Implementing Large Format Additive Manufacturing in Aerospace

Tooling via Process Integration and Finite Element Analysis of

Print Performance
by
Philip D. Cotter
B.S.E, Duke University (2010)
Submitted to the MIT School of Engineering
and
MIT Sloan School of Management
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degrees of
Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics
and
Master of Business Administration
in conjunction with the Leaders for Global Operations program
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June 2021
© Philip D. Cotter, MMXXI. All rights reserved.
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper
and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known
or hereafter created.

Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Philip D. Cotter
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT Sloan School of Management
May 14, 2021

Certified by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
R. John Hansman, Thesis Supervisor
Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Certified by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
John F. Carrier, Thesis Supervisor
Senior Lecturer, MIT Sloan School of Management

Accepted by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zoltán Spakovszky, Chair, Graduate Program Committee
Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Accepted by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maura Herson, Assistant Dean
MBA Program, MIT Sloan School of Management
This page intentionally left blank.

2
Implementing Large Format Additive Manufacturing in Aerospace Tooling via
Process Integration and Finite Element Analysis of Print Performance
by Philip D. Cotter
Submitted to the MIT School of Engineering and MIT School of Management on May 14, 2021
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degrees of
Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics and Master of Business Administration
in conjunction with the Leaders for Global Operations program

Abstract

Ascent Aerospace (Ascent) designs and manufactures a diverse array of customized aerospace tool-
ing, creating a low-volume/high-mix production environment where precision is critical. As a re-
sult, Additive Manufacturing (AM)—and, more specifically, Large Format Additive Manufacturing
(LFAM)—stands to provide Ascent a significant competitive advantage by reducing lead time, cut-
ting costs, and enabling the rapid production of novel tooling solutions. This project explores the
integration of the Large Scale Additive Manufacturing Machine (LSAM) into Ascent’s production
processes with the goal of maximizing the technology’s value impact. To this end, it focuses on two
components: understanding, controlling, and planning the production of LSAM-printed tools, and
simulating the behavior of LSAM-printed tools to better predict their performance.

First, a framework for the operational integration of the LSAM is developed. Comparison of tradi-
tional (current state) and LSAM-specific (future state) process maps provides a means to identify
and address probable bottlenecks. Next, a test plan is described enabling a clear understanding
of the LSAM’s capabilities and limitations. From these findings, Design for LSAM (DfLSAM)
Guidelines and various other continuous improvement initiatives are motivated and codified.

Next, this project develops an approach to the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of LSAM-printed
objects. Current design principles are largely rooted in empirically calibrated processes which require
extensive trial and error. Due to the size of LSAM prints, this approach can be expensive and
unscalable. The FEA approach presented herein begins with characterization of material properties
of a common carbon fiber reinforced ABS feedstock. Based on these inputs, various modelling
approaches are explored for this anisotropic, composite material. Model outputs are then validated
against the results of physical experiments. An orthotropic solid modelling approach is shown to
compare best with physical reality, suggesting a promising direction for further development.

Organizational impacts and change management are considered throughout this document. Future
directions of both the integration and modelling work are also discussed. These findings, abstracted
from Ascent, comprise a framework for the implementation of LFAM in manufacturing operations.

Thesis Supervisor: R. John Hansman

Title: Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Thesis Supervisor: John F. Carrier

Title: Senior Lecturer, MIT Sloan School of Management

3
This page intentionally left blank.

4
Acknowledgments
Thank you to the teams at AIP and Ascent Aerospace. Their willingness to rapidly on-board and
mentor me greatly accelerated this project. It directly enabled any useful findings this work has
produced. Their patience was particularly critical given the Covid-related impacts to travel. In ad-
dition to the broader Ascent organization, I would like to extend particular acknowledgement to the
LSAM Team at Ascent: Sean Henson, Mario Ruiz, Randy Moruzzi, and Dani David. Additionally,
thank you to Danny Davis, Tom Mangan, the AIP AM Team, and the additional Associates and
Partners who pushed and coached me along the way.

This thesis benefited greatly from the expertise and mentorship of my advisors, Prof. Hansman and
Dr. Carrier. Their commitment to translating academic research into real-world application was
immensely beneficial for myself, Ascent, and AIP. Without their wisdom I may still be lost down a
rabbit hole of dubious value.

To the Leaders for Global Operations Program, many thanks for this unique opportunity at the
intersection of engineering, management, and industry. The students, faculty and staff that this
program attracts are the source of its core value. I have learned much and look forward to engaging
with the community into the future.

Finally, thank you to my wife, Sarah. Without her love, support, patience, and counsel, none of
the work captured within this document would have been possible. Given the stress of long days,
frequent travel, Covid-19, and our first pregnancy, this was truly a team effort. As I perform the
final editing of this document in the labor and delivery ward of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, I
am immensely grateful and excited for our future.

5
This page intentionally left blank.

6
Note on Proprietary Information
Due to the proprietary nature of Ascent’s production processes (both traditional and additive),
some of the data in this document may be redacted, modified, or otherwise disguised so as to not
violate Non-Disclosure Agreements. Data, if modified, will be identified and treated in such a way
that conclusions presented in the document remain valid and logically follow.

7
This page intentionally left blank.

8
Contents

List of Figures 11

List of Tables 12

List of Acronyms 13

1 Introduction 14
1.1 Project Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.2 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.3 Project Approach and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3.1 Process Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.3.2 Print Performance Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
1.4 Thesis Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2 Background 23
2.1 Aerospace Tooling Industry Dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2 Ascent Aerospace Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.1 Corporate History and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.2 Relevant Tooling Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.3 Traditional Production Process Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3 Large Format Additive Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3.1 Foundations of Additive Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3.2 Thermwood’s Large Scale Additive Manufacturing Machine . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.4 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3 Operational Integration of the LSAM 36

3.1 Existing Frameworks for Integrating Additive Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2 Future-State Process Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.3 Capabilities and Process Testing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.4 Continuous Improvement Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.4.1 Lessons Learned Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.4.2 Codifying Work Instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.5 Design for LSAM Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.6 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4 Characterizing Carbon Fiber Reinforced ABS 50

4.1 Existing Approaches to Characterizing 3D-Printed CFRPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.2 Testing Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.3 Laboratory Testing Results and Discussion of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

9
 4.3.1 Tensile Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.3.2 Shear Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.3.3 Physical Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.3.4 Thermal Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.4 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5 Finite Element Analysis of LSAM-Printed Objects 65

5.1 Existing Approaches to Modelling 3D-Printed Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5.2 Investigative Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
5.3 Modelling Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.4 Applications of the Model: Tensile Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.4.1 Simulation Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.4.2 Comparison of Physical Results and Model Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.5 Applications of the Model: Sub-Assembly Deflection Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
5.5.1 Simulation Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5.5.2 Comparison of Physical Results and Model Outputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.6 Model Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.7 Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

6 Conclusions and Future Work 85

6.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.2.1 Process Quantification and Refinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.2.2 Characterization of Additional Material Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6.2.3 Refinement of Modelling Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

10
List of Figures

1-1 SpaceX BFR Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

1-2 LSAM Printer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1-3 Gartner Hype Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1-4 Core Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2-1 Aerospace Tooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2-2 Tool Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2-3 Traditional Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2-4 Generalized AM Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2-5 AM Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2-6 LSAM Labelled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3-1 LSAM Process Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3-2 Lessons Learned Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3-3 Operator Checklist Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3-4 Design for LSAM Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4-1 Fiber and Bead Orientation Within an FDM-Printed Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4-2 Modified ASTM Tensile Test Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4-3 Methodology for the Printing and Machining of 1-Direction Tensile Coupons . . . . . 58
4-4 Methodology for the Printing and Machining of 3-Direction Tensile Coupons . . . . . 58
4-5 Shear Specimens Machined for Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4-6 Tensile Testing Setup and Representative Failure Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4-7 Shear Testing Setup and Representative Failure Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4-8 Shear Testing Stress-Strain Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4-9 Thermal Testing Setups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5-1 Current Physical Approach to the Performance Modelling of LSAM-Printed Designs 68

5-2 Future Approach to the Performance Modelling of LSAM-Printed Designs . . . . . . 69
5-3 Approach to Developing Software Model of LSAM-Printed Tools . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5-4 Modelling Tensile Test Setup in Hypermesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5-5 Material Orientation of 1-Direction and 3-Direction Tensile Specimens in Hypermesh 75
5-6 Representative Output of Tensile Test Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5-7 Comparison of Orthotropic Modelling Output and Physical Tensile Tests . . . . . . . 76
5-8 Experimental Setup for Sub-Assembly Deflection Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
5-9 Modelling Sub-Assembly Deflecting Test Setup in Hypermesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5-10 Material Orientation of Sub-Assemblies in Hypermesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5-11 Representative Output of Sub-Assembly Deflection Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5-12 Representative Levering Effect Captured by Modelling Approach . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5-13 Experimental Deflection of 9ft Sub-Assembly in Z and X at Each Load Step . . . . . 81

11
 5-14 Modelled Deflection of 9ft Sub-Assembly in Z and X at Each Load Step . . . . . . . 82
5-15 Absolute Error for Sub-Assembly Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5-16 Comparison of Various Modelling Approaches on 9ft and 6ft Sub-Assemblies via RMSE 83

6-1 Data Processing Script . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

6-2 Meshed and Properly Oriented Full Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

List of Tables

2.1 LSAM Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3.1 Anticipated Bottlenecks in the LSAM-Specific Production Process . . . . . . . . . . 41

4.1 Engineering Properties Tested to Characterize LFAM Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.2 Material Properties from Experimental Characterization of ABS . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.1 FEA Parameters Used in Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.2 Tensile Test Simulation Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

List of Equations

2.1 Cost per Part . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.1 Stress-Strain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.2 Constitutive Equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.3 Young’s Modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.4 Poisson’s Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.5 Shear Modulus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.6 Poisson’s Ratio Conversion Calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

12
List of Acronyms

3D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three Dimensional

ABS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene

AIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . American Industrial Partners

AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additive Manufacturing

ASTM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASTM International

CAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Computer Aided Design

CFRP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carbon Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastic

CPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Checkpoints

CTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

DfAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design for Additive Manufacturing

DfLSAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design for LSAM

FEA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finite Element Analysis

FEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finite Element Methods

KPI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Key Performance Indicators

LFAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Large Format Additive Manufacturing

LSAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Large Scale Additive Manufacturing Machine

NPD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Product Development

OEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Original Equipment Manufacturer

PC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polycarbonate

PEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polyetherimide

PESU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polyethersulfone

PM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Program Manager

13
Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 1 frames the reasoning for Ascent’s investment in Large Format Additive Manufacturing

(LFAM) and articulates the challenges this project aims to address. First, the high-level investment

thesis for LFAM and the Large Scale Additive Manufacturing Machine (LSAM) at Ascent is pre-

sented. Next, some of the core challenges of the LSAM’s integration are described, culminating in

a Problem Statement. Two primary Project Objectives, Process Integration and Print Performance

Modelling, are described to address this Problem Statement. Finally, this chapter concludes with

an overview of this document’s structure.

1.1 Project Motivation

Ascent Aerospace (Ascent) is a vertically-integrated supplier of aerospace tooling to the

commercial, defense, and space sectors. The bespoke nature of its tooling offerings creates a low-

volume/high-mix production environment (a more thorough overview of Ascent and its products is

presented in Chapter 2). Ascent designs and builds large, complex, metallic tools that are frequently

manufactured as single units for single customers. SpaceX’s main body tool for the BFR (Figure

1-1) is representative of this dynamic and this type of tooling.

The monolithic nature of this tooling, its high complexity and requisite precision, and its

one-off nature generate a significant amount of variability in Ascent’s design and manufacturing

14
 Figure 1-1: SpaceX BFR Main Body Tool (Tesla for scale) exemplifies large scale aerospace tooling

processes. This variability can make it challenging to implement traditional Lean Manufacturing or

Six Sigma approaches to reduce cost and increase operational efficiency. Further compounding this

issue, the commercial environment surrounding the aerospace tooling market — including increased

competition from other firms and the recent downturn in commercial aerospace more generally

— has increased the economic incentive to differentiate and innovate. Thus, Ascent’s challenge

is to determine how to remain the industry leader in aerospace tooling despite these headwinds.

LFAM, with its ability to directly print the complex geometries aerospace tooling requires, provides

a potentially transformative way to address this challenge via an emergent technology.

LFAM enables Ascent to produce tooling with reduced lead time, lower cost, and potentially

opens up more direct access to alternative markets. Exposure to these other markets also creates a

synergistic effect, wherein lessons learned from automotive, maritime, or construction applications

could enhance Ascent’s ability to produce aerospace tooling as well—allowing Ascent to capitalize

once the commercial aerospace market returns to more traditional conditions. After an exhaustive

survey of the LFAM processes and machines available, led in part by the work of Jeffery Chu (MIT

LGO, ’20), Ascent made the decision to purchase Thermwood’s LSAM in late 2019 (Figure 1-2). The

machine was subsequently installed in March-April of 2020. Throughout this document "LFAM"

refers to the more general concept of additive manufacturing beyond the size of more conventional

desktop-sized machines. The term "LSAM" is used when specifically referring to the Thermwood

machine.

15
 Figure 1-2: Thermwood’s Large Scale Additive Manufacturing Machine (10ft x 40ft x 5ft)

The LSAM is capable of printing with a variety of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastic

(CFRP) feedstocks. Additionally, at 40ft long, 10ft wide, and 5ft tall, the LSAM has one of the

largest print volumes of any commercially available 3D printers. The pelletized CFRP materials

and their additively-manufactured process are both new introductions to Ascent. The material and

manufacturing process combine to create complex anisotropic properties in the printed materials.

In order for Ascent to fully realize the value of the LSAM’s introduction, the performance of LSAM-

printed parts must be fully understood. This will enable designs to be optimized and reduce the

risk of tool failure after delivery to a customer.

From a process perspective, it is important to note the LSAM utilizes a hybrid manufacturing

approach: it prints at near net shape and requires subsequent machining to achieve final contours

and tolerance. Thus, the LSAM is reliant on existing resources within Ascent that are shared by

the traditional manufacturing process. These resources include: sales and marketing effort, project

management, design time and software, machining capacity, assembly, shipping, and more. Even if

Ascent fully understands the print process parameters and can accurately predict the performance of

printed parts, the challenge of process integration still remains. Ascent must determine the best way

to allocate these shared resources such that LSAM production is enabled without any degradation

in their traditional manufacturing process.

16
1.2 Problem Statement

Investment in a novel or emerging technology can sometimes be seen as a solution in and of

itself. Especially in times of crisis, a company may latch on to a novel product or service with the

hope that it will resolve or ameliorate its problems. However, this naive approach clearly neglects

the deliberate work necessary to understand and integrate a new technology into existing processes

and culture. As a result, AM and transformative technologies like it, frequently get lost in what

the Gartner Hype Cycle terms the "Trough of Disillusionment" [15] (Figure 1-3). While the Hype

Cycle has been criticized for overly simplifying the process of technology adoption, acknowledging

this phenomenon and wrestling with it directly are critical for lasting and meaningful adoption

of the technology. Proper integration is especially critical in a manufacturing environment where

rework and mistakes can be exceedingly costly.

Figure 1-3: Poorly Adopted AM can Lead to Stagnation in the Trough of Disillusionment [15]

LFAM integration at Ascent, with its new materials, new manufacturing process, and new

design considerations, must be adopted and assimilated with care, accounting for its effects on

process, product, and people. The core problem is relatively straightforward: how does Ascent

transform plastic pellets into products that customers demand (Figure 1-4). However, given the

novelty of this manufacturing process and its utilization of shared resources, this is a multi-faceted

problem with wide-ranging implications across Ascent’s organization.

Viewed from a high level, this project in many ways represents a New Product Development

(NPD) initiative, including all of the commercial implications: marketing, sales, pricing, revenue

modelling, etc. While all of these aspects were extensively explored during the author’s time with

17
 Figure 1-4: Core Problem: Transforming Plastic Pellets into High-Performance Products

Ascent—and they are absolutely necessary to truly generate business value from the machine—

these commercial aspects have been largely excluded from the discussion in this document due to

their proprietary nature. The focus, instead, is on the operational integration of the machine into

the production process. Still, even excluding explicit discussion of the commercial impacts and

the broader AM-adoption dynamic, much can be learned from Ascent’s experience integrating the

LSAM through operational, technical, and organizational lenses.

