Rapid Prototyping Journal

On design for additive manufacturing: evaluating geometrical limitations

Guido A. O. Adam, Detmar Zimmer,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Guido A. O. Adam, Detmar Zimmer, (2015) "On design for additive manufacturing: evaluating geometrical limitations", Rapid
Prototyping Journal, Vol. 21 Issue: 6, pp.662-670, https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-06-2013-0060
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-06-2013-0060
Downloaded on: 11 June 2019, At: 14:28 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 15 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1976 times since 2015*
Downloaded by American University of Beirut At 14:28 11 June 2019 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2016),"A survey of the design methods for additive manufacturing to improve functional performance", Rapid Prototyping
Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 3 pp. 569-590 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2015-0011">https://doi.org/10.1108/
RPJ-01-2015-0011</a>
(2014),"A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling", Rapid Prototyping
Journal, Vol. 20 Iss 3 pp. 192-204 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2013-0012">https://doi.org/10.1108/
RPJ-01-2013-0012</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:365702 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 On design for additive manufacturing:
evaluating geometrical limitations
Guido A.O. Adam
Direct Manufacturing Research Center, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany, and
Detmar Zimmer
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present Design Rules for additive manufacturing and a method for their development.
Design/methodology/approach – First, a process-independent method for the development of Design Rules was worked out. Therefore,
geometrical standard elements and attributes that characterize the elements’ shapes have been defined. Next, the standard elements have been
manufactured with different attribute values with Laser Sintering, Laser Melting and Fused Deposition Modeling, and their geometrical quality was
examined. From the results, Design Rules for additive manufacturing were derived and summarized in a catalogue.
Findings – Due to the process independent method, Design Rules were developed that apply for the different considered additive manufacturing
technologies equally. These Design Rules are completely function-independent and easily transferable to individual part designs.
Downloaded by American University of Beirut At 14:28 11 June 2019 (PT)

Research limitations/implications – The developed Design Rules can only apply for the considered boundary conditions. To extend the Design
Rules’ validity, their applicability should be proven for other boundary conditions.
Practical implications – The developed Design Rules practically support the design of technical parts. Additionally they can be used for training
and teaching in the field of “design for additive manufacturing”.
Originality/value – The developed Design Rules constitute a first step toward general Design Rules for Additive Manufacturing. Thus, they might
form a suitable basis for further scientific approaches, and the Design Rules can be used to set up teaching documentations for lessons and seminars.
Keywords Design for additive manufacturing, Laser Sintering, Fused Deposition Modeling, Design rules, Design verification, Laser Melting
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Additive Manufacturing (Gausemeier et al., 2011). At times,

lots of case studies are known which point out Additive
Since its emergence, Additive Manufacturing progressively
Manufacturing’s design freedoms related to some
turns from a prototyping to a production capable technology
functionality. But these studies only lightly address relevant
(Kruth et al., 1998). Important developments of significant
issues that occur during designing technical parts. Therefore,
aspects, such as processes and materials, increasingly enable
concrete and function independent Design Rules are needed.
the usage of Additive Manufacturing as Direct Manufacturing –
Nevertheless, such Design Rules are rarely available and only
to create end-use parts (Hague et al., 2004). Thereby, the
for specific technologies (Wegner and Witt, 2012).
layer-by-layer manufacturing provides new benefits that
So far, Design Rules have been developed and published by
cannot be obtained with conventional production
Wegner and Witt (2012) and Seepersad et al. (2012) for Laser
technologies like milling or casting. Especially the capability to
Sintering (LS), as well as by Thomas (2009) and
extend design freedoms is one of Additive Manufacturing’s
Aumund-Kopp and Petzoldt (2008) for Laser Melting (LM).
most important potentials (Levy et al., 2003). Additionally,
Within these publications, different Design Rules, for
the impact of the provided design freedoms on the industrial
instance, for wall thicknesses, diameters of cylinders or gap
relevance of Additive Manufacturing is well intensified due to
heights, are presented. Publications on Design Rules for
the decoupling of parts’ complexities and parts’
Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) are not generally known.
manufacturing costs (Hague et al., 2003).
It is common for all currently known Design Rules that they
In spite of its great potentials and benefits, Additive
always consider only one specific Additive Manufacturing
Manufacturing’s industrial establishment for end-use part
process, such as LS or LM. Comparisons between different
production purposes is still limited. One reason for this is the
technologies and identifications of communalities are still
insufficient availability of comprehensive Design Rules for
missing.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
The authors would like to thank the Direct Manufacturing Research
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1355-2546.htm
Center (DMRC), its industry partners and the State of North
Rhine-Westphalia for financial support of the presented study.

