Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Final Report
Rotterdam
January 25, 2016
2
Pilot Project 3D printing of Marine spares
Set up
Table of contents
Executive Summary 4
1. Introduction 5
1.1 Goals and project set up 5
1.2 Participants 7
2. Part selection process 8
2.1 Generic guidelines when selecting parts for 3D printing 8
2.1.1 Product Design 8
2.1.2 Supply chain 8
2.2 Overview of demonstrator parts selected and their requirements 9
2.2.1 Propeller Marin 9
2.2.2 Cooled valve seat Ruysch 9
2.2.3 Spacer ring Huisman 9
2.2.4 Hinge Fokker 10
2.2.5 T-connector Heerema 10
2.2.6 Seal Jig Aegir 10
2.2.7 Manifold Huisman 10
2.3 Additional database of customary maritime parts 11
3. Material selection process 12
3.1 Generic overview of materials available for 3D printing 12
3.2 Decision model for selecting materials for demonstrator parts 12
3.2.1 Propeller Marin – DMG Mori 13
3.2.2 Cooled valve seat Ruysch - EOS 13
3.2.3 Spacer ring Huisman – Revamo 14
3.2.4 Hinge Fokker – EOS 14
4 Infographic: How to select parts, materials and processes for 3D printing of maritime spare parts 15
5 Testing report of demonstrator parts Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
5.1 Introduction to testing Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
3
5.2 Test Report - Part Specific Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
5.2.1 Cooled Valve Seat – Ruijsch Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
5.2.2 Propellor – Marin Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
5.2.3 Hinge Bracket – Fokker Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
5.2.4 Spacer Ring – Huisman Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
5.2.5 T-connector – Heerema Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
5.3 Conclusions and lessons learned Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
6 Cost and ROI 19
6.1 Approach towards business case and return on investment 19
6.2 Generic cost indications for the use of Additive Manufacturing (AM) 20
6.2.1 Investment in AM machines vs working with AM service providers 21
6.2.2 Certification & Classification of 3D printed parts compared to standard
production 21
6.2.3 Cost impact of tax and legal aspects 22
6.2.4 Sustainability (environmental impact) 22
6.2.5 Summary 23
6.3 Use cases and impact on cost 24
6.3.1 Model for assessment 24
6.3.2 Use case Valve Seat Ruijsch 26
6.3.3 Use case Spacer ring Huisman 27
6.3.4 Use case Hinge Fokker 28
6.3.5 Use case T-connector Heerema 29
6.3.6 Use case Seal Jig Aegir 30
6.3.7 Use case Manifold Huisman 31
7 Conclusions and lessons learned 32
7.1 General 32
7.2 Part Specific 33
7.2.1 Demonstrator 1: Propeller Marin 33
7.2.2 Demonstrator 2: Valve Seat Ruijsch 35
7.2.3 Demonstrator 3: Spacer ring Huisman 36
7.2.4 Demonstrator 4: Hinge Fokker 37
7.2.5 Demonstrator 5: T-connector Heerema 38
Sources and acknowledgements - Hans Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
Annex 1 – Database of typical maritime parts and their AM applicability 39
Annex 2 – Infographic 44
Test Report; Supporting Data Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
4
Executive Summary
3D-Printing gets a lot of attention in the media. Some think the world of it, others think it is a
hype. That is why a consortium of 26 companies in the maritime industry teamed up and
researched if 3D-Printing maritime spare parts is reality or a future dream.
The conclusion is that 3D printing indeed holds promises for a number of parts, and that
product requirements can be met in a number of cases. Also the business case can be
positive, especially when time to market is essential. On the other hand the findings also
indicate that extra work needs to be done to get regulations adjusted to be able to qualify 3D
printed parts.
During a 9 months period (April 1 – December 31, 2015) the consortium partners in the pilot project
‘3D Printing of Marine Spare Parts’ selected and redesigned parts, had them printed and tested the
results.
The selection process was an experience on itself. In the project the partners developed their skills
(and a comprehensive tool) to more professionally select candidate parts for 3D printing. More-over
they learned to understand the benefits of 3D printing towards the redesign of parts to improve on
functionality.
Making use of three different production processes, the advantages of the various methods for
additive manufacturing and the maturity of the technology was experienced. Thus the project
brought a wealth of information on the current and near future state of 3D printing as an alternative
method for producing maritime parts.
The five demonstrator parts that were re-designed for printing and that were produced, were also
tested on a number of aspects (surface, geometric, mechanical and material requirements). The
results indicate a broad variety of outcomes. In some cases this leads to the indication that the use
of additive manufacturing is relatively close by. In other case the results give many opportunities to
improve on the quality and thus broaden the range of suitable parts to print.
The tools used and results obtained are brought together in this report.
We greatly value the commitment and expertise the consortium partners have shown during this
project. We also appreciate their willingness to disseminate the project results with each other. Thus
this project is a first step in the development of industry grade additive manufacturing services for
maritime applications.
On behalf of all consortium members:
Port of Rotterdam
Innovation Quarter
RDM Makerspace
5
1. Introduction
1.1 Goals and project set up
The Pilot project ‘3D Printing Marine Spares’ focused on printing metal spare parts for mainly
maritime applications. The participants in the project wanted to learn about the possibilities of metal
AM printing. Project questions to answer were:
What size of parts can nowadays be printed in metal?
Can parts be printed in the materials we are used to work with or should we focus on other
materials?
Can we meet all requirements (classification, norms, rules, regulation) when we 3D print
these parts?
To what extend is ‘3D printing on location’ a possibility?
Are there economic benefits when 3D printing spare parts compared to conventional
manufacturing?
As most participants were relatively new to the Additive Manufacturing (AM) field, in depth
knowledge on the different AM processes, the design for AM, the most interesting product
categories and current materials to be used was shared and discussed.
To structure the project, a set up with 6 work packages was devised:
WP1 Parts selection & (Re) design (selection criteria, parts to print, parts to research, certificates, design for AM, post processing, lessons learned)
WP2 Material selection & data base (for chosen parts, to co-develop data base with tips for material selection)
WP3 Production & Finishing (Preparation, process, work flow, post treatment, requirements, lessons learned)
WP4 Testing & Quality (Properties and criteria, Testing set up, actual testing, NDT, report and suggestions for the future)
WP5 Cost & ROI (Traditional vs AM, investments, sustainability, certification, classification (IACS), tax, business case elements)
WP 6 Project management (Project meetings, support WP’s, integration / monitoring of activities, final reporting)
As 3D printing does need the translation of a traditional design into an AM-printable design, the
selection of the demonstrator parts was crucial. In work package 1, the demonstrator parts
suggested by the participants were reviewed and a selection of 5 parts was made. The selection
reflected various application areas. In chapter 2 the selection is further detailed.
6
The parts to be printed were seen as research parts, meaning that the purpose of printing them was
primarily to learn about the printing process and possibilities. The parts were not intended to be
used as operational service parts after the project.
Next to the parts that were printed, also some other parts were analysed on (current or near future)
printability. This created a comprehensive database of typical maritime parts. In the Annex an
overview of this database is given, indicating the part application, current material and certification
requirements, and the possibility to use AM to produce this part. When the same material is not
printable, an alternative is mentioned. When current requirements cannot be met yet, an indication
on the developments is given.
In work package 2 the materials for the demonstrator parts was selected. Chapter 3 indicates the
lessons learned about the material selection and the resulting test requirements to verify strength,
durability etc.
The learnings on the selection process is translated into an ‘Infographic’ to help define the
printability and select the right AM process when contemplating to 3D print a (maritime) spare part.
