Democratization of Manufacturing

A report on the workshop hosted by the University of Tennessee-Knoxville
November 15, 2018
Date published: December 15, 2018
Prepared by Paveway Inc.
Contributing Authors: S. Babu, M. Bolen, T. DeMeester
DEMOCRATIZATION OF
MANUFACTURING
Paveway

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2. INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION
3. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
4. STRATEGY AND INVESTMENT
5. TECHNOLOGY WORKGROUPS
5.1 ADVANCED MANUFACTURING PARTS GENOME
5.1.1 OVERVIEW
5.1.2 CURRENT STATE
5.1.3 INHIBITORS
5.1.4 ASPIRATIONAL STATE
5.1.5 ACCELERATORS
5.2 AGILE LOCAL MANUFACTURING: ROBOTIC BLACKSMITHING
5.2.1 OVERVIEW
5.2.2 CURRENT STATE
5.2.3 INHIBITORS
5.2.5 ACCELERATORS
5.3 AGILE LOCAL MANUFACTURING: ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
5.3.1 OVERVIEW
5.3.2 CURRENT STATE
5.3.3 INHIBITORS
5.3.5 ACCELERATORS
5.4 NATURE INSPIRED MANUFACTURING
5.4.1 OVERVIEW
5.4.2 CURRENT STATE
5.4.3 INHIBITORS
5.4.5 ACCELERATORS
6. CONCLUSION
7. APPENDIX
7.1 ENABLING MANUFACTURING PRACTITIONERS THROUGH LARGE-SCALED
INTEROPERABILITY (EMPLOY)
7.2 WORKSHOP AGENDA
7.3 ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED AT THE WORKSHOP
7.4 REFERENCES
DEMOCRATIZATION OF MANUFACTURING
CONTENTS
Paveway

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Democratization of Manufacturing refers to the progression towards a state where the tools and and processes
for designing and manufacturing are available to everybody. Adoption of advanced manufacturing technology
and processes can be difficult for the small to medium business. Obstacles such as slim margins, near-term gains,
and global competition make it challenging for manufacturers to invest in cutting-edge technology. The University of
Tennessee-Knoxville and partners organized a workshop to hear the voice of industry and gather market data. The
workshop focused on presenting forward-leaning manufacturing technologies while at the same time working with the
workshop participants, which included over 35 members from industry, academia, the Department of Defense, and
public-private institutions, to identify the current state and ways to accelerate toward an aspirational state. Discussion
focused around four research thrusts: low-cost advanced process innovations, digital manufacturing, manufacturing
social network, and manufacturing knowledge and skill set dissemination. Each of the research thrusts were broken
down further and a design thinking methodology was used to lay out an initial roadmap and identify potential obstacles
around an advanced manufacturing parts genome, robotic blacksmithing, additive manufacturing, and nature-inspired
manufacturing.
Participants voiced that they are excited and ready for the proposed technologies, as well as others, to be incorporated
into their manufacturing processes. However, they additionally stated a need for a way to de-risk the technology research
and development, first article production, and initial operationalization. The workshop hosts proposed a collaborative
space where industry could partner with researchers and create cross-functional, interdisciplinary teams to solve grand
challenges in manufacturing. Overwhelmingly, as is evidenced in the report, the participants are ready and excited to
use such a collaborative center to increase operational capacity and rebolster the the local and national manufacturing
industry. This report presents the vision of the future the workshop hosts and attendees discussed. During the workshop,
attendees were encouraged to think in terms of 10X improvements rather than incremental improvements. The
sentiment is captured in the report and though ambitious at times, is balanced by focus on key subset areas of advanced
manufacturing parts genome, robotic manufacturing, additive manufacturing, and nature-inspired manufacturing.
DEMOCRATIZATION OF MANUFACTURING Paveway

2. INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION
On November 15, 2018, the
University of Tennessee-Knoxville
engineering department, led by Dr.
Suresh Babu, hosted a workshop titled
the Democratization of Advanced
Manufacturing. The workshop was hosted
at the Manufacturing Demonstration
Facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The University of Tennessee-Knoxville
(UTK) and partners from Tennessee State
University, University of Michigan, The
Ohio State University, Georgia Institute
of Technology, and Oak Ridge National
Laboratory hosted the workshop in order
to understand the current needs and
challenges faced by small- and medium-
sized industries in rural areas to propose
effective solutions that will revolutionize
the competitiveness of US manufacturing
and provide workforce solutions to bring
jobs back to rural communities. Through
facilitated discussion with participants, the
workshop sought to:
• Identify and confirm technical-societal-
economic root causes for the weakening
of US manufacturing workforce and
infrastructure.
• Evaluate the viability of distributed
manufacturing systems based on
adoption of low-capital cyber-physical
systems (CPS) as a solution. CPS
are defined by the National Science
Foundation (NSF) as engineered systems
that are built from, and depend upon,
the seamless integration of computation
and physical components.
• Evaluate required expertise,
infrastructure, and financial resources
needed to shore up manufacturing
capacity at local levels.
In total, 45 participants attended including
executives and technical experts from
small- and medium-sized businesses, as
well as academics and researchers from
focused topics in advanced manufacturing.
The UTK team gathered data and the
voice of industry regarding the business
cases and opportunities surrounding
an advanced parts manufacturing
genome, robotic blacksmithing, additive
manufacturing, and nature-inspired
manufacturing.
The longer term vision of UTK and
its partners is to establish innovative
bridges enabling emergent and
deprived manufacturing practitioners
to achieve sustainable technical and
social interoperability skills and expertise
essential to support the US manufacturing
ecosystem at various scales—small,
medium, and large. This goal will be
achieved by cross-functional collaborative
teams of academic researchers and
industry representatives developing and
deploying affordable, advanced, and
energetic technologies (e.g., hardware
and software) demonstrating synergism
of scientific disciplines including: biology,
data sciences, computational materials
engineering and ‘materials by design,’
lifecycle analyses, artificial intelligence,
process sciences, robotics, sensors, and
social sciences. The cross-functional
teams will exploit science and technology
through models of human capital
reflecting demography of manufacturing
workforce development and promotion
with respect to culture, economy,
education, expertise, infrastructure, law,
politics and values.
The research thrusts will include the
following: (i) low-cost Mfg lifecycle
process innovations; (ii) digital platforms
for manufacturing products qualification
measurement and assurance, as well as
knowledge and data sharing; (iii) social
manufacturing network for linking local
and global demands with energetic
manufacturing capability; and (iv) scalable
education programs that integrate
practicum and theoretical aspects. The
Low-cost advanced process innovations
thrust will include agile and novel
biologically-inspired manufacturing
processes. The distributed Digital
manufacturing thrust will investigate
product and process design thru genomic
science, integrated computational
materials engineering (ICME), digital
cloning of manufacturing processes and
controls, and sensor-based inspection and
diagnosis of manufacturing processes.
The Manufacturing Social Network
thrust will integrate approaches used by
social networking, makers movement,
and mobile-phone application platforms,
emerging supply chain models with focus
on sustainability, environment and cultural
perceptions of life/work balances, as well
as, bio-inspired synthetic psychology
principles. The Manufacturing knowledge
and skillset dissemination thrust
investigates service-oriented avenues
to serve the US diverse manufacturing
ecosystem through mechanisms
including: secure web-based portals
providing knowledge-based trainings and
guidelines for acquiring manufacturing
skills, accessing manufacturing support
networks, business incubator centers,
social experts and capital investors in
support of the emergent manufacturing
practitioners.The overarching fundamental
question that UTK and its partners will
evaluate is the feasibility of democratizing
manufacturing ecosystems through
concurrent engineering interoperability
principles and affordable, innovative,
proven emergent manufacturing
technologies.
Presidential Executive Order 13806, issued
on July 21, 2017, focuses on assessing
and strengthening the manufacturing and
defense industrial base and supply chain
resiliency of the US. The order states
“the loss of more than 60,000 American
factories, key companies, and almost 5
million manufacturing jobs since 2000
threatens to undermine the capacity and
capabilities of United States manufacturers
to meet national defense requirements
and raises concerns about the health of
the manufacturing and defense industrial
base.” UTK and its academic and
industry partners will continue to build
deep relationships and collaboration
and because of this are well positioned
to strengthen the manufacturing
industrial base and increase supply chain
resiliency through their cooperation and
partnership with small- and medium-
sized manufacturers; many attended the
workshop. The research thrusts outlined
above have the capability of creating
much more than incremental progress on
manufacturing capabilities.

3. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
The workshop hosts recognize the need for a convergent approach to solving grand challenges that will impact society, engage
stakeholder communities, and build capacity for manufacturing. A convergent approach in this instance is defined by a multi-
disciplinary approach which judiciously incorporates knowledge, tools and frameworks from across disciplines for problem solving.
Using this as a framework for structuring the workshop, an invitation to attend was sent to a wide range of industries and stakeholder
groups resulting in 45 participants. These groups include members from: the Knoxville Chamber of Commerce, UTK Center for
Industrial Services-Institute for Public Service, Blount County Chamber of Commerce, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Department
of Defense, Tennessee State University, Georgia Tech, the University of Michigan, and Ohio State University. The agenda for the
workshop included a keynote address on Democratizing Smart Manufacturing from Professor Jim Davis from the University of
California, Los Angeles and Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute. Following the keynote, Dr. Babu presented a
vision for a collaborative engineering research center, engaging and polling the audience in different topic areas. After the morning
presentations the workshop segmented into four technology groups on the topics of Advanced Manufacturing Parts Genome, Robotic
Blacksmithing, Additive Manufacturing, and Nature Inspired Manufacturing. The technology groups were facilitated using a design
thinking methodology, with an output of an initial crowd sourced roadmap of accelerators to enable the development and business
model adoption of their ideas.
Following the presentation by Dr. Babu on the 4 technology workgroups, a live, interactive poll was taken with the below results:
How likely is your company
to expand its technological
capabilities in the next 5 years
(1-5, 1 being least likely)?
*33 votes
4.3
average
Which technology would be most
difficult to implement at your company?
*33 votes
Nature Inspired Emergent Manufacturing 61%
AM Parts Genome 18%
Robotic Blacksmithing 12%
Additive Manufacturing 9%
Which technology is most likely to have
a positive impact at your company in the
next 5 years? *36 votes

Advanced Manufacturing Parts Genome 28%
None of the above 8%
Which is most interesting to your
organization? (more than one choice
allowed) *33 votes
AM Parts Genome 58%

4. STRATEGY AND INVESTMENT
Several layers of manufacturing strategy and investment are worth considering when determining entry points for new technologies.
At the national policy level, the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), in coordination with the National Economic
Council, develops and maintains “a quadrennial strategic plan to improve Government coordination and provide long-term
guidance for Federal programs and activities in support of U.S.manufacturing competitiveness, including advanced manufacturing
R&D.”1
Most workshop participants weren’t familiar with the national manufacturing strategy, but the Strategy for American Leadership
in Advanced Manufacturing, published only one month prior to the workshop, provides this guidance. Fittingly for the blended
audience of researchers and industry practitioners, this Executive Office report prescribes: “The United States still leads the world in
scientific and technological innovation. America must protect and leverage this strength to rapidly and efficiently develop and transition
new manufacturing technologies into practice within our domestic industrial base and international allies.” An economic analysis by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology indicates that “addressing scientific and technical challenges in advanced manufacturing
can conservatively save U.S. manufacturers over $100 billion annually while further enhancing the economic value to the private sector
of federally performed R&D.”2
Private investment in advanced manufacturing technologies should be viewed in two distinct segments: 1) Research and development
(R&D) investments to bring new manufacturing technologies to the marketplace and 2) capital investments by companies to purchase
and implement new technologies. The first segment is the domain of internal R&D programs, venture capital, and collaborative
partnerships such as Manufacturing USA. The second segment has a smaller risk tolerance and is funded by internal corporate
budgets, private equity investments, traditional bank loans, and through creative business models such as joint ventures and strategic
partnerships. To bridge the gap between the two, federal research laboratories, universities, and public-private partnerships (such as the
Manufacturing USA institutes) provide small and medium manufacturers (SMM) essential access to technologies, technical infrastructure,
and specialized knowledge. Further work needs to be done to develop commercialization pathways and de-risk manufacturing
technology investments for new products and fundamental technologies.
5. TECHNOLOGY WORKGROUPS
5.1 ADVANCED MANUFACTURING PARTS GENOME
Technical Expert: Prof. Greg Peterson
5.1.1 OVERVIEW
Prof. Greg Peterson from UTK presented an initial vision for an Advanced Manufacturing Parts Genome (AMPG). In his vision, all
documentation of manufactured parts is self contained. This included design, tool integration, lifecycle support, refinement and
personalization, supply chain support, and multiple approaches to intellectual property (IP) protection (encryption, checksums, and
blockchain). The genome should be able to analyze and classify qualification-related data (e.g. micrographs) as well as simulate data
using machine learning algorithms. With the above capabilities mentioned, the simulation can then support different types of analysis
(thermal, stress/strain, electrical, electromagnetic, digital logic, behavioral, and quantum effects), different types of abstraction, different
timing granularity (atomic/molecular interactions, radio frequency, digital electronics, software, and user interactions), and interactions
among simulations (feedback, steering, and optimization loops). The system should also account for design issues throughout the entire
life cycle of the part. These issues include design data for parts, input files for parts, data from manufacturing (defects, testing results,
imaging), reliability and failure modes, statistics on other digital twin parts versus current part, diagnostic information, usage information
and tracking, and maintenance information. The vision for the Advanced Manufacturing Parts Genome has a model to base itself off. In
fact, the integration of IP cores into System on a Chip (SOC) is in practice, the AMPG vision.3
Workshop participants engaged in a collective brainstorm session and follow-on discussion regarding the current state and aspirational
state of an Advanced Manufacturing Parts Genome. The discussion was broad and additionally covered topics which might be
preventing the current state from reaching the aspirational state as well as ideas/technology/etc which could serve as accelerators to the
aspirational state.
3 Advanced Manufacturing Parts Genome presentation, Professor Greg Peterson, November 15, 2018
1 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Advanced-Manufacturing-Strategic-Plan-2018.pdf
2 https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/eab/NIST.EAB.1.pdf

