International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14, Number 14, 2019 (Special Issue)

© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

DESIGN FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING - A REVIEW

Francis Xavier Joseph

MTech scholar, Department of Mechanical Engineering,

Amal Jyothi College of Engineering,
Kanjirappally, Pin - 686518, Kerala.

Abstract AM no longer can be considered as a process to be utilized

Design for manufacturing involves the practice of designing
products to reduce manufacturing difficulties and cost, by
optimizing the component for a particular manufacturing
process. Design for additive manufacturing (DFAM) intents
to design a part for additive manufacturing to obtain the
advantages additive manufacturing offers by reduction in cost
of production. DFAM allows the product to be visualized as a
function which is intended to be performed with the only
constraint being the size of the product. The advantage of
additive manufacturing cannot be extracted to the fullest
extend if DFAM is not utilized. As additive manufacturing
processes are expensive compared to conventional processes
the cost advantage can be achieved only through savings in
material and reduced cycle time for production. Since the time
required to manufacture a product by additive manufacturing
is directly related to the amount of material required to
produce the part, the objective of cost savings can be achieved
only when lesser amount of material is consumed. The
objective can be achieved by utilizing topology optimization.
Topology optimization existed even before additive
manufacturing came into existence as a commercial
manufacturing process. But the ease with which optimization
can be performed increased with the increase in computing
power and speed. A study categorized DFAM for three
categories, manufacturing, assembly and performance. The
main objective is to meet the desired mechanical properties
with minimum material and thereby minimizing the cost of
product. This study summarizes the DFAM guidance rules
which are qualitative and quantitative in nature. The
qualitative ones are comparable to traditional DFM rules by
Boothroyd and Dewhurst. Different design rules framed by
different authors have been studied to find a consensus
converging towards achieving a primary design objective.
Key words: Design for additive manufacturing, DFAM,
Optimization, Additive manufacturing
Introduction
Design rules have been framed by practicing designers based
on their experience in AM which focused on the printability
of the part designed rather than utilizing the unique
capabilities of AM. The rules framed were generic
considering all AM processes as a separate group of
manufacturing process [22].
But each AM processes are unique since the underlying
physics of the process in creating the part layer by layer is
different in each process. It also depends to a greater extend
on the material used in creating the desired part layer by layer.
only for prototyping, since companies have started utilizing it
for small scale production of critical components. The word
critical can be elaborated as criticality of the design of the part
which cannot be produced by any of the traditional
manufacturing process. In some cases the criticality can be
considered as the time and cost involved in producing the part
which is not possible economically by any traditional
processes. It has to be remembered that since the legacy of
traditional manufacturing dates back to more than 100 years
and they are very much cost effective in a mass production
setup.
It is not possible to efficiently design components if the
sensitivities of the process are clearly understood, hence the
DFAM is not an optional but a mandatory knowledge to be
acquired by designers utilizing AM capabilities in their design
[22].
Design for manufacturing intents to design a component to
reduce the manufacturing difficulties and cost associated with
the production of the part. Design for additive manufacturing
helps to design a part which can be effectively manufactured
utilizing AM capabilities to the best possible extend knowing
the limitations of AM process [22].
DFAM strategies
Yang and Zhao proposed that DFAM can be categorized for
manufacturing, assembly and performance. They also
proposed three categories of AM related design methods
comprising general design guidelines, modified conventional
design theories and methodologies and DFAM. The focus of
their analysis was in attaining the desired mechanical
properties by optimization of the structure of the component
[36].
Kumke, Watschke, and Vietor (2016) classified DFAM
guidance into two categories based on their main purpose and
application, and named them as ‘DFAM in the strict sense’
and ‘DFAM in the broad sense’. ‘DFAM in the broad sense’
refers to guidance which are not directly related to the design
process itself such as selecting the appropriate AM process.
On the other hand ‘DFAM in the strict sense’ includes ‘AM
design rules’ which ensures that parts are printable as well as
‘AM design potentials’ to take advantage of capabilities of
AM [15].
Jänsch and Birkhofer 2006 points out that research results in
designing are implemented in the design guidelines with the
intention of implementing them in practice. This has paved
way for the descriptions and guidelines of individual
designers to take a back seat. They also state the necessity for
science, industry und teaching in coming together to bridge

