Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 159–166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Additive Manufacturing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/addma

Full Length Article

Introduction to the design rules for Metal Big Area Additive Manufacturing T
a,⁎ b b b b b
Clayton Greer , Andrzej Nycz , Mark Noakes , Brad Richardson , Brian Post , Thomas Kurfess ,
Lonnie Loveb
a
Georgia Institute of Technology, George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, 801 Ferst Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30332, United States
b
Manufacturing Demonstration Facility, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2370 Cherahala Blvd NTRC-2, Knoxville, TN 37932, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Wire feed metal additive manufacturing offers advantages, such as large build volumes and high build rates, over
Design for Additive Manufacturing powder bed and blown powder techniques, but it has its own disadvantages, i.e., lower feature resolution and
Metal Big Area Additive Manufacturing bead morphology control issues. A new wire feed metal additive manufacturing process called Metal Big Area
Arc Weld Deposition Additive Manufacturing (mBAAM) uses a Gas Metal Arc Weld system on an articulated robot arm to increase
Topology Optimization
build volume and deposition rate in comparison to powder bed techniques. The high deposition rate implies a
low-resolution process; therefore, parts designed for mBAAM must incorporate the use of machining to achieve
certain features. This paper presents an introduction to how design rules, such as overhang constraint, large weld
bead thickness, and support structure, for mBAAM interact in the context of an excavator arm case study, which
was designed using topology optimization.

1. Introduction
Metal additive manufacturing, commonly referred to as metal 3D
printing, is developing into a common technique for manufacturing low
run, high value, and complex components. The majority of metal ad-
ditive manufacturing technology employs small build volume powder
fusion systems where the advantage is high feature resolution. In con-
trast, wire feed additive manufacturing (AM) increases the deposition
rate and build volume at the cost of lower feature resolution. This inverse
relationship, assuming equal welding speeds, is a natural consequence of
using larger weld beads (the deposited material) to reduce the number of
layers needed to fabricate a component. Wire feed processes are thus
suited for rapidly fabricating large, structural components.
1.1. mBAAM
A gas metal arc welding (GMAW)-based metal additive manu-
facturing technique called Metal Big Area Additive Manufacturing
(mBAAM) has been developed to extend the usability of metal additive
manufacturing for industry by reducing operating and consumable costs
as compared to other large build volume systems [1]. mBAAM uses a
GMAW torch mounted to a servo-controlled, articulated robot arm.
Research and development in wire feed metal deposition is as old as
powder bed fusion techniques, but industry has not accepted wire feed
techniques due to process control issues such as bead morphology [2].
mBAAM differs from other wire feed processes such as laser and
electron beam power sources by eliminating the need for a fully evac-
uated or inert environment since the torch provides local shield gas to
the build. The arc welding torch and power supply are also simpler to
maintain and substantially less expensive than lasers or electron beams.
Conversely, laser and electron beam power sources offer more control
over heat input, which is used to prevent over-melting.
The design methodology for high deposition rate processes such as
mBAAM are different from Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) processes such as
Selective Laser Melting and Electron Beam Melting. PBF processes melt
and fuse successive layers of powdered metals or metal alloys to generate
three dimensional objects. The layered manufacturing technique uses
tightly focused directed energy and thin layers to produce complex geo-
metries that could not be made using machining, forging, or casting. This
reduces the total number of components and fasteners for an application,
which is attractive for reliability and maintainability in industry.
1.2. Excavator case study
The design flowchart for mBAAM is incorporated into a case study
to design and build an excavator arm using mBAAM. The goal is to
recreate the functionality, not necessarily the geometry, of the ex-
cavator arm. Thus, topology optimization, a finite element analysis-
based structural optimization tool, is used to re-imagine how a struc-
tural component used for digging could be made using mBAAM. The

