Making Sense of Qualification, Certification and Standards in Additive Manufacturing: AM Radio #48

What is the difference between qualification and certification? Who bears the economic burden of qualification in additive manufacturing, and why does it differ from conventional manufacturing? How are the standards that govern manufacturing developed, and how is additive being advanced (or held back) because of those standards? In this episode of AM Radio, Dr. Tim Simpson talks with Additive Manufacturing Media editors Pete Zelinski and Stephanie Hendrixson about these issues related to qualification in the additive manufacturing space. 

Transcript

Stephanie Hendrixson  00:05

Qualification can be the elephant in the room when it comes to additive manufacturing for production. In today's episode we're going to look directly at it and talk about how qualification works in this context. That's coming up on AM Radio.

Peter Zelinski  00:28

This episode of AM Radio is brought to you by The Cool Parts Show a video series dedicated to how innovative 3D printed parts and additive manufacturing are changing production. Watch the latest episodes now at thecoolpartsshow.com.

Stephanie Hendrixson  00:48

Welcome to AM Radio I'm Stephanie Hendrixson and today I'm joined by Pete Zelinski. Hi, Pete.

Peter Zelinski  00:52

Hi Steph

Stephanie Hendrixson  00:53

And Tim Simpson. Hi, Tim.

Tim Simpson  00:54

Hey, Stephanie.

Stephanie Hendrixson  00:55

So today we're here to have a conversation about qualification in additive manufacturing. And I think that might just take the form of asking a lot of kind of dumb questions and seeing if we can figure out some of the answers.

Peter Zelinski  01:06

I think that sounds great. Um, we brought Tim into the conversation specifically for that he knows a lot more about this than we do. Qualification is this aspect of additive that I've never had a chance to directly witness how it unfolds, how we get these certifications that we need to demonstrate additives fitness for production. So Tim, we're eager to pick your brain about this.

Tim Simpson  01:33

Excellent, good. I was worried you were gonna say I'm just full of dumb questions.

Stephanie Hendrixson  01:36

Hey, everyone, Stephanie here, we didn't really introduce ourselves on this one. And I know there are some new listeners out there. So before we get any deeper into the conversation, I'm Stephanie Hendrixson, Executive Editor with Additive Manufacturing Media. My co-hosts on this episode are Pete Zelinski editor-in-chief of Additive Manufacturing Media. And Dr. Tim Simpson. Tim is a professor at Penn State University where he led the Center for Innovative Materials Processing through Direct Digital Deposition, or CIMP-3D for 12 years, just recently stepping down. He's also a system design innovator with NASA and a consultant with The Barnes Global Advisors, as well as a frequent collaborator with us here at AM Media. So in short, he knows a lot about this stuff. And I hope you enjoy this conversation about qualification. All right, back to the episode.

Peter Zelinski  02:19

Let me try to tee it up this way qualification and why it's so important for additive and why in some cases, it's an impediment for additive being adopted. In other manufacturing processes, we accept it as a given that there's a set of shared standards for how that process should perform what we expect of it, what constitutes an acceptable part in that process. Those shared standards and expectations are important because a manufactured part is complicated. It could be measured in a lot of different ways and asked to perform in a lot of different ways there are, even if you talk about the strength of a component, for example, there are different kinds of strengths, yield strength, fatigue, strength, the parts resistance to creep, all of these are different phenomena that might be important. And in addition, some parts are really critical. Sometimes people's safety is at stake, because of a part, sometimes people's lives might be at stake because of a part performing correctly. And so that leads to a situation where there's responsibility there is potentially a liability. And so nobody is going to want to enter into manufacturing a part and standing by that part, unless there's a lot of shared language definition and understanding that is widely agreed upon about what we expect from a part made that way. And what a part made that way by this particular process ought to be able to do like that's my sort of thumbnail picture of why this is such an important issue.

Tim Simpson  04:08

Yeah, I want to be careful when we're talking about standards there because I think having those standards is important. But in terms of qualification or certification, the standards are the ways in which we define the process to qualify a material or a process or a bar or ultimately, you know, FAA or somebody certifies the components that are made with additive manufacturing. So I think we've seen quite a flurry of standards that are developed that are out there now. And in parallel to that some of those standards are defining and qualification approaches or requirements for qualification, for example, NASA 6030 requirements for additive manufacturing for spaceflight hardware. Following that it outlines the shoulds and shouldn'ts and shalls that we need to follow in order to qualify parts we're making and ultimately certify them for spaceflight, just like FDA, as a process for medical devices, FAA, for aerospace, nuclear, etc.

Peter Zelinski  05:12

And so in that answer you sort of pointed to, there are some semantic things going on, the word standard, the word qualification, the word certification, a part or a process might be qualified for a particular part. And that qualification, A) has to do with, say, the dimensional requirements of that particular part in combination with the standards embraced by the industry in which that part is operating.

