Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 278–289

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A robotic cell for performing sheet lamination-based additive manufacturing T

a a a b a,⁎
Prahar M. Bhatt , Ariyan M. Kabir , Max Peralta , Hugh A. Bruck , Satyandra K. Gupta
a
Center for Advanced Manufacturing, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90007, United States
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, United States

ABSTRACT

Many applications require structures composed of layers of heterogeneous materials and prefabricated components embedded between the layers. The existing
additive manufacturing process based on layered object manufacturing is not able to handle multiple layer materials and cannot embed prefabricated components.
Moreover, the existing process imposes restrictions on the material options. This significantly limits the type of heterogeneous structures that can be manufactured
using traditional additive manufacturing. This paper presents an extension of sheet lamination object manufacturing process by using a robotic cell to perform the
sheet manipulation and handling. It makes the following three advances: (1) enabling the use of multi-material layers and inclusion of prefabricated components
between the layers, (2) developing an algorithmic foundation to facilitate automated generation of robot instructions, and (3) identifying the relevant process
constraints related to speed, accuracy, and strength. We demonstrate the system capabilities by using three case studies.

1. Introduction laminated object manufacturing and (2) ultrasonic consolidation.

Advances in material science and manufacturing technologies are
leading to significant improvements in the way we design and manu-
facture products. Here are a few representative examples:
• Innovations in material science have led to the development of
materials with remarkable functional properties. These advance-
ments are expected to revolutionize energy harvesting, energy sto-
rage, mechanical properties of components, and the realization of
self-powered materials.
• Fabrication of complex geometric structures is made possible due to
advances in additive manufacturing. Additive manufacturing has
become capable of building complex parts with heterogeneous ma-
terials [1–23].
Heterogeneous structures are composed of many different materials
to obtain the desired functional properties. They are beneficial in sev-
eral applications, for example, to provide thermal insulation as well as
supporting mechanical loading in aerospace structures. Such structures
can be manufactured using additive manufacturing. In additive manu-
facturing (AM), parts are created depositing material layer-by-layer
using computer control. VAT photopolymerization, powder bed fusion,
binder jetting, material jetting, sheet lamination, material extrusion,
and direct energy deposition are the seven types of AM classified by the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The sheet lami-
nation process can be classified into the following two categories: (1)
Laminated object manufacturing (LOM) is one of the oldest additive
manufacturing processes. Objects are made from prefabricated layers,
therefore this method is fast compared to pixel based AM methods.
However, the traditional LOM method is not able to work on multi-
material structures. This limits the kind of structures that can be pro-
duced using LOM.
Realizing a sheet lamination based additive manufacturing cell
based on robots offers the following benefits:
• It allows the use of different materials for different layers.
• It enables the addition of prefabricated components between lami-
nated sheets.
The use of robots adds new functional capabilities to the LOM
process (required to manufacture heterogeneous structures). At the
same time, the process planning for the system becomes significantly
more challenging due to the use of robots. Converting object manip-
ulation requirements to robot trajectories is computationally challen-
ging. Robot trajectories need to meet robot joint limit and joint speed
constraints, avoid singularities, and produce consistent paths.
As a part of our preliminary investigation, we demonstrated how
robots can be used to execute sheet lamination-based AM [24,25]. This
paper develops a general system for performing sheet lamination-based
additive manufacturing for a heterogeneous component (please see the
video of the process at [26]). Ideas and methods from existing areas of
LOM (Section 2) are integrated into the design of a robotic cell that

Address all correspondence to this author.

⁎

E-mail addresses: praharbh@usc.edu (P.M. Bhatt), akabir@usc.edu (A.M. Kabir), max.peralta.nyffeler@gmail.com (M. Peralta), bruck@umd.edu (H.A. Bruck),
skgupta@usc.edu (S.K. Gupta).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.02.002
Received 24 July 2018; Received in revised form 17 January 2019; Accepted 4 February 2019
Available online 06 February 2019
2214-8604/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
P.M. Bhatt, et al.
performs the following manufacturing process steps: (1) sheet place-
ment, (2) sheet cutting, (3) assembly of externally fabricated compo-
nents, (4) adhesive dispensing, (5) bonding, and (6) trimming (Section
3). We also present an approach for addressing the challenging process
planning required for the robotic cell to perform each step (Section 4).
This consists of: (1) generating each layer from a mesh of the structure,
(2) generating the tool path and trajectory using contour tracing, (3)
generating the trajectory of the robot arm from the tool trajectory, (4)
generating assembly instructions, (5) generating the trajectory for
point-to-point motion using a optimization-based algorithm, and (6)
sequencing the robot motion for the six process steps. Finally, we
characterize the relevant process constraints related to speed, accuracy,
and strength (Section 5), and present three case studies: (1) a flexible
wing for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), and (2) a multi-layer in-
sulation (MLI) blanket (3) a scaled aircraft wingtip (Section 6).
2. Related work
The sheet lamination-based additive manufacturing process dis-
cussed in the paper borrows ideas and methods from different processes
such as the creation of 3D shapes using sheet layers from LOM, the
inclusion of prefabricated components between layers from shape de-
position manufacturing, using multiple materials for sheet layers from
composite manufacturing, and the process planning from robotic as-
sembly and AM operations. Each of these areas is discussed in the
paragraphs below. Finally, a brief summary of the use of AM to man-
ufacture complex structures is described in the last paragraph.
Laminated object manufacturing: LOM process was invented by
Feygin and Pak at Helisys Corp (Cubic Technologies Inc is the successor
organization) [27]. In LOM, layers of material supplied from a con-
tinuous roll are cut using a laser. The desired geometry is created by
bonding these layers using a heat activated resin. [28,29]. LOM is the
most relevant additive manufacturing process for this paper. Work has
been done for the LOM process in the areas of composite material sheets
[30–33]. SLCOM-1 by EnvisionTEC is the first commercial LOM based
composite printer [34]. Moreover, research is also being done in the
area of evaluating the quality of the final part manufactured using LOM
[35,36]. This paper retains the idea of processing sheets to keep the
build time low and uses robotic cells to enhance process capabilities.
Shape deposition manufacturing: It was first developed by Merz et. al.
[37]. Binnard and Cutkosky enhanced this process to include manu-
facturing planning and the inclusion of embedded components between
layers [38]. The vital difference between shape deposition manu-
facturing and LOM is that the first one follows design by composition
while LOM follows the decomposition method. The design by compo-
sition method allowed the authors to embed components between the
layers. Also, the LOM process deals only with sheets while shape de-
position manufacturing is more generalized like AM. This developed
process with the ability to embed components between layers has been
used in multiple robotic manufacturing applications such as the man-
ufacturing of hexapedal robots [39], biomimetic robotic mechanisms
[40], biomimetic hexapod [41], biologically inspired hierarchical mi-
crostructures [42], and force sensing robot fingers [43]. Our approach
taking inspiration from the shape deposition manufacturing process and
enables the incorporation of prefabricated components. The use of ro-
bots offers enables us to be much more flexible in handling pre-
fabricated components.
Composite structure manufacturing: Laminated composite structures
consist of layers of composite material, typically fiber-reinforced, that
are oriented in different directions to achieve the desired set of en-
gineering properties [44]. There are well-known methods to manu-
facture such parts, typically consisting of laying up a structure, and then
bonding either layers of prepreg in an autoclave or infiltrating a layered
preform with resin inside of a mold [45–47]. Similarly, our method uses
multiple materials in a robotic setting to create a 3D composite part.
This allows us to have required engineering properties in the built parts
279
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 278–289
which has been attempted by researchers but in a non-robotic setting
[33,48–50].
Robotic assembly: Assembly operations with the aid of robots are
utilized in several in industries [51]. Researchers have been focusing on
automated assembly operations [52] for a long time. This has led to
recent work in Computer Aided Design (CAD) based motion planning
for assembly [53] and planning beyond motion planning (e.g. task se-
quence planning [54]) for assembly operations. Another active area is
motion control which can deal with uncertainties in robotic assembly
[55]. The system in this paper utilizes robot joint space planning [56]
for the assembly operations of prefabricated components embedded
between layers.
Robot-based AM for realizing complex structures: Robotic manip-
ulators have been widely used to increase the functional capabilities of
different AM processes to make complex geometries [57]. Out of the
many research published we have listed a few examples. Keating and
Oxman use a robotic arm to perform AM along with other multi-
functional tasks to build complex geometries [58]. Wu et al. uses a
manipulator to move the base platform to build a supportless part in
extrusion-based AM [59]. Similarly, in our paper, we adopted robotic
manipulators to create a sheet lamination system capable of building
complex geometries.
3. Design of additive manufacturing cell
The cell concept is shown in Fig. 1. A block diagram indicating the
manufacturing process steps is presented in Fig. 2. We can use multiple
materials for different layers and embed prefabricated materials be-
tween layers using this cell. The work we have done in the inclusion of
prefabricated materials can handle three types of cases (see Fig. 3). (A)
If the thickness of the prefabricated component in the direction of the
build is less than or equal to some threshold (decided by the material
sheet properties), it is sandwiched between sheets. (B) If it is greater
than that threshold it needs to be inserted. Such insertion is only pos-
sible if the component does not possess an inward slope in the direction
of build (see Fig. 4). (C) A hybrid of case A and B. The cell executes the
following basic steps:
1 Sheet Placement: This process step allows the selection of materials
for the laminated layers. A steel base-plate is mounted on the same
plane as that of the 7-DOF robot. Different sheet material rolls, tools,
and fixtures are housed in the base-plate. Having robotic manip-
ulators provides the flexibility to select the material of the current
Fig. 1. The design of cell setup illustration.
P.M. Bhatt, et al. Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 278–289

