ASM Handbook, Volume 24A, Additive Manufacturing Design and Applications
M. Seifi, D. Bourell, W. Frazier, H. Kuhn, editors
https://doi.org/10.31399/asm.hb.v24A.a0006948
Design Rules
Eujin Pei, Brunel University, London
David W. Rosen, Georgia Institute of Technology
Carolyn Seepersad, University of Texas, Austin
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING (AM)
offers expansive design freedoms for realizing
parts that are more complex and customized
than their conventionally fabricated counter-
parts, but all AM technologies impose restric-
tions on buildable geometries and features.
Design rules capture those restrictions in the
form of best practices to successfully design
for AM. This article discusses how design
rules can potentially support and accelerate
the process of developing part geometry with
AM in mind.
The four steps of product development are
defining product function in terms of what
the product is meant to do; recognizing the
constraints associated with nonnegotiable con-
ditions that must be met; understanding the
objectives that must be maximized or mini-
mized; and finally, defining the design problem
parameters that the designer has the freedom
to change (Ref 1). Design for additive manu-
facturing (DFAM) takes a more holistic
approach that can be defined as “maximizing
product performance through the synthesis of
shapes, sizes, hierarchical structures, and mate-
rial compositions, subject to the capabilities of
AM technologies” (Ref 2). The term DFAM
originated from design for manufacturing,
which centers on designing a product that is
easy to manufacture (Ref 3). More specifically,
DFAM is aimed specifically at parts manufac-
tured using AM processes with constraints that
are different from those of conventional manu-
facturing processes (Ref 4). Diegel et al. pro-
posed four main steps in DFAM: removing
all material that does not serve an engineering
function; optimizing parts to improve function-
ality; deciding on a print orientation that may
be a compromise of fabrication time, surface
quality, mechanical properties, and postproces-
sing; and finally, modifying the design to elim-
inate the need for support material or other
postprocessing steps (Ref 5). Alfaify et al.
provided a systematic review of DFAM, dis-
cussing issues related to the design of support
structures, build orientation, part consolidation
and assembly, materials, part complexity, and
product sustainability (Ref 6).
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
Copyright # 2023 ASM InternationalW
While software packages can be used to
identify features that are difficult to fabricate,
such as thin walls and overhangs, design rules
are intended to be used much earlier in the
design process to take AM process-related
considerations into account before the com-
puter-aided design (CAD) model is finalized.
Software tools that are used to simulate the
fabrication process and optimize and refine
support structures, part orientation, part pack-
ing, and arrangement of parts include Material-
ise Magics, ANSYS Additive Suite, and
Autodesk Netfabb. Other tools focus on part
consolidation and assembly integration that
can be enabled using AM, such as those by
Schmelzle et al. and Yang et al., to reduce
the part count and overall mass via part consol-
idation while taking sustainability, lifecycle
factors, and AM constraints into consideration
(Ref 7–11). Dowdell et al. proposed DFAM
with topology optimization for assemblies by
first producing a preliminary CAD model that
is subject to finite-element analysis (Ref 12).
Topology optimization is then used to identify
primary load paths within the design space
before investigating whether the assembly ben-
efits from the use of AM by approximating the
required support material, cost, weight, and
part and joint count. The CAD tools for com-
ponent, part, process, and assembly design
are provided by Wiberg et al. (Ref 13). Ponche
et al. proposed a general methodology for
DFAM that focuses on the orientation of the
part and the geometry that is established using
topological optimization as well as process
variables such as the laser parameters for the
build (Ref 14). In this method, the emphasis
is on part orientation that leads to the best sur-
face finish and accuracy.
In contrast with CAD- and software-focused
approaches, Seepersad et al. suggested that
design guides enable users to gain a better
understanding of the limitations of a particular
AM process and, more importantly, to recog-
nize the design opportunities and freedoms
afforded by AM that need to be balanced with
an understanding of the significant restrictions
on the types of features that can be built
All rights reserved
www.asminternational.org
(Ref 15). In doing so, users will be able to
avoid build failures and to successfully pro-
duce parts. To consolidate knowledge about
AM design features, Bin Maidin et al. pro-
posed a database containing 106 design fea-
tures with four top-level taxons, including
user fit requirements, functionality require-
ments, parts consolidation requirements, and
aesthetic requirements (Ref 16). Users access
the database through a series of questions, a
search function, or browsing the design fea-
tures with a short description and an image.
Similar taxons by means of high-level entities
were also proposed by Dinar and Rosen about
a DFAM ontology created on the basis of
important knowledge that should be expressed
in a manufacturing scenario using subjects and
objects (Ref 17).
Design guidance for AM is available in sev-
eral different forms, including design princi-
ples, design fundamentals, design methods,
and design rules. According to Leutenecker-
Twelsiek et al., design principles are used to
transfer a principal solution into a specific,
manufacturable design to exploit the freedom
of design of AM and to circumvent existing
AM constraints creatively (Ref 18). These
principles can be in the form of recommenda-
tions and instructions to increase the quality
of parts, reduce costs, or minimize postproces-
sing steps. Design principles are basic, logical
correlations that capture key process and con-
trol parameters (Ref 19). Design fundamentals
are basic components extracted from design
guidelines and can be used to compose design
principles and subsequent rules. These include
five groups of design features, as summarized
in Table 1. Design guidelines are text or illus-
trative information that help users understand
AM categories, processes, operating procedures,
and best practices to take advantage of the cap-
abilities of an AM-dependent or -independent
process. For example, Gibson et al. offered
guidelines for selecting an AM process with
considerations such as value-added perfor-
mance, including lightweight stiffness and
strength, gradation of materials, or multifunc-
tionality (Ref 20). A number of AM design
 2 / Design Principles

guides for process and material-specific is available in-house or externally, it should be multiple files. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the adja-
requirements have been published by service selected. Another alternative is to split the design cent parts rule is relevant when two models are
bureaus and AM companies, and they often into two or more parts, each of which is small placed next to one another to form a single part
include compilations of design rules. For enough to fit into the machine build chamber. after fabrication. Much better and consistent
example, Materialise published 19 design This option is shown in the right “favorable” results will be obtained by combining the mul-
guides for a variety of materials that provide image of the part size rule in Fig. 1. If the part tiple part files in the originating CAD system
information about minimum wall thickness, must be split, better results can be obtained if or by using an appropriate software that
minimum detail size, expected accuracy, max- the designer considers the shape of the overall enables combining part files. Otherwise, in
imum part size, clearance, interlocking, and part to determine where the split lines will occur. many AM processes, the mating region
enclosed parts (Ref 21). Stratasys published Similar reasoning is applied when deciding how between the multiple files will be weaker than
guides that address metal powder-bed fusion, to split a product enclosure into multiple parts. the rest of the part due to material-processing
polymer powder-bed fusion, and material Typically, split lines will be apparent, so their characteristics.
extrusion (Ref 22, 23). Shapeways published location and shape should be chosen to enhance
design guidelines for 16 materials (Ref 24) that the overall aesthetics. Surface Quality
include the minimum and maximum bounding Another consideration when splitting a part is
box, minimum supported and unsupported wall the assembly and joining of the individual parts. Because of the layer-by-layer nature of the
thickness, minimum embossed and engraved Alignment and fastening features can improve AM fabrication process, part surfaces can be
detail, minimum escape hole for entrapped the assembly characteristics of the parts. Illu- rough, and small features can be misshaped.
material, expected accuracy, and expected sur- strated in the alignment/fastening features rule In most processes, upfacing surfaces have the
face finish. 3D Systems (Ref 25, 26) published in Fig. 1 is an example of a dovetail joint that best surface finish, while slanted surfaces can
two design guides that focus on application- could be used for these purposes. Alternatively, be rough. Similarly, the best feature shapes
specific considerations for brass and plastic rod-and-hole alignment features could be used are often produced in the build plane, typically
powder-bed fusion (PBF) components with to ensure that the parts align correctly for joining. taken as the xy plane. Hence, if a surface has
features including internal channels, cages, The final consideration in this section con- critical shape or surface finish requirements,
assemblies, interlocking/woven parts, springs, cerns single parts that are modeled using the surface should be oriented horizontally or
hinges, snap-fits, and threads. Finally, DFAM
methods describe procedures for designing a
part for AM. They include work by Valjak
Table 1 Design features in the reported literature
et al., Tang et al., Boyard et al., Ponche
et al., and others (Ref 27–30). Ponche et al., Geometric features Freeform surfaces Pass-fail features Mechanical features Related measurements
for example, proposed a global DFAM meth- Cubes Free-flowing Thin walls Fillet Surface roughness
odology that considered build direction, part Hollow cubes geometry Thin slots Chamfer Accuracy
geometry, and deposition paths (Ref 14). Flat beam Intricate Slim cylinders Gaps Linear accuracy
Cylindrical holes Uniform Small holes Blend Flatness
Design rules are prescriptive guidelines for Solid cylinders Nonuniform Bracket Straightness
designing manufacturable components in an Hollow cylinders Cavities Parallelism
AM process; they can be dependent on the Eclipse Bores Repeatability
production process, material, machine, and Spheres Roundness
Cones Cylindricity
machine parameters. Adam and Zimmer pro- Slots Concentricity
posed that design rules should not be devel- Holes Symmetry
oped for parts but for standard elements that Inclined Taper
are easily transferable into individual part Surface Repeatability of
Overhangs radius
designs (Ref 31). They suggested standard ele- Plates
ments divided into three groups: elementary
Source: Ref 19
geometrical shapes, such as walls and cylin-
ders; element transitions that combine basic
elements, such as joints; and aggregated struc-
tures that arrange two or more basic elements Favorable Unfavorable Explanation
and element transitions, such as overhangs.
This article begins by providing examples Part size If the length, height, or thickness of a part
is larger than or equal to the
of design rules that are independent of any spe- corresponding length, height, and thickness
cific AM process and then transitions to design of build volume, then the part is over-
sized.
rules that are specific to particular AM
processes. The oversized part could be split into two
or more smaller parts.

Alignment/fastening If part needs to be split, them design

Process-Independent Design Rules
Part Size
A fundamental consideration for most AM
machines is whether a part will fit into the
build chamber. In some instances, the designed
part can be reoriented to fit into the build
chamber, as illustrated in the left “favorable”
image of the part size rule in Fig. 1.
If the part is too large, several possibilities
exist to address this problem. If a larger machine
features alignment and possibly fastening features
can aid in assembly of the parts. Dovetail
joints or pins and holes are two options.
Adjacent parts If more than one file represents the part and
if the distance between the parts is less
than a threshold, then the files should be
combined into one single file.
Fig. 1 Design rules governing part size

Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf

by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023

vertically, as indicated in the surface quality
and print orientation rules in Fig. 2.
Holes
In most processes, the best hole shape
occurs when the hole axis is vertical and cross
sections are printed in the xy plane. If a hole is
not oriented vertically, then its shape will be
defined by stairstepping among a number of
layers. Good practice indicates that the hole
should be undersized so that it can be drilled
in a postprocessing operation to ensure proper
shape and size. If the hole is very small or its
position is critical, then the hole should be
removed from the design, because the position
of such holes cannot be accurately controlled.
Thresholds for hole size and position toler-
ances are difficult to be universally specified
for AM processes because they are process-
and sometimes material-dependent. Refer to
the hole features rules in Fig. 2 for illustrations
of the various conditions.
Kinematic Joints
Kinematic joints enable relative motion
between parts in a product or within an assem-
bly. They function as joints that enable moving
mechanisms. As a general rule, if there is a
requirement for kinematic joints, the contact
area should be minimized between the features
within the joint. This accomplishes two objec-
tives: it prevents features from fusing during
fabrication, and it enables support structures
or powder to be removed from the joint area.
The planar joint rule in Fig. 3 shows an exam-
ple in which holes or channels are added to
one side of the joint. The revolute and spheri-
cal joint rules in Fig. 3 illustrate a similar
concept.
Feature Size
Specific guidelines and thresholds for feature
sizes are process- and material-specific, but
some general concepts related to feature-size
capabilities can be summarized in a process-
independent form. The types of limitations typi-
cally encountered in feature dimensions are
summarized in Fig. 4. For example, a limit on
the minimum thickness of a wall exists for all
processes and may be machine- and material-
specific. Different thickness thresholds may be
evident for different wall orientations, as indi-
cated in Fig. 4. Typically, the thinnest walls
can be built only when they are fabricated verti-
cally. Another consideration is the aspect ratio of
the wall, which refers to the ratio of height to
thickness. Low-aspect-ratio (short) walls can
often be fabricated with thinner dimensions than
high-aspect-ratio walls.
If holes are inserted into the walls, the integ-
rity of the holes depends on the thickness and
orientation of the wall feature. Holes in thicker
walls should be larger than in thinner walls,
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
Design Rules / 3
particularly if the wall is not horizontal. Simi- length; otherwise, it may sag, and layers may
larly, holes in slanted walls should be larger than delaminate. Similarly, unsupported bridges or
in vertical or horizontal walls, as illustrated in horizontal features between opposing support
Fig. 4. Downfacing surfaces also exhibit more features have a maximum length constraint,
deviations in shape and size than upfacing sur- although the length threshold is usually longer
faces. Column and groove features follow analo- than those for cantilevered overhangs. These
gous rules regarding minimum size, aspect ratio, rules can be relaxed for some processes, such
and orientation of hosting walls. as polymer powder-bed fusion, in which the
powder bed supports overhangs and bridges
Overhangs during fabrication.
The final two rules in Fig. 4 concern unsup- Support Structures
ported overhangs. For cantilevered overhangs,
defined as the maximum overhang distance Most AM processes require support struc-
rule, the overhang is limited to a maximum tures. The three most common purposes of
Favorable Unfavorable Rule, explanation
Surface quality (e.g., y z
If the surface angle is not 0* or 90*, then
staircase effect), final the surface will have the staircase effect.
x
machining z x
If the surface roughness is larger than a
z x threshold, then surface machining is
required.
x
If the thickness/length or thickness/
Print orientation of d
large, flat height ratio of a part is smaller than a
surface/wall
threshold, then the length-height
z surface is a large, flat surface.
The surface angle of a large, flat surface
should be 90°
Hole features— If there is a hole, and if the hole axis angle
surface quality, final is not 90°, then it is a hole to be
machining z
undersized.
x
If there is a hole to be undersized, and if
No hole the diameter of the hole is smaller than a
threshold, then it is a hole to be removed.
Fig. 2 Design rules governing surface and hole quality
Minimize
contact area Favorable Unfavorable Rule, explanation
between parts
Planar surfaces, If mating surfaces are large, then add holes
prismatic joints or pockets to one to reduce contact area.
Revolute joints If there is a revolute joint with a long
bushing, then split the bushing to prevent
fusion and enable depowdering.
Spherical joints, ball If there is a spherical joint and the socket is
bearing solid, then add holes to prevent fusion and
enable depowdering.
Fig. 3 Design rules governing kinematic joints
 4 / Design Principles

structures rule in Fig. 5 illustrates the concept

Minimum of providing external access to supports.
Example Capabilities, limitations
feature sizes Finally, another accessibility situation arises
in the case of internal cavities in parts, as illu-
Thin wall t t > minimum feature threshold
h /t < aspect ratio threshold strated in the final two design rules in Fig. 5.
These cavities can trap support structures or
h For slanted wall:
t > minimum feature threshold at θ degree angle
unsintered feedstock material, such as powders
h /t < aspect ratio threshold at θ degree angle in PBF or binder jetting, resins in vat photopo-
lymerization, or sheets in the sheet lamination
θ process. Access holes can be used to drain pow-
der or resin from the cavity or to allow solvent to
access dissolvable support structures.