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cgreer3@gatech.edu (C. Greer).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.02.016
Received 13 November 2018; Received in revised form 17 February 2019; Accepted 25 February 2019
Available online 25 February 2019
2214-8604/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier B.V.
C. Greer, et al.
design rules are applied to the structurally optimized arm in order to
build a functional arm using mBAAM and post-machining – with no
other tooling needed.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the process
physics and design rules for mBAAM. Section 3 introduces the case
study featuring the design optimization and fabrication of a full-scale
5.5-ton excavator arm. Section 4 presents the results of printing the
excavator, and finally, Section 5 presents the relevant conclusions.
2. Background
mBAAM design rules are dictated by the process physics. The major
design considerations, which are explored in Section 2.2, are the
overhang constraint, large bead thicknesses, lack of easily removable
support structures, and print direction. The physical processes gov-
erning the reasons for these design rules are now explained.
2.1. Overhangs
The overhang constraint is a result of two factors. The first factor is
torch orientation. While welding can be performed in many different
orientations, automatically planning the torch orientation in a
Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM) package is difficult [3]. Com-
plicated robotic toolpaths are common in high production environ-
ments in the welding industry, but programming the process is time
consuming and complex. The development time is justified by the
amount of use the toolpath routine sees. Conversely, complex, low-run
jobs such as welding ship panels are typically done using manual
welding. Initiatives such as the Computer Aided Robotics – for Welding
(CAR-W) project are seeking to increase the development speed of
toolpath planning for ship building and other applications [4]. Simi-
larly, additive manufacturing hinges its success on custom designs on-
demand, so a robust, automatic path planning technique is a must for
the future of arc weld deposition techniques, as well as all wire feed
techniques. For mBAAM, the orientation of the torch to the workpiece is
currently fixed to simplify the programming.
The second factor for the overhang constraint is the tendency of the
molten weld pool to overflow a thin wall when the substrate tem-
perature is too high. The viscosity of molten metals and alloys is low at
the temperatures encountered in welding. If the substrate temperature
is too high, the weld metal can flow over the side of the thin, molten
wall [5]. Filler wire selections play a role in the potential for overflow,
as well. For example, increasing silicon content in a steel wire increases
the fluidity of the weld pool, making it easier for the weld pool to
overflow when the substrate is hot. Depositing on a steep angle (due to
fixed torch orientation) increases the potential for weld pool overflow.
Tests performed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory have shown that 15°
is a safe overhang angle that can be used without changing the torch
orientation. Steeper overhang angles are possible but were not reliable
for the print time durations needed for the excavator arm. The de-
posited metal can sag or run over the sides of the wall at steeper
overhang angles. Thus, the 15° overhang constraint was enforced for
the excavator work.
The need for machining to remove the support structures in mBAAM
is a consequence of using wire feed arc welding to deposit metallic
materials. The width of these two overlapped beads is nominally
12 mm, and any support structures needed to circumvent the 15°
overhang must be 12 mm thick steel walls, as well. Thus, any un-
necessary support structures require machining for effective removal.
The capabilities of machining, such as tool accessibility, must be con-
sidered when incorporating support structures. It should be noted that
the width of the walls, when considering the orientation of the arm
during printing, affected the walls, not the height, of the excavator arm.
The height of the arm was more important for maintaining the func-
tionality.
Powder Bed Fusion (PBF) techniques also use support structures to
160
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 159–166
Fig. 1. Material overhang associated with building on an angle θ.
prevent overhanging geometry from bending under its own weight so
that subsequent layers fail to make contact and bond to the previously
deposited layer. A schematic of layered material on an overhang is
shown in Fig. 1. As the overhang angle θ increases, each layer has more
unsupported material undergoing bending due to its own weight.
AM support structures are intended to be low strength and easily
removable while reducing the bending of a layer due to its own weight.
