Advertisement

Comparative Cost Evaluation of Material Removal Process and Additive Manufacturing in Aerospace Industry

  • F. FacchiniEmail author
  • A. De Chirico
  • G. Mummolo
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 280)

Abstract

In last years, the market penetration of the Additive Manufacturing (AM) processes in aerospace industry is continuously growing, if on one hand the advantages of AM process are indisputable under technological perspective, on the other hand the costs due to AM process are quite variable and, in many cases, identifying a preliminary cost estimation is very difficult. Indeed, engineering and manufacturing costs are strongly dependent by complexity and by specificity of the part to be manufactured. The purpose of this paper consists in developing a cost model based on a computational algorithm that allows to quickly asses the overall cost due to design and production of part by means of one of the most recently AM technology (Wire+Arc AM). Consistently, the model is adopted for evaluate and compare the process costs due to production of a batch of aerospace parts, adopting both Wire+Arc AM (WAAM) and traditional machining technologies. The results of the experimental study conducted, show that the most cost-effective technology, between WAAM and traditional machining, is strongly depending on batch size to be manufactured.

Keywords

Parametric cost model Product development process Target costing 

References

  1. 1.
    Facchini, F., Mossa, G., Mummolo, G.: A model based on artificial neural network for risk assessment to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in workplace. In: Proceedings of the European Modeling and Simulation Symposium, pp. 282–289 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Metallurgy Additive Manufacturing for Aerospace: Market Shares, Strategies, and Forecasts, Worldwide, 2017 to 2023, https://www.marketresearchreports.com/wintergreen-research/metallurgy-additive-manufacturing-aerospace-market-shares-strategies-and. Last accessed 18 Dec 2018
  3. 3.
    Boenzi, F., Digiesi, S., Facchini, F., Mossa, G., Mummolo, G.: Greening activities in warehouses: a model for identifying sustainable strategies in material handling. In: Proceedings of the 26th DAAAM International Symposium, pp. 0980–0988 (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Facchini, F., Boenzi, F., Digiesi, S., Mossa, G., Mummolo, G., Verriello, R.: Minimizing the carbon footprint of material handling equipment: comparison of electric and LPG forklifts. J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 9(5), 1035–1046 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alexander, P., Allen, S., Dutta, D.: Part orientation and build cost determination in layered manufacturing. Comput. Aided Des. 30(5), 343–356 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hopkinson, N., Dickens, P.: Analysis of rapid manufacturing—using layer manufacturing processes for production. Proc. Institut. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 31–39 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruffo, M., Tuck, C., Hauge, R.: Cost estimation for rapid manufacturing-laser sintering production for low to medium volumes. Proc. Institut. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manufact. 220(9), 1417–1427 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baumers, M., Dickens, P., Tuck, C., Hague, R.: The cost of additive manufacturing: machine productivity, economies of scale and technology-push. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 102, 193–201 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martina, F., Stewart, W., Wire+Arc Additive Manufacturing vs. Traditional Machining from Solid: A Cost Comparison, https://waammat.com/documents. Last accessed 15 Jan 2018
  10. 10.
    Fera, M., Fruggiero, F., Costabile, G., Lambiase, A., Pham, D.T.: A new mixed production cost allocation model for additive manufacturing (MiProCAMAM). Int. J. Advanc. Manufact. Technol. 92, 4275–4291 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams, S.W., Martina, F., Addison, A.C., Ding, J., Pardal, G., Colegrove, P.: Wire+Arc additive manufacturing. Mater. Sci. Technol. 32(7), 641–647 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Priarone, P.C., Robiglio, M., Ingarao, G., Settineri, L.: Assessment of cost and energy requirements of electron beam melting (EBM) and machining processes. Sustain. Design Manufact. 723–733 (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanics, Mathematics and ManagementPolytechnic University of BariBariItaly

Personalised recommendations