• integration of many conventional components into a single AM build;
• complex shapes and orientations;
• product volume control (short runs for sustainment vs. longer runs for new production); and
• limited post-build machining.

AM can bring 30-60% cost savings on complex, high-value parts in the aerospace industry. The limited post-build machining aspect is particularly attractive, in that it can eliminate many steps between production and end-use. As much as 20% of a part’s cost can be incurred during post-build machining to remove surface roughness effects. Another major potential for savings is reducing part count in complex assemblies, which creates internal and other hard-to-access surfaces that cannot be machined. Therefore, it is advantageous to computationally predict the impact of an AM as-printed surface (APS) on fatigue performance for metal parts. This can be done using our VPS-MICRO predictive software, by differentiating the APS from the machined surface in terms of stress and material properties.

While VPS-MICRO does not explicitly perform AM process modeling, it can model the effects on fatigue performance that result from a wide range of manufacturing processes such as surface roughness, residual stress, and heat treatment layers (carburizing, nitriding, etc.). The roughness due to APS typically comes from features like raised bumps due to AM powder unmelt, as well as extensive crevices (which likely exist along microstructural grain boundaries). These features can be effectively evaluated and measured using microscopy and/or serial sectioning.

After measuring these APS features, a 3D spatially varying probabilistic structural finite element analysis (FEA) can then be used to statistically model the stress effects from the features – some act as stress concentrations of undulating peaks and valleys, others act as sharp crack-like stress intensities. These can be represented by stress gradients which act on different size scales (micro-gradients and macro-gradients). It is the interactions between the stress concentrations and the stress intensities that contribute to fatigue crack nucleation and small flaw growth at the rough surface. These gradients from the FEA are direct inputs into VPS-MICRO.

Other contributing factors to fatigue of APS parts are found in the microstructure of the APS material itself. There can be material properties in the surface layer that are not found in the material’s core: voids of different sizes and shapes, depleted amounts of precipitates like carbides, etc. The core microstructure will be similar to the material of a smooth specimen (the APS being machined away). These layer differences can cause variations in local strength properties. While collecting the surface layer microstructural properties can be challenging, there are microcopy techniques available to assist. VPS-MICRO allows for input of multiple material layers, to effectively model these microstructural gradients.

The previously mentioned APS features can then be overlaid onto a standard VPS-MICRO analysis of a smooth, machined specimen. The resulting simulations provide quantitative information about how much fatigue debit there would be if the APS layer was not machined away. This type of computational analysis can help to avoid the “build-test-fail-repeat” iterative cycle that expends valuable resources during certification of an AM as-printed component.

Brentwood, TN, October 10, 2022 – The United States Air Force Rapid Sustainment Office (USAF RSO) has signed-on for a yearlong Phase III program with VEXTEC Corporation. The Phase III program will deploy VEXTEC’s VPS-MICRO computational predictive software to USAF engineering teams at the forefront of metal additive manufacturing (AM) for critical sustainment activities.

VEXTEC’s successful SBIR Phase II AM program with RSO, born out of an open call Pitch Day solicitation, catalyzed USAF interest in predicting risk of fatigue failure of AM metal parts. A demonstration project at the close of Phase II was coordinated between VEXTEC and Air Force Life Cycle Management Center – Propulsion Directorate (AFLCMC/LP) at Tinker Air Force Base. VPS-MICRO was able to provide quantitative predictive capabilities, that gave engineers and managers actionable information before any AM parts were even built.

“The Air Force wants to develop more digital tools to be able to take full advantage of the potential AM can provide,” stated Dr. Bob Tryon, VEXTEC Chief Technology Officer. “This Phase III program is structured such that, not only will VPS-MICRO be delivered to engineers who specialize in risk assessment, but standard work protocols will effectively integrate this technology into the teams’ workflows at Tinker. This will give the Air Force additional resource support to additively manufacture their own metal parts.”

