In rough seas, binder jet as a market is underpinned by a collection of firms, some large and small. We looked at their potential staying power, the applications and parts, and my belief that the future lies in libraries of small, relatively low-cost technical parts that are to be repeatedly made worldwide, and we looked at the collective delusion that, surprisingly for many, got us here.

Generally, binder jet has potential. But there will be a further shakeout as people decide to double down or leave. The future of the technology will probably not propagate in the boardroom. This will not be sold on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Binder jet will also probably not displace any existing technology. It, however, has a bright, very specific future ahead. To be successful, an investment will be needed, and people will have to go further in developing the technology. But in military MRO (maintenance, repair, and operations), industrial firm global parts supply, small technical parts for medical devices, complex small manifolds, and the like, luxury goods, and bridge manufacturing, the technology can meet specific business cases much better than any other. It will compete with Slurry SLA and Bound Metal, as well as tried and tested machining processes and MIM (metal injection molding). Still, there are areas where it simply wins for squash ball-sized complex technical parts, which require detail, flow, robustness, and tens of thousands of parts. It’s a great technology. But, real strides will have to be made in proving the entire process, especially that pesky shrinkage and all that human-powered post-processing. In niche applications, companies such as Mantle are doing very well, and as Nottingham University’s Vice-Chancellor, Faculty of Engineering Christopher Tuck says,

“Given so many constraints, generic binder jet just doesn’t have the maturity level, and we generally haven’t optimized binder jet for a given market. We need to have the right binders for the right post-process and engineer the process, including software, in a much more holistic way. Driven by inkjet, it is a scalable technology with thousands of points of material conversion. But binder jetting is the smallest part of that technology; it’s the secondary processes that hold it back. Solve this, and then we have batch volume capacity in small, medium to high-value things with channels, rigidity, and reasonable longevity. For now, binder jet doesn´t have a natural home; it is squeezed in between other AM technologies.”

To me, much more so than other technologies, a process engineered around an end part or application could become significantly more valuable with binder jet. What’s more, if the build box is always moving, and the process is run nonstop, the economics of binder jet change radically, allowing for much higher yields and much lower part costs. It’s almost as if we’ve all tried to make a toaster for all kinds of bread, from loaves to croissants and baguettes. And only if we start making one for slices of toast do we get the right process, machine, and settings combination to make this a success. Binder jet has been treated as a marketing challenge, while engineers have tried to make it a machine that can make anything. But to me, it’s most of all a business development and partnership challenge that should lead to the perfect process for the correct application.

Professor Kate Black is the CEO and Founder of Atomik AM as well as a Professor of Manufacturing at the University of Liverpool. She thinks that,

“Binder jetting has a bright future, but only if we start building around its own strengths. That means putting materials at the heart of the process, not just treating binders as glue or relying on powders and software from LPBF and print heads designed for 2D graphical printing. To truly scale, binder jetting needs its own ecosystem, from custom-tailored materials to purpose-built hardware and software.”

Smarter binder engineering is her bailiwick, and she’s so right that we can add so much more functionality and specific process-improving qualities if we make much better binders. The “purpose-built hardware and software” really resonates with me, too, and is very close to what Chris is saying. 

Gareth Neal is an independent consultant who is probably the most experienced person worldwide in implementing inkjet-based 3D printing technologies. Before at Xaar and now consulting with GN3DC, he thinks that,

“Binder jet has suffered from a fundamental misunderstanding of the technological requirements and a rush to sell from VCs. Done correctly, understanding the full capabilities of printheads and materials combined,  BinderJet still offers the most cost effective and widest range of raw materials in a multimaterial format. This also enables far more applications and improves production yields to bring part cost down. It is the most promising area of AM development to come.”

A 3D printed heat sink made from pure copper. Image courtesy of Digital Metal.

Brian Murphy, who has deep experience in 3D printing going back to 2002, has worked in technical support, process engineering, machine operations, and manufacturing, and is now at Hubbell Incorporated. He wanted to stress that this is his personal view and does not represent the views of Hubbell Inc. in any way. He told me that, 

“I do believe Binder Jetting, and for this case, Metal Binder Jetting has a bright future ahead. I believe you can chalk most of this dustup to VC/investor/IPO tactics and marketing. When you advertise a ‘Click to Print’ product, but are selling a science experiment, there will be problems. If the firms keep chasing the short-term buck the long-term market will never grow, and customers will never come back. Quality, repeatably produced, and reliable equipment is still one of the biggest problems in industry. You don’t buy a CNC, then spend another 20-100K to get it running. Keep in mind, all of the AM technologies are a tool in the toolchest and nothing will fulfill 100% of your AM needs.” 

Overselling has clearly hurt the technology in the eyes of those who want to deploy it for manufacturing. If you want people like Brian to deploy this technology, then clearly trust, true engagement, and honesty will be the answer. Others have evaluated binder jet and found it does not match their needs. JawsTec is a 3D printing service that, at scale, uses MJF, sintering, SLA, LPBF, and CMF for industrial clients and their parts. Founder and CEO Oscar Klassen thinks that, 

“Binder Jetting has been one of the most pushed processes in the metal manufacturing market. One reason JawsTec has stayed away is the inconsistent shrinkage and lack of repeatability. Some companies have found a fit, but they miss the mark for most of our products and requirements.”

Again, we’re seeing this skepticism from those who actually have to use the technology due to overclaiming in the past. For Oscar, this isn’t a deployable large-scale solution at the moment, and he seems to think of this more as an application-specific thing for him to maybe consider at one point rather than something that will really change his business.

Respected industry consultant and AMPOWER CEO Matthias Schmidt-Lehr believes that, 

“In light of Desktop Metal’s downfall, it may seem that Binder Jetting is destined to become a micro-niche within the metal AM landscape. However, this may be a premature conclusion. Leading medical OEMs are currently investing heavily in the technology. At the same time, Binder Jetting continues to gain traction in the production of small metal parts for electronics and consumer goods, particularly in China. This indicates that the technology will thrive in highly selective applications where it delivers clear value, while L-PBF has solidified its position as a more versatile, general-purpose metal AM technology.”

I really like that Matthias is pointing out something very specific here, and that is growth in China in electronics and consumer goods. We don’t often get enough insight into what is going on in Chinese manufacturing. Still, growth there could only be driven by process economics that hold up in super-competitive markets. The business case is being built there, one deal at a time. Again, he also thinks that the future is in specific applications.

A 3D printed pure copper bullhorn antenna. Image courtesy of Digital Metal.

On the whole, I believe that binder jet needs good product market fit, better software, and better control over the whole process. If we can find parts and markets that work exceptionally well for the technology, then completely engineering a production system for that business case is the way forward for me. Alternatively, we could have modular machines that are adaptable to various specific endeavors. If we do that, then there are many markets that can be profitably addressed, in turn, by this technology.

In  David Bowie’s song “Changes,” he sings, “And my time was running wild, a million dead-end streets,” and “Every time I thought I’d got it made. It seemed the taste was not so sweet.” This is the short history of binder jet. Binder jet technology will have to change in order to meet the specific needs of manufacturing particular parts particularly well. If it does this, it could be supremely useful and profitable. If it does not change, it will disappear by the wayside.