Direct Digital Manufacturing of Metallic Components:

Vision and Roadmap

William E. Frazier, Ph.D.

Chief Scientist, Air Vehicle Engineering Department
Naval Air Systems Command
Patuxent River, MD

Reviewed, accepted September 23, 2010

Abstract
This
paper
reports
on
the
results
of
the
Navy
Workshop
entitled
“Direct
Digital

Manufacturing
of
Metallic
Components:
Affordable,
Durable,
and
Structurally
Efficient

Airframes”
held
11‐12
May
2010
at
the
Holiday
Inn,
Solomons
Island,
MD.
DDM
has
the

potential
to
enhance
operational
readiness,
reduce
total‐ownership‐cost,
reduce
energy

consumption,
and
enable
parts‐on‐demand
manufacturing.

The
seventy‐two
participants

from
academia,
industry,
DoD,
and
the
Navy
were
asked
to
help
to
identify
the
key
technical

challenges
and
needed
R&D
approaches
required
to
implement
DDM.

Working
groups

were
established
in
a)
Innovative
Structural
Design,
b)
Maintenance
and
Repair,
c)

Qualification
and
Certification
Methodology,
and
d)
DDM
Science
&
Technology.

The

results
of
the
working
groups’
deliberations,
as
well
as
the
insights
of
the
plenary
speakers

are
discussed.

The
R&D
roadmaps
generated
for
the
near,
mid,
and
far
term
timeframes

are
discussed.


Introduction
Accelerating the introduction of new technologies into the maintenance environment has been a
priority, as has the reduction of sustainment cost [1]. The problem has been that conventional
engineering solutions used to address repair, durability, and weight, typically result in increased
acquisition costs and, consequently, are untenable to the program managers. Further, it has
become abundantly clear that the cost, weight, and durability of naval air weapons systems must
be improved. For example, $3B per year is spent on corrosion-related maintenance of Navy
aircraft, curtailing our ability to acquire new weapons systems and decreasing the availability of
operational assets [2].
Direct digital manufacturing (DDM) is an innovative part fabrication and repair technology that
represents a game changing advance in the way airframes are designed, built, and maintained.
DDM technology was identified in a prior Navy workshop as a means of effecting a 30% cost
reduction and a 30% increase in through put [3].
High value, difficult to machine, and process alloy components materials favor the use of DDM.
These types of alloys are typically used in demanding, fatigue-critical applications.
Consequently, producing DDM parts with fatigue properties comparable to wrought products is

717
an important objective. In situ and post fabrication techniques were identified as a means of
enhancing fatigue performance. Control of surface roughness was also considered important.

Executive Guidance
Direct Digital Manufacturing (DDM) aligns well with and supports executive level guidance.
The CNO [4] and the Quadrennial Defense Review Report [5] have emphasized reducing the
Total Ownership Cost (TOC) of our weapon systems. The NAE S&T Strategic Plan [6] and
NAE S&T Objective document [7] include incorporating affordability into platform design and
construction; and responsive and visible logistics to enable distributed forces. The President has
provided guidance to pursue transformational solutions and support visionary thinkers proposing
high-risk, high-payoff research [8].

Vision State
The vision for DDM is illustrated in Figure 1 [9]. Its implementation would enhance operational
readiness, reduce energy consumption, and reduce total ownership cost by exploiting advanced
metallic direct digital manufacturing technologies. Metallic parts would be fabricated on-
demand at a location in proximity to their end use.

Figure 1 DDM Vision State: Parts-on-Demand – “Ship Electrons not Parts”

Conceptually, a broken or worn part is identified by a maintainer. The maintainer uses a

computer terminal to access a parts database. The part’s DDM build package is sent to a
fabrication site (e.g., the Navy’s Fleet Readiness Centers) near where it is needed. The metallic
part is fabricated to net shape using direct digital manufacturing equipment, finished, machined
and assembled.
In the event a build package is not available, the part may be reverse engineered. The needed
part could be laser scanned and imported into a digital cloud map. This information could then
be transferred to any number of engineering design CAD/CAM programs, e.g., Pro-E. Once the
design configuration is established, a DDM build package would be developed and archived for
future use.

