Integration of Design for

Manufacturing Methods
Rajit Ranjan
Center for Global Design and Manufacturing, With Topology Optimization

Department of Mechanical and
Materials Engineering,
University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH 45221
e-mail: ranjanrt@mail.uc.edu
Rutuja Samant
Center for Global Design and Manufacturing,
Department of Mechanical and
Materials Engineering,
University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH 45221
e-mail: samantrv@mail.uc.edu,
Sam Anand1
Center for Global Design and Manufacturing,
Department of Mechanical and
Materials Engineering,
University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, OH 45221
e-mail: sam.anand@uc.edu
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
in Additive Manufacturing
Additive manufacturing (AM) processes are used to fabricate complex geometries using a
layer-by-layer material deposition technique. These processes are recognized for creat-
ing complex shapes which are difficult to manufacture otherwise and enable designers to
be more creative with their designs. However, as AM is still in its developing stages, rele-
vant literature with respect to design guidelines for AM is not readily available. This
paper proposes a novel design methodology which can assist designers in creating parts
that are friendly to additive manufacturing. The research includes formulation of design
guidelines by studying the relationship between input part geometry and AM process
parameters. Two cases are considered for application of the developed design guidelines.
The first case presents a feature graph-based design improvement method in which a pro-
ducibility index (PI) concept is introduced to compare AM friendly designs. This method
is useful for performing manufacturing validation of pre-existing designs and modifying
it for better manufacturability through AM processes. The second approach presents a
topology optimization-based design methodology which can help designers in creating
entirely new lightweight designs which can be manufactured using AM processes with
ease. Application of both these methods is presented in the form of case studies depicting
design evolution for increasing manufacturability and associated producibility index of
the part. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4035216]

Keywords: design for additive manufacturing (DFAM), additive manufacturing (AM),

direct metal laser sintering (DMLS), feature graph, design guidelines, producibility index

1 Introduction property, the DFM concepts for conventional methods cannot be

directly applied to AM, and hence, there is a need for the develop-
Design and manufacturing are two key stages in the develop-
ment of design rules specific to AM processes.
ment of a product. Ideally, an engineer should always consider
Presently, a number of AM processes are being used in the
manufacturability while conceptualizing a design as it has direct
industry such as fused deposition modeling (FDM), stereo lithog-
implications on the design’s feasibility. However, there has
raphy (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), direct metal laser
always been a distinct gap between design and manufacturing
sintering (DMLS), electron beam melting (EBM), etc. These proc-
operations in an industry which leads to increase in production
esses are primarily classified based on the method of adhesion
time and cost. The recent trend of outsourcing in industries is
between the layers [5]. Direct metal laser sintering (DMLS) is one
even widening the gap as it implies a cultural separation between
of the leading AM processes which is used by industries to fabri-
designer and manufacturer. The concept of design for manufactur-
cate high-strength metal parts. This process uses a laser power
ing (DFM) and design for assembly (DFA) was developed so that
source for binding metal layers. This process is also particularly
the manufacturability can be incorporated at early design stages.
beneficial while working with materials that are hard to machine
DFM implies that a designer should ensure that their designs are
such as titanium alloys, tool steels, etc. However, due to the inher-
easy to manufacture and overall cost including assembly and
ent nature of DMLS process, there are certain features which are
logistics is minimized [1]. Although generally design guidelines
difficult to manufacture. This paper extends a conference paper by
are formulated specific to manufacturing process, still producibil-
the authors [6] and presents an extensive study of DMLS process
ity of a design depends on several other factors such as geometry,
based on which design guidelines are formulated. Further, a
dimensional tolerances, and raw material [2]. Presently, a consid-
graph-based design improvement methodology is presented which
erable amount of literature is available on DFM and DFA con-
applies the design rules for increasing manufacturability. This
cepts for conventional manufacturing process [3]. This research
method is applicable when a designer intends to redesign a pre-
work aims at developing similar DFM framework and design
existing part for AM.
methodologies for additive manufacturing (AM) processes.
Designers are often provided with a design space and loading
Due to recent technological advancements, AM is gaining pop-
conditions as part specification and there is a need for light
ularity and has the potential to become a mainstream manufactur-
weighting parts while ensuring adequate part strength to take care
ing process [4]. Also, AM processes are capable of fabricating
of applied loads and associated stresses. Such light weight designs
highly complex shapes which are almost impossible to manufac-
are critical to the aerospace and transportation industry and can
ture using conventional methods. The main reason which gives
make full use of the various design structures that can be only pro-
AM this capability is that in this process, designs are sliced and
duced using the additive processes. Topology optimization is an
material is deposited using a layer-by-layer method. Due to this
approach to find the minimum material distribution designs, given
a set of loading conditions [7]. However, topology optimized
1
Corresponding author.
designs may be difficult to manufacture using additive processes
Manuscript received February 6, 2016; final manuscript received November 8, and may result in quality and manufacturability problems. The
2016; published online January 25, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Xiaoping Qian. second part of this paper presents a design methodology which