Page 16 of 21
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14, Number 14, 2019 (Special Issue)
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
the gap between the industry expectations and the design
research findings. This draws our attention to focus on actual
problems in industry so that the research findings can be
converted to concrete instructions to be included in the
guidelines [11].
Yang and Zhao 2015 presents specific design guidelines,
whereas Gibson, Rosen, and Stucker 2010 focused on AM
capabilities while Laverne et al. 2015 discusses about
‘opportunistic DFAM’ [37].
Rosen proposes to use cellular structures in his design strategy
which links functional requirements to part properties [28].
Ponche et al. states a methodology which begins with the
definition of functional and empty volumes. This is followed
by establishing minimum and maximum part dimensions.
Minimum part dimensions are the smallest dimensions needed
to contain all functional volumes. Maximum dimension takes
into consideration the proposed use of the part like their fit in
an assembly or mobility requirements desired for the products
use. Now the constraints related to functional and empty
volumes are used for screening suitable processes and
materials [24].
Adam and Zimmer (2015) and Kranz, Herzog, and
Emmelmann (2015) presented a set of detailed rules to
identify feature types in relation to their dimensions. These
feature level rules ensures printability but it doesn’t ensure the
conceptual optimality of the part as desired [1].
Almost all studies distinguish between two different types of
design guidance: The potential of AM which relates to the
qualitative capabilities of the process and the printability of
the part which is quantitative in nature focusing on the
component features and the constraints of AM [22].
While most of the guidelines are generic in nature, Rosen,
2007 proposed a biomimetic approach and Salonitis (2016)
proposed an axiomatic design method to improve current
design approach for AM. The former is based on process-
structure-property-behavior model which is common in the
materials design community. Axiomatic design method
utilizes a zigzag decomposition keeping in mind two
fundamental design axioms, the independence axiom where
each functional requirement has to be independent and the
information axiom which intends to select the design
alternative which has minimum information content. This
method takes into account the manufacturing capabilities and
limitations of the process under consideration [28, 29].
These rules tend to apply at the detail design stage to optimize
the products geometric features and dimensions according to
the capability of the specific AM process [22].
R. Ponche, et al. designed a process-independent global
approach which combines process characteristics with
functional specifications and context stating what needs to be
optimized. He defines new part designs by defining functional
surfaces and then volumes of a part and empty volumes that
will be occupied by other parts. A drawback of this method is
that material and process have to be selected before applying
the method since these information were mandatory during
the design synthesis phase [25].
Kumke et al. developed a DFAM framework which combine
the general procedure for systematic design with DFAM
methods and tools. This provides guidance to the designer
Page 17 of 21
enabling them a framework to proceed from a design problem
to design solution [15].
Rias et al. proposed a 5 stages ‘creative DFAM’ based on AM
design features database mostly intended to be used in early
design stages [26].
G. Sossou et al. 2017 proposes a top down assembly design
methodology for AM. This approach provides guidance in
defining the product architecture considering printability and
functional requirements. In printability downstream process
characteristics such as build orientation is taken into account
in the design process. On the other hand functional
requirements ensures effective functional flow of energy,
material or signal as desired while the objective is to
minimize material and cost. The proposed approach is
structured in three main stages comprising of functional
analysis, derivation of components control structures and
design of components geometries [30].
Research efforts in DFAM can be classified into three major
groups: design recommendations, methodologies and tools,
and design procedures. The recommendations are derived
from the results of empirical studies. They include part shape
and dimensions, manufacturing orientation, etc [30]. G. A. O.
Adam, D. Zimmer, in a German project ‘Direct manufacturing
design rule’ provides the basis for other studies framing
design rules. G. A. O. Adam, D. Zimmer, D. Thomas, J.
Kranz, has noted that the design rules framed from
experiments are AM process and material specific [2, 14, 30,
31].
Gibson et al. states that DfAM should maximize product
performance through the synthesis of shapes, sizes,
hierarchical structures and material compositions, subject to
the capabilities of AM technologies [7].
B. Vayre et al. propose that a component can be defined by a
set of functional surfaces, a clearing volume and a specified
behavior. The functional surfaces helps to serve the function
intended like assembling to other parts or to transfer
mechanical/thermal loads and/or fluid tightness. The clearing
volume helps the part to prevent from colliding with other
parts and to allow fluid transfer through. The specified
behavior can be mechanical, thermal or multi-physics [36].
The designer has to start by defining functional surfaces. Then
the surfaces are linked to attain the specified behavior. The
choice of initial shape can be based on guidelines, expert-
based or by automation utilizing topological optimization
[36].
Any of the product’s components can be characterized by
functional interfaces, possible flows getting through and the
design space collectively known as control structures (CS).
The whole product is designed by connecting the functional
interfaces, allowing adequate conveyance of flows while
staying within the prescribed design space and considering the
specific AM process constraints [30].
Manufacturing capabilities
B. Vayre et al. states that layer based processes need a plane
surface to start the manufacture whereas direct material
deposition processes can deposit material on metallic substrate
of complex geometries [36].
In direct material deposition to minimize acceleration and
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14, Number 14, 2019 (Special Issue)
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

