Evidence Based Investments
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
You're very welcome, thank you for the acknowledgement.
Summer may have some updates, powder qualification moving nicely as seen on ustpo site, as noted by jeffXtra
Great buzz around the booth so far.
I've said it before and I'll continue to until it is no longer true, which doesn't appear to be anytime soon.... Sigma Labs is the ONLY company capable of compressing and analyzing melt pool monitoring data into a reasonable data set, that can be utilized in real time to create a 3D mapping of the thermal emission, which proves the parameters of the machine as well as the compliance to design intent was followed.
Anyone who wants to create a profitable business model for mass production needs this data to ensure quality and avoid post process inspection, and to verify parts for entities such as the FAA/FDA/NIST.
Even EOS has not been able to utilize their software (which also doesn't provide data as efficiently or in a 3D thermal mapping like sigma labs) on their single laser machines.
On EOS multi-laser machines, they have not been able to transfer any of their inspection hardware or software onto the 4 laser 400.
Any multi-laser ipqm is far off for every OEM.
Every OEM cannot provide melt pool monitoring data in real time 3D thermal emission, powder characteristic qualification, and analytical data as complete as Sigma Labs.
Glta
SGLB
That's not the theory at all lol.
That would be called a monopoly.
Sigma Labs simply has the most advanced and process quality monitoring system including the capabilities to qualify powder and the patents to protect then from other companies copying their software and Hardware setups.
That does not mean other companies cannot create very similar Solutions with slight variations to make their own in-process quality monitoring.
This is how business works in every situation ever.
To quote Mark Cuban,
"There are the innovators, the imitators, and the idiots."
Sigma Labs is the Innovator.
We are currently the first to Market with a real in process quality assurance software for Additive manufacturing.
Many can monitor the melt pool, but NONE can use that data to prove compliance to design intent.
I've talked to every OEM, every service provider, every software company in our sector.
Some slight connections, but, while talking to Mark, Sigma Labs will not be working directly with any R&D projects including ones like these under their new plan of only addressing production companies and projects.
As the revenues from projects such as these look like they would help us during this transition the company is going through, Mark explained that with our limited workforce contractually obligated to projects such as these, it would have hindered our ability to work with production companies.
Any revenues will be from our current customers or any additional contracts announced, we will not be receiving any funds from any R&D projects however our technology may be included by those who already have it such as EWI, USAF, and others,
Which may lead to further contracts, but we will not be receiving any revenues directly from studies such as those.
These aren't things that Sigma Labs would put out in a PR, this is what due diligence is.
This is an individual such as myself putting in the work and time to do extensive research on an industry I am invested in.
You should either be thanking me or providing scientific research studies that show the opposite of what I am claiming, because what I claim is exactly what is being published in many scientific articles by people with years of both education and experience in the field of additive Manufacturing.
You can go through my previous posts and literally look at the links to Scientific documents that all point to in-process Quality monitoring and its importance in the additive manufacturing industry.
Several of those studies specifically utilize printrite 3D from Sigma labs
Several of those studies in the citations, use the studies done by NIST, Brandon Lane, Sigma Labs, etc.
Here's some homework for you.
[1] A.D. Peralta, M. Enright, M. Megahed, J. Gong, M. Roybal, J. Craig, Towards rapid qualification of
powder-bed laser additively manufactured parts, Integrating Mater. Manuf. Innov. (2016) 1–23.
doi:10.1186/s40192-016-0052-5.
[2] J. Mazumder, Design for Metallic Additive Manufacturing Machine with Capability for “Certify as
You Build,” Procedia CIRP. 36 (2015) 187–192. doi:10.1016/j.procir.2015.01.009.
[3] Sigma Labs, In-Process Quality AssuranceTM (IPQA®) Solutions | Sigma Labs, (2017).
https://www.sigmalabsinc.com/node/5 (accessed July 27, 2017).
[4] S.K. Everton, M. Hirsch, P. Stravroulakis, R.K. Leach, A.T. C lare, Review of in-situ process
monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing, Mater. Des. (2016).
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2016.01.099.
[5] M. Grasso, B.M. Colosimo, Process defects and in situ monitoring methods in metal powder bed
fusion: a review, Meas. Sci. Technol. 28 (2017) 044005. doi:10.1088/1361-6501/aa5c4f.
[6] E. Reutzel, A. Nassar, A survey of sensing and control systems for machine and process monitoring
of directed-energy, metal-based additive manufacturing, Rapid Prototyp. J. 21 (2015) 159–167.
doi:10.1108/RPJ-12-2014-0177.
[7] T.G. Spears, S.A. Gold, In-process sensing in selective laser melting (SLM) additive manufacturing,
Integrating Mater. Manuf. Innov. 5 (2016). doi:10.1186/s40192-016-0045-4.
[8] G. Tapia, A. Elwany, A Review on Process Monitoring and Control in Metal-Based Additive
Manufacturing, J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 136 (2014) 060801–060801. doi:10.1115/1.4028540.
[9] T. Craeghs, S. Clijsters, J.-P. Kruth, F. Bechmann, M.-C. Ebert, Detection of process failures in
Layerwise Laser Melting with optical process monitoring, Phys. Procedia. 39 (2012) 753–759.
[10] S. Clijsters, T. Craeghs, S. Buls, K. Kempen, J.-P. Kruth, In situ quality control of the selective laser
melting process using a high-speed, real-time melt pool monitoring system, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol. 75 (2014) 1089–1101. doi:10.1007/s00170-014-6214-8.
[11] Concept Laser, Sintavia uses QM Meltpool to Ensure Part Quality in Metal AM, Concept Laser.
(2017). http://www.conceptlaserinc.com/sintavia-uses-qm-meltpool-ensure-part-quality-metal/
(accessed June 19, 2017).
[12] S. Berumen, F. Bechmann, S. Lindner, J.-P. Kruth, T. Craeghs, Quality control of laser- and powder
bed-based Additive Manufacturing (AM) technologies, Phys. Procedia. 5, Part B (2010) 617–622.
doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2010.08.089.
[13] J.C. Fox, B.M. Lane, H. Yeung, Measurement of process dynamics through coaxially aligned high
speed near-infrared imaging in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing, in: Proc SPIE 10214
Thermosense Therm. Infrared Appl. XXXIX, Anaheim, CA, 2017: pp. 1021407-1021407–17.
doi:10.1117/12.2263863.
[14] P. Lott, H. Schleifenbaum, W. Meiners, K. Wissenbach, C. Hinke, J. Bültmann, Design of an Optical
System for the In-Situ Process Monitoring of Selective Laser Melting (SLM), Phys. Procedia. 12
(2011) 683–690. doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2011.03.085.
[15] B. Lane, S. Mekhontsev, S. Grantham, M. Vlasea, J. Whiting, H. Yeung, J. Fox, C. Zarobila, J. Neira,
M. McGlauflin, L. Hanssen, S. Moylan, M.A. Donmez, J. Rice, Design, developments, and results
from the nist additive manufacturing metrology testbed (ammt), in: Proc. 26th Annu. Int. Solid Free.
Fabr. Symp., Austin, TX, 2016: pp. 1145–1160.
[16] K. Fliegel, Modeling and measurement of image sensor characteristics, RADIOENGINEERING-
PRAGUE-. 13 (2004) 27–34.
