Search Results

In the early days, there were significant limitations to the build size of laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) additive manufacturing (AM) machines. However, machine builders have addressed that drawback by introducing larger L-PBF machines with expansive build volumes. As these machines grow, their size capability approaches that of directed energy deposition (DED) machines. Concurrently, DED machines have gained additional axes of motion which enable increasingly complex part geometries—resulting in near-overlap in capabilities at the large end of the L-PBF build size. Additionally, competing technologies, such as binder jet AM and metal material extrusion, have also increased in capability, albeit with different starting points. As a result, the lines of demarcation between different processes are becoming blurred.

Depending on the industry and application, views on additive manufacturing (AM), or “3D printing,” range from something that will transform an industry to it being another overhyped technology that will only find niche applications. Most views fall somewhere in between, with the most common one being that it depends on the application and technology. Because of the ability to directly produce parts from a digital file, views often include dependence on when and where the part is needed. This introduces the crux of the matter, which is how to determine when the use of AM is feasible and desirable, which is made all the more complicated by the fact that not only is AM technology in general changing quickly, but also the merits of the each AM technology relative to the others are also changing. Finally, non-AM technologies are continually improving and are increasingly adding AM-like capability.