Ultimately, this project aims to define the currently vague process for producing LSAM-

printed tools and operationally integrating this new capability into an existing manufacturing en-

vironment. As part of this wider integration initiative, it also explores developing a quantitative

model for the behavior of printed parts. These initiatives, taken together, will enable operational

excellence and the production of high-quality tooling via this novel additive technology, maximiz-

ing value for Ascent. Further, it will serve as a detailed case study providing a framework for the

integration of LFAM into other manufacturing environments, demystifying the process for potential

adopters.

1.3 Project Approach and Objectives

This project began immediately prior to the physical installation of the LSAM at Ascent’s

facility. This provided a unique opportunity to witness the installation, initial testing and validation,

and first production tools made on the LSAM during the course of this project. It also enabled clean-

sheet process development. While the project began with certain assumptions about the future-state

process for producing LSAM tools, these assumptions evolved as the team’s understanding of the

machine’s and the organization’s capabilities and limitations developed. Consequently, the scope

and focus of the project itself also shifted.

18
 Initially, the project was focused on defining the manufacturing process for the LSAM and

what changes to the traditional, metallic process would be required. However, in developing and up-

dating this future-state process map, multiple potential bottlenecks and issues emerged, generating

altogether new avenues of exploration. Thus, this thesis first explores the Process Integration and

selected operational improvement initiatives that were developed during the LSAM’s introduction.

Next, motivated by the identification of the shortcomings in the design process, the thesis explores

the characterization and simulation of LSAM-printed objects.

1.3.1 Process Integration

As with most new technologies or capabilities, the LSAM does not exist in isolation. Rather,

it exists within a pre-existing production system at Ascent. This pre-existing system was optimized

for a traditional manufacturing process and thus needs to be adapted to accommodate the LSAM.

The goal of this portion of the investigation is to characterize the operational environment of the

LSAM as a holistic process—from tool design to tool delivery—as well as understand, control, and

refine the machine-level production process of the LSAM.

In order to accomplish this, first, a future-state process map was developed and explored.

This process map—with a clear understanding of the upstream and downstream inputs and outputs—

was used as the foundation for the identification of potential process bottlenecks. Importantly, it

represents a hypothesis of the future-state LSAM-production process and was continually revisited

throughout the project. Next, focusing more centrally on the LSAM as an individual machine, a

series of operational improvement initiatives are discussed to better define the impact of its print

parameters and understand its design space.

This portion of the thesis goes from a high-level, factory-centric perspective to a lower-level,

machine-centric perspective to provide the full context. The objective of the Process Integration

initiative is to characterize the process and set develop systems for operational improvement such

that the process can be optimized once the machine is operating at production rate.

19
1.3.2 Print Performance Modelling

The Process Integration initiative identified the design process as being a potential bottleneck

and source of variability. A significant driver of this is not understanding the behavior of parts

printed on the LSAM. While Ascent has tremendous expertise using quantitative tools to understand

and model the behavior of their traditional, metallic tools, tools produced on the LSAM are not

well characterized. As a result, designers are forced to essentially "guess and check" whether their

designs will be functional, resulting in increased re-design iterations, over-engineering, increased

rework, and an increased risk of tool failure after delivery to a customer. This iterative approach is

expensive, especially when considering the scale of LSAM-printed tools.

This portion of the thesis begins with first principles from materials science. While Ascent

has supplier-provided data sheets for the physical and mechanical properties of its various feedstocks,

these values need to be more fully understood—in fact, no standards currently exist for the testing

of LFAM materials because ASTM International (ASTM) tests are not appropriately scaled. Thus,

a testing regime is developed for a common feedstock to independently identify and compare these

properties. The same testing regime used for this feedstock could be used for other feedstocks

Ascent wishes to characterize.

Next, using the supplier-provided and empirically-generated properties as inputs, a mod-

elling approach is developed leveraging Ascent’s existing FEA simulation software. Beginning with

simple tensile specimens and progressing toward more complex geometries, this Print Performance

Modelling initiative aims to create a software simulation of the performance of LSAM-printed tools

despite their complex, aniosotropic nature.

1.4 Thesis Overview

The thesis is organized into the following chapters:

• Chapter 2: Background

This chapter provides the context necessary to understand the remainder of the document. It

begins with an overview of the structure and dynamics within the aerospace tooling industry.

20
 Next, Ascent Aerospace, including its history, tooling offerings, and traditional manufacturing

processes, is described to provide organizational context. Lastly, LFAM, as a subset of the

greater AM industry, is described. Specific attention is given to Thermwood’s LSAM and its

capabilities.

• Chapter 3: Operational Integration of the LSAM

This chapter is primarily concerned with the operational impacts of the LSAM from both

process-based and organizational perspectives. It uses the LSAM’s deployment at Ascent as

a case study in LFAM integration in a manufacturing environment more generally. First,

a literature review of existing frameworks for integrating additive manufacturing and NPD

is conducted, providing the academic foundation for the investigation. Next, a future state

process map is used to identify bottlenecks and prioritize integration efforts. Finally, a series

of continuous improvement initiatives are described which will help to reduce variability in

Ascent’s LSAM production process as it ramps to rate production.

• Chapter 4: Characterizing Carbon Fiber Reinforced ABS

This chapter explores the development and execution of a material testing regime for LSAM-

printed objects. First, a literature review of existing attempts to characterize Three Dimen-

sional (3D)-printed materials is conducted. Based on these initiatives and the lack of ASTM

standards, modifications are suggested to the testing procedures. Tests are performed on

Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), a common CFRP feedstock. After executing this test

procedure, the results are analyzed and their implications discussed.

• Chapter 5: Finite Element Analysis of LSAM-Printed Objects

This chapter presents an approach to modelling LSAM-printed objects in software using FEA.

It begins with a literature review of existing approaches to modelling 3D-printed materials with

a focus on fused deposition modelling (FDM) technologies utilizing CFRP. The simulation’s

output is compared against two empirical experiments to judge its validity and suggest a

direction for future development.

• Chapter 6: Future Work and Conclusions

This chapter suggests directions for further investigation and summarizes this project’s key

21
findings. It posits that, by using Ascent’s experience as a detailed case study, the processes

and approaches suggested in this thesis could be leveraged by other manufacturing operations

to efficiently implement LFAM.

22
Chapter 2

Background

Chapter 2 provides background on the industry, company, and technology that form the context

for this thesis. The aerospace tooling industry in general, Ascent Aerospace specifically, and AM

technology are reviewed. Special attention is given to LFAM and Thermwood’s LSAM to set the

stage for detailed discussion of the print process and printed-object behavior in future chapters.

2.1 Aerospace Tooling Industry Dynamics

Aerospace tooling, in the most general sense, is any piece of equipment found on the man-

ufacturing floor of an aerospace Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) that is used to assist in

the production of an aircraft or spacecraft. Tooling is separate and distinct from "fly-away" parts,

which are those pieces of equipment or items intended to be a final component of the aircraft or

spacecraft. Tooling is typically used to produce fly-away parts more quickly and precisely than

would otherwise be possible without it. This tooling can take many forms: composite layup molds,

trim and drill fixtures, mill fixtures, shop aids and jigs, work stands, automated fastening systems,

robotic part manipulation solutions, and assembly line integration among others (Figure 2-1).

The primary customers of aerospace tooling manufacturers are aerospace OEMs. These

include any company that produces aircraft or spacecraft at any meaningful scale. These customers

can be further grouped into the commercial, defense, and space sectors. Each of these sectors

23
 Figure 2-1: Ascent Tooling Examples (from L to R: work stand, drill fixture, layup mold) [5]

are driven by separate market dynamics that dictate things like rate, tolerance, price, and other

performance requirements. While certainly different on a sector-by-sector basis, aerospace tooling

is generally a "lumpy" business, wherein business comes in somewhat unpredictably, and it can be

difficult to forecast demand on a sub-annual time scale. This is because OEMs typically "tool-up"

for a production run on a particular program or aircraft and then require minimal tooling support

afterwards. "Tooling-up" occurs when an OEM has finalized a design, knows that rate production is

imminent, and begins to accumulate the tools necessary to support their anticipated demand. The

"tool-up" can predate the production run by multiple years in some cases in part due to the lead

times required to produce and vet tooling. In this way, the aerospace tooling industry is a leading

indicator of aircraft and spacecraft production quantities. Because there simply are not that many

new models of aircraft and spacecraft being produced on a sub-annual basis requiring new tools,

the business can arrive in clusters of demand when new programs mature beyond a certain point.

However, even once tooling is required, aerospace tooling is often needed to support very

small (<10 unit) production runs. This means that the cost of all of the tooling’s material, design,

and manufacturing is amortized over very small quantity, making the cost of goods sold relatively

high for a tooling manufacturer. An increasing number of entrants into the aerospace tooling man-

ufacturing market capable of meeting OEM requirements has made competition for this tooling

business increasingly stiff. This competition has caused an erosion in margins across the aerospace

tooling industry, exacerbated as the commercial aerospace OEMs have been impacted by the com-

bined effects of the Boeing 737 MAX crisis and Covid-19. Thus, the cost of tooling is a primary

concern for aerospace OEMs who have multiple potential suppliers in many cases.

In addition to cost, aerospace OEMs value a number of other important characteristics in their

24
tooling, namely: lead time, design flexibility, dimensional tolerance, weight, and durability. Even

non-robotic aerospace tooling—essentially large metallic monoliths—can be extremely complicated

to produce. This is typically because the tooling must meet very tight dimensional tolerances on

complicated geometries over very large areas. These tight tolerances are necessary because the

tools are used to manufacture fly-away parts. With modern aerospace requirements, flight surfaces

and other critical parts are often required to meet dimensional specifications of less than a few

thousandths of an inch over a large surface. Aerospace tooling must match these requirements in

order to be useful. This translates into long lead times due to the need to cut, bend, and weld large

pieces of metal.

The majority of aerospace tooling manufacturers have significant metalworking expertise.

They are typically able to meet tolerances of a few thousandths of an inch over surfaces on the

order of hundreds of square feet in area. However, this precision comes at a cost: long lead times,

design needing to be locked in far in advance of delivery date, exceedingly heavy tools, and thin

margins in a relatively commodotized industry.

AM, properly implemented, could meaningfully change the dynamic in the aerospace tooling

industry. AM’s most significant impact will likely be in lead time reduction. Aerospace OEMs

value lead time reduction because it enables them to simplify and accelerate entire program life-

cycles. Shortening tooling lead time enables OEMs to wait longer before locking in designs and thus

reduces wasteful rework when changes occur. Additionally, because AM significantly automates

large portions of the manufacturing process, a tooling manufacturer could realize more consistent

dimensional tolerancing, utilize lighter-weight non-metallic materials, and improve cost structure.

It should be noted that AM—and specifically the LSAM studied in this thesis—will not

replace or even address certain portions of the aerospace tooling market. LFAM is mostly relevant

to large scale (>1 m3 in bounding box volume) traditional tools. A more lengthy discussion of the

LSAM, its capabilities, and limitations occurs in Section 2.3.

25
2.2 Ascent Aerospace Overview

Ascent Aerospace is a leading supplier of aerospace tooling and serves the commercial, space

and defense markets. Its corporate structure, in-house design expertise, and existing manufacturing

capabilities are important to understand when discussing the integration of LFAM. This section

provides context necessary to understanding the existing state of the business, prior to the LSAM’s

installation.

2.2.1 Corporate History and Structure

Ascent was purchased by the private equity firm American Industrial Partners (AIP) in 2012.

It has evolved over the last eight years through a series of acquisitions and exits and is comprised

of some legacy tooling manufacturers who have been in operation for multiple decades. This roll-up

strategy has created a vertically-integrated tooling solutions provider, essentially providing a "one

stop shop" for aerospace OEMs. While based in Michigan, Ascent has operations in California, New

York, Mexico, and Europe, serving a global customer base.

The company has deep design expertise, which helps to differentiate it from competitors. As-

cent is able to consult with a customer, determine requirements, design, and build tooling solutions

in-house. This is a critical capability that can be leveraged in the integration of LFAM as well.

Ascent has over 750,000 ft2 of manufacturing space including more than 30 5-axis machines. The

company also employs more than 900 people.

2.2.2 Relevant Tooling Types

Ascent is essentially broken into three divisions by product: tooling, automation, and inte-

gration. LFAM, due to the constraints of the process and the materials, is intended to primarily

serve the tooling segment. Within the tooling segment, there are four primary categories of tooling

which each have their own purpose, operating conditions, and materials:

• Mold Tooling: Mold tooling provides the surface upon which non-metallic parts—often carbon

fiber or fiber glass—are laid up to achieve their intended shape. The shape of the "facesheet"

26
 of the tool is imparted on the shape of the final part. The facesheet is supported by a backup

structure, typically an "egg-crate" or a billet (Figure 2-2). These tools are often designed to

be placed in an autoclave or oven in order to go through a cure cycle with the part’s final

material. As a result of this thermal cycling, mold tooling is made from a variety of specialized

materials in order to match the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) of the tool and part:

aluminum, steel, Invar, carbon fiber itself, and hybrids. Accounting for the CTE of the tool

and part is critical to achieving final part tolerances. Additionally, mold tooling must typically

be able to hold a vacuum seal across its operational temperature range.

Figure 2-2: Large Invar Mold Tool [5]

• Trim and Drill Fixtures: Parts that come off of mold tooling typically have rough edges and

need to have secondary machining processes conducted in order to achieve their final useful

state. These additional machining processes can include trimming the part’s edges as well as

cutting grooves or drilling holes at predetermined locations. Trim and drill fixtures hold the

parts in place while these processes are conducted. Consequently, trim and drill fixtures have

very similar facesheet geometries to their respective mold tooling. In fact, mold tooling and

trim and drill fixtures are frequently sold together as part of a package. Because trim and

drill fixtures are typically only used at room temperature, they do not need to be made of

more exotic materials like Invar or carbon fiber. They are, therefore, generally constructed

from aluminum or steel. Trim and Drill fixtures are required to maintain vacuum integrity as

well in order to secure the part in place for these secondary machining processes.

• Assembly Fixtures: Assembly fixtures are used by OEMs to properly align and orient parts

while additional operations are performed. These additional operations are often joining

27
 operations like welding or fastening. These are frequently large and complex tools comprised

of multiple joints, brackets, and clamps. These components are typically made from aluminum

or steel.

• Work Platforms or Facility Tooling: Because aerospace parts and the flight vehicles they

comprise can be so large, OEMs require custom-built structures in order to access parts of

the vehicles during manufacturing. These work platforms have unique geometries and must

support the weight of OEM personnel and their equipment. As a result, structural integrity

is particularly critical in this application and steel is often used.

LFAM is initially targeted for application in the Trim and Drill Fixtures and Mold Tooling

portions of the tooling business. These are typically monolithic metallic tools with complicated

geometries that lend themselves well to the advantages of LFAM. However, it should be noted

that LFAM also stands to create value in the automation segment of Ascent’s business as well.

For example, light-weighting robotic end effectors, frames, and fixtures could produce significant

performance benefits. As Ascent continues to refine its understanding of the design space, more

tools and applications will become relevant and achievable, increasing the utility of LFAM over

time.

2.2.3 Traditional Production Process Summary

In this section, the traditional production process for Trim and Drill Fixtures and Mold

Tooling is summarized from initial customer interface through tool delivery. As these are the initial

primary use-cases for LFAM application, it is important to define and understand the current-state

manufacturing process. The manufacturing process for both types of tools is functionally identical

for the purposes of this discussion. The details of the process have been obscured and simplified to

prevent disclosure of proprietary information, however, it is sufficient to understand the concept,

segmentation, and overall flow (Figure 2-3).

This process map is divided into three categories:

• Inbound: These steps capture the front-of-house activities necessary to transform a request

for quote from a customer into usable inputs for engineers to begin work. This process is

28
 Figure 2-3: Process Flow Diagram, Traditional Metallic Tooling (Current State)

relatively streamlined in traditional tooling, because customers know what to expect, account

managers understand the product, estimators know how to price it, and project managers

know how to package the necessary information for downstream work centers.

• Design: These steps capture the initial design and engineering work performed on a tool.

