As such, it should come as no surprise that additive manufacturing (AM) offers many benefits to UAV design, including topology optimization, lightweighting and digital workflows. These benefits should give any engineer reason to revaluate how UAVs are designed and built – from small hobbyist and racing models to the large autonomous aircraft that are reshaping the battlefields of the 21^st century.

Computational design for drones

At the dawn of the aviation industry, aerospace engineers spent thousands of hours working on blueprints, taking meticulous notes by hand with pens and pencils. The introduction of computer aided design (CAD) transformed the way engineers create aerospace components, moving them into the virtual world before being translated into physical objects.

Today, with the use of topology optimization, engineers can design drones by inputting functional constraints – such as load requirements or mounting points – and generate high-performance geometries consisting of highly complex, organic shapes. These structures would be virtually impossible to produce using conventional manufacturing methods, such as machining, especially when they incorporate fine lattices, curved channels or hollow internal features.

AM is the technology that enables these designs to be translated from digital ideals into physical components, with some smaller drone bodies being produced in their entirety in a single build. Even something as comparatively simple as a wing with an internal lattice for support would be practically impossible on five-axis mill, or at least extremely expensive.

Lightweighting UAVs with 3D printing

It’s hard to overstate the importance of reducing weight in aerospace engineering and this is especially true for drones where, particularly in the case of the smallest class, Group 1. Even in larger units, such as those deployed for delivery and other logistics applications, operators of calculate their costs down to gram given that the weight of the UAV constrains payload capacity.

Utilizing lattice structures inside wings, landing gear and even the airframes themselves, engineers can achieve high strength-to-weight ratios using a variety of materials, including not only metals such as titanium and aluminum but also polymers, such as PA-12 Nylon. These options are only available because the relevant 3D printing technologies – primarily laser powder fusion – are able to build complex geometries using a material library that is growing all the time.

It should be noted, however, that the mechanical properties of drone parts are subject to the limitations of the 3D printing process as well as the material. Fused deposition modelling (FDM), for example, can be useful for producing prototypes to test fit and – to a limited extent – function but tends to produce anisotropic parts that are weaker along the Z-axis.

Digital workflows in drone design

As just noted (and is generally well-known) 3D printing is an ideal technology for prototyping, and that includes prototypes for UAV designs. However, additive manufacturing offers even more advantages in the case of drones due to its iterative speed and design flexibility.

In the old days, even slight design changes to aerospace components could require reworked tooling, but AM enables aerospace engineers to implement design changes digitally and print them in the same day. This is particularly advantageous for companies looking to iterate rapidly on drone designs to optimize configurations for different payloads, flight durations or regulatory requirements.

Even when AM doesn’t obviate tooling by enabling engineers to 3D print drone parts directly, it can make it the design and production of tooling for drone parts much faster using CAD-driven designs for molds or carbon fiber layups. These can be leveraged to produce short-run, highly customized tooling without the expense of metal molds.

Together, computational design, lightweighting and digital design workflows demonstrate that 3D printing technologies are just as much of a game-changer for UAVs as UAVs are for the aerospace industry as a whole. In combination, the benefits of AM for drones give manufacturers a competitive edge in performance, cost and innovation.

The post How additive manufacturing benefits UAV design appeared first on Engineering.com.

In order to understand how long 3D printed metal parts are likely to last in the field, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is providing up to $10.3M to a team of engineers from the University Michigan, Texas A&M, the ASTM Additive Manufacturing Center of Excellence and in-situ AM process monitoring start-up, Addiguru.

More specifically, the team is examining the extent to which variations in the laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) process affect part durability.

“Depending on which model of LPBF printer you use, you might get different microstructures and different properties. The laser spot size and laser power levels might be different. The scanning strategies might be different. These things change the quality of the part,” said Veera Sundararaghavan in a press release. Sundararaghavan is a professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Michigan and principal investigator of the project.

