Additive Manufacturing. Technology Insights and Implications for Product Liability Insurance April 2017

Transcription

1 April 2017

2 Author: Rochus Troger, Global Head Risk Engineering Technical Center Liability, Zurich Insurance Company Ltd Table of contents 1. Executive summary Introduction Timeline of additive manufacturing Technology insights Deep dive into AM: current opportunities, limitations, popularity and applications Technological perspective current opportunities & limitations Economic perspective current opportunities & limitations Awareness level of AM Current applications and trends Risk considerations Quality risks Legal risks Conclusions References... 12

3 1. Executive summary Additive manufacturing AM is not a new technology but already 30 years old 3D printing is only one of many other additive manufacturing methods, collectively referred to as AM The use of additive manufacturing (subsequently called AM ) with its most popular manufacturing method 3D printing (subsequently called 3DP ) is no more limited to product prototyping, as it used to be the case since its beginning 30 years ago. The industry strives hard to move AM into the field of regular industry production and once the technology is mature and ready for mass production, the additional push in type and extent of application will be significant. Hence it is time for the liability insurance industry to have a thorough look at this manufacturing technology in order to gain a proper understanding about current opportunities, limitations and risks. Some areas of risk which are of special interest to liability insurers lie in the technology as such, in the legislation and in potential uncertainties relating to the circumstance that the AM method of 3DP enables private users to turn into manufacturers. This indicates the importance of access for the insurance industry to specific information about the use of AM throughout the entire product manufacturing process and the participants involved. 2. Introduction 2.1 Timeline of additive manufacturing Contrary to the public perception, AM is not a new technology. It is used for 30 years already. The technology goes back to the invention of the stereolithography by Charles Hull in 1983 which formed the basis for today s 3DP technology. This technology was marketed in 1986 and stands for the birth of the first commercial 3DP technology. 1 The initial application of AM technologies was for industrial purposes in the 1980s and became known as rapid prototyping. As the term indicates, the technology has been used for manufacturing of prototypes and test models with the purpose to receive swift and tangible feedback. This is still the prevailing application across the industry 2 as AM is not yet a mature technology in the field of regular industry production and it is not ready for production of high volumes. In the past few years, 3DP has gained public attention, also among private users. One of the reasons for this was the expiration of patents for Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM)-3DP which, for the first time ever made it possible to design and manufacture 3D printers suitable for private users at reasonable cost. The supply of affordable 3D printers, scanners and CAD-file software (Computer Aided Design) has greatly improved. 3D printers are nowadays available starting at a price of US$ 300. There are internet help communities and online 3D CAD file sharing which even allows color printing. At the same time, the number of input (raw) materials that can be printed by private users is steadily increasing. 3 It is therefore considered that private use of 3DP will most probably continue to expand. However, there are major technological obstacles that make it rather unlikely for 3D printers to 1 Hull, 2015, p Hagl, 2015, p. 8 3 Macik, 2015, pp. 154 and 155 1

4 become standard and simple-to-use equipment for private households in the short and medium term. 4 3DP is only one of many other additive manufacturing methods, collectively referred to as AM. The following analysis focuses primarily on the current use of AM in industrialized production and related risks but does also consider the role of private users in the context of 3DP. Furthermore, the analysis takes a quick glance at current developments and future applications and aims to give valuable insights about what this all means for product liability insurance. 2.2 Technology insights In contrast to conventional subtractive manufacturing technologies such as milling, lathing, drilling or grinding, AM is based on an additive approach, hence the name of this technology. In AM, a product is shaped by building up of material layer by layer which can be done by a wide variety of methods. Some of the most important are: 5 Stereolithography Photopolymer Jetting Laser Sintering Fused Deposition Modeling FDM or (the equivalent) Fused Filament Fabrication FFF Single Jet Inkjet Three-Dimensional Printing 3DP Laser Powder Forming Laminated Object Manufacturing The following information further explains the AM method of Three-Dimensional Printing 3DP: 6 What are the differences between 3DP and other AM methods? The production method of 3DP is kindred with Laser Sintering. Some of the most important differences consist in: material feeding (3DP using an inkjet-pressure cylinder with liquid binding agent instead of melting of raw material powder by laser beam); type of raw material (in 3DP mostly metal or ceramic powder particles; overall limited but cheaper raw material offering); higher production speed of 3DP (number of layers applied per unit of time); lower precision and stability of parts produced by 3DP as a consequence of the higher production speed. 4 Hagl, 2015, p. 8 5 Hagl, 2015, pp. 10 and Hagl, 2015, p. 29 2

