139,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
Additive manufacturing, which was first invented in France and then applied in the United States, is now 33 years old and represents a market of around 5 billion euros per year, with annual growth of between 20 and 30%. Today, additive manufacturing is experiencing a great amount of innovation in its processes, software, engineering and materials used. Its strength as a process has more recently allowed for the exploration of new niches, ranging from applications at nanometer and decameter scales, to others in mechanics and health. As a result, the limitations of the process have also begun to emerge, which include the quality of the tools, their cost of manufacture, the multi-material aspects, functionalities and surface conditions. Volume 2 of this series presents the current techniques, improvements and limits of additive manufacturing, providing an up-to-date review of this process.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 518
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Dedication
Title
Copyright
Acknowledgments
Foreword
Preface
Introduction
I.1. Introduction
I.2. Bibliography
PART 1: Incremental Innovations and Technologies Pushed to their Limits
1 Incremental Developments of Processes, Machines and Materials
1.1. Introduction
1.2. Undertaking non-layered stereolithography
1.3. Challenging the notion of layers
1.4. Optical-quality surface finish
1.5. Cold-cast metal 3D printing
1.6. Colored objects
1.7. Conclusion
1.8. Bibliography
PART 2: Additive Manufacturing Pushed to its Limits
Introduction to Part 2
I.1. Introduction
I.2. Overall framework
I.3. Bibliography
2 μ-Fluidics (or Microfluidics)
2.1. Introduction
2.2. Review of microfluidics
2.3. Applications
2.4. Return to additive manufacturing
2.5. Conclusive outcomes
2.6. The converse problem: a potential μ-fluidics application to additive manufacturing
2.7. Provisional concept
2.8. Conclusion
2.9. Bibliography
3 3D Nanomanufacturing, 3D μ-Electronics and μ-Robotics
3.1. Introduction
3.2. 3D nano-facturing
3.3. 3D μ-electronics
3.4. Actuators and μ-robots
3.5. Conclusion
3.6. Bibliography
PART 3: How Should We Go That One Step Further?
4 A Short Reflection on Spheres to Explore Their Conditions for Achieving Success
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Favored spheres of innovation
4.3. Some conditions to ensure additive manufacturing reaches maturity?
4.4. A positive conclusion
4.5. Bibliography
5 Questions of Hope and “Unhope”
5.1. Introduction
5.2. The “lab-tribe” (LT) approach
5.3. Creativity’s place in research
5.4. Innovation, a consequence of creativity
5.5. What solutions to evoke for additive manufacturing?
5.6. In the form of a conclusion: a summary of the author’s point of view
5.7. Bibliography
Conclusion
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Introduction
Table I.1. Disparities between aspects of “standard” methods compared to those of 3D printing
1 Incremental Developments of Processes, Machines and Materials
Table 1.1. Components to master to develop the process
Table 1.2. Comparison of the conductivities of various components including polymer conductors
2 μ-Fluidics (or Microfluidics)
Table 2.1. Microfluidic potential so as to explore the effects of scale changes
Table 2.2. Reminder of flow system
Table 2.3. 3D printing applications in microfluidics
Table 2.4. A number of 3D-printing microfluidics applications
Table 2.5. Elements to bring under control for development of the process
3 3D Nanomanufacturing, 3D μ-Electronics and μ-Robotics
Table 3.1. Example extracts from Je et al. [JE 17] of resolutions for the processes suggested within their publication
Table 3.2. Additive manufacturing and nanomaterials
4 A Short Reflection on Spheres to Explore Their Conditions for Achieving Success
Table 4.1. Comparison between scientific and technological opportunities offered by additive manufacturing and associated limitations
Table 4.2. Comparison between socio-economic opportunities offered by additive manufacturing and associated limitations
Table 4.3. Relationship between materials and processes within additive manufacturing (THP for fusible polymer or thermo-plastics; TFP for thermally fusing polymers)
Table 4.4. Creativity associated with various current or conceivable additive manufacturing processes
Table 4.5. Creativity associated with various applications of current or conceivable additive manufacturing processes
Table 4.6. Means of action
5 Questions of Hope and “Unhope”
Table 5.1. Vision of the future in their research associated with the views of members of the laboratory as a function of different scenarios
Table 5.2. For an active monitoring
Table 5.3. Average loss in France’s competitiveness in the field of production relative to the world
Table 5.4. Efficiency of support for innovation
Table 5.5. Comparison of the 3D experience with the standards of innovation
Table 5.6. Innovation environments in five developed countries
Table 5.7. Weakness of France’s effort in additive manufacturing (dark color: significant effort (3 points); medium: average (2 points); light: weal (1 point); white: insignificant (0 points); GR for German Republic, Sing. for Singapore Jpn for Japan; DIY for “Do-It-Yourself”)
Table 5.8. Decision tree
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
C1
ii
iii
iv
v
ix
xi
xii
xiii
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxiv
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
xxix
xxx
xxxi
xxxii
xxxiii
xxxiv
xxxv
xxxvi
xxxvii
xxxviii
xxxix
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
297
298
299
300
301
302
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
e1
To Laurent and Denis, who allowed me to dedicate myself to additive manufacturing.