The idea is to record the LPBF process for a variety of parts with optical and infrared cameras and use this information to create a digital twin of each one. By computationally modelling repeated stresses on the part, they hope to identify where and how quickly cracks will form. These fatigue models will also incorporate actual service data to enhance the accuracy of their predictions.

“To understand the lifespan of LPBF parts, we must push the current boundaries of the field and detect even the most critical defects that impact component performance,” said Mohsen Taheri Andani, assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Texas A&M University in the same release. “Through the PRIME [Predictive Real-Time Intelligence for Metal Endurance] project, we are doing exactly that—leveraging state-of-the-art monitoring and AI techniques to redefine what’s possible.”

Addiguru’s contribution to the project is a method for multisensory integration that includes acoustic monitoring to detect signs of porosity. According to the researchers, this combination of sensors will enable them to identify defects as small as 0.025mm.

“Multisensor data, combined with advanced analytics, will provide critical insights to part manufacturers,” said Shuchi “SK” Khurana, founder and CEO of Addiguru, also co-leading the print monitoring effort. “This project will enable a comprehensive, real-time assessment of part quality, helping manufacturers make informed go/no-go decisions with confidence.”

If successful, this project could provide vital information for manufacturers working with metal LPBF across a host of industries, from aerospace, to automotive, to medical devices.

The post DARPA provides $10M for project studying longevity of metal AM parts appeared first on Engineering.com.

1. GE LEAP fuel nozzle

Perhaps the best-known additive part in aerospace (or any industry), the fuel nozzle tip for the CFM International LEAP jet engine has now been in production for a decade, with GE Aviation shipping its 100,000^th nozzle in 2021. Each engine contains 18 or 19 fuel nozzles, depending on its configuration, each produced using laser powder bed fusion. What makes these components stand out is their consolidation of parts – from 20 separate pieces down to just one – as well as a 25% reduction in weight.

2. Honeywell #4/5 bearing housing

According to Honeywell, this has the unique distinction of being the first flight-critical engine part to be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Installed on an in-service vehicle in 2020, the #4/5 bearing housing is a major structural component in the ATF3-6 turbofan engine used on the Dassault Falcon 20G. The original part was designed and certified in the 1960s and manufacture of the jets ended in the 1990s. That’s why Honeywell turned to additive manufacturing to produce replacement parts, reportedly shortening the lead time from two years to just two weeks.

3. Boeing aft galley brackets

Using its proprietary Rapid Plasma Deposition (RPD) technology, Norsk Titanium has been producing near net shape preforms and final machined components for both Airbus and Boeing. In the case of aft galley brackets specifically, these Ti-6AL-4V structural aircraft parts are FAA-certified, with seven installed on each Boeing 787 Dreamliner. This arguably makes them one of the most successful structural aerospace components produced with additive manufacturing.

4. Airbus spacer panels

While 3D printing technology shines most brightly in engine and structural components, its potential contributions to interior applications should not be discounted. One leading example comes from Airbus, which began installing AM spacer panels to fill end-gaps in rows of overhead storage compartments in 2018. According to the company, using a “bio-inspired” design and fused deposition modeling (FDM), the spacer panels are 15% lighter compared to equivalent components made with conventional production methods.

5. RapidFlight mobile drone production

No list of example AM applications in aerospace would be complete without mentioning unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), more commonly referred to as drones. The introduction of UAVs has transformed modern warfare, and the advancement of 3D printing technology has transformed UAVs. A recent example comes from UAV designer and manufacturer RapidFlight, which has designed mobile production systems (MPS) to mass produce drones wherever they’re needed. According to the company, a single MPS can produce 28 Group 3 aircraft per month, or much greater quantities of Group 1 or Group 2.

The post Top 5 examples of additive manufacturing in aerospace appeared first on Engineering.com.

