SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology

Panagiotis Stavropoulos

Additive Manufacturing:
Design, Processes and
Applications
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences
and Technology
SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical
applications across a wide spectrum of fields. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to
125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic.
Typical publications can be:
• A timely report of state-of-the art methods
• An introduction to or a manual for the application of mathematical or computer
techniques
• A bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles
• A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic
• An in-depth case study
• A presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make
independent contributions
SpringerBriefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination, standard
publishing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting guidelines,
and expedited production schedules.
On the one hand, SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology are
devoted to the publication of fundamentals and applications within the different
classical engineering disciplines as well as in interdisciplinary fields that recently
emerged between these areas. On the other hand, as the boundary separating funda-
mental research and applied technology is more and more dissolving, this series
is particularly open to trans-disciplinary topics between fundamental science and
engineering.
Indexed by EI-Compendex, SCOPUS and Springerlink.
Panagiotis Stavropoulos

Additive Manufacturing:
Design, Processes
and Applications
Panagiotis Stavropoulos
Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems
and Automation
Department of Mechanical Engineering
and Aeronautics
University of Patras
Patras, Greece

ISSN 2191-530X ISSN 2191-5318 (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology
ISBN 978-3-031-33792-5 ISBN 978-3-031-33793-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33793-2

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2023

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my father
Preface

Additive manufacturing (AM) is one of the fastest-growing and most promising

manufacturing technologies, offering significant advantages over conventional
manufacturing processes. However, the wide adoption of AM is hindered by the lack
of experience in the utilization of its advantages, as well as the minimization of its
drawbacks in the various stages of production. Toward this goal, the existing design
and manufacturing strategies must be enriched accordingly to ensure the successful
application of AM. In this book, a holistic framework for AM is analyzed, consisting
of three pillars: design, processes, and applications, focusing on AM of metals.
Practical guidelines are set toward a catholic AM-driven design framework
capable of exploiting the AM process advantages [1]. The proposed approach utilizes
the full design freedom potentials of AM with a linear design flow reducing design
iterations and ultimately achieving first-time-right AM design process. Design guide-
lines for specific AM process groups are set, and connection with simulation and
distortion compensation is considered, as well as algorithm-supported design opti-
mization. The result is a modular, metric-supported methodology for the re-design
of conventional products to more efficient ones, considering the buildability restric-
tions [1], cost and weight reduction, optimized material distribution based on the
load case, and support minimization [2].
Regarding the second pillar, a process-centric approach is followed, covering the
different optimization strategies for AM, aiming to increase product quality, energy
efficiency, and build-time minimization. Initially, the available AM methods are clas-
sified based on their process mechanisms, analyzing the characteristics, advantages,
and drawbacks of each [3], as well as criteria for the selection of the most suitable
[4]. AM-specific modeling strategies are categorized according to process parame-
ters and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for each AM process group [5]. Addi-
tionally, a simulation approach toward more effective process parameters [6] and
path-planning selections is analyzed [7]. Issues regarding the successful monitoring,
process control, and quality assessment [8] strategies are described utilizing a novel
open-source toolkit [9]. Moreover, the connection of the aforementioned modules
(modeling, sensorization, diagnostic, and prognostic functions [10]) toward digital

vii
viii Preface

twin [11] and IoT applications [12], [13] is described. Finally, hybrid AM applications
are discussed [14].
The roadmap for the industrial application of AM is paved by addressing the
challenges hindering it, through a holistic solution framework, which is tailored to
the needs of the industry, aiming to assist in the evaluation and eventual uptake
of AM. An AM cell-based solution is proposed, and the development of a hybrid
AM production line is also discussed, along with the aspects that must be taken
into consideration for the enhancement of the quality, flexibility, and productivity
toward the automated production of net parts of high complexity and low cost [14].
Moreover, the integration of the different phases of the development process into a
model-based design platform for decentralized manufacturing utilizing Industry 4.0
capabilities is realized [15]. Additionally, the integration of different modules under
the concept of a digital twin is described, aiming to meet diverse requirements, such
as adaptivity, real-time optimization, and uncertainty management [16]. Finally, the
entire supply chain of the AM equipment, operation, and end-of-life based on real
data from the design and operation of a demonstration plant and aerospace cases are
discussed toward less expensive, more energy-efficient, environmentally friendlier,
and reconfigurable manufacturing alternatives utilizing the advantages of AM [17].

Patras, Greece Panagiotis Stavropoulos

Acknowledgments Members of the Laboratory for Manufacturing Systems and Automation

(LMS) of University of Patras and Prima Additive have been involved in this project. My sincere
gratitude goes to Dr. Harry Bikas, Dr. Panagis Foteinopoulos, and Dr. Ioannis Stavridis for their
support.

References

1. H. Bikas, A.K. Lianos, P. Stavropoulos, A design framework for additive manufacturing. Int.
J. Adv. Manufact. Technol. 103, 1–15 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03627-z
2. H. Bikas, J. Stavridis, P. Stavropoulos, G. Chryssolouris, A design framework to replace
conventional manufacturing processes with additive manufacturing for structural components:
a formula student case study. Procedia CIRP 57, 710–715 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procir.2016.11.123
3. A.K. Lianos, H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, A shape optimization method for part design derived
from the buildability restrictions of the directed energy deposition additive manufacturing
process. Designs 4(3), 19 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/designs4030019
4. H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, G. Chryssolouris, Additive manufacturing methods and modelling
approaches: a critical review. Int. J. Adv. Manufact. Technol. 83(1–4), 389–405 (2016). https:/
/doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7576-2
5. H. Bikas, N. Porevopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, A decision support method for knowledge-based
additive manufacturing process selection. Procedia CIRP 104, 1650–1655 (2021). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.11.278
6. P. Stavropoulos, P. Foteinopoulos, Modelling of additive manufacturing processes: a review
and classification. Manufact. Rev. 5, 2 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2017014
Preface ix

7. P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, On thermal modeling of additive

manufacturing processes. CIRP J. Manufact. Sci. Technol. 20, 66–83 (2018). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cirpj.2017.09.007
8. P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, K. Angelopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, Development
of a simulation approach for laser powder bed fusion based on scanning strategy selection.
Int. J. Adv. Manufact. Technol. 108(9), 3085–3100 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-
020-05603-4
9. P. Stavropoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, J. Stavridis, K. Sampatakakis, A three-stage
quality diagnosis platform for laser-based manufacturing processes. Int. J. Adv. Manufact.
Technol. 110(11), 2991–3003 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05981-9
10. A. García-Díaz, V. Panadeiro, B. Lodeiro, J. Rodríguez-Araújo, J. Stavridis, A. Papacharalam-
popoulos, P. Stavropoulos, OpenLMD, an open source middleware and toolkit for laser-based
additive manufacturing of large metal parts. Robot Comput-Integr. Manufact. 53, 153–161
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2018.04.006
11. A. Papacharalampopoulos, C.K. Michail, P. Stavropoulos, Manufacturing resilience and agility
through processes digital twin: design and testing applied in the LPBF case. Procedia CIRP
103, 164–169 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.10.026
12. A. Papacharalampopoulos, C. Giannoulis, P. Stavropoulos, D. Mourtzis, A digital twin for
automated root-cause search of production alarms based on KPIs aggregated from IoT. Appl.
Sci. 10(7), 2377 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072377
13. A. Papacharalampopoulos, J. Stavridis, P. Stavropoulos, G. Chryssolouris, Cloud-based
control of thermal based manufacturing processes. Procedia CIRP 55, 254–259 (2016). https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.09.036
14. T. Souflas, H. Bikas, M. Ghassempouri, A. Salmi, E. Atzeni, A. Saboori, P. Stavropoulos, A
comparative study of dry and cryogenic milling for directed energy deposited IN718 compo-
nents: effect on process and part quality. Int. J. Adv. Manufact. Technol. 119(1), 745–758
(2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-08313-7
15. P. Stavropoulos, P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, H. Bikas, Addressing the chal-
lenges for the industrial application of additive manufacturing: towards a hybrid solution. Int.
J. Lightweight Mater. Manufact. 1(3), 157–168 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlmm.2018.
07.002
16. P. Stavropoulos, D. Mourtzis, Digital Twins in Industry 4.0. In Design and Operation of
Production Networks for Mass Personalization in the Era of Cloud Technology (Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 2022), p. 277
17. P. Stavropoulos, A. Koutsomichalis, N. Vaxevanidis, Laser-based Manufacturing Processes
for Aerospace Applications. In Materials Science and Engineering: Concepts, Methodologies,
Tools, and Applications (IGI Global, 2017), p. 374
Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Definition and Short Historical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 AM Basic Steps and Process Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 AM Today, Challenges, and Shortcomings—Framework
of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Design for AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Introduction to Design for AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Design Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1 Geometric Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.2 Build Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.3 Process Capability Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3 Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.1 Accuracy (XY-Plane Versus Z-axis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.2 Anisotropic Mechanical Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.3 Shrinkage and Warping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3.4 Surface Roughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.3.5 Build Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.4 Additive Manufacturability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.5 Re-design for AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.6 Design Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.7 Design for Post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.8 AM Relevant Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3 AM Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.1 Process and Material Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.2 AM Part Quality Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2.1 Surface Roughness and Layer-by-Layer Appearance . . . . . . 50
3.2.2 Porosity/Void Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.2.3 Anisotropic Microstructure and Mechanical Properties . . . . 53

xi
xii Contents

3.2.4 Thermal Residual Stresses and Deformations . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3.3 Process Optimization Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3.1 Heating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.3.2 Scanner Head Speed and Scanning Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.3.3 Layer Thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
3.4 Simulation for AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.4.1 Modeling Approaches and Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.4.2 Simulations of Melt Pool-Related Phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.4.3 Thermo-Mechanical Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
3.4.4 Multi-scale Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.5 Monitoring, Control, and Quality Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.5.1 Monitoring and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.5.2 Quality Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.6 Post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.6.1 Cleaning Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.6.2 Mechanical Material-Removal Post-processes . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.6.3 Thermal Post-processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
3.6.4 Electrothermal Post-processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.6.5 Chemical Post-processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.6.6 Laser-Based Post-processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.7 Special Topics: Hybrid AM and Digitals Twins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.7.1 Hybrid AM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
3.7.2 Digital Twins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4 AM Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.1 Introduction to AM Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.2 Production of End-Use AM Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.3 Business Perspective and AM Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.3.1 Aerospace Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.3.2 Dental Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.3.3 Power and Energy Sector Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Abbreviations

3D Three-Dimensional
AHP Advanced Hierarchy Process
AM Additive Manufacturing
BJ Binder Jetting
CAD Computer-Aided Design
CCD Charge-Coupled Device
CDLP Continuous Digital Light Processing
CFD Computational Fluid Mechanics
CT Computed Tomography
DED Directed Energy Deposition
DfAM Design for Additive Manufacturing
DLD Direct Laser Deposition
DMD Direct Metal Deposition
DMLS Direct Metal Laser Sintering
DOD Drop on Demand
DR Digital Radiography
EBAM Electron Beam Additive Manufacturing
EBM Electron Beam Melting
EDM Electrical Discharge Mach
ESA European Space Agency
FDM Fused Deposition Modeling
GD Generative Design
GFE Geometrical Feature Extraction
HIP Hot Isostatic Pressing
HMI Human–Machine Interface
KPIs Key Performance Indicators
LBM Laser Beam Melting
LENS Laser Engineering Net Shaping
LIBS Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy
LMD Laser Metal Deposition
LMJ Liquid Metal Jetting

xiii
xiv Abbreviations

LOM Laminated Object Manufacturing

MAM Metal AM
ME Material Extrusion
MJ Material Jetting
MJF Multi Jet Fusion
MJP Multi Jet Printing
ML Machine Learning
NDT Non-destructive Testing
PBF Powder Bed Fusion
PCA Principle Component Analysis
PCRT Process Compensated Resonant Testing
ROI Return on Investment
RP Rapid Prototyping
RTP Room Temperature and Pressure
SFTI Stress Formation Tendency Index
SL Sheet Lamination
SLA Stereolithography
SLM Selective Laser Melting
SLS Selective Laser Sintering
SME Small–Medium Enterprise
STL Standard Triangle Language
SVM Support Vector Machine
TO Topology Optimization
VP Vat Photopolymerization
Chapter 1
Introduction

The definition and a short historical review of AM will be presented, followed by the
importance of AM and the advantages it offers. The basic steps for the manufacturing
of a product with AM will be presented, as well as a classification of the different
AM process families. Moreover, the market role of AM and the prerequisites for
its fruitful utilization will be discussed. Finally, the framework of this book will be
analyzed.

1.1 Definition and Short Historical Review

In Additive Manufacturing (AM) processes, parts are created in a layer-by-layer

fashion by selectively fusing the material of the current layer on that of the previous
one, based on information provided by 3D model data [1]. Rapid prototyping (RP),
the predecessor of AM, was developed in 1981, and in 1984, the patent for Stere-
olithography was created. The main difference between the two is that RP is aimed
at the manufacturing of prototypes, while AM mostly focuses on end-user parts
[2]. The first metal AM application was Selective Laser Sintering, which became
commercially available in 2006 [3].
The most important advantage of AM technology is that design complexity has
an almost zero impact on cost [4, 5] (Fig. 1.1). The implications of this are of crucial
importance, with the potential to revolutionize the way products are designed in many
industrial sectors [6]. AM rendered viable in terms of cost the use of topology opti-
mization, generative algorithms, and the utilization of cellulite structures, allowing
for highly optimized products of high value, which can also combine complex assem-
blies in a single part [5]. Another vital edge of AM is that it constitutes the production
of small product sizes, even of a single unique product, cost-effective, paving the

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 1

P. Stavropoulos, Additive Manufacturing: Design, Processes and Applications,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33793-2_1
2 1 Introduction

Fig. 1.1 Manufacturing cost as a function of design complexity in conventional manufacturing and
AM

way for mass customization [7]. Last but not least is the environmental friendliness
of AM, due to the lower material waste, as well as energy consumption, it offers in
comparison with conventional manufacturing processes [4].

1.2 AM Basic Steps and Process Families

The first step for manufacturing a product using AM is the creation of its design
using a three-dimensional computer-aided design (3D CAD) program. The CAD file
must then be imported into a slicing software, which breaks down the design into
layers and the user selects the orientation and layer thickness. The rest of the process
parameters are determined either in that step or in machine-specialized software.
The build file of the part (usually G-Code) is then created. This file is ready to be
imported into the AM machine, and the manufacturing of the product can start once
the machine setup is complete. After the manufacturing of the part is finished, the
post-processing takes place, which is different according to the AM process, as well
as the desired product characteristics. Finally, the quality control of the ready product
takes place (Fig. 1.2).
In Table 1.1, AM processes have been classified into different process families
along with the most common commercial names [3] and processable materials feed-
stock forms [4]. It has to be noted that Powder Bed Fusion and Directed Energy
Deposition are the most commonly used process families for the manufacturing
of metal parts, followed by Binder Jetting, although the latter requires much more
extensive post-processing for metal end-use parts (Fig. 1.3).
1.2 AM Basic Steps and Process Families 3

Fig. 1.2 Basic steps for manufacturing a product with AM

Table 1.1 Classification of AM processes and typical commercial names [3]

AM process group Typical commercial names
Vat Photopolymerization Stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing, solid ground
(VP) curing, projection stereolithography
Powder bed fusion (PBF) Electron beam melting (EBM), electron beam additive
manufacturing (EBAM), selective laser sintering (SLS), selective
heat sintering, direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), selective laser
melting (SLM), laser beam melting (LBM)
Directed energy deposition Laser metal deposition (LMD), direct metal deposition (DMD),
(DED) direct laser deposition (DLD), laser engineered net shaping,
electron beam freeform fabrication, weld-based additive
manufacturing
Binder jetting (BJ) Powder bed and inkjet head, plaster-based 3D printing
Material extrusion (MEx) Fused deposition modeling (FDM), fused filament fabrication
Material jetting (MJ) Multi jet modeling, aerosol jet, ballistic particle manufacturing,
drop on demand (DOD), laser-induced forward transfer, liquid
metal jetting (LMJ), multi jet printing (MJP), nanometal jetting,
nanoparticle jetting, polyjet, printoptical technology
Sheet lamination (SL) Laminated object manufacturing (LOM), ultrasonic consolidation
AM for the construction Cement AM/3D printing, concrete AM/3D printing
sector
4 1 Introduction

Fig. 1.3 Classification of AM process and processable materials feedstock forms [4]

1.3 AM Today, Challenges,

and Shortcomings—Framework of This Book

AM is a promising technology, capable of offering profitable solutions in today’s

market. However, its uptake is hindered by the lack of experience in the utilization
of its advantages, as well as the minimization of its drawbacks in the various stages
of production [8]. This book is a modular guide integrating the stages of AM product
development in a practical, reader-friendly approach, aiming for the wider adoption
of AM, focusing on AM of metals. Toward this goal, the existing design and manufac-
turing strategies are enriched in a step-by-step approach forming a holistic framework
divided into three pillars: design, processes, and applications, forming an essential
aid for researchers, designers, engineers, simulation specialists, and post-graduate
students.
Specific design rules must be followed for the maximization of the added value
of AM products [9]. Toward this end, an AM-driven design framework is analyzed,
exploiting the AM process advantages through design optimization, connection with
simulation, and distortion compensation. Furthermore, a metric-supported method-
ology is presented for the re-design of conventional products to more efficient AM
ones, considering buildability restrictions [10], cost and weight reduction, optimized
material distribution based on the load case, and support minimization [11].
Product quality is one of the most important issues of AM [8, 12]. In the second
pillar of this framework, a process-centric approach is followed, covering optimiza-
tion strategies for AM aiming for enhanced quality. Initially, the available AM
methods are classified based on their process mechanisms, analyzing the character-
istics, advantages, and drawbacks of each, as well as criteria for the selection of the
most suitable according to specific needs [13]. Existing models for AM are catego-
rized [14] according to process parameters and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs),
and a simulation-based approach for KPIs enhancement is analyzed, considering
References 5

important process parameters [15] and scanning strategy selections [12]. Addition-
ally, AM-specific monitoring, process control, and quality assessment strategies [14,
16, 17] are discussed. Finally, the connection of the aforementioned modules toward
hybrid AM [18] and digital twin [19, 20] applications is described.
The roadmap for the industrial application of AM is paved by addressing the chal-
lenges hindering it, aiming to assist in the evaluation and industrial uptake of AM
[21]. The different phases of product development are integrated, encapsulating the
entire supply chain of AM equipment, operation, and end-of-life toward a successful
business plan [22]. Also, specific AM case studies are considered [17, 22]. Addition-
ally, hybrid AM cell and production line setups are discussed, toward net products of
high quality and low cost, ensuring flexibility, and productivity [21]. Finally, Industry
4.0 capabilities [23, 24] toward decentralized manufacturing are presented.

References

1. A.S.T.M. Standard, Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies, in ASTM

International F2792-12a (2012)
2. N. Hopkinson, R. Hague, P. Dickens, Rapid Manufacturing: An Industrial Revolution for the
Digital Age (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, 2006)
3. P. Foteinopoulos, Computational and empirical modeling of additive manufacturing processes.
Dissertation, University of Patras, 2021. https://doi.org/10.12681/eadd/50503
4. H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, G. Chryssolouris, Additive manufacturing methods and modelling
approaches: a critical review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 83(1–4), 389–405 (2016). https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7576-2
5. P. Stavropoulos, P. Foteinopoulos, J. Stavridis, H. Bikas, Increasing the industrial uptake of
additive manufacturing processes a training framework. Adv. Ind. Manuf. Eng. Available at
SSRN 4169003 (2022)
6. G.A. Adam, D. Zimmer, Design for additive manufacturing—element transitions and aggre-
gated structures. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 7(1), 20–28 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cirpj.2013.10.001
7. H. Bikas, A.K. Lianos, P. Stavropoulos, A design framework for additive manufacturing. Int.
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 103, 1–15 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03627-z
8. P. Stavropoulos, P. Foteinopoulos, Modelling of additive manufacturing processes: a review
and classification. Manuf. Rev. 5, 2 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2017014
9. H. Bikas, A.K. Lianos, P. Stavropoulos, A design framework for additive manufacturing. Int.
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 103(9), 3769–3783 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-036
27-z
10. H. Bikas, J. Stavridis, P. Stavropoulos, G. Chryssolouris, A design framework to replace
conventional manufacturing processes with additive manufacturing for structural components:
a formula student case study. Procedia CIRP 57, 710–715 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pro
cir.2016.11.123
11. A.K. Lianos, H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, A shape optimization method for part design derived
from the buildability restrictions of the directed energy deposition additive manufacturing
process. Designs 4(3), 19 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/designs4030019
12. P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, K. Angelopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, Development
of a simulation approach for laser powder bed fusion based on scanning strategy selection. Int.
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 108(9), 3085–3100 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-056
03-4
6 1 Introduction

13. H. Bikas, N. Porevopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, A decision support method for knowledge-based

Additive Manufacturing process selection. Procedia CIRP 104, 1650–1655 (2021). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.11.278
14. P. Stavropoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, J. Stavridis, K. Sampatakakis, A three-stage quality
diagnosis platform for laser-based manufacturing processes. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
110(11), 2991–3003 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05981-9
15. P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, On thermal modeling of additive
manufacturing processes. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 20, 66–83 (2018). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cirpj.2017.09.007
16. A. García-Díaz, V. Panadeiro, B. Lodeiro, J. Rodríguez-Araújo, J. Stavridis, A. Papachar-
alampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, OpenLMD, an open source middleware and toolkit for laser-
based additive manufacturing of large metal parts. Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 53, 153–161
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2018.04.006
17. A. Papacharalampopoulos, C.K. Michail, P. Stavropoulos, Manufacturing resilience and agility
through processes digital twin: design and testing applied in the LPBF case. Procedia CIRP
103, 164–169 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.10.026
18. T. Souflas, H. Bikas, M. Ghassempouri, A. Salmi, E. Atzeni, A. Saboori, P. Stavropoulos, A
comparative study of dry and cryogenic milling for directed energy deposited IN718 compo-
nents: effect on process and part quality. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 119(1), 745–758 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-021-08313-7
19. P. Stavropoulos, D. Mourtzis, Digital twins in industry 4.0, in Design and Operation of Produc-
tion Networks for Mass Personalization in the Era of Cloud Technology (Elsevier, Amsterdam,
2022), p. 277
20. A. Papacharalampopoulos, C. Giannoulis, P. Stavropoulos, D. Mourtzis, A digital twin for
automated root-cause search of production alarms based on KPIs aggregated from IoT. Appl.
Sci. 10(7), 2377 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10072377
21. P. Stavropoulos, P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, H. Bikas, Addressing the chal-
lenges for the industrial application of additive manufacturing: towards a hybrid solution. Int. J.
Lightweight Mater. Manuf. 1(3), 157–168 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlmm.2018.07.002
22. P. Stavropoulos, A. Koutsomichalis, N. Vaxevanidis, Laser-based manufacturing processes
for aerospace applications, in Materials Science and Engineering: Concepts, Methodologies,
Tools, and Applications (IGI Global, 2017), p. 374
23. K. Ntouanoglou, P. Stavropoulos, D. Mourtzis, 4D printing prospects for the aerospace industry:
a critical review. Procedia Manuf. 18, 120–129 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.
11.016
24. A. Papacharalampopoulos, J. Stavridis, P. Stavropoulos, G. Chryssolouris, Cloud-based control
of thermal based manufacturing processes. Procedia CIRP 55, 254–259 (2016). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2016.09.036
Chapter 2
Design for AM

Design for AM will be defined, and the main factors to be taken into account by
a designer to fully exploit the AM process advantages will be discussed. Design
aspects will be defined, and AM process-imposed limitations will be presented in
detail. Design considerations will also be defined and the mutual relationship between
these considerations and design choices will be discussed. Additive Manufactura-
bility will be defined, and a framework for determining Additive Manufacturability
will be presented. Approaches for re-designing existing components of conventional
products to more efficient AM ones will be presented, followed by a summary of
algorithmic design optimization approaches. Finally, design decisions that affect
the effectiveness of downstream processes will be discussed, and relevant existing
standards for AM design will be presented.

2.1 Introduction to Design for AM

Owing to its inherent design freedom benefits, Additive Manufacturing (AM) is

becoming more and more popular; however, most design engineers treat the field of
AM as “expensive milling machines”, maintaining a design ethos stemming from
established manufacturing processes. Furthermore, by taking a look at the design and
production flow of AM nowadays, it is obvious that the design phase is completely
disconnected from the machine programming and production phase [1].
The definition of design methods varies across industries, from the design of ideas
and concepts to detailed technical and manufacturing drawings [2, 3]. Mechanical
design of parts and assemblies has significantly progressed over the last 30 years,
from manual drawings to parametric Computer-Aided Design suites (CAD) that
enable enhanced design functions [4]. Over the last decade, engineering design

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 7

P. Stavropoulos, Additive Manufacturing: Design, Processes and Applications,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33793-2_2
8 2 Design for AM

has further evolved from a feature-based to a function-based mentality; state of

art approaches nowadays dictate that the parts should be morphed based on their
functional requirements and loading state [5].
Nevertheless, current design practices do not fully exploit the design freedom
inherent in AM. Under the current perspective, the engineer designs a part as per
their perception of good engineering practices by establishing a certain part geom-
etry. Design optimization algorithms (such as Topology Optimization) may also be
deployed at this stage. Only when the design is finalized, do the production aspects
come to play, through the use of a machine (or manufacturer) specific software,
which slices the part and generates the actual part program. In this step, there are
usually options for surface modification/patterns and part nesting. Then, according
to user input, the part is sliced into layers, and support structures are generated on
the basis of certain criteria and algorithms. The final result and the efficient use of
AM technology are highly dependent on the designers’ familiarity and experience
with such processes.
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) refers to a set of design rules and
guidelines aiming to “Maximize product performance through the synthesis of
shapes, sizes, hierarchical structures, and material compositions, subject to the capa-
bilities of AM technologies” [6]. Design for AM is a very complex subject, where
numerous factors and their interactions should be taken into account in an attempt to
maximize the benefit occurring by utilizing AM for a specific part/use case. This is
because the design of every component to be additively manufactured can be affected
and in parallel has effects both in the AM process and the materials selected, as well as
on the subsequent post-processing steps required to obtain a ready-to-use component.
In general, design for AM should focus on designing a component in such a way
that using AM can add value to it, compared with manufacturing using conventional
processes. However, design opportunities stemming from the decision to use AM
are not limited to the part itself; such opportunities for added value through AM
may arise through different aspects of the component manufacturing and use, as
summarized hereafter.
• Through product design (improved product function and/or performance).
• Through process design (ease of manufacturing, reduced lead time, and/or cost).
• Through lifecycle (improved performance of functionality during product use).
• Through business models and digitalization (production design).
In order to be able to successfully implement design for AM and deliver value
through its use of it, the designer should not only consider the strong points of each
AM process but also has in mind their inherent drawbacks.
All AM technologies come along with numerous manufacturing limitations [7].
When designing for AM, one should take into account numerous factors that can
contribute to the final result. These factors can be “global” (i.e., applicable across
all existing AM processes and orientating mainly to the layer-wise nature of AM) or
process-specific, owing mainly to limitations related to the physical process mecha-
nism. Nevertheless, the limit values for both types of factors are also dependent on
the process, material, and even the specific machine and process parameters. These
2.2 Design Aspects 9

limitations should be taken into account by the designer during the early stages
of a part’s design, as non-compliance is causing bottlenecks to the AM process.
However, usually, these limitations emerge during the latest phases of a part design,
which requires multiple design iterations until complete adherence to the AM rules
for manufacturability. Supplementary features need to be added, or others suppressed
so that the designed part can be successfully manufactured using the selected AM
process, material, and machine.
The following section will discuss existing DfAM guidelines and best practices.
As design guidelines for AM are highly dependent on the process and process mech-
anism, materials used, and (to a lesser extent) machine, only broad guidelines can be
given, and fine-tuning of the design limitations for a specific machine and/or mate-
rial requires targeted and structured experimentation based on the limiting factors
expected by the process mechanism, expert knowledge, and a large volume of data.
To be able to classify limitations in a meaningful way, the terms design aspect and
design consideration needs to be defined. A design aspect is defined as any particular
feature which can be quantified during the design phase, that includes geometric
features of the part (overhangs, bores, channels, walls, etc.), as well as relevant build
parameters that need to be set in order to manufacture the part (layer thickness, build
orientation, etc.). Design consideration is the effects of the process mechanism on
the manufactured part. These considerations can be very specific properties of the
process and quantified with certain KPIs (Fig. 2.1).
Additive Manufacturability will be defined, and a framework for determining
Additive Manufacturability will be presented. Design for AM approaches will be
subsequently presented. There are two main approaches that could be exploited when
it comes to designing a part for Additive Manufacturing (Fig. 2.2). The first approach
involves re-designing or adapting a pre-existing part in order to make it suitable for
Additive Manufacturing, while the second approach involves creating an optimized
design from scratch, using algorithmic methods based on AM process capabilities.
Both approaches need to be adapted to the specific AM process to be used, taking into
account the design considerations/limitations applicable per process. Finally, design
decisions that affect the effectiveness of downstream processes will be discussed,
and relevant existing standards for AM design will be presented.

