ASTRO America
President Biden with AM Forward founding partner CEOs at launch event in Cincinnati, OH.
In April 2022, the Biden Administration announced AM Forward, a program designed to support smaller US-based suppliers in adopting additive manufacturing (AM). Led by ASTRO America, a non-profit that supports multiple initiatives addressing AM challenges, it shone a fresh light on AM, with President Biden suggesting ‘not enough American companies are using 3D printing,’ and advocating for its supply chain potential.
Seven companies – GE Aerospace, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Siemens Energy, Boeing and Northrup Grumman – initially signed up, each stating varying ambitions and commitments. But how much has AM Forward moved, well, forward?
We spoke to Brian Baughman (BB), Chief Engineer of Additive Manufacturing at Honeywell Aerospace, and Melissa Orme (MO), Vice President of Boeing Additive Manufacturing, to find out.
TCT: Why did Boeing/Honeywell want to get involved in AM Forward?
BB: From supply chain to product innovation, AM offers significant promise and opportunities for Honeywell’s businesses. However, its acceptance and use, especially in the aerospace industry, has been slow. The AM Forward initiative is focused on finding ways to overcome the challenges and barriers that hold back AM from mass adoption. Honeywell has been working to overcome these same challenges, so it made sense to be involved and put our support behind it.
MO: Boeing was pleased to become involved in the Biden Administration’s initiative that seeks to develop and scale the domestic additive manufacturing ecosystem. This is very important to our additive manufacturing goals and America’s manufacturing competitiveness in the global context.
TCT: AM Forward intends to support the reshoring of manufacturing in the US and uptake in AM. In your view, what has slowed that adoption?
BB: I’ll quote Jesse Boyer of Pratt and Whitney when he says, “It’s the 3 Cs: cost, confidence, and consistency.” And this is spot on. We need AM to be less expensive, so it can compete better with traditional manufacturing. We need everyone from the users of products that AM makes to the certifying agencies that approve them to be confident in AM’s ability to deliver parts that meet requirements and safety standards. And we need consistency from the suppliers that make AM parts to the machines that are used to do the printing. If we can address all three of these, then that opens up AM to move into the mainstream.
MO: There are several reasons why the adoption of AM is slow in civil aviation, but the primary reason is lack of data. This is why the AM Forward program is important and why we are partnering to create accessible databases so engineers can design for AM.
Get your FREE print subscription to TCT Magazine.
Exhibit at the UK's definitive and most influential 3D printing and additive manufacturing event, TCT 3Sixty.
Traditional manufacturing has decades and decades of data that enable engineering design and analysis, and provide reduced risk in manufacturing new components. AM, like any new technology, needs to create those databases that lead to an understanding of the physics of the process, so that engineers have the tools and comfort to design for AM.
However, a prerequisite for data generation is the requirement that the process is stable; data cannot be generated if the process is unstable. Machine OEMs are endeavoring to create machines that provide repeatable and reliable material properties that satisfy the high requirements of the aerospace industry.
Finally, scale is a limiting factor for AM, and that points to the AM Forward initiative once again. In order to adopt AM for full-scale production, there must be a committed ecosystem for AM to provide the AM parts. AM service bureaus require high capital commitments and a highly-skilled and trained workforce. Small businesses often have difficulties securing investment, and to subsequently invest in costly qualification activities that are necessary to become qualified suppliers to large companies like Boeing.
That said, Boeing is experiencing rapid growth in metal AM in the space sector where scale is smaller, products such as satellites are largely customized, and they are unmanned, so the regulatory environment, while still rigorous, is less so than for civil aviation.
TCT: Is Honeywell/Boeing already using AM as a tool for supply chain resilience?
BB: Yes, but it’s not as widespread as we would like. There’s a lot of opportunity in front of us.
MO: Boeing has embarked on an internal initiative aimed to make our supply chain more resilient with the use of AM. This is not simple for certain classes of parts where a major change in the manufacturing process requires significant regulatory oversight and participation. Nonetheless we see the value of creating a path for alternate manufacturing processes such as AM.
TCT: One of the challenges often raised by SMEs is the difficulty having a voice in supply chain conversations. How does AM Forward address that?
BB: I can think of a few ways. One example is the workshop that was just held at Wichita State. There were multiple SMEs in attendance along with the major OEM’s like Honeywell, Raytheon, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, GE, and Boeing. This gave everyone a forum to discuss their concerns and perspectives, and, most importantly, get insight into the expectations of the large OEMs for the AM supply chain. For me, it was extremely valuable to have that opportunity to listen to SMEs and understand their challenges when it comes to AM. Another path is through the programs that ASTRO America are running and supporting. The common approach to supplier qualification and sourcing strategy project will draw a lot of input from SMEs and their capabilities to support the requirements of the OEMs. The Regional Engines will engage the AM supply base to help mature and support them. I think there’s going to be many opportunities for SMEs to get their voices heard with the AM Forward initiatives.
TCT: Honeywell is said to be targeting US-based SME suppliers to compete on RFQ packages for products, machinery, tooling, and/or manufacturing process development utilizing AM. Can you give us a sense of how that works? And given much of AM’s value comes from design freedom, speed to market, reduced tooling, for example, how do you measure value when making those decisions?
BB: When Honeywell has AM parts that need to be sourced, we work through our qualified AM supply base which includes multiple US-based SMEs. We also partner with USbased SME’s on government programs like those funded through America Makes. As for the second part of your question, there’s no one answer for that. In most cases, the business looks at each AM part individually and its role to that specific program. For some programs, the lead time may be more important than the cost. For others, it may be some performance requirement that only the AM design can achieve, and that triumphs most of the cost concerns. It’s not always a direct cost comparison that influences whether to go AM or not. Still, cost is one of the most important factors so anything we can do to make AM more cost competitive is beneficial.
Read more: The 3D printing industry responds to Biden Administration's AM Forward initiative
TCT: When Boeing’s participation was initially announced, it was said that the company would target an increase of qualified small and medium-sized supplier capacity by 30%. Can you share to what extent the company offers technical guidance to its prospective suppliers?
MO: Regarding technical guidance, Boeing works very closely with prospective suppliers. We want to make sure that they are heading on the right path before investing too much time and resources. We have found that the SMEs are generally receptive to this guidance. We do not blindly provide a specification and wait for the data package in return.
We provide guidance to improve their processes to ensure they are repeatable and stable, and make sure that they have a quality management system in place. We ask for preliminary data, and if it is nonconforming, we make sure they don’t invest further in data generation. We then provide guidance to help establish a process that will provide conforming data. Our aim is to help suppliers create a strong, repeatable and stable process with conforming data at the lowest cost.
TCT: Can you share goals that have been set for AM Forward?
BB: For Honeywell, we are focused on supporting ASTRO America with their common AM qualification program. Having a common framework to qualify AM parts and AM suppliers is going to clear up a lot of confusion in the industry, and also help ease the path for more AM parts in production. As for AM Forward as a whole, I think the goals remain unchanged. As I pointed out, there’s a lot of work going on to address many of the challenges holding back additive. I get that people wants results fast, but it takes time to make meaningful change. Additive is always going to be moving forward – it’s just us that need to catch up to it.
