Introduction
History shows that technology has had the most significant impact on society. Throughout the ages, technology has grown and changed its scope. Additive manufacturing or 3D printing is considered to possess the possibility to be the next big thing in manufacturing. As 3D printing technology has matured, new materials and procedures have opened up new avenues for innovation, and the Internet has played an essential role in connecting it all.
Additive 3D printing is a technology that layers objects down to the sub-millimeter level. This distinguishes it from all other conventional manufacturing processes in complexity and technical sophistication. Three-dimensional printing consists of three primary phases: modeling, printing, and finishing (Darmawan & Sheu, 2021). 3D printing can manufacture a vast range of intricate items using different materials. Typically, a 3D digital representation of the product is required first, and then different types of Computer-Aided Design technologies are employed to create a realistic three-dimensional structure. According to Atkinson (2019), an inquiry into the usage of 3D printing technology could
- improve the efficiency of Maintenance Repair and Operation in carrying out aircraft maintenance activities,
- investigate issues arising due to the use of printed parts and
- assess the responsibilities of the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM), Maintenance Repair and Operation (MRO), and aviation authorities in ensuring the successful adoption of 3D printing technology in aviation maintenance.
Survey
An online questionnaire was developed, and a survey was conducted to gather the thoughts of aviation personnel on the influence of 3D printing on aircraft maintenance. The questionnaire consisted of a few questions, as shown in the appendices section, to acquire a comprehensive overview of the situation of AM in the airline sector from their perspectives.
Findings and Results
According to the results from the questionnaire, the respondents were as follows; 48% came from MRO, 26% worked for airlines, 13% came from OEM, and 8% came from distributors in the aviation business. However, the participants’ knowledge of AM was as high as their degree of experience and expectations. According to in-house statistics, the company does not have any immediate plans to use the technology, either because it is not currently on its agenda or it is not appropriate in its context. As a result, a more in-depth evaluation of the status of each aviation industry was conducted. Only half of the OEMs employ AM in their companies, whereas the other half do not employ or even think of employing additive manufacturing as part of their strategy. Many MROs and aircraft manufacturers either use or intend to employ AM.
75% of the respondents believed that AM would be more advantageous than the few individuals who expressed a neutral or unfavorable view from the survey. OEMs and suppliers advocated for more AM repairs and tools, while MROs and airlines advocated for better 3D printing production capabilities. Participants had various perspectives on assessing the problems faced by the deployment of AM in aviation maintenance. Among the challenges were the issue of increased manufacturing costs, the design approach, machine usage obstacles, and, lastly, the quality and production process.
Participants in the poll came from around the globe and represented almost every aspect of the aviation business. Familiarity with AM varies with experience, demonstrating that it is not well-known in the aviation sector. MRO participants are not entirely conversant with AM’s benefit in aiding repairs and tooling and feel AM is more beneficial for producing components (Cardea et al., 2020). Findings from an online poll show that several obstacles will be overcome before 3D printing can be used in airplane maintenance.
Advantages of 3D Printing in the Aviation Industry
Manufacturing process costs may be decreased by adopting 3D printing to build lighter, more complex, and better geometries. Using 3D printing is favorable to user entrepreneurship because of its unique qualities. Resource use, energy consumption, and process-related CO2 emissions might be considerably cut with 3D printing. This might save fuel in the airplane sector since every kg of material saved annually lowers fuel consumption by $3000. 3D printing has the power to reduce waste, as per an evaluation of the technology. Around $170 to $593 billion in production expenses and $2.5 billion in primary energy usage have been reduced thanks to 3D printing. By 2025, CO2 emissions are predicted to increase by 130 g CO2/km (Cardeal et al., 2020). As fuel savings might be achieved, 3D printing has much potential in the airplane market.
For 3D printing, the most appealing feature is the capacity to make even more lightweight products. Lightweight materials reduce manufacturing time requirements, and cost-effective and sustainable products are anticipated to boost aviation 3D printing in consideration of the need for minimal mass production of airplane parts over the forthcoming years because of the need for quick prototyping. Additionally, the aviation industry’s output might minimize Carbon dioxide emissions and TPES requirements connected with rehabilitation. Thanks to AM technology, downtime, expenditures, and capacity utilization are reduced (Darmawan & Sheu, 2021). Increasing the efficiency of the supply chain and lowering inventory are just a few of the benefits of AM.