5 The different AM methods have their specific advantages and disadvantages and their application depends i.a. on the product to be manufactured. These are some of the relevant considerations: level of maturity how proven, tested and reliable a method is and the level of required know-how; the degree of precision; the flexibility, for example with regard to the parts geometry or dimension, a certain method can perform; the degree of cleanliness working with liquid input material is rarely a clean way of AM; the surface quality (e.g. reflected by the porosity) which i.a. defines the required degree of finishing work, including the removal of support structures as inherent to some AM methods; the speed of production; the type and availability of raw material and related material characteristics as well as the anticipated strength level of final parts; the initial and running cost for production such as equipment like 3D printer and scanner, raw material, process software and energy intensity of the manufacturing process; related cost may be influenced by patent protection if still in place; the weight of production equipment and the required space; health considerations in conjunction with production, e.g. related to release of vapors and gazes during manufacture, chemical characteristics of input materials etc. 3. Deep dive into AM: current opportunities, limitations, popularity and applications The prevailing opinion in the business community is that AM is an extremely promising technology. However, as shown above AM is not a perfect technology. There are obstacles and hurdles that have to be overcome in order to drive AM forward and to make best use of it, as set out in the following analysis. 3.1 Technological perspective current opportunities & limitations The tables in chapter 3.1 and 3.2 summarize what the current opportunities and limitations of AM are, in relation to its technological and economic characteristics. 7 Technological characteristics of AM Opportunities Direct digital manufacturing of 3D technical designs without the need for tools or molds Limitations Restriction of manufacturing to printable materials (limited raw material offering) and broad lack of specific raw material quality standards 7 Weller et al., 2015, p. 46 3

6 Change of technical product designs without significant additional costs in manufacturing Manufacturing of complex part geometries which would be very difficult or impossible or only at high costs by using conventional manufacturing methods High manufacturing flexibility: objects can be produced in any random order without significant additional costs; will change the traditional way of production planning and work scheduling Significant reduction of assembly operations by production of functionally integrated designs in one-step Raw material savings because of reduced raw material scrap / raw material consumption Size and weight of parts (large and heavy) limiting the use of the technology Quality issues of final parts: inconsistent and inadequate manufacturing results (precision, surface quality, strength level of final parts etc.) limiting the reproducibility; striking absence of specific quality standards, e.g. for raw material, inspection and testing Surface finishing causing substantial efforts (can include the removal of support structures as inherent to some AM methods) Significant know-how required Slow manufacturing process increasing the production time (one reason why the technology is not yet ready for large serial production) Table 1 Technological characteristics of AM current opportunities & limitations 3.2 Economic perspective current opportunities & limitations Economic characteristics of AM Opportunities Acceleration and simplification of product innovation and development: less expensive iterations and change in technical product design, end products rapidly available and facilitated cooperation with customers (e.g. customer co-design of products) Limitations High marginal cost of production (raw material, energy intensity of the manufacturing process, increased production time), no economies of scale 4

7 Simplified customization and increase in complexity of products at reasonable manufacturing cost, might allow for price premiums Dilemma of economies of scale not fully applicable to an increase in the number of product variations multiple product versions at low number of units produced can still pay off; may foster a shift from economies of scale to economies of one / of few Reduction or even elimination of assembly steps with one-step production of functional components Technology allows for a smaller machinery pool, lowering the initial cost of investment and market entry barriers In the long term, reduction of the competitive disadvantage of western states compared to low cost / wage countries, might lead to insourcing of production High scrap rate due to unsolved technological issues Requirement for a new overall approach in quality assurance replacing the current concept of sample and destructive testing Product portfolio restrictions triggered by the technical feasibility (for major technological limitations see table 1) Legal issues: potential collisions with international protection rights e.g. on intellectual property (easy data misuse because technology is heavily based on electronic data processing) High level of know-how and experience and associated training expenses Table 2 Economic characteristics of AM current opportunities & limitations In conventional manufacturing, an increase in complexity and / or customization typically leads to an increase in cost per part because of greater efforts in product development and manufacturing. This is different in AM where the main impact on the cost is in product development but not in production Awareness level of AM Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric, believes that AM is a game changer. Meanwhile Terry Gou, CEO of Foxconn, is of entirely different opinion saying that 3DP is a gimmick and has no commercial value. 9 One good argument that supports Jeff Immelt s statement is the increase in the number of AM technology related patents that have been issued since the 1980 s worldwide. What is remarkable is the development since the year In only a bit more than a 8 Conner et al., 2014, p Conner et al., 2014, p. 64 5

