popular, with over 2,000 machines currently in service. The system is
entirely lithographic in nature, that is to say it relies on the interaction between
ultraviolet (UV) light and a special photo-sensitive polymer for its operation. Figure 5
(below) shows a schematic of the SLA process:

Figure 5: Stereolithography (SLA) Process

The system works by means of a tank or “vat” of liquid photopolymer resin. At the
beginning of the build process, the platform is positioned at the top of the vat. The
UV laser beam rasters over the surface of the liquid, and wherever the beam hits the
resin, the resin cures. Once each layer is completed, the platform indexes down, the
recoater or “doctor” blade spreads another layer of resin over the preceding one and
the process repeats for as many layers as is required to complete the model.

Wherever there are overhanging features or undercuts, the machine will build
hundreds of needle-like support columns underneath. These are simply broken off
once the model is completed. When the model is complete, the platform is then
raised back to the top position and the model is removed. Further curing is
necessary by exposing the part to a UV lamp for a number of hours.
SLA Advantages:

● Surface finish of finished parts is very high, models exhibit smoothness

and good definition, therefore allowing the parts to be used as “masters”
for secondary Rapid Tooling processes
● The process is reasonably fast
● Accuracy is generally good – typical achievable tolerances are in the
order of +/- 0.1mm.

SLA Disadvantages

● The capital cost of the equipment and materials are expensive. An

entry-level stereolithography machine costs around £100,000, rising to
£700,000 for the large format versions. Equally, material costs are high.
Even for the smallest machine, the resin vat can cost £5000 to fill.
● Maintenance costs are high – the laser unit has a limited life (around 6000
hours) and costs around £15,000 to replace.
● Shelf life of material is limited. The resin is not only hygroscopic (it
absorbs moisture from the air), it also reacts with the UV which is present
in ambient light, which can render it unusable within a few months.
Therefore the operator of an SLA machine must guarantee a sufficient
turnover of work to minimise material wastage.
● SLA machines need to be operated in laboratory conditions with fume
extraction owing to the toxicity of the materials used

6.0 SLS: Selective Laser Sintering – Overview

Selective Laser Sintering, developed in the late 1980’s by the University of Texas at
Austin, and commercialised in 1992 remains probably the most versatile Additive
Manufacturing system available. It has the widest variety of materials, which
includes polymers, metals and ceramics.

Figure 6: Selective Laser Sintering Process

The build process uses a cuboidal build envelope, with a movable piston or table at
the bottom. A spreading mechanism deposits a thin layer of powder onto the table.
A carbon dioxide laser beam then traces out the outline of each layer, the powder
being fused together by the heat from the laser. Once each layer is completed, the
build piston indexes down, a new layer of powder is spread across the preceding one
from the supply table, the cycle repeats until the model is completed.

SLS Advantages

● SLS remains the most versatile AM technology in existence, with over

nine different materials available currently.
● Glass-filled nylon parts produced using SLS exhibit a very high degree of
toughness and strength.
● No support structures to break off, although this is offset by the messy job
of depowdering the finished prototype

SLS Disadvantages

● SLS machines are expensive to buy and operate. £250,000.

● The process is sensitive to airborne pollutants, and requires a nitrogen
gas supply to operate due to the need to provide an inert atmosphere in
the build envelope. SLS therefore must operate in a laboratory
environment.
● The de-powdering of finished parts is a messy and laborious job
● Material Wastage. Only 30% of the waste powder can be recycled,
therefore the total yield of a consignment of build material is relatively low

7.0 FDM: Fused Deposition Modeling - Overview

Lisa and C. Scott Crump developed FDM in the late 1980’s. In 1990, they formed a
company, Stratasys, based in Minnesota, USA, to market the process as a simple
Additive Manufacturing technology for modelling directly in ABS plastic. Today, FDM
is now the best selling AM system in the world, and it is second after SLA in terms of
overall units sold. The strength of FDM lies in its simplicity, which relies solely on
conventional CNC machining technology. Figure 7 (below) shows a schematic of the
process:
 Figure 7: Fused Deposition Modelling

