icam_2010_final

8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/icam2010final 1/33

rogress n epos e an um

Blake Slaughter – The Boeing CompanyAmy Helvey – The Boeing Company

-

EOT_RT_Sub_Template.ppt | 1/6/2009 | 1

BOEING is a trademark of Boeing Management Company.

Copyright © 2009 Boeing. All rights reserved.

,

8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Aerospace Interest in Direct Manufacturing

Engineering, Operations & Technology | Boeing Research & Technology AM&ST

• ap anu ac ur ng o ers uge po en a cos sav ngs or the aerospace industry.

• Enables designers to create new and innovative systems,applications, and vehicles.

• Ability to produce components directly from designdefinition.

• Low production volumes—avoid non-recurring tooling costin relative short run aerospace components.

• Constant desi n iterations• Build spares and retrofits.• Geometric design complexity.• • Testing of new materials• Allows for building of complete part, instead of assembly


8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Requirements for new technology acceptance


Obvious, but too often forgotten:

• Potential benefits must outweigh risks

• Statisticall si nificant data• Predictable performance• Proven history

• a e supp y ase Greatest Challenge:Keep these folks sleeping well at night

Strengths Supplier

EOT_RT_Sub_Template.ppt | 3Copyright © 2009 Boeing. All rights reserved.

Management /

Procurement

8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Applications


i t i o n R a t e

a s e s D e p

o s

I n c r


Decreased Resolution

rapid_manufacturing, [Online Image] Available http://www.morristech.com/images/rapid_manufacturing.jpg, June 10, 2010

8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Challenges


• e at ve ac o ata rom m te stu y

• Small supply base• Each process and build are unique

• Compromise: Resolution or Deposition Rate and Build Size

• Lack of study leads to speculation, rumor, andmisinformation

• Abundance of material systems still to be studied

• No extensive roven histor


8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Combating the lack of history, data, and supply base


Target these applications first. Grow confidence level, data populations, and supply base. Help out

highly motivated customers.

Then focus on higher rate applications,progressively prove the technology in a production

environment.

Finally, focus on full-rate production.

n t V o l u m e

C o m p o n

Dev. LRIP Full Production Secondary Sales Aging Aircraft Support

Time

Time


8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Current Environment


40 lb/hr Sciaky EBFFF

t eDistortion Control Limit

o s i t i o n R a

D e p AeroMet

LENS (1mm pool)

LENS (4mm pool)EOSArcam

Surface QualityUsable SurfaceVery low resolution

Accufusion

SMD Solidica


8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Current Environment


Sciaky EBFFFAeroMet

e l o p e S i z

LENS (4mm pool)

SMD

B u i l d E n

AccufusionArcam

Solidica

DMLS

Surface QualityUsable SurfaceVery low resolution


8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Current Environment


Sciaky EBFFF Best Fit Limitation

M a t e r i a l Depending on feature,

machining clean uplimitation.

*Hybrid Processes are the exception

E x c e s

s

AeroMet

LENS 1mm ool

LENS (4mm pool)

Arcam

Deposition Accuracy +/-0.005”0.4”

Accufusion

SMD


8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Current Approach:


• Large Number of Metal Additive Manufacturing Processes withPotential for Make Ti-6Al-4V

• Need To Understand Differences In These Processes And Their EffectOn The Ability Of Components To Meet Service Requirements

• Energy Source & Protective Atmosphere• Feedstock

• Deposition Rate• Surface Quality• Programming Method• Part Size

• Need to Understand and Quantif for S ecifications and Desi nProperties


Slattery, K. 2008, “EVALUATION OF ARCAM DEPOSITED TI-6AL-4V”, 2nd SAIAS Symposium , Stellenbosch, South Africa