Stephanie Hendrixson  05:41

So I want to hop back to the idea of qualifying the process and just ask where does the printer itself fit in here, because there's been places that we visited. So for instance, like RP+M comes to mind. They've got this fleet of Stratasys Fortus printers, which I think are all identical. But certain machines are printing with this one specific Ultem material, and they're, I guess, qualified to make parts for Boeing. And Pete and I had an experience just yesterday, where we were standing in a, in a manufacturing space, looking at some 3D printers, and somebody made the comment thinking about other equipment that might come into this room, you know, if we want to move one of the machines, it's already here, even if we're taking this machine and moving it six inches to the left, we're gonna have to requalify and so like what role does the machine itself play within qualification? And is it tied to a specific machine?

Tim Simpson  05:41

Correct. We also, a lot of people combine qualification and certification. It's qual and cert, right? Therefore, they're the same, but they're different. And I think to your point that that qualification event is saying that, yes, our material, our process, our part meets the design intent meets the requirements that had been set forth by it. And you have documented and demonstrated that, yes, this part has this strength, this material performs this way, this process is reliable and repeatable. Because I'm following steps X, Y and Z, based on the standards that then allows me to qualify that machine that Yep, it's going to produce the same parts, same material over and over again. And that qualification event is different than from certification, which is there. Now we have some external body or design authority, or someone who is verifying that yes, that part is fit for service, and can go on an airplane, can be implanted in your hip, can go on a nuclear reactor, or wherever the case may be. And in that case, there is an extra certifying body that is now also looking at conformity to requirements, to standards, to your qualification approach.  So yes, there are a lot of nuances there. And I think, if you look at standards ASTM, and others NASA facility standards for additive, etc., there are sort of the installation qualification or IQ a lot of IQs and MQs and OQs and PQs. But the installation qualification is yes, this machine is there in the facility installed and running correctly, then there is an operational qualification that is more to your point, which is yes, the machine is there. And it's producing parts in a reliable repeatable way that a Boeing or whoever is going to say, yep, that machine, that process, that material has been qualified. And then you've done the additional work to say the parts coming off of that are qualifiable and get reviewed, and hopefully, ultimately certified to fly. So shifting things around moving things around doing software upgrades, etc. That's a lot of time when we talk about a fixed process is because anytime we move it, we plug it in different air handling different software upgrades, new material and different feedstock right there, we potentially introduce some variability that we need to make sure we're still getting the reliability and the repeatability on the process with the material for the part that we're making.

Stephanie Hendrixson  07:45

So it's about avoiding or controlling those variables.

Tim Simpson  07:54

Correct.

Peter Zelinski  07:54

And you mentioned how we say the phrase qualification and certification, and that implies they're the same. And in the answer you just described, the machine is part of the process, the process gets qualified, and the part it produces is what gets certified.

Tim Simpson  09:19

Yep. Well, hopefully you produce a quality qualified part. And then there is a subsequent step that is a certification event where somebody is willing to sign off of that, and there's not a lot of bodies that are able to do that. Of course, everybody wants to produce a qualified part because that means I'm producing it repeatedly and reliably and it is of good quality it performs or achieves the design intent or it meets your requirements. Right. And that certification is for these highly regulated high risk, safety critical applications and uses. There needs to be an additional check or step or verification. That is the certification that then said yes, this is a qualified part and it is now fit for service in that application.

Peter Zelinski  10:02

What is additive missing? Or what is missing in additive? Why does the universe have qualification standards and certifying bodies? Why is that not ready to immediately take up what additive can do?

Tim Simpson  10:20

One of the biggest challenges now, and I think this is where a lot of people throw up their arms or or say additive is too expensive is because now not only do I have to qualify my process, which we would have to do for any manufacturing process, but in addition to that with additive, I also have to qualify my material. And so now we've essentially added more responsibility to the manufacturer, because it is both the material and the process versus if we're using barstock plates, stock sort of standard consumable forms of material, even wire feedstock. All of the material qualification and certification that's gone on has been done for 10s of years, decades, centuries. It was actually Tyler LeBruin was talking about the Sandia, we sort of amortize those costs across everybody. And so everybody benefits when we buy a plate, or, you know, barstock, because we've all done the work. And we've all agreed that this material is this specification and got the right microstructure. But as we know, with additive and metals, depending on the build orientation, depending on the geometry, depending on the feedstock I'm putting in, depending on all those process parameters, the microstructure you get, and then of course, the material properties that you get could be different, which then of course, lead to differences in part performance. And so that's the biggest challenge, I think that we didn't see or appreciate or understand the nuances, of course, the cost of doing that, because now that means you got to go and print all of those test specimens and gather all the data to say, not only is my process working well, but my material is the material that I think it is. And I've even heard some stories early on with some medical devices that there were concerns that was the material that was coming out, even though you were putting in titanium feedstock. Were you actually still getting titanium out after you melted it with a laser? And yes, you will. But it's one of those questions is like, Oh, I don't know, we're melting, we're melting titanium powder. Is it still that? That's what we have to overcome and deal with and show the data, follow the standards, provide procedures to show that this material is this material consistently, reliably, and repeatably, just like the process.

