Virtual and Physical Prototyping

ISSN: 1745-2759 (Print) 1745-2767 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nvpp20

A new methodological framework for design for

additive manufacturing

Martin Kumke, Hagen Watschke & Thomas Vietor

To cite this article: Martin Kumke, Hagen Watschke & Thomas Vietor (2016) A new
methodological framework for design for additive manufacturing, Virtual and Physical Prototyping,
11:1, 3-19, DOI: 10.1080/17452759.2016.1139377

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2016.1139377

Published online: 15 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2725

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 60 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nvpp20
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING, 2016
VOL. 11, NO. 1, 3–19
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2016.1139377

A new methodological framework for design for additive manufacturing

Martin Kumkea, Hagen Watschkeb and Thomas Vietorb
a
Volkswagen AG, Group Research, Wolfsburg, Germany; bTechnische Universität Braunschweig, Institute for Engineering Design, Braunschweig,
Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Additive manufacturing (AM) offers numerous benefits for innovative design solutions. However, Received 4 December 2015
engineers are currently not supported in identifying and incorporating these potentials Accepted 5 January 2016
systematically in their design solutions. In this paper, previous Design for Additive Manufacturing
KEYWORDS
(DfAM) approaches are first reviewed comprehensively and classified into distinct categories Design for additive
according to their main purpose and application. They are then analysed further by being manufacturing; design
related to conventional design methodologies like VDI 2221. Since previous DfAM approaches methodology; product
only provide selective assistance at single steps in the product development process, a new design; design rules; product
framework for DfAM is proposed. Existing methods and tools, both from DfAM and from general development
design methodologies, are integrated into the modular framework structure. A concept for using
the framework is presented to provide design engineers with continuous support in all product
development phases, thereby fostering the complete exploitation of AM potentials and the
development of AM-conformal designs.

1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM) extends the spectrum of
conventional manufacturing processes, since parts or
complete products are produced by adding material in
layers in contrast to subtracting it. AM opens opportu-
nities for innovative designs and advances in product
performance, for example, through geometric freedom
and highly integrated structures which are impossible
with machine tooling. Moreover, customisation of parts
can be realised economically, since AM does not need
product-specific tools (Rosen 2014, Wohlers 2014). Up
until recently, AM application was limited to prototyping.
Due to improvements in accuracy and mechanical
material properties, tools and even end-use products
can be increasingly manufactured directly from digital
models (Campbell et al. 2012).
However, industrial application of AM for end-use pro-
ducts is currently limited. One reason is the design engin-
eers’ lack of experience and knowledge about the
capabilities and limitations of this relatively new manu-
facturing technology. Some methodologies and appro-
priate tools that support design engineers with taking
the specifications of AM into account have been pro-
posed in previous research. However, these are usually
tailored to a specific design stage and/or limited to
certain AM processes. In particular, there are no inter-
faces between existing approaches. Methodologies for
a continuous support in the entire design process are
scarcely available (Laverne et al. 2014). In addition, the
applicability of existing design methods and tools to
the development of AM parts has not been examined.
Methods for the integration of different consider-
ations into the design process are subsumed under the
term ‘design for X’ (DFX). Several DFX strategies aim at
a product’s simplification (Kuo et al. 2001). For
example, guidelines for ‘design for assembly’ (DFA) and
‘design for manufacturing’ (DFM) – subsumed under
the term ‘design for manufacturing and assembly’
(DFMA) – are widely available (Bralla 1999, Boothroyd
et al. 2011). The term DFM has been transferred to AM
and is then called ‘Design for Additive Manufacturing’
(DfAM). The purpose of DfAM is defined as a ‘synthesis
of shapes, sizes, geometric mesostructures, and material
compositions and microstructures to best utilise manu-
facturing process capabilities to achieve desired per-
formance’ (Rosen 2007b) and even ‘to maximise
product performance’ (Gibson et al. 2015).
The objective of this paper is to develop a new meth-
odological DfAM framework which integrates existing
tools, provides continuous support for design engineers
to fully exploit AM-specific potentials for new product
generations, and facilitates AM-conformal designs. The
focus of this paper is on industrialised AM processes
that are suitable for creating end-use products and
mechanical parts, although the findings might be appli-
cable to prototyping-only technologies and other part

CONTACT Martin Kumke martin.kumke@volkswagen.de

© 2016 Taylor & Francis
4 M. KUMKE ET AL.
categories as well. First, we analyse existing DfAM
approaches comprehensively and classify them into dis-
tinct categories. Next, we relate them to a general design
process. In this regard, we shall point out particular limit-
ations of previous research. Finally, we propose a new
modular DfAM framework based on both AM-specific
and general design processes, integrate existing
methods and tools into the framework, and provide a
concept for using the framework. We conclude our
paper with a summary and recommendations for
future research.
2. Review and classification of DfAM research
The term DfAM is far from being used consistently
among researchers. While the first DfAM approaches
primarily focus on the investigation of design potentials
and product optimisation opportunities created by AM
in contrast to design restrictions imposed by traditional
manufacturing technologies, others regard DfAM as
tools or systems supporting designers at creating AM-
conformal designs. Still others use the term in the
context of continuous design methodologies providing
systematic guidance through the development process
of AM products. For the introduction of a continuous
DfAM framework, all aspects mentioned above must
be included into the definition of the generic term
DfAM.
Two literature classifications based on reviews of
DfAM approaches have been published. Yang and
Zhao (2015) distinguish between ‘general design guide-
lines’, ‘modified conventional design theory and meth-
odology for AM’, and ‘design for additive
manufacturing’. Laverne et al. (2014) use ‘DfAM for
concept assessment’ and ‘DfAM for decision making’ as
high-level categories and break down the latter into
the subcategories ‘guidelines’, ‘product properties’,
‘design optimisation’, and ‘geometrical validation’.
Figure 1. Classification of previous DfAM approaches.
Although both classifications provide insights into the
different DfAM types, they have two major drawbacks
in common: first, in many cases, the proposed categories
are not mutually exclusive, preventing an unambiguous
assignment of new approaches into the classification.
Second, there is no clear distinction between general
process-focused approaches and approaches specifically
developed for the design engineer within the design
process.
Hence, we propose a new classification represented in
Figure 1 which distinguishes between ‘DfAM in the strict
sense’ and ‘DfAM in the broad sense’. ‘DfAM in the strict
sense’ includes approaches concerning the actual design
process, for example, guidelines and methodologies sup-
porting design engineers at their key tasks of creating
products which utilise AM design potentials and
adhere to AM design rules. ‘DfAM in the broad sense’
contains additional approaches beyond the core design
process. These include upstream, downstream and
other generic DfAM-related activities carried out in new
product development processes. These activities must
be included in a comprehensive DfAM definition since
many approaches use design-based decision criteria
and the outcomes of the activities directly influence
the design process, for example, by selecting part candi-
dates and AM processes.
We emphasise that activities concerning the manu-
facturing process itself are not part of our DfAM defi-
nition, since they are carried out under the
responsibility of the manufacturing specialist instead
of the design engineer. These activities also include
process planning steps such as decisions on build orien-
tation which have, of course, a strong influence on part
quality. However, information like this should be
already taken into account in the design phase, for
example, in AM design rules.
Previous research is presented in the following sec-
tions whose structure is based on the new classification.