Ascent performs both design-and-build (where Ascent designs the tools from scratch based

on customer-stated requirements) and build-to-print (where Ascent manufactures according

to a tool’s customer-provided specifications) jobs. Thus, there is significant variation in the

amount of design time on a given project. However, because Ascent is familiar with these

materials, their manufacturing process, and has necessary software, the process is able to

efficiently adapt.

• Manufacturing: Physically building these tools is the most time-consuming part of the produc-

tion process. As described in Section 2.2.1, Ascent is vertically-integrated, meaning they are

capable of transforming raw material inputs into finished tooling outputs without the need to

source and assemble parts from outside suppliers. This translates into a lengthy process and

is the primary source of lead time in this category of tooling. The initial steps are essentially

consumed by metalwork: cutting, bending, welding, heat-treating, etc. The bump-forming

process—which involves using a brake press to form the facesheet from a flat plate of metal

to the desired contour—is a unique source of variability. This process requires a highly skilled

laborer and some degree of guessing-and-checking to correctly accomplish. Bump-forming is

29
 considered more art than science and an apprenticeship-type model is required to become

proficient. Machining is yet another key driver of lead time, as cutting metal to these precise

tolerances can be a lengthy process (often on the order of tens of hours). The final steps involve

assembly of additional components, hand benching, finishing, quality checks, and shipping.

From this traditional process map, it is possible to visualize the significant number of steps

required in the manufacture of traditional trim and drill fixtures and mold tooling. Ultimately, this

can drive lead times to be in excess of 12 weeks for a standard-sized tool in this category. From a

process flow standpoint, the "lumpiness" of the market dynamics and the variation in the geometries

and sizes of the tools moving through the shop make this a difficult production process to manage

and optimize.

2.3 Large Format Additive Manufacturing

AM stands to help address some of the key manufacturing issues identified in the preceding

section and create a significant competitive advantage for Ascent if it is implemented correctly. Now

that an understanding of the industry and company context have been described, this section will

focus on the AM technology itself. First, a basic grounding in AM will be presented to provide a

common understanding and vocabulary. Thermwood’s LSAM will then be described in detail.

2.3.1 Foundations of Additive Manufacturing

The technologies and processes underlying AM—often referred to as 3D Printing outside

of professional manufacturing contexts—have been under development since the 1970s [36]. AM

enables a user to manufacture physical parts directly from a 3D digital file by successively applying

layers of material. ASTM International defines AM as "a process of joining materials to make

objects from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing

methodologies" [36]. Figure 2-4 shows a generalized overview of the AM process from a Computer

Aided Design (CAD) model all the way through to finished part. While AM was originally used

for rapid prototyping, the technology has matured sufficiently to enable direct manufacturing of

finished parts.

30
 Figure 2-4: Generalized AM Process Flow [36]

Whether prototyping or manufacturing finished parts, the AM process flow generally appears

similar. First, a part is designed in a CAD software suite—Ascent utilizes CATIA, but essentially

any software that can output .STL files or similar 3D data file can be employed. This design process,

as will be explored in the LSAM’s context in Section 3.5, is driven by the constraints of the AM

technology and material being utilized. By accounting for the AM technology, material, and end

use, an additively manufactured solution can be optimized for printability and performance. Next,

software—typically called a "slicer"—uses information specific to the printer being utilized to cut

the 3D model into successive "2D" layers. These layers are translated into G-Code, which commu-

nicate to the machine the instructions necessary to execute the print program. With these print

instructions, the printer is able to print the desired object using the intended material. Following

the print process, post-processing is often required to remove support structures, relieve residual

stresses, or achieve a desired surface finish or dimensional tolerance. In the case of an aerospace

tool, the post-processing required to transform a raw print into a finished tool can be extensive and

frequently represents >50% of total production time on a given tool.

AM can be contrasted with traditional manufacturing methods along a number of dimen-

sions. These traditional methods are termed formative and subtractive [35]. Formative methods,

like injection molding and sand and investment casting, typically involve a process that forms a

desired finished-part material around some kind of tooling to achieve its desired geometry. Sub-

tractive methods, like milling, drilling, and machining, typically involve removing material from

a block or billet of a standard shape to achieve desired geometry. AM can eliminate or reduce

the cost of the tooling required to support formative methods and eliminate the material waste

required to support subtractive methods. There are many other potential benefits that AM unlocks

for businesses: reduced supply chain risk, simplified manufacturing processes, part consolidation,

31
"free" customization and geometric complexity, light-weighting, faster speed to market, virtual

warehousing, conformal cooling, and other performance benefits unique to AM [18].

Over the course of the last 40 years, the relatively straightforward concept of AM has evolved

into myriad methods: binder jetting, directed energy deposition, material extrusion, material jetting,

powder bed fusion, sheet lamination, and vat photopolymerization [35]. For each of these methods,

there are multiple material types: filaments, pellets, liquid resins, powder, plastics, metals, etc.

For each of these method-material combinations, there exist multiple OEMs offering printers with

varying degrees of controllability, consistency, and other options. Importantly, most of these printer

options have build volumes that are < 1m3 . Using this framework, the LSAM can be said to utilize

the material extrusion method and a pelletized, carbon-fiber reinforced, thermoplastic material.

The LSAM’s crucial differentiator, as discussed in Section 2.3.2, is its massive size.

Determining how to cost and price additively-manufactured products is a critical consider-

ation for employing AM in a business context. The value of AM can be difficult to quantify given

its ability to produce fundamentally novel performance characteristics. It is sometimes naive to

compare the cost of an AM part directly with a traditionally manufactured alternative. While the

value model for AM undoubtedly varies with the AM technology, material, and industry, there are

generally three contributors to the cost per part [10]:

Ctot = Cmachine + Clabor + Cmaterial (2.1)

In this equation, Ctot represents the total cost per part via AM. Cmachine represents the

cost of the machine amortized over an individual part, which would decrease with quantity of parts

produced and also include necessary maintenance and utilities. Clabor includes all of the direct labor

costs associated with the part’s pre-processing, printing, and post-processing. Cmaterial accounts for

all of the material used to produce the part. As a result of this cost model, most comparisons in

literature suggest that AM—when not employed to achieve an AM-unique performance benefit—

compares with traditional manufacturing methods with the following relationship:

32
 Figure 2-5: Cost Comparison of AM and Traditional Methods [10]

Clearly, there is a quantity beyond which AM is not necessarily the cost-effective manufac-

turing method. With AM, the cost per part does not drop significantly as number of parts increases.

As a result, it can be reasonably concluded that AM is unlikely to ever fully replace traditional man-

ufacturing methods. With respect to aerospace tooling however, quantities produced per design are

typically 1:1, highlighting the potential cost advantage to leveraging AM in this context.

Another shortcoming of AM in most cases is variation in print process and its effects on the

material properties of the printed part. Because print parameters and ambient effects can influence

the inter-layer bonding of additively manufactured parts, process control is especially important.

Without controlling the process, it is difficult or impossible to control ultimate part quality. This

will be explored further, with respect to the LSAM, in Chapters 3 and 4.

2.3.2 Thermwood’s Large Scale Additive Manufacturing Machine

With an understanding of the aerospace tooling industry’s dynamics and its internal tradi-

tional tooling production process, Ascent recognized an opportunity to leverage AM to create value

in its business. However, only a printer with a build envelope large enough to accommodate its

monolithic products would be useful. Thermwood’s LSAM meets this size requirement and also

prints with the materials and precision necessary for aerospace tooling applications.

Figure 2-6 identifies some of the key components of the LSAM. The machine has a 10ft

wide, 40ft long, and 5ft tall print volume, making it amongst the largest commercially available.

Additionally, it has a dual-gantry system, which enables it to print to near net shape and machine

33
 Figure 2-6: LSAM’s Functional Components [34]

to final tolerance in the same footprint. Some of the key features and their implications are captured

in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Key Characteristics and Considerations of the LSAM

It is important to note that the LSAM does not have the ability to print any "support

structures" like are common with other AM technologies. As a result, the LSAM must use its own

primary print material as support structure. This dynamic, as well as other operational issues are

discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, as they were discovered and captured as part of a deliberate

test and validation plan.

34
2.4 Chapter Summary

In Chapter 2, the full context for integrating LFAM into Ascent’s manufacturing operation

was presented. First, a summary of the aerospace tooling industry was described. Next, Ascent’s

role as a leading tooling supplier was discussed as well as the segment of their business that LFAM

is intended to impact first. Lastly, AM and Thermwood’s LSAM were introduced to provide an

understanding of their processes and capabilities. The LSAM was purchased with the intent of

reducing lead time and cost for Ascent, creating meaningful differentiation in a dynamic aerospace

tooling environment. With an awareness of this context, explorations of the production process,

materials characterization, and approaches to performance modelling can be better understood.

35
Chapter 3

Operational Integration of the LSAM

Chapter 3 describes a framework for operationally integrating the LSAM into Ascent’s production

process. Rather than incorporating the commercial and market based dynamics that would be

essential to an NPD framework or discussion of AM adoption more generally, this Chapter focuses

on factory-level implementation from an operational perspective. In some ways, this Chapter and

its findings remain a hypothesis that is continuously being updated by Ascent. Given that the

machine was installed in April of 2020, only four months of deliberate testing and validation have

occurred as of this document’s writing. However, in that time, a framework for the best practices

for integrating LFAM into a manufacturing setting have emerged. This chapter will begin by

addressing existing frameworks for the adoption and integration of AM. Focus will be placed on

organizational impacts and best practices to foster efficient adoption rather than market-based

considerations. Next, a discussion of the LSAM-specific, future-state process map will highlight the

changes from the traditional, current-state map and their operational implications. The next three

sections describe the testing, training, and continuous improvement initiatives found to be most

effective and impactful in the integration of the LSAM. This chapter provides the foundation for a

framework of LFAM adoption in manufacturing companies.

36
3.1 Existing Frameworks for Integrating Additive Manufacturing

As discussed in Chapter 2, AM was initially used as a rapid prototyping tool. This remains

true and valuable for significant portions of the AM market. However, as AM technology and ma-

terials have matured, rapid manufacturing of finished products or end-use parts has emerged as a

viable application [26]. Much of the existing body of research on the adoption of manufacturing-

specific AM considers the entire business case. This research focuses on questions like determining

whether a given firm would benefit from AM [4], making "make-versus-buy" decisions [31], under-

standing AM’s effects on supply chains [17], or even mapping and choosing which AM technologies

would be applicable for a given use-case [3]. While understanding these implications are undoubt-

edly critical for Ascent and other firms to understand, the discussion in this section focuses on

frameworks for operationally integrating a single type of AM into an existing factory or production

system. Ascent has already made the investment in a single type of LFAM. The discussion assumes

that the market-facing business case is sound and that LSAM-printed tools are, in fact, desired

by customers. Thus, the investigation here centers on optimizing this machine’s integration rather

than making higher-level make-vs-buy choices or other decisions around optimal selection of AM

process or materials.

Martens et al. use multiple case studies to propose successful approaches for implementing

AM in a manufacturing context. Three themes emerge from their research regarding firms that

have successfully adopted AM: these firms identify business opportunities, experiment with AM

technology, and embed AM technology [24]. The first step in their approach involves identifying

a compelling business case by understanding the market and how AM might create a competitive

advantage for the firm. In Ascent’s case, this analysis was summarized in Chapter 2 and is assumed

to be sound. The second step in this framework involves experimenting with AM technology to

"pilot" it, whether in-sourcing the AM technology or working through outside vendors. This fosters

the familiarity and expertise necessary to make informed decisions about the technology from a

company-specific perspective. In Ascent’s case, the decision was made to in-source the technology—

this decision was made even simpler because contract manufacturers simply do not exist for printing

at this scale. The last step, "embedding" AM, is the most applicable to the discussion around

37
operational integration.

Martens et al. suggest that in order to embed AM, a firm must conduct business model

innovation and technology adoption. Stated differently, they must change their business practices

and manufacturing practices. Zanetti et al. suggest that small manufacturing enterprises, especially,

may find the "integration of cutting-edge technologies and knowledge-based activities...difficult"

[39]. This is because embedding AM requires new employees with different expertise, possible

establishment of new autonomous business units, and adherence to unchanging quality standards.

In other words, proper adoption requires significant, wholesale changes to existing practices to access

AM’s full potential.

Cremona et al. take a deeper look into the integration of new AM-required resources into

a firm’s production process. They divide these resources into tangible and intangible categories.

Tangible resources include the printers themselves, software (CAD) compatibility, and new person-

nel. The intangible resources are primarily the production "know-how" required to produce quality

products. Cremona et al. are clear to highlight this "know-how" as "one of the most valuable intan-

gible resources for a company" which is "fundamental for the future to not only be competitive, but

to survive in the market environment [11]. This division between tangible and intangible resources

is a helpful mental model when planning the integration of AM into an existing business.

Oettmeier and Hofmann look at the effects of AM adoption specifically on engineer-to-order

production systems. They conclude that the transition from traditional manufacturing to AM

"requires the build-up of know-how...about the characteristics of AM machines and compatible

raw materials" [28]. Expanding on this idea, they further suggest that "new know-how in R&D is

required to seize the greater freedom of design enabled by AM technology adoption." From a process

flow perspective, they also observe that firms may "transition from single unit to batch production"

in the production of customized objects. In other words, AM may have "far-reaching implications

on manufacturing flow management" due to the introduction of a parallel production path.

Integration of AM into existing manufacturing businesses is a non-trivial endeavor: one does

not simply buy a 3D printer and become an additive manufacturer. From the literature, it is clear

that in order to unlock all of AM’s value creation ability, firms must re-evaluate both their business

38
processes and manufacturing processes. This re-evaluation should include deliberate thought about

tangible and intangible resources, with particular attention paid to methods for capturing production

"know-how" to ensure quality and consistency. Additionally, firms must understand that operating

AM processes simultaneously with traditional manufacturing processes may create flow management

issues due to their differing rates of production.

3.2 Future-State Process Map

Motivated by the existing frameworks discussed in the preceding chapter, a future-state

process map is developed to better visualize the necessary changes in the LSAM-specific production

process (Figure 3-1). Because the LSAM is still not generating work-product at rate-production

levels, the process map seen in Figure 3-1 represents a kind of hypothesis about the flow of LSAM

jobs through the factory. However, the map remains a helpful tool in performing a difference analysis

and determining the scope and nature of changes to Ascent’s business and manufacturing processes.

Further, by analyzing this future-state process map, it is possible to preemptively identify potential

bottlenecks to better prioritize necessary integration work.

First, it is helpful to describe the changes in the LSAM-specific process shown in Figure 3-1

compared with the traditional process shown in Figure 2-3. At a high level, the process can still be

grouped into the same three categories: inbound, design, and manufacturing. The core value add

of the LSAM—lead time reduction—can fairly quickly be visualized: the number of manufacturing

steps is reduced from 13 to eight. Through eliminating six metalworking steps in traditional tooling

and replacing them with printing at near-net shape, the LSAM can dramatically reduce the time

required to produce a tool. However, this map also highlights potential areas of concern, which are

discussed by category in the following paragraphs and are summarized in Table 3.1.

Beginning in the Inbound category, the primary bottleneck identified is inbound customer

demand. While seemingly trivial, it is critical to consider that integration of the LSAM will be

fundamentally impossible without the customer demand necessary to develop and improve processes.

Because this is a somewhat novel product offering to Ascent’s customer base, deliberate effort must

be focused on educating customers. The upstream effect of this is that Ascent must also train its

39
 Figure 3-1: Process Flow Diagram, LSAM-Specific (Future State)

sales and marketing teams in the LSAM’s capabilities, constraints, and value to customers. Ascent’s

approach to addressing this bottleneck includes training of a core cadre of LSAM operators. The

Program Manager (PM) responsible for the LSAM scheduled training events with the sales and

marketing teams tailored to ensure they understood the machine well enough to prime customers

in their routine interactions. Augmenting these training events, the PM also conducted the initial

engagements with most primary target customers and hosted multiple virtual launch events. The

number of LSAM quotes received and number of LSAM-specific engagements with customers were

identified as Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and continue to be tracked closely to determine the

efficacy of this strategy.

The LSAM-specific Design category shows two primary changes from the traditional process:

the insertion of the Manufacturing Engineering (initial slicing) step and the feedback loop from

Stress Analysis back to Mechanical Design. As discussed in Section 2.3, slicing is a critical step

in determining the process path of a additively manufactured object. The process proposed here

suggests that immediately following a draft mechanical design, that shape then be sliced to ensure

it can be printed. This gives the Manufacturing Engineer who has the best understanding of

the LSAM’s capabilities a chance to review the design for printability prior to engaging the Stress

Analysis team. Following the initial slicing, the Stress Analysis team can then ensure that the design

meets identified performance criteria (deformation under mechanical load, thermal compensation,

etc.). Output from the Stress Analysis step can then be fed back to the Design Engineering team

40
 Table 3.1: Bottlenecks Identified in the LSAM-Specific Production Process with Corresponding Mitigation

to optimize or refine. This new Design cycle stands to potentially consume a significant amount (a

double-digit percentage) of overall job production time. Given that the Design Engineering team

is initially unfamiliar with the LSAM’s design space and that the Stress Analysis team does not

have a validated model for assessing LSAM-specific tools, there is significant risk in this portion

of the process map. In order to address this risk, Design for LSAM Guidelines were developed in

conjunction with Ascent’s Design Engineering team. This initiative is discussed in detail in Section

3.5. Additionally, an approach to developing an effective stress analysis modelling capability was

developed and is explored in Chapters 4 and 5.

Lastly, the Manufacturing category changes most significantly in comparison with the tra-

ditional process. As previously discussed, the printing process replaces six metalworking steps.

However, in order to effectively replace these steps and realize the time and cost benefits of the

machine, the printing process itself must be well understood and controlled. Errors in the printing

process can lead to costly rework, breakdowns in quality, and significant impacts to the overall

41
process flow. In order to address these concerns, Ascent implemented a deliberate test plan to

explore the process and constraints. By understanding the printer’s corner and edge cases, it is pos-

sible to print correctly the first time. Additionally, lessons-learned processes and work instruction

codification are implemented to reduce variation. These initiatives are discussed in greater detail

in Section 3.4. The second critical bottleneck identified in the Manufacturing category was the

machining step. Because the LSAM can print in batches, there can be periodic "surges" of objects

requiring machining. In contrast with LSAM printing, machining is conducted on a 1:1 basis. At

rate-production level, this could create queuing at the machining step, negatively impacting overall

production time. By minimizing machining requirements for LSAM tools and implementing process

steps to reduce setup time on LSAM machining jobs, Ascent can mitigate the impacts of surging

into the machining work center.

3.3 Capabilities and Process Testing Plan

As identified in the preceding section, in order to control the printing process and create

predictable output, it is critically important to understand the LSAM’s print parameters. One

approach would be to fully explore the design space of the LSAM using a design of experiments

approach. Such a process would involve tuning all relevant print parameters and empirically mea-

suring their effect on the printed object. While comprehensive, this approach would undoubtedly

consume a prohibitive amount of resources—in material, time, labor, speed to market, etc.

Rather than exploring the entire design space of the LSAM, an approach was developed that

began by working backwards from Ascent’s initially targeted product offerings and then investigating

the variables more relevant to those geometries. Thus, initial focus was given to the characteristics

necessary to print Trim and Drill Fixtures as well as Mold Tooling. By starting with this end state

in mind, it was possible to narrow the parameter space and increase the speed and efficiency of

testing. This constrained space was more efficient to explore and would enable the bootstrapping

of more ambitious characterization efforts in the future.

The first step in developing the test plan involved determining the critical parameter to be

tested. These were grouped, generally into the following categories: organizational, production-

42
specific, and performance-specific. After assessing the initial target use cases, the following charac-

teristics were deemed critical to understand. Following this classification, a test plan was designed

to minimize cost (print time and material) to gather the data necessary to support customer-facing

production as soon as possible. This involved developing printed geometries and scheduling them

in such a way to minimize cost and maximize findings. Due to the proprietary nature of this test

schedule, it is omitted from this document, however, the summary of characterized parameters is

provided below:

• Organizational

– Machine and Team Functionality: The LSAM team, having attended Thermwood-

sponsored training, needed to validate that functionality of the machine and understand

its operation. This represents an on-going process. Through some of the mechanisms

described in the proceeding sections, critical findings were captured and processes began

to be codified. This not only reduce variability in output, but also enabled Ascent to

readily scale the team once production rates were achieved because it was easier to on-

board new operators.

• Production-Specific

– Printer Parameters per Material: The LSAM allows the operator to specify many

print parameters which can be tuned to ensure a print is successful. These param-

eters include drying time, nozzle temperature, layer time, and others. The optimal

settings for these parameters vary depending on material printed (ABS, Polyetherim-

ide (PEI), Polycarbonate (PC), Polyethersulfone (PESU) etc.) and the geometry of the

part. Thus, a number of prints were executed to explore the space of these variables,

using Thermwood-provided parameters as a starting point. The geometries ranged from

simple, 1-dimensional strips of material all the way to large-scale tools with complex

curvature and overhang. These print parameters have a direct impact on the quality of

the resulting print. Once optimal parameters were identified for a given material and

geometry, these were logged for future use.

43
 – Layer-to-Layer Bonding: The quality and consistency of the bonding between succes-

sive layers is critical to end-part viability. As printer parameters were explored, assessing

the quality of these bonds was a central quality metric. If bonding between layer was

poor, it would compromise both the structural and vacuum integrity of the resulting tool.

Inter-laminar bonding consistency across large tools can be difficult to control because

of the thermal gradient across the large surface area. The LSAM’s fans can be used to

control this variable.

– Overhang Angle: Because the LSAM does not print with a separate support material,

the amount of overhang a material can withstand is a key design-space constraint. Spe-

cialized geometries were printed to explore this space and understand the limitations of

various materials. The maximum overhang angle determined remains proprietary, but

assessing these limits by material is a critical component of defining the parameter within

which the Design Engineering team can operate within.

– Machinability: LSAM tools must be machined to final tolerances. Thus, it was crit-

ical to understand how the printed material behaved when machined and observe any

chipping, cracking, or other defects so that they could be designed around. Especially

when printing larger objects, any catastrophic error in machining that would necessitate

a re-print could be significantly costly. Because the material is bonded across layers,

some flaking and chipping can be expected. Multiple prints were used to assess the

susceptibility of various geometries to these failure modes.

• Performance-Specific

– Vacuum Integrity: It was important to understand the ability of printed tools to hold

vacuum, as customers typically use this method to hold a part in position for machining

operations. A printed-objects vacuum integrity is closely related to porosity in the printed

part, especially after machining. The print must be generally smooth and consistent to

ensure the part will hold vacuum. Poor inter-laminar bonding will also typically result

in poor vacuum integrity.

– Fluid Reactions: Printed tools are exposed to various industrial chemicals and solvents

in the course of their use. It is important to understand the impact that these fluids

44
 have on the printed tool to ensure they will function in a customer’s manufacturing

environment. Multiple difference solvents and fluids were tested on printed materials to

determine their effect.

– Packing: Due to layer-time constraints, multiple objects can be simultaneously printed

to maximize the LSAM’s utilization. Arranging multiple prints in the print area must

be done thoughtfully to maximize efficiency and minimize the risk that a print will fail.

Additionally, because of the layout of the LSAM’s gantry, thought must be given to

where heavier prints are placed in the print area to enable the print’s movement out of

the prints area to follow-on work centers. As the machine is capacitized, it will become

increasingly critical to thoughtfully arrange objects on the print bed during the same

printing operation.

– Thermal Performance: Printed materials and geometries must also be tested to ob-

serve how they perform at elevated temperatures. Understanding this behavior and

compensating for it in design is crucial to manufacturing Mold Tooling. Expansion of

the material under thermal loads can induce warping in the finished part, and thus must

be properly compensated for. The first step in this process is to determine the coefficient

of thermal expansion for various material types using representatively large samples.

Deliberately enumerating these characteristics and then developing a test plan around them

allowed Ascent to optimally explore the relevant design space. It also enabled a rapid progression

toward revenue-generating jobs for customers, as these characteristics were explored sequentially.

A deliberate test plan is critical to minimizing the payback period for the LSAM and generating a

customer base as quickly as possible. Once additional research and development has been conducted

to continue exploring these key characteristics in support of more complex tooling applications,

Ascent can sell into this established customer base.

3.4 Continuous Improvement Initiatives

As discussed in Section 3.1, cultivating and capturing "know-how" is critical in the successful

implementation of AM technology. This becomes particularly critical as production scales and the

45
immediate team supporting the LSAM must grow commensurately. Settings and processes should be

captured in work instructions that can be reliably replicated to reduce variability and the frequency

rework. Thus, at Ascent, a number of continuous improvement initiatives were implemented to

ensure that best practices were codified. In conjunction with exploring the LSAM’s capabilities and

processes, a Lessons Learned Log and detailed work instruction were developed.

3.4.1 Lessons Learned Log

The Lessons Learned Log is a living document meant to capture practices and findings—both

good and bad—immediately after they occur. Following the execution of print or maintenance oper-

ations, the team conducts a thorough debrief, discusses the intended plan, examines how execution

diverged from the plan, and ensures these notes are captured in the document.

Figure 3-2: Log to Capture Best Practices during Post-Print Synching

By logging these findings, Ascent minimizes the risk that failures are repeated. Additionally,

Ascent captures best practices. This document provides the raw material from which formalized

work instructions and on-boarding materials can be created.

3.4.2 Codifying Work Instructions

Work instructions are the formalized, step-by-step guides to executing a given process on the

LSAM. The target audience for these work instructions are machine operators so that no critical

steps are omitted. As the investigation of various processes was explored as described in Section

3.3, the work instructions were also updated.

After work instructions reached a functional state, they were printed, bound, and placed at

46
 Figure 3-3: Sample from an Operator Checklist Used to Minimize Errors and Variation

the operators work station next to the printer. These instructions are critical to minimizing print

failures, variations in quality, and equipment maintenance issues.

3.5 Design for LSAM Guidelines

As the capabilities and operation of the machine were understood and systematized, the

focus shifted farther upstream in the production process to the tool design process itself. Design

for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) is a well-studied problem in literature meant to optimize the

design of a 3D-printed object for the specific printer and material being utilized [20] [1] [30]. Relying

on traditional design approaches can make the printing process inefficient and prevent the design

from fully leveraging the unique capabilities of AM versus traditional manufacturing processes. The

process of exploring the LSAM’s design space had to precede the creation of new, LSAM-specific

design guidelines. However, with the design space more completely understood via the approach

described in the above subsections, detailed guidelines could be created for various tool types.

These guidelines were codified in "Design for LSAM" (DfLSAM) documentation that were

created with the primary input of both the LSAM team and the Design Engineering team. The

purpose of the DfLSAM guidelines is to provide an understanding of the LSAM’s capabilities,

constraints, and overall design space. Major components of the documentation include LSAM

Description and Capabilities, Key Processing Parameters, Design Considerations, Design Method-

ology, and Stress Analysis. Importantly, the documentation includes CATIA "go-by" files that

design engineers can use to reference things like recommended widths, maximum overhang angles,

backup-structure design, and more. The inclusion of these CATIA files greatly helps to minimize

47
error in communication and enables the rapid on-boarding of new design engineers.

Figure 3-4: Design for LSAM Guidelines Made to Increase Design Efficiency

The DfLSAM documentation provides a common vocabulary for LSAM-centric tool produc-

tion, which facilitates faster development of tooling (translating to reduced lead time) with less

re-design and re-work. The primary target audience for the guidelines are Ascent’s Design Engi-

neers and Stress Analysis team. Secondary audiences include the LSAM operating team, Product

and Program Managers, and Account Managers.

The details of the DfLSAM guidelines are considered by Ascent to be proprietary informa-

tion, and thus the guidelines themselves are beyond the scope of this document. However, their

structure and the act of creating them represent best practices for codifying LFAM design proce-

dures and accelerating the organization’s adoption of the technology. The exercise of creating the

DfLSAM documentation itself helped to facilitate the inclusion of various stakeholders across As-

cent’s organization. Other organizations looking to rapidly adopt LFAM should consider pursuing

a similar path.

3.6 Chapter Summary

Chapter 3 uses the LSAM’s integration at Ascent as a case study in the integration of LFAM

into manufacturing operations more generally. From this example, it is clear that unlocking the

full potential of LFAM—and AM more generally—requires a re-evaluation of the entire production

process. From customers, to sales, to project managers, engineers, and technicians, existing pro-

cesses must be intentionally adapted. Additionally, capturing "know-how" is a critical initiative

that must be planned for. Stakeholders across the value chain must be educated in the technol-

ogy’s capabilities and limitations. By thoroughly understanding and controlling the print process,

48
streamlining the design process, and simultaneously educating stakeholders, LFAM can be more

easily integrated into existing manufacturing operations. By mapping the future-state LSAM pro-

duction process, a number of potential bottlenecks are identified. These bottlenecks are then used

to prioritize remaining operational integration efforts.

49
Chapter 4

Characterizing Carbon Fiber Reinforced

ABS

Chapter 4 explores a methodology for determining the physical and mechanical properties of LSAM-

printed materials for use in FEA simulation. As there are no currently accepted ASTM standards

or industry norms for characterizing these types of large-scale, additively manufactured materials,

the values quoted on material-supplier data sheets and in literature can be confusing to interpret,

resulting in "apples-to-oranges" comparisons across different material types, printers, and print pa-

rameters. It is critical to think deliberately about how to conduct these tests and how to best

interpret and compare their results. A proper methodology accounts for the unique scale, compos-

ite quality, and anisotropic nature of the material and manufacturing process and also accounts for

differences in print parameters. This chapter begins by reviewing current approaches for charac-

terizing 3D-printed materials and CFRPs. A methodology for testing the engineering properties

of these materials is then suggested. Following this, the results of experimental testing done on a

representative ABS feedstock is discussed.

4.1 Existing Approaches to Characterizing 3D-Printed CFRPs

First, the structure of the printed material is important to understand. As previously dis-

cussed, the LSAM uses thermoplastics impregnated with chopped carbon fiber reinforcement. This

50
reinforcement substantially increases the strength of the printed material [25] and is necessary,

given the side of the LSAM’s bead, to support printed objects at this scale. The thermoplastic

used—whether ABS, PC, PEI, PESU, etc.—is referred to as the matrix material. The carbon fiber

reinforcement is referred to simply as the fiber. As the material is extruded out of the nozzle and

onto its desired location in the print, the fiber tends to align longitudinally in the printed direction

[7]. This alignment occurs more on the periphery of the bead than in its center, where the flow of

the matrix material is less effected by shearing forces on the edges of the bead. The fiber alignment

can be visualized in the right side of Figure 4-1. Considering only a single bead in isolation, this

directional alignment results in anisotropic effects. Even ignoring the impact of the fiber align-

ment on the material properties, the additive manufacturing process itself imparts anisotropy on

the printed material. As seen in the left side of Figure 4-1, which can be assumed to consist of

a just matrix material, the printed object is not homogeneous, and different factors dominate in

different directions such as bead-to-bead bond strength. The presence of aligned fibers and the

bead-to-bead interactions make characterizing FDM-printed CFRP challenging. One must account

for the directionality of the material.

Figure 4-1: (L) Orientation of Extruded Beads within an LSAM-Printed Object and Relation to Engineering
Properties [13]; (R) Orientation of Carbon-Fiber Reinforcements in an Extruded Bead [7]

Committee F42 of ASTM International is dedicated to standardizing practices within 3D

printing and additive manufacturing. However, given the diversity of AM methodologies and mate-

rials and their relatively recent development, no definitive, generalized methodology for character-

izing 3D-printed objects exists. The unique size of the LSAM and its relative rarity make published

standards less likely to be developed in the near term. Thus, Ascent requires a method of charac-

51
terizing this material internally, which could be used to quantify and compare the performance of

printed objects. When identifying an approach to characterizing LFAM-printed objects, it is logical

to begin with non-standard testing methodologies that have been explored for other 3D-printing

technologies [12].

Kissling, et al., suggest a methodology to determine the anisotropic material properties of

CFR-ABS, extrusion-printed structures for numerical simulations [13]. They note that the presence

of reinforcing fibers further exaggerates the already anisotropic nature of FDM-printed ABS, making

the characterization of these direction-dependent properties especially critical. In the "printing

direction" (also called direction "1"), the material is well-aligned along the long axis of the extruded

material, resulting in increase tensile strength. In either the "stacking direction" (direction "3") or

the "transverse in-plane" (direction "2") directions, the bead-to-bead bond strength becomes the

dominant determinant of the material’s tensile strength, reducing it compared to the 1 direction.

