New alloying research, industry perspectives from the C-suite and a little fixturing for fun.
Welcome to the latest edition of the engineering.com Additive Manufacturing Progress Update, a monthly column focusing on the latest in 3D printing research and business – with a little fun thrown in at the end. Here’s the previous column, in case you missed it.
Let’s get to it!
Additive manufacturing research review
In this section, we review recent additive manufacturing research papers published in open-access formats, summarizing each article with comments from the researcher(s) when possible. We also include links to the full texts for further reading.
Additive manufacturing aluminum alloys
Aluminum 7xxx series alloys (also known as grade 7000) are known for their light weight and exceptionally high strength, which is why they’re widely used in the aerospace industry. However, when it comes to additive manufacturing (AM), these alloys have suffered from issues with hot cracking, porosity, elemental evaporation, microstructural anisotropy, and adhesion and bonding defects.
A review by a team of engineers and materials scientists at Istanbul Technical University and Tennessee Tech examines the recent research into overcoming these various challenges, which include strategies for process optimization, post-processing treatments and novel alloy modifications.
Among their findings are a pronounced lack of data on how powder characteristics affect process conditions and resulting mechanical properties, the need to standardize process parameters; and the importance of collaborations between private industry, the defense sector, and academia to transition the use of Al7XXX alloys from research labs to full production.
Enhancing Ti6Al4V with niobium
Ti6Al4V alloys are among the most popular in AM for aerospace and medical applications, with parts made using laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) demonstrating superior tensile strength compared to those made with conventional manufacturing. To enhance their mechanical performance even further, engineers and materials scientists from Shandong University and Lunan Technical College in China experimented with combining Ti6Al4V and niobium powders in L-PBF.
A 3 wt.% addition of niobium increased ultimate tensile strength from 1050 MPa to 1181 MPa and total elongation from 8.8% to 10.5%, while the addition of 10 wt.% increased elongation even further to 15.6% with a strength of 1135 MPa. The greater addition of niobium powder also decreased the elastic modulus from 105 GPa to 80. This suggests that using niobium for in-situ alloying of Ti6Al4V in L-PBF could help to optimize the mechanical performance of titanium AM parts.
Preparing and post-processing AM titanium alloys
As noted above, Ti6Al4V is widely used in orthopedic implants, not just for its strength, but also its corrosion resistance and biocompatibility. Moreover, since solid titanium implants have a higher elastic modulus compared with bone (90 – 115 GPa vs 10 – 30 GPa), biomedical engineers can take advantage of AM to tune the mechanical properties of implants using lattice structures and even control pore size and porosity.
However, these adjustments can introduce issues with powder adhesion, compromising both bone integration and patient safety. In order to identify the optimal preparation, processing, and post-processing parameters to minimize the chances of this happening, engineers at Fuzhou University in China created bulk samples of Ti6Al4V with selective laser melting with a fixed laser power (200 W) and variable scanning speeds.
In addition, the researchers tested cubic unit cell scaffolds with different pore diameters and porosities and varied the length of time for chemical polishing. Ultimately, they identified 1200 mm/s as the optimal scanning speed, scaffolds with 400 µm pore diameter and 60% porosity exhibited the highest compressive strength (794 MPa) and fracture strain (41.35%), and 40 minutes was the optimal polishing duration.
A novel method for developing alloys with laser powder bed fusion
As indicated above, L-PBF shows great promise for in-situ alloying of various metal powders. Another recent example comes from Germany, where researchers at Ruhr University Bochum, the Leibniz Institute for Materials Engineering, and the University of Wuppertal discovered a new approach to in-situ alloying of tool steels.
Rather than generating a large number of samples for each alloy, the researchers used a hydraulic press to prepress individual samples of different powder proportions into small disks, grinding the surface of each sample where it came into contact with the press to achieve a similar surface reflectance of typical powder beds. Their results were promising, though there were some issues with chemical heterogeneity and unmolten particles as a result of variations in powder particle size.
Predicting residual stress in DED parts
Directed energy depositions (DED) is a promising technology for 3D printing metal, with significantly higher build up rates compared with other metal AM technologies, such as L-PBF. However, those higher deposition rates come at a cost, with DED parts typically requiring additional machining operations to achieve desired tolerances. That machining introduces stress, which can affect mechanical performance, so predicting how machining will stress DED parts is crucial to the adoption of this technology.
That’s why engineers from the University of British Columbia and the University of Nottingham have developed a numerical model to predict final surface residual stress after orthogonal cutting of DED parts made from Inconel 718. The model accounts for the cumulative effects of both initial residual stress states as well as grain size, with the former having different effects on forces and final surface residual stresses. It also demonstrates that increasing grain size leads to a reduction in the magnitude of compressive residual stress. By using this model, engineers working with DED IN718 parts can now tailor their post-processing to achieve the necessary surface residual stress profiles for their specific application.