2.1. DfAM in the strict sense
This category comprises approaches tailored to the core
design process. AM design rules (Section 2.1.1) constitute
the basic level of ‘DfAM in the strict sense’, since they
ensure the creation of AM-producible designs.
However, they do not necessarily take into account the
unique capabilities of AM which can be indispensable
for optimising a product in terms of its performance or
cost-efficient production. Thus, the (systematic) utilis-
ation of AM design potentials (Section 2.1.2) forms the
superordinate level. Only if a product design obeys
both levels, can it be referred to as truly DfAM-optimised.
Some approaches thus combine design rules and design
potentials or provide comprehensive DfAM method-
ologies (Section 2.1.3).
2.1.1. AM design rules
While AM provides huge design potentials, geometric
freedom is not unlimited. New restrictions arise from
the technological principle itself, the processed material,
or even the machine. Design engineers have to be aware
of the design rules to ensure manufacturability. Similar to
conventional manufacturing processes, rules have been
developed for various AM technologies and range from
general qualitative guidelines, such as build orientation,
to specific quantitative limitations, such as minimal wall
thickness. In the literature, design rule catalogues can
be found particularly for Selective Laser Melting (SLM),
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), and Fused Deposition
Modelling (FDM).
Thomas’ (2009) research focuses on the geometric
limits imposed by SLM and is based on series of exper-
iments. He finds various quantitative constraints for geo-
metric elements, for example, radii and minimum gap
features, as well as general recommendations for high-
quality results, for example, surface roughness as a func-
tion of build orientation.
Seepersad et al. (2014), Wegner and Witt (2012), and
Gerber and Barnard (2008) investigate the limitations of
SLS regarding minimal sizes of geometric features such
as holes, cylinders, walls, and graven fonts depending
on their orientation. Additionally, Wegener and Witt
analyse the durability of functionally integrated parts,
for example, hinges and snap-fits.
Adam and Zimmer (2014) conduct experiments on
SLM, SLS, and FDM machines based on test specimens
with pre-defined standard elements which include
basic geometric elements, element transitions, and
aggregated structures (spatial arrangements of basic
elements and their transitions). They develop a compre-
hensive catalogue applicable to all three technologies.
They point out, however, that numerical values are
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 5
only valid for the respective boundary conditions (i.e.
machine, material, parameter set, layer thickness, etc.).
Kranz et al. (2015) compile a design rule catalogue
specifically for the SLM-based production of TiAl6V4
parts.
Further design rule collections are, for example, pub-
lished by Hochschule Bremen (2008) for FDM as well as
by various machine manufacturers and AM service provi-
ders. In addition, design rules are increasingly finding
their way into engineering standards and guidelines,
for example, VDI 3405 Part 3 (VDI 2015).
2.1.2. Utilisation of AM potentials
AM provides design engineers with an immense new
geometric freedom making conventional guidelines of
DFMA obsolete. The elimination of manufacturing con-
straints can be used, for example, to improve product
performance, reduce assembly cost, or realise innovative
designer items that are impossible to manufacture with
other technologies. Hague et al. (2003) and Hague
et al. (2004) were among the first who pointed out
these implications on design. Becker et al. (2005) sum-
marise the opportunities in a list of general AM design
suggestions.
Although the need to systematically support engin-
eers at utilising AM design potentials was identified
early, previous research has primarily focused on case
studies of exemplary parts whose design benefited
from AM. Amongst others, these include topology optim-
isation to achieve high-strength lightweight designs
(Watts and Hague 2006), conformal cooling ducts (Petro-
vic et al. 2011), personalised medical parts as an example
of mass customisation (Eyers and Dotchev 2010), and
parts consolidation enabled by undercuts (Becker et al.
2005). Most of the case studies discuss parts with very
specific requirements that cannot be transferred to
other product categories. In addition, the purpose
usually is to improve an existing product in contrast to
new product development based on requirements.
Broad descriptions of design potentials and successful
case studies have also been included in educational text-
books (Gebhardt 2011, Gibson et al. 2015).
Little research has been conducted on the systemati-
sation and simultaneous methodical utilisation of more
than one AM design potential. Burton (2005) introduces
a questionnaire approach: Based on the responses to
questions in different design areas, he suggests part
redesigns to exploit AM potentials, for example,
through part consolidation. Bin Maidin et al. (2012)
build on this approach and develop a digital design
feature database which provides a higher number of fea-
tures and an easier access. Doubrovski et al. (2012)
6 M. KUMKE ET AL.
further extend the idea and suggest a collaboratively
edited knowledge database similar to a wiki.
2.1.3. Combined approaches and methodologies
While AM design rule collections ensure manufacturabil-
ity and approaches related to AM design potentials foster
creativity and the development of innovative solutions,
the isolated application of both aspects can prevent
the creation of optimal AM products. Therefore, some
researchers systematically incorporate both design
rules and design potentials into their approaches.
However, they do usually not build directly upon the
available tools and methods illustrated in the previous
two sections.
Ponche et al. (2012) adopt a more global approach in
view of not limiting design freedom by an initial compu-
ter-aided design (CAD) model. The new aspect of this
methodology is to define a part’s design from its func-
tional specifications and process restrictions (particularly
manufacturing direction and manufacturing trajectories)
instead of using an initial CAD model for an AM-specific
improvement. Ponche et al. (2014) design a method-
ology which optimises the manufacturing process
through process simulation. Although their method-
ology is based on directed energy deposition (DED),
similar approaches can be suitable for other AM technol-
ogies. The optimisation is split up into three steps and
covers part orientation, functional optimisation, and
paths optimisation to balance functional requirements
and process specifications. With an improved paths gen-
eration depending on process parameters and part geo-
metry, it is possible to minimise the gap between the
virtual model and the manufactured part. A similar func-
tion-based method is proposed by Vayre et al. (2012).
Leary et al. (2014) combine AM design rules and top-
ology optimisation. They show that the theoretically
optimal topology can be modified to ensure manufactur-
ability without any additional support structures. They
also identify the optimal build orientation by assessing
manufacturing time and component mass. Emmelmann
et al. (2011) and Kranz (2014) also use topology optimis-
ation, but for bionics-inspired lightweight design for SLM
with TiAl6V4. They argue that a systematic design
process is indispensable, in particular to guide inexperi-
enced designers through the concept phase and to man-
ufacture fully optimised structures. In addition, they
embed the part optimisation process in combination
with design rules and a bionic catalogue into the frame-
work of guideline VDI 2221. Tang et al. (2015) develop a
method for the creation of lattice structures which are
generated within specified functional volumes. After-
wards, the distribution of the lattice struts’ thicknesses
are optimised in consideration of AM design rules.
AM has been identified as a key enabler for mass cus-
tomisation, the objective of satisfying individual custo-
mer needs with mass production efficiency (Pine II
1993). Research on design for mass customisation has
emphasised the importance of product families/plat-
forms, modularisation, and the involvement of custo-
mers in the design process. A possible design strategy
for realising mass customisation is the concept of concur-
rent engineering proposed by Tseng and Jiao (1998).
AM-enabled mass customisation particularly includes
personalised medical products such as hearing aids
which require advanced 3D scanning technologies
(Eyers and Dotchev 2010) and approaches for customer
co-design of aesthetically appealing consumer products
(Ariadi et al. 2012). Although DfAM and mass customisa-
tion are closely related, only few approaches are target-
ing the intersection of these two fields directly (Gibson
et al. 2015). Specific approaches are proposed by Tuck
et al. (2008) who provide a method for customised air-
craft seats (using 3D scanning, reverse engineering,
and AM) and by Ko et al. (2015) who develop a
method entitled Customized Design for Additive Manu-
facturing (CDFAM) which is based on a formal represen-
tation of design knowledge.
Some researchers integrate different DfAM aspects
into comprehensive methodologies. Rosen (2007a,
2007b) introduces a CAD system for DfAM which is par-
ticularly designed for the utilisation of mesostructured
materials. It contains a mapping between process, struc-
ture, property, and behaviour, incorporating both geo-
metry and material of an AM product. Rodrigue and
Rivette (2010) propose a methodology which starts
with parts consolidation enabled by AM design freedoms
based on an existing assembly concept. In the sub-
sequent steps, it contains several options for function
optimisation. Boyard et al. (2013) build on this approach,
but focus on the abstract formulation of functional spe-
cifications. They use a standard design methodology
and maintain the conventional differentiation between
DFA and DFM. The distinctive characteristic is that DFA
and DFM are carried out simultaneously instead of suc-
cessively. Based on an extensive literature review on
DfAM methodologies, Yang and Zhao (2015) propose
their own design method focusing on the downstream
design stage. Its core process contains steps for function
integration and structure optimisation of an initial CAD
model (part redesign). A European Union project on
Standardisation in Additive Manufacturing (SASAM) pro-
poses a design strategy draft which incorporates the
whole design process from task to final part design.
Details are provided for the identification of the
general AM potential and AM process selection
(Verquin et al. 2014).

