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.
EB produced blades and medical implants are at least as effective based on everything I've read and possibly lighter due to ability to produce any geometry as you mention. FT and I were talking about full density, not the total mass of the blades. Getting full density with no flaws with any method can be a problem but lots of research has lead to quality control that solves the problem. They are getting full if not very near full density straight out of the Arcam machine and full density with little or no flaws with HIP treatment. I have to correct myself and say that not all flaws are spherical. The most meaningful measures are mechanical properties, in my opinion. Discussion and many pictures of flaws from a 2009 paper-
Because the atomization process for manufacturing uniform, round Ti-6Al-4V particles traps argon gas bubbles, these bubbles are carried into the melt and retained in the solidified build as illustrated in Figure 5 which shows retained argon bubbles which can range in size from <10 µm to >50 µm in diameter. The argon gas is apparently not under any significant pressure when trapped, and the high temperature of the melt (~1670º C) and the high surface tension of Ti-6Al-4V does not permit these bubbles to leave the melt. Figure 6 illustrates several typical examples of bubbles breaking out of the precursor powder particles, especially in the SEM view shown in Figure 6b.
sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/Manuscripts/2009/2009-32-Murr.pdf
From a 2010 paper (UTS = Ultimate Tensile Strength, HIP = Hot Isostatic Pressing)-
Tensile strength of the EBM built material is concluded to be high compared to conventional manufacturing techniques of TiAl. The UTS for the as-HIPed material is about 100 MPa higher compared to cast TiAl at room temperature. The ductility is however lower than expected and can be concluded to be a result from the higher amount of oxygen in the material used in this study. To further increase the knowledge of the mechanical properties the fracture surfaces has to be investigated.
An Investigation of Microstructural Behavior and Related Mechanical Properties for Aerospace Applications
From a 2015 paper-
4. Conclusion
The presented results highlight the potential for the optimization of the mechanical properties of EBM fabricated Ti-6Al-4V by heat treatments. Since the powder bed and the parts therein are kept at around 700 °C during the EBM build process and cooled down slowly, dense specimen combine UTS of more than 1000 MPa with good ductility. Therefore heat treatments at temperatures above 700 °C offer only small improvements in static tensile properties. In contrast, significant increases in fatigue resistance can be achieved by combining HIP and thermal treatments. In that way Ti-6Al-4V material additively manufactured by EBM can match fatigue performance of forging stock.
www.ifam.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ifam/en/documents/dd/Publikationen/2015/Kirchner%20et%20al_Mechanical%20properties%20of%20Ti-6Al-4V%20additively%20manufactured%20by%20electron%20beam%20melting_EuroPM2015.pdf
AM is still at the innovation stage on the curve, that's what I meant to say earlier, not the adopters stage. It's a subjective statement but gives me a little perspective.
I agree that it's hard to find another company with a compelling story behind it. I would watch Sciaky closely in case they go public but I don't believe they are a threat to Arcam's core business.
Others to consider: SLM Solutions Group AG, and Protolabs?
I'm confident that EB is as good or better than cast especially with HIP treatment.
They have the same density so long as you don't split too fine a hair. If you measure density with enough precision my bet is you'll find a difference but the real measure is the mechanical properties, in my opinion. I understand that the main problem with turbine blades is a tendency to creep over time, sort of like observing slow motion plasticity.
What's really needed to decide this matter is data on cast verses EB produced Ti-Al. Find the densities of a collection of each, find the average and standard deviation of density for cast verses EB, then see if the difference in density is statistically meaningful. I'll have to spend some time to find any results on that so give me some time. (Meanwhile I'm watching election results and drinking, or not drinking and doing tons of yard work before quick growing plants make some tasks impossible.)
I'm in and I recommend that everyone sign up. Here's Nobahamas's link again
Honeywell newsletter
I would add that flying with that part on a plane is, as I understand it, part of certification.
I agree there's some nagging uncertainty in the economics. Fixed and variable costs, supply and demand, sunk (or retrospective) costs and prospective costs, are all things that I'm supposing Rene is well aware.
The technology adoption life cycle is what we're at the very beginning of with respect to AM technology. That can be graphed as a bell curve. AM has, so far, I'm guessing, been adopted by fewer than 2.5% of those that could find benefit in the technology. I'm guessing again to say that I bet that fewer than 2.5% of those that could use EBAM have adopted it, so we're in the early adopters stage. We're not up to the fastest rate of adoption until we get to 50% market saturation, that's where the bell curve and the logistic curve intersect.