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 061007-1
C 2017 by ASME
Copyright V
integrates DMLS design guidelines with the topology optimiza-
tion approach to come up with AM process friendly light weight
parts.
2 Literature Review
This section is divided into four subsections. Section 2.1 is a
review of part design features which are difficult to manufacture
using DMLS process. Section 2.2 describes different design for
additive manufacturing (DFAM) methodologies presented in
recent publications. Section 2.3 presents a review of different
methods for representing a design. Section 2.4 describes research
conducted in the area of topology optimization.
2.1 Part Design Limitations for DMLS. Input design geom-
etry is one of the important factors that affect the part quality in
DMLS process. This section presents a review of previous
research that correlates various quality governing parameters in
AM with manufactured part quality. Choi and Samavedam [8]
studied the staircase error and formulated a mathematical relation
for determining cusp height. Cusp height is the part surface error
created due to the staircase effect created by the layer-by-layer
building process. Arni and Gupta [9] correlated cusp height with
flatness tolerance, while Paul and Anand [10] extended this
approach to develop a relationship among cylindricity tolerance,
build orientation, and layer thickness. They also used this relation-
ship to develop a graph-based approach for finding optimal part
build orientations. Clijsters et al. [11] reported that designs with
sharp corners and thin sections are hard to manufacture as these
features influence the thermal behavior of the laser sintering pro-
cess. Penga et al. [12] studied fabrication of thin-walled metal
parts and reported that accuracy of complex thin-walled metal
parts is compromised while controlling the build height. Soe [13]
performed an experimental study relating part geometry with curl-
ing effect in laser sintering and showed that box type geometries
are more susceptible to thermal distortion. Paul et al. [14] have
presented effect of thermal distortion on metal parts in DMLS
process. The requirement of support structures has been analyzed
by multiple authors [5,15,16] and a support minimization method-
ology is presented by Paul and Anand [17]. The idea of optimizing
support volume by using cellular structures has been reported by
Strano et al. [18].
2.2 Design for Additive Manufacturing. The development
of AM technology has motivated researchers toward developing
new design approaches specific to AM. Vayre et al. [19] presented
a design methodology for AM and illustrated their approach with
redesigning a sample part. Ponche et al. [20] proposed a new
numerical chain-based design method which can find optimal geo-
metries in terms of functionality while considering manufacturing
process parameters. Klahn et al. [21] presented a list of criteria for
redesigning a part for AM and illustrated the redesign process on
various sample parts. Seepersad et al. [22] fabricated plastic parts
using laser sintering (LS) process and formulated a set of design
guidelines for increasing manufacturability. However, the author
stated that the developed design guidelines could not be directly
applied to metal sintering process because of difference in physi-
cal properties. Adam and Zimmer [23] developed a design rule
catalog for laser sintering, laser melting, and fused deposition
modeling (FDM) process. Kerbrat et al. [24] presented a hybrid
manufacturing process that combines machining with additive
manufacturing. The authors also proposed a manufacturability
evaluation method for subtractive and additive manufacturing.
Rosen [25] presented a DFAM procedure using cellular structures
along with the concept of manufacturable elements (MELs).
2.3 Design Representation. Multiple authors have presented
algorithms for decomposing a design into its constitutive elements
for manufacturability analysis. Joshi and Chang [26] presented the
061007-2 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017
concept of attribute adjacency graph (AAG) which is used to rec-
ognize machining features in three-dimensional (3D) geometric
models. Lockett and Marin [27] presented a midsurface-based
approach for feature recognition in molded parts. Gershenson and
Prasad [28] used a component tree diagram to establish the manu-
facturing modularity of a product. Changchien and Lin [29] used
a feature-based method to represent rotational parts with machin-
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
ing features and established a relationship between them. Huang
et al. [30] represented design specifications of rotational parts in
form of a graph for finding an optimal setup plan. Design graph
presented by Brunetti and Golob [31] included material and geo-
metrical information. Recently, Liu [32] proposed a feature
graph-based approach for finding relevant features in layer-based
manufacturing. Ranjan et al. [6] presented a feature graph-based
design method for identifying problematic features in additive
manufacturing.
2.4 Topology Optimization. Topology Optimization is the
computational method for finding minimum material distribution
scheme for a defined loading condition within a design space. The
field of topology optimization has been thoroughly investigated
by researchers for more than two decades. A keynote paper in the
area is presented by Bendsoe and Kakuchi [33], and a comprehen-
sive theory for the process is presented in the work by Sigmund
and Bendsoe [34]. Several attempts have been made by research-
ers to include manufacturability constraints within the topology
optimization process. Zhou et al. [35] introduced casting and
extrusion manufacturing constraints in the process and presented
designs with increased manufacturability. Guest et al. [36] incor-
porated minimum length criteria in topology optimization process
such that feasible designs can be obtained. Recently, Brackett
et al. [37] combined support structure minimization with bi-
directional evolutionary structural optimization (BESO) and pre-
sented the results for two-dimensional cantilever beam. Gaynor
et al. [38] implemented an overhang constraint within the topol-
ogy optimization process using a Heaviside projection scheme.
They presented the results for two-dimensional cantilever and
MBB beam. More recently, Mirzendehdel and Suresh [39] incor-
porated support reduction criteria into the pareto optimal-based
topology optimization algorithm. Langelaar [40] incorporated an
overhang constraint in the topology optimization algorithm using
a sensitivity approach. Wang and Qian [41] incorporated a unique
B-Spline-based filtering in their topology optimization method. In
this paper, a novel mathematical model has been formulated using
a variable mapping technique for integrating design rules within
the topology optimization framework.
3 Methodology
In this paper, a set of DMLS design guidelines for powder
fusion additive manufacturing is formulated based on relevant lit-
erature. Computational algorithms are developed for detecting
features which violate design guidelines. A graph-based design
feature extraction approach is used in conjunction with the design
rules to identify and remedy AM design violation problems. This
information is then used to develop a producibility index to com-
pare designs from AM manufacturability perspective. In a subse-
quent step, a topology optimization approach is combined with
the design rules to come up with lightweight additive friendly
designs.
3.1 Development of Design Guidelines. The DMLS process
has some inherent limitations which can be used as a basis to for-
mulate a knowledge base of design guidelines. Design guidelines
can be categorized into following three categories.
3.1.1 Geometrical Parameters. In additive manufacturing,
parts are fabricated in the form of 2.5 D layers [5] resulting in
curved surface being manufactured with a staircase effect. The
concept of cusp height is used to quantify this error. Equation (1)
Transactions of the ASME
by Choi and Samavedam [8] presents a mathematical relation
between cusp error, slice thickness, and the angle between the
build axis and the facet normal of an stereolithography file format
(STL) facet. The relation was further extended by Paul and Anand
[10] to represent cylindricity tolerance as shown in Eq. (2). We
have developed similar relations between cusp height and slice
thickness for conical and spherical surfaces
Cusp height ¼ Slice thickness  cos ðøÞ (1)
where ø is angle between build axis and facet normal.
Cusp height ¼ Slice thickness  sin ðgÞ (2)
where g is the angle between axis of cylinder and build axis.
Figure 1 shows a section of a conical feature. The angle
between build axis (ba) and axis of cone (bo) is h and semi cone
angle is a. The relationship between cusp height (AC) and the
cone geometry as shown in Eq. (3) is developed using analytical
geometry
Cusp heightðACÞ ¼ Slice thicknessðABÞ  sin ðh þ aÞ (3)
Figure 2 shows a section of a spherical feature manufactured by
AM process. The relationship between radius of sphere and cusp
Fig. 1 Conical feature
Fig. 2 Spherical feature
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
height is presented below. AB and AC represent the cusp height
and slice thickness, respectively. The points A and C are given by
C ¼ ðr  cos b; r  sin bÞ
A ¼ ðr  cos b; r  sin b þ tÞ
