reBang

3D Printing Q&A with American Standard’s VP of Design

Posted on 5/6/2016 by csven

American Standard 3D printed faucets

Last year American Standard announced the availability of a line of metal 3D printed faucets. Not only was American Standard using cutting edge technology to fabricate a mostly consumer-level product, but they did so with beautiful results. Of all the 3D printed products I’ve come across, none showcased the future potential of additive manufacturing to the degree American Standard did with these offerings.

Leading the effort was Vice President of Design and friend, Jean-Jacques L’Henaff. Fortunately for me, Jean-Jacques and I had been colleagues at Intelligent Product Solutions, so I had an opportunity to go to the source for some questions I had about the development of these faucets.

Below is my Q&A with Jean-Jacques, which I hope is of interest to those of you closely following the rise of 3D printing.

–

CSJ: Before we get into the details of the American Standard DXV project, can you briefly share your background and your prior experiences using additive manufacturing – 3D printing – technology?

JJL: I am a trained Industrial Designer with a background that spans from private aircraft interiors to consumer electronics. I have been using 3D printing – SLA and SLS mostly – for twenty years, but only for prototyping purposes.

CSJ: You mentioned in a previous exchange that one of the challenges from a traditional industrial design perspective was to “design something one could not make“. For both the industrial designers and makers out there, could you elaborate on your comment?

JJL: When you design an object that will be produced using 3D printing, you are designing without the conventional constrains of manufacturing: draft angles, deep cavities, consistent wall thicknesses, etc. When we started this project, we tried to push as far as we could to find the limits of this new technology – and we did find some! The constrains inherent to DMLS in particular are real, but, still, the level of freedom offered to the designers has no precedent.

CSJ: In comparison to your team’s typical development methodology, did the industrial design process itself change, and if so, in what way?

JJL: We tried not to imitate the approach we follow when designing a conventional faucet using gravity or die casting. Our third design – Shadowbrook – was the most interesting: we first designed the water, then went back to create the faucet.

CSJ: Aside from the obvious need to finish especially complex geometries, would you say fabricating production parts using an additive manufacturing process generally requires more or less labor than traditionally manufactured product? In other words, if one of your traditionally manufactured faucets were transitioned to a metal additive process, would it inherently require more finishing?

JJL: Not necessarily – it mostly depends on how you design it and the intended final finish. A conventional faucet requires polishing – by hand or robot – then plating, which is a multi-stage process. Our 3D printed faucets require breaking the support structures, grinding their traces out, and sand blasting. We decided to go one step further and have an artisan hand finish each of them by giving them what we call a “butler finish.” It mimics the silverware finish left by decades of having the butler shine them… This part takes much longer than our conventional process! But we are investigating various chemical finishes than would eliminate these steps.

CSJ: Did your team encounter any difficulties ensuring tight tolerance areas (e.g. sealing geometry, screw threads, etc.) met American Standard’s requirements?

JJL: All functional surfaces are machined after the printing and cleaning process. Some areas indeed have threads or create seals, and 3D printing today can not achieve the level of tolerance and surface finish required.

CSJ: Can you provide some technical details regarding:

a. which 3D software(s) was used to generate the final industrial design intent?

Pro-E

b. whether or not a haptic interface was utilized?

c. whether or not any additional software was used to manipulate or repair a mesh, and if so, which software?

None

d. whether other kinds of analysis software besides the computational fluid dynamic solver were used (e.g. an FEA application)?

e. whether or not textures were incorporated directly into the 3D data or were part of the post-fab process (perhaps specified in a CMF document), or both?

The only textures are applied by hand as the last step of our process, just before assembly. They are left to the discretion of the artisan. This is rather unusual for us, but the price of these products made us look at the finishes in a different light. At this level of luxury, one can expect a bespoke aspect to the product.

f. what 3D printing options and fabrication processes were considered and why the team decided on the tools which were used?

DMLS was a logical choice for this type of products.

CSJ: The press release states Selective Laser Sintering is being used; however, because “SLS” is used interchangeably with DLM and EBM, to clarify, did the team use a sintering machine and then fire the part to remove the binder and infiltrate, or did the team use a laser- or electron-beam melting process to create a completely solid part?

JJL: We used a DMLS process – more specifically an EOS printer – and decided to print directly in a stainless steel alloy called Inconel.

CSJ: How did the team evaluate the output of the CFD application? Were intermediary prototypes fabricated, a CG visualization tool used, or some other method/tool incorporated to aid in the user experience evaluation?