deceleration stages of nozzle movements sharp corners should availability and printing cost [22].
be avoided in design. But in case of EBM there is no need for Ullman states that most of the material in a component is used
minimum fillet radii. The only constraint is that the minimal to connect the functional interfaces and hence are not
wall thickness should be larger than the voxel size [36]. dimensionally critical [34].
Goutier and Ashby proposes to use screening and ranking
steps, for both material and process selection {3, 41].
T.H.J. Vaneker suggests that to assess the use of AM, the
possible implication of including AM in all stages in a product
development have to be considered [35].
It has been reported that laser based processes consumes 50-
100 times more electrical energy than injection moulding. It
has also been observed that by orienting the part to minimum
build height reduces energy consumption for powder bed
process [35].
Figure 1: Functional interface effect on design spaces [30]
Lattice structure and topology optimization
M. P. Bendsoe and O. Sigmund, in their book titled ‘Topology
Manufacturing constraints
Optimization: Theory, Methods, and Applications, states
The major limiting factor in considering AM for making parts
topology optimization as a numerical method optimizes matter
is the lack of knowledge in successfully designing printable
distribution within a defined design space, under a set of
components and complete utilization of AM capabilities [22].
specified boundary conditions, loads and constraints [42].
Kim states that support structures, surface quality,
L. J. Gibson and M. F. Ashby in their book ‘Cellular Solids:
curling/warping, minimal feature sizes, shape accuracy,
Structure and Properties’, states that lattice structures are
resolution and anisotropy directly relate to the buildable
numerically generated truss like structures with high strength
geometry for certain processes [12].
to weight ratios, good energy absorption, thermal and acoustic
B. Vayre et al. states that to properly utilise the advantage of
insulation characteristics. They are utilized at detail design
AM specific manufacturing capabilities and constraints have
stage on a part which may be topologically optimized or not to
to be taken into account during DFAM. They identified two
improve a specific performance [43].
main manufacturing constraints which are that the nozzle
Emmelmann, et al. states that while topological optimization
must stay parallel to the vertical axis and the speed of
results in theoretical best solutions their manufacture may still
deposition which gives the height of the deposited material.
have issues like too much support, enclosed spaces, etc. [5].
Heat dissipation is the biggest constraint in all layer based
Zegard and Paulino have developed a tool to support their
processes [36].
proposed method which creates AM ready topology optimized
Tools such as topological optimization tend to focus on
part where support elimination is considered as a constraint to
mechanical requirements such as strength and stiffness and
the TO algorithm [39].
neglect other important aspects such as maintenance and
A.Hadi, et al. reviewed different types of lattice structures and
cleaning ability. There is also a need for guidance at early
utilized them in developing a computational tool to generate
stage of design to generate innovative concepts that results in
them [8].
cost effective product solutions utilizing AM capabilities [22].
Fuel nozzle for leap engine from GE is a best example to
Tomiyama et al. 2009 suggests that prescriptive type design
consider for part consolidation where 855 components were
methods find limited application in industrial context mainly
reduced to just a dozen ones [35].
due to the lack of approach specific to the machine and
Topology optimization using numerical methods performed
process used in industry. However large corporations which
by computer determines optimal geometry for the part under
have rigid processes in-house tend to utilise them in their own
consideration based on a set of constraints. To achieve this the
design methods and processes [33].
solution space is divided into small elements and the solution
D. E. Whitney, in his book titled ‘Mechanical assemblies their
algorithm is applied along with the constraints to determine
design, manufacture, and role in product development’
which elements are part of final product and which are not
suggested that consideration of DFAM from an assembly
[35].
perspective would result in a wider adoption of AM in
Lindeman among other utilizes topology optimization for
industries [40].
weight reduction in airplanes. This helps to reduce wear and
When considering assemblies the main concern is about the
increase efficiency due to lesser number of parts involved. He
clearance gaps desired to ensure the desired fit needed for the
also states that existing DFAM strategies are based on early
assembly and avoiding support structures and unprocessed
selection of both AM process and material and proposes an
material within these gaps. It has been found that it is easy to
approach which delays this choice allowing designers to test
remove unprocessed material from the gap than to remove
generic applicability of AM [19].
cured support structure [30].

