DS-NOV22-PG52+53_Layout 1 17/11/2022 14:10 Page 1


FEATURE ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING/3D PRINTING The AM Missing link? Merging DfAM AnD DATA Greg Rankin, spokesperson for CAD / CAM Services, explains


how an end-to-end digital manufacturing solution, designed for the Department of Defence (DoD), will enable large organisations to manage and scale their AM processes


A


dvanced manufacturing has yet to even crack the surface of what is possible. From generative design and


lightweighting to software simulation and decentralised production, the transition to digital manufacturing promises to unlock an enormous amount of potential. Despite this, large organisations – including military, aerospace, and automotive – are struggling to fully capitalise on these benefits due in large part to the complexities of integrating these technologies into an enterprise-wide solution. An ideal platform would combine the


capabilities of automated design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) and additive manufacturing build preparation with machine learning, data analytics, and manufacturing execution systems (MES) into one interface. This would enable design cycle times to be slashed from weeks to hours and decrease project costs, while at the same time the quality of each part would be perfected. Furthermore, supply chain complexities would be virtually eliminated because components could be designed in one part of the world and printed anywhere else on the planet – or even in space – with a push of a button. In fact the U.S. Navy has been trying to


tackle this very problem. Recently, through a Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) project, it requested bids on the development of an end-to-end additive manufacturing (AM) system that could be utilised across the entire Department of Defence (DoD).


printing where needed


“The Navy was looking for a streamlined process that would also have auditability and compliance certification,” explained Dr. Michael Bogomolny, co-founder and chief technology officer at ParaMatters Inc., a California-based industry- leading DfAM and generative design software provider. “I think CAD / CAM Services was


2


intuitive enough to know that this solution just can't be done by any one player.” CAD / CAM Services – a Texas-based prime


contractor for the U.S. federal government – was brought in to integrate the commercial- off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies into a single interface. This would enable the DoD, as well as other large manufacturers, to manage and scale their AM processes. “As a starting point, the Navy wanted to solve


the increasingly problematic issues of supply chains and logistics for, let’s say, an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Indian Ocean that needs a specific part immediately,” commented Scott Shuppert, CEO of CAD / CAM Services. “They want to be able to just push a button and have that part start printing directly on the ship’s 3D printer or the closest one available.” To enable this to take place, Shuppert and


his team had to provide a workable solution for each step along the lifespan of a part, from development and certification to service and replacement. This required matching each solution with the best possible technology provider along the way.


Starting on the frontend


“Eventually, the Navy and the DoD want to have a complete repository of every single part in its arsenal catalogued, certified and ready to be digitally manufactured by a 3D printer anywhere in the world,” said Shuppert. Transitioning to this advanced manufacturing


process requires that each component undertake a thorough assessment of its design. For example, as a starting point, is the part even capable of being digitally manufactured? “Think of the rotor blade on a helicopter.


That is just too big to be 3D printed, at least right now. So, that part gets rejected,” explained Shuppert. “Maybe the part has to be manufactured using an exotic metal or complex geometry which is not currently


5 DESIGN SOLUTIONS NOVEMBER 2022


possible for AM. That would also get dropped.” If the part is deemed acceptable, is it


best suited for additive or subtractive manufacturing? Could it be improved through generative design or material science? Does it need digital simulation and/or finite element analysis (FEA) – which can mathematically predict how a component will hold up under real-world forces like vibration, heat, fluid flow, and other physical effects? “For the DfAM and generative design aspect


of the system, we wanted to remove as much of the human element as possible from the design process. ParaMatters’ platform does this, and the things they are doing with additive simulation and FEA go far beyond what anyone else is capable of,” said Shuppert. “This made them our first choice for the Navy project because it reduces the complexity of having to integrate more than one system on the front end.” With ParaMatters’ platform the Navy can


simply input the characteristics it needs for a specific component and the software will optimise it through testing, simulations and inspection. The software selects the appropriate material, determines the best orientation for printing, where to include support structures, nests the parts on the build tray, and generates all slicing data for each component. It is also technology and material agnostic which was a critical feature for the Navy. Through generative design, this approach


will improve weight versus performance, structural integrity, and a variety of material properties. It can also reduce the number of parts required in an assembly by combining them into a single printed piece. “This is something that human knowledge


wouldn't be able to do in the first step of the design process,” explained Bogomolny. “So, you are then shortening the design cycle by order of magnitude.” These elements are then incorporated into a


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60