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
Also, Sin b ¼ 1  ðt=rÞ
where t is slice thickness and r is radius of sphere.
Thus, maximum cusp height is given as
AB ¼ AO  BO
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
AB ¼ ðr 2  t2 þ 2tr Þ  r
In order to keep maximum cusp height less than the given cusp
height threshold, i.e.
AB  c
The following relation has been developed:
t2 þ c2
r (4)
2ðt  cÞ
This suggests that for satisfying a cusp height threshold of “c”
with slice thickness “t,” the radius of a sphere should always be
less than the expression shown in Eq. (4).
Cylindrical, conical, and spherical surfaces of a part are
checked for cusp height threshold violation using Eqs. (2), (3),
and (4), respectively. Nonprimitive features such as extruded,
revolved, or freeform surfaces are approximated using triangular
facets and analyzed using Eq. (1). If any surface of the part viola-
tes the cusp threshold, it is marked as critical. Paul and Anand
[10] proposed that cylindricity tolerance violation can be avoided
by reorienting the part and presented a graph-based method for
finding range of optimal build orientations. However, in the case
of multiple features, sometimes it is not possible to avoid viola-
tions just by reorienting, and thus, design changes may become
necessary.
The shape of laser beam and thermal nature of the sintering pro-
cess can cause manufacturability issues in fabrication of certain
features such as sharp corners and thin sections. Perfect knife
edge features are impossible to fabricate because of the shape of
laser beam. Also, thin openings are often fused while sintering
due to the minimum feature resolution capability of laser sintering
process [22]. Therefore, features forming sharp corners and thin
openings should be avoided at design stage.
In AM, the height of part is directly related to cost as it is pro-
portional to build time. Although, height and volume of a part are
important at the design stage; no explicit recommendation can be
provided as these features often defines functionality. However,
these features are considered while comparing designs based on
the producibility index metric described in Sec. 3.3.
3.1.2 Thermal Parameters. In the laser sintering process, tem-
perature history of part plays an important role in defining the
final part quality. Mercelis and Kruth [42] have used a thermal
gradient mechanism (TGM) for explaining the phenomenon of
residual stresses in selective laser sintering (SLS). Thermal
stresses are one of the most important reasons for introducing
curling in parts which is detrimental for part quality. Box type
structures are most susceptible toward curl and geometries with
high curvature have lower tendency to get warped [13]. Also thin
sections in part’s geometry tend to warp easily [11]. Thus, features
forming box type geometry and thin sections are marked as criti-
cal features from a manufacturability perspective.
Another parameter which is rarely considered is the movement
of the re-coater arm. The re-coater arm swipes over the part after
JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 061007-3
sintering of every layer to lay the powder for the next layer to be
sintered. It has been reported that if the input geometry has a long
edge parallel to re-coater arm, then it can strike the re-coater arm
disrupting the functioning of the machine [43]. Also, features that
are curled up due to residual stresses may collide with the re-
coater arm causing interruption in the movement. So, long edges
and thin overhangs facing the re-coater arm are also marked as
critical features. Figure 3 depicts the problem of a thin overhang
obstructing the re-coater arm movement.
3.1.3 Support Structures. In AM, parts are built upright in the
machine chamber along the build axis. Thus, features such as
overhangs, surfaces with negative draft, and undercuts require
support [5]. Also, sometimes supports help in reducing thermal
distortion by increasing heat dissipation [16,44]. However, build-
ing support structures not only increases total sintering time but
also requires additional effort in removal. Generally, supports are
removed using conventional processes and support removal can
be detrimental to the surface finish of the areas where support
comes in contact with part. So, in general, minimum requirement
of supports should be incorporated at design stage. Researchers
have suggested partial, cellular [45], and surface inclination-based
[44] supports for surfaces. Performing topology optimization
based on the loading presents optimum lightweight designs, but
Fig. 3 Re-coater arm movement
Fig. 4 Sample bracket with supports
061007-4 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017
there is no assurance of minimal supports. In this work, a topology
optimization-based design method is presented which can create
designs with low support requirement that is additive friendly.
A feature graph-based design improvement method is presented
which can help designers in identifying features requiring sup-
ports. In this approach, it has been assumed that surfaces making
an angle more than 35 deg with the build axis needs support [16].
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
Based on this criterion, features which require support or come in
contact with support are marked as critical for designer’s recon-
sideration. Moreover, a percentage value is given to each feature
requiring support so that features that require maximum support
can be modified first. Figure 4 depicts a typical part with support
structures.
3.2 Computational Algorithms for Feature Detection. This
section presents two computational algorithms for detecting fea-
tures which can cause problems related to manufacturability. The
first algorithm performs a slice-by-slice analysis in order to iden-
tify features such as sharp corners, thin sections, and fusible open-
ings. The second algorithm uses a planar triangular approximation
of the surfaces of the CAD model in order to identify support
needs and calculate cusp error for a given design.
3.2.1 Slice Contour Offset Algorithm for Identification of
Sharp Corners, Small Holes, and Thin Regions. The CAD design
of the part is converted into its STL format, and slicing operation
Fig. 5 (a) Internal angle and offsetting, (b) thin region detec-
tion, and (c) detection of thin openings
Fig. 6 Flowchart for contour offset algorithm
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 7 Hollow cylinder: (a) facet requiring support and (b) facet
touching support
is performed using the algorithm described by Topcu et.al. [46].
Points obtained for every slice contour are arranged in a sequen-
tial order and connected using line segments. The internal angle
(/) between two consecutive line segments is computed and
stored. The number of sharp corners with interior angles less than
a predefined threshold of 20 deg in any slice is counted and recog-
nized as sharp corners. Next, an inward offset of the slice contour
is constructed using the reverse STL facet normal and internal
angle information as shown in Fig. 5(a). All offset polygons
(ABCD) are examined for intersection with any other offset poly-
gons. If the offset polygons intersect with each other a thin region
is recognized in the slice (Fig 5(b)). Similarly, when the offsetting
is performed in the direction of STL facet normal, the algorithm
provides information about the number of small openings or holes
Fig. 8 Flowchart for triangular facet algorithm
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
in a slice contour (Fig 5(c)). The flowchart for contour-based off-
set algorithm is presented in Fig. 6.
3.2.2 Triangular Facet-Based Algorithm for Cusp Violations
and Detection of Support Requirements. The part surfaces are
approximated as triangular facets within the modeling environ-
ment using the application programming interface (API) function-
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
ality of Siemens NX modeler. Cusp height for each facet is
calculated and summed up using Eq. (1) [8]. Mean cusp height is
thus obtained as shown in Eq. (5).
P
n
t  cos h
i¼1
Mean Cusp Height ¼ (5)
n
where n is number of facets, t is slice thickness, and h is angle
between facet normal and build axis. Part surfaces are checked
and cusp violations are marked using Eqs. (1)–(4) presented in
Sec. 3.1.1.
For calculation of support volume and contact area, the
normal vector of each NX model facet is computed and the angle
between the normal and build axis is calculated. If the angle is
greater than 125 deg (90 deg þ 35 deg), then that facet is marked
as a support facet. Supports are manually created for marked fac-
ets using the modeling tool of NX and volume of support is
stored.
Further, for calculation of support contact area, a facet projec-
tion algorithm is used. First, area of every triangular support facet
JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 061007-5
in NX is computed using triangle area formula. Next, the facets
which are not marked for support but lie directly beneath a sup-
port facet are identified and marked as contact facets. The total
contact area is given by sum of the areas of both support and con-
tact facets. Figures 7(a) and 7(b) highlight the support and contact
facets, respectively, for a cylindrical part with build axis perpen-
dicular to the axis of cylinder. The detailed algorithm is described