Minimum hole size

d d > minimum hole threshold
d d > minimum feature threshold at θ degree angle
Thin column
t d
Minimum groove
width
Maximum
overhang distance
w 45 . The warping and deformation of parts is
Maximum
unsupported
bridge
w
Fig. 4 Feature-size capability considerations
support structures are to provide a surface on
which to deposit a new layer, to hold parts in
place during fabrication, or to support over-
hangs so that they do not sag, deform, or
delaminate. The standard design rule regarding
support structures is that they are needed if a
downfacing surface is oriented with an angle
less than a threshold for that process. Com-
monly, the threshold angle is approximately
45 . This rule is illustrated with the overhangs
rule in Fig. 5. Holes also appear in this rule
category whereby if the hole axis is not verti-
cal and its diameter is larger than a threshold,
then support structures should be used to
ensure that the hole maintains a proper shape
For thick walls, the minimum hole threshold will increase.
For slanted wall:
t > minimum or d > minimum feature threshold
h /t < aspect ratio threshold
For slanted column:
t > minimum (or d > minimum) feature threshold at θ degree angle
h /t < aspect ratio threshold at θ degree angle
w > minimum groove threshold
For deep grooves, the minimum groove threshold will increase.
For slanted grooves:
w > minimum feature threshold at θ degree angle
w < maximum overhang distance threshold
w < maximum unsupported bridge distance threshold
and size. Very small holes do not require sup-
ports. The second type of support structure
design rule addresses issues in terms of their
access. Broadly, support structures are either
mechanically removed or chemically removed
by dissolving them. In either case, access to
the support structures from outside the part
is required to remove them. Mechanically
removed supports typically need a larger
access space because tools are needed to cut
or break the supports. Chemically removed
supports typically dissolve via solvents, and
they require less access space because solvents
can flow through an opening to dissolve the
support structures. The accessible support
Material Extrusion-Specific Design
Rules
Material extrusion (MEX) processes have
common characteristics that define the final
built part. These include loading of material,
liquefaction of material, application of pres-
sure to move the material through the nozzle,
extrusion mechanism, plotting according to a
predefined path, bonding of the material to
itself or secondary build materials, and addi-
tion of supporting structures to enable complex
geometries (Ref 20). Typically, Cartesian prin-
ters have larger build platforms but a lower z-
height, while Delta printers have smaller build
platforms and a taller z-height. It is important
to consider the machine build volume with
consideration to the required orientations for
a given part (Ref 32). Teitelbaum proposed
build guidelines for MEX as an effort to
reduce the overall build time and volume of
parts through six steps (Ref 33). These include
minimizing the overall height, reducing the
form ratio, eliminating the number of over-
hangs required, ensuring that build holes face
upward, building the object with the largest
surface on the base, and rotating the build at
influenced by the number of layers, the section
length of the part in the plane, the coefficient
of thermal expansion for the build material,
the thickness of each layer, the temperature
of the build environment, and the glass transi-
tion temperature (Ref 34). Parts produced by
MEX often suffer from high anisotropy such
that parts are usually stronger in the plane par-
allel to the build platform and weaker in planes
orthogonal to the build platform. Therefore, it
is important to consider anisotropy during the
design process (Ref 35, 36). Stronger parts
can be realized by reducing the number of
layers and increasing the layer thickness
(Ref 32). A comprehensive MEX design guide
was published recently by ASTM International
(ASTM F3529), and further information can
also be found at designforam.me.utexas.edu.
Support Structures
Support structures are required for support-
ing overhanging geometric features. The part
should be designed to enable removal of these
support structures by providing, for example,

Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf

by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023

access points, holes, or channels to internal
cavities. Supports should be removed in small
sections to prevent damage to the surface or
part itself (Ref 37).
Overhangs
Some overhanging features can be rede-
signed to minimize the need for support struc-
tures. The length for unsupported overhangs
should be less than 1.8 mm (0.07 in.) to avoid
extruded filaments from drooping and forming
tangled features called whiskers or bird nests.
Overhanging features should be reduced or
avoided if possible, such as by orienting the
part to provide enough support surfaces
(Ref 31). Another option is to provide angled
supports for overhanging features to eliminate
the need for support structures. The angle rela-
tive to the build platform at which features
become self-supporting is often cited as 45 ,
but angles as small as 30 are usually self-sup-
porting as well (Ref 38, 39). Bridges are over-
hangs that are supported on both ends but
require the filament to cross a gap in the mid-
dle. The longer the bridge, the more the fila-
ment droops across the span. Bridges of less
than 3.6 mm (0.14 in.) in length typically
result in minimal filament drooping of less
than 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) (Ref 40).
Part Size
The typical build size for a midrange com-
mercial MEX printer is approximately 350 by
250 by 250 mm (13.8 by 9.8 by 9.8 in.), with
large-format machines offering build volumes
of approximately 900 by 600 by 900 mm
(35.5 by 23.6 by 35.5 in.). If the part is larger
than the build platform, it could be fabricated
by carefully subdividing the design into smal-
ler sections and later reassembling it. Design-
for-assembly guidelines should be used when
subdividing a large part, and appropriate join-
ing methods should be considered (Ref 41).
Thin Walls
The minimum thickness of walls is limited
by the width of extruded rasters in the build
plane and the layer thickness in the vertical
direction. The minimum wall thickness should
not be less than 4 times the layer thickness
(Ref 31). To avoid the risk of damage, a wall
thickness of 1.0 to 1.5 mm (0.04 to 0.06 in.)
is recommended (Ref 42). Thin walls of less
than 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) should be avoided
(Ref 43). Refer to Table 2 for guidance on
minimum wall thickness as a function of layer
thickness.
Geometric Features
Sharp external and internal edges or corners
are not possible; the minimum radius of curva-
ture is equivalent to that of a nozzle at a corner
or edge. Therefore, such edges should be
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
Cavities Favorable Unfavorable
Accessible support
structures
Trapped volume,
material removal
Trapped complex
volume, material
removal
Overhangs
Hole features— z z
support material x x
Fig. 5 Design rules regarding support structures and postprocessing
rounded where possible, especially those that
are parallel to the building plane. Holes that
are smaller than 1 mm (0.04 in.) in diameter
should be avoided (Ref 43), and other small
features with dimensions less than 1 mm
should be avoided (Ref 39). Hole diameters
and slot widths tend to be more accurate and
repeatable when they are oriented vertically
versus at a smaller angle to the build platform.
Accuracy
The dimensional accuracy depends on the
system resolution, layer thickness, nozzle
diameter, part geometry, build parameters, part
orientation, material properties, distortion,
warping, and shrinkage. The accuracy values
are usually in the range of ±0.1 to 0.3 mm
(0.004 to 0.012 in.). Small values of layer
thicknesses typically provide better resolution
and accuracy (Ref 31).
Build Orientation
In terms of orientation strategy, the designer
must balance various design requirements for
build time, material consumption, surface fin-
ish, and use of support structures. The part
build orientation that requires the minimum
number of layers is most desirable for reducing
build time and material consumption. How-
ever, surfaces that are oriented parallel or
orthogonal to the build platform offer better
surface roughness, whereas other orientations
suffer from the staircase effect, which in-
creases surface roughness. Support structures
are minimized by orienting the part to reduce
or eliminate overhangs. If possible, axisym-
metric parts should be oriented with the axis
of symmetry aligned with the build direction
Design Rules / 5
Rule, explanation
If a geometry contains a closed or inaccessible volume,
and if there is support structure, then trapped support
structure is inside.
Modify the part geometry to ensure that the trapped
support structure can be removed.
If part geometry causes a closed volume, then material will
be trapped.
Add hole(s) to enable the removal of the trapped material.
If the trapped volume has a complex shape, then add
additional holes to enable depowdering or material removal.
If the surface angle of a feature is downfacing and greater
than 0, then the surface forms an overhang.
If the surface angle of an overhang is smaller than an angle
threshold, then support structure is required.
If the hole axis angle is smaller than a threshold, then
support structure may be required to build the hole.
If a hole diameter is less than the minimum support
threshold, then the hole does not need support structure.
Table 2 Minimal wall thickness for
material extrusion
Layer thickness Minimum wall thickness
mm in. mm in.
0.18 0.007 0.71 0.028
0.25 0.01 1.02 0.04
0.33 0.013 1.32 0.052
Source: Ref 37
(Ref 41). Finally, because mechanical proper-
ties of MEX parts are anisotropic, the build
direction should be selected to minimize the
likelihood of mechanical failure, as shown in
Fig. 6.
Surface Finish
The surface finish is often defined in terms
of the surface roughness (Ra). The staircase
effect affects the surface finish and is influ-
enced strongly by factors such as the surface
angle, layer thickness, and part orientation
(Ref 44, 45). Inclination angles of approxi-
mately 30 relative to the build platform
exhibit the greatest surface roughness values.
Increasing the layer thickness also increases
the part surface roughness (Ref 32).
Snap-Fits
Klahn et al. provided design guidelines for
snap-fits, with restrictions driven primarily by
the anisotropy of mechanical properties and
the staircase effect (Ref 46). The anisotropy
of AM parts may influence the durability of
load-bearing features, while stairstepping hin-
ders the movement of features such as sliders,
control rings, and kinematics. To counter for
 6 / Design Principles

Fig. 6 Optimal build orientation for given loading conditions with respect to mechanical properties; layers indicated by red lines

these restrictions, the build direction of the

part should be considered (Ref 32). When the Contour
snap-fit feature is oriented in the plane of the of part
build platform, as depicted in Fig. 7, the fila- F F
ment should be deposited in a path such that
the principal tensile and compressive stresses
align with the filament rasters, which is the Deposited
strongest possible orientation (Ref 35). When filament
a snap-fit feature is oriented orthogonal to the
build direction (along the z-axis), as depicted
in Fig. 8, the beam should be oriented such y
that the principal compressive and tensile
stresses are aligned with the build layers. This
orientation also minimizes stress concentra-
tions caused by stairstepping. In general, it is (a) x (b)
important to consider the overall part geometry
and mechanical loading with anisotropic mate-
rial properties in mind (Ref 47).
Fig. 7 Toolpaths to place filaments in a snap-fit. (a) Poor. (b) Good. Source: Ref 46

Binder-Jetting-Specific Design
Rules
Binder jetting (BJ) is an AM method in
which layers of powdered material are selec-
tively bonded into a desired shape using a liq-
uid binder. This process is compatible with z z
most materials available in powdered form
and allows colored prints. One of the signifi-
cant advantages of using BJ is that the parts
can be produced without requiring the need
for support structures, because the powder
bed supports the part as it is fabricated. This
allows the entire build volume to comprise
multiple parts that can be separated with a
gap of a few layers between them. Because
this process does not require intense heating
during the build process, there are no residual
stresses created in the parts (Ref 48–51). The
fabrication occurs at room temperature and
atmosphere, although some heat is used to (a) (b)
lightly cure the binder; this avoids oxidation,
residual stress, elemental segregation, or other
phase changes, making the powder feedstock
recyclable and eliminating the need for expen-
sive sealed chambers for providing a vacuum Fig. 8 Orientation of cantilever beam with respect to the build orientation. (a) Poor. (b) Good. Source: Ref 46

Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf

by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023

or an inert atmosphere. After the print process
is complete, the parts are removed from the
powder bed in a process called depowdering.
These parts are considered to be “green” and
not suitable for end use. They are subject to
postprocessing, such as sintering or infiltration,
to achieve the final mechanical properties. The
main drawback of BJ includes the need for
postprocessing steps in terms of curing and
densification. It can also be difficult to predict
the large amount of distortion that occurs when
sintering parts to full density, which in turn
lowers the overall accuracy of the process
(Ref 52). Printed parts often have higher sur-
face roughness and lower resolution compared
to other AM processes.
Some general design guidance is given that
is independent of material type. Some general
design guidance is given on material type such
as ceramics, metals, and polymers
Depowdering
A direct path for trapped powder to exit is
required to ensure full depowdering. Depowder-
ing holes and cavities can include vacuuming
and blowing air, gentle agitation with vibration,
or gentle bumping and rotation of the part
(Ref 53). After curing, the green parts should
have sufficient strength to be handled, and
excess or unbound powder must be removed.
Edges
Two planes that converge at a sharp angle
will result in knife edges and should be
rounded to ensure accuracy. Otherwise, this
fine feature may not endure the depowdering
process and could break off.
Infiltration
To achieve final product properties, the satu-
ration of infiltrant liquid must be considered. If
the liquid infiltrant exceeds the saturation
level, excess infiltrant may affect the dimen-
sional accuracy. Conversely, insufficient use
of infiltrant may lead to the formation of a
weak bond between the powdered material,
thereby affecting the mechanical properties
(Ref 54). Therefore, the design of parts should
consider the flow of infiltration and enable
access to hard-to-reach features or corners.
The capillary action between the infiltrant
material and pores on the powder particle sur-
face drives this infiltration process.
Moving Parts
Because the powder bed supports parts dur-
ing the fabrication process, built-in assem-
blies can be fabricated, and minimum
clearances between moving parts must be
considered to prevent the components from
fusing together during the build or in
subsequent burnout, sintering, or infiltration
steps. Generally, clearances required are
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
larger than for PBF. Hinges and joints with
vertical axes tend to yield better results.
Ceramic Binder Jetting
The most common material used in low-cost
BJ systems is a gypsum-based powder (techni-
cally, it is a calcium sulfate hemihydrate) that
is used with a water-based binder. Such parts
are intended primarily for concept model pro-
totypes. Parts are weak after printing due to
their porosity, so they are infiltrated with a
strengthening material. Typical infiltrants are
acrylates (similar to superglue), two-part react-
ing materials (e.g., epoxies), and what 3D Sys-
tems calls Salt Water Cure, a hazard-free
infiltrant. In all cases, resulting parts are rather
brittle, with elongation at break less than 0.5%.
Ink-jet printers can be integrated into BJ
machines to produce colored parts that
enhance their appeal as concept models. Pro-
cess resolution and accuracy are similar to
polymer PBF. Part surface roughness can be
influenced by the infiltrant used, with some
parts having surface finishes better than poly-
mer PBF parts.
Another common ceramic material is
foundry sand, used to make sand casting molds
and cores. Machine vendors claim that they
use materials that are compatible with conven-
tional sand casting processes. Molds and cores
produced from these machines have properties,
surface finishes, and accuracies that are com-
mensurate with conventional processes.
Some ceramic materials are under develop-
ment by machine vendors, including silicon
carbide, boron carbide, alumina, and zirconia.
They use an organic binder that is cured at an
elevated temperature. Postprocessing furnace
cycles are used to burn out the binder and sin-
ter the part to near-full density. Because signif-
icant shrinkage occurs during sintering, parts
can become distorted or lose dimensional
accuracy, particularly if parts have thick sec-
tions. Small, thin-walled parts with uniform
wall thicknesses tend to give the best results.
Polymer Binder Jetting
A small number of machine vendors mar-
ket polymer BJ machines. The most common
material is polymethyl methacrylate, which
uses a liquid binder that reacts at room tem-
perature. Wax or epoxy infiltrant materials
should be used to impart strength. With the
epoxy infiltrant, tensile strength up to
25 MPa (3.6 ksi) is reported (voxeljet).
Metal Binder Jetting
Metal BJ processes have received growing
interest in recent years, with several major
companies announcing machine developments,
although the technology has been commer-
cially available since the 1990s. Two different
manufacturing strategies are used to produce
Design Rules / 7
fully dense metal parts. In both cases, the pro-
cess starts by printing the part with a poly-
meric binder and curing the binder, which
results in parts that are approximately 60%
dense. Then, parts are placed into a furnace
for a series of postprocessing steps. The first
variant uses a three-step furnace cycle, includ-
ing a first step to burn out the binder, a higher-
temperature step to lightly sinter the metal
powder, and a final lower-temperature step to
infiltrate the porous metal part with a low-
melting-point metal such as bronze. Resulting
parts are composed of a mixture of approxi-
mately 60% primary metal and 40% infiltrant
metal. In the second process variant, the sec-
ond furnace cycle sinters the metal to produce
a fully dense (or nearly fully dense) part. In
this second variant, parts undergo significant
shrinkage.
Because metal BJ has been studied more
thoroughly in the research literature than for
other materials, much more is known about
part properties, as presented subsequently.
Postprocessing
The use of infiltration methods to achieve
full density usually produces highly accurate
features, whereas sintering of single alloys to
full density may result in warping. Other
design considerations, such as the section size,
determine whether the bound parts can be
effectively depowdered and removed from the
machine. Gravitational forces may also influ-
ence slumping during the sintering step. Build
orientation and orientation of the part in the
furnace are important considerations. Some-
times ceramic powders (e.g., sand) are used
to support parts during furnace cycles (Ref 55).
Print Orientation
Part orientation in the powder bed can have
significant effects on accuracy, surface finish,
and mechanical properties. Layer lines can be
evident between layers, leading to stress con-
centrations and rough surfaces. Typically, part
dimensions in the z-direction are less accurate
than in the build plane. Interlayer pores can
remain in parts even after full sintering. Thin
members built at an angle between horizontal
and vertical can be weaker than if built hori-
zontally or vertically, due to interlayer bonding
issues. Or, if saturated with binder, these
regions may be thicker than desired; that is,
they can lose accuracy. Some significant dif-
ferences in mechanical properties have been
reported in the build plane due to the action
of powder recoating and binder deposition.
Properties in the x-direction (direction of
recoater movement) can be significantly less
than in the y-direction (direction of inkjet
movement) by a factor of 2 (Ref 56) in a stain-
less steel material. The cause of this anisotropy
has been attributed to differences in binder
droplet behavior, including impact and wet-
ting, as a nozzle deposits a continuous line of
 8 / Design Principles
droplets (y-direction), compared to binder wet-
ting between neighboring lines of droplets.
Similar observations have been made with
ceramic materials (Ref 57).
Surface Finish
Surface roughness variation is one of the
problems caused by powder particle disposi-
tion and the projection of ink droplets on the
surfaces of parts. Horizontal surfaces typically
exhibit better surface finish compared to other
surfaces (Ref 58). In fact, vertical surfaces
can exhibit roughness 50% greater than hori-
zontal surfaces due to the layering effect of
the process (Ref 59). Myers et al. found that
when the print angle increased from 0 to 45
in relationship to the z-direction, the surface
roughness also increased (Ref 60). The average
roughness of metal BJ parts is approximately Ra
15 mm after sintering, so postprocessing is often
used to improve the surface finish (Ref 61).
Methods include the use of bead blasting, tumble
polishing, plating, machining, extrude honing,
surface infiltration, and hand polishing. Bead
blasting can reduce the surface roughness to
approximately Ra 7 mm, while tumble polishing
can improve the finish to almost Ra 1 mm
(Ref 50). In some instances, prior to sintering
and/or infiltration, the surface finish of the part
may be improved by applying an additional layer
of finer particles to the top surface.
Thin Walls
Walls must be designed carefully for BJ,
because thin walls that support the part weight
during depowdering may break. A range of
recommended minimum wall thicknesses is
between 1 and 3 mm (0.04 and 0.12 in.)
(Ref 24). The wall thickness, part geometry,
and volume of the powder bed or height of
the printed job-box also influence the curing
cycle in terms of the curing temperature and
the overall time taken to remove excess binder.
Smaller volumes and thinner walls promote a
shorter postprocessing cycle (Ref 62–64).
Refer to Table 3 for guidance on several stain-
less steel and bronze materials.
Infiltration Runner Design
For parts that must be infiltrated instead of
sintered to full density, the design of a path,
known as a runner or a sprue, is needed to
Table 3 Recommended wall thicknesses
for stainless steel and bronze parts
Build dimension Minimum wall thickness
mm in. mm
3.175–76.2 0.125–3 1.01
76.2–152.4 3–6 1.52
152.4–203.2 6–8 2.03
203.2–305 8–12 3.175
Source: Ref 65
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
direct the infiltrant material into the part.
Without a runner, excess infiltrant may pool
around the part and may negatively affect
the geometric accuracy. The runner is a sac-
rificial geometry added to the part in the
design process and may be removed after
densification.
Shrinkage
Compensation for shrinkage should be con-
sidered during the design process. For infil-
trated parts, shrinkage is approximately 1 to
2% (Ref 66, 67). Fully sintered parts that are
not infiltrated may experience up to 25%
shrinkage after the sintering process, depend-
ing on the green density and the final density.
Usually, shrinkage is similar in the x- and y-
directions, while it is higher in the z-direction
due to gravity and lower packing density
between layers. Variations to the powder-bed
density within a layer or between layers causes
anisotropic properties in the green part and
leads to additional distortion during sintering.
As the z-height increases, the weight of accu-
mulating powder layers may compress the bot-
tom parts, altering the packing density and
displacing powder or changing the z-dimen-
sion of the lower printed sections (Ref 68).
Another factor that contributes to distortion
during sintering is the differential shrinkage
rates within the part due to different thermal
gradients (Ref 69).
Accuracy
The accuracy of BJ systems is within the
range of ±5% for infiltrated parts, although this
value also accounts for distortion that occurs
during densification (Ref 24). Resolution in
the print plane is determined by the size of
droplets, the size of powder particles, and the
spread of the binder (Ref 70).
Geometric Features
Features such as bosses that protrude
from the main part should be designed with
consideration to the fact that long and nar-
row features may be at risk of breaking dur-
ing the depowdering process. For extruded
features, designers should consider whether
those parts can survive the depowdering
process and whether the powder can be
removed easily without too much movement
of the part. For steel systems, the minimum
recommended boss feature size is 750 mm
(Ref 65).
Microchannels
in.
Microchannels smaller than 250 mm can be
0.04 formed (Ref 71). A key limitation on the size
0.06
0.08 and length of these microchannels is depen-
0.125 dent on the removal of powder from the
channel when the part is in a green state
(Ref 50).
Powder-Bed-Fusion-Specific Design
Rules
Design guidance for PBF processes is
divided into separate sections for PBF of poly-
mers, laser-based PBF of metals, and electron-
beam-based PBF of metals, because design
rules and guidance can vary substantially.
Polymer PBF
Polymer powder-bed fusion (PBF/P) pro-
cesses are very versatile in fabricating a wide
range of part shapes and sizes. The PBF/P pro-
cesses work by sintering or melting powders
using a laser, and the outcome is dependent
on factors such as the laser spot size, layer
thickness, powder particle size distribution,
thermal environment, and the type of material.
These factors may limit the minimum size of
intricate features such as walls, rods, holes,
and slots. The smaller size of powders results
in better surface finish and enables the produc-
tion of parts with smaller layer thicknesses.
Laser-based powder-bed fusion layer thick-
nesses are usually 60 to 120 mm, and the dia-
meters of laser spot sizes are approximately
500 mm.
Several design guidelines have been devel-
oped for PBF/P. The design guidelines by Alli-
son et al. (Ref 72) focused exclusively on the
geometric properties and surface characteris-
tics of polymer PBF parts for functionality
and ease of manufacturing. Their experiments
show that shrinkage and oversintering gener-
ally tend to affect measurement results by
approximately 0.2 mm (0.008 in.). They also
found that because heat is often conducted
away from the build volume along the perime-
ter of the build chamber, this slight variation in
the thermal environment may improve the res-
olution of parts such as hinges by limiting the
amount of oversintering.
Moving Parts
Because the powder bed supports parts dur-
ing the fabrication process, built-in assemblies
can be fabricated, and minimum clearances
between moving parts must be considered to
prevent the components from fusing together
during the build.
Hinges with a shaft clearance greater than
0.6 mm (0.024 in.) are able to move freely, and
a clearance closer to 1 mm (0.04 in.) is recom-
mended. This clearance allows a small amount
of unfused powder between the moving parts.
Hinges built with the axis of rotation aligned
with the z-axis of the build chamber are often
less reliably produced. The use of polyamide
(PA) 12 produces better-quality hinges.
Holes
Small holes are usually smaller than their
assigned values in the CAD or stereolithography