In the case of short fiber reinforcement, Kissling, et al., show that it is possible to approximate

this anisotropic material as orthotropic. This orthotropic approximation is helpful in reducing the

number of experimental tests required to characterize the material.

52
While described in the preceding paragraph, it is important to be explicit about the notation used

to describe the printed material’s orientation. This nomenclature is central to understanding both

the analytical equations described below as well as the discussion of testing results in subsequent

sections. Rather than using X, Y, and Z to describe the material’s orientation, the numbers 1, 2,

and 3 will be utilized. X, Y, and Z will be used to refer to "global" parameters describing the entire

printed object with respect to the LSAM’s print area. 1, 2, and 3 directions are defined as follows,

and can be visually seen in Figure 4-1:

• 1-Direction: The "1-direction" refers to the direction that the print head is moving—the

printing direction. It can be thought of as the "long axis" of a printed bead. While this

1-direction is likely to change during the course of a print with respect to the global frame

(i.e. the print head will change directions while printing), this is convenient notation for

understanding and describing material properties.

• 2-Direction: The "2-direction" refers to the transverse in-plane direction with respect to the

printing direction. This direction is parallel to the width of a printed bead.

• 3-Direction: The "3-direction" refers to the "stacking" direction above and below the print-

ing direction. This direction is parallel to the height of a printed bead. While on the print bed,

the 3-direction is identical to the global Z direction. However, even once a part is removed

from the print bed and reorientation, the stacking direction will still be referred to as the

3-direction.

Analytically, Kissling, et al., go on to describe the constitutive relations between stress

and strain for these orthotropically-modelled materials. In the linear elastic case, the stress-strain

relationship is simply:

{︂ }︂ {︂ }︂
−1
𝜖 = [𝐸] · 𝜎 (4.1)

Using the directional numbering system described in the preceding paragraph, the constitu-

53
tive equation can be written compactly as follows:

⎧ ⎫ ⎡ ⎤ ⎧ ⎫
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 𝜖1 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎢
1
𝐸1 − 𝜈𝐸122 − 𝜈𝐸133 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎪
⎪ 𝜎1 ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢
⎢− 𝜈21
⎪ ⎪
1
− 𝜈𝐸233
⎪ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 𝜖 ⎪
2 ⎪
⎪ ⎢ 𝐸1 𝐸2 0 0 0 ⎥ ⎪
⎪
⎪ 𝜎 2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎪ ⎢ 𝜈31 ⎪ ⎪ ⎪
⎨ 𝜖3 ⎪ ⎢− 𝐸1 − 𝜈𝐸322 1
0 0 0 𝜎3 ⎬
⎪ ⎬ ⎥ ⎪⎨ ⎪
𝐸3
(4.2)
⎥
=⎢ ⎥·
1
⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪
𝛾 ⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎪𝜏23 ⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 23 ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎢ 𝐺23
⎥ ⎪
⎥ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪ 1 ⎥ ⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪𝛾 13
⎪
⎪ ⎢
⎪
⎪ ⎢ 0 0 0 0 𝐺13 0 ⎥ ⎪⎪𝜏13 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎪
⎪ ⎣ ⎦ ⎪⎪ ⎪
⎪
⎩𝛾12 ⎪ 1
0 0 0 0 0 ⎩𝜏12 ⎪
⎪ ⎭ ⎪ ⎭
𝐺12

The Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio and Shear Modulus can be defined, respectively, as

follows:

∆𝜎𝑖
𝐸𝑖 = (4.3)
∆𝜖𝑖

𝜖𝑖
𝜈𝑖𝑗 = − (4.4)
𝜖𝑗

𝜏𝑖𝑗
𝐺𝑖𝑗 = (4.5)
𝛾𝑖𝑗

Thus, there are twelve parameters which must be experimentally determined in order to

describe the orthotropic material’s mechanical behavior. It should be noted that although there

are six Poisson’s ratios in total, only three need to be determined experimentally because the other

three are dependent due to symmetry and can be computed as follows:

𝜈𝑖𝑗 𝜈𝑗𝑖
= (4.6)
𝐸𝑗 𝐸𝑖

54
 This reduces the overall number of required, experimentally determined mechanical param-

eters to nine.

Thermal properties are also critical to Ascent’s use case. Thermal loads play a significant

role in the additive manufacturing process itself because of the heat required to make the pelletized

feedstock extrudable. The dynamic heating and cooling involved can induce residual stresses leading

to warping and cracking. One of the additional benefits of adding carbon-fiber reinforcement to the

thermoplastic matrix is to minimize the effects of these induced stresses on the quality of the final

print [23]. Nascent software simulations of the printing process exist that model the formation and

effect of these residual stresses for a given print. They will be discussed briefly in Chapter 5, but

are beyond the scope of this research.

In this characterization methodology, it is assumed that a print is successful and does not

have catastrophic warping or cracking. Given this as a starting point, Ascent is primarily concerned

with the performance of the tool when subjected to operational thermal loads in autoclave and

oven cure cycles. Thus, the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and heat deflection temperature

(HDT) are of interest. Zaldivar investigated the effect of different orientations and fill methodologies

on CTE [38]. It is clear from their work that CTE changes based on the orientation of the material.

Similar to the mechanical properties discussed above, these thermal properties can also be assumed

to behave orthotropically.

Kissling, et al, also argue that a given set of experimentally-determined properties are only

applicable for the corresponding print parameters used for the specimens’ printing. Christiyan pro-

vides an experimental investigation into the impact of print parameters on mechanical properties for

3D-printed ABS, supporting this assertion [9]. Thus, it is important to standardize print parameters

if consistent material properties are desired. Because the products that Ascent is initially targeting

are well-known, it is possible to settle on a narrow range of typical parameters. This enables the

material characterization methodology to be useful, because the test specimens can be printed using

these established print parameter ranges.

Lastly, a testing methodology must account for the LSAM’s unique size. Due to its uniquely

55
large bead dimensions, directly applying ASTM standards used for injection molding or composites

can generate misleading conclusions. A test specimen must be sufficiently large to capture the

bead-to-bead interactions that dominate in certain orientations. Otherwise, one risks omitting those

critical factors in the characterization of the material. For example, the dimensions of the bounding

box surround the specimen for an ASTM D638 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of

Plastics test are 9.7"L x 1.13"W x 0.55"T. As discussed in Section 2.3.2, a single extruded bead

from the LSAM is 0.83"W and 0.2"T. The standard D638 specimen is only incrementally wider than

a sinlge LSAM bead. Thus, the standard D638 sample is poorly scaled to capture the true, macro-

level nature of the material’s behavior. As a result, each test must be considered for modification

if it will not capture the material’s behavior appropriately.

4.2 Testing Methodology

Understanding these previous attempts to characterize additively manufactured objects and

the unique challenge of the LSAM’s size, a tailored testing methodology is required. The intent of

this approach is to collect the material properties necessary to understand a printed tool’s behavior

under operational mechanical and thermal loads. The list of properties suggested here is not ex-

haustive, but rather focuses on those material properties necessary for modelling the performance

characteristics relevant to Ascent’s LSAM-produced tooling. Table 4.1 shows the tests performed,

grouped by category.

Table 4.1: Engineering Properties Determined Minimally Sufficient to Provide Input to Numerical Simulation

This batch of testing would need to be repeated for each material type and printer parameter

set of interest. Additionally, this batch of testing could be periodically re-executed on a time-based or

event-based trigger. For example, testing on a particular material-parameter set could be completed

56
every six months in order to determine if there is any drift in material properties. Such drift could

be due to wear on the machine itself or deviations in the feedstock. It may also be advisable to

re-execute testing after a new lot of feedstock is introduced, and certainly if a new material supplier

is utilized. By periodically re-testing according to this methodology, an LSAM user can be more

certain of the consistency and quality of their prints.

The mechanical tests proposed include determining the Tensile or Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s

Ratio, and Shear Modulus. Both the Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio can be determined using

ASTM D638. However, the specimen dimensions must be scaled up to properly capture the bead-

to-bead interactions described in the previous section. The modified specimens can be seen in

Figure 4-2. They maintain the same shape and proportions as the D638 standard, however, they

are large enough to produce multiple bead-to-bead interfaces in each direction. D638 is the only

ASTM standard that required modification to accommodate the LSAM’s unique scale. All of the

remaining mechanical, physical, and thermal tests were able to utilize prescribed specimen sizes

from the ASTM standard.

Figure 4-2: (L) Modified Tensile Test Specimen Model; (R) Representative Finished Tensile Specimens for the
1-Direction and 3-Direction [27]

In order to conveniently produce the number of samples suggested for this testing methodol-

ogy, three-dimensional, hexagonal structures are utilized. By utilizing these hexagonal structures,

it is possible to replicate the test specimens accurately and efficiently as required rather than ma-

chining the specimens out of different printed objects. The structure of these hexagons can be

seen in Figures 4-3 and 4-4. Two hexagons—one for the 1-direction specimens, and one for the

3-direction specimens—are used to produce the needed specimens for each orientation. The two

57
hexagonal shapes are of different dimension to accommodate the orientation of the specimens (i.e.

the face of a 1-direction hexagon is wider than it is tall, and the face of a 2-direction hexagon is

taller than it is wide). With two tensile specimens produced per face of each hexagon, only 2.5

faces of the hexagons are required to produce the necessary number of over-sized tensile specimens.

Thus, 2.5 usable faces remain to produce the specimens required for other material tests for a given

orientation. The sixth face of each hexagon possesses a "zipper" where each layer starts and stops.

Because of this discontinuity in the layer, this face is discarded for the purposes of testing.

It should be noted that a 2-direction specimen is omitted from this testing methodology.

In order to reduce the number of tests required, it was assumed that the "Z" properties would

be sufficiently similar to the "Y" properties to consider them equal. This assumption is based on

the bead-to-bead interface being similar in both the 2 and 3 directions. Because this bead-to-bead

interface is the determinant of the material properties in these orientations, cost can be saved by

testing only one of these directions. A more exhaustive characterization would include testing in

the 2-direction.

Figure 4-3: (L) Methodology for the Printing and Machining of 1-Direction Tensile Coupons

Figure 4-4: (L) Methodology for the Printing and Machining of 3-Direction Tensile Coupons

58
 The required number of shear specimens are also machined out of the hexagons for each

orientation. These specimens use the dimensions specified in ASTM D5379. The specimens can be

seen in Figure 4-5.

Figure 4-5: Printed and Machined Shear Testing Specimens [27]

The remaining physical and thermal test specimens are machined from the remaining portions

of the hexagons corresponding to their orientations. These specimens are all smaller than the

modified tensile specimens and shear specimens, and are sized according to their respective ASTM

standards.

The testing conducted here is restricted only to CFR-ABS and would need to be repeared

for any additional material types. While trivially easy following this procedure, this obviously

incurs additional cost. Additional samples per material types could certainly be tested for each test

specified in this methodology. However, testing was completed by a third party lab, and there is

substantial cost associated with each test. Thus, the number of tests performed in this methodology

were deemed to be minimally sufficient to produce meaningful results. The test process itself, even

when printing with known print parameters can produce variation even with this simple hexagonal

geometry. Thus, it is important to use as many samples as possible to reduce the impact of any

inconsistencies in the printed samples on the results.

59
4.3 Laboratory Testing Results and Discussion of Findings

Testing was conducted according to the suggested test methodology via a third-party lab.

The results of this testing are presented in Table 4.2. In the following sub-sections, these values will

be discussed relative to one another and intuition from first principles.

Table 4.2: Material Properties from Experimental Characterization of ABS Material (numbers are scaled by factors
to preserve proprietary information, but relative relationships are preserved) [27]

4.3.1 Tensile Tests

The experimental setup of the tensile testing can be seen on the left side of Figure 4-6.

Additionally, a representative example of the failure modes for both the 1 and 3 direction can be

seen on the right side of Figure 4-6. Clearly, in the case of both orientations, the specimens break at

the center of the specimen, where the cross-sectional area is minimized, as intended. Additionally,

the bead-to-bead overlap zone is also visible in both the 1 and 3 orientation cross-sectional views.

It is also immediately evident when inspecting these specimens that there is a qualitative difference

between the 1 and 3 failure modes. The specimens pulled in the 1 direction—longitudinally along

the length of an extruded bead and in the direction of fiber alignment—present with a jagged

pattern. Conversely, the specimens pulled in the 3 direction—pulling the stacked layers away from

60
one another—have a cleaner break. This clean break is because the specimen broke at a bead-to-

bead interface, where the inter-laminar bond was the weak point in the specimen.

Figure 4-6: (L) Tensile Test Setup [27]; (R) Representative Failure Modes for X and Z Specimens [27]

Quantitatively, 𝐸1 is approximately 2.4x 𝐸3 , and this disparity corresponds with intuition.

The material possesses much better tensile strength performance in its 1 direction than its 3 direc-

tion. In the 1 direction, the material’s strength is dominated by the micro-level interactions between

matrix and aligned-fibers. However, in the 3 direction, the inter-laminar bond becomes the lower

bound on the material’s tensile performance. It is logical that the bonds between layers, even if

the print parameters are set optimally, will be less strong compared to the homogeneous, extruded

material itself.

Poisson’s Ratio can also be calculated from the results of D638 testing by using strain gauges

on the relevant sides of the specimens. Differences in Poisson’s Ratio can also be observed between

the three orientations. This also makes intuitive sense given the material’s composition.

4.3.2 Shear Tests

Shear testing was conducted according to ASTM D5379. No alterations were made to the

specimen dimensions in this case. Specimens in all three orientations were machined out of the

hexagonal shape previously discussed. Variation in the shear modulus can be seen based on the

specimen’s orientation. Figure 4-7 shows the test setup as well as the failure modes of each specimen

tested.

The plots of the stress strain curves for each orientation can be seen in Figure 4-8. It can

61
 Figure 4-7: (L) Shear Test Setup [27]; (R) Representative Failure Modes for all Three Orientations [27]

be seen that when stress is applied in the 1 and 2 directions (in the left and center positions of the

figure), there is a significant amount of variation across samples. This can be contrasted with the

relatively consistent curves seen when stress is applied in the 3 direction. This effect can be visually

observed in Figure 4-7. The left-most column of specimens (the Z -labelled specimens are in the

3-direction) all exhibit similar, qualitative failure modes at the central, narrowest point. However,

both the Y and X -labelled specimens exhibit a wider degree of variation in failure mode. Some

specimens break to the left or the right of the narrowest point. This difference is attributable to

the density of bead-to-bead interfaces present in the X and Y faces. Thus, the shear strength of

the material in the X and Y directions is mostly dominated by the location of the shear force: if

shear force is applied at or near a bead-to-bead interface, the ultimate shear strength tends to vary

more significantly. If, however, shear force is applied in the Z direction, where each bead-to-bead

interface has a prescribed overlap zone, this variation is muted, resulting in more consistent results.

This property is useful when designing the orientation of tool components that will see higher shear

loads.

Figure 4-8: Stress-Strain Plots for Shear Testing in the 1 (L) 2 (C) and 3 (R) Orientations (axes redacted to preserve
proprietary information) [27]

62
4.3.3 Physical Properties

With respect to the physical properties of this CFR-ABS, both density and hardness were

examined. Neither test required modification from its ASTM standard. The density value of 0.04

𝑙𝑏𝑠/𝑖𝑛3 roughly coincides with material supplier data sheet values. However, accurate measure of

this density value is critical for calculating tool weight and tool deformation under its own load.

Hardness is also a critical value of interest because these tools will frequently be used around metal

objects in a manufacturing environment. A Shore-D value of 83 is qualitatively considered "extra

hard," similar to that of plastics found in construction hard hats.

Density was not tested at multiple orientations because, intuitively, this would not produce

any differing results. Hardness, however, was tested in both the 1-3 and 1-2 planes. There was very

little meaningful difference between tests in the two orientations.

4.3.4 Thermal Tests

Thermal testing—both CTE and HDT—was conducted on samples from all three orienta-

tions. The experimental setup for each of these tests can be seen in Figure 4-9. Both tests were

conducted according to their ASTM standards without modification.