These supports are either thin lattices of the same material being de-
posited, or they are a different material that is either weaker or dis-
solvable in a solution after printing is complete. Hand tools and simple
power tools can remove supports used in many AM processes, but
mBAAM deposited the same size and composition weld bead at the time
of building the excavator arm. The overhang constraint in mBAAM is
dependent on the requirements of striking an electrical arc between the
electrode and workpiece as well as the potential for the molten steel in
the melt pool to flow over the sides of a wall. This overhang constraint
can be extended when changing the torch orientation, as filler wire
deposition is common in vertical positions in manual welding, but au-
tomatic tool orientation determination during toolpath generation is
not currently integrated with mBAAM.
2.2. Bead morphology
Bead thickness is another design consideration for mBAAM. Weld
bead morphology is a function of the wire feed rate, arc current, wire
offset, preheat and interpass temperatures, and torch speed [6,7]. The
design of a replacement component has to account for the likely dis-
crepancy between the original component’s designed wall thickness and
the wall thicknesses possible with mBAAM.
Controlling the bead morphology is a process control issue that must
be addressed in mBAAM. Weld bead geometry prediction has been
extensively explored [8–10], but AM requires extension of these
models. As volume is added in the deposition process, the thermal in-
ertia increases. This changes the thermal gradients and cooling rates,
which in turn affect residual stress and microstructure [11]. Adebayo
et al. [12] showed that for wire and arc AM, the bead height and width
without process control varies as more layers are added. As such, the
orientation of the part for printing an irregular shape is important to the
final mechanical properties, in addition to the previously mentioned
effect on geometry.
The print direction of a part is decided by considering all of these
physical factors. Avoiding sacrificial structure usage saves time, mate-
rial, and costs associated with removing the supports. Additionally, the
thermal conditions change with print direction. The resulting larger
thermal gradients from a cooler substrate induce thermal stresses that
may exceed the yield strength of the material, imparting a residual
stress in the part upon cooling. Selecting a print direction to use smaller
cross sections results in lower thermal gradients since the interpass
temperatures are higher due to the less time required to complete a
layer, which reduces residual stresses and warping. Some metal alloys
C. Greer, et al.
are prone to cracking or other defects if the preheat and interpass
temperatures are incorrect. The important parameters for determining
preheat and interpass temperatures are: alloy compositions of the
substrate and filler wire, heat input, electrode type, and thermal mass
[13,14]. This information can be used in conjunction with thermal
modeling to choose the print direction that will keep the interpass
temperatures in the acceptable range.
2.3. Design for mBAAM
The resolution of mBAAM is similar to a near-net shape casting, so
machining is required to meet precise dimension requirements.
Additionally, the overhang limit of 15° and low-resolution beads do not
permit infinitely complex geometry available through deposition alone.
mBAAM thus incorporates both design for machining and design for
additive manufacturing. Designing a part for mBAAM consists of de-
termining which orientation of the part will keep the most features
while minimizing the use post-process machining.
2.3.1. Feature classifications
Designing for a manufacturing process requires the identification of
features. Features can be defined as geometrical areas that share
properties distinct from the rest of the object, such as the faces of a cube
or a counterbore on a bolt hole. Features are the limiting factors in
whether the geometry of a given design can be fabricated or not.
Features in mBAAM have a different focus than, for example, ma-
chining or casting. Whereas common features in machining include
pockets, grooves, and face patterning, mBAAM features are overhangs
and cutouts.
All manufacturing processes have limitations, so designing a com-
ponent for a certain manufacturing process is an iterative process, and
mBAAM is no different. This paper introduces a flowchart for printing a
part with given geometry. The part is made up of features, and the size
and orientation of these features determine how the part is printed.
Depending on the orientation, a feature can be classified differently, so
one could think of a feature as a function of orientation. Table 1 shows
how features are translated into being printed as-is, modified, or
omitted. This section explains each of these categories in the context of
simplified examples.
A flowchart incorporating these process considerations in designing