A coil of ABS plastic filament, analogous to that used in plastic welding is supplied
from a spool located in the back of the machine. This filament is around 2.5mm in
diameter and is fed through a device known as a liquefier. This raises the
temperature of the filament until it is in a semi molten state (typically 270oC). The
filament is now forced through a tiny nozzle, so that it takes on the appearance of
toothpaste being squeezed from a tube. The entire liquefier and nozzle assembly is
mounted on a precision CNC controlled x-y table.
Each layer of the model is effectively “drawn” by the nozzle as it moves back and
forth. As the material is extruded, it heats up and fuses to that of the preceding layer
below, hence accounting for the fused deposition effect. Once the layer has been
completed, the build platform (which is mounted on leadscrews) will index
downwards in preparation for the next layer.

Being a totally freeform method of depositing material, FDM requires building a

sacrificial support structure beneath overhanging features or undercuts. The support
structure is created from a second nozzle on the liquefier unit, and the machine will
alternate between building the support and model layers during the build process.
The structures are honeycomb in nature, and are designed to break off the model
after completion. FDM machines use a special water-soluble support material, which
dissolves away under a combined chemical and ultrasonic action.

FDM Advantages

● FDM remains the simplest AM technology available.

● FDM is a completely non-toxic process, with no hazardous fumes being
produced from the machine during operation. The build material itself is
equally benign, making FDM one of the few AM processes that can
operate in an office environment.
 ● ABS models are reasonably tough and durable, therefore parts produced
using FDM have the look and feel of injection moulded parts.
● Higher-strength engineering polymers such as polycarbonate and
polyphenolsulphones are now available for FDM.
● Material cost is relatively low in comparison to either SLS or SLA, and the
yield is good with comparatively little wastage. Material ageing is not a
problem.

FDM Disadvantages

● Speed. The single nozzle to deposit the polymer filament, combined with
the need to build support structures means that the build speed of FDM is
very slow.
● Surface finish. The “stair stepping” effect which is a peculiarity of all AM
processes is particularly prevalent with FDM. Small detail on models (<
1mm ) can therefore be lost.
● Delamination. FDM models are prone to delaminating (i.e the layers
pulling apart and splitting) if the parts are stressed across the layer
interfaces.
● ABS is hygroscopic (it absorbs moisture from the air). Should the
modelling material become damp, this gives rise to “stringiness” on the
finished models, and therefore the material spools must be kept in
storage with desiccant bags.
● The support structure material is both disposable and non-recyclable,
therefore this means that a significant amount of money is quite literally
thrown in the bin.

8.0 3DP: Inkhet Three Dimensional Printing – Overview

3DP was the first of a whole new generation of AM systems known as concept
modellers, that is to say, AM systems which are designed to be low-cost, high-speed
techniques that afford the designer the ability to experiment and test initial concept
ideas very quickly and cheaply at the beginning of the design process. Typically, the
models themselves are of a low quality in terms of surface finish, accuracy and
mechanical strength, but this is generally not an issue when at the conceptual design
stage. The technology itself was developed by Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) in the late 1980’s, and as the name implies it is merely an
adaptation of existing inkjet printing technology, but with the addition of a third
dimension. In 1997, the 3DP technology was commercialised by a company called Z
CoAMoration, based near Boston in the United States.