The ultimate goal of the Phase III is to highlight how digital predictive tools can complement existing testing schemes, to accelerate risk prediction and alternative material qualification for new and legacy components that utilize AM.

About VEXTEC:

VEXTEC Corporation is the home of VPS-MICRO®, a unique microstructural fatigue durability prediction software based on ICME (Integrated Computational Materials Engineering). This technology fills a gap in the existing capabilities provided by CAD/CAM, FEA, statistical modeling, and physical material and component testing, by effectively integrating them into a single computational processing framework. Since 2000, VEXTEC has provided predictive analytics prognostics and life extension capabilities for hundreds of different products. VEXTEC’s clients include leading multinationals in the aerospace, automotive, electronics, energy, heavy industry and medical device manufacturing sectors, as well as many federal government agencies. VEXTEC has seven US patents related to its technology. For more information on VEXTEC and VPS-MICRO software, visit: http://vextec.com.

Watch the webinar on the America Makes YouTube page

The significant upside offered by additive manufacturing in aerospace means that aircraft manufacturers will soon use it to build these components from the ground up. For one, 3D-printed parts weigh less thanks to opportunities to condense multiple parts into one composite object. Plus, a 3D-printed part can have a similar yield and ultimate strength as a conventionally produced part due to AM’s ability to work with high-performance materials like titanium efficiently. The applications are almost endless thanks to the rapid evolution of additive manufacturing technologies.

As that evolution continues, it promises to revolutionize how aerospace manufacturers operate. To get a sense of what the future holds, let’s consider one major advancement coming down the pipeline and the obstacles it still needs to clear.

3D Printing at Aerospace Scale

The size of 3D-printed parts is limited by the size of the printers themselves. Build chambers are growing steadily, which opens up the potential to print larger aircraft parts or to print more parts at the same time. Size and scale were among the biggest challenges facing additive manufacturing in aerospace, but they don’t appear insurmountable.

That being said, printing on a bigger scale — in terms of size or speed — comes with its own issues. For instance, longer and thicker parts will cool at different rates, resulting in varying material microstructures from location to location. Manufacturers must account for this difference when attempting to certify a part for both ultimate strength (proof testing) and cyclic strength (fatigue testing).

Quality control and consistency are problematic in other ways, too. Multiple parts built within the same build cycle (e.g., nested parts) have complex interactions with the build chamber environment (e.g., gas flow, cooling rates, additional material deposition, etc.). This could create variability between these parts that would need to be quantified during certification.

It will take time before build chambers become massive and produce perfectly consistent parts, but it will be less time than many people expect. Boeing already uses a titanium structural component produced on an additive manufacturing platform, suggesting certain parts can already meet the industry’s exacting standards. And many more manufacturers will soon follow suit thanks to forthcoming technological breakthroughs.

Put yourself at the vanguard of the aerospace industry by exploring the right (and wrong) ways to implement additive manufacturing. Let VEXTEC be your guide.

To answer that question, one only needs to look at the current limitations of additive manufacturing technology. These solutions are excellent at producing small batches of highly specialized parts, but they are not as effective at producing consistently high-quality parts at scale. In other words, these technologies might be a natural fit for prototyping, but they are not quite ready to replace conventional machines on the factory floor.

Manufacturers need to overcome technical challenges related to materials and processing before additive manufacturing realizes its transformative potential. Above all, 3D printing needs to up its efficiency. That’s true for the printing process itself and for post-printing processes, the latter of which can account for up to 60% of total production times.

Fortunately, solutions are on the horizon. Additive manufacturing technology is improving rapidly, confronting past challenges, and pioneering future capabilities. And it won’t be long before these enhancements increase the number of potential business opportunities in additive manufacturing.

Three technology innovations, in particular, will help optimize the additive manufacturing process:

1. Larger Build Chambers: The current slew of 3D printers come with relatively small build chambers. This reduced capacity restricts each printer’s production bandwidth and forces technicians to add and remove materials regularly.

