Choosing the right tooling materials for manufacturing medical parts can be complicated, but with the right expertise and partner it can be a smooth process for long-term results.  

This is where having options makes a difference. Steel (hard) and aluminum (soft) tooling are both good options for creating the components used to manufacture medical parts. Selecting the option that will deliver the most value depends on your volume requirements, design complexity, and the lifespan of the mold. 

Aluminum Tooling: Fast Turnaround, Limited Cycles    

Specialized tool manufacturers can generally build aluminum tooling quickly, Aluminum tools are compatible with a variety of materials, cost less than steel, and have better heat conductivity. The ability to quickly gain or dissipate heat shortens production cycle times and offers a more consistent mold temperature, reducing the chances of warpage and increasing yields.    

Although aluminum boasts better heat conductivity and shorter production time than steel, its main drawback is that it can begin to wear down more quickly (typically after tens of thousands of production cycles) than steel. Worn tooling increases the chances for imperfections, a deal breaker for medical applications. Manufacturers may need to replace or repair aluminum tooling more often than steel tooling.    

Steel Tooling: High-Volume Production, Higher Upfront Costs  

Steel is a harder material than aluminum. This gives steel tooling many advantages: components can produce millions of parts over years without diminishing quality, the material allows for more complex designs, and the material is resistant to scratches and erosion. Steel tooling supports high-volume production runs for an extended period.  

However, steel tooling is also more expensive, and because steel is so hard, tooling may become difficult to repair or modify once produced. Steel doesn’t allow as much heat conductivity and so, molds take longer to heat and cool, increasing cycle times, potentially introducing warpage, shrinking, or sink marks. Additionally, high-featured designs or those that have unique requirements (e.g., thin, non-uniform walls) may require the use of steel molds to provide the required results. 

Choosing Your Tooling Material 

Both steel and aluminum tooling can be suitable options once the complete part design, budget and volume scenarios are fully considered. While the raw costs are distinctively different, the overall return on investment will depend on the lifespan of the tool and its usage.  

The decision comes down to the intended use of your tooling. Figure 1 shows a simplified version of the three factors to consider when determining which tooling material to use.  

Figure 1. Decision chart for steel vs. aluminum tooling 

Prototypes and Aluminum Tooling  

Prototypes are essential to developing new medical devices and other types of health technology. They allow engineers to test how their concept works in the real world, answering important questions, such as how well the part addresses the treatment’s core problem, how it fits with existing systems, and how easy it is to access and maintain. Without prototyping, these essential questions go unanswered, and the product is less likely to succeed during later stages.   

Consider using aluminum tooling for early prototypes if your volume needs are low – for example: less than 50,000 parts. Aluminum tooling will maintain its quality and reliability for the number of runs required to produce the prototype. Creating steel tooling for these low-volume runs may not provide the return on investment that aluminum will. Steel tooling is a more viable investment for high-production runs when volumes increase.   

Medical Industry Solutions From SyBridge  

Choosing the appropriate tooling for manufacturing your medical parts is crucial. The right tooling material will help guarantee the reliability of parts in high-volume production or the cost-effectiveness of parts in low-volume runs. Consider working with a tooling design and manufacturing expert to ensure consistent, reliable and high-quality outcomes. 

At SyBridge, our expert engineers can help you select the right tooling material to meet your needs. We bring decades of expertise in tool design and manufacturing of various types and levels and can guide you with the right choice for your application. 

Contact us  today to discover how SyBridge can produce the excellence you desire. 

The post How to Choose Tooling Materials for Medical Applications appeared first on SyBridge Technologies.

Prototyping is an essential part of the product development process, but it isn’t just limited to rapidly-produced proof of concept models. Prototyping also comes in handy throughout various phases of a project’s development, including engineering, quality assurance, focus testing, and marketing.

Prior to the introduction of 3D printing, the production, assembly, and presentation of functional prototypes was a long, expensive, and sometimes impossible process. Today, however, a range of 3D printing technologies has made those processes quicker and easier, with both the cost of part production and assembly times reduced significantly. Even with the benefits that 3D printing brings to the prototyping process, it’s still important to understand how it can be optimized during prototyping, so that your project comes together on time, even when you’re facing a critical deadline. 