5.1.2 CURRENT STATE
The current state of manufacturing and any semblance of an AMPG are considered to be disorganized with a lack of understanding
and collaboration. Manufacturing has taken on a posture of reactiveness rather than proactiveness with unreliable models, ineffective
knowledge management, and lack of standardization.IP restrictions are currently designed to be controlling rather than sharing, which
limits the amount of collaboration taking place. This results in lack of traffic or communication between companies.
Digitization is limited. For example, in many instances, the digital thread cannot be accessed on the factory floor at the location
closest to manufacturing of a product. This can result in a labor-intensive, error-prone product definition and creation.
Participants expressed frustration with the current limitations and feel overwhelmed by the amount of work necessary to move toward
digitization. According to one participant; “what got us to this point in manufacturing, will not get us there (aspirational state).”
5.1.3 INHIBITORS
Factors considered to be inhibiting the advancement to the aspirational state are (in order of importance as voted on by participants):
The participants expressed a desire to experience a demonstration of the Advanced Manufacturing Parts Genome within a year
in order to move from an abstract idea to a tangible experience. The system should combine requirements, processes, and
manufacturing and not be limited to Earth-based activities. As we push manufacturing processes forward, an ideal system will enable
the building and verification of parts in space. This may include new types of feedstock, recycling, and assembly outside the bounds of
earth. The system should have a user experience that is intuitive and simplistic to allow non-experts the ability to perform specialized
tasks. This is particularly important for small companies.
A system which allows total access on all levels is also desired, in a true democratic manner. However, access to the system does not
mean access to sensitive information of others (e.g. IP). Data sharing and trust are key components to achieving an aspirational state
for an Advanced Manufacturing Parts Genome. Trust in this context involves multiple layers and is experienced in all areas along the
value chain. The layers and intersections of trust include (but are not limited to): business to business transactions, size asymmetry (big
versus small), buy, sell, and value add. Standard templates should exist to allow small companies the ability to join the conversation,
comply, and participate; IP-protection, ownership of IP, alteration of certified parts and legal protection. The mechanisms for trust must
be built to ensure easy and fast collaboration.
Customer Centric: The genome should be a “living and evolving” system with relevant information to the customer use experience.
Integrated Design: Key features of an integrated design include a control and feedback loop for all users and parts. The design
should include machine learning to continually drive towards speed, functionality of part, and decreasing errors (part fit, function, etc.).
The learning feedback loop must also be open to iterative designs and new technologies. All key members should be participating for
maximum benefit.
Digitization: The system needs to be built in a way that leverages all aspect of current and future digital uses. This includes a way to
track the digital thread, digital twin, digital certification, and model based simulation. The system should strive to be the single source
of data for all digital representations of the part. Additionally, the system should maximize the use of all available data and serve as a
one-stop-shop for a user.
• Cost and other barriers to entry, especially for small businesses
• Management mindset: impatience, a focus on short-term
tactical wins versus long-term strategic gains driven by
stockholder demands and quarterly earnings
• Risk avoidance, fear of new processes, and overly complicated
legal agreements
• The “not invented here” phenomena
• Lack of a changemaker or a leader or team that focuses on
change who is from industry and not from academia (a “Steve
Jobs” for the vision)
• No cultural sense of urgency
• Unreliable models

