In a recent study published in the journal Applied Science, authors from Denmark conducted the value chain analysis of additive and conventionally manufactured multi-cavity tool steel inserts. The results indicated that the cost of inserts manufactured by metal additive manufacturing and conventional manufacturing is similar.
Metal Additive and Conventional ManufacturingÂ
Multi-cavity tool inserts are widely used in plastic molding manufacturing units and are manufactured using conventional manufacturing methods. But, due to recent development in metal additive manufacturing, the cost and accuracy of the technology has optimized and can be used to make multi-cavity tools in factory setups. But, the major limitation of using metal additive manufacturing is the high cost of machine and operation. In a recent study, the authors developed a case study in which they compared the methods in a factory setup using simulation software and an industrial case.
Methodology
A commonly manufactured multi-cavity tool of ABS plastic was selected to compare the methods. A factory setup and simulation software were also developed to conduct the study. Further, the analysis was conducted on three scenarios. In the first scenario, only one machine was active at one time, which performed only one step of manufacturing the tool for both metal AM and conventional additive manufacturing. In the second scenario, the factory was utilized at total capacity for comparison, and in the third scenario, some dedicated machines were added to facilitate the production through metal additive manufacturing.
The main reason for selecting the three scenarios was to identify the bottleneck and improve on the bottleneck in the following scenario. Additionally, the selection of three scenarios also provided an overview of the three types of factory setups that can be used in the metal and conventional manufacturing methods.
Outcomes
In the first scenario, where only one machine was active and performing one step of the value chain at once, the metal AM process proved to be the bottleneck as it took the highest time. In the second scenario, the complete factory setup was used to perform the steps involved in the value chain. Additionally, one more metal AM machine is to improve the metal AM speed. The results of the second scenario indicated that the metal AM process was yet the bottleneck, as it took the most time. The third scenario, where an extensive metal AM system was used for production, proved to have the highest production rate.
The cost comparison results indicate that the cost of metal AM is similar to that of conventional manufacturing. The study results override the general perception that the metal AM is costly compared to traditional manufacturing methods. The authors also mentioned that, in conventional manufacturing, they considered EDM method, in which if the cutting tools are changed after the production of every insert, the cost of metal AM will be cheaper than conventional manufacturing.
In addition to this, according to the authors, it is also essential to consider that design is not similar in the case of metal AM and subtractive manufacturing. In the case of the multi-cavity tool, steel inserts, the cavity can be doubled with the help of the metal AM process. It must also be noted that the metal AM process offers a better design than the conventional manufacturing method.
Total Cost of Metal AM and Conventional Manufacturing
Conclusions
The main advantage of the study was that it helped to demonstrate that cost of metal AM was comparable with conventional manufacturing. But the study’s main limitation was that most data was taken from previous literature and simulation work, which may differ from accurate data. In addition, the simulation was done on a highly digitized factory setup, and the outcomes may vary based on the factory facilities.
The future scope of the study is to analyze the production design and programming phase in depth. Additionally, gathering real-time data based on the factory set up that operators with the conventional and the metal AM machines, would help further validate the results.
Source:
Moshiri, M.; Raza, M.; Sahlab, M.; Malik, A.A.; Bilberg, A.; Tosello, G. Value Chain Comparison of Additively and Conventionally Manufactured Multi-Cavity Tool Steel Inserts: An Injection Molding Industrial Case Study for High-Volume Production. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10410. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122010410