2.2. DfAM in the broad sense
This category incorporates further DfAM-related
approaches around ‘DfAM in the strict sense’ which is
included in this category as its centre. Further
approaches can be generic DfAM-related activities such
as such as process selection (Section 2.2.1), upstream
activities such as the selection of AM parts/applications
(Section 2.2.2), and downstream activities such as manu-
facturability analyses (Section 2.2.3).
2.2.1. Process selection and production strategy
In the context of AM, various decision support systems
have been developed. The first category consists of data-
base-supported selection tools designed for choosing
the most suitable process or machine, in particular for
rapid prototyping applications, for evaluating AM’s suit-
ability for a certain application, or for a systematic assess-
ment of an economic manufacturability based on
quantitative requirements, for example, accuracy or
build speed (Campbell and Bernie 1996, Bibb et al.
1999, Kaschka and Auerbach 2000, Byun and Lee 2005,
Venkata Rao and Padmanabhan 2007, Kirchner 2011,
Zhang et al. 2014b). Some of these approaches include
sophisticated and detailed analyses. For example,
Munguía et al. (2010) use an advice system based on arti-
ficial intelligence to compare additive and conventional
manufacturing in order to recommend optimal pro-
duction parameters.
The second category aims at choosing an optimal pro-
duction strategy depending on product requirements
and process limitations. For example, Achillas et al.
(2014) consider the complete supply chain in a scen-
ario-based framework. By means of a decision support
system including alternative available processes, the
optimal production strategy is chosen. Merkt et al.
(2012) introduce an integrative technology evaluation
model that includes several levels for economic and
technology analyses to assess the competitiveness of
AM in comparison to other manufacturing processes.
They also analyse the interaction between product and
process innovations to include the potential of AM for
improved products. A typical method for a quantitative
evaluation is the calculation of part complexity factors.
2.2.2. Selection of parts/applications
The selection of suitable parts or applications is an
upstream activity performed before the actual design
process. Due to the novelty of AM for designers and pro-
ducers, the selection of appropriate candidates remains a
challenge.
On the strategic level, Conner et al. (2014) identify
three main product attributes or criteria: complexity,
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 7
customisation, and volume. These part properties are
structured in a three-axis model containing eight areas
for which different manufacturing strategies can be
specified.
On the component level, Klahn et al. (2014) and Klahn
et al. (2015) use four decision criteria to identify parts of a
product for an AM-conformal redesign, namely inte-
grated designs, individualisation, lightweight design,
and efficient design. Lindemann et al. (2015) propose a
methodology for a selection of AM part candidates
based on a workshop concept applicable by both AM
novices and AM experts. Its core is a trade-off method-
ology matrix which includes part candidates in its
columns and decision criteria in its rows. Its purpose is
a screening of parts and whether the AM of those parts
enables benefits. Selected parts are then redesigned in
the following steps.
2.2.3. Manufacturability analysis
In addition to the consideration of design rules already in
the design phase to create AM-producible parts, some
approaches analyse the finished design solution with
regard to manufacturability. Kerbrat et al. (2010) and
Kerbrat et al. (2011) design a multi-process strategy at
the component level by combining conventional manu-
facturing processes and AM. Depending on manufactur-
ability indexes calculated by design parameters, a CAD
model is divided into a modular structure whose parts
are manufactured separately and which are then
assembled. Zhang et al. (2014a) develop a two-level
methodology for design evaluation and a better under-
standing of process characteristics. First, the general
manufacturability of a given design solution is analysed
and the process parameters are set up. Second, com-
ponent-specific aspects like build orientation and
slicing strategy are defined. These last steps, however,
do not belong to our DfAM definition (see Figure 1).
The initial design solution may be revised based on the
evaluation results.
3. Discussion of DfAM research
In this chapter, we first relate previous DfAM approaches
to general design methodologies (Section 3.1). Second,
we critically evaluate the approaches with regard to
their limitations (Section 3.2). We then deduct require-
ments for a new DfAM framework (Section 3.3).
3.1. DfAM approaches in the context of general
design methodologies
The term DfAM is, as mentioned in Section 1, basically a
modification of the original term DFM. DFM activities are
8 M. KUMKE ET AL.
primarily carried out in the embodiment and detail
design phase (Boothroyd et al. 2011). To some degree,
AM design rules (Section 2.1.1) are comparable to con-
ventional DFM/DfX guidelines. Our literature review,
however, shows that even ‘DfAM in the strict sense’ is
by no means at all limited to embodiment and detail
design, but also strongly influences conceptual design,
for example, by employing function structures analyses
and parts consolidation methods (Rodrigue and Rivette
2010, Bin Maidin et al. 2012, Boyard et al. 2013). DFA, in
contrast, is considered primarily in the conceptual
design phase (Boothroyd et al. 2011).
Consequently, DfAM clearly is a concept or idea
related to the whole product development process and
provides approaches for all of its phases. We therefore
propose a combination of existing DfAM approaches
with general design methodologies.
Researchers have developed many general design
methodologies which serve as structured guidelines for
design engineers. These methodologies are usually inde-
pendent of specific products and manufacturing pro-
cesses. Tomiyama et al. (2009) provide a detailed
Figure 2. General procedure of systematic development and design according to VDI 2221 (VDI 1993). Note: Reproduced with the
permission of the Verein Deutscher Ingenieure e.V.
review on design methodologies. One of the best
known methodologies is guideline VDI 2221 (VDI 1993)
which is widely recognised both in research and practice.
Its core element is a process chart represented in
Figure 2. Similar to other methodologies, for example,
Pahl et al. (2007), the process is divided into four
phases. In phase 1, the problem or task is clarified.
Phase 2 deals with the conceptual design including func-
tion structures, basic solution principles, and modular
structures. The result of phase 2 is a product concept. It
is concretised and refined in phase 3 (embodiment
design) which contains the largest part of actual design
engineering work. In the following detail design in
phase 4, the exact part characteristics (e.g. surface qual-
ities and dimensions) are defined and documented.
In order to precisely relate DfAM to general design
methodologies, we create a matrix which contains exist-
ing approaches of ‘DfAM in the strict sense’ in its rows
and the four VDI 2221 phases in its columns, thereby
allowing a direct matching of both. This positioning rep-
resented in Table 1 shows the respective phases that
every DfAM approach presented in the literature
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 9