3D Printing Prototyping Phases Explained

Product Conceptualization

The product conceptualization phase occurs early in the product development life cycle, and involves the relatively swift creation of a model that conveys a design idea. In this phase, speed is a top priority, which makes 3D printing the perfect technology to bring your designs to life.

During production conceptualization, a 3D printer can be used to quickly build one (or several) prototypes to help sell an idea to internal and external stakeholders, and to develop a sales model. These physical mockups will vary in cost depending on materials used and by production requirements. A prototype printed from polylactic acid (PLA), for example, will cost less than one made from ULTEM (PEI). Similarly, while a prototype printed with a taller layer height will be faster and less expensive to produce than one with a shorter layer height, it will look less polished.

Proof of Concept Demonstration

Proof of concept prototypes are essentially working models that demonstrate functionality and prove that your design will fulfill its intended purpose. 

A proof of concept prototype does not need to be produced with the same aesthetic standard as a finished product. During this phase, the emphasis should be on functionality; to save time and money, you may be able to use off-the-shelf components in your proof of concept model, or make the model with a slightly larger layer size than you would for a more advanced prototype. 

While it is possible to use fused deposition modeling (FDM) for proof of concept prototypes, it may be best to use an additive process that offers a little more accuracy, such as Carbon® Digital Light Synthesis™ (DLS) or HP Multi Jet Fusion (MJF). For some prototyping projects, it may even make sense to look beyond additive and explore different manufacturing processes during the proof of concept phase. 

Industrial Design Implementation

The industrial design implementation phase is when you evaluate the ergonomics, aesthetics, usability, and scale of your prototype so that it will closely simulate your final product. 

During this phase, it’s important to use a similar material to your final product in order to better understand its overall ease of use, appearance, and ergonomics. For example, you might use FDM to create parts with the same thermoplastic materials that you would use in the injection molding process so that you don’t need to create an expensive and time-consuming mold but can still get a sense of the look and feel of your final product. Similarly, you might opt to use an HP MJF printer to 3D print a nylon part and coat it with nickel as a finishing process, instead of CNC machining an entirely metal prototype.

Functional Testing and Feedback

The functional testing and feedback phase is when you create functional prototypes to see if your product will actually work.

Functional prototypes generally require end-use durability and a higher-quality surface than parts produced in earlier prototyping phases, and can be sent out for stakeholder feedback in order to improve designs for your next iteration. A hybrid of proof of concept and industrial design prototypes, functional prototypes can be used to test everything from thermal performance and aerodynamics to mechanical performance and properties. Since stakeholder feedback often leads to additional design revisions, it’s best to create functional prototypes before investing in costly tooling in order to avoid mistakes and modifications that stretch your budget and project timeline. 

Pre-Manufacturing Research Modeling 

The pre-manufacturing research modeling phase refers to the creation of research prototypes that look and function like the finished product.

Creating research prototypes, enables critical stakeholders and early adopters to experience your product before the final version is released. Pre-manufacturing research prototypes will be more refined than functional prototypes, yet produced in lower volumes than final production runs. Feedback from stakeholders and early adopters during this phase could mean additional design changes.

Pre-manufacturing research prototypes also enable you to assess parts in the context of design for manufacturability (DFM) or assembly, and then optimize your design for high-volume production. Even the slightest change in product design can significantly impact costs, particularly when dealing with high volumes of parts.

The Advantages of Using 3D Printing for Prototyping

3D printing has plenty to offer when it comes to prototyping. Not only can you use 3D printed prototypes to better understand the form and function of your part, and to optimize your design accordingly, but you won’t break the bank creating them since there’s less need for expensive tooling than, for example, injection molding.

Speed is a notable advantage of prototyping via 3D printing. Instead of waiting weeks or months for a part (as you might with CNC machining or injection molding), a 3D printed prototype can be in your hands in days or even hours. The pace of 3D printing prototype production enables designers to swiftly move from iteration to iteration until a final design is perfected. 3D printers can also handle complex geometries: whether you’re creating a part with a hollow interior, holes, or moving elements, 3D printing is typically a reliable way to create functional, dimensionally-accurate prototypes.