Additive manufacturing market matters
In this section, we discuss notable changes in the share prices of publicly traded additive manufacturing companies, with additional comments on major contracts and other announcements from both public and private companies. Note that these are subject to the latest available data as of April 30, 2025 at 9am EST.
| Company | Ticker | Current Price | MoM % Change | YoY % Change |
| 3D Systems | DDD | $1.85 | -9.8 | -45.4 |
| Markforged | MKFG | $4.74 | 6.0 | -19.7 |
| Materialise | MTLS | $5.04 | 3.7 | -5.1 |
| Nano Dimension | NNDM | $1.65 | 1.9 | -32.1 |
| Stratasys | SSYS | $9.42 | -4.8 | -4.1 |
| Protolabs | PRLB | $35.17 | 0.4 | 12.9 |
| Xometry | XMTR | $25.13 | 0.2 | 44.8 |
| S&P 500 | SPX | $5,560.83 | 0.6 | 9.0 |
Notable shifts in AM share price
While most companies are suffering from the same uncertainties that have been plaguing the larger market over the past few months, there are two silver linings among AM suppliers that are plausibly related. Markforged has seen the largest positive gain, month-over-month, but the change was even more dramatic on March 25th when the company’s stock saw a 31% jump alongside the largest volume of shares traded in a single day since October 2024.
It seems likely that both events had to do with the company’s acquisition by Nano Dimension, the other notable shift in AM share prices this month. While the latter’s month-over-month increase of 1.9% is not the largest positive swing – and may seem further undermined by the 32.1% decline, year-over-year – this is the first time in 2025 that the company has ended the month on a positive note.
With Nano Dimension’s two major acquisitions now successfully completed, the big question is whether it can turn these consolidations to its advantage, especially given speculation that Desktop Metal may soon be up for sale once again.
One other point worth noting is the continued impressive growth of service provider Xometry over the past few months despite (or perhaps because of) uncertainties in global markets. In February, Xometry reported significant increases in Q4 revenue and gross profit, including a record 34.5% increase in the gross margin of its marketplace, which the company says has generated nearly a billion dollars in revenue for manufacturers over the past five years. With the announcement of Xometry’s first quarter financial results coming up on May 6th, it’s definitely one to watch.
AM business developments
A few other noteworthy events took place in the AM business world over the past month. The most significant was undoubtedly RAPID+TCT, which was held in Detroit this year, collocated with AeroDef. This enabled the event’s organizers to tout it as the largest show ever, though I couldn’t help but feel that was more the result of juking the stats than actual attendance.
I asked one attendee whose company had a booth last year about why they’d declined to invest in one this year and here’s what he said:
“We’ve found that we’ve been more effective reaching our customers when we’re more vertically market-focused, so we tend to be at medical device shows and electronics shows, which are the main pillars of our business. So, if we’re looking at return on investment, those are more effective for us.”
Whether that’s an indicator of the maturity of the AM market or just the specificity of a particular supplier is an open question, but there were other signs that this year’s show was less of a hit compared to those in the past.
From my perspective on the ground, the mood at the event seemed somewhat less optimistic than last year’s, with the word ‘tariff’ always hovering in the background, even when not stated outright. A question from the audience on that topic was passed over during the AM executive panel, though the tension between perception of AM and the reality of the current economic climate was a reoccurring theme.
“Some of the problems that additive manufacturing has had have been kind of self-inflicted, because of that period of hype, and now we’re seeing the consequences of unrealistic expectations,” said Glynn Fletcher, president of EOS North America.
Brigitte de Vet-Veithen, CEO of Materialise generally agreed, while noting that in some areas, such as medical devices (a major pillar for her company), the past few years have been more positive. “Let’s be realistic,” she said. “Let’s make sure we’ve learned our lesson—and not fall for hype again, even with powerful new tools like AI.”
The youngest member of the panel, Formlabs Chief Revenue Officer Nick Graham, took the most optimistic view of the industry, citing Bambu Lab as evidence that rapid growth is still possible in AM. “There are lots of companies doing well in this macro environment—by executing well and delivering real value,” he said. “We should study and emulate them.”
Finally, Statasys CEO Yoav Zeif attempted to find a middle ground between his fellow panelists, acknowledging the existence of past hype cycles (from notions of a 3D printer in every home to full-scale manufacturing takeover) while arguing that the industry is indeed on the cusp of maturation.
He suggested that, while the so-called macroeconomic headwinds persist, these could lead to stronger performance and real industrial impact in key sectors, such as aerospace and defense. “There is a huge gap between perception and reality,” he said. “You can be profitable, you can deliver value—but you need to be sharp and focused.”
3DPTV
You’ve made it this far, so here’s a little treat for the end of our latest column.
Chris Borge is a designer based in Australia who posts videos with practical 3D printing applications for personal use, including a switching magnetic vise and a modular CNC controller. One of his most recent videos runs through his process of creating a simple but versatile fixturing tool and his honest, relaxed presentation makes for a nice change of pace from the hyperbolic, high-strung tone of the more bombastic 3D printing influencers.
That wraps up the latest edition of our Additive Manufacturing Progress Update.
Send your questions, comments or complaints to me at iwright@wtwhmedia.com, and they might just appear in next month’s column.