[17] G.C. Holst, Holst’s Practical Guide to Electro-optical Systems, JCD Publishing, Winter Park, FL,
2003.
[18] ISO 12233:2014, Photography - Electronic still-picture cameras - Resolution measurements, ISO,
Geneva, Switzerland, n.d.
[19] M. Estribeau, P. Magnan, Fast MTF measurement of CMOS imagers using ISO 12333 slanted-edge
methodology, in: Proc. SPIE, St. Etienne, France, 2003: pp. 243–252.
[20] B. Lane, E. Whitenton, Calibration and measurement procedures for a high magnification thermal
camera, NIST Internal Report 8089, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg,
MD, 2015.
[21] L.E. Criales, Y.M. Arisoy, B. Lane, S. Moylan, A. Donmez, T. Özel, Laser powder bed fusion of
nickel alloy 625: Experimental investigations of effects of process parameters on melt pool size and
shape with spatter analysis, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 121 (2017) 22–36.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2017.03.004.
[22] S.A. Khairallah, A.T. Anderson, A. Rubenchik, W.E. King, Laser powder-bed fusion additive
manufacturing: Physics of complex melt flow and formation mechanisms of pores, spatter, and
denudation zones, Acta Mater. 108 (2016) 36–45. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2016.02.014.
[23] G. Repossini, V. Laguzza, M. Grasso, B.M. Colosimo, On the use of spatter signature for in-situ
monitoring of Laser Powder Bed Fusion, Addit. Manuf. 16 (2017) 35–48.
doi:10.1016/j.addma.2017.05.004.
Really because I've been talking to a lot of Engineers and software developers who are directly involved with installing these systems for oem's so I'm pretty sure they know exactly what they are talking about when it comes to the pricing of these Technologies.
Yes, the printers with multiple lasers can be programmed to only use one at a time, the issue is when you have multiple lasers, you have to install the hardware to go with each individual laser.
For OEMs, who has been producing prototyping machines up until very recently, it is not economically viable for them to try to sell machines with this hardware and software setup for in process quality monitoring when they are already trying to sell a million-dollar machine, and depending on the number of lasers, it would be an additional $200k-600k per machine.
Their customers, many of which have only been evaluating additive manufacturing for a couple years or are startup companies, are looking at this additional cost and thinking I'm already paying a million dollars for this machine, why do I have to pay another $500,000 to make sure it works right?
The customers do not always understand the complexities of in-process quality monitoring data, and the value it provides especially when dealing with high-end Aerospace and medical parts.
Their customers, who most of the time do not understand the value of in process monitoring data, are left in the dark to believe that the machines that they are buying are fully capable of printing high-end parts to spec with the printer as is.
Only those who understand they will be under the regulations of entity such as the FDA and FAA realize they need this data in order to qualify parts to show compliance to design intent.
Many of the oems who have been producing and selling these prototyping machines need to create a return on investment on those original machines just in order to design and manufacturer machines for production purposes.
So they are attempting to sell as many prototyping machines as they can without alerting their customers about in process quality monitoring as many of their machines do not have any capabilities to monitor the Melt pool at all whatsoever which is why they are only prototyping machines.
Now that these oem's are creating machines for manufacturing, melt pool monitoring has finally become a real topic of discussion in the production sector of the additive manufacturing industry.
As we've seen up to this point, it was only being discussed by research and development projects both by government entities and third-party studies, but absolutely no one was or is, in full production at all whatsoever.
The leaders of the industry closest to production right now are those who are utilizing in process quality monitoring data that is able to be seen in real time and compared 2 previous data sets of builds that matched the part characteristics required for the build.
It is suspected that if the in process monitoring standards are released at the time they are projected to, Summer of this year, they will only require that the Melt pool is monitored during the build.
The standard would be vague as they cannot set a standard exactly to the capabilities of any particular software because that would monopolize the standard itself.
That being said, not even every OEM is capable of monitoring the Melt pool, especially when it comes to multi laser machines, there is not one single OEM Who currently has the capability to monitor multiple lasers effectively.
This would force the oems who do not have the capabilities to rapidly develop a hardware and software set up in house in order to comply.
Many are working on this as it is so when push comes to shove I'm sure they would be able to put out a system that could at the very least simply monitor the Melt pool.
As we know, Sigma Labs software is well beyond that capability and can not only qualify powder but also qualify parts and create a 3D mapping of the thermal emission of each individual part during the process, as well as monitoring the machine process as well as the parameters of the part for instantaneous notification of when they build goes out of specifications.
Our customers, and the leaders of this industry will see this as extraordinary really valuable as it is still to this day light years ahead of the competition.
I spoke with the gentleman who worked for the u.s. Navy in 2013, then Boeing, then 3D Sim who were bought out by Ansys.
And his professional opinion he believes that additive Industries has the best start to finish solution for additive manufacturing as they have worked with 3D Sims prediction technology, created a additive manufacturing machine capable of production capabilities, work with Sigma labs to inspect each individual part as well as the powder, and also have the hardware to allow a complete build to be handled by the machine through robotics so that no human interference is required.
With additive Industries rapidly growing within the industry and currently selling Sigma Labs technology as an option with their machines, I believe they will be a very strong partner going forward.
I spoke with a Trumpf representative, and their machines have absolutely no melt pool monitoring capabilities. It is almost clear as day they are desperately in need of a third party to come in and solve this problem for them. All the representative could say is they had to wait for word from headquarters for any development in this area, but the machines they have at the show have absolutely zero melt pool monitoring capabilities.
I spoke with an slm representative who said basically the same exact thing, their multi laser machines have absolutely no way to monitor the melt pool.
I spoke with a renishaw representative, same exact story, their melt pool monitoring capabilities even on single laser machines is garbage, and on multilaser machines they have none.
I spoke with a Sintavia representative, they currently CT scan every single part Honeywell has them build. They have only done R&D builds and absolutely no Aerospace parts. This clearly shows they are not ready for mass production of any critical parts and if they produce any non-critical parts they will have to CT scan each and every one as they have no in-process quality monitoring capabilities.
The Sintavia representative specifically said the concept laser QM did not show a correlation between the monitoring and the CT scans.
However, Brandon Lane who works for nist, completed a study using a concept laser machine with Sigma Labs technology and it did show a direct correlation between our data and part characteristics.
The way John rice explained the industry right now is exactly to a T.
The industry is an earth Dam that is filled with water and starting to show signs of leaking. It is only a matter of time before this dam breaks, and everyone goes full steam ahead into production.
However, the standards that are projected to be set for in process monitoring this summer are likely to determine that the melt pool needs to be monitored.
Those who use Sigma Labs software will received the best yield on their builds as well as the best data sets and powder qualification.
Those who don't, may pass the standards, but we'll find they could potentially easily has a quality assurance issue with parts failing due to lack of the proper data required of in process monitoring to show the parts where printed to the specifications they are required to endure based on the material characteristics expected.
Our new target market is any company with more than a few printers who are capable of production.
All of these companies popping up left and right purchasing multiple printers and signing collaborations to be suppliers or maintenance and repair operations for larger companies such as Rolls-Royce, Pratt & Whitney, Honeywell, and GE, will eventually be required by those companies to ensure the quality of their parts.
These include but are not limited to both powder suppliers as well as Parts suppliers such as
GKN (parts and powder), Woodward, Oerlikon, sintavia, Carpenter, arconic, Morf 3d ,and others.
