Bernie McConnell, executive vice president for Global Commercial Business Operations, Greenleaf Corp., on how the aero engine ramp-up is changing the supply chain.
As the aero industry supplies legacy jet engines while simultaneously producing a new generation of more advanced, fuel-efficient engines, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are migrating some parts production to tier suppliers. The question becomes, can suppliers increase productivity without investing in new capacity?
1) What changes are you seeing in aero engine production?
BM: OEMs are moving legacy parts production to Tier 1 suppliers, who are moving production to Tier 2s and Tier 3s. There must be flawless execution throughout this transition, because errors add cost, and everyone’s under pressure to contain costs while achieving higher productivity and meeting demand. Knowing specifically what will work in metal cutting materials and applications has shifted from manufacturers to suppliers. It’s up to the tier supplier to know and learn because the materials have changed, often requiring changes in machining speeds and feeds. If you bid based on the materials you’ve worked in the past, you’ll likely lose out.
2) What’s changing the materials that tier suppliers must machine?
BM: Everyone wants metals to be lighter and stronger for greater speed and increased efficiency while retaining those properties at higher temperatures. These properties do make the material more difficult to machine, putting higher loads on inserts, and requiring different cutting strategies, cutting tool materials, and geometries.
3) What do the Tier 2s and 3s need to learn? BM: Look to your suppliers to share their best practices. Your tool supplier can be a better partner if they have worked with material producers and can leverage their experience from machining those materials. The Tier 1s and 2s were formerly near the OEMs, but no longer – they can be anywhere in the world, so it’s important to get the right knowledge to the right people when they need it. This increases ramp up and reduces production time.
4) How can parts producers increase their cutting productivity?
BM: Speed has always been the answer, but we question if that is always the right strategy. As with most production, and especially true with aerospace components, a stable and predictable process is a must. Many times feed rate can produce higher increases in productivity than cutting speed alone as it helps manage forces and tool life.
Our answer is our XSYTIN®-1 ceramic insert grade, which is twice as tough as anything we have ever made and can run in a wide variety of workpiece materials. XSYTIN-1 also has a much wider cutting range than traditional ceramics – for example, in Inconel 718, from a low of about 400sfm to more than 1,000sfm. For similar parts in two different materials, one ceramic grade can work for both.
Most machinists are comfortable using carbide tools, and most CAD software is developed for carbide, but it may not generate the right speeds and feeds and tool path options for optimum chip load for ceramics. Greenleaf can help bridge that knowledge gap.
5) What steps can improve dialogue between customers and tooling suppliers?
BM: Customers should look at their suppliers as “true” business partners. We succeed when our customers succeed. Just talking with customers about speeds, feeds, and grades is not enough. We talk with our customers about the material – cast, forged – machine capability, how to process parts efficiently, part fixturing, logistics and then get to what tools are needed. We work from the spindle out, not the other way around. There isn’t an application we haven’t done. During the past 70+ years, we have developed quite an extensive knowledge base. Give Greenleaf a call and have us come in and demonstrate on your machine, so we can show you the performance we’re capable of delivering.
Blue Arc Rapid Removal Process premiers
Departments - 3D/Additive Manufacturing
Materialise, PTC partner; Morris Group to distribute Desktop Metal 3D printers and demo dates announced; BigRep, BASF to develop industrial 3D printing materials; Short-run metal additive manufacturing platform in development by Stratasys; Polymer additive manufacturing standards.
Mitsui Seiki and TechSolve will unveil Blue Arc machining technology in May. Blue Arc technology, developed in partnership with GE and Mitsui Seiki, produces parts out of superalloys faster and more efficiently.
An electro-erosion metal removal method, Blue Arc represents the fastest way to rough cut extremely tough superalloys such as Inconel and titanium. Using high amperage, low voltage electrical energy between the electrode tool and the workpiece, portions of the workpiece are melted, and the molten material is quickly flushed away with a high-pressure system. The process uses low force, permitting higher feeds and speeds. On average, the technology is 4x to 5x faster than conventional milling processes.
The Blue Arc machine to be unveiled is a hybrid; it can perform Blue Arc and conventional machining in one platform.