3D printing technology also offers access to a wide range of industrial materials, from performance-grade thermoplastics to light-sensitive resins. That versatility can open up design possibilities for your prototypes: you could use 3D printing technology to create multi-material parts, for example, or use water-soluble support materials to achieve even more complex geometries. 

Tackling the Prototyping Phases of 3D Printing With SyBridge

While 3D printing offers clear benefits during the various phases of prototyping, it may not make sense for you to invest in a 3D printer yourself. 3D printing requires a significant investment in equipment and materials, and requires a level of additive manufacturing technical expertise that might be similarly costly to acquire. With those considerations in mind, it’s entirely possible to minimize the financial and technical challenges of 3D printing by working with a manufacturing partner. 

When you work with SyBridge, you’ll have access to cutting-edge 3D printing technology, an array of additive materials, and the skills you’ll need to deliver on your vision. Our team of expert designers and additive manufacturing engineers will guide you through the prototyping process, ensuring that you optimize your project for quality and cost during every phase. And getting your prototyping project started is easy: simply create an account and upload your design to get an instant quote.

Additionally, you’ll be able to explore different materials, run DFM checks, and store iterations of your prototype parts in the cloud. If you’re ready to get started but want to find out more about your 3D printing prototyping options, contact us today to speak with one of our experts to get the assistance you need to make your ideas a reality.

The post Exploring the Prototyping Phases of 3D Printing appeared first on SyBridge Technologies.

Computer-aided design, or CAD, modeling refers to the process of using virtual models to test and refine part design before physical production begins. 3D CAD models are identical to the final product in both dimensions and details, which can help engineers optimize parts for design and manufacturability in a cost-effective manner. 3D CAD models are utilized to additively manufacture prototypes, for instance, while 2D CAD models can be used to create photorealistic renderings and visualizations of parts and components.

CAD modeling tools can provide manufacturing teams with a number of benefits — such as increased productivity and more efficient design validation — but the software has traditionally required specialized training and years of on-the-ground experience to use effectively. Until recently, the majority of CAD software training materials targeted new users, leaving the specialists interested in developing their skills without the resources to do so.

While this has begun to change in recent years, the advantages that more advanced CAD modeling tools and techniques can provide are significant, and manufacturing teams would do well to incorporate them into production practices. Here’s what designers and product managers need to know.

Advanced CAD modeling techniques

Two key techniques for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of CAD modeling are master modeling and equation-driven design.

Master modeling — also known as top-down design or skeleton modeling — is the cleanest way of designing assemblies. This is because all of the components are linked parametrically: each assembly contains a master part, from which the child parts inherit their geometry, giving engineers a way to control downstream parts more easily.

Consider this example: If a designer needs to increase or decrease the size of a ballpoint pen or computer mouse, they’ll have to adjust each of the product’s components individually — a process that creates multiple opportunities for error. However, master modeling allows the designer to make changes to only the master part, which then automatically translates the changes to the other components within the assembly. This helps keep part models and components tidy, and radically improves the efficiency of design modifications.

Equation-driven design, on the other hand, is a technique that allows engineers to create and model part geometries that align with equation-based constraints or relationships within the part assembly. Many systems incorporate dynamic relationships and ratios that change in response to certain geometric features; equation-driven design provides a useful means of bridging geometry and part performance.

Dynamic fluid nozzles are one example of equation-driven design in practice. These nozzles modify their outlet diameter in response to changes in inlet diameter or pressure — in essence, the diameter or pressure values determine how the design can achieve the desired part performance.

Key considerations for advanced CAD modeling

In addition to the specific advantages of master modeling and equation-driven design, CAD modeling software provides a range of benefits to manufacturers. The precision of CAD models enables cleaner designs and fewer opportunities for error while making it easier for engineers to design what they actually have in mind — rather than being limited by skill or resources. CAD models are also easier to maintain and edit compared to the old paradigm of drafting drawings on paper, as they’re not subject to the wear and tear of their physical counterparts, and they can be easily understood when shared with other designers.

CAD modeling does have a few limitations, primary being the significant time and energy required to learn how to use the software effectively. Historically, there haven’t been many resources available for learning advanced CAD modeling techniques, and becoming familiar with the full range of the software’s capabilities required many hours of practice.

