Cross-case analysis of AM added value
| Case 1 | Old component | AM component |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
| Case 2a | Old part | AM spare part |
|
| |
|
| |
| ||
| Case 2b | Old part | AM spare part |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| Case 1 | Old component | AM component |
Difficult to manufacture (basically manually) | Easier to manufacture, 30% cheaper than old component | |
Low performance (bottleneck in its process) | Higher in performance, power loss decreased 70%, output volume increased 25% | |
Assembling required manual fitting every time | Parts consolidation: 3 | |
Parts consolidation: 14 | Easy design scalability for other configurations in the future | |
| Case 2a | Old part | AM spare part |
Low quality | High quality | |
No existing supply chain but the possibility to establish a new supply chain | Cost per spare part same (in a batch of four) compared to casted spare parts (in a batch of 100) resulting in substantial savings (as estimated needed spare parts somewhere between 10 and 30) | |
In potential new supply chain batch size too large for end-of-life maintenance of vehicle fleet | ||
| Case 2b | Old part | AM spare part |
Obsolete spare part, no good blueprints existing | Ensures future availability of the spare part | |
No existing supply chain nor the potential for new supply chain | Viable solution to ensure availability of spare parts, as original spare parts could no longer be purchased or could not easily be sourced as manually custom-made spare part | |
Hard to manufacture and much manual welding and grinding would become costly | Quality and lead time great | |
Last spare part in the warehouse was very low quality | Cost acceptable |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.