Materialise and PTC have partnered to increase 3D printing capabilities of PTC’s Creo computer-aided design (CAD) software, allowing manufacturers to integrate 3D printing capabilities into manufacturing process.
Using Materialise’s Build Processor, the solution will connect PTC’s software to 3D printers equipped with Materialise Build Processors. It will also support metal 3D printing and include Materialise’s support generation technology, which gives designers more control over the design and creation of metal support structures.
www.materialise.com; www.ptc.comPictured (L to R) are Ric Fulop, CEO and co-founder of Desktop Metal and Brad Morris, president and CEO of Morris Group Inc.
Morris Group to distribute Desktop Metal 3D printers; demo dates announced
Desktop Metal has named Morris Group as a top tier, Diamond Partner supplier of its metal 3D printing systems in 30 states extending from Maine to Florida to the Dakotas.
The Studio System office-friendly metal 3D printing system for rapid prototyping is 10x less expensive than existing technology and includes a printer, debinder, and sintering furnace. It uses bound metal deposition (BMD), a proprietary process, to produce near net shape parts, similar to widely-used 3D printing process for plastics – fused deposition modeling (FDM). Features include safe-to-handle, swappable media cartridges and quick release print heads. It is designed to print steels, copper, and superalloys.
Demo systems will be exhibited throughout the Morris Group distribution network, as well as at two October 2018 trade shows – the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Show (AMTS) in Dayton, Ohio in Technical Equipment’s booth and South-Tec in Greenville, South Carolina, in Morris South’s booth.
BigRep, BASF to develop industrial 3D printing materials
BigRep and BASF have partnered to jointly develop materials and printers for industrial customer requirements. Additionally, BASF is investing to further strengthen its 3D printing capabilities.
BASF brings to the partnership extensive knowledge of materials, industrial applications, and a broad portfolio of materials that can be used to develop 3D printing materials.
Berlin-based 3D Printer manufacturer BigRep provides hardware, software, materials, and services for large-scale 3D printing.
Short-run metal additive manufacturing platform in development by Stratasys
Stratasys Ltd. is developing a metal additive manufacturing platform designed for short-run manufacturing.
The platform is being developed for pilot-series parts; small batch manufacturing during product ramp up and end-of-life; and customized, lightweight, and complex parts.
The Stratasys system will manufacture metal parts made with commonly used powder metallurgy, starting with aluminum, at an economically competitive cost-per-part and throughput.
The company will unveil further details about this new technology at the RAPID + TCT 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing Conference, Booth#1104, taking place from April 23-26 2018, in Fort Worth, Texas.
Wichita State University’s National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR) is working with SAE International’s Polymer Additive Manufacturing (AMS AM-P) Subcommittee to develop technical requirements and quality assurance provisions for the fused deposition modeling process and material feedstock characterization needed to produce high quality parts for aerospace applications using Stratasys Ultem 9085 and Ultem 1010.
Paul Jonas, NIAR director of technology development and special programs, serves as the subcommittee chairman.
In addition, the subcommittee’s documents will support the broader aerospace industry’s interest in qualifying polymer additive manufactured parts. www.niar.wichita.edu; www.sae.org; www.stratasys.com
Stacking on the graphene
Departments - 1 Last Look
Tohoku University researchers have fabricated two types of trilayer graphene with different electrical properties.
Researchers in Japan have found a way to form two materials, each made of three layers of graphene. By stacking graphene differently, researchers were able to develop electrical properties. Their work could lead to novel electronic devices, such as photo sensors that convert light into electrical energy.
In 2004, two scientists realized they had isolated a single layer of carbon atoms on a piece of tape used to clean a graphite crystal. Since then, graphene has captured researchers’ imaginations due to its properties: it is 200x stronger than steel, is flexible, and is an excellent conductor of electricity.
Graphene’s carbon atoms are arranged into hexagons, forming a honeycomb-like lattice. Placing one layer of graphene on top of another leads to the formation of bilayer graphene. The layers can be arranged in one of two positions: the centers of the carbon hexagons of each layer can be organized immediately above one another, called AA-stacking, or they can be displaced forward so that a hexagon center in one layer is above a carbon atom below it, called AB-stacking. By applying an external electric field, AB-stacking two layers of graphene forms a material with semiconducting properties.