With the advent of larger build chambers, manufacturers can produce more — or larger — parts during each printing cycle. In addition to improving output, these chambers also make the additive manufacturing process safer by requiring less hands-on input from technicians.

2. Improved Energy Sources: The “printing” process happens by directing an energy source (an electron or laser beam) toward a material like metal powder. Additive manufacturing technologies allow for improved energy sources that enable engineers to exert better control over the melting down of the powder.

With more focused energy sources available, manufacturers can extend how many products they can reasonably print. These sources can also reduce the need for post-build machine processing, making it cheaper and faster to print parts.

3. Expanded Thermal Capabilities: Advanced build chambers can tolerate much higher temperatures. That’s critical because printed parts currently must be removed from the build chamber to receive heat treatment, which slows the end-to-end process.

With an increase in thermal capabilities, a time-consuming step is removed from the additive manufacturing process. Once it’s possible to get closer to a finished product inside the build chamber, additive manufacturing’s financial benefits evolve in exciting ways.

It’s important to note that additive manufacturing is still in its infancy. Manufacturers have yet to unlock (or even imagine) its full potential, but additive manufacturing technologies are expediting that maturation. If you want to be ahead of the pack, learn how to leverage today’s 3D printers in smarter ways with the help of VEXTEC and our VPS-MICRO® predictive performance software.

Companies are mostly using additive manufacturing technologies in experimental ways, purchasing a few 3D printers and setting aside a portion of their R&D budgets to discover what different types of additive manufacturing can — and cannot — do in a real industrial setting. Comparing test specimens that come out of a 3D printer against the products of conventional manufacturing reveals the untapped potential of the additive manufacturing process.

This approach makes sense. As an innovative and unique option, there’s still a lot to learn about how this method fits into complex production processes on a global scale. Figuring out the ideal applications requires users to address both the good and the bad, with plenty of additive manufacturing issues and opportunities to expect along the way.

The Challenges Facing Additive Manufacturing

At the outset, it’s critical to acknowledge that 3D printers can’t match the scale of conventional manufacturing processes. Printing a few parts is relatively easy, but printing a thousand or more each day is a more complex undertaking. It requires the careful coordination of space inside printers, airflow, raw materials, and staff — and that’s just to fulfill relatively low production quotas. How much they can print and how fast production can expand are the main factors limiting the growth of additive manufacturing technologies.

Developing products of consistent quality is another prominent additive manufacturing issue. Most manufacturers evaluate quality using ASTM-standardized tests developed for conventionally made products and considered the “bare minimum” in terms of quality. Customers in industries like aerospace and medical devices have much higher standards and, absent any certifications specifically tailored to additive manufacturing, they can’t trust printed products to meet or exceed their precise specs.

Finally, the additive manufacturing process requires raw materials that existing supply chains aren’t set up to handle. The suppliers that provide raw materials for forging and casting processes aren’t the same ones that provide the metal powder feedstock for printing metal parts. That reality makes it harder to recalibrate supply chains, and it raises the risk that material shortages will exacerbate issues with scalability and quality control.

The challenges facing additive manufacturing are sufficient, but they’re not insurmountable. Recognizing these challenges — and the need to confront them — opens interested parties up to the opportunities that additive manufacturing presents.

What Additive Manufacturing Brings to the Table

Here’s what the additive manufacturing process brings to your product development:

1. Printing noncritical parts that don’t need an engineering assessment. Building parts like brackets or wiring harnesses is relatively cheap and fast though additive manufacturing compared with conventional means. For example, when the U.S. Air Force needed to replace a part notorious for failure but also out of production, it turned to 3D printing instead of conventional manufacturing. And the Air Force plans to do the same for other noncritical parts.

2. Producing oft-replaced machine parts. Additive manufacturing technologies can also produce tooling components used to fix industrial machines. When technicians can print the parts they need on demand, it lowers the cost of maintenance and shortens any downtimes. By and large, the additive manufacturing process eliminates the need for tooling and all of its accompanying costs.

