Additive Manufacturing in a Model Based Enterprise

Transcription

1 3D Collaboration & Interoperability Congress Additive Manufacturing in a Model Based Enterprise Implementation Planning Speaker: Thad Henry Systems Engineering Management Office Information, Configuration & Data Management

2 NASA Traditional DDT&E Engine 3D Collaboration & Interoperability Congress Supports the Systems Engineering Life-Cycle The Program/Project/Activity SE Life-Cycle is defined as a set of processes and reviews that enables the smooth, incremental development of products essential to successfully achieving the Program/Project/Activity goals. The figure above illustrates the required processes of the SE Engine. There are three sets of processes, the system design processes, the product realization processes, and the technical planning processes. The 17 common technical SE processes illustrated are applied iteratively and recursively during the life-cycle of a program, project, or activity. The processes are applied to design a system solution definition for each Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) model down and across each level of the system structure and to realize the WBS model end products up and across the system structure. Detailed guidance and best practices for the execution of these 17 processes and the reviews are provided in NASA/SP

3 3D Collaboration & Interoperability Congress NASA Configuration and Data Management Standard

4 NASA Tech Excellence Summer Project Description 3D Collaboration & Interoperability Congress Procured funds to perform a demonstration project that implements use of draft AM engineering release standards. Sponsoring Org: EE12/CDM Systems Engineering Office and deployed across the Engineering and S&MA User Community Size: > 200 Engineering, S&MA, and Manufacturing Personnel. Justification/Benefits NASA currently has no standards in place for the release of additively manufactured (AM) parts that addresses unique AM process annotations and design intent. Supports certification of the Design-to-Manufacturing digital thread and mitigates design and manufacturing risks for any mission that intends to use fly critical AM parts. The design to manufacturing process will benefit from release standards specific to AM (dimensioning, annotating, versioning, file conversion, etc.) AM release standards improve the quality of AM parts and reduce the need for redesign on the manufacturing floor which saves MSFC time and money.

5 NASA Tech Excellence Summer Project Adoption of Design and Release Standards for Additively Manufactured Parts 3D Collaboration & Interoperability Congress Elliot Befus University of Utah Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM) technology has the potential to have a large beneficial impact on the aerospace industry due to the ability to rapidly produce lightweight, geometrically complex parts and assemblies. In order to realize these benefits, it is necessary to put controls in place that will prevent weaknesses and errors that could prove expensive and compromise mission safety. A roadmap is being developed that will outline the multi-year process of updating the design and release standards used at Marshall Spaceflight Center (MSFC) to facilitate AM. In June $10,000 was procured for this project, through a Technical Excellence (TE) Proposal, for a test print and expert consultation. Work done on this project will lay the groundwork for updating MSFC s design and release standards which, when complete, will be an important step in AM process certification and flight of AM parts on board the Space Launch System (SLS) and other NASA missions. Mentors: Liz Nunn, Thad Henry EE12 Model Based Definition Y14.46: Product Definition Practices for Additive Manufacturing and Y : Model Organization Schema Practices are new standards which define model based definition practices relevant to AM. Traditionally, design engineers generate drawings from the models of desired parts to be sent to a manufacturer. For AM purposes, this is unnecessary as printers receive model based inputs. This allows important data such as dimensions, tolerances and annotations to be directly applied to the model. Figure 2,3: An annotated drawing (top) compared to an annotated model (bottom) Injector Printing Test Figure 1: One of the powder bed fusion AM machines in use at MSFC Objectives Design and conduct a test to assess ASME standards Y14.46 and Y Develop a roadmap which outlines a multi-year plan to update design and release standards used at MSFC to accommodate additive manufacturing Create a detailed schedule which defines tasks to assess standards, run test cases and implement proven standards into MSFC policy Write a white paper which outlines the roadmap, our justification of need, and the experts that will be involved From the money procured via the TE proposal, $5000 is being allocated to a test print of a 1.2 kn subscale liquid rocket engine injector. This test will be used to vet the guidance contained in Y14.46 and Y As a collaborative effort between personnel from EE12, ER34 and EM42, the model will be annotated and then sent for checking and review from the manufacturing floor. Printing will be done by a 3rd party vendor and upon receipt, will undergo a thorough inspection. Roadmap The purpose of the roadmap is to review the work being done by various standards development organizations (SDOs), identify those standards that could benefit MSFC projects and outline a plan for testing and implementation. America Makes & ANSI Additive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative (AMSC) has created a roadmap that identifies 89 gaps in AM processes that require standardization across industry. 22 gaps from this list have been identified as applicable to MSFC design and release procedures. This roadmap also includes a detailed schedule which will direct 2 years of work on this project. The schedule sets specific periods for which the team should be focusing their efforts on SDO research, standard analysis, testing and change submission to offices of primary responsibility. Figure 4: A portion of a Gantt chart showing the injector test print schedule Future Work As future interns assigned to this project come to MSFC, They will use the roadmap and the results of the injector printing test to outline and define their own projects. This will involve periods of research, team formation, resource procurement, testing and analysis. The next standards targeted for testing address technical data packages and file formats for AM. There is also a bi-annual procedure built in to the schedule addressing standard change submission. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my mentors Liz Nunn and Thad Henry as well as Amy Hemken, Will Brandsmeier, Stephen Phillips, Jim Turner, Katherine Van Hooser and Nelson Parker for their contributions to this project. References Figure 4: A similar Inconel injector previously printed at MSFC America Makes & ANSI Additive Manufacturing Standardization Collaborative. Standardization Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing. Feb ASME. Y14.46: Product Definition Practices for Additive Manufacturing. May, ASME. Y : Model Organization Schema Practices. May 2017.

