In our last article on the GovDesignHub, we sat down with Eric Shnell, the CEO and Founder of Craitor, a company that’s working collaboratively with the U.S. Marine Corps to develop a 3D printer that can function at the very tip of the spear.
During our discussion, we asked Eric about how advanced manufacturing can improve the readiness, survivability, and lethality of the warfighter in the field. We also asked about digital twinning and its ability to enable predictive and preventative maintenance.
Ultimately, the failure of a weapons system or military vehicle can impact the warfighter’s ability to accomplish the mission. By moving the ability to 3D print replacement parts out of the depot, off of the base, and into the actual battlefield, maintenance can be done more quickly, and downtime can be reduced. But what exactly would that look like, and what technologies are required to make that a reality?
In the second part of our discussion with Eric, we explore the challenges they face when attempting to 3D print parts in the field, what vehicle maintenance will look like if we make this a reality, and what needs to be done to make this type of expedient maintenance and repair possible.
GovDesignHub (GDH): If the military embraces digital printing and digital twinning, what would the process look like when armed forces personnel have to repair a weapon or vehicle and spare parts are needed?
Eric Shnell: Some procedures have already been developed, and the Marine Corps is taking the lead. That’s why we initially started with them. They are the first to publish formal contracts or programs of record regarding 3D printing.
The long-term vision is subject to change as we figure out what works best. But the vision that the Marine Corps has laid out is essentially a vision for a digital repository or a “digital data vault” that stores part file information and data.
This repository would contain the digital twins of parts that have already been reverse-engineered and or have been provided by contractors, suppliers, and OEMs. Each part would have the information required to be able to manufacture it in the field.
So, a Marine in the field would see a part that failed or is about to fail. Maybe they have the serial number for it, or maybe they have some other identifying information they can use to look it up. They can even potentially reverse engineer it directly on the spot— which is something we’ve worked to enable on our platform. They can then collect the digital twin or a copy of that file and use it to print or create the part themselves, wherever they are.
“Once they 3D print the part, they can then verify that it works and has met specifications. Then they put it on the system and track the quality assurance of the print— basically tracking all the data to ensure requirements were met.” — Eric Shnell
Once they 3D print the part, they can then verify that it works and has met specifications. Then they put it on the system and track the quality assurance of the print— basically tracking all the data to ensure requirements were met. We do this over the lifespan of the part to track the data of what that lifespan is.
We are currently taking a spare tire approach with the Marine Corps and other services. All parts that are 3D printed are set to be replaced by actual OEM parts in the future. But as we gather more data and see how well these parts perform, they could likely transition to these parts being permanent replacements in the future. So, either the warfighter could use [the part] until they have the OEM replacement, or they can use the 3D printed part as a permanent replacement if it outlives the lifespan of the original part.
GDH: The military has a reputation of being somewhat risk-averse – and for good reason. They don’t want to jump into using new technology when the lives of soldiers are on the line. Do you anticipate that they’ll embrace these 3D-printed parts as permanent replacements?
Eric Shnell: It will require an overall change in perception when it comes to 3D-printed parts. A lot of people right now look at it as primarily a spare tire as opposed to a direct OEM replacement. So that perception will need to shift.
“It will require an overall change in perception when it comes to 3D-printed parts. A lot of people right now look at it as primarily a spare tire as opposed to a direct OEM replacement.” — Eric Shnell
The only way that we can accomplish that is by identifying which parts fall into which category. We have to track which parts are used, how long they are deployed, and any issues that arise. We can then identify those issues and determine if we can fix them. If a 3D-printed part outperforms an OEM part, then that needs to be identified and communicated. And if a 3D-printed part fails earlier than the OEM part, we need to identify why and put a plan in place to fix that.
For example, do we need to change the materials that we’re using to print that part out in the field? Do we need to change the geometry of that part?
If a 3D printed part is not only generated cheaper but is just as efficient and effective as the original, it could be embraced as a permanent replacement.
GDH: What kind of challenges do you face when attempting to 3D print in the field? How is it different than 3D printing in a controlled environment?
Eric Shnell: 3D printing is a precision technology that is very delicate and not meant to be disturbed by environmental conditions. A disturbance [that impacts the final product] can be as minimal as an off-balance desk. Printers aren’t meant for printing on the move.
If we print during transportation, it requires a very experienced operator to calibrate the printer and figure out if there are any issues. If there’s any movement, changes in temperature, or humidity during printing, it can not only cause a failed print but a print that looks like it succeeded. These parts could potentially be far weaker than the original.
“What we’ve done is build a system from the ground up that targets each of these issues one-by-one. The end result is a fully enclosed system that can print on the move.” – Eric Shnell
What we’ve done is build a system from the ground up that targets each of these issues one-by-one. The end result is a fully enclosed system that can print on the move. We’ve demonstrated that capability in the back of tactical vehicles. It can also be transported and used in some of the most extreme environments. Just last winter we were printing high-temperature filaments in subzero temperatures. We’re able to print high-temperature ultra-polymers like ULTEM™ , which are comparable in strength to aluminum and a lot of other metals. In some cases, it’s more durable.
ULTEM™ is a medically certified material and the only 3D printing material rated by both the Air Force for use on their aircraft and the FAA for use there as well. That material is very difficult to print reliably even in controlled labs, and we were able to print that in subzero temperatures out in the High Sierras.
GDH: Where do we stand with printing 3D parts in theater? What needs to change to make this a reality?
Eric Shnell: We have been printing domestically for a few years now. Not just us but our DoD partners, as well. We’ve been helping to support that in tactical environments, and they have been doing it overseas, supporting some of their missions over there.
The Marine Corps and many of the other services have 3D printed in theater, though mostly in specialized situations. We’re working on taking what has been learned through our collaboration and transitioning that over to those environments to support missions— not just in the continental U.S. but beyond as well. This time as a permanent tool our warfighters can use in many situations and any environment they find themselves in.
To learn more about how digital twinning can manufacture parts at the tactical edge, click HERE.