There are also very few “open source” resources available to teach these advanced functions, though some software companies, like Fusion360, have begun to provide tutorials in recent years. Another limitation is that traditional CAD systems typically cannot make organic shapes, forms, and textures. There is, however, a separate class of software designed for making organic, complex forms.

Getting the most from CAD modeling

Ultimately, CAD modeling, while difficult and time-consuming to learn, helps designers and product managers in a number of key ways. 3D CAD models help make managing complex assemblies — some which may include hundreds of related parts — a much simpler process. They enable cleaner, more organized, and more comprehensible part design, which in turn, allows product teams to test and optimize components before production begins.

SyBridge is an on-demand digital manufacturing hub prepared to help product teams of any size or shape execute on their most ambitious projects. Our team of seasoned designers and engineers are schooled in the latest CAD modeling techniques and can leverage both cutting edge technologies and traditional manufacturing methods effectively to ensure that every part is created on-time, in accordance with key requirements, and at a competitive rate. Contact us today to learn more about how we can team up to create new possibilities.

The post Advanced CAD Modeling for Manufacturing appeared first on SyBridge Technologies.

While it’s possible to use additive manufacturing to replicate an existing part that’s produced using traditional methods, it isn’t the best use of additive manufacturing. To maximize a part’s performance, cost savings and material usage, it’s best to design it from the ground up with the unique opportunities and constraints of additive in mind. Or, in other words, you should create your product using design for additive manufacturing (DFAM) principles.

DFAM draws on the same idea as design for manufacturability (DFM) — integrating process planning and product development. But instead of optimizing a product for urethane casting or injection molding, DFAM optimizes a product for production-grade manufacturing with additive technologies by analyzing competing factors to develop the most efficient design.

Additive manufacturing isn’t as simple as hitting print, especially when using DFAM principles to design a part for industrial-grade quality while minimizing production costs. But the resulting parts meet the performance of traditionally manufactured parts while reducing lead times, eliminating tooling costs and maximizing design flexibility. Leveraging DFAM guidelines early on in the product development process allows product design teams to optimize their designs to capture the value of additive manufacturing.

Here are a few common principles of DFAM to consider when leaping from additive manufacturing for prototyping to additive manufacturing for production:

Minimize Overhangs and Reduce Reliance on Supports

Each successive slice of your part as it is printing (e.g., in FDM, DMLS, etc.) relies on the layers below it for support. Large overhangs, openings and other features may require additional support during the build to prevent warping and ensure the product achieves its performance tolerances.Parts designed with DFAM principles in mind will be self-supporting, minimizing the need for supporting features which can add cost through material waste and added post-processing needs. And if supports are required, one cost-saving consideration would be to orient the part so that supports are placed in regions that aren’t user-facing, where marks are acceptable. This reduces the sanding and finishing time required in post-processing.

Part Orientation

While additive manufactured parts can be built in many orientations, the angle at which a feature is built can affect its tolerances. And because features can only deviate from the spec so much until it affects tolerance limits, it’s important to consider a range of possible orientations early on in the design process. That way, you can identify which orientation is best-suited for producing your part.

Consolidate Multi-Part Assemblies

It’s difficult to produce complex shapes with traditional manufacturing, which can necessitate creating some products as multi-part assemblies. If you are transitioning your product from traditional to additive manufacturing, it can often be consolidated into fewer parts to significantly reduce assembly costs. When Steelcase designed an arm cap using for additive manufacturing, for example, we transformed a three-part assembly into one uninterrupted part with multiple functional zones

Leveraging Generative Design to Optimize Your Part

The unique geometries possible through additive processes allows product designers to leverage generative design tools (e.g., topology optimization or lattice structures) to optimize the structure of your part based on hundreds of variables. And because lattices allow you to precisely tune the strength and material density in different regions of a part, one contiguous part can meet different performance requirements in different regions.