Table 1. Positioning of ‘DfAM in the strict sense’ approaches in VDI 2221 (‘X’ denotes comprehensive coverage of the phase, ‘(X)’
denotes a partly coverage of the phase).
Clarification and definition of Conceptual Embodiment Detail
problem design design design
Phase I II III IV
AM design rules Thomas (2009) X X
Seepersad et al. (2014) X X
Wegner and Witt (2012) (X) X X
Gerber and Barnard (2008) X X
Adam and Zimmer (2014) X X
Kranz et al. (2015) X X
Hochschule Bremen (2008) X X
VDI (2015) X
Utilisation of AM design potentials Hague et al. (2003), Hague et al. (X) (X)
(2004)
Becker et al. (2005) X (X)
Burton (2005) (X) X
Bin Maidin et al. (2012) (X) X
Doubrovski et al. (2012) (X) X
Combined approaches and Ponche et al. (2012) X (X)
methodologies Ponche et al. (2014) X (X)
Vayre et al. (2012) X
Leary et al. (2014) X
Emmelmann et al. (2011) (X) X
Kranz (2014) (X) (X) X
Tang et al. (2015) (X) X (X)
Ko et al. (2015) (X) (X) (X) (X)
Tuck et al. (2008) X X
Rosen (2007a) X (X)
Rosen (2007b) (X) X (X)
Rodrigue and Rivette (2010) X
Boyard et al. (2013) X (X)
Yang and Zhao (2015) (X) (X)
Verquin et al. (2014) (X) (X) (X) (X)

review is covering. ‘X’ denotes phases that an approach
covers comprehensively, for example, by developing
new DfAM-specific support tools for this phase. ‘(X)’
denotes phases that an approach covers partly, that is,
it adopts existing support tools for this phase or its
new contributions to this phase are rudimentary.
3.2. Limitations of previous DfAM research
Literature review and the analysis of DfAM in the context
of VDI 2221 expose two overarching or primary limitations
of existing DfAM approaches which provide, at the same
time, promising research opportunities:
. Missing integration into common framework: Although
DfAM by quite a few is understood as a concept cover-
ing all design phases from product requirement/idea
to design solution, no continuous method or frame-
work in the style of VDI 2221 is available for DfAM.
In particular, all of the presented approaches
improve the utilisation of AM only in their specific
manner and facilitate the application of additively
manufactured parts in end-use products. However,
design engineers are currently not provided with a
methodical AM product development process
guiding them from product idea to detail design.
. Independence of DfAM approaches: Previous research
is fragmented; almost all DfAM approaches are devel-
oped independently and do not build on each other.
For instance, most combined approaches (Section
2.1.3) do not utilise existing knowledge from AM
design rules (Section 2.1.1) and concepts for utilising
AM potentials (Section 2.1.2). Even though there are
approaches that include a continuous DfAM rudimen-
tarily based on a standardised product development
process model (Kranz 2014), there are basically no
interfaces between existing DfAM elements.
In addition, existing DfAM research possesses the follow-
ing inherent or secondary limitations:
. Limited universal validity of AM design rules: The inter-
actions between process parameters and part-specific
properties are highly complex, making predictions by
means of process simulation difficult (Ponche et al.
2014). Thus, the validity of design rules is restricted
to a specific physical principle, material, and
machine class, for example, Adam and Zimmer
(2014) and Kranz et al. (2015). While rules of such
kind seem appropriate for AM-experienced design
engineers, only few general guidelines are available
10 M. KUMKE ET AL.
to introduce the new principles and restrictions to
AM-inexperienced design engineers.
. Focus on utilisation of single AM potentials: AM is often
used for the optimisation of one specific design objec-
tive, for example, weight reduction achieved by top-
ology optimisation (Emmelmann et al. 2011), or a
decreased number of assembly operations (Boyard
et al. 2013). Although a selectively increased product
performance justifies the use of these methodologies,
many additional AM design potentials oftentimes
remain untapped, especially for completely new
designs. Approaches based on functional specifica-
tions due to product requirements instead of an
initial CAD model (Ponche et al. 2012), are promising
exceptions for simulation-driven design.
. Disproportional attention to innovative designs: Very
few methodologies are available to inspire new
designs and product innovations in the conceptual
phase of the product development process (Bin
Maidin et al. 2012, Doubrovski et al. 2012). Therefore,
a systematic utilisation of AM potentials is limited by
conceptual and cognitive barriers as a result of con-
ventional process restrictions that have to be comple-
tely disregarded to exploit the full design potential of
AM (Seepersad 2014). For this reason, specific geome-
tries caused by manufacturability limitations should
not be taken into account too early in AM product
development processes.
3.3. Requirements for a new DfAM framework
The last section demonstrates the need for a new frame-
work or methodology integrating previously indepen-
dent DfAM approaches and tools. The goal is to guide
DfAM novices and experts through the development
process, provide them with the right tools at the right
time, and thereby facilitate the development of truly
DfAM-optimised products.
In some previous research papers, requirements refer-
ring to a continuous DfAM methodology have been for-
mulated and important specifications, for example,
increased support in early design stages, have been
pointed out (Laverne et al. 2014, Yang and Zhao 2015).
However, none of them provides an own detailed
concept to thoroughly fulfil these challenging require-
ments. Their solutions’ usually low degree of detail is
exemplarily shown in Figure 3. In addition, the idea of
integrating and utilising existing DfAM approaches has
not been included in these methodological concepts.
Therefore, the central objective is to turn an estab-
lished framework and a uniform interface for the connec-
tion of individual approaches with their different
Figure 3. AM-enabled design method proposed by Yang and
Zhao (2015). Note: With kind permission from Springer Science
+Business Media: Yang and Zhao (2015, p. 339, Fig. 18).
advantages and abstraction levels into a holistic tool
and add missing modules to ensure a systematic exploita-
tion of AM potentials as well as an easy adaption to further
advancements in AM technologies. We formulate the
requirements for our new DfAM framework as follows:
. Comprehensiveness: Similar to VDI 2221, the frame-
work must provide continuous support in all design
stages from task clarification to detail design.
. Modularity: The framework must be based on a
modular structure to ensure that individual
approaches and tools can be integrated easily into
the overall framework and that their strengths are
capitalised. In addition, modularity enables an easy
updating of the framework in case of new technol-
ogies or redefined requirements.
. Guidance, ease of use and abstraction level: The frame-
work must serve as a guideline through the develop-
ment process, useful by both DfAM novices and
experts and valid for different types of products.
Skipping or tailoring modules based on the individ-
ual application must therefore be easily feasible.
The kind and abstraction level of support modules
must thus be adjustable to respective stages of the
design process and the level of knowledge of the
product as well as the design engineer’s experiences
and skills.
. Goal orientation: AM-specific design potentials must
be easily identified and their interrelations for a sys-
tematic application/utilisation in the design process
must be ensured to achieve concrete goals/product
improvements.