Chapter 4 introduces this infographic.
Chapter 5 shows the actual parts printed and the lessons learned by the demonstrator companies.
Chapter 6 indicates the timing and cost aspects when 3D printing the demonstrator parts. Based on
the findings and known (future) benefits, a conclusion is reached on the applicability of 3D printing
for maritime spare parts.
Final conclusions and acknowledgements can be found in chapters 7 and 8.
7
1.2 Participants
Below the list of participants in the project is shown, with a brief indication of the role they played.
Role Name Organisation Additional comments
Initiators InnovationQuarter Lead project management
Port of Rotterdam Harbour related activities
RDM Makerspace Technical facilitator
Participants Aegir Marine Production BV Demonstrator partner
Fokker Aerostrcutures Demonstrator partner
Heerema Fabrication Group Demonstrator partner
Huisman Equipment BV Demonstrator partner
Marin Demonstrator partner
Ruysch International Demonstrator partner
Broekman Logistics Supply chain expertise
FMI Instrumed Production Expertise
Keppels Verolme Market expertise
MTI / IHC Holland Material selection
Transpetrol Market expertise
Viro Schiedam Design
Service providers 3Dealise BV Production partner
Bureau Veritas Quality partner
DMG Mori Production partner
EOS GMBH / Bender Benelux Production partner
Hittech Group Service provider
Lloyds Register EMEA Quality partner
Oceanz Service provider
Revamo Production partner
Siemens Nederland BV Software partner
St. Nat. Lucht & Ruimtevaartlab (NLR) Testing partner
Facilitators 3D Nodes Database development
Berenschot Project management & Expertise
Delft University of Technology Design Optimisation support
Netherlands Maritime Technology General support
All partners participated in the 5 general meetings and were involved in 1 or more of the work
packages indicated above.
8
2. Part selection process
2.1 Generic guidelines when selecting parts for 3D printing
The benefits that can arise by moving from traditional to additive manufacturing can be divided in
two categories; product design and supply chain (source: senvol.com).
Based on these two categories the parts that were provided by the partners (2.2.) were given a
score and added together (0 = low potential, 9 = high potential for 3D printing).
Also, this score was given to 23 customary maritime parts (see 2.3.) to give some sense and
guidance of the potential of AM in de maritime sector.
2.1.1 Product Design
Part consolidation
AM allows production of unified parts, eliminating the need for assembly of multiple parts and it’s
associated costs.
Integrated functionality
AM allows integrated functionality by use of complex geometries and interior structures such as
cooling channels.
Weight reduction
AM allows applying internal structures and topology optimization, this efficient design leads to
weight reduction.
Less waste
The additive production process opposed to traditional subtractive processes leads to less material
being wasted.
2.1.2 Supply chain
Low volume
Is the part needed in low volume, small series or customization possibilities?
Lead times
AM requires less steps in the production process, often leading to a decreased lead time and costs.
Inventory
The local and short production time of AM allows for on-demand production, which decreases need
for inventory.
Supplier risk
By qualifying a part for AM, you will no longer be completely reliant current supplier.
Location based costs
AM shows potential to overcome transport and import/export related costs by local production
possibilities.
9
2.2 Overview of demonstrator parts selected and their requirements
At the start of the pilot the partners were asked to bring in the parts that they thought would meet the
criteria of product design and supply chain as mentioned in chapter 2.1. Not all partners could
provide one or more parts due to several reasons:
Partners did not own the IP of the part and/or could not provide the drawings of the part;
Part size was restricted to the size of roughly a basketball, which limited the selection of
parts partners could choose from
The complexity of parts or the potential to add complexity to parts (cooling channels, weight
reduction etc.) were limited. Low cost, low complexity parts optimized for conventional
fabrication both from a technical and economic standpoint leave no space to improve on;
In addition to the previous point the challenge for the partners was to think in an ‘AM
mindset’. This requires thinking in the potential of 3D printing and the potential for reducing
the total cost of ownership instead of looking at the price of 1 part.
With these practical limitations taken into consideration the following parts were selected
2.2.1 Propeller Marin
Compared with the other selected parts the propeller met most of the criteria from a product
design and supply chain perspective: the propeller had the potential for part consolidation,
integrated functionality, weight reduction and less waste. Furthermore the part had the
potential to reduce lead times, inventory and supplier risk.
Main requirement: machine
- Marin was only willing to join the pilot if the propeller was printed on the DMG Lasertec
65. This requirement restricted the selection of other machines and materials. For
instance, the part could also have been printed on the EOS machine. However, the pilot
was not only created to print the part with the most potential for AM, but also acquire
knowledge about and to test the technical possibilities and limitations of new AM
machines such as the Lasertec 65.
2.2.2 Cooled valve seat Ruysch
The cooled valve seat from Ruysch showed medium potential for 3D printing. Part
consolidation and integrated functionality and lead time could be in favor of 3D printing. On
the other topics the part had less potential.
Main requirement: functional.
- Corrosion resistance is required, as the part operates in an engine and could be
exposed to low temperature sulphuric acid or high temperature vanadium corrosion.
2.2.3 Spacer ring Huisman
This part looked well suited for 3D printing, specifically laser cladding, particularly
savings in lead time and cost reduction in expensive material were expected.
10
Main requirement: functional.
- Limited static and dynamic loading is applied on the part. Corrosion resistance
against salty environment is needed.
2.2.4 Hinge Fokker
The hinge was a perfect example of a functional part in titanium. Cross-fertilization on
product, materials and process experience was one of the focus areas for this project.
The hinge was already optimized for 3D printing in a previous study and therefore met
all the criteria from the standpoint of product design and supply chain.
Main requirement: material
- Titanium is the preferred material in the aerospace industry.
2.2.5 T-connector Heerema
The T-connector was initially not part of the selection at the beginning of the pilot and
was added later when Heerema joined as partner. The part showed potential both on
product design (part consolidation) as well as supply chain (such as lead time).
Main requirement: functional
- Surface roughness should be smooth
2.2.6 Seal Jig Aegir
The seal jig was initially not selected. However a prototype was produced in nylon by
Oceanz to showcase reduction in lead time. See also chapter 6.2.7.
2.2.7 Manifold Huisman
The manifold was not chosen at first to print during the pilot; other parts were given a
higher priority, however Oceanz offered to print the part in nylon to showcase topology
optimalization. See also chapter 6.2.8.
11
2.3 Additional database of customary maritime parts
Annex 1 shows a comprehensive database of
30 typical maritime parts.
The parts are analysed on the elements of
possible benefits of using AM, as indicated in
paragraph 2.1:
Part consolidation possibilities;
Weight or volume reductions;
Integrated functionalities;
Less waste;
Low volume production;
Reduced lead times;
Decreased inventory or stock levels;
Less supplier risks;
Lower location based costs.
The table (see annex for lager representation)
indicates that 3D printing is now already an
option to investigate for roughly 50% of the
analyzed parts.
This does not mean that the final part will be
printed right now. It can be design or lead time
benefits that could now already be realized,
even though the final production of the part will still be conventional.
For the other 50% of the typical parts the current or near future state of the technology does not
seem to be applicable. Nevertheless, this can change quite quickly. New materials and larger, faster
metal AM machines are being developed, which might lead to new possibilities sooner rather than
later.
