What does ‘industrial readiness’ actually mean for DED?

Strong examples of industrial adoption

There are already strong examples of industrial adoption. We have had certified parts in aerospace for many years, in one of the most demanding qualification environments there is. The qualification journey can be long and costly, and the number of applications and production volumes remain relatively low, but it demonstrates process maturity. It also shows that DED is not necessarily easy to adopt.

Oil and gas has moved quickly, partly because of differences in how processes can be qualified and parts certified. The underlying process physics and often the materials are the same as in aerospace, but the applications are treated very differently from a risk-appetite perspective.

Maritime DED has also advanced significantly, particularly through US defence, while defence more broadly is seeing opportunities for DED across new part manufacture, MRO and part replacement.

A driving factor is the cost of not having critical parts available, or of having equipment and assets out of service. Organisations may be willing to spend more to get a replacement into service quickly rather than wait for castings and forgings with long lead times. This is where DED is beginning to shine.

So what does ‘industrial readiness’ actually mean?

The first element is the technology. Can it be deployed, controlled, operated and supported in a production environment? Can the process be qualified, and can the resulting part be certified or accepted by the relevant body at an acceptable cost and level of risk?

We know this is possible; aerospace proves it. But is the route always clear, accessible and proportionate? Not yet. The technology is industrially capable, but this is where it becomes a question of manufacturing readiness rather than technology readiness. It's where qualification meets cost, complexity and risk.

Even experienced users can face significant cost and lead times when moving to a new material, a new qualification route or a requalification. For an SME adopting the technology, whether investing in its own equipment or working with a manufacturing partner, those barriers multiply. We need better-defined routes through the qualification process.

Industrial readiness also extends beyond the manufacturing process to the customer. If the OEMs and end users that DED is intended to support are not equipped to specify, procure and accept DED components, scale-up will remain difficult.

DED is still very much an expert-driven process. There's a lot involved in controlling the machine, understanding the physics and applying the best practices before and after deposition. We are therefore seeing companies turn to established service providers with the equipment and expertise needed to produce DED parts for industry.

In the future, as machines become more autonomous, I think DED will become more accessible. But right now, appreciating what's required beyond simply buying a machine is an important part of industrial readiness.

Creating clearer routes to qualification

What end users want is a clear pathway with manageable risk and proportionate cost. They need to know that processes can be qualified, either internally or externally, and that parts can ultimately achieve the required certification or acceptance.

Relevant standards already exist across DED, wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) and conventional welding, but navigating them and mapping them into a clear qualification route can still be complex. The requirements span different standards development organisations and industry bodies, including ASTM, SAE, DNV and others.

That's where ASTM is looking to provide a clearer roadmap through the relevant standards and qualification routes, helping companies navigate the landscape and identify where genuine gaps remain. In future, these could become far more accessible, easy-to-use maps for industry to follow.

At the same time, some requirements need to be purpose-built for DED. Existing welding and AM standards provide an important foundation, but there are elements of DED where existing requirements need to be adapted, or new ones developed. The important thing is that we do not constrain innovation or development unnecessarily. There's a careful balance between requirements that provide confidence and compliance, and allowing the technology to continue developing.

While DED presents some new qualification challenges, the underlying principles of qualification are not unique. Ultimately, we're trying to demonstrate an appropriate level of performance, confidence and compliance.

A key point is that the material doesn't have to prove equivalency. It has to prove performance.

A common question from the industrial community is "How does my DED process compare with a forging?" In fact, what we need to demonstrate is that the resulting material or component meets the required performance or design codes.

Where a DED part is replacing a forging or casting, meeting the property requirements that the design was based on is demonstrating performance. Proving that the process or the microstructure resembles a forging is not, and that's where effort gets wasted. Equivalency is important in other contexts, for example when transferring qualification between DED machines, sites or production conditions, but that's a different question from proving that DED itself is equivalent to forging.

What needs to happen next?

The leaders in this field need to see the benefits of becoming proactively involved in standards development, shared material data generation, qualification and supply-chain readiness programmes. When the industry succeeds, everyone succeeds. In five years' time, those who were at the forefront of DED will be doing better than they would have if they'd kept everything contained. Fortunately, this is an industry that is very willing to collaborate, and wider collaboration can address the common barriers that no single organisation can solve alone.

There are also some fundamental issues we need to solve. Can we speak the same language? Can we classify in the same way? Can we expect the same data and the same pedigree of that data? Can we establish equivalency across DED processes and machines? And can we agree common approaches to calibration and test artefacts?

If we can address those fundamentals, we can stop handicapping ourselves and deploy the technology more widely and with greater confidence. That means faster implementation and qualification, greater confidence and reduced cost.

Technologies such as in-process monitoring, in-situ NDE and ex-situ inspection of large-scale parts will help generate the evidence needed to support that confidence. The technology increasingly exists for machines to tell us when there is an issue and where to look. The next challenge is agreeing what that information means, what evidence needs to be retained and how it should be used to support qualification and acceptance. Once we have common approaches in these areas, DED will be in a very strong position to scale, and I think the scale it reaches will be considerable.

Do you have a component that would be a good candidate for DED? Speak to one of our experts by getting in touch here.