Series Editor
Jean-Charles Pomerol
From Additive Manufacturing to 3D/4D Printing 2
Current Techniques, Improvements and their Limitations
Jean-Claude André
First published 2017 in Great Britain and the United States by ISTE Ltd and John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the undermentioned address:
ISTE Ltd
27-37 St George’s Road
London SW19 4EU
UK
www.iste.co.uk
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
111 River Street
Hoboken, NJ 07030
USA
www.wiley.com
© ISTE Ltd 2017
The rights of Jean-Claude André to be identified as the author of this work have been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017953144
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 978-1-78630-120-8
Acknowledgments
Sincere thanks to 3A, BeAm, 3DCeram, 3D Systems, Fives, Nanoscribe, Poietis, Prodways, XtreeE, Alex (alias Alexandre Martel, co-founder of 3D Natives.com) and Laurent Dupont, head of the Lorraine Fab Living Lab® for their effective cooperation, and particularly for graciously providing certain images.
Prototype part (3DCeram, 2017), reproduction of the Église de Bonsecours in Nancy (LRGP, 1994) and metallic part (3A – Applications Additives Avancées, 2017)
Foreword
The evocative expression “3D printing” has been overtaken in everyday speech by the expression generally preferred by scientists and engineers, “additive manufacturing”. In both cases, it is a matter of manufacturing objects in successive layers, and soon every workshop and every school will have a 3D printer and engage in additive manufacturing. Self-service workshops known as fab-labs already offer users the possibility to create their own objects. However, the adventure is not over, as “4D” is coming up over the horizon with materials that evolve over time, not to mention “bio-printing”, which aims to create organs to be used to repair the living. Furthermore, the 3D printing of tomorrow, which will be performed without layers, threatens to make the term “additive manufacturing” obsolete, thereby making it possible to return to the initial concept of 3D printing. Whatever the case may be, we are faced with not only a very active and booming world, but also a complex world that calls on numerous skills in physics, engineering, chemistry of materials and mechanics with a resolutely multidisciplinary and convergent approach.
To understand the origin of the ideas in additive manufacturing/3D printing, learn about the current state of what is known and explore the developments to come, what could be better than to ask one of the inventors of the technology and one of the first French patent holders in the field, Jean-Claude André, to share his knowledge with us? This led to the idea of this 3-volume edition that I am pleased to present; a work that is both erudite and prospective, as its intention is to start at the genesis of the ideas that led to additive manufacturing to anticipate the impact and future of still “additive” technologies and, beyond this, to encourage reflection on the interactions between science and society of today and tomorrow.
If the first patents date back to 1984, an era where lasers, photo-materials and computer-aided design had already been mastered, was the idea of additive manufacturing completely disruptive as would be said today. What was creative was to put all of this knowledge together to come to something entirely new. Nevertheless, approval for the concept of additive manufacturing came rather quickly. It is on this basis that other additive methodologies, currently many of them with very specific niches, could be developed. These range from prototype and industrial parts to art, variable spatial scales – from the decameter to the nanometer –, from the inert to the living, from industrial organizations to very delocalized forms of manufacturing, etc.
On the basis of these works with varied applicative and societal spectrums, some of which are in the process of becoming stabilized, others to be invented, the principles of additive manufacturing can serve as an example, even as a “laboratory” to better understand how the interactions between research and society can (and must) develop, whether this is through new scientific concepts and the associated concepts of creativity, interdisciplinary scientific and technological operations, the popularization of public research, links with society in terms of the creation of new markets and jobs, and also forms of responsibility and ethics.
Throughout these three volumes, the author would like to invite you to reflect on the circuits between the applications that pose new scientific questions and prior research which opens the door to new applications or new products. The more we progress in the field of new niches, the more previously unasked scientific questions are considered, questions whose answers (if they exist) are supported and encouraged by public authorities and industry, which are gaining awareness of an immense industrial and/or medical market, as is the case for bio-printing. From dream to reality, scientists are often in the position to anticipate the length of the path; however, a dynamic is created. This leads to cultural changes and changes in practices, particularly concerning the importance of creativity, sharing enthusiasm for research, openness with others, the multiplying (and sometimes inhibiting) effect of public actors, on the one hand, and the economic world, on the other, as this work illustrates wonderfully.