2.2 Design Aspects

The design aspects linked to the design for AM processes are briefly presented in
the following section. We can distinguish design aspects into two main categories:
part’s geometric features and build parameters.
10 2 Design for AM

Fig. 2.1 Defining aspects and considerations for AM design [8]

2.2.1 Geometric Features

Similar to conventional manufacturing, there are restrictions regarding the geometries

that can be built using AM processes. The layer-by-layer principle followed by all
AM machines has its limitations since each layer must be built almost directly above
the previous one, for the build to not collapse [9]. The result is that not every geometry
is possible as each geometrical feature must obey a certain geometrical continuity.
Once this geometric continuity is overlooked in the design, the resulting part will
suffer in its integrity (e.g., deformation, porous mass, reduced density). The design
aspects that determine the quality of the outcome as well as guidelines for design
best practices are presented in the following section.
Overhanging Geometries
Manufacturing overhanging geometries is a trite, yet challenging feature for the
majority of the AM processes. A generic definition of an overhanging geometry is
any geometry, whose orientation is not parallel to the build vector. The ability of the
AM machine to manufacture a layer of material displaced to the previous defines its
ability to create overhanging geometries. The magnitude of this layer parallel shift
2.2 Design Aspects 11

Fig. 2.2 Different design approaches to DfAM

sets the limit for the maximum overhang length and subsequently the maximum
inclination angle that can be achieved. In general, overhanging geometries can be
classified into four categories: overhangs, angled overhangs, bridges, and bores/
channels as illustrated in Fig. 2.3.
Horizontal Overhangs
Horizontal overhangs are one-sided abrupt geometrical changes, that resemble a
cantilever beam. The horizontal distance that an AM machine can build without
supports is limited and if exceeded, the whole build could fail. The limit of an

Fig. 2.3 Overhanging geometries’ categories. Adapted from [8]

12 2 Design for AM

overhang length is affected by numerous factors and the nature of the AM tech-
nology [10–12]. The AM process, the material used, and even the actual machine
are variables in the equation that defines the maximum overhang length. Indicative
overhanging lengths per AM technology as found in the state of art and state of
practice review are presented in Table 2.1.
When part specifications call for a greater overhang, the decision to be made is
whether to alter the geometry of the part. The simplest way to resolve this issue
is by replacing horizontal overhangs with angled ones. This effectively allows the
creation of the overhang gradually over multiple layers of the part, thus reducing the
overhanging distance. In case an angled overhang adaption is not feasible, due to the
specifications and the geometry of the part, a support structure (further discussed in
subsequent section) needs to be introduced to support the overhanging feature.
Angled Overhangs
Another category of overhanging geometries is the angled overhang. Due to the layer-
wise material deposition of all AM processes, angled overhangs can be correlated to
horizontal overhanging distance as defined above; the maximum overhang angle is
a product of the maximum overhanging distance over the thickness of a single layer
(Fig. 2.4; Table 2.2).
These numbers can diverge highly in certain parts whose surface quality is accept-
able to be poor (on the down-facing areas of overhangs), and if the process param-
eters have been set up correctly [19]. For extrusion-based (MEx) AM technologies,
extremely angled overhangs cannot be created, as the material cannot be deposited in
mid-air [11]. For Powder Bed Fusion AM technologies, the powder surrounding the
part acts as support and thus steeper angled overhangs can be realized. That is, there
is a drawback regarding surface roughness as the surrounding powder is sintered
unevenly on the downward-facing areas of the part (dross formation), as evident in
Fig. 2.5.
Bridging
Similar to horizontal overhangs, a bridge is a horizontal geometry between two or
more non-horizontal features that resemble a simply supported beam. A bridge is
defined as any surface in the part geometry that is facing down between two or
more features. Similarly to the previous restrictions, the designer must take into
consideration the maximum length that the machine can bridge. If this length is
exceeded, the part will not be successfully manufactured (Table 2.3).
1
Similarly to horizontal overhangs, when part specifications call for a larger
bridge, the designer can introduce a “transition” angled overhang, reducing the
bridging length (Fig. 2.6). If this is not possible, additional support structures may
be introduced.
Bores and Channels
The ability to manufacture parts with hollow internal geometries is a major benefit for
AM technologies since most of the time such features are impossible to achieve using
conventional manufacturing methods, that enables profound geometrical flexibility
 2.2 Design Aspects

Table 2.1 Overhang limits per AM technology

Overhangs Vat polymerization Extrusion Material jetting Binder Powder bed fusion Direct energy Sheet
jetting deposition
(mm) SLA DLP CDLP FDM MJ MJP DOD MJF SLS SLM EBM LENS EBAM LOM
No need N/A [13] [13] [13] N/A N/A N/A [14]
50 [13]
10 [15] [13] [13]
7 [16]
5
0.5 [13]
Supports [13] [13] [14]
13
14 2 Design for AM

allowing the creation of parts with significantly improved performance, such as

increased heat convection capabilities, improved fluid flow [21, 22], or structural
reinforcement/lattice structures [23, 24]. A characteristic example includes using AM
to produce high-performance tooling for injection molding, by creating conformal
cooling channels that follow complex paths very close to the surface of the tool,
allowing much higher cooling rates and increasing productivity [21]. Bores and
channels can be partially classified as overhanging geometries/bridges (Fig. 2.7);
therefore, similar limitations regarding their buildability exist. It is worth mentioning
that this category also includes non-vertical holes on the part (that are effectively
short-length bores).
Additional constraints should be taken into account since bores and channels are
typically internal to the part; therefore, removal of unconsolidated material (powder,
resin) or support structures presents a significant challenge. In addition, the AM
process mechanism may result in unintended consolidation of material within the
bore/channel, further limiting the capability of the process to produce very small and
intricate cooling channels (Table 2.4).
To improve the buildability of bores and channels, the up-facing surface can
be designed as a non-round geometry; typically, a triangular shape with an over-
hang angle less than the maximum allowed by the process is used, resulting in
a teardrop-like geometry. This transforms the bore/channel into a self-supporting
structure and removes any need for post-processing if a non-round cross-section is
permissible. Other common self-supporting cross-sections of bores/channels can be
seen in Fig. 2.8.
If a round cross-section is required, post-processing is needed. Particularly in
the case of bores/holes, different approaches can be taken depending on the size of
the bore/hole and the accuracy requirements. For very precise and small (less than
8 mm in diameter) holes, the approach is to remove them from the geometry to be
created by AM and instead drill them from scratch at the post-processing stage. If
accuracy requirements are not very strict, a bore/hole may be created in the AM part,
but with a smaller diameter. This “pre-hole” will act as a locating feature for post-
processing, reducing drill forces, material waste, and time. When larger bores/holes
are required, they are typically included in the AM part albeit undersized, and milling
is used during post-processing to achieve the desired final diameter accurately.

Fig. 2.4 Stair-step effect

 2.2 Design Aspects

Table 2.2 Angled overhang limits per AM technology

Angled Vat polymerization Extrusion Material jetting Binder Powder bed fusion Direct energy Sheet
overhangs jetting deposition
(Degrees) SLA DLP CDLP FDM MJ NPJ DOD MJF SLS SLM EBM LENS EBAM LOM
No need N/A [13] [13] [14] [17] N/A N/A N/A [14]
60° [18]
55°
45° [13]
Supports [13] [13] [14]
15
16 2 Design for AM

Fig. 2.5 a Overhanging angles in a test part manufactured with SLM technology 0. b Overhanging
angle-surface roughness [20]

Supports
As already introduced, overhanging geometries can be successfully manufactured
with the addition of support structures (Fig. 2.9). Support structures are sacrificial
column-like geometries that are introduced during the build preparation phase (when
the machine program is being generated), typically in an automated fashion by the
respective software tool. Their purpose (as the name implies) is to offer support for
the layers to be built on top, thus splitting the overhanging geometry into smaller
bridges, making it manufacturable.
While effective at guaranteeing a successful build, supports typically compromise
the surface quality of the part; the reason is being that support structures and the part
are overlapping [25]. In addition, supports increase the post-processing demands,
as they need to be removed after the build is completed [11, 25]. To that end, we
can distinguish between two types of supports: soluble supports which are typical
of a different material to the main part, which can be dissolved by using water
or a special solution in order to remove them, and hard supports which are built
from the same material as the main part (albeit in a less dense way) and need to
be mechanically removed from the part. Soluble supports can be met in Material
Extrusion and Material Jetting processes, while hard supports are typically met in
Vat Photopolymerization, metal Powder Bed Fusion, and sometimes in Material
Extrusion. The latter type imposes an additional design restriction; tool accessibility
for support removal should be ensured. These aspects are going to be presented in
greater detail in the post-processing section of this chapter.
In general, supports decrease the efficiency of the AM process; they add to the
build time and require additional material to be built, while also dictating addi-
tional post-processing steps and equipment, increasing the overall time and cost
needed, and contradicting the advantageous net-shape manufacturing nature of AM.
Therefore, in order to increase AM Manufacturability, it is desirable that the part
only has self-supported geometrical features if possible. A way of making the part
self-supporting (besides the considerations already presented) is the substitution of
temporary supports with permanent walls. The main benefit from this approach is
that the newly added permanent wall does not need to be removed, thus reducing the
overall required time and cost. In addition, it can make the part stronger, allowing
 2.2 Design Aspects

Table 2.3 Bridging length limits per AM technology

Bridging Vat polymerization Extrusion Material jetting Binder Powder bed fusion Direct energy Sheet
jetting deposition
(Degrees) SLA DLP CDLP FDM MJ NPJ DOD MJF SLS SLM EBM LENS EBAM LOM
No need N/A [13] [13] [13] N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A
2 [13]
10 [13]
20 [13]
50 [13]
80
Supports [13] [13]

DED technologies can bridge long distances, as the part can typically be manipulated during the deposition process. This allows bridging a horizontal feature
to be manufactured as a vertical one, effectively removing the bridging requirement
17
18 2 Design for AM

Fig. 2.6 a Transition angled overhang. b Intermediate support structure

Fig. 2.7 Bores or channels can be linked with overhanging geometry when manufactured in a
non-vertical direction [8]

the removal of material from other areas, and making the design more efficient
(Fig. 2.10).
Re-orienting the part to change the build direction (therefore, what is considered
an overhang as well as the magnitude of the overhanging angle) is a very efficient
way of doing so, without introducing any additional design changes to the part.
Orientation considerations will be presented in greater detail in the build parameters
section of this chapter.
Wall Thickness
All AM processes have a minimum threshold on the wall thickness that is feasible to
be manufactured. This is due to the building threshold determined by the fundamental
building unit used by every AM machine—diameter of the laser beam, flow focal
point, or nozzle—and the fact that the machine needs to make multiple passes to
build a sufficient and solid feature. Another accountable parameter for thin walls is
the height-to-thickness ratio, as oblong wall structures tend to collapse.1 Indicative
minimum wall thicknesses for all AM processes are summarized in Table 2.5.
An important path-planning aspect when designing thin walls close to the limits of
the AM machine is that some geometries cannot be precisely depicted as the slicing
software which generates the G-Code is not able to create the desired geometry [26].
Below the lower limit of the allowed thickness, the wall feature cannot be formed
or when formed, will suffer from deformation [27]. As such, an integer multiple of

1 Typically 40:1 for metal AM, which needs to be abided for the skin not to collapse.
 2.2 Design Aspects

Table 2.4 Bores and channels dimensions’ limits for AM technologies

Bores and Minimum Vat polymerization Extrusion Material jetting Binder Powder bed fusion Direct energy Sheet
channels diameter jetting deposition
(mm)
SLA DLP CDLP FDM MJ NPJ DOD MJF SLS SLM EBM LENS EBAM LOM
0.4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.5
0.75
1.25
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
19
20 2 Design for AM

Fig. 2.8 Alternative self-supporting bores‘/channels’ cross-sections

Fig. 2.9 Temporary support structures added to make an overhang manufacturable

Fig. 2.10 Support reduction via a orientation modification, and b substitution with permanent
walls

the fundamental tool path width must be used for the design. When the geometry’s
width that must be manufactured is not an integer multiple of the fundamental tool
path width, the slicer software will have to compensate for that issue. One of the most
common ways to tackle this issue is to skip or overlap a certain line of the sliced
surface. Another approach is to try and alter the tool path width. These solutions are,
for the most part, insufficient as the integrity of the part is compromised or a generic
parameter of the machine deviates from the optimum. This could cause a deviation
in the dimensional accuracy and the mechanical properties.
 2.2 Design Aspects

Table 2.5 Minimum wall thickness for AM technologies

Min. wall Vat polymerization Extrusion Material jetting Binder Powder bed fusion Direct energy Sheet
thickness jetting deposition
(mm) SLA DLP CDLP FDM MJ NPJ DOD MJF SLS SLM EBM LENS EBAM LOM
0.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.6
2
21
22 2 Design for AM

There are physical constraints when building thin walls as they are difficult to
form and can be easily distorted [28]. The successful manufacturing of a thin wall is
not always a hardware concern. The slicing software determines the G-Code for the
AM machine’s fundamental building unit to follow, which can bottleneck the build
[29]. A thin feature can be overlooked by the slicing software, although the machine
can manufacture that feature in certain optimum scenarios [26].
Smallest Features
Apart from the minimum wall thickness, which is considered a 1D thin feature, there
are more small features that challenge the ability of the AM machine when comes
down to manufacturability. A 2D thin feature that an AM machine can manufacture
is usually referred to as the diameter of the smallest possible pin [26]. It could also
refer to the side of a rectangular or complex curved geometry. This aspect should be
considered during the design phase, as it defines the detail that can be introduced to
the part. The smallest features typically attainable by existing AM technologies are
summarized in Table 2.6.

2.2.2 Build Parameters

Build parameters are selected at the slicing phase2 of the AM process. Besides
commonly recognized process parameters (temperature, laser power, feed rate, etc.),
some parameters are closely linked to geometric aspects. These parameters are also
highly interconnected with the AM technology and the individual machine to be
used.
Layer Thickness
Layer thickness is a factor that affects both the quality of the print and the build time
needed to complete the part. With smaller layer thickness, a more detailed part is
produced, and the “staircase effect” is minimized. Additionally, with smaller layer
thickness, potential voids and gaps are eliminated, as the CAD file is being sliced with
more precision and the geometry accuracy is maintained. On the counterpart, with
thicker layers, the printing time is reduced. Regarding the staircase effect, another
factor that is causing it is the slope angle. As the angle increases, the cosine is
proportionally increasing the stair size [30]. Indicative layer thicknesses attainable
by AM technologies are summarized in Table 2.7.
A proposed solution to this matter is adaptive slicing (Fig. 2.11). The areas where
detail is needed are sliced using a thin-layer height, whereas areas whose quality is
not affected are sliced with a thicker layer height to contribute to an effective build
regarding time and energy consumption [31].

2This is where the CAD geometry will be translated to G-Code (or other manufacturer-specific
machine code) for the AM machine to manufacture the part.
 2.2 Design Aspects

Table 2.6 Smallest geometrical feature for AM technologies

Smallest Vat polymerization Extrusion Material jetting Binder Powder bed fusion Direct energy Sheet
feature jetting deposition
(mm) SLA DLP CDLP FDM MJ NPJ DOD MJF SLS SLM EBM LENS EBAM LOM
0.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.6
2
23
 24

Table 2.7 Layer thickness for AM technologies

Layer Vat polymerization Extrusion Material jetting Binder Powder bed fusion Direct energy Sheet
thickness jetting deposition
(µm) SLA DLP CDLP FDM MJ NPJ DOD MJF SLS SLM EBM LENS EBAM LOM
1 µSLA N/A
3
6
8
16
20
25
32
50
70
100
120
130
150
380
400
1000
2 Design for AM
2.2 Design Aspects 25

Fig. 2.11 Adaptive slicing

principle

Build Orientation
As already mentioned, build orientation is one of the most crucial build parameters.
The orientation of the part relative to the build direction determines which geomet-
rical features are overhanging geometries and what their angle is. Subsequently, the
build orientation determines the volume of support structures needed to successfully
manufacture the part [10]. This in turn affects the surface quality of the part, as
it determines which features will display a more pronounced stair-stepping effect,
as well as which down-facing features will have a reduced surface quality. More-
over, it determines the axis on which the mechanical properties show anisotropic
behavior, as typical for most AM processes. In metal PBF processes, orientation
affects shrinkage (typically non-uniform along all axes) and residual stresses, which
may lead to warping of the part.
Orientation also affects the cross-sectional area of the part along the build direc-
tion, leading to two main effects depending on the AM technology used (Table 2.8).
The first one is related to platform adhesion. The part must be restrained at the
build plate; thus, the adhesion between the part’s base surface and the machine’s
build plate is to be considered. Apart from securing the part, the part-build surface
interface facilitates heat dissipation [32].
The second effect is related to the stresses that are developed at the rest of
the part’s volume while its layers are manufactured. For the AM technologies that
develop significant residual stresses due to the process mechanism (as analyzed in
Chap. 3), it is desirable to maintain a small cross-section area to minimize heat accu-
mulation which will lead to residual stresses and thus deformation/warping of the
 26

Table 2.8 Base cross-section primary function per AM technology

Base Vat polymerization Extrusion Material jetting Binder Powder bed fusion Direct energy Sheet
cross-section jetting deposition
SLA DLP CDLP FDM MJ NPJ DOD MJF SLS SLM EBM LENS EBAM LOM
Adhesion Adhesion Adhesion Adhesion Adhesion Adhesion Adhesion N/A Adhesion Adhesion Adhesion Adhesion Heat Adhesion
and heat and heat and heat and heat convection
convection convection convection convection
2 Design for AM
2.3 Design Considerations 27

part (Table 2.9). This effect has a greater impact on more delicate and elongated struc-
tures such as CMF implants [33]. A thermal simulation for the heat concentration
provides a picture for the design engineer regarding residual stresses [33].
Finally, related to productivity metrics, orientation can affect build time, and the
volume of unused material that needs to be treated and re-used in subsequent builds
(in VP, PBF, and BJT processes), as well as the ability to nest multiple parts in
the same build job. As such, the optimization of the build orientation is a non-trivial
challenge. For all the aforementioned reasons, orientation thinking is important when
designing the part, as it enables the designed to correctly identify the areas of their
design that could be problematic and subsequently adjust their approach to solve the
potential issues.

2.2.3 Process Capability Determination

As established by now, each AM process family has its own limitations that are
mainly attributed to the process mechanism deployed. As such, typical values for
each process family have been collected and presented herein. Nevertheless, exact
limits are depending on multiple factors, such as the material and machine used,
and even the process parameters selected by the user. Therefore, an appropriate test
protocol should be deployed in order to experimentally obtain these values for the
actual process/material combination to be used. Such values should be obtained for
all applicable design aspects. To this end, different test artifacts have been proposed
over the years [32, 34–43], some of which can be seen in Fig. 2.12. Despite the
plethora of proposed test artifacts, most of them are tailored to a specific process
family. As such, the designer should select the test artifact(s) that are conceived with
their intended process family in mind and include the features that are important for
the part they are designing. In addition, they should limit the size of the features to
be tested to values that are of interest to be used on their part.

2.3 Design Considerations

The term “design consideration” can be used to describe the results of design aspects
and the process itself on the finished product, that includes geometric characteristics
and mechanical properties of the part, as well as KPIs of the AM process. Presented
below are the most important design considerations.
 28

Table 2.9 AM technologies that require a small cross-section area throughout the build
Develops Vat polymerization Extrusion Material jetting Binder Powder bed fusion Direct energy Sheet
residual jetting deposition
stresses at SLA DLP CDLP FDM MJ NPJ DOD MJF SLS SLM EBM LENS EBAM LOM
cross-section
No Moderate Yes Yes Significant Yes Yes Yes Yes
2 Design for AM
2.3 Design Considerations 29

Fig. 2.12 Test artifacts aimed toward characterization of the design limits of AM processes [44]

2.3.1 Accuracy (XY-Plane Versus Z-axis)

An important design consideration is to distinguish between the machine’s accuracy

on the XY-plane and the Z-axis. Most AM machines have a much higher accuracy on
the XY-plane. The accuracy of the machine that will produce the desired part is crucial
for the designer in the design phase. For pre-assembled mechanisms or assemblies
in general, the dimensional accuracy with which the machine can manufacture has
to be considered for the build to be a success. Accuracy and repeatability will dictate
the required clearance and tolerances required for multiple parts to be able to be
assembled. This is particularly critical when designing “build in place” joints and/
or mechanisms, where the clearance between parts that should experience relative
movement should be enough to that the parts are not permanently fused together
but at the same time small enough so that it does not introduce additional unwanted
movement. As accuracy is different in different directions, such considerations should
also be taken into account when selecting the build orientation.

2.3.2 Anisotropic Mechanical Properties

AM technologies produce parts with anisotropic mechanical properties. The

anisotropic behavior is rooted in the physical process mechanism of all AM processes
and can be traced back to the layer-wise material deposition, which results in worse
properties along the build axis for most AM process families. The physical mech-
anism that creates these discrepancies can be different depending on the process
family and material used (for example, grain growth in metal PBF, layer adhesion in
ME, etc.). Anisotropy can be generally mitigated to some extent via post-processing
via heat treatment (as presented in Chap. 3). However, this adds an extra production
30 2 Design for AM

step, and it may not be feasible for components that cannot fit into a furnace, thus
needs to be pointed out as a design consideration for AM.
Having said that, there are two approaches to designing a part with a given load
case. The first one is to orient the designed part in such a way that the loads are
received in the direction the AM technology has the greatest mechanical strength. The
other, more sophisticated approach is to shape and optimize the part with mechanical
strength anisotropy in mind [45].

2.3.3 Shrinkage and Warping

These design considerations apply mainly to AM processes utilizing a thermal-based

process mechanism for the fusion of the layers. Due to the elevated temperature and
the temperature gradients occurring during the AM process, some shrinkage and
warping may occur. Such parts are typically cooled down gradually in an attempt to
limit the impact of warping and shrinkage. Shrinkage can be mitigated by experi-
mentally verifying the shrinkage percentage of the machine and material to be used
and compensating by scaling up the part after the design phase. Shrinkage may
be non-uniform across different directions, and modern slicing software allows for
non-uniform scaling to accommodate this; as such, it is not a significant design
consideration.
What should be kept in mind though in terms of design is that parts with thicker
geometries and flat and long surfaces, as well as parts with uneven wall thicknesses,
will be prone to significant warping due to variable thermal shrinkage and stress along
the cross-section of the part. It is thus recommended to maintain even wall thickness
and consider even cross-sectional areas when orienting the part to minimize warping.
In addition, large and flat surfaces that are not stiff should be avoided, and ribs can
be added to them as needed to increase stiffness, mitigating warping.

2.3.4 Surface Roughness

The roughness of the completed part is important, as it determines the post-processing

steps needed in order to achieve the desired surface quality. The resulting surface
roughness is not uniform throughout the entire surface of the printed part. This is
caused by the geometry’s slope angle and the unintentional sintering under angled
overhangs.
2.4 Additive Manufacturability 31

2.3.5 Build Time

The build time refers to the total time required for an AM machine to manufacture
the part. The build time and build orientation of the part are highly related. That
is due to the fact that material deposition speeds on the XY-plane and Z-axis are
not the same. The build unit (e.g., nozzle, laser) moves, thus building the part, with
greater speed on the X- and Y-axis than the speed that the layers are adding up [46].
Changing the build orientation will affect the time needed for the AM machine to
complete the part. Horizontally orientated parts will in general be printed faster than
vertically orientated ones.

2.4 Additive Manufacturability

Manufacturability is defined as the part’s ease to be manufactured and its design

capacity for cost reduction [2, 47–49]. As such, we can define Additive Manufac-
turability as the part’s manufacturability when it is to be produced with an AM
technology and the degree to which its design utilizes the advantageous aspects of
the AM technology and abides by the buildability restrictions.
Manufacturability of an AM part is not a duality of can-or-cannot be manufactured.
The design aspects and features, that are manufacturable, vary across different AM
technologies [50], due to their different build mechanisms, yet the same objectives
of reducing manufacturing costs and optimizing the overall process remain. That
is, the design efforts of alternations and adaptations for the specific manufacturing
technology can be screened from the AM Manufacturability indicator (Fig. 2.13).
The determination of Additive Manufacturability at the part design level starts
from the identification of the part’s geometric features and their comparison with
the AM technology’s capabilities. This cross-checks results in several features that
are by definition non-feasible for manufacturing or require support structures (e.g.,

Fig. 2.13 Part manufacturability for AM [51]

32 2 Design for AM

Table 2.10 Framework of the AM Manufacturability determination

# Step Indicator
Part’s geometric features recognition [from CAD/.stl file]

Cross-checking design features with AM [Limit of overhangs, etc.]

0 1
capabilities
0 1
Cross-checking design considerations with [Surface roughness,
part specifications porosity]
Magnitude of feature alternation to achieve [Feasible-impractical-add
- -
manufacturable features supports] 2 1 0 1 2
Determine the actions for excess material [Few-numerous supports] - -
removal 2 1 0 1 2

Post-processing to reach part’s requirements [Minimal-major] - -

(post-treatment) 2 1 0 1 2

out-of-limit overhanging geometries). The magnitude of the design modifications

required to correct the non-feasible to manufacturable features is the first leg of the
part’s AM Manufacturability. This subset also includes the extent of the required
support structures to secure the build while being manufactured [50, 52].
The second leg refers to the post-processing load that the part must go through
to reach the desired state and meet the user’s requirements. The post-processing
workload can be reduced with properly manufacturable designed features (e.g., over-
hanging geometries orientated within limits). The framework to determine a part’s
Additive Manufacturability is shown in Table 2.10.
The overall AM Manufacturability indicator is not one-dimensional as it describes
the design’s easiness to be additively manufactured without alternations, the addition
of support structures, and the extent of the post-processing load that the part requires
to meet its final requirements. This affects the production performance and can be
resolved with the implementation of DfAM rules to the part design (Fig. 2.14).

