Journal of

Manufacturing
Science and
Engineering
Expert View

Christiane Beyer
Mem. ASME
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
California State University,
Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd.,
Long Beach, CA 90840
e-mail: chris.beyer@csulb.edu
Strategic Implications
of Current Trends in
Additive Manufacturing
Additive manufacturing (AM) has become a serious and potential game-changing method
of manufacturing over the years since the first commercial technology for “Rapid Proto-
typing” in 1988. Even though we are advanced, the current accomplishments are still far
from the level which can be expected in the future. Innovative approaches toward design
are required to capture the full potential of this technology. This paper describes the
advantages and possibilities of AM technologies, and how they can be used in various
sectors (e.g., engineering, automotive, aerospace, medical, and consumer products, etc.)
as alternative methods for manufacturing energy efficient parts with fewer raw materials.
To take advantage of the capabilities of these technologies, new and enhanced design
methods and procedures are required. This paper addresses strategic implications of
widespread adoption of AM. It also reports how engineers need to change their thinking
pattern to be able to use the full potential of the AM technologies. Engineers should be
aware of the capabilities of the AM technologies and the available material selections to
make the right decisions at the beginning of a design process. Also reported herein, in
addition to building very complex shapes with various material mixtures, are the capabil-
ities of fabricating lattice and hollow-core structures. Reduction of a product’s weight is
a great option for saving energy and cost, particularly for the automotive and aerospace
sectors. However, it is still important to ensure the part has the necessary strength. The
objective of the current research is to analyze and prove how certain shapes of cell struc-
tures influence the strength and flexibility of parts. Conclusion address the importance of
understanding the strategic implications on AM for government officials, educators,
researchers, and industrial leaders. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4028599]

Keywords: additive manufacturing, 3D printing, rapid prototyping, design for manufacturing,

computer-integrated manufacturing, lattice structures, hollow-core, light-weight

Introduction
“If you always do what you always did, you will always get what
you always got.”—Albert Einstein
AM, colloquially known as “Rapid Prototyping” or “3D
printing,” is a process of making a three-dimensional solid or
hollow-core object of virtually any shape from a digital model.
AM is achieved using an additive process, where successive
layers of material are laid down in different shapes following the
specifications in a digital computer aided design (CAD) file. AM
is distinct from traditional machining techniques, which mostly
rely on the removal of material by methods such as cutting or
Contributed by the Manufacturing Engineering Division of ASME for publication
in the JOURNAL OF MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. Manuscript received
April 16, 2014; final manuscript received September 13, 2014; published online
October 24, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Joseph Beaman.
drilling (subtractive processes). The key concept here is the differ-
ence between “additive” and “subtractive” manufacturing. The
technology and its 3-D multiplastic material printing or metal
laser/electron beam sintering/melting1 capabilities provide the
means to develop truly industry-changing product-design and
manufacturing processes. It allows the building of parts with very
complex contours, cavities, and complicated lattice structures.
Integration of this technology results in a product-development
process that is not only much more expeditious but which can also
result in a product of far higher quality. Products can be built with
lighter weight but still retain adequate stability and performance.
This weight reduction is critical not only in the aerospace and
automotive marketplaces, but also in medical, biotechnology, and
other industries because it allows for significant energy savings
and ease of use.
1
Depending on the process and machine manufacturer.

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering DECEMBER 2014, Vol. 136 / 064701-1
C 2014 by ASME
Copyright V

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 1 General approach to design [1]