Fig. 2. The block diagram illustrating the sequence of the basic manufacturing
process steps.

Fig. 5. Illustration showing 7-DOF robotic arm performing sheet placement

operation.

tension in the sheet while placing it on the build-platform to avoid

2 Sheet Cutting: The illustration of the sheet cutting step is shown in
Fig. 3. The illustration of inclusion of prefabricated components as (A)
Sandwich type (B) Insertion type (C) Hybrid type.
3 Assembly of Externally Fabricated Components: This process step al-
any wrinkling or draping. A second manipulator as shown in Fig. 1
or a human operator can clamp the sheet while it is being held in
tension by the first manipulator.
Fig. 6. It is the second step in the sheet lamination-based additive
manufacturing system. A pulsed laser module controlled by the on-
board transistor-transistor logic (TTL) circuit is used in our setup.
For cutting different materials, the power can be varied by a pulse-
width modulated (PWM) signal generated using a microcontroller. A
laser module is mounted on the robotic arm end effector. As the
violet laser beam is generated and the end effector moves over the
sheet at a constant speed, a fine cut is obtained. The speed and duty
cycle of the laser are adjusted based on the material type, thickness,
and cut quality.
lows the addition of prefabricated components between the lami-
nated layers. The assembly process is divided into three parts.
• The first part is the placement of magnetic fixtures on the steel
base plate for accurate assembly of the prefabricated components.
• The second part is the placement of the prefabricated components
in the fixtures. The fixtures act as the placeholders and guiding
piece in the second step.
• The final part is the removal of the fixture so that the next sheet
lamination layer can be placed.
The fixtures initially rest at predefined coordinates on top of the
steel base-plate from which the robot picks them up and are placed

Fig. 4. The illustration of prefabricated components (A)With no inward in-

clined surfaces and (B) With inwards inclined surfaces in the direction of build.

layer. The selected material is pulled from the roll by the robotic
manipulator with the assistance of a force sensitive gripper. The
sheet is then placed on the steel base-plate and clamped using
magnetic clamps. Our designed setup illustration for the basic pro-
cess is shown in Fig. 5.
While performing sheet placement operation the problem of sheet
draping or wrinkling might arise in case of thin-walled sheets. We
suggest the use of a flat gripper attachment to increase the gripping
area (see Fig. 5) and the material dispensing rolls with torsion
Fig. 6. Illustration of automated laser cutting of a material sheet layer using a
springs to get a wrinkle-free sheet. This will allow us to have enough
visible laser.

280
P.M. Bhatt, et al. Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 278–289

Fig. 7. Illustration showing the sandwich assembly operation of a prefabricated Fig. 9. Illustration showing bonding of layers using a silicone roller tool.
components.

back at this location before executing the next step. The illustration
of the assembly step is shown in Fig. 7. Moreover, as mentioned
before it should be noted that the shape of the prefabricated com-
ponent and build direction of the part is such that the part can be
easily sandwiched between the layers or can be inserted from the
top.
4 Adhesive Dispensing: In order to bond any prefabricated component
with the sheet or to bond two consecutive sheets, the dispensing of
adhesive is required. This is done using an adhesive dispensing head
attached to the robot end effector with the aid of the gripper.
Illustration of this step is shown in Fig. 8.
5 Bonding: The design of this process is very important for the proper
bonding between layers in the sheet lamination-based additive
manufacturing system. Three different bonding methods could be
used: (1) tape bonding, (2) adhesive bonding, and (3) tagging. The
selection of the bonding method depends on the layer or the com- Fig. 10. Illustration showing trimming of the components using rotary cutting
ponent to be bonded and its application. The tape bonding method is tool.
used to achieve fast bonding (pressure sensitive adhesive layer on
tape). It works by conforming the tape to the component and A variable speed rotary cutting tool or a laser cutting module can be
bonding it to the sheet by applying pressure with a roller. Adhesive utilized in this step. Illustration for this step is shown in Fig. 10.
bonding is the most versatile method as it can use pressure sensitive
adhesive or heat activated resin between sheets and bond them
4. Process planning
using a roller. The tagging method is used for dry bonding between
thin sheets. It is achieved by using a tagging gun to join thin flexible
The sheet lamination-based additive manufacturing system de-
layers together. The process step for carrying out adhesive bonding
scribed in this paper requires automated process planning for the ro-
is shown in Fig. 9. The tape bonding and tagging steps are not shown
botic cell. The block diagram indicating the inputs and process planning
for the sake of brevity.
stages is shown in Fig. 11. The remaining subsections in this section
6 Trimming: The trimming step is the final step in the designed system.
describe the main components of process planning.