8 decade, the number of issued patents has increased from 80 to around 600. This includes patents relating to AM materials, software and equipment. 10 There are more signs to support the thinking of 3DP as the next industrial revolution such as forecasts, predicting a fourfold growth in worldwide revenues related to 3DP during the years 2014 to Market data support the thinking according to which AM is a game changer However, as AM is not yet mature and ready for large serial production, there is no certainty as to the future of AM And finally a last indication from Google trend data, comparing the number of search keywords for additive manufacturing and 3D printing during the years 2000 to The data show a massive increase in the use of the search keyword 3D printing entered in Google s search engine. Whilst it would be wrong to draw conclusions on the penetration of 3DP in comparison to the many other AM methods, the data show how significantly the name recognition of AM, popularly known as 3D printing, has increased since beginning of this millennium. 12 All these figures seem to support the statement according to which AM is a game changer. However, whilst there is no certainty as to the future of AM and its expanding use in regular industrial production and by private users (by having access to 3DP), it is worth to take a glance at current applications of AM. 3.4 Current applications and trends Use of AM in industrial manufacturing is already widespread, yet production lot sizes are rather small. This is due to the circumstance that AM is still not a mature technology in the field of regular industry production and that it is not ready for large serial production. The following examples only reflect a small portion of applications in industrialized production. However, they help to gain a greater understanding of the situation as it stands: Aircraft industry: General Electric GE: components for the Leap jet engine; 13 Airbus: titanium structural brackets for the A350 XWB aircraft; 14 Boeing: thermoplastic components for the 737, 747 and 777 commercial aircraft and several hundred components for the 787 aircraft prototype. 15 Automotive: Ford: makes use of AM in production since 1988 already on a regular basis, one example of a 3D printed component is an engine cover for the new Mustang; 16 Local Motors: gave evidence that it can print a roadster (everything except for the drivetrain) within 48 hours. 17 Medical devices: Hearing aid instruments: the U.S. hearing aid industry has converted the majority of their production to AM D Aveni, 2015, p Smith, 2015a, p Babu et al., 2015, p Kroenig et al., 2015, p Kroenig et al., 2015, p Weller et. al., 2015, p Boagey, 2015, p D Aveni, 2015, p D Aveni, 2015, p. 44 6

9 Shoes: 19 Nike: customizable football cleats; Runners Service Lab: customized running shoes. Other applications: Hershey s Chocolate World: manufactures specific single product lines of chocolate for presentation purposes; 20 Festo: bionic handling assistant (adaptive gripper) to improve the efficiency in the small parts manufacturing; 21 There are numerous opportunities applications of AM are of AM widespread in which industrialized triggers the production need for proper and there risk is a analysis trend towards manufacturing The of complex future of AM products heavily depends on its AM suitability has for helped mass to massively production reduce cost and time in prototyping LuXeXcel: lenses for light-emitting diodes LED. 22 There are many more applications in a variety of areas, such as pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices (e.g. manufacturing of endoprosthesis, tooth crowns and implants, titanium jaws, leg braces 23 ) and food. A lot of these applications aim to facilitate the process of product development with the effect of time and cost savings. The following examples show how striking those savings can be: at Timberland, the cost per prototype of a shoe was reduced from formerly US$ to US$ 35 and the production time for a prototype has dropped from one week to only 90 minutes. This only because of the use of AM. 24 And at Ford, components in product development can be 3D printed in a few hours only and this is how the time for prototyping in automotive industries was reduced from a couple of weeks to a few days only. This allows for even more radical and innovative product design. 25 As regards future applications of AM, there is an obvious trend away from manufacturing of simple 3D objects towards applications in complex areas, especially in the sectors of food and health. A new application that might become reality is printing of meat which could help to provide protein to a steadily growing world population while helping to limit the impact on the environment. 26 Current developments around human health and biotechnology include the development of biological structures (e.g. vaccines). 27 AM is also applied to regenerative medicine, such as the production of biocompatible biomaterials. Cells or tissue are manufactured from biodegradable polymers, ceramics, hydrogels and combinations of these materials. The production of human organs will become an alternative to organ donation. The use of information from genome sequences is progressing allowing for the manufacturing of organs without the need for a sample of the patient s cells. 28 Other non-medical applications are for example in the area of civil engineering, space and aeronautics, mold and tool making or development of nanocomposites. 19 Weller et al., 2015, p Smith, 2015b, p Hagl, 2015, p D Aveni, 2015, p Kietzmann, 2015, p Hagl, 2015, p Boagey, 2015, pp Kietzmann, 2015, pp Kietzmann, 2015, p Harbaugh, 2015, pp