Deliberately stacking three layers of graphene has proven difficult but might help researchers study how the physical properties of tri-layered materials change based on how the layers are stacked.
Researchers at Japan’s Tohoku University and Nagoya University heated silicon carbide using two methods. In one experiment, silicon carbide was heated to 1,510°C under pressurized argon. In another, it was heated to 1,300°C in a high vacuum. Both materials were then sprayed with hydrogen gas, breaking the bonds to form single hydrogen atoms. Two types of trilayer graphene formed (see Figure 1). The silicon carbide heated under pressurized argon formed into ABA-stacked graphene, in which the hexagons of the top and bottom layers were aligned exactly while the middle layer was slightly displaced. The silicon carbide heated in a vacuum developed into ABC-stacked graphene, in which each layer was slightly displaced in front of the one below it.
IT IS 200x STRONGER THAN STEEL, IS FLEXIBLE, AND IS AN EXCELLENT CONDUCTOR OF ELECTRICITY.”
The researchers then examined the physical properties of each material and found that their electrons behaved differently.
The ABA graphene was an excellent electrical conductor, similar to monolayer grapheme. However, ABC graphene acted more like AB graphene and had semi-conductor properties.
“The present success in selective fabrication of ABA and ABC trilayer graphene would widen the feasibility of graphene-based nano-electronic devices with variable layer numbers and stacking sequences,” concludes the researchers in their study published in the journal NPG Asia Materials (goo.gl/aazMZG).
CFM International – a joint-venture of GE Aviation and Safran – is ramping up production of the LEAP aero engine for use on fleets of single-aisle Airbus A320neo, Boeing 737 MAX, and Comac C919 jetliners. LEAP engines offer greater fuel efficiency and a lower cost to maintain, and CFM has logged nearly 3,000 engine orders. It plans to double LEAP production in 2018 to approximately 1,100 to 1,200 engines as part of a ramp-up that will lead to more than 2,000 LEAP engines per year by 2020.
To meet this demand, French company Safran Aircraft Engines uses a multiple-sourcing strategy and contracts production of low-pressure turbine (LPT) blades to its supply chain. One of the sources is in France, the other in Japan.
“It is unusual for small-to-medium enterprises in Japan to win mass-production contracts directly from global original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) within the aircraft-engine industry,” says Jun Morinishi, president and CEO of AeroEdge Co. Ltd., Safran’s LPT supplier in Japan.
Created in September 2015 as a subsidiary of automotive, hydraulic equipment, and construction machinery company Kikuchi Gear, AeroEdge’s goal, as the name implies, was to expand the parent company’s growing aerospace business. Already established with Japanese aerospace suppliers such as IHI, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki, and Shimadzu, the plan is for AeroEdge to build on its domestic contracts by pursuing business with global turbine engine manufacturers such as CFM, via its Safran partner.
AeroEdge’s core competency in processing difficult materials – titanium-aluminum and Inconel alloys – made it a suitable fit for manufacturing LPTs. Each variant of LEAP engine has a different profile for its LPT blades, complicating production.
To secure the business of making LPT blades for Airbus and Boeing LEAP engines, AeroEdge prepared a new factory site at Ashikaga, Japan, north of Tokyo. Built in less than a year, the 51,560ft2 facility was ready for production with machines installed by December 2016.
To mill the LPT blades, AeroEdge needed a machine with a spindle capable of high-acceleration/deceleration and able to efficiently handle small workpieces. The company chose Mitsui Seiki’s Vertex 55XII 5-axis vertical machining centers, fitted with a strengthened spindle motor and modified axis parameters.
Small but mighty
Despite its small size – 72 employees – AeroEdge is able to deal directly with Tier 1 suppliers. Kazuhiro Mizuta, AeroEdge’s chief technology officer, calls it “a great opportunity” when engineers from Safran visit AeroEdge “to discuss problems that we’ll solve together.”
Mizuta, who spent two years in the United States, first at Cornell University to study at the carbon fiber science lab and then at Duke University for management studies, guides AeroEdge’s strategic innovation.
“All processes AeroEdge undertakes on LEAP engines are difficult, including grinding and polishing,” Mizuta explains. Making LPTs begins with examining how the alloy’s contents can affect quality.