And these are our secondary customers underneath the headliners we already have such as Siemens, Honeywell, aerojet Rocketdyne, solar turbines, additive Industries, trumpf, and many others we've quoted in the past.
Glta SGLB
Yeah, after talking to Mark about the reasoning behind the transition from R&D to production,
he still thinks as the company does, that it was the right time to do it, because if they were to have contractually obligated their personnel to work on those government, Department of Defense, or other third party research and development projects like they have been,
they wouldn't have been able to put as much time and effort towards advancing the software and evaluating the best prospects for production.
As the industry historically has pushed back its time frames on everything, this is simply another example of that occuring.
However, our current customers including our OEM Partners especially Additive Industries, are seen as the closest to achieving that goal.
The representative from sintavia even said, "anyone who tells you that they are currently in full production, is lying to you."
Sintavia, awarded with the Tier 1 supplier of Honeywell badge of honor has still only done R&D runs, and CT scans every part. If they don't CT scan it for a 3D image, they use an older technology which only provides a two dimensional image.
All post process, all very time consuming and $$$ consuming.
With the current lacking of standards throughout the entire AM industry, including even post process standards, no one is risking printing bad parts.
Especially with high-end Aerospace parts, every company would have to CT scan every single part just to save their own ass.
As we know this is not efficient for AM production.
I firmly believe the first to Market with a full end-to-end AM printing solution will be the winner.
Right now, Additive industries is very well positioned.
The few others that monitor the melt pool, cannot provide the data correlation that PR3D does.
The Sintavia rep also stated they tried using Concept Laser QM, and found it did NOT accurately correlate to the CT scan data.
With Additive Industries use of prediction software, combined with Sigma Labs PR3D solution, and AIs end to end solution, I believe they will eventually achieve their goal to be a top tier player.
Trumpf seems to be dragging their feet, but Mark and Ron recently spent a decent amount of time there, but there's also many players in Germany and Europe.
It's almost like the industry is standing still right now. There's more buzz than ever because so much R&D has been done with materials and powders and machines, but the remaining piece of the puzzle remains.
Sigma Labs has the answer, and our customers will be the first to reap the benefits.
Others may have similar Technology to simply monitor the melt pool, but none can do what Sigma Labs does.
Exciting, yet trying times as the industry continues to slam into this wall that will eventually break.
Basically just waiting on standards, to which we happen to have a collaboration with NIST and LZN to create such standards.
It may be a long summer, but I always enjoyed the sunshine anyway.
Glta
SGLB
RAPID 2018 update.
There is only one OEM has the capability to monitor the weld pool of multi-laser systems.
That OEM is Additive Industries.
No one can do what Sigma Labs does, especially when talking about multi-machine data compression capabilities, and comparing the process parameters as well as in process quality assurance data, to ensure a proper build.
Stratonics is only capable of monitoring the weld pool.
They are winning the SBIR contracts bc sigma is not bidding on them because we are only interested in production companies.
Names to keep an eye on, GKN, Woodward, Oerlikon, Sintavia, Carpenter.
ANSYS releasing a beta version of the software that directly correlates to Sigma Labs data within the next few weeks, beta testing expected to be 6 months.
Everyone is talking production, but it is not quite there yet.
Many machines are just being released, or will be soon.
Sintavia, Honeywell tier one supplier, literally CT scans every part they make for Honeywell. The parts they are making are not high end Aerospace parts, most they have done so for is mostly R&D.
Additive Industries is doing well and officially offering our Technology.
Just day one.
Glta
SGLB
NIST study specifically citing 2017 sigma labs white paper study and findings.
PERFORMANCE CHARACTERIZATION OF PROCESS MONITORING SENSORS
ON THE NIST ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING METROLOGY TESTBED
B. Lane1
, S. Grantham2
, H. Yeung1
, C. Zarobila2
, J. Fox1
1
Engineering Laboratory, 2 Physical Measurement Laboratory,
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899
Abstract
Researchers and equipment manufacturers are developing in-situ process monitoring techniques
with the goal of qualifying additive manufacturing (AM) parts during a build, thereby accelerating the
certification process. Co-axial melt pool monitoring (MPM) is one of the primary in-situ process
monitoring methods implemented on laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) machines. A co-axial MPM system
is incorporated on the Additive Manufacturing Metrology Testbed (AMMT) at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST); a custom LPBF and thermophysical property research platform where
one of many research goals is to advance measurement science of AM process monitoring. This paper
presents the methods used to calibrate and characterize the spatial resolution of the melt pool monitoring
instrumentation on the AMMT. Results from the measurements are compared to real melt pool images,
and analysis is provided comparing the effect on spatial resolution limits on image analysis.
Introduction
Process monitoring for additive manufacturing describes a suite of sensor technologies that may
be applied in-situ during an additive manufacturing (AM) build, with the goal of providing a record of the
build by correlating the sensor signals with various part qualities or defects. This quality record may then
be used as substitute for costly and time-intensive ex-situ part or material qualification. This concept is
described with multiple names; e.g., rapid qualification [1], certify-as-you-build [2], and in-process quality
assurance [3], and the types of sensor systems and applications used are widely reviewed [4–8]. For laser
powder bed fusion (LPBF) process, one of the most promising technologies is co-axial melt pool monitoring
(MPM), which is already appearing on commercial LPBF systems.
Co-axial MPM uses an imaging detector (camera) and/or photodetectors aligned co-axially along
the optical path of the laser using a beam splitter, such that optical emission from the melt pool are captured
stationary within the field of view of the sensors while the laser scans over the powder layer. These signals
or images are then processed and parameterized. For example, length, width, area, or intensity may be
calculated from melt pool images [9], then mapped to the spatial coordinates within the volume of a part,
and correlated to part quality or defects measured ex-situ. Additionally, these in-situ coordinates may be
correlated to X-ray computed tomography (XCT) measurements of part porosity [10,11]. Of course, the
resolution of this spatial mapping is set by the temporal resolution of the co-axial sensors combined with
the scanning speed of the co-located laser spot and imager field of view. Several works have looked at the
temporal resolution or sampling rate requirements for MPM systems [10,12,13].
Similarly, there are spatial resolution requirements for evaluation of melt pool images themselves
as opposed to the resolution for spatially mapping the melt pool data within the 3D part space. Most AM
process monitoring literature using imaging techniques provides only a statement of the measurement
system’s instantaneous field of view (iFoV), which is the equivalent size of the detector pixel projected
onto the object plane (µm per pixel). The ratio of the iFoV to the detector pixel size is equal to the magnification of the system. The pixel pitch is the distance between centers of adjacent pixels on the
detector. Grasso et al. provide a good review of the various iFoV sizes for multiple co-axial (image
coordinates move with the laser) and staring (image coordinates are fixed) AM process monitoring systems
[5]. However, the iFoV is not the technically correct definition of image resolution, which can be limited
by inherent blurring from the optical system. This blurring, and the contributing image degradation
stemming from components within the measurement system, can be described by modulation transfer
functions (MTFs), which are further described later in this paper. Lott et al. provided one of the few
examples of characterization of the optical system performance of a co-axial MPM system [14].