a part is shown in Fig. 2. The flowchart assumes that an initial geometry
has been proposed that will satisfy the functional requirements, and the
most important features will be analyzed first in order to maintain the
functionality. This geometry is then analyzed, feature by feature, to
determine the printing orientation that allows for keeping the most
features, avoiding overbuilding, and minimizing the amount of needed
post-processing. The outer surface is typically retained, with inner
geometry being modified as needed.
A hole perpendicular to the build plane made using mBAAM must
follow the maximum overhang constraint. The overhang constraint is
currently 15°, so the hole geometry can appear as a teardrop shape, as
in Fig. 3. The edges of the cutout can be flat like a triangle. The ex-
cavator case study shown later uses the teardrop shape.
Some features need to be omitted from the printed component be-
cause the tolerances and surface finishes are too tight to be reasonably
fabricated using weld deposition, much like near net shape casting.
Table 1
Printability of features in mBAAM.
As-is Omit
Printing can proceed with no If the feature size is too small for mBAAM, the feature is
adjustments or post-processing omitted, implying overbuilt geometry. The feature is
implemented in post-processing.
161
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 159–166
3. Excavator case study
A long-term goal for mBAAM is to produce large structural com-
ponents for use in regular service. The design and processing rules are
now applied to a case study on the excavator arm depicted in Fig. 4. The
excavator arm is a weldment consisting of four plates and two flanges
connecting the arm to the hydraulic cylinder on the boom. The process
incorporates all the above design rules into an insightful demonstration.
The feasibility of printing the arm depends on the selected print
direction. The arm could not be printed on its side, as the mostly rec-
tangular shape could not be supported. The excavator arm was printed
with the flange on the ground, as shown in Fig. 5. The chosen direction
will also have more uniform interpass temperatures (due to the smaller
cross-sectional area), but this is a bonus, given that the only way to
fabricate hollow box geometry is to orient the part vertically. The
smaller cross-section yields less cooling between layers, reducing the
thermal stresses induced on the part.
Fig. 5 demonstrates some examples of features that fall under the
classifications from Table 1. The pin holes, marked with red, were
omitted from the printed geometry due to the overhangs. They were
machined in post-processing, and OEM bearing sleeves were welded in.
The outside curve, in blue, violates the overhang constraint, so it was
overbuilt and then machined to specification. The inside plate, in green,
exceeds the overhang constraint but cannot be machined due to the
flanges limiting tool access. The plate was thus elongated so that no
post-processing was needed.
All machining is done in post-processing, so tool access is limited.
Post-processing for mBAAM refers to the steps required after printing to
make the part serviceable. This includes machining, painting, and in-
stallation of the pins to permit final assembly. Ideally, post-processing
machining should be minimized, since it requires a separate CNC ma-
chining center, time, and expense. Therefore, redesigning the printed
component is a critical step.
3.1. Generating printable geometry
The introductory design rules for mBAAM drive the printable geo-
metry in certain directions.
The wall thickness of the excavator arm is increased from the
nominal 8 mm thick plate for printing with mBAAM. The flanges are
elongated to adhere to the overhang constraint, and the “box” structure
adopts rounded corners to reduce bending stress, as seen in some pre-
liminary geometry in Fig. 6. Using rounded corners is a feature that the
stock arm does not have, and further shows the usefulness of mBAAM.
Project requirements stipulated experimenting with part count reduc-
tion, so internal hydraulic lines were proposed for the optimization and
provided extra stiffness for the model. Internal hydraulic lines could
eliminate the need for flexible hoses and reduce maintenance require-
ments for operators. The internal hydraulic lines were modified for the
final, printed design, but the optimization results were kept as-is.
3.2. Topology optimization
Topology optimization is garnering attention in the additive man-
ufacturing community due to the design freedom associated with AM
techniques. Since the excavator arm was printed using a layered ap-
proach, topology optimization was used to determine if an
Support Structures Overhang
A feature is overbuilt if the size is too The print direction or part geometry
small or the orientation requires a is adjusted to conform to the
support structure. overhang constraint.
C. Greer, et al. Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 159–166