JJL: The team rendered the products during the design process, but the real test came when we prototyped each version. They were all printed in Somos using an SLA printer.

CSJ: In reference to the 32% decrease in water usage, was improved water usage a design goal or a happy accident, and could you explain how this improvement was determined?

JJL: This applies to the Shadowbrook: since we are not using an aerator, the amount of water flowing out of the faucet was really linked to the effect we were trying to achieve. it simply resulted in a lower water consumption.

CSJ: What surprised you during this unique project development effort?

JJL: The main surprise was to discover how early we are still in the development of this technology. Our journey was not an easy one, and we are still working out a lot of details.

CSJ: What disappointed you or didn’t meet your expectations of the technology?

JJL: There are some geometry limitations due to the heat generated during the manufacturing process.

CSJ: If you had to do this again, what if anything would you do differently?

JJL: We had to follow a path of discovery/trial and error – I would not do it in any other way.

CSJ: In general, how has the interior design community responded to these cutting edge products?

JJL: The response has been far beyond our wildest expectations. From a press and social media coverage, but also and most importantly from a commercial point of view. These products are very unique and cutting edge, and the market has been responding very strongly.

CSJ: Lastly, can we expect to see additional designs of this nature from American Standard?

JJL: Indeed!

–

My sincerest thanks to Jean-Jacques for taking time out of his schedule to answer my questions and allowing me to share that information with the public.

Design Victim of Reliability

Posted on 10/3/2005 by csven

There’s an interesting piece called “Reliability vs Validity” by Roger L. Martin over on BusinessWeek. For industrial designers out there (especially those familiar with the belly of the corporate beast) this is an interesting articulation of what many of us have seen to be the case. I’m sure many designers know what it feels like to sit in team meetings where the project manager downplays design issues and then devotes the lion’s share of the meeting to “reliability” concerns. Considering that most of the project managers I’ve dealt with are people who worked their way up through “reliability” fields, this is no surprise to me. Maybe what the CEO/CVO needs to be looking at is why there aren’t more “validity” people entering the upper-management pipeline. If all you have are “reliability” people calling the shots, there’s a good chance you’re going to get an Aztec.

By the way, this piece reminded me of Nussbaum’s blog entry “Operationalizing Innovation–THE hot topic“. When the organization chart is stacked with “reliability” people (especially short-term thinkers – see my comment over on that page), there’s probably very little chance it’ll be innovative.

Nike iD, Fab-On-Demand, and Videogames

Posted on 10/1/2005 by csven

Well most everyone should have seen something like this coming as Nike is no stranger to either consumer-customizable product or videogame marketing. And now they’re doing what we can soon expect others to do: forming significant first links between the virtual and the real.

According to a recent press release, Nike is integrating it’s Nike iD program with the new basketball game, NBA 2K6, from Take 2 Interactive. From the Take 2/Nike press release:

Among the most compelling elements of the partnership is the integration of the Nike iD shoe customization feature within the game functionality. In 24/7, NBA 2K6’s Streetball Mode, players dribble across North America and compete in various streetball tournaments. As players advance through the mode, a new pair of Nike Basketball shoes is awarded to the user. Each shoe earned is then added to the player’s Nike Shoe Locker. The shoes are classified based on Nike’s Flight, Force and Uptempo categories and give the user enhanced performance when worn in the game. The player must choose the best performance characteristics, such as greater speed, to defeat the opponent. Once shoes are collected in the locker, gamers can use the exclusive 24/7 Nike iD customization feature to personalize their shoes. This feature mirrors the real-world customization capabilities accessible at the Nike iD web site.

Unfortunately, as noted in the quote, the current Nike iD-NBA 2K6 integration doesn’t allow for the game shoes to be automatically sent out for fabrication; it only “mirrors” the Nike iD customization site. That functionality might, however, be in the offering next year according to a story over on ClickZ news. From their report:

That may change next year, however, according to Nike spokesperson Trisha Burns. She told ClickZ News that next year’s edition may allow gamers to order personalized shoes using the game’s interface.

The article on ClickZ goes on to say,

Development on the product integration aspect of 2K6 has taken about six months, but the two partners worked out a way to get shoe models into the game as they become available on the market. Codes will be distributed throughout the basketball season, which will unlock new Nike shoes and products. The code and assets will exist in the game’s software at launch, but only become available at the appropriate time.

