Addithive

Author: Addithive

  • Automation in Aerospace Manufacturing: Navigating the Multifaceted Challenges

    Automation in Aerospace Manufacturing: Navigating the Multifaceted Challenges

    As the aerospace manufacturing industry continues to soar to new heights, it is clear that the sector is one of the most advanced and sophisticated commercial manufacturing systems in existence. It’s an industry that is constantly pushing the boundaries of technology to build highly complex, safety-critical structures and parts. But, despite this, the industry is still largely reliant on human skill and dexterity during assembly.

    There have been efforts to introduce automation into aerospace manufacturing, but the uptake has been relatively low. This begs the question: why? Some may point to the size of the parts or the need for extreme accuracy. However, as with any complex issue, the problems are multifaceted. There are many contradictions and unsettled aspects still to be resolved, and there are no clear-cut answers to the automation conundrum.

    One of the biggest challenges facing the aerospace industry when it comes to automation is the complexity of the manufacturing process. It is not just a matter of automating one task or process; rather, it involves automating multiple tasks that require a high degree of precision and accuracy. Additionally, the parts and structures being built in aerospace manufacturing are often incredibly complex, with intricate geometries and shapes that can be difficult to manufacture using traditional techniques.

    Another challenge facing the aerospace industry when it comes to automation is the need for flexibility. Aerospace manufacturing is a highly dynamic industry, with constantly changing requirements and specifications. As a result, manufacturers need to be able to quickly adapt and change their manufacturing processes to meet new demands. This can be difficult to achieve with automated systems, which are often rigid and inflexible.

    Furthermore, the cost of implementing automation in aerospace manufacturing can be prohibitively high. The technology required to automate many of the manufacturing processes in aerospace is often expensive, and the initial investment can be significant. This cost can be further exacerbated by the need for specialized personnel to operate and maintain the automated systems.

    Despite these challenges, there are compelling reasons for the aerospace industry to pursue automation. One of the most significant benefits of automation is the potential to increase efficiency and reduce costs. Automated systems can work faster and with greater precision than human operators, which can result in shorter production times and lower defect rates.

    Another potential benefit of automation in aerospace manufacturing is improved safety. Human error is a leading cause of accidents in the aerospace industry, and automation can help to reduce the risk of accidents by eliminating the need for human operators in dangerous or hazardous situations.

    Finally, automation can help to address the skills gap in the aerospace industry. The industry is facing a shortage of skilled workers, and automation can help to mitigate this issue by reducing the need for highly skilled personnel in certain areas of the manufacturing process.

    So, what needs to be done to increase the uptake of automation in aerospace manufacturing? One potential solution is to focus on developing more flexible and adaptable automated systems. This would allow manufacturers to quickly adapt their manufacturing processes to meet changing requirements and specifications, without having to invest in new systems or equipment.

    Another solution is to focus on reducing the cost of implementing automation in aerospace manufacturing. This could involve developing more affordable technologies or finding ways to reduce the costs associated with operating and maintaining automated systems.

    Ultimately, the key to increasing the uptake of automation in aerospace manufacturing is to continue to innovate and develop new technologies that can address the unique challenges facing the industry. By working together, industry stakeholders can help to build a more efficient, safer, and sustainable aerospace manufacturing sector that can meet the demands of tomorrow.

    In conclusion, while the aerospace manufacturing industry is one of the most advanced and sophisticated commercial manufacturing systems in existence, there is still much work to be done when it comes to automation. The challenges facing the industry are multifaceted, and there are no clear-cut answers to the automation conundrum. However, with a continued focus on innovation and collaboration, the aerospace industry

  • Additive Manufacturing: Redefining Mobility Production at Point of Use

    Additive Manufacturing: Redefining Mobility Production at Point of Use

    Additive Manufacturing, or 3D-printing, technology has been a significant advancement in the manufacturing industry, with one of its most frequently mentioned benefits being the ability to produce parts at the point of use. This technology allows for the downloading of a digital file and the creation of the part on-site, which has the potential to greatly compress supply chains, lead times, inventories, and design iterations for custom parts.

    The mobility industry, including automobile, aerospace, and transportation sectors, is one that demands precision, high-quality, and cost-effective solutions. Additive Manufacturing technology, with its ability to create complex geometries, lightweight designs, and rapid prototyping, is uniquely suited to meet the demands of the mobility industry. However, the viability of this technology for production at the point of use is not universal and depends on several factors, such as size, materials, build time, manufacturing complexity, cost, and competing technologies.

    For the mobility industry, one of the key challenges is the size of the parts that can be produced using Additive Manufacturing technology. This is due to the limited build volume of the printer, which can increase the build time and cost for larger parts. Additionally, the quality of the part may be compromised due to the limitations of the printing process, which may not be suitable for high-stress applications, such as those found in the mobility industry.

    Another challenge for the mobility industry is the limited range of materials that can be used for Additive Manufacturing. Although the range of materials that can be used has expanded with advancements in materials science, the majority of Additive Manufacturing materials are limited to plastics and some metals. This may not be suitable for applications that require high-strength materials, such as those found in the aerospace or automotive industries.

    Despite these challenges, the mobility industry is investing in Additive Manufacturing capacity for production at the point of use. One of the key benefits of this technology is the ability to reduce supply chain and inventory costs by producing parts on-site. Additionally, the ability to create complex geometries and lightweight designs can lead to a reduction in fuel consumption and emissions, which is crucial in the transportation industry.

    Moreover, Additive Manufacturing technology can significantly reduce the design iterations required for custom parts, leading to a faster time-to-market for new products and an increase in the speed of innovation. For instance, automotive companies can use Additive Manufacturing technology to rapidly prototype and test new designs, which can reduce the time and cost associated with traditional manufacturing methods.

    However, it is essential for companies in the mobility industry to evaluate the feasibility and benefits of Additive Manufacturing technology on a case-by-case basis. This requires a deep understanding of the technology and its capabilities, as well as an evaluation of the costs and benefits associated with using Additive Manufacturing technology for production at the point of use.

    In conclusion, Additive Manufacturing technology is a significant advancement for the mobility industry, providing unique advantages such as the ability to produce parts at the point of use and reduce supply chain and inventory costs. However, the viability of this technology for production at the point of use is dependent on several factors, including the size and complexity of the part, the materials used, and the cost of the technology. Therefore, it is important for the mobility industry to carefully evaluate the feasibility and benefits of Additive Manufacturing technology for their specific needs.