Peter Zelinski  12:42

And there are a couple of huge assumption changes, mindset changes, paradigm changes with additive that kind of are suggested by what you just said, Tim? So qualifying the material. Yeah, 3D printing is a part making process where you're making the geometric form at the same time that you're making the material. And we don't quite have another process that looks like that in that way. And that's very different. I think another thing I think of is a tremendous opportunity with additive manufacturing is assembly consolidation, sometimes to radical degrees in ways where you can what used to be a lot of labor across a long supply chain to create a subassembly, all that value could be realized in one additive build. So radical assembly consolidation, but what you've just described is radical responsibility. Consolidation comes with that too.

Tim Simpson  13:46

Absolutely. Yeah. And I would say, I mean, a lot of people like in metal additive to casting, for example, right, in terms of the heating and things and with casting, you're making the form, but you're making the material, but it's only you're pouring it in hot and it cools off, you're not heating and reheating doing this and that, and we've been doing this for 1000s of years. So we have a good sense of what the material is that comes out of that. And we know, sort of how to qualify that. And part of it, that's another challenge with additive is as that geometry changes, and I'm heating and cooling as I go, I'm gonna get a different microstructure, that's, as we said, lead to different properties and lead to different performance. And so understanding and that's what we can do in the machine. And of course, then the all the heat treatment, thermal postprocessing options afterwards that we could do as well, that may or may not wash out some of those differences in how the microstructure goes. But as many people are seeing and you know, there's plenty of plenty of pictures now and micrographs looking at the grain structures of powder bed fusion material versus directed energy deposition with powder versus wire and little columns and grain growth, etc. And they're different, right? Okay, we can heat treat them and homogenize them, but there's still some differences in there and so putting the quote unquote same material in a different feedstock form into a different additive process, you do get slightly different material outputs there. And really qualification then and the standards are how do we do this in a consistent way. So that reliably repeatably, we know what we're getting out of there. And then we have designed our process and inspection, testing controls, etc, to make sure that the parts are as good as we think they are.

Stephanie Hendrixson  15:31

One of the questions I wanted to bring up in this conversation is, is qualification and like everything that that means, is it holding back AM adoption? And I think what I'm taking away is like, potentially yes, because it's complicated to introduce a new material to introduce a new process. And then there's also that cost part of it that's associated to that I hadn't really thought about, but if you're trying to do something really new, then the burden of providing the qualification proof is really on you. So how do we find the balance between making sure things are safe and ready to go? And also keeping adoption? Keeping the momentum going?

Tim Simpson  16:05

I wouldn't say it's holding it back other than you know, it's it's certainly causing people to pause and think about it, right? Because this is not for the faint of heart standards, like NASA 6030, again, had been good for the industry as a whole, because they explicitly lay out how many different types of coupons do I need in this direction, in that direction, depending on the criticality of my part. And I think a lot of people, even if they're not, say, making aerospace components, or outerspace components, they still look to that at least as a guideline to say, Oh, well, I should be doing 20 of this and 10 of that, and five of that, because that's, that's been established as good practice, right? And then that's the question is, Okay, how many parts am I making, you know, if I'm only going to maybe making a dozen parts, but now all of a sudden, I got to print 100 test specimens? Whoa, this goes back to the economic question we've come into, all right, who's absorbing that cost? And, if I have to do that every time for a different geometry then it's all the more difficult for additive to be cost competitive. So perhaps that is holding us back. But I've also been in, working in the medical industry, for instance, we talk about predicate designs. And so basically, there's a pre existing design, either my load conditions or this or that. And so in some sense, talking to folks that have to then put, you know, new devices through for regulatory approval, if they look and be like, oh, there's no predicate, or there's no existing design, there's a lot of extra cost, right? And so they will do it. You could argue the similar to additive, oh, well, we're being held back, because any new device is still gotta meet all these old requirements, you need some huge leap forward in order to justify the extra cost and extra work to qualify it and then get it approved by FDA or whoever, I think it's part of the fairy tale that we've created around additive is that you can, complexity is free, right? Any shape that you want. But end of the day, we're manufacturing end use parts and components. And so we need to think about the cost, we need to think about qualification, certification, just like that. Because if there's an easier, better, faster, cheaper way to get the same part, then why use additive?