Aerospace and Defense Additive Manufacturing
There has been a steady expansion in the aviation business, and corporations are looking for methods to fulfill client demand while simultaneously keeping costs under control. The aviation sector has significantly benefited from AM technology, which has had a significant impact on global production. Engines and other parts of plane innovators were the first to use AM. Using additive manufacturing, OEMs reduced the time to create new products and sped up their release to the market. A 3D printer eliminates the need for tooling, allowing engineers to go directly to manufacture completed goods because of the quick design evaluation and validation via rapid prototyping (Holzmann et al., 2017). In this way, engineers may test a more significant number of prototypes in a shorter period, resulting in improved design and less product launch risk.
The design’s geometrical intricacy of the pieces was severely constrained by the traditional production manufacturing method. Additive manufacturing has changed the way components are designed by allowing the use of complicated geometrical patterns. In the past, engineers were constrained in their ability to optimize the performance of components. It is possible for engineers to significantly lighten components in the production process by utilizing less material and combining many pieces into one (Lin & Chen, 2019). In order to satisfy the needs of their consumers, OEMs are increasingly embracing AM to optimize their supply chain.
Airlines and Organizations Specializing in Maintenance and Repair
For their operations, MRO has also begun using AM technology. Aeronautical manufacturing has a distinct set of uses in aircraft maintenance than it does in OEM design and production. In addition, aircraft maintenance settings face more demanding and complex implementation issues. The use of AM in this area, on the other hand, has significant potential advantages that have not yet been adequately explored or realized (Lin & Chen, 2019). In addition, the production time decreased, and the airlines received improved assistance in AOG circumstances due to this change. Airlines and MROs have also begun using AM in their day-to-day operations (Zhang et al., 2021). Aeronautical Maintenance uses AM differently from original equipment manufacturer (OEM) design and production. It is also more difficult and complex to use the technology in airline maintenance situations. As a result, there are still a lot of untapped potential advantages to employing AM in this industry.
Aviation repair operations might benefit from additive manufacturing, and this study attempts to identify and describe the areas in which AM might help and the problems that MROs face in using this technology. The market for after-sales services is expanding at the same rate as the worldwide fleet. For a long time, an independent MRO’s sales services were more important than the aftermarket services offered by OEMs (Manda et al., 2018). As a result of this lucrative post-sale market, OEMs are increasing their maintenance budgets to gain a more significant market share and profit.
OEMs are more interested in offering repair, maintenance, and overhauling spares, increasing competition in the aircraft aftermarket. OEMs are likewise looking to expand their influence in the service business through joint ventures and acquisitions. For instance, the Singapore Airlines subsidiary and Airbus have formed a joint venture to provide aviation repair, cabin upgrade, and reconfiguration operations for Airlines 380, 350, and 330 aircraft. It is worth noting that Airbus purchased Satair A/S in 2011 to expand its capabilities in airline inventory control, much like Boeing did in 2006 when it acquired Aviall to expand its service offerings. A significant obstacle to adopting additive manufacturing in aviation maintenance is the influence of OEMs in the post-sales market. OEMs own all the design data and material specifications necessary for 3D printing, just as they are with TCHs (Salonen & Gopalakrishnan, 2020). MROs’ objective of obtaining much of the market will be jeopardized if they give up this information.
According to the research, OEMs are likely to favor this technique since it is less expensive and they already hold the bulk of the IP. This issue might restrict or perhaps prevent 3D printing for MRO replacement parts. In order to meet this problem, they work with the original equipment manufacturer. Using AM in the corporate world will benefit both organizations. Because of this, the MRO will also profit from the OEM’s knowledge and experience in additive manufacturing. Another option is for the OEM to offer component design-based CAD files instead of actual replacement parts (Tofail et al., 2018). Logistics costs will be reduced as a result of this change.
In 2015, Boeing filed a patent application for a similar idea. In Boeing’s patent, the company offers a method and equipment to request, approve, publish, and even pay for airplane components. Inspections, testing, and quality testing are conducted practically every step of the production process to evaluate the performance of a traditionally created product. Raw material inspections are usually the first step in this process, followed by a series of tests and inspections throughout production and, finally, an inspection of the finished product (Tönissen & Schlicher, 2021). Statistical process control approaches enhance repeatability and quality concerning the inspection findings by comparing them to the appropriate quality standard.
AM machines contain 150 factors that would need to be regulated to create consistent and reproducible products. Quality and consistency cannot be assured since there is no accepted standard and no in-process inspections to manage the variables. MROs’ maintenance processes ensure that their products meet the airworthiness requirements set by the regulation and the OEMs and their standards (Vilarinho et al., 2017). Slow adoption of AM procedures into Aircraft Maintenance processes will occur with no AM standards.
