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.a0006983
Metal Additive Manufacturing in the
Space Industry
Byron Blakey-Milner, University of KwaZulu-Natal
Anton du Plessis, Stellenbosch University
Paul Gradl, Leilani Cooper, Christopher Roberts, and Darren Tinker, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Curtis Hill, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center ESSCA
Alison Park, NASA Langley Research Center
Use of Additive Manufacturing in
the Space Industry
Metal additive manufacturing (AM) actively
contributes to next-generation spaceflight, and
AM parts are used in multiple launch vehicles.
There is huge growth and interest in space-
flight applications, from the launch of micro-
and medium-sized satellites to larger manned
missions to the moon and the colonization of
Mars. Metal AM has been key to this growth
and is of paramount importance to future mis-
sions. With its unique manufacturing capabil-
ities and idealized trade spaces for aerospace
applications, the standard advantages of metal
AM for the space industry include:
 Low cost for small-volume, complex production
 Shortened lead time, enabling more design
iterations and competitive advantage
 Design optimization including lightweight-
ing, consolidating parts to remove joints,
and improved function (e.g., heat transfer,
electromagnetic, fluid dynamics)
 Development and use of novel custom
alloys and multimetallic components for
improved engineering (e.g., structural, ther-
mal) performance
Metal AM typically trades positively for
complex designs using difficult-to-(tradition-
ally) process alloys and consolidation of parts
or reduction of assembly processes when com-
pared to traditional techniques. The specific
advantages of metal AM in this field vary by
component; therefore, the standard list of
advantages does not fully capture the true
range of benefits, which are shown throughout
this article with specific, contextualized exam-
ples. A comprehensive review of the academic
and popular literature on this topic can be
found in Blakey-Milner et al. (Ref 1).
When evaluating the potential for AM in a
spaceflight application, each part should be
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
carefully assessed to determine whether the
application is economically viable compared
to traditional manufacturing techniques. Metal
AM is and will likely remain an expensive pro-
cess (compared to traditional manufacturing),
despite many advances made over the last
few years. This is due to the high costs of the
equipment and feedstock as well as the labor
involved in design, manufacturing, postproces-
sing, and inspection. Cost reduction via large-
scale production does not significantly reduce
expenses, although some serial production
cases have been achieved. The expense comes
with the benefit of high customization and
complexity over traditional manufacturing,
because some designs are impossible to create
through traditional means. Metal AM certainly
has significant programmatic and technical
benefits when appropriately used, and it has
been shown to result in a 2 to 10 reduction
in schedule and 50% reduction in cost in addi-
tion to potential performance improvements.
Category Traditional manufacturing
Multiple forgings,
machining, slotting, and
Design and joining operations to
manufacturing approach complete a final multialloy
chamber assembly
Schedule (reduction) 18 months
Cost (reduction) $310,000
Fig. 1 Comparison of traditionally manufactured combustion chamber with multimetallic additive manufacturing
(AM) processes. L-PBF, laser powder-bed fusion; EBW, electron beam wire; DED, directed-energy
deposition; LP, laser powder. Courtesy of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Copyright # 2023 ASM InternationalW
All rights reserved
www.asminternational.org
A commonly used example is a combustion
chamber for liquid rocket engines that has signif-
icantly reduced lead time and cost (Fig. 1) and
enabled many new space companies.
Trades of cost, complexity, schedule, tech-
nical risk, maturity, and more must be care-
fully weighed to evaluate the viability of a
component for AM. In metal AM, the cost
per unit is effectively constant, whereas this
cost is reduced with the number of compo-
nents in traditional manufacturing (Fig. 2c).
This is due to the need for tooling and bulk
production in traditional manufacturing, mean-
ing that for low volumes of production, AM
has a distinct economical advantage. Of
course, AM also has startup costs and expen-
sive hardware, but its overhead and mainte-
nance costs are distributed across the facility
or equipment lifetime, whereas consumables
(e.g., feedstock, electric power, coolant/inert
gases) have direct and immediate impacts on
component price.
Initial AM development Evolving AM development
Four-piece assembly using Three-piece assembly with AM
multiple AM processes; limited machine size restrictions
by AM machine size. Two-piece reduced and industrialized.
L-PBF GRCop-84 liner and EBW- Multialloy processing; one-
DED Inconel 625 jacket piece L-PBF GRCop-42 liner and
Inconel 625 LP-DED jacket
8 months (56%) 5 months (72%)
$200,000 (35%) $125,000 (60%)
 Metal Additive Manufacturing in the Space Industry / 439

Another factor that must be considered for
viability is component complexity; the higher
the complexity of the component, the more via-
ble and economical AM becomes (Fig. 2d).
Some cases are highlighted in Fig. 2, such as
a high-complexity mirror support structure in
which a single component was required
(a)
Unit cost
(Fig. 2a). Similarly, examples of low-volume
production include a multiport valve (Fig. 2e)
and a combustion chamber with cooling chan-
nels (Fig. 2f). A combustion chamber is a good
example of low-volume production with itera-
tive design improvements made possible by
lead times that are shorter than those of
(b)
traditional manufacturing. It also involves high
complexity (Fig. 2d); manufacturing this design
by traditional means would be extremely
expensive or impossible. Similarly, the camera
bracket is high complexity and would be more
expensive to manufacture traditionally. Another
example of high complexity involves a fuel noz-
zle (Fig. 2b) that GE Aviation successfully
implemented a serial production of more than
100,000 units since 2015. Through a complex
design made possible by metal AM, the nozzle
mass was reduced by 25%, and the number of
components was reduced from 20 parts to 1.
These examples illustrate realized potential
for metal AM within the aerospace industry
and associated benefits of AM in terms of per-
formance, manufacturability, complexity, and
cost. Application areas include reduced-mass
components (e.g., brackets, support structures,
valves), combustion devices (e.g., nozzles,
chambers, injectors, igniters), turbomachinery,
valves and fluid flow devices, vehicle struc-
tures, and heat exchangers. These components
are common in all types and sizes of spacecraft
and satellite. For space applications, the custom-

Unit cost

Traditional
Traditional manufacture (TM) izable production at low, reasonable costs is a
manufacture (TM) dominant influencing factor. In addition to the
low-volume cost benefit, lead-time reduction
provides a competitive advantage, indirect cost
savings, and a path to faster iterative design,
manufacturing, testing, and improvement of the
overarching engineering life cycle.
Additive Additive
manufacture (AM) manufacture (AM) Metal Additive Manufacturing
Processes
AM optimal AM optimal
TM optimal TM optimal
As described in the international standard
ISO/ASTM 52900 (Ref 5), there are seven
Production volume Product complexity
(c) (d) AM process categories. Of these, the three
most relevant for commercial space industry
manufacturing are directed-energy deposition
(DED), powder-bed fusion (PBF), and solid-
state processes. In particular, laser powder-
bed fusion (L-PBF) is the most popular process
due to its accessibility across the supply chain,
high resolution, high-quality part production
capabilities, and combination of fine feature
sizes with adequate build volumes for many
part sizes (Ref 6).
However, many other AM processes provide
advantages for scale, lead time, material prop-
erties, or other factors that include DED or
solid-state processing. Many of these processes
are rapidly maturing for spaceflight, although
not all have been infused into flight applica-
tions yet; that is, they are at lower technol-
ogy-readiness levels. Metal AM processes are
reviewed in more detail in Debroy et al.
(e) (f)
(Ref 6) and Gradl et al. (Ref 7), including an
overview of the processes, resulting structure/
Fig. 2 Economically and technically optimal scenarios. A specific application may satisfy multiple opportunities, microstructures, and properties of manufac-
such as high complexity and low production volume; these scenarios are especially valuable for tured materials.
commercial additive manufacturing applications. Reprinted under a CC-BY license from Ref 1, https://doi.org/ The PBF processes involve a powder bed
10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110008. (a) High complexity fabricated at low volume with reduced cost. Original source:
Ref 2. (b) Serial production of high-volume systems. Original source: Ref 3. (c) Unit cost versus production volume. with a laser or electron beam that is used to
(d) Unit cost versus product complexity. (e) Lightweighting by high complexity. Courtesy of NASA. (f) melt tracks of material in a single layer at a
Lightweighting by high complexity. Original source: Ref 4 time. The L-PBF process is often still called

Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf

by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
 440 / Applications of Additive Manufacturing
selective laser melting, direct metal laser sin-
tering, direct metal printing, LaserCUSING,
or direct metal laser melting due to historic
commercial names trademarked by different
companies, but they all refer to the same phys-
ical process. A high-power laser beam is
focused and scanned across a powder bed,
melting powders layer by layer, followed by
rapid solidification. Typical commercial sys-
tems use up to 16 lasers with a square powder
bed of 300 to 600 mm (12 to 23.6 in.). Some
machine platforms use round build plates as
well, which are designed around the needs of
many aerospace parts. Build heights are typi-
cally limited to the same dimensions due to
physical size limits, with some newer systems
approaching 1 m (39 in.). Laser PBF requires
an enclosed chamber with controlled gas flow
to minimize oxygen levels to below 0.1% in
the case of oxygen-sensitive materials (Ref 8).
Electron beam powder-bed fusion (EB-PBF)
uses a similar principle whereby an electron
beam is used to melt powders layer by layer
after the region is preheated using the electron
beam. This is still often referred to as electron
beam melting, similar to older terms used for
L-PBF. The key difference from L-PBF is that
the electron beam, which has a strong interac-
tion with powders and high power, allows
high-speed scanning. The electron beam
requires a vacuum; therefore, there are some
limitations in physical size, although large sys-
tems currently match the limitations of L-PBF.
Due to the fast scanning and deep melt pool
penetration, increased layer thicknesses are
typically used with larger powder particle
sizes, leaving rougher surfaces than L-PBF
components. Despite this disadvantage, the
reliability is high, and due to preheating by
the electron beam, residual stresses are almost
entirely removed.
In DED techniques, the stock material is
built using a deposition head that feeds powder
or wire feedstock directly into the melt pool,
which is created by an energy source (e.g.,
electrical arc, lasers, or electron beams).
Because DED does not rely on a powder bed,
it has some benefits in geometrical freedom
compared to other AM techniques, and it is
not limited to build size restrictions. Therefore,
very large components can be manufactured
with this technique. The DED machines are
commonly used in the repair of existing high-
value components such as turbine blades as
well as many freeform components. Directed-
energy deposition has a lower resolution (typi-
cal minimum feature sizes of approximately
1 mm, or 0.04 in.) compared to technologies
based on PBF; therefore, DED is used for
larger components with reduced resolution or
when postprocessing machining operations
can be performed.
There are various forms of DED techniques
that have unique advantages and disadvan-
tages. Laser powder DED (LP-DED) is one
of the most common, using a laser as the
energy source and a powder feedstock. The
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
deposition head is attached to a robotic or gan- under high contact pressure to form layers.
try system and uses a local inert or fully Cold spray, AFS-D, and UAM have advan-
purged chamber. In LP-DED, powder is blown tages in the use of multialloys, because the
into the melt pool and joined with the previous material is not melted.
layer, creating a freeform structure. An alter- Another method being evaluated is binder jet-
nate DED method is laser wire DED (LW- ting, which prints components in a powder bed
DED), which uses the same concept but with using a binder printhead to bond the layers
wire as the feedstock. The wire feedstock together. Following the printing, the brittle green
may be off-axis or coaxial, and LW-DED has part must be cured and then sintered (densified)
an advantage with high material efficiency to burn off the binder and provide a solid part.
but at a reduced resolution. Other systems such All AM materials from each of the pro-
as arc wire DED (AW-DED), commonly known cesses vary from traditionally manufactured
as wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM), equivalent materials with different types of
and electron beam wire DED use wire but with potential errors, flaws, or imperfections that
an electric arc or electron beam as the energy can exist (Ref 9). These include porosity,
source, respectively. Each of these processes surface texture (roughness and waviness),
has differing feature resolutions and deposition residual stress and cracking, inhomogeneous or
rates, which can result in varying heating and unwanted microstructure development, and oxi-
cooling rates and subsequently cause variance dation. These all may influence the mechanical
in metallurgical characteristics and in mechani- properties of the material; fatigue performance
cal and thermophysical properties. can be especially limited. In space applica-
Other AM processes used in aerospace com- tions, fatigue is often important in low- and
ponents for casting or forging replacements or high-cycle regimes, depending on the end-use
repairs include solid-state processes. The solid- application based on static (thermal and
state processes include cold spray, additive pressure) or high dynamic loads. Structural
friction stir deposition (AFS-D), and ultrasonic integrity, fracture toughness, and mechanical
additive manufacturing (UAM). The advantage properties are important as well as other consid-
of these processes is they do not melt material, erations, including high- or cryogenic-tempera-
and they can retain small grain sizes equivalent ture performance; material compatibility with
to or in some cases smaller than wrought. Cold propellants, strong oxidizers, or embrittling pro-
spray uses a supersonic nozzle that injects inert pellants; lack of residual stress or microcracks;
gas and metal powder feedstock onto a sub- surface condition of internal fluid channels; or
strate to create material buildup. The AFS-D ability to withstand impact loads. All these AM
process can use bar stock or powder feedstock processes have particular advantages and disad-
that is fed into a rotating pin tool and forced vantages with respect to build/deposition rates,
downward to plasticize and deposit the mate- feature resolution, multialloy capabilities, post-
rial. The UAM process uses foil feedstock that processing considerations, and performance
is deposited using a high-frequency transducer characteristics. Figure 3 shows select AM
Build/deposition rate
EB-PBF
Multialloys
UAM
Cold spray
EBW-DED
L-PBF
AFS-D
LW-DED
AW-DED LP-DED
Feature resolution
Fig. 3 Examples of additive manufacturing processes in aerospace. Blue text denotes solid-state processes. All
processes except powder-bed fusion allow for use of multialloys during deposition. AFS-D, additive
friction stir deposition; EBW, electron beam wire; DED, directed-energy deposition; AW, arc wire; LW, laser wire;
UAM, ultrasonic additive manufacturing; LP, laser powder; EB, electronic beam; L-PBF, laser powder-bed fusion.
Reprinted from Ref 7 under a CC-BY license with images courtesy of: AFS-D, MELD Manufacturing; cold spray,
Spee3D; EBW-DED, Sciaky and Lockheed Martin Corporation; AW-DED, Gefertec; LW-DED, Meltio; UAM,
Fabrisonic and NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory; LP-DED, DEPOZ project led by IRT Saint-Exupery and Formalloy;
L-PBF, Renishaw plc and CellCore GmbH/Sol Solutions Group AG; and EB-PBF, Wayland and GE Additive/Arcam