Stephanie Hendrixson  18:18

The point about like predicate medical devices kind of made something click for me, like we've had a couple of conversations where manufacturers that are adopting additive are like maybe looking at their existing part catalog or thinking about things that they're developing, and they're starting to think and talk more in terms of like part families. And so like, that's maybe one way of trying to offset the cost of making that change, you know, you're going to be able to build off that work for future similar parts. Maybe it's worth it.

Tim Simpson  18:44

Yeah. And there's some examples out there, right? Is it is a part specific qualification that you're doing? Or is it a family of parts, and there's been some examples out there. Airbus, for instance, I believe, has qualified using a family approach that then reduces the number of, you know, test coupons or witness coupons and things because they said, Oh, well, all of these parts are very similar. They're sort of cousins of each other, they're close in geometry, etc. And so therefore, you know, approach to qualify, that whole family of parts, is more cost effective and achievable. And that's, there's several teams now and several programs with American makes, for instance, that are looking at, you know, how do we get better at qualifying additive parts, looking at parts specific versus family approaches? And then some of the Delta qual, right? So if I'm changing this a little bit or slightly, what's what's the delta that I need to re qualify? Because I moved my machine over or I upgraded software or, Oh, I realized this geometry should be a little bit thicker or thinner than the previous one, right? Do you have to go through all of those steps again? Or can you just qualify the delta?

Peter Zelinski  19:52

Where is this being figured out? What industries or applications are the farthest along with this? identification of what additive should do and how to define what it should do.

Tim Simpson  20:04

I think it's advanced pretty far in really the last, you know, 5, 6, 7 years, right. I think, you know, if we had talked seven or eight years ago, when we first met about this, right, I think we would be really struggling to find examples that have made it all the way through. But now, I think there are companies Stryker, for example, they figured out how to have reliable repeatable processes that they're 3D printing, hip implants and acetabular cups. I think, actually, a lot of the medical device industry has done this. I know, just in talking to folks that Stryker, early on, they were very proactive in working with FDA regulators and inviting them in to look at printers and shops and things because part of this is an education, FAA and others, right, the people that are doing setting up the standards and the approaches and doing the certification, they're not necessarily additive experts. So they're obviously they're going to be asking a lot of these questions as well, is that really titanium that's coming out of the machine. I don't know, I never, you know, I never had additive when I was going to school. You got to convince me. And so I think I was very impressed again, in the medical industry, being proactive, let's work with the regulator's get them in there and, you know, basically raise the awareness together, I think FAA has taken similar approaches, you know, NASA, the 6030, standard, there was Marshall Space Flight Center, had sort of developed their own based on because they were really out leading a lot of the propulsion and, and rocket nozzles and combustors and stuff. So they were once a force, but there wasn't anything better out there, they created one that then became, you know, a good starting point for what is now NASA-wide. 6030 that, as I said, a lot of companies, even if they're not trying to do space for aerospace components, there's a lot of requirements in there. But if you go through it and answer those, and it's in, here's my part criticality. So here's how many specimens are recommended. And they do allow a lot of tailoring in there. I think that's probably a common common misconception. It is not, they're not trying to impose a one size fits all. But you can tailor it based on they just want to know that you have a procedure. And that procedure is repeatable and reliable. That is important. No matter what industry, you're in automotive, consumer products, etc. You want a quality product that is from a repeatable, reliable process, from a material that we can no one count on. So even if you're not in a regulated industry, where you have to have a qualification event, and certainly a certifying event, still you want the repeatability and reliability sort of the core, the core thinking behind why this is important is I think holds up true in any industry, the curiosity

Peter Zelinski  22:45

of regulators, I think I've experienced that talking to people who have engaged directly with the FAA, about this additives, adoption, in aerospace, for the most critical parts, it just takes a long time to develop a level of confidence that a very new process and part can be accepted. But that said, I come away with the impression that the FAA wants this to happen. The organization is conservative about safety, but not conservative about manufacturing. And the FAA has an interest in a thriving and advanced aircraft industry.

Tim Simpson  23:27

Yeah, I would agree with that. And I've been impressed with multiple FAA representatives, chief scientists that are speaking at additive conferences that are saying No, here. Here's the process, right. Here's, here's what the steps we would like to see. It's not that we don't want to, we're trying to help you through this. And I think this is all a good sign because it means we're really shifting from prototypes to industry practice. And so now we need to answer as, as an industry, those tough questions that every other manufacturing process had to answer for years. So it's like, oh, well, we better get informed on what FAA wants or FDA wants or whoever else wants.

Stephanie Hendrixson  24:06

All right, let's take a break. I’m Pete Zelinski, I'm Stephanie Hendrixson.