  • Surface Finishing for Metal Additive Manufacturing: Methods, Selection and Design Rules

    Surface Finishing for Metal Additive Manufacturing: Methods, Selection and Design Rules

    Metal additive manufacturing can produce geometries that conventional processes cannot, but the as-built surface is rarely the final engineering surface. Roughness, partially fused particles, stair-stepping, support scars, down-facing irregularities and near-surface defects can affect fatigue, sealing, friction, flow, cleaning, coating and dimensional performance.

    Surface finishing should not be treated as a cosmetic operation added after printing. It is part of the manufacturing route and should be planned during design.

    Why AM surfaces are difficult

    Surface condition depends on more than layer thickness. Process category, alloy, powder size, energy input, orientation, local heat flow, support strategy, recoating, scan parameters and post-build handling all contribute. The same part can contain several different surface states:

    • Up-facing surfaces: often smoother and more dimensionally stable than unsupported down-facing areas.
    • Down-facing surfaces: vulnerable to dross, partially fused powder and geometric sag.
    • Vertical walls: affected by layer stair-stepping, contour strategy and powder adhesion.
    • Support-contact regions: retain witness marks and local damage after removal.
    • Internal channels: may be inaccessible to conventional tools and difficult to inspect after finishing.
    • Machined stock surfaces: intentionally printed oversized so final geometry is created later.

    Because surface requirements vary by function, a single roughness target for the complete part is usually inefficient. A better approach classifies surfaces by engineering need.

    Start with functional surface requirements

    Surface functionWhat mattersTypical finishing route
    Structural fatigue surfaceNotches, attached particles, near-surface defects and residual stressMachining or controlled material removal, followed by polishing or peening where justified
    Sealing faceFlatness, waviness, roughness and dimensional controlMachining, grinding, lapping or honing
    Bearing or sliding interfaceGeometry, roughness direction, hardness and wearMachining, grinding, honing, superfinishing or coating
    Fluid channelPressure loss, debris retention, cleanability and geometry preservationAbrasive-flow, chemical/electrochemical or specialized internal finishing
    Biological interfaceCleanliness, controlled texture and biocompatibilitySelective machining, blasting, chemical treatment and validated cleaning
    Coating substrateAdhesion, contamination, oxide state and target profileBlasting, machining, cleaning or chemical preparation
    Cosmetic surfaceVisual uniformity and touchBlasting, tumbling, polishing or coating

    Mechanical finishing methods

    Machining

    CNC milling, turning, drilling, reaming, grinding and EDM remain the most reliable methods for creating tight tolerances and functional interfaces. Machining is commonly used for datums, bores, sealing faces, threads and mounting surfaces.

    Designers should define machining stock, workholding, tool access and the datum strategy before printing. AM parts can contain residual stress, thin walls and interrupted surfaces that make machining less stable than a wrought blank. Heat treatment and build-plate removal sequence can materially change the final geometry.

    Abrasive blasting

    Bead, grit or shot blasting can remove loose particles and create a more uniform appearance. It is fast and scalable for accessible surfaces, but it does not create precision geometry. Media type, pressure, angle and contamination control must suit the alloy and final application.

    Mass finishing and vibratory finishing

    Tumbling and vibratory systems use media and relative motion to smooth exposed edges and surfaces. They work well for smaller robust parts, but can round sharp features, damage thin sections and provide uneven access to recessed geometry.

    Abrasive-flow machining

    Abrasive media is forced through a passage to remove high points and smooth internal channels. It can improve flow performance in manifolds and heat exchangers, but material removal is geometry-dependent. Process development should verify that critical wall thickness and channel shape remain within limits.

    Peening and surface mechanical treatments

    Shot peening, laser shock peening and related methods can modify near-surface residual stress and improve fatigue performance in suitable applications. Peening does not automatically remove surface-connected defects and should not be used as a substitute for required machining or inspection.

    Chemical and electrochemical finishing

    Chemical polishing

    Chemical polishing removes material through a controlled reaction across exposed surfaces. It can reach complex areas without direct tool contact, but the rate depends on alloy chemistry, solution condition, temperature, flow and local geometry. Entrapped chemicals, selective attack and dimensional loss must be controlled.

    Electropolishing

    Electropolishing removes material electrochemically and preferentially smooths peaks. It is widely used for stainless steels and selected nickel, cobalt-chromium, titanium and other alloys with appropriate electrolytes. Electrical contact, current distribution, shielding and access determine uniformity. Deep blind passages may remain difficult.

    Both chemical and electrochemical routes require validated cleaning and waste-control procedures. For medical, aerospace or fluid-service components, residual chemicals and altered surface chemistry can be as important as roughness.

    Thermal and energy-based finishing

    Laser polishing

    Laser polishing locally remelts a thin surface layer so surface tension redistributes material. It can smooth selected accessible regions without abrasive media, but the thermal cycle can change microstructure, residual stress, oxide condition and dimensions. Line-of-sight access and parameter development are required.

    Plasma and electrochemical plasma processes

    Plasma-based finishing methods can reduce roughness on suitable conductive materials and complex shapes. Their effectiveness depends strongly on chemistry, current density, edge effects and process access. They are specialized processes rather than universal solutions.

    Internal-channel finishing

    Internal channels are one of AM’s strongest design advantages and one of its hardest post-processing problems. A channel can be printable but impossible to depowder, finish, clean or inspect. The finishing strategy should answer:

    • Can media or fluid reach every surface and exit completely?
    • Will bends, branches or changes in section create uneven removal?
    • Can the process preserve minimum wall thickness and calibrated flow area?
    • How will residual abrasive, chemical or powder be verified?
    • Can CT, flow testing or other methods confirm the finished geometry?

    For critical channels, coupons and representative flow artifacts are usually more useful than generic roughness samples.

    Surface finishing and fatigue

    As-built metal AM surfaces can reduce fatigue performance because attached particles, valleys, support scars and near-surface imperfections act as local stress concentrators. The improvement obtained from finishing depends on how much material is removed and whether the controlling defect is actually eliminated.

    A polished appearance does not prove that subsurface lack of fusion or porosity has been removed. Fatigue-critical routes should connect surface treatment with material allowables, residual stress, heat treatment, inspection and representative testing.