Figure 1; AM Database of typical maritime parts and their applicability for AM
12
3. Material selection process
3.1 Generic overview of materials available for 3D printing
The focus of the pilot was on the production of spare parts. Hence, most of the materials are for
either structural or corrosion-protection purposes (or a mixture of them). For structural purposes,
steels are the most common options (stainless steel, low-alloy steel, precipitation-hardening steels,
etc.) and for corrosion applications Ni- and Cu-base alloys such as Inconel 625 or Bronze are the
most commonly used. Depending on the AM technique, powder or wire feedstock could be used.
Powder bed and powder fed machines can process a wide range of powders than those offered by
the machine manufacturers. Hence, materials selection should in theory not be limited to alloys
provided by EOS and DMG Mori.
However, there are several difficulties that come with processing other (types of) powders than
provided by OEMs;
- Processing new materials requires extensive research and deep knowledge of the process.
Matching process parameters and chemical composition to achieve required thermo-mechanical
performance - with good process robustness - is difficult.
- In order to gain knowledge on composition and process parameters, both software and
hardware of the machine need to be adjusted. This is difficult as limited access to both software and
hardware is available. From a practical point of view; OEMs do not allow to process materials, other
than provided by the OEM. Warranty will be immediately voided if either software or hardware is
adjusted.
3.2 Decision model for selecting materials for demonstrator parts
It should be noted that EOS offers a relatively limited range of materials to be used with their
machines and DMG Mori website does not give specific information on the type of the materials they
offer (if any). The materials offered by EOS do not always match the functional requirements of the
intended parts.
While limiting the materials selection procedure to alloys provided by EOS could have benefits for
parts, which are intended to be produced on EOS machines, it has the inherent limitation that in
some cases, the selected materials might not fulfill the functional requirements. Hence, two
approaches for material selection was followed:
Functional – materials selection based on the functional requirements of the parts. In this
approach, materials other than those suggested by machine manufacturers could also be
used.
Practical – materials selection based on alloys already being offered by machine
manufacturers.
13
3.2.1 Propeller Marin – DMG Mori
Propellers are generally made from Bronze alloy [Copper, Nickel, Aluminium], with CU3 the most
widely used and CU4 as the new alloy (CU4 has a much higher Mn content).
The alternative could be stainless steel. AISI 316L has the same mechanical strength as CU3 or
CU4 and higher than those of DirectMetal 20. Martensitic-Ferritic steels could also be used.
Martensitic alloys shall have a sufficient proportion of nickel to meet the impact energy
requirements. A suitable proportion of molybdenum should be added to all alloys to improve
corrosion resistance in seawater.
Functional and practical – Bronze alloys, such as CU3 and CU4, DirectMetal 20 (EOS), or bronze
alloys from DMG Mori. AISI 316L could also be used.
3.2.2 Cooled valve seat Ruysch - EOS
Original part is made of multiple parts (and multiple materials). AM part will be a single component,
made from one material. Current material is PL12, which is a type of valve steel. The previously
suggested material (316L) does not have the necessary hardness. Hence, an alternative alloy is
needed. The level of chromium and molybdenum in PL12 indicates that corrosion resistance is
required, as the part operates in an engine and could be exposed to low temperature sulphuric acid
or high temperature vanadium corrosion. Operating temperature of the valve should be checked.
A suitable material, according to the functional approach, will be a valve steel such as Hoganas 3533-
10. Among EOS materials, PH1 is suggested. PH1 needs aging heat treatment at 490 oC. The
maximum working temperature of PH1 is around 400 oC. Hence, the working temperature of the valve
should be checked. If the valve is produced using DMG Mori machine, it would be possible to use a
coating of harder material (such as PH1 or Hoganas 3533-10) on top of a more general purpose steel
such as 316L.
Considerations:
Functional – Hoganas 3533 or other valve steels. Mechanical properties of Hoganas 3533 is
comparable to those of Stellite 6 and 12. Hoganas 3533 does not need a heat treatment to reach
the required level of hardness.
Practical – PH-1 from EOS, needs a precipitation hardening heat treatment after manufacturing to
reach a hardness of more than 40 HRC (the required hardness is 43-47 HRC). Maximum operating
temperature is 400 oC and could be not high enough.
Outcome: the valve seat was printed on the EOS machine with PH-1 powder
14
3.2.3 Spacer ring Huisman – Revamo
Current material is 1.4418. The only reason that this material was chosen is its hardness (300 HB,
<40 Rockwell). Limited static and dynamic loading is applied on the part. Corrosion resistance
against salty environment is needed.
Outcome: a 316 stainless steel ring was lasercladded with a wear- and corrosion resistant material
(1.4418) by Revamo
3.2.4 Hinge Fokker – EOS
Current Material: Ti-6Al-4V || AM Material: Ti-6Al-4V
Required; process-time.cost estimate. Potentially producible at LAC (University of Twente) using
MIG welding and Ti-6Al-4V wire.
Outcome; the hinge was printed on the EOS-machine with Ti-6AL-4V material.
15
4 Infographic: How to select parts, materials and processes
for 3D printing of maritime spare parts
To allow for a concise but still comprehensive
overview of the applicability of AM for maritime
parts, an infographic was developed.
This infographic indicates what kind of parts do
show potential for AM and which production
processes can be selected.
This tool gives both experts and newcomers to
the field of AM a quick overview of the
possibilities. Also is serves as a tool quickly
assess if a specific part is suitable for printing.
In this way it helps those active in the maritime
industry to assess if the issues they have at
hand would benefit from AM.
Also, the infographic show the materials which
can be used in three main processes. This list
of materials will change rapidly, as new
materials are expected in the near future.
In all is gives a framework for the selection of
parts, materials and processes.
Thus the infographic is a ‘still picture’ of the current situation. Developments in AM are manifold.
Even during the cause of the project new materials and new processes were introduced. As a
matter of fact the software for driving one of the newer machines (DMG Mori LaserTec 65) was
further developed as a part of this project.
Figure 2 Infographic. NB see Annex 2 for a larger image
16
5 Set up of the testing activities
5.1 Proposed testing activities
Initially additive manufacturing technologies were also known as Rapid Prototyping. However, with
recent innovations in AMT and supporting technologies, performance has increase and application
is shifting towards functional-end products. Functional end-products, including spare parts, have
higher demands with respect to part- and process-performance. The ISO standard 17296-3:2014 -
Additive manufacturing -- General principles – “Part 3: Main characteristics and corresponding test
methods” provides a protocol for testing of AMT parts (see also Annex 3). This ISO standard was
used as an input for the testing procedures conducted during WP4 of the pilot project. The set of
proposed testing procedures was adjusted according to specific needs, based on the information
related to process (WP1), material (WP3) and production (WP3).
Two demonstrator parts do not use the proposed ISO standards. Firstly, the Marine propeller – by
Marin. Here, Marin proposed to use the internal testing methodology. Secondly, the T-connector –
by Heerema. Here, the ASTM G48 - 11(2015) – “Standard Test Methods for Pitting and Crevice
Corrosion Resistance of Stainless Steels and Related Alloys by Use of Ferric Chloride Solution” is
used.
The final testing report will include the following elements for each demonstrator part;
Part Information; Technical and functional requirements of part
Testing set-up; Including approach taken/ considerations etc.
Results; Data, graphs, figures etc.