2.5 Re-design for AM

When it comes to designing a part for Additive Manufacturing, the most straightfor-
ward approach involves re-designing or adapting a pre-existing part in the specifics of
the AM process to be used. This approach utilizes conventional parametric design; the
design engineer decides upon the most important features, generating the initial shape
of the design, and then further determines the exact dimensions for the part to perform
for the required specifications [16, 48, 53]. In this case, the designer is constrained by
the pre-existing design of the part. Optimization algorithms can be applied but with
2.5 Re-design for AM 33

Fig. 2.14 DfAM rules’ affection on production and post-processing workload [51]

limited design freedom, and as such, the resulting design is often not optimal. In addi-
tion, the designer should manually take into account process-related aspects, as well
as generic and process-specific DfAM guidelines. This approach requires a synthesis
of design rules and guidelines, to either assist expert designers or be embedded in
software tools executing design optimization routines. Such approaches have been
structured and presented in the past [54]; most common geometrical features were
identified and guidelines for designing each one as well as explanations and good
practices were established and presented in a “design table” form. In [55], the impli-
cations involved in the introduction of AM to production have been discussed and
compared with conventional manufacturing methods, making clear that there are
advantages when using the appropriate design approaches to AM.
One of the most promising value propositions of Additive Manufacturing tech-
nologies is the zero-cost geometrical complexity, assuming part manufacturability.
Benefits such as design freedom, integrated design, production flexibility with no
need for product-specific tools, and lead time reduction for short-series production
are assets that AM can offer to the industrial sector (4.1), [56]. However, design for
AM is similar in a way to design for composites; one must comprehend the unique
challenges and opportunities that are linked to the technology to be used in order to
take advantage of it. This can be achieved with the backpropagation of the process
and manufacturing information, which morphs the shape and characteristics of the
design, resulting in a part that abides by the DfAM rules from the first design iteration
(Fig. 2.15). This allows not only more manufacturable designs to be generated, but
also the design process is made in a more linear fashion, eliminating time-consuming
design iterations.
Re-designing a part for AM can be distinguished into three phases; (i) selection
of potential parts and design simplification/consolidation, (ii) design optimization,
and (iii) design validation. Typically, the selection of potential parts to be substi-
tuted by new designs made by AM is a decision based on empirical observations or
previous knowledge and experience on the specific application, in conjunction with
34 2 Design for AM

Fig. 2.15 Conventional (orange) and proposed (blue) design process for AM [8]

AM process knowledge to ensure that AM adds value in that particular case (for
example, identifying heavy parts with a high potential of weight reduction). Thus,
in the first phase, the user can be in a position to investigate the potential for the
replacement of a component and choose the most appropriate one. This decision is
also based on specific requirements that have to be addressed and assure that the
particular part can be produced via AM. The material used for manufacturing these
parts should also be examined, to determine availability and mechanical or other
properties. A systematized approach to check the validity of the aforementioned
selection is presented in Sect. 3.1.
Additionally, the design limitations due to the manufacturing process utilized are
obtained. Material removal areas and possible filets or radii should be identified at
this stage. Furthermore, connecting plates or brackets manufactured for joining the
components with the rest of the assembly can be integrated into a singular design,
thus saving weight and assembly time from the structure (part consolidation).
Due to the additional geometric flexibility granted by transitioning to AM, the
design of the part may be further simplified, removing geometrical features that have
been introduced during previous versions of the part, designed to be manufactured
via other processes. The key consideration at this stage is disconnecting the part
function from its geometry; this allows the designer to retain only the design elements
important for the functionality of the part and remove any other constraints which
can lead to an improved design. However, in the case of direct part replacement, the
constraints imposed from the operating environment of the investigated component
must be respected. Mounting points and dedicated areas for the installation of other
mechanical parts (such as bolts, bearings) should remain the same during the re-
design phase, due to the fact that the choice of these items is based on interdependent
criteria, and their rearrangement in the assembly may cause implications with their
2.5 Re-design for AM 35

Fig. 2.16 Re-design of an existing part for AM. Adapted from [54]

interface in the rest of the final product. A characteristic example can be seen in
Fig. 2.16.
During the second phase, a detailed study of the loads (application points, load
paths, force magnitude) developed in the component from the operating condi-
tions should be conducted. The designer can utilize this information along with
finite element analysis (FEA) algorithms to identify inefficiencies in the design (for
example, areas where material can be removed without adverse effects on the stiffness
or strength of the part). For this, a knowledge of the attainable mechanical material
properties should also exist, to determine stress thresholds. At this stage, optimiza-
tion algorithms such as Topology Optimization (TO) can also be deployed, albeit in
a limited way. Such optimization algorithms are presented in more detail in Sect. 2.4.
The Topology Optimization algorithm can start removing material from the enabled
design areas, by defining the areas of interest, i.e., areas for material removal, and
frozen areas (bearings housing, mounting points, etc.). Normally, the optimization
task is the generation of a structure maintaining the component’s stiffness threshold,
while enabling a volume, stress, or weight restriction. Thus, the optimization param-
eter is the part compliance (deformation) which is represented as the sum of the
model’s strain energy. This value has to meet a certain value during the optimization
procedure.
The result of phase 2 will be a new design, suitable for use in the existing opera-
tional conditions of the assembly (as imposed by the rest of the components), which
will be lighter while at the same time maintaining the level of stiffness that is required.
These iterations should also be aligned with pre-established performance targets;
36 2 Design for AM

weight, structural performance (displacement, max. stresses), and total volume are
crucial measures of part performance.
In the third and final phases of the conceptual design framework, the new design
should be verified in terms of the performance targets and its operability inside the
assembly. As soon as it is obtained that the new component can be effectively incor-
porated into the assembly, without sacrificing performance and mainly avoiding the
re-design of other parts to be fitted in it, the user can allow the CAD file to be
forwarded to a CAM tool. The CAM tool will subsequently slice the part, generate
support structures, and generate the part program in order to build up the part. Based
on the outcomes of the CAM tool, the designer can determine potential inefficien-
cies (such as excessive supports) and could use these findings to revise the design,
improving manufacturability.

2.6 Design Optimization

The second approach of design for AM involves creating an optimized design

from scratch, utilizing algorithmic design methods; the designer decides upon the
morphing equation, its parameters, and the specific space inside the build volume
that the algorithm fills with structures of material [57, 58]. The algorithmic methods
branch into two main and dissimilar subcategories, namely Topology Optimization
(TO) and Generative Design (GD). Both approaches start from the build volume and
add or subtract geometrical entities to morph the part.
Topology Optimization tools are widely known and used for more than a decade.
Starting from a «bulk» of material, the designer applies a series of constraints and
boundary conditions and the algorithm optimizes the material distribution based on
certain criteria. When designing structural parts, the most common criterion would
be the minimization of part volume (and subsequently mass) while maintaining
maximum stresses and their distribution at a certain, user-defined level. This iterative
process greatly resembles exhaustive search algorithms, and as such, it is computa-
tionally intensive, requiring lots of time and resources to be executed. Applications
of Topology Optimization (TO) to Additive Manufacturing have been discussed in
[59], concluding that the method is mostly used to generate rough shapes that need
to be refined before the actual parts are manufactured. Topology Optimization has
been used as a method of decreasing the mass of a part while minimizing strain
energy [60]. The promise for Topology Optimization in design for Additive Manu-
facturing, mainly focusing on functionally graded porosity, through the usage of
lattice structures, has also been discussed in [61]. In [62] unconventional approaches
to design are presented, enabled by the use of AM, focusing on bio-inspired cellular
structures. In [63], a method of producing a part with AM via clearly established
functions and constraints and the application of iterative Topology Optimization
and re-design routine has been presented. However, validation of the parts’ design
has been reported to be impossible if they have not been actually manufactured. A
novel methodology applied to parts manufactured by laser-based AM processes was
2.6 Design Optimization 37

proposed in [64]. The authors identified global and local sets of rules in order to
optimize AM production. However, the methodology is limited to simple “extruded-
like” 2.5D structures and not to complex 3D shapes. The use of lattice structures
and their optimization have been investigated in [65] as an example of lightweight
design. The paper shows that the use of the lattice structure should not be an objective
by itself, yet the combination of the Topology Optimization and the lattice structure
proves to be the optimal choice for the part under consideration and its purpose.
Generative Design (GD) refers to an algorithmic design optimization method that
creates a certain number of designs based on certain non-geometric requirements or
constraints on product performance. The user then selects and fine-tunes the resulting
designs that fit their constraints [66, 67]. Generative Design has been applied across
different design problems in heterogeneous domains [68, 69]. He et al. [70] have
presented a generative-based approach called truss layout optimization to create
optimized additively manufactured components, including certain process-related
build constraints. A method for Generative Design tailored in AM and inspired by
termite nest building has been presented by Dokhia et al. [71]. Salta et al. [72] have
discussed the viability of additively manufacturing an emergency shelter that was
automatically adapted in terms of design using Generative Design algorithms. Gener-
ative Design approaches have also been used to design optimized support structures
for AM [73]. Such tools have also been integrated into commercially available CAD
software packages. Junk et al. [74] have collected and compared the market offer-
ings in terms of such tools that can also integrate AM workflows. Generative Design
approaches need the design engineer’s input at the end of the design stage to deter-
mine which features and which design variant are to be manufactured. Therefore,
additional AM buildability knowledge is required to choose the optimum part variant
at the end of the design process [68]. This feature and part variant selection are the
first point of the design process where manufacturability concerns begin to appear,
as certain geometries and features can make the product’s manufacturing unviable
with AM.
One very important limitation of both Topology Optimization and Generative
Design methods is that the very specific optimization goals generate highly complex
parts, making them impossible to be realized with conventional manufacturing. Albeit
the fact that the resulting, highly complex parts are appealing for Additive Manufac-
turing, they do not take into account the specificities and limitations of the manufac-
turing process to be used. Design modifications are then required in a second stage
to address problematic aspects of the design and increase the part’s manufactura-
bility [75, 76]. This additional design modification stage highlights the need for a
design method, where manufacturing specifications and the component’s function-
ality simultaneously act to shape the design and optimize the AM process to make it
economically viable [77, 78]. An interesting addition to these types of tools would
be a method to optimize the design for AM production, rather than function.
38 2 Design for AM

Such a method has been proposed in [79], focusing on achieving shape optimiza-
tion, and has Additive Manufacturability criteria checked in an iterative fashion. The
resulting geometry is not the most optimized in terms of weight reduction; however,
the method claims to ensure manufacturability of the design with a small weight
penalty over established TO approaches.

2.7 Design for Post-processing

Despite the inherent benefits of AM processes, most of them face a common chal-
lenge; parts need to be post-processed before being able to be used. Post-processing
includes any processing steps that follow the Additive Manufacturing of a part;
this includes cleaning, mechanical material removal, (electro)thermal, and chem-
ical treatments as well as laser-based post-processing, aimed to improve geometric
characteristics, appearance, and mechanical behavior of the parts. Post-processing
considerations are presented in detail in Sect. 3.6; nevertheless, certain design deci-
sions can significantly improve the ease and effectiveness of post-processing that
will be presented herein.
The first design consideration linked to post-processing is related to residual
unconsolidated material removal. Cavities and intricate geometries typically result
in trapping unconsolidated powder or resin, which needs to be removed after the
part is completed. Design features that can aid the removal of residual powder/resin
are the introduction of radiused internal edges and maintaining a relatively simple
internal profile without sharp direction changes. Hollow cavities should have at least
one opening of sufficient size; ideally, multiple openings should be introduced on
opposite sides of the cavity. Blind holes/bores should be substituted by through-holes
whenever possible.
For metal AM processes, thermal treatment can be deployed to alleviate
anisotropic mechanical properties and reduce porosity. The designer should there-
fore ensure that the part will not be warped and distorted during the heat treatment
process. This includes avoiding long, flat sections by the addition of strengthening
ribs. These ribs should be added on the outer surface whenever possible, to aid
residual powder removal as already anticipated. In addition, the designer should
ensure that the build plate adhesion and support structures’ interface are strong
enough to withstand thermal stresses.
Support removal is also a challenge that can be solved through design. Non-soluble
supports need to be mechanically removed. For polymer AM processes, due to the
relatively low strength of the material, manual methods are deployed. For metal AM
processes, power tools are typically required. In all cases, ensuring tool accessibility
is paramount. If tool accessibility cannot be guaranteed, replacing temporary supports
with permanent walls can be considered (see Sect. 2.2.1).
AM processes cannot achieve very tight tolerances, flatness, and surface rough-
ness. As such, mechanical material removal processes such as milling and/or grinding
are deployed during post-processing. The designer should ensure that the AM parts
2.8 AM Relevant Standards 39

can facilitate those additional process steps. The parts should have enough additional
material that can be mechanically removed without compromising the overall part
dimensions. The part design should ensure sufficient strength and stiffness so that the
part can withstand the mechanical loads imposed on them during post-processing.
In addition, fixturing considerations should be kept in mind. Design elements can be
added to enable the part to be easily clamped in a milling machine. These elements
should also have sufficient strength and stiffness to ensure an effective milling oper-
ation, but should also be relatively easy to remove from the part once machining
is completed. Additional referencing elements can be added, so that part setup in
the milling machine can be facilitated. Such clamping and referencing elements are
common practice in the metal casting industry, since cast components are also typi-
cally post-machined; therefore, similar approaches can also be followed here. These
additional elements can be subsequently removed at the last step of post-machining,
to further reduce component weight if not further required for functional purposes.

2.8 AM Relevant Standards

Toward maturing AM technologies and making them more relevant for industrial
uptakes, numerous standardization committees are working on establishing standards
for AM. While most of these standards deal with certain procedures such as material
handling, material characterization, heat treatment, there are a few that are linked to
design and would be useful for designers to consult. These are:
• ISO/ASTM 52900:2021 Additive Manufacturing—General principles—Funda-
mentals and vocabulary.
• ISO/ASTM 52902:2019 Additive Manufacturing—Test artifacts—Geometric
capability assessment of Additive Manufacturing systems.
• ISO/ASTM 52910:2018 Additive Manufacturing—Design—Requirements,
guidelines, and recommendations.
• ISO/ASTM 52911-1:2019 Additive Manufacturing—Design—Part 1: Laser-
based Powder Bed Fusion of metals.
• ISO/ASTM 52911-2:2019 Additive Manufacturing—Design—Part 2: Laser-
based Powder Bed Fusion of polymers.
• ISO/ASTM 52912:2020 Additive Manufacturing—Design—Functionally graded
Additive Manufacturing.
• ISO/ASTM 52909:2022 Additive Manufacturing of metals—Finished part prop-
erties—Orientation and location dependence of mechanical properties for metal
Powder Bed Fusion.
• VDI 3405 Part 3 Additive Manufacturing processes, rapid manufacturing—
Design rules for part production using laser sintering and laser beam melting.
• VDI 3405 Part 3.2 (Draft) Additive Manufacturing processes—Design rules—
Test artifacts and test features for limiting geometric elements.
40 2 Design for AM

• VDI 3405 Part 3.4 Additive Manufacturing processes—Design rules for part
production using Material Extrusion processes.
• VDI 3405 Part 3.5 Additive Manufacturing processes, rapid manufacturing—
Design rules for part production using electron beam melting.
• VDI 3405 Part 8.1 Additive Manufacturing processes—Design rules—Parts using
ceramic materials.

References

1. H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, G. Chryssolouris, Additive manufacturing methods and modelling

approaches: a critical review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 83(1), 389–405 (2016). https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00170-015-7576-2
2. G. Chryssolouris, Manufacturing Systems: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. (Springer-Verlag,
New York, 2006). ISBN 978-0-387-28431-6
3. P. Patrick, Z. Zicheng, B. Richard, M. James, A framework for mapping design for additive
manufacturing knowledge for industrial and product design. J. Eng. Des. 29(6), 291–326 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2018.1483011
4. T. Mangera, F. Kienhöfer, K. Carlson, M. Conning, T. Purkis, G. Govender, Design for manu-
facture and assembly of a polycentric paediatric prosthetic knee. Proc. Instit. Mech. Eng. Part
B: J. Eng. Manuf. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405419840555
5. G. Colombo, F. Mandorli, Evolution in mechanical design automation and engineering knowl-
edge management. Innov. Prod. Des. 55–78 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-
775-4_4
6. W. Rosen, Computer-aided design for additive manufacturing of cellular structures. Comput.
Aided Des. Appl. 4, 585–594 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/16864360.2007.10738493
7. H. Bikas, J. Stavridis, P. Stavropoulos, G. Chryssolouris, A design framework to replace
conventional manufacturing processes with additive manufacturing for structural components:
a formula student case study. Procedia CIRP 57, 710–715 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pro
cir.2016.11.123
8. H. Bikas, A.K. Lianos, P. Stavropoulos, A design framework for additive manufacturing. Int.
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 103, 3769–3783 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03627-z
9. G. Spiegel, W.B. Wright, IV. Slicing (2016), https://medium.com/3d-printing-in-o-p/iv-slicing-
72a9515f44bc. Accessed 04 Nov 2022
10. A.R. Nassar, E.W. Reutzel, Beyond layer-by-layer additive manufacturing – voxel-wise directed
energy deposition, in Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium - An Additive Manufacturing Conference. SFF 2015 (2015), pp. 273–283
11. J. Jiang, J. Stringer, X. Xu, R.Y. Zhong, Investigation of printable threshold overhang angle
in extrusion-based additive manufacturing for reducing support waste. Int. J. Comput. Integr.
Manuf. 31(10), 961–969 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/0951192x.2018.1466398
12. G. Allaire, C. Dapogny, R. Estevez, A. Faure, G. Michailidis, Structural optimization under
overhang constraints imposed by additive manufacturing technologies. J. Comput. Phys. 351,
295–328 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2017.09.041
13. B. Redwood, F. Schöffer, B. Garret, The 3D printing handbook: technologies, design and
applications (2017)
14. J. Jiang, X. Xu, J. Stringer, Support structures for additive manufacturing: a review, journal of
manufacturing and materials processing. J. Manuf. Mater. Process 2(4), 64 (2018). https://doi.
org/10.3390/jmmp2040064
15. A. Alafaghani, A. Qattawi, M.A. Ablat, Design consideration for additive manufacturing: fused
deposition modelling. Open J. Appl. Sci. 7(6), 291–318 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4236/ojapps.
2017.76024
References 41

16. F. Yang, Y. Tang, Y.F. Zhao, Manufacturability of overhang structures fabricated by binder
jetting process, in ASME 2016 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposi-
tion, Volume 2: Advanced Manufacturing (2016). https://doi.org/10.1115/imece2016-65927; E.
Utley, An introduction to designing for metal 3D printing (2017), https://blogs.solidworks.com/
solidworksblog/2017/06/introduction-designing-metal-3d-printing.html. Accessed 17 Nov
2022
17. P. Chain, Supports in 3D printing: a technology overview [online]. Available
at: https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/supports-3d-printing-technology-overview#bin
der-jetting. Accessed 19 Nov 2022
18. M. Cloots, L. Zumofen, A.B. Spierings, A. Kirchheim, K. Wegener, Approaches to minimize
overhang angles of SLM parts. Rapid Prototyp. J. 23(2), 362–369 (2017). https://doi.org/10.
1108/RPJ-05-2015-0061
19. P.J.S. Bartolo, A.C.S. de Lemos, A.M.H. Pereire, A.J.D.S. Mateus, C. Ramos, C. Dos Santos,
D. Oliveira, E. Pinto, F. Craveiro, H.M. Bartolo, H. Almeida, I. Sousa, High value manufac-
turing: advanced research in virtual and rapid prototyping, in 6th International Conference on
Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping (Leiria, Portugal, 2013)
20. D. Thomas, The development of design rules for selective laser melting. Dissertation, University
of Wales, 2009
21. M. Lemay, Design for additive manufacturing: (1) internal channels (2018), https://www.
linkedin.com/pulse/design-additive-manufacturing-1-internal-channels-matt-lemay. Accessed
22 Nov 2022
22. M. Pietropaoli, R. Ahlfeld, F. Montomoli, A. Ciani, M. D’Ercole, Design for additive manu-
facturing: internal channel optimization. J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 139(10), 102101 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4036358
23. C. Beyer, D. Figueroa, Design and analysis of lattice structures for additive manufacturing. J.
Manuf. Sci. Eng. 138(12), 121014 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033957
24. B. Valmik, K. Prakash, P. Vinaykumar, K. Shreyans, G. Kiran, S. Rajkumar, A review on powder
bed fusion technology of metal additive manufacturing, in 4th International Conference and
Exhibition on Additive Manufacturing Technologies-AM-2014 (Banglore, India, 2014)
25. Renishaw article, Additive manufacturing and the need for supports (2019), https://www.ren
ishaw.com/en/can-you-build-am-parts-without-supports--42173. Accessed 17 Nov 2022
26. L. Yang, H. Gong, S. Dilip, B. Stucker, An investigation of thin feature generation in direct metal
laser sintering systems, in 25th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium
(2014)
27. C.C. Seepersad, T. Govett, K. Kim, M. Lundin, D. Pinero, A designer’s guide for dimensioning
and tolerancing SLS parts, in Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium -
An Additive Manufacturing Conference (2012)
28. S. Kubiak, Guidelines for wall thickness in laser sintering (2017), https://www.additivemanu
facturing.media/blog/post/guidelines-for-wall-thickness-in-laser-sintering. Accessed 21 Nov
2022
29. A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, H. Bikas, Path planning for filling 3D printed
parts utilizing Hilbert curves. Procedia Manuf. 21, 757–764 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
promfg.2018.02.181
30. J. Kechagias, S. Zannis, G. Chryssolouris, Surface roughness modelling of the Helisys lami-
nated object manufacturing (LOM) process, in 8th European Conference on Rapid Prototyping
and Manufacturing (Nottingham, U.K, 1999), pp. 141–152
31. S. Sikder, A. Barari, H.A. Kishawy, Effect of adaptive slicing on surface integrity in additive
manufacturing, in Volume 1A: 34th Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
(2014). https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2014-35559
32. T. Mukherjee, H.L. Wei, A. De, T. DebRoy, Heat and fluid flow in additive manufacturing –
part II: powder bed fusion of stainless steel, and titanium, nickel and aluminum base alloys.
Comput. Mater. Sci. 150, 369–380 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2018.04.027
33. AM simulation: a guide to the best part orientation and support configuration, https://www.
materialise.com/en/cases/am-simulation-best-part-orientation-support-configuration-cmf-imp
lants. Accessed 27 Aug 2022
42 2 Design for AM

34. J.P. Kruth, B. Vandenbroucke, J. Van Vaerenbergh, P. Mercelis, Benchmarking of different

SLS/SLM processes as rapid manufacturing techniques. Int. Conf. Polymers Moulds Innov
(2005)
35. E.C. Santos, M. Shiomi, K. Oskada, T. Laoui, Rapid manufacturing of metal components by
laser forming. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 46(12–13), 1459–1468 (2006). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.09.005
36. B. Cavallini, J. Ciurana, C. Reguant, J. Delgado, Studying the repeatability in DMLS tech-
nology using a complete geometry test part, in Innovative Developments in Design and Manu-
facturing: Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping – Proceedings of VR@P4.
(2009), pp. 349–354
37. W.M. Johnson, M. Rowell, B. Deason, M. Eubanks, Benchmarking evaluation of an open
source fused deposition modeling additive manufacturing system, in Proceedings of the 22nd
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (Austin, TX, USA, 2011)
38. G.D. Kim, Y.T. Oh, A benchmark study on rapid prototyping processes and machines: quan-
titative comparisons of mechanical properties, accuracy, roughness, speed, and material cost.
Proc. Instit. Mech. Eng. Part B: J. Eng. Manuf. 222(2), 201–215 (2008). https://doi.org/10.
1243/09544054JEM724
39. M. Fahad, N. Hopkinson, A new benchmarking part for evaluating the accuracy and
repeatability of additive manufacturing (AM) processes, in Proceedings of 2nd International
Conference on Mechanical, Production and Automobile Engineering (Singapore, 2012)
40. D. Scaravett, P. Dubois, R. Duchamp, Qualification of rapid prototyping tools: proposition of
a procedure and a test part. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 38, 683–690 (2008). https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00170-007-1129-2
41. F. Xu, Y.S. Wong, H.T. Loh, Toward generic models for comparative evaluation and process
selection in rapid prototyping and manufacturing. J. Manuf. Syst. 19(5), 283–296 (2000). https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/S0278-6125(01)89001-4
42. G. Papazetis, G.C. Vosniakos, Feature-based process parameter variation in continuous paths
to improve dimensional accuracy in three-dimensional printing via material extrusion. Proc.
Instit. Mech. Eng. Part B: J. Eng. Manuf. 233(12). https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405419838361
43. J. Allison, C. Sharpe, C.C. Seepersad, A test part for evaluating the accuracy and resolution of
a polymer powder bed fusion process. ASME J. Mech. Des. 139(10) (2017). https://doi.org/
10.1115/1.4037303
44. P. Shah, R. Racasan, P. Bills, Comparison of different additive manufacturing methods using
computed tomography. Case Stud. Nondestruct. Test. Eval. 6(B), 69–78 (2016). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.csndt.2016.05.008
45. G. Chryssolouris, J. Kechagias, P. Moustakas, P. Koutras, An experimental investigation of the
tensile strength of parts produced by laminated object manufacturing (LOM) process. CIRP
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, in Proceedings of the 34th CIRP International Seminar on
Manufacturing Systems (Athens, Greece, 2003)
46. C. Oswald, Additive manufacturing design considerations for production in aerospace
(2019), http://app.emarketeer.com/resources/12517/My_Documents/AddManufacturingDesig
nPart1-LAI-FINAL.pdf. Accessed 09 Sep 2022
47. J. Butt, S. Jedi, Redesign of an in-market conveyor system for manufacturing cost reduction
and design efficiency using DFMA methodology. Designs 4, 6 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/
designs4010006
48. M.A. David, Design for manufacturability; how to use concurrent engineering to rapidly
develop low-cost, high-quality products for Lean Production (Productivity Press, 2014), www.
design4manufacturability.com/books.htm. Accessed 05 Oct 2022
49. V. Todić, D. Lukić, M. Milosevic, G. Jovicic, J. Vukman, Manufacturability of product design
regarding suitability for manufacturing and assembly (DfMA). J. Prod. Eng. 16, 47–50 (2012)
50. J. Willems, M. Megahed, Multi-Objective Optimization of PBF Workpiece Orientation (Sim-
AM, Pavia, Italy, 2019)
51. A.K. Lianos, H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, A shape optimization method for part design derived
from the buildability restrictions of the directed energy deposition additive manufacturing
process. Designs 4(3) (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/designs4030019
References 43

52. O. Yilmaz, A.A. Ugla, Shaped metal deposition technique in additive manufacturing: a review.
Proc. Instit. Mech. Eng. Part B: J. Eng. Manuf. 230(10), 1781–1798 (2016). https://doi.org/10.
1177/0954405416640181
53. D. Roller, An approach to computer-aided parametric design. Comput. Aided Des. 23(5),
385–391 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4485(91)90033-s
54. J. Kranz, D. Herzog, C. Emmelmann, Design guidelines for laser additive manufacturing of
lightweight structures in TiAl6V4. J. Laser Appl. 27, S14001 (2015). https://doi.org/10.2351/
1.4885235
55. S. Mellor, L. Hao, D. Zhang, Additive manufacturing: a framework for implementation. Int. J.
Prod. Econ. 149, 194–201 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.008
56. A.K. Lianos, H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, A shape optimization method for part design derived
from the buildability restrictions of the directed energy (2020)
57. S.L. Liu, Q.W. Chen, L. Tong, G. Cheng, An identification method for enclosed voids restriction
in manufacturability design for additive manufacturing structures. Front. Mech. Eng. 10(2),
126–137 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-015-0340-3
58. M. Nashvili, M. Olhofer, B. Sendhoff, Morphing methods in evolutionary design optimization,
in Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation - GECCO
’05 (Washington DC, USA, 2005). https://doi.org/10.1145/1068009.1068159
59. M.S. Edke, K.H. Chang, Shape optimization of heavy load carrying components for structural
performance and manufacturing cost. Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 31, 344–354 (2006). https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00158-005-0603-4
60. E.C. Tsirogiannis, G.C. Vosniakos, Redesign and topology optimisation of an industrial robot
link for additive manufacturing. Facta Universitatis Series Mech. Eng. 17(3), 415–424 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME181219003T
61. G. Chahine, P. Smith, R. Kovacevic, Application of Topology Optimization in Modern Additive
Manufacturing, Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium Austin, Texas, USA (2010)
62. D.W. Rosen, Design for additive manufacturing: a method to explore unexplored regions of
the design space, in Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings (2007)
63. B. Vayre, F. Vignat, F. Villeneuve, Designing for AM. Procedia CIRP 3, 632–637 (2012). https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2012.07.108
64. R. Ponchen, O. Kerbrat, P. Mognol, J.Y. Hascoet, A novel methodology of design for AM
applied to additive laser manufacturing process. Robot. Comput.-Integrat. Manuf. 30, 389–398
(2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2013.12.001
65. G. Reinhart, S. Teufelhart, Load-adapted design of generative manufactured lattice structures.
Phys. Procedia 12, 385–392 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2011.03.049
66. K. Meintjes, Generative design – what’s that? – CIMdata (2017), https://www.cimdata.com/
de/resources/cimdata-blog/item/8402-generative-design-what-s-that/8402-generative-design-
what-s-that. Accessed 15 Sep 2022
67. P. Keane, Generative design: the road to production (2018), https://www.engineering.com/
story/generative-design-the-road-to-production. Accessed 15 Sep 2022
68. S. Khan, M.J. Awan, A generative design technique for exploring shape variations. Adv. Eng.
Inform. 38, 712–724 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2018.10.005
69. S. Krish, A practical generative design method. Comput. Aided Des. 43(1), 88–100 (2011).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.09.009
70. L. He, M. Gilbert, T. Johnson, T. Pritchard, Conceptual design of AM components using layout
and geometry optimization. Comput. Math. Appl. 78(7), 2308–2324 (2019). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.camwa.2018.07.012
71. V. Dhokia, W.P. Essink, J.M. Flynn, A generative multi-agent design methodology for additively
manufactured parts inspired by termite nest building. CIRP Ann. 66(1), 153–156 (2017). https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2017.04.039
72. S. Salta, N. Papavasileiou, K. Pyliotis, M. Katsaros, Adaptable emergency shelter: a case study
in generative design and additive manufacturing in mass customization era. Procedia Manuf.
44, 124–131 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.213
44 2 Design for AM

73. Y. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Zhang, S. Gomes, A. Bernard, Bio-inspired generative design for support
structure generation and optimization in additive manufacturing (AM). CIRP Ann. 69(1), 117–
120 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2020.04.091
74. S. Junk, L. Burkart, Comparison of CAD systems for generative design for use with addi-
tive manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 100, 577–582 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.
05.126
75. M. Leary, L. Merli, F. Torti, M. Mazur, M. Brand, Optimal topology for additive manufacture:
a method for enabling additive manufacture of support-free optimal structures. Mater. Des. 63,
678–690 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.06.015
76. A. Panesar, M. Abdi, D. Hickman, I. Ashcroft, Strategies for functionally graded lattice struc-
tures derived using topology optimisation for additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 19, 81–94
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2017.11.008
77. R. Molaei, A. Fatemi, Fatigue design with additive manufactured metals: issues to consider
and perspective for future research. Procedia Eng. 213, 5–16 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
proeng.2018.02.002
78. T. Yunlong, F.Z. Yaoyao, A survey of the design methods for additive manufacturing to improve
functional performance. Rapid Prototyp. J. 22(3), 569–590 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1108/
RPJ-01-2015-0011
79. Deposition additive manufacturing process. Designs 4(3), 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/design
s4030019
Chapter 3
AM Processes

Initially, the available AM methods will be classified based on their process mech-
anisms based on the analysis of (a) their characteristics, advantages, and drawbacks
and (b) the criteria for the selection of the most suitable AM method according to
specific needs. The most important AM part quality issues will be analyzed in detail,
along with the reasons that cause them. Process optimization strategies to improve
AM product quality will be presented, focusing on the effect of crucial AM processes.
Next, simulation for AM will be analyzed, detailing the different simulation types
and how they can be practically applied in an industrial environment. Additionally,
post-processing methods for AM will be described; moreover, AM-specific moni-
toring, process control, and quality assessment strategies will be presented. Finally,
the connection of the aforementioned modules to Hybrid AM as well as to digital
twin applications for AM will be discussed.