4.1. Layer generation

Pandey et al. have summarized the different slicing procedures in

Fig. 8. Illustration showing adhesive dispensing over the sheet surface.
the paper [60]. These slicing procedures can be divided into two divi-
sions according to the layer thickness i.e. adaptive layer thickness and
uniform layer thickness. The layer generation module in this paper is
constrained to use the layer height equal to the selected material sheet
thickness. So it uses a hybrid slicing thickness (adapted from the se-
lected sheet material). The other unique feature of this module is the
ability to detect the prefabricated components in part being built and
make the necessary modifications in the layer for the inclusion of the
prefabricated component. The slicing of the tessellated CAD model as
input is more convenient compared to the slicing of a direct CAD model.
This is why we chose tessellated CAD as our input in our slicing algo-
rithm.
The mathematical formulation of the slicing algorithm used in this
module is similar to the one in [61]. It works by slicing the given

281
P.M. Bhatt, et al.
Fig. 11. The block diagram indicating the process planning stages.
tessellated CAD model into planar parallel sections. Given the part
mesh with the assembled prefabricated components ( ) , the vertices
(v ), faces (f), and the normals (n) from the mesh are stored. Each of the
vertice, face, and normal is labeled according to the element it belongs
to i.e. the prefabricated component or the part body. Simultaneously
the sequence of the sheet material layers given as input is used to cal-
culate the hybrid slicing thickness. All this information provides enough
data to generate the number of sliced sections (k) and the slicing planes
( = { 1, ..., k}) in the build direction (Z-direction). It should be noted
that the slicing planes start from vzmin , the minimum value of vz to vzmax ,
the maximum value of vz where vx , vy , and vz are the x, y, and z co-
ordinates of the vertices.
Once all the data has been collected and stored as we saw in the
above paragraph, we need to process the data. This is done by finding
the intersection between the slicing planes and the faces of the part
body and the prefabricated components (intersection of plane and
edges of the triangles). For a layer j ∈ [1, k] with slicing plane ( j ), the
set of points (Pj) are generated for the part body and the prefabricated
components. These points are sorted to generate the contour ( j) for
each layer. Thus the layer generation module showcases the novel
capabilities of,
• Identifying, locating, and generating layer modifications for the
included prefabricated components in the part being built
• Adapting hybrid layer thickness according to the to the sheet ma-
terial selected for building the part
Once such example of layer generation using the above module is
shown in Fig. 12.
4.2. Tool path and trajectory generation
We have considered polynomials [62], NURBS [63], and B-Spline
curve [64] for parametric curve approximation. While polynomials face
the problem of over-fitting and under-fitting, the NURBs are computa-
tionally expensive due to the varying weights for each control points. So
we selected the B-Spline curve which has uniform weight at all the
control points, as the parametrization tool.
The contour ( j) generated in the previous subsection (example
Fig. 12 red and blue contours) is parameterized to form a B-Spline curve
(cj(t)) with respect to time (t). The parameterization with respect to
time is done by encoding the velocity and process constraints in it (i.e.,
282
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 278–289
the speed and the acceleration required for the tool operation in the
process). This curve will be used for tool trajectory generation.
The parametric curves ( = {c1 (t ), ...ck (t )}) generated needs to be
transformed into the robotic workspace. This is done by applying a
homogeneous transformation matrix to the parametric curve ( ) . Then
the tool reference frames are added to the points in the parametric
curve such that the tool center point (TCP) matches the reference frame
required for the process. The new collection of points parameterized
with respect to time is the tool trajectory (τ(t)).
4.3. Generation of robot trajectory from tool trajectory
Once we have obtained the trajectories (τ(t)) in the robotic work-
space, we need to transfer it to the configuration space (joint space) of
the robotic arm ( ) [65]. This mapping from the robotic workspace to
the configuration is a challenging problem due to the nonlinear re-
lationship and the mapping not being one-to-one. Apart from that, we
need to satisfy multiple factors related to the robot capabilities, process
constraints, and parameters. Each of these challenges for our system
and the adapted solution are discussed below.
Challenges: The configuration space trajectory (Θ(t) = θ1(t), θ2(t),
. . . , θn(t), n is DOF of the robots), needs to be generated from the given
tool trajectory (τ(t)) once the part location is determined. The nonlinear
relationship in the mapping arises due to the fact that the velocities of
the TCP in the robot workspace are to be transferred to the seven joint
velocities (n = 7 in our setup) of the configuration space. A 7-DOF
manipulator (used in our system) is redundant, so the mapping is not
one-to-one. Redundant manipulators help to generate complex motion
by avoiding collisions in a geometrically complex workspace. However,
for a redundant manipulator, there are infinite solutions in the con-
figuration space for each location in the robot workspace.
The robot trajectories need to be collision-free and satisfy all phy-
sical constraints of the robots (e.g. reachability, velocity limit, etc.). The
robot trajectories need to be smooth and continuous. The robots often
need to guide the tool through a contour in a continuous manner. Let us
consider laser cutting with robots for example. The laser needs to be
moved continuously in a smooth trajectory at the desired tool speed to
complete a cut on a layer. The laser cannot be switched off and turned
back on during the trajectory execution. Otherwise, it will create un-
even burn patches and burrs on the layer. Therefore, the robot needs to
maintain continuity and can not reposition itself during this process. As
a result, the trajectory planner needs to be carefully designed such that
each continuous segment of the tool path can be completed with a
smooth and continuous robot motion. This task is even harder for parts
with large dimensions or with complex geometry. This is because the
robot will need to operate near its singular configurations at the desired
tool speed to maintain the required tool-path for such cases. We can
sample waypoints along the tool path at a very fine resolution and solve
inverse kinematics or apply Jacobian-control to generate robot trajec-
tories. However, this sequential approach will be able to guarantee
continuity and smoothness in the robot trajectory for the complete tool
path. On top of it, this method will be computationally expensive as the
number of representative waypoints on the tool path can be large for
fine resolution manufacturing or for manufacturing larger parts. A path-
constrained trajectory planner needs to be carefully designed to address
these challenges and achieve the requirements for the processes in-
volved in sheet lamination-based AM.
We investigated three different approaches for generating the path-
constrained robot trajectory: (1) Graph search-based approach, (2)
Inverse Jacobian-based approach, and (3) Optimization-based ap-
proach.
(1) Though the graph search-based [66] approach provides a global
optimum solution for a fixed resolution, it requires a lot of computa-
tions (especially for manipulators with greater than 6 DOF). This can be
illustrated by the following example. Suppose a robotic arm has a
possible inverse dynamics solutions to reach a given point on the tool
P.M. Bhatt, et al.
Fig. 12. An illustration showing the mesh of a aircraft wingtip (green), slicing for multi-material layers (red and blue) and prefabricated component detection using
the proposed slicing module.
trajectory defined in the robotic workspace. And there are b sampled
points on the parametric curve ( ) that are required to be traced. By
using the graph search-based approach there will be ab nodes in the
graph. The planner will search among these nodes to find the global
optimum path (fastest continuous trajectory according to the process).
But for a 7-DOF robot, there are infinite inverse dynamics solutions as
the manipulator is redundant (a =∞). Thus it is computationally
challenging for the current application.
(2) The inverse Jacobian based planner works in a different way
[67–69]. It takes the previous joint velocity solutions in the config-
uration workspace as input to find the next joint velocity estimate for
the continuous trajectory. Since these inverse dynamics solutions are an
estimate, they are required to be optimized to reduce the errors due to
the approximations in the calculations. Moreover, the sequential ap-
proach may not be able to find a complete trajectory solution for the
manipulator. It may get stuck into singular configurations in the
midway as the sequential approach does not take into account the
complete tool path for trajectory generation.
Solution: We have adapted optimization-based method for trajectory
generation. In our approach, we generate the configuration space tra-
jectories by representing the joint angles of the robots with NURBS. For
example, q (t , x q) = p cp R (t ) x pq , t [t 0, t f ]. Ncp is the number of
N
= 1 p, r
control points for the one dimensional spline curve representing θq, xq