This saga of additive manufacturing, told by one of its inventors, teaches us that creativity alone does not suffice; it is necessary to have a good dose of perseverance as well, and it is, of course, necessary to keep moving after the first failures. In addition, this shows us that sometimes the research structures and the environment are not entirely receptive to innovation, even when success comes relatively quickly. Jean-Claude André also explains with great enthusiasm how we give shape to an idea to feed our intuition, which in turn increases creativity. On the whole, these three volumes provide a wealth of information on additive manufacturing, and additionally, they illustrate and encourage veritable reflection on the task of a researcher and research structures, as well as the role of creativity in research, and finally, they invite us to rethink and reinforce the relations between science and society.
Jean-Charles POMEROLPresident of the Incubateur AGORANOV and the ISTE Editions Scientific Committee
Preface
“We have too often forgotten that specialists are created from amateurs, just as soldiers are made from civilians”. [LAT 07]
“In France, strangely enough, it is not those used to sailing the seas, the specialists of the real and tangible, who are asked for advice guiding the flagship, but the members of a caste who stay at port and who, for the most part, have only purely theoretic knowledge of the sea”. [BEI 12]
“Technology has taken on a new breadth and organization. Here, I am searching for its specific structure, and I have noticed that it exists as a system, in other words, as an organized whole”. [ELL 04]
“Those in the organization who have ideas to do things otherwise or better are divided into two categories: those who do not dare and those who dare. Those who do not dare understand very well the risks and the importance of new ideas, but they are paralyzed by risk taking and the fear of displeasing. Having never tried anything, they have not known failure and are thus unharmed by reproach […], they are quitters. Those who dare, the innovators, move forward by challenging conventional ideas, organizations, and sometimes procedures. They stir up fears and a lack of understanding and are truly criticized…”. [PHI 12 ]
“Science has largely renounced an interdisciplinary vision allowing the merits of different results to be faced”. [THO 83]
“Theory is when everything is known and nothing works. Practice is when everything works and no one knows why. Here, we have united theory and practices: nothing works… and no one knows why!”. [EIN07]
“These creatures of man [machines] are exacting. They are now reacting on their creators, making them like themselves. They want well-trained humans; they are gradually wiping out the differences between men, fitting them into their own orderly functioning, into the uniformity of their own regimes”. [VAL 57]
“Speaking of discipline is designating the scientific activity as a particular form of the division of labor in the social world”. [FAB 06]
“The imagination is brilliant in that it produces images that enlarge reality and really invent it”. [GUÉ 15]
“In cultural terms, no enterprise is built with dreams alone and none without. Action, if it is to be successful, is by necessity guided by practical circumstances. But the goal of any action is defined, implicitly or explicitly, by the deep nature of the human being, his dreams, his vision of life, his culture. The dynamics of life, the challenge of risk and uncertainty, today require from us a new creative effort leading to the reconstruction and to the re-conquest of the notion of progress, which the philosophies and the ideologies of certainty have shuttered almost to the point of destruction”. [GIA 90]
“Researching is inventing the world, it is setting new rules of functioning for an ephemeral world. Not like the tyrants who also invent a new world for themselves, but impose it upon others. The researcher does not recreate the world, but rather unravels it to make it. He/She imagines one, then compares it with the real world to clarify it and not to exhaust it. Researching is an endless quest”. [ROS 01]
Figure 1.From additive manufacturing to 3D/4D printing
This book (in three volumes) is the result of a demand that has been repeated countless times for different reasons, notably among these, of the oversight and the reminder of the oversight to cite a French school that in 1984 succeeded to patent the first additive manufacturing process, stereolithography, several weeks before the Americans (who were working on the same subject, without either party knowing it). However, at the same time, thirty or so years later, it is a history lesson that can be told about a process concept, tossed out in France, without any malice of course, by “clairvoyant hierarchists”, the explosion of the research team who felt their future was blocked and an American technical-economic development which has today led to several books and more than 50,000 scientific publications on additive manufacturing, because consequent applicative markets exist with profitable enterprises (and also because there is an immense attraction field around this subject that conditions the actions of a great number of researchers).
So why have we entitled these three volumes “From Additive Manufacturing to 3D/4D Printing”? First, it was about locally bringing material and/or energy to perform a transformation (e.g. from a powder to a solid or from a liquid to a solid). The expression “additive” then takes on its true meaning. But for a short time now, researchers have been developing (or working on) new processes that allow this change to be avoided through the additions mentioned at the start of this paragraph. It thus becomes possible to create an object in one go. Moreover, the use of so-called “smart” materials authorizes the introduction of a complementary parameter, i.e. time or functionality. The 4D aspect is thereby introduced.