Figure 4-9: (L) Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Apparatus [27]; (R) Heat Deflection Temperature Apparatus [27]

Very little difference in HDT was observed between orientations. This is because HDT

measures the temperature at which the specimen deforms a specified distance under a specific load.

While the printed material is not perfectly thermally isotropic, given the size of the tested samples,

63
they are close enough in each orientation so as to not produce a significant change in HDT. If larger

samples were used, it is possible that more significant differences in HDT would begin to emerge.

𝜇𝑚 𝜇𝑚
Conversely, CTE varies significantly between orientations: 80 𝑚𝐶 𝑜 in the 1-direction, 80 𝑚𝐶 𝑜

𝜇𝑚
in the 2-direction, and 120 𝑚𝐶 𝑜 in the 3-direction. It is particularly important to note the 50%

increase in CTE in the 3 direction. This is the "stacking" direction, with the highest density of

bead-to-bead interfaces. The presence of more interfaces reduces the material’s ability to resist

thermal expansion in this direction and is consistent with other investigations into the CTE of 3D-

printed material. This difference confirms the need to think deliberately about the build orientation

of a tool intended for autoclave or oven usage.

4.4 Chapter Summary

Chapter 4 provides the methodology and results necessary for characterizing LSAM-printed

objects and numerically simulating their behavior. The chapter began with a review of current

approaches to characterizing these types of materials. After developing an LFAM-specific approach,

empirical testing is conducted on a representative CFR-ABS feedstock, and the results are sub-

sequently discussed. While these results are specific to CFR-ABS, the same testing methodology

could be readily utilized on any LFAM feedstock. Such a testing methodology could be repeated on

time-based or event-based triggers, such as each time a new lot of material is introduced, to confirm

the quality of the printer’s output.

64
Chapter 5

Finite Element Analysis of

LSAM-Printed Objects

Chapter 5 develops an approach to the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) of LSAM-printed objects

using the material properties determined in Chapter 4 as inputs. The goal is to produce a simulation

solution which is sufficient to inform design decisions and confirm that a tool will perform to

customer specification. The chapter begins by exploring existing efforts to model 3D-printed objects,

specifically those using composite feedstocks where print orientation is especially important. Next,

the overall approach of the modelling effort is described, moving from engineering properties to

simulating geometries of increasing complexity. Two applications of the model are then discussed:

the tensile tests described in Chapter 4 and the deflection testing of a more complex sub-assembly.

From these explorations, the model’s applications and limitations are described.

5.1 Existing Approaches to Modelling 3D-Printed Materials

FEA is a well-understood and powerful tool that can be used to simulate the behavior of a

digital model subject to various conditions [2]. These various conditions might include structural

loads, thermal gradients, fluid flow, and others. FEA simulations, which rely on the Finite Element

Methods (FEM) to solve, can provide critical insight into a structure’s performance at far cheaper

rate than physical testing would require. FEM is a numerical method for solving partial differential

65
equations that involves discretizing a model (of one, two, or three dimensions) into smaller pieces.

These smaller pieces are referred to as finite elements. The process of discretizing the model into

finite elements is called "meshing" [22]. With the model subdivided into elements and loading

conditions specified, a large system of equations can be generated and iteratively solved to produce

solutions for each element. This resulting set of solutions can then be analyzed to provide insight

on a given model’s behavior under the specified conditions.

Many software solutions, both proprietary and open source, exist that can perform FEA sim-

ulations. Such FEA software packages include: Abaqus, Autodesk Simulation, ANSYS, LS-DYNA,

HyperWorks, Patran, and Nastran. Each software suite comes with its own features, advantages,

and disadvantages, which can either inhibit or enable its use in this LFAM-specific modelling appli-

cation. For example, as discussed in previous sections, the orientation of the material is critical to

its mechanical and thermal properties. Any FEA software package intended for use in this LSAM-

specific modelling application must be capable of specifying material orientation with relatively high

fidelity. Ascent’s stress analysis team already uses the Altair’s HyperWorks software package, and

thus, this approach also leverages this software. However, other software solutions are likely capable

of producing similar results.

There have been previous attempts at modelling the performance of additively manufactured

objects using FEA. These attempts generally fall into one of two categories: those that simulate

the entire print process and those that more naively model the finished part’s performance. Those

that model the entire print process—which are referred to here as "process simulation"—are more

computationally intensive and focus predicting the final shape and residual stresses of a print by

capturing its full thermal history during printing [8] [14] [7] [19] [29] [33]. These process simulations

use the sliced geometry of a part and previously known material properties and print parameters

as inputs. The print process is then simulated in software, replicating the heat transfer, crystal-

lization kinetics, and mechanical properties as new simulated material is successively extruded.

This inclusive process has the benefit of being able to accurately predict warping, cracking, and

residual stresses in a printed object. However, most of these software approaches are still under

development in university laboratories and private companies. Once released, the LSAM-specific

print parameters and material properties would still need to be input into the software to generate

66
meaningful results. Such a software solution would certainly be a powerful design tool that would

enable Ascent to simulate a wide variety (virtually any) slicable geometry and confirm that it would

print properly. However, such a powerful tool may not be necessary for Ascent’s applications. As

previously discussed, because the range of tool types Ascent aims to print is known and relatively

well-defined, this full process simulation approach may be excessive given its likely cost.

FEA has also been employed to model the performance of finished parts [32] [21] [37] [16] [2] [6]

[40]. These investigations typically follow the following procedure: a 3D geometry is designed; this

3D geometry is printed with material whose material properties are known at various orientations;

the printed objects are then subjected to a battery of physical tests; the 3D geometry is processed

through an FEA modelling approach; the results of the physical test are then compared with the

results of the FEA output. This approach has the advantage of "closing the loop" and enabling

one to compare the simulated expectations with the physical reality. These approaches generally

assume that the printed object maintains the geometry specified in the digitally-designed model.

More directly, they ignore the effects of residual stresses and warping in the finished parts which

are subjected to loading conditions. In spite of this assumption, many investigations are able to

achieve relatively closely matching results. For example, Bahandari, et al., using a PEI blend with

carbon-fiber reinforcement, was able to obtain tension and shear moduli with <10% error.

The relatively desirable results of these investigations motivated the framework discussed in

the following sections. However, few of these previous investigations have explored LFAM specifi-

cally, with all of its unique constraints. The investigative framework proposed in the next section

provides a methodology for modelling LFAM-generated objects that are printed within a well-defined

set of print parameters and known geometries.

5.2 Investigative Framework

The current state of Ascent’s LSAM design approach is reliant on operator experience and

intuition. The ability of a design and eventual printed tool to meet customer specifications is the

result of some degree of trial-and-error. However, this does not scale well and incurs excessive cost.

If effective simulation tools can be developed to provide some quantitative backing to this intuition,

67
design iteration can happen digitally and new LSAM operators do not have to be the only check on

a design’s viability. The current model can be seen in Figure 5-1. Stated simply: a tool is designed

by a design engineer, the tool design is vetted by an LSAM-specific expert, the tool is then printed,

and it is subsequently successful or fails. Failure is defined as an overall structure failure (collapse

or failure to print properly), or an inability of the printed tool to meet customer specifications. If

a tool warps excessively under mechanical or thermal loads, it has failed. Customers are able to

specify the acceptable amount of warping or safety margin required of a tool.

Figure 5-1: Current Physical Approach to the Performance Modelling of LSAM-Printed Designs

A more desirable future state would allow Ascent to test designs in FEA software before

expending time and materials on a physical print. A designer would create a tool which could be

subsequently analyzed in FEA software under operational loading conditions. Pending successful

completion of this simulation step, the design could be released to the LSAM team for final validation

and printing. This future-state process can be seen in 5-2. This sort of process flow is already in

use in Ascent’s traditional, metallic tooling manufacturing process. It would enable digital iteration

on a design. In the best case, it could not only minimize failed prints and re-work, but enable some

degree of design optimization by reducing the amount of material required to meet operational

specifications. By vetting a design through simulation, Ascent can prevent over-engineering a tool

design and save print time and material cost. This FEA process would ideally include the ability

to model thermal expansion as well, enabling a designer to confirm that a tool expands as expected

and does not fall outside of acceptable ranges for specified cure cycle parameters.

However, there is a capability gap in the modelling of LSAM-printed tools. A naive approach

would be to run FEA on a designer’s 3D model, treating the material as a homogeneous solid with

consistent, globally-defined material properties. However, this approach ignored the anisotropy

described in Chapter 4. On the other end of the spectrum, current commercial process simulation

modelling approaches are expensive, untested on the LSAM, and perhaps unnecessarily detailed

68
 Figure 5-2: Future Approach to the Performance Modelling of LSAM-Printed Designs

for Ascent’s application. Due to Ascent’s relatively well-defined parameter set, this prompts the

following question: is it possible to generate an FEA simulation solution using known material

properties from Chapter 4, well-defined geometries from Ascent’s tooling, and known near-optimal

print parameters using in-house simulation software? Would such a simulation approach be sufficient

to inform design decisions and ensure a tool’s performance for a customer?

To answer this question, the approach represented in Figure 5-3 was developed. Generally,

it proceeds from simulating simple geometries through moderately complex sub-assemblies, to full

tools. For each geometry type, both a simulation and a physical test are performed. This enables

the results of the simulation to be compared to a physical result, enabling the model to be adjusted

and validated.

Figure 5-3: Approach to Developing Software Model of LSAM-Printed Tools

The approach begins with attempting to model simple, tensile-specimen-shaped geometries

subjected to tensile loads identical to the tensile tests described in Chapter 4. These simple geome-

tries are an ideal starting point because they are large enough to capture macro-level behavior, but

69
do not have any printed curvature. All of the curvature in the specimens is the result of machining

operations. Thus, the material orientation is consistent throughout the specimen. The orientation

of a specimen can be changed easily in software to represent specimens in the 1, 2, or 3 orientation.

This enables the simulation to focus on whether the material properties generated in Chapter 4 are

sufficient to produce realistic simulation output.

After confirming the material representation in simulation, the approach moves onto arc-

shaped sub-assemblies. These sub-assemblies represent a cross-section of a typical trim tool or layup

mold, ignoring any backup structure. These geometries possess printed curvature, meaning that the

local orientation of the material changes throughout the length of the sub-assembly. Simulations

can be run on these geometries wherein the material is treated as homogeneous throughout and

wherein the material orientation is assigned properly. Comparing the solutions of these simulation

approaches reveals the benefit of properly representing the material orientation in simulation. This

is an important step, as assigning material orientation properly throughout the tool is a non-trivial

task, requiring some effort by the stress analysis engineer.

Finally, after confirming the material representation and the effect of proper material orien-

tation, a final validation step on a full tool should be performed. This full tool would include the

facesheet and any supporting backup structure. This final check would ensure that the modelling

approach does, in fact, capture the behavior of a fully printed tool. Unfortunately, testing on a full

tool was not possible during the timeline of this research. However, testing on tensile specimens

and sub-assemblies was conducted and is discussed in Sections 5.4 and 5.5, respectively.

Using this framework, there are generally three sources of error that can arise when comparing

the results of the simulation with that of the physical experiment. These three sources of error are

important to understand when considering any deviation in a particular comparison:

• Physical Experimental Error: As in any physical experiment, there are errors that arise from

the nature of the experimental setup and in the methods used to measure relevant values.

For example, if a specimen slips when placed under load, errors in displacement may occur.

Unintended warping or flaws in a particular specimen could also influence the results gener-

ated. Additionally, the method of measurement may be error-prone as well. For example,

70
 when measuring the displacement of the sub-assemblies under load, a laser tracker was em-

ployed. Any calibration issues with the laser tracker could lead to downstream error in the

displacement values. This error was minimized to the greatest extent possible, but still exists.

• Test Modelling Error: This is the simulation analog on the Physical Experiment Error de-

scribed above. Each physical test must be modelled in software. Some assumptions must be

made as to where a load is applied, whether and how surfaces should be allowed to move in

each axis, and how to model slippage between two faces or contact points. Deviations between

the modelled test and the way the physical test was actually executed will lead to differences

in the results.

• Material Representation Error: FEA simulations require a user to specify material properties.

These will be discussed in greater detail in the following section. Any errors in the constants

used for these material properties (Young’s Modulus, Poisson’s Ratio, Shear Modulus, etc.)

will influence the solution the simulation produces. Additionally, errors in material orientation

or how the printed materials anisotropy is modelled will influence results. Minimizing this

error is truly the intent of the investigative framework suggested here.

5.3 Modelling Approach

HyperWorks was employed as the FEA simulation software in this modelling approach. Hy-

perWorks is a powerful tool that enables a high degree of pre-processing capability and provides

many different solvers from which to choose. This freedom enabled significant experimentation in

choosing optimal simulation parameters. Several decisions were made to inform the ultimate mod-

elling approach including: element type, material card, mesh density and quality, order, linearity,

and solver type. The choices of these parameters were primarily driven by balancing the function-

ality that each provided in terms of accurately representing the material and the computational

requirements to run the simulation. These two factors were typically in conflict with one another,

and striking a feasible balance between fidelity and run time was the ultimate driver of the modelling

approach ultimately chosen.

Multiple element types are available within HyperWorks. They include zero, one, two, and

71
three-dimensional elements. Multiple element types can be included in the same simulation for

complex models. However, the benefit of these LSAM-printed objects is that they are comprised of

a single material type, requiring one element type. The primary decision here was between using

two-dimensional shell elements and three-dimensional solid elements. Two-dimensional elements

have the benefit of solving more quickly and are frequently used when homogeneous materials are

being considered. However, because the printed material is thick and the internal interactions

between elements is critical to ultimate part performance, solid elements were chosen. Additionally,

the script developed and employed to dynamically assign local material orientation worked only

with solid elements. Due to their ability to provide a qualitatively cleaner mesh, CHEXA elements

were chosen. Additionally, CHEXA elements are compatible with the MAT9 material card. The

MAT9 material card is used to define the properties of anisotropic elastic materials. This material

card selection enables a user to specify all of the parameters necessary to model the material as

an orthotropic solid. The MAT1, isotropic, material card was also used in this investigation to

compare the effect of modelling isotropically versus orthotropically. Because there is a non-trivial

amount of labor required to properly align the material in software, it was important to perform

this comparison to determine if the additional labor significantly improved simulation results.

Mesh density and quality were also critical parameters in developing the modelling approach.

Too dense of a mesh will result in unreasonable long run times. However, too crude of a mesh will

result in a low-fidelity solution that does not provide the sort of meaningful insight required to

model performance. Because the bead width of the LSAM is 0.83"W by 0.2"T, each side length of a

CHEXA element was specified as 0.1". This enabled sufficient fidelity to produce meaningful results

while not creating an unreasonably dense mesh. Mesh quality was also a critical consideration.

Care should be taken to ensure the mesh is relatively symmetrical and does not have regions with

significantly misshapen elements. Such regions will result in solver failures or unreasonable solutions.

HyperWorks provides the ability to specify 1st or 2nd order elements. Solving using 2nd order

elements provides additional nodes at the midpoint between two connected nodes on an element. For

a 8-element CHEXA element, this doubles the number of nodes per element to 16. While increasing

the fidelity of the solution, running a simulation using 2nd order elements also significantly increases

the run time. Multiple iterations were run to determine whether there was any material benefit to

72
running simulations in 2nd order. However, it was determined that 1st order was generally sufficient

and provided reasonable results with much lower run times.

Because these simulations investigated the transient effect of different loads on the specified

geometries and large deformations were expected, a nonlinear solver was utilized. Multiple solvers

were investigated, however, Optistruct was used for all of the analyses presented in this document.

The general modelling approach eventually arrived at through some iterative parameter tuning is

depicted in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: FEA Parameters Used in Simulations

Lastly, as previously referenced, a script was developed and implemented that enabled the

dynamic assignment of local material orientation. This script allows a user to specify the orientation

of a particular element in the meshed model. This is a critical step necessary to properly orient

the modelled material such that the orthotropic properties are accurately represented as printed.

The script enables a stress analysis engineer to quickly select blocks of elements and specify their

orientation without having to do so individually. This significantly reduces the amount of time

required to pre-process and model.

5.4 Applications of the Model: Tensile Testing

The first simulation tested involved a tensile test of the tensile specimens used during the

material characterization approach described in Chapter 4. Because this test was executed by a

professional, third-party lab according to a modified ASTM-standard tensile test, it had the lowest

physical experimental error. Additionally, because the tensile specimens have no curvature, there

was no requirement to dynamically assign local material orientation. Material orientation could be

specified at the global level, making these iterations relatively quick to execute. Modelling these

73
tensile tests allowed a focus on whether the material properties were generally correct before moving

onto more complex geometries.