5.2 AGILE LOCAL MANUFACTURING: ROBOTIC BLACKSMITHING
Technical Expert: Prof. Glenn Daehn
5.2.1 OVERVIEW
Robotic blacksmithing is a category of robotic manufacturing methods that includes: incremental sheet forming (ISF), incremental bar
forming, stretchers, shrinkers, flexible profile bending, flexible ring rolling, open die forging, and powered hammers. ISF processes
are being studied as a potential niche manufacturing process for low volume and mass customization products.
Although these technologies are in early stages of development, research and development efforts are improving the ability to track
processes with time, temperature, strain tensor, stress tensor, and other metrics. With these data points, models can be developed to
predict microstructure, damage, anisotropy, and other properties.
Qualifying parts is key to any new manufacturing process, particularly in metallurgy. Robotic blacksmithing uses a known mechanical
process, which simplifies qualification, augmented by digital technologies, which allow for automation and improved quality control. In
particular, artificial intelligence (AI) with in-situ sensing will decrease build failures and generate models to predict the well-being of the
part.
5.2.2 CURRENT STATE
Most participants agreed that the current state of the industry is exemplified best by the lack of innovation and funding. In general,
there is a slow transition of technology from research labs to manufacturing floors. Hardware and materials startups have difficulty
raising growth/scale investments from Venture Capital sources. Compounding this problem is that the upside of innovation is bound by
the tool economics, which don’t scale in many industrial cases.
The primary competitive advantage in the current market is size—economies of scale and buying power remain king. Furthermore, the
competitive environment is characterized by the traditional battle between the US and China. Stifling standards restrict growth and
disincentivize risk taking activities.
A workforce capable of operating current and future manufacturing technologies is a frequently voiced problem. Manufacturers are
competing with digitally based jobs (design, software engineering, etc.) for access to a talented workforce, which is seen as having a
cultural aversion to careers in manufacturing. Current shop floor technicians struggle to keep up with new technologies or are retiring
and taking significant knowledge with them. Finally, many manufacturing processes and interfaces remain unfriendly and counter-
intuitive; designers need to understand CAD software, technicians need costly retraining to learn a new machine, and data in the
manufacturing enterprise remains locked in functional silos, all of which impede the adoption and progress of the newest technologies.
5.2.3 INHIBITORS
Factors considered to be inhibiting the advancement towards the aspirational state are (in order of importance as voted on by
participants):
• Curriculum holistic problem solving
• Lack of business models
• Government not investing in technology transfer
• Knowledge capturing tools (lack of available, robustness, etc.)
5.1.5 ACCELERATORS
Factors believed to be accelerants towards the ideal state of an Advanced Parts Manufacturing Genome are (in order of importance as
voted on by participants):
• Open access to manufacturing technology resulting in lower
capital costs, this can help current businesses as well as enable
and accelerate start-up businesses with the benefit of building
from a blank slate and not having to incorporate decades old
machines and processes
• Access to low-cost sensors and cloud-based information
• Fear of missing out
• Additive manufacturing education, including capabilities and
design for AM
• Smart manufacturing as a business imperative to achieve digital
manufacturing
• A champion in government to push the idea forward with
funding and support
• Machine learning
• The Maker community

