Download PDF
Automating Support Generation for Laser Beam Melting with Additive Works’ Amphyon
Technology Category
- Analytics & Modeling - Digital Twin / Simulation
- Sensors - Lidar & Lazer Scanners
Applicable Industries
- Aerospace
- Education
Applicable Functions
- Product Research & Development
- Quality Assurance
Use Cases
- Manufacturing Process Simulation
- Virtual Reality
The Challenge
Laser Beam Melting (LBM) technology allows for the creation of complex metallic parts without material waste, finding applications in industries such as aerospace. However, the process is essentially a micro welding process, and thermo-mechanical phenomena play a significant role. The heat from the melting material must dissipate, and the force from the contraction of the weld paths must be compensated. To maintain temperature and keep the part attached to the build plate, additional support geometries are added to the part. This not only increases material usage but also necessitates additional post-processing. The process stability is heavily dependent on the support structure. If the supports are not strong enough or do not conduct heat effectively, the quality and shape of the part can deviate from the desired result. Cracking of supports during the process can lead to process abortion, potentially doubling the costs per part, especially for parts being printed for the first time.
About The Customer
The customer in this case is any industry or organization that utilizes Laser Beam Melting (LBM) technology for the creation of complex metallic parts. This includes, but is not limited to, the aerospace industry. These customers often face challenges with the LBM process, particularly in terms of the thermo-mechanical phenomena that occur during the process. The heat from the melting material must be dissipated, and the force from the contraction of the weld paths must be compensated. This often requires the addition of support geometries to the part, which increases material usage and necessitates additional post-processing. The stability of the process is heavily dependent on these support structures, and if they are not sufficient, the quality and shape of the part can deviate from the desired result.
The Solution
Additive Works aims to replace the extensive iterations involved in support generation with process simulation and optimization. The upcoming support module of the Amphyon software ensures that critical values are not exceeded and automatically creates the support geometry accordingly. The applied routine optimizes spatially varied parameters for thin-walled support structures, allowing for dense support walls in critical regions with high mechanical loads and coarse walls with large perforations where powder removability is more important. After the optimal support parameters have been calculated, the software can automatically generate corresponding support structures, including interfaces between part and support that are dimensioned to ensure a stable process and minimized post-processing effort. The software also allows for the automatic generation of support structures for first-time-right LBM, saving material and reducing the required build time. This simulation-driven workflow requires significantly less user interaction, decreasing process development costs of critical parts and introducing a new state-of-the-art in automation of support generation in LBM.
Operational Impact
Quantitative Benefit
Related Case Studies.
Case Study
Airbus Soars with Wearable Technology
Building an Airbus aircraft involves complex manufacturing processes consisting of thousands of moving parts. Speed and accuracy are critical to business and competitive advantage. Improvements in both would have high impact on Airbus’ bottom line. Airbus wanted to help operators reduce the complexity of assembling cabin seats and decrease the time required to complete this task.
Case Study
Aircraft Predictive Maintenance and Workflow Optimization
First, aircraft manufacturer have trouble monitoring the health of aircraft systems with health prognostics and deliver predictive maintenance insights. Second, aircraft manufacturer wants a solution that can provide an in-context advisory and align job assignments to match technician experience and expertise.
Case Study
Aerospace & Defense Case Study Airbus
For the development of its new wide-body aircraft, Airbus needed to ensure quality and consistency across all internal and external stakeholders. Airbus had many challenges including a very aggressive development schedule and the need to ramp up production quickly to satisfy their delivery commitments. The lack of communication extended design time and introduced errors that drove up costs.
Case Study
Developing Smart Tools for the Airbus Factory
Manufacturing and assembly of aircraft, which involves tens of thousands of steps that must be followed by the operators, and a single mistake in the process could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix, makes the room for error very small.
Case Study
Accelerate Production for Spirit AeroSystems
The manufacture and assembly of massive fuselage assemblies and other large structures generates a river of data. In fact, the bill of materials for a single fuselage alone can be millions of rows of data. In-house production processes and testing, as well as other manufacturers and customers created data flows that overwhelmed previous processes and information systems. Spirit’s customer base had grown substantially since their 2005 divestiture from Boeing, resulting in a $41 billion backlog of orders to fill. To address this backlog, meet increased customer demands and minimize additional capital investment, the company needed a way to improve throughput in the existing operational footprint. Spirit had a requirement from customers to increase fuselage production by 30%. To accomplish this goal, Spirit needed real-time information on its value chain and workflow. However, the two terabytes of data being pulled from their SAP ECC was unmanageable and overloaded their business warehouse. It had become time-consuming and difficult to pull aggregate data, disaggregate it for the needed information and then reassemble to create a report. During the 6-8 hours it took to build a report, another work shift (they run three per day) would have already taken place, thus the report content was out-of-date before it was ever delivered. As a result, supervisors often had to rely on manual efforts to provide charts, reports and analysis.
