1300-1305 Welcome – Greg Kilchenstein (OSD-MR) Presentation
1305-1306 Administrative Notes – Debbie Lilu (NCMS)
1325-1340 Rock Island Arsenal Casting & Forging Capabilities – Chris Schladt (RIA) Presentation
1340-1400 Print Plastic to Make Metal – Simon Miller (ARL/PSU) Presentation
1400-1420: AM Castings – Brandon Lamoncha (Humtown Products) Presentation
1420-1435: Additive Manufacturing for Fleet Sand Castings (AMCAST)– Christine Myers (NAWCAD), Bryce Weber (NUWC-KPT) & Jerry Thiel (University of Northern Iowa) Presentation
1435-1455: Naval Foundry – Nate Bird (NFPC) Presentation
1440-1500: Wrap-Up – Greg Kilchenstein (OSD-MR) Presentation
Event: On 26 January 2021, the Joint Technology Exchange Group (JTEG), in coordination with the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS), hosted a virtual forum on “Casting and Forging (including using 3D Mfg to build forms)”.
Purpose: The purpose of this forum was to examine and share information on casting and forging capabilities available to the DoD maintenance community. The forum provided descriptions of capabilities employed by the military Services as well as programs from both academia and industry.
Welcome: Greg Kilchenstein (OSD-MR) welcomed everyone to the forum and thanked the presenters and all the listeners for their attendance. He also stated how important casting and forging are in driving sustainment costs and readiness in the DoD maintenance community.
Administrative: This was an open forum. The presentations, along with questions and answers, were conducted through Adobe Connect. All of the presentations were available online at the JTEG website at http://jteg.ncms.org/ during the brief. A separate audio line was used. We had over 90 participants from across DOD, industry, and academia join in the forum.
Overview – DoD Level Initiatives, Challenges, Future Work. Dean Hutchins explained that the major objectives of the DLA casting and forging R&D are to improve solicitation and procurement of parts with cast and/or forge content, and provide assistance to DLA Major Subordinate Commands (MSCs), vendors, Engineering Support Activities (ESAs). He described a successful project evolution and several ongoing forging and casting projects. He also detailed the casting and forging assistance teams at DLA major subordinate commands. Will Cary (DLA) talked about DLA’s Aviation Forging & Casting Assistance Teams (AFCAT) and some of the improvements and successful projects they have supported.
Rock Island Arsenal (RIA) Casting & Forging Capabilities. Chris Schladt (RIA) described the RIA Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center mission and capabilities to include foundry and investment casting. In addition to forging capabilities, RIA also has additive capabilities to include sand casting, a 3D wax printer, a large polymer build volume with 14 printers, and five metal printers.
P2M2 (Print Plastic to Make Metal). Simon Miller (ARL/PSU) described how P2M2 reduces lead time and the costs to build a metal part, enables complex geometries with low-cost metallic solutions, and creates opportunity for hybrid design methods. He discussed generating digital design data for P2M2 through the digital thread, and showed several “learning to cast” examples and using the lessons learned to improve the P2M2 process. He described the initial development of a decision framework for identifying P2M2-able objects and showed some examples.
AM Castings. Brandon Lamoncha (Humtown Products) talked about Humtown’s printing facility and capabilities to include large casting capabilities and creating hybrid projects to help keep costs down. He also discussed the importance of speed to market, design validation, and the consolidation of parts.
Additive Manufacturing for Fleet Sand Castings (AMCAST). Christine Myers (NAWCAD), Beyer (NUWC-KPT) and Jerry Thiel (University of Northern Iowa) discussed AM for fleet casting sustainment with a focus on their technical approach for:
1) Printed Sand Molds – evaluate the performance and benefits of using additively manufactured sand molds to produce high-quality, complex castings.
2) Solidification Analysis Tools – evaluate the performance of solidification analysis in predicting casting quality.
3) Demonstrate Process on NAVSEA and NAVAIR Castings – verify the quality & dimensional accuracy; compare to traditional methods
4) Develop a 3-day training workshop for DoD Participants – expand the DoD corporate knowledge base
They provided examples of applications and detailed the overall benefits, as well as hi-lighting technology gaps that remain. Future steps include growing DoD’s casting knowledge and skill sets, establishing a functional DoD casting material readiness chain, and integrating standard TDPs with digital/portable data transfer.
Naval Foundry. Nate Bird provided an overview of the Naval Foundry and Propeller Center at the Philadelphia Navy Yard Annex. Foundry capabilities include a non-ferrous sand cast foundry, large lift/crane capacity, furnaces ranging from 50 lbs. to 85 ton capacity, engineering-driven molding and casting design including simulation analysis. The foundry has extensive machining capabilities to include large scale machining centers with (13) five-axis numerically controlled profilers capable of machining up to 31 feet in diameter and an engineering-driven machining process that allows for minimal hand finishing work. Lastly, quality assurance capabilities include precision laser measurement, NAVSEA certified personnel for PT and VT non-destructive testing per Tech Pub 271, and a full onsite metallurgy lab.