Peter Zelinski  24:12

In addition to appearing on AM Radio, we co-host The Cool Parts Show a video series about interesting 3D printed parts.

Stephanie Hendrixson  24:19

In every episode, we highlight a cool 3D printed part that has something to say about where additive manufacturing is headed. And now we're inviting you behind the scenes.

Peter Zelinski  24:27

Sign up for The Cool Parts Show All Access newsletter, a monthly email for fans of the show will keep you up to date with early access links to our latest episodes and exclusive video extras for subscribers.

Stephanie Hendrixson  24:40

You'll also find out how to enter future giveaways and get a few hints about what we're working on next. You'll even have the chance to send in your questions for experts on upcoming episodes. We'll give you a shout out if we use yours in a video

Peter Zelinski  24:51

Sign up today at TheCoolPartsShow.com/AllAccess.

Stephanie Hendrixson  24:55

And if you're not already familiar with the show, check out our catalog of past episodes. We've got everything from 3D printed custom shoes, to innovative medical implants to generatively designed parts for space.

Peter Zelinski  25:05

Find it all at TheCoolPartsShow.com.

Stephanie Hendrixson  25:11

And we're back. This is AM Radio and we're talking about qualification. Let's get back to it.

Peter Zelinski  25:16

So I mentioned at the outset and beginning this conversation with you, Tim, that you know more about this aspect of additive than we do, Stephanie and I visit lots of manufacturers, and we see a lot of what they're succeeding with. And we get to see a lot of stuff we don't get to talk about, like there's a lot of secrecy in this industry. But an important aspect of additives advanced that we have not participated in is actually advancing these qualification standards. And you have participated in in some of that. And there's just some basic ground level curiosity I have about that, like, what does that look like? What questions come up? Who raises the questions? How do decisions get made? How does consensus get reached? How does the final choice get made and published? Like how does all this play out?

Tim Simpson  26:05

Patients and I've, I've tried really hard and multiple times of being involved in some of these meetings and standard processes and things and bless the people's heart that that lead them. Make sure all the i's are dotted and T's are crossed and everything else. So it is by committee, right? And so you look at their as they're called sto standard development organization. So ASTM, ASME, SAE, all of these folks, and they are a combination of volunteers, paid staff and subject matter experts that get together over the course of weeks, months, years, potentially, where they have dedicated meetings that are discussing this particular code case, if you will within ASME. All right, well, we're going to specifically look at the use of you know, directed energy deposition or powder bed fusion for 316L pressure vessels, because ASME defines boiler and pressure vessel codes, now that we have metal additive, those materials now we need to review it how do we ensure that the material is the material we think it is? How do we get the right set of properties and or data for material allowables and other aspects? How do we ensure quality, again, reliable and repeatable processes and so, bring in different experts to talk about this study or that study, they look in the literature for what's published, they may invite some folks that have been in industry that have been running tests, some of the the OEMs, the machine manufacturers come in and share their data. Right? So it is trying to build a collective consensus that then allows them to write out and if you read through any standards, right it's here's the definitions and terminology and and approach and process and etc, etc, through that, I mean, some of them are now even laying out right how many tests coupons, witness coupons, etc, what orientation are you putting them in right? So, some get very prescriptive, in that sense, others tend to be a little more descriptive, you shall define a process that you know, by which you gather this data or that data so so there's both types out there and then certainly some some industries gravitate more towards others ASME as I said, boiler pressure vessel codes, you know, some of the nuclear stuff you look at SAE, the AMS specs for aerospace, right? Of course, NASA does their own. And so trying to find what's the right now ISO and ASTM to so you got to figure out what's the right niche? Are you following all the specs then on feedstock on process, qualification facilities, etc. And then each one of those has been developed, reviewed, eventually it goes to a vote, whoever is chairing the committee or that code case is responsible for drafting all the language, it then gets reviewed multiple times within the committee. And then eventually it goes out for a vote to a broader audience. You know, there may be revisions that would get approved, etc. From there. And so that, that takes a while, right. So that's part of part of the challenge. Everybody wants it now. But to gather the data to gather the expertise to write that specification. That standard is, it is a thoughtful and thorough process.

Peter Zelinski  29:27

So what I'm hearing is this very detail focused effort of first identifying just what all of the questions are, and then an exercise of trying to persuasively find the answers to all those questions such that a group of very committed and quality oriented people who are invested in this committee can can agree on it. I have a friend. I haven't talked to him in a long time, but he's a good friend. Shout out to Steve if you're listening, but he's a quality manager in a manufacturing facility. And different people are wired different. This is a guy who has a very exacting attention to detail. And if you met him and spent time with them, if you didn't realize he was a quality manager, you would steer him toward that job. He's the guy you want doing that job. The people I would imagine we want in this effort are people like that, and you said, it takes patience, yeah, it could only take patients to allow that effort to be seen all the way through. But then on the back end of that, though, there must be a way for others who are more removed from the effort, but also invested in a way for them to be able to say, wait a second, I challenge this aspect of it. You can't ask me to invest in making this many test coupons because I believe I can convincingly persuade you just that just a third that many test coupons would get you to the same result. I would imagine there has to be an appeal process and a way to modify this over time.