    How to select a finishing process

    1. Define function. Specify why the surface needs treatment: tolerance, sealing, fatigue, flow, wear, coating, cleaning or appearance.
    2. Map accessibility. Separate open, recessed, internal and support-contact surfaces.
    3. Set material-removal limits. Protect thin walls, sharp features, lattices and calibrated flow areas.
    4. Choose the sequence. Heat treatment, HIP, support removal, machining, polishing, peening, coating and cleaning can interact.
    5. Validate on representative geometry. Flat coupons rarely reproduce internal channels, downskin or support scars.
    6. Measure more than Ra. Use the parameters and spatial scales that correlate with function.
    7. Verify cleanliness and integrity. Finishing must not introduce contamination, cracks, embedded media or unacceptable dimensional loss.

    Common mistakes

    • Specifying one roughness value for all surfaces regardless of function
    • Adding finishing only after the geometry and orientation are frozen
    • Assuming every internal passage can be polished uniformly
    • Using polishing to hide process instability rather than correcting the build route
    • Ignoring fixture, datum and tool-access requirements
    • Failing to account for removed material in tolerance and wall-thickness analysis
    • Evaluating visual appearance without checking fatigue, cleanliness or dimensional performance

    Conclusion

    Surface finishing is one of the main bottlenecks between a successful AM build and an accepted production part. No method is best for every surface. The correct route combines design, orientation, machining access, controlled material removal, cleaning and inspection around the actual functional requirement.

    Related Addithive resources: Design for LPBF · NDT for Additive Manufacturing

    References and further reading

    CONTINUE THE INTELLIGENCE PATH

    From technical constraint to company exposure

    Map the bottleneck → · Find exposed companies → · See what changed →

  • Desktop Metal and TriTech Titanium Parts Bring Titanium Alloy Ti64 to Binder Jet 3D Printing on the Production System™

    Desktop Metal and TriTech Titanium Parts Bring Titanium Alloy Ti64 to Binder Jet 3D Printing on the Production System™

    TriTech Titanium Parts LLC, a Detroit-based manufacturer of titanium parts for aerospace, marine, and automotive industries, and Desktop Metal, Inc., a global leader in additive manufacturing technologies for mass production, have announced the customer-qualification of Ti64 for binder jet 3D printing on the Production System™. The high-speed Single Pass Jetting (SPJ) technology platform features two models: the P-1, for research and development of binder jetting projects for serial production, and the P-50, the world’s fastest metal binder jet system, offering the lowest cost per part with SPJ technology. Ti64 is a popular material, known for its excellent strength-to-weight ratio, corrosion resistance, and biocompatibility. Binder jetting of Ti64 simplifies the production of complex titanium parts, which can be challenging and expensive to fabricate using traditional manufacturing methods.

    Desktop Metal Production System via Desktop Metal

    TriTech Titanium Parts LLC, which is ISO 9001:2015 certified, uses metal injection molding (MIM), investment casting, and now binder jet 3D printing on the Desktop Metal Production System P-1 to produce titanium parts. The company is a spin-off of AmeriTi Manufacturing Co., which was founded in 1984 and sold last year to Kymera International.

    TriTech’s owner, Robert Swenson, who is also the former owner of AmeriTi, stated that with binder jet 3D printing, titanium production of even the most complex geometries can be greatly simplified and achieved at a lower cost. Swenson, a graduate of Purdue University with a degree in Metallurgical Engineering and an MBA from Harvard Business School, is incredibly proud to be the first Desktop Metal Production System P-1 customer worldwide to binder jet 3D print titanium, and the company is excited to offer this new manufacturing technology to its customers.

    With the latest addition to the material portfolio, Desktop Metal offers the ability to binder jet 23 metals, including copper, aluminum, and now, titanium. Ric Fulop, Founder and CEO of Desktop Metal, stated that they are excited to help engineers and manufacturers produce complex, once-impossible designs in a wide range of metals, including challenging materials such as titanium.

    While Ti64 is a popular material, it’s also known for being expensive to manufacture. The material’s strength, as well as its low thermal conductivity and ductility, make it challenging to machine or produce with traditional manufacturing methods. Shaping the material with MIM requires special knowledge and processes. TriTech is among a very small percentage of companies that produce titanium parts with MIM, and the company has developed its own MIM processes after years of R&D. However, with binder jetting, the process can be simplified and made more economical.

    Binder jetting is a process where an industrial printhead selectively deposits a binder into a bed of Ti64 powder particles, creating a solid part one thin layer at a time, just like printing on sheets of paper. The form or shape produced by the printer is then sintered to high density and accuracy in a furnace, similar to the MIM process. Additionally, binder jetting allows unbound material to be reused in the process, adding to its cost efficiency.

    Desktop Metal’s binder jet technology can 3D print almost any powder, which is why the company has a tiered material qualification system for metals to signify the varying levels of material property results produced by. Production System users interested in working with titanium should consult their Desktop Metal sales representative on hardware and binder requirements.

    TriTech will discuss its experience binder jetting Ti64 at AMUG 2023, held March 19-23 in Chicago. The topic will be part of a Desktop Metal panel discussion from 1:30-2:30 p.m. Thursday, March 23,

  • AI and G-code for 3D Printing: Safe Uses, Limits and Validation Workflow

    AI and G-code for 3D Printing: Safe Uses, Limits and Validation Workflow

    AI coding assistants can explain G-code, review short macros, help diagnose print files and generate scripts around a slicing workflow. They should not replace a slicer or send unreviewed machine instructions directly to a 3D printer.

    Never run AI-generated G-code on physical equipment until it has been checked against the exact printer, firmware, toolhead, material and machine limits.

    What G-code actually controls

    G-code is a stream of machine instructions. Depending on the printer and firmware, it can control:

    • Axis and extruder movement
    • Absolute or relative coordinates
    • Extrusion mode and extrusion distance
    • Nozzle, bed and chamber temperatures
    • Fan, tool and material changes
    • Homing, probing and bed leveling
    • Acceleration, feedrate and firmware-specific features
    • Pauses, prompts, macros and end-of-print behavior

    A command can be syntactically valid but physically unsafe. A movement that is reasonable for one machine may exceed the travel, temperature, acceleration or tool configuration of another.

    Why a language model cannot replace a slicer

    A slicer does far more than convert a shape into text. It combines the 3D model with a validated printer and material profile to calculate:

    • Layer intersections and printable contours
    • Perimeters, top and bottom surfaces, infill and supports
    • Extrusion volume and filament conversion
    • Travel moves, retraction and seam placement
    • Bridging, overhang and cooling strategies
    • Acceleration, flow and speed limits
    • Tool changes, purge operations and material-specific behavior
    • Machine-specific start, end and recovery routines

    These calculations can produce hundreds of thousands or millions of coordinated commands. A general language model does not maintain a verified geometric and machine-state simulation throughout that sequence.

