Silicone 3D Printing Service Shut Down by Wacker Chemie

Eplus 3D

Share this Article

Making flexible 3D printed parts has been a problem for all of the players in our market. Most flexible 3D printed materials have low heat deflection temperatures, low strength, and are generally limited in their lifespans. Even with some claimed advantageous, the shear forces, long-term, real-world performance and repeated load stresses of flexible photopolymers are a huge problem. Most flexible 3D printed parts either don’t work or don’t work for long. And this is an extreme limitation in applications like liners, helmets, braces, orthopedics, sports gear, handles and many more applications.

There are some solutions that may work well, such as polypropylene (PP) for Multi Jet Fusion or some thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) filaments. However, generally, a lot more markets and applications would be accessible with more flexible materials. Given its excellent characteristics and widespread usage, field silicone has been one of the most sought after materials out there.

In business since 2016, Wacker Chemie’s ACEO silicone 3D printing service closed at the end of 2021. The company provided the following comment on its website:

“We are looking back at five exciting and overwhelming years. With the start of our production in 2016 we presented a new-to-the-world solution: 3D-Printing with Silicones. The new achieved possibilities are still unreached and unlimited. As for most new inventions, it takes more time for the market to develop as we have initially expected. This led us to the decision, that we will discontinue our ACEO® Printing Service by end of the year 2021.”

There was widespread awareness that ACEO had not gotten the market traction that it deserved. Wacker is one of the largest companies in silicone. It has over 70 years of experience with $5.6 billion in revenues. What’s more, Wacker has a lot of technical expertise and respect in the market. It was widely assumed that they would crush silicone 3D printing when it debuted its drop-on-demand process in 2016. Why didn’t it? And why did ACEO close?


ACEO Produktmuster, 2-Komponenten-3D-Druck mit Siliconen

Wacker never really stepped on the gas with this opportunity. The company never seemed to use its heft or prowess to completely push this as hard as it could. I met people working in silicones that didn’t know that Wacker was 3D printing them, for example. The business could have leveraged industry contacts, clients, and partners much more.

They had a lot of exciting parts and ideas, but didn’t have a stream of applications or components made with customers. There were no BMW custom steering wheels, Johnson & Johnson mouth guards, Philips custom brushes, etc. The company is a bit reserved, but it could have gotten more traction with a long stream of partner parts made with silicone 3D printing.

The company could have done a hell of a lot more to generate PR, marketing and sales. It was quiet as a mouse on the PR and marketing front. Instead of being chased by Wacker, I’d often check out the ACEO site looking for news because I was so bullish about silicone. Wacker also didn’t market its silicone 3D printing more broadly, nationally in Germany or elsewhere. Contrast this with PPG, for example, which is touting its new 3D printing technology far and wide.

It seemed that there were often changes of the guard at the ACEO unit, making for little in the way of continuity. Plus, ACEO was expensive. Another developer of silicone 3D printing technology, Spectroplast, is, as well, but offers application development support. ACEO seemed to not have enough application development support from internal resources to make client parts a reality. There also seemed not to be enough business development resources build a market over the horizon. Other issues included the fact that it was difficult to get parts printed. I’ve heard that it was difficult to get a response from customer service.

Overall, Wacker never made ACEO live in the hearts of people in our industry and never ignited the minds of people outside our industry enough to make this viable. I think it’s a shame, but do think that with the right resources Wacker could come back to make this possible.


Seal ring with silicone on the outside (blue) and epoxy on the inside (L-structure). (Picture: WACKER)

So, what are the alternatives? We hear of Elkem Silicones joining our market or of ECCO making insoles. In these cases and many more, a Viscotec nozzle is used on fused deposition modeling (FDM) motion stage. I think that this type of silicone material will really break open the market. Potentially, this can be relatively low cost and scaled. Part quality and geometric freedom is limited, however.

So, I do eventually think that, for mass consumer applications like custom diving masks and insoles, Viscotec will win out. Using their hardware gives you plurality of supply in materials and machine vendors, although you will have to depend on Viscotec for the nozzle.

Also, I love the idea of using silicone on an FDM machine in combination with other materials, such as TPU, PP and harder polymers like ASA. In the future with FDM, you could switch mid-build and pick and place other elements in the build easily, such as a cork insole or a sensor. To me, this is a strong scenario for an industrialized setting, not only due to cost but also because, with FDM, you can customize every single voxel and develop a truly variable density insole.

That to me would give 3D printing an unbeatable advantage against other technologies since a unique insole for every foot at every single point cannot be replicated by conventional technologies or other 3D printing processes. Also, with FDM, it is easy to encapsulate air pockets of differing sizes with different wall thicknesses and infill geometries. This will let yo alter quite easily how far the foot moves forward or the movement at every layer of the sole. So, to me, the insole 3D printing race has already been won. Although others will continue to try with thin blade to produce insoles with powder bed technologies or using thermoset insoles that cannot be recycled.

With close to 300,000 3D prints per day, direct 3D printed dental aligners are the biggest prize in the market currently. That may belong to Graphy or its competitors or people could stick to thermoforming. With that thinking in mind, the most obvious markets remaining in silicone are medical, near-medical and technical use.

To me, Spectroplast has the performance, the looks, and the scrappy business acumen to make a lot of these cases work. Spectroplast parts look incredible and have very quickly been used in a lot of business areas to replace silicone components that can not be made any other way. I really think that Spectroplast is poised to dominate a lot of the 3D printing silicone market.

Share this Article

Recent News

3D Printing Firm Divergent Appoints Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Board

3D Printing News Unpeeled: Metal 3D Printing Pen, Shell Wall 3D Printing


3D Design

3D Printed Art

3D Printed Food

3D Printed Guns

You May Also Like


Medical Goes Additive: How Social Networks Are Humanizing the 3D Printing Industry

It seems so obvious that it shouldn’t need to be said, but the activities of machines can only ever be, at most, half of what defines a technology. The remainder...

3D Printing Webinar & Event Roundup: March 26, 2023

Get ready for a busy week that’s chock full of webinars and events, both virtual and in-person, all around the world. Let’s not waste time, read on for all the...

2023 AMUG Conference Showcases Maturity of 3D Printing Industry

In reading our series on the early days of the Additive Manufacturing Users Group (AMUG), attendees of the 2023 AMUG Conference may be blown away by the sheer growth of...

3D Printing News Unpeeled: Failure to Ignite, Synchrotrons and Connectors

Relativity Space‘s rocket did launch after two failed attempts but the second stage failed to ignite. This is a terrible event in 3D printing. It makes us all look bad and...