Page 1

SERVICE LOGISTICS IN 3D:

HOW 3D PRINTING OF SPARE PARTS COULD INFLUENCE YOUR FUTURE AFTER-SALES SERVICE OPERATIONS Nils Knofius


SINTAS PROJECT

SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT OF NEW TECHNOLOGY ON AFTER SALES SERVICE SUPPLY CHAINS

Technological options with 3D printing Failure behavior & maintainability Supply chain network design Inventory control policies

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

2


3D PRINTING: WHAT IS IT?

“Process of joining materials to make objects from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer”

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

3


3D PRINTING: WHAT IS IT?

THERE IS NOT ONLY ONE 3D PRINTING PROCESS Powder Bed Fusion

Laser Source

Digital Light Processing

Scanner System

Roller

Powder Delivery system

Build Chamber

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

4


3D PRINTING: WHAT CAN BE DONE?

Large scale print Organics

Size

Composite materials

Materials

Micro print

Metals

Nano print

Polymers

Normal size print Ceramics n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

5


3D PRINTING: WHEN IS IT CONSIDERED USEFUL?

Conventional production

Costs

Costs

Conventional production

3D printing

Production volume

3D printing

Geometric complexity

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

6


3D PRINTING: THE VISION

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

7


SOME POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS IN AFTER-SALES SERVICE LOGISTICS


3D PRINTING IN AFTER-SALES SERVICE SUPPLY CHAINS

THE MAGIC FORMULA?

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

9


3D PRINTING IN AFTER-SALES SERVICE SUPPLY CHAINS PRINT ON DEMAND

Production strategies: ETO

MTO

ATO

MTS

DFS

(engineer-to-order)

(make-to-order)

(Assemble-to-order)

(Make-to-stock)

(Deliver from local stock)

Engineering

Manufacturing

Assembly

Push Forecast driven

CODP

Distribution

Pull Order driven

Moving the Customer Order Decoupling Point (CODP) with 3D printing:  Less inventories  More Flexibility n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

10


3D PRINTING IN AFTER-SALES SERVICE SUPPLY CHAINS SUPPLY CONTINUITY

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

11


3D PRINTING IN AFTER-SALES SERVICE SUPPLY CHAINS REPAIR FAILED PART

Benefits of repairing burner tip with 3D printing:

Case gas turbine:

 30% maintenance costs reduction  90% downtime reduction  Design upgrades and customization

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

12


BUT‌

1)

Process variability / Quality

2)

Piracy / Intellectual property

3)

Liability

4)

Certification

5)

Missing standards

6)

Limited materials

19/1/16

13


REASONS FOR 3D PRINTING IN PRACTICE


REASONS FOR 3D PRINTING IN PRACTICE Design improvements: 1)

Weight reduction

2)

Waste reduction

3)

Improved heat distribution

4)

Reduced flow resistance

5)

Customization

37% weight reduction with topology optimization enabled by 3D printing

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

15


REASONS FOR 3D PRINTING IN PRACTICE Design improvements: 1)

Weight reduction

2)

Waste reduction

3)

Improved heat distribution

4)

Reduced flow resistance

5)

Customization

In aerospace we observe buy-to-fly ratio of more than 95% enabled by 3D printing

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

16


REASONS FOR 3D PRINTING IN PRACTICE Design improvements: 1)

Weight reduction

2)

Waste reduction

3)

Improved heat distribution

4)

Reduced flow resistance

5)

Customization

20% reduced cycle times with customized cooling channels in a mold enabled by 3D printing

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

17


REASONS FOR 3D PRINTING IN PRACTICE Design improvements: 1)

Weight reduction

2)

Waste reduction

3)

Improved heat distribution

4)

Reduced flow resistance

5)

Customization

90% disturbance force reduction by flow optimization with 3D printing

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

18


REASONS FOR 3D PRINTING IN PRACTICE Design improvements: 1)

Weight reduction

2)

Waste reduction

3)

Improved heat distribution

4)

Reduced flow resistance

5)

Customization

Faster and less invasive customized hip replacement enabled by 3D printing

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

19


REASONS FOR 3D PRINTING IN PRACTICE

Possible reasons for not observing more applications motivated with after-sales service logistics: 1. Engineer-driven advancement of 3D printing technology 2. Bottom-up approach rather than top-down approach

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

20


TOP-DOWN APPROACH


TOP-DOWN APPROACH

GENERAL IDEA

Exploit spare part data available form company databases:

Technical criteria

Economic criteria

Logistical criteria

Part size

Purchasing costs

Demand rate

Material

Design ownership

Order lead time

etc.

etc.

etc.