    What was wrong with the old ChatGPT cube example?

    The original version of this article included AI-generated code described as a 100 × 100 × 100 mm cube with 50% infill. It was not a valid implementation of that request:

    • It did not contain a real sliced toolpath for a cube.
    • It provided one perimeter-like sequence and told the reader to repeat it manually.
    • Fifty layers at 0.2 mm would create approximately 10 mm of height, not 100 mm.
    • No 50% infill pattern was generated.
    • The extrusion values were not derived from nozzle width, layer height, filament diameter or flow calibration.
    • The relationship between absolute motion and relative extrusion was not validated across the complete file.
    • Machine dimensions, origin, firmware, probe, nozzle, material and safety limits were unspecified.
    • The end sequence did not demonstrate a complete safe shutdown for a defined printer.

    This is a useful demonstration of a central AI limitation: confident-looking code can be incomplete, dimensionally wrong and physically unsuitable.

    Safe and useful AI applications around G-code

    Use caseAppropriate AI roleRequired validation
    Explain a commandDescribe syntax and possible machine effectCheck the exact firmware documentation
    Review start/end G-codeIdentify suspicious modes, temperatures or motionCompare with manufacturer profile and test cautiously
    Generate a short macroDraft a constrained sequenceLine-by-line review, simulator and controlled machine test
    Diagnose a failed printSearch for mode changes, impossible moves or extrusion anomaliesConfirm against logs, sliced preview and physical symptoms
    Write a post-processing scriptCreate Python or another script that edits slicer outputUnit tests, file diff, preview and regression prints
    Compare slicer settingsExplain tradeoffs and create an experiment planUse material and printer limits plus test coupons
    Create test geometryDraft OpenSCAD or CAD-generating codeRender, measure, slice and inspect before printing
    Summarize a long fileFind temperatures, bounds, tools and unusual commandsUse deterministic parsing for final approval

    Commands that deserve special attention

    AreaExamplesRisk
    Coordinate modeG90, G91A relative/absolute mismatch can send the toolhead to an unintended position
    Extrusion modeM82, M83, G92 E0A mode mismatch can create severe over- or under-extrusion
    MotionG0, G1, G2, G3Coordinates or feedrates may exceed travel, collision or motion limits
    Homing and probingG28, G29 and firmware-specific routinesUnsafe order or missing clearance can cause collision
    TemperatureM104, M109, M140, M190Wrong targets can damage material, tooling or equipment
    Tool selectionT0, T1 and custom tool-change commandsThe physical tool layout and purge path are machine specific
    Firmware settingsM201, M203, M204, M205 and equivalentsPersistent or aggressive values can change machine behavior
    Emergency behaviorM112 and firmware-specific stop/recovery commandsDo not modify or disable safety behavior without authoritative guidance

    Even common commands differ across firmware families and configurations. Marlin, Klipper, RepRapFirmware and proprietary systems should not be assumed to interpret every command identically.

    A safe AI-assisted workflow

    1. Use the authoritative printer profile. Begin with the machine manufacturer’s or a previously validated slicer profile.
    2. Generate production G-code in a slicer. The model, process settings and machine profile should remain the source of the complete toolpath.
    3. Constrain the AI task. Ask for explanation, review or a small isolated change—not an entire production file from a text description.
    4. State the exact environment. Include firmware, printer model, build volume, tool count, nozzle, material, coordinate convention and intended outcome.
    5. Review line by line. Verify modes, temperatures, coordinates, tools and persistent settings.
    6. Use deterministic checks. Parse travel bounds, maximum temperatures, extrusion totals, tool changes and unsupported commands.
    7. Preview the complete toolpath. Inspect every layer, support, travel move and start/end sequence in the slicer or a trusted viewer.
    8. Compare against a known-good file. Use a textual diff for edited macros and scripts.
    9. Test at low risk. Use a small noncritical model, safe material and supervised first run.
    10. Retain the validated version. Record the printer, firmware, profile, script and test result.

    Static checks before a machine test

    • All X, Y and Z coordinates remain within the safe build volume.
    • Temperatures remain within printer, hotend, bed and material limits.
    • Coordinate and extrusion modes are initialized and remain consistent.
    • Homing and probing occur in the approved sequence.
    • No move can hit a clip, fixture, parked tool or printed part.
    • Retraction and extrusion values are plausible for the configured filament and nozzle.
    • The selected tool exists and its offsets are correct.
    • Start and end routines match the exact printer configuration.
    • No safety, thermal-protection or endstop behavior is disabled.
    • The complete file has been previewed, not only the edited section.

    Better prompts for G-code assistance

    A useful prompt defines a narrow review task and asks the model to expose uncertainty:

    Review this start G-code for a [printer model] using [firmware and version]. Do not rewrite it yet. Identify coordinate mode, extrusion mode, homing, probing, temperatures, tool selection, persistent settings and any command that requires machine-specific confirmation. List assumptions and cite the firmware command names I should verify.

    For an edit:

    Propose the smallest change that adds [specific behavior]. Preserve all other lines. Return a before/after diff, explain each changed command and flag anything that cannot be validated without the printer manual or firmware configuration.

    Do not use AI-generated G-code for these situations

    • Unattended first runs
    • Printers with unknown firmware or modifications
    • High-temperature, pellet, metal, ceramic or industrial systems without formal validation
    • Multi-tool machines where offsets and purge logic are not fully defined
    • Any code that bypasses thermal protection, endstops or interlocks
    • Safety-critical or regulated components without an approved production route
    • Direct network or serial execution without human review and access control

    Conclusion

    AI can make G-code easier to understand and can accelerate carefully bounded scripting and review tasks. It should remain outside the final machine-control authority. Production toolpaths should come from a validated slicer and profile, pass deterministic checks and receive supervised physical validation.

    Related Addithive resources: AI-Assisted OpenSCAD Design · Industrial AM Software Guide

    References and further reading

  • Desktop Metal and CETIM Qualify 304L Stainless Steel for 3D Printing on Shop System™: A Step Forward in Additive Manufacturing

    Desktop Metal and CETIM have announced the successful qualification of 304L stainless steel for use on the Shop System™. This new development complements the suite of stainless steel materials already qualified on the mid-sized binder jet printer, including 17-4PH and 316L.

    304L stainless steel is noteworthy for its high tensile strength, corrosion resistance, and durability, making it ideal for a wide range of applications, such as structural components, food processing equipment, fluid transfer components, and welded components. This new qualification means that it is now possible to produce complex geometries of 304L parts on demand with little to no waste, whether in low or high volumes.

