ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING IN DOD
Additive manufacturing (AM) is a transformative technology for users in both maintenance and manufacturing operations. Through partnerships with CTMA and other government programs, AM technologies have been introduced into our depot and maintenance centers allowing immediate production successes, and producing readiness improvements, cost and cycle time savings. These early uses of AM have just scratched the surface of the potential applications existing in our maintenance activities. Current implementations include additively built molds, cores and patterns for sand and investment castings, design prototypes, physical models for form, fit and functional testing, shop tooling and fixtures, masking for plating and cleaning operations, forms for hydroforming and press forming, composite layups, and non-critical replacement parts.
Depots & maintenance centers have begun to build the internal design and engineering capabilities to start converting legacy parts, no longer able to be procured or having critically long lead times, to part designs that can be grown directly from a digital model using AM, or cast from molds and patterns produced using AM and are working internally and with external standards organizations to define acceptable standards.
This forum will examine several forward-looking DoD efforts which include: transitioning metal AM technologies into appropriate applications in depots & maintenance centers; integrating 3D ‘direct write’ technologies into complex, multiple-material AM structures with integrated capabilities; transitioning AM applications into forward operating bases; establishing a secure, DoD data management design and storage center for the sharing of successful AM recipes and AM process specifications for AM parts/NSNs, forms and tools within the DoD and other secure Government complexes; and continuing AM standards development work with DoD interests in mind.
The Additive Manufacturing forum will be conducted virtually via Defense Collaboration Services. The link and audio information are below:
We will be using a separate line for audio:
Conference ID: 16161715#
1200-1209: Welcome and JTEG Background – Greg Kilchenstein (OSD-MPP)
1209-1210: Administrative Notes – Debbie Lilu (NCMS)
1210-1230: Navy Overview of Mfg a Flight Critical Part with AM by 2017 – Liz McMichael & Dr. Bill Frazier (NAVAIR)
1230-1240: Questions & Answers
1240-1255: ONR Quality Metal Additive Manufacturing (Quality MADE) Program – Billy Short (ONR)
1255-1305: Questions & Answers
1305-1320: Evaluation of Additive Manufacturing on Ships – Dr. Jennifer Wolk (NSWC)
1320-1335: Adoption of Near-term Capabilities & Obstacles Encountered (Sand Cast & Molds with AM) – Kyle Morris (NUWC-Keyport)/Craig Hoskins (TRF Kings Bay)
1335-1345: Questions & Answers
1345-1400: Joint Advanced Manufacturing Region (JAMR) IPT – Dan Green (SPAWAR) & Chris Root (FRC-SW)
1400-1415: Moog AM Partnership at Tinker AFB – Wayne Ayer (AFSC) & Jim Regenor (Moog)
1415-1430: USAF Additive Manufacturing Overview/Update/Q&A – Col Bearden (USAF)
1430-1445: Questions & Answers
1445-1500: Additive Manufacturing for New Build, Remanufacturing, and Life Extension of Critical Weapon System Components – Adam Frey (ARDEC)
1500-1515: Cold Spray Action Team Update/Q&A – Vic Champagne (ARL)
1515-1525: Questions & Answers
1525-1530: Wrap-up (TBD) and JTEG Principals Comments
Event: On 28 July, 2015, the Joint Technology Exchange Group (JTEG), in coordination with the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS), hosted a virtual forum on “Additive Manufacturing in DoD”.
Purpose: The purpose of the forum was to provide information and exchange ideas on the development and application of additive manufacturing (AM) in the DoD. This forum was an update to a similar forum conducted on 13 November, 2013. This forum examined several forward-looking DoD efforts which include: transitioning metal AM technologies into appropriate applications in depots & maintenance centers; transitioning AM applications onto ships; AM partnerships; AM manufacturing of forms and tools within the DoD; and additive repair discussions.
Welcome: Greg Kilchenstein (OSD-Maintenance), welcomed everyone to the forum. Forums are held on the last Tuesday of each month and focus on a specific technological capability.