Structured Design Process tools [8–14]. At its inception, this technology was alternately
referred to as “Layer Manufacturing” [5], “Solid Freeform Man-
The time to market, cost, and quality of a product determine its
ufacturing” [6], and “Rapid Prototyping,” [3] because its initial
success on the global market, and customer demand for higher
purpose and ability was to produce prototypes. As the technology
quality and lower prices continues to grow, along with the expec-
and its uses evolved, it would come to be referred to as “Rapid
tation for faster availability of that product. The customer also
Tooling” or “Rapid Manufacturing,” [7] and has come to be
determines the delivery time and other competitive factors such as
referred to as “Additive Manufacturing” today [10,13,14]. While
the durability of the product. At present, the trend is moving in the
this technology has dramatically evolved since its inception, its
direction of shorter product life cycles, which in turn requires
basic principle has remained the AM process.
reduced time spent on product development. With these complex
AM technologies today build polymeric, metallic, ceramic, and
market requirements and growing diversity of the products in
now organic parts [15–20] directly (without tools or pattern) and
demand, the designer faces challenging new development tasks.
automatically with the appropriate parameters (i.e., raw materials
These challenges can be summarized as follows: in reduced life-
and firmness), based on 3D CAD data, in just a few hours’ time.
cycles, a quality-assured and advantageous product has to be
The parts are built up layer-by-layer by such methods as curing
developed despite increasing complexity of design and demands
or printing liquid material, binding or melting wire or powder
for reduced labor, material, and expense. To solve these complex
material, or laying down sheet material. All of the different proc-
problems, a structured design process is highly recommended as a
esses and commercially available technologies use either thermal
development process tool. As in Ref. [1], Fig. 1 shows the general
energy or a chemical reaction to bond material together into layers
approach to design.
[21]. A classification of the various bonding mechanisms utilized
is shown in Fig. 2. However, regardless of the mechanism chosen
History of AM Technologies the preparation of the geometrical data is the same and allows
Until the late 1980s, the majority of manufacturing processes extremely complex geometries to be created.
were classified as either “subtractive,” such as machining, drilling
or grinding, or “formative,” such as casting or molding. These Prototypes as an Aid in the Product
two methods of production have literarily dominated manufactur-
ing since the Stone Age. However, with the advent and growth of Development Process
three-dimensional computer aided design software (3D CAD) has The fast availability of prototypes and parts presents a modern
come something of a silent industrial revolution [2–7], by which resource that can accelerate and push the learning and decision-
products can now be manufactured particle-by-particle, directly making processes considerably. Accordingly, by virtue of their
from computer data, without the need for jigs, fixtures, or mold immediate availability and relative low cost, these manufactured

064701-2 / Vol. 136, DECEMBER 2014 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 2 Schematic representation of different additive layer
bonding mechanism [21] Fig. 4 Industrial Sector for AM [22]

Fig. 3 Application for AM Technologies [22]

parts facilitate such significant advantages as fitting and assem-

bling analysis of assembly groups in an early phase of the product
development. These models can be procured to examine the prod-
uct design and to plan for production, and they represent a vital
link between the product and the process supporting the informa-
tion process. The designer has the opportunity to copy the results
of the systematic developing process into one or several material-
ized prototypes. Extensive follow-up operations (e.g., manual fin-
ishing of constructive details, surface finish, etc.) require far less
effort. Additionally, these prototypes facilitate the simultaneous
engineering process, particularly during the premanufacturing
process. Ultimately an existing, materialized model conveys the Fig. 5 Industrial growth: estimated revenues (in millions of
idea of the product to the customer much more effectively than dollar) for additive manufactured products and services world-
graphics or verbal descriptions. The early availability of proto- wide [23]
types, e.g., by using AM procedures, provides an essential
resource for production planning, tool design, material flow analy-
sis and computational methods such as finite-elements-method
shown in Fig. 6. R2’s mission is to work alongside astronauts,
analysis, and represents a tremendous step forward in the delivery
taking over repetitive and dangerous tasks. Its form factor and
of successful, timely products.
dexterity are designed such that R2 can use the same space tools
According to the Wohlers Report [22], the chart in Fig. 3 shows
and work in environments suited to astronauts.
how companies are applying AM technologies. The chart in Fig. 4
One of Wyle Labs’ responsibilities under this contract was
[22] shows the industries and regions that are already benefiting
building a one-to-one scale high-fidelity mockup of R2 for use in
from AM technologies. Consumer product/electronics is the
the simulation of potential missions. The exterior of the mockup
leading industrial sector. After the motor vehicles sector, medical/
had to duplicate the geometry and appearance of the actual R2.
dental has been the third largest sector over the past years. The
The limbs of the mockup had to be easily moved into the same
chart in Fig. 5 [23] gives estimated revenues for products pro-
positions as the real robot. The mockup also had to withstand
duced with these technologies and services worldwide.
rough handling that it might receive during simulation and train-
ing. The estimated delivery time for conventional machining for
the mockup was 8 months and the cost was $180,000 [24]. Wyle
Cost and Time Savings turned to RedEye On Demand, a component manufacturer that
Obviously cost and time-savings are a large factor driving the uses the fused deposition modeling (FDM) method of AM with
rapid growth in manufacturing components and parts through ABS Plastic. As shown in Table 1 [24], once it received the CAD
additive processes rather than traditional manufacturing processes. files it took RedEye 2 weeks to make the mockup at a cost to
A real life example would better illustrate. NASA engaged Wyle Wyle of $36,000. That illustrates the value of AM and why it is
Labs’ Integrated Science and Engineering Group in Houston to such a disruptive technology [24]. The economics of Wyle’s expe-
assist in preparing the Robonaut 2 (“R2”) dexterous robot [24], as rience explain why the AM industry is growing so rapidly. AM