processes ranked by feature resolution and build/
deposition rate. Various examples of aerospace
components are shown in the figure.
Additive Manufacturing Materials
Materials selection for spaceflight applica-
tions is critical to overall mission success,
and it is integrally woven into the selection
of the design and AM process. Spaceflight
materials often operate in some of the harshest
environments with extreme temperatures and
high loading. Temperatures may range from
cryogenic ( 253  C, or 423  F) to elevated
(often >1000  C, or 1830  F). High static
and dynamic loads are experienced, and parts
often have high duty-cycle requirements. The
environment for spaceflight varies per compo-
nent, ranging from pressurized tanks, rotating
turbomachinery, combustion chambers, injec-
tors, valves, and feedlines to various structural
components. The space environments often
contain propellants (e.g., hydrogen, methane,
and/or oxygen) or combustion processes under
extreme pressures, which carry operational
risks including embrittlement, oxidation, or
corrosion. Furthermore, materials selection is
dependent on both the maturity of the material
and the maturity of associated processing to
obtain a high certainty in material properties.
Deviation in properties may lead to failure,
because minimal margins are often designed
into components to reduce overall mass. One
challenge to designing with AM is that statisti-
cal databases do not exist with reliable or com-
plete design allowable properties. Materials
selection should be balanced between the
required mechanical, physical, and thermophy-
sical properties as well as the manufacturabil-
ity and economic constraints. In many design
cases, AM may not be the appropriate
manufacturing route due to risk or costs.
Proper materials selection is based on vari-
ous requirements that may include different
combinations that include:
 Ability to withstand static and dynamic
loads in tension, compression, and torsion
 Compatibility with propellants and system
fluids
 Optimized design to reduce overall mass
 Operation in extreme temperatures and high
thermal gradients
 Fracture toughness at various temperatures
 Corrosion, wear, embrittlement, radiation,
flammability, and ignition resistance
 Maturity using the selected AM process
The use of AM further complicates materi-
als selection, because many of these mechani-
cal, physical, and thermophysical properties
are unavailable or still immature for a variety
of alloys in different AM processes. While
many common metal alloys are available in
AM and share the same elemental chemical
composition as their wrought alloy counterparts,
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
Metal Additive Manufacturing in the Space Industry / 441
the extent of AM process selection increases
challenges. Defects in the AM processes (e.g.,
build orientation resulting in anisotropy, varia-
tions in geometry, elemental segregation, and
high surface roughness) can negatively impact
the various properties required for critical space-
flight applications (Ref 10, 11). The entire life
cycle of AM, from the design stage, feedstock,
AM process parameters, and postprocessing,
can impact the final state of the material
(Ref 12). The use of AM for critical spaceflight
applications should have a well-established, sta-
ble parameter set for the AM process selected,
and there should be an in-depth understanding
of property variation throughout postprocessing
operations. The materials should have near-
100% density and maintain statistically based
properties.
Until 2015, the most commonly available
alloys in use for AM were Ti-6Al-4V,
AlSi10Mg, Inconel 625, Inconel 718, cobalt-
chromium (Co-Cr), and 316L stainless steel.
Many aerospace applications made use of
these alloys not necessarily because they were
the optimized material for an application but
because they were available in the supply
chain (Ref 1). The list of materials available
greatly expanded afterward and now includes
a variety of materials from all the major alloy
families:
 Nickel-base superalloys
 Aluminum-base alloys
 Copper-base alloys
 Titanium-base alloys
 Iron-base superalloys
 Cobalt-base superalloys
 Refractory alloys
 Platinum group alloys
The chemistry of many AM alloys traces
back to the wrought material, but AM has also
spurred the development of many new alloys
specific to spaceflight applications. Nickel-
and iron-base alloys are some of the most
widely used due to their excellent properties
at elevated temperatures and resistance to cor-
rosion and oxidation. Inconel 625, Inconel
718, Hastelloy X, and Haynes 282 are com-
monly available nickel-base alloys that have a
high degree of process maturity (Ref 13–15).
Others, such as Inconel 738, Inconel 939,
Haynes 214, Haynes 230, Monel K-500, Rene
80, and Waspaloy, have also been developed
in various AM processes with varying levels
of maturity. These alloys are used in a variety
of spaceflight applications, including liquid
rocket engine injectors, turbines, housings,
valves, manifolds, and structural components
at elevated and cryogenic temperatures. Iron-
base alloys, such as 316L, 304L, 15-5GP1,
and 17-4PH, have higher levels of maturity
using various AM processes, and they are in
use for engine and exhaust components,
hydraulic components, heat exchangers, and
structural joints. Other 300- and 400-series
stainless alloys, including 321, 347, 410, 420,
and 440, have completed AM process develop-
ment along with 4140/4340 and Invar 36 for
various types of structural applications. Alloys
such as JBK-75 and NASA HR-1 have matured
for use in AM and have been applied in high-
pressure hydrogen applications (Ref 16, 17).
Cobalt-base alloys (such as Co-Cr and Co-Cr-
Mo) are commonly available across the supply
chain, and other alloys such as Stellite 6, Stellite
21, and Haynes 188 have varying levels of AM
maturity (Ref 18).
Titanium, specifically Ti-6Al-4V, is widely
available to various AM processes and offers
a high strength-to-weight ratio for many aero-
space applications, such as rotating machinery,
compressor discs and blades, cryogenic propel-
lant tanks, and structural frames and supports.
Other titanium-base alloys, such as Ti6242
(Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-2Mo) and titanium alumi-
nides (g-TiAl), have also been developed using
AM. Aluminum alloys also offer a good
strength-to-weight ratio, but availability has
been limited in common AM processes to
more weldable versions such as AlSi10Mg,
F357, and A205. Many other aluminum alloys
in the 1xxx, 2xxx, 4xxx, 6xxx, and 7xxx series
have been matured but are mostly limited to
the solid-state AM processes. Aluminum
alloys have seen significant development, and
many of the developed custom alloys, such as
Scalmalloy, 6061-RAM2, 1000-RAM10, and
7A77, have matured for use with PBF and
DED processes (Ref 19, 20).
Copper alloys have been rapidly matured
using AM processes for complex-featured geo-
metries such as heat exchangers and combustion
chambers. Commonly available copper alloys in
use include GRCop-42, GRCop-84, C18150
(Cu-Cr-Zr), and C18200 (copper-chromium),
with pure copper (Cu 110) seeing increased
research and industrial maturity (Ref 21, 22).
Copper alloys provide high thermal conductivity
and high strength to reject heat in high-heat-flux
environments; this enables many interesting
spaceflight components.
Refractory alloys are rapidly maturing mate-
rials and have been demonstrated to be suc-
cessfully built using various AM processes
(Ref 23). Niobium-base C-103 has been
matured and is in use at various suppliers
(Ref 23, 24). Tungsten-, molybdenum-, and
tantalum-base alloys have also been developed
with PBF, DED, and various solid-state AM pro-
cesses, although these have lower maturity of
mechanical properties due to limited elevated-
temperature testing facilities (Ref 25). Plati-
num group alloys, such as rhodium, iridium,
gold, silver, palladium, and platinum, have
also been matured with AM to a lower level
for applications such as in-space thrusters
(Ref 26).
An area of growth for AM is custom alloys
formulated to mitigate issues that are com-
monly observed during printing operations
(hot cracking, solidification cracking, etc.).
A method that is being advanced is the use of
ceramic dispersion alloys or metal-matrix
 442 / Applications of Additive Manufacturing

composites that can include dispersoids such Table 1 Metal additive manufacturing (AM) processes and materials
as ceramics, oxides, carbides, nitrides, and bor- Metal AM process(a)
ides to create heterogeneous nucleation sites
L- EB- LP- LW- AW- EBW- AFS-
(Ref 27). These nanoscale dispersoids are typ- Material PBF PBF DED DED DED DED CS D UAM References
ically crystalline and are both chemically and
Nickel-base
thermodynamically stable (ZrO2, ZrC, HfC,
Inconel 625 X X X X X X X X X 15, 35–41
etc.) (Ref 28). Other methods use nanoscale Inconel 713 X ... X ... ... ... ... ... ... 42, 43
film coating of ceramic particles onto metallic Inconel 718 X X X X X X X X ... 44–53
powder for oxide-dispersion-strengthened alloys Inconel 738 X X X ... X ... X ... ... 54–59
Inconel 939 X X X ... ... ... ... ... ... 60, 61
to improve strength and increase performance ... ... ... ...
Hastelloy-X X X X X X 62–67
(Ref 29). Shape memory alloys using nickel- Haynes 214 X ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1
titanium have also been explored using AM Haynes 230 X ... X X X ... X ... ... 68–73
(Ref 30). Other advancements for AM include Haynes 282 X X X ... ... ... ... X ... 67, 74–76
Monel K-500 X ... X X X X X X X 77–79
the development of bimetallic and multimetal- ... ... ... ...
C-276 X X X X X 62, 78, 80, 81
lic gradient alloys through discrete and func- Rene 80/142 X X X ... ... ... X ... ... 78, 82–84
tional gradients (Ref 31–34). These can Waspaloy X ... X X ... ... X ... ... 6, 78, 85–87
combine various AM processes, including PBF, Iron-base
DED, and solid-state processes, and enhance SS15-5 GP1 X ... X ... X ... X ... ... 78, 88–90
performance by discretely adding material SS17-4PH X X X ... X ... X X ... 36, 78, 88, 89, 91–93
needed to optimize for thermal or structural SS304L X ... X X X X X X X 6, 77, 88, 94–99
properties, which is necessary for spaceflight SS316L X X X X X X X X X 52, 77, 88, 89, 91, 98–101
SS321 X ... ... ... X X ... ... ... 102–104
applications. This can be in the form of a struc- SS347 X X X X X X ... ... ... 89, 105, 106
tural jacket, flanges, bosses, or other features SS410 X X X X X ... X X X 6, 69, 78, 93, 107–109
with various alloys to optimize the overall sub- SS420 X ... X X X ... X X ... 77, 78, 88, 89, 108, 110
SS440 X ... X X ... ... ... X ... 108, 111
system mass. ... ...
4140/4340 X X X X X X X 6, 78, 88, 89, 93, 112–114
Table 1 summarizes metal AM materials, Invar 36 X ... X ... X ... X ... X 112, 115–117
including their relevant process categories JBK-75 X ... X X X ... X ... ... 73, 118–120
and references. NASA HR-1 X ... X X X ... X ... ... 16, 17, 121, 122
Copper-base
Cu110 X X X X ... X X X X 74, 100, 123–128
Design for Additive Manufacturing GRCop-42 X ... X ... ... ... X X ... 21, 122, 129–131
... ... ... ... ...
and Build Preparation GRCop-84 X
...
X
... ... ...
X
...
X
...
69, 129, 132–137
C18150 X X X 73, 134, 138–145
C18200 X ... X ... ... ... X ... ... 138, 146–148
Design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) Glidcop X ... ... ... ... ... X ... ... 127, 148, 149
for spacecraft follows the same general design Cobalt-base
philosophy described at length in the articles Haynes 188 X ... X ... ... ... X ... ... 69, 150
“Introduction to Design for Additive Manu- Co-Cr/Co-Cr- X X X X ... ... ... ... ... 6, 69, 78, 151, 152
facturing,” “Design Rules,” and “Part Consolida- Mo
Stellite 6, 21, ... X X ... X ... X ... ... 18, 92, 153–155
tion and Assemblies” in this Volume. However, 31
there are a few key differences. Spacecraft com-
Titanium-base
ponents are often high cost, lightweighted, and
Ti-6Al-4V X X X X X X X X X 6, 77, 156–161
high stressed with hard-to-identify multiphysics Ti-6242 X X X X ... ... X X ... 67, 78, 162–165
loading conditions. Coupled with the uncertain- Gamma-TiAl X X X X X X X X X 95, 166–173
ties present in AM materials and environments, Aluminum-base
this results in a highly test-dependent design AlSi10Mg X ... X ... X ... X ... ... 6, 19, 174–176
process for components. Small-scale compo- F357 X ... X ... ... ... X ... ... 177, 178
nents are often designed, manufactured, and 1000 X ... X ... X ... X X X 179–183
2024 X X X ... X ... X X X 52, 179, 184–188
tested before any full-scale, flight-weight com- ... ... ... ...
2219 X X X X X 52, 178, 189–191
ponents are manufactured. 4043 ... ... ... X X X ... ... X 78, 192, 193
Because spacecraft components typically 6061 X ... X ... X X X X X 20, 74, 78, 100, 158, 193–195
have high costs and small-scale production 7075 X X X ... X X X X X 74, 78, 99, 100, 187, 193,
volumes, highly complex designs are com- 196, 197
7050 X ... X ... X ... X X X 175, 178, 193, 198
monly used to maximize performance and Scalmalloy X ... X ... ... ... X X ... 19, 175, 199
reduce associated costs when feasible. Lever- 7A77 X ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 178
aging the complex design possibilities afforded Refractory
by using AM technologies, designers have the W-base X X X ... X X X ... X 6, 23, 200–211
opportunity to further increase performance Mo-base X X X ... X X X X X 23, 205, 212–219
and reduce costs and lead times compared to Ta-base X X ... ... X X X X X 6, 23, 25, 40, 158, 205, 220–224
Nb-base X X X ... ... X X X X 23, 24, 158, 205, 225, 226
traditional manufacturing methods. When
reviewing technical and nontechnical literature (a) L-PBF, laser powder-bed fusion; EB, electron beam; LP-DED, laser powder directed-energy deposition; LW, laser wire; AW, arc wire; EBW,
electron beam wire; CS, cold spray; AFS-D, additive friction stir deposition; UAM, ultrasonic additive manufacturing. Source: Ref 7
(Ref 1), the most common design-based bene-
fits of using AM for spacecraft are lightweight-
ing of components, part consolidation, and
improved performance. The flexibility of AM
systems and their associated production lines to the expensive supply chains typically found spacecraft for which mission costs can exceed
also grants designers the ability to rapidly with traditional manufacturing techniques. $19,000/kg ($42,240/lb) (Ref 227). While
and continuously iterate designs to achieve Lightweighting design is important in many lightweighting design can be applied to satel-
higher performance and reduce costs compared industries, but it is particularly important on lite and launched spacecraft components, it is

Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf

by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024

also beneficial to use lightweighting when fea-
sible on launch vehicles to increase payload
capacities. Additive manufacturing applica-
tions in the space industry (such as complex
designs of instrumentation hardware, light-
weighting of structural components, and rapid
prototyping in the design chain) have proven
to be impressive use cases for the technology
(Ref 228). Recent advances in AM technolo-
gies, including improvements in process qual-
ity and consistency, and the wider range of
materials available now allow designers to
explore new manufacturing opportunities for
the most demanding lightweighting applica-
tions on spacecraft hardware. The high design
complexity that is made possible allows unique
performance advantages; often, this is
achieved through computational optimization
techniques such as topology optimization or
generative design. These involve simulation-
based iterative design processes to find the
optimal geometry based on a set of defined
loading and other constraints (i.e., thermal,
electromagnetic, etc.). The result of topology
optimization often is a nontraditional organic
shape that uses material only where it is
needed (i.e., following stress lines in a finite-
element analysis simulation result) and
removes all other material (Ref 229–231). It
is important to note that most space applica-
tions have high uncertainty defined in loads
and constraints, coupled with high variation
and uncertainty in AM properties. The fact that
these are not always well known or predictable
(such as in multiaxial and complex load cases),
requiring significant safety factors, results in
the applications not fully benefiting from
topology optimization. Nevertheless, any
mass-saving can lead to improved performance
and is therefore of interest. An example of
topology optimization and generative design
that makes use of both structural and thermal
optimization is shown in Fig. 4.
Another design approach that is becoming
increasingly popular is the use of lattice struc-
tures, also known as architected cellular mate-
rials, metamaterials, or sometimes scaffolds
(Ref 233, 234). These structures are similar
to metal foams, which have found industrial
(a)
Fig. 4 Examples of L-PBF topology and generative design. (a) Heat-exchanger component. Source: Ref 232.
(b) Actively-cooled thruster. Reprinted from Ref 7 under a CC-BY licensed image courtesy of Castheon
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
Metal Additive Manufacturing in the Space Industry / 443
application over the last few decades, but lat-
tice structures are intentionally designed and
may be varied across a part, allowing unique
properties when used appropriately (Ref 234).
In both design approaches (topology optimiza-
tion and lattice structures), various unique
properties may be realized, including one or
more of the following: lightweighting, large
surface-area-to-volume ratio, variable stiff-
ness, permeability, thermal conductivity or
heat transfer, and impact or energy absorption.
Additive manufacturing offers high com-
plexity, including internal features such as
conformal cooling channels (e.g., combustion
chamber or rocket nozzles) that consolidate
parts and eliminate many traditional machining
and joining operations. Clearly, the complexity
of design allowed provides unique possibilities
in spaceflight applications that, in many cases,
are still underutilized. Complexity should be
appropriately traded within the design and
throughout the life cycle of AM components,
because it may result in additional postproces-
sing operations or unexpected operational
challenges if they are not properly understood
(for example, internal channels may need their
surfaces postprocessed, which is challenging).
Inspectability is generally an inverse of com-
plexity for AM, so qualification of critical
space items must be understood and the level
of complexity adjusted based on the entire
AM life cycle, including all aspects of postpro-
cessing. Even though topology-optimized
structures and lattice structures are discussed,
there are a number of practical challenges with
these complex structures. The load paths for
spacecraft components must be well under-
stood, because these techniques often optimize
a design based on a known set of inputs and
constraints. The combined structural, thermal,
dynamic, and integrated environments are not
always well defined or known for spacecraft
applications, and design margins are often
incorporated to account for these uncertainties.
This is also coupled with uncertainty or high
variations in AM-specific properties.
Using lattice structure design has the potential
to reduce the weight and enhance the thermal
performance of components. Combinations of
(b)
lattice structure and topology optimization
design are also possible for further lightweight-
ing benefits. Thales Alenia Space, in collabora-
tion with the European Space Agency,
developed and manufactured a topology-opti-
mized supporting structure for a satellite solar
panel deployment application, which uses both
topology optimization and lattice structure tech-
niques, for mass reduction and part consolida-
tion benefits (Ref 235). While lightweighting
benefits are a strong use-case for lattice struc-
tures, thermal-transfer devices are the predomi-
nant application of lattice structures using AM
for spacecraft components. Using lattice struc-
tures, the thermal and structural response of
components can be customized to fit the applica-
tion need. Figure 5 illustrates a National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration (NASA)
lattice application for thermal isolation, in which
the conductivity is minimized across a cryostrut
(Ref 236).
Part consolidation—the act of combining
multiple component assemblies into a single
component through design—has extensive
applications across all industries. Integration
into a single system or assembly may substan-
tially enhance technical performance and man-
ufacturability. As a result of multicomponent
integration, mating surfaces, structures, and
fasteners are removed, thereby increasing
structural efficiency and the possibility of joint
failures as well as reducing inspection and cer-
tification costs associated with mated structures.
Moreover, combining multiple components can
substantially reduce fabrication costs. In addi-
tion to the reduction of manufacturing life-
cycle costs, nonrecurring costs for designing,
certifying, and managing failure modes that
may be associated with part interaction are
also reduced. In the Ariane 6 rocket injector
head manufactured through AM (Fig. 6), the
number of individual components was consoli-
dated to one component from the 248 compo-
nents produced by traditional manufacturing
methods, while the weight of the injector head
was also reduced (Ref 237). Since 2013,
NASA has also demonstrated multiple applica-
tions of AM in rocket engine injectors that sig-
nificantly reduce part count and lead time
(Ref 148). A recent example of this shows a
reduction from 115 parts to 2 and was tested
in full operating conditions with the same
Fig. 5 NASA use of additively manufactured (AM)
lattice structure in an AM laser powder-bed
fusion cryostrut concept. Courtesy of NASA. Source:
Ref 236
 444 / Applications of Additive Manufacturing