Tim Simpson  31:01

There certainly is a revision process where we've learned something new, we want to modify something, we've gotten feedback on it. And I think a lot of these standards and requirements, the good ones are soliciting that feedback from suppliers who are trying to qualify their approach, right, or basically users in the field. All right, it's this standards been out there, this set of requirements has been out there for three or four years. What's good, what's bad, what's costly, what can we improve upon next time, how much tailoring Have you had to do to make it work and make it apply? Okay, let's take that and gather that. And there are certainly several of those standards that have been out for five years now that are going to that are starting to undergo that review and re evaluation process that then gets issued, there becomes a log of all of the changes both the specific words, the additions and removals, that goes through that committee gets voted on gets approved, again, as part of that. And I think that's been one of the other challenges with additive that we have is the technology is advancing so quickly, relative to the standards development process. We want them to be as fast and sort of moving in parallel. But it's tough, it's tough to do that, particularly if now you're waiting for having enough data from this particular material on that particular process with this particular cheat treatment to inform your code case or your particular requirement that you're setting. And so it's a bit of a chicken and egg there. And but I think everybody is recognizing and realizing that it is evolving. Let's get the feedback. What worked, what didn't what can we improve, such that the standards are useful, and end of the day, protect the safety of the consumer, the user, the passengers on the airplane, whatever that may be. And to your earlier comment, Steve Paul with REL at NIST. That's my guy in terms of I don't know how he has had the patience to do as much as he has done over the years in terms of standards. So yes, you want those people at the wheel and out the helm guiding these things that are on the phone, and every committee meeting, keeping it going forward. So So hats off to you, Paul, if you're listening out there.

Stephanie Hendrixson  33:23

I gotta get a qualification guy.

Tim Simpson  33:26

Well, we've, we've been fortunate, we were actually just joking. Kevin Slattery on The Barnes Global Advisors with us, was in charge of qualification for Boeing for many years before he retired and is now part of the team there at The Barnes Global Advisors. And so he has he is the font of knowledge for so many of us, because he's done it and out there. So we were joking the other day about whether we can turn them into our own version of ChatGPT or not, but we shall see. But yeah, there are those individuals are very good people to know, because you can learn so much from them.

Peter Zelinski  34:00

With additive, the technology is still changing. And the the observation you just made you implied in some ways, the technology is still moving faster than the standards development effort is capable of moving. And that's an interesting dynamic. I still feel like it's the case that about every two to three years enough has changed in additive, that something I was previously assuming isn't valid anymore. And qualifications standards inherently have to be written on standard things, the assumptions that you can bank on. And so that A says something about the dynamism and growing promise of additive but also says something about the challenge of the moment we're in right now of trying to adopt this technology for critical uses.

Tim Simpson  35:00

I agree. And I think it's interesting, AWS D 20. So the American Welding Society released their specifications for metal additive, and they in one specification talked about both powder bed fusion and directed energy deposition. It's like, really, you can sort of put those two side by side, and there's enough similarities and stuff. And given what we knew back then it seemed to all work, right. And the other thing I was most impressed about with AWS there, because they recognize and are used to certifying the welders. So the individual the personnel, that was the first spec that I believe talked about the operator of the system and how they need to be qualified and gave some thoughts and requirements there, I have heard that is under revision, and is going to be split out into a separate powder bed, and then a DED, one I've seen, I think ASTM recently has operator qualification for powder bed fusion laser, separate one for E-beam, DED, wire, DED powder feed, right. A nd so we're now getting, as we understand the processes better, we understand the nuances that allow us to now break it out for different operators, different machines, different processes, as they're evolving.

Peter Zelinski  36:18

The framework that we call the seven families of additive, and another AM Radio episode, Stephanie and I had a whole conversation about do those families, those groupings really make sense as the best way to talk about additive. Now, I think it's hard to argue that that framing is exactly what we would come up with today. But again, that's a definition set in the past, according to our understanding at that time, and it was in the recent past.