Diffusion of Innovations
But, we don't know for sure which companies are destined for success. Think about the early automobile industry, that there were steam, electric (Henry Ford's wife drove an electric), gasoline, gas, and diesel, and within each category of fuel there was more than one company. If you manage to invest in all successful companies, that's great but it's much more likely one will invest in a mix. Diversification is the key there; multibaggers will compensate for bankruptcies.
The answer to production rate and orders for Arcam lies somewhere between one machine producing all parts at an acceptable rate and many machines producing the needed parts at the required rate. I'm leaning towards many because of the rate of production of a given machine. Also, think of it this way, if the machines can't produce at a competitive rate, nobody will buy them, so we hope it doesn't take too many machines when their cost is between 595 to 995 thousand a machine.
After Honeywell's webcast and the embedded promotion from Arcam itself the signs are encouraging and will require that we do due diligence in following the news. We know Honeywell and GE/Avio are EBAM bullish.
Some publications Honeywell suggests in the email I received after the webcast: Business Aviation News, FMS Go-To Newsletter, and Helicopter Quarterly.
Hollow Ti-Al spheres that contain gas phase argon are less dense than solid Ti-Al spheres, so that they exist in Ti alloy powders means either they are not using differential density post processing and we should look for that improvement with a patent, or they already have the process and this is as good as it gets for now and we still look for a patent.
Cast TiAl and EBAMed TiAl have the same density, virtually. Melted TiAl isn't very fluid so to obtain the closest shape to mold requires centrifuge methods. TiAl is very reactive so imperfections increase as exposure to air increases. EBAM TiAl tends to have spherical imperfections from argon (???). EBAM done in a vacuum means the argon must come from powder making process or is a mistake in the link I found. From 2009-
"Argon bubbles carried into the build from the atomized precursor Ti-6Al-4V powders do not appear to vary with increasing melt scans nor do they noticeably influence the tensile behavior of solid monoliths as observed by fracture surface features dominated by varying sizes of ductile dimples."
There's some great metal microstructure "porn" in the following link which also contains the quoted statement above.
Effect of Build Parameters and Build Geometries on Residual Microsturctures and Mechanical Properties of Ti-6Al-4V Components built by Electron Beam Melting
These voids are very small and will make virtually no difference in density. For validation of that I appeal to everyone's sense of proportion. These voids are spherical and therefore, by their geometry, distribute stress better than non-spherical voids. HIP processing removes these voids. I learned that from the Honeywell webcast, so if they do another one, listen in.
There's a description of the problems involved in casting Ti alloys in the patented process below-
Centrifugal Casting of Titanium Alloys, patent
I look forward to Avio supplying build parameters when stacking. It looks to me like it's well known in the metallurgy community that the mechanical properties of AM produced Ti-6Al-4V are anisotropic. In this first link they mention "directed energy deposition additive manufacturing (AM) process," which may or may not be electron beam deposition. You have to pay to get the full article but enough is here to get the point across. I've also seen remarks on anisotropic properties embedded in many other papers where electron beam methods were used. I just couldn't quickly find those just now.
Anisotropic tensile behavior of Ti–6Al–4V components fabricated with directed energy deposition additive manufacturing
Experiments showing microstructure is affected by wall thickness thus mechanical properties are affected-
Characterization of Thin-walled Ti-6Al-4V
It appears that Ti-Al is Ti-6Al-4V.
Arcam Ti-6Al-4V
That doesn't answer the question
Now, how did you do that?
"GE also intends to expand the use of ALM-produced parts on the GE9X. Although the GEnx test engine at Peebles is only installed with the 3D-printed blades on the seventh stage of the low-pressure turbine, they will be used on the two final stages of the production model." -Flightglobal, January 29, 2015.
GE9X Engine Tests
That should clear up a thing or two about where EB produced blades will be installed, but does this mean that certification does not have location specific requirements for a part during testing? Note that they are using 3D printed blades on the 7th stage during testing but on the final 2 stages of the low pressure turbine area of the production model.
FAA certification for the GEnx 1B engine is on file at FCC as of April 12, 2011. TCDS NUMBER E00078NE is on file. Note that this is before they were producing and installing ALM parts for testing in their engines! I couldn't seem to share the link to the certification document which is a pdf file so if anyone, like me, is spending a little time doing FAA certification detective work this might help .
Some pages are missing from the Ti powder AM book link, that's why it's free, but it's still worth a look.