    Desktop Metal Shop System via Desktop Metal

    CETIM, in collaboration with Desktop Metal, worked on the parameter development for 304L, enabling the material to be offered on the Shop System binder jet 3D printing system. The aim of this collaboration is to support quick production of critical replacement parts in the French energy sector, such as those used in fuel processing and nuclear components. This will help to reduce lead times for critical 304L maintenance parts, avoiding long and expensive downtimes in the factory.

    Christophe Reynaud, Ph.D., Additive Manufacturing Material Engineer at CETIM, stated that “304L is a key material in the energy sector due to its corrosion resistance, suited for highly demanding environments such as civil nuclear applications. Coupled with the high versatility and responsiveness of the Shop System, it is now possible to considerably reduce the lead-time for critical 304L maintenance parts.”

    This qualification of 304L stainless steel adds to the Shop System material portfolio, which now includes 17-4PH and 316L, IN625, and Cobalt-Chrome. IN718 is now fast-tracked for final development on Shop.

    Ric Fulop, Founder and CEO of Desktop Metal, said, “This new material offering will allow manufacturers to produce complex geometries of 304L parts on demand with little to no waste, whether they are interested in low or high volumes. 304L is a flexible, widely used stainless steel across many industries, and we’re delighted to offer it in our affordable, popular Shop System model.”

    The 304L stainless steel printed with the Shop System and sintered in an Ipsen graphite furnace meets or exceeds the minimum tensile properties and the chemical composition outlined in the ASTM A240 standard. Further development is underway to further qualify binder jet 3D printed 304L for use in food-processing equipment applications and for applications involving welding.

    Desktop Metal Shop System Part via Desktop Metal

    CETIM works closely with industrial companies to help identify market opportunities and facilitate innovation and technical progress. They were one of the first adopters of the Shop System, the Production System™ P-1, and also own a Desktop Metal Studio System™, a Bound Metal Deposition (BMD) metal printing system.

    In conclusion, the qualification of 304L stainless steel for use on the Shop System™ is a significant development for the additive manufacturing industry. This new material offering will enable manufacturers to produce complex geometries of 304L parts on demand, with little to no waste, whether in low or high volumes. The collaboration between Desktop Metal and CETIM has made it possible to reduce lead times for critical 304L maintenance parts, avoiding long and expensive downtimes in the factory. The addition of 304L to the Shop System material portfolio complements the suite of stainless steel materials already qualified, including 17-4PH and 316L, IN625, and Cobalt-Chrome, making the Shop System an affordable, popular option for manufacturers across many industries.

  • Aerospace Additive Manufacturing: Applications, Qualification and Production Economics

    Aerospace Additive Manufacturing: Applications, Qualification and Production Economics

    Additive manufacturing has become an established aerospace production tool for selected components, but it is not a universal replacement for casting, forging, machining or composites. Its strongest cases combine a difficult geometry, expensive material, low-to-medium volume and a qualification path that can control the complete manufacturing route.

    In aerospace, the value of AM is not the printed shape alone. The product is the qualified system of design, feedstock, machine, parameters, post-processing, inspection and production control.

    Where additive manufacturing creates aerospace value

    Value mechanismTypical aerospace opportunityMain constraint
    Part consolidationCombine manifolds, ducts, brackets or fluid hardware into fewer componentsInspection, repairability and configuration control
    Thermal-fluid performanceConformal cooling, compact heat exchangers and optimized flow passagesInternal-surface quality, cleaning and pressure testing
    LightweightingTopology-optimized structures and lattice-supported designsFatigue, damage tolerance and load-path verification
    Buy-to-fly reductionNear-net titanium or nickel-alloy preformsMachining, distortion and accepted-part yield
    Lead-time reductionLong-lead spares, tooling and low-volume replacement partsDigital-data authority and recurring qualification cost
    Repair or feature additionRestore worn surfaces or add local material with DEDSubstrate condition, interface integrity and inspection
    Rapid developmentPrototype combustion, propulsion and test hardwarePreventing prototype evidence from being mistaken for production maturity

    Aerospace application map

    Propulsion and hot-section hardware

    AM is attractive for fuel nozzles, injectors, combustor features, heat exchangers, turbomachinery components and rocket propulsion hardware because these parts often benefit from internal passages, thin walls and consolidated assemblies. Metal powder bed fusion is common for complex precision geometry; directed energy deposition can serve larger near-net shapes and repair.

    The difficulty is not merely achieving density. Qualification must address microstructure, anisotropy, surface-connected defects, internal passages, residual stress, heat treatment, HIP, machining and fatigue-critical surfaces.

    Heat exchangers and thermal management

    Compact heat exchangers are among the clearest geometry-driven AM applications. Thin walls, cellular cores and complex channels can increase heat-transfer area while reducing part count. The design must still account for minimum wall capability, pressure containment, channel cleaning, dimensional inspection and leak testing.

    Structural brackets and airframe components

    Topology optimization can reduce mass in brackets, mounts and structural fittings. The business case is strongest where weight produces meaningful life-cycle value and production volume does not justify dedicated tooling. Structural use requires a credible load path, representative material data, damage-tolerance assumptions and controlled surface condition.

    Space systems

    Launch vehicles and spacecraft often combine low production volume with high geometric complexity and strong pressure to reduce mass and development time. Applications include propulsion hardware, tanks, antennas, thermal components and structural parts. Faster iteration is valuable, but flight acceptance still depends on requirements, test evidence and repeatable manufacturing.

    Tooling, fixtures and factory support

    Polymer and metal AM can produce drill guides, inspection fixtures, lay-up tools, protective covers, assembly aids and ergonomic devices. These applications often require less qualification than flight hardware and can deliver faster operational value. Tooling should still be reviewed for dimensional stability, temperature, chemical exposure and safe load capacity.

    Repair and sustainment

    Directed energy deposition and cold-spray routes can restore material or add features to high-value hardware. The process is most credible when damage removal, substrate preparation, interface metallurgy, heat treatment and inspection are treated as one approved repair specification.