Received 6 June 2013

Rapid Prototyping Journal Revised 23 December 2013
21/6 (2015) 662–670 5 May 2014
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1355-2546] 16 May 2014
[DOI 10.1108/RPJ-06-2013-0060] Accepted 16 May 2014

662
 Additive manufacturing
Guido A.O. Adam and Detmar Zimmer
Thus, the research project “Direct Manufacturing Design
Rules” (DMDR, 2010-2013) had the aim to develop Design
Rules for Additive Manufacturing. These shall systematically
point out Additive Manufacturing’s strengths and constraints
concerning part design. The Design Rules shall also be
function independent, easily transferable on individual part
designs and comparable for different Additive Manufacturing
technologies (Zimmer and Adam, 2011, 2013).
To reach this aim, standard elements, which often reoccur
by designing technical parts, were defined first. Based on these
elements, Design Rules were developed for LS, LM and
FDM. The Design Rules were summarized in a Design Rule
catalogue (Zimmer and Adam, 2011, 2013).
The DMDR project was performed in collaboration of the
Direct Manufacturing Research Center (DMRC, University
of Paderborn) and the Chair for Design and Drive Technology
(KAt, University of Paderborn). The required funding was
provided by DMRC’s industrial partners as well as by the
government of the State of North Rhine-Westphalia,
Downloaded by American University of Beirut At 14:28 11 June 2019 (PT)
Germany.
2. Method for the development of Design Rules
Most Additive Manufacturing processes principally use equal
iterative process steps for part production: carrying initial
material into the building plane – creating solidified part
layers – lowering the building platform. Nonetheless, the
applied working principles to perform these process steps can
strongly differ for different Additive Manufacturing processes
(Zimmer and Adam, 2013).
Taking these differences into account, the method for the
development of Design Rules, which meet its previously
mentioned requirements, has to be process independent.
Thus, Design Rules should not be developed for parts but for
standard elements. These are geometrical elements of which
technical parts can be assembled (Zimmer and Adam, 2011).
The spectrum of standard elements is divided into three
groups (Zimmer and Adam, 2013):
1 Basic elements: Elementary geometrical shapes (e.g. walls,
cylinders).
2 Element transitions: Areas in which basic elements are
combined with each other (e.g. joints).
3 Aggregated structures: Arrangements of two or more basic
elements and its element transitions (e.g. overhangs).
Each standard element has different attributes assigned to it.
For instance, the outer radius is one of a cylinder’s attributes.
By setting the attribute values, standard element’s shapes are
concretized (Zimmer and Adam, 2011).
While designing, technical parts’ structures are assembled
of standard elements. Therefore, the required elements are
selected and assembled individually. Coevally, the attribute
values are set as required (Zimmer and Adam, 2013). While
doing so, a suitable Design for Manufacturing is always in
focus. Thereby, “Design for Manufacturing” aims at a
requirement-orientated compliance of manufacturing
dependent quality aspects using design measures (Pahl and
Beitz, 2007). Assuming that parts are assembled of standard
elements, part’s qualities are mainly influenced by standard
elements’ qualities. Thus, all assembled standard elements
need to have high qualities to achieve high part qualities.
663
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2015 · 662–670
Using design measures, standard element’s qualities can be
directly influenced by varying standard element’s attribute
values. Thus, Design Rules need to recommend suitable
ranges for attribute values that ensure the manufacturability of
standard elements with high qualities (Zimmer and Adam,
2011).
To figure out those suitable ranges, standard elements can
be manufactured with different attribute value settings.
Furthermore, the quality of the manufactured elements can be
examined and related to the assigned attribute value. Based on
the results, Design Rules can be derived (Zimmer and Adam,
2011).
Next, the proceeding for the development of Design Rules
is exemplarily shown for basic elements. Therefore, eight
different attributes will be considered exemplarily for the
examination of geometrical limitations and the derivation of
Design Rules.
3. Development of Design Rules