The Most Important Additive Manufacturing Design Consideration

None of these guidelines address one of the biggest obstacles to transitioning to production-grade additive manufacturing: An additive manufacturing product design skills gap. Because of this gap, the most important design guideline is to align yourself with additive manufacturing product design experts at the outset of any DFAM project. They will recommend design modifications that will optimize the cost and performance of your product. And they’ll understand how to drive efficiencies at the supply chain level through on-demand production and virtual warehousing. The sooner you involve expert AM design and engineering support, the greater the benefits you stand to earn with your switch to additive.

Interested in learning more? Be sure to check out our article on how to go beyond prototyping, and make your case for additive. At SyBridge, we’ll partner with companies across industries to discover, design and develop any part or product using additive manufacturing technologies. Learn how our experienced additive manufacturing design team can partner with you to design and deliver production-grade parts precisely tuned to your performance and design requirements. We’ve helped multi-million-dollar companies capture value with additive manufacturing, and can help you with your application, too. Get in touch with us today.

The post Applying Smart Design Principles to Amplify Benefits of Additive Manufacturing appeared first on SyBridge Technologies.

Prototyping is a key phase of the manufacturing lifecycle that typically links the end of the design stage with the start of production. The process enables designers and engineers to refine part design, gather feedback, and gain stakeholder buy-in.

Prototypes can be created a number of different ways. Rapid 3D prototyping, which uses additive manufacturing methods to produce parts, has become an increasingly popular choice for prototyping because it allows engineers to quickly and cost-effectively identify design issues before production begins. This helps to avoid potentially costly or time-consuming tool revisions, improves product quality, and ensures that production stays on-track with projected timelines.

However, certain part applications and materials aren’t good fits for 3D-based prototyping. Processes like fused deposition modeling (FDM) produce non-isotropic parts that might be more fragile and react differently than production elastomer parts, while other additive methods may be limited by cost or material options.

This can present a challenge for rapid prototyping elastomer molding, seals, and other highly elastic parts with low durometers, where flexibility is a desirable material characteristic. While developments in additive manufacturing methods have enabled engineers to print rubber, or “elastomer” products, there are still limitations to what can be done with the technology. However, elastomer components and prototypes can be effectively made with traditional manufacturing methods.

Methods to Produce Elastomeric Prototypes

Processes like compression molding and transfer molding are highly efficient methods for producing rubber parts such as gaskets, seals, and O-rings, but the tooling required to manufacture rubber compression mold designs tends to come with a high price tag. The two most common traditional methods for prototyping rubber parts are urethane casting and die-cutting.

Urethane casting involves creating a silicone mold around a master pattern with the exact geometry of the desired final part. The master pattern can be CNC-machined or 3D-printed, depending on the application and geometric complexity. Once the mold sets, it can be cut open and used to create highly precise replicas of the master pattern in low volumes. One significant advantage of urethane casting is that the process allows for more durometers and colors than other methods of elastomer prototyping. Die-cutting of elastomeric sheet stock is also very common for gaskets and seals.

CNC milling is a subtractive manufacturing process that uses rotating tools to quickly and efficiently cut material away from a solid workpiece, thereby shaping the desired part. This method can also be used to create rubber designs, but there’s one major design limitation: attempting to cut elastic, pliable material with any degree of accuracy is incredibly difficult. For this reason, only very rigid rubbers can be effectively milled.

Cast urethane prototyping is a more efficient way of creating soft rubber parts. If for some reason the prototype must be milled, engineers should consider placing a collar just above the mill to prevent the rubber workpiece from moving. Rubber workpieces can also be frozen in liquid nitrogen prior to milling to increase their hardness.

One of the primary advantages of 3D printing rubber prototypes is speed. Once the CAD file is finalized, parts can often be manufactured in less than a day. However, some additive methods come with material limitations, which means that while they may be effective at testing the fit and form of components, they are often not ideal for functional testing.

Some material limitations vary based on process. One of the first methods of 3D-printed elastomer prototyping used selective laser sintering (SLS) with an elastic base material. Prototypes created through SLS display some elasticity, but still exhibit relative stiffness and are prone to breaking after repeated flexing. These parts also often have low-resolution finishes.

The development of PolyJet technology enabled engineers to print multiple materials in different combinations from the same head. This allows for the production of prototypes that accurately simulate the various properties of rubber, including durometers ranging from 27-95 on the Shore hardness scale. Unfortunately, many PolyJet materials lack the strength of true rubber prototypes, though some newer materials provide more comparable strength and functionality.