Figure 4. Approach for developing the new DfAM framework consisting of (1) framework derivation, (2) integration types, and (3) a
concept for using the framework.
. Degree of novelty: The differentiation between new
(innovative) designs and redesigns (routine custo-
mised designs) has to be reflected in the procedure.
4. Proposal of a new DfAM framework
Based on the requirements compiled in the previous
chapter, we develop a new DfAM framework particularly
alleviating the primary limitations of previous DfAM
research. Our proposal is based on three main ideas:
First, we present the DfAM framework itself which is
derived from VDI 2221 (Section 4.1). Second, we integrate
existing general design methods as well as existing DfAM
methods into the framework by means of different inte-
gration types (Section 4.2). Third, we provide a concept
for using the framework based on specific criteria such
as the product design’s degree of novelty (Section 4.3).
Our overall approach is visualised in Figure 4.
4.1. DfAM framework
The derivation of a new framework constitutes the first
step in the development of a continuous DfAM. The fra-
mework represented in Figure 5 is based on the general
VDI 2221 process model and adheres to the traditional
subdivision into the phases planning and clarifying the
task, conceptual design, embodiment design and detail
design (see Section 3.1). This helps design engineers to
familiarise themselves quickly with the new method-
ology as they can build on existing process knowledge.
However, the last two phases are consolidated in our fra-
mework because they are increasingly blended due to
CAD utilisation and iterations between these phases
(Ehrlenspiel and Meerkamm 2013).
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 11
The standard VDI procedure is adapted to the distinc-
tive characteristics of AM by including additional AM-
driven steps at certain points in the process, for example,
a new decision gate after the conceptual phase due to
the currently limited applicability of AM for end products.
Other traditional steps are modified or abbreviated. The
framework modules are numbered from 1 to 9; many of
them comprise several submodules (e.g. module 3a). Mod-
ularity allows an easy integration of various existing
methods and tools (see Section 4.2). The modules can be
compared to the seven steps of VDI 2221; the submodules
are more specific and provide detail support.
In module 1, the product requirements list is com-
piled. However, there are different alternatives to enter
the DfAM framework, for example, a preliminary parts
selection (see Section 2.2.1). The possible ways to start
the process are described in Section 4.3 together with
various options for using the framework in practice.
The conceptual design phase (modules 2 and 3) starts
with the determination of function structures based on
product requirements. In the following step, basic solution
ideas are developed. This step particularly focuses on the
systematic utilisation of AM design potentials, for
example, through association aids like bionics catalogues
creating the awareness for AM potentials. We emphasise
the iterative character of creating and revising ideas
both within this and the following phases. The result of
the conceptual design phase is one or more conceptual
models depending on the product type.
Based on the conceptual model(s), a modular product
structure is developed. This is the first step of a decision
gate containing modules 4 to 6. The division into realis-
able modules considers general AM restrictions (e.g.
maximum part size) as well as other manufacturing
12 M. KUMKE ET AL.

Figure 5. DfAM framework overview.


