Avoiding long downtimes
An interesting case study is the Crank Disk (see image on the next page) produced via LPBF by Aidro for Kongsberg. The original part, produced with conventional manufacturing, takes from 8 to 10 weeks while the 3D-printed part requires less than one week to be printed in Inconel 718, using EOS M290 printer. This is a good example of how AM can accelerate the replacement of parts and avoid long downtimes due to relatively long leadtimes.
Other case studies were made with LPBF or WAAM and all the JIPs members contributed to the production and testing of these 3D-printed parts. A variety of parts have been manufactured via the above-mentioned 3D-print technologies.
Parts were produced using Laser Powder Bed Fusion: an Equinor-impeller in Inconel 625 (printed by SLM Solution), the same impeller in Ti-6Al-4V (printed by Additive Industries), a Kongsberg propeller blade in titanium (printed by SLM Solution) and a Kongsberg crank disk ring in Inconel 718 (printed by Aidro with EOS printer) shown above.
Parts were produced using Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing: a Vallourec circulating head using X90 low-alloy construction steel, a BP cross-over in Inconel wire, in two versions: limited scale and full scale, a Kongsberg crank pin, using S700 lowalloyed wire and a Technip FMC/Total-designed crossover, using F22 alloy steel.
Business impact model
“Using real world parts is essential in a project like this”, says Valeria Tirelli, CEO of Aidro, one if the JIP-members. “Both the guideline and the business impact model need to be tested under conditions that resemble reallife situations. By using real world parts, it is possible to assess the differences between traditional manufacturing processes and the Additive Manufacturing process. There are advantages of AM across the supply chain. The main pro’s are faster manufacturing times, improved performance, lighter and more compact components.“
According to the JIP-group (see picture on the first page of this article), the guideline offers a quality assurance methodology for the selected Additive Manufacturing processes and parts. Parts are divided into three categories depending on the consequence of failure: AM Class 1 (AMC 1) is intended for non-critical components, AM Class 2 (AMC 2) is intended for less-critical components and AM Class 3 (AMC 3) is intended for critical components.
Depending on the AM-Class, different assurance steps are involved based on the AM-technology used, such as build process qualification testing, production testing and part qualification testing: