Final Report - Port of Rotterdam...Final Report Rotterdam January 25, 2016 . 2 Pilot Project 3D...

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


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


Hardness – DT sample

Tensile Strength – DT sample



Revamo

Revamo

Revamo

NLR

NLR

NLR

4

4

4

5

5

5

Hinge Fokker Surface Texture – DT, on part, outside


Tensile Strength – 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


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


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)


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


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.)


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.

http://www.rm-platform.com/index.php/rm-article/36-info/99-additive-manufacturing-roadmap

http://www.rm-platform.com/index.php/rm-article/36-info/99-additive-manufacturing-roadmap

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


quality and usability of AM

produced parts

Part Information

Testing set-up

Results

Pending results

WP 5 ROI and costs


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



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


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.



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



First observation is that printing the part flat was perhaps not the

best choice. Other orientations might give better material

properties.

WP 4 Testing


quality and usability

Final quality results still to be obtained

WP 5 ROI and costs



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


using AM?


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


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


1. More challenging parts

2.

3.

36

7.2.3 Demonstrator 3: Spacer ring Huisman

General



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


selecting parts?

The restrictions and possibilities for powders and AM machines

were leading in the selection process.



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



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



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



The smaller and more complicated the parts, the more economic

AM will be compared to classic methods.

General Conclusions


using AM?


overcome?

- Have production facilities;

- Have class rules;

- Become more familiar AM;


1. Gives new possibilities in general.

2. Can reduce weight.

3. Can combine materials.


1. Functional testing.

2.

3.

37

7.2.4 Demonstrator 4: Hinge Fokker

General



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


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



material selection?

Most steels and focussing on powders, wires where not

considered.

WP 3 Production



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



produced parts

Test still have to be performed

WP 5 ROI and costs



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


using AM?


overcome?

Required is good knowledge about design for AM

Bottlenecks are process robustness and price


1. Collaboration between parties

2. Enthusiasm about AM

3. Cross-sectoral Maritime-Aerospace


1. Lack of support by DMG-Mori

2. Design aspects

3. Logistical aspects

38

7.2.5 Demonstrator 5: T-connector Heerema

General



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


selecting parts?

Our problem is the size of parts. Current machines are to small.



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



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



produced parts

Problems see WP3

WP 5 ROI and costs



Potential for one off parts and parts which require a short

manufacturing time

General Conclusions


using AM?


overcome?

Further testing to see if material problems are solvable.

Then Re-engineering capabilities to secure short lead time


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)


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)



manufacturing



manufacturing

Technically feasible, 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



Medium potential; part consolidation,low volume production part,

few suppliers. Technically feasible to be determined.



manufacturing



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



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

44

Annex 2 – Infographic

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

Final Report - Port of Rotterdam...Final Report Rotterdam January 25, 2016 . 2 Pilot Project 3D...

Documents

Transcript of Final Report - Port of Rotterdam...Final Report Rotterdam January 25, 2016 . 2 Pilot Project 3D...