file. Holes embedded within a thicker wall and
holes with a central axis orthogonal to the build
plane are often undersized due to the indirect
thermal energy from the powder surrounding
the parts (Ref 15). For a given orientation, the
location of the holes within the build chamber
does not appear to influence their resolution or
accuracy. The use of PA 12 produces the most
accurate and smallest holes.
Surface Finish
Surface roughness is the least pronounced at
0 relative to the build plane and is most evi-
dent at 15 . This difference in roughness can
be attributed to the stairstepping effect
between the build layers. As the angle of the
build increases, the effect is less evident.
These steps do not appear at 90 relative to
the build plane, although the surface roughness
is still higher than those at 0 . It is also impor-
tant to note that the 90 surface roughness
measurement spans across several layers, and
the geometric variation results in greater
roughness for 90 versus 0 surfaces.
Linear Spacing
Linear dimensions are often undersized due to
part shrinkage and oversintering that occurs
when the powder material around the part is unin-
tentionally fused during the sintering process.
Features that are built on the interior of the build
chamber are more undersized than those fabri-
cated along the perimeter. With regards to orien-
tation, distances along the z-axis of the build
chamber are usually more accurate than those
on the x- or y-axis. In terms of materials, PA 12
shows the highest level of accuracy, followed
by glass-filled PA 12 and flame-retardant PA 11.
Gaps
The location within the build chamber does
not appear to significantly affect the accuracy
of gaps, although gaps along the z-axis of the
build chamber are more accurate than those on
the x- or y-axis and also share the same phenom-
enon as linear spacing in terms of materials.
Thin Walls
Thin walls are most accurate when they are paral-
lel to the build platform and governed primarily by
the layer thickness. Conversely, the accuracy of thin
walls built orthogonal to the platform is affected by
the laser spot size. The use of PA 12 produces the
most accurate thin walls. Interior walls are generally
less oversized than external walls, and the location
within the build chamber does not usually affect
thin-wall accuracy.
Thin Rods
Thin rods are best produced with the highest
resolution when the primary axis is along the
z-axis of the platform, because the laser spot
traces the cross section of the rod at each suc-
cessive layer. The resolution of the rods is not
dependent on the location within the platform.
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
In terms of material, glass-filled PA 12 pro-
duces the most accurate thin rods.
Lettering
Embedded or recessed letters are preferred to
raised letters. Font sizes below 16 points are
too small to be produced by the laser spot and
often result in significant defects. Letters should
be in a Sans Serif typeface with a minimum font
size of 14 points (Ref 15). Letters that are ori-
ented along the z-axis of the build chamber turn
out poorly when compared to other build direc-
tions, due to the effects of spot size versus the
layer thickness. The use of PA 12 produces the
best results. The location within the build cham-
ber does not affect the quality of the letters.
Snap-Fits
Snap-fits that are built with the primary axis
orthogonal to the platform require a larger off-
set for the best performance as compared to
other orientations. The use of flame-retardant
PA 11 requires the largest offset compared
with glass-filled PA 12 and neat PA 12. The
location within the build chamber does not
usually affect the quality of the snap-fit
features.
Metal PBF
Kranz et al. (Ref 53) describe a series of
guidelines for lightweight applications in Ti-
6Al-4V. They note that thin walls and highly
complex structures could be used to save weight
and materials and to reduce manufacturing time.
However, as the features become smaller, they
are more prone to inaccuracy, because these
mechanically loadable cross sections deviate
from the intended design. It should be noted that
some of these rules have limitations. The scan
strategy, parameter selection, and wall thickness
calibration may be specific to a particular AM
machine and the type of alloy when fabricating
thin walls. For example, the use of soft-brush
recoater blades and the application of angular
misalignment between the long edge of a thin
wall and the spreading direction minimizes the
external force applied to thin features and
Layers
Build platform
Fig. 9 Orient surfaces parallel or orthogonal to the build plane to avoid stairstepping associated with the layerwise
fabrication process. Source: Ref 15
Design Rules / 9
reduces damage caused by powder spreading
(Ref 73).
Atzeni and Salmi proposed five general
DFAM guidelines for metal powder-bed fusion
(PBF/M) that emphasize the need for new
design thinking, unconstrained by existing
manufacturing process constraints (Ref 74).
These guidelines can be summarized as:
 Avoid conventional design principles
 Focus on integrating freeform design and
reducing part count
 Minimize raw material use
 Use freeform designs, undercuts, and hol-
low structures if they are useful
 Optimize the part shape according to
functionality
Under typical process conditions, many
PBF/M parts encounter large thermal gradients
that produce residual stress in parts and sup-
port structures. As a result, stress-relief heat
treatment is often required to prevent thermal
distortion in many metal alloys (Ref 73).
Note that the numerical values given in this
section are for guidance only, because they will
be dependent on the specific PBF/M machine,
metal alloy, part design, and process settings used.
Support Structures
Support structures are required to anchor
parts to the build platform to prevent collapse
and to reduce warping due to high residual
heat stresses. These support structures are
required for horizontal or sharp overhangs.
Surfaces built under an orientation angle
(vertical inclination) of 45 to the build plat-
form require support structures to avoid build
failure. The optimum orientation angle to
build surfaces is 90 to the build platform
(Ref 75).
Surface Finish
A better surface finish can be achieved in
PBF/M parts when the surfaces are parallel to
or orthogonal to the build plane (Fig. 9). Sur-
face quality is highly dependent on powder
grain size distribution, layer thickness, and
energy input (Ref 76). Staircase effects and
 10 / Design Principles
exposure patterns lead to slightly higher rough-
ness in orthogonal orientations. Surface rough-
ness is inclination angle dependent and
material dependent. Most often, downfacing
surfaces tend to be rougher than upfacing sur-
faces and are more sensitive to changes in the
wall geometry (Ref 73). Both upfacing and
downfacing surfaces have poorer surface qual-
ity when oriented at an angle relative to the
horizontal build plane (Ref 75). As an exam-
ple, achievable surface finishes in Renishaw
machines were reported to be Ra 17 mm for
horizontal surfaces, while the worst surface
roughness value was approximately Ra 34 mm
(Ref 75).
Accuracy
The accuracy of built parts is repeatable and
is not dependent on part size measured perpen-
dicular to the platform (Ref 77). The part posi-
tion has no effect on the accuracy of the part
geometry in terms of the effect of orientation,
size, and part cross-sectional shape, including
elliptical, cylindrical, and rectangular cross
sections (Ref 73).
Material Allowance
Often in PBF/M, surfaces that require good
surface finish, high accuracy, or fully dense
material should be machined. The material
allowance is the term used to describe addi-
tional material to be added to parts such that
when surfaces are machined, it results in accu-
rate dimensions and shapes. For upfacing sur-
faces, 0.3 mm (0.012 in.) should be added to
achieve a flat but not completely dense sur-
face. Add 0.7 mm (0.028 in.) to the upfacing
surface so that material can be removed to
leave a fully dense metal surface. Downfacing
surfaces are not smooth or accurate. Downfa-
cing surfaces should be built oversized by
0.8 mm (0.032 in.) because there is no under-
lying solid material. For sidewall surfaces, no
additional material is required to ensure that
they are flat; the skin of the walls is flat and
accurate to within ±0.05 mm (0.002 in.). To
remove this skin for a fully dense surface,
0.12 mm (0.005 in.) should be added to the
surfaces and then removed wherever tight tol-
erances are critical (Ref 75). When support
structures are used, they do not reduce the
amount of oversized material on the downfa-
cing surfaces. The downfacing surfaces are
exposed to process-inherent stresses that may
result in a convex surface, and the larger the
surface, the greater the effect (Ref 75).
Thin Walls
Tall and thin walls may be prone to bending
due to the forces generated by the recoater
blade as it deposits a successive layer of pow-
der. Large, flat planes should be oriented
orthogonally to the build surface to avoid
warping and curling (Ref 15). The maximum
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
vertical height of the thin wall should be less
than 9 times its thickness (Ref 77). Cylindrical
thin-walled cross sections may deform inward,
leading to poor dimensional accuracy (Ref 76).
Using Ti-6Al-4V, thin walls may be manufac-
tured with a thickness of 0.4 mm (0.016 in.)
or greater for a variety of orientations using
typical current PBF/M machines. Specimens
with thickness of 0.2 mm (0.008 in.) do not
show a stable process behavior. Conversely,
thicker walls lead to better structural stability
(Ref 53). Thin walls in 316L stainless steel
often exhibit instability if they are thinner than
200 mm (Ref 78). Different thermal properties,
material shrinkage, and inclination angles are
the other main factors controlling the dimen-
sions of the thin wall. For very short walls,
research has demonstrated minimum thin-wall
thicknesses of 100 mm for Ti-6Al-4V and
AlSi10Mg, and 107 mm for Inconel 718. These
dimensions are limited by the minimum
achievable melt pool size without inducing lack
of fusion between layers. For thin-wall struc-
tures with rectangular cross sections, the thick-
ness should be more than 0.4 mm (0.016 in.),
the orientation angle with reference to the
build platform should be 90 , and the orienta-
tion angle with respect to the recoater blade
should be 45 (Ref 73).
Slots and Gaps
When designing components such as slots,
keyways, and channels, a minimum gap size
must be applied to prevent the surfaces from fus-
ing together. The minimum size between fea-
tures is 0.3 mm (0.012 in.), and gaps smaller
than 0.3 mm are not recommended (Fig. 10).
Chamfers
It may not be possible to build 0 overhangs
that are parallel to the build platform without
support structures, as shown in Fig. 11. Even
if support structures are used, the geometry
Z Chamfer
Ledge
Y
X
Fig. 11 Ledge and alternative geometries: chamfer and radii
may be inaccurate and have a poor surface
quality. Alternative orientations could be con-
sidered to eliminate the need for support struc-
tures and to improve the surface quality of
downfacing surfaces. Unless a sharp edge is
critical, consider the use of a chamfer or a
radius to eliminate the need for supports and
to enhance the accuracy of the ledge (Ref 75).
Chamfers can be built at any orientation
greater than 45 relative to the build platform,
and the surface quality improves as the orien-
tation increases. Figure 12 illustrates various
chamfer angles; 45 is a typical chamfer angle
that can be built using PBF/M without compli-
cations. If there are height limitations, a 45
chamfer can offer the shortest z-axis rather
than using a radius. A 45 chamfer should be
used for overhanging ledges that are more than
5 mm (0.2 in.) (Ref 75).
Concave and Convex Fillet Radii
It is not possible to build tangential radii
larger than 3 mm (0.12 in.) on PBF/M
0.3 m
m
0.3 m
m
Z
Y
X
Fig. 10 Example of a 0.3 mm (0.012 in.) minimum
gap feature
Concave radius
Convex radius