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
in the flowchart shown in Fig. 8.

3.3 Producibility Index. To assess the extent of part’s con-

formance to the AM design rules, a producibility index metric has
been developed in this work. Producibility index (PI) is the mea-
sure of goodness of a design’s manufacturability in a particular
build orientation. The concept is formulated to quantify and com-
pare designs. The following eight factors are included in calcula-
tion of PI:
(1) Total number of sharp corners in all the slice contours
(2) Number of small holes/small openings in all slice contours
(3) Number of thin regions
(4) Mean cusp height (mm)
(5) Surface area contacting support (mm2)
(6) Volume of support structure needed (mm3)
(7) Height of the part (mm)
(8) Volume of the part (mm3)
The first three parameters are calculated using the contour off-
set algorithm described in Sec. 3.2.1, while parameters 4–6 are
calculated using the triangular facet algorithm described in Sec.
3.2.2. The height of the part can be calculated based on the height
of the bounding box of the part model and is obtained directly
from the NX CAD model. Based on the triangular approximation
of the surfaces of the CAD model, the volume of the part can be
calculated and is obtained directly using the NX application pro-
gramming interface (API).
3.3.1 Mathematical Definition of Producibility Index (PI). All
the eight factors considered are used to calculate part producibility
index (PI). Since all the factors considered for PI have a different
order of magnitude, they have to be normalized to the same scale
for comparison. Suppose S is the set of “n” designs to be
compared
S(D) ¼ {D1, D2, D3,……., Dn}
and C is the matrix of “m” factors considered for n designs
C ¼ {C1(D1) C1(D2) C1(D3)……….…. C1 (Dn),
C2(D1) C2(D2) C2(D3)…………. C2 (Dn),
.………………………………………….,
Cm(D1) Cm(D2) Cm(D3)………….Cm (Dn)}
Then, PI for a design (Dj) is given by Eq. (6)
X
r
Wi  Ci ðDj Þ
PIðDj Þ ¼
i¼1
MaxfCi ðD1 Þ; Ci ðD2 Þ… Ci ðDn Þg
X
s attributes on the links. Violations are recognized based on design
Wk  MaxfCk ðD1 Þ; Ck ðD2 Þ:::Ck ðDn Þg
þ (6)
k¼1
Ck ðDj Þ
where Wi and Wk are weights for different factors: i ¼ 1 to r repre-
sents favorable criteria for design, k ¼ 1 to s represents unfavora-
ble criteria for design
Such that
rþs¼m
where larger values of favorable criteria and smaller values of
unfavorable criteria are preferred from a design for AM perspec-
tive. Here, Cm (m ¼ 8) represents the eight factors described in the
section of producibility index and the weights are decided based
on designer’s preference for these factors such that the sum of all
Fig. 9 Algorithm for making feature graph
the weights remain unity. In this study, equal weights of 0.125 are
given to each parameter. Designs are compared by assessing the
producibility index metric; the higher the value of the index, the
better the design is from an additive manufacturing perspective.
3.4 Design Methodology. This section presents two
approaches for optimally designing additive manufactured parts.
In the first method (section 3.4.1), a feature graph-based design
improvement scheme is proposed that can be used for improving
manufacturability of designs. The second approach (section 3.4.2)
integrates topology optimization with design for additive rules
described in the previous section to produce lightweight designs
that are manufacturable using additive processes.
3.4.1 Feature Graph-Based Design Improvement Method. In
this section, a method of depicting a design in the form of feature
graph with inter related part features is presented. The feature
graph is an extension of the AAG graph presented in Ref. [26] and
is constructed based on the face adjacency of neighboring fea-
tures. Features and their relations are then verified against design
guidelines developed for the DMLS process. Computational algo-
rithms described in Sec. 3.2 are used to mark design guideline vio-
lations on the graph and this information can then be used for
further design improvement. Functional features are identified and
any violations related to them are ignored because changing the
functionality of a part would defeat the purpose of design. The
flowchart for constructing a feature graph for manufacturability
analysis is presented in Fig. 9.
All functional features are marked on the central node of the
graph. A nonfunctional feature is arranged in the adjoining node
based on its relation with other features. Relationship between
two features is marked as an attribute on the connecting link.
Guideline violations can occur either because of features (nodes)
or relations (links). As shown in Fig. 10, a part is broken down
into features, namely, F1, F2, F3, F4, and F5. F3 and F4 are identi-
fied as functional features, while the rest of the features are
arranged as nodes. Relations (R1, R2, and R3) are marked as
guidelines and the corresponding element (node or link) that is
marked.
In order to construct the feature graph, first a feature relation
table is constructed within the Siemens NX CAD environment
using NX application programming interface (API). All the surfa-
ces of a 3D CAD model are analyzed and their topology informa-
tion is stored in a (N þ 2) x (N þ 2) matrix, where N is the number
of surfaces. The adjacency relation between these surfaces is
stored and marked on the feature table. The feature relation table
of a sample part shown in Fig. 11 is presented in Table 1. In the
table shown, the first two columns represent the CAD surface ID
and surface type, respectively. The first two rows are transpose of
first two columns. Also, “1” in the table represents the adjacency
status between a row and column surface similar to the AAG
graph presented by Joshi and Chang [26]. Using the information

061007-6 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017 Transactions of the ASME

 Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
Fig. 10 Representative feature graph

3.4.2 DFAM Constrained Topology Optimization-Based

Fig. 11 Sample part for feature graph
presented in the feature relation table, a graph is constructed and
analyzed. Algorithms described in Sec. 3.2 are used to find critical
features and manufacturability problems are marked on the feature
graph. As complex parts may have a large number of features to
be analyzed, populating the feature relation table helps in con-
structing the feature graph by providing information about inter
feature relationships. The feature graph with design guideline vio-
lations for the sample part is shown in Fig. 12.
Design. Topology optimization is a mathematical approach that
optimizes material layout for given design space and loading con-
ditions [34]. The most common application of the optimization
process is for minimum compliance or maximum stiffness in
which an iterative finite-element analysis (FEA) is conducted to
find material distribution for minimum deformation. The material
density (Xph) is allowed to vary between zero and one where den-
sity value of one represents material and zero represents a void.
Solid isotropic material with penalization (SIMP) method pre-
sented by Ref. [47] is typically used to penalize intermediate den-
sity values and drives the final result toward a 1/0 material
configuration. This research extends the topology optimization
method presented by Liu and Tovar [7] and reformulates it into a
new DFAM constrained topology optimization-based design
approach by incorporating additive manufacturing constraints.
As the topology optimization process is computationally inten-
sive, there are certain numerical difficulties such as mesh depend-
ency, local minima, and checkerboard pattern that have to be
overcome. Many researchers have suggested the use of a density
filter in order to reduce the effect of such computational complex-
ities. The density filter suggested by Ref. [7] presents a relation

Table 1 Feature relation table

Face ID 38,805 40,793 40,729 40,744 40,961 38,840 38,841 38,842 38,843 38,844

Type 16 16 16 22 16 22 22 22 16 22

38,805 16 1 1 1 1
40,793 16 1 1 1 1
40,729 16 1 1 1
40,744 22 1 1 1
40,961 16 1 1
38,840 22 1 1 1 1
38,841 22 1 1 1 1
38,842 22 1 1 1 1 1
38,843 16 1 1
38,844 22 1 1 1 1 1

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 061007-7
 Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
Fig. 12 Feature graph for sample part

between design variable and physical density. In this paper, a new
intermediate constraint variable (Xa) is introduced linking the
design space and physical density to redefine the mapping.
As discussed in the section on design guidelines, fabrication
and removal of support structures is one of the most important
factors affecting the manufacturability of a design. Thus, an addi-
tional constraint of developing designs with minimum supports is
introduced within the topology optimization algorithm. A mathe-
matical formulation is developed which performs a support check
for every element after the FEA process. The density of a properly
supported element remains unchanged; however, density of
unsupported element is divided by a factor proportional to number
of void elements lying just below it. Due to density reduction after
every FEA iteration, unsupported elements tend to diminish and
subsequently a design with a lower support requirement is
generated.
The process starts by dividing the entire design space into cubi-
cal elements (voxel). The extent of discretization specified by the
number of elements in each direction (X, Y, and Z) is a user
defined variable. The Z direction is assumed to be the build direc-
tion for AM and constraints are applied such that elements are
checked for support only along the negative Z direction. A cubical
element can have maximum nine elements lying just below it as
shown in Fig. 13(a). For boundary elements shown in Figs 13(b)
and 13(c), six or four elements, respectively, may lie below it
depending on element’s location. It has been assumed that if an
element has a physical density greater than 0.5, it represents mate-
rial and vice versa. Also, using this assumption an element is said
to be properly supported if the element lying directly below, it has
a physical density greater than 0.5.
The minimum compliance problem that minimizes deformation
of the structure for given support and loading conditions has been
modified from Ref. [7] and defined as follows:
Find, design variable (X) ¼ [X1, X2, X3,……, Xe,…., Xn]T
Minimize: C (Xph) ¼ FTU(Xph)