To figure out suitable ranges for attribute values, standard
elements were manufactured with LS, LM and FDM.
Thereby, the boundary conditions listed in Table I were kept
constant and the attribute values were varied. Per considered
process and for each attribute value variation, standard
elements were manufactured three times.
3.1 Walls: suitable positions and directions
The position characterizes the location of a wall inside the
building chamber and the direction ␦Dir characterizes a wall’s
rotation around the vertical z-axis. For the examination, both
suitable positions and directions for walls test specimens as
shown in Figure 1 were considered. These consist of three
combined walls. The attributes were varied as follows.
The test specimens were located in different positions in the
building plane: one is centred in the middle, four at the edges
and four in the corners (Figure 2).
Next, the thicknesses of the manufactured walls were
measured in micrometres. Figure 3 shows the thicknesses’
Table I Boundary conditions for production
Process Parameter
LS Machine: Eosint P395
Material: PA2200
Parameter-set: part property profile – balance
Layer thickness: TL ⫽ 0,120 mm
Hatch distance: dHI ⫽ 0,33 mm
LM Machine: SLM 250HL
Material: stainless steel 316L
Layer thickness TL ⫽ 0,030 mm
Laser power: PL ⫽ 175 Watt
Scan velocity: vSc ⫽ 750 mmⴱs⫺1
Hatch distance: dHI ⫽ 0,12 mm
FDM Machine: Fortus 400mc
Material: Ultem
Parameter-set: standard insight V7
Layer thickness: TL ⫽ 0,250 mm
Tip size: T16
Hatch distance: dHI ⫽ 0,50 mm
 Additive manufacturing
Guido A.O. Adam and Detmar Zimmer
Figure 1 Test specimen for the examination of suitable positions
and directions for walls
Downloaded by American University of Beirut At 14:28 11 June 2019 (PT)
Figure 2 Test specimen’s locations in the building plane with its
positioning numbers 1-9
Figure 3 Measured thicknesses t in the positions 1-9 in the
building plane
average values of all walls in one position versus the walls’
positions in the building plane; additionally, the data variance
is added, too. The results show no significant dependencies of
the average values and data variances on its positions in the
building plane. All measured values lie within the range of ⫾
0.2 mm; outliers were not recognized. Thus, the position of a
wall inside the building plane does not significantly influence
the wall’s dimensional accuracy. Assuming that due to the
laser beam’s deflection during the LS and LM processes,
the beam’s spot shape turns from round at the centre of the
building plane to elliptic at the building plane’s edges and
corners, this effect does not significantly influence the
664
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2015 · 662–670
dimensional accuracies of walls. Thus, walls can be positioned
freely in the building plane.
Figure 4 shows the thicknesses’ average values of all walls
with the same direction versus different directions ␦Dir of the
walls. Additionally, the data variances are displayed, too. The
results show that all average values and data variances are
independent from the walls’ directions. Thus, the direction of
a wall can be chosen freely.
3.2 Walls: suitable orientations and thicknesses
For the examinations of both suitable orientations (polar
rotations of a wall around a horizontal axis) and thicknesses,
walls test specimens as shown in Figure 5 were considered
(Zimmer and Adam, 2013).
Next the thicknesses of the manufactured walls were
measured in micrometres. From the results the dimensional
deviations e were calculated as the difference between the
nominal and the measured thickness. Figure 6 displays the
dimensional deviation e versus the nominal thickness t
(Zimmer and Adam, 2013).
The Additive Manufacturing processes considered within
this paper always try to create part layers with a complete layer
structure which consist of contour-lines and enclosed
raster-lines (also named hatch-lines) (Zimmer and Adam,
2013). The contour-lines limit the dimensional expansions of
a part layer and the raster-lines fill the space in-between the
contour-lines. Considering ␦Ori ⫽ 45° and ␦Ori ⫽ 90°
orientations, large dimensional deviations occur for small
Figure 4 Measured thicknesses t versus the test specimens’
directions
Figure 5 Test specimen for the examination of suitable
orientations and thicknesses for walls
 Additive manufacturing Rapid Prototyping Journal
Guido A.O. Adam and Detmar Zimmer Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2015 · 662–670