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering DECEMBER 2014, Vol. 136 / 064701-3

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 6 NASA Robonaut 2 (“R2”), Wyle Labs’ Integrated Science
and Engineering Group in Houston [24]
technology is already used for both prototyping and distributed
manufacturing in a variety of industries including industrial
design, engineering and construction, automotive, aerospace, con-
sumer products, medical and dental, and it is spreading rapidly to
other industries as well.
Weight Reduction
One of the potentials of AM that is still nearly untapped is the
possibility of fabricating hollow-core structures that still retain
adequate stability and performance. The ability to reduce product
weight or change its mechanical properties offers significant
energy and cost savings in the aerospace, automotive and con-
sumer products industries. In the area of medical applications, the
ability to build cavities in models allows, for example, the model
to imitate bone structures.
The obstacles in these fields are a lack of conceptual design
methods to aid designers in defining and exploring design spaces
enabled by AM. In addition, a new foundation for computer-aided
design systems is needed to overcome the limitations of existing
solid modeling in representing complex geometries.
The first steps in the right direction have been taken. Now on
the market are new software programs or modules to support the
modeling of light weight products, e.g., NETFABB [25], Within
[26], Materialise [27], and Simpleware [28]. Those innovative
software programs or modules provide tools for applying hollow-
core and lattice structures to parts that were heretofore solid,
thereby reducing material and weight while optimizing for AM.
Using these advanced technologies the engineers can make exist-
ing parts lighter while retaining necessary functional strength, and
reduce production cost. But it also offers the ability to define and
implement other properties such as flexibility or capillarity.
Depending on the software, a repetitive structure cell can be
defined by its topology (notes, bars, faces, etc.) and its size and
resolution. In addition, different finite element method optimiza-
tion algorithm or Bio-inspired or artificial intelligence can be
implemented. When used to their fullest potential, these technolo-
gies enable the design and manufacture of parts that previously
could not be made through traditional subtractive processes.
Figure 7 shows within optimized lightweight parts [26]. Figure 8
064701-4 / Vol. 136, DECEMBER 2014
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Table 1 Time and cost comparison of FDM prototype versus
traditional [24]
Comparison of FDM prototype versus traditional
Method Cost Time
CNC machining $180,000 32 weeks
FDM tooling $36,000 2 weeks
Savings $144,000 30 weeks
shows demonstration parts lattice structures created with NETFABB
software [25].
As the need for energy conservation grows, the need for light-
weight manufactured parts grows proportionately [29–32]. The
benefits of weight reduction are in many applications significant.
Reducing an automobile’s weight is directly linked to improved
fuel economy and lower CO2 emissions. A statistic often seen in
the media explained that a 10% reduction in weight can result in a
6–8% reduction in fuel consumption.
Often, nature has already provided us with the solution to such
design challenges and through “biomimicry” superior design solu-
tions can be discovered [25]. Huge material savings can be
obtained by thusly placing structures according to anticipated
mechanical impact, and such superior placement is often dis-
played by plants as their immense strength enables them to endure
extreme weather conditions despite their low weight. By means of
AM, many structural solutions can be copied from nature. Appro-
priate structures of metal or plastic can be united in lightweight
construction with high mechanical demands. By using the concept
of biomimicry in structural design, the properties of a product can
be tailored to meet the exact optimum characteristics in strength,
weight, flexibility, energy absorption, durability, etc. [25].
It Is Not Dotcom
In some respects, the buzz around AM and 3D printing is remi-
niscent of the early days of Internet monetization. Everyone knew
the Internet would change everything and forward thinking people
conceived of almost limitless applications for the new technology.
They created and financed new business models for virtual busi-
nesses designed to capitalize on perceived opportunities. Unfortu-
nately, many of these business models made little sense and the
dotcom boom turned into the dotcom bust.
As with the Internet in the 1990s, forward thinking people
today foresee in AM a technology that will change the way
many products are made and distributed. Airbus engineers
believe whole planes will be printed by the year 2050 [33].
NASA foresees printing replacement parts in space and printing
whole buildings in some future Mars settlement. A number of
universities are printing live tissue and believe that someday
replacement organs can be printed [19,20]. Auto dealers see the
printing of after-market parts as a way to reduce parts invento-
ries and shipping costs. Aerospace companies are beginning to
print parts for rockets and planes. Both the dental and medical
professions print implants [15–17]. And Victoria Secret even
printed lingerie that was modeled at its recent show. Indeed, it
would be reasonable to conclude from the buzz that AM, like
the Internet, will change everything.
But it is here that any similarities with the dotcom boom and
bust end. AM will change the way many things are made and
distributed. It will change the economics of manufacturing as
timeframes and cost structures are altered. But in the end AM is
still manufacturing and the business model is one based on design-
ing, engineering and manufacturing something tangible, selling it
and doing it at a profit. It is a manufacturing business model
whether it is a stand-alone business or a natural extension of a
design and engineering business.
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 7 Parts designed with Within software: optimized lightweight support part (top left); cranial
flap implants (top right); radical heat exchanger (bottom left); pipe manifold (bottom right) [26]