This spatial resolution is ultimately set by 1) the performance of the optics, 2) characteristics of the
imaging detector, and 3) the image processing algorithms used to parameterize the melt pool image. The
scope of this paper primarily deals with the first two, while providing an example of the third applied to co-
axial melt pool images. Measured spatial resolution of the co-axial MPM system is measured and compared
against the modeled optimal performance. The goals of this paper are to 1) evaluate performance of the
melt pool monitoring system, primarily regarding image resolution, and 2) give example measurements and
examine the effect of limiting resolution on melt pool image analysis. Ultimately, for co-axial MPM and
process monitoring to be useful in rapid qualification, standard characterization of the system performance,
including spatial resolution, is necessary, as is the understanding of its effect on melt pool image processing.
[3] Sigma Labs, In-Process Quality AssuranceTM (IPQA®) Solutions | Sigma Labs, (2017).
https://www.sigmalabsinc.com/node/5 (accessed July 27, 2017)
Make that about 240k shares or so...didn't count them all up, just getting the emails as they roll in.
Insiders very confident the company will increase from current PPS to choose to acquire their options at this time.
Including John Rice and the whole sigma labs family.
Good stuff.
Morf3d is a partner, whom we have had on ongoing relationship with, exchanging cash for services or hardware.
"This partnership with Sigma Labs is a critical step towards accelerating our vision of operating as a strategic supplier-partner while meeting the high quality demands of our aerospace customers,” said Morf3D CEO Ivan Madera. “Sigma Labs’ proprietary PrintRite3D software will enable us to have a unique competitive advantage with In-Process Quality Assurance and deliver game-changing performance for end use aerospace components. We strongly believe that our combined expertise and capabilities can help the industry more rapidly advance and grow the entire addressable market in tandem.”
Our partner receives an investment from Boeing.
Article specifically refers to the state-of-the-art software morph3D uses, ie one of those being Sigma labs.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/boeing-horizonx-invests-in-3d-printing-startup-morf3d-300634044.html
Approximately 135k shares acquired by insiders today.
Great sign :)
Clear skies ahead.
Glta SGLB
Of course the CEO isn't going to respond to a random shareholder requesting forward looking statements via an email about how the company is going to increase the PPS
I know in fantasy land this is an expectation, but not in reality.
I personally asked John Rice the question about the timing of his decision to transition from R&D to production
(during the conference call, when it is acceptable to ask such a question as the company is protected by forward looking statement laws),
and the lack of production revenues thus far, and to an explanation of the reasoning of this.
He explained, as we've all seen, the industry is moving into production.
The real money is in production with any manufacturing company.
R&D is a great business and provides very valuable industry, however, our Technology and the AM industry is moving forward to the point it is ready to use the information gained over the passed 5+ years, when real production questions were raised, funded, and answered thru various studies, many of which Sigma Labs was included, especially the many DoD entities, 3rd party studies, and governing bodies in charge of creating the standards around the AM process.
I agree this gap we are in, between R&D and production money is not a fun time for shareholders.
But, as Jon Rice explained, and anyone following the industry understands, the uptick in production activity is rising greatly.
The additive manufacturing AM metal printer market grew by 80% in 2017.
All those companies who bought all those printers are going to need a return on investment from them. How does one get a return from a metal printer?
Print parts.
How does one ensure the quality of those parts in a mass production setting?
Sigma Labs.
We have effectively hired a highly skilled and intelligent staff with backgrounds and software engineering, development, as well as iiot experience.
The recent $850,000 raised was specifically to Advance our Technologies to a closed loop system, as well as personnel for customer support for production installations.
If you think about Sigma Labs from a growth perspective, in March of 2015, Sigma Labs only had **4** full-time employees.
As of December of 2017, we now have 12, with additional funding for more, and also during that time we were able to advance our software to a commercialized product, with currently four production customers, and two multi-year OEM contracts, and I believe 4 (off the top of my head) distribution contracts all across the globe
Sigma Labs has been advancing both their software and their capabilities to match the production needs of the industry over the past few years.
The industry has been delayed much longer than everyone in the industry had expected.
GE was putting out press releases every other day back in 2015 about additive manufacturing and producing tens of thousands of fuel nozzles.
Every company has realized that much more R&D was needed from that time and all have been completing it through many various studies and government programs.
Now that that testing is complete, we shall see the production dollars start rolling in.
But, we needed the personnel and expertise to do so which we have diligently acquired over the past couple years, allowing a small startup company like Sigma labs to compete in a very large industry with the biggest players in that industry.
Production contracts with Pratt & Whitney, solar turbines caterpillar, Woodward, Honeywell, aerojet Rocketdyne, these companies are no small fish in the sea and there is a reason why they are all working with us.
There is a reason why a multibillion-dollar operation such as LZN discovered us from across the globe.
There's a reason why the standardizing entity NIST signed a collaboration contract with us.
Production is coming.
The spending of money on personnel and advancing of our software was necessary to solidify the position of the company for long-term success.
I know it is painful I agree, but I also and trust that Sigma labs has a very strong grasp on the activity within the additive manufacturing industry and if they didn't have anything cooking, they wouldn't be spending all this money on personnel just to run the company into the ground.
If they didn't have any inquiries for production orders, they would be downsizing their Workforce.
We are seeing the opposite, Sigma Labs is preparing for full production commercialization of their products.
Glta
SGLB
ANSI, ASTM utilizing others companies standards development for AM processes such as AM.
Many we have worked with.
All presenters DoD entities we have worked with (appendix E) below.
1. Develop a Center-level (MSFC) requirement
– Review circle much wider than common
• NASA Centers and NESC (Materials, Structures, NDE, Reliability)
• Partners (Lockheed Martin, Aerojet Rocketdyne, SpaceX, Boeing)
• Industry (P&W, Raytheon)
• Certifying Agencies (FAA, USAF, NAVAIR, AMRDEC)
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160000460.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi28fvK087aAhWm3YMKHW04Bb8QFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw0XMVsQaZesBXy2r9ZWmZSW
Day 2 contained presentations focused on considerations and challenges for
qualification/certification of additively managed parts and an overview of standards activity. The
industry panel, which was held on Day 2, is described in section 3.3. Brief summaries of the
presentations follow:
1. D. Carlson, U.S. Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center/EN, “Workshop on
Qualification/Certification of Additively Manufactured Parts: AFLCMC Propulsion
Perspective.” The challenges, opportunities, and risks of AM were discussed, with
emphasis on the need for robust processes to ensure that any AM parts that are accepted
for use by the U.S. Air Force are safe and fully meet requirements for intended
applications. The significant messages from this presentation include: “AM is not ready
to deliver organic manufacturing capability for aviation parts at our sustainment centers,”
“replication is not duplication of design intent,” and “no shortcuts with AM: it is a
journey.” This presentation was not cleared for public release and is not included in this
report.
2. M. Maher, DARPA, “Additive Manufacturing in the Open Manufacturing Program.”
This presentation highlighted objectives of the DARPA OM initiative to accelerate
maturation of new manufacturing technologies. Mr. Maher summarized two OM
programs using AM processes: the Honeywell program using INCO718+ in a powder
bed process, and the Boeing Titanium Fabrication (tiFAB) program using Ti6-4 in a
Sciaky electron beam-wire deposition process. Importance of material, microstructure,
and process modeling in-process quality monitoring, post-fabrication NDE, and data for
key process parameters were emphasized. These programs illustrate two potential
approaches to AM qualification: one being enabled by physics-based integrated
computational materials engineering (ICME) modeling framework and the other relying
on more conventional, empirically based models. This presentation was not cleared for
public release and is not included in this report.