Fig. 2. Flowchart for analyzing a feature of a part.

unconventional design unable to be fabricated using traditional man-

ufacturing techniques, such as welding or casting, could save weight
while retaining structural integrity. Topology optimization is useful for
design concept generation because the optimal distribution of material
is not always intuitive or feasible for fabrication.
The final printable geometry used the design rules shown above. It
is slightly heavier than a traditionally manufactured excavator arm due
to the increased wall thicknesses. One way the weight of the printed
arm was reduced was to use topology optimization to place cutouts in
optimal places to retain the strength of the arm. However, topology
optimization has typically been leveraged by high fidelity AM techni-
ques, as seen in [16]. The as-is results from topology optimization are
unprintable, but topology optimization has a place in large scale tech-
niques for concept generation.
Topology optimization works by minimizing an objective function,
such as compliance, subject to a volume constraint. The algorithm used
in this paper is based on Solid Isotropic Material with Penalization
(SIMP), which lends itself to the finite element method. However, the
method is dependent on mesh fidelity. SIMP uses a penalized, propor-
tional stiffness model such as:

E (x ) = (x ) p E 0 , >1
(x )d V; 0 (x ) 1, x (1)

to correlate between density and strength [17]. In this model, which is

simplified for this example, E is the elastic modulus of the element, ρ is
the density of the element, p is the penalization factor, and E0 is the
original modulus. The domain Ω is the design space made eligible for
optimization, and x is an individual element. The total volume of the
optimization domain must be equal to or less than the volume con-
straint V.
The algorithm determines the optimal material layout by iteratively
changing the density of each element in a finite element model ac-
cording to its strain state. If the element is not highly stressed, the
density is decreased to indicate the element isn’t necessary for struc-
tural strength; if the element is highly stressed, its density is increased
up to the initial density. A filtering scheme removes elements with low
densities, resulting in a structure that has removed unnecessary mate-
rial. Comprehensive reviews of topology optimization can be found in
the references [18–21].
Fig. 3. Cutout geometry required for mBAAM. The excavator arm problem is set up to minimize the structure’s
compliance, or the inverse of stiffness, subject to a volume constraint.

162
C. Greer, et al. Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 159–166

Fig. 4. Schematic of excavator components. Adapted from [15].

The loading scenario to determine how much of the arm is un-

necessary for structural integrity is critical. If an important load case,
such as, e.g., torsion is left out, the algorithm will produce geometry
with no resistance to torsion loading. Two load cases from an industry
partner are used in the optimization routine to consider both in-plane
hydraulic and torsion loading that are characteristic to digging, as
shown in Fig. 7.
A general elastic-only model of steel is used for the finite element
analysis with a density of 7850 kg/m3, an elastic modulus of 210 GPa,
and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.3. The results from the two individual load
cases are averaged to result in a structure that aims to satisfy both cases.
Baseline results showing the von Mises stress distribution for the in-
plane hydraulic cylinder and torsion loading cases on the original arm
geometry are shown in Fig. 8.
These baseline results provide guidance for interpreting how a
structural optimization algorithm might proceed. The lower stress areas
are the first to be penalized by the optimization algorithm. As explained
above, low stress areas are not necessary for the structural integrity of
the arm, so the penalization algorithm will reduce the density of the
elements until they are below the high-pass filter, which makes the
elements behave as if they are voids. This continues iteratively until
either the change in element densities are lower than a specified per-
cent change or the operator sets a maximum number of cycles.
Fig. 5. Examples of overhang constraint. The center line of the excavator arm and the flanges are the least
stressed portions of the arm, so portions of the centerline could be re-
moved reasonably safely under the torsion load. The sections with high
stress are around the pinned connections and the flange support.

Fig. 6. (Top): Modified arm geometry. (Bottom): Cutaway showing internal

hydraulic lines.

This allows the designer to start with walls that have the thickness of
two mBAAM beads and then set the volume constraint to that of a stock
excavator arm. This is very different from the traditional approach of
giving the optimization a starting geometry of a solid block in the shape
of an excavator arm. The results retain the overall kinematics of the
excavator arm while showing where to place cutouts in the thicker, Fig. 7. (Left): In-plane hydraulic cylinder loads. (Right): Torsion load coming
printed walls. out of the page. Picture from [1].

163
C. Greer, et al. Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 159–166

Fig. 8. Stress analysis of in-plane hydraulic load (top) and side and torsion load (bottom).