Fig. 8 Demonstration parts designed with Netfabb software [25]

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering DECEMBER 2014, Vol. 136 / 064701-5

Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 The McKinsey Institute article referred to on page 17 [34] says:
“…senior executives must prepare for five disruptions that are
being or will be caused by AM,” The five disruptions are [34]
(1) Accelerated product development cycles: reducing time in
product development was a key benefit of the first 3D print-
ing machines, which were designed to speed the creation of
product prototypes (and in some cases helped reduce turn-
around times to a matter of hours, from days or weeks).
Now many industries are poised for a second wave of
acceleration as the line between additive and conventional
manufacturing blurs.
(2) New manufacturing strategies and footprints: as of 2011,
only about 25% of the AM market involved the direct
manufacture of end products. With a 60% annual growth
rate, however, that is the industry’s fastest-growing seg-
ment. As costs continue to fall and the capabilities of 3D
printers increase, the range of parts that can be economi-
cally manufactured using additive techniques will broaden
dramatically.
(3) Shifting sources of profit: AM technologies could alter
the way companies add value to their products and services.
Indeed, reducing the reliance on hard tooling (which
facilitates the manufacture of thousands of identical items)
creates an opportunity to offer customized or bespoke
designs at lower cost—and to a far broader range of cus-
tomers. The combination of mass customization and new
design possibilities will up the ante for many companies
and could prove very disruptive to traditional players in
some segments.
(4) New capabilities: design is inherently linked to methods of
fabrication. While there is a wealth of knowledge around
design for manufacturing, much less is available on design
for AM. Our conversations with executives at manufactur-
ing companies suggest that many are aware of this gap and
scrambling to catalog their design know-how.
(5) Disruptive competitors: the direct manufacturing of end
products greatly simplifies and reduces the work of a
designer who would only have to take products from the
computer screen to commercial viability. New businesses
are already popping up to offer highly customized or
collaboratively designed products. These businesses are
gaining insights into consumer tastes and building relation-
ships that established companies could struggle to match.
Over the longer term, however, they could transform indus-
tries in unexpected ways, moving the source of competitive
advantage away from the ability to manufacture in high
volumes at low cost.
Strategic Vision
Every company, every industry, and every government should
think strategically and globally about what this technology will
mean. Progressive companies are looking past the prototyping
stereotypes and developing manufacturing strategies utilizing AM
equipment, processes, and materials for high volume production.
Thinking strategically allows these companies to imagine AM’s
potential to reinvent entire business processes at tremendous
savings, and to essentially transform business models in a manner
similar to what has been brought about by the Internet. That is not
to minimize the tactical benefits. Clearly there are tremendous
costs, time, and competitive benefits to being able to design and
additive manufacture a part in two weeks versus the 90 days that
might be required by traditional manufacturing methods. But busi-
ness owners and executives also need to understand the strategic
shifts that will follow in the wake of the tactical benefits.
Automotive. General Motors has an automatic stock-