    Process selection for aerospace

    Process familyStrong aerospace useMain limitations
    Laser powder bed fusionComplex metal parts, propulsion, heat exchangers and bracketsBuild size, support removal, residual stress and surface condition
    Electron-beam powder bed fusionSelected titanium components and hot-build applicationsFeature resolution, powder-cake recovery and narrower commercial material ecosystem
    Wire or powder DEDLarge near-net shapes, repair and feature additionCoarse geometry, thermal distortion, machining and inspection
    Binder jettingPotential serial production of smaller metal parts and casting toolingGreen-part handling, sintering shrinkage and furnace control
    Polymer powder bed fusionDucts, interiors, tooling and noncritical production partsFlammability, aging, moisture and material-property control
    Vat photopolymerizationPatterns, tooling, models and selected cabin or ground applicationsResin aging, post-cure, UV and temperature limits
    Material extrusionFixtures, tooling, patterns and large-format factory aidsAnisotropy, dimensional stability and surface quality

    Process selection should be based on the finished component route rather than the printer alone. See Addithive’s metal AM process-selection guide.

    The aerospace qualification chain

    1. Requirements and criticality: Define function, environment, life, failure consequences and regulatory basis.
    2. Design allowables: Establish material data for the exact machine, parameter, orientation, heat treatment and surface condition.
    3. Feedstock control: Specify chemistry, morphology, contamination, storage, reuse and genealogy.
    4. Machine qualification: Control installation, calibration, maintenance, software, firmware and parameter release.
    5. Process characterization: Understand build location, geometry, thermal history and defect sensitivity.
    6. Post-processing qualification: Validate heat treatment, HIP, support removal, machining, finishing and cleaning.
    7. Inspection strategy: Combine dimensional inspection, material testing, surface methods and volumetric NDT.
    8. Part substantiation: Demonstrate static, fatigue, pressure, thermal and environmental performance as applicable.
    9. Production surveillance: Monitor machines, coupons, feedstock, nonconformances and process drift.
    10. Change control: Define the evidence required for changes to machine, site, software, parameters, material or suppliers.

    The FAA’s active Advisory Circular AC 33.15-3 provides an acceptable means for demonstrating compliance for powder-bed-fusion materials used in aircraft engine parts. It also addresses closely related design and manufacturing considerations.

    Defects, surfaces and inspection

    Aerospace AM risk is strongly geometry dependent. Common concerns include lack of fusion, porosity, cracking, surface-connected irregularities, dimensional distortion, trapped powder and machining damage. Internal channels and lattice structures can be difficult to clean and inspect.

    • Use process monitoring to understand events, not as an automatic substitute for acceptance inspection.
    • Machine fatigue-critical and sealing surfaces where required.
    • Choose NDT according to defect orientation, material, thickness and access.
    • Validate powder removal from channels and cavities.
    • Link every inspection result to part, build, location, machine and material lot.

    Related guides: NDT for additive manufacturing and surface finishing for metal AM.

    Aerospace AM economics

    A credible cost comparison includes the complete product life cycle:

    • Design, simulation and qualification
    • Feedstock, supports and build failures
    • Machine, gas, energy and labor
    • Heat treatment, HIP and furnace capacity
    • Support removal, machining and finishing
    • NDT, testing and documentation
    • Rejected parts and change-control cost
    • Assembly reduction, inventory and lead time
    • Fuel, payload, thermal or reliability value during service

    The strongest business cases often have at least two value sources—for example, reduced assembly plus improved thermal performance, or lower buy-to-fly ratio plus shorter raw-material lead time.

    Production-readiness checklist

    1. The AM geometry creates measurable system or supply-chain value.
    2. The selected material and process have a credible qualification route.
    3. Internal features can be cleaned and inspected.
    4. Machining datums and allowances are designed in.
    5. Material data represent the final surface and post-process condition.
    6. Machine, software and parameter changes are controlled.
    7. Production yield and accepted-part cost meet the business case.
    8. Second-source, repair and obsolescence plans are defined.
    9. Digital records support the required product life.
    10. The certification authority and customer agree on the evidence plan.

    Conclusion

    Aerospace additive manufacturing is most valuable when it solves a specific geometry, material or supply-chain constraint. The printer is only one element. Sustainable production requires an integrated design, material, process, post-processing, inspection and certification system with economics measured at the accepted flight-ready part.

    Related Addithive resources: Aerospace AM Qualification Guide · Airbus AM Profile

    References and further reading

    Continue the analysis

    Map the constraint: Interactive AM Bottleneck Graph

    Companies to inspect: Airbus · Rolls-Royce · MTU Aero Engines

    Track changes: AM Company Signals · Company Database

    Get the AM Bottleneck Brief →

  • Unlocking the Potential of Metal 3D Printing: Challenges and Opportunities in the Mobility Industry

    Unlocking the Potential of Metal 3D Printing: Challenges and Opportunities in the Mobility Industry

    Metal additive manufacturing (MAM), also known as “metal 3D printing,” has been around for over 30 years. In the past decade, however, there has been a surge of interest in the technology as it moves from prototype to low-rate and high-rate production for increasingly critical applications for more industries. With this shift comes the challenge of determining design properties for the first time in many years. Not only is it necessary to determine basic material properties, but it is also necessary to accommodate new geometries and design concepts as well. While some of the methods and approaches are common to other product forms, others are unique to MAM.

    MAM is a process that uses a laser or electron beam to melt metal powder and create complex, three-dimensional parts directly from a computer-aided design (CAD) model. The process offers several advantages over traditional manufacturing methods, including the ability to create complex geometries with less waste, shorter lead times, and lower tooling costs. However, as the technology has matured and gained wider acceptance, the need to determine design properties has become increasingly important.

    “Additive manufacturing” by oakridgelabnews is licensed under CC BY 2.0.

    One of the main challenges in determining design properties for MAM is the lack of standardized testing methods. While traditional manufacturing methods such as casting, forging, and machining have established testing methods, MAM is still in the process of developing these methods. The lack of standards can make it difficult to compare results between different MAM processes and materials.

    Another challenge is the need to understand the microstructure of MAM parts. The microstructure refers to the arrangement of the atoms in the metal and can have a significant impact on the properties of the part. The microstructure of MAM parts is often different from that of parts made using traditional methods, which can make it difficult to predict the properties of the part.

    To overcome these challenges, product teams must take a methodical approach to determining design properties for MAM parts. This involves understanding the process parameters, material properties, and part geometry, and using this information to develop testing methods that can accurately predict the performance of the part.

    One approach to understanding the process parameters is to use a design of experiments (DOE) approach. DOE involves systematically varying the process parameters and measuring the resulting properties of the part. This can help identify the optimal process parameters for a given material and part geometry.

    Another approach is to develop a process map for the MAM process. A process map is a graphical representation of the process parameters and their impact on the part properties. This can help identify the key process parameters that have the most significant impact on the part properties.