Even in its developmental state, robotic blacksmithing shows clear promise as a technology to enable small and medium sized
manufacturers to produce low volume, highly customized parts. Automotion, in-situ sensor feedback, artificial intelligence, and toolless
production are key components that enable several unique value propositions across product, process, and economic segments.
Product Capabilities
The ability to rapidly produce unique, customized product features will be a key competitive differentiator for any manufacturer. Robotic
blacksmithing will enable customized features on a per-unit basis. Furthermore, material and performance properties can be optimized across
each component. Drastically reduced design-to-part timelines, and zero-tooling lead times in particular, will be a tremendous advantage.
Process Capabilities
The workshop participants viewed improved manufacturing processes as having the most upside in the aspirational future state. The teaming
of robotics with AI, and “co-botics”—a technology that leverages robotics with the cognitive advantages of the human brain, will have
tremendous future impact. Each of the processes that stem from these new technologies should be diagnostic, prognostic, and analytic.
Advanced sensing and a deeper understanding of materials characterization will lead to a state of 100% first-time yield. With the proliferation
of the digital twin, all testing will be non-destructive. The future of manufacturing with these technologies is not limited to traditional systems
and logistics; part production and repair will also be done at the point of demand. As an example, a maintenance vehicle equipped with
robotic blacksmithing technology would arrive at the site of maintenance or repair and would repair parts or produce replacements without
having to depart.
Economic Advantages
The economics of the aspirational state are particularly attractive. Process digitization could directly lead to an environmentally friendly circular
economy, whereby materials, products, and byproducts are all used in a closed-loop system and materials are recycled and reused. With
SMMs incentivized to participate in the digital manufacturing economy, these advanced manufacturing technologies would be available in
every town. Ideally, increased digitization would lead to a decrease in regulatory burdon. All of these factors lead to the US becoming the
world’s most competitive manufacturing economy.
5.2.5 ACCELERATORS
Factors believed to be accelerants towards the ideal state of robotic blacksmithing include (in order of importance as voted on by
participants):
• Maker spaces
• Technology incubators
• National manufacturing strategy
• Process learning and AI technology
• Integrated computational materials engineering (ICME) models
• Advanced sensor technology
• Offline programming innovation
• Digital twins for all physical parts
• New process for robotic blacksmithing testbeds
5.3 AGILE LOCAL MANUFACTURING: ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
Technical Expert: Prof. Alan Taub
5.3.1 OVERVIEW
Additive Manufacturing (AM) provides flexibility in design, allowing geometries that were previously unattainable using traditional
manufacturing methods (subtractive, casting, etc.). Coupled with optimized machine-aided generative design, parts can be lighter
and stronger. One current popular business case for AM is low volume runs with highly customizable designs. Significant cost saving
is experienced in tooling during prototyping and research and development. Businesses with rapid innovation cycles and the need to
create robusts parts are well poised to harness the advantages of AM.
BMW, a well-known automobile manufacturer, is now manufacturing an advanced metal bracket for their convertible cars using 3D
printing technology. This is one of a limited set of examples of AM being used in mass production. There has been lots of hype about
the potential of this technology, and in some ways it has succeeded. In comparison to 10 years ago, AM has moved forward faster than
ever and over any other technology development. All this has created a perception that the inflection point in a growth curve has been
crossed. The reality, however, is that we are at the very bottom still figuring out the physics of the technology. The public perception
is that anything can be printed. While hypothetically true, specifications and standards still rule industrial practice, and there are many
hurdles to cross before AM can meet those standards.
Qualification of parts, from raw material through in-situ process control to validation of the end part, remains one of the most critical
pieces to the broad industrial adoption of AM. Artificial intelligence is a promising technology for qualification problems, it has shown
potential to predict build failures and to create models that predict the performance of parts against specifications. Finally, qualifying
parts should be approached from a mechanical perspective to finally reach the goal of having the most control over process flow.
particular, artificial intelligence (AI) with in-situ sensing will decrease build failures and generate models to predict the well-being of the
part.

5.3.2 CURRENT STATE
The current AM landscape is fragmented across technologies and solutions, with fly-by night companies competing with traditional
industrial players to develop the next generation of machines and associated technologies. Limited material choices and slow
deposition and build times were voted on by participants as the most impactful current problems. Other pressing issues that define the
current state are variability between machines, research work that is not fully leveraged, high energy usage, and lack of design capability
to match the potential of the process.
The current business reflects this with an unclear return for a large capital investment. Some see this technology as a solution looking
for a problem, leaving large industrial primes as the only players who can afford to experiment with AM. The high level of hype that
surrounds the potential may impair future adoption after expectations are missed. Although there is a strong, current case, to use AM
for infrequently needed low volume parts, intellectual property issues and a lack of risk tolerance for end-use parts with no heritage are
preventing wider adoption.
5.3.3 INHIBITORS
participants):
The aspirational state for additive manufacturing begins with the capabilities of 3D printing machines and associated technologies:
The aspirational state includes business cases that justify investment, reduce cost and time, and add value to existing processes. These
include being able to produce tooling with a lead time measured in days (not months), and a large and predictable volume of orders for
parts that can be produced with AM. Finally, the aspirational state includes a single AM machine that can be used for all applications.
Workforce is important in this state, including the ability to work and learn on equipment in lab, institute, and production environments.
LIFT (Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow, a Manufacturing USA institute) was shared as an aspirational example of aligning talent and
technology development.
5.3.5 ACCELERATORS
Factors believed to be accelerants towards the ideal state of AM (in order of importance as voted on by participants):
• Cost
• Over hype leading to backlash from unmet expectations
• IP protection
• Incumbent resistance
• Lack of understanding
• Risk
• Collaboration and attainable business models
• Lack of applicable use case
• Feedstock options and availability
• In-space demonstration opportunities
• Lack of business data
• In-situ measurement and control
• AM parts qualified for use in primary structures
• Shorter total manufacturing time
• Incorporation of thermal-mechanical processing in one step
• Controlled microstructure with varied materials
• Isotropic properties (not layer dependent)
• Digital twin
• 100% 1st pass yield
• Functional material design
• Full range of fillable feedstock
• The ability to scan and print scarce equipment and parts
• An AM capacity marketplace that helps machine owners defray
costs while increasing agility in the manufacturing ecosystem
• AM research collaboration between businesses, academia, and
R&D facilities
• Design education to narrow the gap between machine and
design capability
• Cross-functional development teams
• Marketing of the benefits of AM
• Integrated process quality control with self correction
• Cultural interest
• End-to-end AM research
• Cyber maker space