5.4.1 Simulation Setup

The overall setup of these tensile tests can be visualized in Figure 5-4. The green elements

represent the LSAM-printed material itself. As previously discussed, each element has a side length

of 0.1", resulting in 32,396 elements to represent the full geometry. The nodes represented in

yellow are fixed in three dimensions. They represent the clamped faces of one end of the specimen

in the test apparatus as seen in Figure 4-6. The nodes represented in red are where the tensile

force is applied. They represent the opposite clamped faces in Figure 4-6. A number of alternative

formulations of this simulation setup were also attempted, where different faces were held in place

and the force was applied to different element selections. However, this setup, which best captures

the nature of the physical test, produced the most desirable results.

Figure 5-4: Modelling Tensile Test Setup in Hypermesh

After the tensile specimen was meshed and the clamped faces were assigned, the material ori-

entation of each element was assigned. As previously discussed, in these samples, all of the material

is oriented globally in the same direction, making this assignment straightforward in HyperWorks.

Because the physical tests to which these simulation results are compared correspond to 1-direction

and 3-direction samples, this is how the material was oriented in simulation as well. Figure 5-5

shows axes for selected elements for each specimen.

Material properties were assigned using two different material cards, to determine the best

74
Figure 5-5: 1-Direction Specimen (top) and 3-Direction Specimen (bottom) with Red Arrow Denoting the 1-
Direction and Blue Arrow Denoting the 3-Direction

way to represent the material: MAT1 (isotropic) and MAT9 (orthotropic). First, the average

material property values for the respective orientation from Chapter 4 were applied homogeneously

using a MAT1 material card. In this case, the simulation naively assumes an isotropic material

and ignores local material orientation. Second, all of the relevant material properties for respective

orientations were input into simulation using a MAT9 material card. In this case, the simulation

incorporates all of the experimentally determined material properties and takes material orientation

into account. Ten load steps ranging from 1000 to 10,000 lbf were then successively applied to each

specimen. The outputs of these two modelling approaches can then be compared with experimental

results.

5.4.2 Comparison of Physical Results and Model Outputs

Run times for these simulations, both for isotropic and orthotropic runs, were less than 1

minute. Representative output of the simulation can be seen in Figure 5-6. The stress and strain

values are maximized at middle portion of the specimen, where the cross-sectional area is minimized.

This behavior is consistent with intuition. Both the isotropic and orthotropic runs produced similar

qualitative results.

The results of both the isotropic and orthotropic simulation approaches can be quantitatively

compared with the results of the physical tests. At each load step, the error between the simulated

and actual stress and strain is computed and averaged. The results of this calculation are seen in

75
Figure 5-6: Representative Output of Tensile Test Modelling Approach Showing Von Mises Stress (L), Strain (C),
and Displacement (R) for a 1-Direction Orthotropic Model at 2000lbf

Table 5.2. These relatively low error values suggest that both modelling approaches may be suitable

for such a simple geometry with no printed curvature. However, the orthotropic approach can be

seen to minimize error when considering both stress and strain values. The stress-strain diagrams

seen in Figure 5-7 show how the orthotropic simulation’s output corresponds with the actual stress-

strain curves generated for each of the experimental runs for both X and Z orientations.

Table 5.2: Average Percent Error between Simulation Solution and Physical Experiment at each Load Step

Figure 5-7: Comparison of Orthotropic Modelling Output and Physical Tensile Tests for 1-Direction Specimens (L)
and 3-Direction Specimens (axes removed to preserve proprietary information) (R)

The orthotropic simulation’s output, using the material properties determined in Chapter 4

and the modelling approach developed above appear to correlate well with physical experiments.

76
Some error can be seen at the lowest stress values. This is largely due to specimen slippage in

the test apparatus’s clamps in the physical experiment. The findings of the tensile tests suggested

that an orthotropic model was likely the preferred simulation choice. However, for such a simple

geometry, the gains for modelling orthotropically are not dramatic compared to the isotropic model.

5.5 Applications of the Model: Sub-Assembly Deflection Testing

Using the insight gained from the tensile test simulations, it makes sense to next investigate

the simulation’s efficacy on a geometry with more printed curvature. Additional curvature should

increase the influence of the material’s anisotropy on its behavior. Because most trim tools and

layup molds have some amount of curvature, this is particularly relevant to Ascent’s use case.

This test involved the printing of two arc-shaped geometries that resemble a cross-section

of a tool’s facesheet, one six feet in length and the other approximately nine feet in length. The

shape of these specimens and the overall experimental setup can be seen in Figure 5-8. The arcs

themselves are two beads in width. In the reference frame depicted on the right of Figure 5-8, the

arcs have been rotated 90 degrees about the X axis from their printed orientation to arrive at their

tested orientation. Thus, the Y axis depicted in Figure 5-8 represents the 3-direction.

For both lengths, the flat portions of the specimen are placed on immobile support structures.

A pallet is then suspended underneath the specimen where weight can be incrementally added,

placing the specimen under load in the negative Z direction in the manner of a three-point-bending

test. Load steps progressed as follows for each sub-assembly: free-hanging under its own weight,

addition of the rigging required, and then the successive addition of seven 50lbs steel plates. The

maximum load applied to each sub-assembly was self weight plus an additional 350lbs. The flat

portions of the specimen are not secured to the support structure, allowing the ends to slide freely

as weight is added. The flat portions of the specimen are, however, abutted against immobile

guides secured to the support structure. These guides minimize the specimen’s movement in the Y

direction during loading and deflection.

Checkpoints (CPs) are mounted on the side of each specimen at fixed locations. A laser

tracker is then calibrated against these checkpoints. As additional load is placed on the suspended

77
Figure 5-8: Experimental Setup for Sub-Assembly Deflection Testing Showing Arc with Loading Applied (L), Laser
Tracking of CP Positions (C), and the Common Coordinate System and CP Locations (R)

pallet, the laser tracker is able to locate these checkpoints in three dimensions. This enables an

accurate measure of the specimen’s deflection as load is applied. These laser-tracker generated 3-

dimensional positions are used as the physical truth against which simulation results are compared.

5.5.1 Simulation Setup

The setup of the sub-assembly deflection test is similar to that of the tensile test described

in the previous section. The simulation setup can be seen in Figure 5-9. The maroon colored

elements represent the printed material. The purple colored elements represent the immobile support

structures. The load is applied over the same surface area in simulation as in the physical experiment

and can be visualized by the pink rays extending from the pink arrow. The contact surface between

the printed material and the support structures were modelled as frictionless, allowing the sub-

assembly to freely slide against the support structure in the manner of the physical test. Load steps

were successively applied using the same progression as in the physical experiment, allowing a direct

comparison of results.

The printed material was modelled using the same parameters as the tensile tests. Using the

same 0.1in element sizes resulted in substantially more elements for each sub-assembly due to their

larger size: 507,780 CHEXA elements for the 6ft arc and 734,580 CHEXA elements for the 9ft arc.

Because of the increased curvature of these sub-assembly geometries, properly representing

the local material orientation was thought to be more important in this application. Thus, the

material orientation script previously described was implemented to assign proper orientations to

all CHEXA elements in each sub-assembly model. This can be visualized in Figure 5-10. The thick

red arrow on the right side of the Figure describes the path of the LSAM’s nozzle as it deposited

78
 Figure 5-9: Modelling Sub-Assembly Deflecting Test Setup in Hypermesh

the printed material. On the left side of the Figure, the material orientation of selected elements

is shown. The red arrows point in the local 1-direction and the green arrows point in the local

2-direction. The 3-direction follows the right-hand rule. Thus, using this script, it was possible to

properly model the material orientation as printed.

Figure 5-10: Material Orientation of Sub-Assemblies in Hypermesh Showing the 1-Direction with Red Arrows

For each sub-assembly, four different simulations were run: isotropic using the 1-direction ten-

sile modulus from the material supplier’s data sheet, isotropic using the 3-direction tensile modulus

from the material supplier’s data sheet, isotropic using the 1-direction tensile modulus from the ex-

perimental results, and orthotropic using the material properties from the experimental results. The

material supplier data sheet values were used simply as a point of comparison. The material-supplier

provided tensile values were substantially higher than the experimentally-determined values, and,

thus, the simulated results were expected to generate more error.

The general approach taken was to use the 6ft sub-assembly as a "training set" to optimize

the simulation setup, and then use the 9ft sub-assembly as a "test set." This enabled a better

validation of the modelling approach, as additional simulation parameters were not modified for

79
the 9ft sub-assembly simulation. The only change that was made during the 9ft simulation was the

physical geometry of the sub-assembly itself. Using this approach, it was possible to determine the

viability of the modelling approach on this more complex geometry.

5.5.2 Comparison of Physical Results and Model Outputs

The increase in the number of elements in these simulations lead to longer run times. Run

times were generally less than 5 minutes. However, when simulating larger geometries, this may

become a significant constraint requiring additional computational resources to finish in reasonable

time.

Figure 5-11: Representative Output of Sub-Assembly Deflection Testing Showing X Displacement (top) and Z
Displacement(bottom) at Max Load Using Orthotropic Approach

After tuning the simulation parameters using the 6ft arc, representative output from the 9ft

arc can be seen in Figure 5-11. This figure shows the sub-assembly’s displacement profile when

maximum load is applied using the orthotropic modelling approach. The arc can be seen to deflect

in accordance with intuition, qualitatively following the same trends seen in the physical experiment.

For the purpose of the following discussion, the coordinate system seen in Figure 5-8. Along the

the X axis, the arc can be seen to "collapse" inward at the highest load. Along the Y=Z axis, the

flat portions of the sub-assembly flex upwards, while the middle of the arc sinks in the negative

80
Figure 5-12: Representative Levering Effect Captured by Modelling Approach Shows CP1 Deflecting Upwards and
Inwards Under Load

Z direction. Looking more closely at the flat portions of the sub-assembly in Figure 5-12, the arc

can be seen to slide and rotate around the edge of the immobile support structure. Qualitatively,

this behavior corresponds with the physical experiment. The isotropic simulations also had similar

qualitative behavior.

With the simulation providing reasonable output, the next step was to compare the simula-

tion’s output with that of the physical experiment. Figures 5-13 and 5-14 show this comparison.

Figure 5-13 depicts the deflection in both Z (L) and X (R) for the 9ft arc. The sign flip in the

X direction represents the arc’s "collapse" inward as increasing load is applied. No values from

the Y direction are reported, as they are essentially negligible. Again, qualitatively, the simulation

appears to match the behavior of the physical experiment well.

Figure 5-13: Experimental Deflection of 9ft Sub-Assembly in Z (L) and X (R) at Each Load Step via Laser Tracker

In order to quantitatively compare the results of the simulation and physical experiment,

the simulated position of each checkpoint was compared with its actual movement in the physical

experiment. Any deviation in X and Z between simulation and experiment was considered error.

81
Figure 5-14: Modelled Deflection of 9ft Sub-Assembly in Z (L) and X (R) at Each Load Step via Orthotropic
Approach

This absolute error of each CP in both X and Z for each simulation approach can be visualized in

Figure 5-15 with the 6ft sub-assembly on the left and 9ft sub-assembly on the right. The magnitudes

of these errors are less than 0.5" for the 6ft arc and less than 2.0" for the 9ft arc, centered around

the origin.

Figure 5-15: Absolute Error in X and Z Directions for the 6ft Sub-Assembly (L) and 9ft Sub-Assembly (R) using
Various Modelling Approaches

A portion of this error is attributable to the physical experiment itself. In contrast with

the tensile tests described in the previous section, this deflection test was not an ASTM standard

conducted in a certified laboratory. As a result, the weight was not perfectly applied or evenly

distributed. Imperfect slippage against the support structure due to friction also was not modelled

perfectly. Additionally, some degree of "rocking" about the X -axis occurred because the flat portions

of the test specimens were not, in fact, perfectly flat. These sources of physical experimental

error contribute to the difference between the physical and simulation results. It is likely that the

82
simulation overestimates the amount of slippage in the X -direction. As a result, the simulation is

also likely to overestimate the amount of deflection in the Z -direction.

Figure 5-16: Orthotropic Modelling Approach is Shown to Reduce RMSE for both the 6ft and 9ft Sub-Assemblies

Using the absolute error values it was possible to compute a room mean squared error (RMSE)

value to quantitatively measure the accuracy of a simulation approach. These RMSE values can

be seen in Figure 5-16. From these RMSE values, it is evident that the orthotropic modelling

approach does outperform the isotropic approach for these sub-assembly geometries. This suggests

that modelling the material’s orientation does provide a meaningful increase in simulation accuracy.

It is likely that a larger, more dramatically shaped geometry would further exacerbate the difference

between the isotropic and orthotropic approaches.

5.6 Model Limitations

This orthotropic modelling approach appears to closely follow the physical performance of

LSAM-printed objects. However, there are a number of limitations to this approach which must be

acknowledged.

First, this simulation approach does not explicitly model layer-to-layer bonding. Because

only macro-level material properties are represented (i.e. 1, 2, and 3 direction tensile and shear

moduli), it is not possible to simulate cracking at layer interfaces. As this is the most likely failure

mode, it is important to use this simulation approach for load values substantially less than the

ultimate tensile strength of the simulated material. Additionally, the number of elements required

to model layer-to-layer bonds would likely be computationally prohibitive. Consider again that the

bead dimensions are 0.83"W and 0.2"T. Ascent frequently produces tools with facesheet surface

83
areas exceeding 100 square feet in surface area. Thus, the number of elements required to model

such a tool would be on the order of millions or billions. Without substantial computation resources,

modelling the layer-to-layer bonding is likely infeasible at this time.

Second, this modelling approach does not include the results of a process simulation. It

assumes that a print was executed successfully without substantial warping or cracking. Because of

this, it ignores residual stresses induced by the manufacturing process. Residual stresses in a printed

object could influence the object’s performance under load. A more comprehensive approach would

simulate the print process itself, capture these residual stresses and strains, and then conduct

simulation on this object. Because this approach ignores the effect of residual stresses in the printed

object, it is important not to operate near the ultimate stress limits of the simulated material.

5.7 Chapter Summary

Chapter 5 described the motivation, methodology, and initial results justifying this modelling

approach as sufficient for Ascent’s applications. First, a review of FEA simulation approaches in

literature was reviewed. Next, the investigative framework for determining Ascent’s approach was

described. Using tensile testing and sub-assembly deflection testing, the FEA simulation approach

was then investigated. Assuming an object was successfully printed, the orthotropic model most ac-

curately correlated with physical tests. With this foundation, the model could be validated against

a full printed tool’s behavior, rather than sub-assemblies. By physically testing and simulating a

fully printed, representative tool geometry, Ascent can be increasingly confident in the validity of

this simulation approach. Additionally, given that thermal properties were also collected during the

material testing phase of this investigation, the model could be subjected to thermal loading. Fur-

ther, this modelling approach should be validated on other material types. With a simulation model

validated across multiple material types, Ascent would have a powerful tool for design improvement

and production efficiency.

84
Chapter 6

Conclusions and Future Work

The previous chapters have explored the operational integration of the LSAM, a characterization

methodology for its printed material, and a simulation approach for modelling the behavior of

LSAM-printed objects. In Chapter 6, a summary of key findings and conclusions are presented.

Selected next steps are then described, providing a road map for follow-on work.

6.1 Conclusions

This project set out to effectively implement LFAM capability at Ascent Aerospace, an

aerospace tooling manufacturer, to maximize value impact. Due to the low-volume/high-mix As-

cent’s manufacturing environment, AM stands to substantially reduce the production cost of tooling.

Additionally, because of the bespoke nature of each tooling solution, AM stands to substantially

reduce lead time from on the order of months to on the order of weeks. This project focused on two

primary components: understanding, controlling, and planning the production of LSAM-printed

tools, and characterizing and simulating the behavior of LSAM-printed tools.