On the face of it, 3DP looks and works very similarly to SLS, in that the basic build
material is in powder form, and it is laid down by a system of rollers and pistons.
However, 3DP differs in that a water-based binding agent, which is “printed” from a
conventional inkjet printer cartridge, bonds the layers of powdered substrate
selectively.
 Figure 8: Schematic of the Three Dimensional Printing process

3DP Advantages

● 3DP remains one of the fastest AM systems in the world. The first
generation machines were capable of build speeds of up to two vertical
inches per hour using the starch-based powder. The latest generation of
3D printers are capable of build speeds in excess of double this value.
● 3DP is the only AM system that can make parts in colour from VRML files.
Using a multi-cartridge system printing dyed binder, multi-coloured CAD
files from FEA (Finite Element Analysis) or mouldflow analyses can be
physically reproduced.
● Low Cost. The machines and the build materials themselves are
attractively priced in comparison to traditional “high-end” AM systems
such as SLS and SLA.
● Yield. All excess powder from the build envelope can be sieved and
recycled meaning that there is little material wastage associated with 3DP.

3DP Disadvantages

● Mechanical strength of 3DP parts is generally poor. To achieve a decent

level of durability, models have to be subsequently infiltrated with resin;
typically wax, cyanoacrylate (“super glue”), epoxy or polyurethane.
 ● Low accuracy. The plaster based material has an accuracy of around
+/-0.5mm, with the cornstarch powder accuracy coming in at
approximately +/-0.7mm.
● The process is very messy, and the risk of powder spillages and dust
present health and safety risks. Despite the claims of the manufacturer
that 3DP is an office-friendly AM system, experience has shown the
machines are really much more suited to a laboratory/workshop
environment.
● Surface finish of 3DP models is generally poor, being very granular in
nature, particularly with the starch-based material.

In terms of the future, 3DP continues to grow and develop. A large format version of
the process was launched in 2002, which incorporates six print cartridges and a build
envelope size in the order of 600 x 500 x 400mm. This makes it possible to 3D print
huge parts such as car engine castings and large scale building models for
architectural design.

It is now possible to cast directly from 3DP. A special ceramic composite powder is
now available for the process, which allows casting moulds for light non-ferrous
metals to be produced. While not backwards compatible with older 3D Printers for
technical reasons, it is proof that this particular technology will begin to find market
niches, which were previously only the domain of traditional “high-end” AM systems
such as SLA and SLS. The costs of 3DP machines continues to plummet, with the
latest generation of machines being less complex mechanically, using a
Hewlett-Packard based printing “engine” thus allowing standard off-the-shelf
printheads to be used. The first-generation machines used a much less durable
Canon-based printing system.

9.0 SolidScape ModelMaker - Overview

This process was introduced in 1993 and is widely regarded as the system of choice
for small size / high accuracy Additive Manufactiring. It is sometimes referred to as
“Droplet On Demand” modelling or “three dimensional plotting”. The system works
by firing tiny droplets of thermoplastic wax from a jet mounted on a precision X-Y
table. The important thing to note is that these droplets are fired one droplet at a
time, which accounts for the process’ high level of accuracy. A second nozzle
deposits the support material. An interesting feature of the process is the so-called
“Planar Mechanism”, which takes the form of a horizontal milling cutter, which is used
to flatten and hone each layer after it has been completed.
 Figure 9: SolidScape ModelMaker

Each layer is 0.013mm thick, and the minimum feature size can be as small as
0.254mm. Because the basic material is wax, it is ideal for use as patterns for
investment casting.

SolidScape ModelMaker Advantages:

● It remains the most accurate Additive Manufacturing technology in the

world. No other AM system can match the ModelMaker’s ability to
produce extremely fine details
● The wax build material is ideal for use as investment casting patterns

SolidScape ModelMaker Disadvantages:

● Low Speed. Because of the nature of the droplet-on-demand technology,

the system is characteristically extremely slow. Even the smallest parts
can have a build time of in excess of 24 hours. Larger parts will literally
take days to manufacture.
● The wax material used is very weak and the resulting models are very
fragile.
● Unreliability. The machine has earned itself a reputation for being
unreliable and not being user-friendly.
● High running costs – the deposition jets cost around £700 each to replace
and wear out regularly
● The support structures used have to be removed by a combination of
chemical and mechanical means. Because of the fragile nature of the
build material, there is a high risk of inflicting damage to the part itself
during support material removal
10.0 Rapid Tooling – An Overview

