{"id":33952,"date":"2026-10-06T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-06T09:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/?p=33952"},"modified":"2026-10-05T16:36:04","modified_gmt":"2026-10-05T15:36:04","slug":"am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/","title":{"rendered":"AM simulation – key questions for suppliers"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Tools not designed for production-grade AM can create hidden cost through failed\/overly conservative prints, failed qualification, repeated iteration, poor machine utilisation, and avoidable risk.\u00a0Many companies still select software through familiarity, corporate agreements, legacy CAE relationships, or feature checklists, rather than fit for specific manufacturing and qualification challenges. However, better supplier selection reverses that logic. Start with the parts, risks, qualification burden, and production outcomes. Then assess whether the tool supports those requirements in practice, using the criteria that determine value of a simulation tool \u2014\u00a0scalability, accuracy, capability, usability, integration, and supplier support. Tyler Nelson reports <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Metal Additive Manufacturing (Metal AM) has changed, and so must simulation software selection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ten years ago, AM teams asked whether simulation was useful for research and prototyping. Today, the question is whether simulation can help production parts be manufactured (printed without build failure) and qualified (shown to meet design intent) optimally and with confidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Metal AM is moving into production-facing regulated and high-value industrial applications. As prototypes become production parts, printing, post-processing, inspection, and qualification become far more expensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That increases the need for simulation. Mature industrial technologies are backed by physics-based models.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
As part size and complexity increase, the performance benefit of PanX grows when compared with traditional modelling approaches. Note: the plot is logarithmic<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

How to separate signal from noise<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Users now need more from AM simulation. Tools not designed for production-grade AM can create hidden cost through failed\/overly conservative prints, failed qualification, repeated iteration, poor machine utilisation, and avoidable risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many companies still select software through familiarity, corporate agreements, legacy CAE relationships, or feature checklists, rather than fit for specific manufacturing and qualification challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Better supplier selection reverses that logic. Start with the parts, risks, qualification burden, and production outcomes. Then assess whether the tool supports those requirements in practice, using the criteria that determine value of a simulation tool \u2014 scalability, accuracy, capability, usability, integration, and supplier support.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
PanX Multi-Grid Modeling distortion (mm) prediction (right) compared with experimental measurement on a 1200mm tall component (left). The entire thermomechanical simulation runs in under 4 hours on a 48 core engineering desktop workstation. Image courtesy of AMCM<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Scalability, speed, and computational efficiency<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For industrial AM users, scalability is fundamental. Can the software simulate the parts and build volumes you actually manufacture?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Modern metal AM increasingly means larger parts, complex geometries, fine features, and multi-part build plates. A tool that can only simulate a simplified part, or one component in isolation, may miss the details that affect distortion, residual stress, overheating, cracking, recoater-jam risk, build-plate behaviour, powder effects, or qualification failure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is critical that simulation not just scale to large parts, but that it can simulate them quickly. Speed determines whether simulation becomes part of engineering workflows or a report generated after decisions are made. Engineers need turnaround times measured in hours so multiple virtual iterations can happen before material, machine time, and schedules are committed. Results must be accurate enough to trust and arrive early enough to change decisions. After the machine is booked or the build has started, simulation is commentary, not control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, many AM organisations cannot base day-to-day engineering decisions on workflows that require specialist high-performance computing resources or long queue times. Users increasingly expect production-relevant simulations to run on engineering desktops or powerful laptops, not only on HPC infrastructure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Production-grade platforms like PanX change the conversation by simulating real AM parts and build volumes quickly enough to influence manufacturing decisions and on modest hardware.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
PanX distortion (mm) prediction (right) compared with experimental measurement (left) on a 2.65m long DED Grid-Fin. The entire simulation runs in 11 minutes on an 8-core laptop. Image courtesy of Ankit Aerospace and Sciaky Inc<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Accuracy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many suppliers can show a prediction that appears to match a successful print, but the important question is whether the model generalises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buyers should ask how simulation performs across geometries, materials, machines, process conditions, build layouts, and scales of complexity. The test is not whether a tool can be tuned to one known outcome, but whether it can guide future decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All simulation uses assumptions and simplifications, the question is whether they preserve the behaviours that matter. For metal AM, that means it is important to ask and understand how a solver handles temperature prediction, thermal strain calculation, plastic strain, structural plasticity, buckling prediction, cracking detection, loose powder, inter-part thermal interaction, and build plate effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The danger is that physics can be simplified to the point where the model only becomes useful after extensive calibration. If every new geometry, layout, or material condition requires a fresh calibration exercise, the tool will be impossible to scale into production. A credible AM simulation platform should not merely reproduce what has already happened, it should provide trusted insight into what is likely to happen next.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/a>
