The aerospace industry has been paying close attention as additive manufacturing (AM) has evolved over the past few decades. AM technology is now truly delivering on its promise of geometric freedom, lighter weight, and higher performance from parts that can’t be made any other way.
Organizations such as SME are supporting regulatory bodies by developing AM standards for processes and material specifications, while 3D-printing OEMs help by qualifying advanced alloys and educating regulators. Several leading AM systems have risen toward the top. Big aviation OEMs operate fleets of 3D printers in-house, and occasionally turn to top contract manufacturers that specialize in printing and finishing services. Rocket-launch startups are similarly benefiting from AM’s ability to spark cost effective innovation.
As a result, more AM parts are in the air and outer space. But the reality behind some of the largest aviation OEMs’ successes is that it has taken much time, effort, and resources to get parts certified to fly. Many of the largest players, through trial-and-error, have had to painstakingly tweak and customize their top-of-the-line printer hardware, software, and print processes to produce parts that can pass regulatory hurdles.
Why? Because the majority of legacy 3D printers, while improved, are what I call “unicorn machines.” Print parameters for these systems either aren’t provided as default, only have basic capabilities, or require a more capable parameter set. In all these scenarios, the end user will invest more in parameter development and material characterization to get a usable production process. This customization comes with a large cost, driven by consulting fees paid to printer OEMs or by an investment in a skilled engineering workforce with a core competency in print parameter development. Once customized, a printer can make that part accurately and repeatably. But if the machine next to it has gone through a different qualification exercise that includes part-specific parameters and machine-specific calibrations, it may not produce an identical result.
What’s still missing in AM is a step-up in technical sophistication that provides consistent results at a part level from the get-go. To fully account for the myriad factors in play when a laser fuses thin layers of powdered alloy requires precise operator-agnostic automated calibrations, integrated print-preparation software, and an integrated quality monitoring software that receives statistically significant data points from a number of sensors that monitor every relevant process element on each print layer from start to finish—and build reports with essential information for flight certification.
Only when this level of performance and repeatability is standardized across the industry will distributed manufacturing—the ability to make identical parts anywhere on the planet—be achievable. What’s exciting is that this is already happening. While less regulated than aerospace, the oil and gas industry follows strict safety and performance standards that they are eager to prove out as they explore the value of AM, particularly for part-replacement—similar to aviation’s MRO challenges.
A recent pilot project carried out by a supplier and its major O&G client, in conjunction with a leading AM provider, demonstrated the system’s ability for distributed manufacturing by producing multi-stage trim valves, printed at five different contract manufacturers (CMs), that met specifications. The CMs worked from a locked “golden print file” with the same type of advanced AM.
Aerospace should take note: The supply chain repercussions still echoing from the global pandemic—and warnings that this will extend even further to yield a shortage of aircraft and spare parts in the coming years—are a call to action for stepping up their manufacturing. AM has matured to where it can play an important role in helping mitigate the impact of tough times.
Connect With Us
