Using the tools of the 3D Spark software, the team analyzed various factors that affect production costs. Some of them are specific to parts, while others are specific to processes. For example, orient parts to minimize supports and maximize buildable surfaces.
By simulating forces at a hinge, these tools can remove material that has little effect. This results in a 35% weight loss. Less material also means faster print times, further reducing costs.
To be honest, what they’re doing shouldn’t be new to anyone involved in 3D printing. It makes sense to arrange the part in a reasonable way. We have seen waste material removed in 3D printing and traditional manufacturing. The most interesting thing is to use tools that help automate this optimization. We don’t know how much the software will cost, and we’re guessing it’s not aimed at the hobbyist 3D printing market. But wondering what can be done, we suspect that with some knee lubrication and modeling in available software, you can get similar results.
In theory, any tool that can perform finite element analysis should be able to determine the material to be removed. We have noticed that automakers are using 3D printing.
“By simulating forces at the hinge, these tools can remove material that doesn’t have a significant impact. I’m not an engineer, but I read this and thought Finite Element Analysis. Then I saw you in the penultimate sentence. Mentioned it .Of course automakers already do. Do we compare how? Does this model provide force in emergency as well as in normal use?
Every edge, valley and fillet requires machine time and tool wear. Some additional tool changes may be needed, and when working on a different surface, parts may need to be machined and re-attached to bring them into an orientation that can make multiple pockets – if they can have a reasonable tool all around.
I think you could use a machine with more degrees of freedom to turn the part to the best angle… But at what cost?
3D printing usually has no such form restrictions, making complex parts as easy as simple ones.
On the other hand, the advantage of traditional subtractive machining is that the material tends to be isotropic, it is equally strong in any direction, and without internal flats, you don’t have to worry about bad bonding due to bad sintering. It is also possible to go through a rolling mill (an inexpensive step) to give it a good grain structure.
All 3D printing methods have shape limitations. Even parts of SLM. As you might think, the isotropic nature of SLM doesn’t really matter. The machines and processes used daily give very consistent results.
However, pricing itself is another beast. In the aerospace industry, 3D printing is hard to be truly competitive.
I would say that the aerospace industry is one of the few places where the cost of metal 3D printing can be justified. Initial manufacturing costs are a tiny fraction of the cost of an aerospace product, and weight is so important that it is easy to find a use for it. Compared to the sky-high costs of quality assurance for composite parts, a skilled printing process and critical dimension inspection can provide real cost savings and a breath of fresh air.
The most obvious example is everything that is printed in rocket engines today. You can eliminate many points of unsatisfactory quality in complex pipelines while reducing return line losses and weight. I think some engine nozzles are 3d printed (superdraco maybe?). I vaguely recall news of some kind of printed metal bracket on Boeing airliners.
Products such as the Navy’s new jammers and other new developments may have many 3D printed brackets. The advantage of topology-optimized parts is that strength analysis is integrated into the design process and fatigue analysis is directly linked to it.
However, it will be some time before things like DMLS really catch on in automotive and manufacturing. Weight matters much less.
One application where it works well is in hydraulic/pneumatic manifolds. The ability to make curved channels and cavities for shrink wrap is very useful. Also, for certification purposes, you still have to do a 100% stress test, so you don’t need a big safety factor (the stress is pretty high anyway).
The problem is that many companies brag about having an SLM printer, but few know how to use it. These printers are only used for rapid prototyping and are idle most of the time. As this is still considered a new area, the printers are expected to depreciate like milk and should be scrapped within 5 years. This means that while the actual cost may be very low, getting a decent price for a production job is really difficult.
Also, print quality is dependent on the thermal conductivity of the material, meaning that aluminum tends to create surface roughness that can lead to annoying fatigue performance (not that a manifold needs them if you’re designing for that). Also, while TiAlV6 prints excellently and has better strength properties than base grade 5, aluminum is mostly available as AlSi10Mg, which is not the strongest alloy. T6, while suitable for castings of the same material, is not suitable for SLM parts. Scalmaloy is great again but hard to license, few offer it, you can also use Ti with thinner walls.
Most companies also need an arm and a leg, 20 samples, and your first child to process the printed part. While functionally it’s essentially the same as the machined castings that took donkeys and pennies to make for years, they think the printed parts are magic and customers think they have deep pockets. Also, AS9100 certified companies are generally not short on jobs and enjoy doing what they have been doing for a long time and know they can make money from it and can do it without being accused of a plane crash. .
So yes: the aerospace industry can benefit from SLM parts, and some of them do, but the idiosyncrasies of the industry and the companies that provide the service are stuck in the 70s, which makes things a little more difficult. The only real development is the engine, where printed fuel injectors have become commonplace. For us personally, the struggle for supply with ASML is an uphill battle.
Exhaust pipe for 3D printing in stainless steel P-51D. https://www.3dmpmag.com/article/?/powder-bed-systems/laser/a-role-in-military-fleet-readiness
Other factors associated with machining costs are the management of coolant losses due to spalling and evaporation. In addition, the chips must be processed. Any chip reduction in mass production can result in substantial savings.
This is often referred to as topology design, and as you might guess, it’s another level of analysis on top of FEA. It’s only really caught on in the last few years as the tools become more accessible.
Whenever you see the Fraunhofer name, it is patented and the maker community will be banned from using it for a very long time.
In other words: we’ve invented a new way to make sure you get your car replaced as soon as your warranty runs out.
I don’t see the connection between lighter door hinges and an evil conspiracy that makes you throw your whole car in the trash?
Fatigue life analysis is one thing; if you only optimize material strength, you will end up with a part that won’t work.