Inspection of a stock excavator arm shows that there is manual weld

buildup to provide extra material at these hot spots. The finite element
analysis results, which do not have any weld buildups in the simple
computer model, reflect the importance of these sections.
The topology optimization results for the printable arm geometry
are shown in Fig. 9. Many features violate the design rules for overhang
constraints. The suggested cutouts must be in the teardrop shape, given
Fig. 10. As-printed arm geometry.
the print direction; thus, not all of the cutouts can be implemented.
However, design concepts of the final excavator arm geometry are ex-
tended from these results, so the top of the box structure and the inside
of the flanges are removed to reduce the weight of the structure.
The flowchart for modifying geometry of parts deposited using
mBAAM results in the as-printed geometry as in Fig. 10. The outer
flange curves and mating surfaces can be implemented via machining in
post-processing. The mating surfaces will have welded-in OEM bearing
sleeves and pins to attach the boom and bucket. Finally, the hydraulic
Fig. 11. Final arm geometry.
lines will be moved to the outside of the walls to demonstrate the
possibility of eliminating hoses and tubing for future hydraulic power
applications. but they were not used for this project. Similar printed hydraulic lines
The final arm geometry underwent post-processing after it was have been tested at Oak Ridge National Laboratory at pressures up to
printed; this geometry is shown in Fig. 11. This geometry shows the 5000 psi.
modified, integrated hydraulic lines and welded-in bearing sleeves. It The finished arm was then checked for structural integrity. The
should be noted that while the internal hydraulic lines are functional, same load cases were used, and the results are shown in Fig. 12. These
results are similar enough to the stock excavator arm that the excavator
arm is expected to withstand real-world use. The nominal stresses of
both the new and old arms, referencing Fig. 8, are between
100–200 MPa for the in-plane hydraulic load case and 150 MPa or less
for both arm designs for the torsion load case.

4. Results

The excavator arm that follows the established design rules for both
Fig. 9. Topology optimization results for excavator arm. deposition and machining was printed using a modified Wolf Robotics

