implants, we have the clinician, the surgeon, often the radiologist, the anesthesiologist, the engineers, the modelers, all together in the room, and we design this implant concurrently. It’s a step in the right direction, but also a long way from where we need to be in order to make the “vision” a reality. The situation is the same whether it’s a particle accelerator, a reactor or a high-temperature aerospace application. What does the testing process look like, and how do you test the testing? The scientifi c question is, how do we affect quality control on a single component? If I make one implant for one patient, how do we predict its life- time? How do we guarantee that failure will occur within an acceptable window of confi dence? Which tools do I need to improve my confi dence? In traditional processing, we do that by sampling among a population of many other parts. In addi- tive manufacturing, we don’t always have these fl avors of data. I think that is where our research is today. It’s developing the materials, moving through qualifi cations and utilizing process monitor ing, process control and post-build inspections. Recently, we developed a suite of sensors that utilize artifacts of the electron beam melting pro- cess itself to generate in-situ imaging and data, in real time, during the melting process. Essenti- ally, we have turned our Arcam production EBM systems into high power electron microscopes that also manufacture componentry. With these tools we can identify porosity, cracking and variations in material density and composition. What advances should we anticipate in the evolution of nondestructive testing? It is computationally expensive right now, and we’re not always entirely sure what to do with the massive quantities of data we generate. But all these things are advancing as I’m speaking. We’re getting better and better at predicting. In two or three years, this will be a very different conversation. A great deal of work is going into the science of additive manufacturing and measurement. The modeling of the processes and our under- standing of the underlying physics is continually improving. And all the while, the processes Technology & Innovation Technology & Innovation 29 “We’re getting better and better at predicting. In two or three years, this will be a very different conversation.” themselves are improving. The tolerances are getting tighter. Standards and best practices are developing. As these factors converge, we will be able to operate within a tighter set of manufacturing and design limitations. What can you tell us about the Consortium on the Properties of Additively Manufactured Copper and its work? We’ve observed a growing demand for sophisti- cated solutions in power electronics, radio frequency devices, accelerator components and thermal management using high purity, oxygen free electronic grade copper for years. But it’s difficult to process copper using welding-based additive manufacturing processes and maintain the quality, density and purity required of these applications. We’ve done quite a bit of research in this area and made some viable demonstrations. Moving these results into a set of qualified components and processes requires us to leverage the growing interest and the support of the machine manufacturers, powder material suppliers, parts producers and end users. So, this consortium was established as a prelude to the qualification of additively manufactured copper, to give us a deep understanding of the material itself and the influence of external factors like oxygen content, orientation within the build, effective geometry. We’re trying to get the level of understanding for copper that we have for more mature materials like titanium today. The group’s founding members are GE Additive, Siemens, Radiabeam Technologies and Calabazas Creek Research, and we’re actively recruiting others. The more members we have, the more resources we can commit to the robustness of the data set we produce. BEYOND SURFACES 01|2020