718
Workshop Purpose
The workshop was held in order to assist ONR and NAVAIR develop a robust research and
development program in the area of DDM, e.g., an ONR Future Navy Capabilities Program. The
workshop was structured to help identify research opportunities and to address the technical
challenges associated with using DDM of metallic components. The technical obstacles to DDM
implementation were examined and approaches to overcoming the identified barriers formulated.
The workshop explored (i) innovative design concepts which reduce weight, (ii) maintenance
and repair concepts, (iii) life-cycle-costs reductions, and (iv) qualification and certification
methodology. Further, the overarching goal is to enhance operational readiness, reduce energy
consumption, and enable parts-on-demand manufacturing

Workshop Concept of Operation

The workshop provided an opportunity for seventy-two invited experts from Navy, DoD,
industry, academia, and leading research institutes to share their views and make strategic
recommendations. Figure 2 provides a list of represented organizations at the workshop.

Figure 2 Organizations Participating in the May 2010 Navy DDM Workshop.

Plenary
A plenary session was held on the morning of the first day of the workshop. Table 1 lists the
plenary speakers representing executives and technical leaders from the government, industry,
and academia. This was followed by parallel working group breakout sessions in four topic
areas: DDM Science & Technology, Qualification & Certification Methodology, Innovative
Structural Design, and Maintenance & Repair. Workshop participants were asked to validate the
goals and objectives of the working group and to identify technical challenges and approaches
for achieving the goals.

719
 Table 1 Plenary Speakers and their Affiliation
Deputy Commander Fleet Readiness Centers, NAVAIR
Mr. Garry Newton
Mr. Richard Gilpin Director, Air Vehicle Engineering Department, NAVAIR
Mr. Greg Kilchenstein Senior Sustainment Technology Policy Analyst, OSD (AT&L)
delivered by Constance Philips, National Center for Manufacturing
Sciences
Mr. Mike Deitchman Deputy Chief of Naval Research, Naval Air Warfare and Weapons
Science and Technology Department ONR
Ms. Karen Taminger Senior Materials Research Engineer, PI for Materials and Structures
for the Subsonic Fixed Wing Aircraft, NASA Langley Research
Center
Dr. Thomas Donnellan Associate Director for Materials and Manufacturing, ARL Penn
State.
Mr. Blake Slaughter Metallic Processing Group, Boeing Research and Technology.
Prof. Dave Bourell University of Texas Austin delivered in the workshop brief-out
session.

GOTChA Process
The GOTChA (Goals, Objectives, Technical Challenges, and Approaches) approach was used as
a tool to develop the products of the workshop. Figure 3 graphically illustrates the GOTChA
process. The Navy defined the goals and objectives of the workshop. The overarching goal of
the workshop was to enhance operational readiness, reduce total ownership cost, and reduce
energy consumption by exploiting advanced metallic direct digital manufacturing technologies.

Figure 3 Methodology: Goals, Objective, Technical Challenges & Approaches (GOTChA)

720
The working groups met for approximately 8 hours. Their first task was to validate and, if
necessary, amend the three working group objectives. The working group then identified and
prioritized the technical challenges associated with achieving the objectives. The balance of
their time was used to develop viable approaches to solve the challenges identified. These
approaches were broadly grouped into three time frames: near (< 5yrs), mid (5-10yrs), and far
(>10yrs). The workgroup results were briefed-out in a plenary forum prior to concluding the
workshop. A post workshop analysis was performed in which the salient information was
summarized and packaged in a format suitable for dissemination.

Workshop Results
The results of the workshop are divided into three parts: (i) Plenary, (ii) Working Groups, and
(iii) Summary.

Plenary Summary
The plenary session provided a forum for leaders from the Government, Academia, and Industry
to discuss DDM in terms of warfighter needs. There was overwhelming agreement that DDM is
an agile and viable source of manufacturing and repair and its exploitation would help address
pressing naval aviation needs.
DoD-Navy’s Environment: The Navy’s current and, likely, future environment was discussed.
The Country is at war and naval aviation must respond quickly and effectively to warfighter
needs. There are several key factors which will drive naval aviation to use direct digital
manufacturing. There is an increased emphasis on reducing the cost of Defense Department’s
Operation: acquisition and sustainment. The average age of our Navy’s aircraft is 19.18 years .
This is putting an increased strain on the Navy’s supply chain. As aircraft age, parts that were
never expected to break or fail do [10]. Supply chain does not have the ability to repair or
produce new parts. Aircraft are grounded while we spend precious time researching vendors
who can repair or replace the parts.

Naval Aviation Needs: In order to respond to the Country’s wartime footing and aging fleet of
aircraft, there has been an increased demand for one-off parts, crash damage repair, and rapid
solutions to Red Stripes [10]. An Agile and Viable Source of Manufacturing and Repair (e.g.,
DDM) is required. DDM may be especially useful addressing the issues which arise in the Sun
Down/Disposal phase of a weapon systems life cycle.