is the vector of control points for θq, and Rp,r(t) are the basis functions
parameterized with time parameter (t) of the workspace tool path. We
pose the trajectory generation problem as a non-linear optimization
problem. The objective is to generate a smooth and continuous trajec-
tory that meets the task requirements. The constraints are maintaining
the desired tool-path for AM, maintaining the desired tool velocity,
satisfying the kinematic and dynamic constraints of the robot, and
avoiding singularities and collisions. The optimization variables are the
NURBS control points for each configuration variable. The objective
and constraint functions are summarized in equations (1)-(6).
tf
*(t ) = argmin | (t )|2 dt, s . t .
(t )
t0
(t ) ¯,
(t ) ¯ (3)
Tool pathconstraint, gcurve ( (t ), (t )) = 0
Collision Avoidance, gcoll ( (t )) 0 (5)
Application Specific Constraints, gapp ( (t ), (t ))
Our method adaptively selects the required number of control
points to approximate the trajectories by analyzing the tool path. It
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 278–289
determines a sampling resolution on the tool path that can sufficiently
represent the curvatures, solves inverse kinematics (IK) at the sampled
points, and generates an approximate solution (NURBS control points)
by fitting a NURBS through the IK solutions. This approximate solution
is then given to the complete optimization routine. The optimization
routine is tasked to identify all the control points such that constraint
violations are below tolerance at the representative waypoints along
the tool path and the joint trajectories are smooth. For computational
efficiency, we solve the optimization problem using successive refine-
ment. At the first stage, we consider pose error and kinematic con-
straints of the robot as constraints. The solution of this stage is given to
the next optimization stage where we consider the dynamic constraints
of the robot and velocity requirements by the AM process. We take the
solution of this stage and further optimize it for collision avoidance in
the final stage. To ensure collision avoidance we need to check collision
at densely sampled points along the tool path. This will be computa-
tionally expensive. Instead, our method adaptively checks collision. It
starts by checking collision at coarse resolution. It adaptively refines the
collision checks at the neighborhood of points that are in a collision or
close to collision boundary. Furthermore, for certain tool paths, a single
NURBS may not be able to approximate the robot trajectories. This may
happen due to discontinuity in the tool path, collision along the path,
etc. Our method adaptively splits the tool path into appropriate seg-
ments and generates a NURBS trajectory for each segment.
4.4. Generation of assembly instructions
This step is required for the automated assembly of the pre-
fabricated components. As mentioned before the assembly of pre-
fabricated components is divided into three types: sandwich, insertion,
and hybrid type. In all three cases, the initial location of the pre-
fabricated component (provided by a human operator) and the final
location (obtained from CAD) is known. The robot performs the pick
and place operation using point-to-point motion. If the assembly is the
(1)
sandwich type the part is placed as soon as the layer below the part is
(2) done. In case of insertion operation, the part is placed after the com-
pletion of the layer till the top of the part cavity. In the case of hybrid
parts, insertion operation is carried out first followed by the sandwich
operation
(4) Let hpc be the height of the prefabricated component is the direction
of the build. zthreshold be the maximum thickness possible for sandwich
type assembly. If the prefabricated components satisfies the constraints
0 mentioned in Section 3, the assembly will be sandwich type i.e.
(6)
hpc ≤ ztheshhold. If hpc > theshhold, the assembly will be insertion type.
283
P.M. Bhatt, et al.
4.5. Trajectory generation for point-to-point motion
The trajectory generation algorithm discussed previously involves
contour tracing. Many operations in our sheet lamination-based ad-
ditive manufacturing system (prefabricated component assembly, tool
changing, and jumping between contours) require the pick and place
operation to be performed (Section 3). This operation involves point-to-
point motion planning using the CODES3 algorithm, which is graph
search-based [56].
The reason for selecting this graph search-based algorithm is due to
its deterministic approach i.e. it always gives the same path for going
from a start configuration to the end configuration in certain fixed
conditions (the environmental conditions, the physical/joint constraints
of the robot, collisions, and singularities). Moreover, CODES3 is faster
compared to other graph search-based algorithm. Thus, for a given start
robot configuration θstart and end robot configuration θend, the required
near-optimal point-to-point trajectory τptp = {θ1, θ2, . . . } is,
ptp = CODES3 ( start , end ) (7)
It should be noted that in the search-based algorithm, we identify and
ignore the singular and collision configurations of the robot during the
node expansion. We also add a negative cost to nodes that are closer to
singular and collision configurations. This way the state-space search is
biased towards finding a trajectory that stays away from a singularity or
collision.
4.6. Robot motion sequencing
As mentioned in Section 3 and Fig. 2 the system consists of six
processes that need to be sequenced. High-level task description in-
cluding information about processes which occur in a sequence is
provided (e.g.: sheet placement, bonding, and sheet cutting always
occur together in this sequence). After grouping such task in sequence
only two parent processes i.e. assembly and sheet bonding remain (tool
changing is included in the sequence). The sequence of these two parent
processes is decided using the data generated during layer slicing and
assembly instructions stages. It should be noted that the robot motion is
carried out as discussed before using the generated robot trajectory
associated with the respective processes.
5. Process constraint characterization
The following factors characterize the process presented in this
paper:
1 The accuracy error of the manufactured part
2 The bonding strength between layers
3 The speed of operation
The remaining subsections in this section describe constraints as-
sociated with these above-described factors.
5.1. Part accuracy
In the setup mentioned in this paper, part accuracy is affected lar-
gely by the sheet cutting, the placement of externally produced com-
ponents, and the sheet thickness. The sheet cutting errors are present
mostly due to the burns/heat marks on the cutting edge and the ac-
curacy error of the manipulator. By utilization of proper control in laser
speed (discussed in Section 5.3), cutting bed, protective backing, and
compressed air to remove the combustible gases and dust, this error can
be reduced to the accuracy error of the robotic manipulator. The
translational and angular errors in the location of the externally pro-
duced components are generated due to the coupling of errors during
the placement and bonding cells. The sheet thickness is responsible for
the stair-stepping effect in the final part. Such stair-stepping effect is
284
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 278–289
seen in most of the additive manufacturing processes and it is re-
sponsible variation between the actual part surface and the CAD model
To measure the translational and angular errors in the location of
the externally produced components, top view images of the part are
captured after the assembly process. By applying the Hough line
transform algorithm [70] the image is compared with the intended
location. This information is used to calculate the deviation between
the actual and the reference locations. The sheet cutting accuracy errors
and the surface error due to the stair-stepping effect are measured by
scanning the part using a laser scanner and comparing it with the actual
CAD model. The calculated accuracy errors are listed in Section 6.
5.2. Peel strength
Peel strength is an important parameter in sheet lamination-based
additive manufacturing process. It is a function of the quality of the
bonding between the layers governed by the layer materials, their
surface finish, the type of adhesive used, the thickness of the adhesive
bond, the pressure applied on the bonding surface, the time allowed for
bonding and any defects in the bond (e.g., air bubbles, dirt). The quality
of the bonding will control the resulting structural strength of the
components manufactured using the process. To determine the strength
of the bond (tape and adhesive) between layers, a test similar to an
ASTM 180o peel test is conducted. The results of this parameter depend
on the properties (layer materials, surface finish, type of adhesive used,
the thickness of the adhesive bond, and any defects in the bond) of the
manufactured component. Results of peel strength are discussed in
Section 6.
5.3. Process speed constraint
Manufacturing time for a typical additive manufacturing process
depends on the speed of the material deposition process. In our case, the
manufacturing time is limited by the maximum speed of each in-
dividual process discussed in Section 3. The speed of the sheet place-
ment, cutting, assembly of externally produced components, adhesive
dispensing, bonding, and trimming will all affect the manufacturing
time. Moreover, each process has a speed limitation due to the required
accuracy of the component. To understand these speed limitations, each
process step needs to be characterized to determine the factors limiting