However, during the time of writing the test procedures have not been concluded. Therefore,
Chapter 5 will include an overview of the generic testing set-up in section 5.2, and the expected
results per demonstrator part in section 5.3
17
5.2 Testing set-up
The testing conducted during the pilot project was based on the ISO standard 17296-3:2014. In the
ISO standard a differentiation is made between three grades of part application, namely;
Low (L) – Prototype parts
Mid (M) – Non-structurally loaded parts
High (H) – Structurally loaded parts
The demonstrator parts included in the testing report (WP4) are all structurally loaded parts; grade –
High (H). Table 1 is an excerpt from ISO 17296-3:2014, based on the part requirements specified by
the product owners, as well as process-specific elements. An important consideration is that
additive manufacturing enables cost-effective production in low-volume, or even of single parts. This
is useful for spare parts production. However, this requires either Non-destructive testing (NDT),
Destructive testing (DT) on samples taken from the part (DT part) or from specimens (DT specimen)
which are produced together with the part. Finally, the design freedom of AMT enables the
production of organic shapes. However, (internal) measurements on organic shapes proves difficult.
Again, testing on sample, or specimens allows for an indication of part performance characteristics.
Table 1 - Overview for testing based on ISO 17293-3:2014
Testing Category Testing Procedure ISO Standard Suggested
Surface Requirements
Surface Texture 1302 /4288
Geometrical Requirements
Geometrical Tolerancing
1101, 2786-2
Mechanical Requirements
Hardness 6507
Tensile Strength 6892-1*
Compressive Strength 4506
Build Material Requirements
Density 3369
Physical and physico-chemical properties
5579
Additional Microstructure (DT) 9934-1
Corrosion Test ASTM-G48-11:2015
Open water performance test
Marin internal – Measuring Force [N], and Moment [Nm]
18
5.3 Expected results
The following table describes the expected result of the tests conducted for Work Package 4. For
each demonstrator the test procedure is described – with additional comments as described in the
previous paragraph. Finally, the partner who will conduct testing procedure is indicate, with an
indication for the week number when the results are to be expected. NB. The week number may
vary based on the availability of the part, process and test facility.
Part
Name
Product
Owner
Test procedure Who? When?
[Week
2016]
Propeller Marin Geometrical Tolerancing
Open Water Performance Test – Force [N], Moment [Nm]
Tensile test - Destructive Testing (DT) on specimen
Microstructure - On specimen
Marin (all) tbd
Cooled
Valve
seat
Ruysch Surface Texture – DT, on part, outside and inside
Geometrical Tolerancing
Hardness
Compressive Strength – On part, Tooling required
Density – DT sample
Microstructure – DT sample
Ruysch
NLR
NLR
NLR
NLR
NLR
4
5
5
5
5
5
Spacer
ring
Huisman Surface Texture – DT, on part, outside
Geometrical Tolerancing
Hardness – DT sample
Tensile Strength – DT sample
Density – DT sample
Microstructure – DT sample
Revamo
Revamo
Revamo
NLR
NLR
NLR
4
4
4
5
5
5
Hinge Fokker Surface Texture – DT, on part, outside
Geometrical Tolerancing
Tensile Strength – DT sample
Density – DT sample
Microstructure – DT sample
NLR
NLR
NLR
NLR
NLR
5
5
5
5
5
T-
connector
Heerema Corrosion Test – G48 3Dealise tbd
19
6 Cost and ROI
6.1 Approach towards business case and return on investment
To get a clear insight in the investments and operational costs involved for producing maritime
spare parts via 3D Printing, a number of typical maritime / industrial parts were selected to be
printed and tested (demonstrator parts).
The main purpose of this cost and ROI investigation is to get tangible indications on cost
differences between traditional manufacturing and additive manufacturing, when looking at impacted
elements of the value chain.
The figure below indicates the kind of activities in the value chain and the breadth of topics that can
be impacted when stepping over to AM.
The pilot project was not intended to give full and definite answers to all possible 3D printing options
for maritime spare parts. The goal was to obtain initial information and learn about major aspects to
consider when looking at possibly 3D printing a spare part. In this report the focus mainly is on:
The manufacturing and assembly process;
The cost and volume topics associated with printing the demonstrator part.
Per demonstrator part an indication of current costs versus AM costs will be given.
The other elements in the chart above will be briefly touched upon or commented in a generic
manner.
20
To indicate what the specific benefits of AM are for the parts researched, the overview below will be
used to categorise the benefits.
Where possible the actual costs and cost benefits will be indicated. When those costs are not
available, a qualitative indication of benefits will be stated.
The table above indicates a number of broad aspects to think of. Of course further detail can be
achieved. For instance: lower costs can also be achieved when preparing 'near net shape’ parts or
prototypes, which leads to reduced machining'.
The overview already indicates that in a number of cases the comparison between traditional
manufacturing or AM is not a clear cut part price comparison. For instance, a more functional design
might be more expensive to produce, but the added value or ease of operation might lead to (cost
benefits) further on in the value chain. A shorter time to market might be more costly, but when this
leads to a shorter standstill of the ship or the ability to save a perishable cargo the business case is
still positive.
A full Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is often the best format to compare cost of traditional manufacturing
with costs of additive manufacturing, and decide on which method to select from a total cost of
ownership standpoint.
6.2 Generic cost indications for the use of Additive Manufacturing (AM)
Before going into detail on the various parts, some generic outlines for this specifics cost and ROI
comparison are indicated. These generic aspects do not only apply to the parts research, but also to
21
other spare parts in the maritime and other industries. These aspects relate to the specific aspects
of AM and the economic impact of (starting to) use a new production method for previously
traditionally manufactured parts.
6.2.1 Investment in AM machines vs working with AM service providers
Initially many industrials looking into Additive Manufacturing research the possibilities with the
purchase of an Additive Manufacturing machine in mind. The business case they want to build is
about earning back the investment for the AM machine, by lower production costs and other lower
operational costs (warehousing, transportation etc). Delving into the details quickly learns that this
is a hard case to build, especially for metal AM machines. On one hand the investment in the
machine needs to be amortised over the production of the parts. Especially when moulds or other
specialized tooling is still available and not completely written off, the costs involved are high. In
view of the production capacity, extra costs for design, certification, software etc. using an AM
machine to replace current machining to produce identical spare parts is often not economically
viable. Unfortunately we see that in most of the cases this also leads to putting AM on the back
burner all together.
A more realistic approach is to compare 3D printing a part with other purchased parts processes.
When ordering a part or product from a ‘jobber’ the investment in the machines, software, tooling,
training etc. is taken into account in the cost price quoted by the jobber. In this project we take a
similar stance. The demonstrator parts are ordered and compared to the regular price when
traditional parts are ordered. In this way the additional costs for both the Traditional and the AM part
are covered by the service fee of the service provider, and a fair comparison is made.
6.2.2 Certification & Classification of 3D printed parts compared to standard production
The AM process as such has not been standardised, and norms for AM produced parts are not
determined yet. To be able to certify and classify AM parts this would mean that for any part
produced a second part should be produced in exactly the same build, which can be put to the test.
In situations where smaller series are being produced this might be an extra cost that can be
overcome by other benefits of AM (see matrix above). It might lead to producing parts on stock and
as such limiting the benefits of production on demand. Also when standards are not available yet,
every batch needs to be certified, which leads to even higher qualification costs.
When producing only one part (which actually means two parts: one for use and one for testing) this
will most probably immediately lead to a negative business case compared to a traditionally
produced part.
Certification is not an issue when AM is used for producing tooling (such as mould printing for
casting) , as the end product is produced with a conventional certified or certifiable process.
For this cost and ROI comparison we assume that we are working under near future conditions (let’s
say 5 years from now) when there are standards and norms, and certification can be carried out
22
comparable to traditionally manufactured parts1. Introducing a new material or changing the design
of a part will in both cases (traditional or AM) lead to a new qualification. But once this is done, parts
similarly produced do not require new inspection, apart from customary quality control.