3. E. McMichael, NAVAIR, “NAVAIR Additive Manufacturing.” This presentation was to
be delivered via teleconference but was postponed until a later meeting because of
workshop schedule overrun and NAVAIR scheduling conflicts. This presentation can be
seen in appendix N.
J. Calcaterra, AFRL, “Air Force AM Certification Perspective.” This presentation
outlined the planned Air Force AM certification procedure—the process flow map.
Notably, if the AFRL/AFRL Materials & Manufacturing Directorate (RX) Chief
Engineer determines that a new material or process may affect airworthiness, this
approach is invoked and technical specialists are added to the “Change Evaluation
Team.” It is expected that any AM process will require unique controls dependent on the
application. There is no blanket approval process envisioned for AM. The closing
comment of the presentation was: “Most organizations don’t seem to grasp the level of
control needed for these (AM) processes.” This presentation can be seen in appendix O.
5. K. Morgan, NASA-Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), “NASA AM Certification
Perspective.” This presentation provided the NASA-MSFC perspective, a comprehensive
flow chart of the AM approval process and introduced an MSFC requirements document
(EM20, “Engineering and Quality Standard for Additively Manufactured Spaceflight
Hardware,” draft 1, dated July 7, 2015). The areas emphasized included standards,
design, part classification (for criticality) fracture control, qualification testing, material
properties, and process controls. Of note, process controls addressed metallurgical
controls, part processes, equipment, and supplier controls. This presentation can be seen
in appendix P.
6. K. Taminger, NASA-Langley Reseach Center, “NASA’s Additive Manufacturing
Technology Development Activities.” Efforts described in this presentation included
electron beam processes, tailored design efforts to take advantage of AM processes, in
situ thermal monitoring, residual stress modeling, and applications with ceramics and
composites to fabricate non-metallic gas turbine engine components. Functionally graded
materials and non-structural applications are also research topics for NASA. This
presentation can be seen in appendix Q.
7. M. Gorelik, FAA, “Additive Manufacturing and Risk Mitigation—A Regulatory
Perspective.” This presentation gave the FAA perspective on risks and characteristics of
the successful transition of structural technologies, and cited the diversity of AM
processes and potential application domains as challenges. Application domains included
new type and production certificates, maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO); and
aftermarket parts (parts manufacturer approval [PMA]). The FAA regulatory
environment is distributed over four major directorates and multiple regional certification
offices, resulting in additional challenges in generating a consistent regulatory response
to AM parts across the multiple product types. The FAA expectation is that business
cases will drive AM applications, and target applications will be gradually increasing in
level of criticality corresponding to higher business value, resulting in accumulation of
AM applications just below the “critical parts” definition threshold. Comparisons were
made to composite materials in the timeline and key attributes relative to regulatory
considerations. An FAA roadmap for AM is under development, with the main focus on
evaluation of the current regulatory framework relative to AM, definition of research and
development thrust areas, and development of an inter-agency collaboration framework.
This presentation can be seen in appendix R.
J. Kabbara, FAA, “FAA AM Certification Perspective and Go-forward Plans.” This
presentation extended the FAA perspective with a summary of the terms and categories
for FAA certifications, distinguishing between “applicants” who produce aircraft,
propellers, or engines and individual suppliers who produce parts. A distinction was also
made between “type design” approval (engineering, design, and performance) and the
“production” approval (manufacture). It is apparent that, with AM, the potential is there
for individual suppliers to approach the FAA more often to seek approval for either PMA
or Technical Standard Order Authorization (TSOA) parts. The FAA intent is to deal with
“applicants.” Members of the FAA AMNT and planned activities for the AMNT
regarding FAA policy review, guidance documents, and participation in industry
associations, including for AM standards development, were listed. This presentation can
be seen in appendix S.
There is considerable and sustained supporting effort to mature AM processes in several
government agencies, including AFRL, NASA, the Navy, and DARPA. These efforts
span method development (early Technology Readiness Level/Manufacturing Readiness
Level [TRL/MRL]) through specific part qualification and include critical support
activities like process monitoring; material and process modeling (ICME); and NDE
development.
• Significant, sustained university efforts are also in progress. These include development
of processes and process models; microstructure and property predictions; experimental
assessments; and sensors and process-monitoring approaches. Note that few current
process models are mature; they are useful today for trending but not necessarily “process
control.”
• University efforts are extensive enough to help ensure a trained professional work force
for future AM development and implementation.
• NIST and standards organizations, including ASTM, SAE, ISO, and AWS, are
addressing general standards and specifications for AM. In addition, NIST is providing
critical measurement science effort and standards integration for AM. Development of
such standards is progressing and encouraging, but it is far from mature. In addition, such
specifications and standards are generally too high-level for specific material/process/part
certification requirements.
• Each specific AM application (at least in aerospace) will require detailed specifications
addressing, at a minimum, input materials; process specification; resultant material and
product characterization; and part conformance requirements. These will likely come
from the industry advocate for a specific application.
APPENDIX E—LIST OF PRESENTATIONS
1. M. Gorelik, FAA, and R. Dutton, AFRL, “Opening Remarks”
2. R. Jennings, FAA HQ, “FAA Management Perspective” (Note: speech; no presentation
charts used.)
3. M. Kinsella, AFRL, “Additive Manufacturing Overview–FAA Workshop.”
4. J. Brausch, AFRL, “Nondestructive Inspection Challenges for Additive Manufacturing”
5. J. Miller, AFRL, “Structural Materials Challenges to AF Implementation of AM”
6. J. Miller, AFRL, “Structural Materials: AM Research and Strategy”
7. K. Jurrens, NIST, “NIST Measurement Science for Additive Manufacturing”
8. J. Beuth, Carnegie Mellon University, “AM Current Capabilities and Process Mapping
Methods Tied to Qualification”
9. A. Rollett, Carnegie Mellon University, “Microstructure in AM”
10. S. Daniewicz, Mississippi State University, “Mechanical Behavior of Components
Fabricated Using AM”
11. D. Carlson, USAF ASC/EN, “Joint FAA-Air Force Workshop on
Qualification/Certification of Additively Manufactured Parts: AFLCMC Propulsion
Perspective”
12. M. Maher, DARPA, “Additive Manufacturing in the Open Manufacturing Program”
13. E. McMichael, NAVAIR, “NAVAIR Additive Manufacturing”
14. J. Calcaterra, AFRL, “Air Force AM Certification Perspective”
15. K. Morgan, NASA-MSFC, “NASA AM Certification Perspective”
16. K. Taminger, NASA-LaRC, “NASA’s Additive Manufacturing Technology
Development Activities”
17. M. Gorelik, FAA, “Additive Manufacturing and Risk Mitigation—A Regulatory
Perspective”
18. J. Kabbara, FAA, “FAA AM Certification Perspective and Go-forward Plans”
19. K. Jurrens, NIST, “AM Process Related Tolerance Specification Issues”
20. D. Abbott, GE, “SAE AM Committee”
21. M. Freisthler, FAA, “FAA Perspective on Additive Manufacturing Values in MMPDS”
22. M. Hirsch, AFRL, “Overview of AM Standards Development: AWS”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/tc16-15.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj-ta7R1c7aAhUp04MKHew2DhgQFjAIegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw2yvvpqwzEaHm5hgEJ2jLIT
MRO facilities have been using AM to repair for years.