10 4. Risk considerations AM in regular industrial manufacturing is not yet mature, putting the quality of end products at risk Strict regulation in certain industries might help to suppress the risk of quality issues As mentioned before, AM is still not fit for large serial production, hence, production lot sizes are relatively small and the prevailing use of AM is still in the area of prototyping. And some of the traditional manufacturing methods are either extremely cheap (e.g. injection molding) or simply more suitable to produce certain parts geometries such as very thin-walled parts, AM is currently unable to perform. 29 It is thus difficult to say if a complete shift from traditional manufacturing towards AM will ever happen, but it is very unlikely to happen in the medium-term. AM technologies constantly spread into the regular industrial production and it is not too venturous to say that the future of AM heavily depends on its ability to be used in mass production. To make this happen, the global engineering community has been working on this for quite some time. 4.1 Quality risks The current use of AM raises concerns about product quality and quality assurance, relating to the following: standardization of production and raw materials, inspection and testing processes and methods for produced parts etc. are widely lacking and long-term experience with the technology and the behavior of AM produced parts is missing; the availability of well tested and proven raw material is still limited; this increases the risk of compatibility issues between raw material available and the different AM methods and entails a latent danger of using unsuitable or suboptimal raw material because of a lack of better alternatives; the requirement for specific know-how and experience along the entire product value chain, especially in R&D, product development, sourcing and production and in the overarching task of quality assurance, is high; this know-how and experience as can be assumed is currently a scarce and expensive resource. All these considerations indicate how product quality in AM can be compromised and how relevant the risk of quality issues in industrial AM currently is. However, it may be that the high level of regulation in certain industries such as food and beverage, pharmaceuticals, automotive or commercial aviation helps to mitigate the risk of quality issues. This could be the case when strict regulation leads to a deferred application of AM in certain industries until a time when the technology has reached the required level of maturity. 4.2 Legal risks Infringement of property rights Some people call it the next fight for protection of intellectual property. With the help of 3DP, literally everybody (including private users) has basically the opportunity to manufacture products that so far have been manufactured by the industry. This could strongly affect the consumer goods sector. Manufacturing, use and sharing of 3D printed objects or design templates (e.g. 3D data) in AM can create or increase legal risks. Applicable international and / or domestic laws, including the protection of copyright, trademark, patents, utility patents or industrial design rights may collide and therefore leave an uncertainty for AM suppliers and users as to what are the applicable rules. This is a latent risk for industrial manufacturers and also for private users. German law, to name one 29 Hagl, 2015, p. 9 8

11 example, does not allow private users to use 3D printed objects for commercial purposes Liability for defective products From a product liability point of view, the liability for defective products is of primary interest. Analysis may be done by viewing the different ways how products in the age of AM and 3DP can reach consumers, who the manufacturers are and what the impact on product safety could be: 31 products manufactured by the industry and subsequently sold to customers (under a business to business subsequently called B2B and / or business to consumer subsequently called B2C relationship) is the traditional way how products are manufactured and sold. In such a case, the only difference compared to the conventional world of manufacturing is the production technology, if AM is used. In such a case, AM is simply yet another manufacturing technology. Nevertheless, the fact that AM is still not a mature technology has a negative impact on product safety and related product liability risks. a private user is purchasing and / or downloading a CAD file online (e.g. from an opensource website), printing the object on a privately owned 3D printer by use of raw material (with allegedly suitable characteristics) bought online from just any supplier. The object is for own use. In this scenario, the private user turns into a manufacturer. same constellation as in the previous scenario, except that even the product is designed by the private user and that the 3D printed object is finally sold to another private user, which creates a B2C relationship. In the age of 3DP, there are online marketplaces where private users can easily design their own CAD files. The two latter constellations / scenarios can be expected in the world of AM where private users have easily access to 3DP. When private users turn into manufacturers, it is important to distinguish between production for own use vs. selling products to consumers. Selling products to consumers creates a B2C relationship which is in many jurisdictions subject to the rules of strict liability, in case of compensatory claims for bodily injury and / or property damage. In contrast, manufacturing for own use appears to be less of an issue as there are no third (damaged and / or claiming) parties involved. However, in case of incidents related to faulty products no matter if products are for own use or sold to consumers questions will arise about the nature / cause of the faulty (end-) product and the proof of liability: is it the hardware (printer or raw material) or the CAD file (corrupted file or faulty technical product design) or the software that has led to the faulty product(s) / to the incidents? is it because the private user (the manufacturer) has made a mistake during the 3D printing operation or because of improper use of the final product by the end user? is it a combination of the aforementioned? how many of the printed objects are defective (the cause of the faulty product[s] can influence the number of affected objects)? etc. Scenarios in which private users turn into manufacturers, either deliberately or otherwise, mean a significant shift in legal responsibility towards the private user (the manufacturer). If a B2C relationship exists, it is critical for the manufacturer to 30 Grosskopf, 2012, pp Nielson, 2015, pp

12 have adequate insurance cover. This is open to question under the assumption that insurance companies will not be particularly interested in that type of risk. As a consequence, the risk remains with the manufacturer and the injured parties may have difficulties to receive compensation for their losses which negatively affects the public. Contrary to the potential emergence of a B2C relationship between such a manufacturer and a private user, it is fairly unlikely that any reputable industrial manufacturer enters into a B2B relationship with this type of manufacturer. The risk related to such a manufacturer can be defined by the typical characteristics of a private user in his role as a manufacturer, such as: the extent to which a private user owns the production process (partial vs. complete ownership which can even include elements of technical product design work); the type of value-adding step (of the overall production process) that is taken over by a private user (which step[s] of the production process); the quality of the work-related input factors such as technical product design, 3D data file, raw material, AM printing method (assumed to be 3DP) and printing device, process software, user information / instructions etc.; the number of products manufactured by the private user; the nature (the inherent risk) of those products; the type of use (own use vs. commercial seller / B2C relationship) and the geographic spread of the products. As a consequence, any adverse development in the area of involvement of private users, entering the process of product manufacturing and creating B2C relationships, is probably less of an issue for the product liability insurance industry but will ultimately raise concerns and a red flag in jurisdictions. 5. Conclusions In the traditional world of manufacturing, the production process is typically owned by (specialized) industrial manufacturers. With the emergence of AM, this traditional setup is potentially disorderd as private users can easily enter the process of product manufacturing by using 3DP. This causes a shift in responsibility towards the private user (the manufacturer) and potentially increases the risk of product safety issues. From the product liability insurance perspective, single units production (by the private user) for own use appears to be less of a concern as there are no third (damaged and / or claiming) parties involved. However, as soon as such products are sold to private users, this creates a B2C relationship. In such a case, it is critical for the manufacturer to have adequate insurance cover. Assuming that insurance companies will not be particularly interested in that type of risk, it is rather doubtful that such a manufacturer will have access to adequate insurance cover. As a consequence, the risk remains at the manufacturer and thus may negatively impact damaged third parties and possibly the public. Contrary to the potential emergence of a B2C relationship as previously described, it is fairly unlikely that any reputable industrial manufacturer would enter into a B2B relationship with this type of manufacturer. 10

13 Compared to the potential changes in the world of private users, the impact on the industrial production is considered to be much higher. This is because AM has i.a. the potential to: drastically change the way products are (technically) manufactured; shift activities within the industrial production process from one tier to another, e.g. from a specialized manufacturer towards another (downstream) legal entity with different core competencies; although unlikely, create hybrid product value chains, (B2B relationship between private users [entering the production process] as can easily happen around 3DP and professional manufacturers); blur the line in liability insurance between what used to be defined as design work in contrast to production and manufacturing work, because 3D brings in an element of design. 32 These issues need to be considered by liability insurers when assessing the risk of products and services that could possibly be related to the use of AM with its different manufacturing methods (including 3DP). Basic information e.g. about the type and function of a product and / or component, on production and sales lot sizes, on the level of technical product design responsibility, on the division of work throughout the entire product manufacturing process (upstream and downstream partners) and how interfaces are managed, on the user group and the geographical spread, on contractual agreements (specific to liability) all this information now must consider the element of AM. Hence, without proper information about the use of AM in the product manufacturing process, a liability insurer is unable to judge upon the impact on the quality of the risks insured. The following table summarizes some of the most relevant risks of AM related to technology, legal and private user involvement. Insurance companies are welladvised to take these risks into consideration prior to providing product liability cover. Technological Quality issues of end products due to immaturity of AM methods Deficiencies in the area of raw material offering and raw material standards, product inspection and testing standards and methods, a company's quality management system etc. Lack of know-how and experience of professional manufacturers and / or private users Missing long-term experience regarding the technology and behaviour of AM produced parts Legal Collision of national and / or international legislation (e.g. protection of intellectual property) Uncertainty about AM driven future changes of the legal and regulatory framework Shift in responsibility towards private users when entering the product manufacturing process (turning into manufacturers), especially when creating B2C relationships Private user involvement The extent to which a private user becomes the "owner" of the production process The type of production process(es) taken over by the private user Inherent risk of private users manufactured products and the number of products The type of use of private users manufactured products personal use vs. commercial seller (B2C relationship) and the geographic reach Table 3 Product liability risk drivers of AM in terms of technology, legal and private consumer involvement 32 Smith, 2015a, p