PanX integrates directly into machine OEM workflows<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Capability<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

AM simulation should be evaluated not only as an analysis tool, but as a production capability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Earlier solvers often focused on research use cases, especially manufacturability issues such as distortion and residual stress. That remains useful, but production AM demands more. To get a functional part into service, simulation must predict the full range of issues that can prevent a successful print such as cracking, buckling, recoater jams, overheating, powder sticking, oxidation, internal defects, and downstream processing problems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A part can also print successfully and still fail qualification. Buyers need to know whether thermal history may degrade yield strength, density, hardness, or other performance-critical properties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Production-grade AM simulation should show whether a part can be manufactured, whether it can be qualified, and what must change to improve the outcome. Prediction alone is not enough, software must support optimisation of thermal response, process parameters, build timing, and other machine inputs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PanX\u2019s capability advantage is three-fold \u2014 deeper manufacturability checks, extension into qualification, and movement beyond prediction into optimisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does the software require dedicated simulation experts?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A powerful simulation tool that only one specialist can use may create a bottleneck rather than a competitive advantage. As AM moves from R&D into production, simulation must be usable by people making daily decisions about design, build preparation, process strategy, qualification, and manufacturing risk. If every run needs expert intervention, the tool may never become part of engineering practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buyers should ask how long training takes, whether design and manufacturing engineers can use the software, whether the workflow is intuitive, and whether it supports daily decisions. Usability matters because production depends on repeatable workflows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The best software helps teams ask better questions, test ideas, compare options, and reduce uncertainty before metal powder is melted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Integration<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simulation does not exist in isolation. To influence manufacturing outcomes, it must connect with the wider AM workflow. Buyers should ask how well software integrates with machine OEM workflows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Without OEM integration, machine parameters, process timing, scan strategy, and boundary conditions may be unknown, significantly reducing the achievable accuracy. Integrations also improve usability by reducing redundant and error-prone work. And lastly, they allow simulation outputs to inform build preparation, compensation, dwell strategies, process-parameter optimisation, or other corrective actions that are implementable on the printer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The future of AM simulation is prediction connected to action, understanding the likely outcome and feeding that understanding back into design, build preparation, and process optimisation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evaluate the partner<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Simulation implementation is not just purchasing a licence, it\u2019s adopting a capability. Buyers should assess both the software and the company behind it. Technical depth, support culture, application understanding, and development roadmap determine whether the tool becomes useful in production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Buyers should ask whether the supplier understands their application, has relevant industry experience, can interpret results, responds quickly, develops from customer feedback, and allows customers to influence the roadmap. They should also ask whether the software is still actively developed and supported. If a product is parked, under-resourced, or no longer strategic, it may become a liability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In AM simulation, technical depth, responsiveness, and application focus matter. A supplier should help customers build confidence in AM production, not simply sell software.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most expensive AM simulation software is not necessarily the one with the highest licence price. It is the one engineers do not trust, cannot scale to the parts they manufacture, is too slow to influence decisions, requires unrealistic hardware or expertise, or is disconnected from daily workflow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The best simulation solution disappears into the workflow. It lets teams ask more questions, test ideas, compare options, and make better decisions before metal powder is melted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If AM is to mature as a production technology, simulation selection needs to mature with it. Buyers should look beyond familiarity, feature lists, and legacy procurement routes. They should ask whether the tool can help them manufacture better parts, qualify them more confidently, reduce risk, improve machine utilisation, and make AM commercially viable at production scale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is the real test of an AM simulation partner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tyler Nelson is Distinguished Engineer, PanOptimization<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tools not designed for production-grade AM can create hidden cost through failed\/overly conservative prints, failed qualification, repeated iteration, poor machine utilisation, and avoidable risk.