replenishing program called RIM that allows dealers to return
parts that do not sell in 15 months, no questions asked. So, GM
064701-6 / Vol. 136, DECEMBER 2014
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
dealers have no inventory risk, but they still need to manage the
cost of carrying the parts inventory—labor costs in the stockroom,
rent, utilities, taxes, insurance, shrinkage, and the opportunity cost
associated with the investment in something that just sits on the
shelf. The cost of carrying $1.00 of inventory for a year can be as
much as $0.25 [35].
The strategic transformation would be if every General Motors
car dealership had an AM capability in the service department.
When the dealer needs a part it could simply download the file for
the most current part design and 3D print it on demand and just in
time.
A dealership that implemented AM of parts on demand could
significantly reduce
— the type and quantity of spare parts needing to be stocked
— procurement costs for parts the dealer would typically order
from the manufacturer or another location
— shipping costs for parts ordered as well as obsolete parts
returned
— costs involved in recall programs for malfunctioning parts.
In addition, the dealer would always be assured of having parts
that utilized the most current part design.
Aerospace. Similar to the above scenario, aircraft and aero-
space components, assemblies and subassemblies will be rede-
signed and optimized using AM processes and principles. The
purpose would be to reduce weight and improve performance in
order to significantly reduce operating expenses. The ability to use
hollow core, mesh, or grid designs is foundational with AM and
tremendous opportunities exist for weight reduction and decrease
in fuel consumption.
The aerospace companies already understand this. Take for
example, the forthcoming LEAP (leading edge aviation propul-
sion) jet engine produced by CFM International, a joint-venture
between GE and France’s Snecma. The LEAP will be the first
commercial jet engine to incorporate fuel nozzles “printed” by a
laser that sinters ultrathin layers of a cobalt–chromium alloy
powder. Using conventional manufacturing techniques, each fuel
nozzle would have been assembled with up to 20 parts welded to-
gether. Using additive processes, the fuel nozzles will now be
“grown” as a single piece that is 25% lighter and five times more
durable than its conventionally manufactured counterpart [36].
Weight reduction is particularly important in aviation applica-
tions given that just a single kilogram reduction of an aircraft’s
weight can mean fuel savings of up to $3000 per year. “LEAP
reduces fuel burn by 15% over its predecessor engine. That adds
up to several million dollars saved per year per plane,” says GE
Aviation spokesman Rick Kennedy [36].
Rethinking Strategy Along the Supply Chain
These first-order implications will cause businesses all along
the supply, manufacturing, and retailing chains to rethink their
strategies and operations [37]. Additionally, as AM takes hold, the
factors that have made China the workshop of the world will lose
much of their force.
China has secured outsourced-manufacturing contracts from
every mature economy by pushing the mass-manufacturing model
to its limit. It not only aggregates enough demand to create un-
precedented efficiencies of scale but also minimizes a key cost:
labor. Under a new model of widely distributed, highly flexible,
small-scale manufacturing, China’s daunting advantages become
liabilities. Workforces probably cannot be paid sufficiently little
to overcome the competitive disadvantage of shipping across
oceans when parts, components and even finished goods can be
made cheaply and quickly through additive processes.
The implications of this are obvious in that all along the supply
chain, from suppliers of raw materials to manufacturers to
shippers, wholesalers, and retailers, companies will need to
Transactions of the ASME
 reassess their business models in the light of this transformative
technology.
Challenging Today’s Teaching and Research Activities
In order to prepare the new generation of engineers to be the de-
cision makers of tomorrow, instructors, and experts must enable
them to address the demands of industry and to empower them
with the newest technologies and procedures that are being
applied in successful companies in the US and around the globe
[38–41]. Through the incorporation of AM technology into our
curriculum and research, students will be able to enter, and indeed
innovate, the future of the design and manufacturing process. To
integrate the referred technologies efficiently and to optimally
utilize all technological possibilities, new and adapted design
methods are necessary [42–44]. According to the recommenda-
tions of the roadmap for AM for identifying the future of freeform
processing [21], universities must develop courses and educa-
tional materials that
— create conceptual design methods to aid designers in defin-
ing and exploring design spaces enabled by AM
— produce a new foundation for computer-aided design sys-
tems to overcome the limitations of existing solid modeling
in representing complex geometries and multiple materials
— provide a multiscale modeling and inverse design methodol-
ogy to assist in navigating complex process/structure/
property relationships
— create methods for modeling and designing with variability:
shape, properties, process, etc.
However, new design methods are just one of the needs in the
big field of topics. Other research topics cover technology
improvements, new material development, methods for quality
control, etc. When we are able to guarantee a certain quality for
each “3D printing job,” then we have solved one of the obstacles
for the AM industry.
Conclusion
AM must be viewed as a transformative technology. It will
transform the way many items are manufactured. It will transform
traditional business models. It will transform established supply
chains. Lastly, it will transform the economics of where, how and
when things are made.
Forward thinking executives and government leaders will
understand the strategic implications of AM and will implement
policy decisions designed to take full advantage of them. How-
ever, educators must also understand the transformative nature of
these advanced technologies and alter curricula in a manner that
emphasizes the importance of designing for additive processes
rather than subtractive processes. AM allows designers and engi-
neers virtually unlimited freedom of design. But to take full
advantage of these technologies, new and enhanced design
methods are required.
References
[1] Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., Grote, K.-H., Blessing, L., and Wallace, K.,
2007, Engineering Design—A Systematic Approach, 3rd ed., Springer, London,
UK.
[2] Jacobs, P. F., 1992, Rapid Prototyping and Manufacturing: Fundamentals of
Stereolithography, Society of Manufacturing Engineers Publ., Dearborn, MI.
[3] Mieritz, B., 1993, “Rapid Prototyping as a Management Decision Tool,” Pro-
ceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Rapid Prototyping and Manufac-
turing, P. M. Dickens, ed., University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK, July
15–16, pp. 1–15.
[4] Aubin, R. F., 1994, “A World Wide Assessment of Rapid Prototyping Tech-
nologies,” United Technologies Research Center Report, East Hartford, CT,
Report No. 94-13.
[5] Bjorke, O., 1995, Layer Manufacturing—A Challenge of the Future, Tapir Pub-
lisher, Trondheim, Norway.
[6] Conley, J., and Marcus, H., 1997, “Rapid Prototyping and Solid Free Form Fab-
rication,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 119(4B), pp. 811–816.
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[7] Hopkinson, N., Hague, R., and Dickens, P., 2005, Rapid Manufacturing: An
Industrial Revolution for the Digital Age, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
[8] Petrovic, V., Haro Gonzalez, J. V., and Jorda Ferrando, O., 2011, “Additive
Layered Manufacturing: Sectors of Industrial Application Shown Through Case
Studies,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 49(4), pp. 1061–1079.
[9] Paul, R., and Anand, S., 2012, “Process Energy Analysis and Optimization in
Selective Laser Sintering,” J. Manuf. Syst., 31(4), pp. 429–437.
[10] Huang, S. H., Liu, P., and Mokasdar, A., 2013, “Additive Manufacturing and
Its Societal Impact: A Literature Review,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.,
67(5–8), pp. 1191–1203.
[11] Edwards, P., O’Conner, A., and Ramulu, M., 2013, “Electron Beam Additive
Manufacturing of Titanium Components: Properties and Performance,” ASME
J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 135(6), p. 061016.
[12] Paul, R., Anand, S., and Gerner, F., 2014, “Effect of Thermal Deformation on
Part Errors in Metal Powder Based Additive Manufacturing Processes,” ASME
J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 136(3), p. 031009.
[13] Frazier, W. E., 2014, “Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review,” J. Mater.
Eng. Perform., 23(6), pp. 1917–1928.
[14] Zhai, Y., Lados, D. A., and Lagoy, J. L., 2014, “Additive Manufacturing: Mak-
ing Imagination the Major Limitation,” JOM, 66(5), pp. 808–816.
[15] Hrabe, N., and Quinn, T., 2013, “Effects of Processing on Microstructure and
Mechanical Properties of a Titanium Alloy (Ti–6Al–4V) Fabricated Using
Electron Beam Melting (EBM), Part 1: Distance From Build Plate and Part
Size,” Mater. Sci. Eng. A, 573, pp. 264–270.
[16] Giannatsis, J., and Dedoussis, V., 2009, “Additive Fabrication Technologies
Applied to Medicine and Health Care: A Review,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech-
nol., 40(1–2), pp. 116–127.
[17] Elahinia, M. H., Hashemi, M., and Tabesh, M., 2012, “Manufacturing and Proc-
essing of NiTi Implants: A Review,” Prog. Mater. Sci., 57(5), pp. 911–946.
[18] Kondor, S., Grant, G., Liacouras, P., Schmid, J. R., Parsons, M., Rastogi, V. K.,
Smith, L. S., Macy, B., Sabart, B., and Macedonia, C., 2013, “On Demand
Additive Manufacturing of a Basic Surgical Kit,” ASME J. Med. Devices, 7(3),
p. 030916.
[19] Marga, F., Jakab, K., and Khatiwala, C., 2012, “Toward Engineering Functional
Organ Modules by Additive Manufacturing,” Biofabrication, 4(2), p. 022001.
[20] Melchels, F. P. W., Domingos, M. A. N., and Klein, T. J., 2012, “Additive Man-
ufacturing of Tissues and Organs,” Prog. Polym. Sci., 37(8), pp. 1079–1104.
[21] Bourell, D. L., Leu, M. C., and Rosen, D. W., 2009, Roadmap for Additive
Manufacturing—Identifying the Future of Freeform Processing, The University
of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
[22] Wohlers, T., 2011, Wohlers Report 2011, Wohler Associates, Fort Collins, CO.
[23] Manufacturing Engineering Media—SME, http://www.sme.org/MEMagazine/
Article.aspx?id¼80916
[24] RedEye, 2011, “FDM for the Final Frontier: RedEye 3D prints NASA’s
Robotic Stunt Double for a Mission on the International Space Station,”
Accessed Apr. 22, 2014, http://www.redeyeondemand.com/3d-printing-case-
studies/fdm-aerospace-prototyping/
[25] Netfabb GmbH, “Company Webpage Netfabb GmbH: Description Netfabb
Software for 3D Printing,” Accessed Mar. 3, 2014, http://www.netfabb.com/
structure.php
[26] Within Technologies Ltd., “Company Webpage Within Technologies Ltd.:
Description Within Software,” Accessed Mar. 3, 2014, http://withinlab.com/
case-studies/index7.php