the speed. It should be noted that the speed limitations in the system are
not due to the speed limit of the selected 7-DOF robotic arm, which can
support very high speed.
We will now discuss the speed limits for each process:
• Sheet placement: The speed of this process is limited by the accuracy
required in the sheet placement similar to any other pick and place
process (governed by system tolerance). Moreover, the material
dispensing roll should be equipped with a torsion spring to maintain
the tension in the sheet (to avoid wrinkling at high speed).
• Sheet cutting: The laser sheet cutting operation speeds are limited by
the edge roughness parameter. The relation between the cutting
speed (v in m/min), the power of the laser(PL in kW), the sheet
thickness (s in mm), and the surface roughness (Rz in μm) is given by
the following equation [71]:
Rz = 12.528 (P s 0.542
0.528 0.322
v
) (8)
L
• Assembly of externally produced components: The speed of this process
is limited by the accuracy required in the component placement
similar to any other assembly process.
• Adhesive dispensing: The adhesive dispensing speed depends on the
adhesive dispensing rate (depends on adhesive type) and the
amount of adhesive required (depends on application). The relation
P.M. Bhatt, et al.
between the adhesive dispensing rate (Q in m3/s), feed tube radius
(R in m), length of feed tube (L in m), dynamic viscosity of the
adhesive (μ in N . s/m2), and pressure difference (ΔP in N/m2) is
given by [72]:
8µ L Q
P=
(9)
R4
• Bonding: The bonding time is different for each of the bonding
methods used. For adhesive bonding, it depends on the drying/
curing time of the adhesive, which in turn depends on the type of
adhesive. For the tagging method, the time depends on the number
of tags and the joint speed limitation of the robot (governed by the
system tolerance). In the tape bonding method, the time depends on
the linear speed of the end effector (governed by the system toler-
ance).
• Trimming: Material cutting (trimming) is a classic machining pro-
blem. The speed of this process step depends on the cutting tool
material, the material being cut, the feed of the tool/workpiece, and
the speed of the tool. Trimming speed can be selected by using
methods used in machining process parameter optimization.
6. Case studies
Three manufacturing case studies are presented in this paper. The
first case study concentrates on the sandwich type inclusion of pre-
fabricated materials between layers, the second case study exemplifies
multi-material use in different sheet layers, and the third case study
shows the insertion type inclusion of prefabricated component between
layers. Thus, all the novel properties of the sheet lamination-based
additive manufacturing system are covered by these three case studies.
The qualitative results of the manufactured parts are given in subsec-
tions.
6.1. Experimental setup
The experimental setup to manufacture the parts in the case studies
is shown in Fig. 13. The manipulation is performed by the KUKA LBR
iiwa 7 R800, a 7-DOF robot arm, attached with a Robotiq 2 finger-85
Fig. 13. The experimental setup. (A) Sheet placement (B) Sheet cutting (C) Assembly of externally produced components (D) Bonding.
285
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 278–289
adaptive gripper. The Sunrise Workbench software is provided by
KUKA to control the robotic arm. Commands are sent to the controller
by the master computer via serial communication (Java-based). The
manipulator used in the experimental setup has a payload capacity of 7
kg and has an accuracy (ISO 9283) of +/- 0.1 mm. Moreover, extra
errors are induced in the experimental setup (as observed while per-
forming the case studies). These errors are there due to vibrations in the
setup, deflection of the sheet, and error in build platform registration.
Five types of tools are used in the experimental setup: (1) Pulsed 4W
SUNWIN 450nm laser module (2) Adhesive dispenser (3) Compliant
silicone-roller tool (4) Dremel 130W variable speed rotary tool (5)
Tagging Gun tool. The mounts required for the tools are 3D printed
using ABS material. In addition to these magnetic/non-magnetic fix-
tures, clamps 3D printed using ABS are used. The magnetic parts uti-
lized ceramic industrial magnets (18 mm diameter and 5 mm thick-
ness). A steel base-plate with black powder coat finish is used as the
build-platform.
6.2. UAV wing manufacturing
The first case study shows the sheet lamination-based additive
manufacturing of a semi-flexible UAV wing [25]. This example shows
the sandwich type inclusion of the prefabricated component between
the layers. The CAD model of the UAV wing is shown in Fig. 14. It has a
bounding box of 519.00 x 374.26 x 3.10 mm. It should be noted that the
UAV wing manufactured has been already designed in previous papers
[73,74]. This paper only deals with the automated advanced manu-
facturing process. The top layer is made up of mylar tape (metalized
polyester acrylic adhesive tape, thickness: 0.05 mm, width: 25.4 and
12.7 mm), the middle layer consists of prefabricated carbon fiber rods
(carbon fiber rods, diameter 3 and 1.5 mm), and the bottom layer is a
thin mylar sheet (BoPET material, thickness: 0.05 mm). It is a tedious
and time-consuming process to be executed by a human.
The cell is divided into process steps as discussed in Section 3. The
required process steps are placement, cutting, assembly, tape bonding,
and trimming. The tape bonding method is selected in this case study to
facilitate the fast and flexible bonding of carbon fiber spar with the
mylar sheet. By implementing the process planning discussed in Section
4 the operation is automated. The CAD model is divided into parametric
P.M. Bhatt, et al.
Fig. 14. CAD of the UAV wing to be manufactured (A) Exploded view (B)
Assembled [25].
Fig. 15. The actual fabricated UAV wing using the system [25].
curves and is transformed into the configuration space of the robot, by
the algorithm. The distinct step for each basic process, utilize the
planned trajectory to carry out the task. The manufactured part is
shown in Fig. 15.
We observed the following process characteristics in this case study:
• The accuracy error in the spar placement is measured by capturing
top view images and comparing with the actual location in the CAD
286
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 278–289
Table 1
Time required in each process step for the UAV wing manufacturing system
[25]
Basic process step Time (s)
Sheet Placement 69
Sheet cutting 87
Assembly of externally produced components 405
Bonding 304
Trimming 324
Ttotal 1189
model. The error values range from +/- 0.3 mm (translational
error) and +/- 0.9 deg (angular error).
• The average peel strength of the mylar tape (0.023 mm thick acrylic
pressure-sensitive adhesive tape) to the mylar sheet is 0.29 N/mm.
The rated peel strength (adhesion to steel) for the tape is 0.492544
N/mm. The difference in the peel strength arises due to the air
bubbles and dirt at the bonding surface. Moreover, it is also present
due to the material difference of the bonding surface (mylar and
steel).
• The approximate time required for each process in this case study is
enumerated in Table 1. These results were obtained with a 4 W laser
module (at full power, Rz = 42.99 μm) and the manipulator oper-
ating at a max liner speed of 20 mm/s and maximum joint speed of
22.5 deg/s.
6.3. Multi-layer insulation blanket manufacturing
The second case study is on using sheet lamination-based additive
manufacturing to produce multi-layer insulation (MLI) blankets. Multi-
Layer insulation blankets are used to provide thermal insulation in sa-
tellites. The design and testing of different types of multi-layer insula-
tion blankets are shown in [75–79]. The CAD model of the MLI blanket
to be manufactured is shown in Fig. 16. It has a bounding box of 257.40
x 257.40 x 1.00 mm. It consists of alternate layers of flexible reflective
mylar sheets (thickness: 0.05 mm) and tulle netted fabric spacer
(polyester material).
This case study exemplifies the use of multiple sheet materials in a
single part. For manufacturing the MLI blankets, the placement, cutting,
and bonding (tagging) process steps are utilized. The tagging method is
selected in this case study to achieve the characteristics required for the
part. The CAD model is provided as input to generate the tool trajec-
tories in the configuration space of the robot. The task is completed by
executing the planned trajectories. The manufactured part is shown in
Fig. 17.
The approximate total time required for each process in this case
study is enumerated in Table 2. These results were obtained with a 4 W
laser module (at full power, Rz = 42.99 μm) and the manipulator op-
erating at a max liner speed of 20 mm/s and maximum joint speed of
22.5°/s. There are 6 layers of mylar and 5 layers of tulle in an alternate
manner
6.4. Aircraft wingtip manufacturing
To showcase the merit of the developed system a part similar to the
one discussed in Section 4 (scaled aircraft wingtip) is manufactured.
The CAD model of the part of this third case study is shown in Fig. 18. It
has a bounding box of 320.62 x 192.90 x 45.26 mm. The actual part
manufactured is shown in Fig. 19. The part contains an insertion type
inclusion of prefabricated components between the layers as shown in
Fig. 20. The part is made using 3.175 mm thick single-face corrugated
cardboard sheets. The sheets are bonded using PLA glue.
This case study proves the capability of the system to deal with thick
sheet materials, parts with considerable height as compared to the
length and breadth, and performing the insertion type assembly of
P.M. Bhatt, et al. Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 278–289