The first volume on additive manufacturing is strongly linked to the existence of an effective economic market, one that is already significant, stemming from technological research in the engineering sciences connected to an essential component, that of materials (and of manipulating them to prepare them for manufacturing). It will take several decades for 3D technology to emerge and find its place as a robust technology for manufacturing objects in quite diverse domains. This situation, linked from the start to a strong attractiveness on the part of industrial R and R&D services, has allowed for “field” experimentation with competent users who are more and more demanding in terms of manufacturing qualities (without seeking in this preface to define what this quality, a true portmanteau, represents). Mastery by users, on the one hand, and competition between the bearers of knowledge pertaining to different 3D printing knowledge, on the other, are translated into new demands to be satisfied. In this framework, this demand has in fact made up one of the driving forces of incremental research, a “technology pull” described in Volume 2 (at least as much as is known (or published)).
A solution is good if and only if the concept, its demonstration with the right people, a culture of industrial innovation, and time and finances effectively come together. Maybe at that time, in 1984, there was a closed system of opinion and self-centered management that had not even thought of a possible debate on futuristic technological openings. This conformity to a manufacturing follower style of thinking was more and more often considered to be obsolete. But there was also, beyond socio-economic milieus, an incredible viscosity with many scientists: the most common attitude was not openness to other explicative schemata, but in the majority of cases, the ignorance and/or refusal to accept their existence. Tricks that only imperfectly fit into our ethics as researchers (at the time) must be made and likely developed.
According to estimation methods, the revenue from additive manufacturing lies somewhere between 5 and 40 billion euros (we could think that this is an estimation of the number of protesters in a claim by the police or trade unions!). Some speak of a revolution and others imagine senseless promises (which, according to Audétat [AUD 15], could put every emerging sector in danger); in short, things are booming at present with seven main stabilized technologies and a new kind of governance (Jeremy Rifkin’s “makers”). This appreciative placement of the normalizers into categories is indeed rather artificial. Beyond a recent manufacturing technique that associates computer science and matter, 3D printing, with cheaper and cheaper home machines (down to a few hundred euros), constitutes a paradigm shift that impacts product design (which can even be defined, thanks to “open-source” systems), creation (from heavy industry to one’s “garage”), consumption and the business models that result from them (from market activity, a new handicraft and DIY (Do-It-Yourself) to counterfeiting).
In fact, the progression rates are always in the double figures (between 20 and 40% per year), which leads some to believe that the additive manufacturing processes will continue to evolve for a long time to become a widespread technology, as they increasingly occupy ever-new applicative niches, quashing the other manufacturing methods that made up the skeleton of 20th Century industrial manufacturing. But what do tens of billions of euros per year represent for the world relative to France’s “small” debt amounting to 2 trillion euros? It is therefore difficult to project a future which leads to a possible hegemony of additive manufacturing; besides, it would be more interesting to explore how intelligent synergies can be implemented with technology that emerged long before 1984. Yet, as is resurfaced in Volume 2, there are spaces, still relatively empty, where an attempt is made to challenge the very concept of adding material to processes.
The early 21st Century is marked by the “hegemonic” presence of the digital transition with the technological and practical complements of additive manufacturing processes likely to affect Western society in a quick and profound way. “In the face of radical innovation markets, where the first arrivers can acquire decisive, dominant positions and make the passage of other markets and the economic actors in place disappear, keeping a distance and watching things happen can lead to considerable social and economic costs” [FRA 17]. To go beyond this already uncertain space and become involved in disruptive innovations implies taking risks, thus accepting potential failure, facing their possible negative consequences, and being capable of learning all the lessons this teaches. “If we do not proactively incorporate innovation, this will end up being imposed all the same, in an even more disruptive manner” [FRA 17]. In short, it may be useful to anticipate.
In roughly a century, the number of researchers in Europe has gone from a few thousand to a few million, and despite some disturbances, this trend is continuing. Research activities have been the subject of reassuring discourse on the researcher’s independence, on the one hand, and on the other, of a certain programming of research with the aim of achieving goals: security (before the fall of the “Iron Curtain”, for example) and economic developments (from mass production with ECSC projects to information and communication sciences and technologies) participating in different forms of competition from France and the European Union.
On this basis, the stereotypical image of the scientist, responsible for the truth and good, is still part of the idealized image, which often positions him/her very highly in relation to a social reality of which he/she only has an imperfect mastery. The will to achieve the best “research efficiency” has led to the promotion of rather mono-disciplinary processes that are easier to manage from “peers”, referents of a discipline. On the one hand, in-depth scientific study is maintained by actors from the same field provided that the guarantee of excellence is defined and respected; on the other, for the State, it is easier to realize international comparisons discipline after discipline. Indeed, and this is necessary to remember, without really noticing it, we have gone from a limited worldwide scientific elite to mass research (with tens of thousands of scientific journals) which represents a characteristic that is not discussed by developed nations: research must indeed allow society to respond to the great challenges that loom today: employment, progress, security, global warming, health and quality of life, sustainable development, etc.
