3D Printing Needs More Metal!

Here's Why 3D Printing Needs More Metal

More and more companies want to make 3D-printed metal parts.

Alcoa, a colossus of the aluminum and metals industry, is currently building a new additive manufacturing center with a $60 million price tag in Pittsburgh. Its purpose: To serve as the main production site as Alcoa begins developing a line of powdered metals made specifically for 3D-printing applications. What Alcoa’s new center represents, however, is a broader shift taking shape in the additive manufacturing industry.

More companies in a variety of sectors are interested in using 3D-printed metals for end-use parts. But when it comes to 3D printing in metals, there are currently two problems to surmount. One is the overall cost of not only the additive processes by which metal is printed, but also of the 3D printing machines and the support staff needed to run them. The other is the cost of the metal materials themselves and the lack of metal materials made specifically for 3D printing. Alcoa  AA 0.48%  is hoping to find solutions for both problems when its new additive manufacturing center opens, as Rod Heiple, the company’s director of R&D for engineered products and solutions, said during a call with Fortune.

“There are just a few materials available today that are usable within 3D printing of metals,” Heiple said. “A material developed as a feedstock for one additive process may not be, and in fact is unlikely to be, the optimal material for the next additive manufacturing process.”

Today companies that produce metal parts via additive manufacturing processes are using powdered titanium, nickel, aluminum, and steel. Direct metal laser sintering is a common way for these powdered metals to come together to make solid objects. It’s how General Electric produced the fuel nozzles for its bestselling aircraft engine and Solid Concepts created a working firearm.

MORE: Why 3D Printing Is The Future of Manufacturing

But optimizing powders for 3D printing is the challenge. Solving that challenge would not only mean a greater number of powdered metals for use in 3D printing, but also cheaper powdered metals. This is the sort of task for which Alcoa is well-suited. The company has nearly 100 years of experience in the atomizing process (the means by which a molten metal is converted into a powdered metal).

“That’s the focus we have, the optimization. We’re looking at the chemistry, the alloy elements,” said Heiple. “In the case of powdered feedstock, we’re focused on developing powders that are shapes and sizes tailored to 3D printing. Our primary focus is on titanium, aluminum, and nickel-based alloys for 3D printing.”

While the technology is fascinating in its own right, the business imperative is driving the research in cheaper powdered metals made specifically for 3D printing. Companies’ primary reasons for investing in additive manufacturing capabilities are the cost reductions that accompany collapsing the manufacturing supply chain. When GE, for example, chooses to invest $3.5 billion to purchase the 3D-printing machines that can produce metal parts and train the staff needed to run them, it’s not doing so because the technology is cool—it’s doing so because that’s where the additive manufacturing industry is headed.

A recent report from Stratasys Direct Manufacturing, the service arm of 3D-printing company Stratasys  SSYS -0.22% , bears this out: More than 80% of 700 survey respondents from the manufacturing industry said further development of strong yet lightweight metals for additive manufacturing is what they want the most. In three years’ time, Stratasys Direct Manufacturing predicts use of metals in 3D printing to double.

Stratasys and 3D Systems  DDD 0.76% , two titans of the 3D-printing sector, are keen to make inroads in metals printing as well. The increasing focus on what metals printing will do for the overall additive manufacturing industry—currently valued worldwide at $4.1 billion, according to the latest report from consulting firm Wohlers Associates—is the reason, for instance, Stratasys acquired Solid Concepts in 2014 and 3D Systems just established a partnership with the U.S. Army to develop 3D-printing materials for the automotive, medical, and aerospace industries.

The market for prototyping via 3D printing remains weak, but metals printing continues to grow at an impressive clip. More than just a new way for companies to make end-use parts, direct metal printing represents an area of revenue growth for an industry that has struggled to live up to the hype.

“The opportunity here is that these metals materials for additive manufacturing are low in number,” said Heiple, who couldn’t comment about the timeframe for when Alcoa’s new additive manufacturing center opens (although a company press release from September estimates sometime in the first quarter of 2016). “And the reason there’s an interest in metals is it all comes down to cost reduction, in end product and end solutions.”

In other words, there’s a growing movement of companies interested in crossing the chasm between 3D printing as a neat prototyping tool and 3D printing as a production tool on par with traditional manufacturing processes. To do that, they’ll need metals.