If they are not inspecting their parts properly this could have been a factor.
Can't be sure either way if this part, or other parts in the news lately were repaired using AM or not.
Either way, it is clear these parts need to be produced better, with better QA solutions.
Glta SGLB
Their MRO partner MTU uses additive manufacturing for repair.
What absolutely baffles me about both GE and this part failure situation as well as Rolls-Royce investing 643 million dollars in mro operations,
Is that this was the major fear of additive Manufacturing going into production.
In many GE videos documenting their process they stress over and over again how important it was to them to ensure the quality of their parts.
Apparently, either the cost was too high or they neglected to use a high quality in process monitoring system, because thus far, all proven data on utilizing process parameters and correlating them to a compliant build have shown success in printing a verifiable part between 95 and 100% identical.
That's what Sigma labs software is capable of producing. It has been shown in multiple studies that using Sigma Labs technology can assure the quality of your product between 95% and 100%.
If GE was seriously using the cut and see method they mentioned last year, that is an extremely negligent process in terms of additive manufacturing and they well knew that.
If they simply did it because their in process monitoring software wasn't efficient as they thought, or they purposefully did it to save money and avoid post-process inspections, I would suspect some serious potential lawsuit implications coming their way.
There are many scientific studies that show each individual part during a build does not come out the same and a cut and see method would never work for additive manufacturing mass production.
GE definitely knew this and if they went along with that just to save money, I am absolutely appalled.
I believe that both of these instances are proof that companies using additive manufacturing for mass production without a high quality in process quality assurance software as part of their process, are at high risk for producing parts that will fail earlier than predicted.
This is why the most recent releases of Sigma Labs technology that directly correlate to porosity, geometric shape, and thermal emission parameters, as well as qualifying the powder material characteristics, is so extremely valuable to the industry.
With all the data that Sigma Labs provides to prove each individual part is printed correctly with material that is needed for the characteristics of the part while under high stress.
It is clear these turbine blades having early wear issues could very possibly be due to porosity or other negative characteristics that could be determined by proper monitoring of the weld pool or the process parameters of the AM machine itself.
I believe our recent private placement definitely solidifies that Sigma Labs may have been notified by certain companies or industry professionals, that they will be needing a number of print Rite 3D units in the near term future.
The entirety of 2017 and thus far in 2018 was a serious ramp-up in our personnel and software development.
Our recent collaborations with lzn for the commercialization of the am process as well as our collaboration with nist to qualify powder as well as parts...
Production contracts with Honeywell, aerojet Rocketdyne, Woodward, Siemens, Trumpf, additive Industries, solar turbines, as well as all our other ongoing collaborations projects and worldwide distribution...
I believe this hockey stick up-tick description of the movement of the industry into mass production is very accurate.
I firmly believe Sigma Labs as well positioned to be a leader in in process quality assurance of additive manufactured parts in a commercialization setting.
There's a lot of movement going on in the additive manufacturing industry especially with merger and acquisition as well as collaboration activity, I believe 2018 will be a very interesting year for Sigma labs and the industry as a whole.
Glta SGLB
That's what you get GE bwahhahahahah.
I suppose it's no laughing matter though....
I do sincerely hope no one else gets hurt or killed die to their negligence.
The research that has been done by a plethora of researchers with Bachelor or master's degree in their field.
As this is not my field, I am trusting in the many studies that have been by these individuals who are experts in the field of welding, Metallurgy, engineering, and additive Manufacturing.
Every study that I post is a validated and trusted citation by individuals with degrees that I listed above.
These studies usually coincide with projects such as DARPA, NIST, EWI, USAF, NAVAIR, aerojet Rocketdyne, Honeywell, GE Aviation, NASA, Siemens, LZN, several universities, and third-party studies.
I do not have to prove anything, as they are the individuals with more expertise than anyone on this board combined.
The documents that they publish are not random and biased, they use the scientific method to prove the validity of certain Technologies such as in process quality monitoring.
Some of the studies specifically use Sigma Labs technology and they document it as such, other studies use the same exact Hardware as Sigma labs uses which one could correlate that when combined with Sigma Labs software a similar if not better outcome will be achieved since Sigma Labs software is very advanced, arguably the most advanced in the industry.
I have posted many of these types of Publications that I have found over the years and they are readily available on this blog and all times. It is not my duty to present them to you, it is your duty to do the research and read them and determine based on the data presented by researchers whose profession is dedicated to additive Manufacturing and metallurgy, if these years and years of studies are correct or if they are all somehow miraculously wrong.
I have not seen one single study that says in process quality monitoring data is unnecessary for additive manufacturing production of high-quality Aerospace and medical parts.
Sigma Labs has the most complete software solution that provides compliance to design intent (ie. Honeywell blog and multiple DARPA phases), the only software that is capable of qualifying powder (NIST, Brandon Lane 2016), integrating materials and manufacturing Towards rapid qualification of powder-bed
laser additively manufactured parts (A. Peralta 2016).
Just to name a few.
Do DD
Glta
SGLB
Yes, all my posts with an attached url with the reference is available on this blog.
You're welcome for doing the research for you.
Yes, by every published scientific study on the subject.
Basically stratonics can do just a portion of what sigma labs Technology can do.
Sigma Labs is the only in process quality assurance software that is capable of qualifying both the powder material characteristics as well as the part characteristics to ensure compliance to design intent.
Sigma Labs technology can ensure the geometric shape of each individual part as well as the thermal emission of the melt pool which verifies the characteristics as far as porosity, cracking, and other defects.
Sigma Labs technology does this in real time and allows for immediate actionable data by the operator which can potentially save big $$$ in time and material.
If you look at stratonics data and white papers, it is visibly noticeable their software does not provide as much data as Sigma Labs does.
If you look at Sigma Labs most recent white paper including data from TED, Sigma Labs creates a 3D mapping of the entire build plate, while also monitoring the process parameters, and material characteristics of the powder during each layer.
If you look at stratonics latest collaborations they are still in Phase 1 or 2 for their Technology.
Sigma Labs has multiple commercialized products already in the market being used for production.
They seem to have the hardware portion down, but their software seems to be greatly lacking compared to Sigma labs, and that's where our value is.
Anyone can make sensors, not anyone can develop as intricate a software to use the necessary algorithms to pull all of the data to show all the different aspects of a build like Sigma Labs technology does.
Sigma Labs - Four (4) in-situ sensors and one (1) high-speed data acquisition system were used during all experiments.
The sensor types comprised non-contact, non-imaging optical sensors as well as non-contact thermal
sensors. One (1) sensor was a photodetector placed in a fixed, or Eulerian frame of reference and
positioned above the build plate. Its field of view (FOV) was of the entire build plate. A second
photodetector was placed in a moving, or Lagrangian frame of reference within the optics train. Its FOV
was restricted to a narrow region immediately surrounding the melt pool. The third sensor was a high-
speed, single wavelength pyrometer with a 6µs response time, placed in a fixed frame of reference above
the build plate and focused onto a 10mm, right circular cylinder (aka, a Process Control Specimen [PCS]).
Its FOV was approximately 1mm. The fourth sensor collected X and Y command signals from the scan
head controller and was used to visualize in-situ dependent data (aka, In-Process Quality Metric™
[IPQM®] data) in a 3D thermal point cloud. All in-situ sensor data was collected by a high-speed data
acquisition system running at 50 kHz per channel (aka PrintRite3D SENSORPAK®) and was
subsequently analyzed by Sigma’s proprietary analytics engine (aka, PrintRite3D INSPECT® software).