“It’s important to keep watching materials and their data sheets, because the details are important,” Mizuta says.
Materials are not the only part of the process. Machining is considered just as carefully. The combination of machine design and materials – “all must be optimized,” Mizuta says. “We have to find a robust set of parameters to avoid unacceptable defects.”
Working well with a partner is essential to the company’s philosophy. AeroEdge is still investing to meet LEAP engine demand, and it carefully evaluates the advantages of a range of production tools to optimize its processes – from cutting to inspection.
Morinishi says the accuracy that Mitsui Seiki machining centers offered was a principal reason for choosing them as the primary machine tools for LPT production.
“Mitsui Seiki listened to our customer voice in a strategic collaboration to develop machines together that were best for us,” Morinishi says. “Its small size was important to us. We now have 25 on the floor.”
Compact, the Vertex is a cube-on-cube design with a heavy base. The factory has capacity to add more machines, but floor space will always be at a premium, so a small footprint without sacrificing capability remains an advantage.
Managing coolant and chips was important to maximize the LPT production rate, so AeroEdge specialists worked closely with Mistsui Seiki engineers to incorporate automation, including sensors and robot arms in the machines.
Future investments
Although not suitable for manufacturing LPTs, AeroEdge engineers are looking into additive manufacturing for other applications, such as using laser, electron beam, wire, and powder metal additive machines for their potential in repairing engine parts.
“Customized machines always challenge machine makers to work with us,” Mizuta says. “If no machine is available, we can help design it.”
Mizuta also is eyeing other technologies to bring into AeroEdge. “Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT), visualization, are still in development,” he adds. His goal is a smart factory to maximize efficiency. “We will work with vendors to support IIoT, it’s a small investment to optimize by using it.”
Another project he’s working on is software to automate part inspection using artificial intelligence (AI).
AeroEdge is seeking to broaden its LPT blade manufacturing expertise in automotive, medical, and energy industries as well as aerospace, domestically and internationally. It has moved rapidly to capture a key business, but its managers know they can’t rest on their accomplishments thus far.
“To survive in the aviation industry, we must incorporate the latest technology and continue to win the price advantage and quality competition worldwide,” Morinishi says.
AeroEdge has put in place strong groundwork to ensure it can compete.
About the author: Eric Brothers is Senior Editor of Aerospace Manufacturing and Design. He can be reached at 216.393.0228 or ebrothers@gie.net.
Accelerating industry 4.0 transformation
Features - Digitalization
Theoretical benefits of Industry 4.0 are well-known, but how can its adoption be accelerated and what practical tools are available to those who want a factory of the future?
This article is based on Desoutter 4.0, Accelerate Your Transformation, an eBook available free to download at https://goo.gl/gTC8aG.
Digitalization is becoming more common as component and system manufacturers develop ways to make their products more intelligent. Potential benefits – increased efficiency and responsiveness in a production environment – are clear, but there is still uncertainty about how and when the full benefits of the fourth industrial revolution, Industry 4.0, will materialize.
Several factors need to coalesce for Industry 4.0 to become a reality. Political and economic incentives, correct investment in skills and training, and the availability of advanced tools for easy implementation will all affect the pace of adoption.
Global contrasts
Around the world, the economic, political, and technological drivers for Industry 4.0 adoption vary. In Germany and the United Kingdom, Industry 4.0 is viewed as the route that will lead to the emergence of smart industry; where people, devices, objects, and systems combine to form dynamic, self-organizing networks of production, made possible by technological advances that constitute a reversal of conventional production process logic.
For the United States, the emphasis is more on the role of Big Data in collaboration, and Industry 4.0 has become synonymous with the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). The U.S. government sees supporting IIoT to protect jobs, increase the innovation strength of the U.S. economy, and decrease the international trade deficit. During the next five years, the US is expected to invest more capital into the digitalization of manufacturing than any other nation or region.
In China, where labor and materials costs are rapidly increasing, digitalization is being championed to transform outdated production methods. Many Chinese manufacturers are still operating in the age of Industry 2.0. However, the political impetus for change is evident in China Manufacturing 2025, a government plan to transform the country into an advanced production nation by the middle of this century. This initiative will see heavy investment in Internet architecture, Big Data, and cloud computing, leading to more intelligent factories. The necessary pace of change is incomparable with other developed nations: China is looking to take a careful, methodical approach to the digitalization of manufacturing, seeking partnerships with more experienced nations along the way.