3. Creating high volumes of small parts. Perhaps the most significant opportunity is the ability to produce small batches of highly specialized components — like parts for an old aircraft or an orthopedic implant that fits a specific patient’s knee. Conventional manufacturing can’t deliver this level of granularity and on-demand accessibility, but it’s the principle of additive manufacturing.

Every company will interpret the opportunities and challenges facing additive manufacturing differently, but few will deny its place in today’s factories. VEXTEC can show you how to make the most of this technology, by using predictive computational modeling and simulation to help better understand the performance of metal AM parts. Contact us to start exploring what additive manufacturing can offer your business.

Noteworthy examples include:

• Gaining Ground on Conventional Tooling
3D-printed parts are establishing a presence on the actual factory floor. Instead of keeping piles of replacement parts on hand to fix broken equipment, manufacturers are starting to print these same parts as they need them.

Conventional tooling remains the dominant approach, but the additive manufacturing process is quickly gaining ground. This is because of AM’s ability to produce low volumes of highly specialized parts that require complex shapes and exacting specifications. When it comes to machine maintenance, tooling parts through the principle of additive manufacturing makes more sense.

• Shifting From Plastic to Metal Printing
One of the lingering additive manufacturing issues from the early days of the technology is that it only produced plastic objects that were suitable for prototyping — but were limited by the performance of the material. As technology has evolved, however, printers are now able to use metal materials as their feedstock.

Between 2017 and 2018, plastic’s use in additive manufacturing applications dropped 23% while the use of metal increased by 12%. Metal printing will make up the majority of additive manufacturing by 2021, which isn’t surprising given its potential to disrupt the trillion-dollar metal parts fabrication industry.

• Becoming a Competitive Differentiator
When companies adopt additive manufacturing, they take on a forward-thinking and tech-oriented image. These organizations are leading the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” instead of waiting for others to chart the course.

More than just appearing to be advanced, though, manufacturers armed with 3D printers can now work with a more substantial list of materials and print with mixed materials. These additive manufacturing services add to the financial benefits of additive manufacturing and designate it as a meaningful competitive differentiator.

• Increasing Relevance in Smaller Companies
Much of additive manufacturing’s burgeoning popularity stems from how smaller companies have embraced it. As long as there is room in the R&D budget to purchase a few printers and space on the factory floor to install them, companies are eager to experiment with the technology.

For example, they’re printing near-net-shape parts in low volumes that conventional casting and forging simply can’t match. For startups and small businesses alike, additive manufacturing applications present a path toward the acquisition of market share in a highly competitive industry.

With an almost limitless number of possibilities, additive manufacturing’s best days are ahead of it. Explore how it fits into your operations (and where conventional manufacturing still makes more sense) with the help of VEXTEC.

For anyone involved in the trillion-dollar metal fabrication industry, managing these issues and expediting parts production unlocks significant advantages. That’s why manufacturers across multiple industries are starting to invest in and experiment with additive manufacturing, or AM.

Business Opportunities in Additive Manufacturing

Conventional manufacturing contains both normal and special processing steps, performed in a series as part of a manufacturing plan. AM essentially combines the two processing types, simultaneously shaping the part and applying thermal conditioning. The economics of doing this vary greatly depending on the type of part made and its intended use. But in some cases, they make a strong case for additive manufacturing technologies.

It might be economically viable to use the additive manufacturing process instead of traditional processing steps when production quotas vary frequently. Imagine you’re expecting to produce 500 parts one month, and the order jumps to 1,500 parts the next month — this scenario makes it hard to plan for receiving/storing raw materials (e.g., cast or forged billets, slabs, rods, etc.) at a warehouse or production facility. In AM, raw materials are in the form of powdered metal feedstock, which is more economical to transport and store. That also makes it easier to produce parts on-site rather than at a distant production facility.