Fig. 19. The actual fabricated scaled aircraft wingtip using the system.

Fig. 20. The inserted prefabricated component between the layers while the
part is being built.

prefabricated components between layers. Sheet placement, cutting,

Fig. 16. CAD of the MLI blanket to be manufactured (A) Exploded view (B)
bonding, and assembly cells are utilized in the manufacturing of the
Assembled. scaled aircraft wingtip.
Since the sheet thickness is 3.175 mm and along with the layer of
glue the cumulative thickness of each layer is around 4.5 mm, so a
significant stair-stepping effect is seen on the part surface. Along with
the stair-stepping effect, the laser cutting error is also contributing to
the accuracy of the part. So to measure the accuracy of the manu-
factured part is scanned using a Hexagon ROMER absolute arm with
RS4 integrated laser scanner (scanning accuracy of 0.084 mm) and the
point cloud is compared with the CAD model. The color map of the
Fig. 17. The actual fabricated MLI blanket using the system. accuracy error is seen in Fig. 21.
The approximate total time required for each process in this case
study is enumerated in Table 3. These results were obtained with a 4 W
Table 2
laser module (at full power, Rz = 32.01 μm) and the manipulator op-
Total time required in each process step for the MLI
erating at a max liner speed of 50 mm/s and maximum joint speed of
blanket manufacturing system
22.5°/s. There are 9 layers of single-face corrugated cardboard sheets
Basic process step Time (s) with an insertion type prefabricated component from layer 2 and 5. The
laser had to perform 10 passes to cut each layer in order to penetrate
Sheet placement 759
Sheet cutting 1903 the entire material depth without burning the sheet.
Bonding 404 As seen in the three case studies, the developed sheet lamination-
Ttotal 3066 based additive manufacturing process has all the advantages of the
LOM process (i.e. low cost, high speed, and capability to build large
parts), the additive manufacturing process (mass customization

Fig. 18. CAD of the scaled aircraft wingtip to be manufactured. Fig. 21. The accuracy error color map of the manufactured aircraft wingtip as
compared with the CAD model.