8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Evaluation Stage 1


• Screenin to Define De osition Process & Heat Treat• Tensile Minimums

• 16,000 Average, 8,000 Min Cycles R=-1,ε

max = 0.005•

Specimen Orient Location C1 Heat 1

Substrate 0.75 x 10 x 3

Deposit 2

Intersection 0Y Deposit 0

Deposit 0

Interface 5Z

XTensile

Deposit 0

Intersection 0

Y Deposit 0

Deposit 0

Interface 5-

Z

Strain-Life

X

X-Z Deposit 1

Short Bar Fracture

ToughnessX-Z Deposit 0

Total 13

Growth


8 x 3 x 0.5 deposit on edge of 10 x 3 x 0.75 plateSlattery, K. 2008, “EVALUATION OF ARCAM DEPOSITED TI-6AL-4V”, 2nd SAIAS Symposium , Stellenbosch, South Africa

8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Evaluation Stage 2 – Test Parts


• Large (>30”) System

• Small (<30”) System (3 of 7 Parts Shown)



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Metal Additive Manufacturing


• The Arcam EBM S12 boasts new opportunities for efficientproduct development by creating solid metal componentsfrom a CAD model. It is ideal for small-batch development

of tools, prototypes, and other production pieces whileo er ng a w e range o geome r c ree om.

• The method utilizes an electron beam gun to melt metalpowder and build a solid, homogenous, metal

• The newer A2 model offers a taller build chamber,improved process monitoring, and process

.



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Arcam Examples I


Propeller Landing Gear


Lattice Skull PlateSlattery, K. 2008, “EVALUATION OF ARCAM DEPOSITED TI-6AL-4V”, 2nd SAIAS Symposium , Stellenbosch, South Africa

8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Test Procedure and Matrix


• -

net) on each of two separate but identical

design EBM systems. One was located at theNASA Marshall Space Flight Center in

Huntsville, AL, and the other at Boeing Phantom

. , .

•

including tensile, strain-life, fatigue crack.

• As-built Specimens• o sos a c ress ng, or a

Pressure/899°C to 954°C/2 hours) and cooled under

inert atmosphere to below 427°C Specimens



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Specimen Test Matrix


Table I – Bulk Specimen Test Matrix

System, Bulk Specimen Treatment Condition

S1 S2 S32 S4 S4I

3 S5 S6 S7

NASA Build A A A/H H A A A H

Powder,

Lot ID1

– s- u , – os - rocesse

Boeing Build A H A H A H H A

NASA Powder 87 89 89 87 87 84 89 87

Boeing Powder 88 89 89 87 87 88 89 87

1. All powder lots were Plasma Rotating Electrode Processed (PREP) per AMS 4999.2. S3 comprised two mirrored features in the same build. Prior to NASA S3 coupon extractions, one half was HIPed and the other was as-built.3. Specimen S4I was a grouping of individual coupons arranged in the same build orientation as that for the S4 bulk specimen.



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Machined coupons from Arcam block


Harvest and Test:

Qty 30 - 2.5” Tensile Coupons per

- ” -

Qty 1- 0.25” Fatigue Crack Growth Specimens



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Individually Grown


Harvest and Test:

Qty 21 - 2.5” Tensile Coupons per



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Coupon Test Matrix


Table II – Sample Coupon Test Matrix

S1 S21 S3 S4 S4I S5 S6 S7

Tensile 24 30 12 21 21 24 15 36

Test Typeu pec men ent cat on

Strain-Life 9 12 0 0 0 3 0 0da/dN 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Toughness 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0

Chemical 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 5

1. Boeing S2 bulk specimen was not completed in time for testing.2. Boeing powder feedstock was not tested.



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Results


• Thirteen parts were successfully fabricated,

with some of the large parts taking up to 40hours to build.

• Nothing atypical was observed in the

microstructures.



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Micrographic Test Results


• o umnar epos s

• Widmanstatten of other processes

-



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Mechanical Test Results


• 335 tensile coupons were harvested from 13

components, produced on two separate ArcamS12 machines.

• Some were Hip’ed and the rest were “as-

• Approximately 9% contain lack of fusion

’

material.

• These coupons have been excluded from dataanalysis and the parts will be replaced at a later

date for evaluation per AMS4999.