Figure 6 Dimensional deviations e of the manufactured walls’
thicknesses versus the walls’ nominal thicknesses t
Considering FDM the test specimens show no oversizes. For
t ⱕ 0.8 mm gaps arise inside the element’s structure. Different
to powder-based processes, FDM-manufactured contour-
lines and raster-lines do not overlap themselves within one
part layer; the lines are just lightly connected to each other.
Thereby, sometimes gaps arise in-between the raster-lines.
These gaps can be closed due to a sufficient superimposing of
the deposed lines which is given for t ⬎ 0.8 mm (Zimmer and
Adam, 2013).
For all processes it applies that walls show smallest
dimensional deviations if they are ␦Ori ⫽ 90° oriented. The
more the orientation tends to ␦Ori ⫽ 0°, the more the
thicknesses are approximated by layers. This causes increased
dimensional deviations.

3.3 Cylinders: suitable outer radii and orientations

For the examinations of both suitable outer radii and
orientations for cylinders, test specimens as displayed in
Figure 7.
Downloaded by American University of Beirut At 14:28 11 June 2019 (PT)

Next the outer radii of the manufactured cylinders were

measured digitally. Therefore, microscope pictures were taken
of each test specimen (Figure 8). With the software tool
“Datinf Measure”, two rectangles with a twist of 45° towards

Figure 7 Test specimen for the examination of suitable outer radii

and orientations for cylinders

nominal thicknesses. This is because small nominal

thicknesses do not provide the required space to create
complete part layer structures, made of contour-lines with
enclosed raster-lines. Nevertheless, the machines try to create
a complete layer structure. Thereby, dimensional deviations
arise. These become small and behave stabile once the
nominal thickness enables the creation of complete layer
structures in the x–y plane. From this nominal thickness on,
enough space is given to create contour-lines with enclosed
Figure 8 Microscope picture of a cylinder with rectangles to
raster-lines. Such enough space is given if the thickness
examine the outer radius
becomes larger than 1.0 mm for LS, 0.6 mm for LM and
1.5 mm for FDM. These results are similar to the results
presented by Wegner and Witt (2012) who recommend
thicknesses of 0.7 mm for LS and Thomas (2009) who
recommends a thickness of 0.4 mm for LM.
For ␦Ori ⫽ 0° orientations, the graphs differ for the
considered processes. Considering LS and LM, the test
specimens are oversized about tOs ⬇ 0.2 mm (LS) and tOs ⬇
1.5 mm (LM). These oversizes occur due to the melting bath,
which penetrates deeper than through only one layer. In most
cases, this is useful to connect the manufactured part layer
with the partially finished part beneath. But while creating the
first layer, there is no partially finished part beneath. Thus, the
melting bath connects particles to the part that do not belong
to the part. Thereby, oversize occurs.

665
 Additive manufacturing
Guido A.O. Adam and Detmar Zimmer
each other were placed around each test specimen. The sizes
of the rectangles were reduced to a minimum without
penetrating into the specimen’s outer shape. Thereby, the use
of a calliper was imitated digitally. The edge lengths of the
rectangles correspond with the diameters of the cylinders.
From the results, the dimensional deviations e were
calculated as the difference between the nominal and the
measured outer radii. Figure 9 shows the dimensional
deviations e versus its nominal outer radii ro. Considering
␦Ori ⫽ 90° orientations, different quality defects occurred for
small nominal outer radii ro. Considering LS, cylinders with
nominal outer radii ro ⱕ 0.4 mm were not manufacturable or
did not break during the powder removal after manufacturing.
This result is similar the diameter of 0.8 mm which Seepersad
et al. (2012) recommend for cylinders manufactured with LS.
Different to this, cylinders manufactured with LM show no
cylindrical shape for nominal outer radii r0 ⱕ 0.3 mm, they
look drop-shaped. For ro ⱕ 1.0 mm, FDM-manufactured
cylinders show insufficiently filled part layers; hollow spaces
Downloaded by American University of Beirut At 14:28 11 June 2019 (PT)
inside the cylinders arise as the radius provides not enough
space to produce raster-lines enclosed between the
contour-lines. For all processes it applies that they can
manufacture cylinders robustly and without defects if the
values of the nominal outer radii allow the creation of
complete layer structures in the x–y plane (contour ⫹
raster-lines).
Figure 9 Dimensional deviations e of the manufactured cylinders’
outer radii versus the nominal outer radii ro
666
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2015 · 662–670
Considering ␦Ori ⫽ 0° orientations, almost all test specimen
were manufacturable, but with large dimensional deviations.
These occur due to the curvature’s approximation with layers.
Additionally, the deviations’ values are independent from the
nominal outer radii – they are all of the same size. Thus,
cylinders’ outer radii should be as large as possible to decrease
the deviations’ value related to the nominal outer radii.
Similar to walls, cylinders should be oriented
perpendicularly to the building plane (␦Ori ⫽ 90°) to receive
smallest dimensional deviations. With a ␦Ori ⫽ 90°
orientation, cylinders’ shapes are not influenced due to the
layer by layer manufacturing. Thus, the approximation error
caused by the layer by layer manufacturing is reduced to a
minimum.
3.4 Bores: suitable inner radii without solid support
material
Regarding LM or FDM, down-facing surfaces with surface
angles below a certain value, for instance, 45° for LM
(Thomas, 2009), need to be underpinned with support
structures. Such surfaces always occur if bores are ␦Ori ⫽ 0°
oriented with their rotating axis parallel to the building plane.
For many cases, it is necessary to create bores with ␦Ori ⫽ 0°
orientations and without support structures. Thus, within this
test, inner radii will be identified for which bores are
manufacturable with ␦Ori ⫽ 0° orientations and without
support structures. Therefore, test specimens as shown in
Figure 10 were considered.
Next the manufacturability and the shape of the
manufactured test specimens were examined with a visual
inspection and subjectively evaluated (Table II).
The test specimen’s manufacturability decreased with
increasing inner radii. Considering LM, test specimen’s
manufacturability was given for inner radii ri ⱕ 4.5 mm. Test
specimens with larger inner radii were destroyed. Their part
layers bent out of the building plane due to thermal induced
internal stresses (Figure 11). Comparing these results to
results presented in literature, communalities are given;
Thomas (2009) recommends bore diameters of 7.0 mm to
avoid support structures. Considering FDM, test specimen’s
manufacturability was given for inner radii ri ⱕ 5.0 mm. Test
specimens with larger inner radii showed strong surface
defects or were even destroyed. These defects occurred
because unsupported filaments fall out of their nominal
position (Figure 12).
Figure 10 Test specimen for the examination of unsupported inner
radii ri
 Additive manufacturing Rapid Prototyping Journal
Guido A.O. Adam and Detmar Zimmer Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2015 · 662–670

Table II Qualities of cylinders’ unsupported insides versus its nominal contained powder. Thus, suitable lengths for bores related to
inner radii ri their inner radii were examined within this test. Therefore test
ri LM FDM specimens as displayed in Figure 13 were manufactured with
LS and LM.
1,5 Ok Ok
Next, the contained powder was removed by the use of
2,0 Ok Ok
compressed air and glass beads (pressure 4 bar) which were
2,5 Ok Ok
blown into the test specimens from one side. The compressed
3,0 Ok Ok
air and glass beads were injected until the powder was
3,5 Ok Ok
completely removed or not further removable. Afterwards, the
4,5 Ok Ok
length lF was measured with a calliper, along which the
5,0 Destroyed Ok
powder could be removed.
7,5 Destroyed Surface defect
As a result for LM, the powder was completely removable
10,0 Destroyed Surface defect
from all test specimens’ insides. Thus, bores’ lengths can be
12,5 Surface defect
selected independently from their inner radii.
15,0 Destroyed
Concerning LS, an almost linear correlation between the
17,5 Surface defect
bores’ nominal inner radii and its lengths lF was detected
20,0 Surface defect
(Figure 14). The belonging lF/ri ratio shows that bores’ lengths
22,5 Destroyed should maximally be eight times as long as its inner radii to
25,0 Destroyed
Downloaded by American University of Beirut At 14:28 11 June 2019 (PT)

remove the contained powder safely.

3.5 Bores: suitable lengths related to the inner radii
During manufacturing, parts built by LS and LM are
surrounded by powder. In most cases, this must be removed
after manufacturing. Particularly bores, for instance, used as
cooling channels, might cause difficulties by removing the
Figure 11 Test specimen manufactured with LM and with
ri ⫽ 10.0 mm
Comparing the results, powder was much easier removable
for LM than for LS. A reason for this is that the temperature
inside the building chamber is very close to the melting point
temperature of the plastic material for LS, while the
temperature difference between the inside of the building
chamber and the melting point of the metal material is large
for LM. This harms the flowability of the plastic material used
within the LS process.
Figure 13 Test specimen for the examination of bores’ suitable
lengths depending on their inner radii

Figure 12 Test specimen manufactured with FDM and with

ri ⫽ 20.0 mm Figure 14 Bores’ free lengths lF and lF/ri ratios versus its nominal
inner radii ri

667
 Additive manufacturing
Guido A.O. Adam and Detmar Zimmer
4. Design Rules’ catalogue
Design Rules were derived from the previously mentioned
experimental results and summarized in a Design Rules’
catalogue (see extracts in Figures 15 and 16). Hereby, the
determined numerical values as well as their normalizations
with the layer thickness tL and the hatch distance dHl do
only apply for the considered boundary conditions
(Table I).
5. Summary and outlook
Additive Manufacturing provides a lot of benefits to their
users. Especially the given design freedoms offer many
potentials. But, nonetheless, Additive Manufacturing’s use for
Direct Manufacturing is still limited. One reason for this is the
insufficient availability of Design Rules for Additive
Manufacturing.
Thus, the project “Direct Manufacturing Design Rules”
Downloaded by American University of Beirut At 14:28 11 June 2019 (PT)
had the aim to develop comprehensive Design Rules for
Additive Manufacturing systematically. Therefore, a
method for the development of Design Rules has been
worked out first. This method is based on geometrical
standard elements (e.g. cylinders) of which technical parts
can be assembled. Thereby, elements’ mathematical
Figure 15 Design rules for walls
668
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2015 · 662–670
definitions identified relevant issues for the development of
Design Rules.
Using the previously defined method, Design Rules
were developed for LS, LM and FDM. The Design
Rules are completely function-independent, easily
transferable on individual part designs and cover
information for single elements as well as for complex
aggregated structures.
The Design Rules were developed with the same
proceeding for all considered Additive Manufacturing
technologies. This allows a direct comparison between the
technology specific test results. Thereby, commonalities
could be identified that enabled the development of Design
Rules, which apply for all considered Additive
Manufacturing processes equally. This is an important step
towards the development of universally valid Design Rules
for Additive Manufacturing.
Nonetheless, the developed Design Rules can currently
only be applied for the considered process and boundary
conditions. Thus, the range of validity of the Design Rules
has to be extended within a next step. Therefore, the
applicability of the Design Rules for different materials,
process parameter settings and machines will be proven in a
follow-up project.
 Additive manufacturing
Guido A.O. Adam and Detmar Zimmer
Figure 16 Design rules for cylinders and bores
Downloaded by American University of Beirut At 14:28 11 June 2019 (PT)
References
Aumund-Kopp, C. and Petzold, F. “Laser Sintering of parts with
complex internal structures”, Proceedings of the 2008 World
Congress on Powder Metallurgy & Particulate Materials, Washington,
DC, 8-12 July, available at: www.rapidprototyping.
fhg.de/content/pdf/t_08_aumund-Kopp_etal.pdf
Gausemeier, J., Echterhoff, N., Kokoschka, M. and Wall, M.
(2011), “Thinking ahead the future of additive
manufacturing – analysis of promising industries”, available
at: https://dmrc.uni-paderborn.de/fileadmin/dmrc/
Download/data/DMRC_Studien/DMRC_Study.pdf (accessed
22 March 2013).
Hague, R., Campbell, I. and Dickens, P. (2003),
“Implications on design of rapid manufacturing”, Journal of
Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 217 No. 25, pp. 25-30.
Hague, R., Mansour, S. and Saleh, N. (2004), “Material and
design considerations for rapid manufacturing”,
International Journal of Product Research, Vol. 42 No. 22,
pp. 4691-4708.
Kruth, J.-P., Leu, M.C. and Nakagawa, T. (1998), “Progress
in additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping”, CIRP
Annals – Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 47 No. 2,
pp. 525-540.
Levy, G.N., Schindel, R. and Kruth, J.P. (2003), “Rapid
manufacturing and rapid tooling with layer manufacturing
(LM) technologies, state of the art and future perspectives”,
CIRP Annals – Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 589-609.
669
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2015 · 662–670
Pahl, G. and Beitz, W. (2007), Konstruktionslehre – Grundlagen
erfolgreicher Produktentwicklung, Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Seepersad, C.C., Govett, T., Kim, K., Lundin, M. and
Pinero, D. (2012), “A designer’s guide for dimensioning
and tolerancing SLS parts”, 23rd Annual International
Solid Freeform Symposium, Austin, TX, available at: http://
utwired.engr.utexas.edu/lff/symposium/proceedings
Archive/pubs/Manuscripts/2012/2012-70-Seepersad.
pdf
Thomas, D. (2009), The Development of Design Rules for
Selective Laser Melting, University of Wales, available at:
http://hdl.handle.net/10369/913 (accessed 6 April 2013).
Wegner, A. and Witt, G. (2012), “Design for Laser
Sintering”, Journal of Plastics Technology, Vol. 3,
pp. 252-277.
Zimmer, D. and Adam, G.A.O. (2011), “Direct
manufacturing Design Rules”, Innovative Developments in
Virtual and Physical Prototyping, CRC Press, pp. 545-551.
Zimmer, D. and Adam, G.A.O. (2013), “Design rules for
additive manufacturing”, Konstruktion – Zeitschrift für
Produktentwicklung und Ingenieur-Werkstoffe, Vols 7/8,
pp. 77-82.
Further reading
Gebhardt, A. (2007), Generative Fertigungsverfahren, Carl
Hanser Verlag, Munich.
Kempen, K., Thijs, L., Yasa, E., Badrossamay, M., Verheecke, W.
and Kruth, J.P. (2011), “Process optimization and
 Additive manufacturing
Guido A.O. Adam and Detmar Zimmer
microstructural analysis for selective Laser Melting of
AlSi10Mg”, Solid Free Form Fabrication Proceedings.
Pham, D.T. and Gault, R.S. (1998), “A comparison of rapid
prototyping technologies”, International Journal of Machine
Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 38, pp. 1257-1287.
About the authors
Guido A.O. Adam is a PhD-Candidate at the Chair for
Design and Drive Technology, in the Faculty of Mechanical
Engineering of the University of Paderborn, Germany. He
received his Diploma in Mechanical Engineering with its
emphasis on product development and design from the
University of Paderborn in 2009. Guido A.O. Adam is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at:
guido.adam@uni-paderborn.de
Downloaded by American University of Beirut At 14:28 11 June 2019 (PT)
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
670
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 21 · Number 6 · 2015 · 662–670
Detmar Zimmer is the Owner of the Chair for Design and
Drive Technology, in the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering
of the University of Paderborn. After his studies in Mechanical
Engineering, he received his PhD from the University of
Stuttgart in1990. His dissertation “Flankenspielorientierte
Einstellung der Hypoid- und Kegelradgetriebe” was awarded
with the advancement price from the Society of Tribology.
From 1990 to 2001, Prof Zimmer was employed by the Lenze
Company. There he directed the business unit “Geared
Motors”. As well Prof Zimmer is a member of the Scientific
Society for Product Development (WiGeP). From 2008 to
2011, he was the Dean of the Faculty for Mechanical
Engineering, and, since 2007, he is responsible for the
cooperation between the University of Paderborn and the
Technical Faculty in Qingdao, China.
 This article has been cited by:

1. A. Liebrich, H.C. Langowski, R. Schreiber, B.R. Pinzer. 2019. Porosity distribution in laser-sintered polymeric thin sheets as
revealed by X-ray micro tomography. Polymer Testing 76, 286-297. [Crossref]
2. Dan Stoia, Emanoil Linul, Liviu Marsavina. 2019. Influence of Manufacturing Parameters on Mechanical Properties of Porous
Materials by Selective Laser Sintering. Materials 12:6, 871. [Crossref]
3. Ann-Kathrin Reichler, Roman Gerbers, Paul Falkenberg, Eiko Türk, Franz Dietrich, Thomas Vietor, Klaus Dröder. 2019.
Incremental Manufacturing: Model-based part design and process planning for Hybrid Manufacturing of multi-material parts.
Procedia CIRP 79, 107-112. [Crossref]
4. Miquel Domingo-Espin, J. Antonio Travieso-Rodriguez, Ramon Jerez-Mesa, Jordi Lluma-Fuentes. 2018. Fatigue Performance
of ABS Specimens Obtained by Fused Filament Fabrication. Materials 11:12, 2521. [Crossref]
5. Flores ItuarteIñigo, Iñigo Flores Ituarte, ChekurovSergei, Sergei Chekurov, TuomiJukka, Jukka Tuomi, MascoloJulien Etienne,
Julien Etienne Mascolo, ZanellaAlessandro, Alessandro Zanella, SpringerPatrick, Patrick Springer, PartanenJouni, Jouni Partanen.
2018. Digital manufacturing applicability of a laser sintered component for automotive industry: a case study. Rapid Prototyping
Journal 24:7, 1203-1211. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. CarfagniMonica, Monica Carfagni, FiorineschiLorenzo, Lorenzo Fiorineschi, FurferiRocco, Rocco Furferi, GoverniLapo, Lapo
Governi, RotiniFederico, Federico Rotini. 2018. The role of additive technologies in the prototyping issues of design. Rapid
Downloaded by American University of Beirut At 14:28 11 June 2019 (PT)

Prototyping Journal 24:7, 1101-1116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

7. Gabriel Pieter Greeff, Meinhard Schilling. 2018. Single print optimisation of fused filament fabrication parameters. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 99:1-4, 845-858. [Crossref]
8. Diana Popescu, Aurelian Zapciu, Catalin Amza, Florin Baciu, Rodica Marinescu. 2018. FDM process parameters influence over
the mechanical properties of polymer specimens: A review. Polymer Testing 69, 157-166. [Crossref]
9. Yosep Oh, Chi Zhou, Sara Behdad. 2018. Part decomposition and assembly-based (Re) design for additive manufacturing: A
review. Additive Manufacturing 22, 230-242. [Crossref]
10. PopescuDiana, Diana Popescu, LaptoiuDan, Dan Laptoiu, MarinescuRodica, Rodica Marinescu, BotezatuIozefina, Iozefina
Botezatu. 2018. Design and 3D printing customized guides for orthopaedic surgery – lessons learned. Rapid Prototyping Journal
24:5, 901-913. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Patrick Pradel, Zicheng Zhu, Richard Bibb, James Moultrie. 2018. A framework for mapping design for additive manufacturing
knowledge for industrial and product design. Journal of Engineering Design 57, 1-36. [Crossref]
12. Madhukar Somireddy, Aleksander Czekanski. Material Properties Of 3D Printed Parts: Challenges In Design And Analysis .
[Crossref]
13. Patrick Pradel, Zicheng Zhu, Richard Bibb, James Moultrie. 2018. Investigation of design for additive manufacturing in
professional design practice. Journal of Engineering Design 29:4-5, 165-200. [Crossref]
14. Martin Kumke, Hagen Watschke, Peter Hartogh, Ann-Kathrin Bavendiek, Thomas Vietor. 2018. Methods and tools for
identifying and leveraging additive manufacturing design potentials. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing
(IJIDeM) 12:2, 481-493. [Crossref]
15. Yuanbin Wang, Robert Blache, Pai Zheng, Xun Xu. 2018. A Knowledge Management System to Support Design for Additive
Manufacturing Using Bayesian Networks. Journal of Mechanical Design 140:5, 051701. [Crossref]
16. XiaoZefeng, Zefeng Xiao, YangYongqiang, Yongqiang Yang, WangDi, Di Wang, SongChanghui, Changhui Song, BaiYuchao,
Yuchao Bai. 2018. Structural optimization design for antenna bracket manufactured by selective laser melting. Rapid Prototyping
Journal 24:3, 539-547. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Antonio Armillotta, Mattia Bellotti, Marco Cavallaro. 2018. Warpage of FDM parts: Experimental tests and analytic model.
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 50, 140-152. [Crossref]
18. Johanna Spallek, Dieter Krause. Decision-Making in Additive Manufacturing – Survey on AM Experience and Expertise of
Designers 347-360. [Crossref]
19. YaoXiling, Xiling Yao, MoonSeung Ki, Seung Ki Moon, BiGuijun, Guijun Bi. 2017. A hybrid machine learning approach for
additive manufacturing design feature recommendation. Rapid Prototyping Journal 23:6, 983-997. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Niclas Eschner, Robin Kopf, Tobias Lieneke, Thomas Künneke, Dietrich Berger, Benjamin Häfner, Gisela Lanza, Detmar
Zimmer. 2017. Kombination etablierter und additiver Fertigung. ZWF Zeitschrift für wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb 112:7-8, 469.
[Crossref]
 21. Steven Goguelin, Joshua Colaco, Vimal Dhokia, Dirk Schaefer. 2017. Smart Manufacturability Analysis for Digital Product
Development. Procedia CIRP 60, 56-61. [Crossref]
22. Jan-Peer Rudolph, Claus Emmelmann. 2017. A Cloud-based Platform for Automated Order Processing in Additive
Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 63, 412-417. [Crossref]
23. Jan-Peer Rudolph, Claus Emmelmann. 2017. Analysis of Design Guidelines for Automated Order Acceptance in Additive
Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 60, 187-192. [Crossref]
24. Stefan Lammers, Guido Adam, Hans J. Schmid, Rafael Mrozek, Rainer Oberacker, M. J. Hoffmann, Francesco Quattrone, Bernd
Ponick. Additive Manufacturing of a lightweight rotor for a permanent magnet synchronous machine 41-45. [Crossref]
25. Sebastian Hällgren, Lars Pejryd, Jens Ekengren. 2016. (Re)Design for Additive Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 50, 246-251.
[Crossref]
26. M. Fantini, M. Curto, F. De Crescenzio. 2016. A method to design biomimetic scaffolds for bone tissue engineering based on
Voronoi lattices. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 11:2, 77. [Crossref]
Downloaded by American University of Beirut At 14:28 11 June 2019 (PT)