Page 40 - 3D Metal Printing Spring 2017

3D Grimm’s 3D Metal Printing Tales
it as a justification to stick with established manufacturing practices.
According to Nichols, the question of how to validate and qualify hangs over metal AM when used for production. He believes that this simply is a matter of maturity. Being new, having many unknowns and lacking standards, people are seeking much more information to get comfortable with the technology. Essentially, it is a matter of not knowing what questions to ask and what to measure, which leads to a request for more validation.
At 3DMT, the approach is to use conventional inspection methods to qualify the traditional concerns, such as dimen- sional accuracy, internal porosity or stress cracking. According to Nichols, “We are selling a part, not a process, so these quali- ty-control procedures work.”
His experience is that the quality-control question does not impede adoption for those that strongly desire the advantages of AM and are willing do whatever it takes to make it work. On the other hand, the naysayers, those that don’t want to change, use this unknown as a weapon to defeat the initiative.
“It is all about attitude, mindset and goals,” Nichols says.
My Thoughts
“Metal AM isn’t perfect, and it isn’t a panacea,” Nichols says. “But with the right applications and the right designs, we are
changing drastically the way things are manufactured. Metal AM is going to change conventional manufacturing.”
I could not agree more. While this is a strong statement, which if taken out of context could imply sweeping change and disruption, the caveats and considerations offered throughout the conversation provide the balance needed for understanding metal AM’s opportunities, and challenges, in the near term. I especially agree with his position that we must break free of conventional thinking to see the full potential.
Nichols also states, “We need to ask if it makes sense to 3D- print a specific component for a specific application.” If the answer is “No,” he suggests continuing to make the part as has always been done. He wisely notes that if the answer is always “No” and there is no apparent need for 3D printing, companies run the risk of falling behind on a technology with a steep learning curve.
In the vein of changing minds, I believe that when the answer is that 3D printing does not make sense, it may be wise to pause for a moment and ask a new question. Companies can find the value today if they ask, “What would make this a good print job and how would we benefit?” 3DMP
Have a difference of opinion or insights that you would like to share? Contact Brad Kuvin (bkuvin@pma.org), editor, to schedule an interview.
FOLLOW US
@3DMetalPrintMag
38 | 3D METAL PRINTING • SPRING 2017
3DMPmag.com