**5.1 The case study: Alpha**

Because Alpha produces products that are prefabricated or with a ready-made settings, it is difficult for the company to adapt their products for customers who have different requirements. Alpha is thus seeking more flexibility in its product development. The high cost of materials is also an issue for Alpha. For these reasons, Alpha is interested in exploring innovative product designs using AM in its supply chain.

For the A1 prototype, the co-creation team studied the possibility of using AM technologies to manufacture Alpha's products. Meetings and workshop were held at FabLab, Halmstad, and at Alpha. Could a 3D printer (FDM) produce a small product component with the required durability and esthetic appeal? The university researchers scanned the market for suitable materials with the product's required mechanical properties and color. They also read published articles on plastics AM. The researchers selected a material in filament form suitable with FDM technology (the Flash Forge Dreamer FDM printer). The component was printed at FabLab Halmstad. After approving the 3D-printed product's strength, durability, and dimensional tolerance, Alpha began producing this small component at their facility. Alpha is still testing the consistency of AM production and studying the frequency and causes of possible failures. Initial results are promising.

### **Figure 1.**

*Timeline of the five stages for the Alpha and Beta prototypes.*

#### *From Traditional Manufacturing to Digital Manufacturing: Two Swedish Case Studies DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.111862*

For the A2 prototype, the co-creation team investigated the printability of larger and more complex product components. Software was used to simulate the best product design possibility. The chosen design was then printed and tested for durability. To meet industry standards for these components, the co-creation team added another evaluation step to the production process: postprocessing. More test runs were conducted to evaluate the possibilities of printing larger components. A preliminary design of experiments (DoE) was used to understand the influence of the print settings on component quality.

The prototype A2 had mixed results. The required quality was achieved, but manufacturing costs were too high. The printability of larger components was complicated by some major quality issues. Therefore, a design test artifact was introduced to reduce production time and material usage. The surfaces of the test artifacts, which were printed according to the DoE, were measured and analyzed statistically to determine the quality of the print settings. Using the best setting, the components were printed and then postprocessed in a series of chemical treatments, abrasive blasting, and laser finishing to produce the best surface finish.

The modified component design was promising as it revealed a 40% reduction in material use and a nearly 50% reduction in print time. Alpha can use this knowledge in other products that are AM candidates. The university researchers presented the components in their final form to Alpha with the understanding that additional tests would be conducted before the components could be made available for production on demand.

#### **5.2 The case study: Beta**

Because Beta aims to reduce the lead time for customized products, to improve the efficiency of production, and to reduce tooling costs, AM is of great interest to the company. The company's interest in AM also relates to its desire for lower production volume and more customized features resulting from its discussions with several important customers. Beta does not currently produce the product prototypes described in this chapter using conventional manufacturing systems.

For the prototype B1, the co-creation team (supported by Beta employees with a background in materials, design, and sales plus various company decision-makers) conceptualized the materials, design, and scale of the prototypes that could be printed using existing 3D printing technology. Meetings were held at Beta and at FabLab Halmstad. The FabLab was an important venue for visualizing the production and test facility.

Prototype materials were selected based on specific requirements and market availability. Beta tested the materials to see if they met dimensional accuracy and surface requirements. The fused deposition modeling (FDM) technique was selected as the 3D printing method. When technical limitations were observed in the tests, it was decided to upgrade the printers. This upgrade significantly improved the 3D printing of the test samples and prototypes. Of the six materials tested, four materials failed, and two materials were approved. In the postprocessing step, the final prototypes were tested against the initial product requirements.

For the prototypes B2 and B3, the co-creation team conceptualized prototypes after examination of the print quality of the B1 prototype. The possibility of printing on the "B-side" was explored for prototype B2; discrete supports were explored for prototype B3. The prototypes B2 and B3 are 3D-printed with the material approved for prototype B1 with the upgraded printing technique. Beta expects to identify alternate

solutions to the problems identified with small-scale digital manufacturing production. Beta also plans to continue its investigations into the use of this technology in large-scale manufacturing production.