It is fair to say that the introduction of Additive Manufacturing has revolutionised how
companies approach the issues of modelling, visualisation and eventually prototyping
and testing, the fact remains that both the material quality and build speeds
achievable still have some way to go before they even can compete with those
available from conventional manufacturing techniques. AM systems are still
predominantly used for one-off prototype production and while small-scale batch
manufacture of components is possible with direct metal laser sintering technologies
described below, the “holy grail” of being able to make production standard parts in
quantity using Additive Manufacturing methods alone is still a long way off.

While the advent of the new generation of AM machines called “concept modellers”
such as 3D Printing has dramatically lowered the cost of getting on the “AM ladder”
as it were, with some hobbyist-centric systems now costing well under £1000, the
fact remains that companies wishing to make functional parts rapidly still have to
resort to a secondary method to achieve results closer to that of the finished article.
For now, reconsider the design process diagram from Figure 2:

Figure 12: “Crossing the Chasm”

One of the largest problems facing an organisation is how to transfer a fully-working

and functional prototype into something which can be manufactured in quantity. This
usually means that the large-scale investment in tooling is now required, and this
so-called “chasm” between the final stages of detail design and manufacture is where
long lead times and high capital expenditure occur.

Crossing the chasm, therefore, is a major time and financial barrier to be overcome,
and the ability to tool cheaply and quickly at the manufacturing stage, if even only for
a few hundred (or a few thousand) manufacturing prototypes can make a significant
step towards “crossing the chasm” with relatively few bruises.

The term “Rapid Tooling” (or “RT”) refers to the concept of using a part produced
using AM to generate a moulding tool that can subsequently be used to produce a
prototype in materials closer in terms of physical properties to that of the final
production component.
What will now be given is a brief overview of the key RT techniques. Rapid Tooling
processes can be split into two basic categories, namely:

● Indirect: where the AM machine is used to make an initial “master” then

using this in some way to produce a short-run moulding tool.
● Direct: where the AM machine directly manufactures the moulding tool
itself

10. 1 Vacuum Casting: Overview

This is one of the most common RT processes available. It is also one of the
simplest and most inexpensive. A master of the part to be formed is made in an AM
system (most commonly SLA). This is then suspended in a mould box, which is
subsequently filled with silicone rubber under zero pressure in a vacuum chamber
and allowed to cure. The resulting mould is then cut open, and the master is
removed to reveal a cavity in the shape of the part to be created. Gates and runners
are then carved out in the silicone manually. The mould is then reassembled and
placed back in the vacuum chamber. Once the air has been evacuated from the
chamber, the mould is filled with polyurethane resin. The result is a part, which
closely resembles the final production part, but in a more representative material.

Figure 13: Vacuum Casting apparatus (L) and silicone mould (R)

The principal drawbacks with this technique are that the moulds have a short life
(only 30 components usually), due to degradation of the silicone. The silicone itself
is relatively expensive to buy and is not reusable. It is also a highly skilled operation
to remove the master from the mould without inflicting damage, so the learning curve
for mastering vacuum casting is quite high.
11.2 “RapidSteel” / “LaserForm” Indirect Metal Tooling: Overview

This is an indirect method for producing an injection mould tool insert that can be
used for producing short runs of near-production quality components. Using SLS
(Selective Laser Sintering) as a starting point, the base material used is a composite
powder, which is a mix of steel and polymer powder particles.

The mould geometry is created within CAD, and then

exported to the machine in the STL file format in the
usual way. During the SLS process, the polymer
particles sinter together, acting as a binder for the
heavier metal particles. Once complete, this so-called
“green part” is then placed in an oven at high
temperature and infiltrated with bronze. This stage
burns out the polymer binder and completes the
sintering of the steel powder particles. The resulting
mould can then be machined to cater for channels,
ejector pins, gates etc for injection moulding. The end
result is a very strong mould which can be used for up to 100,000 parts.

