Traditional or additive manufacturing? : assessing component design options through lifecycle cost analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

13 Citations (Scopus)
53 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

We consider an original equipment manufacturer that can either design a system component that is produced with traditional technology, or design an alternative component that is produced with additive manufacturing (AM). Designing either component requires a technology specific one-time investment and the components have different characteristics, notably in terms of production leadtime, production costs and component reliability. We support the design decision with a model that is based on evaluating the lifecycle costs of both components, covering design costs, maintenance and downtime costs, and performance benefits. We derive analytic properties of the required reliability and costs of the AM component such that its total lifecycle costs break even with that of its regular counterpart. Through our analysis, a numerical experiment and cases from two different companies, we find that component reliability and production costs are crucial to the success of AM components, while AM component design costs can be overcome to a certain degree by generating performance benefits or by using the short AM production leadtime to lower the after-sales logistics costs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)570-585
Number of pages16
JournalEuropean Journal of Operational Research
Volume270
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Fingerprint

3D printers
Life Cycle Cost
Cost Analysis
Manufacturing
Costs
Design
Cost analysis
Life cycle cost
Logistics
Sales
Maintenance
Covering

Keywords

  • Additive manufacturing
  • Lifecycle cost analysis
  • Logistics
  • Production
  • Reliability

Cite this

@article{9c406f3471e44fe89367303bdbee15b3,
title = "Traditional or additive manufacturing? : assessing component design options through lifecycle cost analysis",
abstract = "We consider an original equipment manufacturer that can either design a system component that is produced with traditional technology, or design an alternative component that is produced with additive manufacturing (AM). Designing either component requires a technology specific one-time investment and the components have different characteristics, notably in terms of production leadtime, production costs and component reliability. We support the design decision with a model that is based on evaluating the lifecycle costs of both components, covering design costs, maintenance and downtime costs, and performance benefits. We derive analytic properties of the required reliability and costs of the AM component such that its total lifecycle costs break even with that of its regular counterpart. Through our analysis, a numerical experiment and cases from two different companies, we find that component reliability and production costs are crucial to the success of AM components, while AM component design costs can be overcome to a certain degree by generating performance benefits or by using the short AM production leadtime to lower the after-sales logistics costs.",
keywords = "Additive manufacturing, Lifecycle cost analysis, Logistics, Production, Reliability",
author = "Bram Westerweel and Basten, {Rob J.I.} and {van Houtum}, Geert-Jan",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.015",
language = "English",
volume = "270",
pages = "570--585",
journal = "European Journal of Operational Research",
issn = "0377-2217",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Traditional or additive manufacturing? : assessing component design options through lifecycle cost analysis

AU - Westerweel, Bram

AU - Basten, Rob J.I.

AU - van Houtum, Geert-Jan

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - We consider an original equipment manufacturer that can either design a system component that is produced with traditional technology, or design an alternative component that is produced with additive manufacturing (AM). Designing either component requires a technology specific one-time investment and the components have different characteristics, notably in terms of production leadtime, production costs and component reliability. We support the design decision with a model that is based on evaluating the lifecycle costs of both components, covering design costs, maintenance and downtime costs, and performance benefits. We derive analytic properties of the required reliability and costs of the AM component such that its total lifecycle costs break even with that of its regular counterpart. Through our analysis, a numerical experiment and cases from two different companies, we find that component reliability and production costs are crucial to the success of AM components, while AM component design costs can be overcome to a certain degree by generating performance benefits or by using the short AM production leadtime to lower the after-sales logistics costs.

AB - We consider an original equipment manufacturer that can either design a system component that is produced with traditional technology, or design an alternative component that is produced with additive manufacturing (AM). Designing either component requires a technology specific one-time investment and the components have different characteristics, notably in terms of production leadtime, production costs and component reliability. We support the design decision with a model that is based on evaluating the lifecycle costs of both components, covering design costs, maintenance and downtime costs, and performance benefits. We derive analytic properties of the required reliability and costs of the AM component such that its total lifecycle costs break even with that of its regular counterpart. Through our analysis, a numerical experiment and cases from two different companies, we find that component reliability and production costs are crucial to the success of AM components, while AM component design costs can be overcome to a certain degree by generating performance benefits or by using the short AM production leadtime to lower the after-sales logistics costs.

KW - Additive manufacturing

KW - Lifecycle cost analysis

KW - Logistics

KW - Production

KW - Reliability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046675979&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.015

DO - 10.1016/j.ejor.2018.04.015

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85046675979

VL - 270

SP - 570

EP - 585

JO - European Journal of Operational Research

JF - European Journal of Operational Research

SN - 0377-2217

IS - 2

ER -