287
P.M. Bhatt, et al.
Table 3
Total time required in each process step for the scaled
aircraft wingtip manufacturing system
Basic process step Time (s)
Sheet placement 630
Sheet cutting 5640
Assembly 90
Bonding 1080
Ttotal 7440
capability, low material wastage, design flexibility, etc), and the added
benefits of multi-material use with the ability to include prefabricated
components into the parts as compared to the traditional subtractive
manufacturing process. The use of a robotic manipulator for the process
(in an industrial setting) adds the advantage of application flexibility,
where the cell can be used for any process. The 7-DOF robotic manip-
ulator used in this system can be easily replaced with a low-cost in-
dustrial manipulator while applying this system in an industrial setting.
Current aerospace industries use a large number of composite structures
and the capabilities of this sheet lamination based additive manu-
facturing process (multi-material use and prefabricated component
capability) fulfill these requirements without wasting expensive com-
posite materials.
7. Conclusions
The conventional sheet lamination object manufacturing process is
improved by adding the capability of heterogeneous material layers and
the inclusion of prefabricated material between layers. We have de-
veloped algorithmic foundations to automate the process. We have
identified and characterized the process constraints. The process is
tested by performing and characterization three case studies. Thus, by
performing this research we have shown that the developed robotic
sheet lamination-based additive manufacturing process has the ad-
vantages of high speed, low cost, multi-material capabilities, ability to
include prefabricated components in parts, and capability to build large
parts easily as compared to other additive manufacturing processes
(e.g.: stereolithography, direct energy deposition, etc.).
Currently, the process planning stage of our system needs input
from the human operator about the part orientation and the selection of
the material. In the future, the build direction and materials will be
selected automatically by analyzing the CAD model. We will also ex-
tend the process so that it can utilize non-planar sheet layers to create
complex layered structures with sheet fibers oriented in the desired
directions. This will enable the incorporation of unique stress and strain
properties. We will also explore in the future the use of the robotic
manipulator in multi-plane printing. This can provide us with several
advantages such as desired layer orientation for required strength
characteristics, construction of highly complex geometry, and reduction
in support structures/material wastage. All in all, the robot system will
be incorporated to facilitate the fast manufacturing of these complex
multi-layered layered heterogeneous parts.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research
through grant award FA9550-15-1-0350. The CAD model of the robotic
manipulator is obtained from [80] and the CAD of the gripper is ob-
tained from [81]. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of the sponsors.
Appendix A. Supplementary Data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.02.002.
288
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 278–289
References
[1] E. MacDonald, R. Wicker, Multiprocess 3d printing for increasing component
functionality, Science 353 (6307) (2016) aaf2093.
[2] T.J. Fleck, A.K. Murray, I.E. Gunduz, S.F. Son, G.T.-C. Chiu, J.F. Rhoads, Additive
Manufacturing of Multifunctional Reactive Materials, Addit. Manuf. 17 (2017)
176–182.
[3] S. Das, D. Cormier, S. Williams, Potential for Multi-functional Additive
Manufacturing Using Pulsed Photonic Sintering, Procedia Manuf. 1 (2015)
366–377.
[4] A. Panesar, I. Ashcroft, D. Brackett, R. Wildman, R. Hague, Design Framework for
Multifunctional Additive Manufacturing: Coupled Optimization Strategy for
Structures with Embedded Functional Systems, Addit. Manuf. 16 (2017) 98–106.
[5] T.A. Campbell, O.S. Ivanova, 3D printing of Multifunctional Nanocomposites, Nano
Today 8 (2) (2013) 119–120.
[6] F.D. Crescenzio, F. Lucchi, Free and forced vibration characteristics of axially
graded multifunctional viscoelastic beams, in: ASME 2017 Conference on Smart
Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelligent Systems, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 2017.
[7] U. Scheithauer, S. Weingarten, R. Johne, E. Schwarzer, J. Abel, H.-J. Richter, T.
Moritz, A. Michaelis, Ceramic-based 4d-components: Additive manufacturing (am)
of ceramic-based functionally graded materials (fgm) by thermoplastic 3d-printing
(t3dp), Materials.
[8] C. G. Ferro, S. Varetti, F. Vitti, P. Maggiore, M. Lombardi, S. Biamino, D. Manfredi,
F. Calignano, A Robust Multifunctional Sandwich Panel Design with Trabecular
Structures by the Use of Additive Manufacturing Technology for a New De-Icing
System, Technologies 5 (2). doi:10.3390/technologies5020035.
[9] D. Ding, Z. Pan, D. Cuiuri, H. Li, A Multi-Bead Overlapping Model for Robotic Wire
and Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM), Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 31
(2015) 101–110.
[10] S. Keating, N. Oxman, Compound Fabrication: A Multi-Functional Robotic Platform
for Digital Design and Fabrication, Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 29 (6) (2013)
439–448.
[11] J.C. Ruiz-Morales, A. Tarancón, J. Canales-Vázquez, J. Méndez-Ramos,
L. Hernández-Afonso, P. Acosta-Mora, J.R.M. Rueda, R. Fernández-González, Three
Dimensional Printing of Components and Functional Devices for Energy and
Environmental Applications, Energy Environ. Sci. 10 (4) (2017) 846–859.
[12] V.G. Rocha, E. García-Tu nón, C. Botas, F. Markoulidis, E.F. ans, E. DElia, N. Ni,
M. Shaffer, E. Saiz, Multimaterial 3D Printing of Graphene-Based Electrodes for
Electrochemical Energy Storage Using Thermoresponsive Inks, ACS Appl. Mater.
Interfaces 9 (42) (2017) 37136–37145.
[13] J. Li, T. Monaghan, T.T. Nguyen, R.W. Kay, R.J. Friel, R.A. Harris, Multifunctional
metal matrix composites with embedded printed electrical materials fabricated by
ultrasonic additive manufacturing, Compos. Part B: Eng. 113 (2017) 342–354.
[14] A. Panesar, D. Brackett, I. Ashcroft, R. Wildman, R. Hague, Design Framework for
Multifunctional Additive Manufacturing: Placement and Routing of Three-
Dimensional Printed Circuit Volumes, J. Mech. Design 137 (11). doi:10.1115/1.
4030996.
[15] A.N. Dickson, J.N. Barry, K.A. McDonnell, D.P. Dowling, Fabrication of Continuous
Carbon, Glass and Kevlar Fibre Reinforced Polymer Composites using Additive
Manufacturing, Addit. Manuf. 16 (2017) 146–152.
[16] F. Gardea, D. Cole, B. Glaz, J. Riddick, Strain energy dissipation mechanisms in
carbon nanotube composites fabricated by additive manufacturing, in: Mechanics of
Additive and Advanced Manufacturing, Volume 9 (2018) 29–36 Springer.
[17] J.M. Gardner, G. Sauti, J.-W. Kim, R.J. Cano, R.A. Wincheski, C.J. Stelter,
B.W. Grimsley, D.C. Working, E.J. Siochi, 3-d printing of multifunctional carbon
nanotube yarn reinforced components, Addit. Manuf. 12 (2016) 38–44.
[18] A.A. Shapiro, J.P. Borgonia, Q.N. Chen, R.P. Dillon, B. McEnerney, R. Polit-Casillas,
L. Soloway, Additive Manufacturing for Aerospace Flight Applications, J. Spacecr.
Rockets 53 (5) (2016) 952–959.
[19] G.D. Goh, S. Agarwal, G.L. Goh, V. Dikshit, S.L. Sing, W.Y. Yeong, Additive
Manufacturing in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): Challenges and Potential,
Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 63 (2017) 140–151.
[20] J. Oliveira, V. Correia, H. Castro, P. Martins, S. Lanceros-Mendez, Polymer-based
smart materials by printing technologies: Improving application and integration,
Additive Manufacturing.
[21] S.C. Ligon, R. Liska, J. Stampfl, M. Gurr, R. Mülhaupt, Polymers for 3D Printing and
Customized Additive Manufacturing, Chem. Rev. 117 (15) (2017) 10212–10290.
[22] F.D. Crescenzio, F. Lucchi, Design for additive manufacturing of a non-assembly
robotic mechanism, in: Advances on Mechanics, Design Engineering and
Manufacturing (2017) 251–259 Springer.
[23] Y. Zhang, A. Bernard, R. Harik, K.P. Karunakaran, Build Orientation Optimization
for Multi-Part Production in Additive Manufacturing, J. Intel. Manuf. 28 (6) (2017)
1393–1407.
[24] P.M. Bhatt, M. Peralta, H.A. Bruck, S.K. Gupta, Robot Assisted Additive
Manufacturing of Multifunctional Thin Structures, (2017) https://youtu.be/
RznNFBMZloU, [Online; accessed July-2018].
[25] P.M. Bhatt, M. Peralta, H.A. Bruck, S.K. Gupta, Robot assisted additive manu-
facturing of thin multifunctional structures, in: ASME 2018 13th International
Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference, American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, 2018.
[26] P.M. Bhatt, A.M. Kabir, M. Peralta, H.A. Bruck, S.K. Gupta, A Robotic Cell for
Performing Sheet Lamination based Additive Manufacturing, (2018) https://you-
tu.be/hxdW7sj0cmk, [Online; accessed July-2018].
[27] M. Feygin, S. S. Pak, Laminated object manufacturing apparatus and method, uS
P.M. Bhatt, et al.
Patent 5,876,550 (Mar. 2 1999).
[28] H. Windsheimer, N. Travitzky, A. Hofenauer, P. Greil, Laminated object manu-
facturing of preceramic-paper-derived si? sic composites, Adv. Mater. 19 (24)
(2007) 4515–4519.
[29] L. Weisensel, N. Travitzky, H. Sieber, P. Greil, Laminated object manufacturing