Even if they designed it so deliberately weakened, it will not tire soon after the end of the warranty, it is only a hinge, but it is new, and it is unlikely that you will have to throw away the whole car … there will be a replacement car during the life of the car, because in general still good, but that cheap/easy replacement part is worn out – nothing new about that…
In practice, to make sure it meets safety standards etc, it is probably still heavily re-engineered, like most car frames/bodies/seats, due to the stresses it will experience in normal use. . point of sale, unless required by law in your area.
“It’s just a hinge” but it’s also an example of designing a part for a specific life. When applied to the rest of your car, your car will turn into a clunker over a period of time.
The scandal is the result of their frequent (MP3, I see!) patent protection.
The entire US economy is built on such a “chip”. By some standards it works :-/.
Fraunhofer did a lot of science. Not only applied, but also fundamental research. It all costs money. If you want to do it without patents and licenses, you need to give them more government funding. With licenses and patents, people in other countries also bear some of the cost because they also benefit from the technology. In addition, all these studies are very important for maintaining the competitiveness of the industry.
According to their website, part of your tax is around 30% (Grundfinanzierung), the rest also comes from sources available to other companies. Patent income is probably part of that 70%, so if you don’t take that into account, there will either be less development or more taxes.
For some unknown reason, stainless steel is banned and unpopular for body, engine, transmission and suspension components. Stainless can only be found in some expensive exhaust pipes, it will be crap like martensitic AISI 410, if you want a good, durable exhaust you will have to use AISI 304/316 yourself to make something like that.
So all the holes in such parts will eventually become clogged with wet earth and the parts will begin to rust very quickly. Because the part is designed for the lowest possible weight, any rust will immediately make it too weak for the job. You’d be lucky if that part were just a door hinge, or some less important internal brace or lever. If you have any suspension parts, transmission parts or something like that, you are in big trouble.
PS: Does anyone know of a stainless steel car that has been exposed to moisture, de-icing and dirt all over and most of its bodywork? All suspension arms, radiator fan housings, etc. can be purchased at any price. I know about the DeLorean, but unfortunately it only has stainless steel exterior panels and not the entire body structure and other important details.
I would pay more for a car with a stainless steel body/frame/suspension/exhaust system, but that means a price disadvantage. The material is not only more expensive, but also more difficult to mold and weld. I doubt stainless steel engine blocks and heads make any sense.
It’s also very hard. By today’s fuel economy standards, there is no benefit to stainless steel. It will take decades to offset the carbon cost of a car made mostly of stainless steel to regain the material’s durability benefits.
Why do you think so? Stainless steel has the same density but is slightly stronger. (AISI 304 – 8000 kg/m^3 and 500 MPa, 945 – 7900-8100 kg/m^3 and 450 MPa). With the same sheet thickness, a stainless steel body has the same weight as a normal steel body. And you don’t need to paint them, so no extra primer/paint/varnish.
Yes, some cars are made of aluminum or even titanium, so they are lighter, but they are mostly in the high-end market segment and buyers have no problem buying new cars every year. In addition, aluminum also rusts, in some cases even faster than steel.
In no way is stainless steel harder to mold and weld. It is one of the easiest materials to weld, and because of its higher ductility than regular steel, it can be molded into more complex shapes. Look out for pots, sinks, and other stainless steel stampings that are widely available. A large AISI 304 stainless steel sink costs a lot less and is more intricately shaped than any front fender stamped from that poor steel foil. You can easily form body parts using high quality stainless steel on regular molds and the molds will last longer. In the Soviet Union, some people working in car factories sometimes made stainless steel body parts on factory equipment to replace their cars. You can still find the old Volga (GAZ-24) with a bottom, trunk or wings made of stainless steel. But this became impossible after the collapse of the Soviet Union. IDK why and how, and now no one will agree to make any money for you. I also haven’t heard of stainless steel body parts being made in western or third world factories. All I could find was a stainless steel jeep, but AFAIR, the stainless steel panels were reproduced by hand, not factory. There is also a story of WV Golf Mk2 fans trying to order a batch of stainless steel fenders from aftermarket manufacturers like Klokkerholm, who usually make them from plain steel. All these manufacturers immediately and rudely cut off any talk on this topic, not even talking about the price. So you can’t even order anything for any money in this area. even in bulk.
Agreed, that’s why I didn’t mention the engine in the list. Rust is definitely not the main problem of the engine.
Stainless steel is more expensive, yes, but the stainless steel case does not need to be painted at all. The cost of a painted body part is much higher than the part itself. Thus, a stainless steel case can be cheaper than a rusty one. and will last almost forever. Simply replace the worn out rubber bushings and joints on your vehicle and you won’t need to buy a new car. When it makes sense, you can even replace the motor with something more efficient or even electric. No waste, no unnecessary environmental disruption when building new cars or operating old ones. But for some reason, this eco-friendly method is not at all in the lists of ecologists and manufacturers.
In the late 1970s, craftsmen in the Philippines handcrafted new stainless steel body parts for Jeepneys. They were originally built from jeeps left over from World War II and the Korean War, but around 1978 they were all cut off because they could stretch the rear to accommodate many riders. So they had to build new ones from scratch and use stainless steel to keep the body from rusting. On an island surrounded by salt water, this is good.
Stainless steel sheet has no material equivalent to HiTen steel. This is critical for safety, remember the first euroNCAP tests on Chinese cars that did not use this type of special steel. For complex parts, nothing beats GS cast iron: inexpensive, with high casting properties and rust resistance. The final nail in the coffin is the price. Stainless steel is really expensive. They use the example of a sports car for a good reason where cost doesn’t matter, but for VW by no means.
By using our website and services, you expressly consent to the placement of our performance, functionality and advertising cookies.learn more