Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T01:23:02.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drivers and Guidelines in Design for Qualification Using Additive Manufacturing in Space Applications

Part of: Design for Additive Manufacturing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Christo Dordlofva ,
Olivia Borgue ,
Massimo Panarotto  and
Ola Isaksson
Christo Dordlofva*
Affiliation:
Luleå University of Technology;
Olivia Borgue
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology
Massimo Panarotto
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology
Ola Isaksson
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology
*
Contact: Dordlofva, Christo, Luleå University of Technology, Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences, Sweden, christo.dordlofva@ltu.se

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In recent years, reducing cost and lead time in product development and qualification has become decisive to stay competitive in the space industry. Introducing Additive Manufacturing (AM) could potentially be beneficial from this perspective, but high demands on product reliability and lack of knowledge about AM processes make implementation challenging. Traditional approaches to qualification are too expensive if AM is to be used for critical applications in the near future. One alternative approach is to consider qualification as a design factor in the early phases of product development, potentially reducing cost and lead time for development and qualification as products are designed to be qualified. The presented study has identified factors that drive qualification activities in the space industry and these “qualification drivers” serve as a baseline for a set of proposed strategies for developing “Design for Qualification” guidelines for AM components. The explicit aim of these guidelines is to develop products that can be qualified, as well as appropriate qualification logics. The presented results provide a knowledge-base for the future development of such guidelines.

Keywords

New product developmentAdditive ManufacturingDesign for X (DfX)Design for QualificationSpace Applications
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 729 - 738
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

BBC News. (2018), “SpaceX launches broadband pathfinders”, available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43160073 (accessed 2 December 2018).Google Scholar
Bralla, J.G. (1996), Design for Excellence, 1st ed., McGraw-Hill/Knovel - online version.Google Scholar
Brandão, A.D., Gerard, R., Gumpinger, J., Beretta, S., Makaya, A., Pambaguian, L. and Ghidini, T. (2017), “Challenges in Additive Manufacturing of Space Parts : Powder Feedstock Cross-Contamination and Its Impact on End Products”, Materials, Vol. 10 No. 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10050522Google Scholar
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2015), Business Research Methods, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Clinton, R.G. (2018), “Overview of Additive Manufacturing Initiatives at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center”, (Presentation), available at: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20180001514.pdf (accessed 17 March 2019).Google Scholar
Creswell, J.W. (2014), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
Dordlofva, C. and Törlind, P. (2017), “Qualification Challenges with Additive Manufacturing in Space Applications”, Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, USA, August 2017, pp. 2699–2712.Google Scholar
Frazier, W.E. (2014), “Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review”, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 1917–1928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-014-0958-zGoogle Scholar
GE. (2017), “GE Aviation announces 1st run of the Advanced Turboprop engine”, available at: https://www.geaviation.com/press-release/business-general-aviation/ge-aviation-announces-first-run-advanced-turboprop-engine (accessed 15 March 2019).Google Scholar
Gerling, W.H., Preussger, A. and Wulfert, F.W. (2002), “Reliability qualification of semiconductor devices based on physics-of-failure and risk and opportunity assessment”, Quality and Reliability Engineering International, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.468Google Scholar
Gorelik, M. (2017), “Additive manufacturing in the context of structural integrity”, International Journal of Fatigue, Vol. 94, pp. 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2016.07.005Google Scholar
Holt, R. and Barnes, C. (2010), “Towards an integrated approach to ‘Design for X’: an agenda for decision-based DFX research”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-009-0081-6Google Scholar
ISO/TC-261. (2019), “ISO/TC 261 Technical Committee”, available at: https://www.iso.org/committee/629086.html (accessed 15 March 2019).Google Scholar
Kumke, M., Watschke, H., Hartogh, P., Bavendiek, A.K. and Vietor, T. (2018), “Methods and tools for identifying and leveraging additive manufacturing design potentials”, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, Springer, Paris, Vol. 12, pp. 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-017-0399-7Google Scholar
Kumke, M., Watschke, H. and Vietor, T. (2016), “A new methodological framework for design for additive manufacturing”, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2016.1139377Google Scholar
Laverne, F., Segonds, F., D'Antonio, G. and Le Coq, M. (2017), “Enriching design with X through tailored additive manufacturing knowledge: a methodological proposal”, International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, Springer, Paris, Vol. 11, pp. 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-016-0314-7Google Scholar
Lindwall, A., Dordlofva, C. and Öhrwall Rönnbäck, A. (2017), “Additive manufacturing and the product development process: Insights from the space industry”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED17.Google Scholar
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
Musgrave, G.E., Larsen, A.M. and Sgobba, T. (Eds.). (2009), Safety Design for Space Systems, Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
O'Brien, M.J. (2018), “Development and qualification of additively manufactured parts for space”, in Helvajian, H., Piqué, A. and Gu, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of SPIE, Laser 3D Manufacturing V, SPIE, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2297204Google Scholar
Öhrwall Rönnbäck, A.B. and Isaksson, O. (2018), “Product Development Challenges for Space Sub-System Manufacturers”, Proceedings of the 15th International Design Conference, pp. 1937–1944. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0534Google Scholar
Pecht, M.G. (1993), “Design for Qualification”, Proceedings of Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
Preussger, A., Kanert, W. and Gerling, W. (2003), “Reliability qualification of a smart power technology for high temperature application based on physics-of-failure and risk & and opportunity assessment”, 2003 IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium Proceedings., pp. 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1109/RELPHY.2003.1197777Google Scholar
Salt, D. (2013), “NewSpace - delivering on the dream”, Acta Astronautica, Elsevier, Vol. 92 No. 2, pp. 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.08.020Google Scholar
Seifi, M., Gorelik, M., Waller, J., Hrabe, N., Shamsaei, N., Daniewicz, S. and Lewandowski, J.J. (2017), “Progress Towards Metal Additive Manufacturing Standardization to Support Qualification and Certification”, JOM, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 439–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-017-2265-2Google Scholar
Tantra, R. and van Heeren, H. (2013), “Product qualification: a barrier to point-of-care microfluidic-based diagnostics?”, Lab on a Chip, Vol. 13 No. 12, pp. 2199–2201. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3lc50246eGoogle Scholar
Wang, W., Azarian, M.H. and Pecht, M. (2008), “Qualification for product development”, 2008 International Conference on Electronic Packaging Technology & High Density Packaging, IEEE, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEPT.2008.4606933Google Scholar
Yadav, O.P., Singh, N. and Goel, P.S. (2006), “Reliability demonstration test planning: A three dimensional consideration”, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 91 No. 8, pp. 882–893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2005.09.001Google Scholar
Zhu, Z., Pradel, P., Bibb, R. and Moultrie, J. (2017), “A Framework for Designing End Use Products for Direct Manufacturing Using Additive Manufacturing Technologies”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), Vol. 5, pp. 327–336.Google Scholar