Without seeking to speak of two worlds exploring different paradigms, one of in-depth study, the other of responding to social demand (even its anticipation), for this aim would be too limited, rather we look at evolutions translated by a research program that takes account of the different and sometimes antagonistic imperatives (see Volumes 2 and 3). This situation actually shows, at least in part, that the researcher is an element of society who is not independent, even if forms of “grand isolation” have long protected him. But, in the European Charter for Researchers signed by France at the CNRS (National Center for Scientific Research) in 2005, a reminder is given that “Researchers should focus their research for the good of mankind and to expand the frontiers of scientific knowledge, while enjoying the freedom of thought and expression, and the freedom to identify methods by which problems are solved, according to recognised ethical principles and practices.”
Without this having been noticed by most of the research actors financed by the State, even if the notion of good is not easily defined (in any case, it does not simply mean the absence of evil), this sentence is a reminder of the role of research centers as a social (or societal) actor, implying new approaches like functioning through interdisciplinary projects and strategic reflections negotiated by stakeholders, stemming from a new prospective work. Considering their importance for the development of citizens’ quality of life, research associated with technology is an element that is really starting to be discussed. Indeed, it has participated in the “natural” evolution of things and technological progress has long allowed man to be free from a number of material constraints. In this framework, the rhythm of implementing research results has been greatly modified and complicated, thanks to a more and more frequent coming-and-going between “manufacturing” and research, and thanks to a hybridization of technologies as well as, to a lesser extent, modes of research action (added value from the ability to interact). To work in the new economy of knowledge with greater partnership, there is a need for better reflection on creativity, innovation, and the societal impact of scientific and technological activities. So then, in today’s context of growing co-constructed and contractual research actions, must/can we break away from the “researcher’s temptation of innocence”, of the consoling illusion of “neutral” science, or of the simple transfer of responsibility to the deciders/financers? It will be understood that these are somewhat the stakes of the current evolutions/revolutions applicable to additive manufacturing, and particularly to its future.
With the concept of informed matter, there must be a possibility to modify the shape of objects in time (4D printing), to print living matter (bio-printing), etc. It is thus conceivable to come closer to life by flirting with its possible prolongation! This questioning, like 3D printing pushed to its limits (nanomanufacturing, micro-fluidics, electronics and robotics) associated with other domains, does not correspond to an economic market present today, but instead, if researchers, breaking with the traditions of incremental innovation, succeed (thanks to a bit of creativity and epistemic exploration), immense markets (relative to the “modest” market today amounting to 10 billion euros per year) should open up. The illustrative example of bio-printing which could correspond to a market worth several hundred billion euros per year is a great demonstration of the stakes linked to research concerning initial findings, presented in Volume 3.
If it is necessary to put some of this enthusiasm into perspective, the “classic” additive manufacturing technologies, which have already successfully demonstrated their numerous capacities of industrial development, offer application fields, some of which are very recent and possible, thanks, in particular, to disciplinary research, enabling existing manufacturing processes to be improved. This concentration on a clearly identified objective, process–material optimization, has limited more creative research leading to weaker programming and support for “divergent” researchers, whose numbers, for various reasons, are rather limited in the world of research. Nevertheless, these new applications called 4D printing, bio-printing, 5D printing, etc. result from more complex interdisciplinary activities that, if they succeed, could open markets, no longer in the 4-digit range (billions of euros around the world), but in all likelihood in the 5- or 6-digit range!
There are thus (at least) two types of challenge in additive manufacturing, one is the realization of 3D pieces which contribute a (the most) crucial input relative to the more traditional manufacturing techniques (prototyping, foundry, soldering, etc.) and the other is more prospective on openings in new fields with renewed approaches (and with the associated difficulties). For this reason, with the publisher (ISTE), there was a wish to present the 3D domain in three parts, one with validated scientific and technological bases (certainly with potential redundancies relative to other works on this subject) and the others based on a field of possibilities that offers new epistemological questions, terrible risk-taking, but considerable stakes.
In the first three volumes, it was actually about writing two open “scenarios” that were slowly constructed within a framework, but without a very strict preliminary plan, the scenarios in which the elements were to be introduced and discussed would be spread in an a priori graded manner. Each chapter has some degree of autonomy, which can be translated by possible repetitions (as few as possible, however), with a “history” that is progressively fed thanks to the in-depth reading of hundreds (thousands?) of publications, numerous times meandering through and delving into beautiful ideas and scientific meetings for debates, sometimes with success. The gray literature has been a vital source for what is happening in the field at times, which explains the numerous references to the websites in some chapters.
