Custom parts take too long
Explore whether a different design and manufacturing route can improve availability for customer-specific formats.
Packaging & food equipment
Better parts. More capable equipment.
Apply additive manufacturing to filling, handling and packaging equipment. Evaluate performance, cleanability, changeover and availability against a practical business case.
Recognize the challenge?
Where adoption meets
your engineering reality.
Moving assemblies add complexity
Assess part consolidation and lightweighting against loads, fatigue, interfaces and maintenance needs.
Cleaning and maintenance matter
Treat cleanability, access and operating conditions as design requirements—not benefits to assume from a printing process.
Promising ideas stay in the pilot phase
Develop your engineers’ ability to identify suitable applications and involve purchasing, operations and management.
Technical specification framework
Turn requirements into
verifiable engineering.
Specify the duty cycle, contact conditions and cleaning regime before choosing a printing process.
These are application-planning criteria, not guaranteed manufacturing capabilities or a claim of certification. Final limits, test methods and acceptance evidence must be agreed for the specific component and intended use.
| Engineering parameter | What to specify | How to verify |
|---|---|---|
| Loads & motion | Define payload, gripping force, acceleration, emergency-stop loads and cycles over the intended service life. Separate static strength, stiffness and fatigue requirements. | Load-case calculations, finite-element analysis and cyclic testing of the finished assembly, including inserts and fasteners. |
| Materials & manufacturing route | Compare polymer powder bed fusion with PA12 for suitable non-food-contact format parts against metal powder bed fusion with 316L for appropriate corrosion-resistant applications. Grade, build direction and post-processing belong in the specification. | Material and batch records, relevant directional test data, chemical compatibility review and representative-part testing. Neither material name establishes food-contact suitability. |
| Hygiene & surface condition | Specify product-contact zones, drainage, accessible radii, crevice avoidance and the finished surface. If a project sets Ra ≤ 0.8 µm, define the measurement locations and method; this is an illustrative target, not a universal hygienic-design rule. | Roughness measurements on accessible surfaces, inspection of internal passages and a cleaning validation appropriate to the product and contamination risk. |
| Fits & interfaces | Identify datum features, bearing seats, sealing faces, threaded interfaces and permissible gripper deflection. Allocate machining stock rather than assuming every printed face is a finished functional surface. | Dimensional inspection against the released drawing after finishing; fit checks with mating parts and functional tests at operating temperature. |
| Cleaning & operating environment | Record detergent chemistry, concentration, exposure time, wash temperature, thermal cycling and whether cleaning is manual or in place. Include moisture uptake, wear and repeated cleaning in the material assessment. | Compatibility and ageing tests using the intended cleaning conditions; inspection for cracking, swelling, corrosion and unacceptable surface changes. |
| Food contact & traceability | For EU food-contact applications, assess Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 and, where applicable to plastics, Regulation (EU) 10/2011 as amended. Include finishing agents, coatings and intended contact time, temperature and food type. | Applicable declarations and supporting documentation, migration assessment or testing as required, and traceability across feedstock, production, finishing and release. |
Scroll the table horizontally to compare requirements and verification.
Engineering analysis
Look beyond
the printed part.
A printable gripper is not yet a production-ready gripper. The engineering decision sits at the intersection of motion, hygiene, serviceability and total cost.
Lower mass only matters if the machine benefits
Reducing moving mass can reduce inertial loads at a given acceleration, but it does not automatically increase throughput. Check actuator capacity, control settings, stiffness, vibration and the real production bottleneck. Compare the redesign at the same payload, positioning accuracy and service-life requirement.
Consolidation trades assembly work for service decisions
Combining components can remove fasteners and tolerance stack-ups, while also making a worn feature more expensive to replace. Keep wear interfaces replaceable where useful, assess access to internal channels and confirm powder removal before committing to an integrated design.
Food-contact evidence concerns the finished article
A feedstock statement is not sufficient evidence for every finished, printed and coated component. Build the assessment around the complete manufacturing route and intended use. Distinguish direct food contact, foreseeable incidental contact and non-contact machine areas instead of assigning one blanket requirement.
Compare cost per productive operating hour
Include engineering, qualification, finishing, cleaning, changeover labour, inventory and replacement lead time, not only the quoted part price. Estimate downtime avoided against a documented baseline and test the assumptions before projecting savings across an entire equipment fleet.
Relevant experience
Evidence to start
a useful conversation.
Sidel’s gripper redesign connected high-speed operation, maintenance and manufacturing requirements. Seven components became one, with a design intended to improve cleanability and simplify assembly.
Explore the exampleYour team + our additive manufacturing expertise
Work on what matters next.
We can support a specific engineering application, manufacturing requirements or ongoing competence development. We agree a starting point that fits your goals and existing capability.
Technical questions, practical answers
Make your next decision
with confidence.
Understand the engineering considerations before committing to a design, process or production route.
Can printed components be used in direct contact with food?
Potentially, but suitability must be established for the finished article and intended use. Material grade, processing, coatings, food type, contact time, temperature and repeated cleaning all matter. For EU applications, review the food-contact framework and applicable plastics rules with the required supporting evidence; a feedstock label alone is not sufficient.
How do you assess a lightweight gripper without compromising reliability?
Define payload, acceleration, gripping force, emergency-stop loads and the expected cycle life. Evaluate stiffness and fatigue as well as strength, and include fasteners, inserts and wear surfaces. Validate the assembly under representative operating conditions before attributing higher throughput or longer life to a mass reduction.
Can internal channels and printed surfaces be cleaned effectively?
Cleanability must be designed and demonstrated. Review drainage, inaccessible cavities, residual powder, roughness and compatibility with the cleaning chemistry. Define how internal features will be inspected and how the cleaning process will be validated. If that evidence cannot be obtained, a simpler or conventionally manufactured geometry may be the better choice.
Which packaging component should we evaluate first?
Choose a part with a clear operational problem and accessible baseline data, such as a format part with long replacement lead times or an assembly with avoidable complexity. Bring the drawing, cycle conditions, cleaning regime, yearly demand and current costs. That makes it easier to scope a focused technical and commercial assessment.