technologies which may be more suitable for specific
parts of the product. Afterwards, technical and economic
feasibility are checked. Criteria for technical feasibility
evaluation include, for instance, the comparison of avail-
able AM material properties with product requirements
or available build chamber sizes. Economic feasibility is
evaluated with the help of several criteria including fun-
damental production characteristics (e.g. lot size) or
product complexity. An early economic evaluation is
helpful in order to avoid unnecessary efforts in the sub-
sequent steps if profitability seems far from being attain-
able. Hybrid manufacturing strategies, that is, a
combination of additive and conventional manufactur-
ing, may also be suggested in the iterative process of
the decision gate. Only those parts of the product
which are to be additively manufactured are subject of
the following phase of the DfAM framework. Parts pro-
duced with conventional manufacturing technologies
will be developed further with the help of other design
methodologies.
In the embodiment and detail design phase (modules
7–9), the design solution is completed. In the first step,
specific product properties may be optimised, for
example, by topology optimisation. Afterwards, the
actual AM-conformal design is created, for example, with
the help of an AM design rule collection or AM-specific
CAD functions. It may be necessary to take conventional
DFX methods into account as well, for example, DFM
guidelines for subsequent processes such as milling. The
last step contains submodules for simulation, design
check, and manufacturability analysis. Several iterations
may be necessary to achieve the final design solution.
Module F (right side bar) deals with functional exten-
sion and parts consolidation, which are major AM design
potentials. It is relevant for both conceptual and embodi-
ment/detail design phase, since functional integration is
not limited to one of these phases.
Following the structure of VDI 2221, the framework
contains a left side bar for iterative forwards and back-
wards between phases and modules. Although the
main path suggests a linear process flow, today’s
design processes require high degrees of flexibility. Infor-
mation flow to the left side bar is either triggered at the
evaluation gates or through special advices within the
framework modules depending on the design goals.
4.2. Concept for the integration of existing tools
and methods
The basis for the integration and utilisation of existing
methods and tools is the modularity of the framework.
We distinguish three types of integration (see Figure 4).
Integration type 1 focuses on the inclusion of general
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 13
design methods and tools which are also helpful in a
product development with AM. In contrast, integration
type 2 contains existing DfAM-specific tools and
methods. Integration type 3 finally tends on a consolida-
tion of related DfAM approaches to provide a more
general and/or wider support for the design engineer.
The different types of integration are described and
exemplified in the following subsections.
4.2.1. Integration type 1: direct integration of
general design methods and tools
Integration type 1 is based on the idea that there is no
necessity to create AM-specific tools for each and every
step of the framework. Many proven general design
methods and tools developed in the past are indepen-
dent of manufacturing processing and can thus be
used for DfAM as well. Particularly in the conceptual
phase of the process, tools of general application can
be even more suitable, since they provide a broad
scope for solutions. These include, but are not limited
to, methods such as quality function deployment,
theory of inventive problem solving, brainstorming, func-
tion structure graphs, catalogues of solution principles,
concepts for mass customisation, etc. (Osborn 1963,
Mizuno and Akao 1994, Tseng and Jiao 1998, Altshuller
1999, Roth 2002). Moreover, conventional DFMA guide-
lines (Bralla 1999, Boothroyd et al. 2011) must be taken
into account if other manufacturing technologies are
involved in the process chain, for example, machining
for surface finishing.
4.2.2. Integration type 2: direct integration of DfAM-
specific approaches
Integration type 2 describes DfAM-specific approaches
that can be integrated directly into the framework
without major adaptions. Such methods and tools gener-
ally provide very specific support at single steps or par-
ticular tasks. Integration type 2 approaches are either
independent developments essentially on the basis of
AM characteristics or AM-specific modifications of
general design methods and tools.
Approaches essentially developed on the basis of AM
characteristics include, for example, the DfAM feature
database of Bin Maidin et al. (2012) which provides
support in developing basic solution ideas. It can be
used in module 3a of the conceptual design phase to
seize a suggestion of design features according to selec-
tive AM-related design objectives such as improved func-
tionality or parts consolidation. Due to the integration
into the framework, the tool fosters the selection of suit-
able AM benefits/potentials based on product require-
ments. Afterwards, the results of the inspiration can be
concretised with additional tools in the embodiment
14 M. KUMKE ET AL.
and detail design phase to provide the design engineer
with a continuous support. For this reason, the database
already contains information about limitations of the
design features like machine or material.
Furthermore, many existing DfAM approaches are
based both on conventional design methods and AM
characteristics. By means of a transfer of AM-enabled
design opportunities to general design methods, modifi-
cations of these are established, for example, by Boyard
et al. (2013) and by Rodrigue and Rivette (2010). Both aim
at parts consolidation and the resultant reduction of part
count. The method of parts consolidation proposed by
Boyard et al. (2013) is based on the principle of abstrac-
tion and a parallelisation of DFA and DFM. Rodrigue and
Rivette (2010) develop a method to reduce the number
of joints between parts systematically by using a flow
chart and the shape complexity potential of AM pro-
cesses. Function structure graphs and flow charts are
both typical tools adopted from conventional design
methodologies.
Another example for integration type 2 is the use of
proven optimisation methods such as DfAM-specific top-
ology optimisation approaches provided by, for example,
Emmelmann et al. (2011) and Leary et al. (2014). These
are integrated into module 7a of the framework.
4.2.3. Integration type 3: synthesis of similar DfAM
approaches
Integration type 3 proposes a synthesis of similar DfAM
approaches with the same or comparable objective.
AM design rules, for example, are widely available for
several processes and materials as well as in different
levels of detail.
To support engineers optimally in AM-conformal design
for variable design tasks, they should be provided with
guidelines and rules independent of the AM machine as
it is rarely well-defined prior to the design process. More-
over, AM-inexperienced design engineers rather need
general guidelines to familiarise themselves with the
most important aspects of AM-conformal design (e.g. the
principle of support structures). Experienced design engin-
eers, on the other hand, need quantitative rules of thumb
for specific geometric features (e.g. minimal wall thickness).
We therefore integrated all design rules currently
available for SLM, SLS, and FDM into a comprehensive
catalogue incorporating both general AM characteristics
and detailed restrictions. To facilitate its application, we
created an interactive user interface (an example page
is shown in Figure 6). It provides users with a structured
access to various types of rules. Each rule is illustrated in
a standard format including a precise description, its val-
idity for specific AM processes, graphics for unfavourable
and favourable design solutions as well as guiding
values. Although the latter differ depending on the
source, users get a reasonable feeling for quantitative
limitations. Moreover, links to related rules are provided
on each page.
4.3. Using the framework
The third element of our approach is a concept for using
the framework in the context of product development in
practice. Only in this way the framework serves as an
actual support tool for the design engineer. We
propose different paths through the framework depend-
ing on (1) the product’s degree of novelty, (2) the
respective user’s experience with AM, and (3) the main
design goal:
(1) Before starting the actual process, the design’s
degree of novelty is determined, since it influences
the use of specific modules. For new designs, on
the one hand, it is usually essential to go through
the whole process. Redesigns, on the other hand,
are usually based on predetermined function struc-
tures and initial CAD models. Hence, they require
less work in the conceptual design phase. It has to
be noted, however, that the conceptual design
phase should not be skipped particularly for rede-
signs of assemblies. Redesigns can be converted
into new designs if unexpected AM potentials are
discovered in the course of the structured process,
for example, parts consolidation potentials enabled
by AM. Even for redesigns of single parts, it can be
helpful to analyse functional extension potentials.
(2) User experience with AM is another criterion used to
decide whether specific modules are helpful or not.
An AM novice needs basic information about the
capabilities of AM processes (e.g. the general idea of
incorporating lattice structures), whereas an AM
expert is rather interested in quantitative values (e.g.
minimum and maximum cell sizes of lattice
structures).
(3) The main design goal also influences the utilisation
of specific parts of the framework. We suggest deter-
mining one or more design goals, for example, light-
weight design, at the beginning of the process.
Based on this decision, it is possible to offer goal-
oriented methods and tools (e.g. topology optimis-
ation) or to disable irrelevant modules.
We therefore suggest predefining the applicability of
each module, submodule, and tool in terms of these cri-
teria. The concept is schematically shown in Table 2.
Module 2, for example, is only applicable to new
designs, but not influenced by other criteria. Module 3
 VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 15

Figure 6. Interactive system for AM design rules (example page).

is applicable to every design task, but its submodules
and tools are task-specific. The definition of applicability
leads to an automatic generation of paths through the
framework based on the given setting.
Although it is possible to use the framework modules
individually or start the process at any module, we
always suggest compiling at least a requirements list
and using a pre-defined standard path through the fra-
mework based on distinctive criteria as this greatly
improves the usability of the proposed concept.
An example case showing the practical usage of the
framework is presented in Figure 7. The case study is
about the redesign of a housing cover assembly, the
user is an AM novice, and the goal is lightweight design.
After compiling the requirements list, the user enters
the conceptual design phase. He is provided with ideas
for AM-specific features based on the design goal, that
is, lightweight design enabled by lattice structures.
Since the product comprises several separate parts, the
user is redirected to module F (functional extension and
parts consolidation) where he gains ideas for reducing
part count. The result of the conceptual phase is a new
conceptual model of the product. In the following
decision gate, the user decides to turn the assembly
into a single part based on the ideas gained in module
F. The user then identifies SLM as the most suitable tech-
nology supported by an AM process selection system.
Due to the small lot size, economic feasibility is given. In
the following embodiment and detail design phase, the
user is provided with specific design rules and CAD func-
tions in the CAE environment to create an AM-conformal
design with regard to support-free lattice structures and
necessary post-processing steps. The user is also
advised of carrying out FE and manufacturability analyses.

Table 2. Schematic concept for the applicability of DfAM framework elements in dependence of given boundary conditions (‘X’ denotes
applicability).
User experience
Degree of novelty with AM Design goal
Redesign New Light- Parts …
Single part Assembly design Novice Expert weight consolidation
…
Module 2: determination of functions and their structures X X X X X X
Module 3: development of basic solution ideas X X X X X X X X
Submodule 3a: AM-specific association aids X X X X X X X
Submodule 3b: design catalogues X X X X X X X X
Tool 3b1 X X X X X X
Tool 3b2 X X X X
…
16 M. KUMKE ET AL.
Figure 7. Exemplary application of DfAM framework for part redesign.
In addition to weight reduction achieved by incorporat-
ing lattice structures, part count is reduced from 10 to 1
which leads to lower assembly costs and higher reliability.
Each module has specific input data, provides appropri-
ate methods and tools, and generates output data based
on both inputs and utilised tools. The input–output
relations of the information flow between the modules
are thus flexible and strongly dependent on the boundary
conditions. In order to demonstrate the input–output
relations in more detail, we exemplarily highlight them
for module 3 (development of basic solution ideas):
. Inputs: existing product geometry, requirements list,
boundary conditions (product’s degree of novelty,
design goal, user’s experience with AM);
. Methods and tools (recommendation based on bound-
ary conditions): bionics catalogue for lightweight
design, AM feature database, brainstorming;