The additive manufacturing (AM) of titanium alloys
The additive manufacturing (AM) of titanium alloys
You'll pay at least $180 for Titanium Powder Metallurgy whether in ebook or print but for some reason they display its contents for free at the above link. "The additive manufacturing (AM) of titanium alloys" provides a an excellent comprehensive description of Ti AM.
Thank you Nobohamas, Charlie, Investorhub 123 (for directing me to appropriate sites) and pdb2.
Nobohamas posted an article from 2014 reviewing AM methods. I strongly recommend spending time reading it. Included is a statement about certification that means one should exercise due diligence in reading press releases-
The conventional mean of qualifying and certifying aircraft components is costly (>$130 m) and lengthy (15 years) (Ref 35). The development of a statistically substantiated database alone can cost $8-$15m, require the testing of 5,000-100,000 specimens, and take over 2 years.
The link from which this comes from-
AM review
Charlie, post number 2765 seems to say Avio had, in December of 2015, just completed a 2 year certification process. I'm not sure how to read that. It may be that some statements are sufficient to conclude that certification has taken place, maybe not. I spent some hours on the FAA site trying to make headway with no progress.
PDB2, like you I don't like inaccurate statements. If someone has misinterpreted something I believe it's our job to question and criticize. This has nothing to do with whether someone is making bullish or bearish statements, just the inaccuracy of the statements.
The information we have to work with can be maddening to interpret and can be magnified by inappropriate posts. So, it's maddening when as careful as I've tried to be, I just found one website that mentions the rate of EB AM Ti-Al manufacture for stage 7 of the GE9X engine, while another says Ti-Al blades will be used in stage 6 and 7 of the GE9X without saying whether or not they would be produced by AM.
That I believe pales in comparison to someone sprinkling this discussion board with inaccurate statements, then saying that too many on this list attack them when they make bullish statements. That's just false. We were addressing the inaccuracies. We don't need the noise here when it's difficult enough to mine the information.
I'm banking on Arcam's technology anyway. The slide helps!
For reference, the slide is on post #3487.
I never said nor implied that EBM blades are NOT being tested on the LEAP engines. You're response seems to point in that direction. Still need the link to know what you're talking about.
? Which presentation? I need a link.
Also, in which post did someone claim that EBM blades are not being tested in LEAP engines?
In response to which post?
Back to civilian verses military certification, those are different risk analysis scenarios. Tough ceramics have been around for some time already, it's the certification.
I have to be honest. I hate going over this repeatedly. We've already discussed this.
Thanks FT. I wasn't reading this message board then; I've only been here for a few weeks.
Thanks Charlie, it's always good to get solid numbers.
FT, you wrote-
"I also learned the reason we did not get the other sections of the GE9X LPT, it has to do with the heat levels in those other sections as well as the business case for the using EBM for blades that had to be made of Inconel."
That's been the case for some time. Arcam Ti-Al alloy is optimal for one and only one stage of their turbine engine, not zero, not two or more.
FT, you wrote-
"This has ramifications for the number of machines they will need… whereas we were estimating the number to be 90 or 100 it is likely more in the area of 30 of which they have or have ordered 20 so I am not expecting much more out of Avio for some time to come… "
You're jumping to an assumption and a conclusion. I see no evidence for a revision up nor down is unless you can give us a citation to back up your assumption, that EBM blades were being considered for more than one stage of GE9X, and that therefore a downward revision is necessary.
Solving the problem of dropping a ceramic coffee mug on a ceramic tile floor was and is still a problem. Zirconium whiskers help. For turbine blades the problem is yet more complicated.
CMC catastrophic failure and more
To acknowledge, not easy. Thank you.
Noise, certification of parts, Avio orders, GKN, and certification.
There's way too much noise on Yahoo discussion boards and they don't allow links. Links are our footnotes, our references, in wwwland. Yes, jumping to conclusions isn't appreciated, and especially, making conclusions without reading carefully. Ok, now to questions.
Does anyone know a link to a list of certified parts?
I'm not sure what you mean by the Avio orders. Do you have a link for the Avio report?
Back to EBM AM.
Thanks to Charlie Colton for the link dated 23 February, 2016. See bottom of page 5 (of 35).
GKN report
"Entering into a strategic partnership with Arcam AB to develop and industrialize one of the most promising new additive manufacturing (AM) processes to meet the needs of the
expanding future aerospace market. Production orders were received for AM parts flying on production aircraft." -GKN
That's a promising statement, certainly better than saying that they are now in the process of testing several AM methods to choose the best method. Moreover, Arcam is the only AM company mentioned in the report.