Stratonics-
Direct Metal Laser Sintering
Sensor Setup for High Speed Acquisition
ThermaViz melt pool sensor
Fast exposure, freezes melt pool motion
High magnification, resolves melt pool
Field of view/Frame rate
Full window: 1000 x 1000 pixels, 20 x 20 mm, 150 Hz
1D window: 100 x 1000 pixels, 2 x 20 mm, 1500 Hz
2D window: 100 x 100 pixels, 2 x 2 mm, 15,000 Hz
Data (movies) recorded during each layer
Data archived for post analysis
Global heat flow sensor
Fixed exposure,
Frame Rate, 30 Hz
Field of view, entire powder bed
Resolution, 2 pixels/mm
Data recorded throughout deposit
Post Processing
Exports imagery and data in standard formats: .bmp, .emf, .avi, .cvs
Samples regions of interest for data extraction, Hot Spot Tracking
ThermaViz melt pool sensor
Thermal images computed from 2 wavelength calibration
Measures melt pool temperature, size, heating and cooling rates
Global heat flow sensor
Thermal images computed from 1 wavelength calibration
0bserves long term heat flow in deposits and powder bed, (residual stress)
Data extraction
thermal, dimensional and gradient
thermal images, large files, csv
client analysis, Mat Lab
In summary.
Sigma Labs technology is capable of examining the entire build plate and comparing it to proper process parameters and material characteristics of the entire powder bed.
Stratonics focuses entirely on the Melt pool and does not have the capabilities of examining the entire part geometry as a whole in real time. Their hardware and software solution cannot provide a 3D map as Sigma Labs does, to show in real-time the thermal emissions of the Melt pool to show a sample of the build.
Stratonics can show real time emissions from the Melt pool, but does not scan the entire build as Sigma Labs does, including the capabilities to monitor multiple builds simultaneously.
This is where Sigma Labs capabilities to Monitor and qualify both powder and parts separates them from any current inspection technology available.
Sigma labs can show a 3D mapping of the entire build plate, while ensuring the geometric data of each part, thermal emissions of the melt pool, and process parameters of the entire metal AM Machine.
PR3D is the entire solution for IPQM, not just one faction like stratonics.
Siemens wins award for turbines a year after contract with Sigma,
Has digital platform software for AM,
Working with Moog to intergrate block chain Technology
Sigma Labs provides very valuable and intricate data sets for qualification and verification of parts, which is what this whole project is about.
To be used by
Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) Keyport, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), USMC, NIST, NAVAIR, OSD-MPP/CIO, JSIG and the Rapid Tech Transition Office.
Sigma Labs has worked with multiple of these entities, who have, on their own accord, written and published scientific papers regarding the value of sigma labs IPQA specifically.
Looks like a very interesting plausibility for Sigma Labs Technology to be integrated into this collaboration.
Now digging into some old reports, Siemens won an award for their work on their AM gas turbine blades.
Siemens signs a contract with sigma labs, then wins an award that specifically references commercialization of AM, mass production, software development, and digitalization.
First 3D-printed Gas Turbine Blades: Siemens awarded by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Dec 13, 2017, New York City
Siemens received an award from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) for its outstanding technological achievement with the first successfully 3D- printed and fully tested gas turbine blades.
The Mechanical Engineering magazine Emerging Technology Awards is the first in the 137-year history of the Society that Mechanical Engineering magazine has singled out such future-focused technologies for recognition. The goal is to recognize some outstanding examples of what ASME calls ascending technologies: new products and processes that have left the breakthrough stage, crossed the so- called commercialization valley of death, and are poised to reshape the industries where they compete. After exclusive vetting, ASME editors selected the technologies from each of five focus areas: advanced manufacturing, automation and robotics, bioengineering, clean energy, and pressure technology.
"The 3D-printed turbine blade places Siemens at the forefront of a technology trend that is spurring a global revolution in product design and production," said Charla K. Wise, president of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME. "Mechanical Engineering magazine is pleased to present one of the five Emerging Technology Awards to a leader in manufacturing, and we thank the design team on the 3D-printed blade for advancing technology excellence."
Earlier this year, Siemens has achieved a breakthrough by finishing its first full-load engine tests for gas turbine blades completely produced using Additive Manufacturing (AM) technology. The company successfully validated multiple 3D- printed turbine blades with a conventional blade design at full engine conditions.
This means the components were tested at 13,000 revolutions per minute and temperatures beyond 1,250 degrees Celsius. Furthermore, Siemens tested a new blade design with a completely revised and improved internal cooling geometry manufactured using the AM technology.
"We are especially proud to be honored by such a recognized organization as ASME," says Jenny Nilsson, who led the team that realized the blade project. "The project objective was to try out and map this radical new way of working. The outcome is another confirmation that we are on the right path toward further improvements of our gas turbine technology," Jenny continues.
The project team worked with blades manufactured at the Siemens 3D printing facility in Finspong, Sweden and at Materials Solutions, the recently acquired company in Worcester, UK. Materials Solutions has more than 10 years' experience in additively manufacturing high performance parts for turbomachinery. Materials Solutions is AS 9100 certified and an approved vendor for Additive Manufacturing for leading customers in the aerospace industry. Applying its aerospace experience, Materials Solutions also supplies tooling to leading automotive companies and high performance parts in titanium and nickel super alloys for auto sports.
Additive Manufacturing has the potential to become a key technology in the production of gas turbine components. Siemens has been investing in this innovative technology right from its inception, and is now driving the industrialization and commercialization of these processes. Besides the awarded turbine blades, Siemens is using the innovative technology to produce burner tips, burner nozzles and to repair burner heads. "Additive Manufacturing is one of our main pillars in our digitalization strategy. With our combined know-how in 3D printing, we will continue to drive the technological development and application in this field," says Christoph Haberland, Advisory Key Expert Additive Manufacturing, and member of the blade team.
Importance of Powder Quality in Additive manufacturing EWI
http://marketing.ewi.org/acton/attachment/12956/u-0042/0/-/-/-/-/
Siemens just announced integration with Identify3D for securing data.
Also happen to work on this project together.
Identify 3D also signed a collaboration with SLM solutions.
SLM MPM is mediocre at best, as it only uses an on-axis photodiode. I do not believe they have nearly extensive algorithms nor software as a whole as sigma labs.
I do not believe they have IIoT capabilities either.
Sigma Labs would be a nice fit.
We have worked with everyone else in this project.
Wouldn't be far out to think of PR3D being integrated into Siemens or Moogs software, and being a part of this complete solution.
Sigma Labs
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_168775.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiH7dGZ6MjaAhWI0YMKHTtfBVgQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2KuR6hM2kqxY-gi7uN3b7L
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23646/predictive-theoretical-and-computational-approaches-for-additive-manufacturing-proceedings-of&ved=2ahUKEwiH7dGZ6MjaAhWI0YMKHTtfBVgQFjABegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2wf2Ep95FKdp7y7BHEV3Ur
ANSYS releases Additive Manufacturing simulation software.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ansys-additive-manufacturing-solutions-transform-aerospace-and-defense-biotech-and-automotive-industries-300632436.html
Our data directly correlates with their software...their customers will more than likely become interested in our software as well.