(lom) of sisic composites, Adv. Eng. Mater. 6 (11) (2004) 899–903.
[30] J. Liu, B. Z. Jang, Layer manufacturing of a multi-material or multi-color 3-d object
using electrostatic imaging and lamination, uS Patent 6,780,368 (Aug. 24 2004).
[31] M. Navarrete, A. Lopes, J. Acuna, R. Estrada, E. MacDonald, J. Palmer, R. Wicker,
Integrated layered manufacturing of a novel wireless motion sensor system with
gps, Tech. rep., TEXAS UNIV AT EL PASO WM KECK CENTER FOR 3D
INNOVATION (2007).
[32] D. Qiu, N.A. Langrana, Void eliminating toolpath for extrusion-based multi-material
layered manufacturing, Rapid Prototyping J. 8 (1) (2002) 38–45.
[33] M. Vaezi, S. Chianrabutra, B. Mellor, S. Yang, Multiple material additive manu-
facturing-part 1: a review: this review paper covers a decade of research on multiple
material additive manufacturing technologies which can produce complex geo-
metry parts with different materials, Virtual and Physical Prototyping 8 (1) (2013)
19–50.
[34] EnvisionTEC SLCOM-1 printer, https://envisiontec.com/3d-printers/slcom-1/,
[Online; accessed October-2018].
[35] A. Pilipovic, P. Raos, M. Sercer, Experimental testing of quality of polymer parts
produced by laminated object manufacturing- lom, Tehnicki Vjesnik 18 (2) (2011)
253–260.
[36] D. Ahn, J.-H. Kweon, J. Choi, S. Lee, Quantification of surface roughness of parts
processed by laminated object manufacturing, J. Mater. Process. Technol. 212 (2)
(2012) 339–346.
[37] R. Merz, F. Prinz, K. Ramaswami, M. Terk, L. Weiss, Shape deposition manu-
facturing, in: 1994 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (1994).
[38] M. Binnard, M.R. Cutkosky, Design by composition for layered manufacturing, J.
Mech. Design 122 (1) (2000) 91–101.
[39] J.G. Cham, S.A. Bailey, J.E. Clark, R.J. Full, M.R. Cutkosky, Fast and robust:
Hexapedal robots via shape deposition manufacturing, Int. J. Robot. Res. 21 (10-11)
(2002) 869–882.
[40] S.A. Bailey, J.G. Cham, M.R. Cutkosky, R.J. Full, Biomimetic robotic mechanisms
via shape deposition manufacturing, in: Robotics Research (2000) 403–410
Springer.
[41] S.A. Bailey, J.G. Cham, M.R. Cutkosky, R.J. Full, Comparing the locomotion dy-
namics of the cockroach and a shape deposition manufactured biomimetic hexapod,
in: Experimental Robotics VII (2001) 239–248 Springer.
[42] M. Lanzetta, M. Cutkosky, Shape deposition manufacturing of biologically inspired
hierarchical microstructures, CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol. 57 (1) (2008) 231–234.
[43] Y.-L. Park, K. Chau, R.J. Black, M.R. Cutkosky, Force sensing robot fingers using
embedded fiber bragg grating sensors and shape deposition manufacturing, in:
Robotics and Automation, 2007 IEEE International Conference on, IEEE, 2007, pp.
1510–1516.
[44] R.F. Gibson, A Review of Recent Research on Mechanics of Multifunctional
Composite Materials and Structures, Compos. Struc. 92 (12) (2010) 2793–2810.
[45] P.K. Mallick, Fiber-reinforced composites: materials, manufacturing, and design,
CRC Press, 2007.
[46] J.R. Vinson, R.L. Sierakowski, The behavior of structures composed of composite
materials, Vol. 105, Springer Science & Business Media, 2006.
[47] L.P. Kollár, G.S. Springer, Mechanics of composite structures, Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
[48] L. Lopes, A. Silva, O. Carneiro, Multi-material 3d printing: the relevance of mate-
rials affinity on the boundary interface performance, Additive Manufacturing.
[49] H. Lan, Active mixing nozzle for multi-material and multi-scale 3d printing, in:
ASME 2017 12th International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference
collocated with the JSME/ASME 2017 6th International Conference on Materials
and Processing, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2017.
[50] N. Khani, A. Nadernezhad, P. Bartolo, B. Koc, Hierarchical and Spatial Modeling
and Bio-Additive Manufacturing of Multi-Material Constructs, CIRP Ann.-Manuf.
Technol. 66 (1) (2017) 229–232.
[51] G. Michalos, S. Makris, N. Papakostas, D. Mourtzis, G. Chryssolouris, Automotive
assembly technologies review: challenges and outlook for a flexible and adaptive
approach, CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol. 2 (2) (2010) 81–91.
[52] H. Tönshoff, E. Menzel, H. Park, A knowledge-based system for automated assembly
planning, CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol. 41 (1) (1992) 19–24.
[53] G. Thomas, M. Chien, A. Tamar, J. A. Ojea, P. Abbeel, Learning robotic assembly
from cad, arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.07635.
289
Additive Manufacturing 27 (2019) 278–289
[54] W. Wan, K. Harada, K. Nagata, Assembly sequence planning for motion planning,
Assembly Autom. 38 (2) (2018) 195–206.
[55] L. Pan, T. Gao, F. Xu, L. Zhang, Enhanced robust motion tracking control for 6
degree-of-freedom industrial assembly robot with disturbance adaption,
International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems 16(2)(2018)921-928.
[56] A.M. Kabir, B.C. Shah, S.K. Gupta, Trajectory planning for manipulators operating
in confined workspaces, in: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Automation
Science and Engineering (CASE), Munich, Germany, 2018.
[57] G.Q. Zhang, X. Li, R. Boca, J. Newkirk, B. Zhang, T.A. Fuhlbrigge, H.K. Feng,
N.J. Hunt, Use of industrial robots in additive manufacturing-a survey and feasi-
bility study, in: ISR/Robotik 2014; 41st International Symposium on Robotics;
Proceedings of, VDE (2014) 1–6.
[58] S. Keating, N. Oxman, Compound fabrication: A multi-functional robotic platform
for digital design and fabrication, Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 29 (6) (2013)
439–448.
[59] C. Wu, C. Dai, G. Fang, Y.-J. Liu, C.C. Wang, Robofdm: a robotic system for support-
free fabrication using fdm, in: Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017 IEEE
International Conference on, IEEE, 2017, pp. 1175–1180.
[60] P. Mohan Pandey, N. Venkata Reddy, S.G. Dhande, Slicing procedures in layered
manufacturing: a review, Rapid prototyping J. 9 (5) (2003) 274–288.
[61] H. Xu, W. Jing, M. Li, W. Li, A slicing model algorithm based on stl model for
additive manufacturing processes, in: Advanced Information Management,
Communicates, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IMCEC), 2016
IEEE, IEEE, 2016, pp. 1607–1610.
[62] B. Siciliano, L. Sciavicco, L. Villani, G. Oriolo, Robotics: modelling, planning and
control, Springer Science & Business Media, 2010.
[63] L. Piegl, W. Tiller, The NURBS book, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
[64] C. De Boor, A practical guide to splines, Vol. 27, Springer-Verlag New York, 1978.
[65] B.J. Martin, J.E. Bobrow, Minimum-effort motions for open-chain manipulators
with task-dependent end-effector constraints, Int. J. Robot. Res. 18 (2) (1999)
213–224.
[66] Descartes a ROS-Industrial project, http://wiki.ros.org/descartes, [Online; accessed
July-2018].
[67] S.R. Buss, Introduction to inverse kinematics with jacobian transpose, pseu-
doinverse and damped least squares methods, IEEE J. Robot. Autom. 17 (1-19)
(2004) 16.
[68] P. Beeson, B. Ames, Trac-ik: An open-source library for improved solving of generic
inverse kinematics, in: Humanoid Robots (Humanoids), 2015 IEEE-RAS 15th
International Conference on, IEEE, 2015, pp. 928–935.
[69] D.E. Orin, W.W. Schrader, Efficient computation of the jacobian for robot manip-
ulators, Int. J. Robot. Res. 3 (4) (1984) 66–75.
[70] R.O. Duda, P.E. Hart, Use of the hough transformation to detect lines and curves in
pictures, Commun. ACM 15 (1) (1972) 11–15.
[71] M. Radovanovic, P. Dašić, Research on surface roughness by laser cut.
[72] H. Bruus, Theoretical microfluidics, Vol. 18, Oxford university press Oxford, 2008.
[73] J. Gerdes, A. Holness, A. Perez-Rosado, L. Roberts, A. Greisinger, E. Barnett,
J. Kempny, D. Lingam, C.-H. Yeh, H.A. Bruck, S.K. Gupta, Robo Raven: A Flapping-
Wing Air Vehicle with Highly Compliant and Independently Controlled Wings, Soft
Robot. 1 (4) (2014) 275–288.
[74] A. Perez-Rosado, R. D. Gehlhar, S. Nolen, S. K. Gupta, H. A. Bruck, Design,
Fabrication, and Characterization of Multifunctional Wings to Harvest Solar Energy
in Flapping Wing Air Vehicles, Smart Materials and Structures 24 (6). doi:10.1088/
0964-1726/24/6/065042.
[75] S. Mahadevan, L. Ramsey, C. Bender, R. Terrien, J.T. Wright, S. Halverson,
F. Hearty, M. Nelson, A. Burton, S. Redman, et al., The habitable-zone planet finder:
a stabilized fiber-fed nir spectrograph for the hobby-eberly telescope, in: Ground-
based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, Vol. 8446, International
Society for Optics and Photonics, 2012, p. 84461S.
[76] S. Dye, P. Tyler, G. Mills, A. Kopelove, Wrapped multilayer insulation design and
testing, Cryogenics 64 (2014) 100–104.
[77] J. Fesmire, W. Johnson, Cylindrical cryogenic calorimeter testing of six types of
multilayer insulation systems, Cryogenics 89 (2018) 58–75.
[78] J. Fesmire, S. Augustynowicz, B. Scholtens, Robust multilayer insulation for cryo-
genic systems, in: AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 985, AIP (2008) 1359–1366.
[79] M. Finckenor, D. Dooling, Multilayer insulation material guidelines.
[80] KUKA LBR iiwa 7 R800, https://www.kuka.com/en-us/products/robotics-systems/
industrial-robots/lbr-iiwa, [Online; accessed July-2018].
[81] Robotiq 2 Finger-85 Adaptive Gripper, https://robotiq.com/support/2f-85-2f-140,
[Online; accessed July-2018].