Carbon’s Digital Light Synthesis (DLS) technology can also be used to print elastomer prototypes, with one advantage of the process being that it allows for greater isotropic properties. This method has some limitations when it comes to material properties, durometer, color, part complexity, and part size, but can be used to create production-quality rubber prototypes.

Prototyping Rubber Parts Efficiently

Technological advances have made it much easier to rapidly and economically prototype elastomer parts, and letting the required material specifications determine which process manufacturers is key to maximizing efficiency. If the prototype is intended as a proof of concept or to test the form and fit of components, then the efficiency afforded by 3D printing is hard to beat. On the other hand, urethane casting has far fewer material limitations, which will often prove more useful for the purpose of functional testing.

At SyBridge, we’re committed to streamlining the manufacturing process of every project from concept to delivery. We work hand-in-hand with our customers during each phase of the production lifecycle, helping product teams of all shapes and sizes optimize their part design, prototype, select best-fit materials, test, and manufacture at scale. Our team of seasoned designers, engineers, and advisors are prepared to become your dedicated manufacturing partner. We promise cost- and time-efficient production that yields products of unmatched quality. Contact us today to get started.

The post Guide to Elastomer Prototyping appeared first on SyBridge Technologies.

Historically, manufacturing in low volumes was a prohibitively expensive undertaking. Tooling the durable molds that are used in mass-production processes like injection molding is expensive and can add weeks or months to production timelines. Manufacturers offset steep upfront capital expenses with high-volume orders, which reduces the cost-per-part and yields higher profit margins. While this makes it easy to produce identical parts in large quantities, it greatly restricts the ability to manufacture specialized or highly customized pieces economically.

However, a number of manufacturing methods, including urethane casting and CNC machining, have increased the feasibility of affordable, small-scale production. What’s more, recent advancements in additive manufacturing have enabled engineers to create parts with complex geometries and unique design features without creating molds, in many ways economizing low-volume production.

The cutoff for what constitutes low-volume production varies across industries, but is generally understood to mean runs that yield between 50 and tens of thousands of pieces. Highly customized parts and prototypes, parts with complex geometries, and bridge tooling are a few categories of part applications that are typically produced in lower volumes.

Low-volume production methods are typically faster, which allows companies to get their product to market quickly. For manufacturers, efficiency is paramount, and it’s important to know which process makes the most sense for each part. Here are a few manufacturing methods that are commonly used for small-volume production.

Cast urethane

The cast urethane process works by encasing a master pattern in a silicone mold, which is then used to create extremely accurate replicas of the part. This makes it a viable choice for parts when surface finish is a concern. These silicone molds can be put into production as soon as they have set.

Cast urethane parts require minimal post-processing and have characteristics and properties similar to those of parts created through processes like injection molding, which are known for their durability. Generally, silicone molds are only good for about 25 to 50 shots before they should be retired, which makes the process cost-effective for low-volume production.

CNC machining

CNC machining is a subtractive process that uses computer-controlled tools to shape three-dimensional parts by removing material from a solid workpiece. This allows manufacturers to program repeatable, highly precise, and complex operations that can’t be performed manually or efficiently. However, as part complexity increases, so too do the number of mechanical operations, which drives up the cost of production.

A significant advantage of CNC machining is that it has few restrictions when it comes to manufacturing material. On the other hand, certain internal features are impossible to make through CNC machining. In instances when these features are necessary, 3D printing may present a more efficient solution.

Therefore, it’s up to engineers and product managers to do their due diligence in order to select the proper method by which to achieve their desired results. While CNC machining typically can’t offer turnarounds on par with 3D printing and urethane casting, it offers shorter lead times than injection molding.

Additive manufacturing

Additive manufacturing is frequently a great choice for low-volume production. 3D printing allows you to create parts without the upfront expenses associated with tooling. Parts can also be produced without minimum order quantities, which saves both production and carrying costs. Here are some additive technologies to consider for small-volume production runs.