Fig. 13 Support elements for (a) nonboundary element, (b) boundary element with six bot-
tom elements, and (c) boundary element with four bottom elements

061007-8 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017 Transactions of the ASME

 Subject to: Vol (Xph) ¼ (Xph)T.v - v  0
where v is vector of element volume, v is maximum allowable
volume, C(Xph) is compliance, F is applied load, and U(Xph) is
nodal displacement vector.
The problem formulation and detailed solution for topology
optimization is found in Ref. [7], where physical density (Xph) is
computed directly from design variable (X). In this research, com-
reduced. The role of transformation w(x) is to discretize the vary-
ing physical density to 0/1 condition. Repeating the process itera-
tively reduces the probability of material growth at elements
which are not properly supported. An extra “1” has been added to
the denominator just to avoid an indeterminate condition of 0 deg.
Another term, Cdeg, in support coefficient (re ) definition basically
controls the intensity of support constraint. Higher values of Cdeg

putation of constraint variable (Xa) is added in the process where
physical density (Xph) is a function of constraint variable (Xa)
which, in turn, is a function of design variable (X). The relation
between design variable (X) and constraint variable (Xa) is
adopted from Ref. [7] and shown in Eq. (7).
The relation between constraint variable (Xa) and physical den-
sity (Xph) is presented by Eq. (9), which defines the support reduc-
tion criteria. The relation uses a transformation scheme (w(x)),
which basically converts material presence into a 0/1 condition.
The mathematical definition of w(x) presented by Eq. (10) is such
that it returns a value of one for density less than 0.5 and vice
versa. Equation (7) from Ref. [7] represents the physical density
(Xeph Þ for eth element, where Nes represents the support neighbor-
hood for eth element. Support neighborhood Nes is defined such
that it contains all the bottom neighbors of eth element except the
element lying directly below it. Every element is identified in 3D
space according to its X, Y, and Z coordinates. If eth element has
coordinates (i,j,k), then support neighborhood Nes will have eight
members with coordinates as (i  1,j,k  1), (i þ 1,j,k  1),
(i,j  1,k  1), (i,j þ 1,k  1), (i  1,j  1,k  1), (i þ 1,j  1,k  1),
(i  1,j þ 1,k  1), and (i þ 1,j þ 1,k  1). Equation (8) presents
the formulation for support coefficient (re Þ, which serves as a
division factor for unsupported elements
X of material growth for that element. The modified
xh  vh  Heh
hNe
Xea ¼ X (7)
Heh  vh
hNe
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
mean that nonsupported elements will be more severely penalized.
However, increasing Cdeg more than a certain limit makes the pro-
cess unstable and produces trivial results.
It is observed that adding the new support constraint with the
topology optimization process makes it in general hard to con-
verge. Thus, a penalty variation scheme has been introduced to
increase or decrease the SIMP’s penalty depending on support
availability for elements. An exponential function defined by
Eq. (11) is used to assign penalty for each element depending on
its support coefficient.
HL
Penalty ¼ H  (11)
eSðre 1Þ þ 1
where H is high-penalty threshold, L is low-penalty threshold, S is
slope constant, and re is support coefficient
The penalty function is designed to allocate a high-penalty
threshold, H, if support coefficient ðre Þ is greater than one and a
lower penalty threshold, L, if support coefficient ðre Þ is less than
one. Figure 14 shows the plot of penalty function. Basically, the
developed function signifies that if an element is not properly sup-
ported and has support coefficient greater than one, then penalty
value for that element is increased and thus reduces the possibility
Karush–Kuhn–Tucker conditions for the optimization are given
by Eqs. (12)–(14). A comprehensive flowchart representing the
DFAM-constrained topology optimization is shown in Fig. 15

  X  uðXbottom
ph
Þ @cðXph Þ @volðXph Þ
re ¼ Cdeg  uðXmph Þ þ 1 (8) þk ¼0 (12)
mNes
@x @x

Xea Xea @cðXph Þ @cðXph Þ @Xph @Xa

Xeph ¼ ¼ (9) ¼   (13)
re   X    uð ph
Xbottom Þ @x @Xph @ Xa @x
Cdeg  u Xmph þ 1
mNes @volðXph Þ @volðXph Þ @Xph @Xa
¼   (14)
@x @Xph @ Xa @x
where Xeph is the physical density for eth element, Ne is neighbor-
hood of an element Xe with volume; ve and its definition is
described in Ref. [7], Heh is the weight factor defined as Heh ¼ R–
dist(e, h), Nes is the support neighborhood defined such that it con-
tains all bottom neighbors of eth element except the element that
lies directly below it in the negative Z direction, Cdeg is degree of
ph
support filter, re is support coefficient, Xbottom represents the phys-
ical density of element that lies directly below eth element in the
negative Z direction,
and the transformation w(x) is defined as-

0 x  0:5
wðxÞ ¼ (10)
1 x < 0:5
The definition of support coefficient (re ) shown in Eq. (8) is
such that it gives a definite control to the element lying directly
below eth (i, j, and k) element by keeping its transformed physical
density as exponent of the denominator. The coordinates of such
element is (i, j, k  1). Support coefficient will become 1 in case
the element (i, j, k  1) has a physical density greater than 0.5,
i.e., element (i, j, and k) is properly supported. This signifies that
in the case of proper support, element density will remain
unchanged and material growth is not affected. However, if ele-
ment (i, j, and k) is not properly supported, then the support coeffi-
cient (re ) becomes proportional to sum of all the void elements in
neighborhood Nes and the resulting physical density (Xeph ) is Fig. 14 Plot for penalty function