Conclusion
The aviation industry’s embrace of innovation and technologies is driving this tremendous expansion; aircraft manufacturers use this technology to build planes, airlines provide improved services to customers, and MROs safely repair planes. It was also difficult for the critical safety business to accept new technology. For any of these innovations can be implemented in the industry, several trials, testing, and approvals must be completed, and this approach takes a long time.
Due to the rising demand for passengers, new technologies have flooded the aviation sector via quicker and simpler channels in recent years. Aviation inventors have concentrated their efforts on using new technology to improve their goods for their customers. As a new technology, additive manufacturing is quickly becoming essential to the aviation sector (Shafik, 2019). Only recently have we begun to see its uses in industry after the technology was developed many years ago.
Additionally, the automotive and aerospace sectors are now embracing and applying technology. The airline OEM has been experimenting with AM for many years and has started to admire its advantages over conventional production. Design flexibility and optimization, lower weight components, quicker time to market, and the possibility to significantly cut costs in production and logistics are just a few of the benefits of AM in aircraft manufacturing, as shown in the survey findings.
According to Tkachukhe, the aerospace sector makes significant investments in additive manufacturing (AM). Many original equipment manufacturers have already manufactured their 3D-printed flying components, while others are actively mass-producing using additive manufacturing rather than the traditional method. There is still a lack of knowledge about how AMs may improve aircraft maintenance methods in the MRO industry. These results are attributed to a paucity of knowledge within the MRO context of AM.
Recommendations
This investigation focused on the commercial aviation industry’s use of additive manufacturing technology. The Aviation military industry uses new technology in more complex applications due to their specific operations. In addition, the commercial aviation industry has always heeded the lessons of military innovation. More studies should be carried out on the use, difficulties, and remedies of 3D printing technology in aerospace defense maintenance. A structure may be developed into its planned shape using a layer-by-layer approach instead of casting or shaping via technologies like forging or machining. This makes AM ideal for most industrial production areas. These parts may be made from a variety of materials.
References
Atkinson, S. (2019). Eaton uses additive manufacturing to produce parts for jet trainer aircraft. Sealing Technology, 2019(7), 5-5. Web.
Cardeal, G., Höse, K., Ribeiro, I., & Götze, U. (2020). Sustainable Business Models–Canvas for Sustainability, Evaluation Method, and Their Application to Additive Manufacturing in Aircraft Maintenance. Sustainability, 12(21), 9130. Web.
Darmawan, A., & Sheu, D. (2021). Preventive maintenance scheduling: a simulation-optimization approach. Production &Amp; Manufacturing Research, 9(1), 281-298. Web.
Holzmann, P., Breitenecker, R., Soomro, A., & Schwarz, E. (2017). User entrepreneur business models in 3D printing. Journal Of Manufacturing Technology Management, 28(1), 75-94. Web.
Lin, C., & Chen, T. (2019). 3D printing technologies enhance the sustainability of an aircraft manufacturing or MRO company—a multi-expert partial consensus-FAHP analysis. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 105(10), 4171-4180. Web.
Manda, V., Kampurath, V., & Msrk, C. (2018). 3D Printing and its Effect on Outsourcing: A Study of the Indian Aircraft Industry. Journal Of Aerospace Technology and Management, 10. Web.
Salonen, A., & Gopalakrishnan, M. (2020). Practices of preventive maintenance planning in the discrete manufacturing industry. Journal Of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 27(2), 331-350. Web.
Tofail, S., Koumoulos, E., Bandyopadhyay, A., Bose, S., O’Donoghue, L., & Charitidis, C. (2018). Additive manufacturing: scientific and technological challenges, market uptake, and opportunities. Materials Today, 21(1), 22-37. Web.
Tönissen, D., & Schlicher, L. (2021). Using 3D-printing in disaster response: The two-stage stochastic 3D-printing knapsack problem. Computers &Amp; Operations Research, 133, 105356. Web.
Vilarinho, S., Lopes, I., & Oliveira, J. (2017). Preventive Maintenance Decisions through Maintenance Optimization Models: A Case Study. Procedia Manufacturing, 11, 1170-1177. Web.
Zhang, Z., Tang, Q., & Chica, M. (2021). Maintenance costs and makespan minimization for assembly permutation flow shop scheduling by considering preventive and corrective maintenance. Journal Of Manufacturing Systems, 59, 549-564. Web.