performance as traditionally manufactured distortion as well as minimize support structures. techniques include powder removal, heat treat-
components (Ref 238, 239). Spacecraft component designs often require ments (i.e., stress relief, hot isostatic pressing,
The advancements in complex AM parts and simulations and DfAM methods, which are solution, aging), support removal, build plate
advantages foreseen have also spawned the time-consuming and dependent on not only the removal, machining, inspections, cleaning,
development of AM for large spaceflight propul- engineers’ simulation skills but also software polishing, and joining operations. The purpose
sion systems and vehicle structures. Relativity packages and computing power. For these simu- of the secondary or tertiary manufacturing
Space demonstrated the development of AM lations, the inputs must be well defined, such as steps is often to refine a material or mechanical
for primary tank structures that are planned to alloy mechanical properties and thermophysical property (e.g., anisotropy, porosity, surface
fly on the Terran 1 launch vehicle. This was properties, often at liquidus and solidus tempera- roughness), remove excess material (e.g., pow-
accomplished using the AW-DED/WAAM pro- tures, which are not always available (Ref 241– der, support, build plate), or meet and verify
cess with a custom 5xxx-series aluminum alloy 243). These tools are expected to continue evol- final design tolerances. These processes are
and integral nondestructive evaluation (NDE) ving as properties are better understood and more necessary when the initial manufacturing
and subtractive manufacturing capabilities up efficient models support ongoing manufacturing method is incapable of producing the desired
to 4.8 by 9.8 m (16 by 32 ft) in height (Fig. 7a). operations. results or is potentially optimized for a sepa-
NASA and industry partners have also demon- rate parameter (i.e., accelerated build times at
strated large-scale AM using the LP-DED pro- the expense of accuracy). The postprocessing
cess to create a near-net-shape nozzle liner Postprocessing in Additive steps are shown in Fig. 8 in the context of
(without channels) at a diameter of 2.41 m Manufacturing the general AM process workflow. Every com-
(7.91 ft) and a height of 2.82 m (9.25 ft) using ponent should be evaluated individually,
the hydrogen-resistant specialty alloy JBK-75 Postprocessing is critical in the AM of aero- because not all steps may be required for every
(Fig. 7b). A custom machine was fabricated that space components. Common postprocessing component application.
allows for dual-deposition heads to further
reduce the schedule required to create the part.
NASA and industry partners have also demon-
strated medium complexity using the large-scale
LP-DED process to create an integral channel
rocket nozzle with a diameter of 1.52 m (5 ft)
and a height of 1.78 m (5.8 ft) while maintaining
a wall thickness of 1 mm (0.04 in.). This was
accomplished in 90 days, compared to more
than 12 months using traditional manufacturing,
and included a custom hydrogen-resistant
NASA HR-1 alloy (Fe-Ni-Cr). The use of AM
for large-scale structures is expected to grow
as processes improve resolution and size con-
tinues to increase.
Using DfAM, a design can be optimized for
manufacturing quality that minimizes the need
for support structures and postprocessing
(Ref 240). Build simulations can also be used in
(a) (b)
combination with design tools to determine an
optimal orientation for the part on the build plat-
form, which can minimize residual stresses and Fig. 7 Large-scale additive manufacturing. (a) Tank structures built using arc wire directed-energy deposition/wire
arc additive manufacturing and (b) dual-deposition head laser powder directed-energy deposition process
for JBK-75 alloy nozzle liner forging replacement. Courtesy of Relativity Space, NASA, and DM3D Technologies

Process
parameters

Model design, Additive

generation, and manufacturing Postprocessing Part in service
tool pathing process
Powder removal
Part design Heat treatments
Analysis Material Support removal
feedstock
Build layout Build plate removal
Support generation Inspections
Model slicing Final machining
Toolpath Cleaning
Polishing
Welding
Brazing

Fig. 6 Injector core for Ariane 6 rocket. Source:

Ref 237 Fig. 8 Process flow for additive manufacturing, highlighting postprocessing steps

Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf

by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024

Powder Removal
Removal of excess material (both powder
and sacrificial supports) must be considered
early in the design process. Excess material
may be the build plate (which is required for
all AM processes), support material, or mate-
rial that is in excess of design tolerances. The
complexity of aerospace parts may lead to
nontrivial support material and functional
requirements (e.g., joining with mating compo-
nents that must remain leak-free) that demand
tight tolerances. Part application often drives
the need for any given AM postprocessing
technique and may require balances between
performance, cost, and schedule as well as
other considerations to determine the optimal
manufacturing process flow.
Powder removal is an essential postbuild
procedure for aerospace components that use
PBF processes (L-PBF, EB-PBF). Powder con-
solidation (and flow path obstruction) may
occur within internal flow passages, for exam-
ple, and it is important to have a process to
remove the powder. These internal cavities
must be accessible or include ports to properly
remove powder. Full or partial blockages in
internal features can cause maldistributions in
flow or even overheating that leads to failures
from complete blockage, as seen in the early
development of liquid rocket engine combus-
tion chambers (Ref 132). Excess powder may
be removed by pneumatic flushing of the inter-
nal channels using pressurized air, vacuum,
vibratory techniques to shake powder loose,
or other methods that use ultrasonic and vac-
uum boiling. Powder removal should be per-
formed prior to any heat treatment, because
this may partially consolidate the powder
inside internal channels, making its removal
more difficult or impossible.
Nondestructive evaluation or flow testing
techniques are frequently used during powder
removal to verify that channels have been
cleared of powder blockage; see the article
“Nondestructive Evaluation in Additive
Manufacturing—A Review” in this Volume.
X-ray computed tomography (CT) and radiog-
raphy are used during the inspection of aero-
space AM components to visualize these flow
passages; see the article “X-Ray—Radiogra-
phy and Computed Tomography in Additive
Manufacturing” in this Volume. While both
methods use x-rays to visualize a part, CT
may be used to generate a full three-dimen-
sional (3D) reconstructed model. Computed
tomography is effective at showing changes
in density to identify flaws (pores, cracks,
etc.) and detecting trapped powder as well as
foreign debris. Both CT and radiography are
limited, however, due to the high-energy x-
rays needed for penetration and the field of
view limited by part size, which can result in
small defects going undetected. Ultrasonics
can also be used for NDE of additively manu-
factured aerospace parts; see the article
“Review of Ultrasonic Testing for Metallic
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
Metal Additive Manufacturing in the Space Industry / 445
Additively Manufactured Parts” in this Volume.
Ultrasonic methods are similarly effective at
detecting internal flaws, but there are limits on
the size of flaws they can detect and changes in
sensitivity with depth. Another downside of this
method is that it requires the use of a couplant.
Precision cleaning may be needed after the cou-
plant is applied. Additionally, a rough surface
finish and curved surfaces can make it difficult
for ultrasonic methods to scan the part.
Inspection and Quality Control
Quality control and process monitoring are
critical to AM implementation for space applica-
tions, due to the criticality of each component to
the mission. The Sections “Nondestructive Test-
ing and Evaluation in Additive Manufacturing”
and “In Situ Process Control and Monitoring in
Additive Manufacturing” in this Volume discuss
this topic in more detail. However, the key meth-
ods currently applied and some practical sugges-
tions for quality control are briefly mentioned in
this article.
In-process monitoring makes use of a vari-
ety of cameras and sensors that are meant to
identify imperfect melting and solidification
conditions (also called in situ monitoring).
Unexpected signals can directly or indirectly
be related to flaws or unwanted conditions,
which could lead to flaw formation. This area
is under development with limited commercial
solutions available, each with varying capabil-
ities. There is no consistent methodology
established due to the diversity of sensor and
camera systems that can be applied, variations
in their implementation, and the complexity of
relating signals to specific flaw states. This
area needs further development, and direct
process validation with test specimens and arti-
ficially induced flaw conditions is needed to
fully mature into its use for production.
Postprocess inspection relates to destructive
and nondestructive testing, also called NDE.
Destructive testing is often performed on
2.5 mm
(a)
Fig. 9 A 10 mm (0.4 in.) cube of aluminum alloy manufactured by laser powder-bed fusion showing (a) computed
tomography cross section and (b) three-dimensional view with color-coded porosity. Contour porosity is
highlighted, involving excess pore subsurface requiring improved process.
coupon samples to characterize microstructure
and porosity using optical or electron micros-
copy, or Archimedes testing is performed for
a generic density/porosity estimation. A more
accurate and more holistic approach is to use
x-ray CT to evaluate porosity. This method
can identify extremely low levels of porosity,
including its 3D distribution (Ref 244). This
allows an understanding of the process param-
eter that is primarily to blame, allowing simple
correction and optimization to be performed.
This is applied to coupon samples such as a
10 mm (0.4 in.) cube (Fig. 9) similar in size
to what is typically used for Archimedes or
optical microscopy.
Full part-scale CT scans also serve to iden-
tify major flaws (or validate the lack thereof)
and often are used to evaluate deviation from
design, as shown in Fig. 10 for a stainless steel
volute manufactured by L-PBF. Some excess
support material is visible in the CT cross sec-
tion, but no porosity or cracks are seen. The devi-
ation from design shows some regions are up to
0.5 mm (0.02 in.) from the nominal geometry,
which leads to an investigation into how to min-
imize these distortions (depending on the criti-
cality of this dimensional deviation).
Full part-scale CT scans may miss small
pores or cracks due to the part-size-versus-
resolution compromise that is present with
this method. Probability-of-detection studies
should be conducted in addition to an under-
standing of critical flaw size for aerospace
components. Because 10 mm (0.4 in.) cubes
are indicative of the process-induced porosity
allowing optimization, an additional 10 mm
diameter witness specimen cylinder built
alongside the final part of interest (of larger
size) has been suggested as an additional tool
to monitor the process indirectly through post-
process CT inspection. High-resolution CT
scans can identify unexpected flaw states, such
as stop-start layered flaws, that may extend
across the build plate into both witness speci-
men and final part (Ref 245). In addition, this
Diameter, mm
0.39
0.35
0.32
0.28
0.24
0.21
0.17
0.13
0.10
0.06
0.02
z
x
(b)
 446 / Applications of Additive Manufacturing
Deviation, mm
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
−0.10
−0.20
−0.30
−0.40
−0.50
y
z AM build in which powder is more easily
x
Fig. 10 Stainless steel volute with no porosity but unacceptable deviation from design, as indicated by computed
tomography
same cylinder could be used for mechanical
testing after CT scans.
Other inspection techniques include metrol-
ogy to determine final geometry (coordinate
measuring machine, structured light, laser
scanning), dye penetrant, thermography, and
eddy current—each having unique challenges
due to surface conditions or the complexity
of AM parts.
Build Plate Removal
Almost all AM processes require the build
plate to be separated from the part unless it is
used as part of the assembly or for tooling later
in the processing. The build plate and, if applica-
ble, sacrificial base may be removed via band
saw, wire electrical discharge machining, or
breakaway methods. Prior to part removal, stress
relief or hot isostatic pressing (HIP) on the build
plate is often necessary to prevent warping due
to residual stresses. Heat treatments are often
necessary to address anisotropy, porosity, and
required material properties for the end-use
application. Additively manufactured parts fre-
quently show anisotropic characteristics that
depend on build direction, resulting in lower
ductility and part weakness along the direction
of the build. For aerospace applications, proper
process development and control are necessary,
because small porosity can result in leakage
and performance losses or failures.
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
10 mm
Heat Treatments
Postprocess heat treatments include stress
relief, homogenization, HIP, solution annealing,
and aging, depending on the type of alloy used.
Hot isostatic pressing can decrease pore sizes
or eliminate them entirely (Ref 246). Heat treat-
ment is desirable to improve mechanical and
thermophysical properties such as hardness,
strength, fatigue life, corrosion resistance, and
so on. Alloys such as GRCop-42 (Cu-Cr-Nb)
have been shown to have conductivity similar
to their equivalent wrought materials. Many
alloys can have similar strengths to cast or
wrought counterparts if process, quality, and
postprocessing are controlled properly (Ref 21).
Heat treatment consists of several processes that
must occur in a particular order to be effective.
The first step is stress relief, which reduces
residual stress in the part (prior to build plate
removal). Hot isostatic pressing is then required
to reduce porosity (and homogenize microstruc-
ture), followed by annealing and then aging,
depending on the alloy. The AM alloys typically
follow similar heat treatments to their wrought
alloy counterparts.
Surface Enhancement, Machining, and
Joining
Additively manufactured parts typically
have a much higher surface roughness in the
as-built condition compared with traditionally
machined parts. This is due to the layerwise
manufacturing process in AM with discrete
layer steps as well as to a chaotic melt pool
that can lead to unintentional solidification and
attachment of nearby powder (i.e., dross, excess
powder) (Ref 247, 248). The desired surface
roughness must be carefully traded, depending
on the component requirements. Increased sur-
face roughness can result in increased turbulent
fluid flow in manufactured channels (beneficial
for heat transfer) but a reduced fatigue life due
to high probability for crack formation and prop-
agation. Surface roughness can be improved
through mechanical, abrasive, chemical milling,
and/or polishing.
Traditional manufacturing techniques such
as machining and joining operations are often
required with AM parts. For large components
in which an AM process is not applicable,
welding can be used to join smaller AM pieces
together. This can be a good solution when
part sizes are larger than what is possible in
single-part AM builds. Complex internal
geometry may be more readily implemented
through welding smaller pieces together or by
integrating various forms of AM processes.
This can reduce the risk associated with an
removed from internal features. It also reduces
waste associated with part printing failure,
because the fault affects only a portion of the
overall piece. Segmenting parts also increases
accessibility of AM printing for inspections.
Welding of AM parts allows the joining and
integration of more traditionally manufactured
components such as forgings, resulting in
greater design flexibility. Welding, however,
can result in increased build cost (when such
an equivalent part could be manufactured,
depending on the build size limits) associated
with separating the part into printable seg-
ments as well as increased lead time. New pro-
cedures are also required for the welding of
AM metal alloys due to their unique grain
structures and metallurgy (Ref 249).
Machining and polishing processes are often
used with AM parts to finish surfaces to the
required roughness or tolerances for critical
joints or for fatigue or flow aspects. Additively
manufactured parts are often fabricated from
alloys such as Inconel that are also challenging
to machine and can have hardness variations
from the wrought counterparts if not properly
heat treated. Careful attention to the machining
operation should be considered early in the
design process to establish proper data for the
machining of complex parts with freeform sur-
faces (Ref 249).
Summary of Postprocessing in Additive
Manufacturing
Postprocessing must be well integrated and
considered early in the design phase for aero-
space components. Many of the operations
must be performed in a specific order for
 Metal Additive Manufacturing in the Space Industry / 447