In Volumes 1 and 2, the reader is sensitively placed within the “summary table of disciplines” published in 1829 by Auguste Comte with an “institutional” organization for scientific disciplines, enabling incremental research and development in additive manufacturing. In Volume 3, the idea is to place the reader in a less programmable mode of functioning, with a recursive, systematic and self-organizing character of knowledge, a better willfulness in processes, which sets it apart from the first two, yet it is nevertheless complementary (because it is still constructed using what is known). However, a bit of naivety and/or ignorance may allow for progress to be made in the domain by tackling new paths of creation from a small amount of scientific and technical knowledge in a less “professional” manner, but full of enthusiasm towards a new world to be explored.
An intentional artifact (linked to the engineer and/or designer’s work) may be considered a means of connecting an “internal” environment, the substance, the functioning, and the organization of the artifact itself and an external environment, the surroundings in which it is implemented. If the two environments are compatible, the artifact responds to the specifications. As underlined by H.A. Simon [SIM 04] in another framework, the knowledge of an artifact as an additive manufacturing machine “benefits from an advantage on the knowledge of nature, for it is based on valid, previous foundations whose ends will be perverted with a certain dose of new willingness to give projects intelligibility and openings on society.” This notion can also be found within the facts in the three works, but with different interdisciplinary openings.
In Volume 3, for the researcher who studies the behaviors associated with the intrusion of temporal aspects and functionality in additive manufacturing, the systems operate for sufficiently long, entirely determined times. But, like “self-organization” phenomena, they can become very off-balance and sensitive to factors considered to be negligible near equilibrium. This is the intrinsic activity of the increasingly complex system, with an increasingly nonlinear behavior, which determines how it is possible to describe its relationship to the environment, which thus generates the type of intelligibility that will be pertinent to understand its possible stories. It is thus not only a matter of an applicative field with its constraints, but also of a theoretical domain to be approached and interrogated in order to resolve the end/means equation in a robust way so as to achieve it.
It will be understood that the epistemological foundations of the reflections in Volume 3 are based on the complexity paradigm, where interdisciplinarity is projected as one of the means of study. The disciplinary approach is too often divided, fragmentary and linear, hence a master idea aiming to know how to percolate through disciplinary borders so that the complexity paradigm can truly spread, notably because the recomposition of thought categories can no longer be based on borders and disciplinary subjects, but on boundary subjects based on the creative, the divergent, who, having no fear of recursiveness, hope to legitimately respond to the great risks society must face.
This change in delivering research for a more systematic approach does not hope to be the indicator of a field of scientific disciplines that, hoping to keep its power, loses its authority, even if current societal issues still cannot handle constructive forms of subordination well. It aims for a real, responsible integration of activities open towards society, bearers of meaning, allowing new research in additive manufacturing to be made to emerge as credible scientific evidence of movements that are materializing.
The evocation of different attractors of disruptive innovation in 3D manufacturing is the focus of Volume 3, in addition to its scientific and technical aspects. The author uses his experiences in this volume to recreate a bit of the history of new additive manufacturing processes, which could, in case of success, invade our daily lives in some years. It is in the spirit of creating a history, and interiorizing it by trying with the time and means available to re-establish them with a personal vision, with the risk of committing mistakes, of having failed with a promising idea. But this is the price to pay.
In the three volumes on the subject of additive manufacturing, it is shown that in relation to almost every problem, there is in fact a creative avant-garde with low inertia: this is carried out by groups of divergent researchers working in practice on the problem at hand. Then there are all the followers, who will structure the “paradigm” and engage it only in forms of conservatism authorizing research to improve processes or materials (“programmable” research). It will take years, even decades, for this paradigm to change positions – often with shoves (linked to the work of the creative by following information provided by the avant-garde). “Paths must be transformed into roads, the ground leveled, etc., so that the landscape will transform significantly until it becomes the main group’s parking place” was written by L. Fleck in 1935. Could this context, in terms of research, be adapted to economic development? These characteristics of considering time, and its management, are the elements to be taken into consideration in a process of spatial and temporal transformation of matter that displays significant advantages.
Thus, beyond scientific aspects, indispensible techniques will be discussed to examine how the edifice of additive manufacturing was and is being built through its cultural filters and filters of understanding and interpretation. Anticipating the future of the field of additive manufacturing in the larger sense, to be in a position to prepare ourselves, is considered one of the keys for the long-term durability and competition of companies. This imperative to think of the future, to add to this divergent thought to create new devices for creating objects with the adapted material, devices that are functional, adaptive, “smart”, etc., today seems even more significant considering the instability of the environment, the speed of evolution and the generalization of uncertainty. In such a context, research locations must be “offerers” of concepts, of their demonstration to anticipate the productive industrial future, not to mention the technological, economic and governance systems in which, on shorter and shorter reference times, companies evolve (undergoing nonlinear dynamics, splits and breaks). This mission is not only meant for individual researchers, but also for everything around them: research units, their administration and also (and above all else) the proactivity of economic milieus.