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Test Result Summary


Table III: Test Result Summary

Criteria Direction

Hot Isostatically

Pressed - All

Specimens

As Deposited Specimens -

Excluding Those with

Detectable Lack of Fusion

Draft AMS 4999A

X 1031 1032 130

Y 931 917 130

Z 928 968 125

X 0.55 0.85 3.3

Y 0.91 5.33 3.3

n mum

UTS (MPa)

Coefficient

of Variation

Z 2.96 1.94 3.3

X 927 951 116Y 820 825 116

Z 836 892 110

for UTS (%)

Minimum

YS (MPa)

1.48 0.86 3.1

Y 1.06 5.81 3.1

Z 2.76 2.23 3.1

X 14 10 6Minimum

oe c en

of Variation

for YS (%)

Z 16 6 6(%)



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Results of Testing


Coefficient of Variation• Boeing HIP’ed material met requirements of AMS4999• Boeing as-built met requirements in Y and Z directions for minimum

tensile.• NASA HIP’ed condition met all re uirements in Y and Z directions. NoX orientation components were HIP’ed.

• NASA as-deposited met requirements in X, Y, and Z directions oncedetectable lack-of-fusion coupons were removed.

Low Cycle Fatigue• Coupons with lack of fusion fail prematurely.• All failed coupons were from the as-deposited condition.• ,

remaining the samples met AMS4999 requirements.

Fracture Toughness• .• No coupons were removed.



EJS1

EJS2

EJS3

EJS4

8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Slide 25

EJS1 The Y orientated coupons have a higher than allowed CV.tt146c, 21/08/2008

EJS2 With exception of Coefficient of Variation in Z direction of 3.4% Yield Tensile Strength (3.1% is allowed) and 3.5% Ultimate Tensile Strength(3.3% is allowed). Coefficient of variance is minimal, but difference in meal values across components caused failure. Z orientated coupons metrequirements.tt146c, 21/08/2008

EJS3 These coupons met the requirements before any lack of fusion coupons were removed.tt146c, 21/08/2008

EJS4 Mean value was 35,653 cycles at failure, well above the criteria requirement of 15,000 cycles.tt146c, 21/08/2008

8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Test Conclusions


• Additional coupon testing is needed to increase

statistical si nificance. Until rocess maturitimproves, the use of as-deposited material maybe infeasible in most aerospace applications

,

acceptable.• The presence of lack-of-fusion in as-deposited

material places a great deal of pressure on NDTevaluation to detect unacceptable flaws.

• ,is HIP processed will meet requirements of AMS4999.



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Fractography


• en y ac o us on, e e y p ace or rea age

• Methods to determine crack growth behavior and

• Use destructive and non destructive methods

• Can be determined with x-ra metallo ra hic

techniques (must be greater than 2% of totalthickness) or dye penetrant (up to 0.05 mm deep)



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Sample Boeing TZS1-1



. . . .


8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Sample NASA IXS2-5


NASA IXS2-5

0.127 mm./div0.635 mm./div



8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Test Conclusions


- -

system are capable of meeting the requirements

in the ro osed Revision A to AMS 4999 if thepart undergoes Hot Isostatic Pressing.

• The lack of fusion that is present in

approximately 9% of the samples can be

determined with standard aerospace inspection

.

• The root cause of lack of fusion should be

investi ated and corrected. Additional artsshould be made and tested to replace the parts

containing lack of fusion and the results should


e re-comp e once new a a s ava a e.Slattery, K. 2008, “EVALUATION OF ARCAM DEPOSITED TI-6AL-4V”, 2nd SAIAS Symposium , Stellenbosch, South Africa

8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


Summary:


• os o npu s oc mus e con ro e

• Finishing and NDT are significant

challenges Full Rate

• aracter zat on – nc u ng geometryeffects – must be performed

– AMS4999

• Must ush for a better combination of

pp ca ons

Early Late

resolution, build envelope, and depositionrate

• At this point, technology and service

Applications

Applications

providers are incredibly dependant oneach other. Being a sole source at thispoint is not necessarily a good thing.

PR

O

PR

E

PR

O

PR

O. DUC

DIC

VE

CUR


8/7/2019 ICAM_2010_Final


icam_2010_final

Documents