    Understanding the material properties is also critical in determining design properties for MAM parts. This involves characterizing the mechanical, thermal, and chemical properties of the material. Traditional testing methods such as tensile testing, hardness testing, and impact testing can be used to determine these properties.

    In addition to the traditional testing methods, there are also some unique testing methods that are specific to MAM. One such method is the use of computed tomography (CT) scanning to analyze the internal structure of the part. This can help identify defects such as voids, cracks, and inclusions that can affect the part properties.

    Another unique testing method is the use of digital image correlation (DIC) to analyze the deformation of the part under load. DIC involves analyzing images of the part before and after loading to determine the displacement and strain of the part. This can help identify areas of the part that are experiencing high stress and may be prone to failure.

    Once the process parameters and material properties have been characterized, the next step is to determine the part geometry. This involves analyzing the CAD model and identifying areas of the part that may be prone to failure. Finite element analysis (FEA) is a common tool used to simulate the behavior of the part under different loads and boundary conditions. This can help identify areas of the part that are experiencing high stress and may be prone to failure.

    FEA can also be used to optimize the part geometry for the MAM process. This involves modifying the CAD model to minimize distortion, reduce residual stress, and improve the part properties. One approach to this is topology optimization, which involves using algorithms to generate an optimal shape for the part based on a set of design constraints.

    Once the testing methods have been developed and the part geometry has been optimized, the next step is to validate the design properties. This involves testing the part under real-world conditions to confirm that it meets the design requirements. This can include testing the part under different loads, temperatures, and environmental conditions.

    One example of MAM in the mobility industry is the use of the technology to produce lightweight, complex parts for aerospace applications. MAM has been used to produce parts such as brackets, hinges, and latches that are up to 60% lighter than their traditionally manufactured counterparts. These parts offer significant weight savings, which can lead to improved fuel efficiency and reduced emissions.

    To ensure that these parts meet the stringent safety requirements of the aerospace industry, product teams have had to develop new testing methods and standards. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed a set of guidelines for qualifying MAM parts for use in aircraft. These guidelines include requirements for material properties, process parameters, and testing methods.

    Looking to the future, there are several areas where further research is needed to fully realize the potential of MAM in the mobility industry. One area is the development of new materials that are specifically designed for the MAM process. These materials could offer improved properties over traditional materials and enable the production of parts with even greater complexity.

    Another area is the development of in-process monitoring and control systems for the MAM process. These systems could help identify defects and deviations in real-time, allowing for immediate corrective action. This could help improve the quality and consistency of MAM parts and reduce the need for post-processing.

    In conclusion, determining design properties for metal additive manufacturing in the mobility industry is a complex and challenging task. However, with the right approach and testing methods, it is possible to develop parts that meet the stringent requirements of the industry. As MAM continues to mature and gain wider acceptance, it will become increasingly important for product teams to understand the unique challenges and opportunities presented by this technology. By doing so, they can unlock the full potential of MAM to produce lightweight, complex parts that offer significant benefits in terms of cost, lead time, and performance.

  • The Industrial Additive Manufacturing Workflow: From Requirements to Part Release

    The Industrial Additive Manufacturing Workflow: From Requirements to Part Release

    Industrial additive manufacturing is not a printer-centered process. It is a controlled chain that begins with product requirements and ends with an accepted, traceable part. Design, feedstock, build preparation, equipment, post-processing, inspection and configuration control all affect the final result.

    The printer creates an as-built geometry. The manufacturing system creates the production part.

    The end-to-end workflow

    StagePrimary outputMain risk
    1. Requirements definitionControlled part and acceptance requirementsChoosing AM before defining the engineering need
    2. Process and material selectionCandidate manufacturing routeSelecting a machine without a qualified material/post-process chain
    3. Design for AMManufacturable product definitionIgnoring supports, powder removal, machining and inspection
    4. Build preparationReleased build packageUncontrolled orientation, parameters or file revisions
    5. Feedstock and equipment readinessTraceable material and qualified machine stateContamination, calibration drift or undocumented changes
    6. Build executionAs-built hardware and process recordsLayer anomalies, thermal instability or incomplete data capture
    7. Recovery and post-processingFinished or near-finished componentDistortion, damage, trapped powder or uncontrolled sequence
    8. Inspection and testingEvidence of conformityUsing methods that cannot detect the credible defects
    9. Review and releaseAccepted part and data packageIncomplete traceability or unresolved deviations

    1. Define the requirement before choosing the process

    The workflow begins with function, not technology. Define loads, life, environment, interfaces, tolerances, surface condition, cleanliness, inspection, regulatory requirements, annual volume and cost targets. Identify critical-to-quality characteristics and credible failure modes.

    AM should solve a specific problem such as internal-channel performance, part consolidation, low-volume tooling avoidance, expensive material savings, repair or supply-chain lead time. If the value proposition is unclear, conventional manufacturing may be the better route.

    2. Select the complete process route

    Process selection includes more than the printer. A production route combines:

    • AM process category and machine platform
    • Feedstock specification and supplier
    • Qualified parameter set
    • Build orientation and support strategy
    • Heat treatment, HIP, debinding or sintering where required
    • Support removal, cut-off, machining and finishing
    • Cleaning, inspection, testing and release requirements

    Material properties belong to this complete route. A familiar alloy name does not guarantee familiar wrought or cast performance.

    3. Design for manufacturing, post-processing and inspection

    Design for additive manufacturing must integrate the downstream operations. Review minimum walls and holes, overhangs, heat flow, residual stress, recoater interaction, powder escape, support access, machining allowance, fixture locations and inspection visibility.

    Internal complexity should have a measurable purpose. A lattice or channel that cannot be cleaned, inspected or qualified can create more risk than value.

    4. Create and control the build package

    The released build package should identify the authoritative product definition and manufacturing configuration. Depending on the organization and process, it can include:

    • Part model, drawing and revision
    • Build orientation and location
    • Supports, sacrificial features and machining stock
    • Nesting and build layout
    • Machine, software and parameter-set versions
    • Required coupons, witness specimens and identifiers
    • Post-processing and inspection travelers
    • Approval status and electronic signatures

    Native CAD, tessellated geometry, build files and machine files serve different purposes. Each transformation should be controlled so the manufactured configuration can be traced back to the released definition.

    5. Verify feedstock and equipment readiness

    Feedstock control can include chemistry, size distribution, morphology, flow behavior, moisture, contamination, lot identity and reuse history. Wire systems require chemistry, diameter, surface condition, cast, helix and storage controls. Bound-feedstock routes add binder condition and debinding behavior.