Administrative: This was an open forum. The presentations, along with questions and answers, were conducted through Defense Collaboration Services (DCS) and an audio line. Over 100 participants from across DoD and industry joined in the forum. For the second time in as many attempts, the initial DCS connection would drop guests immediately, so we closed it 7 minutes before start, and opened the DCS connection again. This worked for most who tried to use it. Questions were sent through DCS and answered by the presenters during the forum.
NAVAIR Additive Manufacturing Overview: Liz McMichael (NAVAIR) and Dr. Bill Frazier (NAVAIR) provided an overview of the Naval AM enterprise. The brief included a discussion on the qualification and certification challenges, NAVAIR transformative goals and AM initiatives, and their partnerships with industry and academia. One specific goal mentioned was to manufacture and qualify a flight critical, non-proprietary component at an FRC using AM.
ONR Quality Metal Additive Manufacturing (Quality MADE) Enabling Capability: Billy Short (ONR) discussed the operational challenges and program goals of the Quality MADE program to include improving AM design, and closed loop process controls. He also provided an overview on integrated computational materials engineering (ICME).
At Sea Additive Manufacturing: Jenn Wolk (NSWC) described an experiment involving the installation and testing of an AM polymer system on the JHSV-2, STILETTO, and USS ESSEX. The goal was to capture and quantify the effects of ship motion on the environment on AM build quality. Jenn displayed motion and tensile data as well as photos that showed visual variations, mechanical property variation, and presence of in-road defects.
AM Sand Casting Molds: Kyle Morris (NUWC-Keyport) and Craig Hoskins (TRF) talked about rapid casting technology and the digital production of cores for low volume sand casting applications. They compared the lead times of conventional casting with AMCAST and discovered AMCAST provides significant reductions in the initial “pre-production” phases.
Joint Advanced Manufacturing Region (JAMR) Overview: Dan Green (SPAWAR) discussed advanced manufacturing security considerations in a world where commercial technology is increasingly being developed globally. He stressed partnerships and collaboration, creating a reference framework, defining a cybersecurity approach, continuous innovation, and measurement.
AFSC & Moog Advanced Manufacturing & Repair Center: Wayne Ayer (AFSC/EN) described the center as a facility where gov’t, industry, and academia can collaborate to be innovative and solve problems. In the AM field, the center is working on rapid reverse engineering/prototyping and rapid advanced repair techniques.
USAF AM Initiatives: Col Keith Bearden (AFMC/EN) described the USAF AM effort as “playing around the edges” with no AFMC enterprise AM plan. AFRL has extensive knowledge and AFLCMC is the AM lead for the command. There are 3D printers in place and he described a few implementation examples. An integrated engineering support tiger team has been developed to create an enterprise process to evaluate AM and other new technologies and implement those that provide benefits.
AM for New Build, Remanufacturing & Life Extension of Critical Components: Adam Frey (ARDEC) described three additive technologies; cold spray repair, laser enhanced net shaping (LENS), and deposition metal laser sintering (DMLS) and their potential use in replacing hard-to-source parts, returning systems to service, and as new manufacturing processes.
Cold Spray Repair Update: Vic Champagne (ARL) gave a quick description of the cold spray consolidation process and described several applications of the technology to include a Mantech cold spray repair and rebuild AM cell, and a “donor tube” for gun barrel liners.
Closing Comments: Greg Kilchenstein emphasized that there is lots of work to do in the AM field. He repeated Liz McMichael’s comment that there are no AM standards in DoD. The AM community needs to work collaboratively to develop standards and share experiences. We need a paradigm shift in our thought process to access the full potential of AM capabilities and be able to implement those capabilities in support of DoD maintenance operations.
Presentation Slides and Questions & Answers: These meeting minutes, the Q&A, and those briefing slides approved for public release, will be posted on the JTEG website at http://jteg.ncms.org/ .
Next JTEG Meeting: The next JTEG virtual forum is 25 August 2015, 1:00 – 3:00 pm EST. The topic is Reverse Engineering, 3D Scanning, and Tolerancing.
