STP164420210127

14 PROGRESS IN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING 2021
STP 1644, 2022 / available online at www.astm.org / doi: 10.1520/STP164420210127
Lukas Bauch,1 Fabian Winklbauer,1 Tobias Stittgen,1

Andreas Collet,1 and Johannes Heinrich Schleifenbaum1
Estimation of Printing Time for

Laser-Based Powder Bed Fusion
of Metals
Citation
L. Bauch, F. Winklbauer, T. Stittgen, A. Collet, and J. H. Schleifenbaum, “Estimation of Printing
Time for Laser-Based Powder Bed Fusion of Metals,” in Progress in Additive Manufacturing
2021, ed. N. Shamsaei, N. Hrabe, and M. Seifi (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International,
2022), 14–28. http://doi.org/10.1520/STP1644202101272
ABSTRACT
The additive manufacturing (AM) technology laser-based powder bed fusion of
metals (PBF-LB/M) has reached technological maturity and is on the brink
of industrialization. High utilization must be achieved to operate PBF-LB/M
machines with high investment costs economically. However, reaching high utili-
zation contradicts the realization of short throughput times, schedule reliability,
and low work in process. In PBF-LB/M production planning, these metrics are
influenced by the nesting and scheduling of build jobs. To determine these
metrics and optimize their tradeoff, knowledge of build times of build jobs is
essential. Therefore, an estimation method for PBF-LB/M manufacturing time
is required. Due to the characteristics of the PBF-LB/M scanning process, the
geometry complexity of the parts in a build job influences the manufacturing
time. This influence is not considered by approaches from the literature available
for AM production planning. A novel approach for the estimation of PBF-LB/M
printing time is proposed to address this research gap. It includes a regression
model for the estimation of the part scanning build rate dependent on the sur-
face-to-volume ratio of the parts in a build job. The accuracy of the proposed
Manuscript received December 1, 2021; accepted for publication April 5, 2022.

1
RWTH Aachen University, Digital Additive Production, Campus-Boulevard 73, 52074 Aachen, Germany
L. B. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3245-0201, F. W. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6913-6270,
T. S. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8019-4639, A. C. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3976-8669,
J. H. S. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7675-6547
2
ASTM International Conference on Additive Manufacturing (ICAM 2021) held November 1–5, 2021 in
Anaheim, CA.
Copyright V
C 2022 by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
ASTM International is not responsible, as a body, for the statements and opinions expressed in this paper. ASTM International
does not endorse any products represented in this paper.
&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
%HQ*XULRQ8QLYHUVLW\RIWKH1HJHYSXUVXDQWWR/LFHQVH$JUHHPHQW1RIXUWKHUUHSURGXFWLRQVDXWKRUL]HG
BAUCH ET AL., DOI: 10.1520/STP164420210127 15
approach is evaluated using 20 exemplary build jobs consisting of different part

geometries. In the evaluation high estimation accuracy with a low mean average
percentage error of 2.09% is achieved.
Keywords
additive manufacturing, build time estimation, printing time estimation,
laser-based powder bed fusion of metals, laser powder bed fusion, production
logistics, production planning, nesting, scheduling
Introduction
Today’s rapidly evolving competitive landscape leads to demand for faster innova-
tion cycles and shorter, steeper value chains.1 Due to the possibility of producing
parts with different geometries in one build job2 without the necessity of specific
tools for a production task,3 additive manufacturing (AM) technologies such as the
laser-based powder bed fusion of metals (PBF-LB/M) offer a solution to meet this
demand.
High utilization is essential for operating capital-intensive machines, such as
PBF-LB/M systems, economically. The objective high utilization typically contra-
dicts the realization of short throughput times, high schedule reliability, and low
level of work in process. This tradeoff of these metrics of production logistics is
known as the scheduling dilemma in production logistics.4,5 Unlike batching and
scheduling in production planning for traditional manufacturing technologies, nest-
ing and scheduling cannot be addressed individually in AM to optimize this trade-
off.6 Build jobs with high packing density lead to increased utilization and thereby
low cost, resulting in long build times that jeopardize the fulfillment of due dates.7
For a given set of different parts to be produced in a sequence of build jobs,
many nesting and scheduling options exist. Hence, it is necessary to evaluate the
metrics of production logistics for a multitude of nesting and scheduling options.
For this purpose, a method to estimate the time for manufacturing of different build
job compositions is required in PBF-LB/M production planning. To estimate the
build times of many different build job variations, a method with low computa-
tional cost per build job is required. Nevertheless, the estimation model must
achieve sufficient accuracy to ensure planning security. Furthermore, the estimation
model must be easy to build for different machine and material combinations with
given possibilities of a typical PBF-LB/M producer, or generally applicable. Other-
wise, PBF-LB/M producers would have to go to great expense to build models for
the different material and machine combinations used in their production systems.
REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

The topic of build time calculation is covered by literature aiming to determine the
cost per part of a build job. Therefore, the used machine time respectively cost for
machine occupation is allocated to the different parts of the build job.7–10

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
16 STP 1644 On Progress in Additive Manufacturing 2021
In the following sections, relevant approaches from the literature for PBF-LB/M
build time calculations are reviewed considering the stated requirements of high esti-
mation accuracy, low effort to build, low effort in use (in terms of computational
cost), and broad applicability. The result is shown in figure 1, followed by a more
detailed discussion of the reviewed publications.
Combined Build Time, Energy Consumption, and Cost Estimation for

Direct Metal Laser Sintering
Baumers et al.8 cumulated fixed (warm-up, atmosphere generation, cool-down),
layer-dependent (coating), and voxel-dependent (scanning) time consumption to
calculate the total build time. To determine the voxel-dependent time consumption,
the time for fusing one voxel is multiplied by the number of voxels and the occu-
pancy rate of the material in the respective voxel. The time for scanning one voxel
serves as a multiplicator and is approximated using a least-square regression. The
data to build the regression model are recorded during experiments with a single-
part geometry. This approach neglects that the required time to fuse one voxel is
not the same for every voxel of a geometry. Typically, different scanning speeds for
support, contour, and inner voxels are used in PBF-LB/M. Moreover, jump speed,
delay times, and acceleration of the laser spot affect the build rate.10 Therefore, the
scanning time for a cube geometry is assumed to be less than for a lattice structure
of the same volume. Thus, the approach of Baumers et al.8 will result in low accu-
racy for geometries, which differ strongly from the part’s geometry used for build-
ing the estimation model. This observation complies with the strongly varying
evaluated accuracy for the sample parts turbine wheel (error of 8.71%), bearing
FIG. 1 Review of relevant literature.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
block (error of 1.07%), and a complete build job (error of 8.56%). Furthermore,
computation time is required to calculate the scanning time of each voxel, and the
material occupancy of each voxel must be known. Thus, the computational cost for
using the model is evaluated as medium. The model is applicable for one machine
material combination for different geometries in one build job.8
A New Mixed Production Cost-Allocation Model for Additive

Manufacturing
In the cost-calculation model of Fera et al.7 the total build time is calculated as the
sum of the time for warm-up, scanning, coating, and cool-down. The overall warm-
up and cool-down times of one build job are assumed to be fixed and known for
each build. The coating time is calculated analytically using the z-height of the build
job, the coating time for each layer, and the layer thickness. The scanning time of
one part is the product of the number of layers of the part, the average cross-
section, and the average time for scanning one unit of the cross-section. The aver-
age time for scanning one unit of the cross-section is estimated using a least-
squares regression based on the approach of Baumers et al.8 with the already dis-
cussed shortcomings.7
An Integrated Cost Model for Selective Laser Melting

Rickenbacher et al.9 used the following linear-regression formula with the regres-
sion coefficients a0, … a5 to estimate the build time as part of their proposed PBF-
LB/M cost model:
X X
tbuild ðPi Þ ¼ a0 þ a1 NL þ a2 Vtot þ a2 Ssupp þ a4 Ni þ a5 Stot (1)
i i
where:
tbuild(Pi) ¼ total share of the build time of the i-th part of the build job,
NL ¼ number of layers,
Vtot ¼ total volume of the build job,
Stot ¼ total surface area,
Ni ¼ number of parts in the build job, and
Ssupp ¼ total surface area of the support structures.
The authors did not justify the choice of the linear-regression model and the
independent variables. Furthermore, the accuracy of the build time estimation was
not evaluated. For building the regression model, values for the independent and
dependent variables of 24 past build jobs are required. These data are usually avail-
able for a PBF-LB/M producer. Thus, the effort for building the regression model is
considered low. Once the regression formula is obtained, it is possible to apply it
easily with low computational cost to many different build job variations for one
machine material combination.9

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Adaption of Cost-Calculation Models for Modular PBF-LB/M Machine

Concepts
Dirks and Schleifenbaum10 proposed a cost-calculation method for modular
PBF-LB/M machine concepts. In their approach, a virtual machine was parame-
trized to emulate the build time based on a fully prepared build job. The emula-
tion showed a very accurate result, with a mean absolute percentage error
(MAPE) of 0.28%. Once the virtual machine is built and the parameters are
known, it has broad applicability because it can be adapted to different machine
material combinations. For the determination of build times in AM production
planning with the approach of Dirks and Schleifenbaum,10 specific emulation
software and the knowledge of various machine parameters are required as input.
This software and information are typically not available for a PBF-LB/M pro-
ducer. Furthermore, with given computation capacity, the emulation of a virtual
machine needs more computation time than using a regression formula. This is
relevant if the build time of various nesting and scheduling options is calculated.
Hence, the effort for building and computational cost for using the approach of
Dirks and Schleifenbaum is high.
Definition of Research Goal

In conclusion, the approaches from the literature for build time estimation are
either not available or easily applicable for the given purpose in AM production
planning,10 make inappropriate assumptions for the scanning time with a negative
effect on the accuracy for parts with different geometries,7,8 or do not scientifically
evaluate the accuracy of the build time estimation.9
The research goal of this work is to achieve high estimation accuracy by adapt-
ing the method of Fera et al.7 Therefore, a regression model is proposed to estimate
the scanning times for different part geometries considering the specifics of the
PBF-LB/M scanning process.
Materials and Methods

STRUCTURE OF THE PRINTING TIME ESTIMATION MODEL
According to Fera et al.,7 the overall build time consists of the time for warm-up
scanning, coating, and cool-down. The times for warm-up and cool-down are inde-
pendent of the build job composition. They can be measured without the need for
an estimation easily while performing an exemplary build job. Consequently, in this
work, warm-up and cool-down times are excluded to focus on the relevant estima-
tion of the printing time. The printing time, tPrint, is the sum of time for scanning,
tScan, and the time for coating, tCoat. The time for scanning is further divided into
the time for scanning the support structures, tScan,Support, and the parts, tScan,Part, of
a build job.11
tPrint ¼ tScan,Part þ tScan,Support þ tCoat (2)

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
FIG. 2 Structure of the printing time estimation model.
The structure of the proposed PBF-LB/M printing time estimation model is

shown in figure 2. The formulas for calculating the printing time components are
shown on the right, and the input parameters for the calculation are listed on the
left to indicate how the parameter values are retrieved. The structure, formulas, and
data retrieval are described in more detail in the following sections.
Coating Time
In this work, the coating time is defined as the time between the end of the scanning
process of one layer and the start of the scanning process of the next layer. During
this time, a new powder layer is applied. The powder supply platform is then moved
up to bring more powder material into the build chamber, while the build platform
is lowered by the thickness of the layer. After that, the powder layer is distributed
by a coater. In this work, the time for coating one layer is emulated using the
approach of Dirks and Schleifenbaum,10 but a measurement during an exemplary
build job would also be possible. To calculate the total time for coating of one build
job, the coating time per layer, tCoat,Lay, is multiplied by the number of layers,
nLayers. The number of layers equals the z-height, hz, divided by the layer height,
hLayer.7 The z-height and number of layers are known after the orientation of those
parts in the virtual build space.
hz
tCoat ¼ tCoat,Layer nLayers ¼ tCoat,Lay (3)
hLayer

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
Support Scanning Time

The build rate for support structures is assumed to be constant for a given parame-
ter set for scanning and automated support generation. Thus, the support scanning
time is calculated by dividing the input parameters support volume, VSupport, by the
support build rate, V_ Support .
VSupport
tScan,Support ¼ (4)
V_ Support
The support volume is known from the CAD file after the automatic generation
of the support structures. The support build rate is retrieved from the emulated
data, but it is also possible to obtain it by measuring. Therefore, a build job with
only support structure is executed, and the printing time is measured. With exclu-
sively support structures in the build job, the part scanning time is zero. Thus, the
support scanning time is calculated by subtracting the measured coating time from
the printing time (cf. equation (2)). Then, the support scanning build rate is the
support scanning time divided by the support volume.
Part Scanning Time

The part scanning time depends on many factors such as jump speed, delay times,
and the scanning parameters for contours and inner geometries.10 Consequently, it
cannot be calculated easily analytically. Considering that the scanning time often
has a share of more than 80% of the build time,7 a suitable estimation method is
required to reflect the aforementioned dependencies.
The scanning time for each geometry in the build job spans the time for fusing
material, tMark, the delay time, tDelay, for the compensation acceleration of the laser
spot due to the mass inertia of the laser kinematics, and the time for jumping
between scan vectors, tJump.11
tScan,Part ¼ tMark þ tDelay þ tJump (5)
The scanning speed for the contour is usually lower than it is for the inner area.
Therefore, the average time for fusing material is assumed to be higher for parts
with a high surface-to-volume ratio. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that
more delays and jumps are necessary if the geometry is more complex. Those
assumptions are illustrated in figure 3.
The cross-section of a geometry with low complexity is shown on the left,
and the cross-section of a more complex geometry is illustrated on the right. The
ratio of the length of slow contour to fast hatch vectors is higher for the complex
geometry. Additionally, more jumps and delays are necessary to scan the more
complex geometry. As a consequence of those observations, parts with a high
surface-to-volume ratio, an operationalization of the geometry complexity, have
a lower overall scanning build rate respectively longer part scanning time per

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
FIG. 3 Scan vectors for geometries with different complexity.
part volume. A regression model is built accordingly to consider these assumptions

in the estimation of the part scanning time, as described in the following section.
Methodology for Building the Regression Model

The methodology for building the regression model to estimate the part scanning
build rate is illustrated in figure 4.
The data set for building the regression model and the method for the data
retrieval are depicted on the left; the regression model for estimating the part
FIG. 4 Methodology for building the regression model.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
scanning build rate is shown on the right. The geometry complexity, CPart, repre-
sented by the part surface, APart, to volume, VPart, ratio is used as the independent
variable. The part scanning build rate, V_ Scan , is defined as the dependent variable.
V_ Scan ¼ freg ðCPart Þ (6)
where:
APart
CPart ¼ :
VPart
The part volume, VPart, is divided by the part scanning build rate, V_ Scan;est: , that
is estimated using a regression function, freg(CPart), to calculate the scanning time as
part of the total build time estimation.
VPart
tScan,Part ¼ (7)
V_ Scan, est:
Thus, adding the time components results in the following formula for the esti-
mated printing time, tPrint,est.
VPart VSupport hz
tPrint,est: ¼ þ þ tCoat,Layer (8)
V_ Scan,est: V_ Support hLayer
Representative values for the dependent and independent variables are required
to build the regression model. The chosen 35 part geometries span a big surface-to-
volume ratio from 0.288 1/mm to 3.742 1/mm. The parameter sets for the two
materials IN718 and AlSi10Mg are considered to demonstrate the possibility of
building the regression model for different materials. To limit the effort for building
the regression model, data preparation is carried out for build jobs with one part
each. It is assumed that the resulting estimation bias is negligible because the jump
time of the laser spot from one geometry to another in build jobs with multiple
geometries is minimal compared with the overall printing time. This results in
70 build jobs, a sample size, respectively, of 35 for each material.
Part surface and volume are extracted from the CAD models of the parts. In this
work, the approach of Dirks and Schleifenbaum10 is used to emulate the part scan-
ning time. The values of the dependent variable part scanning build rate are calcu-
lated by dividing the respective part volume by the emulated part scanning time.
Alternatively, it is possible to obtain a data set of values for the dependent and inde-
pendent variables by measuring during build jobs in a PBF-LB/M production. How-
ever, the part scanning time must be obtained indirectly because measuring it directly
is not applicable. Therefore, the coating time and support scanning time are obtained
and subtracted from the printing time to calculate the part scanning time.
To consider possible nonlinear dependencies of the scanning build rate from
the geometry complexity, the MATLAB curve-fitting toolbox is used to define the
regression function. The fit of different regression functions is evaluated using the

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
coefficient of determination, R2. The function with the best fit, quantified by the
highest R2 value, is further used in the overall PBF-LB/M printing time estimation
model.
METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING THE ESTIMATION MODEL

A suitable data sample is built for the evaluation to demonstrate the validity of the
PBF-LB/M printing time estimation model for real-world application. Therefore,
the capability to produce various part geometries in one build job with PBF-LB/M
must be considered. The data sample comprises 20 build jobs. For 10 of the 20 build
jobs, industry-related parts are used to demonstrate real-world applicability. For the
remaining 10 of the 20 build jobs, a partial factorial experimental design is set up
with build jobs consisting of hypothetical parts. The build jobs are designed to span
different geometry complexities, z-heights, numbers of identical geometries, num-
bers of different geometries, and distances between parts. The build jobs of the
sample cover a range of geometry complexity from 0.11 1/mm to 3.74 1/mm.
The printing time is emulated using the approach of Dirks and Schleifenbaum.10
The estimation accuracy is assessed based on the MAPE and the R2 value of the
estimated and the emulated printing times. The emulated printing times are
assumed to differ negligibly from the actual values because a MAPE of 0.28% is
achieved by emulation.10 Hence, the emulated values are regarded as actual values
in this work.
To estimate the printing time, all input values of each build job are obtained.
The input parameters part volume, support volume, and z-height are extracted
from the CAD models of the parts in a build job. The time for coating one layer is
retrieved from the emulated data but could also be measured with an exemplary
build job. The layer height is defined according to the parameter sets for the two
considered materials. The independent variable geometry complexity of the regres-
sion function is the surface-to-volume ratio of all parts in the respective build job.
Results and Discussion

In this section, the results of the regression model and the printing time estimation
model are presented and discussed.
REGRESSION MODEL
Figure 5 shows the regression diagrams for IN718 and AlSi10Mg. The best curve fit
with a high R2 value is realized using a fractional rational regression function with
the following formula:
p
V_ Scan,est: ¼ freg ðCPart Þ ¼ (9)
CPart þ q
where:
p and q ¼ regression parameters.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
FIG. 5 Results of the regression model.
For IN718 the R2 value is 0.851, and for AlSi10Mg it is 0.914. As expected, the
scanning build rate is higher for build jobs with low geometry complexity. This
result complies with the assumption of higher scanning times for parts with a com-
plex geometry because of a higher proportion of slow contour scanning, idle jump
times, and delay times. The regression curve shows a convex shape with a lower
sensitivity of the part scanning build rate for higher geometry complexity values.
PRINTING TIME ESTIMATION MODEL

The results of the PBF-LB/M printing time estimation are shown in figure 6. For
each of the 20 build jobs, the emulated and estimated printing time are depicted. In
the following sections, the proposed PBF-LB/M printing time estimation model is
FIG. 6 Results of the printing time estimation model.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
discussed regarding the following requirements: estimation accuracy, effort for

building the model, computational cost for using the model, and applicability.
Estimation Accuracy
With a low MAPE of 2.09%, the accuracy of the proposed PBF-LB/M printing time
estimation model is high. The achieved R2 is higher than for the scanning build rate
regression (0.851 for IN718 and 0.914 for AlSi10Mg). An explanation for this is a
balancing effect of positive and negative deviation of single-part scanning times in
one build job. As shown in figure 6, the deviation of the estimated and emulated
printing times is low across all 20 different build jobs. However, further research for
the proposed data-retrieval method of measuring the input variables (cf. fig. 2)
instead of emulation is required.
In this work, the printing time, without warm-up and cool-down times, is esti-
mated. If the model included the measurable and fix warm-up and cool-down
times, the absolute error is assumed to remain the same. Thus, the MAPE value of
the whole build time would be even lower than 2.09%.
Effort for Building the Model

The presented approach is designed to be built and used in PBF-LB/M production
planning without specific AM machine emulation software and information for the
entire virtual machine parameterization. However, effort is required for the manual
orientation of parts to determine the z-height as an input parameter for the estima-
tion. Hence, for an efficient use in AM production planning, the integration of an
automated orientation algorithm should be investigated to decrease the effort for
determining the z-height as an input parameter.
Computational Cost for Using the Model

After determining the regression function, the computing time of a simple mathe-
matical equation is less than that of an emulation with a given computation capac-
ity. Therefore, the proposed approach is more suitable than emulation for different
nesting and scheduling options in production planning. In Fera et al.7 and Baumers
et al.,8 the effort of using the model is also lower compared with emulation. Still,
the accumulation of scanning times is assumed to consume more computation time
than the presented approach. Furthermore, the effort to retrieve the volume, sur-
face, and z-height data from a CAD file or a database is considered minor compared
with extracting the required information per voxel as in the approaches of Fera
et al.7 and Baumers et al.8
Broad Applicability
A one-time effort is required to build the estimation model for one machine and
material combination, as in Fera et al.,7 Baumers et al.,8 and Rickenbacher et al.9
Therefore, further research should quantify the influence of contour and hatch
process parameters (scanning speed, hatch distance, layer thickness) on the

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
estimated part scanning build rate. If systematic influence is found and quantified,
the estimation model can be built for one material and adapted to others. Thus,
applicability for other materials would be realized. The attempt of Hällgren,
Pejryd, and Ekengren12 to project the build time to other materials by using the
ratio of maximum print speeds from material data sheets as a multiplier does not
deliver accurate results. Thus, further research should investigate an adaption of
their approach by considering material-specific scanning parameter sets for con-
tour and hatches.
Furthermore, the applicability of the built estimation model for different scan-
ning strategies is not investigated in this work and should be subject of further
research. Mugwagwa et al.13 find only minor variance in scanning times when using
different island scanning strategies for parts with small x-y-dimensions, while
the difference increases with larger x-y-dimensions. Masoomi, Thompson, and
Shamsaei14 report a 23% reduction of build time when using continuous scanning
strategy compared to sky-writing. To systematically investigate the influence of
scanning strategies, different part complexities, x-y part dimensions and scanning
strategies should be the subject of further research.
Conclusion
In this work, a model for estimating PBF-LB/M printing times was proposed. The
knowledge of accurately estimated printing times of differently nested build jobs is
necessary in PBF-LB/M production planning. Without this information, it is not
possible to achieve schedule reliability and optimize throughput times, machine uti-
lization, and work in process.
Relevant approaches from the literature were reviewed to identify suitable
approaches for adaption according to the following requirements: high estimation
accuracy, low effort for building the model, low effort for using the model, and
broad applicability. The reviewed approaches with availability for PBF-LB/M pro-
ducers do not consider the influence of the complexity of part geometries on the
part scanning build rate.
To address this research gap in the presented approach, the geometry complex-
ity of the parts in a build job is considered in a regression model for the estimation
of part scanning build rates. The geometry complexity is operationalized by the sur-
face-to-volume ratio of the parts in a build job. Hence, the surface-to-volume ratio
is used as the independent variable in the regression model to estimate the depen-
dent variable part scanning build rate. The regression model is part of the presented
model for estimating PBF-LB/M printing times for different build job variations.
The proposed approach achieves high estimation accuracy for PBF-LB/M
printing times with a MAPE of 2.09%. Further research should focus on improving
the adaptability of the proposed PBF-LB/M printing time estimation model so it
only needs to be built once per machine and material combination with respective
scanning parameter sets. Furthermore, the influence of different scanning strategies

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
on printing times should be investigated. Moreover, an integration of the regression

model in existing methods for cost calculation for different part geometries in one
build job should be addressed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of
Germany for funding the research in the project Industrialization and Digitalization
of Additive Manufacturing for automobile series production (IDAM, grant number
13N15084).
References
1. M. Rehnberg and S. Ponte, “From Smiling to Smirking? 3D Printing, Upgrading and

the Restructuring of Global Value Chains,” Global Networks 18, no. 1 (2018): 57–80,
https://doi.org/10.1111/glob.12166
2. M. Fera, F. Fruggiero, A. Lambiase, R. Macchiaroli, and V. Todisco, “A Modified Genetic
Algorithm for Time and Cost Optimization of an Additive Manufacturing Single-Machine
Scheduling,” International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 9 (2018):
423–438, https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ijiec.2018.1.001
3. A. Gebhardt and J.-S. Hötter, Additive Manufacturing: 3D Printing for Prototyping and
Manufacturing (Munich, Germany: Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH, 2016).
4. E. Gutenberg, Grundlagen der Betriebswirtschaftslehre: Erster Band Die Produktion
(Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1951), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-21965-2
5. P. Nyhuis and M. Schmidt, “Logistic Operating Curves in Theory and Practice,” in Advan-
ces in Computer Science and Engineering, ed. M. Schmidt (London, UK: InTech, 2011),
371–390.
6. Y. Oh, P. Witherell, Y. Lu, and T. Sprock, “Nesting and Scheduling Problems for Additive
Manufacturing: A Taxonomy and Review,” Additive Manufacturing 36 (2020): 101492,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101492
7. M. Fera, F. Fruggiero, G. Costabile, A. Lambiase, and D. T. Pham, “A New Mixed Produc-
tion Cost Allocation Model for Additive Manufacturing (MiProCAMAM),” The Interna-
tional Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 92 (2017): 4275–4291, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0492-x
8. M. Baumers, C. Tuck, R. Wildman, I. Ashcroft, E. Rosamond, and R. Hague, “Combined
Build-Time, Energy Consumption and Cost Estimation for Direct Metal Laser Sintering,”
in 23rd Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium: An Additive
Manufacturing Conference, ed. D. L. Bourell et al. (Austin: University of Texas, 2012):
932–944.
9. L. Rickenbacher, A. Spierings, and K. Wegener, “An Integrated Cost-Model for Selective
Laser Melting (SLM),” Rapid Prototyping Journal 19, no. 3 (2013): 208–214, https://
doi.org/10.1108/13552541311312201
10. S. Dirks and J. H. Schleifenbaum, “Adaption of Cost Calculation Methods for Modular
Laser-Powder Bed Fusion (L-PBF) Machine Concepts,” in Proceedings of the Metal Addi-
tive Manufacturing Conference (Örebro, Sweden: Austrian Society for Metallurgy and
Materials, 2019), 79–87.

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\
11. J. Huang, Q. Qin, J. Wang, and H. Fang, “Two Dimensional Laser Galvanometer Scanning
Technology for Additive Manufacturing,” International Journal of Materials, Mechanics and
Manufacturing 6, no. 5 (2018): 332–336, https://doi.org/10.18178/ijmmm.2018.6.5.402
12. S. Hällgren, L. Pejryd, and J. Ekengren, “Additive Manufacturing and High Speed Machin-
ing—Cost Comparison of Short Lead Time Manufacturing Methods,” Procedia CIRP 50
(2016): 384–389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.05.049
13. L. Mugwagwa, D. Dimitrov, S. Matope, and I. Yadroitsev, “Evaluation of the Impact of
Scanning Strategies on Residual Stresses in Selective Laser Melting,” nos. 5–8, The Inter-
national Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 102 (2019): 2441–2450, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03396-9
14. M. Masoomi, S. M. Thompson, and N. Shamsaei, “Quality Part Production via Multi-Laser
Additive Manufacturing,” Manufacturing Letters 13 (2017): 15–20, https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.mfglet.2017.05.003

'RZQORDGHGSULQWHGE\

STP164420210127

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

STP164420210127

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

14 PROGRESS IN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING 2021

STP 1644, 2022 / available online at www.astm.org / doi: 10.1520/STP164420210127

Lukas Bauch,1 Fabian Winklbauer,1 Tobias Stittgen,1

Estimation of Printing Time for

Manuscript received December 1, 2021; accepted for publication April 5, 2022.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

approach is evaluated using 20 exemplary build jobs consisting of different part

REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

Combined Build Time, Energy Consumption, and Cost Estimation for

FIG. 1 Review of relevant literature.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

A New Mixed Production Cost-Allocation Model for Additive

An Integrated Cost Model for Selective Laser Melting

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

Adaption of Cost-Calculation Models for Modular PBF-LB/M Machine

Definition of Research Goal

Materials and Methods

tPrint ¼ tScan,Part þ tScan,Support þ tCoat (2)

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

FIG. 2 Structure of the printing time estimation model.

The structure of the proposed PBF-LB/M printing time estimation model is

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

Support Scanning Time

Part Scanning Time

tScan,Part ¼ tMark þ tDelay þ tJump (5)

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

FIG. 3 Scan vectors for geometries with different complexity.

part volume. A regression model is built accordingly to consider these assumptions

Methodology for Building the Regression Model

FIG. 4 Methodology for building the regression model.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

V_ Scan ¼ freg ðCPart Þ (6)

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

METHODOLOGY FOR EVALUATING THE ESTIMATION MODEL

Results and Discussion

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

FIG. 5 Results of the regression model.

PRINTING TIME ESTIMATION MODEL

FIG. 6 Results of the printing time estimation model.

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

discussed regarding the following requirements: estimation accuracy, effort for

Effort for Building the Model

Computational Cost for Using the Model

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

on printing times should be investigated. Moreover, an integration of the regression

1. M. Rehnberg and S. Ponte, “From Smiling to Smirking? 3D Printing, Upgrading and

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

You might also like

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&

&RS\ULJKWE\$670,QW O DOOULJKWVUHVHUYHG 7KX)HE87&