See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322788691

Additive Manufacturing Overview: Propulsion Applications, Design

for, and Lessons Learned

Presentation · December 2017

CITATIONS READS

4 1,154

8 authors, including:

Paul R. Gradl Kristin Morgan

NASA NASA
36 PUBLICATIONS   124 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   24 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Additive Manufacturing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul R. Gradl on 30 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Additive Manufacturing
Overview: Propulsion
Applications, Design for
and Lessons Learned

December 2017

Paul Gradl
NASA MSFC

Contributors:
Will Brandsmeier, Marty Calvert,
Sandy Greene, Derek O’Neal, Chris
Protz, Jim Richard, Kristin Morgan
 Overview of SLM Applications at NASA

• NASA is advancing additive manufacturing for propulsion

applications on variety of flight and development programs
• Focus of additive manufacturing is powder-bed fusion
techniques
– Powder-bed = Selective Laser Melting (SLM) = Direct Metal Laser
Sintering (DMLS)
– SLM being used on RS25 Core Stage Boost Engines for Space
Launch System (SLS)
• Larger scale deposition technologies also being evaluated
– Blown powder deposition = Directed Energy Deposition (DED)
• Hybrid additive/subtractive technology
– Wire-Fed Deposition
• Laser heat source
• Pulsed-arc heat source
• Electron beam heat source (Electron beam freeform fabrication)
– Hot-wire hybrid technologies 2
 Comparison of Metal AM Processes

Metallic Additive Manufacturing Processes

Powder
Bed
Precision of Features1
(Resolution of features)

Laser Hot
Laser Wire Wire2
Deposition
Blown Powder
Ultrasonic Deposition
Additive

Cold Spray EBF^3

Deposition
Arc-based
Deposition

Deposition Rate
1 Precision refers to the as-built state and does not encompass hybrid techniques and/or interim machining operations that would
increase resolution. There are also a lot of other factors not considered in this chart including heat inputs to limit overall distortion.
2 Technology still under full development

References:
• Honore, M. “Structural strengthening of Rocket Nozzle Extensions by Means of Laser Metal Depositioning”. In Support of Volvo Channel Wall Nozzle. Force Technology. MTI Mtg Laserfusing Presentation. 1 February, 2013.
• O’Neill., W., Cockburn., A., et al. “Supersonic Laser Deposition of Ti and Ti64 Alloys”. 5th International Symposium on High Power Fibre Laser and their Applications/14th International Conference on Laser Optics. July 1,
2010. St. Petersburg, Russia. 3
• Gradl, P.R. "Rapid Fabrication Techniques for Liquid Rocket Channel Wall Nozzles", 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Propulsion and Energy Forum, (AIAA 2016-4771)
Additively Manufactured SLM Material is Unique

SLM GRCop-84 Copper-alloy Material in the As-built Condition (ASTS, Huntsville)

4
Video of SLM Parts Being Printed

5
Application Examples for Liquid Rocket Engines

Test of META4 Methane Additive Combustion Chamber

6
 Additive Combustion Chambers Assembly

GRCop-84 3D printing process developed at NASA and infused into industry

LOX/Methane Testing of 3D-Printed Chamber Ox-Rich Staged Combustion Subscale Main

Methane Cooled, tested full power Injector Testing of 3D-Printed Faceplate
Reference:
Gradl, P.R., Protz, C., Greene, S.E., Ellis, D., Lerch, B., and Locci., I. "Development and Hot-fire Testing of Additively Manufactured
Additively Manufactured GRCop-84 and C-18150 Copper Combustion Chambers for Liquid Rocket Engine Applications", 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA
Propulsion and Energy Forum, (AIAA 2017-4670)
Combustion Chambers accumulated over 5700 Gradl, P., Protz, C., Greene, S.E., Garcia, C., Brandsmeier, W., Medina. C., Goodman, D., Baker, K., Barnett, G. Design, Development and
Hotfire Testing of Monolithic Copper and Bimetallic Additively Manufactured (AM) Combustion Chambers for LOX/Methane and
sec hot fire time LOX/Hydrogen Applications Paper presented at 63nd JANNAF Propulsion Meeting/9th Liquid Propulsion Subcommittee, December 5-9, 2016.
Phoenix, AZ.
Video of AM GRCop-84 Chambers

8
 Additive Injector Development

100# LOX Propane

Injector Built 2012 1.2K LOX Hydrogen
Tested Nov 2013 First Tested June 2013 20K LPS Subscale Tested Aug 2013
>3900 sec hotfire (3) Subscale Injectors Tested