. Outputs: redirection to module F for parts consolida-
tion and revised conceptual model.
The case study reveals that even AM-inexperienced
design engineers can create AM-optimal products if
they are provided with customised guidance through
the design process and if selected existing tools and
methods are utilised at the correct point in time. The
combination of its higher degree of detail within the
modules and the comprehensive coverage of the
whole design process make the framework unique. In
contrast, previously published DfAM methods (e.g.
Figure 3) usually have a lower degree of detail and do
not integrate other established general and AM-specific
design tools and methods.
5. Conclusion and future research
In this paper, previous research on DfAM is reviewed and
classified. Limitations particularly exist in the conjunction
of different approaches and in the continuous methodical
support of design engineers from product idea to design
solution. Existing DfAM approaches were basically devel-
oped independently and they are not integrated into a
common DfAM framework to support all design phases.
Based on general design methodologies (e.g. VDI
2221), a new DfAM framework is proposed which pro-
vides design engineers with structured guidelines to
fully exploit AM potentials, for example, by identifying
paths to innovative AM-conformal redesigns in contrast
to simple part modifications. Its core advantages over
previous approaches are comprehensiveness and modu-
larity which allow an easy integration of existing DfAM
tools and methods into the correct design phases and
facilitate a goal-oriented utilisation of AM design poten-
tials. In addition, a concept for using the DfAM frame-
work is proposed which ensures specific support and
guidance for the design engineer by considering user
experience (AM knowledge), the design’s degree of
novelty, and design goals. The applicability of the frame-
work is shown by an exemplary case study.
Nonetheless, an extensive validation of the proposed
DfAM framework cannot be realised on the basis of one
example part in this paper. However, the integrated
methods and tools are established and therefore vali-
dated individually. Thus, the quality of the framework
depends on its contents.
Future research will concentrate on the elaboration of
individual modules to provide continuous specific
support in all design phases, including the typically indis-
pensable post-processing steps for AM parts. Due to the
modular structure of the new DfAM framework, these
can be easily integrated into the overall structure. The
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 17
interfaces between the modules have to been defined
and standardised. Finally, the framework can also
provide the architecture for DfAM-specific software
tools. For example, these can be designed for supporting
design engineers at selecting appropriate process
modules and design tools according to the design goal
or the user’s AM experience. In addition, DfAM software
based on the proposed framework can include struc-
tured databases of existing AM example parts serving
as association aids or the option to generate standar-
dised scorecards for part candidates based on technical
and economic feasibility evaluation. The modularity of
the framework allows the inclusion of conventional soft-
ware tools which can be easily replaced once AM-specific
solutions are available. Software implementations could
thus greatly improve the applicability of the framework.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Achillas, C., et al., 2014. A methodological framework for the
inclusion of modern additive manufacturing into the pro-
duction portfolio of a focused factory. Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 37 (1), 328–339.
Adam, G.A.O. and Zimmer, D., 2014. Design for additive manu-
facturing – element transitions and aggregated structures.
CIRP Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, 7 (1),
20–28.
Altshuller, G., 1999. The innovation algorithm: TRIZ, systematic
innovation, and technical creativity. Worcester, MA:
Technical Innovation Center.
Ariadi, Y., et al., 2012. Combining additive manufacturing with
computer aided consumer design. Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium. Austin, TX, 238–249.
Becker, R., Grzesiak, A., and Henning, A., 2005. Rethink assembly
design. Assembly Automation, 25 (4), 262–266.
Bibb, R., et al., 1999. Development of a rapid prototyping design
advice system. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 10 (3–4),
331–339.
Bin Maidin, S., Campbell, I., and Pei, E., 2012. Development of a
design feature database to support design for additive man-
ufacturing. Assembly Automation, 32 (3), 235–244.
Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P., and Knight, W.A., 2011. Product
design for manufacture and assembly. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
Boyard, N., et al., 2013. A design methodology for parts using
additive manufacturing. In: P.J. Bártolo et al., eds. High
Value Manufacturing. Boca-Raton, FL: CRC Press, 399–404.
Bralla, J.G., 1999. Design for manufacturability handbook.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Burton, M.J., 2005. Design for rapid manufacture: developing an
appropriate knowledge transfer tool for industrial designers.
Thesis (PhD). Loughborough University.
Byun, H.S. and Lee, K.H., 2005. A decision support system for the
selection of a rapid prototyping process using the modified
18 M. KUMKE ET AL.
TOPSIS method. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 26 (11–12), 1338–1347.
Campbell, I., Bourell, D.L., and Gibson, I., 2012. Additive manu-
facturing: rapid prototyping comes of age. Rapid
Prototyping Journal, 18 (4), 255–258.
Campbell, R.I. and Bernie, M.R.N., 1996. Creating a database of
rapid prototyping system capabilities. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 61 (1–2), 163–167.
Conner, B.P., et al., 2014. Making sense of 3-D printing: creating
a map of additive manufacturing products and services.
Additive Manufacturing, 1–4, 64–76.
Doubrovski, E.L., Verlinden, J.C., and Horvath, I., 2012. First steps
towards collaboratively edited design for additive manufac-
turing knowledge. Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium.
Austin, TX, 891–901.
Ehrlenspiel, K. and Meerkamm, H., 2013. Integrierte
Produktentwicklung: Denkabläufe, Methodeneinsatz,
Zusammenarbeit. Munich: Hanser.
Emmelmann, C., et al., 2011. Laser additive manufacturing and
bionics: redefining lightweight design. Physics Procedia, 12,
Part A, 364–368.
Eyers, D. and Dotchev, K., 2010. Technology review for mass
customisation using rapid manufacturing. Assembly
Automation, 30 (1), 39–46.
Gebhardt, A., 2011. Understanding additive manufacturing: rapid
prototyping, rapid tooling, rapid manufacturing. Munich:
Hanser.
Gerber, G.F. and Barnard, L.J., 2008. Designing for laser sinter-
ing. Journal for New Generation Sciences, 6 (2), 47–59.
Gibson, I., Rosen, D.W., and Stucker, B., 2015. Additive manufac-
turing technologies: 3D printing, rapid prototyping and direct
digital manufacturing. New York: Springer.
Hague, R., Mansour, S., and Saleh, N., 2003. Design opportunities with
rapid manufacturing. Assembly Automation, 23 (4), 346–356.
Hague, R., Masood, S., and Saleh, N., 2004. Material and design
considerations for rapid manufacturing. International Journal
of Production Research, 42 (22), 4691–4708.
Hochschule Bremen. 2008. Design guidelines for rapid prototyp-
ing: Konstruktionsrichtlinie für ein fertigungsgerechtes
Gestalten anhand des Fused Deposition Modeling mit
Dimension SST 768 [online]. Available from: http://
homepages.hs-bremen.de/~dhennigs/SERP%20-%
20Downloads/Gestaltungsrichtlinien%20DIMENSION%
20768%20SST.pdf [Accessed 24 October 2015].
Kaschka, U. and Auerbach, P., 2000. Selection and evaluation of
rapid tooling process chains with protool. Rapid Prototyping
Journal, 6 (1), 60–66.
Kerbrat, O., Mognol, P., and Hascoet, J.-Y., 2010.
Manufacturability analysis to combine additive and subtrac-
tive processes. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 16 (1), 63–72.
Kerbrat, O., Mognol, P., and Hascoët, J.-Y., 2011. A new DFM
approach to combine machining and additive manufactur-
ing. Computers in Industry, 62 (7), 684–692.
Kirchner, K., 2011. Entwicklung eines Informationssystems für den
effizienten Einsatz generativer Fertigungsverfahren im
Produktentwicklungsprozess. Munich: Dr. Hut.
Klahn, C., Leutenecker, B., and Meboldt, M., 2014. Design for
additive manufacturing – supporting the substitution of
components in series products. Procedia CIRP, 21, 138–143.
Klahn, C., Leutenecker, B., and Meboldt, M., 2015. Design strat-
egies for the process of additive manufacturing. Procedia
CIRP, 36, 230–235.
Ko, H., Moon, S.K., and Hwang, J., 2015. Design for additive man-
ufacturing in customized products. International Journal of
Precision Engineering and Manufacturing, 16 (11), 2369–2375.
Kranz, J., 2014. Design for manufacturing approach for laser
additive manufactured bionic lightweight structures in
TiAl6V4. Rapid Tech. Erfurt, Germany.
Kranz, J., Herzog, D., and Emmelmann, C., 2015. Design guidelines
for laser additive manufacturing of lightweight structures in
TiAl6V4. Journal of Laser Applications, 27 (S1), S14001–14016.
Kuo, T.C., Huang, S.H., and Zhang, H.C., 2001. Design for manufac-
ture and design for ‘X’: concepts, applications, and perspec-
tives. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 41 (3), 241–260.
Laverne, F., et al., 2014. DfAM in the design process: a proposal
of classification to foster early design stages. Confere.
Sibenik, Croatia.
Leary, M., et al., 2014. Optimal topology for additive manufacture: a
method for enabling additive manufacture of support-free
optimal structures. Materials & Design, 63, 678–690.
Lindemann, C., et al., 2015. Towards a sustainable and economic
selection of part candidates for additive manufacturing.
Rapid Prototyping Journal, 21 (2), 216–227.
Merkt, S., et al., 2012. Geometric complexity analysis in an inte-
grative technology evaluation model (ITEM) for selective
laser melting (SLM). South African Journal of Industrial
Engineering, 23 (2), 97–105.
Mizuno, S. and Akao, Y., eds., 1994. QFD: the customer-driven
approach to quality planning and deployment. Tokyo: Asian
Productivity Organization.
Munguía, J., et al., 2010. Development of an AI-based rapid
manufacturing advice system. International Journal of
Production Research, 48 (8), 2261–2278.
Osborn, A.F., 1963. Applied imagination: principles and procedures
of creative problem-solving. 3rd ed. New York: Scribner.
Pahl, G., et al., 2007. Engineering design: a systematic approach.
3rd ed. London: Springer.
Petrovic, V., et al., 2011. Additive layered manufacturing: sectors
of industrial application shown through case studies.
International Journal of Production Research, 49 (4), 1061–1079.
Pine II, B.J., 1993. Mass customization: the new frontier in business
competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ponche, R., et al., 2012. A new global approach to design for
additive manufacturing. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 7
(2), 93–105.
Ponche, R., et al., 2014. A novel methodology of design for addi-
tive manufacturing applied to additive laser manufacturing
process. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing,
30 (4), 389–398.
Rodrigue, H. and Rivette, M., 2010. An assembly-level design for
additive manufacturing methodology. Proceedings of IDMME
– Virtual Concept. Bordeaux.
Rosen, D.W., 2007a. Computer-aided design for additive manu-
facturing of cellular structures. Computer-Aided Design &
Applications, 4 (5), 585–594.
Rosen, D.W., 2007b. Design for additive manufacturing: a
method to explore unexplored regions of the design space.
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium. Austin, TX, 402–415.
Rosen, D.W., 2014. Research supporting principles for design for
additive manufacturing. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 9
(4), 225–232.
Roth, K., 2002. Design catalogues and their usage. In: A.
Chakrabarti, ed. Engineering design synthesis: understanding,
approaches and tools. London: Springer, 121–129.