6.2.3 Cost impact of tax and legal aspects
You could try to compare the situation (1) where a part is being produced in China and send to the
Rotterdam harbour with the situation (2) that a silo of powder is shipped from Asia and the same
part is being additively manufactured in the Rotterdam harbour.
In situation 1 the added value of production is being incorporated in the parts price. Import duties
are levied, profits on the value add are being taxed. The part certification indicates the legitimacy of
the part and provides protection for any IP infringement.
Any malfunction of the part can be claimed, based on common practice and trade laws.
In situation 2, the value add for production takes place in Rotterdam. The import duties in the
powder might be lower or even 0 in specific cases, leading to lower customs tax costs. Once the
part is produces in the Rotterdam harbour, VAT is added to a part price that might be complete
different than the price of the original part. To make sure that the part is legitimate a certified file,
indication the consent of the designer must be available in the case of a ‘regular spare part’. In case
the part was specifically designed or redesigned based on customer specification, the ownership of
the IP on the part is debatable. Claims regarding malfunction of the part differ. The might be a topic
based on the specific agreement between the customer and the part producer. But what when the
producer downloaded the certified file and processed it according to best business practices?
As you can see, this simple example shows that no generic indications can be given on tax benefits
and legal aspects. For the coming years this will require a case–by-case evaluation. For single parts
and on-offs a quick evaluation will suffice to see if unsurmountable issues arise or not. In many
instances this will not be the case, shipping powder and producing a part in one piece by AM will
indeed be more cheaply that forging, welding and assembling a very complex part and shipping is
across the globe.
For series production of highly standardised parts the quick evaluation might lead to the selection of
more traditional production methods.
6.2.4 Sustainability (environmental impact)
One of the benefits of AM is the concept of production ‘on demand and on location’. This means
indicates that AM allows you to refrain from having a large number of products on stock in a central
warehouse and/or many local warehouses. Instead, a digital file is send to ‘a 3D-printer near you’
where a single part is being manufactured. This overcomes many miles of transportation, lowering
fuel consumption and emissions. Although this vision will be reality in the near future (actual it is
1 In work package 4 a full overview of the qualification of the demonstrator parts is shown, including the current
process set up and cost might you want to use AM produced parts right away
23
reality with many parts ordered at local service providers right now) the environmental impact is hard
to determine. How many kilometres less? How much fuel less? It all depends on the case specific
circumstances.
Also increased environmental benefits can be obtained after production. Lightweight products,
better designed products and more durable products due to less assembly will create sustainability
advantages. For instance, better flow patterns of a propeller can create a few percentages of
efficiency gains. But for a large machine using many KW’s of energy in full continuous production,
these few percentages translate in a large benefit in energy gains over the years.
It can be foreseen that especially in the transportation areas like the Maritime industry, the use of
‘on demand, on location’ will increase significantly. Especially when standardisation and qualification
issues are solved locally produced parts will have a delivery time advantage over spare parts
shipped from afar. Lower opportunity costs that are caused by a standstill of equipment will often
show a positive business case. But also in this case: How beneficial, what specific difference? It
depends on case-by-case circumstances.
6.2.5 Summary
In summary, the cost comparison and ROI indication below takes into account:
Comparing third party traditionally produced parts with service provider produced AM parts;
A comparable qualification and certification process as with traditionally produced parts
using known and qualified materials;
No specific benefits or drawbacks from tax or legal aspects, as they are case-by-case
specific and require investigation beyond the scope of this project;
Environmental impact can be found in any of the given demonstrator cases, but needs to be
calculated based on the specific situation.
24
6.3 Use cases and impact on cost
6.3.1 Model for assessment
To assess the pros, cons and requirements of AM for the 7
selected demonstrator parts the following model is used:
Part name <name part and owner> Benefits expected
Actual cost when 3D printing < price as indicated
by service provider>
<quantitative and qualitative
benefits, related to the benefits
matrix as indicated in chapter 1 > Traditional production costs < price as indicated
by owner>
Timing, testing and other issues <aspects and issues per part>
Conclusion <initial indication of likelihood to select 3D printing for this part / this
product group>
When reviewing the following demonstrator descriptions, please realise that in this project the cost
for production were considerably lower than the actual commercial prices in a number of cases. The
production partners were eager to learn about the possibilities to meet industry standards and get a
feel for the practical possibilities of producing maritime spare parts. Therefor out-of-pocket cost
prices without regular mark ups were used to keep the projects costs at a bare minimum
Also, in the following slides the planning for production is not always taken into account when stating
the ‘production time’. As availability of the machine is essential this might lead to a longer delivery
time of the demonstrator parts in real life situations
25
6.2.2 Use case Propeller Marin
Part name Propeller / Marin Benefits expected
Actual cost when 3D printing € 5000 – 7000 (DMG Mori) Form freedom, delivering
more efficient propeller
Longer lifetime, when
produced in one piece
(compared to assemble /
welded original)
Faster production / delivery
when on demand, on location
is possible (distributed
manufacturing)
Sustainability (less material
used)
Compared to traditional
manufacturing methods
(assembling and welding) the
quality of the propeller will
increase.(exact pitch and
shape)
Traditional production costs € 5000 - 7000
Timing, testing and other issues
(NB for this part testing is carried out
by Marin itself, testing cost indicated
reveal assumed 3rd party testing costs)
Production AM part 4 wks
Newly programming a new
propeller: 1 to 2 weeks
Programming additions on
standard AM file: 3 days
Machining / finishing of AM
part: 1 to 2 days
Production time is 1 – 2
weeks but really dependent
on machine availability
Testing costs would be
between € 500 - € 1000
Conclusion
When looking at this propeller or other voluminous, multi-curved metal
parts, traditional production is complex and form freedom is limited.
Currently production of such parts by AM is in a learning curve.
Software programming for the production of the propeller is available
now. When experience is buildup, programming the additive
manufacturing process for any new propellers should be possible in 3
to 5 days maximum.
New software functionality will become available with new versions of
the software. In the near future, when software is available and
certification processes are in place, timing and durability aspects will
favour AM for single parts or small series.
26
6.3.2 Use case Valve Seat Ruijsch
Part name Valve seat / Ruijsch Benefits expected
Actual cost when 3D printing € 2400 (EOS) One-piece or small series
production is beneficial, as
valve seats come in many
variations.
Fast production compared to
traditional batch production
Added functionality: One
piece production including the
conformal cooling channels
deliver more reliable parts.
Traditional production costs € 203
NB Minimum batch 80 pieces =€ 16.240
Timing, testing and other issues
Production AM part:
2 days (31 hrs)
NB planning not included
Production current valve seat
: 2 months
Testing cost AM: € 150
Heat treatment € 300 per part
for AM
Finishing TBD
Conclusion
Per part price comparison is in favour of Traditional manufacturing,
unless the required number of parts is far less than the batch size (in
this case 8 pieces or more would lead to ordering a 80 piece batch).
We may expect material prices to fall and production speed to
increase in the near future to partly mitigate this difference.
Speed of production is now already in favour of AM. When this is a ‘life
or death-situation’ (eg perishable cargo cannot cope with 2 months
delivery) AM will be selected.
Finishing requirements are to be analysed in view of the cooling channel structures, mounting face finish (flat surface) and the face that contacts the valve (conical surface);
Test results show promising outcomes: the 3D printed part performed well in comparable mechanical testing experiments.
NB when a multi-functional machine like DMG Mori is available specifically these parts could be produced with the proper tolerances with one machine.