Methane 4K Injector CH4 Gas Generator Injector

Printed manifolds and LPS 35K Injector Testing Summer 2017
parametric feature Welded Manifolds
Ref: Brad Bullard
Tested Sept 2015 Tested Nov 2015 9
Sandy Elam Greene
Injector Development Supporting
20-35k-lbf Test bed

Ref: Brad Bullard 10

Greg Barnett
 Video of Additive Injector Testing
Additively Manufactured Injectors Hot-fire Tested at NASA
range from 1,200 lbf to 35,000 lbf thrust

11
SLS Program / RS25 Pogo Z-Baffle
Inconel 718
Used existing design with additive manufacturing to reduce complexity
from 127 welds to 4 welds
• 1 of 35 part opportunities being considered for RS25 engine

Ref: Andy Hardin / NASA MSFC

12
 AM Turbomachinery – Liquid Oxygen
Pump, 35k-lbf Test bed

Shaft Baffle

Pump Housing

Turbine Housing

Stator
Turbine Blades
Impeller 13
Ref: Derek O’Neal / NASA MSFC
 Turbomachinery – Fuel Turbopump

92,000 RPM
1,700 hp

Inducer Assembly

Turbopump Assembly
Rotating Assembly

Ref: Marty Calvert / NASA MSFC

Turbine Stage
14
Video of AM Fuel Turbomachinery Hot-fire

15
Ref: Marty Calvert / NASA MSFC
 Additively Manufactured Valves
Hot Hydrogen Gas @350˚F and up to 2000 psig Aerospike Engine Multi-port Valve
Versions in Aluminum, CoCr and Inco 718 280 GPM, 750 psig
Reduced weight from 60 lbs to 10 lbs

Fuel Turbine Bypass Valve

H2 at 150˚F Complex flow orifices

Throttling 25:1 2.5” dia line, <8 lbs
Cryo H2, 2200 psig
Micropolished LOX, Pressures to 2200 psig
Inconel 718, 7 lbs
Inconel 718

Oxidizer Turbine Bypass Main Oxidizer Valve Main Fuel Valve / Coolant
(OTBV) (MOV) Control Valve (MFV/CCV)
16
Ref: Jim Richard, Dave Eddlemen, Travis Davis / NASA MSFC
Video of Flow Testing MPV
Multi Port Valve (MPV) Testing at 750 psig

17
 What about the scale of SLM?

Although new machines are being introduced,

current state of the art is limited in size…
Engine
SSME/RS-25 RL-10A-4 J-2X, Regen Only RD-180

SLM Build
Boxes

10x10x10 15.5x24x19
(inches)
90” 46” 70” 56”
Nozzle Exit Dia.
Gradl, P.R., Brandsmeier, W. Alberts, D., Walker, B., Schneider, J.A. Manufacturing Process Developments for Large Scale Regeneratively-cooled Channel Wall Rocket Nozzles 18
Paper presented at 63nd JANNAF Propulsion Meeting/9th Liquid Propulsion Subcommittee, December 5-9, 2016. Phoenix, AZ.
 Technologies Support Large Scale Additive Manufacturing

• NASA has researched a variety of large scale techniques for liquid rocket
nozzles and considering for other applications. Techniques include:
– Blown Powder Deposition (LENS, LFMT, DED)
– Wire-based Freeform Deposition (LMD, LDT)
– Arc-based wire deposition (MDDM, Arc-DED)
– Electron Beam Freeform Deposition (EBF^3)
– Laser hot-wire and hybrid technologies

24” Blown Powder Deposition, Inco 625

Combustion Chambers
Additive Manufacturing Rocket Engines
Rocket Nozzles
Arc-Deposition of MCC Liner, Inco 625

24” Final Machined

19
Blown Powder Deposition, Inco 625
 Large Scale Additive Deposition
Nozzle Technology
24+” Dia

Large Scale Deposition: Additive Wire-based Channel Closeout

Blown Powder and Arc Deposition
Ref: DMG Mori Seiki Hybrid

27” Dia

Freeform AM Deposition with Integral Channels

References:
Gradl, P. “Rapid Fabrication Techniques for Liquid Rocket Channel Wall Nozzles.” AIAA-2016-4771, Paper presented at 52nd
AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, July 27, 2016. Salt Lake City, UT.
Gradl, P.R., Brandsmeier, W. Alberts, D., Walker, B., Schneider, J.A. Manufacturing Process Developments for Large Scale
Regeneratively-cooled Channel Wall Rocket Nozzles. Paper presented at 63nd JANNAF Propulsion Meeting/9th Liquid Propulsion
Subcommittee, December 5-9, 2016. Phoenix, AZ.
Micros of Build Orientation

