3D C
olla
bora
tion
& In
tero
pera
bilit
y C
ongr
ess
Additive Manufacturing in a Model Based Enterprise
Implementation Planning
Speaker: Thad HenrySystems Engineering Management Office Information, Configuration & Data Management
3D C
olla
bora
tion
& In
tero
pera
bilit
y C
ongr
ess
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-2007-6105
NASA Traditional DDT&E Engine
3D C
olla
bora
tion
& In
tero
pera
bilit
y C
ongr
ess
NASA Configuration and Data Management Standard
3D C
olla
bora
tion
& In
tero
pera
bilit
y C
ongr
ess
Description
Ø Procured funds to perform a demonstration project that implements use of draft AM engineering release standards. Ø Sponsoring Org: EE12/CDM Systems Engineering Office and deployed across the Engineering and S&MA Ø User Community Size: > 200 Engineering, S&MA, and Manufacturing Personnel .
Justification/Benefits
Ø NASA currently has no standards in place for the release of additively manufactured (AM) parts that addresses unique AM process annotations and design intent.
Ø 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.
Ø The design to manufacturing process will benefit from release standards specific to AM (dimensioning, annotating, versioning, file conversion, etc.)
Ø 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.
NASA Tech Excellence Summer Project
3D C
olla
bora
tion
& In
tero
pera
bilit
y C
ongr
ess
AdoptionofDesignandReleaseStandardsforAdditivelyManufacturedParts
ElliotBefus– UniversityofUtah Mentors:LizNunn,ThadHenry– EE12
AbstractAdditivemanufacturing(AM)technologyhasthepotentialtohavealargebeneficialimpactontheaerospaceindustryduetotheabilitytorapidlyproducelightweight,geometricallycomplexpartsandassemblies.Inordertorealizethesebenefits,itisnecessarytoputcontrolsinplacethatwillpreventweaknessesanderrorsthatcouldproveexpensiveandcompromisemissionsafety.Aroadmapisbeingdevelopedthatwilloutlinethemulti-yearprocessofupdatingthedesignandreleasestandardsusedatMarshallSpaceflightCenter(MSFC)tofacilitateAM.InJune$10,000wasprocuredforthisproject,throughaTechnicalExcellence(TE)Proposal,foratestprintandexpertconsultation.WorkdoneonthisprojectwilllaythegroundworkforupdatingMSFC’sdesignandreleasestandardswhich,whencomplete,willbeanimportantstepinAMprocesscertificationandflightofAMpartsonboardtheSpaceLaunchSystem(SLS)andotherNASAmissions.
Objectives1. DesignandconductatesttoassessASMEstandards
Y14.46andY14.41.12. Developaroadmapwhichoutlinesamulti-yearplanto
updatedesignandreleasestandardsusedatMSFCtoaccommodateadditivemanufacturing
3. Createadetailedschedulewhichdefinestaskstoassessstandards,runtestcasesandimplementprovenstandardsintoMSFCpolicy
4. Writeawhitepaperwhichoutlinestheroadmap,ourjustificationofneed,andtheexpertsthatwillbeinvolved
Figure1:OneofthepowderbedfusionAMmachinesinuseatMSFC
ModelBasedDefinitionY14.46:“ProductDefinitionPracticesforAdditiveManufacturing”andY14.41.1:“ModelOrganizationSchemaPractices”arenewstandardswhichdefinemodelbaseddefinitionpracticesrelevanttoAM.Traditionally,designengineersgeneratedrawingsfromthemodelsofdesiredpartstobesenttoamanufacturer.ForAMpurposes,thisisunnecessaryasprintersreceivemodelbasedinputs.Thisallowsimportantdatasuchasdimensions,tolerancesandannotationstobedirectlyappliedtothemodel.
InjectorPrintingTestFromthemoneyprocuredviatheTEproposal,$5000isbeingallocatedtoatestprintofa1.2kNsubscaleliquidrocketengineinjector.ThistestwillbeusedtovettheguidancecontainedinY14.46andY14.41.1.AsacollaborativeeffortbetweenpersonnelfromEE12,ER34andEM42,themodelwillbeannotatedandthensentforcheckingandreviewfromthemanufacturingfloor.Printingwillbedonebya3rd partyvendoranduponreceipt,willundergoathoroughinspection.