I’ll be looking forward to further news on this. I’m obviously interested in how they got the shoe models into the game. I’m going to take a guess that Nike made the models in Maya since I’m aware that it’s a not uncommon app for shoe design (edit: or Alias and then pulled the native .wire files over to Maya) . It also happens to be an excellent 3D program for game models. Furthermore (and this is the kicker), it has a built-in translation from NURBs to polygons – something that would facilitate the transfer of the designs. With any luck I’ll be able to confirm this beyond now noticing that 2KSports is hiring Maya modelers and Maya tool programmers. Now as to specifically how models are being updated on the client side is another question, and I suspect that will also be an interesting bit to learn.

Most people might not be aware that the Nike iD program is actually relatively long in tooth. If I’m not mistaken, it was originally launched in 2000 or so, but to little general fanfare. It was also more tentative – the site was nice (as one would expect from Nike) but not amazing; it wasn’t compelling. But to Nike’s credit, they understood the potential and had a much more impressive re-launch (of sorts) of the whole concept, which has been received with much greater fanfare than the original.

Within product design, there are plenty of examples of companies introducing products and services ahead of their time. Unfortunately, too often those failures cause companies to pull back permanently; “Once-bitten, Twice-shy” as the saying goes. I can think of a couple companies like that (one was bitten when they attempted to use a now common injection-molding process called Gas Assist; they subsequently avoided it and fell behind the competition). One has gone under and another is on the verge of bankruptcy. Perhaps someone needs to stencil that other saying on some foreheads: “Grow or Die”. This isn’t the time to be unreasonably tentative. Kudos to Nike.

{Image source: 2KSports}

{via Clickable Culture}

Into the Light

Posted on 9/29/2005 by csven

Crestron touch panel

I caught a short piece over on Appliance Magazine titled “Product Review – Smart Appliances“. For anyone who remembers the media circus when “smart” net-connected appliances were being introduced a few years back (most notably all those cool “Thalia” concept models), you probably understand why my interest was piqued – the hype died so fast I’m not wondering where they packed off their tents and moved to, I’m wondering if the big top caught on fire and burned to the ground. As this 2001 article over on Forbes puts it, “In the decade and a half since, the path to the kitchen of the future has become cluttered with train wrecks.” So much for that I guess.

Meanwhile, in the background it appears there’s still stirrings of life. Not only is the above product by Crestron Electronics interesting in its own right (if kinda ugly), it’s part of a range of offerings by this privately-held company. From Yahoo’s background info webpage:

Crestron Electronics makes systems and software that provide computerized control of audio and video systems. Its products can also control a variety of other items, such as blinds, lighting, and security systems.

A very quick look at the competitive landscape isn’t showing much. One of their competitors, Simtrol, even appears to be tanking in the market based on the stock chart. I don’t get it. When the world is abuzz about mesh networking, why hasn’t home connectivity come back in vogue? After all, “smart” appliances are more than ovens you can turn on from the office PC (or operate remotely via a virtual world interface); they’re also about intelligent use and energy conservation. Given recent events and concerns about energy availability, I have to believe there’s a few more companies under the radar working toward real home electronic integration… ummm… other than Microsoft’s XBox. What with recent developments in solar energy materials and rising interest among the consuming public to outfit their homes to make them more energy-independent, how can there not be something going on? If left up to me, I’d be over in Australia getting to know the teams participating in the 2005 World Solar Challenge. Power management is often cited as the critical component in a successful run of one of those cars. Maybe someone is connecting some dots and we’ll see “smart” appliances make a return. I certainly hope so.

Do Not Translate

Posted on 9/26/2005 by csven

It appears long time industrial design advocate Bruce Nussbaum is going to be blogging. I’d post this over on Core, but there’s some kind of relationship forming between BW and Core so I’ll not interject. Besides, I’m on record as effectively saying Nussbaum sounds repetitive to me. But hey, even a broken clock is correct twice a day. And I certainly hope he’s right this time about the role of ID. But I also hope he has something new to say that solidifies those convictions and provides indisputable, abundant evidence of their validity. The last time ID was coming into its own corporations decided cheap goods from Asia trumped good design. So anyway, read along with me. Here’s the link.

–

Oh geeze. On first look it appears he’s jumping on the Claudia Kotchka bandwagon. Not a good sign to me given my previous issue with what I believe to be corporate hype (documented here) .

And he’s only now posting entries on the importance of Blogging (my mention of BW’s mention months ago – which was itself way overdue) and Storytelling (my post on the implications of Seth Godin’s entry on storytelling way back in May)?

This doesn’t bode well.