I still believe the moat is the microstructure, the speed over traditional methods, the economics (25% savings over traditional methods cited by I forgot who for now), and strength superior to strength in material obtained from traditional methods. That sounds like everything but we have to ask, in comparison to what. I just said traditional methods except for the microstructure. There's the real moat so far.
I have not read of evidence of the Widmanstätten pattern in microstructure (like or actual is hard to tell from the reports) being produced by any AM method except Arcam's EBM. I don't think I would be too far off base to say that it's akin to making a 3d solid, say a castle wall, from bricks using a herringbone pattern in each layer, and adjacent layers offset. I'll take that any day over layers of brick laid in the common way when faced with approaching cannon balls.
Finally, certification. Lives are at stake so I believe it's helpful to look at aerospace certification as similar to drug trials. Lots of experiments are required to prove that a part is worthy of being included in an airworthy structure. Although that takes a lot of time and money, once a part is approved, a competitive moat has been created.
Link to GKN post about Ti AM parts?
I posted it in post number 3410 but didn't label it well.
An Insider's View on 3D Printing in Aerospace
Every time I hear that 10,000 remark and that EBM is too slow I think about Ford making over 2 million Model T's in 1923. In every car was a monobloc cast engine block with complex geometry and water passages. I've heard over and over that the blocks were aged in sand for at least months. EBM as we speak must be faster for these smaller parts.
Terribly sorry about that, pdb2. I confused you with someone else that's not reading carefully. I'm spending hours looking over things carefully before I post so I'm not especially long fused sometimes.
I suspect certification can take a long time but I haven't researched it. Many lives are at stake if a part like this fails so I look at part trials like drug trials. When you read these articles they reinforce the idea that these are like one experiment after another. It just takes time.
I can't remember where I read this, maybe the GKN link that Charlie Colton posted, that EB methods produce a better part at 25% savings. ORNL concluded a 50% savings in their 2013 publication. I'm sure others will come up with other results.
Like you, I believe this to be a fine technology that was developed carefully with educated minds looking carefully at metallurgical qualities. Now that we see Arcam is getting certification for some parts, that the technology has cost and time saving benefits, I'm sold. I'm just getting quickly weary with those that get jumpy at every announcement of a competing technology.
GKN partnering with Arcam is very positive, yes. I'm very confident that with GE/Avio, Honeywell, GKN, the implant industry and the demographics of aging, and turbochargers in the auto industry, Arcam will be successful. The fly in the ointment? It's been said that if you're making 10,000, use old technology, if you're making a few, use additive manufacturing. I don't know the truth of that statement but I bet it's challenged.
Metal microstructure from EB is superb, strength tests show the parts are up to the task, and it's economically viable.
No bracket is ruled out nor confirmed for manufacture by EB methods. It might be and might not be the case the very high volume, as in 2000 parts per wing for one Airbus plane, isn't possible at this stage. GKN is looking at 84 per month, with quality and certification as a challenge while at the same time the parts are better quality and cheaper to make. However, all of this backs Rene's statement (paraphrasing) that he's "concerned about meeting aerospace demand."
Background about technology readiness levels so everyone knows these are risky, forward looking statements, even at this stage when it looks to so many like this technology is ready to explode in demand. No, we're not at the top level yet, never claimed that, nor am I claiming that every bracket is more cheaply made, but I am claiming that every bracket can be made with EB process and be certified. They have to certify then prove economic viability. First technological readiness-
technology readiness levels
I'll leave economic viability to those that are financially literate.
To make access to statements more accessible so reading and understanding an entire article isn't required, what follows is from the link below, except for italicized parts.
The link-
GKN Aerospace AM
Statements culled from the article, italicized parts not from article-
"With this new production cell, Airbus and GKN Aerospace intend to prove that AM is capable of full-scale production as an alternative to producing the part subtractively, machined from a forged blank. That process GKN Aerospace already has a contract to carry out; but it still needs to win the contract for making the AM part, Airbus points out."
The scale of the manufacturing problem-
“From a GKN Aerospace point of view, this part is going to push the technology almost to its limits. We’re going for high volume parts, the highest volumes in Airbus aircraft [42 A320s roll on to the runway every month; each takes two brackets]. And for us to be able to make those parts repeatably is quite a challenge for GKN Aerospace, because we’re going from a point of making, perhaps, five parts per week to making 84 per month for aircraft that are waiting to have them installed, effectively.”