3.1 Process and Material Selection

Initially, it has to be decided whether AM is a suitable choice for a given part. The
most important parameters to be taken into consideration are the lot size and part
complexity [1]. However, a cost model and a Return on Investment (ROI) should
also be utilized for this selection [2]; this will be further analyzed in Chap. 4, under
the business perspective of AM. Therefore, in this chapter, the decisions that have to
be made—given that AM is the best manufacturing scenario for a certain product—
will be analyzed, namely the selection of the material, the AM process family, and
the specific machine that will be used. This is a multi-criterion decision-making
problem that requires careful evaluation for its solution [2]. First, a general overview
of this procedure will be presented, followed by additional details for each step.
The material selection is the first step, in which the product requirements have to be
considered. Once the material has been decided, the geometrical requirements have

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 45

P. Stavropoulos, Additive Manufacturing: Design, Processes and Applications,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33793-2_3
46 3 AM Processes

to be considered for the selection of the AM process family. The advantages and
drawbacks of each AM process family need also to be considered in this selection
process; this is qualitatively depicted in Fig. 3.1, along with the severity of common
AM part quality issues. Once the AM process family has been selected, the final
step is the selection of the specific AM machine. The maximum part dimensions,
as well as the building speed and resolution capabilities of the machine, have to be
considered; this allows for successful and cost-effective production. A synopsis of
the basic steps of the material and process decision-making process can be seen in
Fig. 3.2.
Table 3.1 lists important considerations that have to be made concerning the
material selection. More specifically, the intended use of a product is of critical
importance because prototyping and end-use products have different requirements.

Fig. 3.1 Limitations and severity of common AM part quality issues of the different AM process
families

Fig. 3.2 AM material-, process-, and machine-selection flowchart

3.1 Process and Material Selection 47

Table 3.1 Material selection

1. Determine performance requirements via intent of use
considerations [3]
Prototyping and R&D?
Validation or pre-production?
End-use parts?
2. Translate performance to material requirements
Stiffness/hardness
Toughness/tear strength
Temperature and chemical resistance
Creep and durability
3. Select material
Design space/operation environment
Durability
Longevity
4. AM machine selection
Product requirements
Material compatibility

This has a direct impact on the required mechanical properties and, consequently,
on the material selection. Additionally, the choice of the AM process needs to fulfill
the criteria of material compatibility and product requirements.
Proceeding to the second step, Table 3.2 lists more detailed AM process considera-
tions. More specifically, the available range of materials for each AM process should
be investigated and the difference in mechanical properties among AM processes
should be considered. Moreover, the process capabilities should be considered based
on their accuracy, surface roughness, as well as their capability for the manufacturing
of overhangs, bridges, and supports. A detailed summary of the capabilities of each
process family regarding different design aspects can be seen in Fig. 3.3. Addition-
ally, the build rate of the process families is a crucial criterion that directly affects the
product cost and the post-processing requirements; these should be considered while
taking into account the design requirements to achieve successful and cost-effective
products.
Figures 3.4 and 3.5 illustrate rules of thumb for the selection of a suitable AM
process for prototyping and functional end-use parts, respectively. Furthermore, the
utilization of the Advanced Hierarchy Process (AHP) is advised for a concrete
decision-making process because it allows for a decision-making evaluation based
on multiple criteria. To execute the method, different Key Performance Indicators
(KPIs) must be selected; then, they should be weighted according to the level of
importance for the specific case. Next, scores should be calculated for each KPI and
the aforementioned weights should be applied [9].
48 3 AM Processes

Table 3.2 AM process selection considerations

1. Investigate material availability
Available range of materials for each AM process
Differences in mechanical properties across AM processes
2. Determine process capabilities
Process accuracy (“resolution”) depends on the process mechanism
Surface roughness and finish quality vary greatly between AM processes
Overhangs, bridges, and support requirements also determine the design flexibility and
post-processing requirements
3. Compare overall dimensions
Some processes can manufacture large parts while others are limited in size. A rough
estimation and exclusion of processes can be made at this stage
4. Investigate process build/deposition rate
Some processes have faster production times than others
5. Determine post-processing needs
Some processes require various post-processing steps to have a final product, increasing the
production time cost

Fig. 3.3 Minimum/maximum values of design aspects that lead to improved quality and manufac-
turability for the different AM process families [2, 4–8]
3.2 AM Part Quality Issues 49

Fig. 3.4 Rules of thumb for the selection of AM process for prototyping

Fig. 3.5 Rules of thumb for the selection of AM process for end-use functional products

3.2 AM Part Quality Issues

Currently, one of the most important issues hindering AM is that of part quality [1].
The most important quality issues can be summarized as follows.
• Surface roughness and layer-by-layer appearance.
• Porosity/void formation.
• Anisotropic microstructure and mechanical properties.
• Thermal residual stresses and deformations.
Each of the aforementioned quality issues will be analyzed separately in the
following sections.
50 3 AM Processes

3.2.1 Surface Roughness and Layer-by-Layer Appearance

Surface roughness defines surface texture and can be quantified through the magni-
tude and quantity of the deviations that are normal to a given surface [10]. The
parameters that affect surface roughness in AM can be classified into two groups:
process/material-dependent and user selections-dependent.
In the first category, the determining factors are the process mechanism, the
machine resolution, and the precision, as well as the feedstock type. Figure 3.6 illus-
trates the capabilities of the different AM process families regarding surface rough-
ness. It can be observed that Binder Jetting can achieve the best roughness values and
is closely followed by laser PBF; meanwhile, electron PBF has the highest roughness
values among the PBF family processes. The DED process family displays signif-
icantly higher roughness results than the BJ and PBF families. It is worth noting
that powder-based feedstock leads to lower roughness values than the wire-based
feedstock.

Fig. 3.6 Typical surface roughness ranges for metal AM process families
3.2 AM Part Quality Issues 51

The process mechanism, machine resolution, and feedstock type play a significant
role; however, they only set the upper and lower limits in terms of the capabilities
they offer. The final roughness result is determined by the user selections regarding
the printing setup and the process-parameter values [11].
Layer-by-layer appearance can also manifest as surface roughness. Therefore,
smaller layer thickness reduces this effect. Moreover, the orientation of the part in
the building platform determines the orientation of its different surfaces with respect
to the build direction [11]. The larger the deviation of a surface from the build
direction, the higher the roughness of the given surface is.
Another important parameter that is inexplicably connected with orientation is the
supports [12]. Supports’ interfaces lead to increased roughness after their removal.
Therefore, during the selection of the printing orientation, the user must strive toward
both the minimization and the avoidance of supports on surfaces with delicate details.
It should be mentioned that the PBF process families require fewer supports than
the DED ones; however, other issues have to be considered, such as the optimization
of the down-skin process parameters (laser power and scanning speed) to minimize
roughness for overhanging geometries [13, 14] (Fig. 3.7).
Finally, to achieve lower roughness for a given combination of the process–
AM machine–feedstock type, the optimization of the process parameters is crucial.
The most important process parameters affecting roughness are the layer thickness,
laser power, scanning speed, power density, and overlap [16] (which will be further
discussed in Sect. 3.3).
One rather overlooked factor that can affect surface roughness is the tessellation
error that occurs during the conversion of the CAD file to the Standard Triangle
Language (STL) file, which is the most common format used by AM slicing software
[17]. By increasing the number of elements used in the STL file, the intensity of this
phenomenon is drastically decreased. However, the use of excessive elements should
be avoided, as this would lead to very large STL files that would be more difficult to
slice and process.
It has to be noted that post-processing greatly improves the issue of surface rough-
ness (Sect. 3.6); however, an initial low roughness greatly decreases post-processing
cost and time.

Fig. 3.7 Down-skin

roughness of overhanging
geometries in PBF [15]
52 3 AM Processes

3.2.2 Porosity/Void Formation

Voids can be formed inside the part during AM (Fig. 3.8); void formation can be
classified into the following categories [18].

1. Processing-induced pores: lack of fusion and incomplete melting.

2. Feedstock-related pores and impurities.
3. Pores from powder compaction: void pockets between powder particles.
4. Metallurgical pores.

The most common reason for pore formation is the first category, which mainly
involves incorrect heat input in the melt pool [19] and insufficient material overlap
(hatch spacing) [20]. More specifically, if a low energy density is used, the melting
and fusion of the new layer with the previous one are not performed correctly, thus
resulting in the formation of pores [19]. However, the use of very high energy densities
can lead to the same effect due to the creation of a keyhole in the melt pool, which
leads to air inclusions during solidification [21]. Additionally, if there is insufficient
overlap in the hatch spacing, the fusion between the different paths of the same
layer might not be complete, thus leading to the creation of pores. Therefore, careful
optimization of laser power–speed and hatching is required to eliminate the first type
of porosity formation.
Another cause of porosity is the feedstock entrapped pores. Their source can be
trapped atomization gas, the reaction of feedstock with moisture, or its oxidation
[22]. The use of high-quality feedstock, its preheating, as well as careful handling
and storage according to the manufacturer’s standards are required to avoid this cause
of porosity [21].
Pores from powder compaction are formed when void pockets remain trapped
between powder particles. To significantly improve this, the use of thinner layers,
overlapping, and better compaction of the powder is suggested [18]. The formation
of metallurgical pores is inherent in the dynamic phenomena that take place during

Fig. 3.8 Pore formation in

AlSi10Mg processed by
SLM [25]
3.2 AM Part Quality Issues 53

Fig. 3.9 Hot cracking during deposition of IN718 [26]

the formation and solidification of the melt pool. This source of porosity cannot
be fully predicted or entirely avoided due to its stochastic nature; however, higher
energy densities tend to improve this issue [18].
Finally, it has to be mentioned that cracks might also appear in metal AM parts
(Fig. 3.9); however, despite that this phenomenon decreases the final density, e.g.,
porosity formation, its source is different and it is attributed to the development
of high thermal stresses during manufacturing [1]. These stresses are caused by
excessive spatial non-uniformities of the thermal field (thermal gradients) and can
be avoided via energy density and scanning strategy optimization [23], as well as the
use of heat-diffusing supports [24]; this will be further analyzed in Sect. 3.2.4.

3.2.3 Anisotropic Microstructure and Mechanical Properties

Due to the layer-by-layer nature of the AM processes, orientation dependence of

mechanical properties is observed: the mechanical properties along the build axis
are inferior to those along the two orthogonal axes [1]. To decrease the effects of
anisotropy, careful selection of energy density and hatch spacing has to take place
to allow for a sufficient fusion with the previously deposited layer and the adjacent
deposited path [27]. Additionally, the orientation of the part in the build chamber
has to be optimized to ensure that the optimal mechanical properties are obtained
depending on the load requirements for a specific part (Fig. 3.10).
However, to effectively minimize the effect of anisotropy, the microstructure
should be studied and the impact of the various process parameters should be investi-
gated. The source of the anisotropy lies in the grain evolution during manufacturing
(Fig. 3.11). The microstructure can be controlled in situ utilizing re-melting, opti-
mization of build envelope temperature, as well as cooling rates and heating profiles
[29], thus improving layer-by-layer grain uniformity [29]. The role of the cooling
rate is crucial in the uniformity of microstructure. Slower cooling rates lead to coarser
grains, whereas faster rates lead to thinner ones [30]. Moreover, the design of the part
plays an important role because thicker cross-sections cool slower than thinner ones,
54 3 AM Processes

Fig. 3.10 Effect of orientation on anisotropy: difference in mechanical strength of PLA parts [28]

Fig. 3.11 Heterogenous grain evolution during recrystallization in SLM

hence leading to coarser microstructures [31]. Furthermore, the cooling rates in the
lower layers tend to be faster due to the higher heat conductivity of the baseplate
material [32]. Finally, there are techniques in design for AM specifically aiming to
minimize anisotropy, such as specialized lattice structures [33]. It should be noted
that post-processing greatly improves the issue of anisotropy (Sect. 3.6); however,
achieving a satisfactory initial anisotropy greatly reduces post-processing cost and
time.

3.2.4 Thermal Residual Stresses and Deformations

The uneven heating and cooling that take place during the manufacturing of parts in
AM lead to the development of thermal stresses and deformations, both in the build
direction (Z-axis) and in the horizontal plane (XY). This leads to the deterioration of
3.2 AM Part Quality Issues 55

part quality in terms of dimensional accuracy and mechanical properties and can even
lead to total part failure. Additionally, in PBF, thermal deformations can potentially
cause a crash of the re-coater during the spreading of a new powder layer.
The cause for this phenomenon is the non-uniformity of the thermal field [1] both
in the build direction (Z-axis) and in-plane (XY), and it can be classified into three
categories: (i) induced stresses from upper layers to the below solidified layers, (ii)
thermal contraction of the current layer, and (iii) thermal gradients in the XY-plane
[1, 23, 34].
The first category occurs due to thermal gradients in the Z-axis. More specifically,
the temperature of the upper solidified layers increases because they are closer to
the heated top layer and they tend to expand. However, the lower layers, which
have a lower temperature, stop this expansion; therefore, stresses are induced, which
are compressive in the upper layers and tensile in the lower ones (Fig. 3.12). If
these stresses are higher than the yield stress of the material, plastic deformations
occur. After the part has cooled down, the plastic deformations are converted to
residual stresses, and according to their magnitude, they can lead to deformations or
cracks [34].
The reason for the development of the second category of thermal stresses/
deformations (i.e., ii) thermal contraction of the current layer) is the non-uniform
temperature in the Z-direction [35]. The top layer has a high temperature during its
creation, and as it cools down, it tends to shrink. However, the shrinkage is prevented
by the layers below it because all layers have already fused, leading to the creation
of tensile stress on the top layer and compressive on the layer below [34]. This is
graphically depicted in Fig. 3.13.
Finally, the third category of thermal stresses/deformations is created due to the
uneven temperature distribution in the XY-plane. A pre-determined scanning strategy

Fig. 3.12 Induced thermal stresses in upper and lower layers due to Z-axis thermal gradient
56 3 AM Processes

Fig. 3.13 Thermal stresses due to the cooling down of the top layer

is followed for the heating of the top layer, which in most cases creates a number
of outer contours followed by an infill pattern for the internal area of the layer. This
uneven heating over time leads to the creation of thermal gradients in the XY-plane,
the intensity of which defines the intensity of the induced thermal stresses in the
XY-plane [1, 23] (Fig. 3.14).
The combined effect of the aforementioned three categories of thermal stresses/
deformations leads to warping, i.e., the deformation in the XY-plane that is non-
uniform along the Z-axis. Additionally, the same categories lead to shrinkage, due
to which the final dimensions of the AM parts tend to be smaller than those of the
CAD file used for the production of said parts [1, 35].
A more uniform distribution of temperature along the Z-axis is required for the
reduction of the intensity of both the first and the second categories. This can be
achieved by heating the base plate for the purpose of lowering the thermal gradient
in the Z-direction. Additionally, the heating of the machine chamber helps in the
mitigation of this effect [34]. Moreover, both of the previously mentioned actions

Fig. 3.14 Development of thermal stresses in the XY-plane due to thermal gradients caused by the
heating sequence of the layer because of the simple hatch infill pattern
3.3 Process Optimization Strategies 57

decrease the intensity of the in-plane thermal gradients. However, the latter cate-
gory can be more effectively tackled by evaluating the different scanning strategy
alternatives in terms of the resulting XY-plane thermal gradients and by selecting
the one that leads to the lowest. This extra scanning strategy selection criterion,
which is presented in [23], can decrease the in-plane thermal non-uniformity by up
to 20% for a given part (Fig. 3.15). It should be noted that the impact of the scanning
strategy selection on XY-plane thermal gradients varies according to the design char-
acteristics of a part, and it is of higher importance for parts with uniform X and Y
dimensions. In addition, the existence of holes of increasing diameter increases the
importance of the scanning strategy selection. However, after a diameter threshold
has been reached, the importance of the scanning strategy selection greatly decreases
due to the small XY-plane area of the part. Moreover, the significance of this selec-
tion is lower for parts of low thickness featuring large XY-plane surfaces, whereas it
slightly decreases as the part thickness increases [1, 23].
Another strategy that is applied to reduce the negative effect of thermal stresses
(both due to the Z-axis and XY-plane gradients) is the use of specialized supports
aiming both to decrease the development of deformations during printing and to
dissipate heat in order to lower thermal gradients [24]. This is mostly utilized for
parts with long and narrow details along the Z-axis.

3.3 Process Optimization Strategies

The focus of this book is AM of metals and the most common metal-oriented AM
process families are PBF and DED, followed by BJ, which has more limited applica-
tions. PBF and DED utilize a thermal-based process mechanism for the fusion of new
layers; therefore, they have several common process parameters. The most important
process parameters of thermal-based metal AM processes and their impact on crucial
KPIs will be discussed in the present section because the quality of parts in AM is
highly dependent on the optimization of process parameters. Process-parameter opti-
mization aims to achieve minimized/maximized values of the KPIs that are dependent
on corresponding process parameters. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 summarize the most impor-
tant process parameters and KPIs, respectively. In this section, the impact of each
process parameter of Table 3.3 on the KPIs of Table 3.4 will be discussed.

3.3.1 Heating

The manner in which the heating for the fusion of a new layer with the previous
one is performed has a very significant impact on part quality [16] because it affects
almost all the KPIs of Table 3.4. More specifically, the heating temperature has to be
adjusted to ensure the melting of the entire mass of the current layer, as well as a part
of the layer directly below it [1]. This will ensure that the desired density is achieved,
58 3 AM Processes

Fig. 3.15 Intensity of thermal gradients in the XY-plane for different parts and infill patterns
expressed as normalized stress formation tendency index [1, 23]

that no unmelted feedstock will remain, and that the correct fusion between layers
is achieved. In this section, the focus is on the most common metal AM heat source,
namely the laser; however, the basic principles of the heating process mechanism are
the same for processes that use a different heat source, such as EBM.
The role of the heat source is selective and controlled heating, leading to increased
temperature and melting in order to fuse a new layer with the previous one. However, it
should be noted that there is a connection between the laser power and scanning head
speed. The combination of heating intensity (laser power) and scanning speed form
3.3 Process Optimization Strategies 59

Table 3.3 Important process

• Heating
parameters in AM
– Heating temperature
– Laser power (laser-based)
– Melt-pool dimensions
– Thermal gradients
– Pre-heating
– Re-melting
– Base plate and chamber temperature
– Cooling profiles
• Scanner head related
– Scanner head speed
– Hatch spacing
– Scanning strategy, raster angle, raster width
• Layer thickness

Table 3.4 Important KPIs in

• Surface roughness
AM
• Mechanical properties
– Part strength (tensile, impact, flexural)
– Residual stresses
• Microstructure
– Porosity and void formation
– Density
• Topology and dimensional accuracy
– Deformations, distortions
– Part shrinkage
• Energy consumption
• Build time

the energy density, which is the determining factor for the maximum temperature,
melt-pool dimensions, and the fluid-dynamics phenomena that take place [21]. These
phenomena determine the surface roughness, part density, mechanical properties, and
microstructure of the final parts; therefore, their optimization is of crucial importance
[16]. Energy density and the different combinations of laser power and speed have
to be defined taking into account the material used, the required part density, build
time, and cost of the part, as well as the up-skin and down-skin considerations
(Fig. 3.16). Low energy density leads to limited liquid formation and the balling
effect (Fig. 3.17), whereas excessive energy density has a negative impact on surface
quality, even leading to burnt and failed parts.
60 3 AM Processes

Fig. 3.16 Qualitative depiction of the effects of energy density (combination of laser power and
scanning speed) in AM

Fig. 3.17 Balling effect in metal AM due to insufficient energy density and wetting
3.3 Process Optimization Strategies 61

Fig. 3.18 Steel parts manufactured in SLM without baseplate heating [34]

Feedstock preheating is important because it ensures possible moisture elimina-

tion [22]. Additionally, it increases the speed of the laser heating process because
the feedstock is already at a higher temperature during its spreading (PBF) or
spaying (DED). Particularly in PBF, the spreading of a preheated powder layer
leads to smoother thermal gradients, thus improving microstructure homogeneity
and reducing thermal stresses [23].
Re-melting can be utilized to further improve microstructure homogeneity, as
well as to achieve almost fully dense parts [29]. However, it significantly increases
processing time. The heating of the base plate is a common practice in AM of metals
and it is usually used in plastics, as well. The combination of re-melting with a
heated environment significantly improves microstructure, anisotropy, as well as the
thermal stresses and deformation of the final parts [36]. Without the use of baseplate
heating in metal AM, the possibility of thermal cracking and failed parts highly
increases (Fig. 3.18). Cooling profiles are determined by the heat dissipation during
the manufacturing of a part and are, therefore, a combined result of all the previously
mentioned heating parameters [35].

3.3.2 Scanner Head Speed and Scanning Strategy

One important aspect that is common in all AM processes is the movement of the
scanner head. It is defined by the speed of the scanner head, the path sequence used
for the scanning of a layer (scanning strategy), and the hatch spacing (overlap).
In addition, the scanner head process-parameter group has an impact on all KPIs
because it defines the area, the speed, and the sequence that a layer is heated; thus, it
is directed in synergy with the heating process-parameter group. More specifically,
the scanning speed has to be adjusted considering the desired laser power because
the energy density is a result of the combination of laser power and scanning speed
[36]. The scanning strategy is the path sequence followed for the scanning of a layer,
and it comprises the contours, the infill, and the support structures. It has a direct
impact on residual stresses, deformations, mechanical properties, anisotropy, and
build time. Typically, a couple of contours of the outer surface of each layer are first
62 3 AM Processes

scanned, followed by the scanning of the internal surface of a layer utilizing a pre-
determined infill pattern. AM slicing software offers pre-defined scanning strategy/
infill patterns that the user can select [37]. Common infill patterns are the simple
hatch and consecutive contours, as well as the ones depicted in Fig. 3.19. In metal-
based AM, the most commonly used infill patterns are the simple hatch, stripes, and
chessboard (Fig. 3.20).
There are several criteria for the selection of scanning strategy (Fig. 3.21): (i) the
minimization of anisotropy or obtaining high mechanical properties in a selected
axis, (ii) build time decrease, (iii) specific design considerations, such as optimiza-
tion of the internal topology regarding static and rotational stability, and (iv) the
minimization of the thermal gradients caused by the heating sequence [1] (Fig. 3.14).
When the simple hatch infill is used, the raster angle is the main factor that defines
the directionality of the mechanical properties of the part, particularly in the material
extrusion (MEx) process family [38, 39], whereas it plays a less significant role in

Fig. 3.19 Common infill patterns [23]

Fig. 3.20 Most commonly used infill patterns in metal AM

3.3 Process Optimization Strategies 63

Fig. 3.21 Different scanning strategy selection criteria [23]

metal AM [16]. Therefore, regarding MEx, if the load case requirements are on a
specific axis, the best mechanical properties are obtained using a raster angle of 0°,
whereas if not, the use of a 0°/45°/90°/ − 45° orientation leads to a close-to-isotropic
behavior [23].
Build time is an important factor because it is directly connected with produc-
tivity, which is one of the issues hindering the wider industrial AM uptake. Scanning
strategy can play an important role in the decrease in building time. To achieve a
decrease in build time, the main factor of the scanning strategy that can be optimized
is the rapid movements of the processing head, during which no material is being
printed. The Hilbert curves’ infill strategy is specifically optimized toward this goal
in [40], thus eliminating non-printing movements and simultaneously leading to parts
with close-to-isotropic mechanical properties.
Hatch spacing defines the overlap between two adjacent tracks in PBF, thus
affecting the fusion between them, as well as the resulting microstructure [21] and
surface roughness [41] (Fig. 3.22). A finer hatch spacing (high overlap) leads to
excessive re-melting of the adjacent track, whereas a coarser hatch spacing (small
overlap) leads to decreased adjacent track re-melting. Additionally, finer hatch
spacing increases build time.

3.3.3 Layer Thickness

The selection of these process parameters takes place during the slicing of the part
design and it is one of the most basic process parameters. Their selection has a direct
impact on both part quality (in terms of surface roughness and resolution) and on
build time. More specifically, a smaller layer thickness will provide better resolution
in the Z-direction (layer-by-layer appearance); however, it will significantly increase
64 3 AM Processes

Fig. 3.22 Resulting as-built solidified part surface using increasing hatch spacing from (a–d)

build time because more layers will need to be printed. The minimum possible layer
thickness for the different AM families can be seen in Fig. 3.3. The technique that
ensures the best characteristics of both thicker layers (faster build time) and thinner
ones (resolution) is adaptive slicing, which is qualitatively depicted in Fig. 3.23.

Fig. 3.23 Adaptive slicing

3.4 Simulation for AM 65

3.4 Simulation for AM

Simulation is the utilization of a computer for the solution of a model of a system;

the model is a mathematical representation of the real-world system that includes
assumptions and simplifications. Simulations in engineering are convenient software
tools that allow for the optimization of process parameters aiming at KPI enhance-
ment and the minimization of experimentation cost and time. Additionally, they
offer a deeper understanding of the process mechanisms, leading to better intuition
and problem-solving capabilities. Moreover, simulation is inextricably linked with
advanced techniques for design for AM, such as Topology Optimization and genetic
algorithms; therefore, it is a necessary tool for competent AM designers, as well.