machines without supports at the vertical ori-
entation, as shown in Fig. 11, because the sur-
face becomes downfacing as the radius
increases in the z-axis (Ref 75).
Holes
Holes with a cylindrical cross section dis-
play the highest part accuracy when their axis
is orthogonal to the build platform (Ref 53).
The minimum hole size should be 0.7 mm
(0.028 in.) in diameter when they are built par-
allel and self-supporting to the build plate, and
1 mm (0.04 in.) when building perpendicular
to the build plate (Ref 79). Holes with a diam-
eter of 2 to 3 mm (0.08 to 0.12 in.) may retain
powder after manufacturing and may require
further postprocessing. Holes larger than
3 mm (0.12 in.) encounter less material
blockage.
Holes in Vertical Walls
Large, round holes do not self-support when
their primary axis is parallel to the build plat-
form, although smaller holes may not require
supports. The largest round hole that can be
built without support structures is 7 mm
(0.28 in.) in diameter. Large holes may suffer
from inaccuracy when the top layers sag. The
smallest hole that can be built without support
structures is 1 mm (0.04 in.) in diameter.
Designers could consider removing small
holes from the part design before printing, then
drilling those holes in a postprocessing opera-
tion to ensure the hole is properly located.
Holes with a radius of 1 to 2 mm (0.04 to
0.08 in.) have a tolerance of ±0.3 mm (0.012 in.).
Holes with a radius of 3 to 4 mm (0.12 to
0.16 in.) have a tolerance of ±0.2 mm (0.008 in.).
Holes with a radius of 5 to 15 mm (0.20 to
0.59 in.) have a tolerance of ±0.1 mm (0.004 in.)
(Ref 75).
Self-Supporting Holes
Partially round holes can be designed to be
self-supporting using a teardrop shape, as
shown in Fig. 13 (Ref 75). Note that the peak
shape could be sharp or rounded if stress con-
centration is a concern.
Threads
A round hole can be tapped if the correct
tapping drill size is used. It is also possible to
include the thread in the design of a compo-
nent if the correct tap is inserted through the
hole as a secondary process.
Powder-Bed Fusion of Medical Stents
Design rules are usually taken to be process-
independent or process-dependent. However,
design rules also can be developed for specific
applications. As an example, design rules and
guidance are provided for medical stents that
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
65° chamfer
Z 55° chamfer
45° chamfer
Y
X
Fig. 12 Example of chamfers: 45 , 55 , and 65
could be fabricated using PBF/M. A similar
approach can be taken for many other applica-
tions, but only medical stents are described
here as an example.
The production of cardiovascular stents or
expandable stent meshes by PBF/M requires
careful design considerations and recognizing
existing limitations due to the layer-by-layer
melting of the powder. These constraints refer
to the orientation of the component, feature
inclination, connection with previously melted
powder, and the spacing between the adjacent
features. The produced surfaces are character-
ized by high surface roughness (Ra > 10 mm)
due to sintered particles that may display sig-
nificant dimensional error in small components
(Ref 80). These ultrathin stents require thick-
nesses less than 70 mm (Ref 81). The size of
the powder, laser beam spot, and size height
influence the strut size. This section refers to
the use of PBF/M machines from Renishaw
that use a powder size range of 15 to 45 mm,
laser beam sizes of 50 to 100 mm, and layer
thicknesses of 25 to 100 mm (Ref 82).
Support Structures
As mentioned, supports are commonly used
as an anchor to the base plate as well as to
maintain heat dissipation (Ref 83). However,
where possible, the use of supports should be
avoided in the design of stents for PBF/M,
because the size of these support structures is
comparable to the stent struts. The removal
has high probability of damaging and deform-
ing the stent itself (Ref 84, 85).
Orientation
Orientation determines the slicing and build
direction of the component, as well as the
regions that are required to support. The vertical
orientation of the stent is the best option, because
any other orientation would lead to overhang
regions that would require supports (Ref 84, 85).
Cell Configuration
For an open-cell design, there is a high num-
ber of cell extremities that must be melted on
Design Rules / 11
Peak
Circle
Fig. 13 Hole geometry split into peak and circle
the loose powder of the previous layer without
any anchor to the platform. This may pose a
risk of being damaged by the movement of
the powder recoater if the solidified material
is not anchored.
Strut Inclinations
Strut inclinations should be carefully
designed with self-supporting features and
achieve good surface quality. The inclination
must be higher than 45 for cobalt-chromium
alloys, based on indications from current stud-
ies (Ref 84, 85).
Strut Overhangs
Overhanging parts can be designed up to
1 mm (0.04 in.) without the need for supports.
Bridged gaps, which are features connected at
both ends to the built component, can be
designed with a length up to 4 mm (0.16 in.)
without the need of additional supports. This
also means that all strut lengths should be less
than 4 mm (0.16 in.) (Ref 84, 85).
Strut Spacing
The minimum horizontal spacing of the
struts, also known as the cell width, must be
more than 0.3 mm (0.012 in.) to guarantee that
the struts do not merge (Ref 84, 85).
Layer Thickness
For strut thickness, the minimum achievable
dimension is limited by the melt pool size,
which is dependent on the diameter of the laser
beam, powder size, and process parameters
(Ref 84, 85).
Accuracy
Using the smallest possible layer thickness
reduces the staircase effect. To maintain geomet-
rical accuracy, all vertical distances between
vertices and extremities should be a multiple of
the powder layer thickness (Ref 82).
 12 / Design Principles
Electron Beam Melting
Powder-bed fusion with an electron beam
(PBF-EB/M) shares many similarities with
powder-bed fusion with a laser beam (PBF-
LB/M). However, some important differences
between the processes lead to some differences
in design rules. Electron beams used in PBF-
EB/M typically have higher powers and some-
what larger spot sizes (~0.5 mm, or 0.02 in.)
that lead to larger melt pools compared to
PBF-LB/M. Further, powders used in PBF-
EB/M tend to have larger particle sizes, and
larger layer thicknesses are commonly used.
These characteristics lead to a somewhat
reduced resolution and larger minimum feature
sizes. Also, scan speeds can be significantly
faster than in PBF-LB/M, because electron
beams are steered magnetically. Hence, the
electron beam is typically used to preheat
layers, and layer fabrication can be faster.
Notably, the powder bed is held at a higher
temperature in PBF-EB/M. Finally, PBF-EB/M
can only be used with metals or other electri-
cally conductive powders because electron
beams deposit a steady stream of negatively
charged particles into the powder bed. To pre-
vent powder beds from accumulating negative
charge, the build chamber must be electrically
conductive and grounded suitably. In sum-
mary, part fabrication in PBF-EB/M tends to
be faster than in PBF-LB/M but with lower
resolution and worse surface roughness.
Much of the design guidance is similar
between PBF-EB/M and PBF-LB/M. Differ-
ences are noted in this section. The content
comes primarily from three sources: the ISO/
ASTM International PBF-EB/M design guide
(Ref 86) and two papers that focus on a tita-
nium alloy material (Ref 87, 88).
Depowdering
Layer preheating is often used in PBF-EB/
M, which leads to sintering of powder not
associated with the part being built. This
causes depowdering issues. Any internal pas-
sages should be sized to ensure that powder
can be removed and tools can be inserted to
assist powder removal, if necessary. Designers
should know that layer preheating can be
turned off inside internal passages to prevent
sintering and facilitate postbuild removal.
Surface Finish
Due to the larger beam size and powder par-
ticle sizes compared to PBF-LB/M, surfaces
produced in PBF-EB/M tend to be rougher.
As a consequence, a larger machining allow-
ance should be added for critical surfaces,
compared to PBF-LB/M processes.
Part Nesting
Similar to PBF-LB/P processes, parts can be
arrayed in two directions on the build plate and
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
can be stacked in the z-direction as well.
Arraying parts in three dimensions can have
significant economic benefits that the designer
should be aware of, because more parts can
be fabricated per hour of machine time com-
pared to part arrays in two dimensions. The
use of layer preheating and higher background
process temperatures (400 to 800  C, or 750 to
1470  F) results in less residual stress and ten-
dency to warp, which means that support
requirements can be significantly less than in
PBF-LB/M. Depending on part shape and size,
stacked parts may not need support structures,
particularly if they are small. If support struc-
tures are used for stacked parts, designers
should note that parts below the top part layers
will have support structure on both their bot-
tom and top surfaces, which may increase
postprocessing demands. Also, the thermal
environment may be different between the
top and bottom layers of the build, which can
lead to differences in microstructure and
mechanical properties.
Build Plate Considerations
Several aspects of build plates are worth
noting, including:
 Build plates in PBF-EB/M are thinner than
those used in PBF-LB/M due to smaller
residual stresses. Also, build plates are not
firmly attached to the build chamber.
 At least 2 mm (0.08 in.) of support structure
should be used to separate the part from the
build plate, because alloy elements can dif-
fuse into the part from the build plate if the
part is attached directly to the build plate.
Even if the build plate is the same material
as the part, the chemical composition of the
build plate can change over time due to the
repeated thermal cycling associated with
the process.
 Often the build plate material is chosen to
be different than the part material (e.g.,
steel build plate for a titanium alloy build).
As a result, support structures can break
away from the build plate as the powder
bed cools after the build is complete, which
can significantly reduce postprocessing
demands.
 If the same material is used for the build
plate and part, the build plate can be
incorporated into the final part. Further-
more, single-crystal parts can be achieved
if the build plate is a single crystal and pro-
cessing conditions allow. Although some
postprocessing efforts will be needed to
cut the build plate to shape, significant time
savings can be achieved overall due to
reduced time in the PBF-EB/M process.
Overhangs
The production of overhangs without sup-
port structures through PBF-EB/M processes
often results in distorted objects, because the
loose powder is much less thermally conduc-
tive than solid metal. To overcome this limita-
tion, support structures are essential for
overhang angles less than 50 from the hori-
zontal for the titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V (this
may vary for other materials). Specific guid-
ance can be provided for different overhang
shapes. Figure 11 illustrated these overhang
shapes:
 Convex overhangs: Unsupported fabrica-
tion of convex overhangs of a radius more
than 7 mm (0.28 in.) may result in shape
distortion due to loss of material on the
overhanging surface. This deformation
increases with an increase in the convex
radius.
 Concave overhangs: Concave overhangs up
to an 8 mm (0.32 in.) radius can be built
without support structures. If the concave
overhang radius is more than 8 mm, bottom
edge defects and warping will occur with-
out support structures.
 Bridge overhangs: Bridge overhangs between
two solid supports of up to 5 mm (0.20 in.) in
length can be built without support structures.
The fabrication of bridge overhangs more
than 5 mm long without support structures
results in warping deformation in the middle
portion.
 Ledge overhangs: The self-supporting limit
for ledge overhangs is 1 mm (0.04 in.). Fab-
rication of ledge overhangs without support
structures will result in deformations such
as warping, variation in the thickness of
the overhang, and vertical side loss.
Directed-Energy Deposition-
Specific Design Rules
This process uses focused thermal energy
that fuses the metal feedstock by melting as it
is being deposited. Applications include part
fabrication, fabrication of features on conven-
tionally produced parts, and addition of surface
material such as cladding for wear protection,
corrosion protection, or part repair (Ref 89).
Directed-energy deposition (DED) is often
considered a near-net shape process, because
rapid material deposition with low-resolution
operations is often preferred. Machining opera-
tions are used to achieve the desired surface
finishes and accuracies. A wide variety of tech-
nologies and configurations of DED processes
have been developed. Directed-energy-deposi-
tion processes differ in feedstock type, such
as using wire or powder; energy sources, such
as laser, electron beam, or arc; and the
machine architecture. Hybrid machines have
been developed that include a subtractive pro-
cess to machine parts and features to final
dimensions. Many DED machines use a gantry
architecture with x-, y-, and z-axes, whereas
others use five- or six-degrees-of-freedom
robot arms for primary motions. Some couple
a rotary or rotary-tilt table to manipulate the

part being fabricated, which offers additional
degrees of freedom.
Due to the high build rates often used, sig-
nificant amounts of heat are added quickly for
each layer, which often leads to high residual
stresses in fabricated parts. Various build
strategies have been used to address these
residual stresses, including redesigns of the
part. One is the use of a double-sided build
approach, or symmetric build configuration,
in which parts are built on opposite sides of
the substrate, with the substrate being flipped
after several layers are fabricated on one side.
In this manner, the residual stresses built up
within each side of the part are balanced by
the stresses on the opposite side of the part.
With this description of DED processes and
technologies, design rules can be presented.
They originate from the work of Lockett
et al. and ASTM F3413 (2019) (Ref 90, 91).
The presentation begins with powder-blown
DED, followed by wire arc and gas metal
wire arc.
Laser Powder-Blown Directed-Energy
Deposition
This process uses metal powder as the feed-
stock, which is blown into a focused laser
beam to create a melt pool to deposit material
onto a part. The design rules and guidelines
presented here also apply to other DED pro-
cess variations.
Thick Sections
Because large, thick sections of a part cause
residual stresses, the first rule is that parts with
thick walls should be redesigned with thinner
walls reinforced with ribs or gussets. Other
redesign strategies may be needed for different
part shapes, but the key is for most features to
have similar thicknesses (Fig. 14). The walls
should not be too thick, because hot spots
may occur during the build, or too much resid-
ual stress can result in warped parts. Wall
thickness should be limited to no more than
four to five deposited beads and should not
have abrupt transitions in thickness.
Substrate as Wall
If the part geometry is suitable, the substrate
potentially can be used as one wall of the part.
Another approach is to use a thick substrate that
is capable of withstanding the residual stresses
without bending or warping. Alternatively, if a
thin substrate is desired, it can be used as a wall
of the part, and the substrate can be fixed onto a
thick build plate. An example of the first
approach is illustrated in the substrate as wall
rule in Fig. 14, where the bottom wall of the part
can be removed from the substrate later. This can
help save substantial time and cost because the
material for the wall does not have to be
deposited.
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
Improvement
Thick section
Substrate as wall
Symmetric build
Axisymmetric part
Fig. 14 Design rules for directed-energy deposition regarding thick sections and build strategies
Symmetrical Parts
The symmetric build rule in Fig. 14 illus-
trates an example of building two parts, one
on either side of the substrate, to balance resid-
ual stresses. Note that the parts on both sides
do not need to be identical but should be of
similar size and weight so that imbalanced
stresses do not arise.
Axisymmetric Parts
To facilitate the fabrication of axisymmetric
parts, it can be helpful to use a rotary turntable
that rotates about the part axis of symmetry, as
shown in the axisymmetric part rule in Fig. 14.
In this manner, the deposition head does not
need to be moved in the xy plane during fabri-
cation, which can lead to more accurate parts
being produced.
Holes
For parts fabricated using blown-powder
systems, powder can be trapped in holes,
slots, and internal cavities if they are too
small or tightly enclosed. The small-hole rule
in Fig. 15 emphasizes that small holes with
precise requirements on position should be
removed from the DED model and instead
be drilled in a postprocessing operation.
Overhangs
In DED processes, support structures are
rarely used. As a result, overhangs in parts
should be avoided. One way to avoid them is
to redesign the part to place surfaces where
they are needed by building walls vertically
Design Rules / 13
Original Rule, explanation
If a part has a thick section, redesign
it with thin walls supported with ribs
or gussets.
If a part has a flat wall, consider
using the substrate for that wall to
save fabrication time.
If a part is expected to have high
residual stresses, consider using a
symmetric build strategy (double-
sided) to balance those stresses.
If the part is axisymmetric, consider
building on a rotary table to provide
relative motion between the
deposition head and the part being
fabricated.
from the base wall. An example of this is illu-
strated in the overhang redesign rule in Fig. 15.
In this rule, ribs of the needed height are built
on the base. Another method for avoiding
overhangs is to build the part on a DED
machine that offers five or more degrees of
freedom. In this manner, the deposition head
can be reoriented from vertically downward
deposition to a horizontal deposition direction.
Alternatively, if a turntable is used, the part
can be rotated 90 so that vertically downward
deposition is used consistently for all features.
Wire Arc Additive Manufacture
This process uses wire feedstock to produce
parts by depositing material layer by layer onto
a substrate plate. It uses a welding rig that is
controlled by a robot or a computer numeri-
cally controlled machine that allows multiaxis
deposition of material (Ref 92, 93). Wire arc
additive manufacture (WAAM) enables the
fabrication of overhangs without supports and
the use of a turntable to change the build orien-
tation during deposition. The final component
is usually machined to its final dimensions dur-
ing deposition or after the deposition process is
complete. Due to its setup, WAAM has limited
design freedom, and users must consider the
build orientation, build sequence, design, and
other postprocessing constraints. Some of the
earlier design for WAAM guidelines were
established by Sequeira Almeida, Wang
et al., Lin, and Meisel and Williams (Ref 94–
97). Kazanas et al. published an initial investi-
gation into geometric feature deposition using
WAAM (Ref 98); and Mehnen et al. published
a design study for WAAM containing some
examples of design features and process
 14 / Design Principles
Faorable
Small hole
Overhang, redesign
Overhang, 5 degrees 90° rotation
of freedom
Deposition head
Fig. 15 Design rules for directed-energy deposition (DED) regarding holes and overhangs
capabilities (Ref 99, 100). Zhu et al. proposed
an approach toward build orientation for com-
bined additive and subtractive manufacturing
based on considering tool accessibility for
machining, build times for deposition and for
machining, number of bridges, and number of
support structures, which then defines the opti-
mal build orientation using a weighted score
calculated from these factors (Ref 101).
Ponche et al. developed a more extensive DFAM
methodology that comprises three steps via
part orientation, functional optimization, and
manufacturing path optimization (Ref 14). The
part orientation is optimized with the objective
of minimizing support volume, minimizing cost,
and maximizing quality through the use of topol-
ogy optimization to minimize the number of path
ends, maximize the curvature radius, and mini-
mize the number of points of discontinuity.
Part Dimensions
Because WAAM is not constrained by an
enclosed chamber, the use of materials such
as aluminum and steel that do not require
shielding allows the maximum part size to be
limited only by the reach capability of the
machine. For materials such as titanium, a
shielding device is required, but an enclosed
chamber is still avoided (Ref 102). Parts have
been built up to 6 m (20 ft) in length in a two-
robot cell that could, in principle, produce
parts up to 10 m (33 ft) in length. The mini-
mum wall thickness for deposition is 2 mm
(0.08 in.), although thinner walls can be
achieved through machining (Ref 90).
Enclosed Features
The WAAM parts can include enclosed fea-
tures such as passageways using multiaxis
build techniques or deposition paths that allow
unsupported regions to be deposited. Holes can
be produced by drilling these features after the
deposition process. Considerations should be
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
Unfavorable Rule, explanation
If a part has a small hole with a tight
position tolerance, then it should be
40+0.02mm removed from the model and drilled in
a postprocessing operation.
If a part has a significant overhang,
consider redesigning it to avoid the
overhang.
If a part has a significant overhang,
consider using a DED machine with 5+
degrees of freedom.
made for enclosed features, because they can-
not be easily inspected or machined (Ref 90).
Unfinished Faces
For some applications, it may not be neces-
sary to machine all of the deposited faces.
However, there could be features that concen-
trate stresses on some unfinished faces, which
is particularly important in fatigue-driven
parts (Ref 90).
Surface Finish
The surface finish can be improved without
postmachining by using techniques such as
shot peening or vibratory grinding (Ref 103).
Machining Considerations
Where machining is required, guidelines
should be followed, and suitable location points
must be provided on the WAAM part for machin-
ing. A machining allowance of typically 1 mm
(0.04 in.) must be added to allow for the material
removed by the machining process (Ref 92).
Undesirable Features
The production of complex three-dimen-
sional lattices or long and thin unsupported
parts is not desirable using this method.
Corners
It would be preferable to allow for con-
tinuous deposition around corners. This pro-
cess can produce parts with sharp external
corners, but they will be difficult to manu-
facture due to additional stop-starts in the
deposition process. For parts to be postma-
chined, internal corners should be designed
with a generous radius to allow for postma-
chining and to avoid stress concentrations
(Ref 90).
Gas Metal Arc Welding
This process is often used for large build-
volume systems, also known as metal big-
area additive manufacturing. The gas metal
arc welding torch is mounted to a servo-
controlled, articulated robot arm using wire
feedstock. This technique differs from other
wire-feed processes such as laser and electron
beam power sources by not requiring an inert
environment, because the torch provides a
local shield gas to the build. The arc welding
torch and power supply are more affordable
to maintain compared to lasers or electron
beams. Conversely, laser and electron beam
power sources offer more control over the heat
input to prevent overmelting. The major design
considerations are the overhang constraint,
large bead thicknesses, lack of easily remov-
able support structures, and print direction.
The typical width of two overlapped beads is
nominally 12 mm (0.47 in.) (Ref 104). The
bead thickness is a key design consideration,
and the weld bead morphology is dependent
on the wire feed rate, arc current, wire offset,
preheat and interpass temperatures, and torch
speed. The final design should account for the
discrepancy between the designed wall thick-
ness and the wall thicknesses that are possible
using this process. Selecting a print direction
to use smaller cross sections may result in
lower thermal gradients that reduce residual
stresses and warping. The choice of metal
alloys also determines the risk of cracking or
other defects if the preheat and interpass tem-
peratures are incorrect. The key parameters
that determine the preheat and interpass tem-
peratures include the composition of the
alloy, the substrate and filler wire, heat input,
electrode type, and thermal mass (Ref 105,
106). This process incorporates both DFAM
and design for machining. It is important to
identify which orientation of the part will
keep the most features while minimizing the
requirement for machining.
Overhangs
The orientation of the torch to the work-
piece is usually fixed to simplify the program-
ming process required for the toolpath. The
torch orientation within the computer-aided
manufacturing package should therefore be
considered (Ref 107). An optimum overhang
angle that can be used without changing the
torch orientation is 15 .
Steep Angles
Depositing on a steep angle due to fixed
torch orientation may increase the potential
for weld pool overflow. The molten weld pool
may also overflow a thin wall when the sub-
strate temperature is too high (Ref 108). Filler
wire such as a higher silicon content in a steel
wire may increase the fluidity of the weld pool,

making it easier for the weld pool to overflow
when the substrate is hot.
Support Structures
Unnecessary support structures require machin-
ing for eventual removal.
Features
The overhang limit of 15 and low-resolu-
tion beads do not permit complex geometries
(Ref 104).
Orientation
The orientation of the part to fabricate an
irregular shape is important to the final mechan-
ical properties. In addition, the thermal condi-
tions change with the print direction and
influence the thermal inertia and cooling rates,
which in turn affect residual stress that may
impact the yield strength of the material
(Ref 109).
Design for Postprocessing Rules
Postprocessing includes steps such as the
removal of support structures, the improvement
of surfaces, and the enhancement of dimensional
accuracy of features to ensure part usability and
stability (Ref 37). As a general design goal, post-
processing operations should be minimized
where possible (Ref 110). The decision to design
a part onto a support material could also influ-
ence the amount of material and postprocessing
steps. For example, Diegel et al. investigated
the use of solid supports and block supports for
metal PBF and reported that the part was raised
5 mm (0.2 in.) above the build platform to allow
for a band saw to remove it from the build plate
(Ref 5). If wire cutting was used to remove
the part from the plate, the thickness of the base
could be lowered to 2 mm (0.08 in.), and the
amount of support material could be reduced
by as much as 60%. They calculated that the com-
ponent contained 186.6 cm3 (11.39 in.3) of mate-
rial, and the support represented 2% volume of the
total material used in the print, which could be
reduced to 0.8% if wire cutting was used for part
removal. In other instances, postprocessing also
includes thermal treatments, machining, drilling
of holes, or the enhancement of surfaces.
Material Extrusion
A number of research groups have investi-
gated topology optimization methods for
designing structural components while ensur-
ing the need for minimal support structures.
Often, they demonstrate the success of their
method by printing with the MEX process.
For example, Leary et al. proposed a computa-
tional method that calculated the optimal
topology required to ensure a successful print
without requiring additional support material
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
(Ref 111). In their example, they demonstrated
that the optimal design requires significant
support structures (41.9 cm3, or 2.56 in.3, of
support material) for a part that has a volume
of 47.8 cm3 (2.92 in.3). If printed without sup-
ports, the build fails due to delamination of
filaments and layers. When the part was rede-
signed to orient part features with angles of
45 or larger, the part size increased to
54.9 cm3 (3.35 in.3) but could be built without
any support structure. Qian investigated a sim-
ilar design method and demonstrated an 89%
reduction in material required by eliminating
the need for supports (Ref 112).
A different topology optimization approach
incorporates overhang angle control to eliminate
the need for support structures, as can be seen in
Fig. 16 (Ref 113). If parts are not designed to
eliminate supports, build-preparation software
may suggest excessive supports that may be
time-consuming to remove, although these
structures are needed to properly anchor the
parts. If too few supports are present, parts may
warp, curl, and detach from the platform.
Binder Jetting
Some key considerations for postproces-
sing include the requirements for curing,
depowdering, sintering, infiltration, anneal-
ing, and finishing. These postprocesses may
incur more time than the actual print pro-
cess, especially for the sintering and anneal-
ing of parts that acquire significant costs
(Ref 51). Because BJ parts are often fragile
in a green state, designers must consider
the provision of “cages” or locating features
within the powder bed as well as the ease of
removing the powder.
Laser-Based Metal Powder-Bed Fusion
This process uses a laser beam that melts
and fuses metal powders together. Similar to
Fig. 16 Overhang angle control in topology optimization reduces or eliminates the need for support structures.
Reprinted by permission from Springer Nature from Ref 113, Y. Xian and D.W. Rosen, “Morphable
Components Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,
copyright 2020
Design Rules / 15
the BJ process, a thin layer of powder is depos-
ited over a previously deposited layer, and the
laser beam melts and fuses the powder parti-
cles. Because some materials cannot withstand
high internal stresses during the fabrication
process, they may be prone to cracking, which,
to a certain extent, can be overcome by reduc-
ing the cooling rate, such as by using a heated
substrate plate. Care should be taken during
machining or cleaning because anisotropic
microstructure may be present in the material
along the build direction (Ref 51). Designers
must consider fixture points for the machining
or cleaning processes that are involved.
Electron-Beam-Based Powder-Bed Fusion
This process is similar to laser PBF,
although it uses an electron beam for the melt-
ing and fusion of the powder particles rather
than a laser beam. The powder bed is kept
at high temperatures, often above 400  C
(750  F), and long cooling times are required
to lower the temperature of the powder bed
after the print is completed. This process
involves more control parameters, such as the
beam power, beam scanning velocity, beam
focus, beam diameter, beam line spacing,
plate temperature, preheat temperature contour
strategies, and the scan strategy. Metal parts
often must undergo significant postprocessing
steps, such as electropolishing, external thermal
treatments, or surface coatings (Ref 51).
Access Points
For polymer and metal PBF, access points
should be provided for powder removal. In
PBF/M, internal holes or cavities may require
support structures, which must be removed or
left permanently (Ref 15). Considerations
should be made for the removal of unused
build material and/or support structures from
internal cavities, and specific design features
 16 / Design Principles
should be included to enable removal
(Ref 114). It is possible to use vibrating sand-
ing systems or machining methods to remove
unused trapped powder. The efficiency of the
removal process is influenced by the material
flow, pressure, nozzle characteristics, powder
morphology, raw material type, and the removal
strategy, duration, and method (Ref 115). The
diameter of the access point and the amount of
powder that can be easily removed should be
considered in relation to costly postprocessing
steps versus the mechanical and finishing
requirements of the part.
Support Removal
Components with overhangs, undercuts, or
suspended features cannot be successfully pro-
duced unless they are supported, especially
when using MEX, material jetting, or vat poly-
merization (Ref 116). All supports should be
removed after printing, although this repre-
sents wasted resources in terms of labor,
energy, time, and material (Ref 117). Light
supports should be used so that they can be
easily removed by hand or dissolved using
water or solvent. Other supports using denser
materials, such as metals, require machining
operations (Ref 110). Removal of support
material may also damage the component if
wall thicknesses are too thin to provide suffi-
cient strength. A recommendation is to include
a shear edge near supports to enable them to be
quickly and efficiently removed (Ref 118).
Reducing Processing Defects
There could be unwanted defects such as curl-
ing, warping, or shrinkage that may impact the
final dimensions, tolerances, and geometry
(Ref 119). The use of permanent or removable
support structures may help prevent or reduce
the impact of some of these defects. Other heuris-
tic rules can also be applied, such as avoiding
large, flat downward-facing surfaces or including
support ribs (Ref 110, 116, 120). Other processing
defects include unwanted porosity that can arise
in metal AM parts. Process settings can be tuned,
in many cases, to reduce porosity, and hot iso-
static pressing operations can be performed on
some metal AM parts to reduce porosity.
REFERENCES
1. T. Vaneker, The Role of Design for
Additive Manufacturing in the Success-
ful Economical Introduction of AM,
Proc. CIRP, Vol 60, 2017, p 181–186,
10.1016/j.procir.2017.02.012
2. D.W. Rosen, Research Supporting Prin-
ciples for Design for Additive Manu-
facturing, Virt. Phys. Prototyp., Vol 9
(No. 4), 2014, p 225–232, doi:10.1080/
17452759.2014.951530
3. G. Boothroyd, Product Design for Manu-
facture and Assembly, Comput. Des., Vol
26 (No. 7), 1994, p 505–520
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
4. T. Wohlers, R.I. Campbell, O. Diegel,
and J. Kowen, Wohlers Report: 3D Print-
ing and Additive Manufacturing State of
the Industry, Annual Worldwide Progress
Report, 2019
5. O. Diegel, J. Schutte, A. Ferreira, and Y.
L. Chan, Design for Additive Manu-
facturing Process for a Lightweight
Hydraulic Manifold, Addit. Manuf., Vol 36,
2020, p 101446, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2020.101446
6. A. Alfaify, M. Saleh, F.M. Abdullah, and
A.M. Al-Ahmari, Design for Additive
Manufacturing: A Systematic Review,
Sustainability, Vol 12, 2020, p 7936,
doi:10.3390/su12197936
7. J. Schmelzle, E. Kline, C. Dickman, E.
Reutzel, G. Jones, and T. Simpson, (Re)
Designing for Part Consolidation: Under-
standing the Challenges of Metal Addi-
tive Manufacturing, ASME J. Mech.
Des., Vol 137 (No. 11), 2015, p 111404
8. S. Yang, Y. Tang, and Y. Zhao, A New
Part Consolidation Method to Embrace
the Design Freedom of Additive Manu-
facturing, J. Manuf. Process., Vol 20,
2015, p 444–449
9. S. Yang, F. Santoro, and Y. Zhao,
Towards a Numerical Approach of Finding
Candidates for Additive Manufacturing-
Enabled Part Consolidation, ASME J.
Mech. Des., Vol 140 (No. 4), 2018,
p 041701
10. S. Yang and Y. Zhao, Additive
Manufacturing-Enabled Part Count Reduc-
tion: A Lifecycle Perspective, ASME J.
Mech. Des., Vol 140 (No. 3), 2018,
p 031702
11. S. Yang, W. Min, J. Ghibaudo, and Y.
Zhao, Understanding the Sustainability
Potential of Part Consolidation Design
Supported by Additive Manufacturing, J.
Cleaner Prod., Vol 232, 2019, p 722–738
12. E. Dowdell, K. Conklin, and I.Y. Kim, A
Generalized Consolidated Topology Opti-
mization and DFAM Design Approach
and Its Application for Assembly Design,
Prog. Can. Mech. Eng., Vol 3, June 2020,
10.32393/csme.2020.94
13. A. Wiberg, J. Persson, and J. Ölvander,
Design for Additive Manufacturing—A
Review of Available Design Methods
and Software, Rapid Prototyp. J., 2019,
doi: 10.1108/RPJ-10-2018-0262
14. R. Ponche, O. Kerbrat, P. Mognol, and
J.-Y. Hascoet, A Novel Methodology of
Design for Additive Manufacturing
Applied to Additive Laser Manufacturing
Process, Robotics Comput.-Integr. Manuf.,
Vol 30 (No. 4), 2014, p 389–398,
doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2013.12.001
15. C. Seepersad, J. Allison, and C. Sharpe,
The Need for Effective Design Guides
in Additive Manufacturing, Proc. 21st
International Conference on Engineering
Design (ICED17), Vol 5, 2017, p 309–
316
16. S. Bin Maidin, R.I. Campbell, and E. Pei,
Development of a Design Feature Data-
base to Support Design for Additive
Manufacturing, Assem. Autom., Vol 32
(No. 3), 2012, p 235–244, https://doi.
org/10.1108/01445151211244375
17. M. Dinar and D. Rosen, A Design for
Additive Manufacturing Ontology, J.
Comput. Inform. Sci. Eng., Vol 17 (No.
2), 2017, p 021013
18. B. Leutenecker-Twelsiek, C. Klahn, and
M. Meboldt, Considering Part Orientation
in Design for Additive Manufacturing,
Proc. CIRP, Vol 50, 2016, p 408–413
19. M. Mani, P. Witherell, and H. Jee,
Design Rules for Additive Manufacturing:
A Categorization, Proc. ASME 2017 Int.
Design Engineering Technical Confer-
ences and Computers and Information in
Engineering Conference, Vol 1, 2017,
V001T02A035, 10.1115/DETC 2017-
68446
20. I. Gibson, D.W. Rosen, B. Stucker, and
M. Khorasani, Additive Manufacturing
Technologies, 3rd ed., Springer, 2021
21. “Design Guides Homepage,” Materialise N.
V., 2015, https://i.materialise.com/materials/
design-guides
22. “Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS)
Design Guideline,” Stratasys Ltd., 2015,
https://www.stratasysdirect.com/resources/
direct-metal-laser-sintering-dmls
23. “Laser Sintering Design Guideline,”
Stratasys Ltd., 2015, https://www.strata
sysdirect.com/ resources/laser-sintering
24. “Materials Homepage,” Shapeways, 2016,
http://www.shapeways.com/materials
25. “Design Guide—Brass Inserts for SLS
Parts,” 3D Systems Inc., 2015, http://
www.3dsystems.com/sites/www.3dsys
tems.com/files/brass_inserts_guide_for_
sls_parts_0.pdf
26. “SLS1 Plastics Design Guide,” 3D Sys-
tems Inc., 2015, http://www.3dsystems.
com/resources/sls-plastics-design-guide
27. F. Valjak, N. Bojčetić, and M. Lukić,
Design for Additive Manufacturing:
Mapping of Product Functions, Proc.
DESIGN 2018 15th International Design
Conference, May 21–24, 2018 (Dubrov-
nik, Croatia), The Design Society,
Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2018, p 1369–1380,
http://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0364
28. Y. Tang, J.-Y. Hascoet, and Y.F. Zhao,
Integration of Topological and Func-
tional Optimization in Design for Addi-
tive Manufacturing, Proc. ASME 2014
12th Biennial Conference on Engineer-
ing Systems Design and Analysis
ESDA2014, June 25–27, 2014 (Copenha-
gen, Denmark), 2014, V001T06A006,
https://doi.org/10.1115/ESDA2014-20381
29. N. Boyard, M. Rivette, O. Christmann,
and S. Richir, A Design Methodology
for Parts Using Additive Manufacturing,
Proc. Sixth International Conference on
Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid

Prototyping (VRAP), Oct 1–5, 2013
(Leiria, Portugal), CRC Press, Leira,
2013, p 399–404, https://doi.org/10.1201/
b15961-74
30. R. Ponche, J.Y. Hascoet, O. Kerbrat, and
P. Mognol, A New Global Approach to
Design for Additive Manufacturing, Virt.
Phys. Prototyp., Vol 7 (No. 2), 2012,
p 93–105, https://doi.org/10.1080/1745
2759.2012.679499
31. G. Adam and D. Zimmer, Design for
Additive Manufacturing—Element Tran-
sitions and Aggregated Structures, CIRP
J. Manuf. Sci. Technol., Vol 7 (No. 1),
2014, p 20–28
32. A. Alafaghani, A. Qattawi, and M.A.
Ablat, Design Consideration for Additive
Manufacturing: Fused Deposition Model-
ling, Open J. Appl. Sci., Vol 7, 2017,
p 291–318
33. G.A. Teitelbaum, “Proposed Build Guide-
lines for Use in Fused Deposition Model-
ing to Reduce Build Time and Material
Volume,” ProQuest, 2009, https://drum.
lib.umd.edu/bitstream/handle/1903/9311/
Teitelbaum_umd_0117N_10339.pdf?
sequence=1isAllowed=y
34. X. Li, Z.W. Li, and J. Shang, Research
on the Warping Deformation in Fused
Deposition Modeling, Asian J. Res.
Chem. Pharm. Sci., Vol 4 (No. 1), 2016,
p 21–30
35. S.H. Ahn, M. Montero, D. Odell, S.
Roundy, and P.K. Wright, Anisotropic
Material Properties of Fused Deposition
Modeling ABS, Rapid Prototyp., Vol 8,
2002, p 248–257
36. R. Anitha, S. Arunachalam, and P. Rad-
hakrishnan, Critical Parameters Influen-
cing the Quality of Prototypes in Fused
Deposition Modelling, J. Mater. Process.
Technol., Vol 118, 2001, p 385–388,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-0136(01)
00980-3
37. H. Medellı́n-Castillo and J. Zaragoza-
Siqueiros, Design and Manufacturing
Strategies for Fused Deposition Model-
ling in Additive Manufacturing: A
Review, Chin. J. Mech. Eng., Vol 32,
2019, 10.1186/s10033-019-0368-0
38. J.T. Belter and A.M. Dollar, Strengthen-
ing of 3D Printed Fused Deposition Manu-
factured Parts Using the Fill Compositing
Technique, PLoS ONE, Vol 10, 2015,
p 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0122915
39. W.M. Johnson, M. Rowell, B. Deason,
and M. Eubanks, Benchmarking Evalua-
tion of an Open Source Fused Deposition
Modeling Additive Manufacturing Sys-
tem, Proc. 22nd Annual International
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium,
2011, p 197–211
40. S. Bashyam, J. Kuhn, and C.C. Seeper-
sad, “A 3D Printing Vending Machine
and Its Impact on the Democratization
of 3D Printing on a College Campus,”
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
Paper 57106, International Design Engi-
neering Technical Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineer-
ing Conference, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 2015
41. H. Medellı́n-Castillo, T. Lim, J. Corney,
et al., Automatic Subdivision and Refine-
ment of Large Components for Rapid
Prototyping Production, J. Comput.
Inform. Sci. Eng., Vol 7, 2007, p 249–
258
42. E. Fodran, M. Koch, and U. Menon,
Mechanical and Dimensional Character-
istics of Fused Deposition Modeling
Build Styles, Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium (University of Texas, Austin,
TX), 1996, p 419–442
43. T.H.C. Childs and N.P. Juster, Linear and
Geometric Accuracies from Layer Manu-
facturing, CIRP Ann., Manuf. Technol.,
Vol 43, 1994, p 163–166, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)62187-8
44. H.S. Byun and K.H. Lee, Determination
of Optimal Build Direction in Rapid Pro-
totyping with Variable Slicing, Int. J.
Adv. Manuf. Technol., Vol 28, 2006,
p 307–313
45. F. Xu, Y. Wong, H. Loh, et al., Optimal
Orientation with Variable Slicing in
Stereolithography, Rapid Prototyp. J.,
Vol 3, 1997, p 76–88
46. C. Klahn, D. Singer, and M. Meboldt,
Design Guidelines for Additive Manufac-
tured Snap-Fit Joints, Proc. CIRP, Vol
50, 2016, p 264–269, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.130
47. K. Torossian and D. Bourell, Experimen-
tal Study of Snap-Fits Using Additive
Manufacturing, 26th Annual Interna-
tional Solid Freeform Fabrication (SFF)
Symposium (Austin, TX), 2015, p 1794–
1803
48. A. Mostafaei, K.A. Kimes, E.L. Stevens,
J. Toman, Y.L. Krimer, K. Ullakko, et al.,
Microstructural Evolution and Magnetic
Properties of Binder Jet Additive Manu-
factured Ni-Mn-Ga Magnetic Shape Mem-
ory Alloy Foam, Acta Mater., Vol 131,
2017, p 482–490
49. A. Mostafaei, E.L. Stevens, J.J. Ference,
D.E. Schmidt, and M. Chmielus, Binder
Jet Printing of Partial Denture Metal
Framework from Metal Powder, Mater.
Sci. Technol., 2017, p 289–291
50. A. Mostafaei, A. Elliott, J. Barnes, F. Li,
W. Tan, C. Cramer, P. Nandwana, and
M. Chmielus, Binder Jet 3D Printing—
Process Parameters, Materials, Proper-
ties, and Challenges, Prog. Mater. Sci.,
Vol 119, 2020, p 100707, 10.1016/j.
pmatsci.2020.100707
51. P.K. Gokuldoss, S. Kolla, and J. Eckert,
Additive Manufacturing Processes: Selec-
tive Laser Melting, Electron Beam Melting
and Binder Jetting—Selection Guidelines,
Materials, Vol 10, 2017, p 672, https://
doi.org/10.3390/ma10060672
Design Rules / 17
52. R.K. Enneti, K.C. Prough, T.A. Wolfe,
A. Klein, N. Studley, and J.L. Trasorras,
Sintering of WC-12%Co Processed by
Binder Jet 3D Printing (BJ3DP) Technol-
ogy, Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater.,
Vol 71, 2017, p 28–35
53. J. Kranz, D. Herzog, and C. Emmelmann,
Design Guidelines for Laser Additive
Manufacturing of Lightweight Structures
in TiAl6V4, J. Laser Appl., Vol 27,
2015, p S14001
54. H. Fayazfar, M. Salarian, A. Rogalsky,
D. Sarker, P. Russo, V. Paserin, et al.,
A Critical Review of Powder-Based
Additive Manufacturing of Ferrous
Alloys: Process Parameters, Microstruc-
ture and Mechanical Properties, Mater.
Des., Vol 144, 2018, p 98–128
55. E.O. Garzon, J.L. Alves, and R.J. Netvo,
Post-Process Influence of Infiltration on
Binder Jetting Technology, Mater. Des.
Appl. Adv. Struct. Mater., Vol 65,
Springer, Cham, 2017
56. J.W. Oh, S. Nahm, B. Kim, and H. Choi,
Anisotropy in Green Body Bending
Strength due to Additive Direction in the
Binder-Jetting Additive Manufacturing
Process, Korean J. Met. Mater., Vol 57,
2019, p 227–235, https://doi.org/10.3365/
KJMM.2019.57.4.227
57. M. Asadi-Eydivand, M. Solati-Hashjin,
and N.A. Abu Osman, Mechanical
Behavior of Calcium Sulfate Scaffold
Prototypes Built by Solid Free-Form
Fabrication, Rapid Prototyp. J., Vol 24,
2018, p 1392–1400
58. S. Li and S. Cao, Print Parameters Influ-
ence on Parts’ Quality and Calibration
with 3DP, Part I: Print Parameters Influ-
ence on Parts’ Surface Topography, Adv.
Mater. Res., Vol 399–401, 2012, p 1639–
1645, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scien
tific.net/AMR.399-401.1639
59. B.B. Godbey and D.C. Angstadt, Improv-
ing Surface Finish Quality of Rapid
Tooling via Surface Contact Infiltration
of 3-D Printed Metal Parts, Manuf. Eng.
Text. Eng., 2006, p 73–77
60. K. Myers, A. Paterson, T. Iizuka, and A.
Klein, The Effect of Print Speed on Sur-
face Roughness and Density Uniformity
of Parts Produced Using Binder Jet 3D
Printing, Solid Free Fabr. Proc. 30th
Annu. Int. 2019, 2019, p 122–133
61. W.J. Sames, F.A. List, S. Pannala, R.R.
Dehoff, and S.S. Babu, The Metallurgy
and Processing Science of Metal Addi-
tive Manufacturing, Int. Mater. Rev.,
Vol 61, 2016, p 315–360, https://doi.
org/10.1080/09506608.2015.1116649
62. J.F. Bredt, “Binder Stability and Powder
Binder Interaction in Three-Dimensional
Printing,” Dept. of Mechanical Engineer-
ing, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy, Cambridge, 1995
63. J.F. Bredt, S. Clark, and G. Gilchrist,
Three-Dimensional Printing Material
 18 / Design Principles
System and Method, U.S. Patent 7,087,109
B2, 2006
64. X. Cao and Z. Li, Factors Influencing the
Mechanical Properties of Three-Dimen-
sional Printed Products from Magnesium
Potassium Phosphate Cement Material,
Elsevier Inc., 2019
65. “Manufacturing Guidelines for 420
Stainless Steel/Bronze,” ExOne, 2016
66. N.B. Crane, J. Wilkes, E. Sachs, and S.M.
Allen, Improving Accuracy of Powder-
Based SFF Processes by Metal Deposition
from a Nanoparticle Dispersion, Rapid
Prototyp. J., Vol 12, 2006, p 266–274,
https://doi.org/10.1108/13552540610707022
67. B.D. Kernan, E.M. Sachs, S.M. Allen, A.
Lorenz, C. Sachs, L. Raffenbeul, et al.,
Homogeneous Steel Infiltration, Metall.
Mater. Trans. A, Vol 36, 2005, p 2815–
2827
68. C. Meier, R. Weissbach, J. Weinberg, W.
A. Wall, and A.J. Hart, Critical Influences
of Particle Size and Adhesion on the Pow-
der Layer Uniformity in Metal Additive
Manufacturing, J. Mater. Process. Tech-
nol., Vol 266, 2019, p 484–501, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2018.10.037
69. L.O. Grant, M.B. Alameen, J.R. Caraz-
zone, C.F. Higgs III, and Z.C. Cordero,
Mitigating Distortion during Sintering of
Binder Jet Printed Ceramics, Solid Free
Fabr. Symp. 2018, 2018, p 135–142
70. L. Yang, H. Miyanaji, D. Janaki Ram, A.
Zandinejad, and S. Zhang, Functionally
Graded Ceramic Based Materials Using
Additive Manufacturing: Review and
Progress, Addit. Manuf. Strateg. Technol.
Adv. Ceram., Vol 258, 2016, p 43–55,
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119236016.ch5
71. A.M. Elliott, A.M. Momen, M. Benedict,
and J. Kiggans, Experimental Study of
the Maximum Resolution and Packing
Density Achievable in Sintered and
Non-Sintered Binder-Jet 3D Printed Steel
Microchannels, Proc. ASME Int. Mech.
Eng. Congr. Expo., Vol 2A, 2015
72. J. Allison, C. Sharpe, and C.C. Seeper-
sad, Powder Bed Fusion Metrology for
Additive Manufacturing Design Guidance,
Addit. Manuf., Vol 25, 2019, p 239–251,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2018.
10.035
73. Z. Wu, S.P. Narra, and A.D. Rollett,
Exploring the Fabrication Limits of
Thin-Wall Structures in a Laser Powder
Bed Fusion Process, Int. J. Adv. Manuf.
Technol., Vol 110, 2020, p 191–207
74. E. Atzeni and A. Salmi, Economics of
Additive Manufacturing for End-Usable
Metal Parts, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.,
Vol 62 (No. 9–12), 2012, p 1147–1155,
doi:10.1007/s00170-011-3878-1
75. D. Thomas, “The Development of
Design Rules for Selective Laser Melt-
ing,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wales
Institute, Cardiff, 2009
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
76. V. Seyda, Investigation of Aging Pro-
cesses of Ti-6Al-4V Powder Material in
Laser Melting, Phys. Proc., Vol 39,
2012, p 425–431
77. J. Kranz, Manufacturing Restrictions for
Laser Additive Manufacturing of Light-
weight Structures Made of TiAl6V4:
Thin Wall Structures, Proc. DDMC
Direct Digital Manufacturing Confer-
ence 2012, March 14–15, 2012 (Berlin)
78. Y. Wang, R. Blache, and X. Xu, Selec-
tion of Additive Manufacturing Pro-
cesses, Rapid Prototyp. J., Vol 23 (No.
2), 2017, p 434–447
79. A. Gaikwad, F. Imani, P. Rao, H. Yang,
and E. Reutzel, Design Rules and In-Situ
Quality Monitoring of Thin-Wall Fea-
tures Made Using Laser Powder Bed
Fusion, Proc. ASME 2019 14th Interna-
tional Manufacturing Science and Engi-
neering Conference, Vol 1, Additive
Manufacturing; Manufacturing Equip-
ment and Systems; Bio and Sustainable
Manufacturing, June 10–14, 2019 (Erie,
PA), American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, V001T01A039, https://doi.
org/10.1115/MSEC2019-3035
80. A.G. Demir and B. Previtali, Additive
Manufacturing of Cardiovascular CoCr
Stents by Selective Laser Melting, Mater.
Des., Vol 119, 2017, p 338–350
81. S. Bangalore, B. Toklu, N. Patel, F. Feit,
and G.W. Stone, Newer-Generation
Ultrathin Strut Drug-Eluting Stents ver-
sus Older Second-Generation Thicker
Strut Drug-Eluting Stents for Coronary
Artery Disease, Circulation, Vol 138
(No. 20), 2018, p 2216–2226
82. V. Finazzi, A.G. Demir, C. Biffi, C. Chiastra,
F. Migliavacca, L. Petrini, and B. Previtali,
Design Rules for Producing Cardiovascular
Stents by Selective Laser Melting: Geometri-
cal Constraints and Opportunities, Proc.
Struct. Integr., Vol 15, 2019, p 16–23,
10.1016/j.prostr.2019.07.004
83. F. Calignano, Design Optimization of
Supports for Overhanging Structures in
Aluminum and Titanium Alloys by Selec-
tive Laser Melting, Mater. Des., Vol 64,
2014, 10.1016/j.matdes.2014.07.043
84. B. Redwood, F. Schöffer, and B. Garret,
The 3D Printing Handbook: Technolo-
gies, Design and Applications, 3D Hubs,
2017
85. “Design for Metal AM—A Beginner’s
Guide,” Renishaw, 2017, https://www.
renishaw.com/en/design-for-metal-am-abe
ginnersguide–42652
86. “Additive Manufacturing—Design—Part
3: Electron Beam Powder Bed Fusion of
Metals,” 52911-3, ISO/ASTM Interna-
tional, 2022
87. W. Ameen, A. Al-Ahmari, and M.K.
Mohammed, Self-Supporting Overhang
Structures Produced by Additive Manu-
facturing Through Electron Beam Melting,
Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., Vol 104,
2019, 10.1007/s00170-019-04007-3
88. W. Ameen, A. Al-Ahmari, M.K.
Mohammed, and S.H. Mian, Manufactur-
ability of Overhanging Holes Using Elec-
tron Beam Melting, Metals, Vol 8, 2018
89. “Standard Guide for Directed Energy
Deposition of Metals,” F3187-16, ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2016
90. H. Lockett, J. Ding, S. Williams, and F.
Martino, Design for Wire + Arc Additive
Manufacture: Design Rules and Build
Orientation Selection, J. Eng. Des., Vol
28 (No. 7–9), 2017, p 568–598
91. “Guide for Additive Manufacturing—
Design—Directed Energy Deposition,”
F 3413-19, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2019
92. S.W. Williams, F. Martina, A.C. Addi-
son, J. Ding, G. Pardal, and P. Colegrove,
Wire + Arc Additive Manufacturing,
Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol 32 (No. 7), 2016,
p 641–647, doi:10.1179/1743284715Y.
0000000073
93. J. Zhang and L. Frank, Multi-Axis Planning
of a Hybrid Material Deposition and
Removal Combined Process, J. Mach.
Manuf. Autom., Vol 2 (No. 3), 2013, p 46–57
94. P.M. Sequeira Almeida, “Process Control
and Development in Wire and Arc Addi-
tive Manufacturing,” Ph.D. Thesis.,
Cranfield University, Cranfield, 2012
95. F. Wang, S. Williams, P. Colegrove, and
A.A. Antonysamy, Microstructure and
Mechanical Properties of Wire and Arc
Additive Manufactured Ti-6Al-4V,
Metall. Mater. Trans. A, Vol 44 (No. 2),
2013, p 968–977, doi:10.1007/s11661-
012-1444-6
96. N. Lin, “Design for Wire and Arc Addi-
tive Manufacturing: Development of
Design Guidelines and an Automation
Design Tool,” M.Sc. Thesis, Cranfield
University, Cranfield, 2015
97. B. Meisel and C. Williams, An Investiga-
tion of Key Design for Additive Manu-
facturing Constraints in Multimaterial
Three-Dimensional Printing, J. Mech.
Des., Vol 137 (No. 11), 2015, p 111406
98. P. Kazanas, P. Deherkar, P. Almeida, H.
Lockett, and S. Williams, Fabrication of
Geometrical Features Using Wire and
Arc Additive Manufacture, Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. B, J. Eng. Manuf., Vol 226,
2012, doi:10.1177/0954405412437126
99. J. Mehnen, J. Ding, H. Lockett, and P.
Kazanas, Design for Wire and Arc Addi-
tive Layer Manufacture, Global Product
Development, Proc. 20th CIRP Design
Conference, 2011
100. J. Mehnen, J. Ding, H. Lockett, and P. Kaza-
nas, Design Study for Wire and Arc Addi-
tive Manufacture, Int. J. Prod. Develop.,
2014, doi:10.1504/IJPD.2014.060028; doi:
10.1007/978-3-642-15973-2-73