Carbon’s Digital Light Synthesis (DLS)

Carbon’s Digital Light Synthesis™ (DLS) technology creates parts by projecting UV images into a reservoir of UV-curable resin as the build platform rises. This allows manufacturers to create highly isotropic parts with superior surface finish, resolution, and mechanical properties. It’s an excellent choice for creating small volumes of parts with complex shapes.

Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)

SLS technology uses lasers to melt powdered material a layer at a time, building the part vertically. The process is ideal for parts that require good surface finish, resolution, and strength, and can be used with a range of base materials.

Multi-Jet Fusion (MJF)

MJF is similar to SLS, except it uses moving inkheads to deposit and fuse layers of nylon powder material. MJF results in parts with consistent isotropic mechanical properties and fine feature resolution, many of which are fully functional and suitable for end use. The process allows for rapid production, and is an excellent option for creating tooling that requires strength and heat resistance, such as jigs and fixtures.

Choosing the right production process for your job

Ultimately, determining the right method for a given small-volume order will come down to a few key considerations: part application, material, and timeline. To determine the best course of action, consider partnering with a full-service manufacturing shop like SyBridge. Our team of highly experienced designers and engineers provide comprehensive support with the entire production process. Get in touch today if you’re ready to get started on your next project.

The post Choosing the Right Manufacturing Method for Your Low-Volume Production Run appeared first on SyBridge Technologies.

Superior designs aren’t made overnight — they are the product of rounds of iteration, testing, and adaptation. In fact, every successful part that we encounter in our daily lives has undergone a thorough product development process to optimize the part’s design and manufacturability.

Without prototyping and validating components, there’s no guarantee that parts will fit together or function as planned. Errors require redesigns, which can be extremely costly due to scrapped product, production delays, and new tooling.

A rigorous product development process will include several rounds of prototyping. Each prototype has a purpose — some are simple proof of concept models, while others demonstrate functionality or desired material characteristics. Prototypes can be created using a variety of manufacturing methods, so it’s important for manufacturers to know the ins and outs of different processes to maximize the efficiency of the product development stage. This article will touch on some key considerations for rapid prototyping.

The Stages of Rapid Prototyping

Prototyping can be broken down into a number of phases, each of which aims to test or demonstrate an aspect of a part’s design. Choosing the prototype’s manufacturing process will depend on which factors are being evaluated. Typically, the closer the process gets to production, the more complex and expensive prototyping becomes.

1. Proof of Concept Models

Initial prototypes are simple models that provide a general idea of the part’s application. The things to prioritize at this stage are speed and appearance — the goal is to get the prototype in front of people quickly so that the general design can be approved or rejected before the next round of prototyping begins.

Depending on the application, rudimentary prototypes can be made from clay, cardboard, or modeling foam, but if a sophisticated model is needed, manufacturers can easily create cast urethane or 3D-printed prototypes from a quick CAD model.  The fidelity of prototypes will improve as the product design advances.

2. Assembly Testing Models

Once the product architecture has been determined, it is important to prototype the various pieces of an assembly to ensure that they fit as intended. This helps identify potential physical problems with the part, from design errors to issues with dimensions, tolerances, or fit. This stage should prioritize part accuracy and precision.

Fused deposition modeling (FDM) enables rapid size and shape testing, and processes like CNC machining consistently yield favorable part tolerances (though complex part geometries can impact the efficiency of machining prototypes). It’s important to keep in mind that any test of a prototype’s tolerances will require using an identical or comparable manufacturing process to what will be used in production.

3. Functional Models

The next phase of testing evaluates how prototypes perform when subjected to the stresses and conditions of the part’s intended application. This can involve testing the part’s resistance to chemicals, temperature fluctuations, or electricity, as well as the part’s mechanical, optical, and thermal properties in order to achieve optimal results.

Sometimes, another round of prototyping may be necessary to determine how the part’s material properties change over time. What is known as “life testing” subjects prototypes to extreme conditions (including humidity, extreme temperatures, or UV exposure) to measure fatigue strength and help ensure that products stay functional for the course of their projected lifetimes.

In both testing situations, manufacturers should prioritize material choice, using the exact or a comparable material to the final part for the most accurate results.