Selecting an AM process
There most important factors to consider while selecting an
AM process over another are process capability, machine

Page 18 of 21
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14, Number 14, 2019 (Special Issue)
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
Figure 2: Design strategies proposed by Lindeman. Top left:
CAD remodeling of TO results. Top right: CAD modelling
using design rules for AM (no TO). Bottom left: Use of TO
and standard CAD features. Bottom right: Combination of
TO, CAD features and design rules [19]
Mirzendehdel et al. observed that standard use of TO
strategies utilize mechanical constraints which may result in
parts which are difficult to be optimally produced even using
AM. They proposed a TO variant which includes the AM
process constraints. It balances weight reduction along with
low level of support materials to achieve a topology optimized
part [20].
Figure 3: TO focusing on both weight reduction and the
reduction of the use of support structures. a: Design based on
TO without constraints on the support structures. b: The
updated design [20].
B. Vayre et al. recommends to use lattice structures along
with topology optimization rather than using the former alone
sine the combination proved to be an optimal choice the part
considered for their study [36].
Parametric optimization
In AM, manufacturing duration, raw material consumption,
energy utilization and global cost are all linked to the part
volume [36].
Page 19 of 21
Current parametric optimization methods involve performing
empirical studies which focus on optimization of the response
variable under consideration.
Shape validation
Availing an optimised part for AM can be achieved by
minimizing material usage and the manufacturability can be
validated by direct manufacture of the parts [36].
So there lies a research gap facilitating the development of
strategies to build an efficient software that will perform
virtual shape validation thereby eliminating the need for
actual printing to check the manufacturability of the part
designed.
Conclusion
Different types of DFAM strategies are reviewed and it is
found that most of them provide a set of generic rules to abide
by while designing. Since each AM process is different from
other these generalized rules are difficult to be practiced in
industry at machine level. Many industries follow their own
DFAM strategies developed from their experience. There is
consensus among different authors related to the work flow
which has to begin by defining functional interfaces and then
connecting the interfaces to achieve the desired material/fluid
flow. The necessity to define minimum and maximum
dimension of a part is explained. Most DFAM methodologies
are devised to be applied at detail design stage while two
methodologies have been found to be utilized even at
conceptual design stage. There exists a need for collaboration
between science, research and industry to produce guidelines
which can be utilised directly in industries and in design soft
wares. To utilize AM to its fullest capability lattice structures
has to be used along with topology optimization
References
[1] G. A. O. Adam, D. Zimmer, 2015. “On Design for
Additive Manufacturing: Evaluating Geometrical
Limitations.” Rapid Prototyping Journal 21 (6): 662–670.
[2] G. A. O. Adam, D. Zimmer, Design for additive
manufacturing-Element transitions and aggregated structures,
CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology 7 (1)
(2014) 20-28.
[3] Ashby, M., Shercliff, H., & Cebon, D. (2010). Materials
engineering, science, processing and design (second ed.):
Elsevier.
[4] S. Bin Maidin, I. Campbell, E. Pei, Development of a
design feature database to support design for additive
manufacturing, Assembly Automation 32 (3) (2012) 235-244.
[5] Emmelmann C., Sander P., Kranz J., Wycisk E., 2011.
Laser Additive Manufacturing and Bionics: Redefining
Lightweight Design, Physics Procedia, 12, Part A364-368.
[6] A. T. Gaynor, J. K. Guest, Topology optimization
considering overhang constraints: Eliminating sacrificial
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14, Number 14, 2019 (Special Issue)
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com
support material in additive manufacturing through design,
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 54 (5) (2016)
1157-1172.
[7] Gibson, I., D. W. Rosen, and B. Stucker. 2010. Additive
Manufacturing Technologies: Rapid Prototyping to Direct