\u00a0Many companies still select software through familiarity, corporate agreements, legacy CAE relationships, or feature checklists, rather than fit for specific manufacturing and qualification challenges. However, better supplier selection reverses that logic. Start …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":33953,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[199],"tags":[6698,15030,14813,15008],"class_list":["post-33952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","","category-news-views-and-opinion","tag-metal-additive-manufacturing","tag-metal-am","tag-panoptimization","tag-panx"],"yoast_head":"\nAM simulation - key questions for suppliers - Engineer News Network<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"AM simulation - key questions for suppliers - Engineer News Network\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Tools not designed for production-grade AM can create hidden cost through failed\/overly conservative prints, failed qualification, repeated iteration, poor machine utilisation, and avoidable risk.\u00a0Many companies still select software through familiarity, corporate agreements, legacy CAE relationships, or feature checklists, rather than fit for specific manufacturing and qualification challenges. However, better supplier selection reverses that logic. Start …\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Engineer News Network\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-10-06T09:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Figure-1-2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1805\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1055\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/4477342aea8e299c6a21761e513ea8e1\"},\"headline\":\"AM simulation – key questions for suppliers\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-06T09:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1486,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/Figure-1-2.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"metal additive manufacturing\",\"metal AM\",\"PanOptimization\",\"PanX\"],\"articleSection\":[\"News, Views and Opinion\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\\\/\",\"name\":\"AM simulation - key questions for suppliers - Engineer News Network\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/Figure-1-2.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-06T09:00:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/4477342aea8e299c6a21761e513ea8e1\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/Figure-1-2.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/Figure-1-2.jpg\",\"width\":1805,\"height\":1055,\"caption\":\"AMCM Aerospike (left). PanX Finite Element mesh (right)\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"AM simulation – key questions for suppliers\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Engineer News Network\",\"description\":\"The ultimate online news and information resource for today's engineer\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/4477342aea8e299c6a21761e513ea8e1\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\\\/blog\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"AM simulation - key questions for suppliers - Engineer News Network","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"AM simulation - key questions for suppliers - Engineer News Network","og_description":"Tools not designed for production-grade AM can create hidden cost through failed\/overly conservative prints, failed qualification, repeated iteration, poor machine utilisation, and avoidable risk.\u00a0Many companies still select software through familiarity, corporate agreements, legacy CAE relationships, or feature checklists, rather than fit for specific manufacturing and qualification challenges. However, better supplier selection reverses that logic. Start …","og_url":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/","og_site_name":"Engineer News Network","article_published_time":"2026-10-06T09:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1805,"height":1055,"url":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Figure-1-2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Estimated reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/4477342aea8e299c6a21761e513ea8e1"},"headline":"AM simulation – key questions for suppliers","datePublished":"2026-10-06T09:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/"},"wordCount":1486,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Figure-1-2.jpg","keywords":["metal additive manufacturing","metal AM","PanOptimization","PanX"],"articleSection":["News, Views and Opinion"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/","url":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/","name":"AM simulation - key questions for suppliers - Engineer News Network","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Figure-1-2.jpg","datePublished":"2026-10-06T09:00:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/4477342aea8e299c6a21761e513ea8e1"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Figure-1-2.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/Figure-1-2.jpg","width":1805,"height":1055,"caption":"AMCM Aerospike (left). PanX Finite Element mesh (right)"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/am-simulation-key-questions-for-suppliers\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"AM simulation – key questions for suppliers"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/","name":"Engineer News Network","description":"The ultimate online news and information resource for today's engineer","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/4477342aea8e299c6a21761e513ea8e1","name":"admin","url":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33952","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=33952"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33952\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":33959,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33952\/revisions\/33959"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/33953"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33952"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.engineernewsnetwork.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}