Tags: how → money → printer → robot → science

3D Printing Needs More Metal!

By Unknown → 2016/04/06

Mattel remakes '60s ThingMaker toy as an easy-to-use $300 3D printer

Mattel remakes '60s ThingMaker toy as an easy-to-use $300 3D printer

Mattel has reinvented its iconic ThingMaker at-home toy-making device, this time as a 3D printer that will cost $300.

Mattel unveiled its 3D printer at the New York Toy Fair taking place this week.

Preorders for the ThingMaker 3D Printer began this week. The machine will be available Oct 15. (See Amazon.com pricing.)

The original ThingMaker was limited by several dozen die-cast molds, into which a user would pour Mattel's Plastigoop thermoplastic or Gobble De-goop edible liquid, which was then cured using a 360-degree Fahrenheit hotplate. Plastigoop made Creepy Crawlers and other single-piece toys; Gobble De-goop made Incredible Edibles that could be eaten.

The new ThingMaker 3D Printer is a fused filament fabrication machine that extrudes layer upon layer of melted thermopolymer to create an object. The thermopolymer filament comes in multiple colors on reels that attach to the 3D printer.

Users upload design files via Mattel's proprietary Design App, which works on Android or iOS devices, and can print parts to be assembled into toys.

After downloading the ThingMaker Design App, which is based on software from Autodesk, families can browse through toy templates or build their own creations from hundreds of parts also offered in loadable files. Designs get uploaded from the files to the ThingMaker 3D Printer, which prints parts in batches for assembly via ball-and-socket joints.

Terry Wohlers, founder and principal analyst at industry research firm Wohlers Associates, said he would have rather seen the ThingMaker with a $199 price tag, but he did herald it as a product that will let a kid produce almost any creature imaginable, "with limits, of course."

"It should help to unlock the creative juices of our youth in a way that we have not seen in the past. Over a period of years, it could even help to reinvigorate careers in design and manufacturing here in the U.S.," Wohlers said.

A long-time proponent of an inexpensive, safe, and "super easy-to-use 3D printer for children,"  Wohlers said while he's hopeful the ThingMaker will be disruptive, a lot needs to happen before it will be.

3D content creation will be key (i.e. the ability for children to be able to create their own objects) -- something Autodesk's involvement should help. Simple post processing, or the ability to easily remove support material from around a printed object, will also be important to a successful 3D printer for kids. 

"The start to finish process is almost never as easy as the machine maker leads you to believe, but maybe Mattel can be a pioneer in this area after 28 years of development in 3D printing," Wohlers said. 

Mattel's ThingMaker Design App is based on Autodesk's Spark, an open 3D printing platform that provides extensible APIs for each stage of the 3D printing workflow. Because it's based on an open architecture, the ThingMaker Design App also works with other 3D printers; it is available now and free to download for iOS and Android devices.

"In today's digital age, it's more important than ever for families to transcend the digital world and make their ideas real," Aslan Appleman, senior director at Mattel, said in a statement. "ThingMaker pushes the boundaries of imaginative play, giving families countless ways to customize their toys and let their creativity run wild. We're thrilled to work with the 3D design experts at Autodesk to bring this one-of-a-kind experience to life."

Tags: money → printer

Mattel remakes '60s ThingMaker toy as an easy-to-use $300 3D printer

By Unknown →

3D Printers Gaining Traction With Nike, Boeing, HP Inc.

3D Printers Gaining Traction With Nike, Boeing, HP Inc.

The stock charts of 3D Systems (DDD) and Stratasys (SSYS), the two largest U.S. providers of 3D printers, do not paint a picture of success.

But despite the long declines, the 3D printing industry is stronger than it seems, say industry analysts who track the field. As a group, the Machinery-Material Handling and Automation group that houses the stocks has climbed 20% in the past four weeks — outpacing all but 3 of the 197 industries tracked by IBD. Analyst consensus calls for powerful earnings rebounds for both 3D Systems and Stratasys this year and next.

And globally, 3D printing technology is being increasingly embraced by corporations, governments and universities.

“If you look at the industry through the lens of investors and share price, that will give you a distorted view of what’s happening in the 3D printer market,” said Terry Wohlers, president of Wohlers Associates, which provides technical, market and strategic analysis on the 3D printer market.