Tim Simpson  36:45

And it was not too long ago. And I within the ASTM, the definitions there, though, interestingly, when they changed just what two years ago, they changed the definition of additive manufacturing. So it's been iterated twice now where we are making parts, not objects anymore, right to stress that this and it's and they are also additive, as opposed to subtractive and formative, why manufacturing? So they have gone and then double down on No, no, no, this is manufacturing, we're making parts. And additive is different from subtractive. And formative so. But back to your question I think we're also seeing on you know, it's tough to put things in the seven buckets these days, seven families, because now we're seeing these different combinations of how are we applying material? How are we applying energy, and then the layer? And so you know, John, John Barnes has won me over there in terms of his thinking around, how are we applying the material? What and how are we applying the energy? And then how are we creating the layer? Right? And so we've actually sort of over the years have evolved and think of those, think of the processes there. And it's easy to break those out. Because now you can then talk about these nuances a little better. Well, what does it mean, if I'm doing DED versus powder bed? Oh, well, the way I'm doing the material is there or the energy source is different. So that leads to these differences in microstructure, thermal effects, etc, etc.

Peter Zelinski  38:10

Sohere's a conversation I had recently that is kind of standards adjacent, I was talking to an additive, part producer, contract manufacturer, one of the industries they serve is the space industry, which metal additive part producers that's that is a very common industry that they serve, the space industry relies heavily on additive components. One of the leaders of this company made the point that there's a certain issue with the economics of additive part production, that is standards and qualification related, because there are various, in this case, aerospace industry parts they have in development, that they're fully aware will be in development for quite a while, they won't get the chance to do production until these parts are certified for use and some time will pass. And if you are a business that lives off of contract production, you can't really wait for these opportunities to mature in the fullness of time. The space industry is very useful in this context right now, because the qualification regime is such that they're ready to accept parts right now. What I'm describing is a cash flow issue. But in a sense, then that suggests that there is a veil right now over the promise that additive is going to realize because there are certain parts that are coming in certain production applications that are coming we just don't see yet because they haven't been approved yet to begin, but there's a future in which that's coming. I would

Tim Simpson  39:56

agree. And for those contract manufacturers and such right, yeah, it's the cashflow issue, right. And I think there's also even people's it trickles down within the industry, people's willingness to make the capital investment in the new powder, bed system, whatever, because I think it's going to be there, right or I see the signs that's going to be there. But I don't have the money in hand. Now, and or I can't justify that expense now, relative to the timeline of which you speak. So that's probably holding us back a little bit, or whether it's behind behind the veil, as you said, or at least making the future cloudy and foggy. And I think we've been seeing that a little bit with all the all the projections on where the additive industry is or isn't going as we wrap up 2023 and start 2024 and look at stock prices and mergers and things that have gone on in there. So but I think, you know, every every new industry goes through that at some time or another and there are those that manage their money and their investments well, and are going to make it through this. And then there are those that are just spending money left and right that you see that in stock prices. And you see that in startups going out of business, unfortunately. So I think that's just part of the shift from 3D printing, as it was previously, it was really a design solution. Versus additive is really a manufacturing solution. But as you know, being in the industry, 30 years manufacturing is, is hard and is a grind and takes a lot of work and effort to get it right repeatedly, reliably every time. cheap, easy, free money.  The cool stuff that we had when we were just 3D printing is not the same thing that we need for industrialized production that includes additive among all your other manufacturing processes, as you're considering.

Peter Zelinski  41:48

We talk about that a lot. Additive manufacturing is hard. But manufacturing is hard when right when people when people point that out to me, I'm like, Okay, how long did you go to school to be a toolmaker? Like how, like, there is knowledge in all of these manufacturing disciplines. It's just some of them are, some of them are so well established, we forget how difficult it is and how much we know, that allows us to do it. And yeah we're in this bridge space now with additive where the industry is proving to itself that it knows what it knows.

Tim Simpson  42:24

Back to the fairy tale that I said before complexities free, this is easy. So therefore, you know, manufacturing and production with additive should be easy. No, sorry. It's not right. And that's where we go back to requirements are still requirements, physics is still physic, we still have to have a qualified part, whether we're making that with additive or whether it's subtractive, or other process. And so back to where we started the standards and specifications and things that had been around for years. And we've been used to and all these other processes and industries, we've now adapted, we've got some guidance for each of these industries now and additive going forward. Some of those are three, four years old, we've learned from those and at least one company in every industry has figured it out. And so that's exciting. And as we modify and learn from that, I think feed that back in and prove it, it gets better and hopefully a little faster and a little bit cheaper and easier for everybody because we understand it better. And we've got a bit more prescriptive process and playbook to follow.