Digital Manufacturing. 1st ed.School of Engineering, Deakin
University VIC, Australia. New York: Springer.
[8] A. Hadi, F. Vignat, F. Villeneuve, Design Configurations
and Creation of Lattice Structures for Metallic Additive
Manufacturing, in: 14e Colloque National AIP PRIMECA, La
Plagne, France, 2015.
[9] Hague, R. J. M., I. Campbell, and P. Dickens. 2003.
“Implications on Design of Rapid Manufacturing.” In
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part
C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science (Vol. 217, pp.
25–30)
[10] Hietikko, E. 2014. Design for Additive Manufacturing –
DFAM. ESA. Loughborough: Loughborough University.
[11] Jänsch, J., and H. Birkhofer. 2006. “The Development of
the Guideline VDI 2221 - The Change of Direction.”
International Design Conference - DESIGN 2006, 45–52.
[12] Kim, G. D., & Oh, Y. T. (2008). A benchmark study on
rapid prototyping processes and machines: quantitative
comparisons of mechanical properties, accuracy, roughness,
speed, and material cost. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 222(2), 201-215.
[13] Klahn, C., B. Leutenecker, and M. Meboldt. 2015.
“Design Strategies for the Process of Additive
Manufacturing.” Procedia CIRP 36: 230–235.
[14] Kranz, J., D. Herzog, and C. Emmelmann. 2015. “Design
Guidelines for Laser Additive Manufacturing of Lightweight
Structures in TiAl6V4.” Journal of Laser Applications 27
(S1): S14001.
[15] Kumke, M., H. Watschke, and T. Vietor. 2016. “A New
Methodological Framework for Design for Additive
Manufacturing.” Virtual and Physical Prototyping 11 (1): 3–
19.
[16] Laverne, F., F. Segonds, N. Anwer, and M. Le Coq.
2015. “Assembly Based Methods to Support Product
Innovation in Design for Additive Manufacturing: An
Exploratory Case Study.” Journal of Mechanical Design 137
(12): 121701.
[17] Leutenecker-Twelsiek, B., C. Klahn, and M. Meboldt.
2015. Indicators and Design Strategies for Direct Part
Production by Additive Manufacturing. ICED 2015, (July), 1–
10.
Page 20 of 21
[18] Lindemann, C., and R. Koch. 2016. “Cost Efficient
Design and Planning for Additive Manufacturing
Technologies.” In Solid Freeform Fabrication 2016:
Proceedings of the 27th Annual International (pp. 93–112).
[19] Lindeman C. Towards a sustainable and economic
selection of part candidates for Additive Manufacturing.
Rapid prototyping Journal.
[20] Mirzendehdel A., Suresh K., Support structure
constrained topology optimization for additive manufacturing.
Computer-Aided Design Volume 81, December 2016, Pages
1–13.
[21] G. Pahl, W. Beitz, J. Feldhusen, K.-H. Grote,
Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, 3rd Edition,
Vol. 157, Springer-Verlag London, 2007.
[22] 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.
[23] Paul R., Anand S., 2011. Optimal part orientation in
Rapid Manufacturing process for achieving geometric
tolerances, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 30(4): 214-
222.
[24] R. Ponche, O. Kerbrat, P. Mognol, J. Y. Hascoet, A novel
methodology of design for additive manufacturing applied to
additive laser manufacturing process, Robotics and Computer
Integrated Manufacturing 30 (4) (2014) 389-398.
[25] R. Ponche, J. Y. Hascoet, O. Kerbrat, P. Mognol, A new
global approach to design for additive manufacturing, Virtual
and Physical Prototyping 7 (2) (2012) 93-105.
[26] A.-l. Rias, C. Bouchard, F. Segonds, S. Abed, Design for
additive manufacturing: a creative approach, in: DS 84:
Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 14th International Design
Conference, 2016.
[27] Reinhart G., Teufelhart S., 2011. Load-Adapted Design
of Generative Manufactured Lattice Structures, Physics
Procedia, 12, Part A385-392.
[28] Rosen, D. W. (2007). Computer-Aided Design for
Additive Manufacturing of Cellular Structures. Computer
Aided Design & Applications, 4(5), 585-594.
[29] Salonitis K., and Al Zarban S., (2015) "Redesign
Optimization for Manufacturing Using Additive Layer
Techniques", Procedia CIRP, Vol. 36, 193-198.
[30] G. Sossou, F. Demoly, G. Montavon, S. Gomes, An
additive manufacturing oriented design approach to
mechanical assemblies, Journal of Computational Design and
Engineering (2017).
International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 Volume 14, Number 14, 2019 (Special Issue)
© Research India Publications. http://www.ripublication.com

[31] D. Thomas, The development of design rules for

selective laser melting, Ph.D. thesis (2009).