POC this action is Ray Langlais, firstname.lastname@example.org , (571) 633-8019
NAVAIR Overview: Liz McMichael & Dr. Bill Frazier
Answered Questions (4)
Q1. Does Navy provide enterprise level funding to advance additive manufacturing or are these initiatives being resourced out of weapon system program offices?
A1. We have some funding. However, we do not have a program of record for AM or digital thread.
Q2. What about cybersecurity on Data Thread–theft of designs, sabotage of designs, etc.? Clearly an IT-centric/dependent ICS or PIT.
A2. Yes, we work closely with cyberattack personnel. We realize that cybersecurity is becoming more and more important.
Q3. For Bill Frazier: Do we really need a common data base structure across DoD? or is it more accurate to say we need to be able to interoperate with our digital tech data?
A3. We need both. We lack pedigree data. Linking the exact process is a challenge. We don’t have that access and data is often proprietary.
Q4. How is NAVAIR funding these initiative, i.e. type of funds?
A4. We are funding along the roadmap initiatives. It is important to tell weapon system PMAs where AM can help them.
ONR QUALITY MADE Program: Billy Short
Answered Questions (9)
Q1. Billy, How joint was ONR’s Quality Made Industry Day? USAF is beginning to plan for an industry day for the fall of 2015…..doesn’t it make sense for DoD to work together with our industry partners as opposed to each Service holding its own industry day?
A1. QUALITY MADE was an industry day for a specific Naval effort going from TRL 3/4 to 6. The purpose was to expose industry and academia to our specific program needs and solicit feedback before the solicitation is finalized. We also had a short period to allow NAVAIR and NAVSEA to describe their needs aside from QUALITY MADE, but time was limited. We had multiple government agencies (NASA, GSA, Joint Staff, NAVSEA, NAVAIR, DARPA, NRL, and others) at the meeting, but the focus was on industry and academia engagement. There is always room for increased coordination, and we will aim to do better. I recommend the USAF continue an industry day to address their specific needs, and we can provide a list of attendees to help spark interest in your meeting. We can have more detailed discussions about QUALITY MADE as desired.
Q2. How are you engaging the qualification and certification (engineering) communities early on so that they are helping to “invent: the process”?
A2. NAVAIR is engaged. NAMTI has partnerships. This will be a focus on an upcoming Naval conference.
Q3. How is ONR collaborating with America Makes particularly in the area of in-situ inspection?
A3. Team members work directly with America Makes. We are looking at other ways to perform. Also working with Penn State and others.
Q4. Is there an opportunity to Joint participation in Navy’s Quality Made initiative? Is there a consideration for selecting a jointly used part such as an H-60 part for a quality made initiative?
A4. ONR would love joint collaboration especially if it included additional funding. We are looking 18-24 years down the road for part selection.
Q5. Are the ICME tools to be owned by the Gov’t? Can they be shared across DoD?
A5. The ICME tools will likely not be government owned. They are not starting from scratch, but the funding we provide to tailor the tools to our needs will afford the government free open use rights. We need to finalize that contractual language.
Q6. With validated in-situ closed loop inspection, will we need post production inspection for quality programs?
A6. Yes. We see this moving to standard industry quality sampling methods rather than 100% nondestructive inspection with lots of additional destructive tests. We are aiming to have the closed loop quality control limit the need for post processing and inspection.
Q7. Do you see calibration playing a role in the Quality MADE process?
A7. Good question. It is a challenge, and we need to work through it.
Q8. How do we help drive Industry to adopt an AM Standard for the production of their equipment? Seems like once we decide on a certain type of printer, they will naturally improve on it and require us to re-certify the equipment etc….
A8. The OEMs can help. We need to work closely with the OEMs and ensure they are aware of our needs.
A9. Thermal control seems similar to laser welding?
A9. Yes. Some of our SBIRs for the thermal sensors are actually applying the technology to laser MIG welding. AM has also been described as miles of millimeter welds, and there are laser welding processes we consider to be additive manufacturing. Differences may occur in processing temperatures between various AM processes, and the additive process revisits/reheats a given material locations at least 8-10 times during a build, so there will be differences in metallurgy when multiple heat effected zones occur. We have a brief specific to sensing/controls that provides more detail of the challenges and benefits, upon request.