First, a brief overview of Ascent’s business and a review of AM technologies is provided to

establish the context of the project. Then the focus shifts to a discussion of the operational integra-

tion of the LSAM. A comparison of current and future state process maps is conducted to inform

production planning and identify critical bottlenecks. Next, a test plan is described to establish the

85
LSAM’s functionality and reduce variability in its operation. Multiple continuous improvement ini-

tiatives are then described, culminating in the Design for LSAM Guidelines. Taken together, these

strategies of process description, printer testing, and continuous improvement initiatives comprise

a framework for integrating LFAM in a generalized manufacturing environment.

Next, a process for characterizing LFAM-printed materials is described using CFR-ABS. This

material is shown to behave anisotropically due both to the chopped carbon fiber reinforcement and

the layered nature of its manufacture. An orthotropic assumption is described to simplify the

number of material properties required to represent the materials behavior. Finally, the results of

physical tests on LSAM-printed samples are presented and discussed. The material is shown to vary

orthotropically as suggested. Requiring some modifications to ASTM standards, this characteriza-

tion process would work for other pelletized feedstocks used in LFAM. Additionally, a hexagonal

geometry is described to quickly and consistently produce the test specimens necessary for this

characterization process.

Using these experimentally determined material properties, a simulation approach is sug-

gested. Effective simulation allows production to scale more rapidly by decreasing reliance on op-

erator expertise and enables more optimal designs. Rather than conducting full process simulation,

the simulation approach aims to use Ascent’s existing software to achieve a useful solution assuming

a successful print. Results of a quality simulation could be used to inform the design process as well

as make performance claims regarding a printed tool’s performance under operational conditions.

An orthotropic model using three-dimensional solid elements is shown to closely correlate with the

results of physical experiments for the tensile tests and sub-assembly deflection tests.

Successful LFAM integration at Ascent was reliant on a number of organizational factors as

well. First, executive-level emphasis was critical to providing the necessary resources. Some degree

of restructuring is needed to create a dedicated, cross-functional team of engineers and operators

who can become subject matter experts on this new technology and its associated processes. These

associated processes extend all the way from customer education through all steps of manufacturing

to quality assurance and quality control. Establishing a culture of continuous improvement is critical

to effectively capturing the "know-how" central to effective integration. Only with these mechanisms

86
in place can production scale to meaningful quantities.

Abstracted away from the Ascent-specific context, many of the processes and approaches

described in this document could be used by other manufacturing companies to efficiently integrate

LFAM. Far more than a rapid prototyping tool, LFAM has matured to a point where it can be

used to manufacture tooling for an industry as exacting and demanding as aerospace. Projected

to generate over $10M in annual revenue, Ascent’s embrace of this emergent technology stands to

create substantial value for the company and its customers.

6.2 Future Work

This research primarily focused on process integration and performance modelling. Along

both of the dimensions, there exist substantial additional work that could be performed to better

extract value from LFAM in an industrial manufacturing environment. Below, three directed areas

of further research are suggested, which would build naturally upon the work captured in this thesis.

6.2.1 Process Quantification and Refinement

As discussed in Chapter 3, the future-state process map is essentially a working hypothesis of

how pelletized raw material should be transformed into finished aerospace tooling. Much of the work

suggested in Chapter 3 was designed to create a culture of continuous improvement surrounding

the LSAM from its installation. However, because this project occurred as the LSAM was being

installed, there was limited data available as to the actual flow of LSAM-generated work product

through the factory. As the number of customer-paid jobs continue to increase, a greater variety

and quantity of data will be available to quantitatively analyze this future-state process flow. Using

this information, it will be possible to identify process bottlenecks and better inform manufacturing

process decisions.

As part of this quantitative approach to LFAM integration, a nascent initiative was begun

to measure the utilization of the LSAM by unit time and by job. The LSAM does not have a native

capacity tracking capability that enables this functionality directly. Thus, a script was developed

to take the raw logs from the LSAM and transform them into understandable output. The process

87
is depicted in Figure 6-1. Refining this script and integrating it into other aspects of the LSAM-

specific workflow could generate useful insights as the LSAM continues to be capacitized. A number

of commercial alternatives to this script were investigated during the course of this research, however,

an internally developed solution integrated with Ascent’s existing SAP system might be optimal.

Figure 6-1: LSAM Utilization Data Processing Script to Transform Raw LSAM Logs into Interpretable Insights

Lastly, significant further work could be done on optimal batching of LSAM prints. As

Ascent increases the number of printed jobs, optimally grouping prints into the same jobs to fill the

print area will become critical. However, because virtually all LSAM tools must be subsequently

machined, this impact must also be investigated to reduce idle work in progress as it flows into the

machining work center. Developing useful heuristics and tools to optimize the flow of LSAM-printed

tools through the factory is a rich area of further development.

6.2.2 Characterization of Additional Material Types

The material properties data presented in this document only addresses carbon-fiber re-

inforced ABS. However, there are many other material types that are of interest to Ascent and

other manufacturers of LFAM objects. These alternative materials include PC, PESU, PEI, and

others. ABS was chosen initially because it is the cheapest material and is generally used for room-

temperature applications—the first tool types targeted. However, as Ascent begins to shift focus

to tools that will be exposed to higher temperatures, understanding the behavior of these other

materials will become increasingly important.

The relatively good performance of the FEA simulations with ABS suggest that the char-

acterization methodology developed in Chapter 4 would also be applicable to these other material

types. It generates sufficient printed material in a now-known geometry to create all specimens

88
required for characterization. As time or event based triggers for re-characterization are developed,

it may make sense to purchase testing equipment to conduct particular tests. This will not only

reduce the cost compared to using a third-party lab, but will also enable faster execution time.

Ascent and other LFAM adopters should continue to monitor ASTM Committee F42 as it

publishes standardized testing processes for AM. While they are unlikely to generate LFAM-specific

standards in the near future, it may be possible to adapt best practices for other AM technologies,

particularly those surrounding FDM and carbon-fiber reinforced materials. Research around these

two areas was particularly useful in developing the characterization and simulation approaches

discussed in this document.

6.2.3 Refinement of Modelling Approaches

As discussed at the end of Chapter 5, significant further work remains to continue developing

and refining the simulation approach to LFAM-printed materials. The first step is to conduct

physical testing and simulation on a full tool. Such an investigation would provide the best insight

on the efficacy of the simulation approach. As the timeline of this research concluded, steps were

being taken to conduct this work. Figure 6-2 shows an example tool, with significant curvature both

in the facesheet and due to the fork-lift tubes along the base surface. This tool has been properly

meshed and its material correctly oriented using the processes previously described. By subjecting

this tool to loading and tracking its deflection, it would be possible to gain further insight into

whether this simulation approach provides meaningful feedback. Ultimately, the simulation is only

useful if it can meaningfully influence design decisions and enable Ascent to make meaningful claims

about a tool’s performance to the customer.

Figure 6-2: LSAM-Printed Full Tool Model in HyperWorks, Meshed with Material Orientation Properly Assigned

Beyond full-tool testing, it will also be critical to simulate the thermal performance of LFAM-

89
printed tools. The characterization required to conduct this simulation has already been performed

for ABS. However, the physical experiment must be developed and executed such that the results

can be compared. Such a test—measuring the tool’s facesheet’s deflection during a standard cure

cycle in an oven or autoclave—would be non-trivial to conduct. However, the insights gained from

such a test and the refinement of a simulation approach would enable Ascent to more rapidly and

confidently develop mold tooling and other temperature-sensitive applications.

As new materials are characterized, they can also be implemented in simulation using the

approach described in Chapter 5. Developing a comprehensive simulation approach for all common

material types will be critical to having a comprehensive simulation solution. Further, as commer-

cial simulation software developers and research laboratories continue to improve their products,

these process simulation approaches are likely to become increasingly relevant. If tools like Purdue

University’s Composites Manufacturing and Simulation Center’s Additive3D become effective and

cheap enough, these may eclipse the internally developed simulation approach described in this doc-

ument [8]. Dassault System’s Simulia software suite also has a process simulation capability that

may prove useful as well. However, the transition to any future commercial alternative will require

testing and validation by Ascent, and thus represents a rich area of future research.

90
Bibliography

[1] How do you design for manufacturing excellence in the world of Additive Manufacturing?,
March 2017. Library Catalog: www.technia.com Section: DASSAULT SYSTEMES.

[2] D. W. Abbot, D. V. V. Kallon, C. Anghel, and P. Dube. Finite Element Analysis of 3D Printed
Model via Compression Tests. Procedia Manufacturing, 35:164–173, January 2019.

[3] Ch. Achillas, D. Aidonis, E. Iakovou, M. Thymianidis, and D. Tzetzis. A methodological

framework for the inclusion of modern additive manufacturing into the production portfolio of
a focused factory. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 37:328–339, October 2015.

[4] Charisios Achillas, Dimitrios Tzetzis, and Maria Olga Raimondo. Alternative production strate-
gies based on the comparison of additive and traditional manufacturing technologies. Inter-
national Journal of Production Research, 55(12):3497–3509, June 2017. Publisher: Taylor &
Francis Ltd.

[5] Ascent Aerospace. Internal Company Documents, August 2019.

[6] Sunil Bhandari and Roberto Lopez-Anido. Finite element modeling of 3D-printed part with
cellular internal structure using homogenized properties. Progress in Additive Manufacturing,
4(2):143–154, June 2019.

[7] Bastian Brenken. Extrusion Deposition Additive Manufacturing of Fiber Reinforced Semi-
Crystalline Polymers. Ph.D., Purdue University, United States – Indiana, 2017. ISBN:
9780355612837.

[8] Bastian Brenken, Eduardo Barocio, Anthony Favaloro, Vlastimil Kunc, and R. Byron Pipes.
Development and validation of extrusion deposition additive manufacturing process simula-
tions. Additive Manufacturing, 25:218–226, January 2019.

[9] K.G. Jaya Christiyan, U. Chandrasekhar, and K. Venkateswarlu. A study on the influence of
process parameters on the Mechanical Properties of 3D printed ABS composite. IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 114:012109, February 2016.

[10] G. Costabile, M. Fera, F. Fruggiero, A. Lambiase, and D. Pham. Cost models of additive man-
ufacturing: A literature review. International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations,
pages 263–283, 2017.

[11] Luca Cremona, Mauro Mezzenzana, Aurelio Ravarini, and Giacomo Buonanno. How Additive
Manufacturing Adoption Would Influence a Company Strategy and Business Model. page 14,
2016.

91
[12] John Ryan C. Dizon, Alejandro H. Espera, Qiyi Chen, and Rigoberto C. Advincula. Mechanical
characterization of 3D-printed polymers. Additive Manufacturing, 20:44–67, March 2018.

[13] Alexander Kißling M Eng. Determination of Anisotropic Material Properties of Carbon-Fiber-

Reinforced FDM Structures for Numerical Simulations. page 8.

[14] Anthony J Favaloro, Bastian Brenken, Eduardo Barocio, and R Byron Pipes. Simulation of
Polymeric Composites Additive Manufacturing using Abaqus. page 13, 2017.

[15] Gartner Inc. Hype Cycle Research Methodology.

[16] Filip Górski, Wiesław Kuczko, Radosław Wichniarek, and Adam Hamrol. Computation of
Mechanical Properties of Parts Manufactured by Fused Deposition Modeling Using Finite Ele-
ment Method. In Álvaro Herrero, Javier Sedano, Bruno Baruque, Héctor Quintián, and Emilio
Corchado, editors, 10th International Conference on Soft Computing Models in Industrial and
Environmental Applications, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, pages 403–413,
Cham, 2015. Springer International Publishing.

[17] Raed Handal. An implementation framework for additive manufacturing in supply chains.
Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management, 10(2):18, December 2017.

[18] John Hart. MIT xPRO: AMx, Additive Manufacturing for Innovative Design and Production,
May 2020.

[19] Mathias L Jensen, Mads R Sonne, Jesper H Hattel, and Hans N Hansen. Thermal modelling
of extrusion based additive manufacturing of composite materials. page 13.

[20] Martin Kumke, Hagen Watschke, and Thomas Vietor. A new methodological framework for
design for additive manufacturing. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 11(1):3–19, January 2016.

[21] Ningrong Lei, Xiling Yao, Seung Ki Moon, and Guijun Bi. An additive manufacturing process
model for product family design. Journal of Engineering Design, 27(11):751–767, November
2016. Publisher: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

[22] Daryl L. Logan. A First Course in the Finite Element Method. Cengage Learning, January
2011. Google-Books-ID: KptPymzHa_gC.

[23] Lonnie J. Love, Vlastamil Kunc, Orlando Rios, Chad E. Duty, Amelia M. Elliott, Brian K.
Post, Rachel J. Smith, and Craig A. Blue. The importance of carbon fiber to polymer additive
manufacturing. Journal of Materials Research, 29(17):1893–1898, September 2014. Publisher:
Cambridge University Press.

[24] Robert Martens, Susan K. Fan, and Rocky J. Dwyer. Successful approaches for implementing
additive manufacturing. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable
Development, 16(2):131–148, April 2020.

[25] Nagendra Kumar Maurya, Vikas Rastogi, and Pushpendra Singh. Experimental and Compu-
tational Investigation on Mechanical Properties of Reinforced Additive Manufactured Compo-
nent. Evergreen, 6(3):207–214, September 2019.

[26] Stephen Mellor, Liang Hao, and David Zhang. Additive manufacturing: A framework for
implementation. International Journal of Production Economics, 149:194–201, March 2014.

92
[27] National Technical Systems. Additive Manufacturing Carbon Fiber Mechanical Testing, August
2020.

[28] Lauri Ojala, Juuso Töyli, Tomi Solakivi, Harri Lorentz, Sini Laari, and Ninni Lehtinen. NO-
FOMA 2016 - PROCEEDINGS OF THE 28TH ANNUAL NORDIC LOGISTICS RESEARCH
NETWORK CONFERENCE. page 761.

[29] Deepankar Pal, Nachiket Patil, Kai Zeng, and Brent Stucker. An Integrated Approach to
Additive Manufacturing Simulations Using Physics Based, Coupled Multiscale Process Mod-
eling. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 136(6), December 2014. Publisher:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.

[30] David W. Rosen. Research supporting principles for design for additive manufacturing: This
paper provides a comprehensive review on current design principles and strategies for AM.
Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 9(4):225–232, October 2014.

[31] Massimilliano Ruffo. Make or buy analysis for rapid manufacturing | Request PDF.

[32] F. J. G. Silva, R. D. S. G. Campilho, R. M. Gouveia, G. Pinto, and A. Baptista. A Novel

Approach to Optimize the Design of Parts for Additive Manufacturing. Procedia Manufacturing,
17:53–61, January 2018.

[33] M R Talagani, S DorMohammadi, R Dutton, C Godines, H Baid, and F Abdi. Numerical

Simulation of Big Area Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing) of a Full Size Car. SAMPE
Journal, 51(4):11, 2015.

[34] Thermwood. Thermwood LSAM - Large Scale Additive Manufacturing.

[35] Syed A. M. Tofail, Elias P. Koumoulos, Amit Bandyopadhyay, Susmita Bose, Lisa O’Donoghue,
and Costas Charitidis. Additive manufacturing: scientific and technological challenges, market
uptake and opportunities. Materials Today, 21(1):22–37, January 2018.

[36] Mark Vitale, Mark Cotteleer, and Jonathan Holdowsky. An Overview of Additive Manufac-
turing. page 8, 2016.

[37] Brice Matthew Willis. Applying Finite Element Analysis with a Focus on Tensile Damage Mod-
eling of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Laminates. PhD thesis, The Ohio State University,
2013.

[38] R. J. Zaldivar, D. B. Witkin, T. McLouth, D. N. Patel, K. Schmitt, and J. P. Nokes. Influence of

processing and orientation print effects on the mechanical and thermal behavior of 3D-Printed
ULTEM® 9085 Material. Additive Manufacturing, 13:71–80, January 2017.

[39] Vittorio Zanetti, Sergio Cavalieri, and Giuditta Pezzotta. Additive Manufacturing and PSS: a
Solution Life-Cycle Perspective. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(12):1573–1578, January 2016.

[40] Javad Zarbakhsh, Armin Iravani, and Zeinab Amin-Akhlaghi. Sub-modeling Finite Element
Analysis of 3D printed structures. In 2015 16th International Conference on Thermal, Me-
chanical and Multi-Physics Simulation and Experiments in Microelectronics and Microsystems,
pages 1–4, April 2015.

93