164
C. Greer, et al.
Fig. 12. Optimized arm geometry structural integrity check.
welding cell that uses a Lincoln Electric R500 power source with a
Lincoln Electric Surface Tension Transfer mode to reduce the heat input
to the work. Steel welding wire was used for the feed stock, and a
7.62 cm thick steel table was bolted to the facility floor with a 2.54 cm
thick build plate bolted to the table. The printing of the arm was per-
formed continuously until the arm was finished to keep the part in a
steady state.
The original excavator arm was around 2.1 m tall and weighs ap-
proximately 133 kg. This large volume lent itself to mBAAM and the
goal of producing structural components. The reduction in required
tooling demonstrates the applicability of mBAAM to rapidly fabricate
custom components. The printed arm is shown in Fig. 13.
The finite element results of the final arm geometry (seen earlier in
Fig. 12) showed stress concentrations at the points of the holes, so
machining was further used to mill slots where the 15° overhangs
bridge. The move from a sharp point to a radius reduces the stress
concentration intensity. A demonstration machine with the printed arm
has been assembled to prove the component can be used in the field
(Fig. 14).
Fig. 13. Printed arm.
165
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 159–166
Fig. 14. Installed arm.
The demonstration machine incorporates several different AM
technologies to show how construction equipment industry can
leverage AM. However, the other AM parts are outside the scope of this
paper. The printed arm is shown in Fig. 14 after all the post-processing
is finished.
5. Conclusions
mBAAM has been shown to produce a full-scale, structural compo-
nent while requiring minimal tooling. The design rules developed in
this paper show the dependence on both metal deposition and removal,
which is underdeveloped in academic literature. The design rules in this
paper begin with the 15° overhang limit, quantized bead thicknesses,
lack of easily removable support structures, and print direction. The
flowchart was necessary to incorporate the part orientation for printing,
required part functionality, and deposition physics.
The excavator case study found that topology optimization needs
further development to become an effective tool for mBAAM, since the
results are too complex to fabricate. Until at least some of the design
and process considerations are integrated into topology optimization as
additional optimization constraints, topology optimization can only
show unnecessary material in very general terms. This still offers the
design engineer information on the boundaries of what is required to be
structurally sound when designing for mBAAM.
mBAAM is thus an effective tool for rapidly producing near net
shape components that can enter service as replacement parts without
C. Greer, et al.
the need for complex fit-up tools, molds, or other tooling. Further ad-
vancement in process control, toolpath planning, and topology opti-
mization will enhance the potential of mBAAM to become a commonly
used manufacturing technique.
Acknowledgements
This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Advanced Manufacturing Office
under contract number DE-AC05-00OR22725.
References
[1] C. Construction, CX B Series Compact Excavators, (2015).
[2] I. Gibson, D.W. Rosen, B. Stucker, Additive Manufacturing Technologies, vol. 32,
no. 2 Springer, New York, 2010.
[3] H. Castner, J. Penoyer, Computer-aided programming for robotic welding, Weld. J.
96 (June (6)) (2017) 78–83.
[4] Computer Aided Robotic Welding (CAR-W) – NSRP, (2017) [Accessed: 27 June
2017], [Online]. Available: https://www.nsrp.org/project/car-w-2015-473/.
[5] Y. Zhang, Y. Chen, P. Li, A.T. Male, Weld deposition-based rapid prototyping: a
preliminary study, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 135 (April (2–3)) (2003) 347–357.
[6] J. Xiong, G. Zhang, J. Hu, L. Wu, Bead geometry prediction for robotic GMAW-
based rapid manufacturing through a neural network and a second-order regression
analysis, J. Intell. Manuf. 25 (February (1)) (2014) 157–163.
[7] H. Geng, J. Li, J. Xiong, X. Lin, Optimisation of interpass temperature and heat
input for wire and arc additive manufacturing 5A06 aluminium alloy, Sci. Technol.
Weld. Join. 22 (August (6)) (2017) 472–483.
166
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 159–166
[8] Y.K. Liu, Y.M. Zhang, Model-based predictive control of weld penetration in gas
tungsten arc welding, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 22 (3) (2014) 955–966.
[9] H. Ates, Prediction of gas metal arc welding parameters based on artificial neural
networks, Mater. Des. 28 (7) (2007) 2015–2023.
[10] X.W. Wang, R.R. Li, Intelligent modelling of back-side weld bead geometry using
weld pool surface characteristic parameters, J. Intell. Manuf. 25 (6) (2014)
1301–1313.
[11] D. Clark, M.R. Bache, M.T. Whittaker, Shaped metal deposition of a nickel alloy for
aero engine applications, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 203 (1–3) (2008) 439–448.
[12] A. Adeyinka, M. Jorn, T. Xavier, Limiting travel speed in additive layer manu-
facturing, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Trends in Welding
Research, (2013).
[13] David L. Olson, R. Dixon, A.L. Liby, Welding: Theory and Practice, North-Holland
(1990).
[14] R. Trevisan, N. Santos, H. Fals, A. Santos, Effect of interpass temperature on mor-
phology, microstructure and microhardness of welded API 5L X65 steel,
Proceedings of the International Pipeline Conference, (2002) p. 327.
[15] Case Construction CX55B Compact Excavator Tier 4 Final Certified, (2018) Case
Construction.
[16] D. Brackett, I. Ashcroft, R. Hague, Topology Optimization for Additive
Manufacturing, (2018).
[17] M.P. Bendsøe, O. Sigmund, Topology Optimization: Theory, Methods, and
Applications, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin/Heidelberg, 2004.
[18] O. Sigmund, K. Maute, Topology optimization approaches: a comparative review,
Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 48 (6) (2013) 1031–1055.
[19] J. Liu, Y. Ma, A survey of manufacturing oriented topology optimization methods,
Adv. Eng. Softw. 100 (2016) 161–175.
[20] G.I.N. Rozvany, A critical review of established methods of structural topology
optimization, Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 37 (January (3)) (2009) 217–237.
[21] N.P. Van Dijk, K. Maute, M. Langelaar, F. Van Keulen, Level-set methods for
structural topology optimization: a review, Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 48 (3)
(2013) 437–472.