Working as an aerospace engineer means having to navigate a labyrinth of procedures, rules, specifications, and certifications originating from government bodies as well as non-governmental institutions, such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

What makes this task even more onerous is the continuous updating of these standards and certifications to keep pace with new developments in technology. Fortunately, there are deliberate efforts to inform the engineering community of these changes to ensure a healthy relationship between private enterprise and public safety.

FAA-EASA additive manufacturing workshops

Since 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) have been hosting workshops with aerospace engineers, materials scientists and leaders in the aviation industry to promote technical discussions and knowledge sharing relating to the qualification and certification of parts made with additive manufacturing (AM).

While these began independently, in 2018 the two agencies came together to collaborate and take turns hosting each year. Today, these workshops include hundreds of attendees representing dozens of organizations from the aerospace industry, as well as researchers and regulators.

According to the EASA, what sets these events apart from other AM industry events, such as AMUG or RAPID + TCT, is their focus on both immediate regulatory issues and emerging technical issues. This is partly realised through the continuation of working groups from previous workshops throughout the year. For example, the 2025 FAA-EASA AM Workshop will see four working groups continue from the Workshop in 2024:

• WG1: Qualification of Additive Manufacturing (AM) Parts of No, or Low Criticality
• WG2: Fatigue and Damage Tolerance/NDE for Metal AM
• WG3: Machine Monitoring – Developing a Five-Year Plan to Allow EASA/FAA Acceptance
• WG4: Part Classification for AM

In addition to their own agendas, these working groups provide feedback to one another through debriefs and commentaries during the workshops. As an example, last year WG4 noted that the singling out of AM parts for classification in WG1’s debrief could hinder adoption by reinforcing the perception that using AM automatically results in taking on higher risk compared to traditional manufacturing technologies.

Examples of FAA and EASA efforts to certify 3D printed parts

While it’s certainly not the only channel through which these governmental bodies work towards certifying AM parts, the FAA-EASA AM Workshop offers considerable insight into this process. In the most recent meeting – in September 2024 – the Workshop reviewed EASA Certification Memorandum CM-S-008 Issue 04, which pertains to additive manufacturing in aerospace applications.

These documents are intended to clarify the EASA’s general positions on the specific initial airworthiness, validation, continuing airworthiness or organizational items. As such, they aim to provide guidance or complimentary information for compliance demonstration. While not intended to introduce new certification requirements or modify existing ones, they’re nevertheless useful for aerospace engineers working with leading edge technologies, including additive manufacturing.

In the case of CM-S0008 Issue 04, the document includes reference materials to other relevant standards, such as ASTM F3572-22, which covers part classifications for AM parts in aerospace applications, in addition to outlining EASA certification policies for the design, manufacture, maintenance and repair of AM aerospace parts.

Most recently, one tangible result of the FAA’s efforts to certify 3D printed aerospace parts can be found in GE’s new Catalyst turboprop engine, which was certified under the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 33, which pertains to airworthiness standards for aircraft engines. According to GE, the engine contains multiple components made with additive manufacturing and the certification itself involved more than 23 engines and 190 component tests.

Examples such as these demonstrate how complicated certifying 3D printed parts for airworthiness can be. Fortunately, while the pace of technological development can be a barrier to certification and re-certification, it can also make them more attainable.

This is encapsulated in one of the leading issues in recent FAA-EASA AM Workshops: the question of in-process monitoring for AM. While the consensus is that current machine monitoring technologies need further development before they can be used to qualify flight-worthy components, there is also general agreement that these will be an invaluable tool for supporting qualification as the technology matures.

The post Understanding FAA and EASA efforts to certify 3D printed parts appeared first on Engineering.com.

It’s been said that additive manufacturing is the newest 25-year-old technology in industry. The science-fiction quality of complex part making from powder or liquid precursors does seem like magic, but it has evolved from a laboratory curiosity to a serious manufacturing technology.

