journal article·2010-03

Process Cost Comparison for Conventional and Near‐Net‐Shape Cermet Fabrication

Yuhong Xiong, Julie M. Schoenung

Advanced Engineering Materials· Volume 12· Issue 3
Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract Tungsten carbide–cobalt (WC–Co) is a widely used cermet that is generally fabricated into bulk parts via conventional powder metallurgy (P/M) methods. Because this material (and other cermets) is very hard and wear resistant, diamond grinding is generally required to fabricate complex parts. As an alternative, studies have shown the Laser Engineering Net Shaping (LENS) process to be a technically feasible method, allowing for fabrication of near‐net‐shape parts. The economic trade‐offs, however, have not been previously characterized. In this work, technical cost modeling (TCM) is applied to compare the costs of fabricating WC–Co parts with the P/M process to those of the LENS process. Cost drivers are identified and sensitivity analysis is conducted. Results reveal that the uncertainty in functional unit has a significant effect on relative process costs, and the cost is sensitive to order size only if less than ten parts are produced. It is concluded that the LENS process is economically preferable if part size is small or part shape is complex. The P/M process is more suitable to produce large parts in simple shapes.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced materials and composites · Injection Molding Process and Properties · Manufacturing Process and Optimization

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (34)

Show source-provided references
1. Brooks K. J. A. · 1998
2. Upadhyaya G. S. · 1998
3. 10.1016/j.scriptamat.2004.09.01710.1016/j.scriptamat.2004.09.017 ↗
4. 10.1016/S0263-4368(96)00044-310.1016/S0263-4368(96)00044-3 ↗
5. 10.1016/S0925-8388(96)02678-310.1016/S0925-8388(96)02678-3 ↗
6. 10.1016/S0263-4368(00)00005-610.1016/S0263-4368(00)00005-6 ↗
7. 10.1016/0263-4368(95)00027-G10.1016/0263-4368(95)00027-G ↗
8. 10.1016/j.ijrmhm.2007.08.00810.1016/j.ijrmhm.2007.08.008 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.matlet.2005.04.00210.1016/j.matlet.2005.04.002 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.ijrmhm.2006.03.00810.1016/j.ijrmhm.2006.03.008 ↗
11. 10.1016/S0272-8842(01)00016-510.1016/S0272-8842(01)00016-5 ↗
12. 10.1007/BF0322145610.1007/BF03221456 ↗
13. 10.1179/imr.1996.41.1.1310.1179/imr.1996.41.1.13 ↗
14. 10.1016/0965-9773(92)90063-410.1016/0965-9773(92)90063-4 ↗
15. D. M.Keicher J. L.Jellison L. P.Schanwald J. A.Romero D. H.Abbott in:Proceedings of the 27th International SAMPE Technical ConferenceAlbuquerque NM USA October 9–12 1995 p.1009.
16. 10.1007/s11837-001-0066-z10.1007/s11837-001-0066-z ↗
17. Griffith M. L. · 2000 · 9
18. 10.1016/j.msea.2007.05.12510.1016/j.msea.2007.05.125 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2009.01.01610.1016/j.jmatprotec.2009.01.016 ↗
20. 10.1007/BF0322326710.1007/BF03223267 ↗
21. 10.1115/1.283013610.1115/1.2830136 ↗
22. 10.1007/s11837-999-0105-810.1007/s11837-999-0105-8 ↗
23. J. M.Schoenung in:Proceedings of the 27th International SAMPE Technical Conference Albuquerque NM USA October 9–12 1995 1.
24. 10.1016/S0378-7753(02)00062-910.1016/S0378-7753(02)00062-9 ↗
25. 10.1002/adem.20040007410.1002/adem.200400074 ↗
26. Brookes K. J. A. · 1998
27. 10.1016/j.ijrmhm.2005.04.01410.1016/j.ijrmhm.2005.04.014 ↗
28. C. L.Atwood M.Griffith L.Harwell E.Schlienger M.Ensz J. E.Smugeresky T.Romero D.Greene D.Reckaway in:Proceedings of ICALEO′'98 Orlando FL USA November 16–19 1998 p.E‐1.
29. 10.1016/S0261-3069(99)00016-310.1016/S0261-3069(99)00016-3 ↗
30. Zheng B. · 2009 · 125
31. U. S. Bureau of Labor http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm 2008.
32. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Electric+Rates/ENGRD/ratesNCharts_elect.htm 2009.
33. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.05.00710.1016/j.jclepro.2007.05.007 ↗
34. Optomec http://www.optomec.com/site/lens_home 2009.