3.4.1 Modeling Approaches and Scales

For the creation of a simulation, the phenomena under study have to be modeled
through mathematical expressions. There are three major types of modeling
approaches: analytical, numerical, and empirical; each offers different advantages
and limitations according to the AM process and process parameters/KPIs of interest.
An analytical model is a set of mathematical equations describing the physics
of a system to predict its outputs/behaviors based on certain inputs. This modeling
approach provides exact solutions, capturing the physics of the systems, and is fast to
compute. However, analytical models are highly complex for most dynamic realistic
manufacturing scenarios and require extensive assumptions to become practical and
solvable [16]. The empirical/experimental approach is straightforward and practical,
setting up correlations between process parameters and KPIs of interest. Such models
are practical, relatively easy to develop and provide accurate solutions for specific
problems. However, they require costly and time-consuming experiments, they do
not establish a connection to the physics of the process, and they are directly depen-
dent on the specific conditions of the model calibration experiments that have been
conducted [19]. Numerical models are based on the principles of numerical analysis
and are used to approximately solve complex sets of equations—which describe a
physical system—through an iterative process. Due to the large number of itera-
tions involved, a computer system is required. Numerical simulations are capable of
solving very complex, dynamic, and realistic problems, offering tremendous capabil-
ities in process optimization and part design as well, meanwhile offering an overview
of the physics of the process. Their disadvantage is that due to the complexity of the
phenomena that take place in AM, they tend to have high computational demands
and require specialized AM simulation software [1, 19]. Currently, the numerical
modeling approach is the most widely used for the development of AM simulations.
Figure 3.24 illustrates the number of studies using different modeling approaches
for different AM process families [16]. It may be observed that the numer-
ical approach is the most dominant in AM families in which the simulation of
66 3 AM Processes

Fig. 3.24 Number of studies using each modeling approach for different AM process families [16]

complex phenomena is required, such as thermo-mechanical and computational fluid

mechanics (CFD) simulations. The same conclusion may be drawn from Fig. 3.25,
in which the number of studies using each modeling approach for different KPIs [16]
is depicted.
The phenomena that take place in AM are implicit, multi-scale, and highly
dynamic in time and space. Table 3.5 summarizes the simulation requirements corre-
sponding to each AM phenomenon. It may be observed that for the creation of an
all-encompassing holistic simulation, a coupled multi-disciplinary and multi-level
simulation is required. However, such an approach would have prohibitive compu-
tational requirements. Instead, the study of the different scales and phenomena in
separate simulations is the most common approach, using the optimized process
parameters from one simulation level to the next.
To further understand how to utilize simulation for AM efficiently, the connection
of the phenomena that take place and their impact on quality have to be established.
It should be noted that different phenomena require the simulation of different scales
based on their physical mechanism. In Table 3.6, the phenomena taking place in
AM are categorized in scales along with their corresponding KPIs. Utilizing this
categorization allows for the study of specific part characteristics (KPIs) individually,
through the simulation only of the dominant connected phenomena. Furthermore,
Fig. 3.26 illustrates the different modeling approaches that are used according to the
phenomenon scale.
3.4 Simulation for AM 67

Fig. 3.25 Number of studies using each modeling approach for different KPIs [16]

Table 3.5 Simulation requirements for the different phenomena in AM [1]

Phenomenon Simulation requirement
Highly dynamic temperature field over time Transient thermal simulation
and space
Coupled thermal stresses Coupling with transient mechanical simulation
Melt-pool fluid dynamics Coupling with computational fluid dynamics
simulation
Movement of heat source Movement of heating boundary condition
Material addition over time Increase mesh size over time or mesh adaptation
(numerical)
Phase changes (melting, evaporation) Include the corresponding latent heat
Coexistence of different material states Different thermal and mechanical material
(powder, liquid, gas, solid) properties, contact boundaries between different
states, and their interaction
Complex geometries and a very small heating Very fine mesh requirements (numerical)
area

Lately, there has been an increasing interest in nanoscale simulations that is

specially geared toward capturing the physics involved during the use of function-
ally graded materials. However, the most common industrially focused simulation
approaches and commercial software focus on the micro- and macro-scales because
the dominant phenomena mostly take place in these scales. To roughly simplify
68 3 AM Processes

Table 3.6 Connection of phenomena, scale, and relative impact on quality (KPIs) for metal AM
[1, 2, 42, 43]
Scale Phenomena KPIs
Nanoscale Laser–material interaction, the interface Crystallization, grains, and cluster
of different materials at an atomic level evolution, especially for functionally
graded materials
Micro-scale Moving heating boundary, melt-pool Surface roughness, microstructure,
fluid dynamics, and powder interaction, porosity, grain size
phase changes
Macro-scale Heating following scanning strategy, The final part is thermal stresses and
layer addition deformations, the stair-case effect

Fig. 3.26 Different simulation approaches used in AM according to the modeled phenomenon
scale [43]

simulation for AM, simulations can be classified in terms of scale and modeled
phenomena into two major groups.
(i) Melt-pool fluid dynamics phenomena: the dynamic transition from powder to
liquid to solid, as well as the possible creation of keyhole due to vaporiza-
tion. These phenomena determine microstructure, void formation, density, and
roughness. Such simulations are performed for very small parts (commonly
a single or a small number of heated tracks) and correspond to very short
manufacturing time.
(ii) Highly dynamic thermal changes. They are responsible for the induction of
thermal stresses that lead to the deterioration of mechanical properties, the
3.4 Simulation for AM 69

possible loss of dimensional accuracy due to thermal deformations, and poten-

tially failed parts due to thermal cracking or extensive deformation. The simu-
lation of at least some layers is required to draw substantial conclusions, and
the simulation of the entire part considering the exact scanner head movement
is ideal.
A holistic optimization of the different process parameters can be realized by
understanding the purpose and the goals of each simulation scale, as well as how
they can be utilized complementary to one another. A discussion about the simulation
requirements of the aforementioned two important phenomena follows.

3.4.2 Simulations of Melt Pool-Related Phenomena

The melt-pool fluid dynamics and the phase changes due to heating and cooling
are the dominant phenomena in this scale. They are described by the continuum
equations of the conservation of mass, momentum, and energy.

∇(ρU) = 0, (3.1)

∂
(ρU) + ∇ · (ρU U) = −∇ p + ρg + ∇ · (μ∇U) + Su , (3.2)
∂t
∂
(ρ H ) + ∇ · (ρU H ) = ∇ · (k∇T ) + ST , (3.3)
∂t
where U is the velocity, g the gravitational acceleration, ρ the density, μ the viscosity,
p the pressure, T the temperature, H the enthalpy of the material, k the thermal
conductivity, and Su and ST are the momentum and energy source terms, respectively
[44]. The term Su encompasses four types of forces [21].
i. The Darcy forces, which act as a momentum sink when the temperature of the
part corresponds to the solid phase.
ii. The surface tension that has a normal direction to the gas–liquid interface.
iii. The surface tension that has a tangential direction to the gas–liquid interface
(Marangoni forces).
iv. The recoil pressure caused by the evaporation.
The energy source term ST takes into account the latent heat during the melting
phase change. The laser heat input is also incorporated within this term [21]. The
aforementioned phenomena occur in the micro-scale. The computational resources
required to allow for simulations of very small parts (one or two laser tracks)
and manufacturing time are in the scale of approximately 100 μm and of a few
milliseconds.
70 3 AM Processes

The information provided in such simulations is twofold. Initially, they allow for
the optimization of highly important process parameters, namely laser speed and
power, layer thickness, hatching distance, and powder particle characteristics, in
terms of increased density, pore minimization, improved surface roughness, keyhole
evolution, and minimization of the balling effect (Fig. 3.27). Additionally, they can
be utilized to create a connection between micro-scale phenomena and melt-pool
temperature. In this manner, it is possible to have an insight into the intensity of the
aforementioned micro-scale phenomena based on the thermal field history (analyzed
in Sect. 3.4.3).

3.4.3 Thermo-Mechanical Simulations

The dominant phenomenon is laser-induced heating and heat conduction through

the mass of the part, which is the cause of thermal expansions that lead to thermal
stresses due to constraints set by the already solidified material (Sect. 3.2.4). The
temperature throughout the mass of the material can be calculated over time by
solving the differential equation of heat conduction in a 3D space [1].

k ∂T
∇2T = , (3.4)
c p ∂t

where T is the nodal temperature, c p is the specific heat capacity, and k is the thermal
conductivity of the material.
For laser-based AM, which is the most common heating application in AM, the
following set of equations describes laser-induced heating.

∂ T 
k = I. (3.5)
∂z x=m
z=n

A Gaussian profile can describe the laser beam intensity, I , as a function of

distance from the laser beam axis.
 2
ld
−2
I = I0 e r
, (3.6)

where ld is the distance in the x-axis of the node from the laser beam axis, r is the
radius of the laser beam, and I0 is the intensity of the laser beam at the beam axis
and the focal level; I0 is specified using the laser power, P, and the laser spot radius,
r , as

2P
I0 = , (3.7)
πr 2
3.4 Simulation for AM 71

Fig. 3.27 Melt-pool formation for different energy densities obtained by changing scanning speed
in thermally coupled CFD simulation in PBF of metals [21]
72 3 AM Processes

Fig. 3.28 Temperature profile on the cross-section of the molten pool [36]

where P is the laser power. Thermal losses to the environment due to convection and
radiation, as well as contact with the base plate, have to be accounted for as well.
Figure 3.28 illustrates the temperature profile on an XZ-plane cross-section, where
the melt pool is visible. This was calculated via the finite difference numerical thermal
simulation developed in [23, 36]. Utilizing such a simulation, it is possible to know
the melt-pool dimensions, maximum temperature, and thermal gradient intensity at
any given time during the manufacturing of a part.
The cause of thermal stresses, as analyzed in Sect. 3.2.4, is the thermal gradients
caused by the moving heat source. More specifically, the temperature gradients cause
displacements, which translate to thermal stresses and deformations in parts [1, 23,
45, 46]. This is expressed via the Generalized Navier equation.

μ∇ 2 u + (λ + μ)∇(∇.u) + b∇T = ρ ü, (3.8)

Eν
λ= , (3.9)
(1 + ν)(1 − 2ν)
αv E
b= , (3.10)
1 − 2ν

where μ is the shear modulus, u is the displacement vector, λ is Lamé’s first param-
eter, T is the temperature, ρ is the material density, E is the Young modulus of the
material, ν is the Poisson’s ratio of the material, and αv is the volumetric coefficient
of thermal expansion of the material.
The equations provided in this chapter form the basis for the development of a
coupled thermo-mechanical simulation capable of calculating the temperature over
3.4 Simulation for AM 73

Table 3.7 Typical values of

Parameter Value
parameters in PBF that are
important for simulations Laser spot diameter 50–100 μm
Scanning speed 0.5–2 m/s
Layer thickness 30–100 μm
Typical part dimensions 5–50 cm

space and time and of using it as input for the calculation of the resulting displace-
ments. According to the state of the material and the constraints set by the solidified
layers, the thermal stresses can be calculated; these stresses lead to deformations or
even total failures due to cracks, depending on crack magnitude (Sect. 3.2.4).
Thermo-Mechanical Simulation Challenges
The development and utilization of practical thermo-mechanical macro-scale numer-
ical simulations for metal AM are quite challenging in terms of computational cost
and required running time. Taking as an example a typical metal AM process, e.g.,
PBF, the defining parameter for the mesh size is the laser spot size and the layer
thickness. However, the typical part dimensions are several scales of magnitude
greater (Table 3.7), leading to a very high number of elements/nodes. Additionally,
the application of the heat source should change over time according to the corre-
sponding scanning strategy. Layer addition and phase changes should also be incor-
porated. The combination of the above with the requirements of a coupled thermo-
mechanical transient simulation constitutes macro-scale simulations for metal AM
very computationally intensive.
A strategy for the mitigation of this issue is the use of mesh adaptation over time
[36]. More specifically, a thin discretization is used in the area close to the laser
heating, which becomes gradually coarser for the parts of the mesh that are situated
farther away from the laser. This allows for significant computational time conserva-
tion, while simultaneously preserving simulation accuracy because the spatial inten-
sity of the phenomena dwindles the farther away from the laser. However, the heating
source is moving; therefore, for this approach to be successful and accurate, constant
mesh adaptation is required as the heating boundary condition moves. This requires
the use of specific AM simulation software or the development of a tailored AM
simulation package from scratch.
Other manners of decreasing computational costs are the use of line heating
[47]—as opposed to moving point heating—as well as layer lumping [48]. Both are
employed as assumptions because they do not simulate the exact process mechanism.
However, they can lead to results of acceptable accuracy, given that they are correctly
calibrated and validated for the problem at hand. Additionally, the approach presented
in [35] helps to decrease the computational costs in thermo-mechanical simulations,
utilizing an empirical boundary condition that compensates for plastic deformations
caused by thermal gradients; it requires only the solution of the thermo-elastic model.
Finally, in the approach of [23], the stress formation tendency index (SFTI) has been
developed, which encompasses the tendency for the development of thermal stresses
74 3 AM Processes

Fig. 3.29 Evaluation of three alternatives in terms of the intensity of thermal stresses and
deformations using only a thermal simulation and the SFTI metric developed in [23]

based on the intensity of thermal gradients. Although the exact values of thermal
stresses and deformations cannot be calculated with this approach, it enables the fast
evaluation of different process-parameter scanning strategy alternatives. Thus, the
alternative that leads to minimum thermal gradients and, consequently, to minimum
stresses and deformations, can be identified in an industrial-friendly and practical
manner in terms of computational time–cost and user experience (Fig. 3.29).

3.4.4 Multi-scale Simulations

As per the previous analysis, it is apparent that the combination of all phenomena in a
single simulation poses issues of practicality due to the required computational cost
and time. However, a complete overview can be obtained regarding the optimization
of all the crucial process parameters through the combination of different simulation
levels. More specifically, a lower-scale model can be utilized for the optimization of
certain parameters and for the creation of a correlation between the values of impor-
tant process parameters with temperature. Once these have been established, the
use of a practical macro-scale simulation—taking into account the exact part design
and scanning strategy—can offer the desired overview for the complete process
optimization, thus minimizing experimentation costs.
There are various commercial AM specialized simulation software’s that either
focus on micro-scale melt-pool simulations, macro-scale thermo-mechanical ones,
or combine both of them both, offering a variety of process-parameter and part design
optimization functions. Additionally, some allow for the use of paid cloud-computing
services for the solution of computationally intense simulations.
3.5 Monitoring, Control, and Quality Assessment 75

3.5 Monitoring, Control, and Quality Assessment

3.5.1 Monitoring and Control

Process-parameter optimization is required to ensure the successful manufacturing of

parts of high quality. One step further toward this goal is the use of monitoring systems
and adaptive process control, which aims to maintain quality measures (KPIs) within
specific boundaries [49] through the real-time variation of process parameters. Such
systems include sensors, data processing equipment, actuators, networks for the
connection of the equipment, and algorithms to relate process variables to product
attributes [50]. A comparison can be seen in Fig. 3.30 between controlled and uncon-
trolled AM systems regarding temperature distribution along the axis parallel to the
laser beam.
Monitoring systems are responsible for gathering data regarding a specific KPI-
related parameter and their development is a prerequisite for adaptive control. The
selection of the monitoring system is based on the quality aspects that have to be
optimized, as well as on the cost and requirements for a specific production plan.
Monitoring systems can be classified into two types: direct and indirect. The first
type can offer high accuracy; however, there might be practical limitations in its
use. On the other hand, in the latter type, auxiliary quantities are measured and
are correlated empirically with the quantities of interest [51]. The most important
monitoring system types that are currently utilized for AM are listed in Table 3.8.
The next step is the development of a system capable of real-time comparison of
the monitored data to experimental/model-based data and the real-time modification
of process parameters to meet the specified goals. The most common process param-
eters used for adaptive control in AM are the laser power and speed because they
determine the energy density and melt-pool geometry, both of which are crucial for
part quality (Sects. 3.3.1 and 3.3.2). The values of the controlled process parameters

Fig. 3.30 Comparison between the temperature variation over the distance of the laser spot between
controlled and uncontrolled AMs [49]
76 3 AM Processes

Table 3.8 Important

• Cameras and image processing
monitoring and inspection
systems used in AM [2] • Thermal imaging
– Charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras
– Light spectroscopy
• Melt pool spectroscopy
– Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS)
• Inspection—to be applied in real-time in future applications
– Ultrasound and eddy current non-destructive testing (NDT)
– X-rays and X-ray tomography

are constantly modified to ensure that the measured KPIs are within the desired range
based on a model or experimental data that correlate the process parameters with the
KPIs. The procedure for the creation of a model-based adaptive control scheme is
depicted in Fig. 3.31. According to the phase of the process (melting, solidification,
cooling down), the control algorithm investigates whether the corresponding criteria
have been met and if not, the corresponding control law is applied [52]. As a rule
of thumb for the development of a successful control scheme, the questions of the
flowchart of Fig. 3.32 can be used.
It has to be highlighted that through the utilization of IoT and Industry 4.0
technologies, the development of cloud-based control applications has been made

Fig. 3.31 Model-based adaptive control scheme of laser power for AM [49]
3.5 Monitoring, Control, and Quality Assessment 77

Fig. 3.32 Successful control flowchart [53]

possible. This allows for easier and more user-friendly process-control applications
because it does not involve the user in the creation of the control scheme, model,
or the required experimentation for their calibration. The only requirement from the
machine user is to install the monitoring system on the AM machine and the equip-
ment for the connection with the control service provider. In cloud-based control
applications, the monitored data are transferred from the machine to the remote
control unit, where the control signal is generated based on the control laws and
optimized process-parameter values of the service provider. The signal is then trans-
mitted back to the AM machine and the control is enforced. This procedure is repeated
in pre-determined intervals, allowing for real-time control (Fig. 3.33). However,
to ensure the safety of these cloud transactions, certification protocols have to be
followed [53].

3.5.2 Quality Diagnosis

Quality diagnosis systems can be classified into two categories: (i) on process (real-
time), which utilize process mechanism monitoring systems to detect defects during
manufacturing of the part, and (ii) post process that typically involve non-destructive
testing techniques to detect anomalities of the produced part.
78 3 AM Processes

Fig. 3.33 Remote control utilizing certified expert agent [53]

Regarding the real-time systems, the data gathered from the sensors are analyzed
utilizing feature extraction and empirical models, such as neural networks and
machine learning, in order to detect defects and assess part quality in real time.
Necessary components for a comprehensive quality diagnosis platform include (i)
human–machine interface (HMI), (ii) real-time process monitoring and quality diag-
nosis systems, (iii) interfaces allowing for high integration ability and interoperability
[54]. The architecture of a three-stage quality diagnosis platform for laser-based
manufacturing processes using MWIR and NIR cameras is described below and
illustrated in Fig. 3.34.
Stage 1—Feature Extraction
Feature selection and feature extraction methods comprise dimensionality reduction
approaches and they can be classified into linear and nonlinear approaches. Their
purpose is the elimination of redundant information from the incoming data (in
this case, images) to reduce the required resources for their analysis. The Principle
Component Analysis (PCA) is a commonly used method due to its automated feature
extraction capabilities and relatively low algorithm complexity, which is based on
the covariance of the values of the pixels [54]. The most important actions taken in
this stage are the following.
• Read the experimental data.
• Determine the size of the datasets.
• Calculate the sample mean and standard deviations vectors.
• Standardize the data (centering and scaling of the data).
• Derive Covariance Matrix.
3.5 Monitoring, Control, and Quality Assessment 79

Fig. 3.34 Architecture of a three-stage quality diagnosis platform for laser-based manufacturing
processes, utilizing PCA and geometrical feature extraction (GFE) in the first stage, SVM in the
second, and HMM in the third [54]

• Compute the eigenvectors and eigenvalues.

• Transform the data.
• Derive the required components based on a cumulative variance threshold.

Stage 2—Quality Assessment Models

Defect classification and the prediction of part quality take place in this stage. Defect
detection can be achieved either directly, by utilizing a physics-based procedure, or
indirectly, through empirical models such as neural networks and machine learning.
In either case, the dimensionally reduced data of each frame are fed into the model,
which then classifies them as acceptable or not acceptable.
Machine learning (ML) algorithms are the most common approach utilized for QA
in AM. However, utilizing this approach initially requires a supervised classification
procedure for the prediction method to be implemented. There is a plethora of ML
models to choose from. In [54], several ML algorithms have been tested regarding
their performance for laser welding and AM applications; it was found that a support
vector machine (SVM) with linear kernel yields relatively good results concerning
the classification success rate for dimensionally reduced PCA melt-pool image data.
Stage 3—Decision on the Overall Quality
Although the quality of each frame is detected and classified, a decision needs to be
made regarding the overall quality evaluation for each continuous path, as well as for
80 3 AM Processes

an entire layer. The use of statistical models can provide the means for this goal. In
the approach of [54], the hidden Markov models are utilized for the decision-making
process, combined with the maximum likelihood criterion, for the quality assessment
of a path. The same logic can be applied for the evaluation of the decision for each
layer, which consists of a sum of paths.
Regarding the non-destructive testing methods, there are various inspection tech-
niques for the inspection of the surface, utilizing visual enhancements (magnification)
or fluorescent liquid penetrants. Such approaches are not limited to AM products and
they are applied for quality inspection of various manufacturing parts. The same can
be stated regarding dimensional inspections, which can be undertaken using conven-
tional methods. Of particular interest in AM are the internal inspection of parts, since
these techniques can offer information regarding the structural integrity of the parts.
The most common methods of internal part inspection are radiography, electromag-
netic, ultrasonic, and computed tomography. From the aforementioned methods, the
most commonly used in AM are digital radiography (DR) and computed tomography
(CT), as they provide the most reliable results. CT is preferred for internal geometry
validation, while DR is better at gross defect detection. The existence of pores and
cracks can be detected and the successful fusion between the layers can be validated;
however, neither of the methods has enough sensitivity to detect defects at the layer
level [55].
Process Compensated Resonant Testing (PCRT) is a technique that has signifi-
cant potential for non-destructive testing in AM products. The mechanism of PCRT
is based on the measurement of resonant frequencies of a component, which are influ-
enced by a part’s stiffness, geometry, and mass. The stiffness of a part and, as a result,
its resonant frequencies differ when structural defects exist in a part. The frequency
change is proportional to the change in stiffness and the severity of the defect for a
given shape and mass and can therefore be used not only for their detection but also
for the quantification of their severity [56].

3.6 Post-processing

Post-processing for AM can be divided into two categories: essential and non-
essential. All actions that constitute a minimum requirement and must always be
performed are included in the first category.
• Cleaning of the part, and removal of the excess material from the build chamber
(e.g., powder-based processes).
• Removal of the part from the base plate.
• Removal of the supports.
Once these actions have been completed, a great variety of other post-processes
can take place, depending on the part requirements, intended use (end-use part or
prototype), material, and AM process [56]. A common family of post-processing
operations is related to the improvement of part geometry (dimensional accuracy and
3.6 Post-processing 81

Table 3.9 Categorization of

Cleaning processes Electrothermal processes
AM post-processes based on
process mechanism [2] • Manual cleaning of the • Electrical Discharge
components Machining (EDM)
• Automatic powder removal • Electrostrengthening
• Cleaning of the part in an • Electrospark deposition
ultrasonic bath
• Blasting of AM components • Induction heating
with a cryogenic CO2 jet
Mechanical material removal Chemical processes
• Cutting • Chemical etching
• Abrasion • Chemical machining
• Milling • Chemical brightening
• Turning (used for
axisymmetric parts)
Thermal processes Laser-based processes
• Sintering • Laser shock peening
• Annealing • Laser ablation
• Stress relieving • Laser polishing
• Quenching
• Tempering
• Aging
• Hot isostatic pressing

outer surface) [58]. In addition, improving the structural integrity and the mechanical
properties of parts (such as porosity and residual stresses) [59] is essential for metallic
AM. It should be noted that post-processing plays an important role in the final part
cost, and as such, it needs to be taken into account. A detailed categorization of
the post-processes used in AM based on their process mechanism is summarized in
Table 3.9. An analysis of the most prominent and common post-processing methods
for metallic AM will be further discussed.

3.6.1 Cleaning Processes

This is an essential step, particularly for powder-based AM processes such as

PBF and binder jetting, in which the unused powder is thoroughly removed from
the built part. Special safety measures have to be taken because powder can be
harmful to humans. There are several industrial solutions dedicated to cleaning,
including automated powder removal systems, ultrasonic baths, and cryogenic
blasting. In Table 3.10, the benefits and limitations of such approaches have been
summarized [56].
82 3 AM Processes

Table 3.10 Benefits and limitations of different cleaning post-processes

Method Benefits Limitations
Vibrations and • Least expertise required • No view on dead spaces requires
gravity • Particle removal by excitation visual and internal inspection
• Simple equipment needed • Need to know the ideal
• Ease of use orientation
• The vibration will detach particles • Need to know natural frequencies
of all available material
(vibrations cleaning)
(Electro)magnetism • Individual or clusters of powder • Creating Maglev may be
could be controlled at the same challenging
time • No previous knowledge
Ultrasonic • Ideal for micron-sized particles • Reflection from acoustically hard
• Different frequencies target materials
different particle sizes • Can remove micron-sized
• Demi water enhances particle particles
removal • Long cleaning times
Chemical flush • Non-corrosive • Evaporates at room temperature
• Low boiling point and pressure (RTP)
• Toxic

3.6.2 Mechanical Material-Removal Post-processes

Mechanical material-removal post-processes are utilized very often for the post-
processing of AM-built parts. Their main applications include support removal,
surface finish improvement, and enhancement of dimensional accuracy. The most
common material-removal processes utilized for post-processing in metallic AM are
milling, turning, grinding, and abrasive flow machining [10]. Material support and
baseplate removal, which are essential steps in metal AM, can be performed either
manually or by utilizing an automated system. The advantages and limitations of both
options are presented in Table 3.11. The mechanical material-removal processes are
the most common and easily accessible ones and can be found in any machine shop;
they are a well-known subject to the readers of this book, and as such, they will not
be analyzed one by one any further.

3.6.3 Thermal Post-processes

Particular emphasis must be placed on the thermal-based post-processes because they

allow the minimization—or even complete elimination—of the anisotropy, which is
inherent to all AM processes due to the nature of their process mechanisms and
the residual stresses (for thermal AM processes). Moreover, thermal post-processes
3.6 Post-processing 83

Table 3.11 Benefits and limitations of different mechanical material-removal post-processes

Method Benefits Limitations
Manual support • Quick decisions if a near-net shape has • Requires a significant
removal support components that can or cannot be amount of manual work
removed • Labor and time to
• Low expertise operators manufacture the part
• Low equipment cost increases
Automated • Consistent, high-quality results • Higher equipment cost
support removal • Reduced cycle time for removing supports • Qualified employees
• The expertise of the
operators

allow the calibration of the mechanical properties of a product (ductility, tensile

strength, yield strength, elongation at break), as well as of its grain size [60], to the
exact needs of a particular application within the limits of the material used for its
production.
Sintering
Sintering is the process of fusing particles into a solid mass by using a combination
of high pressure and high temperature without reaching the liquefaction point of the
material. For metal binder jetting, sintering is an essential post-processing step for
load-bearing parts because the bonding that the binder offers to the metal part cannot
withstand high mechanical loading (“green part”). Sintering causes part shrinkage;
this needs to be accounted for in the design phase.
Annealing, Stress Relieving
The aforementioned post-processes are widely used in metal AM since they effec-
tively address structural integrity challenges that are inherent in the AM process
mechanism like.
• Residual stresses reduction.
• Porosity reduction.
• Reduction of anisotropic microstructure.
• Increased ductility.
The process steps that are common to both annealing and stress relief are (i)
heating, (ii) holding the part in the heated environment, (iii) cooling, and (iv) the
possibility of multiple applications of the previous; however, there are differences
regarding the maximum temperature, holding time, and cooling rates between them
because they lead to different effects in the part (Fig. 3.35). The main difference
between stress relieving and annealing is that stress relief does not change the chem-
ical or mechanical properties of the material because its objective is to reduce the
residual stresses. Therefore, the metal part is heated to a temperature below its lower
critical point and the cooling process is slow. The maximum temperature can be
84 3 AM Processes

Fig. 3.35 Annealing and stress relief: effect on tensile strength, ductility, and residual stresses
according to the maximum heating temperature

significantly lower than the critical recrystallization temperature in order not to affect
the microstructure of the part.
In annealing, the material is heated above its recrystallization temperature for a set
amount of time. Under these conditions, atoms migrate in the crystal lattice and the
number of dislocations decreases, thus causing increased ductility and lower strength
and hardness. New uniform grains replace those that have been deformed by internal
stresses (recrystallization phase). This is followed by controlled and slow cooling,
leading to parts with decreased anisotropy, reduced chance of crack propagation, and
improved corrosion behavior [59].
Tempering, Quenching
This thermal post-process is utilized for the strengthening and hardening of iron-
based alloys through heating, rapidly cooling, and reheating. In tempering, the part
is heated to a point that it becomes ductile; if heated above a certain point, the grain
(molecular) structures are changed. In quenching, hardness and strength are increased
at the cost of brittleness and potential cracking. If those processes are combined at
varying speeds and temperatures, the desired grain structure and mechanical prop-
erties can be achieved, which can differentially vary within the volume of the part.
For example, a combination of high hardness and strength surface can be achieved,
while retaining a highly ductile part interior [60].
3.6 Post-processing 85

Aging
Metal aging is used on solution heat-treated metal alloys and can be achieved either
artificially or naturally. In natural aging, metal precipitates are formed in super-
saturated alloying elements; these precipitates block dislocations in the metal and
increase its strength and hardness while reducing its ductility. In artificial aging, this
procedure is accelerated in a solution heat-treated metal alloy. The process that is
followed is heating below the recrystallization temperature; meanwhile, the tempera-
ture is high enough to speed up precipitate formation. Then, the metal alloy is cooled
rapidly to prevent any further change in the metal precipitates [60].
Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP)
HIP can effectively close the porosities that have been observed in the as-built
samples. During HIP, the metal is compressed in a chamber at elevated pressure
and temperature using an atmosphere of an inert gas (usually Argon) in the chamber.
Compression is achieved through the high operating pressure of the inert gas. HIP
provides a coarser microstructure than that of the as-built part, and at high tempera-
tures, it can eliminate the anisotropy of the AM-produced part and can reduce crack
propagation. However, HIP also reduces the strength of the part, compared to that of
its as-built state [59].