[27] Materialise, “Company Webpage Materialise: Description of Lightweight
Structures Software Module,” Accessed July 15, 2014, http://www.materialise.
com/cases/lightweight-structures-support-scherf-design-to-reach-new-heights
[28] Simpleware Ltd, “Company Webpage Simpleware Ltd.: Description of Simple-
ware ScanIP Software Module,” Accessed Aug. 27, 2014, http://connect.physics
world.com/Journals//2014/06/03/Simpleware%20for%203D%20Printing%20%
281%29.pdf
[29] Manfredi, D., Calignano, F., and Ambrosio, E. P., 2013, “Direct Metal Laser
Sintering: An Additive Manufacturing Technology Ready to Produce Light-
weight Structural Parts for Robotic Applications,” Metall. Ital., 2013(10), pp.
15–24.
[30] Kenzari, S., Bonina, D., and Dubois, J. M., 2014, “Complex Metallic Alloys as
New Materials for Additive Manufacturing,” Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater., 15(2),
p. 024802.
[31] Kontio, R., 2014, “Update on Mandibular Reconstruction: Computer-Aided
Design, Imaging, Stem Cells and Future Applications,” Curr. Opin. Otolaryngol.
Head Neck Surg., 22(4), pp. 307–315.
[32] Wang, D., Yang, Y., and Liu, R., 2013, “Study on the Designing Rules and
Processability of Porous Structure Based on Selective Laser Melting (SLM),”
J. Mater. Process. Technol., 213(10), pp. 1734–1742.
[33] Airbus, 2014, “Future Technologies,” Accessed Aug. 27, 2014, http://www.air
bus.com/innovation/future-by-airbus/concept-planes/the-airbus-concept-cabin/future-
technologies
[34] Cohen, D., Sargeant, M., and Somers, K., 2014, “3-D Printing Takes Shape,”
McKinsey Quarterly, Jan. 2014, Accessed Feb. 25, 2014, http://www.mckinsey.
com/insights/manufacturing/3-d_printing_takes_shape?cid¼other-eml-nsl-mip-
mck-oth-1402
[35] NADA Data 2011, National Automobile Dealers Association, McLean, VA,
Accessed Jan. 9, 2014, http://www.NADA.org
[36] GE Capital Fall 2013, “Industry Research Monitor: Additive Manufacturing,”
Accessed Apr. 23, 2014, http://www.americas.gecapital.com/GECA_Document/
Additive_Manufacturing_Fall_2013.pdf
[37] Khajavi, S. H., Partanen, J., and Holmstrom, J., 2014, “Additive Manufacturing
in the Spare Parts Supply Chain,” Comput. Ind., 65(1), pp. 50–63.
DECEMBER 2014, Vol. 136 / 064701-7
 [38] Rosen, D., 2014, “Design for Additive Manufacturing: Past, Present, and Future
Directions,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(9), p. 090301.
[39] Williams, C. B., Mistree, F., and Rosen, D. W., 2011, “A Functional Classifica-
tion Framework for the Conceptual Design of Additive Manufacturing Tech-
nologies,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 133(12), p. 121002.
[40] Beyer, C., and Kochan, R., 2013, “Innovation Potential of Additive Man-
ufacturing,” Pahl/Beitz Engineering Design (German), 8th ed., J. Feldhusen,
and K.-H. Grote, eds., Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 48–97.
[41] Chhabra, M., and Singh, R., 2011, “Rapid Casting Solutions: A Review,” Rapid
Prototyping J., 17(5), pp. 328–350.
064701-8 / Vol. 136, DECEMBER 2014
Downloaded From: http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/18/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[42] Huang, Y., and Leu, M. C., 2014, Frontiers of Additive Manufacturing
Research and Education—Report of NSF Additive Manufacturing Workshop,
Accessed Apr. 24, 2014, http://nsfam.mae.ufl.edu/2013NSFAMWorkshopReport.
pdf
[43] Brown, C., Lubell, J., and Lipman, R., 2013, “Additive Manufacturing Techni-
cal Workshop Summary Report,” NIST, Technical Note No. 1823.
[44] Aremu, A., Ashcroft, I., and Wildman, R., 2013, “The Effects of Bidirectional
Evolutionary Structural Optimization Parameters on an Industrial Designed
Component for Additive Manufacture,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part B, 227(6),
pp. 794–807.
Transactions of the ASME