Aerospace production is characterized by relatively small volumes, large components, and accessibility problems during assembly.
photo credit Airbus - master films
Industry variations
Adoption of Industry 4.0 principles also varies between industries. The automotive sector is well-advanced in the adoption of automation, data interchange, and advanced production technologies – requirements of high-volume, high-quality, cost-sensitive manufacturing. This sector views process control as the means to advance the quality of production processes while reducing operating expenses. In component production plants, Industry 4.0 implementation offers considerable potential, especially in predictive maintenance. Continuous recording and analysis of process data allows plant and system failures to be predicted, inefficient developments corrected, and productivity improved.
By contrast, the aerospace industry has been slower to adapt automated processes over manual ones. The reasons are clear: production is characterized by relatively small volumes, large components, and accessibility problems during assembly, all factors that bar change. Nevertheless, the need to limit quality costs and cycle times, exclude human factors as a source of error as far as possible, and become more efficient are key drivers. Major aerospace original equipment manufacturer (OEMs) are beginning to embrace intelligent software and digital networking, with advanced assembly tools making a significant contribution. The potential for small changes to make a big difference are particularly evident in this sector: a 1% improvement in fuel efficiency represents a $2 billion savings for airlines.
The need to bring innovative products to market faster is being felt in many industries. Industry 4.0 offers the means to completely digitalize the product development life cycle, in turn allowing manufacturers to provide customers accurate traceability, quality control, and cost effective new products.
Individual responsibilities
In addition to global and industry sector differences, successful adoption of Industry 4.0 relies on the human factor – our willingness to understand, embrace, and deliver change. According to Harvard Business Review’s “From Data to Action” report, the most difficult aspect for organizations to change on the route to smarter factories is internal culture.
Successful implementation of Industry 4.0 requires strong leadership; the person at the top must set the example and be seen fully embracing change, committing to it, and communicating it in a compelling way. The philosophy of making fact-based decisions using quantitative manufacturing data will need to be coached into all levels of management. People at every level of the organization need to understand how they benefit from Industry 4.0. For example, collaborative robots (cobots) for unergonomic, complex, or repetitive tasks do not signal the rise of the machines and unemployment. They mean manual and automated processes can interact in the most effective way and protect workers from health issues associated with repetitive tasks, such as hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) and repetitive stress injury (RSI). In addition, real-time production monitoring renders many manual interventions unnecessary, freeing personnel to undertake added value, more profitable work.
Tooling up
A smart factory requires products embedded with systems, sensors, and actuators linked together via the Internet – including assembly tools. Intelligent tools must support operators as they adapt to Industry 4.0 techniques. In the past, assembly workers were valued because they could perform the same task competently on the same line day after day. In a smart factory, workers may be required to rivet body panels one shift and wire up a lighting system the next. Traditional training in all these skills takes time – and the pace of technological change can quickly render such learning obsolete.
How can we ensure that modern assembly workers feel valued and competent and can access information to complete diverse tasks efficiently and without error? One answer is PivotWare, a process control platform that guides operators through a specific set of assembly tasks as part of an automated process. A graphical and textual display shows exactly what tools to use, what components to apply, and where to fix them. The system verifies each step is completed correctly before the operator can move to the next stage. The platform is programmable by the customer, so responsiveness to changes in production requirements is unhampered.
Specialists such as Desoutter are already developing the next generation of tools that can deliver Industry 4.0 capabilities and support the smart factory model. Tomorrow’s operating platform will deliver a major step-change in multi-tool management, offering far greater connectivity and flexibility than is currently possible.
Conclusion
Industry 4.0 may have some way to go, but it is gathering pace. Governments acknowledge its potential to deliver wealth and job security and are taking steps to help make the transition. Forward-thinking companies also recognize that they have to invest in the latest technologies if they want to improve production efficiency. There is also a growing awareness of how we need to make sure that people are equipped with the right tools to be more flexible and adaptable. If we want these things to happen quickly, we must all play our part in accelerating the transformation.
Elizabeth Engler Modic (Edited by)