6 Additive Manufacturing Model Based Road Map The Long Term Solution Roadmap is Complex MSFC AM/MBE ROAD MAP New Dimensioning and Tolerancing Requirements Gap Description Current standards in use at MSFC fail to fully address the best dimensioning, tolerancing and annotation requirements for AM Related Standards SDO Orgs Priority Status ASME Y14.46 High Y14.46 is near completion and should be adopted without significant changes. The test described will be used to assess the standards as well as establish a precedent for assessing future AM standards. Organization Schema Requirement A schema for organizing information in an AM digital product definition data set is required to define common practices and to deliver consistent data content and structure to consumers of the data. ASME High Y is near completion and should be adopted without significant changes. The test described will be used to assess the standards as well as establish a precedent for assessing future AM standards. Gearing Up for a Data-Centric NASA MSFC Standards Update General Guide for AM: Additive vs. Subtractive General Guide for AM: Additive Process Decision MSFC is currently using outdated versions of several technical standards that relate to AM design and release. The newer versions of these need to be assessed and implemented (if necessary) MSFC currently has no resources to help designers recognize trade-offs between additive and subtractive manufacturing methods Currently there is no standard that normalizes the characteristics of the general AM process and ranks the pros/cons or strengths/weaknesses of each process CMMI Type Approach ASME - Y14.5, Y14.41 MSFC - STD-3528, STD-555 GDRM 12th ed High The updates have been published and are ready for appraisal. ISO/ASTM, AWS, SAE Low No known standards are being developed to address this gap WK ASTM and ISO Medium The ASTM/ISO work item needs to be obtained and analyzed Application-Specific Design Guidelines As industry fields mature in particular AM applications, best practices should be recorded. ASTM, other SDOS High No known standards are being developed to address this gap Machine Customizable/ Adaptive Guides for AM Process Specific Design Guide for AM Producing the same part on different machines from different manufacturers and often the same manufacturer will return different results. While process and application guidelines will provide meaningful insight, additional tailoring may be needed for specific instantiations. There are currently 7 types of AM as identified in ISO/ASTM One of these (powder bed fusion) has a guideline in development. The other 5 need a guideline outlining proper use and design application. ISO/ASTM High No known standards are being developed to address this gap Standards: ISO/ASTM 52900, ASTM/ISO JG57 (PBF). SDOs: ISO/ASTM, AWS Medium ISO/ASTM Standard needs to be assessed as powder bed fusion is a commonly used process at MSFC. No status on the other 5 processes Bill of Material Update Bill of Material Update SAE - LCLS & CM Committees High No known standards are complete or in development Design Guide for Surface Finish Post-processing There is a need for a design guide for new surface finish capabilities. ASME Low Pending development by ASME In-Process Monitoring No standardized data models or documentation have been identified for in-process monitoring and analytics. ASTM F42, ASME Medium No known standards are complete or in development Design for Assembly Guidelines do not exist for AM design for assembly. Design approaches may need to account for complexity of support structures, removal times, post-processing complexity, and manufacturing time/quality using different parameter sets. In regards to parameters sets, factors of interest could include feed rate and diameters (for DED), layer thickness and laser scan speed (for PBF). Furthermore, how these all factors interact must also be considered. Standard: ISO/DIS SDOs: Academia, industry, national laboratories. Standards: ISO, ASTM, AAMI, NEMA/MITA Medium ISO/DIS addresses assemblies but is not AM specific. New standards are needed. Design for Printed Electronics There is a need to develop standards on design for printed electronics. IPC-2292, IPC, ASTM Medium IPC-2291 is a release design guideline for printed electronics. A design standard IPC-2292 is under development Technical Data Package The correct contents of the Technical Data Package (TDP) for AM parts needs to be established Standard: Mil-STD SDOs: ASME, ISO, ASTM, DoD Design Guide for Surface Finish Post-processing There is a need for a specification on design documentation for new surface finishes. B46 - ASME Medium High Mil-Std is near completion. Will be tested at MSFC in the coming months An update to B46 may be pending which will address surface finish documentation Requirements for Purchased AM Parts A specification is needed to procure AM parts from third parties. ISO/ASTM Medium ISO/ASTM WK51282 is in development Design Allowables Current standards and underlying infrastructure/technology are not mature enough to support the development of design allowables. SAE, ASTM, MMPDS, CMH-17 Medium R&D needed. No current standards.