successful part manufacturing (Ref 249). For
example, powder removal should be verified
prior to HIP; otherwise, this can result in pow-
der consolidated within internal features.
Inspections, which are often critical for quality
control in aerospace components, are more
challenging, and this challenge is compounded
with the complexity of AM. Many aspects of
the component final geometry, inspection,
microstructure, surface conditions, and assem-
bly are part of postprocessing and must be
designed for properly with appropriate AM
life-cycle planning to ensure that the compo-
nent successfully meets mission requirements.
Performance and Qualification
One motivation for the aerospace industry to
lead in the application of AM technology lies
in the unique strengths of the AM process.
However, there are many challenges in the
implementation of AM in spaceflight; the
greatest challenge is not the change of para-
digms but instead the safe implementation of
a new and rapidly changing technology. Com-
pared to traditional manufacturing and material
processes, AM parts and material processes
have not yet had the benefit of many years of
incremental refinement by third-party practi-
tioners (e.g., wrought forging, casting houses).
Furthermore, multiple factors directly influ-
ence end quality. It is important to establish a
disciplined methodology that is intended to
control these variables to ensure consistency
and manage risks associated with the process.
Such methodology starts with controlling
the initial design of the part and raw feedstock,
then continuing through the print process para-
meters that provide the initial material quality,
and the subsequent postprocessing that results
in the final microstructure and associated
material properties. Because each stage of the
process has unique steps that can significantly
impact the microstructure and subsequent
properties in addition to the geometry, the
qualification must encompass the end-to-end
process (Ref 138). Several international stan-
dards have been developed or are in develop-
ment to cover these aspects of qualification or
certification. Examples of these are listed in
Table 2.
NASA has invested extensive efforts to
establish NASA Technical Standards that pro-
vide uniform engineering and technical
requirements for AM spaceflight system hard-
ware across the agency. NASA-STD-6030
and NASA-STD-6033 (released in April
2021) were released to provide NASA with a
framework for the development and produc-
tion of spaceflight hardware using AM pro-
cesses. These standards establish foundational
process and part production controls. These
process controls include equipment control,
personnel training, definition, and qualification
of the material process (i.e., machine and para-
meters) in addition to the development of a
material property suite. Part production con-
trols include the proper planning of part design
(design documentation), evaluation of test arti-
cle (e.g., destructive and nondestructive exam-
ination), engineering and production controls,
statistical process control, and digital thread
(i.e., process tracking). As part of this frame-
work, NASA established a part classification
system that designates AM parts based on con-
sequences of failure and relative risks. This
classification system also determines appropri-
ate levels of process control, qualification, and
inspection that are tailorable.
Other organizations such as the Federal Avi-
ation Administration, European Union Avia-
tion Safety Agency, and European Space
Agency are developing approaches for qualifi-
cation in tandem. Independent of the differ-
ences among approaches, the aerospace
community agrees that AM requires a funda-
mental understanding of process-microstructure-
properties-performance relationships that is
central to qualification efforts (Ref 250). The
overall approach must cover the areas of devel-
opment process, supply chain qualification, and
material property development to produce
design allowables as well as the part design and
qualification process along with proper quality
and statistical process controls (Ref 251).
On the side of standards-development
organizations, consensus-based groups such
as SAE International, ASTM International,
the National Institute of Standards and Tech-
nology, and the American Welding Society
are developing methodologies, requirement
standards, and guidance documents in collab-
oration with industry, academia, and govern-
ment with a common goal of improving the
state of the art of the AM knowledge base.
Those requirement standards will vary based
on the industry and organization in which
they are used, and they are intended to be tai-
lorable based on part end use. New tools such
as in situ monitoring, closed-loop control,
and digital thread/twin show promise for fur-
ther improving knowledge and potentially
streamlining the certification methodology
and providing a more rapid path to certifica-
tion. Some of the specific areas that must be
understood for qualification and validation
include:
 Engineering equivalency and substantiation
of material allowable and design values
 Integrated process control during build
 Nondestructive inspection limitations
 Feedstock recycling or reuse practice
 Understanding the effects of defects in AM
parts and metals
 Quantification of in situ monitoring data for
part acceptance
 Anticounterfeiting measures
 Dynamic process feedback controls
In-Space Manufacturing
In-space manufacturing (ISM) and on-orbit
servicing, assembly, and manufacturing (OSAM)
play a critical role in enabling sustainable long-
duration missions beyond low-Earth orbit

Table 2 Standards related to qualification of additive manufacturing

Standard number Standard title

ISO/ASTM 52942-20 “Qualifying Machine Operators of Laser Metal Powder-Bed Fusion Machines and Equipment Used in Aerospace Applications”
ASTM F 3434-20 “Installation/Operation and Performance Qualification (IQ/OQ/PQ) of Laser-Beam Powder-Bed Fusion Equipment for Production Manufacturing”
ISO/ASTM 52941-20 “Acceptance Tests for Laser Metal Powder-Bed Fusion Machines”
ISO/ASTM AWI 52937(a) “Qualification of Designers”
ISO/ASTM CD 52920(a) “Quality Requirements for Industrial Additive Manufacturing Sites”
ISO/ASTM AWI 52935(a) “Qualification of Coordinators for Metallic Production”
ISO/ASTM CD TS 52930(a) “Installation, Operation, and Performance (IQ/OQ/PQ) of PBF-LB Equipment”
ISO/ASTM CD 52926-5(a) “Qualification of Machine Operators for DED-ARC”
ISO/ASTM CD 52926-4(a) “Qualification of Machine Operators for DED-LB”
ISO/ASTM CD 52926-3(a) “Qualification of Machine Operators for PBF-EB”
ISO/ASTM CD 52926-2(a) “Qualification of Machine Operators for PBF-LB”
ISO/ASTM CD 52926-1(a) “General Qualification of Machine Operators”
NASA-STD-6030 “Additive Manufacturing Requirements for Crewed Spaceflight Systems”
NASA-STD-6033 “Additive Manufacturing Requirements for Equipment and Facility Control”
SAE AMS 7032(a) “Additive Manufacturing Machine Qualification”
NASA MSFC-STD-3716 “Standard for Additively Manufactured Spaceflight Hardware by Laser Powder-Bed Fusion of Metals”
NASA MSFC-SPEC-3717 “Specification for Control and Qualification of Laser Powder-Bed Fusion Metallurgical Processes”
(a) In development

Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf

by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
 448 / Applications of Additive Manufacturing
(LEO). Without ISM and OSAM technologies,
logistics for these missions become strained.
This can result in unacceptable costs, increased
vehicle mass, limited mission durations, and
decreased reliability. In-space manufacturing
may fundamentally alter the logistics model
for future space flight missions; however, for
an ISM system to be capable of producing
spare parts and impromptu crew necessities,
the philosophy behind the design of space sys-
tems must be altered to consider both manu-
facturability and serviceability.
Critical components of ISM systems are the
focus of current technology development in
which demonstration and proving feasibility
are key. The concept of ISM is not new. The
Soviet Union investigated both arc welding
and electron beam welding capabilities aboard
Soyuz 6 in 1969 within the Vulkan payload
and with the subsequent Universal Hand Tool,
an electron beam welding device (Ref 252).
These experiments, along with microgravity
(i.e., materials science) experiments flown by
NASA during both the Space Shuttle and Inter-
national Space Station (ISS) eras, provided a
basic understanding of how material processes
are affected by the absence or reduction of
gravity.
Because of its ability to produce arbitrary
geometries and its potential multimaterial cap-
abilities, AM provides unique opportunities for
enabling spaceflight missions. However, the
constraints of operating in space require the
exploration of alternative technologies and
approaches. Mass, volume, power, thermal,
and safety requirements severely limit the
applicability of common methods that are used
terrestrially. For example, PBF, which is com-
mon in ground manufacturing, requires com-
plex systems to maintain a flat layer without
the aid of gravity. Additionally, powdered
metal presents a significant safety concern for
the crew both in terms of flammability (espe-
cially in the elevated-oxygen environments
planned for future missions) and foreign object
damage control. Thus, bound metal deposition
systems or wire-based additive systems should
be considered. Difficulties also arise due to the
limited power and volume available for
manufacturing systems. EXPRESS Rack inter-
faces provide only 2 kW for the full rack,
which may contain up to eight payloads. While
polymer systems can easily fit within the limit,
metal processes often require higher-power
systems. Careful power management or charge
and discharge systems can be used to mitigate
these difficulties; however, the available power
is likely to impact production rates or build
volume.
In the late 1990s, NASA began exploring
AM for on-demand spare parts production
and sent a desktop fused filament fabrication
(FFF) polymer system aboard a parabolic flight
that demonstrated early feasibility (Ref 253).
During the 2010s, NASA partnered with Made
In Space (MIS) to fly the “3D Printing in Zero-
G Technology” demonstration mission, which
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
was the first FFF polymer printer aboard the
ISS. During the mission, 55 flight specimens
were produced and down-massed (Fig. 11).
An analysis of the in-flight samples and com-
parison to analogous ground samples showed
significant impacts that were attributed to the
microgravity environment (Ref 254). Follow-
ing the demonstration mission, MIS developed
the first commercial 3D-printing payload to be
installed on the ISS in 2016: the Additive
Manufacturing Facility (AMF).
Although AMF demonstrated the feasibility
of printing multiple polymer types in space,
many of the spare components needed during
long-duration missions are electronic or metal
based. In 2018, NASA started an effort called
FabLab to develop a multimaterials fabrication
facility. The intended system would be capable
of producing metal parts (from at least one
engineering alloy) and producing simple
printed circuit boards. Volume, power, safety,
and mass constraints led the trade study of
AM processes away from PBF processes and
toward either indirect manufacturing methods,
such as bound metal deposition, or to methods
that can limit peak power draws below 2 kW,
which is the maximum power provided by
the EXPRESS Rack infrastructure aboard the
ISS. Two initial technologies evaluated as part
of the FabLab facility included ultrasonic AM
(UAM) and bound metal deposition (BMD).
The BMD was down-selected using Ti-6Al-
4V and is being advanced for flight aboard
the ISS. Additional systems using AW-DED/
WAAM and UAM are also being explored
further.
In addition to metal AM, an ISM system for
long-duration missions is required to produce
electronic components, which composes
approximately 36% of components requiring
replacement on the ISS (Ref 255). To effec-
tively create circuit boards, a multimaterials
system must be capable of depositing both
dielectric and conductive materials in addition
to placing traditional integrated circuits.
NASA is developing a next-generation multi-
material 3D printer to meet future requirements
(a)
Fig. 11 Fused filament fabrication polymer prints onboard the International Space Station. (a) Ratchet wrench.
(b) Multipurpose precision maintenance tool. Courtesy of NASA
in producing a wide range of printed electronics
and sensors on demand in microgravity. This
hardware development is advancing the state of
the art in materials processing, and it will allow
the use of new nanomaterials for printed sensors.
These printed sensors may include biosensors,
environmental sensors, and structural health-
monitoring sensors to address all the require-
ments for future long-duration missions.
Manufacturing of electronics, metals, and
polymers requires a consistent source of feed-
stock material. Both ISM and OSAM rely on
the use of in situ resources, regardless of
whether those are naturally occurring (e.g.,
lunar regolith) or derived from the recycling
of waste materials. Recycling, reuse, and
resource extraction further reduce the logistic
requirements necessary for sustainable space
exploration. In 2019, MIS and Braskem
launched the Made In Space Recycler and
demonstrated the recycling of polyethylene
into 3D printing filament. To further advance
polymer recycling technologies, NASA is
developing a recyclable packaging material
that meets flammability and toxicity require-
ments for use in a crewed volume. Additional
development is being completed to extract
ductile iron and steel from regolith simulant
and supplemented carbon. The carbon is a
by-product of life-support systems (from the
Bosch carbon dioxide reduction process),
with the production of breathable oxygen
from carbon dioxide for the crew, furthering
waste utilization. These iron-base alloys are
slated for processing into an ink feedstock
for the NASA multimaterial electronics 3D
printer (Ref 256).
In-space AM is gaining substantial interest
from academia, government, and industry.
Future missions beyond LEO and to the lunar
surface require a fundamental change in the
logistics model for sustainable operation. As
AM technologies mature, ISM and OSAM
technologies provide an avenue to address sus-
tainability and reliability concerns and enable
human exploration beyond the confines of
Earth and LEO.
(b)