In terms of tomorrow and the future, can we not foresee new means of creating objects? At present, we have mastered synthesis, the way in which the objects are constructed. But we could also ask ourselves if it wouldn’t be possible to develop systems in which we could give objects an intentionality, thus giving it the choice to look for itself for what changes it needs to make, thus moving onto self-organization with the selection of necessary elements that it would extract from a “bank” for the edification of the final object. This would go beyond the 4D printing that tackles the functional and evolutionary assembly of materials that should be able to come together to create an upgradeable object and that could be made easier through “programmable matter”: “Programmable materials and objects that are themselves created would thus make assembly factors and heavy installation procedures superfluous… Robotization, the heart of progress in 20th Century productivity, could thus be integrated into the products themselves, with, as can be imagined, some ethical problems to be taken into consideration” [FRA 17]. Let us thus dream together of this future. The process attempted in these volumes therefore aims to try to question a present (it is impossible to know if this present will likely be able to achieve all its goals) and to determine the conceptual elements that could lead to an original future with access to new applicative niches by exploiting revisited paradigms.
Beyond the exhaustion of the reserves and consequences, it is also the way in which we understand scientific policy to be carried out by taking into consideration different world actors that should evolve to stimulate this nascent domain. In the reflection these books are aiming to create in its readers, it will likely be a matter of proposing changes to be undergone, which correspond to the conceptual displacement of the economy allowed by technology towards a new economy of creativity making a better effort to consider social, economic, organizational, geopolitical, even emerging environmental constraints. It is a form of “design thinking” that is thus to be considered. A reflection on the processes to help the integration of societal data, far from its disciplinary culture, would probably also be projectable (if only on the organizational aspects). In the end, it would be a matter of demonstration, through changes negotiated with the responsible authorities (some of whom are mute), leading to better exploration of the complexity, which can be done well, if not better, maybe with less equipment, but otherwise in a context of social and/or socio-economic demand that it would be advantageous to anticipate, if not follow. The paradigm shift would then take place thanks to scientific initiatives, which are marginal today, which remain aporetic in the paradigm in crisis, and which should be muted in a new scientific era, less framed, applied to 3D printing.
These three volumes can serve to think about the future in the domain that remains exciting for the author after more than 30 years since his 1984 patent, so that we can again find its place concerning its abilities of industrial creation and development in an ever more competitive environment. 3D, 4D, even 5D technologies constitute a path of promotion (among others that stem from the author’s competence) of this desire for renewal.
NOTES.–
– For these three volumes, the search for the greatest possible number of specific or general visions concerning the subject of additive manufacturing, which can help the reader, has led to the presentation of the bibliography chapter by chapter and in alphabetical order. In fact, it was almost impossible to classify the bibliography through the numbering of entries.
– Some repetitions in the chapters of these three volumes may exist in an attempt to give them certain coherence and to provide them some degree of autonomy.
Jean-Claude ANDRÉ
Research Director at CNRS
August 2017
Bibliography
[AUD 15] AUDÉTAT M., Sciences et technologies émergentes: pourquoi tant de promesses?, Herrmann, Paris, 2015.
[BEI 12] BEIGBEDER C., Puisque c’est impossible, faisons-le, J.C. Lattès, Paris, 2012.
[EIN 07] EINSTEIN A., quoted by Debonneuil M., L’espoir économique: vers la révolution du quaternaire, Bourin, Paris, 2007.
[ELL 04] ELLUL J., Le système technicien, Le cherche midi, Paris, 2004.
[FAB 06] FABIANI J.L., “A quoi sert la notion de discipline?” in BOUTIER J., PASSERON J.C., REVEL J. (eds), Qu’est-ce qu’une discipline?, EHESS, Paris, 2006.
[FRA 17] FRANCE STRATÉGIE, “2017/2027 – Répondre à l’innovation disruptive – Actions critiques”, available at: http://www.strategie.gouv.fr/publications/20172027-repondre-linnovation-disruptive-actions-critiques, 2017.
[GIA 90] GIARINI O., STAHEL W.R., Les limites du certain: affronter les risques dans une nouvelle économie de service, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne, 1990.
[GUÉ 15] GUÉRIN M., La croyance de A à Z; un des plus grands mystères de la philosophie, Encre marine, Paris, 2015.
[LAT 07] LATOUR B., L’espoir de Pandore; pour une version réaliste de l’activité scientifique, La Découverte, Paris, 2007.
[PHI 12] PHILIPPE J., “L’innovation managériale, comment innover dans l’univers bancaire?”, in EUROGROUP CONSULTING, L’art du management de L’innovation dans le service public, Eurogroup, Paris, 2012.