7 Engineering Release Standards Assessment Current Release Standards to be assessed for update 3D Collaboration & Interoperability Congress ASME Y14.100, Engineering Drawing Practices ASME Y14.5, Dimensioning and Tolerancing ASME Y14.41, Digital Product Definition Data Practices MSFC-STD-555, Engineering Documentation Standard MSFC-STD-2806, MSFC Tailoring Standard for the Global Drawing Requirements Manual, 10 th Edition MSFC-STD-3528, MSFC Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Standard ED-OWI-006, Detailed Mechanical Design ES30-OWI-007, Electronics Design Control New Standards to be Assessed ASME Y , 3D Model Data Organization Schema (Draft) ASME Y14.46, Product Definition Practices for Additive Manufacturing (Draft) Assess Interrelationship with New Manufacturing Standards MSFC-STD-3716, Standard for Additively Manufactured Spaceflight Hardware by Laser Powder Bed Fusion in Metals (Draft) MSFC-SPEC-3717, Specification for Control and Qualification of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Metallurgical Processes (Draft)

8 1.2 K Printed Injector CAD Out Brief Discussion Topics: CAD Designer William Brandsmieir Gearing Up for a Data-Centric NASA Getting annotations to translate correctly Exercised translations between CREO 3 & 4 including PVZ; AEGIS; JT ; Step 242 Verifying annotations did translate correctly How do you verify? What s the process? Used CREO to verify Metadata. Used GOM/Geo Magic Metrology Software to verify Geometry Vendor accepts and uses information correctly What formats for manufacturing use case? examples. Will they translate the file again? Manufacturing Annotations - How are they captured? Downstream usage of data (mfg., inspection, & etc.) Downstream processes/inspections reference data formats Lightweight vs Geometry model translation What is the use case for L/W and Step Files AM Slicer Conversion Uses only.stl format to slice CAD file.stl files do not have PMI capability Advantages: 3D Representations Build orientation definition standardization Support material surfaces standardization

9 1.2 K Printed Injector CAD Out Brief CAD Designer William Brandsmieir ASME Y ASME Y14.5 Gearing Up for a Data-Centric NASA ASME Y14.46 ASME Y14.46 Native design package is Creo 3.0.stp 242 is desired translation format to Stratasys

10 1.2 K Printed Injector CAD Out Brief 3D Collaboration & Interoperability Congress q 3.1 Coordinate System: Has been placed at the plate interface with Z pointing in build direction q 3.2 Unit vector ID: Creo does not place unit vectors q 3.3 Build Surface: Did not put in a surface annotation because it is built from a face (not angled) q Surfaces and Tolerances: No lattice structure therefore this section is not applicable. q Bounded Regions & Tolerances: Did an all over profile of the part with no bounded regions details. q 4.2 Design Characteristics: The specified characteristics of this section are not applicable to this part. q 4.3 Process-Related Characteristics: q Added support material note/surface, part/build orientation with default CSYS, and z pointing in build direction. q Did not provide any build parameters or topology optimization. q 5 Product Data Package: Still in-work (dependent on how things export and what vendor needs)