5.4 NATURE INSPIRED MANUFACTURING
Technical Expert: Dr. Suresh Babu
5.4.1 OVERVIEW
Nature has been using AM long before humans began to harness the technology. For example, paper wasps build their nests by
a natural and instinctive AM method. It is different from our current additive manufacturing in two main ways: top-down building
and the material used is gathered from the local environment. Paper wasps also take a different approach to layering building material.
Current AM technologies used by humans focus on building an entire horizontal layer at a time. Paper wasps on the other hand build
by a multi-layer, changing process that jumps around to different places. The wasp tests each deposit of the build with its hind legs as it
goes along, ensuring that it is to the specification and function of the build. The design is emergent rather than deterministic, meaning
it is never exactly the same from year to year. The wasp operates on a predictable and repeatable manufacturing process: retrieve
material, deposit material, and sense (validate deposition is to desired state). The inspiration for the wasp discussion comes from the
findings of Honma and Fukui and their report Construction Methods of Three-Dimensional Shapes based on the Nesting Behavior of
Paper Wasps.
What might we learn from nature? How might we incorporate practices, processes, and measurement techniques into our own
manufacturing development? One example of a group pursuing manufacturing similar to that of the paper wasp is Aerial Additive
Building Materials (Aerial ABM). Aerial ABM is a United Kingdom Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Body Council that is
developing aerial construction using autonomous robotic drones to additively manufactured structures.
5.4.2 CURRENT STATE
Nature-inspired manufacturing is a relatively nascent concept, particularly in regard to mass manufacturing. A deep, fundamental
understanding of nature is missing, with many assumptions made in analyzing nature engineering. There is a fear of changing proven,
tangible manufacturing methods. This resistance to change is also driven by significant capital expenditure costs on current equipment
as well as a focus on short-term gains rather than investment for the long term. Some research and work is being done in robotics,
materials, prosthetics, and bio-applications. However, current technology readiness levels are perceived to be too low to implement
nature inspired manufacturing.
• Short-term reward/risk aversion
• Political/federal lack of support—a policy issue
• More materials and capabilities outside the US than inside
the US
• A lack of investment in innovation for the sake of innovation
• Lack of trust between collaborators, competitors, and others in
the product value chain
• Overly complicated governmental compliance (International
Traffic in Arms Regulations, Federal Acquisition Requirements,
etc.)
• Lack of funding of all sorts (venture capital, private equity,
public, etc.)
5.4.3 INHIBITORS
participants):
The working group’s most popular discussed concepts were reusing and recycling, with a drive towards zero-waste manufacturing.
The group posed the question that if manufacturing will be inspired by nature, then it should be integrated into nature as well. As
manufacturing develops towards this goal, tight alignment between protecting and creating the world should be top of mind. An
ideal state would include the capability to self-build as well as self-heal and repair. Much like paper wasps source components of their
building materials locally, so should the future of manufacturing. Energy efficiency must be considered and implemented at every level
as well. Buildings and other structures should be naturally efficient with heating and cooling. Other key components of the aspirational
state:
Design: Designs should be flexible, unique, purpose-driven, and evolving over time in consideration to the environment. Overcoming
gravity much like the paper wasp, allowing for top-down, bottom-up, or lateral construction. Mass customization should be enabled for
situations where customer or market demand dictate.
(continued on next page)

5.4.5 ACCELERATORS
Nature-inspired manufacturing is ideal for a convergent research and development (R&D) approach. The workshop participants
expressed excitement about the prospect of collaboration between companies and academic institutions. They additionally voiced a
desire for the opportunity in the near term and envision it as means to solve societal issues with engagement across the stakeholder
community.
Factors believed to be accelerants towards the ideal state of Nature-Inspired Manufacturing are (in order of importance as voted on by
participants):
5.4.4 ASPIRATIONAL STATE (cont.)
Construction: The ability to use different materials in a single build with in-situ monitoring and testing for internal and external material
soundness during during construction with integrated sensing and intelligence generated much excitement for the working group.
Simplicity and efficiency in material bonding is an additional desired feature. Generative in-situ coordination between design and
construction will enable quick decisions and implementation material and end products.
System: For ease of use, a system which enables a user to input specifics about what they need and then outputs or suggests solutions
based on different naturally occurring examples in nature, optimized for the application. The system should also incorporate group
learning and adaptation similar to how groups of fish or flocks of birds interact.
• Declaration of national strategic manufacturing intent
• Sense of purpose/urgency
• Better computing, sensing, machine learning technology
• Distributive network of technologies
• Technical vision and leadership from both government and
industry
• More exploratory work, experiments for far-out, orders of
magnitude greater capabilities
• AM and environmental preservation education
• CPU abundance
• An increased US based microelectronics capability

