Rocket Engine Vacuum Nozzle 3D Printing: Manufacturing, Weight, and Cost Savings †
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Cost Estimation of Additive Manufactured Metallic Parts
2.2. Carbon Foorprint
3. Materials and Demonstrator Description
4. Description of the Manufacturing Processes
4.1. Preparation (Sub-Process I)
4.2. Main Process (Sub-Process II)
4.3. Post Process (Sub-Process III)
5. Cost Estimation and Carbon Footprint Calculation Boundaries
- (a)
- Depreciation can be claimed by the economic owner of the industrial product on a straight-line basis over the useful life of the equipment for a period of 5 to 20 years; in the present work, the depreciation period of each machine was given by Skyrora.
- (b)
- Based on the installed capacity of Skyrora equipment, the annual production rate of 21 components is considered (APR = 21 pcs/year).
- (c)
- A serial production for the manufacturing of components is followed. This means that all activities of manufacturing process will run in series, since their operation is dependent. In a follow-up investigation by the authors, the effect of manufacturing such components when being manufactured with parallel activities may be assessed. Additionally, it is important to mention that the operating time of equipment, as well as the working times of employees, were defined with direct observation and timing of the cycle work.
6. Results
6.1. Cost Analysis Results
6.2. Carbon Footprint Results
7. Further Considerations
8. Conclusions
- (1)
- The main phase dedicated to the 3D printing of the nozzle consumes most of the resources (almost 49%) for the total manufacturing cost of the product.
- (2)
- The main category costs are depreciation and overheads that play a pivotal role in the total cost per unit. With the increase in the output number of vacuum nozzles to be manufactured, these contributions are expected to be decreased.
- (3)
- Material and labour costs play a small role on the total manufacturing cost of the 3D printing technology, contributing to 11.3% and 8.3% to the total cost, respectively. This can be attributed to the 3D printing technology, where the material purchase is restricted to the powder feedstock only.
- (4)
- The carbon footprint is exclusively emitted (almost 98% of the total) during the sub-process 2, where electric energy for the grid is needed for the main additive manufacturing phase. The other sub-processes emit minor emissions since minimal energy is consumed or minimal waste is generated during these phases.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Jandyal, A.; Chaturvedi, I.; Wazir, I.; Raina, A.; Haq, M.I.U. 3D printing—A review of processes, materials and applications in industry 4.0. Sustain. Oper. Comput. 2022, 3, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrick, I.J.; Simpson, T.W. 3D Printing Disrupts Manufacturing: How Economies of One Create New Rules of Competition. Res. Manag. 2013, 56, 12–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.H.; Liu, P.; Mokasdar, A.; Hou, L. Additive manufacturing and its societal impact: A literature review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2013, 67, 1191–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Curran, C.; Baya, V. The Road Ahead for 3-D Printing; Price Waterhouse Coopers. Available online: http://usblogs.pwc.com/emerging-technology/the-road-ahead-for-3d-printing (accessed on 15 September 2024).
- Ding, D.; Pan, Z.; Cuiuri, D.; Li, H.; Larkin, N. Adaptive path planning for wire-feed additive manufacturing using medial axis transformation. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 133, 942–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, J.; Taminger, K. A decision-support model for selecting additive manufacturing versus subtractive manufacturing based on energy consumption. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 1316–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Annibaldi, V.; Rotilio, M. Energy consumption consideration of 3D printing. In Proceedings of the 2019 II Workshop on Metrology for Industry 4.0 and IoT (MetroInd4.0&IoT), Naples, Italy, 4–6 June 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, J.; Chen, A.; Zheng, W.; Zhou, X.; Bai, B.; Wu, J.; Ling, W.; Ma, H.; Wang, W. Effectiveness analysis of resources consumption, environmental impact and production efficiency in traditional manufacturing using new technologies: Case from sand casting. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 209, 112671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dutta, B.; Froes, F.H.S. The Additive Manufacturing (AM) of titanium alloys. Met. Powder Rep. 2017, 72, 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atzeni, E.; Salmi, A. Economics of additive manufacturing for end-usable metal parts. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2012, 62, 1147–1155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindermann, C.; Jahnke, U.; Moi, M.; Koch, R. Analyzing Product Lifecycle Costs for a Better Understanding of Cost Drivers in Additive Manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, USA, 6–8 August 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Schröder, M.; Falk, B.; Schmitt, R. Evaluation of Cost Structures of Additive Manufacturing Processes Using a New Business Model. Procedia CIRP 2015, 30, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruffo, M.; Tuck, C.; Hague, R. Cost estimation for rapid manufacturing-laser sintering production for low to medium volumes. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 2006, 220, 1417–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Douglas, S.T.; Stanley, W.G. Costs & Cost Effectiveness of Additive Manufacturing; Special Publication (NIST SP); National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costabile, G.; Fera, M.; Fruggiero, F.; Lambiase, A.; Pham, D. Cost models of additive manufacturing: A literature review. Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput. 2017, 8, 263–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mishra, B.; Vaysman, I. Cost-System Choice and Incentives-Traditional vs. Activity-Based Costing. J. Account. Res. 2001, 39, 619–641. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2672978 (accessed on 15 September 2024). [CrossRef]
- Tsai, W.-H.; Lai, C.-W. Outsourcing or capacity expansions: Application of activity-based costing model on joint products decisions. Comput. Oper. Res. 2007, 34, 3666–3681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langmaak, S.; Wiseall, S.; Bru, C.; Adkins, R.; Scanlan, J.; Sóbester, A. An activity-based-parametric hybrid cost model to estimate the unit cost of a novel gas turbine component. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013, 142, 74–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lyons, R.; Newell, A.; Ghadimi, P.; Papakostas, N. Environmental impacts of conventional and additive manufacturing for the production of Ti-6Al-4V knee implant: A life cycle approach. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2021, 112, 787–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torres-Carrillo, S.; Siller, H.R.; Vila, C.; López, C.; Rodríguez, C.A. Environmental analysis of selective laser melting in the manufacturing of aeronautical turbine blades. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 246, 119068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellens, K.; Mertens, R.; Paraskevas, D.; Dewulf, W.; Duflou, J.R. Environmental Impact of Additive Manufacturing Processes: Does AM Contribute to a More Sustainable Way of Part Manufacturing? Procedia CIRP 2017, 61, 582–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, S.; Li, T.; Wang, X.; Dong, M.; Liu, Z.; Shi, J.; Zhang, H. Toward a sustainable impeller production: Environmental impact comparison of different impeller manufacturing methods. J. Ind. Ecol. 2017, 21, 12628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hopkins, N.; Jiang, L.; Brooks, H. Energy consumption of common desktop additive manufacturing technologies. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2021, 2, 100068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Gao, M.; Li, Q.; Liu, C.; Li, L.; Li, X.; Liu, Z. A review on energy consumption and efficiency of selective laser melting considering support: Advances and prospects. Int. J. Precis. Eng. Manuf.-Green Technol. 2024, 11, 259–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Alexopoulos, N.D.; Zeimpekis, V.; Vasileiou, E.; Thomaidis, N.; Souxes, T.; Lazaridou, I.; Lutsyk, M.; Vorobev, R.; Karakash, E.; Karpovich, E.; et al. Rocket Engine Vacuum Nozzle 3D Printing: Manufacturing, Weight, and Cost Savings. Eng. Proc. 2025, 90, 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025090109
Alexopoulos ND, Zeimpekis V, Vasileiou E, Thomaidis N, Souxes T, Lazaridou I, Lutsyk M, Vorobev R, Karakash E, Karpovich E, et al. Rocket Engine Vacuum Nozzle 3D Printing: Manufacturing, Weight, and Cost Savings. Engineering Proceedings. 2025; 90(1):109. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025090109
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlexopoulos, Nikolaos D., Vasileios Zeimpekis, Evangelos Vasileiou, Nikolaos Thomaidis, Theodoros Souxes, Ilona Lazaridou, Maksym Lutsyk, Roman Vorobev, Evgeniy Karakash, Elena Karpovich, and et al. 2025. "Rocket Engine Vacuum Nozzle 3D Printing: Manufacturing, Weight, and Cost Savings" Engineering Proceedings 90, no. 1: 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025090109
APA StyleAlexopoulos, N. D., Zeimpekis, V., Vasileiou, E., Thomaidis, N., Souxes, T., Lazaridou, I., Lutsyk, M., Vorobev, R., Karakash, E., Karpovich, E., & Grydin, O. (2025). Rocket Engine Vacuum Nozzle 3D Printing: Manufacturing, Weight, and Cost Savings. Engineering Proceedings, 90(1), 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2025090109