101. H. Zhu, K. Lee, and J. Hur, Determina-
tion of Optimal Build Orientation for
Hybrid Rapid-Prototyping, J. Mater.
Process. Technol., Vol 130–131, 2002,
p 378–383, doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(02)
00727-6
102. J. Ding, P. Colegrove, F. Martina, S.
Williams, R. Wiktorowicz, and M.R.
Palt, Development of a Laminar Flow
Local Shielding Device for Wire + Arc
Additive Manufacture, J. Mater. Pro-
cess. Technol., Vol 226, 2015, p 99–
105, doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2015.07.
005
103. J. Bralla, Design for Manufacturability
Handbook, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1999
104. G. Clayton, A. Nycz, M. Noakes, B.
Richardson, P. Brian, T. Kurfess, and L.
Love, Introduction to the Design Rules for
Metal Big Area Additive Manufacturing,
Addit. Manuf., Vol 27, 2019, 10.1016/j.
addma.2019.02.016
105. R. Trevisan, N. Santos, H. Fals, and
A. Santos, Effect of Interpass Tem-
perature on Morphology, Micro-
structure and Microhardness of
Welded API 5L X65 Steel, Proc.
International Pipeline Conference,
Vol 327, 2002
106. A. Adeyinka, M. Jorn, and T. Xavier,
Limiting Travel Speed in Additive Layer
Manufacturing, Proc. Ninth International
Conference on Trends in Welding
Research, 2013
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/653217/a0006948.pdf
by University of Western Ontario user
on 30 October 2023
107. H. Castner and J. Penoyer, Computer-
Aided Programming for Robotic Weld-
ing, Weld. J., Vol 96, 2017, p 78–83
108. Y. Zhang, Y. Chen, P. Li, and A.T.
Male, Weld Deposition-Based Rapid
Prototyping: A Preliminary Study, J.
Mater. Process. Technol., Vol 135,
2003, p 347–357
109. D. Clark, M.R. Bache, and M.T. Whit-
taker, Shaped Metal Deposition of a
Nickel Alloy for Aero Engine Applica-
tions, J. Mater. Process. Technol., Vol
203 (No. 1–3), 2008, p 439–448
110. M. Ayre, “3D Printing for Manufacture:
A Basic Design Guide Contents,” Cruci-
ble Design Ltd., Oxford, 2014
111. M. Leary, L. Merli, F. Torti, M.
Mazur, and M. Brandt, Optimal
Topology for Additive Manufacture:
A Method for Enabling Additive
Manufacture of Support-Free Optimal
Structures, Mater. Des., Vol 63,
2014, p 678–690
112. X. Qian, Undercut and Overhang Angle
Control in Topology Optimization: A
Density Gradient Based Integral
Approach, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng.,
Vol 111, 2017, p 247–272
113. Y. Xian and D.W. Rosen, Morphable
Components Topology Optimization for
Additive Manufacturing, Struct. Multi-
disc. Optim., Vol 62, 2020, p 19–39
114. “Standard Practice, Guide for Design for
Additive Manufacturing,” 52910, ISO/
ASTM International, 2015
Design Rules / 19
115. B. Vayre, F. Vignat, and F. Villeneuve,
Identification on Some Design Key Para-
meters for Additive Manufacturing: Appli-
cation on Electron Beam Melting, Proc.
CIRP, Vol 7, 2013, p 264–269, 10.1016/j.
procir.2013.05.045
116. T.R. Kannan, “Design for Additive
Manufacturing,” 2013, https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/269094941_
Design_for_Additive_Manufacturing,
accessed June 30, 2022
117. G. Strano, L. Hao, R.M. Everson, and K.E.
Evans, A New Approach to the Design and
Optimisation of Support Structures in Addi-
tive Manufacturing, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech-
nol., Vol 66 (No. 9–12), 2013, p 1247–1254,
doi:10.1007/s00170-012-4403-x
118. C. Klahn, B. Leutenecker, and M.
Meboldt, Design Strategies for the Pro-
cess of Additive Manufacturing, Proc.
CIRP, Vol 36, 2015, p 230–235, doi:10.
1016/j.procir.2015.01.082
119. J. Zaragoza-Siqueiros and H.I. Medellı́n-
Castillo, Design for Rapid Prototyping,
Manufacturing and Tooling: Guidelines,
Advanced Manufacturing, Vol 2A, Amer-
ican Society of Mechanical Engineers,
2014, p V02AT02A013, doi:10.1115/IM
ECE2014-39310
120. M.T. Samperi, “Development of Design
Guidelines for Metal Additive Manu-
facturing and Process Selection,” M.S.
Thesis, Pennsylvania State University,
2014, https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/
21832/22475