Q&A – A Q&A occurred after each briefer finished their presentation. Questions and answers will be posted on the JTEG website with these minutes.
Closing Comments: Greg Kilchenstein thanked the presenters for their contributions and all the work being done to support casting and forging efforts across the DoD, academia, and industry. He suggested continuing the information exchange beyond the forum and the importance of collaboration within the DoD maintenance community.
Next JTEG Meeting: The next scheduled JTEG virtual forum is 23 February 2021, 1:00 – 3:00 pm EST. The topic is “Environmental Impacts & Worker Safety”.
POC this action is Ray Langlais, email@example.com, (571) 633-8019
Overview – DoD Level Initiatives, Challenges, Future Work – Dean Hutchins & Will Cary (DLA)
Q1. How does DLA’s Casting and Forgings R&D program prioritize the initiatives that receive funding?
A1. It depends on how many are submitted and how much funding we have. We also look at past submissions and consider an industry association perspective and input from experts. We also consider the needs of the major subordinate commands.
Q2. Can DLA associate the investment in Casting and Forging projects with projected improvements in readiness or parts availability?
A2. Yes, several of our project investments have positive effects on specific parts and classes of parts by reducing costs and lead times. Our Assistance Teams answer requests everyday providing specific tooling, material, and sourcing information to assist vendors in providing bids to active DLA solicitations and existing contracts. Our ICON project also helps vendors, alerting them of active solicitations for individual parts. Then we’re able to track if they were awarded any contracts, as summarized chart #10 of my presentation.
Q3. How does DLA collaborate with industry on casting and forging advancements beyond what is going on in DoD?
A3. We have direct relationships with both industry and industry associations through our contracts. Most of our projects come from, and directly benefit, the forging and casting industries. Our contracts require cost-share, with much of the cost-share coming from industry participation in the projects. This demonstrates that most projects have relevance and are wanted by the industry. In addition, many of our industry partners have products with commercial applications that are outside of the DoD.
Q4. What are the biggest challenges DLA face in castings and forgings in support of DOD requirements?
A4. The lack of technical data and procurement.
Q5. How does DLA leverage the DoD Arsenals when hard to source castings or forgings becomes an issue?
A5. On the procurement side – there are various ways. Organic is one. There are some FAR restrictions when organic cannot compete. But there is a process in place if the procurement community brings to us.
Q6. How can a company sign up to get notices for the ICON program?
A6. Go directly to the website and search ICON.
Rock Island Arsenal Casting & Forging Capabilities – Chris Schladt (RIA)
Q1. What did the 3D wax printer cost?
A1. I estimate about $50K
Q2. Are there any more issues with the sand removal when using Additive? How do you remove the media?
A2. No. After removing the part the media has completely burned away.
Q3. Are you using AM printers mainly for R & D or production?
A3. Both. However, it is going more and more to production.
Q4. Does RIA do much work for other Services in castings and forgings?
A4. We do sat times for all the services.
P2M2 (Print Plastic to Make Metal) – Simon Miller (ARL/PSU)
Q1. How much time is saved using P2M2 vice traditional casting design/manufacture process?
A1. Tough to answer. Sometimes it is the only option.
Q2. Are you using 3D Sand printers to create the final casting post 3D plastic print and fit check? or are you printing investment castings?
A2. Both. Printing out PDB material and …out
Q3. How is your team determining which parts have the highest potential to benefit from AM?
A3. We use casting to make huge cast parts. With 3D printing, every part is an option.
AM Castings – Brandon Lamoncha (Humtown Products)
Q1. When you don’t have the 3D tech data package, what is your work around? Is it a show-stopper?
A1. Not a show-stopper. Just involves cost. We send to the engineers to develop a 3D CAD model. We then send back to the customer to validate. It incurs quite a bit of cost and can be challenging.
Additive Manufacturing for Fleet Sand Castings (AMCAST)– Christine Myers (NAWCAD), Beyer (NUWC-KPT) & Jerry Thiel (University of Northern Iowa)
Q1. Is the 3 day training available for other DoD entities?
A1. Yes. Just contact Jerry Thiel (email: firstname.lastname@example.org)
Q2. How was Qualification handled?
A2. Looked at all qualification requirements in both casting and quality assurance requirements. The project did not progress because we did not physically get the item due to funding. Qualification is the same as any other AM part.
Q3. Do you have a ROM estimate for conducting the sand cast training course for others in DoD that could benefit from it?
A3. Approximately $32K for a 3 Day Training course.
Naval Foundry – Nate Bird
Q1. Does the foundry have capacity to support other DoD organizations when a need for large castings arises?
A1. Yes, if DoD agrees on capacity. We have some very demanding customers that are our priority.
Q2. Does the foundry have any Big Area Additive Manufacturing (BAAM) capability to supplement the artisan-based pattern making?
A2. No. We do not print metals or sand. Only AM is on the pattern side.
Q3. Do you have additive capability on your machining centers?
A3. No. We do not have that capability. We looked at it, but space is a premium.