Cost effectiveness-
He says that GKN Aerospace and Airbus have proven that the AM part costs less to make than subtractive methods (although he does not reveal by how much). ORNL claimed a 50% reduction in cost for BALD brackets in peer reviewed research. See previous posts.
Quality-
That’s not all; the team also discovered that parts made in the Arcam machine can perform even better than cast and forged parts, in terms of fatigue life. “So far, for all of the materials we have got [in the project], electron beam melting produces the highest performing parts of all,” says Dumani.
Efficient use of raw material-
Additive manufacturing uses a fraction of the titanium metal required for subtractive manufacture (many parts hogged out of a billet waste 80% of the material), so its so-called ‘buy to fly’ ratio is much better than conventionally-made parts. Still, the partners stress that AM will not necessarily be able to challenge subtractive manufacturing on every part. “I think the point is that it is not always cheaper. You have to [work] on a case-by-case basis. Lots of parts are cheaper to manufacture conventionally, at least at the moment,” says Stuart McDougall, manager of the GKN Aerospace Additive Manufacturing Centre.
Thanks Charlie.
Yep, said it was posted 3 years ago pdb2, and what Trancon posted is from '14 and '15, but did you read that? The answer is simple, if you don't like the wait or don't trust what we're posting, sell and get out.
Yep, said it was posted 3 years ago pdb2, and what Trancon posted is from '14 and '15, but did you read that? The answer is simple, if you don't like the wait or don't trust what we're posting, sell and get out.
Y E S ! There is indication that these rib feet lend themselves to EBM production. Read the ORNL paper. Read the Avio links that Trancom posted.
Find "Case Study: Additive Manufacturing of Aerospace Brackets." In this case BALD brackets. I posted it before. This article was published in March 2013. At the time they suggested that certification was the only barrier to application. Those involved in the paper stated that "EBM technology is a suitable additive manufacturing technology to produce complex aerospace components, such as the BALD bracket."
[url]web.ornl.gov/sci/manufacturing/docs/AM&P_March%202013_cvr_w-articles.pdf
[/url][tag]Aerospace brackets[/tag]
Metal grain development is dependent on cool down rates for fresh builds. I doubt they will or want to change the rate given their success in producing parts that demand toughness and hardness.
EB requires few if any supports so parts can be stacked and each layer in a stack can have several builds.
What's left out of the LBM discussion on this is that there's an additional annealing process that involves another cycle of heating and cooling.
That is, about 2000 rib feet brackets per plane.
brackets
Investor anxiety is often based on bad investment strategy. Keep investments diverse in number of companies as well as in type of company.
It's not a bad idea to think about the expected value for an investment strategy by using a largely subjective estimate of the probability of failing to break even, breaking even, and succeeding in making a profit for each company. Once one has worked through this equation for a few investment strategies you get some feel for the risks involved and it has a huge impact on your thinking and brings meaning to the word diversification. Try working out the expected value, for example, of winning a door prize when it costs a dollar to buy a ticket and you have a 1 in a thousand chance of winning $100. On average you expect to lose close to a dollar -
EV = (0.001) * (100 - 1) + (0.999)*(-1.00) = -0.90
There's no term for breaking even because that doesn't occur in door prize situations. Otherwise, the decimal factors, 0.001 and 0.999, are probabilities that add up to one. Those probabilities have to add up to one for each company estimate. The factor, (100 - 1), is the outcome of winning $100 after paying $1 for a ticket. The factor, (-1.00) is the outcome of paying for a ticket and losing.
expected value
A little boost here for diversification, John Templeton "is noted for, during the Depression of the 1930s, buying 100 shares of each NYSE listed company which was then selling for less than $1 a share ($17 today) (104 companies, in 1939), later making many times the money back when USA industry picked up as a result of World War II.[11]" It's said he bought and never looked back. Think of it this way, a "ten bagger" and nine bankrupt companies is a break-even proposition. Add due diligence and your odds on for a profit.
John Templeton
Anyway, I'm aware of the math firewall most have built around themselves, so the strong message is to diversify your investments! We don't know with certainty what the future holds so these investment problems are best described with probability and statistics. In a larger context, we all have incomplete knowledge and emotions and flawed reasoning so it's an approach to take when making decisions.
Yes, I'm more heavily invested in Arcam but I'm also quite diversified with about 25 different stocks. The only reason I have more in Arcam is that it's something I can grasp somewhat. I don't invest in financial stocks or aggressive growth companies like Tesla or technology companies when I don't understand the technology because the subjective probabilities I assign to winning, losing or breaking even are more likely way off the mark.