Plasma Arc Additive Manufacturing for Large-Scale Components

Overview

The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) seeks to advance large-scale additive manufacturing (AM) capabilities for expeditionary and contingency applications. The ability to rapidly fabricate large metallic structures, such as replacement parts, structural components, or specialized tools, is critical for maintaining operational readiness and reducing logistical dependencies. Plasma Arc Additive Manufacturing (PAAM) has emerged as a potential alternative that may offer higher deposition rates, improved energy efficiency, and better control over the thermal profile, potentially leading to superior material properties and reduced post-processing requirements. 

Fabricating and transporting large metallic components for military operations is a significant logistical challenge, often involving long lead times and complex supply chains. While Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) has shown promise for large-scale applications, it faces limitations related to deposition rates, residual stress accumulation, and material property inconsistencies, which can compromise the integrity of final parts. A direct, data-driven comparison between PAAM and WAAM for large-scale defense applications is lacking. To close this gap, the ERDC requires a comprehensive study to assess the relative performance, scalability, and operational benefits of these two technologies.

Project Objective

This Individual Program Requirement (IPR) seeks to formally compare Plasma Arc Additive Manufacturing (PAAM) against the more established Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) to quantify the potential benefits of PAAM for producing large, mission-critical components.

As a minimum, any proposals considered must deliver a solution able to meet these required outcomes.

• Demonstrator Block: Fabricate a test block using PAAM and perform microstructural and mechanical analysis. The analysis must quantify and document:
  • Tensile strength, yield strength, and elongation
  • Microstructure (optical and SEM)
  • SEM-EDS and EBSD analysis
  • Fatigue performance
  • Charpy impact toughness (room temperature and low temperature)
  • Fracture toughness (room temperature and low temperature)
  • Distortion (prototype part only – measured by point-cloud-to-CAD comparison against the as-designed model)
  • Deposition rate
  • Overall build rate
  • Buy-to-fly ratio

• Demonstrator Component: Fabricate at least one representative small-scale coupon or component (e.g., a multi-pass wall structure) using PAAM.
• Process Documentation: Deliver a well-documented theoretical basis for the observed performance differences and a preliminary assessment of the scalability of the technique for components exceeding several meters in scale.
• Large-Scale Demonstrator: Design and fabricate a structurally relevant scaled demonstration piece to validate the scalability and performance of the manufacturing process.
• Workflow Delivery: Deliver a complete and documented workflow for the recommended manufacturing process, including path planning strategies, in-situ process monitoring techniques, and quality control/assurance procedures.
• Final report on systematic comparison of PAAM and WAAM technologies including micrographs, fractography, residual-stress maps, distortion heat maps, and process-parameter summaries.

Project Manager

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)

Requirements

ERDC invites pre-proposals that introduce solutions addressing the goals described above. All potential solutions will be considered against the program requirements and technology readiness levels.

To be considered, a pre-proposal must clearly:

• Demonstrate a strong understanding of and experience with large-scale directed energy deposition (DED) processes, including WAAM and/or PAAM.

• Outline a plan for proposed work, how solutions will be tested/evaluated, and exactly what products will be delivered (development and evaluation schedule, evaluation method, risk assessment, and final deliverables).
• The maximum size of all combined documents submitted for a solution package shall not exceed 15 MB, and all documents should be converted to PDF.
• No proposal may include embedded videos. Hyperlinks to videos may be included for illustration purposes, not to exceed five minutes (see Solicitation Guidance: Video Submission Instructions).

Applicants must be registered on SAM.gov. Submissions should NOT include confidential or proprietary details.

Estimated Government Funding Profile

Up to $190,000 is currently available for this requirement.

More than one solution may be awarded within the limits of this funding profile. The government may fund portions of several offered solutions to achieve the desired end state.

All resultant contracts will be firm-fixed price. All items, technologies, and services (including research and development) procured via this CSO are treated as commercial. The Contracting Officer must determine the price fair and reasonable prior to award.

Estimated Period of Performance

• Estimated 12 months for delivery of Phase II solutions. The government wishes to see products delivered and demonstrated within 12 months of award. The government may consider longer periods of performance for delivery of the full solution, under special circumstances based on technical merit and where interim deliverables are made during the first 6 months.
• Additional future follow-on work may be proposed and may be considered as part of a Phase III (unfunded options) with a period of performance based on scope.

Desired End State

The effort will result in a comprehensive, data-backed understanding of the capabilities, limitations, and operational benefits of PAAM compared to WAAM. This will enable the Army to make informed decisions regarding the acquisition and deployment of advanced manufacturing technologies for large-scale, expeditionary applications and de-risk future development efforts.

Evaluation Criteria

Submissions will be reviewed based on the criteria described in ERDC’s CSO Solicitation document by ERDC subject matter experts. Submissions may be shared as appropriate with other ERDC stakeholders. The government has the authority to decline all submitted proposals. The government does not plan to engage in the debrief process outlined in FAR part 15 but will provide feedback to unsuccessful offerors as appropriate and at its discretion.

Notional Project Schedule

Proposed project milestones include:

March 6, 2026	Project Announced, Submissions Open
March 20, 2026	Question Period Ends
March 27, 2026	Submissions Close

*Dates may vary to accommodate project team and participant availability. The government may accelerate the pre-proposal review/feedback timeline, and therefore also require earlier delivery of full proposals.

Project Security Classification

Unclassified