11.3 Metal-Filled Epoxy Tooling: Overview

While the level of capital investment for the LaserForm system is generally very high,
metal filled epoxy tooling is, on the other hand a very simple and inexpensive
technique for producing injection mould tool inserts. Like vacuum casting, an AM
“master” is manufactured, but the key difference is that it is placed within a moulding
frame into which a special mixture of epoxy resin and aluminium powder is poured
over one side of the master. Once this is allowed to set, the master is inverted and
then the process is repeated so as to create two halves of a tool insert. Finally,
features such as ejector pins and gates are added to the insert.

This method gives tools that are good for around 3,000 shots before deterioration
begins.

11.4 Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS): Overview

DMLS is one of the very few European AM/RT systems available. Straddling the
boundary between being a Additive Manufacturing and a Rapid Tooling process, it
works on a near identical principle to SLS. The key difference is its ability to
manufacture parts directly in metal with no further post processing being required.

DMLS is widely used for the manufacture of injection mould tool inserts, as well as
sand casting cores using a special ceramic powder.
12.0 Additive Manufacturing Processes Today - A brief discussion.

Fifteen years ago, I published a research paper entitled “Reducing the Uncertainty of
the Prototyping Decision” which discussed the complexity of choosing the correct
prototyping technology, along with its post-processing method. Since then I have left
academia and worked as a designer in industry for 11 years, and it has been an
enlightening exercise evaluating the state of the AM industry since then.
One of the most significant changes is the change to the vernacular of the industry –
the term 3D Printing has now become the generic for all additive manufacturing
processes, whilst the earlier “Rapid Prototyping” has evolved into being an umbrella
term for a wide variety of prototyping and conceptualising methods, both additive and
subtractive.

Like any other developing field of technology however, there has been much
consolidation and convergence within the industry.. Back in the mid 2000s, much
speculation was being done about the possibility, that one day, AM technologies
could one day become production techniques in their own right, and this was known
as Rapid Manufacturing . Other blue sky thinking led to the notion that one day, 3D
Printers would be cheap enough that there would be one in every home, and one
would be able to download entire products from the internet and manufacture them at
home. This notion however, has always been fanciful, because many of the
fundamental drawbacks of additive manufacturing processes remain unsolved almost
30 years on. SLA parts for instance, despite massive advances in the resin
chemistry, still suffer from embrittlement after long exposure to sunlight. Parts
produced using the popular FDM process (which now underpins many low-cost 3D
Printers) still suffer from porosity and poor resolution. FDM, with its relative simplicity
over other, laser based technologies, remains a slow process.

Back in 1998 when I was writing my Master’s thesis, one of the observations I made
was that the ability to rapid prototype in metal was the “Holy Grail” of the industry.
Indeed, great progress has been in the area of laser sintering of metals for instance,
but the processes themselves remain far too slow and expensive to be viably used
within a mass production context outside a few niche areas - for example jet engine
parts.

12.1 A 3D Printer in every home?

Before asking this question, it is also worth asking if the now ubiquitous 2D inkjet
printer used all that often? From a personal perspective, my use of an inkjet is now
limited to the odd full colour photograph and printing out airline and hotel confirmation
emails prior to going on holiday. Certainly some of the uses for 3D Printers at home
have included mobile phone covers (somewhat obsolete in this day and age given
that most of us now have smartphones) Fundamentally though very few useable
products don’t contain metal or mechanisms.
It is the opinion of the author that until breakthroughs are made that can prototype
directly in metal with no post processing required remains the Holy Grail. That future
is still not here. But more than anything however, AM is limited by the need to carry
out some sort of post-processing, which brings us back to the uncertainty of the
prototyping decision, which in for the general consumer, will remain an uncertainty
that will ask a more fundamental question - just what do I need this technology for?