[ROS 01] ROSE J., Profession quasi-chercheur, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2001.
[SIM 04] SIMON H.A., Les sciences de l’artificiel, Folio-Essais, Paris, 2004.
[THO 83] THOM R., Paraboles et catastrophes, Champs Science, Paris, 1983.
[VAL 57] VALÉRY P., Œuvres complètes, La Pléiade, Paris, 1957.
Introduction
“In the first place, you learn that thinking too quickly might indeed be a very bad idea. So-called ‘infobesity’ surrounds us everywhere and it seriously undermines our creativity”. [LEW 16]
“The adjustment of the distance to the subject through disciplinary remoteness and the implicit reference to scientific purity is slightly analogous to geographical and cultural remoteness, in the case of the ethnology of exotic worlds. The extreme cultural difference (indeed disciplinary here) allows us to empirically produce what resemble conditions of objectivation. In particular, this makes it appear as if the observer was, in fact, looking from another world from a point situated away from the subject, although the said subject moved towards this point”. [LE 10]
“The practicality of creative genius is not realized until its existence is discovered”. [FIM 17]
“Rapidity demands and creates insensitivity to everything which can slow us down, to friction and forms of hesitation, which make us feel that we are not alone in the world. The process of slowing down is to once again become capable of learning, to meet with and recognize both what we have and what defines us. When in such a physical state, we can think and imagine and, in the same process, create relationships with others, of which we would not otherwise be able to encapsulate the essence”. [STE 13]
“It appears that comprehensive and systematic research is an inherent trend in the process of human thinking. One of the sources for this trend comes from the quest for certitude, a logical pursuit taking account of the precariousness of human existence. When we experience some fragments of reality, we wish to supplement them, so as to systematically give them meaning”. [FRO 70]
“The answer is perceived as reassuring whilst the question gives cause for concern. In the truest sense of the term, it forces us towards activity and towards resourcefulness. Beginning to question necessarily compels us to shift the emphasis of our perspective, to take another look at the hypotheses, review the rules and unearth the hidden meaning”. [LAG 12]
“The world is very complicated and it is clearly impossible for the human mind to totally understand it. This is why Man has found a device to criticize the complex nature of the world and its random character. Moreover, it thus permits him to abstract a sphere in which we find simple laws. We then describe the initial conditions for complications, and the spheres of uniformity within the laws of Nature”. [WIG 49]
“Another major factor is that, for years, organizational management has been developing methods for increasing productivity and minimizing risks and errors that tend to stifle creative experimentation. The predominant approach to management that evolved during the industrial era, known as scientific management, broke jobs down into specific, sequential tasks, which could be allocated at appropriate times for completion in order to optimize efficiency”. [SIM 11]
“In particular, the transformation of the research profession is seen through the inflation of administrative tasks, intended to ‘make researchers accountable for everything’. These new administrative demands, often analyzed in accountability terms [NEY 07], and presumed to make organizations both transparent and responsible, weigh heavily upon researchers’ daily tasks. This is so seeing that researchers devote a growing portion of their work time to it – an amount of time which one lady interviewed assesses as a third of her total work time”. [HUB 11/12]
I.1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing is made up of seven standardized processes, according to the French standard NF: E 67-001 and international standard ISO 17296-2:2015E. It involves the following processes (MADEELI – the Agency for Economic Development, Export and Innovation based in Toulouse, France, 2017 [MAD 17]):
– VAT photopolymerization or stereolithography;
– Material jetting;
– Binder jetting;
– Powder bed fusion;
– Material extrusion;
– Direct Energy Deposition (DED); and
– Sheet lamination.
The themes in Volume 1 have already shown all the benefits of additive manufacturing within numerous spheres of application with the technological specifications that could be stipulated. The emergence of a small revolution translates through various inclusion difficulties within a manufacturing culture, which already has its own constraints. This leads to the promise of accomplishments whilst everything within the manufacturing environment is far from being stable. The performance itself is sometimes insufficient as is the time taken for manufacturing [DGE 16]. This is the case even if increasingly new materials, software and processes mature within their product lifecycle. Three-dimensional (3D) printing has been introduced in a slightly surreptitious manner by proposing local production of objects which would otherwise be practically impossible. Even though numerous outstanding issues still remain in this sphere, a transition to the growth phase still occurs with double-digit gains.
“Additive manufacturing is often presented as being likely to radically alter how objects are designed as well as produced. However, the production system organization and the mass distribution of the given product still remains largely dependent upon a number of significant technical developments. The pace of such advances is difficult to anticipate. At the current time, machines and processes do not allow us to respond to all industrial production constraints. Progress may, in particular, have to be achieved to speed up the production rate” [COE 17].