Minimizing waste is another financial benefit of additive manufacturing. The fly-to-buy ratio, which compares the weight of production materials to the weight of a finished product, can be as high as 10 with conventional manufacturing. Because AM can create “near net shape” parts requiring minimal post-build machining, that ratio can get much lower — particularly when also considering metal powder recycling strategies.

As significant as the additive manufacturing impact factor may be, it can’t replace all aspects of conventional metal parts production. Large components like aircraft landing gear can’t meet stringent structural design requirements via existing or near-future types of additive manufacturing, so it will continue to be manufactured conventionally.

AM methods can also create unexpected friction between the standard and special processing steps in production. For instance, 3D printing can produce parts with complex geometry, but that same complexity may make the parts harder; as a result, it might be more expensive to put those parts through post-build machining. The processes used in AM — versus conventional methods — can create parts with complex and variable material microstructures. Even though the underlying metal alloys may be the same, the different processes can produce vastly different material properties that influence performance.

The additive manufacturing process creates exciting opportunities in the economics of a business, but those opportunities are not universal. It’s critical for anyone eager to implement additive manufacturing technologies to evaluate where they can and cannot improve on metal parts production in ways that elevate the bottom line.

Make sure you reach the right conclusions with the help of VEXTEC. Contact us to learn more about how additive manufacturing can boost your bottom line.

These factories are printing test specimens to explore what kinds of properties are possible and then comparing them with conventional parts to identify where new approaches may deliver unexpected improvements. OEMs also leverage additive manufacturing technologies to develop replacement parts when a machine breaks down and to improve uptimes. These and dozens of other real-world applications illustrate how additive manufacturing will transform production as we know it — a key piece of “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” already underway.

Investment in this technology will continue, and 3D printers will increasingly occupy many important roles in solving manufacturing problems. Smaller companies will likely be the most enthusiastic adopters as they look to gain market share by moving faster than their competitors. By printing near-net-shape parts, for example, these companies can achieve a level of volume control not possible through conventional manufacturing. Embracing additive manufacturing currently sets a company apart, but it won’t be long before it, too, becomes conventional.

A Closer Look at the Additive Manufacturing Process

Numerous companies employ 3D printers, but few are fully oriented around additive manufacturing. Their financials and, by extension, their operations still reflect the demands of conventional manufacturing. It is not likely that a dedicated additive manufacturing engineer is in their ranks, and the risk factors used to calculate aspects like warranty outlays are based on the performance of conventionally produced parts.

The situation will change as additive manufacturing gains momentum — particularly as the performance of 3D-printed parts improves — but it’s worth asking why OEMs still treat additive manufacturing applications as supplemental instead of as the centerpiece of the production process.

This happens for a couple of reasons:

• Scalability: Printing a thousand or more parts per day requires the careful provisioning of time, hard-to-source raw materials, and limited space inside 3D printers. Matching existing production quotas doesn’t happen quickly when it’s possible at all. AM can be too expensive in dollars and time compared with bulk-production processes. On top of that, 3D printing at scale creates issues around consistency and quality control — especially with regard to metal fatigue failure. Even if these parts meet internal standards, customers may be unwilling to accept them because of their relative unpredictability.

• Certification: There still aren’t good standards for certifying the quality of these parts, which is an obstacle for industries such as medical or aerospace that have exacting standards. Regardless of the quality of 3D-printed parts, there’s no way for customers to choose these parts confidently without a way to verify that quality. That becomes even more difficult if a part requires post-build treatments (e.g., surface finish, heat treating), which means work outside the printer is needed — and the risk of inconsistency heightens.

VEXTEC’s expertise in computational modeling and simulation provides virtual testing data to supplement AM certification protocols. This virtual certification capability can increase confidence in understanding the actual performance of AM parts in the field. Read more about our applications in AM in our Case Studies page.

For these reasons above, conventional manufacturing doesn’t seamlessly translate into an additive equivalent. Fortunately, that was never the intent. Additive manufacturing isn’t a complete replacement for conventional manufacturing — at least not anytime soon. Rather, it’s a way to address intractable problems in manufacturing, like when the U.S. Air Force replaced a support strap prone to failure with a 3D-printed alternative it could rush into production.