The technical barriers associated with inserting DDM were discussed. Some of the more salient
research and development needs are listed in Table 2. In order to achieve the vision state of
parts-on-demand, the need to accelerate part qualification and certification tops the list. The
value of having the capability of producing an aircraft parts in a matter of hours is of little value
if it takes weeks or months of testing and evaluation to certify it for use. An accelerated
qualification process is closely linked to a number of factors including (i) an understanding of
machine-to-machine variability and repeatability, (ii) accurate, predictive process models for
microstructure and properties, and (iii) computationally guided processes and closed loop
process controls.

721
 Table 2 Research and Development Needs: Plenary Session
• Accelerated qualification and certification methods
• Accurate, predictive process models for microstructure and properties
• Fatigue properties comparable to wrought materials, Post fabrication
processes to enhance fatigue properties. Methods to reduce surface
roughness of parts
• Part-to-part and machine-to-machine variability and repeatability
• Computationally guided processes and closed loop control. Integration of
sensors into process control systems to enable real-time NDE during
processing
• Technology fusion, i.e., laser scanning, database, design tools, and database
• New structural design & analysis tools, e.g., stiffeners that follow load paths
• Alloys designed for DDM fabrication

722
Working Group Products
DDM Science and Technology: The Navy’s S&T Objectives for DDM are listed in Table 3.
Associated with each objective, the Working Group identified three technical challenges which
must be addressed. For example, to obtain fatigue properties equivalent to wrought alloys, the
Working Group felt that the top two technical challenges were the control of microstructure and
the elimination of defects.

Table 3 DDM S&T Objectives and Technical Challenges

Goal: Enhance operational readiness, reduce energy consumption, and reduce total
ownership cost by exploiting advanced metallic direct digital manufacturing
technologies.

Objectives and Challenges

Objective 1: Static and fatigue performance equivalent to wrought
1. Controlling Microstructure
2. Elimination of Defects
3. Material Challenges

Objective 2: Achieve Statistically Repeatable and Predictable Processes

1. Monitoring and Controlling the Process
2. Need to model the process
3. Need NDE for DDM materials

Objective 3: Surface Finish / Minimize Assembly and Post Deposition Processing

1. Maintain acceptable deposition rates while achieving good surface finish
2. Need controlled position of DDM machine
3. Lack of scientific/technical info on post treatments of DDM surfaces


Maturation of technologies at the TRL 3-4 to TRL6 and above are of significant interest.
Analysis of the DDM S&T Roadmap, Figure 4, suggests that the following research areas should
be explored. In order to enhance the fatigue performance of DDM parts, develop in situ DDM
processes to improve part surface finish and to mechanically work the DDM part during
deposition, e.g., by using laser shock peening. The development of physics based models for
structure-property-processing are also essential in order to be able to consistently and accurately
produce DDM parts of diverse configurations.

723
Figure 4 DDM S&T Roadmap

724
Qualification and Certification: The three Navy objectives associated with the qualification
and certification of DDM metallic components are presented in Table 4, along with the list of
technical challenges developed by the Working Group. For example, the Working Group felt
that a DDM database of material properties was necessary. Importantly, the database must
represent the pedigree of the data and come from a stabilized DDM process.

Table 4 Qualification and Certification Objectives and Technical Challenges

Goal: Enhance operational readiness, reduce energy consumption, and reduce total
ownership cost by exploiting advanced metallic direct digital manufacturing
technologies.

Objectives and Challenges

Objective 1: Qualification of DDM fabrication processes
1. Definition of methods required for verifying control of the key process variables
2. Definition of qualification requirements for each of the three phases of product
life cycle - new design/prototype, repair/replacement, and production part
3. Demonstrate repeatability

Objective 2: Eliminate the need to qualify each part individually

1. Need materials properties database developed under a “stable” process
2. Determine necessary steps to avoid repeating generation of materials properties
database for different DDM technologies

Objective 3: Reduce the time & cost of qualification by 90%

1. Definition of acceptance requirements for repair/replacement of fielded parts and
prototype
2. Prioritization of action items associated with qualification process

Analysis of the Qualification and Certification Roadmap, Figure 5, suggests that the following
research areas should be explored. Maturation of technologies at the TRL 3-4 to TRL6 and
above are of significant interest. In order to secure the vision of parts-on-demand, accelerated
part qualification methods need to be developed. Research should be focused on the
development of heuristic, and probabilistic, qualification methods. The development of industry
specifications and standards are necessary as is a robust materials database. However, it is
unlikely that S&T funding can be used to directly support their development.