The aerospace industry has fully embraced 3D printing, and many components are now designed for it, and can’t be made in any other way. Widespread adoption in high-volume part making however, is still limited by factors such as capital cost and machine throughput, although advances are underway which should expand additive throughout manufacturing.

Engineering.com executive editor Jim Anderton explores the complexities with senior editor Ian Wright.

***

Catch up on the latest engineering innovations with more Industry Insights & Trends videos.

The post What’s the state-of-the-art in additive manufacturing? appeared first on Engineering.com.

The machine incorporates Stratasys’ ScanControl+ technology that’s designed to boost printing speeds by up to 50% without compromising precision. Stratasys claims that real-world performance benchmarks have shown ScanControl+ to improve time-to-part by 39% on average and by 44% or more on applications such as tooling molds, depending on the materials. Other features on the Neo800+ include Vacuum System Protection, Z-Stage Collision Detection, and real-time environmental monitoring.

“Engineered with precision and performance in mind, the Neo800+ is designed to meet the growing demands of industries like automotive and aerospace, where high-speed production and flawless part quality are critical,” said Rich Garrity, Chief Business Unit Officer for Stratasys in a press release.

The Neo800+ is optimized for ScanControl+ Ready Materials from Somos, including Somos WaterShed XC+, which was engineered specifically for the new machine. Based on Somos WaterShed XC 11122, the resin is designed to produce optically clear parts with a smooth finish.

“The improved speed has allowed us to increase throughput and maintain open capacity as well as offer quicker turnaround times to our customers,” said Sean Schoonmaker, director of operations at Stratasys Direct Manufacturing in the same press release. “We’re seeing sharper detailed features and consistent accuracy well within our standard tolerances.”

Stratasys officially announced the Neo800+ at the Additive Manufacturer’s User Group (AMUG) Conference in Chicago, IL.

The post Stratasys launches new high-speed stereolithography 3D printer at AMUG appeared first on Engineering.com.

“The trouble is: the build platform is too small.”

“I do automotive applications in additive.” / “That’s awesome! What are you working on?”

“So, what do you guys think the solution is?” / “To what? GD&T?”

Snippets of conversation as I move through the crowd. (That last one got a big laugh.) It only takes a few minutes of mingling to realize that the rumors I’ve been hearing about the Additive Manufacturing Users Group (AMUG) Conference are true: this is an industry event for making lasting connections and having deep conversations.

This year, it’s being held at the Hilton Chicago, kicking off in The Grand Ballroom that’s played host to towering figures of history. (The elevator info screen informs me that it was the venue for a dinner honoring Charles Lindbergh when it first opened in 1927.) Last night, it was the venue for AMUG Bingo, one of the numerous networking activities for which this event is known. That was how I met John and Sam, two interns from The Mayo Clinic in Florida, both first-time attendees (like me), who paid out of their own pockets to come. By their own accounts, it’s been well worth the price of admission thus far.

The reoccurring theme in almost every conversation I’ve had is that AMUG is unique as an industry event, and that sentiment has been validated in myriad ways. On the expo floor, the usual suspects are present: 3D Systems, Nikon-SLM, Stratasys, but their neighbours are companies that wouldn’t be anywhere near their enormous booths at other shows: Aalberts Surface Technologies, HBD Additive Europe, trinckle 3D.

It might be surprising that RAPID + TCT has one of the largest booths here, especially since that show kicks off next week, but what better place to promote next year’s show in Boston? Even AMUG’s president, Shannon VanDeren, acknowledged “the white elephant in the room” of so many competing industry events happening so closely together (not to mention a laundry list of other challenges), but it’s clear from speaking with exhibitors that AMUG is in a class of its own.

“We’re at RAPID too, but this is the big show for us,” says Lori from Tech Met Inc., a Pittsburgh-based chemical milling company that offers post-processing for metal AM. “This is where we meet most of our customers.”

“Obviously, Formnext is our biggest show,” says Felix from German software provider trinckle 3D. “But the conversations here are different.”