Stephanie Hendrixson  43:21

And I think that is also going to help us take advantage of some of these promises of additive that maybe haven't been fully realized yet. So the one I'm thinking of is digital inventory and keeping your spare parts not in a physical warehouse, but in a virtual warehouse. And so I wrote a story recently with Wurth Additive Group, this is an additive group that exists inside of the much larger Wurth organization. And they see this opportunity where they've got warehouses all over the world that are just floor to ceiling, tons of shelves, tons of boxes, like all of these parts that are just waiting for John Deere or, you know, whatever client they have in whatever part of the world to place an order. And so they really see the value of being able to 3D print a lot of those parts, deliver them on demand, they would need less warehouse space, they would be more responsive to their customers, they would be able to deliver these things as never needed without creating waste. And so as a result, they've really taken the initiative with their customers to evaluate parts that could be made additively and sort of walk them through what that process would look like establish. I don't know that you would call it qualifications or standards, exactly. But making sure everybody is comfortable with the parts that they will be producing this way. And so in my conversation with them, like one of the comments was the thing that's holding back additive adoption, from their perspective is the paperwork like nobody wants to be in charge of that nobody wants to do it. And so they've just sort of taken that role on themselves. Like we're gonna file the paperwork, we're gonna walk you through it, we're gonna create this process for you. And they're doing a lot of that printing themselves, but their ultimate goal is to be able to hand that process over to a customer and let them insource their own parts from printing capacity they have in house.

Peter Zelinski  45:00

I think this is such a good point. I think this conversation has leaned maybe too much toward the really critical components. But what we're describing about the difficulty of qualification and, and the ultimate promise that makes all that effort worthwhile. Yeah, it's that warehouse full of stuff. It's getting to a point where we have the confidence in this process to say that, yeah, my, my 20 year old piece of agriculture equipment that needs this one component. Yes, additive is absolutely a trustworthy means to make that. Because once we get that trust, that whole warehouse can go away. And that is amazing. Yeah,

Tim Simpson  45:41

I agree. You're seeing a lot of efforts in sort of these digital warehouses now, among others. So 3YOURMIND, as you were talking came came to mind, there and others. And I think the companies that are moving this Wurth Additive, and others, it is not only the parts, but it's also the recipe to make that part. Right. And so you're literally just downloading and fill fill your machine with this material that meets this spec, download this recipe sort of and hit go, right? Certainly, there's a lot of promise there. And you're right, think about all the inventory that's just sitting there. So all the material that you've consumed, that you may or may not ever use, you're storing it, you've got numbers, etc. So we could get, get rid of all of that and just print it when we need it, I think phenomenal opportunity. For us going forward.

Stephanie Hendrixson  46:27

To your point Wurth Additive is working on a digital inventory platform. And I saw a demo where there was an engineer in Texas, sending a file to a printer in Germany. And so the engineer who's watching that printer in Germany gets what they literally call a recipe and it's every step to make that part and down to, you know, what are the tools, you're going to need to remove the supports when it's done printing, they've really done a lot to try and regulate or or just document and control that process as much as they can.

Tim Simpson  46:56

Yeah, I've been impressed with what I've at least seen and read on worth additives approach there. And I think they're, as you said, taking on the burden of the paperwork and understanding the nuances of printing this part versus that part. Go back to what we were saying earlier with sort of material qualification process process qualification to get to my part qualification essentially worth is doing that. Because even though it's the same material, right, as I'm making a different geometry than walls, thick walls, as we've said, I get different microstructure, etc. So if they're willing to do that, and say, yep, follow this recipe for this part geometry and check, you'll be good. No, if you're making this one, it's a slightly different recipe, because we've already done the work to ensure that that's a good material, and you get the right performance out of the bracket, bolt, whatever it is that you're making, then yes, so they're taking on that cost that we said earlier is hindering a lot of other companies with qualification and just the extra effort to qualify the material plus the process,

Peter Zelinski  47:59

Respect for paperwork.

Tim Simpson  48:01

Respect for the paperwork. But I thought it's supposed to be all digital now, right? Isn't it just supposed to be bits and bytes?

Peter Zelinski  48:09

we mean paperwork, symbolically,

Tim Simpson  48:11

yeah.

Stephanie Hendrixson  48:14

All right. I think that's it for today's podcast. If you want to learn more about additive manufacturing and qualification, we've mentioned The Barnes Global Advisors a couple of times today and we actually have a series of articles that they've contributed to additive manufacturing on qualification as it exists in the rail industry, in the space industry and a couple of others which are on AdditiveManufacturing.Media. We also have an article from Tim on our site called "Another Giant Leap for AM -- New Standards," kind of digging into lots of new standards that were approved in the last couple of years. And if you want more AM Radio, you can find us at AdditiveManufacturing.Media. Thanks for listening.

Peter Zelinski  48:51

AM Radio is recorded with help from Austin Grogan. The show is edited by Jodee McElfresh and Stephanie Hendrixson. Our artwork is by Kate Schrand. AM Radio and Additive Manufacturing Media are products of Gardner Business Media located in Cincinnati, Ohio. I'm Pete Zelinski. Thanks for listening.