725
Figure 5 Qualification and Certification Roadmap

Innovative Structural Design: The objectives and the technical challenges associated with
Innovative Structural Design are presented in Table 5. In order to reduce structural weight,
better, integrated structural & DDM fabrication design tools are needed. Similarly, to reduce
cost, true net-shape fabrication methods are needed which eliminate the need for secondary (post
fabrication) processing.

726
Table 5 Innovative Structural Design Objectives and Technical Challenges
Goal : Enhance operational readiness, reduce energy consumption, and reduce total
ownership cost by exploiting advanced metallic direct digital manufacturing
technologies.

Objectives and Challenges

Objective 1: Reduce structural weight by 25% with no increase in acquisition cost.
(freeform technologies, Ti-6-4, apply to entire air vehicle vs. piece part)
1. Better structural optimization including multifunctional design
2. Integrated design while allowing for maintainability
3. Introduce/integrate new alloy composition “sweet spots” for the design
4. Design community to accept paradigm shift to adopt new design rules

Objectives 2: Enable complex part fabrication with a 50% reduction in cost.

1. Near-net shape manufacturing (reduce buy:fly ratio, reduce labor cost, reduce # of
secondary operations)
2. Use of lower cost starting materials
3. Develop more innovative techniques to develop/finish near-net shape parts with
the goal using the part as-built

Objectives 3: Reduce the design, engineering, build, test & qualification time cycle
by 60%.
1. No recognized standards exist
2. Streamline design process
3. DDM design with minimal tooling & facilities
4. Risk tolerance by approving authorities & designers

The examination of the Innovative Structural Design Roadmap, Figure 6, reveals two significant
features. 1. There is a need for integrated structural and materials design optimization tools to
support the design and certification of non-traditional design concepts. 2. In line with what the
Qualification and Certification working group reported, there is a need for a shared materials
property database; and industry specification and standards.

727
Figure 6 Innovative Structural Design Roadmap

728
Maintenance and Repair: The objectives and the technical challenges associated with
Maintenance and Repair are presented in Table 6. In order to reduce the time required to acquire
out-of-production parts by 90%, the need for an improved and accelerated means of qualifying
and certifying DDM parts is needed. The objective of reducing part energy content was
associated with the need to reduce or eliminate post fabrication processing. Further to effect a
reduction in logistics foot print, DDM equipment versatility is needed.

Table 6 Maintenance and Repair Objectives and Technical Challenges

Goal: Enhance operational readiness, reduce energy consumption, and reduce total
ownership cost by exploiting advanced metallic direct digital manufacturing
technologies.

Objectives and Challenges

Objective 1: Reduce time to acquireout-of-production parts by 90%
1. Certification and approval
2. Merging existing technology & material capabilities with actual parts that are
needed.
3. Quality control – parts feedstock and process

Objective 2: Reduce total energy content by 60%

1. Post processing: Surface finish requirements & dimensions. Residual stress/heat
treatment
2. Equipment efficiency increases
3. Raw material cost/deposition efficiency.

Objective 3: Reduce logistic footprint by 20%

1. Equipment versatility
2. Additional post processing/NDI/HIP
3. Raw materials storage

The Innovative Maintenance and Repair Roadmap is presented in, Figure 7. The Working Group
identified qualification-by-similarity as a needed research area as well as improved surface finish
and dimensional accuracy. These two areas were also identified by other working groups as
important areas to pursue. The development of alternatives to hot isostatic processing (HIP) of
DDM parts to achieve wrought fatigue properties was identified as a critical need. The use of
HIP is capital intensive and would increase part cost and fabrication time.

729
Figure 7 Maintenance and Repair Roadmap

Critical Research Areas Summary

The critical areas of needed research may be divided as follows: (i) Underlying DDM Science,
(ii) Process Control, (iii) Qualification, and (iv) Innovative Structural Design.

Underlying DDM Science

A robust understanding of the underlying science of DDM is essential to the widespread
implementation of DDM. New alloys must be developed that lend themselves to DDM. A
priority is the development of physics based models relating microstructure, properties, and
process to performance. This represents the foundation upon which process control, part
qualification, and innovative designs concepts can be built. Innovative in situ processes (e.g.,
hybrid laser and electron beam systems) and an improved understanding of structure-property-
processing relationships are required in order to enhance fatigue properties. This includes an
understanding of how to reduce surface roughness. Lastly, technology integration and fusion is
required to achieve the desired “Vision State.” The various component technologies associated
with DDM fabrication, reverse engineering, qualification, and design must be made to work
together seamlessly.

