Arcam AB fka AMAVF

[Tom Joad]

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.