Which statement is true about AM use as a secondary process?

The correct statement highlights that additive manufacturing (AM) can effectively produce patterns and molds that are subsequently used in a range of traditional manufacturing processes. This relationship underscores the versatility of AM technologies, allowing them to enhance and complement existing processes rather than working in isolation.

Using AM to create patterns and molds is particularly beneficial, as it enables complex geometries and designs that might be difficult or impossible to achieve through traditional methods alone. For instance, in sand casting or injection molding, AM can produce intricate molds that enhance the efficiency and quality of the final products. This integration of AM into traditional workflows illustrates how additive methods serve as a valuable secondary process, leveraging their unique capabilities to improve overall manufacturing outcomes.

Other options, while reflecting certain aspects of AM, do not convey the true role of AM in secondary processes as effectively. The statement about operating independently suggests a lack of cooperation with traditional methods, which is not the case when AM is utilized for specific applications like pattern and mold production. As for the assertion that AM is unsuitable as a secondary process, it misrepresents the actual synergies and applications that exist when combining AM with traditional manufacturing. Lastly, the idea that all AM methods provide identical output negates the variability and distinct capabilities across the different AM technologies available.