Figure4:AsimilarInconelinjectorpreviouslyprintedatMSFC
RoadmapThepurposeoftheroadmapistoreviewtheworkbeingdonebyvariousstandardsdevelopmentorganizations(SDOs),identifythosestandardsthatcouldbenefitMSFCprojectsandoutlineaplanfortestingandimplementation.AmericaMakes&ANSIAdditiveManufacturingStandardizationCollaborative(AMSC)hascreatedaroadmapthatidentifies89“gaps”inAMprocessesthatrequirestandardizationacrossindustry.22gapsfromthislisthavebeenidentifiedasapplicabletoMSFCdesignandreleaseprocedures.Thisroadmapalsoincludesadetailedschedulewhichwilldirect2yearsofworkonthisproject.TheschedulesetsspecificperiodsforwhichtheteamshouldbefocusingtheireffortsonSDOresearch,standardanalysis,testingandchangesubmissiontoofficesofprimaryresponsibility.
FutureWorkAsfutureinternsassignedtothisprojectcometoMSFC,Theywillusetheroadmapandtheresultsoftheinjectorprintingtesttooutlineanddefinetheirownprojects.Thiswillinvolveperiodsofresearch,teamformation,resourceprocurement,testingandanalysis.ThenextstandardstargetedfortestingaddresstechnicaldatapackagesandfileformatsforAM.Thereisalsoabi-annualprocedurebuiltintothescheduleaddressingstandardchangesubmission.
AcknowledgementsIwouldliketothankmymentorsLizNunnandThadHenryaswellasAmyHemken,WillBrandsmeier,StephenPhillips,JimTurner,KatherineVanHooserandNelsonParkerfortheircontributionstothisproject.
Figure2,3:Anannotateddrawing(top)comparedtoanannotatedmodel(bottom) Figure4:AportionofaGanttchartshowingtheinjectortestprintschedule
ReferencesAmericaMakes&ANSIAdditiveManufacturingStandardizationCollaborative.StandardizationRoadmapforAdditiveManufacturing.Feb.2017ASME.Y14.46:ProductDefinitionPracticesforAdditiveManufacturing.May,2017.ASME.Y14.41.1:ModelOrganizationSchemaPractices.May2017.
NASA Tech Excellence Summer Project
Gea
ring
Up
for
a D
ata-
Cen
tric
NA
SA
CMMI Type Approach
MSFCAM/MBEROADMAP
Gap DescriptionRelated Standards
SDO Orgs Priority Status
NewDimensioningandTolerancingRequirements Current standards in use at MSFC fail to fully address the best dimensioning, tolerancing and annotation requirements for AM 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.
OrganizationSchemaRequirement AschemafororganizinginformationinanAMdigitalproductdefinitiondatasetisrequiredtodefinecommonpracticesandtodeliverconsistentdatacontentandstructuretoconsumersofthedata. ASME14.41.1 High
Y14.41.1 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.
MSFCStandardsUpdate 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)
ASME - Y14.5, Y14.41 MSFC - STD-3528, STD-555
GDRM 12th edHigh The updates have been published and are ready for appraisal.
General GuideforAM:Additivevs.Subtractive MSFC currently has no resources to help designers recognize trade-offs between additive and subtractive manufacturing methods ISO/ASTM, AWS, SAE Low No known standards are being developed to address this gap
GeneralGuideforAM:AdditiveProcessDecision 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 WK38342 - ASTM and ISO Medium The ASTM/ISO work item needs to be obtained and analyzed
Application-SpecificDesignGuidelines AsindustryfieldsmatureinparticularAMapplications,bestpracticesshouldberecorded. ASTM,otherSDOS High No known standards are being developed to address this gap
MachineCustomizable/AdaptiveGuidesforAMProducingthesamepartondifferentmachinesfromdifferentmanufacturersandoftenthesamemanufacturerwillreturndifferentresults.Whileprocessandapplicationguidelineswillprovidemeaningfulinsight,additionaltailoringmaybeneededforspecificinstantiations.