3.6.4 Electrothermal Post-processes

This family of post-processes utilizes heat that is created through electric current as
its process mechanism; therefore, it can only be used on materials that are electric
conductors, such as metals. Their applications include support and baseplate removal,
surface finish improvement, and enhancement of their dimensional accuracy. The
most common electrothermal post-processes used in metal AM are wire-EDM and die
sinking-EDM. They are preferred over mechanical material-removal post-processes
for materials with low machinability, such as Inconel 718, 618, and hard steel alloys.

3.6.5 Chemical Post-processes

Chemical etching is the main post-process utilized within this process group; it is not
particularly common because it is specialized for specific industries only. It requires
low tooling compared to other process groups and low-machinability materials can
be effectively processed. Other advantages are that it can process complex geometries
and provides a very clean surface at the end of production. However, chemical post-
processes are not used on very rough surfaces because they will not have the desired
effect. In such cases, machining takes place in the first stage; then, chemical post-
processes are employed to provide the final finish. Chemical etching is mainly applied
86 3 AM Processes

to alloys that are hard to machine but have a high chemical reactivity, as well as
in cases of medical implants; more specifically, chemical etching is employed for
the removal of adhered/unmelted powder particles and the fabrication of porous
structures and micro-scale features.

3.6.6 Laser-Based Post-processes

This post-process family utilizes laser heat as its energy source and has a unique inte-
gration advantage: one single laser head/source has both a geometry-related function
(ablation) and a structural integrity-related function (peening).
In laser ablation, the surface texture is improved in terms of roughness using a
laser source. This application is also referred to as laser polishing. Additionally, the
dimensional accuracy of the part can be improved by making corrections to the part.
Finally, another application of laser ablation is the fabrication of micro-scale features,
which is referred to as laser etching [61]. This procedure can be highly optimized
in terms of process time through the use of a polygon head; the processing speed is
more than ten times higher compared to that of conventional laser heads (Fig. 3.36).
In laser peening, the process mechanism that affects the structural integrity of
a part is the pressure waves that are created due to plasma formation from laser
radiation. The use of a water tamper increases the generated pressure substantially
(up to one order of magnitude). Laser peening replaces the tensile stresses created
in AM parts during the AM process with compressive residual stresses. Moreover,
it partially eliminates voids that are situated close to the part surface and enhances
the fatigue lifetime and strength of metallic AM parts. This post-process is best
suited when localized part enhancement is required, thus eliminating the need for
processing the entire part.

Fig. 3.36 Polygon head for increased speed processing during laser etching
3.7 Special Topics: Hybrid AM and Digitals Twins 87

3.7 Special Topics: Hybrid AM and Digitals Twins

3.7.1 Hybrid AM

Post-processing is an integral part of AM, particularly for metallic AM end-use

parts that are required to meet specific requirements in their mechanical proper-
ties. However, the most common post-processing application is surface finishing
because the layer-by-layer nature of AM processes, as well as support and base
plate removal, have a negative impact on roughness. Therefore, to minimize the time
and, consequently, the cost of AM, the integration of common post-processes into
the AM machine itself was considered, thus leading to hybrid AM machines [62].
More specifically, hybrid AM is a combination of an AM process and other non-AM
process/processes [63]; essentially, it integrates certain post-processing steps. Two
types of hybrid AM can be defined based on whether the different processes are
performed sequentially or in-envelope [64]. In the first type, the manufacturing of
the part using AM is completed and then the hybrid AM machine starts performing
other processes, such as machining or laser-based post-processing. In the second type
of hybrid AM, the processing heads for AM and other processes are interchanged or
are operated in parallel during the manufacturing of the part. This type of hybrid AM
has certain limitations; AM process compatibility cannot be achieved with powder
bed-based AM processes. Therefore, mostly powder- or wire-based DED AM is
employed. Except for operation sequencing, other important considerations have to
be made, including hybrid AM evaluation and process planning for hybrid AM [65]
(Figs. 3.37 and 3.38).
There is a selection of commercially available hybrid AM machines; however, a
custom solution can be developed to be tailored to the specific needs [63]. The use
of robotic systems is a common industrial approach for such a solution and offers
several advantages, such as the ease of integration of different subtractive and AM
process heads, as well as real-time monitoring and process control systems. It is
geared toward a fully automated, comprehensive solution (Fig. 3.39).

3.7.2 Digital Twins

Digital twins are digital replications that allow the seamless data exchange of data
between physical and virtual systems [3]. Digital twins require the integration of
process simulation, monitoring, real-time control, and IoT applications [66, 67];
therefore, advanced knowledge and understanding are required, as well as consid-
erable time and cost to develop. However, they provide invaluable advantages in
terms of overview, coordination, and optimization, allowing for the breakthrough
toward Industry 5.0 [66]. More specifically, they allow for a holistic process overview
for all stakeholders through real-time remote monitoring, promoting better team
collaboration and financial decision-making [68]. Additionally, risk assessment is
88 3 AM Processes

Fig. 3.37 Hybrid AM evaluation flowchart [3]

Fig. 3.38 Life-to-value product optimization through hybrid AM. Adapted from [65]

enhanced, leading to better anticipation of potential problems. Consequently, this

can translate as minimization of unplanned downtime, accidents, as well as main-
tenance costs through preventive maintenance; all of the aforementioned constitute
factors that contribute to improved production time [69]. Finally, they are powerful
process optimization tools because they are based on optimized simulations that are
continuously updated and trained through real-time data. Figure 3.40 illustrates a
schematic representation of the digital twin application for a robotic-based hybrid
AM application.
References 89

Fig. 3.39 Customized hybrid AM solution utilizing robotic cell, subtractive, additive process heads,
real-time monitoring, and control [63]

Fig. 3.40 Schematic representation of digital twin application for robotic-based hybrid AM
application

References

1. P. Foteinopoulos, Computational and empirical modeling of additive manufacturing processes.

Dissertation, University of Patras, 2021. https://doi.org/10.12681/eadd/50503
90 3 AM Processes

2. P. Stavropoulos, P. Foteinopoulos, J. Stavridis, H. Bikas, Increasing the industrial uptake of addi-

tive manufacturing processes a training framework. Adv. Ind. Manuf. Eng. (2022). Available
at SSRN 4169003
3. H. Bikas, S. Koutsoukos, P. Stavropoulos, A decision support method for evaluation and process
selection of additive manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 81, 1107–1112 (2019). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.procir.2019.03.261
4. H. Bikas, A.K. Lianos, P. Stavropoulos, A design framework for additive manufacturing. Int.
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 103(9), 3769–3783 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-036
27-z
5. Q. Meinders, 3D Printing Manual Guide. University of Twente, Rapid Prototyping Laboratory
(2017), Available in https://www.utwente.nl/en/rpl/Data%20sheets/Manuals/am-userguide.pdf
3D Printing Manual Guide. Accessed 09 Nov 2022
6. Z. Wu, S.P. Narra, A. Rollett, Exploring the fabrication limits of thin-wall structures in a laser
powder bed fusion process. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 110(1), 191–207 (2020). https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00170-020-05827-4
7. H. Lansdown, Digital Modelmaking: Laser Cutting, 3D Printing and Reverse Engineering
(The Crowood Press, Marlborough, 2019)
8. D.G. Ahn, Directed energy deposition (DED) process: state of the art. Int. J. Precis. Eng.
Manuf.-Green Technol. 8(2), 703–742 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40684-020-00302-7
9. P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, Block-based analytical hierarchy
process applied for the evaluation of construction sector additive manufacturing. Procedia CIRP
81, 950–955 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.03.233
10. G. Chryssolouris, Manufacturing Systems: Theory and Practice (Springer Science Business
Media, New York, 2006)
11. P. Foteinopoulos, V. Esnault, G. Komineas, A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos,
Cement-based additive manufacturing: experimental investigation of process quality. Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Technol. 106(11), 4815–4826 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-049
78-8
12. D. Obilanade, C. Dordlofva, P. Törlind, Surface roughness considerations in design for additive
manufacturing-a literature review. Proc. Des. Soc. 1, 2841–2850 (2021). https://doi.org/10.
1017/pds.2021.545
13. A. Townsend, N. Senin, L. Blunt, R.K. Leach, J.S. Taylor, Surface texture metrology for metal
additive manufacturing: a review. Precis. Eng. 46, 34–47 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pre
cisioneng.2016.06.001
14. J.J. Babu, M. Mehrpouya, T.C. Pijper, G. Willemsen, T. Vaneker, An experimental study of
down facing surfaces in selective laser melting. Adv. Eng. Mater. 2101562 (2022). https://doi.
org/10.1002/adem.202101562
15. Additive Metal Manufacturing, Design for Additive Metal Manufacturing (2016), https://add
itivemet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/design.pdf. Accessed 09 Nov 2022
16. P. Stavropoulos, P. Foteinopoulos, Modelling of additive manufacturing processes: a review
and classification. Manuf. Rev. 5, 2 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2017014
17. S. Hällgren, L. Pejryd, J. Ekengren, 3D data export for additive manufacturing-improving
geometric accuracy. Procedia CIRP 50, 518–523 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.
05.046
18. A. Sola, A. Nouri, Microstructural porosity in additive manufacturing: the formation and detec-
tion of pores in metal parts fabricated by powder bed fusion. J. Adv. Manuf. Proc. 1(3), 10021
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1002/amp2.10021
19. S. Bland, N.T. Aboulkhair, Reducing porosity in additive manufacturing. Met. Powder Rep.
70(2), 79–81 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mprp.2015.01.002
20. J.A. Slotwinski, E.J. Garboczi, K.M. Hebenstreit, Porosity measurements and analysis for metal
additive manufacturing process control. J. Res. Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol. 119, 494 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.119.019
21. W. Yuan, H. Chen, T. Cheng, Q. Wei, Effects of laser scanning speeds on different states of
the molten pool during selective laser melting: Simulation and experiment. Mater. Des. 189,
108542 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108542
References 91

22. I.E. Anderson, E.M. White, R. Dehoff, Feedstock powder processing research needs for additive
manufacturing development. Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. 22(1), 8–15 (2018). https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cossms.2018.01.002
23. P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, K. Angelopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, Development
of a simulation approach for laser powder bed fusion based on scanning strategy selection. Int.
J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 108(9), 3085–3100 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-056
03-4
24. J. Jiang, X. Xu, J. Stringer, Support structures for additive manufacturing: a review. J. Manuf.
Mater. Proc. 2(4), 64 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp2040064
25. C. Weingarten, D. Buchbinder, N. Pirch, W. Meiners, K. Wissenbach, R. Poprawe, Formation
and reduction of hydrogen porosity during selective laser melting of AlSi10Mg. J. Mater.
Process. Technol. (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.02.013
26. Y. Chen, F. Lu, K. Zhang, P. Nie, S.R.E. Hosseini, K. Feng, LZ, Dendritic microstructure and
hot cracking of laser additive manufactured Inconel 718 under improved base cooling. J. Alloy.
Compd. 670, 312–321 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2016.01.250
27. Y. Kok, X.P. Tan, P. Wang, M.L.S. Nai, N.H. Loh, E. Liu, S.B. Tor, Anisotropy and heterogeneity
of microstructure and mechanical properties in metal additive manufacturing: a critical review.
Mater. Des. 139, 565–586 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2017.11.021
28. H. Gonabadi, A. Yadav, S.J. Bull, The effect of processing parameters on the mechanical
characteristics of PLA produced by a 3D FFF printer. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 111(3),
695–709 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06138-4
29. X. Tan, Y. Kok, W.Q. Toh, Y.J. Tan, M. Descoins, D. Mangelinck, C.K. Chua, Revealing marten-
sitic transformation and α/β interface evolution in electron beam melting three-dimensional-
printed Ti-6Al-4V. Sci. Rep. 6(1), 1–10 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep26039
30. X. Tan, Y. Kok, Y.J. Tan, G. Vastola, Q.X. Pei, G. Zhang, C.K. Chua, An experimental and
simulation study on build thickness dependent microstructure for electron beam melted Ti–
6Al–4V. J. Alloy. Compd. 646, 303–309 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2015.05.178
31. S.M. Kelly, S.L. Kampe, Microstructural evolution in laser-deposited multilayer Ti-6Al-4V
builds: part I. microstructural characterization. Metall. Mater. Trans. A 35(6), 1861–1867
(2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-004-0094-8
32. X. Tan, Y. Kok, Y.J. Tan, M. Descoins, D. Mangelinck, S.B. Tor, C.K. Chua, Graded microstruc-
ture and mechanical properties of additive manufactured Ti–6Al–4V via electron beam melting.
Acta Mater. 97, 1–16 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2015.06.036
33. Y. Wang, S. Li, Y. Yu, Y. Xin, X. Zhang, Q. Zhang, S. Wang, Lattice structure design optimiza-
tion coupling anisotropy and constraints of additive manufacturing. Mater. Des. 196, 109089
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.109089
34. K. Kempen, B. Vrancken, S. Buls, L. Thijs, J. Van Humbeeck, J.P. Kruth, Selective laser melting
of crack-free high density M2 high speed steel parts by baseplate preheating. J. Manuf. Sci.
Eng. 136(6), 061026–061032 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4028513
35. P. Stavropoulos, P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, G. Tsoukantas, Warping in SLM
additive manufacturing processes: estimation through thermo-mechanical analysis. Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 104(1), 1571–1580 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-04105-2
36. P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, On thermal modeling of additive
manufacturing processes. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 20, 66–83 (2018). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cirpj.2017.09.007
37. A. Papacharalampopoulos, H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, Path planning for the infill of 3D printed
parts utilizing Hilbert curves. Procedia Manuf. 21, 757–764 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
promfg.2018.02.181
38. M. Lorenzo-Bañuelos, A. Díaz, I.I. Cuesta, Influence of raster orientation on the determination
of fracture properties of polypropylene thin components produced by additive manufacturing.
Theoret. Appl. Fract. Mech. 107, 102536 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2020.102536
39. A.R. Torrado, D.A. Roberson, Failure analysis and anisotropy evaluation of 3D-printed tensile
test specimens of different geometries and print raster patterns. J. Fail. Anal. Prev. 16(1),
154–164 (2016)
92 3 AM Processes

40. A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, H. Bikas, Path planning for filling 3D printed

parts utilizing Hilbert curves, in 15th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing, vol.
21 (Haifa, Israel, 2017), pp. 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.181
41. M. Xia, D. Gu, G. Yu, D. Dai, H. Chen, Q. Shi, Influence of hatch spacing on heat and mass
transfer, thermodynamics and laser processability during additive manufacturing of Inconel
718 alloy. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf 109, 147–157 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmach
tools.2016.07.010
42. G. Singh, A.M. Waas, V. Sundararaghavan, Understanding defect structures in nanoscale metal
additive manufacturing via molecular dynamics. Comput. Mater. Sci. 200, 110807 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2021.110807
43. P. Stavropoulos, V.C. Panagiotopoulou, Developing a framework for using molecular dynamics
in additive manufacturing process modelling. MDPI Model. 3(1), 189–200 (2022). https://doi.
org/10.3390/modelling3010013
44. Z.S. Saldi, Marangoni driven free surface flows in liquid weld pools. Dissertation, Delft
University of Technology, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4233/uuid:8401374b-9e9c-4d25-86b7-fc4
45ec73d27
45. D. Ding, Z.S. Pan, D. Cuiuri, H. Li, A tool-path generation strategy for wire and arc additive
manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 73(1–4), 173–183 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00170-014-5808-5
46. J.P. Kruth, G. Levy, F. Klocke, T.H.C. Childs, Consolidation phenomena in laser and powder-
bed based layered manufacturing. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 56(2), 730–759 (2007). https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2007.10.004
47. J. Irwin, P. Michaleris, A line heat input model for additive manufacturing. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng.
138(11), 111004 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033662
48. X. Liang, D. Hayduke, A.C. To, An enhanced layer lumping method for accelerating simulation
of metal components produced by laser powder bed fusion. Addit. Manuf. 39, 101881 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2021.101881
49. A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, J. Stavridis, Adaptive control of thermal processes:
laser welding and additive manufacturing paradigms. Procedia CIRP 67, 233–237 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.12.205
50. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Manufacturing Process Controls
for the Industries of the Future (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 1998). https:/
/doi.org/10.17226/6258
51. P. Stavropoulos, D. Chantzis, C. Doukas, A. Papacharalampopoulos, G. Chryssolouris, Moni-
toring and control of manufacturing processes: a review. Procedia CIRP 8, 421–425 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2013.06.127
52. A. Papacharalampopoulos, J. Stavridis, P. Stavropoulos, G. Chryssolouris, Cloud-based control
of thermal based manufacturing processes. Procedia CIRP 55, 254–259 (2016). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2016.09.036
53. A. Papacharalampopoulos, H. Bikas, C. Michail, P. Stavropoulos, On the generation of validated
manufacturing process optimization and control schemes. Procedia CIRP 96, 57–62 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.01.051
54. P. Stavropoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, J. Stavridis, K. Sampatakakis, A three-stage quality
diagnosis platform for laser-based manufacturing processes. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
110(11), 2991–3003 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05981-9
55. J.M. Waller, B.H. Parker, K.L. Hodges, E.R. Burke, J.L. Walker, Nondestructive evaluation of
additive manufacturing state-of-the-discipline report (No. JSC-CN-32323) (2014), https://ntrs.
nasa.gov/citations/20140016447. Accessed 09 Nov 2022
56. L. Koester, H. Taheri, T. Bigelow, L. Bond, Nondestructive testing for metal parts fabricated
using powder based additive manufacturing. Mater. Eval. 76 (2018), https://ndtlibrary.asnt.
org/2018/NondestructiveTestingforMetalPartsFabricatedUsingPowderBasedAdditiveManu
facturing. Accessed 09 Nov 2022
57. E. Maleki, S. Bagherifard, M. Bandini, M. Guagliano, Surface post-treatments for metal addi-
tive manufacturing: progress, challenges, and opportunities. Addit. Manuf. 37, 101619 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101619
References 93

58. N.N. Kumbhar, A.V. Mulay, Post processing methods used to improve surface finish of products
which are manufactured by additive manufacturing technologies: a review. J. Instit. Eng. (India):
Series C 99(4), 481–487 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40032-016-0340-z
59. X. Peng, L. Kong, J.Y.H. Fuh, H. Wang, A review of post-processing technologies in additive
manufacturing. J. Manuf. Mater. Proc. 5(2), 38 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp5020038
60. T. Lyman, H.E. Boyer, P.M. Unterweiser, Metals Handbook (American Society for Metals,
Cleveland, Ohio, 1948)
61. P. Stavropoulos, P. Stournaras, K. Salonitis, G. Chryssolouris, Experimental and theoret-
ical investigation of the ablation mechanisms during femptosecond laser machining. Int. J.
Nanomanuf. 6, 55–65 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJNM.2010.034772
62. J.P.M. Pragana, R.F.V. Sampaio, I.M.F. Bragança, C.M.A. Silva, P.A.F. Martins, Hybrid metal
additive manufacturing: a state–of–the-art review. Adv. Ind. Manuf. Eng. 2, 100032 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aime.2021.100032
63. P. Stavropoulos, P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, H. Bikas, Addressing the chal-
lenges for the industrial application of additive manufacturing: towards a hybrid solution. Int. J.
Lightweight Mater. Manuf. 1(3), 157–168 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlmm.2018.07.002
64. P. Stavropoulos, H. Bikas, O. Avram, Hybrid subtractive–additive manufacturing processes for
high value-added metal components. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 111, 645–655 (2020). https:/
/doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06099-8
65. P. Stavropoulos, H. Bikas, O. Avram, A. Valente, G. Chryssolouris, Hybrid subtractive–additive
manufacturing processes for high value-added metal components. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
111(3), 645–655 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06099-8
66. G.L. Knapp, T. Mukherjee, J.S. Zuback, H.L. Wei, T.A. Palmer, A. De, T.J.A.M. DebRoy,
Building blocks for a digital twin of additive manufacturing. Acta Mater. 135, 390–399 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2017.06.039
67. A. Gaikwad, R. Yavari, M. Montazeri, K. Cole, L. Bian, P. Rao, Toward the digital twin
of additive manufacturing: integrating thermal simulations, sensing, and analytics to detect
process faults. IISE Trans. 52(11), 1204–1217 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/24725854.2019.
1701753
68. P. Stavropoulos, A. Papacharalampoloulos, K. Tzimanis, Design and implementation of a
digital twin platform for AM processes. Procedia CIRP 104, 1722–1727 (2021). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.procir.2021.11.290
69. P. Stavropoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, C.K. Michail, G. Chryssolouris, Robust additive
manufacturing performance through a control oriented digital twin. Metals 11(5), 708 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.3390/met11050708
Chapter 4
AM Applications

In this chapter, a more holistic view of Additive Manufacturing (AM) will be

presented, integrating all the previous modules in a practical way. Additionally, AM
will be presented from a business perspective, focusing on the different phases of
product development, encapsulating the entire supply chain of AM equipment, oper-
ation, and end-of-life toward a successful business plan. Furthermore, applications
of AM in industrial cells and lines will be discussed. Also, specific AM case studies
will be considered. Finally, Industry 4.0 capabilities and decentralized manufacturing
applications will be presented.

4.1 Introduction to AM Applications

In Additive Manufacturing, parts are created in a layer-by-layer fashion by selectively

fusing the material of the current layer upon that of the previous one, based on
information provided by 3D model data [1]. AM is the successor of rapid prototyping,
differing in the fact that it specifically aims to manufacture end-use parts, rather than
just prototypes [2]. Its first application took place in 1999 for the creation of a
scaffold for a human bladder and in 2006 the first metal AM application was made
commercially available in the form of Selective Laser Sintering [3]. The interest in
AM has been steadily increasing, leading to its rapid recent growth [4] (Fig. 4.1) and
improvement of all its aspects [5, 6], increasing the maturity of AM toward its wider
industrial uptake [7, 8] for the production of end-use parts (Fig. 4.2).
The maturity of AM in important industrial sectors, namely medical, aerospace,
industrial goods, and automotive, is already high (Fig. 4.3), offering specific advan-
tages in each industrial sector Fig. 4.4. Similar is the picture drawn by Gartner

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 95

P. Stavropoulos, Additive Manufacturing: Design, Processes and Applications,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33793-2_4
96 4 AM Applications

Fig. 4.1 AM market value is steadily increasing [9]

Fig. 4.2 Percentage of end-use parts manufactured by additive manufacturing [10]

(Fig. 4.5), showing that many AM applications are currently in the slope of enlight-
enment and a few are already entering the plateau of productivity, highlighting that
one of the most important challenges of AM today is the increase of its industrial
uptake.
AM continues to progress toward becoming a mainstream manufacturing alterna-
tive for series production. It eliminates the need for costly tooling, such as molds or
dies, and can produce highly complex parts. The production of final parts using AM
facilitates small batch sizes up to now, custom parts, prototyping, lightweight struc-
tures, complex internal/external features, and the consolidation of many different
components into one. As AM improves, it will continue to establish its presence in
an increasing number of markets and industries. According to [13], it is too early to
know for sure that AM will bring the next industrial revolution; however, there are
4.1 Introduction to AM Applications 97

Fig. 4.3 Maturity stage of AM in different industrial sectors. Adapted from [7]

Fig. 4.4 Main applications trends of AM [11]

encouraging signs that might this is the discussion. AM removes barriers to entering
the product development and manufacturing businesses by significantly reducing
upfront costs and simplifying or decentralizing supply chains. It is important to high-
light that more and more companies continue to increase their use of AM for parts
that go into final use and operation. Indicatively, the amount of money spent annually
on final part production worldwide is shown in the following graph (Fig. 4.6).
98 4 AM Applications

Metal AM is making important steps toward its adoption as a valid production

alternative because it often offers similar or better material properties than parts
made with traditional processes, such as casting. Moreover, AM can reduce the
amount of material, waste, and weight of parts. It is ideal for high-value, low-volume
production of complex parts in several sectors including aerospace, medical/dental,
power/energy, tooling, and motorsports.
In general, AM is a cost-effective alternative for end-use part production when it
adds to the product value in comparison to conventional manufacturing processes.
Manufacturers are willing to evaluate a new production process when it is signifi-
cantly less expensive and/or improves the product’s performance. AM can accom-
plish the above by influencing several key aspects of product development and
manufacturing. Among the rest, AM can eliminate tooling, provide on-demand
manufacturing, reduce lead times, inventory, and labor, design lightweight parts,
optimized structures, and consolidated parts thus leading to lower part numbers and
sustainability (less waste). Moreover, custom and limited-edition components can be
produced by AM, incorporate design changes even after the production has started,
and facilitate prototyping using the same process and materials.
As per the previous, even though AM offers unique advantages and capabilities
and its technology maturity level is high enough to allow for extensive industrial
application, its wider adoption is hindered by various reasons–barriers. According to
the survey conducted in [9], those barriers can be classified into four main categories,
namely AM machine cost, part quality issues, limited expertise, and limited material
choices (Fig. 4.7).

Fig. 4.5 AM expectations over time [12]

4.1 Introduction to AM Applications 99

Fig. 4.6 Production of AM part from independent AM service providers (in millions of dollars)
[13]

Fig. 4.7 Barriers to the wider adoption of AM. Adapted from [9]

The research community, AM machine developers, and larger enterprises are

already contributing to overcoming those barriers. More specifically, machine costs
are rapidly decreasing, due to increased demand and technology improvement [14].
Additionally, more AM machine options become available, including desktop metal
AM machines, which are much more economical and also suitable for Small–Medium
Enterprises (SMEs) [15]. Moreover, it has to be considered that initial machine costs
account for 45–74% of the total cost to manufacture a part with AM [16], while
100 4 AM Applications

the rest of the costs are significantly lower than conventional manufacturing; for
example, tooling costs associated with AM are about 30% that of tooling for injec-
tion molding [17]. Regarding product quality improvement, it is the key focus of
AM research studies, including simulation [14, 18], and experimental approaches
[19], featuring continuous progress, tangible results, and critical improvements [20].
Finally, material choices have been expanded dramatically, including a wide range of
plastics, resins, composites, and bio-compatible and cementitious materials. More-
over, a great variety of metal alloys is now available in AM, including Inconel 718
and 625 [21], the machining of which is highly demanding with conventional means
[22], as well as the utilization of functionally graded materials [23]. However, the
same cannot be stated for the barrier of limited expertise. AM has been characterized
as a disruptive technology [24], since it is changing core aspects of manufacturing
at multiple levels, including design, product development stages, workforce require-
ments, supply chain, as well as interaction with clients [2]. This results in rapidly
evolving expertise demands for the lucrative industrial utilization of AM, ranging
on all levels, from technical to managerial. The same conclusion is drawn from [12]
since most of the depicted factors hindering the industrial uptake of AM are related
to a lack of expertise (Fig. 4.8).
The combination of the previous requirements with the continuous evolution of
AM [25] leads the industrial sector to a perpetual lack of the knowledge to assess and
understand in depth the AM capabilities which leads to a reluctance for a potential
AM venture uptake. This is further corroborated by the lack of qualification and

Fig. 4.8 Factors hindering industrial uptake of AM. In red can be seen the factors connected with
lack of expertise. Adapted from [19]
4.2 Production of End-Use AM Parts 101

certification methodologies [26], and its effect is being more prominent in SMEs
[27] rather than larger enterprises. However, AM constitutes, in fact, an ideal market
opportunity, especially for SMEs [28], since it is not labor intensive, it requires highly
trained individuals, and it is particularly flexible, focusing on small volume-lot size
productions of high-value parts, the limits of which are set only by the ingenuity
and skills of the designer and engineer. The above unique characteristics of AM
also render it an important business opportunity for the European manufacturing
sector in general, even for countries that lack conventional manufacturing tradition,
assets, and know-how, since it plays on the strengths of European economies and
societies. Considering that SMEs represent 99% of all businesses in the EU [29],
further amplifies the need for consistent and organized training courses on AM.

