Siemens Energy leverages advanced manufacturing techniques, particularly Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) and Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM), to produce components for its Gas Turbine, Steam Turbines, and Compression fleet.
The company has been using additive manufacturing since 2006 and has developed LPBF & WAAM process parameter sets for various materials, including Inconel alloys, steels, and reactive alloys.
In that time, tens of thousands of part have been manufactured and tons of superalloy used. At RAPID + TCT, Siemens Energy AM Sales Manager for the Americas Tad Steinberg will present the company's learnings. But first, he spoke to TCT.
TCT: 30,000 parts and 37 tons of superalloy production are significant numbers. At what point did the internal conversation around AM shift from “this is promising” to “this is how we manufacture”? What triggered that shift?
Tad Steinberg [TS]: It wasn’t a single “line in the sand” moment - it was a gradual shift over roughly a decade, driven by steady capability build‑up and repeated proof in real hardware.
AM at Siemens Energy has been in development for close to two decades, and I’ve been with the additive group for about eight years. Over that time, what I’ve seen is a deliberate, cautious adoption - particularly of Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) - that moved from exploration to manufacturing only after we could consistently demonstrate repeatable outcomes.
The shift happened as several things came together at once:
- Consistent process control and material performance. As we matured parameters, specs, qualification methods, and “ways of working,” AM parts began showing reliable, repeatable properties coming off the machine - not just one-off successes.
- Validation in the right application space. We focused early on hot gas path gas turbine hardware, where AM’s value proposition is clear. Success there - supported by extensive testing (rigs and engine experience) - built credibility across engineering and leadership.
- Ecosystem decisions and partnerships. We clarified what role we wanted to play (we chose to be an adopter/user rather than a machine or powder manufacturer) and built strong relationships with machine OEMs and powder suppliers to stabilise quality and supply.
- Design capability catching up to the process. As design rules, tools, and internal know-how matured, we moved beyond “can we print it?” to “can we design for AM and reliably manufacture it for purpose?”
- Operational wins under pressure. Early AM wins often came during urgent needs - solving supply chain or schedule issues. Those early parts sometimes carried limitations (life/performance constraints), but they proved the technology could deliver real value. Over time, those limitations reduced as qualification and capability matured.
- Organisational confidence built on data. There was scepticism - “fake metal” perceptions, and understandable conservatism from chief engineers and leadership. What changed minds was time, consistent messaging, and data from repeatable results. Leadership transitions also helped as new decision-makers came in with more familiarity and confidence in the technology.
So the “trigger” wasn’t one event - it was the snowball effect of validated hardware, maturing specifications and processes, credible partners, and repeatable success in critical turbine applications. In the last eight years alone, we’ve grown production/output by at least 3x, and today the AM conversation is easier not just in gas turbines, but increasingly across other Siemens Energy groups - because we have proven results to point to.
"Each step is gated, data-driven, and reviewed by engineering and program management against defined performance requirements."
TCT: Component failure in your field carries enormous consequences. How have you built confidence with AM technology for the development and production of turbine components, for example?
TS: Confidence comes from data - end to end - and a phased qualification approach that mirrors how we introduce any critical gas turbine hardware, regardless of manufacturing method.
Start with full component and system understanding
Before a part is ever “a candidate,” we ensure we understand the complete operating context and requirements: material system, geometry, surface condition, operating environment, duty cycle, inspection access, repair strategy, and lifecycle considerations.
Prove the build: coupons, cutups, and repeatability
Early in development (and still as appropriate today), we rely heavily on test bars/coupons and cutups to build statistical confidence and to confirm that the process is producing consistent outcomes - especially after build and heat treat.
Verify with rigorous inspection and testing
Once a printed component “passes muster” from a build perspective, both the part and its accompanying coupons go through a combination of destructive and non-destructive evaluation, typically including:
- Mechanical/material property verification (using coupons tied to the build)
- CT / X-ray and other NDE methods as required
- Dimensional inspection and structured-light scanning
- Surface roughness and distortion/warpage assessment
At each stage, engineering determines whether the part is ready to proceed.