Future Trends, Challenges, and
Opportunities for Aerospace
Metal AM technologies offer great potential
for technical and commercial advantages in
spacecraft applications. There are multiple
examples of AM parts actively flying on com-
mercial launch vehicles and significant devel-
opment efforts to further industrialize new
alloys, processes, and design concepts. Despite
the technological and commercial opportu-
nities provided by metal AM, these technolo-
gies face unique challenges in the space
industry.
When first adopted, AM processes used
materials that were traceable to traditional
alloys. Some of these alloys were crackprone
in AM processes, susceptible to oxidation,
endowed with other unwanted properties,
unsuitable for some harsh environments, and
posed challenges during AM processing. New
and custom alloys adopted by metal AM
reduce or mitigate these material-based con-
straints or manufacturing challenges while
optimizing the end application. While there
are uncertainties relating to the mechanical,
physical, and thermophysical properties of
novel AM-based materials, a few matured
engineering materials are available for AM-
based components (Ref 249). Research and
development into new alloys is rapidly increas-
ing, although expansive databases of materials
are not matured. In addition to monolithic
alloys, AM can fabricate custom bimetallic
and multimetallic material solutions to opti-
mize specific structural or thermal properties.
Both discrete material transitions and func-
tional gradient materials are examples of this.
However, detailed characterization of these
unique joints must be completed to ensure that
deleterious phases are not present and that the
interfaces provide appropriate microstructure
and properties.
Additive manufacturing offers new possibi-
lities for the design solutions of spacecraft
components. In the early stages of product
development, these potential solutions should
be explored and optimally leveraged. The
DfAM process of conceptual design requires
new opportunistic design methods and tools,
regardless of traditionally restrictive design
rules. It is often easier to apply these tools with
new AM parts as opposed to replace existing
parts (e.g., maintenance repair and overhaul
operations that often require exact part
designs). The DfAM methods are highly lever-
aged in spacecraft applications to significantly
reduce costs, lead times, and part counts. Addi-
tive manufacturing techniques offer new
designs due to unique geometric complexity
that is otherwise unattainable. Through the
application of advanced computational optimi-
zation techniques such as topology optimization,
analytical thermal optimization, and architected
cellular structures (lattices), novel and
specialized design solutions are possible.
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
Metal Additive Manufacturing in the Space Industry / 449
Multimaterial design and multifunctional com-
ponents such as integrated electronics and sen-
sors are further potential design opportunities
for AM applications in spacecraft components.
The full extent of capabilities of these advanced
design tools is being explored by both academia
and industry; however, several challenges exist
in their practical application.
Considering the many challenges associated
with AM processes, all critical flight compo-
nents manufactured by metal AM should be
subjected to careful evaluations to determine
the appropriate certification path of the part
and equipment to produce it. Postprocessing
methods and nondestructive testing (NDT)
are often required to ensure that parts meet
the requirements. A variety of NDT methods
are available for detecting flaws such as poros-
ity or cracks in critical components, including
eddy-current testing, radiographic testing, dye
penetrant, and ultrasonic testing. A detailed
description of various NDT methods is given
by du Plessis et al. (Ref 257). The challenge
of NDT for AM parts is that the complexity
of parts calls for more complex approaches,
and certain tools used for NDT are no longer
useful. X-ray CT has been shown to be effec-
tive at inspecting cracks, pores, trapped
powders, deviation-from-design parameters,
warping caused by thermal processing, and
other flaws (Ref 258). However, CT as an
NDT technique has various limitations, such
as poor resolution for large components, thick
walls, and high x-ray absorption on dense
materials, which reduce the quality of the
inspection. These limitations may warrant the
use of small coupon samples to verify the pro-
cess optimization conditions and witness spe-
cimens constructed alongside larger parts to
demonstrate the quality of the AM build pro-
cess (Ref 244, 245). For the reasons cited pre-
viously, in-process monitoring tools are being
developed to increase flaw identification dur-
ing the AM process, not after. Because AM
proceeds track by track and layer by layer, it
is possible to use various sensors to identify
defect formation during the manufacturing
process by using optical, thermal, or acoustic
methods. In addition to in situ defect detection,
using this information during manufacturing
makes it possible to correct and heal defects
directly. For example, when in situ detection
identifies a flaw larger than some threshold
size, a remelt of this single layer may heal this
defect with minimal additional time needed.
The optimal use of in situ defect recognition
and correlation of signals to real flaws is a
topic of intense research and development at
present.
A crucial step in metal AM is postproces-
sing. When powders are trapped in intricate
parts with fine feature sizes, they can be diffi-
cult to remove. Due to safety concerns,
handling such powders is also difficult, and
wire-based techniques may be a preferred
option if they can provide the desired geome-
try. The typical approach for powder removal
involves rotating the working piece and
tapping or blowing powders from surface cav-
ities and channels. Nondestructive testing tech-
niques such as CT scans can reveal trapped
powders, but powder may be permanently
trapped if not removed before heat treatment.
Further postprocessing, such as heat treatment,
support removal, and surface finishing, is often
required. The postprocessing steps must be
carefully handled to ensure that the part con-
forms to the design without damaging its sur-
face. Further surface finishing, machining, or
other processing challenges are crucial consid-
erations as the complexity of AM parts
increases, and they must be thought about early
in the manufacturing and design processes.
Conclusions
The state of the industry is rapidly advanc-
ing with the maturation and infusion of metal
AM processes into ongoing spaceflight opera-
tions. The maturation of AM technology is
not limited to printing methodologies and is
inclusive of the development of novel materi-
als, targeted for metal AM applications, new
machines, and ancillary operations and tools
(i.e., postprocessing, software, etc.). The diver-
sity of manufacturing techniques, materials
available, and ability to further tune properties
via postprocessing has revolutionized design
and removed a myriad of traditional con-
straints. Design optimization for strength, heat
transfer, fluid dynamics, or many other physi-
cal properties and phenomena is within reach.
These solutions come with trade spaces and
compromises, as do all new technologies and
methods, but are now cost-effective for imple-
mentation across academia, industry, and gov-
ernment agencies. The development of
standards for human spaceflight is maturing
and accessible to allow for proper and safe
implementation of AM.
REFERENCES
1. B. Blakey-Milner, P. Gradl, G. Snedden,
M. Brooks, J. Pitot, E. Lopez, M. Leary,
F. Berto, and A. du Plessis, Metal Additive
Manufacturing in Aerospace: A Review,
Mater. Des., Vol 209, 2021, p 110008,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.110008
2. “Annual Report 2020/2021,” Fraunhofer
IWS, 2020, p 53, https://www.iws.fraun
hofer.de/content/dam/iws/de/documents/
publikationen/jahresberichte/JB_IWS_
2020-2021.pdf, accessed March 16, 2021
3. “New Manufacturing Milestone: 30,000
Additive Fuel Nozzles,” GE Additive,
2018, https://www.ge.com/additive/blog/
new-manufacturing-milestone-30000-
additive-fuel-nozzles
4. “Case Study: Additive Manufacturing—
3D Printing a Rocket Engine,” ETMM,
https://www.etmm-online.com/3d-printing-
 450 / Applications of Additive Manufacturing
a-rocket-engine-a-886960/, accessed Feb
2, 2021
5. “Additive Manufacturing—General
Principles—Terminology,” ISO/ASTM
52900-2015, International Organization
for Standardization/ASTM International,
2015
6. T. DebRoy, H.L.L. Wei, J.S.S. Zuback,
T. Mukherjee, J.W.W. Elmer, J.O.O.
Milewski, A.M.M. Beese, A. Wilson-Heid,
A. De, and W. Zhang, Additive Manu-
facturing of Metallic Components—Pro-
cess, Structure and Properties, Prog. Mater.
Sci., Vol 92, 2018, p 112–224, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2017.10.001
7. P. Gradl, D.C. Tinker, A. Park, O.R. Mir-
eles, M. Garcia, R. Wilkerson, and C.
Mckinney, Robust Metal Additive
Manufacturing Process Selection and
Development for Aerospace Compo-
nents, J. Mater. Eng. Perform., Vol 31,
2021, p 6013–6044
8. I. Yadroitsev, I. Yadroitsava, A. du Ples-
sis, and E. MacDonald, Ed., Fundamen-
tals of Laser Powder Bed Fusion of
Metals, 1st ed., Elsevier, 2021
9. A. Gamon, E. Arrieta, P.R. Gradl, C.
Katsarelis, L.E. Murr, R.B. Wicker, and
F. Medina, Microstructure and Hardness
Comparison of As-Built Inconel 625
Alloy following Various Additive Manu-
facturing Processes, Results Mater., Vol 12,
2021, p 100239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rinma.2021.100239
10. Y. Kok, X.P. Tan, P. Wang, M.L.S. Nai,
N.H. Loh, E. Liu, and S.B. Tor, Anisot-
ropy and Heterogeneity of Microstructure
and Mechanical Properties in Metal Additive
Manufacturing: A Critical Review, Mater.
Des., Vol 139, 2018, p 565–586, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.MATDES.2017.11.021
11. B. Barroqueiro, A. Andrade-Campos, R.A.
F. Valente, and V. Neto, Metal Additive
Manufacturing Cycle in Aerospace Indus-
try: A Comprehensive Review, J. Manuf.
Mater. Process., Vol 3, 2019, p 1–21,
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmmp3030052
12. J.R. Müller, M. Panarotto, J. Malmqvist,
and O. Isaksson, Lifecycle Design and
Management of Additive Manufacturing
Technologies, Proced. Manuf., Vol 19,
2018, p 135–142, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.promfg.2018.01.019
13. O. Adegoke, J. Andersson, H. Brodin,
and R. Pederson, Review of Laser Pow-
der Bed Fusion of Gamma-Prime-
Strengthened Nickel-Based Superalloys,
Metals (Basel), Vol 10, 2020, p 1–26,
https://doi.org/10.3390/met10080996
14. K. Minet, A. Saharan, A. Loesser, and N.
Raitanen, Superalloys, Powders, Process
Monitoring in Additive Manufacturing,
Addit. Manuf. Aerosp. Ind., 2019, p 163–
185, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
814062-8.00009-1
15. A.N. Jinoop, C.P. Paul, and K.S. Bindra,
Laser-Assisted Directed Energy Deposition
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
of Nickel Super Alloys: A Review, Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng. L, J. Mater., Des., Appl.,
Vol 233, 2019, p 2376–2400, https://doi.
org/10.1177/1464420719852658
16. C. Katsarelis, P. Chen, P.R. Gradl, C.
Protz, Z. Jones, N. Marshall, S. Flight,
D. Ellis, and L. Evans, “Additive
Manufacturing of NASA HR-1 Material
for Liquid Rocket Engine Component
Applications,” JANNAF Joint Propulsion
Conference, 2019, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/
search.jsp?R=20200001007
17. P.R. Gradl, T.W. Teasley, C.S. Protz, C.
Katsarelis, and P. Chen, Process Develop-
ment and Hot-Fire Testing of Additively
Manufactured NASA HR-1 for Liquid
Rocket Engine Applications, AIAA Pro-
pulsion and Energy Forum, 2021, p 1–23,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3236
18. Z. Li, Y. Cui, J. Wang, C. Liu, J. Wang,
T. Xu, T. Lu, H. Zhang, J. Lu, S. Ma, H.
Fan, and S. Tang, Characterization of
Microstructure and Mechanical Proper-
ties of Stellite 6 Part Fabricated by Wire
Arc Additive Manufacturing, Metals, Vol
9, 2019, p 474, https://doi.org/10.3390/
MET9040474
19. M. Muhammad, P.D. Nezhadfar, S.
Thompson, A. Saharan, N. Phan, and N.
Shamsaei, A Comparative Investigation
on the Microstructure and Mechanical
Properties of Additively Manufactured
Aluminum Alloys, Int. J. Fatigue, Vol
146, 2021, p 106165, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2021.106165
20. D. Waller, A.J. Polizzi, and J.J. Iten, “Fea-
sibility Study of Additively Manufactured
Al-6061 RAM2 Parts for Aerospace Appli-
cations,” AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-0409
21. P.R. Gradl, C. Protz, K. Cooper, C. Garcia,
D. Ellis, and L. Evans, “GRCop-42 Devel-
opment and Hot-Fire Testing Using Addi-
tive Manufacturing Powder Bed Fusion for
Channel-Cooled Combustion Chambers,”
AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum and
Exposition, American Institute of Aeronau-
tics and Astronautics Inc., 2019, https://doi.
org/10.2514/6.2019-4228
22. P.R. Gradl, C.S. Protz, D.L. Ellis, and S.E.
Greene, Progress in Additively Manufac-
tured Copper-Alloy GRCop-84, GRCop-
42, and Bimetallic Combustion Chambers
for Liquid Rocket Engines, Proc. Int.
Astronautical Congress, 2019, p 21–25
23. O. Mireles, Additive Manufacture of
Refractory Metals for Aerospace Appli-
cations, AIAA Propulsion and Energy
Forum, 2021, p 1–9, https://doi.org/
10.2514/6.2021-3234
24. O.R. Mireles, O. Rodriguez, Y. Gao, and N.
Philips, Additive Manufacture of Refrac-
tory Alloy C103 for Propulsion Applica-
tions, AIAA Propulsion and Energy
Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics Inc., 2020, p 1–13,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-3500.
25. W.E. Frazier, Metal Additive Manu-
facturing: A Review, J. Mater. Eng. Per-
form., Vol 23 2014, p 1917–1928, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11665-014-0958-z
26. L. Wermuth, S. Beyer, T. Sebald, J.
Deck, S. Kraus, F. Riss, F. Brueckner,
A. Seidel, S. Humm, L. Pambaguian,
and C. Edwards, “Selective Laser Melt-
ing of Noble and Refractory Alloys for
Next Generation Spacecraft Thruster,”
Metallic Materials and Processes: Indus-
trial Challenges, 2015
27. R.A. Michi, A. Plotkowski, A. Shyam,
and R.R. Dehoff, Towards High-Temper-
ature Applications of Aluminium Alloys
Enabled by Additive Manufacturing, Int.
Mater. Rev., Vol 67, 2021, https://doi.
org/10.1080/09506608.2021.1951580
28. K. Li, D. Wang, L. Xing, Y. Wang, C.
Yu, J. Chen, T. Zhang, J. Ma, W. Liu,
and Z. Shen, Crack Suppression in Addi-
tively Manufactured Tungsten by Intro-
ducing Secondary-Phase Nanoparticles
into the Matrix, Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard
Mater., Vol 79, 2019, p 158–163, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.IJRMHM.2018.11.013
29. T.M. Smith, A.C. Thompson, T.P. Gabb,
C.L. Bowman, and C.A. Kantzos, Effi-
cient Production of a High-Performance
Dispersion Strengthened, Multi-Principal
Element Alloy, Sci. Rep., Vol 10 (No.
1), 2020, p 1–9, https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-020-66436-5
30. L. Xue, K.C. Atli, C. Zhang, N. Hite, A.
Srivastava, A.C. Leff, A.A. Wilson, D.J.
Sharar, A. Elwany, R. Arroyave, and I.
Karaman, Laser Powder Bed Fusion of
Defect-Free NiTi Shape Memory Alloy
Parts with Superior Tensile Superelasticity,
Acta Mater., Vol 229, 2022, p 117781,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2022.
117781
31. Y. Li, Z. Feng, L. Hao, L. Huang, C. Xin,
Y. Wang, E. Bilotti, K. Essa, H. Zhang,
Z. Li, F. Yan, and T. Peijs, A Review
on Functionally Graded Materials and
Structures via Additive Manufacturing:
From Multi-Scale Design to Versatile
Functional Properties, Adv. Mater. Tech-
nol., Vol 5, 2020, p 1900981, https://
doi.org/10.1002/ADMT.201900981
32. A. Reichardt, A.A. Shapiro, R. Otis, R.P.
Dillon, J.P. Borgonia, B.W. McEnerney,
P. Hosemann, and A.M. Beese, Advances
in Additive Manufacturing of Metal-
Based Functionally Graded Materials,
Int. Mater. Rev., Vol 66, 2020, p 1–29,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09506608.2019.
1709354
33. M. Ansari, E. Jabari, and E. Toyserkani,
Opportunities and Challenges in Additive
Manufacturing of Functionally Graded
Metallic Materials via Powder-Fed Laser
Directed Energy Deposition: A Review,
J. Mater. Process. Technol., Vol 294,
2021, p 117117, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jmatprotec.2021.117117