4.2 Production of End-Use AM Parts

As it is reported in [30], sales of AM systems for metal parts declined in 2020.

An estimated 2.169 metal AM machines were sold in 2020, a decline of 7% from
the 2.333 metal systems sold in 2019. The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to a
temporary saturation of the market. The interest in end-use products made with
AM remains high, but new workflows and supply chains could slow the adoption.
However, significant effort is being put into the development of new metal AM
systems that will increase productivity and automation and will contribute to the
industrial uptake of the technology. From the literature can be noted that despite the
high level of industrialization of Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) machinery, they can be
used only for small/medium-sized components with a maximum size of 800 mm in
height. Instead, the Directed Energy Deposition (DED) machines can process larger
components that can arrive at up to 4000 mm [31]. Another advantage of the DED
process with respect to the other metal AM processes is that the substrate could
coincide with the surface of an existing component, rendering DED highly suitable
for repair operations [13]. Moreover, it is possible to change the material during the
deposition process, thus obtaining components that are characterized by different
properties in different areas [32]. The graph of Fig. 4.9 illustrates the distribution
of metal AM systems sold worldwide and it can be observed that the metal AM
market is dominated by the PBF processes with a percentage of 82% [32]. DED is
the second technology in terms of sales, with a percentage of only 8% (ten times
lower than that of the PBF processes). However, it should be noted that the industrial
interest regarding DED processes is growing exponentially, and its application will
be studies in the cases presented in this chapter, along with the PBF technology,
highlighting their capabilities and future trends [32].
The benefits of AM presented in this book via various mature application cases
can justify the use of AM for small batches, as well as for series production; the key to
their success and cost-effectiveness is increasing product value. However, challenges
related to AM can often contribute negatively if not managed properly. The primary
expense of AM is the initial investment cost (machine) and the secondary is the raw
102 4 AM Applications

Fig. 4.9 Distribution of metal additive manufacturing systems in the market in 2019 [32]

material costs. The high investment cost can be justified mainly by the relatively small
number of machine sales and the need for machine builders to recuperate development
costs. This cost would be much lower if the volume of machines produced and
sold was higher. However, the machine depreciation usually spans several years
and is divided among all parts it builds over that period. On the other hand, some
AM materials are expensive because they are costly to produce and the price of
the base elements such as Nickel is influenced by international social and political
conditions. The material costs will be reduced when competitive market conditions
and economies of bulk production are realized.
A key to success in an AM-based production scenario relies on a comprehensive
and realistic cost justification taking into account all parameters. A business case
based on a simplistic cost comparison between AM and conventional processes is
destinated to fail since the range of products for which AM is suited is limited and
its strengths lie in the fact that high part complexity does not have an important
impact on the product cost. The broader life cycle, the total manufacturing cost,
the improvement in product performance, the processability of new materials, and
the automation should be considered in a proper AM cost model. In that direction,
an elevated production cost for an aerospace component could be compensated and
justified if this is designed in a way to be lighter by 25%, resulting in significant
savings over the years of operation. Similar cases are possible for improvements in
product performance, greater customer satisfaction, reduced product maintenance,
and reduction in total manufacturing costs.
Another practical application of AM is the production of spare parts toward the
reduction of equipment down-time. In several instances, this application alone can
justify the slightly higher cost of the initial AM investment. Taking advantage of this
capability offered by AM, enterprises that utilize costly machinery equipment in their
production plants have started to develop part databases and production workflows to
4.3 Business Perspective and AM Case Studies 103

enable on-demand spare part production through AM. Even though such databases
are difficult to create and maintain, as they require significant upfront cost and time
to be thoroughly vetted to ensure safety and quality [31], they offer the important
advantage of eliminating the possibility of machinery getting out of order due to
spare parts’ lead times and ensure that the production schedule will be met.

4.3 Business Perspective and AM Case Studies

In this section, three different AM applications will be presented from a business

perspective, showcasing the steps required for the development of an effective cost
model suitable for the study of whether AM is a cost-effective production alternative
using realistic industrial data.

4.3.1 Aerospace Case

The aerospace industry was an early adopter of AM. The major players in the sector
like NASA, European Space Agency, Space X, and others are already using AM to
produce igniters, injectors, and combustion chambers for rocket engines. Aerospace
applications can highly benefit from the advantages offered by AM since the low-
cost complexity can be utilized for the manufacturing of low-weight products, which
leads to a significant increase in performance and efficiency. Additionally, the fact
that small lot sizes are required in aerospace mitigates the weakness of AM for
low production rates. Moreover, the materials used for the combustion chambers
like Inconel alloys and copper alloys are difficult to be processed with conventional
technologies, whereas this is not the case for AM technologies that utilize material
addition and thermal-based process mechanisms. Another advantage of AM that is
relevant for the aerospace sector is the capability for the consolidation of multi-
part assemblies in one part, thus significantly lowering weight, assembly time and
assembly line cost, and time to market [33].
As per the previous, the maturity of AM in the aerospace sector is high, and
therefore, a case for this sector has been selected. The scope of this case is the
feasibility evaluation of a nozzle part which is the final section of a rocket engine,
which is 1000 mm in diameter and 900 mm in height, based on a real case scenario.
The first step is the verification of the design and the material (Inconel 718), followed
by the selection of the most suitable AM technology. In this case productivity and
deposition rate had been set as priorities, followed by the minimization of the powder
handling. Therefore, DED has been selected, due to its higher production rate and
because it requires at about three times less powder in terms of handling and loading
than PBF [33].
However, the minimum thickness of the part’s features was not compatible with the
laser beam diameter of the machine’s standard configuration. The machine available
104 4 AM Applications

was equipped with an optical chain that can provide a 2 mm laser spot diameter and
a powder nozzle with four convergent powder streams, which created a powder spot
of 4 mm [33]. Therefore, a study for the modification of the optical chain system
(collimator and laser fiber) in order to obtain a laser spot of 0.6 mm was conducted.
This was combined with the acquisition and integration of a new coaxial powder
nozzle leading to the reduction of the dimensions of the deposited geometry. This
concluded the process selection, which is the second step of the analysis [33].
The next step is the estimation of the printing time and the production steps needed
to organize and realize a printing job. Additionally, the definition of the process
parameters with the new optical and powder nozzle configuration is a critical aspect
to be addressed, to which simulation and design of experiments can significantly
contribute. Finally, the last but not least step is the definition of the post-processing
activities.
• Cleaning of the part for the removal of the remaining powder in channels and
cavities [33].
• Measurement of the dimensions using a caliper to confirm that dimensional
requirements are met (outer/inner diameter at the base and at the top—thickness
of internal ribs and inner/outer walls at the top).
• Perform Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM) cutting for the separation of the
part from the base plate.
• Measurement of the roughness in various surfaces that have functional signifi-
cance.
• Three-dimensional scanning before and after the separation of the part from the
baseplate in order to verify possible deformations due to internal thermal stresses.
The results demonstrated satisfactory mechanical properties and surface rough-
ness, while the dimensional accuracy both before and after the separation of the
part from the baseplate was within the specified requirements [33]. The latter indi-
cates that heat treatment is not necessary since no deformations were observed. This
can be attributed to the large mass of the part, its specific geometry, and stiffness
which contributed to a relatively uniform thermal field distribution and minimization
of thermal stresses, resulting in acceptable dimensional precision. However, it was
deemed necessary to add material in some zones due to the lower deposition that
occurred locally [33].
In conclusion, the application developed and presented in this section aims to
demonstrate the maturity level of DED process in producing components of large
dimensions, with particular and thin features that are difficult to manufacture in one
step using conventional manufacturing technologies [33]. Moreover, the flexibility
offered by AM, from a machinery point of view, for this complex component could
not be achieved through conventional manufacturing processes [33].
4.3 Business Perspective and AM Case Studies 105

Table 4.1 Estimated printing

Deposition/production time AM–DED
time of a rocket’s nozzle [33]
Time (h) 1800

Profitability Analysis
Following the above technical description of the case, the profitability analysis
follows. As stated previously, the component has an external diameter of 1000 mm
and a height of 900 mm. The volume of the nozzle is approximately 20,850 cm3 , and
using the same print setup programming approach as the one described in Sect. 4.2,
the total printing time was calculated and is given in Table 4.1.
In order to calculate the final production cost of this aerospace nozzle, the
following data have to be obtained and considered.
• AM machinery depreciation cost.
• Gas costs.
• Energy costs.
• Raw material costs.
• Machinery setup costs.
• Post-processing costs.
Regarding the depreciation cost (below mentioned as hourly cost), it is at the
manufacturer’s discretion to decide whether to include this cost within the process
cost analysis or in a different logistic manner. The reasoning behind this decision
depends on a company’s available cash flow and the desired time frame in which the
manufacturer wants to have a return on the investment [33]. For the case presented
in this book, the first option has been selected, since it is the most common approach
and the relevant data can be seen in Table 4.2. Moreover, the hours available were
estimated based on the production objective of the lot size of the nozzles within a
year. Normally depreciation period is considered to 5 years. Thus, the final hourly
cost is calculated by the following equation and its value for this case is provided
below [33].

machinery cost
hourly cost = . (4.1)
hours available × depriciation duration

Table 4.2 Machine data for

Production data AM–DED
calculation of machine hour
cost [33] Machinery cost (e) 1,000,000
Hours available (h/year) 4928
Depreciation duration (years) 5
Hourly cost (e/h) 40.5
106 4 AM Applications

Table 4.3 Total gas cost for

Production data AM–DED
the nozzle application [33]
Gas flow rate (L/min) 40
Volume rate (m3 /h) 2.4
( / )
Gas cost e m3 3
Total gas cost (e) 12,960

Regarding the costs related to the shielding and the powder carrier gas, it has been
chosen to consider Nitrogen for technical reasons. This cost can be simply derived
using the price per cubic meter of gas and its volume flow rate, as described in the
equation below. The results are summarized in Table 4.3.

total gas cost = volume rate × process duration × gas cost (4.2)

For the calculation of energy costs, an important clarification has to be made.

It has to be highlighted that energy cost is a very labile value since it depends
on socio-political and geographic conditions. The energy costs used in this case
study are derived from Eurostat sources for the year 2022, using the Italian national
average [34]. The second important consideration is that even though laser power was
maintained constant in the production plan of the specific application, the laser source
and the machinery could be affected of power peaks. To maintain a conservative
approach in the energy cost calculations, the power consumption of the machinery
has been considered at its maximum peak for the whole processing time [33]. As per
the above, the total energy consumption was calculated, using the below equation.

E con = Ppeak Pt (4.3)

where E con is the energy consumption, Ppeak is the maximum achievable power value
of the machine, and Pt is the processing time. The next step is the calculation of the
total energy cost related to the process utilizing the following equation [33].

ECtot = E con EC, (4.4)

where ECtot t is the total energy costs, E con , and EC is the energy cost is the energy
consumption. In Table 4.4, all the data and results related to the energy costs are
consolidated. As mentioned above, the worst-case scenario for the energy cost was
considered, and therefore, the overall production cost could be further reduced if a
less conservative approach is followed [33].
For the material cost calculations, the market price of Inconel 718 was considered.
However, noting the price trend of Nickel, many fluctuations can be observed, which
are attributed to social-economic reasons. It is important to highlight that in such
cases, agreements between machine builders and/or companies and AM powder
suppliers should be made to ensure price stability, given the high demand for raw
material required for such a production plan. For this case, the raw material price
4.3 Business Perspective and AM Case Studies 107

Table 4.4 Total energy costs

Production data AM–DED
for the nozzle production [33]
Energy cost (e/kWh) 0.25
Machine power peak (kW) 35
Process duration (h) 1800
Total energy consumption (kWh) 63,000
Total energy cost (e) 15,750

Table 4.5 Total material

Production data AM–DED
costs for the production of the
nozzle [33] Material cost (powder) (e/kg) 76
Deposition or processed mass (kg) 0.171
Material use eff. (%) 90
Total material cost (e) 14,296

is considered fixed at 76 e/kg [33]. Moreover, an efficiency ratio should be used to

take into account material waste, as per the machine manufacturer guidelines and
the specific geometry. In Table 4.5, the outcome of the calculations for the material
usage and cost for one nozzle is presented.
Having calculated all the above, the total cost per part can now be obtained by
summing up the individual costs. In this estimation, a post-process cost was also
added since the full-scale nozzle has to be removed from the plate using EDM. Few
EDM machines can be used due to the big dimensions of the particular component
[33]. Therefore, the use of a saw machine is studied as an alternative. However, for
this case, extra material has to be added to the bottom of the part to compensate
for the lower precision of such machines. Moreover, a short milling operation for
the removal of the extra material and the finishing of the external surfaces was also
considered [33]. Therefore, the final cost per part for the company would be the
following one (Table 4.6).
For the calculation of the annual income from the sales of a satellite nozzle compo-
nent, it is necessary to consider two facts. The first is the annual production volume,
which has already been estimated above and the second is the market price at which

Table 4.6 Final production

Production data AM–DED
cost for the aerospace nozzle
[33] Total gas cost (e) 12,960
Total energy cost (e) 15,750
Total material cost (e) 14,296
Total process cost (e) 72,900
Total post-process cost (e) 5000
Final cost (e)/per part 120,906
108 4 AM Applications

the company will distribute its products. The evaluation of the profitability of the
investment of one AM machine takes place, assuming that for the first years the
production rate will not increase and the analysis takes into account the whole dura-
tion of the depreciation of the machine [33]. If it is necessary to increase the initial
production plan, more machines have to be acquired and this analysis has to be
updated. For this book, the use of one machine and fixed yearly production, except
for the first year, are considered. As per the previous calculations, the cost per part
for a new manufacturer is 120,906 e, which allows for a considerable operating
profit margin for each part. For the definition of the market price of the product, it
is very important to clarify the market status and the competitive advantages of the
specific AM product over the conventionally manufactured ones. Taking advantage
of the specific benefits of AM, the redesigned nozzle can be characterized as very
high quality, as well as improved efficiency when compared to competitor prod-
ucts [33]. The part of this case was meant for the European Space Agency (ESA),
and a market price estimation as per the specific standing agreements is around
350,000 e [35].
A detailed breakdown of the gross profit generated by the rocket nozzle can be
seen in Table 4.7. The total revenue is calculated by multiplying the price per unit
by the number of units sold. Due to the machine installation, the training of the
personnel, and the characterization of the component that will take place during the
first year, only one nozzle will be printed. This is the reason why the first year’s
sales are only 8% of the sales of any consequent year. The total number of units sold
multiplied by the cost per unit (as shown in Table 4.7) equals the cost of goods sold
which can be defined as the costs directly linked to the production of the goods sold
in a company. The gross profit of the company equals the total revenue minus the
total costs of goods sold [33].
It has to be mentioned that further analysis assuming the operating expenses,
depreciation, and amortization before interest and taxes would be more complex,
as well as detailed data are not available. Therefore, using the previously presented
data and considerations, at least 200,000 e have to be returned each year to cover the
depreciation of the investment (machinery). There will probably be a loss during the

Table 4.7 Gross profit predictions in a 5-year-long period [33]

Profitability data Year 1 Year 2–5
Total number of parts produced in the machine per year 1 12
Number of units sold per year 1 12
Price per unit (e) 350,000 350,000
Cost per unit (e) −120,906 −120,906
Revenues Nozzle (e) 350,000 4,200,000
Costs of goods sold −120,906 1,450,872
Gross profit 229,094 2,749,128
Gross profit (%) 65.4 65.4
4.3 Business Perspective and AM Case Studies 109

first year; however, starting from the second year, the investment can be gradually
covered, including the rest of the expenses and taxes, considering a gross profit of
687,282 e per year [33].
As per the presented analysis, it can be concluded that an AM investment for
an aerospace application can be very profitable, given that the required consid-
erations and programming take place. Additionally, the utilization of AM instead
of conventional processes led to improved product performance, offering technical
advantages, and fewer production steps, eliminating various operating, maintenance,
and consumables costs. Since AM technology becomes more mainstream, offering
increasing production rates and lower investment costs, the profit margin will steadily
increase, constituting AM a viable alternative for other sub-assemblies of the rocket
and aerospace industry [33].

4.3.2 Dental Case

The maturity level of a dental AM application is demonstrated in this case, including

the main process, as well as production, and cost aspects. The main two materials
used in this sector are Titanium alloys or CoCr alloys (Nickel free). For this partic-
ular application, a CoCr alloy was selected, in order to fulfill the end-user require-
ments regarding the dimensional accuracy of the components before and after post-
processing, as well as the surface roughness and the ductility of the material that
will permit the hand finishing of the surfaces. Once the technical and economical
requirements of the end-user have been defined, the approach of such an application
study contains should follow the below steps [33].
(1) Feasibility analysis—printing time and cost estimation.
(2) Evaluation of the number and the kind of parts to be printed.
(3) Material characterization and process parameters definition.
(4) Printing job realization.
(5) Post-processing activities.
(6) Quality evaluation.
(7) Further elaboration on the parts made by the end-user.
Once the technical feasibility has been demonstrated, as well as the coating
process, it was concluded that AM is a valid manufacturing method alternative and
can eliminate several manual steps of the current production process. To prove the
economical sustainability and profitability of such a machinery investment for a
service provider company, calculations similar to the previous case (Sect. 4.3.1)
have to take place, utilizing the data provided in Table 4.8. To maintain simplicity,
only one type of geometry was selected, the dentures. Based on the input of the
end-user, the production volume is 1200 dentures per month or 14,400 parts per year
[33]. In this case, the PBF process was selected due to the higher mechanical prop-
erties, better roughness, and accuracy it offers, since it can meet the aforementioned
production requirements. Therefore, based on the job simulation performed above,
110 4 AM Applications

40 dentures could be printed on one plate. Considering the plate dimension (150 mm)
and the process parameters extracted from the case analysis, the job duration is 4 h
and 30 min (Table 4.9). The total volume of these 40 dentures is 24 cm3 and the total
height with the supports is 12.5 mm [33].
As per the previous case, the following data have to be calculated for the cost
evaluation.
• Depreciation cost of the machinery.
• Gas costs.
• Energy costs.
• Material costs.
• Machinery setup costs.
• Post-processing costs.
The hourly cost was calculated in the same way that was described in the previous
case of the aerospace industry case (Sect. 4.3.1). However, in this case, the PBF
process was selected, and therefore, some of the data are different. The invest-
ment cost for such a piece of machinery is 260,000 e. Furthermore, the printing
hours per year are set to 4800, considering continuous printing for 24 h, 5 days per
week, one shift, and 10 months of operation. This was estimated by including annual
leaves, maintenance stops, and load/unloading activities. The depreciation period,
in this case, was considered as 5 years as well [33]. In Table 4.10, the data and the
hourly costs can be found, utilizing the same formula presented in the previous case
(Sect. 4.3.1).
The gas that was selected for this application is Nitrogen. Initially, in order to fill
the working chamber with inert gas and create a protected atmosphere, the machine
consumes 20 L/min, but after forty minutes, the consumption is 7 L/min, which is
sufficient to maintain the required gas level. The gas consumption calculation results,
as per the previous data, can be seen in Table 4.11.
The energy consumption and cost were also estimated as per the procedure
followed in the previous case (Sect. 4.3.1). The total electrical power consump-
tion of the selected machine is 8 kW, which is much less than the DED machine
of the previous case. The worst-case scenario was considered for the calculations,

Table 4.8 Technical details of the dental printing job [33]

Part description Dental printing job
Technology Powder bed fusion
Material CoCr
Number of parts per job 40 (conservative approach)

Table 4.9 Printing time of the dentures [33]

Deposition/production time AM–PBF
Time (h) 4.5
4.3 Business Perspective and AM Case Studies 111

Table 4.10 Machine data for calculation of the machine hour cost [33]
Production data AM–PBF
Machinery cost (e) 260,000
Hours available (h/year) 4800
Depreciation duration (year) 5
Hourly cost (e/h) 10.8

Table 4.11 Total gas cost for

Production data AM–PBF
the printing of the dentures
[33] Gas flow rate (L/min) 14
Volume rate (m3 /h) 0.84
( )
Gas cost e/m3 3
Total gas cost (e) 11.34

assuming that maximum power is consumed during the whole machine operation.
The results are demonstrated in Table 4.12.
The market price of the CoCr alloy of 65 e/kg was considered for the following
calculations. Due to increased competition between the powder suppliers, the
increased production capacity, and the unstable social-economic background, it is
always preferred that specific agreements are made on the cost per kilo of the powder
materials, to ensure a constant price. In the PBF technology, the majority of the
powder used in a printing job can be sieved, recycled, and re-utilized. Therefore, in
this case, the material use coefficient is even higher than that of the DED process
(Table 4.13).

Table 4.12 Total energy

Production data AM–PBF
costs for the dentures printing
job [33] Energy cost (e/kWh) 0.25
Machine power peak (kW) 8
Process duration (h) 4.5
Total energy consumption (kWh) 36
Total energy cost (e) 9

Table 4.13 Total material

Production data AM–PBF
costs for the dentures printing
job [33] Material cost (powder) (e/kg) 65
Deposition or processed mass (kg) 0.3
Material use eff. (%) 98
Total material cost (e) 19.89
112 4 AM Applications

Table 4.14 Final production

Production data AM–PBF
cost of dentures [33]
Total gas cost (e) 11.34
Total energy cost (e) 9
Total material cost (e) 19.89
Total process cost (e) 48.75
Total post-process cost (e) 50
Final cost (e) per job (40 dentures) 138.98
Final cost (e) per part 3.47

Having extracted all the necessary individual costs, the total cost per part can
now be calculated. It has to be highlighted that supporting cones have been used
for this printing job, which are placed under the dentures. This is necessary in order
to support the exposure surfaces which are parallel to the plate. Additionally, it
allows for easier removal of the dentures from the plate, avoiding the use of EDM
and further reducing costs. However, in this case, a heat treatment is advised to
eliminate thermal stresses and deformations when the dentures are removed from the
plate, while simultaneously improving ductility. This will also facilitate the manual
finishing of the dentures before the ceramization [33]. The cost of the oven required
for the thermal post-process is included in the sale price of the PBF machine, and
therefore, no extra costs, except for the operating costs, have to be considered. The
total cost per job has to be calculated and reduced to one part (Table 4.14).
It is necessary to consider two facts for the calculation of the annual income from
the sales of a single denture component. The first is the annual production volume,
which has already been estimated, and the second is the price per part, namely the
market price at which the company will sell its products. For the evaluation of the
investment profitability of one PBF machine, it is considered that for the first year,
the production volume will be constant at 14,400 dentures, as per the indication of the
end-user. For the next two years, an increase of 15% in annual production is foreseen.
This leads to 16,560 dentures per year or 1380 per month. Dividing the last with the
20 working days per month leads to 69 dentures per day. Considering two printing
jobs of 40 dentures, the increased production still is within the production capacity
of the machine [33]. For the duration of the last two years, a further increase of 15%
in production is considered. This results in almost 80 dentures per day, which still
is within the production capabilities of the machine since the end-user can produce
this demand with two printing jobs in one day [33].
As per the feedback of the end-user, the market price of the denture is 7 e each.
Utilizing this value, the gross profit calculations over a 5-year-long depreciation
period have to take place to indicate the level of investment absorption. Additionally,
the alternatives of acquiring another more productive machine or further optimizing
the process in the future have to be studied. By multiplying the total number of
product units sold by the cost per unit, the total cost of goods is calculated, as shown
in Table 4.15. The gross profit of the company is equal to the total revenue minus
4.3 Business Perspective and AM Case Studies 113

the total costs of goods sold. The total number of units sold has to be multiplied by
the cost per unit equals the cost of goods sold [33]. The gross profit of the company
equals the total revenue minus the total costs of goods sold. The results of those
calculations can be seen in Table 4.15.
In the calculations of the gross profit, the operating expenses such as staff salaries,
consumables, maintenance, and assets are not deducted for the sake of simplicity
since these data are not easily obtainable. Therefore, assuming that 50,000 e must
be returned every year for the depreciation of the investment (machinery), a loss
will probably be noticed for the first year. However, starting from the second year,
both the investment, as well as the rest of the expenses and taxes, will be covered,
considering a gross profit of around 70,000 e per year [33].
In a nutshell, after the profitability analysis of the dental sector application, it is
evident that this is a field where AM can replace the current manufacturing method
and provide advantages not only at an economic level but also technical, offering
a higher degree of customization, flexibility, and the possibility to investigate new
material alloys compatible with the human body [33].
As per the presented analysis, it can be concluded that an AM investment for a
dental application can be very profitable, given that the required considerations and
programming take place. Additionally, the utilization of AM instead of conventional
processes led to improved product performance, offering technical advantages, a
higher degree of customization, and flexibility. Finally, the presented setup also offers
the capability for future investigation of new, innovative material alloys, compatible
with the human body, which could not be used cost-effectively by conventional
manufacturing technologies [33].
Considering the constant increase of demand in this sector, the investment in such
a machine can be easily absorbed in a few years. In case of increased production
rate demands, modifications and more advanced equipment can serve this need, like

Table 4.15 Gross profit predictions for dental application in a 5-year-long period [33]
Profitability data Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Total number of parts produced in the machine 14,400 16,560 16,560 19,044 19,044
per year
Number of units sold per year 14,400 16,560 16,560 19,044 19,044
Price per unit (e) 7 7 7 7 7
Cost per unit (e) 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47
Revenues dentures (e) 100,800 115,920 115,920 133,308 133,308
Costs of goods sold 49,968 57,463 57,463 66,082 66,082
Gross profit 50,832 58,457 58,457 67,226 67,226
Gross profit% 50.4 50.4 50.4 50.4 50.4
114 4 AM Applications

the addition of additional laser sources that can operate in parallel, increased build-
envelope, and build-platform, which point out the flexibility of this AM solution.
Therefore, it can be concluded that AM can fully replace the current production
approach, creating fruitful market opportunities both for dental enterprises, as well
as AM machine manufacturers and AM service providers [33].