Inco 625 As-Built - Hoop

20x 50x 100x

Inco 625 As-Built - Axial

20x 50x 100x

21
Basic Overview of Additive Manufacturing Process
Design for Additive and Lessons Learned

22
 Perceived Process Flow

Additive
Part design Manufacturing Test Part

23
 Actual Process Flow

Model Machine Powder Verify Powder

Part design SLM Build
Checks Parameters Removal Removal

Remove part Heat Dimensional Final Surface

Stress Relief
from plate Treatments Scans Machining Finishing

Final Mechanical Part

Inspections Testing Complete

Each process step also includes a series of additional tasks in

order to properly design, build, or complete post-processing

24
Generic Flow for Additive Combustion
Chamber Fabrication Process

25
 Considerations in Design and Printing
Same CAD file with different export parameters
• The printer is going to (attempt to)
print geometry based on the CAD
model
• Most 3D printers use .stl files
(stereolithography)
– .stl files are flat triangles used to
Print File

approximate CAD geometry

– The .stl file is sliced into layers to
generate the laser toolpath / code
• Have observed significant
differences in surfaces, although
based on geometric features
• Finer resolution files are
significantly larger and machines
can be limited on toolpath code Example of injector elements with facets
26
 Considerations in Design and Printing

• Angled feature designs are limited Hole design examples

(measured from horizontal)

– Features <45o normally require support
– Features >45o normally do not require
support Hole examples
– Consider features in all dimensions Hole examples

• Holes cannot be printed as true

holes if larger diameter
– Largest unsupported hole ~ .250”
– Smallest hole/feature ~.030”
• Overhangs can be created, but Manifold design

require supports (and subsequent

removal)

Direction
Build
Design support
needed for flange 27
Angled wall design example
 Considerations in Design and Printing

• Design and analysis needs to

Direction
Build
consider surface finishes for
internal and external features
• Internal passages may need
to be oversized to account for
burn-thru or undersized hole
• Support material should be
understood in design phase Burn-thru on “roof” feature
– Placement of support material is
important
– How support material is No support material used
removed is equally important Support for
– Ask your operator or vendor flange

– Support material highly

dependent on print orientation
28
 Considerations in Design and Printing
• Print orientation is critical – evolve the CAD design with AM
machine operator or vendor
– Print orientation is not always obvious; supports may be minimized in a
complex angled orientation
• Print volume should be considered
– Bolt holes required for the build plate
– Build plate (~1” thick) takes up part of the build height
• Test print in plastic during design phase
– Inexpensive method to identify issues with design and model
– Determine design issues, bad design features and actual feature issues
can be resolved with test prints

29
 Considerations during Pre-processing
and Printing
• Heat control is critical and can cause significant deformations or
failures
– May be driven by original design (too thick or thermal gradients too high
across varying cross sections)
– May be impacted by adjacent parts or witness specimens
• Material curl caused by coater arm damage
– Based on knife edges during design
• Stops and starts are also common in 3D prints, causes knit lines
– Refill of powder in dose chamber
– Issue observed that requires visual

Cracking from Residual Stresses during build Material curl on knife edge

Knot line observed post-build 30

 Considerations during Design
and Post-Processing
• Geometric Dimensioning and
Tolerancing (GD&T) needs to be
considered during design for ease of
post-processing
– Cylinders for better positional
Hole offset from port centerline
tolerance at feature level
– Grooved for axial location
– Flat surfaces for datums
– Extra holes for powder removal
– Additional stock material for critical
features that will be post-machined Holes drilled and
• Holes only when required or in softer tapped after AM build

materials
– Existing printed holes can cause
machine tools to “walk”
– Do not print threads; post-machine
– Undersize holes for reaming and
tapping
31
 Considerations in Post-processing and Inspections

3D Scanning (Structured Light) used for Computed Tomography (CT) Scanning

interim and final geometric inspections – Powder Removal and Inspection

In-process monitoring being evolved

Borescope Inspection – Powder Removal

and Verification
Other NDE options:
• Visual
• Ultrasonic Testing
• X-Ray
• Penetrant inspection
• Eddy Current

Ref: Waller, J., Parker, B., Hodges, K.L., Burke, E., Walker, J.L. Nondestructive Evaluation of Additive Manufacturing: State of the 32
Discipline Report, NASA/TM-2014-218560. “https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140016447.pdf
 Other Questions to Ask

• Should this part be printed or traditionally

manufactured?
• Is the print accuracy adequate for the design?
• What is the build orientation?
• How am I going to remove all the powder?
• Will support structure be used in the build?
• What kind of post machining needs to occur after the
print?
• How do I verify powder removal?
• How is this part being removed from the build plate?
• Is my deliverable file accurate?
• Will there be any material processing after the print?