34. R. Ghanavati and H. Naffakh-Moosavy,
Additive Manufacturing of Functionally
Graded Metallic Materials: A Review of
Experimental and Numerical Studies, J.
Mater. Res. Technol., Vol 13, 2021,
p 1628–1664, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JMRT.2021.05.022
35. K. Amato, J. Hernandez, L.E. Murr, E.
Martinez, S.M. Gaytan, P.W. Shindo,
and S. Collins, Comparison of Micro-
structures and Properties for a Ni-Base
Superalloy (Alloy 625) Fabricated by
Electron Beam Melting, J. Mater. Sci.
Res., Vol 1, 2012, p 3, https://doi.org/
10.5539/JMSR.V1N2P3
36. L.E. Murr, S.M. Gaytan, D.A. Ramirez,
E. Martinez, J. Hernandez, K.N. Amato,
P.W. Shindo, F.R. Medina, and R.B.
Wicker, Metal Fabrication by Additive
Manufacturing Using Laser and Electron
Beam Melting Technologies, J. Mater.
Sci. Technol., Vol 28, 2012, p 1–14,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1005-0302(12)
60016-4
37. O.G. Rivera, P.G. Allison, J.B. Jordon, O.
L. Rodriguez, L.N. Brewer, Z. McClel-
land, W.R. Whittington, D. Francis, J. Su,
R.L. Martens, and N. Hardwick, Micro-
structures and Mechanical Behavior of
Inconel 625 Fabricated by Solid-State
Additive Manufacturing, Mater. Sci. Eng.
A, Vol 694, 2017, p 1–9, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.msea.2017.03.105
38. G. Marchese, X.G. Colera, F. Calignano,
M. Lorusso, S. Biamino, P. Minetola, and
D. Manfredi, Characterization and Com-
parison of Inconel 625 Processed by
Selective Laser Melting and Laser Metal
Deposition, Adv. Eng. Mater., Vol 19,
2017, p 1600635
39. N. Tuncer and A. Bose, Solid-State Metal
Additive Manufacturing: A Review,
JOM, Vol 72, 2020, p 3090–3111, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11837-020-04260-y
40. G. Mladenov, E. Koleva, L. Koleva, and
V. Dzharov, State of the Arts of Additive
Manufacturing by Selective Electron
Beam Melting, Electrotech. Electron.,
Vol 51, 2016, p 14–24
41. Z. Tian, C. Zhang, D. Wang, W. Liu, X.
Fang, W. Daniel, Y. Zhao, and T. Tian, A
Review on Laser Powder Bed Fusion of
Inconel 625, Appl. Sci., Vol 10, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.3390/app10010081
42. J.-R. Zhao, F.-Y. Hung, C.-S. Lu, and I.-C.
Lai, Comparison of Laser Powder Bed
Fusion and Cast Inconel 713 Alloy in
Terms of Their Microstructure, Mechanical
Properties, and Fatigue Life, Adv. Eng.
Mater., Vol 23, 2021, p 2001366, https://
doi.org/10.1002/ADEM.202001366
43. R. Udroiu, Additive Manufacturing
Technologies Used for Superalloys Pro-
cessing, MATEC Web Conf., Vol 94,
2014, p 35–41
44. W. Wong, E. Irissou, P. Vo, M. Sone, F.
Bernier, J.-G. Legoux, H. Fukanuma, and
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
Metal Additive Manufacturing in the Space Industry / 451
S. Yue, Cold Spray Forming of Inconel
718, J. Therm. Spray Technol., Vol 22,
2012, p 413–421, https://doi.org/10.1007/
S11666-012-9827-1
45. P. Kumar, J. Farah, J. Akram, C. Teng, J.
Ginn, and M. Misra, Influence of Proces-
sing Parameters on Properties of Inconel
718, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., Vol
103, 2019, p 1497–1507
46. M.M. Kirka, F. Medina, R. Dehoff, and
A. Okello, Mechanical Behavior of
Post-Processed Inconel 718 Manufactured
through the Electron Beam Melting Pro-
cess, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol 680, 2017,
p 338–346, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MSEA.
2016.10.069
47. A.N. Jinoop, C.P. Paul, S.K. Mishra, and
K.S. Bindra, Laser Additive
Manufacturing Using Directed Energy
Deposition of Inconel-718 Wall Struc-
tures with Tailored Characteristics, Vac-
uum, Vol 166, 2019, p 270–278, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.vacuum.2019.05.027
48. X. Wang, X. Gong, and K. Chou, Review
on Powder-Bed Laser Additive Manu-
facturing of Inconel 718 Parts, Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. B, J. Eng. Manuf., Vol 231,
2017, p 1890–1903, https://doi.org/10.1177/
0954405415619883
49. P. Karimi, E. Sadeghi, J. Ålgårdh, P. Har-
lin, and J. Andersson, Effect of Build
Location on Microstructural Characteris-
tics and Corrosion Behavior of EB-PBF
Built Alloy 718, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech-
nol., Vol 106, 2020, p 3597–3607, https://
doi.org/10.1007/S00170-019-04859-9
50. S. Bagherifard, S. Monti, M.V. Zuccoli,
M. Riccio, J. Kondás, and M. Guagliano,
Cold Spray Deposition for Additive
Manufacturing of Freeform Structural
Components Compared to Selective
Laser Melting, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol
721, 2018, p 339–350, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MSEA.2018.02.094
51. Y.-N. Zhang, X. Cao, P. Wanjara, and M.
Medraj, Tensile Properties of Laser
Additive Manufactured Inconel 718
Using Filler Wire, J. Mater. Res., Vol
29, 2014, p 2006–2020, https://doi.org/
10.1557/JMR.2014.199
52. C.R. Cunningham, J.M. Flynn, A. Shok-
rani, V. Dhokia, and S.T. Newman,
Invited Review Article: Strategies and
Processes for High Quality Wire Arc
Additive Manufacturing, Addit. Manuf.,
Vol 22, 2018, p 672–686, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.ADDMA.2018.06.020
53. J. Schneider, Comparison of Microstruc-
tural Response to Heat Treatment of
Inconel 718 Prepared by Three Different
Metal Additive Manufacturing Processes,
JOM, Vol 72, 2020, p 1085–1091, https://
doi.org/10.1007/S11837-020-04021-X
54. B. Lim, H. Chen, Z. Chen, N. Haghdadi, X.
Liao, S. Primig, S.S. Babu, A.J. Breen, and
S.P. Ringer, Microstructure-Property Gra-
dients in Ni-Based Superalloy (Inconel
738) Additively Manufactured via Elec-
tron Beam Powder Bed Fusion, Addit.
Manuf., Vol 46, 2021, p 102121
55. A. Ramakrishnan and G.P. Dinda, Direct
Laser Metal Deposition of Inconel 738,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol 740–741, 2019,
p 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MSEA.
2018.10.020
56. K. Kunze, T. Etter, J. Grässlin, and V.
Shklover, Texture, Anisotropy in Micro-
structure and Mechanical Properties of
IN738LC Alloy Processed by Selective
Laser Melting (SLM), Mater. Sci. Eng.
A, Vol 620, 2015, p 213–222
57. N. Menon, T.H. Mahdi, and A. Basak,
Microstructure of IN738LC Fabricated
Using Laser Powder Bed Fusion Addi-
tive Manufacturing, J. Turbomach.,
2021, p 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1115/
1.4052404
58. B.V. Padmini, D.G. Bhosale, and H.B.
Niranjan, A Study of T11 Boiler Steel
Protection by Cold Sprayed Inconel 738
Coating against High Temperature Ero-
sion, Surf. Interfaces, Vol 23, 2021,
p 101002, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SURFIN.
2021.101002
59. J. Norrish, J. Polden, and I. Richardson,
A Review of Wire Arc Additive
Manufacturing: Development, Principles,
Process Physics, Implementation and
Current Status, J. Phys. D, Appl. Phys.,
Vol 54, 2021, p 473001, https://doi.org/
10.1088/1361-6463/ac1e4a
60. P. Kanagarajah, F. Brenne, T. Niendorf,
and H.J. Maier, Inconel 939 Processed
by Selective Laser Melting: Effect of
Microstructure and Temperature on the
Mechanical Properties under Static and
Cyclic Loading, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol
588, 2013, p 188–195, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MSEA.2013.09.025
61. Y. Li, X. Liang, Y. Yu, H. Li, W. Kan,
and F. Lin, Microstructures and Mechan-
ical Properties Evolution of IN939 Alloy
during Electron Beam Selective Melting
Process, J. Alloy. Compd., Vol 883,
2021, p 160934, https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.JALLCOM.2021.160934
62. M.D. Barath Kumar and M. Manikandan,
Assessment of Process, Parameters,
Residual Stress Mitigation, Post Treatments
and Finite Element Analysis Simulations of
Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing Tech-
nique, Met. Mater. Int., Vol 28, 2022,
p 54–111, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12540-
021-01015-5
63. M. Romedenne, R. Pillai, M. Kirka, and S.
Dryepondt, High Temperature Air Oxida-
tion Behavior of Hastelloy X Processed
by Electron Beam Melting (EBM) and
Selective Laser Melting (SLM), Corros.
Sci., Vol 171, 2020, p 108647, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.CORSCI.2020.108647
64. D. Tomus, Y. Tian, P.A. Rometsch, M.
Heilmaier, and X. Wu, Influence of Post
Heat Treatments on Anisotropy of
 452 / Applications of Additive Manufacturing
Mechanical Behaviour and Microstruc-
ture of Hastelloy-X Parts Produced by
Selective Laser Melting, Mater. Sci.
Eng. A, Vol 667, 2016, p 42–53, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.MSEA.2016.04.086
65. R. Ghiaasiaan, M. Muhammad, P.R.
Gradl, S. Shao, and N. Shamsaei, Superior
Tensile Properties of Hastelloy X Enabled
by Additive Manufacturing, Mater. Res.
Lett., Vol 9, 2021, p 308–314, https://doi.
org/10.1080/21663831.2021.1911870
66. M. Dinovitzer, X. Chen, J. Laliberte, X.
Huang, and H. Frei, Effect of Wire and
Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM)
Process Parameters on Bead Geometry
and Microstructure, Addit. Manuf., Vol
26, 2019, p 138–146, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ADDMA.2018.12.013
67. C. Tan, F. Weng, S. Sui, Y. Chew, and G.
Bi, Progress and Perspectives in Laser
Additive Manufacturing of Key Aeroen-
gine Materials, Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf.,
Vol 170, 2021, p 135907, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2021.103804
68. T. Bauer, K. Dawson, A.B. Spierings,
and K. Wegener, Microstructure and
Mechanical Characterisation of SLM
Processed Haynes 230, Proc. 26th Annu.
Int. Solid Freeform Fabrication Sympo-
sium, 2015, p 813–822, https://doi.org/
10.3929/ethz-a-010584903
69. N. Shamsaei, A. Yadollahi, L. Bian, and
S.M. Thompson, An Overview of Direct
Laser Deposition for Additive Manu-
facturing, Part II: Mechanical Behavior,
Process Parameter Optimization and
Control, Addit. Manuf., Vol 8, 2015,
p 12–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.
2015.07.002
70. M. Haack, M. Kuczyk, A. Seidel, E.
López, F. Brueckner, and C. Leyens, Com-
prehensive Study on the Formation of
Grain Boundary Serrations in Additively
Manufactured Haynes 230 Alloy, Mater.
Charact., Vol 160, 2020, p 110092,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATCHAR.
2019.110092
71. Z. GaoLe, J. Yun, H. XiaoAn, H. Jia, W.
JinWu, and W. Yun, High-Temperature
Mechanical Properties of Nickel-Based
Superalloys Manufactured by Additive
Manufacturing, Mater. Sci. Technol.,
Vol 36, 2020, p 1523–1533, https://doi.
org/10.1080/02670836.2020.1799137
72. M.A. Alvin, Materials and Component
Development for Advanced Turbine Sys-
tems: Project Summary, Proc. ASME
Turbo Expo, Vol 1, 2010, p 1005–1016,
https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2010-23173
73. P.R. Gradl and C.S. Protz, Technology
Advancements for Channel Wall Nozzle
Manufacturing in Liquid Rocket Engines,
Acta Astronaut., Vol 174, 2020, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.04.067
74. S. Rathee, M. Srivastava, P.M. Pandey,
A. Mahawar, and S. Shukla, Metal
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
Additive Manufacturing Using Friction
Stir Engineering: A Review on Micro-
structural Evolution, Tooling and Design
Strategies, CIRP J. Manuf. Sci. Technol.,
Vol 35, 2021, p 560–588, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cirpj.2021.08.003
75. K.A. Unocic, M.M. Kirka, E. Cakmak,
D. Greeley, A.O. Okello, and S. Drye-
pondt, Evaluation of Additive Electron
Beam Melting of Haynes 282 Alloy,
Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol 772, 2020,
p 138607, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MSEA.
2019.138607
76. A. Kumar Srivastava, N. Kumar, and A.
Rai Dixit, Friction Stir Additive
Manufacturing—An Innovative Tool to
Enhance Mechanical and Microstructural
Properties, Mater. Sci. Eng. B, Vol 263,
2021, p 114832, https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.MSEB.2020.114832
77. T.A. Rodrigues, V. Duarte, R.M. Miranda,
T.G. Santos, and J.P. Oliveira, Current Sta-
tus and Perspectives on Wire and Arc
Additive Manufacturing (WAAM), Mate-
rials, Vol 12, 2019, https://doi.org/10.
3390/ma12071121
78. A.W. Gebisa and H.G. Lemu, Additive
Manufacturing for the Manufacture of
Gas Turbine Engine Components: Litera-
ture Review and Future Perspectives,
Proc. ASME Turbo Expo 2018: Turbo-
machinery Technical Conference and
Exposition (Oslo, Norway), 2018,
https://doi.org/10.1115/GT2018-76686
79. O. Marenych, A. Kostryzhev, C. Shen, Z.
Pan, H. Li, and S. van Duin, Precipitation
Strengthening in Ni-Cu Alloys Fabricated
Using Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing
Technology, Metals (Basel), Vol 9, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.3390/met9010105
80. A.R. Kannan, S.M. Kumar, R. Pramod,
N.P. Kumar, N.S. Shanmugam, and Y.
Palguna, Microstructure and Mechanical
Properties of Wire Arc Additive Manu-
factured Bi-Metallic Structure, Sci. Tech-
nol. Weld. Join., Vol 26, 2020, p 47–57,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13621718.2020.
1833140
81. E. Strandh, P. Mellin, S. Dubiez-Le Goff,
J. Gårdstam, M. Ahlfors, and A. Strondl,
Surface Pick-Up of Argon during Hot
Isostatic Pressing of Material Built by
Laser Powder Bed Fusion, Addit. Manuf.,
Vol 38, 2021, p 101763, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.addma.2020.101763
82. L.E. Murr, E. Martinez, X.M. Pan, S.M.
Gaytan, J.A. Castro, C.A. Terrazas, F.
Medina, R.B. Wicker, and D.H. Abbott,
Microstructures of Rene 142 Nickel-Based
Superalloy Fabricated by Electron Beam
Melting, Acta Mater., Vol 61, 2013,
p 4289–4296, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ACTAMAT.2013.04.002
83. L. Sexton, S. Lavin, G. Byrne, and A.
Kennedy, Laser Cladding of Aerospace
Materials, J. Mater. Process. Technol.,
Vol 122, 2002, p 63–68, https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0924-0136(01)01121-9
84. A. Basak, Additive Manufacturing of
High-Gamma Prime Nickel-Based Super-
alloys through Selective Laser Melting
(SLM), Proc. 30th Annual Int. Solid Free-
form Fabrication Symposium—An Addi-
tive Manufacturing Conference, 2019,
p 554–575
85. S. Vezzù, S. Rech, E. Vedelago, G.P.
Zanon, G. Alfeo, A. Scialpi, and R.
Huang, On Deposition of Waspaloy
Coatings by Cold Spray, Surg. Eng.,
Vol 30, 2014, p 342–351, https://doi.
org/10.1179/1743294413Y.0000000199
86. N.I.S. Hussein, J. Segal, D.G. McCart-
ney, and I.R. Pashby, Microstructure For-
mation in Waspaloy Multilayer Builds
following Direct Metal Deposition with
Laser and Wire, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol
497, 2008, p 260–269, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MSEA.2008.07.021
87. K.A. Mumtaz, P. Erasenthiran, and N.
Hopkinson, High Density Selective Laser
Melting of Waspaloy, J. Mater. Process.
Technol., Vol 195, 2008, p 77–87,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.
04.117
88. N. Haghdadi, M. Laleh, M. Moyle, and
S. Primig, Additive Manufacturing of
Steels: A Review of Achievements and
Challenges, J. Mater. Sci., Vol 56,
2021, p 64–107, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10853-020-05109-0
89. A. Zadi-Maad, R. Rohib, and A. Irawan,
Additive Manufacturing for Steels: A
Review, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci.
Eng., Vol 285, 2018, https://doi.org/
10.1088/1757-899X/285/1/012028
90. S.M. Thompson, L. Bian, N. Shamsaei,
and A. Yadollahi, An Overview of Direct
Laser Deposition for Additive Manu-
facturing, Part I: Transport Phenomena,
Modeling and Diagnostics, Addit. Manuf.,
Vol 8, 2015, p 36–62, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.addma.2015.07.001
91. J. Wanwan, Z. Chaoqun, J. Shuoya, T.
Yingtao, W. Daniel, and L. Wen, Wire
Arc Additive Manufacturing of Stainless
Steels: A Review, Appl. Sci. (Switzer-
land), 2020
92. M. Galati, P. Minetola, and G. Rizza, Sur-
face Roughness Characterisation and
Analysis of the Electron Beam Melting
(EBM) Process, Materials, Vol 12, 2019,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12132211
93. M. Marya, V. Singh, J.Y. Hascoet, and S.
Marya, A Metallurgical Investigation of
the Direct Energy Deposition Surface
Repair of Ferrous Alloys, J. Mater. Eng.
Perform., Vol 27, 2018, p 813–824,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11665-017-3117-5
94. M.Y. Panchenko, G.G. Maier, V.A.
Moskvina, E.V. Melnikov, S.V. Asta-
furov, V.E. Rubtsov, E.A. Kolubaev,
and E.G. Astafurova, Microstructural