27
6.3.3 Use case Spacer ring Huisman
Part name Spacer ring / Huisman Benefits expected
Actual cost when 3D printing € 1700 (Revamo) Fast delivery
Multiple material printing
allows for situation specific
coating. (hybrid materials)
Traditional production costs € 1100 final machined condition
Timing, testing and other issues
Production AM part:
2-3 weeks
Production spacer ring:
4 - 6 weeks
Testing cost: € 350
Conclusion
After final machining, when the quality delivered meets the
requirement and passes the tests, the AM produced spacer rings can
immediately be used in real life.
The original ring of 1.4418 material was replaced by a 316 stainless
steel ring covered with a wear- and corrosion resistant laser cladding.
The weight of these materials is about the same: no weight savings.
28
6.3.4 Use case Hinge Fokker
Part name Hinge Fokker Benefits expected
Actual cost when 3D printing € 1628 (EOS)
NB for 2 parts in one build:
2 * €1197 = € 2394
Optimisation of design for
light weight (leading to less
fuel consumption)
Fast delivery possible
Batch size (small series
production)
Traditional production costs € 480
NB minimum batch 5- 10 pieces =
€ 2400 – 4800)
Timing, testing and other issues
NB for this part testing is carried out by
Fokker themselves, testing cost
indicated reveal assumed 3rd party
testing costs)
Production AM part:
16 (one)-24(two) hours
Production original Hinge:
1 month
Testing: 1500
Conclusion
The validation process for a new part (and this hinge would be
deemed new based on new design, material used and production
process) takes quite some time. In aerospace this is a matter of years.
Fast production would be of interest only when these validation
processes can be adjusted to AM process and benefits.
In aerospace, but also in heavily classified other industries like
Maritime) introducing new parts as a spare part is therefore often not
economically viable. But using the technology from scratch does
deliver the benefits as indicated above in the near future.
29
6.3.5 Use case T-connector Heerema
Part name T-connector / Heerema Benefits expected
Actual cost when 3D printing € 2300 (4 inch prototype)
€ 6000 (14 inch part.estimation)
Fast production
Form freedom allowing for
mass customisation
In many cases no finishing
required (for larger, complex
parts)
Traditional production costs € 350 (3 inch)
€ 2500 (14 inch) 1 piece)
€ 1500 when ordering 5 or more
pieces
Timing, testing and other issues Production AM part:
2-3 weeks
Production original connector:
2 month
Testing: € 310
Conclusion
The AM sand casting process is more expensive on a kilo by kilo
basis than forging :
14” is 4x more expensive in AM sand + casting that regular
forging, (AM = 6000 euro per piece)
4” is 13x more expensive in AM sand + casting that regular
forging, (AM= 2300 euro per piece)
The fast production and delivery of AM could definitely be an
advantage. Currently products are often handmade and need finishing,
which is a time consuming process.
For single pieces that are required in a very short period of time AM
could be an alternative. As soon as series go up (5 pieces or more)
the cost advantages of traditional manufacturing are substantial.
The possibility in the future to refrain from having many shapes and
sizes of connectors on stock when using AM, could lead to substantial
savings.
30
6.3.6 Use case Seal Jig Aegir
Part name Seal Jig / Aegir Benefits expected
Actual cost when 3D printing € 946 (aluminium)
produced on SLM Solutions 500
Fast production
Form freedom allowing for
mass customisation
Valid alternative when series
of one or immediate delivery
is required.
NB faster service from 3D
printing service provider is
possible. Delivery in 1 week
is realistic.
Traditional production costs € 600 per part for 1 piece
€ 370 when ordering 5 pieces
+
€ 400 one time cost for tooling
Timing, testing and other issues Production AM part:
2 to 3 weeks:
Finishing (screw adjustment):
1 hour
Production original seal jig:
6 weeks
Conclusion
The Aegir part was initially not selected.
A prototype was produced in Nylon (by Oceanz, € 30).
Aegir used that file and ordered an aluminium part with Shapeways.
That part was delivered 4 weeks. 15 working days is possible
Material ‘raw aluminium’ (Shapeways)
Heat conduction is fine.(tested with Aegir heater). The tape used to
prevent the seal from sticking to the jig does not stay fixed. But
solutions can be found for this. Furthermore similar functionality as
original part.
Initial surface roughness Ra 9,5 mu (measured by Aegir). After
treatment (sanding) roughness is 6 mu (desired level)
Hardness is approximately 120 HB (Brinell)
Holes and screws to be added later on. Printing threaded holes not yet
possible. But can be added in one hour.
31
6.3.7 Use case Manifold Huisman
Part name Manifold / Huisman Benefits expected
Actual cost when 3D printing € 30 for nylon prototype without
internal thread
Optimization for use (one
piece design overcomes
pressure losses, limits heat
exchange, etc.)
Form freedom allowing for
lightweight and smaller
manifolds
Material savings
Traditional production costs € 200 in SS316 final machined
Timing, testing and other issues AM part produced in 1 day
Production original part: 4 – 6
weeks
Conclusion
The manifold was not selected as a metal demonstration part.
Nevertheless the Oceanz test part showed the possibilities to design
and produce a 40-60% smaller and 60-80% lighter part than the
original.
The benefits of AM in creating circular internal channels and optimized
design were indicated. AM can make it possible to realize designs that
cannot be made by conventional techniques.
32
7 Conclusions and lessons learned
7.1 General
When comparing AM with traditional manufacturing, an integral, life time comparison is required.
The demonstrator cases clearly indicate that a per part production cost comparison is hardly ever
possible. The specific circumstances need to be valued and the benefits of faster production or
design optimization need to be factored in. This makes it hard to give quantitative rules of thumb on
savings or cost levels for (groups of) products in general.
When looking at the benefits expected in the near future (the situation in which AM is mature and
accredited as a legitimate production technology for maritime parts), trends we see are:
AM allows for faster production
o New parts can be prototyped (nylon or other plastics) and fitted. Based on that design
(captured in a CAD stl. File) a metal part can be additively manufactured in a matter of
days, where traditional manufacturing often takes weeks to months.
o In view of the fact that the ship carries cargo that is either in need or perishable, a
positive business case can almost always be indicated (production cost € thousands vs
cargo value € millions).
AM requires less tooling, less investments
o Contrary to public opinion, AM requires less investments in tooling and other production
process related costs. Instead of factoring in the amortisation of an expensive 3D
printing machine, making use of service providers can easily overcome these costs.
o As no expensive moulds are required, or cheap moulds or dies can be produced by 3D
printing, allowing for smaller series to be produced.
AM allows for optimisation of design
o As we saw in the propeller, valve seat, hinge and manifold cases, lightweight adjusted
designs can lead to more efficient use. Quantifying the efficiency gained often helps to
make a positive business case (€ thousand for production of part vs 5 -20% more
efficient processes or process cost reductions)
o Customer demand needs to be very clear and the added value of a better solution
needs to be made tangible to have the proper discussion with your customer about the
selection of the production technology.
Realistically we have also seen that many of these benefits cannot be obtained right now.
Standardisation, classification, quality control, validation of design and product, all needs to be
addressed to reach a situation in which international governing bodies have the rules and
regulations in place to use AM in a similar manner as traditional manufacturing methods. In view of
the expected benefits, the pressure will be on these authorities to create advances in this field in the
near future. The AM roadmap (issued in 2014, see http://www.rm-platform.com/index.php/rm-
article/36-info/99-additive-manufacturing-roadmap) gives good overview of the state of the art and
the expected milestones in this respect.