Use a phase-gate qualification path - from component to engine
We typically follow a phase-gate approach for each step, which is consistent with how we qualify new hardware via other manufacturing routes (casting, machining, joining, etc.). After initial AM and post-processing, the component progresses through increasingly representative subsystem and system-level test environments.
For example, a combustor burner might move through:
- Burner test cell testing (e.g., cold/hot flow, contaminant ingestion)
- Higher-level combustion rig testing
- Instrumented engine testing, including cycles and endurance testing
Each step is gated, data-driven, and reviewed by engineering and program management against defined performance requirements.
Introduce into the fleet with customer alignment and monitoring
When the part is deemed acceptable for fleet use, we work with customers on applicability, risk rationale, and deployment timing, including any commercial considerations (insurances/guarantees as applicable). After introduction, we monitor performance closely in lock step with the customer, using field feedback to confirm long-term behaviour and continuously strengthen the part/part family qualification.
TCT: Your presentation at RAPID + TCT is a retrospective. But, having achieved what Siemens Energy has with AM, what are the opportunities you see ahead of you?
TS: If year-over-year progress is any indication, one of the biggest opportunities ahead is scaling. We’re on a trajectory where we will likely outgrow our current installed AM capacity soon, which means growth not only in machines, but in the full production ecosystem needed to support them.
A few areas stand out:
- Expanding capacity—at the pace of demand and the industry. The limiting factor isn’t just adding printers; it’s how quickly the broader ecosystem can scale with us: machine OEMs, raw material suppliers, qualified operators, engineers, facilities, and post-processing throughput.
- Broader use of AM modalities. Today our primary metal AM modalities are LPBF and WAAM. As we continue to mature layer-based manufacturing, we see opportunity to evaluate and adopt additional modalities—electron beam and others—where they better match a specific application or production need.
- Technology enablement and industrialization. We have a dedicated technology group focused on industrial metal AM and emerging post-processing advances—working to align Siemens Energy needs either to existing platforms or, where necessary, to partner on solutions that close gaps in capability.
- Larger build volumes and system-level part consolidation. As we combine parts into larger sub-systems, build size requirements increase. That drives demand for large-format printing and the supporting heat treat, machining, inspection, and handling infrastructure that comes with it.
- Keeping pace with platform evolution. Today, our production workhorse is the EOS M400-4 (alongside other systems). As machines age out and new technology comes in, we’ll need to continuously refresh capability to maintain competitiveness in quality, throughput, and cost.
Overall, the opportunity is less about proving AM works - and more about scaling it responsibly, expanding the toolbox, and keeping the entire value chain synchronized as demand grows.
TCT: What is the key learning you're hoping to convey through your presentation at RAPID+TCT?
TS: If I had to sum it up in one line, it’s this: this is the “art of the possible” with additive manufacturing in a real production environment.
I want to show what it takes to move beyond promising demonstrations and into repeatable, qualified production - what works, what’s hard, and what we’ve learned along the way.
Just as importantly, I’m hoping to spark questions and dialogue. In my experience, open technical discussion generates new ideas, challenges assumptions, and often surfaces things others haven’t considered yet. A rising tide raises all boats.
TCT: And who should attend your session?
TS: This session is primarily aimed at end users of additive manufacturing - the people responsible for deciding whether AM is ready for their application and then making it work in production.
In particular, it’s relevant for:
- Companies new to AM who are asking, “Is this technology ready for me/us?”
- Teams transitioning from prototype work into qualified, repeatable production
- Engineering, manufacturing, quality, and supply chain stakeholders who support AM part introduction
- End users of hardware who could benefit from AM-enabled performance, lead time reduction, or supply-chain resilience
Service providers and consultants may still find it informative, but the content is most directly applicable to organisations deploying AM to deliver production hardware.
AM at Siemens Energy - 30,000 parts and 37 tons of superalloy - a retrospective | Tad Steinberg | Siemens Energy