Industry Growing While Stocks Sag

The stock’s steep declines since 2014 really show what analysts often describe as the market getting ahead of itself. The 3D printer companies generated widespread excitement beginning around 2010 on the idea that their products represented an innovative leap in the manufacturing process. The media pounded home the view that 3D printers were the hottest invention since the laser. Investors bought the pitch, and the stocks of 3D Systems and Stratasys soared over a two-year period that ended as the companies began reporting earnings declines in 2013.

As the stocks unraveled, the promise of 3D printing also seemed to fade. Stratasys and 3D Systems were crushed as both continued to post disappointing earnings reports, quarter after quarter. Sales also began to decline on a year-over-year basis over the past two quarters, replacing the double-digit sales growth that had been the norm.

But this year, Wohlers thinks the market for 3D printers, including supplies, will grow 33% to $7.3 billion and will approach $10 billion in 2017. Consensus projections see significant sales upticks for both Stratasys and 3D Systems next year.

Investors also appear to be returning for another look. 3D Systems had climbed 136% as of Friday since marking its low on Jan. 20. Stratasys was up 60% on Friday from its January low.

Some analysts continue to sound a cautious tone on the two stocks, not fully convinced of a full-scale rebound. After Stratasys reported Q4 earnings, Cowen analyst Robert Stone said visibility was still limited, though he raised his price target on the company to 23 from 19. 3D Systems, after it reported Q4 earnings, said industry conditions remain challenging.

Wohlers says the long-term future of the technology is strong.

“When you look at what some of the biggest corporations and brands plan to do, and the investments made, there’s a tremendous amount of activity going on,” Wohlers said.

Off To A Running Start

One key 3D player is Nike (NKE). Two years ago, the athletics wear giant debuted football cleats made from 3D printers, and then showed off another set a year later. Nike said insights from the project “have revolutionized the way the company designs and manufactures footwear.” Its most recent creation from 3D printers is the Zoom Superfly Skyknit for sprinters.

Nike’s interest in 3D printers is accelerating. At a technology conference in October, Chief Operating Officer Eric Sprunk said the time is coming when consumers can log on to a Nike website to design their own shoe and have it made via 3D printing at a Nike store.

Footwear competitor Adidas is also in the game. In October, it announced Futurecraft 3D, an initiative it started with 3D printer company Materialise (MTLS) to create athletic-shoe midsoles tailored to an individual customer’s foot. The idea is that shoppers would enter an Adidas store, run briefly on a treadmill and quickly receive a printout of their footprint. An in-store 3D-printer would then serve up a midsole matching the customer’s exact contours and pressure points.

The 3D printers use liquid or powder materials and other chemical agents to “print” products by repeatedly depositing thin layers of material bonded together, layer by layer. The technology is increasingly used in aerospace, automotive, medical and consumer product fields, among many other industries. Parts can also be produced with various types of metals, using a different type of printing process — a laser-based method called laser sintering, or fusing.

Through 3D printing, robust and high-performing parts can be created at a fraction of the cost and time of traditional manufacturing methods. The technology first emerged about 25 years ago, but it only entered the mainstream after 3D Systems and Stratasys began to plumb the consumer market.

General Electric (GE) has made big investments in 3D printing, which it calls additive manufacturing. GE used 3D printers to develop complex fuel nozzles for its next-generation jet engine, known as Leading Edge Aviation Propulsion (LEAP), in a partnership with France-based Snecma.

The new fuel nozzles are at least five times more durable than the previously machined equivalent, according to the company’s website. The nozzle, once made with 18 parts that were melded together, is constructed using 3D printers into one part that is 25% lighter. GE says its use of additive manufacturing is groundbreaking, making it possible to produce components that were very difficult or impossible to produce using traditional technologies.

GE says it will invest $3.5 billion in new equipment over the next five years to produce advanced components using additive manufacturing. The company says it has just begun to touch the surface of all the applications that additive manufacturing can provide and that it will revolutionize the way parts are made.

Lockheed Martin (LMT), Airbus (EADSY), NASA, United Technologies’ (UTX) Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce are also becoming big users of 3D technology.

“There’s a tremendous amount of activity going on in the 3D printing market,” said Wohlers.

Heavyweight Competitors On Deck

This time last year, he said, there were 49 companies worldwide that made industrial-grade 3D printers, priced above $5,000. Today there are nearly 70 of them. At price points below $5,000, there are options from hundreds of 3D printer companies, many of them based in China, he said.