33
7.2 Part Specific
7.2.1 Demonstrator 1: Propeller Marin
General
What did you learn about the
possibilities of 3D printing for
your industry?
3D printing offers many possibilities. Marin already uses 3D
printing for additions to ship models. Especially aspects like
double curved lines (already printed in polymers) and form
freedom are of interest. We see a need for our engineers to
further develop 3D printing possibilities for parts in all kinds of
materials, especially different kinds of metal.
WP1 Part selection
What are your observations on
selecting parts?
Engineers are not always ready to or educated to ‘Think Free
Form’.
WP 2 Material selection
What are your observations for
material selection?
Titanium is a lightweight material, with many possibilities for the
maritime industry. Especially the lower needs for propulsion
power and thus less fuel consumption offers interesting
possibilities.
WP 3 Production
What have you learned about
producing your part?
Please also quantitative aspects
like part specifics, functionality
Time is always an issue. In projects like these delays are to be
expected.
We learned that our part could be produced in one go, whereas
the original part was an assembly of 6 sub-parts.
WP 4 Testing
What have you learned about
quality and usability of AM
produced parts
Part Information
Testing set-up
Results
Pending results
WP 5 ROI and costs
What are your observations on
the economic viability of AM?
120 hours for conventional production might be lowered to 40
hours when 3D printing.
General Conclusions
- What is required to start
using AM?
Preparation for production is an issue. Aspects like tooling,
software, materials choices need close attention. The idea to us a
support axle did not work out well in practice. Integrating the axle
and screw hub to prevent distortion during milling need to be fine-
34
- Which bottlenecks to
overcome?
tuned. This si a new manufacturing strategy which requires a
second build.
The cladding process itself already works relatively smooth.
TOPS: Which 3 aspects did you like most?
1. Build clusters and cooperate. Open
innovation works.
2. Being forced to think out of the box
really delivered new insights
TIPS: Which 3 aspects did miss?
1.
2.
3.
35
7.2.2 Demonstrator 2: Valve Seat Ruijsch
General
What did you learn about the
possibilities of 3D printing for
your industry?
The pilot was a learning experience. Printing real parts that meet
norms and standards is not possible for us. Production and 3D
scanning is relatively slow and costly compared to conventional
manufacturing. In 2 to 3 years’ time it will be possible at industrial
quality levels. Optimized software to support design and
production will lead to cost effective opportunities.
WP1 Part selection
What are your observations on
selecting parts?
The selection of parts to produce was somewhat traditional, less
ambitious than expected. Our part was technical and focused on
the benefits of AM. Still the diversity of parts was wide, which
gave good learnings.
WP 2 Material selection
What are your observations for
material selection?
Advise on material selection was somewhat limited. The 3D
experts are more focused on the process than the materials. The
input from IHC/ MTI was essential. The need to combine process
and material expertise is one of the learnings in this project.
WP 3 Production
What have you learned about
producing your part?
First observation is that printing the part flat was perhaps not the
best choice. Other orientations might give better material
properties.
WP 4 Testing
What have you learned about
quality and usability
Final quality results still to be obtained
WP 5 ROI and costs
What are your observations on
the economic viability of AM?
Traditionally produced the part costs € 75. The AM version was €
700. For regular use or on stock, this is too expensive. But in
emergency cases, 3D printing would be an interesting and
economically viable alternative, at least when quality is sufficient.
General Conclusions
- What is required to start
using AM?
- Which bottlenecks to
overcome?
Costs price needs to come down and more research is required
to improve on the attractiveness of AM for our parts. Total time of
the process (from re-design up to production) needs to decrease.
Still opportunities are interesting and we want to stay involved in
future developments around AM
TOPS: Which 3 aspects did you like most?
1. Diversity in project group with experts on
process, materials and market.
2. Classification information
3. Total project brought us up to speed: from 0
to in the know about AM
TIPS: Which 3 aspects did miss?
1. More challenging parts
2.
3.
36
7.2.3 Demonstrator 3: Spacer ring Huisman
General
What did you learn about the
possibilities of 3D printing for
your industry?
Especially fit for relatively small parts where no Class rules apply.
When delivery time for new parts can be decreased to one week
or less, there are possibilities for temporary replacement parts.
Laser cladding is interesting for application of wear or corrosion
resistant layers.
WP1 Part selection
What are your observations on
selecting parts?
The restrictions and possibilities for powders and AM machines
were leading in the selection process.
WP 2 Material selection
What are your observations for
material selection?
The material selection is restricted to available powders and
machines that can handle these powders. This restricts the use of
(extra) high strength carbon steel. Most powders are high alloyed
for corrosion / wear resistance or light weight material .
WP 3 Production
What have you learned about
producing your part?
Please also quantitative
aspects like part specifics,
functionality
The spacer ring was produced by laser cladding of a forging. This
makes it possible to combine properties: toughness and corrosion
resistance of the forging and corrosion and wear resistance of the
cladding. After printing machining is still needed.
WP 4 Testing
What have you learned about
quality and usability of AM
produced parts
A bit trial and error. Some parts can be used, others not.
Information is lacking as the testing is not completed yet. As
cladding is permitted, we expect that the spacer ring although can
be used in practice.
WP 5 ROI and costs
What are your observations on
the economic viability of AM?
The smaller and more complicated the parts, the more economic
AM will be compared to classic methods.
General Conclusions
- What is required to start
using AM?
- Which bottlenecks to
overcome?
- Have production facilities;
- Have class rules;
- Become more familiar AM;
TOPS: Which 3 aspects did you like most?
1. Gives new possibilities in general.
2. Can reduce weight.
3. Can combine materials.
TIPS: Which 3 aspects did miss?
1. Functional testing.
2.
3.
37
7.2.4 Demonstrator 4: Hinge Fokker
General
What did you learn about the
possibilities of 3D printing for
your industry?
There is currently a niche for AM products, but this can be much
larger when the designs are changed with AM in mind.
WP1 Part selection
What are your observations on
selecting parts?
Most selected parts did not have specific optimized designs for
AM, the real potential of AM is when the design is changed with
the freedom AM offers: good example is the hydraulic manifold
WP 2 Material selection
What are your observations for
material selection?
Most steels and focussing on powders, wires where not
considered.
WP 3 Production
What have you learned about
producing your part?
Please also quantitative
aspects like part specifics,
functionality
Hybrid AM-substractive systems are not mature yet
Powder bed systems for metals are mature (for prototyping);
design refinements were necessary for producibility, visually the
part looks good, mechanical properties still unknown
WP 4 Testing
What have you learned about
quality and usability of AM
produced parts
Test still have to be performed
WP 5 ROI and costs
What are your observations on
the economic viability of AM?
For the Fokker part it was not economical viable at this moment,
but the trend is going the right direction. Mechanical properties
and process robustness are still a question mark
General Conclusions
- What is required to start
using AM?
- Which bottlenecks to
overcome?
Required is good knowledge about design for AM
Bottlenecks are process robustness and price
TOPS: Which 3 aspects did you like most?
1. Collaboration between parties
2. Enthusiasm about AM
3. Cross-sectoral Maritime-Aerospace
TIPS: Which 3 aspects did miss?
1. Lack of support by DMG-Mori
2. Design aspects
3. Logistical aspects
38
7.2.5 Demonstrator 5: T-connector Heerema
General
What did you learn about the
possibilities of 3D printing for
your industry?
3D printing of moulds was unknown and solves the problem of
current high kilo cladding costs. When re-engineering in 3D model
capabilities is available a very fast and relative cheap CAD CAM
process for manufacturing of a mould is possible.