And yet, for all that sets it apart, AMUG still offers a window into the state of the additive manufacturing industry. Michael of California-based 3D printing service bureau and software developer, Incept3D, explained how his company has gone from utilizing a few, large Stratasys machines to dozens of smaller units from companies like Bambu Lab: “We used to sell ten parts for $300 a piece. Now we sell 500 parts for $10 a piece.”

The industry is evolving, and that’s encapsulated by a comment from Roy at powder metal supplier, Linde AMT: “Seeing a laser working in a PBF machine isn’t as exciting as it used to be, but seeing 16 or 20 L-PBF machines all humming away together is really exciting.”

I’ll be at AMUG all week. Stay tuned for more updates.

The post AMUG 2025 – First Impressions appeared first on Engineering.com.

According to the company, with a UL94 V-0 flammability rating at 2.0mm, FR provides superior heat resistance, durability, and ease of processing—making it suitable for industries that require fire-retardant materials for micro-scale 3D printing applications.

Other notable points of FR include:

• Heat Deflection Temperature (HDT): 160°C (@0.45MPa, ASTM D648-07)
• Mechanical Properties: Tensile strength of 68 MPa, Flexural strength of 120 MPa, and impact strength of 18J/m
• Handling and Processing: FR does not need to be heated before use and remains non-solid at room temperature
• Compatibility: Optimized for use with BMF’s microArch S140, S240, S350, and D1025 printers.
• Color Options: Transparent Yellow or Black

BMF designed FR for product components requiring flame retardancy and high-performance thermal resistance, including

• Brackets, Baffles, and Circuit Board Housings
• Consumer Goods and Precision Electronics
• Aerospace and Transportation
• Micromechanics and Advanced Manufacturing

“At BMF, we’re committed to pushing the boundaries of what’s possible with micro 3D printing,” John Kawola, CEO of Boston Micro Fabrication told engineering.com. “Adding a flame-retardant material to our portfolio gives engineers and designers the ability to 3D print complex, high-resolution parts that also meet critical flame-resistance standards. It’s an important addition for applications where both detail and durability matter.”

The post Boston Micro Fabrication introduces flame retardant material for micro 3D printing appeared first on Engineering.com.

It’s not enough for repairing a vital component to be less expensive than manufacturing a new one—the repaired component must also demonstrate performance that’s up to the rigorous standards of one of the most highly regulated industries there is.

For this reason, aerospace engineers may be understandably wary of employing new technologies, such as additive manufacturing (AM) in repair applications, but there is one 3D printing technology that shows particular promise when it comes to repairing aerospace components.

What is directed energy deposition (DED)?

Directed energy deposition (DED) is one of the seven process categories of additive manufacturing according to ISO/ASTM 52900:2021. In contrast to powder bed fusion (PBF), in which a laser or electron beam selectively fuses regions within a powder bed, DED deposits molten material from a powder or wire feedstock in conjunction with the application of the laser or electron beam used to melt it.

While DED has the advantage of being able to produce fully dense parts with highly controllable microstructural features, especially compared with powder bed fusion, DED also has relatively poor resolution and surface finish compared to PBF. As a result, DED is often combined with machining processes to achieve tighter tolerances and better surface finishes. As with additive manufacturing processes more generally, DED faces trade-offs between faster build times through higher deposition rates and lower resolution.

How does DED enable aerospace repairs?

By depositing new material directly onto the surface of a damaged part, DED enables engineers to repair components that would be prohibitively costly to replace. Many aerospace components – for example, those found in engines and made from expensive, high-strength alloys such as Ti6Al4V or Inconel – fit this description.

The repair process using DED can be broken down into ten steps:

1. 3D scanning the damaged part
2. Comparing the part’s nominal and scanned geometry
3. Evaluating and preparing the damaged surface
4. Material characterization and process parameter optimization
5. Tool path definition via CAM software
6. Repair via DED
7. Machining
8. 3D scanning the repaired part
9. Comparing the part’s nominal and scanned geometry
10. Repeat steps 6-9 as needed

Why should you use DED to repair aerospace components?