33
 Example of Design for Additive

1.2K-lbf Workhorse combustion chamber

Gradl, P., Greene, S.E., Protz, C., Ellis, D.L., Lerch, B., Locci, I.E. “Development and Hot-fire Testing of Additively Manufactured
Copper Combustion Chambers for Liquid Rocket Engine Applications” 53nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA
Propulsion and Energy Forum. Atlanta, GA. July (2017).
34
 Combustion Chamber Lessons Learned

► Optimized AM design may not be single-piece

▪ Welding multiple AM pieces
reduces risk, eases powder removal, allows inspection of unique features
▪ Inlet/outlet ports can easily be welded on;
protruding features often experienced print failures

► Coolant channels –
▪ Leave access for powder removal
▪ Increase effective area to account for rough surfaces…
▪ Maintain access for interior powder removal

► Design copper EB weld joints for excess penetration and material heating

► Minimize thick areas to eliminate residual stresses (thick flanges can lift off the build plates)
► Part orientation is critical for coater blade, so optimize design to minimize potential damage

► Include enough stock for secondary bonding ops, run-outs, &/or final machining

► Builds can deform as vertical height increases further from the build plate

► Compare exported CAD files back to original model

 Combustion Chamber Lessons Learned

► Powder dose factor is critical as parts get taller.

► Design for Powder Removal
▪ Physical efforts for powder removal can cause stress on the part.
Mallet blows created microcracks in some components prior to HIP
▪ High pressure (>500 psi) air/GN2 aided in powder removal
▪ Alcohol evaporates and helped remove powder from select channels
(although residual powder might clump when exposed to this fluid).
▪ Include threaded ports that can be blocked off during powder removal to
seal air flow properly (dry state/no oils).
▪ CT scan continuously to verify powder removal.
▪ Removing prior to HIP is ideal, but it can be removed after, since it does not all consolidate.

► Build direction is critical and overhangs may fail; 45 deg max build angles possible.

► Creating plastic models or building small wedges/slices to demonstrate parameters prior

to metal designs can be helpful; identify potential issues prior to actual component builds.
► TIG braze repairs for debonds worked well; identical filler material is ideal.
Include 0.030”/0.045” dia during AM builds to create matching welding rods.
► Design for shrinkage/deformation in all process steps, such as welding and metal deposition.
 Chamber Lessons Learned, 1-piece to 2-piece

Allowed for easier removal of powder, simplified design,

simplified inspections, and reduced overall processing time

Designs will evolve with additive through print trials, testing,

and design and analysis tools 37
Questions?

38
 Acknowledgments

• Dave Reynolds • Phillip Steele • Carol Jacobs

• Chance Garcia • Brian West • Andy Hardin
• Dave Ellis • John Ivester • Mike Shadoan
• Dave Eddleman • James Walker • Mike Kynard
• Travis Davis • David Myers • Corky Clinton
• Kevin Baker • Ron Beshears • John Vickers
• Dwight Goodman • Majid Babai • Doug Wells
• Darron Rice • MSFC ER34, ER36 • Several Industry
• Cory Medina • MSFC EM42 Partners: Keystone,
• Ian Johnston • Nick Case Laser Tech Assoc,
• John Forbes • Graham Nelson DM3D, ASRC Federal
• Robin Osborne • Andrew Hanks Astronautics, Stratasys,
• Gregg Jones • Cynthia Sprader ProCAM, Tanksley,
• Greg Barnett • David Olive Formalloy, Joining
• Brad Bullard • MSFC Test Stand 115 Tech, Alabama Laser,
• John Fikes and 116 Crews Franuhofer, Metal
• Ken Cooper • MSFC ET10 Research, Linear AMS
• Zach Jones • NASA Liquid Engines
• Jim Lydon Office
• Omar Mireles • Steve Wofford
39
View publication stats