Insights

At the beginning of every year, we all look forward to the future and what it will hold for our industry. It is difficult to predict the future and define it with precision. As I prepare for the panel, my thoughts swirl around many topics ranging from qualification, all the way back to awareness of AM. Sometimes our AM industry faces too little or too much definition.

The AM industry is special. Where else could we get away with writing articles, usually technical ones, peppered with our Spotify playlist titles? So here we go again with a TBGA spin to close out 2021.

Support structures have been there for us since the beginning of AM, anchoring us to a firm foundation and taking the heat when things get intense. But they also bring with them baggage that is now holding us back, blocking channels and taking up valuable time and materials. Is it time to break free?

During my 17-year career in manufacturing, I’ve experienced many technology adoption journeys, giving me a front row seat to the good, the bad, and the ugly. Each of them came with their own interesting technical and business lessons, but they all had one common denominator: People. I am often asked, “Why is Additive Manufacturing (AM) not being adopted faster?”

Like many manufactured products, multiple processes and inspections are required to make Metal Additive Manufactured (MAM) parts. Not only are these different operations necessary for the part to have the desired geometry and properties, but the order in which the different operations are performed are equally important.

“Knowledge is power,” the infamous quote attributed to Sir Francis Bacon comes to mind when reflecting on Industry 4.0 and the promise of more knowledge and insights. However, while Additive Manufacturing (AM) is creating piles and piles of data, how much insight and actionable knowledge is actually available?

by Laura Ely, The Barnes Global Advisors

My kids love creating structures with Legos, Duplos, and boxes. Some days they build big houses with simple walls and others detailed spaceships with intricate features. Their block choice dictates the structure they build, or they pick the blocks based on the resolution they desire.

by John Barnes, The Barnes Global Advisors

A data-driven approach to laser powder bed fusion reveals how companies can get cost out of parts and match productivity to customer requirements. Part Three of a three-part series.

by Kirk Rogers and John Barnes, The Barnes Global Advisors

In our previous article, we covered design considerations for Binder Jet Processing (BJP) by highlighting the critical process steps which also form design constraints. In this article, we take a deeper dive into the details of de-binding and sintering. Part Three of a four-part series.

by Kirk Rogers and John Barnes, The Barnes Global Advisors

In our previous article we covered considerations on the overall approach for designing for the process depending on the flexibility the designer has with the part. In this article, we’re honing in specifically on designing for BJP considerations by highlighting some of the critical process steps which form design constraints. Part Two of a four-part series.

by John Barnes, The Barnes Global Advisors

There is a difference between the effective print speed and the actual cost to produce the component with AM. John Barnes compares binder jet processing with powder bed fusion for metal parts. Part Two of a three-part series.

by Tim Simpson and Chelsea Cummings, The Barnes Global Advisors

What images pop into your mind when we use the term “DfAM”? Perhaps you see beautiful topology optimized structures, organically inspired bird bone constructs, and perfectly latticed shapes? Part One of a four-part series.