Choosing between additive and conventional manufacturing of spare parts: On the impact of failure rate uncertainties and the tools to reduce them

Abstract

Recently, there has been great interest in using additive manufacturing (AM) to produce spare parts: allowing to produce spare parts with short lead times and close to the point of use, AM reduces the need for large inventories otherwise required by conventional manufacturing (CM) techniques to deal with intermittent spare parts demand. However, using AM to produce spare parts is limited by two main drawbacks: high production costs and uncertain failure rates arising from AM still being a relatively new production technique. While the former can be counterbalanced by inventory cost reductions, it is unclear how the latter impacts the sourcing option decision (i.e. AM or CM). We aim to fill this gap by studying a periodic review model in which spare parts demands follow a Poisson process. To make our analysis accurate and reliable, we leverage a material science approach to obtain realistic values for the failure rate uncertainties. From the results, it emerges that AM is heavily penalized by failure rate uncertainties much higher than those of CM. Consequently, we then focus on some recent tools developed to reduce AM failure rate uncertainties: porosity assessment and in-situ monitoring. We find that the failure rate uncertainty should be reduced by five and six percentage points to make it worthwhile to invest in porosity assessment and in-situ monitoring, respectively. Finally, we determine under which circumstances each tool is preferred over the other and found that porosity assessment is typically the most competitive uncertainty reduction tool.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 23 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.