[32] Thompson, M. K., G. Moroni, T. Vaneker, G. Fadel, R. I.

Campbell, I. Gibson, A. Bernard, et al. 2016. “Design for
Additive Manufacturing: Trends, Opportunities,
Considerations, and Constraints.” CIRP Annals-
Manufacturing Technology 65 (2): 737–760.

[33] Tomiyama, T., P. Gu, Y. Jin, D. Lutters, C. Kind, and F.

Kimura. 2009. “Design Methodologies: Industrial and
Educational Applications.” CIRP Annals - Manufacturing
Technology 58 (2): 543–565.

[34] D. Ullman, The Mechanical Design Process, 4th Edition,

McGraw-Hill series in mechanical engineering, McGraw-Hill
Education, 2009.

[35] T.H.J. Vaneker, The role of Design for Additive

Manufacturing in the successful economical introduction of
AM, Procedia CIRP 60 (2017) 181 – 186.

[36] B. Vayre, F. Vignat, F. Villeneuve, Designing for

Additive Manufacturing, Procedia CIRP 3 (2012) 632 – 637.

[37] Yang, S., and Y. F. Zhao. 2015. “Additive

Manufacturing-Enabled Design Theory and Methodology: A
Critical Review.” International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 80 (1–4): 327–342.

[38] S. Yang, Y. F. Zhao, Conceptual design for assembly in

the context of additive manufacturing, in: Solid Freeform
Fabrication 2016: Proceedings of the 26th Annual
International.

[39] T. Zegard, G. H. Paulino, Bridging topology optimization

and additive manufacturing, Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization 53 (1) (2015) 175-192.

[40] D. E. Whitney, Mechanical assemblies their design,

manufacture, and role in product development, Oxford series
on advanced manufacturing, Oxford University Press, New
York, 2004.

[41] Goutier, M. Implementing additive manufacturing in a

product life cycle. Master Assignment thesis. University of
Twente.; 2014.

[42] M. P. Bends_e, O. Sigmund, Topology Optimization:

Theory, Methods, and Applications, 2nd Edition, Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2004.

[43] L. J. Gibson, M. F. Ashby, Cellular Solids: Structure and

Properties, 2nd Edition, Cambridge Solid State Science Series,
Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Page 21 of 21
conceptual structural design, additive manufacturing, rapid prototyping, structural load testing While computational tools for conceptual
design are valuable, working for achieving geometric complexity, its speed, and its automatic nature. Manufacturing and Materials
Processing. Review. Support Structures for Additive Manufacturing: A Review Jingchao Jiang , Xun Xu. The article will then review the
differing strategies for support manufacturing technique. The article will then review the differing strategies for support structure
structure try these to relate these between manufacturing technologies, generationgeneration and try toand relate between different
different additive additive manufacturing technologies, and the and the established underlying process. [13]: a manufacturing driven
design strategy to allow a substitution of manufacturing processes at a later stage of the product life cycle, and a function driven design
strategy to increase the product performance. More recently, a methodology to standardize design rules from AM by decomposing
fundamental geometry, process and material relationships into reusable modules, was proposed in Ref. The aim of this paper is to
review and analyse the design for Additive Manufacturing strategies, in particular for the FDM process. From this review and analysis, a
new comprehensive set of DfAM strategies are proposed based on the operation principle, materials, capabilities and limitations of
existing FDM technologies, and on the analysis of existing studies in the literature. Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies have
resulted in significant changes to the way we design by enabling early prototyping of complex components. But the uptake of these new
production methods beyond prototyping and small scale production remains slow. Good design can greatly simplify the process of
manufacturing a product, resulting in significant reductions in cost and assembly time. We can help by running hands-on, in-house
workshops with your design and engineering teams. These typically last two days, during which time we review your product design and
assembly processes and identify areas for improvement. Find out more.