3D Print Validation Network for Certified Component Manufacturing

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The challenge in the aerospace industry is to validate and certify additively manufactured components, particularly in decentralized 3D printing processes, where ensuring quality and authenticity of components is difficult due to the lack of effective monitoring and tracking mechanisms.

Innovation Solution

A method and system that utilize a distributed validation network to transmit and validate printing specification data, incorporating a cryptographically encoded checksum, and a print history log to ensure that each manufacturing stage adheres to the specified parameters, allowing for continuous monitoring and certification of the generative manufacturing process.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If decentralized 3D printing processes are used for component manufacturing, then productivity and ease of manufacture are improved, but reliability and manufacturing precision deteriorate due to lack of quality control

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemanufacturing efficiencyVSAvoidcomponent quality
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements continuous feedback loops where sensor data from the 3D printing process is transmitted to a cloud platform, which then provides feedback signals to adjust process parameters in real-time, ensuring quality control in decentralized manufacturing

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The cloud-based quality control platform serves multiple functions including data collection, analysis, process optimization, and certification, making the system universally applicable across different decentralized 3D printing operations

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

2Ease of manufacture

If decentralized 3D printing is implemented, then ease of manufacture increases, but manufacturing precision deteriorates due to inability to verify adherence to printing parameters

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedecentralized production capabilityVSAvoidparameter adherence verification
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system replaces manual verification methods with automated sensor-based monitoring and cloud-based digital verification, substituting mechanical inspection processes with electronic data validation

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The cloud-based platform acts as an intermediary between the decentralized 3D printing devices and quality control authorities, facilitating verification of manufacturing parameters without requiring direct physical inspection

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Manufacturing precision

If traditional quality control methods are used in decentralized 3D printing, then manufacturing precision can be maintained, but device complexity and loss of time increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvequality control accuracyVSAvoidmonitoring system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system extracts complex computational and analytical functions from local 3D printing devices and relocates them to a centralized cloud platform, reducing device complexity while maintaining quality control capabilities

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary validation of printing parameters and generates certification data in advance during the manufacturing process, eliminating the need for complex post-manufacturing inspection systems

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

4Manufacturing precision

If comprehensive monitoring of manufacturing parameters is implemented, then manufacturing precision is improved, but loss of time increases due to continuous validation requirements

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprocess parameter controlVSAvoidvalidation time
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements continuous monitoring and real-time validation of manufacturing parameters without interrupting the 3D printing process, maintaining manufacturing precision while eliminating time loss associated with sequential inspection steps

Inventive Principle:
Principle #20Continuity of useful action

Data Source

PatentEP3340100B1Additive manufacturing system and method for validating additively manufactured components
Publication Date: 2021.04.28 AIRBUS OPERATIONS GMBH
  • EP3340100B1 patent drawingFigure 1~5

AI summary

A method for validating additively manufactured components comprises the steps of transmitting, to a distributed validation network by means of a print job entity, printing specification data for a component that is to be additively manufactured, validating the printing specification data by means of the distributed validation network, and adding the printing specification data, together with a cryptographically encoded checksum, to a print history log managed by the distributed validation network, transmitting the printing specification data by means of the print job entity to a 3D printing device, and implementing a generative manufacturing process for the component that is to be additively manufactured, by means of the 3D printing device and in accordance with the transmitted printing specification data. While the generative manufacturing process is being carried out, in each case following specified manufacturing stages, a plurality of manufacturing parameters prevailing in the preceding manufacturing stage are transmitted to the distributed validation network. Subsequent manufacturing stages are released by the distributed validation network in order to be implemented in the 3D printing device only if the transmitted manufacturing parameters have been successfully matched to the printing specification data stored in the print history log.