Feature first published in the January/February 2022 issue of 3D ADEPT Mag. The interview, roles and forecasts reflect that period.
“We [the AM community], have homework to do to earn the credibility as a viable manufacturing technology”, Dr. Melissa Orme, Vice President, Boeing Additive Manufacturing.
I spoke with Dr Melissa Orme, Vice President of Boeing Additive Manufacturing at the time of this 2022 interview, about integrating AM into aerospace.
Her background spans academic research, contract manufacturing at Morf3D and industrial use at Boeing, offering a perspective on collaboration between these groups.
As she explains, “AM is a process-driven technology, where the mechanical attributes of the part are reliant on how it is built, which is not the case with conventional manufacturing, it is important that the final user closely collaborates with the part producer. Many times the part producers and the final users are one in the same. We rely on academia for basic science, or what we call ‘low TRL’* research. It is important that academicians are tied into the equation so that the research they perform drives toward a solution to a problem encountered by the end user”.
“Low TRL” refers to low technology readiness levels, near early research. The Technology Readiness Level scale described by NASA has nine levels; the term does not describe the entire scale.
Dependence on manufacturing parameters is not unique to AM: conventional processes also affect final properties. Orme’s point primarily emphasises control and qualification of the additive process chain.
Such collaboration can connect research with industrial needs, but implementation remains dependent on the application, available evidence and qualification requirements.
For legacy programmes, AM can offer a route to certain spare parts when original tooling or supply chains are no longer available. Economic value must nevertheless be established for each part, including qualification and post-processing costs.
New programmes offer the possibility of designing a part or system around AM from the outset. This is not automatically more economical than adapting an existing programme.
Boeing is among the early aerospace AM users. Printed polymer parts, including ducting, are among the applications described on programmes such as the F/A-18 and 787. This does not mean that an identical part can be transferred between aircraft without adaptation or qualification.
The 2022 feature cites more than 70,000 3D-printed production parts across Boeing’s commercial and defence programmes, referring to Boeing’s fourth-quarter 2019 statistics. This historical figure is not solely a count of metal parts and is not a current total. The broader applications extend from polymer components to metal parts and tooling.
Process stability and repeatability
Looking forward, it seems that there is still a long way to go when we look at the roadmap for AM workflow integration. How long? For Orme, the “length of the roadmap depends on the application and the regulator. Different regulators have different requirements in the number and types of tests performed. However, what is common with most regulators is the following: for aerospace and defense, we need to show that our process is stable and repeatable.
Stability and repeatability is the holy grail in Additive Manufacturing. Different regulators have different ways of determining stable and repeatable processes. One of the challenges in achieving stable and repeatable processes is that the machines are still produced as one-offs, making it difficult to have two of the same machines providing the same results within the small level of variation that the aerospace industry requires. Issues like this make scale with quality difficult, but not impossible.”
Yet Aerospace companies (be it part producers or final users) continue to invest in AM. Brian Neff of Sintavia told 3D ADEPT Media that “It can be frustrating, but to get there you have to invest in the void. It can be hard to do for some organizations because it requires a lot of money, time and dedication to see value and that’s a risk many do not want to take.”
Orme, for her part, emphasises the “immense value that AM can bring”. “For example, it enables the design for parts that are built to fit into small and odd shapes in the vehicle, reducing overall volume. Aerospace companies see that AM creates the possibility to optimize the vehicle, not just the part. It provides the opportunity to create differentiating vehicles, providing a competitive advantage. It is also very important to mention that AM produces positive sustainability trades, which is a key focus for Boeing, as it is for all aerospace and defence”, she adds.
As we assess the challenges that may arise when implementing this roadmap, we come to realize that, industry stakeholders necessarily take into account three main considerations.
Economics, costs and qualification
Those considerations involve the economic standpoint, the conservative nature of Aerospace as well as the cost consideration.
The interview took place against the economic disruption of the 2020–2021 pandemic. Orme describes how Boeing redirected some AM work towards defence and space applications. Her assessment concerns that work; it is not an overall financial assessment of the group.
“This is because we were able to focus much of our Additive Manufacturing work towards our Boeing Defense and Space division where we printed literally thousands of parts for satellites, drones, and vertical lift applications”, the Vice President notes. Orme hints at the growing applications where they will further explore the potential of AM. (Indeed, the company previously shared that it will grow the capabilities of AM — “in particular for its Millennium Space Systems subsidiary focused on the smallsat market, where 3D printing is proving to be an especially good fit for deploying systems on orbit faster than ever before”).
In the meantime, the division also doubled down on maturing their internal core competency in Additive Manufacturing through the research that they perform and the databases that they create to demonstrate stable and repeatable performance. During all of this time – Orme states – speaking of what they achieved during the peak of the pandemic, “our commercial airplane Additive Manufacturing applications continued along their development path and we plan for our first production airplane parts fabricated from powder bed fusion to be delivered one year from now.”
Delivery “one year from now” was a forecast made in early 2022. This passage preserves the intention expressed in the interview and does not confirm that the subsequent deadline was met.
On another note, when it comes to accelerating the adoption of 3D printed parts in a vertical industry, cost – bringing down the cost per part – remains a touchy topic and that makes for a difficult conversation I often have with machine manufacturers regardless of the segment (3D printers, post-processing, etc.). Interestingly, the question is not only a matter of those who produce the AM technologies. As a final user, Boeing believes they also have their part to play in this conversation.
Assessing value across the programme
“We understand that our initial efforts into the additive arena will require a lot of developmental research. In the beginning, that research will be absorbed into part cost. We also understand that AM is not a « commodity. » We see true value in the innovation that AM allows. For example, some innovative solutions will likely consolidate many parts into one, which will enhance production. Some innovative solutions will be multifunctional, so that a structural element may also be heat exchanger, or may also be an electrical component.
We may use AM to streamline our products so they produce less drag, requiring less fuel and making it cheaper and cleaner to operate. This will contribute to our sustainability goals. We have also found that we’ve reduced a program schedule by many months using additive solutions. This is a tremendous cost saving. So although the individual part may cost more, the overall savings to the program outweighs that cost”, Orme points out.
The last consideration to take into account – the conservative nature of the aerospace industry – refocuses the debate on the “application vs regulator” argument highlighted above. Where I see limitations, Orme sees opportunity to earn real credibility. She does not deny this conservative nature and wouldn’t have it any other way. Most importantly, she calls on the duty of the entire AM community to make sure that [AM] “can earn the credibility as a viable manufacturing technology”.
“In order to earn that credibility, we have homework to do. Additive Manufacturing does not enjoy decades of data that conventional manufacturing does. We need to make sure that we understand any risk associated with AM and that we know how to mitigate that risk. Only then will engineers opt to design for the additive solution and then we will find it easy to integrate AM solutions onto the airplane”, our guest concludes.
This exclusive dossier has first been published in the 2022 January/February issue of 3D ADEPT Mag.
THE 3D ADEPT WEEKLY NEWSLETTER
The industry moves fast. Stay ahead.
Every week, the latest additive manufacturing news, in-depth features and real-world applications, straight to your inbox. Plus, be the first to know when a new issue of 3D ADEPT Mag is out.
Free · One email a week · Unsubscribe anytime
Clicking loads our email provider’s sign-up form, including its analytics and Google’s anti-bot protection. You’re only subscribed if you complete the sign-up. Read our privacy policy.
