Representative End User Clients
Representative Automation Clients
Representative Software Clients
GE's recent acquisition of Concept Laser for $599 million and the pending acquisition of Arcam for an estimated $700 million will position it as a leader in direct metal laser melting (DMLM) and electron beam melting (EBM) technologies. Both manufacturing methods are powder bed fusion processes. I find this interesting considering the trending publicity of directed energy deposition (DED), an alternative technology which is used by hybrid machines.
So why is GE is doubling down on powder bed fusion? Primarily, GE has experienced success implementing it. The LEAP engine, co-designed by GE Aviation and Safran Aircraft Engines, is slated for production ramp-up before the end of this year and is the first FAA approved jet engine that contains 3D printed parts. It is equipped with nineteen cobalt-chrome nozzles (left) which provide a fuel air mixture to the engines combustion chamber. The product is lighter in weight by 25%, is a single piece compared to the previous 18 component sub-assembly, and its unique geometry, which includes cooling pathways and support ligaments, achieves a fivefold increase in durability.
The benefits, while impressive, come with one major drawback: time. Both the time to manufacture each nozzle and the years of research needed to develop the manufacturing process result in a very expensive component. However, this caveat has failed to deter GE who on October 31st announced the successful testing of a 35%-additive manufactured engine to validate its clean-sheet-design advanced turboprop. The design replaces more than 855 traditionally manufactured components with 12 additive manufactured parts, and GE expects to include more in its next iteration.
While many companies are examining their cost-benefit-analysis of implementing additive manufacturing, GE is pioneering its industrialization. GE Aviation’s new manufacturing plant in Auburn, Alabama (below), is responsible for the mass production of the LEAP fuel nozzles, and is currently running 28 DMLM machines around the clock to do so. To expand capacity, GE earlier this year opened its “multi-modal” facility in Chakan, India, a $200 million plant designed to manufacture a wide range of products, including current and future 3D printed parts. Also this year, GE celebrated the
opening of its $40 million Center for Additive Manufacturing in Pittsburgh and just announced a $10 million investment in two additive manufacturing education programs.
With that said I believe the main goal of GE’s recent acquisitions is to expand its own core competency rather than gaining a new revenue stream. By directing the expertise and utilizing the domain knowledge of Arcam and Concept Laser, GE can accelerate the advancement of technology for its own ends, allowing it to offer products unmatched by competitors. This should be a signal, not just to aerospace companies, but to every large company that makes metal parts, to reevaluate their position on additive manufacturing. Furthermore, it is important they consider the thresholds that the technology must surpass before it becomes viable within their current or potential business models. Because, while the hype around 3D printing may have died down, it is perhaps the most potentially disruptive technology in manufacturing. Companies neither prepared nor anticipating its emergence on an industrial scale could find themselves at a significant disadvantage, and it may just be a matter of time.
So why is GE is doubling down on powder bed fusion? Primarily, GE has experienced success implementing it. The LEAP engine, co-designed by GE Aviation and Safran Aircraft Engines, is slated for production ramp-up before the end of this year and is the first FAA approved jet engine that contains 3D printed parts. It is equipped with nineteen cobalt-chrome nozzles (left) which provide a fuel air mixture to the engines combustion chamber. The product is lighter in weight by 25%, is a single piece compared to the previous 18 component sub-assembly, and its unique geometry, which includes cooling pathways and support ligaments, achieves a fivefold increase in durability. The benefits, while impressive, come with one major drawback: time. Both the time to manufacture each nozzle and the years of research needed to develop the manufacturing process result in a very expensive component. However, this caveat has failed to deter GE who on October 31st announced the successful testing of a 35%-additive manufactured engine to validate its clean-sheet-design advanced turboprop. The design replaces more than 855 traditionally manufactured components with 12 additive manufactured parts, and GE expects to include more in its next iteration.
While many companies are examining their cost-benefit-analysis of implementing additive manufacturing, GE is pioneering its industrialization. GE Aviation’s new manufacturing plant in Auburn, Alabama (below), is responsible for the mass production of the LEAP fuel nozzles, and is currently running 28 DMLM machines around the clock to do so. To expand capacity, GE earlier this year opened its “multi-modal” facility in Chakan, India, a $200 million plant designed to manufacture a wide range of products, including current and future 3D printed parts. Also this year, GE celebrated the
opening of its $40 million Center for Additive Manufacturing in Pittsburgh and just announced a $10 million investment in two additive manufacturing education programs. With that said I believe the main goal of GE’s recent acquisitions is to expand its own core competency rather than gaining a new revenue stream. By directing the expertise and utilizing the domain knowledge of Arcam and Concept Laser, GE can accelerate the advancement of technology for its own ends, allowing it to offer products unmatched by competitors. This should be a signal, not just to aerospace companies, but to every large company that makes metal parts, to reevaluate their position on additive manufacturing. Furthermore, it is important they consider the thresholds that the technology must surpass before it becomes viable within their current or potential business models. Because, while the hype around 3D printing may have died down, it is perhaps the most potentially disruptive technology in manufacturing. Companies neither prepared nor anticipating its emergence on an industrial scale could find themselves at a significant disadvantage, and it may just be a matter of time.