4.3.3 Power and Energy Sector Case

The third case will demonstrate the maturity level for the industrial uptake of AM
in the power and energy sector. The typical machinery used in the industrial sector
includes setups for the generation of power from natural resources, including oil,
gas, wind, solar, and other sources, as well as energy transfer. AM applications in
this sector are rapidly increasing over the past years, both regarding PBF and DED
technologies. Typical parts made using AM for the power and energy sector include
turbine blades, motor parts, and stators [36]. It has to be pointed out that important
technical and economical advantages come from the repair of these components
when AM is used, the turbine blades in particular.
The presented case was developed by an industrial machine manufacturer in
collaboration with a company oriented toward the production and repair of turbine
blades for the energy sector. The specifications provided by the end-user regarded a
first-stage turbine blade like the one illustrated in Fig. 4.10. The representation of the
exact geometry was not possible due to confidentiality reasons. The blades are worn
on the tip, which has to be milled down in order to be reconstructed. The material
that was selected is Inconel 625, which is a Nickel-based alloy that is very similar to
the one used for the production of the blade [33].
Since this is a repair case, the DED technology is the standard and best-suited
AM technology, due to the unique advantages it offers, in terms of reachability
and exact powder deposition without the need to encompass the whole product in

Fig. 4.10 Turbine blade

design used in this case study
4.3 Business Perspective and AM Case Studies 115

Fig. 4.11 Mock-up for

repair trials

powder, like in the PBF process. A mock-up of the repair trials can be seen in
Fig. 4.11. Regarding the printing, the deposition should follow the geometry of the
tip, using an over-deposited tolerance of +0.3/+0.5 mm both internally and exter-
nally [33]. This will allow the milling and finishing post-processing operations to
take place, ensuring that the exact design requirements will be met (total height of
3 mm). The finishing and thermal treatment, as well as the evaluation of the internal
defects, will be performed by the end-user in this case, as indicated in specific quality
standards [33].
The first step of the evaluation procedure is the definition of the process parame-
ters, while another critical aspect is the automation of the whole process, which was
specifically requested by the end-user. More specifically, each blade under repair
has a slightly different height, which leads to a slightly different section in each of
them [33]. The standard procedure for the identification of the surface border was
the use of a probe, which requires constant manual interference, and it is a relatively
slow method. Therefore, in order to achieve high production rates and achieve full
automation of the process, a system was developed capable of optically recognizing
the border of each component under repair, utilizing a vision system, and adjusting
the printing parameters accordingly [33]. This led to the reduction of the repair
process to 15 min instead of the initial 50 min of the probe-supported process.
Details regarding the productivity evaluation of this repair case are provided in
Table 4.16.
Profitability Analysis
For the evaluation of the profitability of this repair case, the use of various sensors
and automation was required. The end-user normally repairs more than 2000 blades

Table 4.16 Performance evaluation between the current repair process and DED repair [33]
Performance indicators Current manufacturing method DED repairing
Production time 50 min 15 min
Parts per day (1 shift) 8 parts 24 parts
Parts per year 1920 5760
116 4 AM Applications

Table 4.17 Total repair time

Deposition/production time AM–DED
for one turbine blade [33]
Time (min) 15

per year, and they aimed to increase the production capacity. Utilizing the aforemen-
tioned setup, the total production was reduced to 15 min from the initial 50 min,
and therefore, the scenario analyzed herein demonstrates the profits from the full
exploitation of the presented AM production alternative [33]. The volume that is
required to be deposited for this type of blade is 6 cm3 and the production time can
be seen in Table 4.17.
As in the previous cases, the following data need to be calculated for the cost
evaluation.
• Depreciation cost of the machinery.
• Gas costs.
• Energy costs.
• Material costs.
• Machinery setup costs.
• Post-processing costs.
The hourly cost for this case was calculated using a similar procedure as in the
previous ones. The particular DED machine, however, has a higher price (around
800,000 e), as it has a significantly larger printing envelope (1100 × 800 × 600
mm). In this case, only one shift per day has been considered since the machine
cannot operate unsupervised during the night because the total process cycle is only
15 min. Therefore, the total available hours, in this case, are 1920 h per year. The
depreciation period was considered as 5 years [33]. In Table 4.18, the data and the
hourly cost are provided, utilizing the same formula presented in the previous cases.
Argon was used for this application due to technical requirements. More specifi-
cally, due to the relatively low density of Argon, its capability to remove any possible
fumes generated during the process is improved, in this way contributing to main-
taining the melt-pool temperature more uniform over time [33]. The gas consumption,
in this case, is 60 L/min and the price of Argon is 6 e/m3 . Therefore, considering a
medium consumption, the following cost was calculated (Table 4.19).
In a similar way to the previous cases, the energy consumption and cost were also
estimated. The total electrical power of the DED machine is 35 kW. The worst-case

Table 4.18 Machine data for

Production data AM–DED
the calculation of the machine
hour cost [33] Machinery cost (e) 800,000
Hours available (h/year) 1920
Depreciation duration (years) 5
Hourly cost (e/h) 83
4.3 Business Perspective and AM Case Studies 117

Table 4.19 Total gas cost for

Production data AM–DED
the repair of the turbine blade
[33] Gas flow rate (L/min) 60
Volume rate (m3 /h) 3.6
( / )
Gas cost e m3 6
Total gas cost (e) 5.4

Table 4.20 Total energy cost

Production data AM–DED
of the repair case [33]
Energy cost (e/kWh) 0.25
Machine power peak (kW) 35
Process duration (h) 0.25
Total energy consumption (kWh) 8.75
Total energy cost (e) 2.2

scenario was considered in this case as well, assuming maximum energy consumption
during the whole production time [33]. The results can be seen in Table 4.20.
The market price of the Inconel 625 alloy was considered for the following calcu-
lations, which is 82 e/kg. As mentioned for the Inconel 718, the price of the alloy
used has a lot of variations due to issues regarding Nickel production, which have a
direct impact on the cost of this AM powder. Even though in the DED technology, a
significant portion of the unused powder can be recycled and re-utilized, the material
usage coefficient for the DED process is lower than that of PBF [33]. However, due to
the small mass of the parts of this particular case, the material cost remains relatively
low (Table 4.21).
Following the above individual cost estimations, the total final cost per repair can
now be calculated. Except for the standard costs of gas, electricity, material, and
depreciation cost, an amount was added for post-process activities. This includes a
short finishing of the external surface of the tip so as to obtain the final dimensions
of the requirement. Furthermore, the blade has to be heat treated to increase its
hardness and mechanical properties. Finally, it must also be prepared for shipment
to the customer. These activities are performed internally; therefore, an estimated
amount was added to provide a complete view of the costs (Table 4.22).
For the calculation of the annual income of the sales of a single component, it
is necessary to consider two facts. The first is the annual production volume, which

Table 4.21 Total material

Production data AM–DED
cost for the repair [33]
Material cost (powder) (e/kg) 82
Deposition or processed mass (kg) 0.50
Material use eff. (%) 55
Total material cost (e) 4.5
118 4 AM Applications

Table 4.22 Final production

Production data AM–DED
cost of the turbine blade’s
repair process [33] Total gas cost (e) 5.4
Total energy cost (e) 2.2
Total material cost (e) 4.5
Total process cost (e) 20.75
Total post-process cost (e) 200
Final cost (e)/per part 232.85

is already estimated above, and the second is the price per part, the market price at
which the company will distribute its products. Evaluating the profitability capacity
of such an investment, it was considered that the maximum number of repairs per
year is 5760, based on the 1920 h available [33].
It was stated by the end-user that their plan is to start with an initial number of
2000 repairs annually and increase this number yearly, to reach 5760 annual repairs
in the fifth year.
Regarding the selling price, there is a high-profit margin since the market price
of a new blade is around 15,000 e. Assuming a conservative approach, as per the
feedback of the end-user, the selling price for a repaired blade was set at 350 e. The
cost of goods sold is calculated by multiplying the cost per unit by the total number
of units sold. The gross profit of the company is equal to the total revenue minus
the total costs of goods sold. The gross profit prediction for the repair of the turbine
blades is shown in Table 4.23.
In the calculations of the gross profit, the operating expenses such as staff salaries,
consumables, maintenance, and assets are not deducted, mainly because these data
are not easily obtainable. Therefore, assuming that 160,000 e must be returned
every year for the depreciation of the investment (machinery), a loss will probably

Table 4.23 Gross profit prediction for the repair of the turbine blades [33]
Profitability data Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Total number of parts produced in the 2000 2800 3500 4600 5760
machine per year
Number of units sold per year 2000 2800 3500 4600 5760
Price per unit (e) 350 350 350 350 350
Cost per unit (e) 232.85 232.85 232.85 232.85 232.85
Revenues blade (e) 700,000 980,000 1,225,000 1,610,000 2,016,000
Costs of goods sold 465,700 651,980 814,975 1,071,110 134,126
Gross profit 234,300 328,020 410,025 538,890 674,784
Gross profit (%) 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4 33.4
References 119

be noticed for the first year [33]. However, starting from the second year, both the
investment, as well as the rest of the expenses and taxes, will be covered, considering
a gross profit of around half a million Euros per year.
As per the previous data and calculations, the competitiveness of AM in the energy
industrial sector is validated, given that the right application for AM is identified,
characterized, and developed. Additionally, it has to be pointed out that performing
repairs using AM can offer economic advantages for any sector, since the initial
machinery investment can be absorbed efficiently and fast, offering significant profit
return [33]. Moreover, it was demonstrated that production time reduction can be
achieved with AM in comparison to conventional processes, given that the proper
sensors and automation are used.
Concluding, the AM repair application from the power and energy industry has
demonstrated the technical feasibility and advantages of DED technology. Further-
more, it has to be highlighted that the integration of tailor-made automation and
sensors can be the turning point that enables the cost-effective and high productivity
utilization of AM [33]. Consequently, important innovations from a machinery point
of view that can facilitate other similar applications in other sectors as well can lead
to the improvement of the requirements and specifications of the next generation of
industrial AM machines, allowing for larger lot size productions, paving the way for
AM as a cost-effective repairing manufacturing alternative for every factory [33].

References

1. P. Stavropoulos, P. Foteinopoulos, Modelling of additive manufacturing processes: a review

and classification. Manuf. Rev. 5, 2 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2017014
2. N. Hopkinson, R. Hague, P. Dickens, Rapid Manufacturing: An Industrial Revolution for the
Digital Age (John Wiley & Sons, 2006). ISBN-13: 978-0-470-01613-8
3. P. Foteinopoulos, Computational and empirical modeling of additive manufacturing processes.
Dissertation, University of Patras, 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/10442/hedi/50503
4. G.E. Additive, How to Create a Comprehensive Business Case (2019), https://www.ge.com/
additive/roi-playbook-form-a. Accessed 09 Nov 2022
5. M. Pérez, D. Carou, E.M. Rubio, R. Teti, Current advances in additive manufacturing. Procedia
CIRP 88, 439–444 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.05.076
6. AMFG, The Additive Manufacturing Landscape (2020), https://amfg.ai/whitepapers/the-add
itive-manufacturing-landscape-2020-report/#. Accessed 09 Nov 2022
7. 3D Natives, How are different industries adopting additive manufacturing? (2019), Source:
https://www.3dnatives.com/en/industries-additive-manufacturing-120820195/. Accessed 09
Nov 2022
8. A.K. Lianos, S. Koutsoukos, H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, Manufacturability assessment and
design for AM. Procedia CIRP 91, 290–294 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.
02.178
9. HUBS, Additive manufacturing trend report (2021), https://f.hubspotusercontent10.net/hubfs/
4075618/Additive%20manufacturing%20trend%20report%202021.pdf?utm_campaign=
Gated%20Content%20Downloads&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=82605589&_hsenc=p2A
Nqtz-9pM5X9Hu5jL_49jLKLdBARaGb5PVPhM3kYwzk2c36z2bmdpMZRLJiSd4n5ZK
SZOJoCbPnSwFXfi64pLJvjvFjceDPf3w&utm_content=82605589&utm_source=hs_automa
tion, Accessed 09 Nov 2022
120 4 AM Applications

10. Jabil, 3D printing technology trends (2021), https://www.jabil.com/dam/jcr:82f12c7a-7475-

42a0-a64f-0f4a625587d8/jabil-2021-3d-printing-tech-trends-report.pdf. Accessed 09 Nov
2022
11. Prima Additive, Metal AM (2022), https://www.primaadditive.com/en. Accessed 09 Nov 2022
12. Gartner, Gartner hype cycle (2019), https://www.3dnatives.com/en/gartner-hype-cycle-3dprin
tingpredictions-150120194/
13. Wohlers Associates, Wohlers Report 2021: 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing State of
the Industry (Wohlers Associates Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, 2021)
14. P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, K. Angelopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, Development
of a simulation approach for laser powder bed fusion based on scanning strategy selection.
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 108(9), 3085–3100 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-
05603-4Accessed09Nov2022
15. AMFG, The additive manufacturing landscape (2020), https://amfg.ai/whitepapers/the-add
itive-manufacturing-landscape-2020-report/#. Accessed 09 Nov 2022
16. D.S. Thomas, S.W. Gilbert, Costs and cost effectiveness of additive manufacturing. NIST Spec.
Publ. 1176, 12 (2014). https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1176
17. Deloitte Review, 3D opportunity for production (2014), https://www2.deloitte.com/content/
dam/insights/us/articles/additive-manufacturing-business-case/DR15_3D_Opportunity_For_
Production.pdf, Accessed 09 Nov 2022
18. P. Foteinopoulos, A. Papacharalampopoulos, P. Stavropoulos, On thermal modeling of additive
manufacturing processes. CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 20, 66–83 (2018). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cirpj.2017.09.007
19. A.K. Lianos, H. Bikas, P. Stavropoulos, A shape optimization method for part design derived
from the buildability restrictions of the directed energy deposition additive manufacturing
process. Designs 4(3) (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/designs4030019
20. D.R. Eyers, A.T. Potter, Industrial additive manufacturing: a manufacturing systems perspec-
tive. Comput. Ind. 92, 208–218 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2017.08.002
21. Prima Additive, Nickel alloys for AM (2022), https://www.primaadditive.com/en/materials/dir
ect-energy-deposition/nickel-alloys-ded. Accessed 09 Nov 2022
22. D. Bourell, J.P. Kruth, M. Leu, G. Levy, D. Rosen, A.M. Beese, A. Clare, Materials for additive
manufacturing. CIRP Ann. 66(2), 659–681 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2017.05.009
23. N. Li, S. Huang, G. Zhang, R. Qin, W. Liu, H. Xiong, J. Blackburn, Progress in additive
manufacturing on new materials: a review. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 35(2), 242–269 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2018.09.002
24. S. Shah, S. Mattiuzza, Adoption of additive manufacturing approaches: the case of manufac-
turing SMEs, in IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation
(ICE/ITMC) (2018), pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2018.8436257
25. P. Schmitt, S. Zorn, K. Gericke, Additive manufacturing research landscape: a literature review.
Proc. Des. Soc. 1, 333–344 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2021.34
26. L. Vendra, A.J.S.F.F. Achanta, Metal additive manufacturing in the oil and gas industry, in 2018
International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (University of Texas at Austin, 2018).
https://doi.org/10.26153/tsw/17035
27. N. Chiadamrong, C. O’Brien, Decision support tool for justifying alternative manufacturing
and production control systems. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 60, 177–186 (1999). https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0925-5273(98)00182-0
28. P. Kulkarni, A. Kumar, G. Chate, P. Dandannavar, Elements of additive manufacturing tech-
nology adoption in small-and medium-sized sized companies. Innov. Manag. Rev. (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-02-2020-0015
29. European Commission, Entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)
(2022). https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes_en, Accessed 09 Nov 2022
30. Wohlers Associates, Wohlers Report 2019: 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing State of
the Industry (Wohlers Associates Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, 2019)
31. Wohlers Associates, Wohlers Report 2020: 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing State of
the Industry (Wohlers Associates Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado, 2020)
References 121

32. G. Piscopo, L. Iuliano, Current research and industrial application of laser powder directed
energy deposition. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 1–25 (2022)
33. J. Stavridis, Industrialization of Additive Manufacturing – A Holistic approach: From design
to production (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). (Politecnico di Torino, Italy, 2022)
34. Eurostat, Electricity price statistics (2022), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/
index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics&oldid=575810. Accessed 09 Nov 2022
35. Arienespace, Vega user’s manual, issue 4 revision 0 April 2014 (2022), https://www.ariane
space.com/
36. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes_en. Last accessed online on 15/06/2022 Accessed
09 Nov 2022
Chapter 5
Conclusions

Additive Manufacturing (AM) is one of the key technologies of Industry 4.0 offering
unique advantages and capabilities. The interest in AM has been steadily increasing,
leading to its rapid recent growth and improvement of all its aspects. However, its
uptake is hindered by the lack of experience in the utilization of its advantages, as
well as the minimization of its drawbacks in the various stages of production. In
this book, a modular guide has been presented integrating the stages of AM product
development in a practical, reader-friendly approach, aiming for the wider adoption
of AM forming an essential aid for researchers, designers, engineers, simulation
specialists, and post-graduate students. More specifically.
• A holistic framework for AM has been followed, consisting of three pillars: design,
processes, and applications.
• A modular AM-driven design strategy toward exploiting the full design freedom
potential of AM has been presented.
• The AM process-centric approach of this book addresses the issues of product
quality, energy efficiency, and build-time minimization in a step-by-step KPI
optimization framework through all the stages for the stages of AM, namely
design, process simulation, monitoring, and control, including digital twin and
hybrid AM, post-processing, and industrial application-related issues, assisting
in the evaluation of the entire supply chain of AM.
Design for AM is a very complex subject, where numerous factors and their inter-
actions should be taken into account in an attempt to maximize the benefit occurring
by utilizing AM for a specific part/use case. This is because the design of every
component to be additively manufactured can be affected and in parallel have effects
both in the AM process and the materials selected, as well as on the subsequent
post-processing steps required to obtain a ready-to-use component.
In order to be able to successfully implement design for AM and deliver value
through its use of it, the designer should not only consider the strong points of each
AM process but also have in mind their inherent drawbacks. These factors can be

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 123
P. Stavropoulos, Additive Manufacturing: Design, Processes and Applications,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33793-2_5
124 5 Conclusions

“global” (i.e., applicable across all existing AM processes and orientating mainly to
the layer-wise nature of AM) or process-specific, owing mainly to limitations related
to the physical process mechanism.
As such factors are highly dependent on the process and process mechanism, mate-
rials used, and (to a lesser extent) machine, only broad guidelines can be given, and
fine-tuning of the design limitations for a specific machine and/or material requires
targeted and structured experimentation based on the limiting factors expected by the
process mechanism. Such experimentation can be facilitated by the use of standard
test artifacts.
These limitations should be taken into account during the early stages of a part’s
design, as non-compliance is causing bottlenecks to the AM process. Both design
aspects and design considerations should be considered. A design aspect is defined as
any particular feature which can be quantified during the design phase. That includes
geometric features of the part (overhangs, bores, channels, walls, etc.), as well as
relevant build parameters that need to be set in order to manufacture the part (layer
thickness, build orientation, etc.). The term “design consideration” can be used to
describe the results of design aspects and the process itself on the finished product.
That includes geometric characteristics and mechanical properties of the part, as well
as KPIs of the AM process.
To fully exploit the benefits of AM processes, transitioning from conventional
feature-based design to function-based design using optimization algorithms is
encouraged. Two main approaches topology optimization (TO) and generative design
(GD) are currently used to morph the part geometry based on certain optimization
criteria. One important limitation of both TO and GD methods is that they generate
highly complex parts. Design modifications are then required in a second stage to
address problematic aspects of the design and increase manufacturability; this fact
has led to novel optimization methods that can take into account manufacturability
aspects.
Finally, parts designed for AM often need to be post-processed. The designer
should be aware of the post-processing steps and the additional limitation their pres-
ence requires and design the part accordingly. Such limitations include the removal
of unconsolidated material and support structures, as well as ensuring fixturing
and referencing interfaces as well as sufficient strength and stiffness for further
processing.
Regarding AM processes, the selection of the material, the AM process family,
and the specific machine that will be used is a multi-criterion decision-making
problem that requires careful evaluation. It has to be pointed out that the intended
use of a product is of critical importance because prototyping and end-use products
have different requirements.
5 Conclusions 125

One of the most important issues hindering AM is that of part quality. The most
important quality issues can be summarized as follows.
• Surface roughness and layer-by-layer appearance.
• Porosity/void formation.
• Anisotropic microstructure and mechanical properties.
• Thermal residual stresses and deformations.
To achieve optimum part quality for a given combination of the process–AM
machine–feedstock type, the optimization of the process parameters is crucial, espe-
cially for metal-based AM. The most important process parameters affecting rough-
ness are layer thickness, laser power, scanning speed, power density, and overlap.
Regarding pore formation, the most common reason mainly involves incorrect heat
input in the melt pool and insufficient material overlap (hatch spacing). If a low
energy density is used, the melting and fusion of the new layer with the previous one
are not performed correctly, thus resulting in the formation of pores. However, the
use of very high energy densities can lead to the same effect due to the creation of a
keyhole in the melt pool, which leads to air inclusions during solidification.
Due to the layer-by-layer nature of the AM processes, orientation dependence
of mechanical properties is observed. To decrease the effects of anisotropy, careful
selection of energy density and hatch spacing has to take place to allow for a suffi-
cient fusion with the previously deposited layer and the adjacent deposited path.
Additionally, the orientation of the part in the build chamber has to be optimized to
ensure that the optimal mechanical properties are obtained depending on the load
requirements for a specific part.
The source of the anisotropy in AM lies in the grain evolution during manufac-
turing. The micro-structure can be controlled in situ utilizing re-melting, optimiza-
tion of build-envelope temperature, as well as cooling rates and heating profiles, thus
improving layer-by-layer grain uniformity. The role of the cooling rate is crucial:
slower cooling rates lead to coarser grains, whereas faster rates lead to thinner ones.
Moreover, the design of the part plays an important role because thicker cross-sections
cool slower than thinner ones, hence leading to coarser microstructures. Addition-
ally, the uneven heating and cooling that take place during the manufacturing of
parts in AM lead to the development of thermal stresses and deformations, both
in the build direction (Z-axis) and in the horizontal plane (XY). The cause for this
phenomenon is the non-uniformity of the thermal field both in the build direction
(Z-axis) and in-plane (XY), and it can be classified into three categories: (i) induced
stresses from upper layers to the below solidified layers, (ii) thermal contraction
of the current layer, and (iii) thermal gradients in the XY-plane. A more uniform
distribution of temperature along the Z-axis is required for the reduction of the inten-
sity of both the first and the second categories. This can be achieved by heating the
base plate to lower the thermal gradient in the Z-direction. Additionally, the heating
of the machine chamber helps in the mitigation of this effect. Both of the previ-
ously mentioned actions decrease the intensity of the in-plane thermal gradients as
well. However, the latter category can be more effectively tackled by evaluating the
different scanning strategy alternatives in terms of the resulting XY-plane thermal
126 5 Conclusions

gradients and by selecting the one that leads to the lowest. The scanning strategy
selection criterion can decrease the in-plane thermal non-uniformity by up to 20%
for a given part.
The most important process parameters of thermal-based metal AM processes and
their impact on crucial KPIs have been analyzed since the quality of parts in AM is
highly dependent on their optimization of process parameters. The manner in which
the heating for the fusion of a new layer with the previous one is performed has a
very significant impact on part quality because it affects almost all the KPIs. The
combination of heating intensity (laser power) and scanning speed form the energy
density, which is the determining factor for the maximum temperature, met-pool
dimensions, and the fluid-dynamics phenomena that take place. These phenomena
determine the surface roughness, part density, mechanical properties, and micro-
structure of the final parts; therefore, their optimization is of crucial importance.
Energy density and the different combinations of laser power and speed have to be
defined taking into account the material used, the required part density, build time, and
cost of the part, as well as the up-skin and down-skin considerations. Additionally, the
scanning strategy has a direct impact on residual stresses, deformations, mechanical
properties, anisotropy, and build time.
The phenomena that take place in AM are implicit, multi-scale, and highly
dynamic in time and space. It may be observed that for the creation of an all-
encompassing holistic simulation, a coupled multi-disciplinary and multi-level simu-
lation is required. However, such an approach would have prohibitive computational
requirements. Instead, the study of the different scales and phenomena in separate
simulations is the most common approach, using the optimized process parameters
from one simulation level to the next. To further understand how to utilize simulation
for AM efficiently, the connection of the phenomena that take place and their impact
on quality has been established. It should be noted that different phenomena require
the simulation of different scales based on their physical mechanism.
Regarding process control, the most common process parameters are the laser
power and speed because they determine the energy density and melt-pool geometry,
both of which are crucial for part quality. Through IoT and Industry 4.0 technolo-
gies, the development of cloud-based control applications has been made possible,
allowing for easier and more user-friendly process-control applications.
Post-processing for AM can be divided into two categories: essential and non-
essential. The cleaning of the part, removing the excess material from the build
chamber (e.g., powder-based processes), and removal of the part from the base plate
and of the supports are considered essential. Once those actions are completed,
there is a plethora of post-processes for AM serving different purposes. However,
particular emphasis must be placed on the thermal-based post-processes because
they allow the minimization—or even complete elimination—of the anisotropy and
the residual stresses (for thermal AM processes). Moreover, thermal post-processes
allow the calibration of the mechanical properties of a product (ductility, tensile
strength, yield strength, elongation at break), as well as of its grain size, to the
exact needs of a particular application within the limits of the material used for its
production. It should be noted that post-processing plays an important role in the
5 Conclusions 127

final part cost, and as such, it needs to be taken into account. To minimize the time
and, consequently, the cost of AM, the integration of common post-processes into the
AM machine itself led to hybrid AM machines. There is a selection of commercially
available hybrid AM machines; however, a custom solution can be developed to be
tailored to specific needs.
The utilization of digital twins in AM has various advantages, namely the mini-
mization of unplanned downtime, accidents, as well as maintenance costs through
preventive maintenance; all of the aforementioned constitute factors that contribute
to improved production time. Finally, they are powerful process optimization tools
because they are based on optimized simulations that are continuously updated and
trained through real-time data.
Regarding AM applications, the current state of end-use metal AM products
has been presented, and the most mature industrial sectors regarding metal AM
(MAM) have been highlighted. Three applications were developed in different
sectors, namely aerospace, dental, and energy. The cases regarded both PBF and DED
technologies. The requirements of the end-users were analyzed, and all the steps from
the feasibility and cost evaluation, the material characterization, the process param-
eters definition, the actual printing, the post-process activities, and the performance
evaluation were executed and presented. To achieve the demanding process and
production requirements, the cost for several machinery modifications and different
configurations was also taken into account. Additionally, possible innovations and
upgrades were studied, which should be considered for future industrial MAM appli-
cations that will contribute to the increase of production numbers and automation.
Calculating the operating costs and the market aspects provided by the end-users,
a business evaluation in a 5-year long period has been presented demonstrating the
real economical advantages that MAM can offer in production. Those indicative
cases that were studied also provide insight for future changes that have to be made
in industrial AM equipment, to facilitate the needs of more industrial sectors in a
cost-efficient way, retaining the characteristic high product value of AM.
An AM investment for an aerospace application can be very profitable, given that
the required considerations and programming take place. Additionally, the utiliza-
tion of AM instead of conventional processes led to improved product performance,
offering technical advantages, and fewer production steps, eliminating various oper-
ating, maintenance, and consumables costs. Since AM technology becomes more
mainstream, offering increasing production rates and lower investment costs, the
profit margin will steadily increase, constituting AM a viable alternative for other
sub-assemblies of the rocket and aerospace industry. The dental sector is a field in
which AM can replace the current manufacturing method and provide advantages not
only at an economic level but also technical, offering a higher degree of customiza-
tion, flexibility, and the possibility to investigate new material alloys compatible with
the human body. The presented AM setup also offers the capability for future inves-
tigation of new, innovative material alloys, compatible with the human body, which
could not be used cost-effectively by conventional manufacturing technologies. The
AM repair application from the power and energy industry has demonstrated the
technical feasibility and advantages of DED technology. Furthermore, it has to be
128 5 Conclusions

highlighted that the integration of tailor-made automation and sensors can be the
turning point that enables the cost-effective and high productivity utilization of AM.
Consequently, important innovations from a machinery point of view that can facili-
tate other similar applications in other sectors as well can lead to the improvement of
the requirements and specifications of the next generation of industrial AM machines,
allowing for larger lot-size productions, paving the way for AM as a cost-effective
repairing manufacturing alternative for every factory.
The biggest cost for AM is the initial investment. Even though this cost can fast
be mitigated through the increased revenue of AM end-use parts, there is another
alternative, which nullifies the initial investment cost, namely the cooperation with
research centers, service provider companies, or other similar entities, which are
also supported by research funds. This approach allows a company to test the AM
technology, realize new products, and use AM machinery without the need for an
initial machinery investment, paving the road for the integration of AM as an in-house
production method of said company.
AM will gain a higher share in many industrial sections in the next years due to
advancements in machinery and process level, such as increased productivity and
working volume, the introduction of new materials, new laser wavelengths, automa-
tion, and custom configurations. AM also provides alternative business models for
manufacturing on demand, as well as decentralized production through a network
of valid and high-competence partners and collaborators. Subsequently, the increase
in demand will bring more incentives for AM investments, leading to lower initial
and operational costs, in this way constituting AM investments viable even from
Small–Medium Enterprises.
Based on the results and requirements obtained from the application cases to date,
the possible innovations and developments needed to be carried out at the machinery
level to promote competitiveness and integrate AM into the manufacturing reality
of today mainly lie in facilitating the industrialization of AM aiming for higher
production rates. This will allow the depreciation cost to be divided over a larger
number of parts, offering smaller depreciation periods and in this way rendering AM
a cost-effective alternative for a wider range of applications and sectors. This can be
achieved using faster-operating speeds, larger build volumes, optimized part nesting,
increased automation, reduced trial and error approach, simulations, and increased
processing capacity of new materials.
AM is leading to profound changes in the entire manufacturing product chain;
therefore, the integration of an AM machine into the existing manufacturing chain is
not sufficient for its fruitful application. The successful incorporation of AM into the
manufacturing reality of the future requires the holistic training of the new genera-
tion of professionals, as well as having access to helpful and practical guidebooks
regarding all the aspects of AM.