The increase in competition is one of the reasons Stratasys and 3D Systems have struggled, Wohlers said. Another is the entry of HP Inc. (HPQ) into the 3D market. In October 2014, Hewlett-Packard — which later split into HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) — said it would introduce 3D printers in 2016. The company said its printers will be faster, more efficient and cost less than products currently on the market.

“We know of companies that were planning to buy 3D printers but decided to wait for HP,” Wohlers said.

Many 3D printer companies are based in Europe. They include Germany-based EOS Manufacturing Solutions, one of the largest 3D printer companies with a wide range of 3D printers. Others are Germany-based Voxeljet (VJET) and SLM Solutions, Belgium’s Materialise (MTLS) and Sweden-based Arcam.

Another competitor is U.S.-based ExOne (XONE), which primarily competes with companies that can produce parts made of metal. These companies include EOS, VoxelJet and Arcam.

Stratasys and 3D Systems have printers that primarily use resin or plastic-based materials, though both companies have expanded into the metals market, primarily through acquisitions.

Huge Reductions In Manufacturing Costs

Tasha Keeney is an analyst at ARK Investment Management, which manages four exchange traded funds and separately managed accounts with about $240 million in assets under management.  She says 3D printers are a revolutionary platform that will have a major influence on manufacturing and production.

“We’re in the early days of 3D printing and expect a lot of surprises in this space,” said Keeney. “We expect to see 3D printing lead to new product designs and ideas, huge reductions in costs, weight declines and shorter supply chains.”

While 3D printing is a $5.5 billion market today, ARK projects it will reach more than $40 billion by 2020 — double Wohlers’ forecasts. Keeney estimates 3D printing has penetrated less than 1% of the addressable market.

Despite the increased competition, Keeney believes Stratasys and 3D Systems remain in a strong market position, both in terms of size and breadth of products.

As to what impact HP Inc. might have, she said, “we’re watching this closely for the time being, but we’re hearing mixed reviews.”

Tags: money → printer

3D Printers Gaining Traction With Nike, Boeing, HP Inc.

By Unknown →

The first 3D-printed drug to win FDA approval

3D printing makes an easier-to-swallow drug

The first 3D-printed drug to receive approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now being shipped to pharmacies.

Pennsylvania-based Aprecia Pharmaceuticals said its 3D-printed Spritam (levetiracetam) tablets are used to treat epilepsy. The company is also working on at least three other 3D-printed drugs that it expects to eventually bring to market.

Aprecia said it used some off-the-shelf 3D printer parts but mostly developed its own technology to create the drugs, layer by layer at its East Windsor, N.J. manufacturing facility. The new process, which it calls ZipDose, stitches together multiple layers of powdered medication using an aqueous fluid to produce a porous, water-soluble matrix that rapidly disintegrates with a sip of liquid.

There is no increased efficiency in producing the pill with 3D printing; the technology simply allows the company to better manipulate the drug's composition compared with traditional press and die pill-making technology, according to Aprecia Pharmaceuticals spokesperson Jennifer Zieverink.

Levetiracetam, the generic name for Spritam, has been available for the treatment of seizures for 15 years. But the new brand Spritam is the first to use the proprietary 3D-printing process to create a more dissolvable pill.

"It's an option for some folks...looking for something easier to swallow than an intact tablet," Zieverink said.

MIT developed the basic technology for the 3D-printing of liquids, which may include a drug, through an inkjet printhead. That technology was later licensed by Therics, according to Terry Wohlers, president of Wohlers Associates, an independent consulting firm.

Therics "3D-printed many pills on an experimental basis, but it never took off commercially," Wohlers said in an email reply to Computerworld. In 2008, Therics was acquired by Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corp.

"The MIT patents have since expired, but it's possible that Therics developed additional IP. In some ways, Therics was many years ahead of its time," Wohlers said.

3D printing could also some day enable custom drugs, Wohlers said, describing a scenario where a doctor sends a prescription to a pharmacy that uses a printer to create a custom formulation based on the special needs of a patient.

"The potential is large, in my opinion, but it will take many years for it to gain strong commercial traction, especially due to the requirements of the FDA," Wohlers said.