730
Process Control
The ability to achieve the vision state of parts-on-demand requires accurate and predictable
control of the DDM fabrication process. Machine-to-machine variability must be understood
and controlled. Industry specifications and standards for the processing of aerospace alloy
components must be developed and inculcated throughout the industry. The highest priority
should be given to developing integrated in-process, sensing, monitoring, and control
technologies.

Qualification
The ability to produce a wide variety of parts-on-demand is essential to harnessing the full
potential of DDM. Part-by-part certification is costly and time consuming and is antithetical to
achieving the Navy’s vision. Therefore, alternatives to conventional qualification methods must
be found; these are likely based upon validated models, probabilistic methods, and part
similarities. Likewise, industry specifications and standards for DDM and DDM processed
aerospace alloys are needed. These standards and specifications form the foundation for rapid
part certification. Similarly, advanced NDE techniques capable of detecting critical flaws and
defects with a high degree of certainty are needed.

Innovative Structural Design

The introduction of new and innovative structural designs requires that the design community be
knowledgeable of DDM. A priority should be given to the development of integrated structural
and materials design tools. A robust DDM database accessible to these communities must be
developed in order to provide pedigree data which integrate structural and materials.

Acknowledgements
I’d like to thank all those who contributed to the success of the DDM Workshop including the
organizers and the participants. The workshop organizers included Chairpersons Tom Mellies,
Robert Kestler, Madan Kittur, Brian Boyette, and, Jeffrey Waldman. The workshop was
sponsored by ONR and the Navy Metal Working. Special thanks goes to Malinda Pagett, ONR
Code 35, my co-organizer for her hard work and leadership.

References
1. William E. Frazier, “Navy Workshop Aims to Cut Cost”, ADVANCED MATERIALS &
PROCESSES. AUGUST 2008
2. David A. Forman, Eric F. Herzberg, James C. Tran, Amelia R. Kelly, Paul N. Chang,
Norman T. O’Meara, Ph.D., “The Annual Cost of Corrosion for Navy and Marine Corps
Aviation Equipment” ( LMI Government Consulting, Report MEC70T3, May 2008).
3. William E. Frazier, “Naval Aviation Materials and Manufacturing Workshop: Accelerating
Technology Insertion” (Presented at Joint Technology Exchange Group: “Roadmap to
Successful Sustainment Technology Insertion” August 26-28, 2008)

731
4. Admiral G. Roughead, “CNO’s Guidance for 2010, Executing the Maritime Strategy”
September 2009 (http://www.cffc.navy.mil/cnog_2010.pdf)
5. Quadrennial Defense Review Report. DoD, United States) February 2010
( http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare/strategic/qdr2010.pdf) (
6. Naval Aviation Enterprise Science and Technology Strategic Plan. (NAE: Commander
Naval Air Forces, Commander Naval Air Systems, and Director Air Warfare Division) July
1, 2006.
7. Naval Aviation Enterprise Science and Technology Objectives, (NAE: Commander Naval
Air Forces, Commander Naval Air Systems, and Director Air Warfare , Deputy
Commandant for Aviation) April 2010.
8. Peter R. Orszag and John P. Holdren, S&T Priorities for the FY 2011 Budget (White House
Memorandum, M-09-27, Aug 4, 2009)
9. DDM ONR FNC POM-12 Proposal, September 2009.
10. William E. Frazier, ed., Direct Digital Manufacturing Metallic Components Workshop,
(NAVAIR, Patuxent River, MD, May 11-12, 2010) available at the NAVMAR Applied
Sciences and the Navy Metalworking Center Websites and (http://www.navmar.com/ddm/
and http://www.nmc.ctc.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.details&eventID=68)

List of Figures
Figure 1 DDM Vision State: Parts-on-Demand – “Ship Electrons not Parts”
Figure 2 Organizations Participating in the May 2010 Navy DDM Workshop.
Figure 3 Methodology: Goals, Objective, Technical Challenges & Approaches (GOTChA)
Figure 4 DDM S&T Roadmap
Figure 5 Qualification and Certification Roadmap
Figure 6 Innovative Structural Design Roadmap
Figure 7 Maintenance and Repair Roadmap

List of Tables
Table 1 Plenary Speakers and their Affiliation
Table 2 Research and Development Needs: Plenary Session
Table 3 DDM S&T Objectives and Technical Challenges
Table 4 Qualification and Certification Objectives and Technical Challenges
Table 5 Innovative Structural Design Objectives and Technical Challenges
Table 6 Maintenance and Repair Objectives and Technical Challenges

732