4. Regulatory Testing Models

At this stage, product design should be finalized, and one of the final steps of prototyping is creating models for regulatory testing. These models can be used to demonstrate that the part is compliant with standards established by agencies like the FDA, the FCC, or the International Standard Organization (ISO), and can include testing the part’s flammability, food safety, or, in the case of many medical applications, biocompatibility.

If the prototype meets all regulatory requirements, manufacturers can begin preparations to start production.

Prototyping: The Stepping Stone to Functional, Manufacturable Parts

The end goal of prototyping is two-fold: to prove that a part is functional and to demonstrate that it can be manufactured economically. Using information gathered during rounds of prototyping, designers, engineers, and product managers can ensure that a part is optimized for design, manufacturability, and function — while mitigating risks of discovering functional issues down the line. A thorough approach to prototyping ultimately maximizes part quality, helps ensure regulatory compliance, saves on costs, and cuts production times.

With an experienced manufacturing partner like SyBridge, every customer sees their part designs optimized for functionality, cost, durability, and compliance from the get-go. Our team of experienced designers, engineers, and project managers ensure that the prototyping process is effective, fast, and cost-efficient. We’re dedicated to making your biggest ideas a reality, and we back that up with robust customer support during every step of the production lifecycle, from concept to delivery. If you’d like to learn more about the manufacturing solutions we offer, contact us today.

The post A Designer’s Guide to Prototyping appeared first on SyBridge Technologies.

Most are well-acquainted with additive manufacturing (AM) — as a rapid prototyping tool, at least. And while many companies believe and perpetuate the myth that AM is only a prototyping tool, innovators in a range of markets (e.g., aerospace, healthcare, consumer goods and more) are already using AM for production-grade manufacturing when design, performance and cost factors align.

Exploring AM as a means of production opens up design and performance possibilities simply not possible with CNC machining, urethane casting or injection molding. This article will cover how organizations can:

• Identify if there’s a strong business case for switching to AM for your part or product.
• Leverage design for additive manufacturing (DFAM) principles for a seamless transition from rapid prototyping to rapid production.

Building a Business Case for Adopting Production-Grade Additive Manufacturing

Generally speaking, switching to production-grade AM for a part or product makes sense if there’s potential for adding value through:

• Lightweighting Your Product 
  Lightweighting products using AM advances material usage and performance — and opens up opportunity to capture savings throughout the product’s lifecycle. AM has enabled the weight reduction of aerospace parts by as much as 70 percent, saving about $3,000 per year in fuel.
• Low-Cost Mass Customization
  Consumer demand for customization is rising, with 30 percent of Americans interested in product personalization. And additive manufacturing uniquely allows product designers to meet this demand with lower customization costs and lead times than legacy production methods.Once the base component of your product has been validated with AM, personalizing the product with a corporate logo or different texture is a simple change in the CAD file — with no custom tooling required. Allowing consumers to tailor a product to their design preferences or needs not only helps you stand out among the competition, but it also ultimately provides more value to the customer.
• Enhancing Your Product’s Performance
  Virtually any shape, feature or function can be produced using AM. And product designers can experiment with vastly different geometries and textures with each design iteration without incurring retooling costs — which can range from $25,000 to $100,000.
• Supply Chain Efficiency
  It’s estimated that companies leveraging on-demand additive manufacturing can achieve total supply chain savings as high as 50 to 90 percent. Especially for companies selling large quantities of replacement parts, on-demand additive manufacturing opens up opportunity to eliminate warehousing costs and reduce the risk of part obsolescence.
• Faster Product Iteration
  AM allows design teams to refine and optimize their product with each design iteration. And because you’re prototyping on the same machine your product will be produced on, you can begin to validate the manufacturing process and your product’s performance during the prototype stage. In some instances, the time it takes to go from initial product concept to final product design can be reduced by up to 90 percent.

There are many benefits to making the switch to AM, but of course there are challenges to consider. Producing a part through AM may mean you’re paying a higher per-part cost than conventional manufacturing. However, those fees can be offset because AM also virtually eliminates the need for warehousing, which is critical because housing inventory can add anywhere from 20 to 25 percent to overall costs of production. Contact us today to learn more.

The post Beyond Prototyping: Scaling Up to Additive Manufacturing for Production appeared first on SyBridge Technologies.