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 061007-9

Fig. 15 Flowchart for DFAM topology optimization
Fig. 16 Process of design evolution
4 Results
This section presents the application of described design meth-
odologies to the design evolution process. Four case studies are
used to depict the improvement in the manufacturability of a
design based on the design rules formulated in this work. Figure 16
depicts the proposed design improvement cycle with increasing
producibility index with every design iteration. As the value of
index increases, the designs become more amenable to manufac-
turing with reduced cost.
The first two case studies present the design improvement
method that described in Sec. 3.4.1 and the increase in manufac-
turability as observed by comparing the producibility index (PI)
for designs. The last two case studies implement the topology
optimization-based design method described in Sec. 3.4.2 and
compare the support reduction achieved in the designs. The algo-
rithms described in Secs. 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 are used for detection of
manufacturability features and take about 15–20 s of run time on a
core i7 computer with 16GB of RAM for the part models
described in case studies 1 and 2 below.
4.1 Case Study 1. In this study, the design of a heat sink is
considered. The first design shown in Fig. 17 presents a type of
heat sink that has fins with knife edges where surface area is a
measure of efficiency. The feature graph of this design highlights
061007-10 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
Fig. 17 Design 1 for heat exchanger
all the knife edges as critical features because they form sharp cor-
ners in the slice contours. The “slice contour offset” algorithm
described in Sec. 3.2.1 is used to successfully detect all these
sharp corners. A uniform layer thickness of 50 lm is considered
for this analysis. In the second iteration, the design has been modi-
fied to eliminate features that form the sharp corners while
increasing the surface area for better heat transfer.
Figure 18 shows final iteration of the design modification pro-
cess of a heat sink. It represents a modified design for a radial heat
sink with twice the surface area of design 1. It is clear that from
the point of view of conventional manufacturing methods, design
1 is easier to manufacture. But in the case of AM, design 2 shows
higher PI and thus has better manufacturability due to elimination
of thin regions and sharp corners. Table 2 shows the computation
of PI and the progression of design iterations for this case study.
4.2 Case Study 2. In this case study, the design of a simple
bicycle pedal is considered for manufacturability validation.
Figure 19(a) shows the first iteration of design with a central
cylindrical feature as the main functional feature. The build orien-
tation is decided based on the fact that best build quality for cylin-
ders is achieved when they are built upright with the build axis
aligned with the cylinder axis. The feature graph of this design is
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 3 Calculation of producibility index for case study 2

S.No Factor Design 1 Design 2 Design 3

1. Mean cusp height 0.024771 0.029488 0.03543

2. No. of sharp corners 24 0 0
3. No. of thin regions 0 0 0
4. No. of fusible contours 4 0 0

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
5. Build height (mm) 130 128 127.5
6. Volume of support (mm3) 297312.51 231100.92 154655.8739
7. Volume of part (mm3) 86043.0272 81026.32 87925.4944
8. Area touching support (mm2) 14556.77 9063.9824 1214.2
Producibility index (PI) 7.336 10.763 26.15

Fig. 18 Design 2 for heat exchanger

Table 2 Calculation of producibility index for case study 1

S.No Factor Design 1 Design 2

1. Mean cusp height (mm) 0.03607 0.043281

2. No. of sharp corners per layer 24 0 Fig. 20 Problem definition for cantilever beam
3. No. of thin regions per layer 24 0
4. No. of fusible contours 0 0
5. Build height (mm) 4 3 Table 4 Process specifications for topology optimization
6. Volume of support (mm3) 0 0
7. Volume of part (mm3) 64.37 61.06 Standard Constrained
8. Area touching support (mm2) 0 0 topology topology
Producibility index (PI) 2.95 12.21 optimization optimization
S.No Factor process process

1. No. of elements in X direction, Nx 50 50

2. No. of elements in X direction, Ny 20 20
3. No. of elements in X direction, Nz 10 10
4. Initial density 0.3 0.3
5. Density filter threshold 2 2
62
6. Penalty 4 6
e60ðre 1Þþ1

Fig. 19 Bicycle pedal: (a) design iteration1, (b) design itera-

tion2, and (c) design iteration3

constructed and violations associated with every face are marked

on the feature graph. It is observed that one particular face con-
tributes to almost the entire support requirement and the same
face is also responsible for problems related to re-coater move-
ment. Thus, modification of this particular feature is the main
focus in the second iteration.
In the second iteration, the design is changed by keeping the
central cylindrical feature unchanged and modifying the topmost
planar face to a curved feature as shown in Fig 19(b). A major
reduction in support volume and support contact area is achieved
in this iteration. Also, tilted cylinders were made horizontal so
that the number of sharp corners is reduced. The effects of these
changes are reflected on the increased value of PI, with the PI for
design 2 being 1.4 times than that of design 1. Further, using the
feature graph, it is observed that there is additional scope for
reduction of support volume. So, the third iteration focuses on
modifying features such that support need is further minimized.
In the third design iteration shown in Fig. 19(c), the side pedal
members were made slightly oblique and the top curvature was
adjusted such that support needs are further reduced. Owing to
Fig. 21 (a) Topology optimization result, (b) design for cantile-
ver beam, and (c) design with support
this change, producibility of design 3 is approximately 3.5 times
more than the initial design. Table 3 presents the calculation of PI
and shows the progression of the designs.
4.3 Case Study 3. This case study presents the application of
topology optimization process for generating designs with mini-
mal support requirements. The design of a cantilever beam is con-
sidered here where the mathematical formulation presented in
Sec. 3.4.2 will be applied. Figure 20 shows the problem formula-
tion in which loads are applied at the end of the design space and
the other end is fixed and constrained from any movement. Both
standard and DFAM-constrained topology optimization processes

Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 061007-11
 Fig. 25 (a) Results for standard topology optimization pro-

Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
cess, (b) 3D model for design, and (c) support structures
Fig. 22 (a) Results for constrained topology optimization pro-
cess, (b) 3D model for design, and (c) support structures

Table 5 Design comparison table for case study 3

Conventional top opt Top opt with DFAM

Build time: height of part (mm) 20 18.1

Area requiring support (mm2) 216.34 149.32
Volume (mm3) 3416 4014 Fig. 26 (a) Results for constrained topology optimization pro-
Support volume (mm3) 2909.7 767.66 cess, (b) 3D model for design, and (c) support structures
Total sintering volume (mm3) 6325.7 4781.66

Table 7 Design comparison table for case study 4

Table 6 Validation FEA results for case study 3 Conventional top opt Top opt with DFAM

Results Max. deformation (mm) Max. stress (Von-Mises) Pa Build time: height of part (mm) 10 10
Area requiring support (mm2) 232.36 190.1
3 7
Top. opt. 4.02  10 4.53  10 Volume (mm3) 9784.74 8998.10
Top. opt. with DFAM 6.25  103 3.01  107 Support volume (mm3) 1730.5 948.21
Total sintering volume (mm3) 11515.24 9946.31

Fig. 27 Deformation results for (a) standard top. opt. and (b)
constrained top. opt.

Fig. 23 Deformation results for (a) standard top. opt. and (b)
constrained top. opt.
Fig. 24 Design space and loading conditions for case study 4
are applied for finding cantilever design and results are presented.
Table 4 shows the specifications used for running the topology
optimization process. Figure 21(a) shows the output design of
standard topology optimization process. The voxel-based output
of optimization process was used as a basis for developing a 3D
model for the cantilever beam using NX model and is depicted in
Fig. 21(b). Support requirements for the design are identified and
support structures are generated using the 35 deg angle-based cri-
teria. Figure 21(c) shows the design with required support
structures.
The result for DFAM constrained topology optimization is
shown in Fig. 22(a). The NX-based 3D model and support
requirement for this design are shown in Figs. 22(b) and 22(c),
respectively. It is observed that design 1 shown in Fig 21(b) has a
top flat feature which is responsible for most of the support. How-
ever, for design 2 (Fig. 22(b)), material distribution has been
changed to avoid such long, flat feature, with a resulting total sup-
port volume reduction of 73.6%. Table 5 presents the comparison
of both designs, and it can be observed that a 24% reduction in
total sintering volume is obtained.
A final FEA validation of both designs is conducted using ANSYS
workbench. It is found that the new design obtained by DFAM-
constrained topology optimization is well within the limits and is
capable of sustaining the applied loads. The maximum stresses are
found to be less than the yield strength of specified material, i.e.,
2.5  108 Pa. Table 6 presents maximum stress and deformation
values for both designs, and Fig. 23 shows deformation results.
4.4 Case Study 4. Generally in AM, build orientation is typi-
cally decided based on build time and critical quality of critical
features. For example, it is advised to fabricate cylindrical fea-
tures with high tolerances such that it is manufactured with the
build axis along the cylindrical feature axis. The process of
DFAM-constrained topology optimization becomes more relevant
in such conditions, because in this process, build orientation is
defined and fixed before beginning the optimization. This case
study applies the DFAM-constrained topology optimization pro-
cess for a design space which has a predefined cylindrical hole. In
this situation, the axis of hole is defined as the best build

061007-12 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017 Transactions of the ASME

 Table 8 Validation FEA results for case study 4
Max. Max. stress Compliance
deformation (mm) (Von-Mises) Pa (%)
Top. opt. 6.408  104 2.837  106 100
Top. opt. with DFAM 7.31  104 4.005  106 127
orientation. Figure 24 presents the problem formulation where a
square design space is loaded with uniform vertical force distribu-
tion applied along its edges. The dimensions for design space are
defined as 50 units  50 units  10 units with a five units radius
hole in the center. All other parameters are same as shown in
Table 4. Due to symmetrical design space geometry, only a quar-
ter of design space is considered for optimization process and
obtained results are extrapolated. Figure 25(a) shows the result for
standard topology optimization process. The NX 3D model is cre-
ated using the voxelized output of MATLAB code, and supports are
generated in NX using the angle-based criteria. Figures 25(b) and
25(c) present the NX model and support structures, respectively.
The DFAM-constrained topology optimization process is
applied on same design problem and the generated output is
shown in Fig. 26(a). The 3D model based on the output is con-
structed using NX which is shown in Fig. 26(b). Support struc-
tures are created by identifying regions requiring supports and
support volumes for both designs are compared. In the case of
DFAM-constrained topology optimization process, the need for
support is reduced by 45% resulting in a reduction of total sinter-
ing volume by 13.6%. Figure 26(c) presents the design with
required supports, and Table 7 shows the reduction in support vol-
ume and contact area. Figure 27 shows the deformation results for
both the designs, and Table 8 presents the FEA validation results.
A final FEA of both designs is performed as it is observed that
compliance value of DFAM constrained topology optimization is
higher than that of normal topology optimization. The support crite-
ria integrated in the DFAM topology optimization is responsible for
making the process more difficult to converge, and thus, increasing
the compliance value. The final FEA validation results verify that
both the designs are suitable for sustaining the specified loads.
5 Conclusions and Future Work
In this paper, the DMLS additive manufacturing process is ana-
lyzed and sources of error in part fabrication are identified. Using
this analysis, design guidelines are formulated and two design
approaches are presented, which focuse on increasing part manu-
facturability. In the first method, a feature graph-based design
improvement technique which applies developed design guide-
lines for creating more feasible designs is presented. The concept
of feature graph is presented which can assist a designer to iden-
tify features that may hinder manufacturability. In the second
method, a DFAM-constrained topology optimization-based design
which integrates DFAM design rules with topology optimization
process is presented. The design methods presented in this paper
are not only useful for a novice designer who may not be aware of
the nuances of the DMLS process but also beneficial for experi-
enced designers who may find it difficult to integrate all the con-
straints into a unified design process. Moreover, there are features
which may require tradeoffs and decisions from a designer based
on functionality of the product. The proposed method can be
applied to determine these features and increase manufacturability
while reducing costs. Also, a scoring scheme is presented which
can quantify a design and its improvement from the viewpoint of
manufacturability. The methodology is demonstrated using case
studies where improvement in manufacturability is observed.
Future work in this area includes further investigation of laser
sintering process and development of more design guidelines.
Here, feature graph-based design improvement method considers
only manufacturability issues based on part geometric analysis.
Moreover, there could be other design and topology constraints in
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
product development as well. Computational algorithms presented
here can be enhanced to detect other guideline violation such as
re-coater movement and specific features prone to thermal defor-
mations. Also, DFAM-constrained topology optimization-based
method only focuses on support structure reduction. A more inte-
grated topology optimization approach combining other important
DFAM factors can be developed. The effect of build orientation is
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
a critical factor in AM. Often guideline violations can be avoided
just by changing the build orientation. Moreover, topology optimi-
zation for different build orientations can be considered and the
best topologically optimized design that is manufacturable can be
selected out of obtained results. Thus, analyzing orientation
effects on manufacturability can be another avenue for future
research.
References
[1] Rosen, I. G., and Stucker, B., 2010, Additive Manufacturing Technologies,
Springer, New York.
[2] Ponche, R., Hascoet, J. Y., Kerbrat, O., and Mognol, P., 2012, “A New Global
Approach to Design for Additive Manufacturing,” Virtual Phys. Prototyping,
7(2), pp. 93–105.
[3] Chiu, M.-C., and Okudan, G., 2010, “Evolution of Design for X Tools Applicable
to Design Stages: A Literature Review,” ASME Paper No. DETC2010-29091.
[4] Hague, R., Mansour, S., and Saleh, N., 2004, “Material and Design Considera-
tions for Rapid Manufacturing,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 42(22), pp. 4691–4708.
[5] Kulkarni, P., Marsan, A., and Dutta, D., 2000, “A Review of Process Planning
Techniques in Layered Manufacturing,” Rapid Prototyping J., 6(1), pp. 18–35.
[6] Ranjan, R., Samant, R., and Anand, S., 2015, “Design for Manufacturability in
Additive Manufacturing Using a Graph Based Approach,” ASME Paper No.
MSEC2015-9448.
[7] Liu, K., and Tovar, A., 2014, “An Efficient 3D Topology Optimization Code
Written in MATLAB,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 50(6), pp. 1175–1196.
[8] Choi, S. H., and Samavedam, S., 2002, “Modeling and Optimization of Rapid
Prototyping,” Comput. Ind., 47(1), pp. 39–53.
[9] Arni, R., and Gupta, S. K., 2001, “Manufacturability Analysis of Flatness Toler-
ances in Solid Freeform Fabrication,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 123(1),
pp. 148–56.
[10] Paul, R., and Anand, S., 2011, “Optimal Part Orientation in Rapid Manufactur-
ing Process for Achieving Geometric Tolerances,” J. Manuf. Syst., 30(4),
pp. 214–222.
[11] Clijsters, S., Craeghs, T., Moesen, M., and Kruth, J.-P., 2012, “Optimization of
Thin Wall Structures in SLM,” Fraunhofer Additive Manufacturing Alliance,
Direct Digital Manufacturing Conference, Berlin, March 14–15.