For noncritical parts with minor engineering requirements (e.g., brackets, hatch doors) additive manufacturing is a high-speed, low-cost means of production. The same goes for the tooling components that commonly need replacement on critical machines. Printing them eliminates the need to warehouse thousands of machine parts or contend with extended downtime because of a part’s unavailability — or when the production line itself is down and in need of a long-lead or unsourced part. For a small batch of custom-built parts, whether for an old aircraft or an orthopedic patient, it makes more sense to produce them through additive manufacturing rather than conventional methods.

That being said, manufacturers should never assume that additive manufacturing guarantees an immediate or extensive return on investment (ROI). Each business will have varying points at which additive manufacturing processes become profitable for them — and different applications where it makes sense to deploy 3D printers. To have the most significant impact, business leaders should leverage additive manufacturing strategically instead of attempting to wedge it into existing operations.

As additive manufacturing technologies improve, there will be more opportunities to produce additional complex parts at greater scale with sophisticated finishes printed on. For manufacturers across the board, it’s a question of how — not if — they will use additive manufacturing.

Exploring Business Opportunities in Additive Manufacturing

As an emerging technology that some — but not all manufacturers — use, additive manufacturing provides a key competitive differentiator. It empowers manufacturers with distinct capabilities and a “cutting edge” reputation that can pay dividends, attract investors, and drum up attention during a product launch. The financial benefits of additive manufacturing are available to a larger number of manufacturers, too. In the span of just a few years, the number of materials able to be 3D-printed has doubled to including several types of metal; it’s also now possible to print with multiple materials.

This technology provides no shortage of disruptive potential for innovative manufacturers, though that capability comes with pros and cons. If additive manufacturing reduces the amount of subtractive manufacturing (where parts are “cut out”) necessary, it also reduces material costs and — potentially — the number of different materials necessary. These could lead to significant savings, offsetting the cost of additive manufacturing technologies and maintenance.

The initial machine costs constitute as much as 74% of the total cost of 3D printing a product, and since these are sensitive and mission-critical machines, they require a serious investment in maintenance. They also drastically reduce tooling costs and potentially shorten downtimes, which highlights the financial calculus that goes into exploring business opportunities in additive manufacturing.

As part of that calculus, it’s critical to consider the full spectrum of additive manufacturing technologies, including — but not limited to — 3D printers. Software matters just as much as hardware, and the former can help manufacturers design and build parts in ways that lower costs, raise output, and make it easier to recoup the initial investment in machines in less time.

Software can also help product designers predict how products will perform so they can quickly abandon anything that doesn’t meet standards for considerations like strength or fatigue. If the goal is to build things better, faster, and cheaper — and designers traditionally can only choose two of the three — the right additive manufacturing software in the right hands makes all three attainable.

Additive Manufacturing Issues to Address Early On

Manufacturers that choose to implement (or further implement) additive manufacturing must contend with several details before moving forward, including:

• Available Capital: Capital expenditures available to purchase and maintain the number of printers needed to meet production quotas. Regardless of any cost savings or production boosts these technologies might offer, the upfront investment necessary for precision metal 3D printers, in particular, is a major CAPEX that requires deliberation.

• Supply Chain: Suppliers that make metal alloy powders for 3D printing are, in general, not the suppliers that make metal ingots/billets for conventional manufacturing. Anyone diving into additive manufacturing for the first time will need to seek out new suppliers and rethink material costs in the context of everything they produce.

• Infrastructural Overhaul: The labor force may also require rethinking. As manufacturers come to rely on additive processes, they will need manufacturing engineers, operators, technicians, material and process engineers, and metallurgists familiar with those processes.

It’s easy to assume that CAPEX is the biggest obstacle to additive manufacturing, but supply chain issues and staffing shortages may ultimately prove more difficult to overcome. That’s why it’s important to address these issues early — either during or before acquiring equipment.