Inhomogeneity of Phase Composition
and Grain Structure in Electron Beam
Wire-Feed Additive Manufactured AISI
304 Stainless Steel, AIP Conf. Proc.,
Vol 2167, 2019, p 020261, https://doi.
org/10.1063/1.5132128
95. V. Gopan, K. Leo Dev Wins, and A. Sur-
endran, Innovative Potential of Additive
Friction Stir Deposition among Current
Laser Based Metal Additive Manu-
facturing Processes: A Review, CIRP J.
Manuf. Sci. Technol., Vol 32, 2021,
p 228–248, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CIRPJ.
2020.12.004
96. J. Gordon, J. Hochhalter, C. Haden, and
D.G. Harlow, Enhancement in Fatigue
Performance of Metastable Austenitic
Stainless Steel through Directed Energy
Deposition Additive Manufacturing,
Mater. Des., Vol 168, 2019, p 107630,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.
107630
97. H. Yeom, T. Dabney, N. Pocquette, K.
Ross, F.E. Pfefferkorn, and K. Sridharan,
Cold Spray Deposition of 304L Stainless
Steel to Mitigate Chloride-Induced Stress
Corrosion Cracking in Canisters for Used
Nuclear Fuel Storage, J. Nucl. Mater.,
Vol 538, 2020, p 152254, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.JNUCMAT.2020.152254
98. M.O. Shaikh, C.C. Chen, H.C. Chiang, J.
R. Chen, Y.C. Chou, T.Y. Kuo, K.
Ameyama, and C.H. Chuang, Additive
Manufacturing Using Fine Wire-Based
Laser Metal Deposition, Rapid Prototyp.
J., Vol 26, 2020, p 473–483, https://doi.
org/10.1108/RPJ-04-2019-0110
99. V.R. Utyaganova, A.V. Filippov, N.N.
Shamarin, A.V. Vorontsov, N.L. Sav-
chenko, S.V. Fortuna, D.A. Gurianov,
A.V. Chumaevskii, V.E. Rubtsov, and
S.Y. Tarasov, Controlling the Porosity
Using Exponential Decay Heat Input
Regimes during Electron Beam Wire-
Feed Additive Manufacturing of Al-Mg
Alloy, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., Vol
108, 2020, p 2823–2838, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00170-020-05539-9
100. A. Hehr and M. Norfolk, A Comprehen-
sive Review of Ultrasonic Additive
Manufacturing, Rapid Prototyp. J., Vol
26, 2020, p 445–458, https://doi.org/
10.1108/RPJ-03-2019-0056
101. A. Sova, S. Grigoriev, A. Okunkova, and
I. Smurov, Cold Spray Deposition of
316L Stainless Steel Coatings on Alu-
minium Surface with Following Laser
Post-Treatment, Surf. Coat. Technol.,
Vol 235, 2013, p 283–289, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.SURFCOAT.2013.07.052
102. T.A. Kalashnikova, E.S. Khoroshko, A.V.
Chumaevskii, and A.V. Filippov, Surface
Morphology of 321 Stainless Steel
Obtained by Electron-Beam Wire-Feed
Additive Manufacturing Technology, AIP
Conf. Proc., Vol 2051, 2018, p 020114,
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5083357
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
Metal Additive Manufacturing in the Space Industry / 453
103. P.A. Kuznetsov, I.V. Shakirov, A.S.
Zukov, V.V. Bobyr’, and M.V. Starytsin,
Effect of Particle Size Distribution on the
Structure and Mechanical Properties in
the Process of Laser Powder Bed Fusion,
J. Phys., 2021, https://doi.org/10.1088/
1742-6596/1758/1/012021
104. S.M. Kumar, R. Sasikumar, A.R. Kannan,
R. Pramod, N.P. Kumar, N.S. Shanmugam,
and M. Vishnukumar, Microstructural
Administered Mechanical Properties and
Corrosion Behaviour of Wire Plus Arc
Additive Manufactured SS 321 Plate, Proc.
Inst. Mech. Eng. C, J. Mech Eng. Sci., Vol
235, 2021, p 095440622110420, https://doi.
org/10.1177/09544062211042039
105. R. Duraisamy, S.M. Kumar, A.R. Kan-
nan, N.S. Shanmugam, and K. Sankara-
narayanasamy, Fatigue Behavior of
Austenitic Stainless Steel 347 Fabricated
via Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing, J.
Mater. Eng. Perform., Vol 30, 2021,
p 6844–6850, https://doi.org/10.1007/
S11665-021-06033-3
106. P. Wanjara, M. Brochu, and M. Jahazi,
Electron Beam Freeforming of Stainless
Steel Using Solid Wire Feed, Mater.
Des., Vol 28, 2007, p 2278–2286, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.MATDES.2006.08.008
107. T. Han, C.H. Kuo, N. Sridharan, L.M.
Headings, S.S. Babu, and M.J. Dapino,
Effect of Preheat Temperature and Post-
Process Treatment on the Microstructure
and Mechanical Properties of Stainless
Steel 410 Made via Ultrasonic Additive
Manufacturing, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol
769, 2020, p 138457, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MSEA.2019.138457
108. M. Kottman, S. Zhang, J. McGuffin-
Cawley, P. Denney, and B.K. Narayanan,
Laser Hot Wire Process: A Novel Pro-
cess for Near-Net Shape Fabrication for
High-Throughput Applications, JOM,
Vol 67, 2015, p 622–628, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11837-014-1288-1
109. B. Zhu, J. Lin, Y. Lei, Y. Zhang, Q. Sun,
and S. Cheng, Additively Manufactured
d-Ferrite-Free 410 Stainless Steel with
Desirable Performance, Mater. Lett.,
Vol 293, 2021, p 129579, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.MATLET.2021.129579
110. M.K. Alam, M. Mehdi, R.J. Urbanic, and
A. Edrisy, Mechanical Behavior of Addi-
tive Manufactured AISI 420 Martensitic
Stainless Steel, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol
773, 2020, p 138815, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MSEA.2019.138815
111. I. Zetková, L. Kučerová, M. Zetek, J.
Česánek, P. Hanzl, M. Dana, M. Nozar,
and J. Kána, Evaluation of Metal Powder
for Additive Manufacturing of Maraging
Steel, Ann. DAAAM Proc. Int. DAAAM
Symp., 2017, p 410–416, https://doi.org/
10.2507/28th.daaam.proceedings.057
112. A. Dass and A. Moridi, State of the Art
in Directed Energy Deposition: From
Additive Manufacturing to Materials
Design, Coatings, Vol 9, 2019, p 418,
https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings9070418
113. A. Levy, A. Miriyev, N. Sridharan, T.
Han, E. Tuval, S.S. Babu, M.J. Dapino,
and N. Frage, Ultrasonic Additive Manu-
facturing of Steel: Method, Post-Proces-
sing Treatments and Properties, J. Mater.
Process. Technol., Vol 256, 2018, p 183–
189, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMATPRO
TEC.2018.02.001
114. A.A. Hassen, M. Noakes, P. Nandwana, S.
Kim, V. Kunc, U. Vaidya, L. Love, and A.
Nycz, Scaling Up Metal Additive
Manufacturing Process to Fabricate Molds
for Composite Manufacturing, Addit.
Manuf., Vol 32, 2020, p 101093, https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDMA.2020.101093
115. C. Qiu, N.J.E. Adkins, and M.M. Attallah,
Selective Laser Melting of Invar 36: Micro-
structure and Properties, Acta Mater., Vol
103, 2016, p 382–395, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ACTAMAT.2015.10.020
116. M. Yakout, M.A. Elbestawi, and S.C.
Veldhuis, A Review of Metal Additive
Manufacturing Technologies, Solid State
Phenom., Vol 278, 2018, p 1–14, https://
doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/SSP.
278.1
117. C. Chen, Y. Xie, L. Liu, R. Zhao, X. Jin,
S. Li, R. Huang, J. Wang, H. Liao, and Z.
Ren, Cold Spray Additive Manufacturing
of Invar 36 Alloy: Microstructure, Ther-
mal Expansion and Mechanical Proper-
ties, Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol 72, 2021,
p 39–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JMST.
2020.07.038
118. P.R. Gradl, C. Protz, and T. Wammen,
Additive Manufacturing Development
and Hot-Fire Testing of Liquid Rocket
Channel Wall Nozzles Using Blown
Powder Directed Energy Deposition
Inconel 625 and JBK-75 Alloys, AIAA
Propulsion and Energy Forum and Expo-
sition, American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics Inc., 2019, https://doi.
org/10.2514/6.2019-4362
119. P. Bhaskar, “Investigation of LPBF Built
JBK-75 Stainless Steel,” University
West, 2021
120. Z.C. Jones and P.R. Gradl, Powder Bed
Fusion Additive Manufacturing of JBK-
75, JANNAF Joint Propulsion Confer-
ence, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, 2019, p 148–162
121. P.S. Chen, C.C. Katsarelis, W.M. Med-
ders, and P.R. Gradl, “Segregation Evo-
lution and Diffusion of Titanium in
Directed Energy Deposited NASA HR-
1,” National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, 2021
122. P.R. Gradl, C. Protz, J. Fikes, A. Clark,
L. Evans, S. Miller, D. Ellis, and T. Hud-
son, Lightweight Thrust Chamber
Assemblies Using Multi-Alloy Additive
Manufacturing and Composite Overwrap,
AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum,
American Institute of Aeronautics and
 454 / Applications of Additive Manufacturing
Astronautics Inc., 2020, p 1–25, https://
doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-3787
123. P. Tarafder, C. Rock, and T. Horn,
Quasi-Static Tensile Properties of Unal-
loyed Copper Produced by Electron
Beam Powder Bed Fusion Additive
Manufacturing, Materials, Vol 14, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14112932
124. J. Huang, X. Yan, C. Chang, Y. Xie, W.
Ma, R. Huang, R. Zhao, S. Li, M. Liu,
and H. Liao, Pure Copper Components
Fabricated by Cold Spray (CS) and
Selective Laser Melting (SLM) Technol-
ogy, Surf. Coat. Technol., Vol 395, 2020,
p 125936, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surf
coat. 2020.125936
125. Q. Jiang, P. Zhang, Z. Yu, H. Shi, D. Wu,
H. Yan, X. Ye, Q. Lu, and Y. Tian, A
Review on Additive Manufacturing of
Pure Copper, Coatings, Vol 11, 2021,
https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11060740
126. J.D. Martin, Exploring Additive Manu-
facturing Processes for Direct 3D Printing
of Copper Induction Coils, Proc. ASME
Int. Mechanical Engineering Congress
and Exposition, Vol 2, 2018, https://doi.
org/10.1115/IMECE2017-71685
127. T.J. Horn and D. Gamzina, Additive
Manufacturing of Copper and Copper
Alloys, Additive Manufacturing Pro-
cesses, Vol 24, ASM Handbook, ASM
International, 2020, p 388–418, https://
doi.org/10.31399/asm.hb.v24.a0006579
128. A. Panfilov, E. Knyazhev, T. Kalashni-
kova, K. Kalashnikov, S. Nikonov, and
A. Gusarova, Deformation Uniformity
of Additively Manufactured Materials
on the Example of Austenitic Stainless
Steel 321 and Copper C11000, J. Phys.
Conf. Ser., Vol 1611, 2020, p 12005,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1611/
1/012005
129. P.R. Gradl, T.W. Teasley, C.S. Protz, M.
B. Garcia, D. Ellis, and C. Kantzos,
Advancing GRCop-Based Bimetallic
Additive Manufacturing to Optimize
Component Design and Applications for
Liquid Rocket Engines, AIAA Propulsion
and Energy Forum, 2021, p 1–28, https://
doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3231
130. K.G. Cooper, J.L. Lydon, M.D. Lecorre,
and Z.C. Jones, “Three-Dimensional
Printing GRCop-42,” National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration, 2019
131. T. Suresh, S. Landes, T. Letcher, A. Prasad,
P. Gradl, and D. Ellis, Nanomechanical
Characterization of Additively Manufac-
tured GRCop-42 Alloy Developed by
Directed Energy Deposition Methods, Int.
Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exposition, 2020, p 1–7, https://doi.org/
10.1115/IMECE2020-24400
132. P.R. Gradl, C.S. Protz, S.E. Greene, D.L.
Ellis, B.A. Lerch, and I.E. Locci, Devel-
opment and Hot-Fire Testing of Addi-
tively Manufactured Copper Combustion
Chambers for Liquid Rocket Engine
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
Applications, 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Reston, VA, 2017, p 1–27, https://doi.org/
10.2514/6.2017-4670
133. A.H. Seltzman and S.J. Wukitch, Surface
Roughness and Finishing Techniques in
Selective Laser Melted GRCop-84 Cop-
per for an Additive Manufactured Lower
Hybrid Current Drive Launcher, Fusion
Eng. Des., Vol 160, 2020, p 111801,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2020.
111801
134. P.R. Gradl, C. Protz, K. Zagorski, V.
Doshi, and H. McCallum, Additive
Manufacturing and Hot-Fire Testing of
Bimetallic GRCop-84 and C-18150
Channel-Cooled Combustion Chambers
Using Powder Bed Fusion and Inconel
625 Hybrid Directed Energy Deposition,
AIAA Propulsion and Energy Forum
and Exposition, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc., 2019,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2019-4390
135. T.W. Teasley, P.R. Gradl, M.B. Garcia,
B.B. Williams, and C.S. Protz, Extreme
Environment Hot Fire Durability of
Post Processed Additively Manufac-
tured GRCop-Alloy Combustion Cham-
bers, AIAA Propulsion and Energy
Forum, 2021, p 1–20, https://doi.org/
10.2514/6.2021-3233
136. A.H. Seltzman and S.J. Wukitch, Resolu-
tion and Geometric Limitations in Laser
Powder Bed Fusion Additively Manufac-
tured GRCop-84 Structures for a Lower
Hybrid Current Drive Launcher, Fusion
Eng. Des., Vol 173, 2021, p 112847,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fusengdes.2021.
112847
137. R.P. Minneci, E.A. Lass, J.R. Bunn, H.
Choo, and C.J. Rawn, Copper-Based Alloys
for Structural High-Heat-Flux Applica-
tions: A Review of Development, Proper-
ties, and Performance of Cu-Rich Cu-Cr-
Nb Alloys, Int. Mater. Rev., Vol 66, 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1080/09506608.2020.
1821485
138. F. Kerstens, A. Cervone, and P. Gradl, End
to End Process Evaluation for Additively
Manufactured Liquid Rocket Engine
Thrust Chambers, Acta Astronaut., Vol
182, 2021, p 454–465, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.actaastro.2021.02.034
139. C. Zeng, H. Wen, B.C. Bernard, J.R.
Raush, P.R. Gradl, M. Khonsari, and S.
M. Guo, Effect of Temperature History
on Thermal Properties of Additively Man-
ufactured C-18150 Alloy Samples, Manuf.
Lett., Vol 28, 2021, p 25–29, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2021.02.002
140. P.R. Gradl, Rapid Fabrication Techniques
for Liquid Rocket Channel Wall Nozzles,
52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
Conference, American Institute of Aero-
nautics and Astronautics Inc., 2016,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-4771
141. T. Wegener, J. Koopmann, J. Richter, P.
Krooß, and T. Niendorf, CuCrZr Pro-
cessed by Laser Powder Bed Fusion—
Processability and Influence of Heat
Treatment on Electrical Conductivity,
Microstructure and Mechanical Proper-
ties, Fatigue Fract. Eng. Mater. Struct.,
Vol 44, 2021, p 2570–2590, https://doi.
org/10.1111/ffe.13527
142. C. Salvan, L. Briottet, T. Baffie, L. Gue-
taz, and C. Flament, CuCrZr Alloy Pro-
duced by Laser Powder Bed Fusion:
Microstructure, Nanoscale Strengthening
Mechanisms, Electrical and Mechanical
Properties, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol 826,
2021, p 141915, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.msea.2021.141915
143. S. Moriya, T. Inoue, M. Sasaki, T. Naka-
moto, T. Kimura, N. Nomura, K. Kiku-
chi, A. Kawasaki, T. Kato, and I.
Masuda, Feasibility Study on Additive
Manufacturing of Liquid Rocket Com-
bustion Chamber, Trans. Jpn. Soc. Aero-
naut. Space Sci., Vol 16, 2018, p 261–
266, https://doi.org/10.2322/tastj.16.261
144. Y. Bai, C. Zhao, Y. Zhang, J. Chen, and H.
Wang, Additively Manufactured CuCrZr
Alloy: Microstructure, Mechanical Prop-
erties and Machinability, Mater. Sci. Eng.
A, Vol 819, 2021, p 141528, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.msea.2021.141528
145. C. Zeng, H. Wen, B.C. Bernard, H. Ding, J.
R. Raush, P.R. Gradl, M. Khonsari, and S.
Guo, Tensile Properties of Additively
Manufactured C-18150 Copper Alloys,
Met. Mater. Int., Vol 28, 2022, p 168–
180, https://doi.org/10.1007/S12540-021-
01052-0
146. M.A. Melnikova, A.U. Shishov, A.A.
Kholopov, A.I. Misyurov, A.V. Perestor-
onin, and A.R. Smirnov, Application
Features of Laser Coaxial Melting of
Powder Materials to Produce Objects
from Copper Alloys, AIP Conf. Proc.,
Vol 2318, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1063/
5.0035860
147. S.D. Jadhav, P.P. Dhekne, S. Dadbakhsh,
J.P. Kruth, J. Van Humbeeck, and K.
Vanmeensel, Surface Modified Copper
Alloy Powder for Reliable Laser-Based
Additive Manufacturing, Addit. Manuf.,
Vol 35, 2020, p 101418, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.ADDMA.2020.101418
148. P.R. Gradl, S.E. Greene, C. Protz, B. Bul-
lard, J. Buzzell, C. Garcia, J. Wood, K.G.
Cooper, J. Hulka, and R. Osborne, Additive
Manufacturing of Liquid Rocket Engine
Combustion Devices: A Summary of Pro-
cess Developments and Hot-Fire Testing
Results, 2018 Joint Propulsion Confer-
ence, American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 2018,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-4625
149. P. Sudharshan Phani, V. Vishnukanthan,
and G. Sundararajan, Effect of Heat Treat-
ment on Properties of Cold Sprayed Nano-
crystalline Copper Alumina Coatings,