[12] Penga, L., Shengqinb, J., Xiaoyanb, Z., Qianwub, H., and Weihaoc, Z., 2007,
“Direct Laser Fabrication of Thin-Walled Metal Parts Under Open-Loop Con-
trol,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf., 47(6), pp. 996–1002.
[13] Shwe, P. S., 2012, “Quantitative Analysis on SLS Part Curling Using EOS
P700 Machine,” J. Mater. Process. Technol., 212(12), pp. 2433–2442.
[14] 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.
[15] Allen, S., and Dutta, D., 1995, “Determination and Evaluation of Support Struc-
tures in Layered Manufacturing,” J. Des. Manuf., 5(3), pp. 153–162.
[16] Cloots, M., Spierings, A., and Wegener, K., 2013, “Assessing New Support
Minimizing Stratergies for the Additive Manufacturing Technology SLM,”
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, Texas, pp. 631–643.
[17] Paul, R., and Anand, S., 2014, “Optimization of Layered Manufacturing Pro-
cess for Reducing Form Errors With Minimal Support Structures,” J. Manuf.
Syst., 36, pp. 231–243.
[18] Strano, G., Hao, L., Everson, R. M., and Evans, K. E., 2013, “A New Approach
to the Design and Optimisation of Support Structures in Additive Man-
ufacturing,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 66(9), pp. 1247–1254.
[19] Vayre, B., Vignat, F., and Villeneuve, F., 2012, “Designing for Additive Man-
ufacturing,” Procedia CIRP, 3, pp. 632–637.
[20] Ponche, R., Kerbrat, O., Mognol, P., and Hascoet, J.-Y., 2014, “A Novel Meth-
odology of Design for Additive Manufacturing Applied to Additive Laser Man-
ufacturing Process,” Rob. Comput.-Integr. Manuf., 30(4), pp. 389–398.
[21] Klahn, C., Leutenecker, B., and Meboldt, M., 2014, “Design for Additive
Manufacturing-Supporting the Substitution of Components in Series Products,”
Procedia CIRP, 21, pp. 138–143.
[22] 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 Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, pp. 921–931.
[23] Adam, G. A. O., and Zimmer, D., 2014, “Design for Additive Manufacturing—
Element Transitions and Aggregated Structures,” CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol.,
7(1), pp. 20–28.
[24] Kerbrat, O., Mognol, P., and Hascoet, J.-Y., 2011, “A New DFM Approach to
Combine Machining and Additive Manufacturing,” Comput. Ind., 62(7),
pp. 684–692.
[25] Rosen, D. W., 2007, “Computer-Aided Design for Additive Manufacturing of
Cellular Structures,” Comput.-Aided Des. Appl., 4(5), pp. 585–594.
[26] Joshi, S., and Chang, T. C., 1998, “Graph Based Heuristics for Recognition of
Machined Features From 3D Solid Model,” Comput.-Aided Des., 20(2), pp. 58–66.
JUNE 2017, Vol. 139 / 061007-13
[27] Lockett, H. L., and Guenov, M. D., 2005, “Graph-Based Feature Recognition
for Injection Moulding Based on a Mid-Surface Approach,” Comput.-Aided
Des., 37(2), pp. 251–262.
[28] Gershenson, J., and Prasad, G., 1997, “Modularity in Product Design for Man-
ufacturability,” Int. J. Agile Manuf., 1(1), pp. 99–110.
[29] Changchien, S., and Lin, L., 1996, “A Knowledge-Based Design Critique Sys-
tem for Manufacture and Assembly of Rotational Machined Parts in Concurrent
Engineering,” Comput. Ind., 32(2), pp. 117–140.
[30] Huang, S., Zhang, H., and Oldham, W., 1997, “Tolerance Analysis for Setup
Planning: A Graph Theoretical Approach,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 35(4),
pp. 1107–1124.
[31] Brunetti, G., and Golob, B., 2000, “A Feature-Based Approach Towards an
Integrated Product Model Including Conceptual Design Information,” Comput.-
Aided Des., 32(14), pp. 877–887.
[32] Liu, X.-J., 2012, “Modeling of Additive Manufacturing Process Relevant Fea-
ture in Layer Based Manufacturing Process Planning,” J. Shanghai Jiaotong
Univ. (Sci.), 17(2), pp. 241–244.
[33] Bendsøe, M. P., and Kikuchi, N., 1988, “Generating Optimal Topologies in
Structural Design Using a Homogenization Method,” Comput. Methods Appl.
Mech. Eng., 71(2), pp. 197–224.
[34] Bendsøe, M. P., and Sigmund, O., 2003, Topology Optimization: Theory,
Method and Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg.
[35] Zhou, M., Fleury, R., Shyy, Y., Thomas, H., and Brennan, J., 2002, “Progress
in Topology Optimization With Manufacturing Constraints,” 9th AIAA/ISSMO
Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Atlanta, GA,
Sept. 4–6, Paper No. AIAA 2002-5614.
[36] Guest, J., Prevost, J., and Belytschko, T., 2004, “Achieving
Minimum Length Scale in Topology Optimization Using Nodal Design Varia-
bles and Projection Functions,”. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng., 61(2),
pp. 238–254.
061007-14 / Vol. 139, JUNE 2017
[37] Brackett, D., Ashcroft, I., and Hague, R., 2011, “Topology Optimization For
Additive Manufacturing,” 24th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, pp. 6–8.
[38] Gaynor, T. A., Meisel, N. A., Williams, C. B., and Guest, J. K., 2014,
“Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing: Considering Maximum
Overhang Constraint,” 15th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Opti-
mization Conference, Atlanta, GA, Jne 16–20, Paper No. AIAA 2014-2036.
[39] Mirzendehdel, A. M., and Suresh, K., 2016, “Support Structure Constrained
Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing,” Comput. Aided Des., 81,
pp. 1–13.
Downloaded from https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/manufacturingscience/article-pdf/139/6/061007/6273437/manu_139_06_061007.pdf by Velammal College OF Engineering & Techology user on 21 December 2019
[40] Langelaar, M., 2016, “Topology Optimization of 3D Self-Supporting Structures
for Additive Manufacturing,” Addit. Manuf., 12(Part A), pp. 60–70.
[41] Wang, M., and Qian, X., 2015, “Efficient Filtering in Topology Optimization
Via B-Splines,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 137(3), p. 031402.
[42] Mercelis, P., and Kruth, J.-P., 2006, “Residual Stresses in Selective Laser Sin-
tering and Selective Laser Melting,” Rapid Prototyping J., 12(5), pp. 254–265.
[43] Jacobson, D. M., and Bennett, G., 2006, “Practical Issues in the Application of
Direct Metal Laser Sintering,” Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin,
TX, Aug. 14–16, pp. 728–739.
[44] Hussein, A., Hao, L., Yan, C., Everson, R., and Young, P., 2013, “Advanced
Lattice Support Structures for Metal Additive Manufacturing,” J. Mater. Pro-
cess. Technol., 213(7), pp. 1019–1026.
[45] Krol, T. A., Zaehb, M. F., and Seidela, C., 2012, “Optimization of Supports in
Metal-Based Additive Manufacturing by Means of Finite Element Models,”
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, pp. 707–718.
[46] Topçu, O., Taşcıo €
glu, Y., and Unver, € 2011, “A Method for Slicing CAD
H. O.,
Models in Binary STL Format,” 6th International Advanced Technologies Sym-
posium, Elazıg, Turkey, May, 16–18, pp. 141–145.
[47] Zhou, M., and Rozvany, G., 1991, “The Algorithm, C. O. C.,—Part II: Topolo-
gical,Geometrical and Generalized Shape Optimization,” Comput. Methods
Appl. Mech. Eng., 89(1–3), pp. 309–336.
Transactions of the ASME