Tags: science

The first 3D-printed drug to win FDA approval

By Unknown →

Festo 3D Prints Robotic Ants and Butterflies

Festo 3D Prints Robotic Ants and Butterflies

Festo is an industry leader in advanced robotics and they have presented two of their projects: BionicANTs and eMotionButterfiles only made possible by using laser sintering 3D printing and 3D MID ( Molded Interconnect Device) technology. 3D MID is a control and power system where electrical circuits are attached on the surface of the laser sintered body components during the construction, and they thereby take on design and electrical functions at the same time. In this way, all the technical components can be fitted into or on the 3D printed body and be exactly coordinated with each other for complex actions of a insectoid robot.

BionicANTs

BionicANTS are biomimetic robots that modeled to resemble real ants in anatomy and behaviour. ANT stands for Autonomous Networking Technologies, and they are designed as a sort of small prototype of future applications  the factory floor, where the production systems will be founded on adaptable and intelligent components able to work under a higher overall control hierarchy. Their body as well as software mimic natural behaviour of group of ants working together. Each BionicANT measures 13.5 cm (5.3 in) and runs on two 7.2 V batteries charged when the antennae touch metal bars running along the sides of an enclosure.

Official brochure notes:

After being put into operation, an external control system is no longer required. It is possible, however, to monitor all the parameters wirelessly and to make a regulating intervention. The BionicANTs also come very close to their natural role model in terms of design and constructional layout. Even the mouth instrument used for gripping objects is replicated in very accurate detail. The pincer movement is provided by two piezo-ceramic bending transducers, which are built into the jaw as actuators. If a voltage is applied to the tiny plates, they deflect and pass on the direction of movement mechanically to the gripping jaws. All actions are based on a distributed set of rules, which have been worked out in advance using mathematical modelling and simulations and are stored on every ant. The control strategy provides for a multi-agent system in which the participants are not hierarchically ordered. Instead, all the BionicANTs contribute to the process of finding a solution together by means of distributed intelligence. The information exchange between the ants required for this takes place via the radio module located in the torso. The ants use the 3D stereo camera in their head to identify the gripping object as well as for self-localisation purposes. With its help, each ant is able to contextualise itself in its environment using landmarks. The opto-electrical sensor in the abdomen uses the floor structure to tell how the ant is moving in relation to the ground. With both systems combined, each ant knows its position – even if its sight is temporarily impaired.

Here is ae video of BionicANTs describing the technology and their operations:

With on-board batteries the ANT can work for 40 minutes.

eMotionButterflies

Designed to mimic real butterflies, this small robots are ultralight and have coordinated flying behaviour in a collective. They are are able to autonomously avoid crashing into each other in real-time controlled by networked external guidance and monitoring system with 10 cameras, interior GPS and IR markers on their bodies. The entire system is very impressive combination of prcise guidance, raw processing power, optical tracking and delicate 3D printed flying robot design.

Technical specifications of entire system:

• 
  
• 10 infrared cameras
• Frame rate: 160 images per second
• Exposure time: 250 µs
• 1 central master computer
• Analysed pixels: 3.7 billion pixels per second
• Flying object:
• Wingspan: 50 cm
• Weight: 32 g
• Wing beat frequency: approx. 1–2 Hz
• Flying speed: 1–2.5 m/s
• Flying time: 3–4 min.
• Recharging time: 15 min.
• Integrated components: 1 ATxmega32E5 microcontroller , 1 ATmega328 microcontroller, 2 servo motors made by MARK STAR Servo-tech Co., Ltd. to activate the wings, 1 inertial sensor (inertial measurement unit, IMU) MPU-9150 with gyroscope, accelerometer and compass, 2 radio modules, 2 LiPo cells 7.4 V 90 mAh, 2 infrared LEDs as active markers

Here is a video of graceful eMotionButterflies:

Tags: robot → science

Festo 3D Prints Robotic Ants and Butterflies

By Unknown →

3D design tools help EPCs and owner/operators alike

3D design tools help EPCs and owner/operators alike

The wide diversity of energy market requirements and enabling technologies drives strong demand for design/build/operate solutions for oil and gas projects. These projects require engineering design solutions that span multiple disciplines and applications, from platform and plant design, process simulation, equipment design, mechanical, electrical, and controls design, collaborative engineering, data model management and version control, to document and drawing management.
As energy projects become larger and more complex, engineering/procurement/construction contractors (EPCs) become much more dependent upon 3D design tools. Moreover, data and model management, project management, engineering change management, and design collaboration across multi-discipline engineering organizations is essential to the overall design/build process.
As the demand for energy increases steadily across the globe, leading EPCs deal with new projects that span multiple power generation sectors, each with its own set of requirements and technologies that make projects within each sector distinct in terms of designing, building, and commissioning.
EPCs use a variety of engineering design and data management applications from design/build solution providers. This very heterogeneous environment significantly challenges the EPCs using such a range of engineering design tools, with multiple formats, models, and configuration management frameworks. Additionally, since the lion’s share of today’s EPC business is global with a variety of stakeholders ranging from owner/operators to extended supply chains for equipment mandates, a company’s design engineering solutions must be both open and highly collaborative.
3D design and EPC projects
Today’s design solutions offer a broad range of design/build capabilities. For some time now, suppliers have based design applications on 3D modeling. These provide the EPCs with the ability to model in 3D space. For offshore and other energy sector projects, 3D modeling is a critical aspect of design work, which has become essential for structural design, and for configuring all the equipment and infrastructure. Modeling in 3D is the most effective way to do space control, and most EPC tools provide automation features to reduce the labor required to lay out, detail, and revise infrastructure such as pipes and raceways. Additionally, these 3D design tools perform clash analysis to determine interferences between structures, equipment, and infrastructure. They can also adapt designs to various industry and owner/operator standards or practices.
Designing in 3D space provides the ability to visualize and integrate multiple engineering disciplines, plus the flexibility to make configuration and structural changes throughout the design process.
As projects grow in size and complexity, especially in energy-related projects, EPCs have come to depend on their 3D design tools. Moreover, data and model management, project management, engineering change management, and design collaboration across multi-discipline engineering organizations have become essential to the overall design/build process. Managing the mass of information generated by design/build requirements for major projects represents a primary challenge.
The need for collaboration
EPC engineering managers have made it clear that they would like better data management platforms with a more collaborative engineering design environment for their geographically dispersed engineering teams. They see the need to move to a central data repository for all design models, build data, and equipment and asset data. Moreover, beyond engineering organizations, they need a highly collaborative platform to support the wide range of partners, owner/operators, and stakeholders throughout the global operations typical of today’s large EPCs.
Information management and interoperability of models and data are critical to doing business and managing large projects efficiently and successfully. EPCs agree that interoperability should be standards based, as in ISO 15926. Major plant design software providers support this standard for data integration, sharing, exchange, and hand-over between computer systems.
While the current design solution providers offer robust building information modeling/management (BIM) systems, EPCs would like to see better data management and design collaboration capabilities across all their various engineering organizations and equipment providers. This is why most EPC design/build processes still involve a mixture of commercial software and in-house applications, which can include data management. While EPC organizations recognize the need to improve data management and collaboration, they are reluctant to rely on their design software providers to handle all the specialized in-house applications, data formats, and handover information that their customers demand. Further, the EPCs want to provide better data management services for their owner/operator customers, especially at facility/plant handover.
Data management
Information management is as important to the owner-operators as it is to EPCs. In fact, most owner/operators consider the handover process (where all of the plant/facility drawings, layouts, equipment, and infrastructure information are handed over to the operating organization) one of the most critical aspects of the project. Not only is this engineering information essential to the operation of the facility, it must be managed and organized properly so it can be accessed readily and available to the operations personnel during plant life. The owner/operators clearly need the same information management and collaborative engineering platforms that the EPCs obtain from their engineering design software suppliers.
Currently, most owner-operators do not demand a 3D design model from the EPC at project completion. Nearly all of them want the asset information turned over in a form they can import into the operations/asset management/maintenance/management systems they use to operate and maintain the facility. This generally takes the form of 2D drawings and other equipment/asset database population that operations personnel are able to use without the specialized training needed for a 3D design environment.
Owner/operators are beginning to show interest in 3D virtual simulation for use in training and safety incident response and mitigation. Virtual simulation tools also are beginning to be applied to the pre-construction phase of new projects where simulation can detect interferences and streamline construction activities.
A complementary technology applied to the virtual simulation area is laser scanning and point cloud analysis to accurately capture existing physical structures and equipment. The point cloud data is imported into a 3D design application to generate a 3D model, which can be used for rework and refurbish.

Tags: how

3D design tools help EPCs and owner/operators alike

By Unknown →