Additive Manufacturing on Ships: Dr. Jenn Wolk
Answered Questions (2)
Q1. Do you see the power fluctuation issues on ships causing issues on the builds?
A1. Potentially yes, especially with the larger ships. However, we didn’t see it during the trials.
Q2. Jenny, how do your “made at sea” results compare to NASA’s “made in space” results?
A2. The NASA build volumes are much smaller.
AM Sand Casting Molds – Kyle Morris & Craig Hoskins
Answered Questions (2)
Q1. How did you develop the tech data package for the casting and how did you validate the grid model prior to printing the cast mold?
A1. We reverse engineered the old part and created a CAD model.
Q2. Currently there is no DoD Mil STD for the metallic powders sold in support of metallic AM. Are you using the existing ASTM Standards? EOS materials?
A2. For NAVAIR parts we used EOS materials. Yes we use the existing ASTM specifications.
JAMR – Dan Green
Answered Questions (2)
Q1. Are you engaged with TF Cyber Awakening ICS Efforts (Pentagon Brief on 14 Jul)?
A1. Good group. They are part of the larger CyberSafe effort. As you noted, the ICS is very important. In navy that is considered PIT, but if we do distributed manufacturing, we need to consider the ICS interface as part of the enterprise IA certification.
Q2. How do we balance information assurance and cyber security with being able to innovate agilely and quickly?
A2. You want to be able to determine the level of risk. In most cases, it is more damaging not to do something, than to allow a little bit of risk. We want to ensure we allow increased innovation.
Moog AM Partnership at Tinker AFB – Wayne Ayer
Answered Questions (3)
Q1. Wayne, how are you accomplishing this collaboration with Moog as an industry partner? Is this a public private partnership?
A1. Yes, it is a PPP….at the enterprise level. Moog is interested in transitioning to the AM environment. Moog wants to drive the qualification timeline and reduce it.
Q2. Wayne, do you envision production parts being manufactured in the center?
A2. We will have limited production parts. There is no intent to compete with industry manufacturing capabilities & capacity.
Q3. With your reference to cold spray process being implemented across several centers, is cold spray officially acknowledged as a viable/standard repair process for the AF (AFLCMC)? Does AFSC have documentation (e.g., memo) documenting this process?
A3. I’m not going to say cold spray is a standard repair process. The intent is to expose others in the repair environment to the technology and process.
USAF AM Initiatives – Col Keith Bearden
Answered Questions (2)
Q1. Col Bearden, are the B-52 blower impellers considered flight critical components?
A1. No. They serve to cool the radar at start up.
Q2. Does the streamlined process consider technologies that are flying on other Services aircraft? … on commercial aircraft?
A2. It is up to the Chief Engineer to insert the technology. If he/she wants to consider it than it is possible.
AM for New Build – Adam Frey
Answered Questions (2)
Q1. Is Anniston Army Depot still repairing AGT-1500 air seals and turbine nozzles using the LENS process?
A1. There are no current repairs for the AGT1500 using the LENS process.
Q2. Why is the development of Stage 3 turbine nozzles using LENS a 4 year effort?
A2. There are three main drivers to the length of this effort. One is conducting the qualification tests to fulfill the substantiation requirements. Some test equipment has long wait lists. The second driver is the amount of paperwork and sign-offs required to finalize a revised DMWR for the AGT1500 and amend the Abrams National Maintenance Work Requirement (NMWR). Third, as a requirement to revise the NMWR, a First Article Test (FAT) production run must be completed at Anniston to prove transition of the process developed at Benet. Even after the repairs selected for the ManTech are fully transitioned, there are still plenty of other parts that will have to go through the same repair qualification process.
Cold Spray – Vic Champagne
Answered Questions (1)
Q1: Can you provide an overview on what you are doing with structural repair?
A1. It is very interesting. We will perform our first structural repair demonstration this year. You must understand that one size does not fit all. We have to beyond the structural specifications with repair.