14 6. References Babu, S.S., Goodridge, R. (2015). Additive manufacturing. Materials Science and Technology, 31:8, Talor & Francis. Boagey, R. (2015). Manufacturing 3D printing. Professional Engineering. December Conner, B. P., Manogharan, G. P., Martof, A. N., Rodomsky, L. M., Rodomsky, C. M., Jordan, D. C., Limperos, J. W. (2014). Making sense of 3-D printing: Creating a map of additive manufacturing products and services. ScienceDirect. Additive Manufacturing 1-4 (2014) D Aveni, R. (2015). THE BIG IDEA. The 3-D Printing Revolution. Harvard Business Review. May Grosskopf, L. (2012). 3D-Druck Personal Manufacturing. CR 9/2012. Hagl, R. (2015). Das 3D-Druck-Kompendium. Leitfaden für Unternehmer, Berater und Innovationstreiber (2. Aufl.). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. Harbaugh, T. J. (2015). Do You Own Your 3D Printed Body? Analyzing Property Issues at the Intersection of Digital Information and Biology. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 41 (2015): Hull, C. W. (2015). The Birth of 3D Printing. Research-Technology Management, 58:6, Kietzmann, J., Pitt, L., Berthon, P. (2015). Disruptions, decisions, and destinations: Enter the age of 3-D printing and additive manufacturing. ScienceDirect. Business Horizons (2015) 58, Kroenig, M., Volpe, T. (2015). 3-D Printing the Bomb? The Nuclear Nonprofileration Challenge. The Washington Quarterly, 38:3, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Macik, T. (2015). Global Data Meets 3-D Printing: The Quest for a Balanced and Globally Collaborative Solution to Prevent Patent Infringement in the Foreseeable 3-D Printing Revolution. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, Volume 22, Issue 1, 2015, pp (article). Nielson, H. (2015). Manufacturing Consumer Protection for 3-D printed Products. Arizona Law Review. 57 Ariz. L. Rev Smith, K. (2015a). The Next Industrial Revolution. Emerging Risk: 3-D Printing. BEST S REVIEW. July Smith, K. (2015b). Sweet and Sour. Advances in 3-D-printed food are outpacing the ability of regulators to keep up. Emerging Risk: 3-D Printed Food. BEST S REVIEW. July Weller, C., Kleer, R., Piller, F. T. (2015). Economic implications of 3D printing: Market structure models in light of additive manufacturing revisited. Int. J. Production Economics 164 (2015) Elsevier B.V. 12

15 This page was intentionally left blank. 13

16 Zurich Insurance Company Ltd Mythenquai 2, CH-8002 Zurich Switzerland wp_additivemanufacturing The information contained in this document has been compiled and obtained from sources believed to be reliable and credible but no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made by Zurich Insurance Company Ltd or any of its subsidiaries (hereinafter Zurich ) as to their accuracy or completeness. Some of the information contained herein may be time sensitive. Thus, you should consult the most recent referenced material. Information in this document relates to risk engineering / risk services and is intended as a general description of certain types of services available to qualified customers. It is not intended as, and does not give, an overview of insurance coverages, services or programs and it does not revise or amend any existing insurance contract, offer, quote or other documentation. Zurich and its employees do not assume any liability of any kind whatsoever, resulting from the use, or reliance upon any information, material or procedure contained herein. Zurich and its employees do not guarantee particular outcomes and there may be conditions on your premises or within your organization which may not be apparent to us. You are in the best position to understand your business and your organization and to take steps to minimize risk, and we wish to assist you by providing the information and tools to assess your changing risk environment. In the United States of America, risk services are available to qualified customers through Zurich Services Corporation and in Canada through Zurich Risk Services as also in other countries worldwide, risk engineering services are provided by different legal entities affiliated with the Zurich Insurance Company Ltd as per the respective country authorization and licensing requirements Zurich Insurance Company Ltd