ISO/ASTM High No known standards are being developed to address this gap
ProcessSpecific DesignGuideforAM There are currently 7 types of AM as identified in ISO/ASTM 52900. One of these (powder bed fusion) has a guideline in development. The other 5 need a guideline outlining proper use and design application.
Standards: ISO/ASTM 52900, ASTM/ISO JG57 (PBF). SDOs:
ISO/ASTM, AWSMedium
ISO/ASTM Standard 52900 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
DesignGuideforSurfaceFinishPost-processing There is a need for a design guide for new surface finish capabilities. ASME Low Pending development by ASME
In-ProcessMonitoring Nostandardizeddatamodelsordocumentationhavebeenidentifiedforin-processmonitoringandanalytics. ASTMF42, ASME Medium No known standards are complete or in development
DesignforAssembly
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 8887-1 SDOs: Academia, industry, national laboratories. Standards: ISO, ASTM,
AAMI, NEMA/MITA
Medium ISO/DIS 8887-1 addresses assemblies but is not AM specific. New standards are needed.
Design forPrintedElectronics 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
TechnicalDataPackage The correct contents of the Technical Data Package (TDP) for AM parts needs to be established Standard: Mil-STD-31000 SDOs: ASME, ISO, ASTM, DoD High Mil-Std 31000 is near completion. Will be tested at MSFC in the coming
months
DesignGuideforSurfaceFinishPost-processing There is a need for a specification on design documentation for new surface finishes. B46 - ASME Medium An update to B46 may be pending which will address surface finish documentation
Requirements forPurchasedAMParts A specification is needed to procure AM parts from third parties. ISO/ASTM 52901 Medium ISO/ASTM WK51282 is in development
DesignAllowables Currentstandardsandunderlyinginfrastructure/technologyarenotmatureenoughtosupportthedevelopmentofdesignallowables. SAE,ASTM,MMPDS,CMH-17 Medium R&Dneeded.Nocurrentstandards.
Additive Manufacturing Model Based Road MapThe Long Term Solution Roadmap is Complex
3D C
olla
bora
tion
& In
tero
pera
bilit
y C
ongr
ess
Current Release Standards to be assessed for update
Ø ASME Y14.100, Engineering Drawing Practices
Ø ASME Y14.5, Dimensioning and Tolerancing
Ø ASME Y14.41, Digital Product Definition Data Practices
Ø MSFC-STD-555, Engineering Documentation Standard
Ø MSFC-STD-2806, MSFC Tailoring Standard for the Global Drawing Requirements Manual, 10th Edition
Ø MSFC-STD-3528, MSFC Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Standard
Ø ED-OWI-006, Detailed Mechanical Design
Ø ES30-OWI-007, Electronics Design Control
New Standards to be Assessed
Ø ASME Y14.41.1, 3D Model Data Organization Schema (Draft)
Ø ASME Y14.46, Product Definition Practices for Additive Manufacturing (Draft)
Assess Interrelationship with New Manufacturing Standards
Ø MSFC-STD-3716, Standard for Additively Manufactured Spaceflight Hardware by Laser Powder Bed Fusion in Metals (Draft)
Ø MSFC-SPEC-3717, Specification for Control and Qualification of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Metallurgical Processes (Draft)
Engineering Release Standards Assessment
Gea
ring
Up
for
a D
ata-
Cen
tric
NA
SA
Discussion Topics:
• 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? 31000 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
1.2 K Printed Injector CAD Out BriefCAD Designer – William Brandsmieir
Advantages:
• 3D Representations• Build orientation definition
standardization• Support material surfaces
standardization
Gea
ring
Up
for
a D
ata-
Cen
tric
NA
SA
Native design package is Creo 3.0.stp 242 is desired translation format to Stratasys
ASME Y14.41.1ASME Y14.5
ASME Y14.46
ASME Y14.46
1.2 K Printed Injector CAD Out BriefCAD Designer – William Brandsmieir
3D C
olla
bora
tion
& In
tero
pera
bilit
y C
ongr
ess
1.2 K Printed Injector CAD Out Brief
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 4.1.1 Surfaces and Tolerances: No lattice structure therefore this section is not applicable.
q 4.1.2 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)