6. CONCLUSION
Industry and academic representatives of the workshop voiced excitement, desire, and a need for a center at which
they can form high-impact, multidisciplinary research teams to push technologies forward. The technologies presented
in this report are of interest to the regional stakeholders and are seen as a way to revitalize the region. Incorporating
advanced manufacturing technologies at small to medium sized businesses has been a challenge in recent years. Small
to medium sized businesses are operating at tight margins and competing globally. A center which can de-risk capital
expenditures while collaboratively pushing technology forward, to a point where local manufacturers can adopt that
technology, would be invaluable to the local region. The impacts of such a collaborative space could have reaching
impact in to workforce development, quality jobs, and economic development, all while building an ecosystem of
innovation.

7. APPENDIX
7.1 Enabling Manufacturing Practitioners through Large-scaled InterOperabilitY
Vision: Democratization of manufacturing among practitioners in a distributed and collaborative way for social,
economic, and environmental sustainability, resilience and fairness for a large variety of heterogeneous populations
facing changing cultures. During the workshop, the largest anchors were “cost” for realizing the vision. Therefore, we
may organize all things around cost.4
4 Table credit: Dr. Mingzhou Jin

7.2 WORKSHOP AGENDA
Paveway
8:00–8:30 Registration and Networking Breakfast
8:30–9:00 Keynote Address: Democratizing Smart Manufacturing
Jim Davis, University of California,
Los Angeles and Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute
9:00–10:00 Democratization of Manufacturing Overview
Suresh Babu, University of Tennessee, Knoxville and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
10:00–10:15 BREAK
10:15–12:15 Facilitated Session 1: Advanced Manufacturing Parts Genome (Greg Peterson)
Faciliatated Session 2: Agile Local Manufacturing / Robotic Blacksmithing
(Glann Daehn)
12:15–12:45 BREAK
12:45–2:45 Facilitated Session 3: Agile Local Manufacturing / Additive Manufacturing (Alan Taub)
Facilitated Session 4: Nature-Inspired Emergent Manufacturing (Suresh Babu)
2:45–3:00 BREAK
3:00–4:00 Synthesis of Recommendations from Facilitated Sessions
Suresh Babu, University of Tennessee, Knoxville and Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Travis DeMeester, Paveway Partners
4:00–5:00 Tour of Manufacturing Demonstration Facility

7.3 ORGANIZATIONS REPRESENTED
AT THE WORKSHOP
Paveway
02 Defense
Navus Automation, Inc.
Akerworks Inc.
Nissan
Arconic
Nymi
Bell Helicopter
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
BNCG
OSIsoft
Cincinnati Incorporated
Paveway Inc.
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
Royal Brass & Hose
ESI Group
Space Science Institute
EWI
Tennessee State University
Highlander Center
The Ohio State University
Hologram Electronics
UNC Charlotte
IACMI
United States Special Operations
Command
Innovate Group
University of California, Los Angeles
Innovate Manufacturing, Inc.
University of Michigan
James K. Woodell, LLC
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Knoxville Chamber
US ARL
Lalka Tax Services
UT Center for Industrial Services
LM Industries Group, Inc.
UTK, EECS
Lockheed Martin
Volunteer Aerospace

7.4 REFERENCES
Paveway
Executive Order 13806, “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and
Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States”
ARISE II: Unleashing America’s Research & Innovation Enterprise
https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/publication.aspx?d=1138
McKinsey Global Institute – Making It in America: Revitalizing US Manufacturing (Nov 2017)
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/americas/making-it-in-america-revitalizing-us-manufacturing
McKinsey & Company – Digital Machinery: How Companies Can Win The Changing Manufacturing Game
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/digital-machinery-how-compa
nies-can-win-the-changing-manufacturing-game
MForesight - Democratizing Manufacturing: Bridging the Gap Between Invention and Manufacturing
http://mforesight.org/projects-events/democratizing-manufacturing/

Democratization of Manufacturing

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Democratization of Manufacturing

Similar to Democratization of Manufacturing (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Democratization of Manufacturing