    Equipment readiness includes maintenance, calibration, environmental controls, gas quality, filters, optics, recoaters, sensors, software status and machine acceptance. Operators should confirm that the machine is in the approved configuration before releasing the build.

    6. Execute and monitor the build

    During production, record the information needed to show what happened. Useful data may include machine state, parameter identification, oxygen or atmosphere history, alarms, layer images, recoater events, melt-pool signals, temperatures and operator interventions.

    Monitoring does not automatically establish part acceptance. Sensor signals must be correlated with physical defects and production outcomes before they can support disposition decisions.

    7. Recover the build safely

    Build recovery includes cooling, powder removal, part identification, loose-powder handling and initial visual review. The sequence should protect personnel, preserve traceability and avoid damaging fragile geometry.

    Powder trapped inside passages must be removed and verified according to the application. Reactive powders require controlled handling, housekeeping and waste procedures.

    8. Apply post-processing in the controlled sequence

    Post-processing can include curing, debinding, sintering, stress relief, solution treatment, aging, HIP, build-plate removal, support removal, machining, surface finishing, coating and cleaning. Sequence matters because each operation can change dimensions, residual stress, microstructure and defect visibility.

    The approved route should define equipment, recipes, loading, atmosphere, fixtures, hold points and inspection stages. Subcontracted operations remain part of the controlled AM supply chain.

    9. Inspect against credible failure modes

    Inspection may combine dimensional metrology, visual examination, surface NDT, volumetric NDT, material testing, cleanliness verification and functional tests. The method must be capable of detecting the defect type, size and orientation that matter in the actual geometry.

    Coupons can support process evidence but do not automatically represent every location or feature in the production part. Part-level inspection and process qualification should complement each other.

    10. Review, disposition and release

    Before release, verify that the part, manufacturing records and inspection results match the purchase order or internal specification. Deviations, repairs and concessions should be approved by the authorized functions and linked to the part record.

    The final data package can include certificates, feedstock lot information, build record, heat-treatment charts, inspection reports, test results, nonconformance history and configuration identifiers. The depth of evidence should match the part class and application risk.

    Where industrial AM programs usually fail

    • Buying equipment before identifying a repeatable application pipeline
    • Optimizing print time while ignoring post-processing capacity
    • Using uncontrolled files or parameter copies
    • Assuming machine monitoring replaces inspection
    • Allowing undocumented feedstock, software or equipment changes
    • Designing inaccessible channels, supports or machining features
    • Qualifying coupons without demonstrating representative part capability
    • Ignoring supplier and subcontractor configuration control

    A practical release checklist

    1. The authoritative part revision and build configuration are identified.
    2. Feedstock lot and reuse history meet the approved requirements.
    3. The machine and software configuration were valid at build time.
    4. All planned manufacturing and post-processing operations are complete.
    5. Required process records and thermal charts are available.
    6. Inspection and testing meet the defined acceptance criteria.
    7. Nonconformances and deviations are dispositioned.
    8. Cleaning, powder removal and preservation requirements are satisfied.
    9. Marking and part identity match the records.
    10. The final data package is complete and retained.

    Conclusion

    The industrial AM workflow is a connected quality system. A stable printer process is necessary but insufficient. Production success requires requirements, design, feedstock, equipment, post-processing, inspection and data control to remain aligned from the first engineering decision through final part release.

    Related Addithive resources: Introduction to Additive Manufacturing · Aerospace AM Qualification Guide

    References and further reading

    Continue the analysis

    Map the constraint: Interactive AM Bottleneck Graph

    Companies to inspect: Nikon · Bodycote · Hexagon

    Track changes: AM Company Signals · Company Database

    Get the AM Bottleneck Brief →

  • Uniformity Labs Releases UniFuse™ IN718 Nickel Alloy for High-Performance L-PBF Printing

    In the world of additive manufacturing, Uniformity Labs has just released its latest innovation: UniFuse™ IN718 Nickel Alloy, optimized for L-PBF printing at 60um layer thickness. The highly advanced ultra-low porosity metal powder feedstock allows for repeatable part builds at the highest throughput, producing parts with improved and repeatable mechanical properties, even while printing at significantly higher build rates, utilizing thicker build layers, and the more efficient use of L-PBF lasers.

    But don’t take Uniformity’s word for it. Independent engineering consultancy EWI has released a detailed material property validation study on the performance of UniFuse™ IN718, conducted by Ajay Krishnan, research leader at EWI – Buffalo Manufacturing Works. The study confirms that UniFuse™ IN718 is the best-in-class material for mechanical properties, surface finish, printing yield, and part reliability, with substantially increased throughput printing at 60um layer thickness.

    via uniformitylabs

    According to Uniformity’s founder and CEO Adam Hopkins, UniFuse™ IN718 is a significant step forward for additive manufacturing, delivering on the promise of no compromise additive manufacturing. The optimized parameters for L-PBF printing at 60um layer thickness with lasers power at 400W achieved a 2.2X faster exposure time and superior, more uniform mechanical properties compared to competitors’ lower layer thickness scan strategies targeting best-in-class mechanical properties.

    With the new UniFuse™ IN718 release, Uniformity Labs has addressed the industry challenge of achieving serial production in AM economically, allowing additive manufacturing to become an increasingly better-established serial production tool. Its highly advanced ultra-low porosity metal powder feedstock, currently in production under the product brands UniFuse™ (for L-PBF) and UniJet™ (for binder jetting), has dramatically improved the ability to produce high-quality parts repeatedly and at scale.

    In conclusion, the release of UniFuse™ IN718 nickel alloy by Uniformity Labs, along with its optimized scanning parameters, is a significant development in additive manufacturing. The ability to print with 60um layer thickness and achieve 2.2 times faster exposure time with superior mechanical properties compared to competitors’ lower layer thickness strategies is a game-changer. The independent validation study conducted by EWI adds further credibility to the product and its capabilities. With the development of its ultra-low porosity metal powder feedstock, Uniformity Labs is addressing the challenge of achieving serial production in AM economically. The impact of this development on the industry is significant, as it will enable additive manufacturing to become an increasingly established serial production tool. The availability of steel, aluminum, and titanium powders under the brand UniFuse™ and UniJet™, with many others nearing availability, shows that the technology is advancing rapidly. This news is a clear indication that additive manufacturing is continuously evolving, and new innovations will undoubtedly push its limits even further in the future.

    via uniformitylabs