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

22


TOP-DOWN APPROACH

PROCESS OVERVIEW

Phase 1 Define population:

Phase 2 Scoring:

Start procedure

Data availability

Definition of spare part assortment

Spare part attributes

Scoring procedure

Company goals

Ranking of spare part assortment

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

23


TOP-DOWN APPROACH

PHASE 1

Considerations:  Larger spare part assortment vs. Lesser spare part attributes  Internal assortment prioritization Output Phase 1: Attributes

Item 1

Items 2

Item 3

M

Part size (dm³)

1

3

4

Resupply lead time (days)

21

50

35

Customer order lead time (days)

2

5

1

Number of suppliers (#)

1

14

3

Order /Manufacturing costs (Teuro)

5

15

1

P

E

Type of part (Electronics, Metals, Plastics)

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

24


TOP-DOWN APPROACH

PHASE 2: WEIGHT ATTRIBUTES WITH COMPANY GOALS Procedure: 1. Pairwise comparison of company goals (Analytical Hierarchy Process) 2. Assign spare part attributes Company goals

0.21

0.44

Secure supply

0.22

Number of suppliers

0.22

Resupply lead time

0.35

Reduce costs

Reduce downtime

0.105

Customer order lead time

0.105

Resupply lead time

n.knofius@utwente.nl

0.175

Number of suppliers

0.175

Order / Manufacturing costs

19/1/16

25


TOP-DOWN APPROACH

PHASE 2: SCORE SPARE PARTS Procedure:

1. Evaluate each value of each attribute and spare part 2. Assess Go/No-Go attributes (technological constraints) a) If any grade No-Go: đ??źđ??źđ??źđ??źđ??źđ??źđ??źđ??ź đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘  = 0 b) Otherwise:

đ??źđ??źđ??źđ??źđ??źđ??źđ??źđ??ź đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘ đ?‘  = ∑đ??´đ??´đ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ąđ?‘Ą đ??şđ??şđ??şđ??şđ??şđ??şđ??şđ??şđ??şđ??ş ∗ đ?‘Šđ?‘Šđ?‘Šđ?‘Šđ?‘Šđ?‘Šđ?‘Šđ?‘Šđ?‘Šđ?‘Šđ?‘Š

Example with binary grading: Attributes Go/No-Go

Value

Threshold

Grade

Weight

Score

Type of part (Electronics, Metals, Plastics)

M

M or P

Go

Part size (dmÂł)

0,5

3

Go

Resupply lead time (days)

2

15

0

0.325

0

Customer order lead time (days)

15

5

1

0.105

0.105

Number of suppliers (#)

5

2

0

0.395

0

Order /Manufacturing costs (Teuro)

48

12

1

0.175 Item score

0.175 0.28

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

26


APPLICATION AT ARMY

STUDY FOCUSED ON DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE  11.944 spare parts considered with 10 spare part attributes 1) Type of part

4) Demand rate (35%)

7) Resupply lead time (11%)

2) Part size

5) Supply risk (35%)

8) Order costs (2%)

3) Complexity

6) Lifecycle phase (11%)

9) Design ownership (2%)

10) Average days in inventory (2%)

 Preliminary output: 15% of 175 best scoring spare parts are assessed as technological feasible and economical promising Discussion point:  Focus on depot level maintenance or operational level maintenance? n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

27


OPERATIONAL LEVEL 3D PRINTING A POSSIBLE SCENARIO

Concept US Army’s Mobile Parts Hospital

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

28


APPLICATION AT FOKKER SERVICES

EXAMPLE

 6.190 spare parts considered with 9 spare part attributes 1) Average days in inventory (15%)

4) Supply risk (11%)

7) Resupply lead time (9%)

2) Demand rate (14%)

5) Airplane type (10%)

8) Price change (9%)

3) Order costs (14%)

6) Repairable (10%)

9) Lifecycle phase (8%)

 Output: About 20% of spare parts are technological feasible and economical promising Typical case:  Demand rate between 0 and 12  Indications of high risk of supplier disruptions  Price: € 720, lead time: 21 days Fitting-Stud n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

29


3D PRINT CONSOLIDATED PART


CONSOLIDATION WITH 3D PRINTING MOTIVATION

Drivers:  Design freedom of AM  Several business cases observable  Design for serviceability Print multiple components in one piece

Changing characteristics:  Different time to failure  Different manufacturing costs  Different lead time  Reduced supply chain complexity  Design improvements n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

31


CONSOLIDATION WITH 3D PRINTING SETUP

Questions: 1. Optimal degree of consolidation 2. Desirable characteristics for integration (sensitivity analyses) 3. Impact of commonality (Subcomponent 2)

Assembly

Component 1

Subcomponent 1

Component 2

Subcomponent 2

Subcomponent 3

= Producible with AM = Not producible with AM

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

32


THANK YOU!


A FINAL THOUGHT FOR THE LUNCH BREAK

n.knofius@utwente.nl

19/1/16

34

15 knofius (2015) lecture service logistics in 3d  
15 knofius (2015) lecture service logistics in 3d  
Advertisement