Glta SGLB
Rapid prototyping and additive manufacturing, collaboration and venture capitalist, software development, and data collection.
All the most important advancements in Siemens ability to create their most efficient products.
Technology that withstands the heat
The HL-class’ combined cycle efficiency of over 63 percent is impressive. “In order to increase efficiency and improve performance, gas turbines have to be operated at even higher combustion temperatures – that’s the key,” explains Zhao. “We identified five levers to make higher firing temperatures possible.” Thus, his team developed an advanced combustion system that allows for higher firing temperatures, and at the same time more operational flexibility. Innovative, heat-resistant multi-layer coatings have been used to protect the blade material against the increased heat. But for the blades, Zhao points out, the inner values prove just as important: Superefficient internal cooling features have been engineered to improve the cooling process and hence efficiency. Furthermore, optimized sealing minimizes the leakage of cooling air. Finally, evolutionary 3D blading improved the compressor’s aero-efficiency.
Following this technology leap, is it time to take a rest? “On the contrary!” Ever the restless innovator, the CTO explains that, in the meanwhile, Siemens has already set its sights on the new threshold of 65 percent efficiency. “Speed in technology development is driven by digitalization, by additive manufacturing, by better collaboration,” he says. “And it has been rapidly gaining momentum: It took us ten years to break the 60 percent efficiency barrier, then another six years to improve to 61.5 percent. Now we’re taking the next step to 63 percent and beyond in under two years.” But as Zhao knows well, for Siemens’ customers, it’s not only about speed and efficiency – the solutions have to be above all reliable and cost-effective.
A clean future for gas turbines
Talking about customers: Does it make sense to improve gas turbines even further if the world is turning more and more to renewables as sources of energy? Zhao doesn’t see any contradiction. “The sun is not always shining, and the wind is not always blowing. That’s why you need to compensate shortages,” says Zhao. The ramp-up rate of the HL-class turbines can go up to 85 megawatts per minute. That’s crucial if energy is needed urgently. “If you look at the power you can generate and the space you’ll need to do it – the power density – there’s nothing that could compete with a gas turbine,” says Zhao.
If you look at power density, there’s nothing that could compete with a gas turbine.
Zuozhi Zhao, CTO Power and Gas, Siemens
“In the future, efficient turbines could also be fired with gas that comes from renewable energy,” he explains. Nowadays, a lot of wind or solar energy is basically wasted because it cannot be stored – at least not for a long time. One option could be to turn it into methane or hydrogen, and use this stored energy to fuel a gas-fired power plant when needed. Whatever the solution, Siemens is already prepared for the future, Zhao points out: “Our gas turbines are highly fuel flexible and can run on natural gas as well as other synthetic fuels.”
?
Rendering of the new HL-class
Creating an innovation ecosystem – internal and external
However, the engineering isn’t the only novelty. For the HL-class development program, new productivity methods such as the Scrum process were introduced – including monthly sprint planning and daily stand-ups. Additionally, a cross-functional, colocated team was formed with a very low hierarchy to create an inspiring working atmosphere as well as a flexible and agile development progress.
This agility extends beyond Siemens’ factory doors. For its innovation processes, the company nowadays routinely teams up with venture capitalists and start-up companies. The result: new business ideas and a new innovation mind-set. “The competition is really getting intense,” Zhao points out. “Everybody is pouring in more resources to speed up this race. So, if you were to close your door, even if you had the smartest engineers in the whole world, that’s simply not the best way to go.” The real benefit comes from going out and engaging with this external innovation ecosystem, he explains. Part of this ecosystem, for example, is MikroSystems, a small US-based company that invented an innovative method to produce the ceramic core for the internal cooling geometry of the turbine’s blades.
?
Siemens uses innovative internal cooling geometry for the turbine blades
Fleet performance boosted by data analytics based on design and operations know-how
The turbines are also designed to plug into Siemens’ digital offering for plant operators and utilities, incorporating connectivity to MindSphere, the cloud-based Siemens operating system for the Internet of Things. It offers performant analytics instruments. “The three powerful pillars of this operating system are design know-how, data know-how, and operations know-how,” says Zhao. “And by combining them through MindSphere, our customers will have a tremendous benefit. It can tell the customer how he operates, by when he should replace certain parts in order to have the highest reliability and how he can reduce fuel consumption
Exactly.
Well said.
Sigma has IP protection already on other aspects of their business model, and will continue to solidify their footprint in AM inspection.
It is not a coincidence NIST, EWI, FAA, FDA, LZN, have been working with us for standardized processes in AM.
We are also the most advanced software, as all others refer to monitoring the process, but none have the computational algorithms to compare parameters of various aspects of the build and material in real time over multiple machines simultaneously.
Our MIT collaboration and closed loop development is taking us even further ahead than we already are.
Sigma labs collects the most valuable data, and also actionable data.
Closed loop will be undeniably the most complete solution.
Glta
Sglb
I would advise to listen to this entire webinar, however portions specific to In situ monitoring can be heard at the entire Boeing speaker, around 24 mins in, he specifically refers to thermal and acoustic in situ monitoring techniques being implemented and considered to be at TRL 9 for Boeing, noting they have many parts already being flown in space.
At approximately 42 mins during the Q&A, this is reiterated by both the RUAG and Boeing speakers that thermal and acoustic in situ monitoring is being implemented for part verification purposes.
This is referring to small lot manufacturing, however it is for highly critical parts, which is sigma labs target market, not to mention we have worked either directly or indirectly with both these multi-billion dollar companies.
https://event.on24.com/eventRegistration/console/EventConsoleApollo.jsp?&eventid=1598380&sessionid=1&username=&partnerref=&format=fhaudio&mobile=true&flashsupportedmobiledevice=true&helpcenter=false&key=A26F428A2604207F9F28DC6C56791F59&text_language_id=en&playerwidth=1000&playerheight=650&overwritelobby=y&eventuserid=194093479&contenttype=A&mediametricsessionid=163746704&mediametricid=2290656&usercd=194093479&mode=launch#
Every doubt and concern is proven insignificant in this document that directly refers to Sigma Labs, DARPA, ICME, and the data our software provides is capable of verifying AM parts.
Reported in 2016, and specifically says the results of our Technology is promising, with further evidence solidifying the software.
2 years later And additional software released, I firmly believe we are perfectly able to provide an extremely valuable software to the AM industry.
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs40192-016-0052-5.pdf
Investigation from the recent engine failure of the CFM engine by GE/Safran
Jet engines are designed to contain failures like the loss of a fan blade. They are surrounded with strong, honeycomb-shaped materials wrapped in Kevlar blankets, especially near fan blades, to keep to fragments inside the engine. This containment system will likely be one of the areas of focus of the NTSB investigation in addition to the evidence of metal fatigue in the blade noted in the initial findings.
Sigma will Target people that are already in need of our software that's once it's installed and they see the capabilities, they will then purchase the software.
You're making it sound like it's some sort of t-shirts shooting attempt at marketing when in reality it's very specified additive Manufacturing companies who are in need of the software.
Not to mention once these units are installed, I'm sure Sigma Labs will also be collecting data for further development of their own softwares.
So it will be more of a win-win situation, both getting companies to understand the value of ipqa software while also collecting data, proving the validity of our software, and also creating new case studies to show that are business model works for both us and the users.