Seepersad, C.C., 2014. Challenges and opportunities in design
for additive manufacturing. 3D Printing and Additive
Manufacturing, 1 (1), 10–13.
Seepersad, C.C., et al., 2014. A designer’s guide for dimension-
ing and tolerancing SLS parts. Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium. Austin, TX, 921–931.
Tang, Y., Kurtz, A., and Zhao, Y.F., 2015. Bidirectional evolution-
ary structural optimization (BESO) based design method for
lattice structure to be fabricated by additive manufacturing.
Computer-Aided Design, 69, 91–101.
Thomas, D., 2009. The development of design rules for selective
laser melting. Thesis (PhD). University of Wales.
Tomiyama, T., et al., 2009. Design methodologies: industrial and
educational applications. CIRP Annals – Manufacturing
Technology, 58, 543–565.
Tseng, M.M. and Jiao, J., 1998. Concurrent design for mass
customization. Business Process Management Journal, 4 (1),
10–24.
Tuck, C.J., et al., 2008. Rapid manufacturing facilitated customi-
zation. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, 21 (3), 245–258.
Vayre, B., Vignat, F., and Villeneuve, F., 2012. Designing for addi-
tive manufacturing. Procedia CIRP, 3, 632–637.
VDI. 1993. VDI 2221: Systematic approach to the development
and design of technical systems and products. Berlin: Beuth.
VDI. 2015. VDI 3405 Part 3: additive manufacturing processes,
rapid manufacturing – design rules for part production using
laser sintering and laser beam melting. Berlin: Beuth.
VIRTUAL AND PHYSICAL PROTOTYPING 19
Venkata Rao, R. and Padmanabhan, K.K., 2007. Rapid prototyping
process selection using graph theory and matrix approach.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 194, 81–88.
Verquin, B., et al., 2014. SASAM (support action for standardi-
sation in additive manufacturing): guidelines for the
development of the EU standards in additive manufacturing
[online]. Available from: http://www.sasam.eu/index.php/
downloads/send/3-deliverables-public/3-d3–3-first-and-
second-draft-guidelines.html [Accessed 24 October 2015].
Watts, D.M. and Hague, R.J., 2006. Exploiting the design
freedom of RM. Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium.
Austin, TX, 656–667.
Wegner, A. and Witt, G., 2012. Design rules for laser sintering.
Journal of Plastics Technology, 8 (3), 253–277.
Wohlers, T., 2014. Wohlers report 2014: 3D printing and additive
manufacturing state of the industry – annual worldwide pro-
gress report. Fort Collins, CO: Wohlers Associates.
Yang, S. and Zhao, Y.F., 2015. Additive manufacturing-enabled
design theory and methodology: a critical review. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
80 (1), 327–342.
Zhang, Y., et al., 2014a. Evaluating the design for additive man-
ufacturing: a process planning perspective. Procedia CIRP, 21,
144–150.
Zhang, Y., Xu, Y., and Bernard, A., 2014b. A new decision support
method for the selection of RP process: knowledge value
measuring. International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, 27 (8), 747–758.