Putting in more work upfront pays dividends later, and it pays using today’s most valuable currency — innovation. There are countless additive manufacturing applications available; while some applications will fail, others will exceed expectations and drive value in ways no one anticipated. The manufacturers that are willing to experiment with this technology and accept any associated risk and failure will be the ones that outpace the competition, either by optimizing existing operations or by pioneering game-changing approaches.

To understand how additive manufacturing accelerates innovation in unique ways, consider a process like rapid prototyping. With this new technology, designers can print in-house prototypes instead of outsourcing the work and awaiting the results. That way, designers know almost immediately whether they have a great design, a work in progress, or an eternally flawed concept. The layer-by-layer nature of additive manufacturing encourages out-of-the-box thinking, and building parts from the ground up eliminates the 3D geometrical constraints of machine and casting.

For designers, this creates new opportunities and hurdles. In both cases, however, designers must adopt a completely new way of thinking than the staples of conventional manufacturing. Exciting ideas are bound to emerge.

Getting Started With Additive Manufacturing Applications

Manufacturers eager to embrace additive manufacturing should proceed with cautious optimism. It bears repeating that the initial work done to plan and prepare for the arrival of these technologies has the biggest impact on the eventual results.

Although every factory deploys 3D printers a little differently, there are best practices that apply to all of them. Here are three to prioritize:

1. Build a team. Few, if any, products will be produced entirely through additive manufacturing, and 3D-printed parts will primarily be components used in conventional manufacturing. That means additive manufacturing experts will need to work closely and collaboratively with other production specialists and not be siloed away in a corner of the factory.

Realign personnel so that the team is oriented around manufacturing processes rather than products. Map out the processes involved with creating a given product to identify which ones involve additive manufacturing. Then, build a team of additive manufacturing experts who can step in to administer 3D printers or offer design insights on multiple products. Creating opportunities for teams in conventional and additive manufacturing to cross-pollinate will further encourage innovation and excellence in this space.

2. Make certification a must-have. Questions about quality and consistency present a serious obstacle to additive manufacturing — as they should. Why embrace a technology that only produces inferior products? It’s important to recognize the areas where additive manufacturing can (and can’t) offer something superior to conventional manufacturing.

More importantly, producers must be able to prove that quality through a certification process. It benefits everyone involved to assess the quality of 3D-printed materials objectively and eliminate any concerns about performance or viability. In areas like aerospace, where additive manufacturing’s potential is only surpassed by the need for quality control, certifications will unleash a wave of adoption and new applications.

3. Try virtual prototype testing. Even though product developers have sophisticated design processes in place, bad concepts still make it out of the idea stage. That’s because it’s difficult to identify clear design flaws when something sits flat on a page. Virtual prototype testing brings it into three dimensions and allows designers to explore the product and evaluate its potential early in the process.

If a design is a dead end, it’s apparent immediately instead of months down the line. Virtual prototyping can determine whether something is viable earlier in the product lifecycle — and with far more certainty than existing methods.

A Helping Hand in Additive Manufacturing

Additive manufacturing’s impact on business is hard to overstate but difficult to describe because of how it could affect so many facets of manufacturing. Identifying where and how is up to forward-thinking manufacturers to explore. But rather than going through an exhaustive trial-and-error process to learn where additive manufacturing is best applied, let VEXTEC answer those questions.

With our virtual prototype test software, users can take design files and test whether they’re suitable for different types of additive manufacturing. That way, they don’t overlook the opportunity to leverage 3D printing — or try to force this technology on a design where it’s not appropriate. When designs are appropriate for AM, we offer meaningful virtual certification capabilities that can augment the standard physical verification and validation regimes.

Our software helps anyone excited by the potential of additive manufacturing — or eager to get the jump on competitors through early adoption — make the most of the technology while avoiding common pitfalls.

Don’t just try something new. Hit the ground running with the help of VEXTEC.