WP1 Part selection
What are your observations on
selecting parts?
Our problem is the size of parts. Current machines are to small.
WP 2 Material selection
What are your observations for
material selection?
For smaller parts we only have TAT problems with exotic
materials like duplex. This does not affect the 3D printing of the
mould. But with the foundry we see problems with this material.
The porosity of the duplex gives problems.
WP 3 Production
What have you learned about
producing your part?
Please also quantitative aspects
like part specifics, functionality
Foundry problems with the first part, probably caused by a
cleaning problem of the mould just before the casting process.
The second parts waits on a discussion over the porosity seen on
the surface of the casting, because current parts don’t have this.
The question is if this porosity will be acceptable.
WP 4 Testing
What have you learned about
quality and usability of AM
produced parts
Problems see WP3
WP 5 ROI and costs
What are your observations on
the economic viability of AM?
Potential for one off parts and parts which require a short
manufacturing time
General Conclusions
- What is required to start
using AM?
- Which bottlenecks to
overcome?
Further testing to see if material problems are solvable.
Then Re-engineering capabilities to secure short lead time
TOPS: Which 3 aspects did you like most?
1. New possibilities in general
2. Requirement to make small steps to be
successful (Huisman case)
3. The correlation between printing time and
surface roughness (Other cases)
TIPS: Which 3 aspects did miss?
1. Too many machine sellers, missing more in
depth expertise like on material by IHC MTI
was lacking for the printing process
2. With Siemens programming was giving
delays: causes and solutions for this in the
future are still a question mark
39
Annex 1 – Database of typical maritime parts and their AM applicability
1 Propeller Marin (real/scale)
2 Cooled valve seat Ruysch
3 Space ring Huisman
4 Hinge Fokker
5 T connector Heerema
6 Jig to glue seals Aegir
7 Hydraulic manifold Huisman
8 Neck flange
9 Swivel connector
10 Wear rings (non ferro) bronze series of impeller
11 Mechanical seal
12 Eccentric reducer
13 Worm wheel (bronze)
14 Worm shaft (alloy steel)
15 Piston for air compressor (non ferro)
16 Structural fastener
17 Bearing shell (tri metal)
18 Box heat exchanger
19 Screw pin shackle
20 Open spelter socket
21 Wire rope cable sheave
22 Twist lock pin
23 Alum / Steel transition joint
24 Hydraulic hose end fitting
25 Eyebolt
26 Exhaust gas manifold
27 Weldolet
28 Turbocharger nozzle ring
29 Turbocharger gas inlet/outlet casing
30 Valve constituent parts (valve disk)
Part
Co
ns
olid
ati
on
Weig
ht/
Vo
lum
e R
ed
uc
tio
n
Inte
gra
ted
Fu
nc
tio
na
lity
Les
s W
as
te
Lo
w V
olu
me
Lea
d T
ime
Inv
en
tory
Su
pp
lie
r R
isk
Lo
ca
tio
n b
as
ed
co
sts
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
AM benefit score
AM
Sco
re
8
3
5
8
4
4
4
0
0
5
3
5
0
0
1
0
3
7
3
3
4
0
4
0
0
9
3
9
7
2
High potential; potential for part consilidation, weight reduction,
improve functionality,
Medium potential due to high volume production of part, complexity
medium
High potential due to low volume part, long lead time, high cost to
manufacture
High potential; Weight reduction, less waste, part optimized for AM
production
Medium potential; cost reduction in making of cast, surface
roughness is issue
Medium potential; reduction in logistic costs only if printed locally
where part is needed, long lead time
Medium protential; weight reduction, integrated functionality
Technically and economically not challenging enough compared
with conventional manufacturing
Threaded rod technically not feasible with DMG, EOS, Ex-One and
economically not challenging enough compared with conventional
manufacturing
Medium potential; new super alloys could reduce wear and tear,
increase livespan impeller
Medium potential; part consolidation, integrated functionality if
technically feasible
Medium potential; depending on size (large size, low volume
production)
Threaded rod technically not feasible with DMG, EOS, Ex-One and
economically not challenging enough compared with conventional
manufacturing
Threaded rod technically not feasible with DMG, EOS, Ex-One and
economically not challenging enough compared with conventional
manufacturing
Technically feasible, economically not challenging enough
compared with conventional manufacturing
Technically and economically not challenging enough compared
with conventional manufacturing
Potential for lasercladding different materials on base material, cost
of convential production probably cheaper
High potential; Part consolidation, weight reduction etc. proven
benefits in other markets for instance formula 1
Medium potential; depending on size (large size, low volume)
Medium potential; depending on size (large size, low volume)
Medium potential; part consolidation, integrate functionality such as
hardness of material to reduce wear and tear
Technically and economically not challenging enough compared
with conventional manufacturing
Medium potential; part consolidation,low volume production part,
few suppliers. Technically feasible to be determined.
Threaded rod technically not feasible with DMG, EOS, Ex-One and
economically not challenging enough compared with conventional
manufacturing
Threaded rod technically not feasible with DMG, EOS, Ex-One and
economically not challenging enough compared with conventional
manufacturing
High potential; depending on complexity of the manifold, potential
weight reduction, production volume
Medium potential: potential to consolidate parts/improve
functionality, however surface finish important factor to take into
consideration
High potential: improve heat and corrosion resistance, reduce long
lead times, see for instance Tru Marine Singapore example
High potential; potential for part consilidation, weight reduction,
improve functionality
Technically and economically not challenging enough compared
with conventional manufacturing
40
1. Propeller Marin
2. Valve seat Rusysch 3. Spacer ring Huisman
4. Hinge Fokker 5. T-connector Heerema 6. Jig Aegir
7. Manifold Huisman
8. Neck flange
9. Swivel connector
41
10. Wear rings impellel
11. Mechanical seal
12. Eccentric reducer
13. Worm wheel
14. Worm shaft
15. Piston for air compressor
16. Structural fastener
17. Bearing shell 18. Box heat exchanger
19. Screw pin shackle
20. Open spelter socket
21. Wire rope cable sheave
42
22. Twist lock pin
23. Alu / Steel transition joint
24. Hydraulic hose end fitting
25. Eyebolt
26. Exhaust gas manifold
27. Weldolet
28. Turbocharger nozzle ring
29. Turbocharger gas inlet/outlet
casing
30. Valve constituent parts
43
44
Annex 2 – Infographic
45
46
Annex 3 - Test Report – Supporting Data
Table 2 - Excerpt from ISO 17296-3:2014
Appearance 16348
Surface Texture 1302 /4288
Colour 11664-i [i = 1 - 5]
Size,length and angle
dimensions, dimensional
tolerances
129-1, 286-1,
14405-1, 1938-
1c, 2786-1
Geometrical tolerancing
(deviations in shape and
position) 1101, 2786-2
Hardness 6507
Tensile strength 6892-1a
Impact Strength 148-j j = 1,2(charpy)a
Compressive Strength 4506
Flexural Strength 3327
Fatigue Strength 1099,1143
Creep 204
Ageing Not relevant
Frictional coefficient
No ISO
specified
Shear Resistance 148-1
Crack Extension 2889
Density 3369
5579
3452-k k = [1,2]
61675 nb. IEC not ISO
Additional Microstructure (DT) 9934-1
Build Material Requirements
Physical and physico-
chemical properties
Surface Requirements
Geometric Requirements
Mechanical Requirements
Suggested ISO standard for Metal
Testing