While there are similar but simpler methods for repairing damaged components, such as tungsten inert gas (TIG) welding, these introduce considerably more heat in the repaired component, leading to higher residual stresses and distortions. Other methods, such as plasma transferred arc welding (PTAW) and electron beam welding (EBW), introduce less heat but also require complex and expensive equipment to implement.

What makes DED well suited for repairs is the combination of lower heat (hence less distortion) and higher precision, combined with mechanical performance of repaired components that is comparable to bulk material in terms of yield strength and ultimate tensile strength, though elongation still tends to be lower.

What are some examples of using DED for repair in aerospace?

Jet engine manufacturer Rolls-Royce uses CMSX-4, a single-crystal nickel superalloy as the base material for its turbine blades. The company has reportedly explored using IN718-RAM3 (another nickel superalloy with a proprietary composite additive) with 3% reinforcement material with directed energy deposition to repair the blades rather than replacing them.

In 2014, engineers at Purdue University used an Optomec LENS 750 to repair a damaged turbine blade made from 316L stainless steel. According to the researchers, the accuracy of the repaired blade was within 0.03mm of nominal geometry and tensile tests comparing undamaged and repaired samples showed 793 MPa and 815 MPa, respectively.

More recently, researchers at Tokyo University of Science have developed a numerical method for DED simulation that automatically generates metal powder deposition elements and predicts processing conditions, temperature distribution, deformation state and residual stress distribution. Their findings showed that residual stresses in deposited layers of repair parts were significantly lower than those resulting from more conventional repair processes.

The post Repairing aerospace components with directed energy deposition appeared first on Engineering.com.

According to the company, the H2D use a combination of overhead and toolhead cameras to maintain 0.3mm positioning accuracy, with a machine vision encoder that provides 50µm motion accuracy across the entire build volume. The dual-nozzle 3D printer head incorporates a hotend capable of 350˚C while the 350x250x235mm³ build volume can be heat to 65˚C, making it suitable for some engineering-grade plastics, including carbon- or glass-fiber reinforced materials.

The extruder uses a permanent magnet brushless servo motor to control torque, speed and position, as well as real-time monitoring of extrusion pressure and automatic detection of partial nozzle clogs. In addition, Bambu Labs claims that its proprietary dual-nozzle calibration technology automatically handles the X/Y offset calibration between nozzles while an “AI-backed” macro lens camera monitors the extrusion tip for material accumulation, filament deviations and extrusion failures.

The optional Automatic Material System (AMS) comes in two versions: AMS 2 Pro includes a drying function and electromagnetic vents to switch between drying and storage mode; AMS HT is designed for engineering filaments with a max drying temperatures of 85˚C and a filament bypass path designed to reduce feed resistance for fiber-reinforced rigid filaments and soft TPU.

For laser cutting and engraving, the H2D can be fitted with a 10W or 40W laser module along with an air assist pump for cooling, laser-safe windows, five flame sensors, “AI camera fire detection” capabilities and an emergency stop button.

The base model H2D, which includes a build plate, spool holder and accessory box is $1,899 while the H2D AMS Combo, which includes the AMS 2 Pro, is $2,199. Adding the 10W or 40W laser modules and their associated safety accessories adds $600 or $1,300, respectively, to the H2D AMS Combo’s price tag.

“The H2D represents the culmination of our vision to fundamentally transform how designers, engineers, and makers approach personal manufacturing,” said Bambu Lab CEO, Ye Tao. “We’ve built the H2D with the goal to excel at every capability it offers, eliminating the traditional ‘jack of all trades, master of none’ compromise that has plagued this product category.”

The post Bambu Lab’s newest 3D printer aims to be a personal manufacturing hub appeared first on Engineering.com.