Acta Mater., Vol 55, 2007, p 4741–4751,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ACTAMAT.
2007.04.044
150. Y. Li, Y. Liu, and H. Peng, Laser Net Shape
Manufacturing of Haynes 188 Alloy, Int.
Congress on Applications of Lasers and
Electro-Optics, Vol 2008, 2018, p 506,
https://doi.org/10.2351/1.5061320
151. P.K. Gokuldoss, S. Kolla, and J. Eckert,
Additive Manufacturing Processes:
Selective Laser Melting, Electron Beam
Melting and Binder Jetting-Selection
Guidelines, Materials, Vol 10, 2017,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma10060672
152. Z. Zhang, F. Kong, and R. Kovacevic,
Laser Hot-Wire Cladding of Co-Cr-W
Metal Cored Wire, Opt. Lasers Eng., Vol
128, 2020, p 105998, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.OPTLASENG.2019.105998
153. N. Cinca, E. López, S. Dosta, and J.M.
Guilemany, Study of Stellite-6 Deposi-
tion by Cold Gas Spraying, Surf. Coat.
Technol., Vol 232, 2013, p 891–898,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SURFCOAT.
2013.06.120
154. B. Ren, M. Zhang, C. Chen, X. Wang, T.
Zou, and Z. Hu, Effect of Heat Treatment
on Microstructure and Mechanical Proper-
ties of Stellite 12 Fabricated by Laser Addi-
tive Manufacturing, J. Mater. Eng.
Perform., Vol 26, 2017, p 5404–5413,
https://doi.org/10.1007/S11665-017-2984-0
155. P. Magarò, A.L. Marino, A. Di Schino, F.
Furgiuele, C. Maletta, R. Pileggi, E. Sgam-
bitterra, C. Testani, and M. Tului, Effect of
Process Parameters on the Properties of
Stellite-6 Coatings Deposited by Cold
Gas Dynamic Spray, Surf. Coat. Technol.,
Vol 377, 2019, p 124934, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.SURFCOAT.2019.124934
156. P. Agrawal, R.S. Haridas, S. Yadav, S.
Thapliyal, S. Gaddam, R. Verma, and
R.S. Mishra, Processing-Structure-Prop-
erty Correlation in Additive Friction Stir
Deposited Ti-6Al-4V Alloy from
Recycled Metal Chips, Addit. Manuf.,
Vol 47, 2021, p 102259, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.addma.2021.102259
157. 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, 2016,
p 641–647, https://doi.org/10.1179/1743
284715Y.0000000073
158. M. Vaezi, P. Drescher, and H. Seitz,
Beamless Metal Additive Manufacturing,
Materials, Vol 13, 2020, https://doi.org/
10.3390/ma13040922
159. Z. Lin, K. Song, and X. Yu, A Review on
Wire and Arc Additive Manufacturing of
Titanium Alloy, J. Manuf. Process., Vol
70, 2021, p 24–45, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jmapro.2021.08.018
160. D. Herzog, V. Seyda, E. Wycisk, and C.
Emmelmann, Additive Manufacturing of
Metals, Acta Mater., Vol 117, 2016,
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
Metal Additive Manufacturing in the Space Industry / 455
p 371–392, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ACTAMAT.2016.07.019
161. K.F. Graff, M. Short, and M. Norfolk,
“Very High Power Ultrasonic Additive
Manufacturing (VHP UAM) for Advanced
Materials,” Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium (Austin, TX), 2010
162. Y. Chen, S.J. Clark, L. Sinclair, C.L.A.
Leung, S. Marussi, T. Connolley, R.C.
Atwood, G.J. Baxter, M.A. Jones, I.
Todd, and P.D. Lee, Synchrotron X-Ray
Imaging of Directed Energy Deposition
Additive Manufacturing of Titanium
Alloy Ti-6242, Addit. Manuf., Vol 41,
2021, p 101969, https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.ADDMA.2021.101969
163. H. Fan and S. Yang, Effects of Direct
Aging on Near-Alpha Ti-6Al-2Sn-4Zr-
2Mo (Ti-6242) Titanium Alloy Fabri-
cated by Selective Laser Melting
(SLM), Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol 788,
2020, p 139533, https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.MSEA.2020.139533
164. E. Lannunziata, “Process Parameters
Optimisation of Ti-6242 Produced by
Electron Beam Melting,” 2021
165. P. Harish, “Understanding Effects of Iso-
thermal Heat Treatments on Microstruc-
ture of LMD-w Titanium Alloy (Ti-
6242),” University West, 2020
166. A. Mohammad, A.M. Al-Ahmari, A.
AlFaify, and M.K. Mohammed, Effect
of Melt Parameters on Density and Sur-
face Roughness in Electron Beam Melt-
ing of Gamma Titanium Aluminide
Alloy, Rapid Prototyp. J., Vol 23, 2017,
p 474–485, https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-
12-2014-0187
167. M. Balichakra, S. Bontha, P. Krishna,
and V.K. Balla, Prediction and Valida-
tion of Residual Stresses Generated dur-
ing Laser Metal Deposition of g
Titanium Aluminide Thin Wall Struc-
tures, Mater. Res. Express, Vol 6, 2019,
p 106550, https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-
1591/ab38ee
168. W. Chen and Z. Li, Additive Manu-
facturing of Titanium Aluminides, Addit.
Manuf. Aerosp. Ind., 2019, p 235–263,
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814062-
8.00013-3
169. G. Baudana, S. Biamino, D. Ugues, M.
Lombardi, P. Fino, M. Pavese, and C.
Badini, Titanium Aluminides for Aero-
space and Automotive Applications Pro-
cessed by Electron Beam Melting:
Contribution of Politecnico di Torino,
Met. Powder Rep., Vol 71, 2016, p 193–
199, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MPRP.
2016.02.058
170. C. Leyens, F. Brueckner, A. Seidel, A.
Straubel, A. Marquardt, and R. Willner,
Laser Additive Manufacturing of Titanium
Alloys and Titanium Aluminides, World
Conference on Titanium, Symposium 5:
Intermetallics and MMCs, 2015, p 1–6
171. P. Cao, B. Gabbitas, A. Salman, D.L.
Zhang, and Z.H. Han, Consolidation of
TiAl Powder by Thermal Spray Processes,
Adv. Mater. Res., Vol 29–30, 2007, p 159–
162, https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scien
tific.net/amr.29-30.159
172. T. Novoselova, P. Fox, R. Morgan, and
W. O’Neill, Experimental Study of Tita-
nium/Aluminium Deposits Produced by
Cold Gas Dynamic Spray, Surf. Coat.
Technol., Vol 200, 2006, p 2775–2783,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SURFCOAT.
2004.10.133
173. G.M. Karthik, G.D.J. Ram, and R.S. Kot-
tada, Friction Deposition of Titanium
Particle Reinforced Aluminum Matrix
Composites, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol
653, 2016, p 71–83, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MSEA.2015.12.005
174. D. Svetlizky, M. Das, B. Zheng, A.L.
Vyatskikh, S. Bose, A. Bandyopadhyay,
J.M. Schoenung, E.J. Lavernia, and N.
Eliaz, Directed Energy Deposition (DED)
Additive Manufacturing: Physical Charac-
teristics, Defects, Challenges and Applica-
tions, Mater. Today, 2021, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MATTOD.2021.03.020
175. A. Wang, H. Wang, Y. Wu, and H.
Wang, 3D Printing of Aluminum Alloys
Using Laser Powder Deposition: A
Review, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.,
Vol 116, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00170-021-07440-5
176. S. Kumar and A. Kar, A Review of Solid-
State Additive Manufacturing Processes,
Trans. Indian Natl. Acad. Eng., 2021,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41403-021-00270-7
177. K. Petráčková, J. Kondás, and M. Gua-
gliano, Mechanical Performance of Cold-
Sprayed A357 Aluminum Alloy Coatings
for Repair and Additive Manufacturing,
J. Therm. Spray Technol., Vol 26, 2017,
p 1888–1897, https://doi.org/10.1007/
S11666-017-0643-5
178. H.R. Kotadia, G. Gibbons, A. Das, and P.
D. Howes, A Review of Laser Powder
Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing of
Aluminium Alloys: Microstructure and
Properties, Addit. Manuf., Vol 46, 2021,
p 102155, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.
2021.102155
179. A.K. Gujba and M. Medraj, Power Ultra-
sonic Additive Manufacturing: Process
Parameters, Microstructure, and Mechani-
cal Properties, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng., 2020,
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1064870
180. H. Wu, X. Xie, S. Liu, S. Xie, R. Huang, C.
Verdy, M. Liu, H. Liao, S. Deng, and Y. Xie,
Bonding Behavior of Bi-Metal-Deposits
Produced by Hybrid Cold Spray Additive
Manufacturing, J. Mater. Process. Technol.,
Vol 299, 2021, p 117375, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2021.117375
181. E. Elfishawy, M.M.Z. Ahmed, and M.M.
El-Sayed Seleman, Additive Manu-
facturing of Aluminum Using Friction
 456 / Applications of Additive Manufacturing
Stir Deposition, TMS 2020 149th Annual
Meeting and Exhibition Supplemental
Proc., Minerals, Metals and Materials
Series, 2020, p 227–238, https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-030-36296-6_21
182. Z. Wang and Y. Zhang, A Review of
Aluminum Alloy Fabricated by Different
Processes of Wire Arc Additive
Manufacturing, Medziagotyra, Vol 27,
2021, p 18–26, https://doi.org/10.5755/
j02.ms.22772
183. S. Cooke, K. Ahmadi, S. Willerth, and R.
Herring, Metal Additive Manufacturing:
Technology, Metallurgy and Modelling,
J. Manuf. Process., Vol 57, 2020,
p 978–1003, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmapro.2020.07.025
184. M. Kumar, G.J. Gibbons, A. Das, I.
Manna, D. Tanner, and H.R. Kotadia,
Additive Manufacturing of Aluminium
Alloy 2024 by Laser Powder Bed Fusion:
Microstructural Evolution, Defects and
Mechanical Properties, Rapid Prototyp.
J., 2021, p 1388–1397, https://doi.org/
10.1108/RPJ-10-2020-0241
185. F. Caiazzo, V. Alfieri, P. Argenio, and V.
Sergi, Additive Manufacturing by Means
of Laser-Aided Directed Metal Deposi-
tion of 2024 Aluminium Powder: Investi-
gation and Optimization, Vol 9, 2017,
p 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1177/1687814
017714982
186. Z. Qi, B. Qi, B. Cong, H. Sun, G. Zhao,
and J. Ding, Microstructure and Mechan-
ical Properties of Wire + Arc Additively
Manufactured 2024 Aluminum Alloy
Components: As-Deposited and Post
Heat-Treated, J. Manuf. Process., Vol
40, 2019, p 27–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.JMAPRO.2019.03.003
187. T. Mahale, D. Cormier, O. Harrysson, K.
Ervin, and E.P. Fitts, Advances in Elec-
tron Beam Melting of Aluminum Alloys,
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium
Proc., 2007, p 312–323
188. L. Ajdelsztajn, A. Zúñiga, B. Jodoin, and
E.J. Lavernia, Cold-Spray Processing of
a Nanocrystalline Al-Cu-Mg-Fe-Ni Alloy
with Sc, J. Therm. Spray Technol., Vol 15,
2006, p 184–190, https://doi.org/10.1361/
105996306X107995
189. Y. Zhou, X. Lin, N. Kang, W. Huang,
and Z. Wang, Mechanical Properties
and Precipitation Behavior of the Heat-
Treated Wire + Arc Additively Manufac-
tured 2219 Aluminum Alloy, Mater.
Charact., Vol 171, 2021, p 110735,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATCHAR.2020.
110735
190. O.G. Rivera, P.G. Allison, L.N. Brewer,
O.L. Rodriguez, J.B. Jordon, T. Liu, W.
R. Whittington, R.L. Martens, Z.
McClelland, C.J.T. Mason, L. Garcia, J.
Q. Su, and N. Hardwick, Influence of
Texture and Grain Refinement on the
Mechanical Behavior of AA2219 Fabri-
cated by High Shear Solid State Material
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
Deposition, Mater. Sci. Eng. A, Vol 724,
2018, p 547–558, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.msea.2018.03.088
191. Y. Zhou, X. Lin, N. Kang, W. Huang, J.
Wang, and Z. Wang, Influence of Travel
Speed on Microstructure and Mechanical
Properties of Wire + Arc Additively
Manufactured 2219 Aluminum Alloy, J.
Mater. Sci. Technol., Vol 37, 2020,
p 143–153, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmst.2019.
06.016
192. Q. Miao, D. Wu, D. Chai, Y. Zhan, G.
Bi, F. Niu, and G. Ma, Comparative
Study of Microstructure Evaluation and
Mechanical Properties of 4043 Alumi-
num Alloy Fabricated by Wire-Based
Additive Manufacturing, Mater. Des.,
Vol 186, 2020, p 108205, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.MATDES.2019.108205
193. G. Langelandsvik, O.M. Akselsen, T.
Furu, and H.J. Roven, Review of Alumi-
num Alloy Development for Wire Arc,
Materials, Vol 14, 2021, p 1–26, https://
doi.org/10.3390/ma14185370
194. Y.K. Wei, X.T. Luo, X. Chu, G.S. Huang,
and C.J. Li, Solid-State Additive
Manufacturing High Performance Alumi-
num Alloy 6061 Enabled by an In-Situ
Micro-Forging Assisted Cold Spray, Mater.
Sci. Eng. A, Vol 776, 2020, p 139024,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MSEA.2020.
139024
195. D. Gonzales, S. Liu, M. Domack, and R.
Hafley, Using Powder Cored Tubular
Wire Technology to Enhance Electron
Beam Freeform Fabricated Structures,
TMS 145th Annual Meeting and Exhibi-
tion, 2016, p 183–189, https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-48254-5_23
196. K.E.K. Vimal, M. Naveen Srinivas, and S.
Rajak, Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing of
Aluminium Alloys: A Review, Mater. Today
Proc., Vol 41, 2019, p 1139–1145, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.09.153
197. D. Gu, X. Shi, R. Poprawe, D.L. Bourell,
R. Setchi, and J. Zhu, Material-Structure-
Performance Integrated Laser-Metal Addi-
tive Manufacturing, Science, Vol 372,
2021, p 1487, https://doi.org/10.1126/sci
ence.abg1487
198. A. Singh, A. Ramakrishnan, and G. Dinda,
Direct Laser Metal Deposition of Al 7050
Alloy, WCX 17: SAE World Congress
Experience, SAE International, 2017,
https://doi.org/10.4271/2017-01-0286
199. J.P. Isaac, S. Lee, N. Shamsaei, and H.V.
Tippur, Dynamic Fracture Behavior of
Additively Manufactured Scalmalloy:
Effects of Build Orientation, Heat-Treat-
ment and Loading-Rate, Mater. Sci. Eng.
A, Vol 826, 2021, p 141978, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.msea.2021.141978
200. I. Karakurt, K.Y. Ho, C. Ledford, D.
Gamzina, T. Horn, N.C. Luhmann, and
L. Lin, Development of a Magnetically
Driven Abrasive Polishing Process
for Additively Manufactured Copper
Structures, Proced. Manuf., Vol 26, 2018,
p 798–805, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.
2018.07.097
201. I. Gibson, D. Rosen, and B. Stucker,
Directed Energy Deposition Processes,
Addit. Manuf. Technol., 2015, p 245–
268, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-
2113-3_10
202. A. Bose, C.A. Schuh, J.C. Tobia, N. Tun-
cer, N.M. Mykulowycz, A. Preston, A.C.
Barbati, B. Kernan, M.A. Gibson, D.
Krause, T. Brzezinski, J. Schroers, R.
Fulop, J.S. Myerberg, M. Sowerbutts, Y.
M. Chiang, A. John Hart, E.M. Sachs,
E.E. Lomeli, and A.C. Lund, Traditional
and Additive Manufacturing of a New
Tungsten Heavy Alloy Alternative, Int.
J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater., Vol 73,
2018, p 22–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
IJRMHM.2018.01.019
203. F. Calignano, D. Manfredi, E.P. Ambro-
sio, L. Iuliano, and P. Fino, Influence of
Process Parameters on Surface Rough-
ness of Aluminum Parts Produced by
DMLS, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.,
Vol 67, 2012, p 2743–2751, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00170-012-4688-9
204. Q. Li, H. Zhang, D. Li, Z. Chen, S.
Huang, Z. Lu, and H. Yan, WxNbMoTa
Refractory High-Entropy Alloys Fabri-
cated by Laser Cladding Deposition,
Materials, Vol 12, 2019, p 533, https://
doi.org/10.3390/MA12030533
205. N.R. Philips, M. Carl, and N.J. Cunning-
ham, New Opportunities in Refractory
Alloys, Metall. Mater. Trans. A, Phys.
Metall. Mater. Sci., Vol 51, 2020,
p 3299–3310, https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11661-020-05803-3
206. G. Munday, J. Hogan, and A. McDonald,
On the Microstructure-Dependency of
Mechanical Properties and Failure of
Low-Pressure Cold-Sprayed Tungsten
Carbide-Nickel Metal Matrix Composite
Coatings, Surf. Coat. Technol., Vol 396,
2020, p 125947, https://doi.org/10.1016/
J.SURFCOAT.2020.125947
207. G. Wang, X. Sun, M. Huang, Y. Qin, Y.
Yao, and S. Yang, Influence of Proces-
sing Parameters on the Microstructure
and Tensile Property of 85W-15Ni Pro-
duced by Laser Direct Deposition, Int.
J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater., Vol 82,
2019, p 227–233, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijrmhm.2019.04.016
208. P. Rebesan, M. Bonesso, C. Gennari, R.
Dima, A. Pepato, and M. Vedani, Tung-
sten Fabricated by Laser Powder Bed
Fusion, BHM Berg H€ uttenm€ann. Mon-
atsh., Vol 166, 2021, p 263–269, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00501-021-01109-y
209. A.V. Müller, G. Schlick, R. Neu, C.
Anstätt, T. Klimkait, J. Lee, B. Pascher,
M. Schmitt, and C. Seidel, Additive
Manufacturing of Pure Tungsten by
Means of Selective Laser Beam Melting
with Substrate Preheating Temperatures

Up to 1000  C, Nucl. Mater. Energy, Vol
19, 2019, p 184–188, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.NME.2019.02.034
210. C.C. Eckley, R.A. Kemnitz, C.P. Fassio,
C.R. Hartsfield, and T.A. Leonhardt,
Selective Laser Melting of Tungsten-
Rhenium Alloys, JOM, 2021, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11837-021-04776-x
211. G. Marinelli, F. Martina, S. Ganguly, S.
Williams, H. Lewtas, D. Hancock, S.
Mehraban, and N. Lavery, Microstruc-
ture and Thermal Properties of Unalloyed
Tungsten Deposited by Wire + Arc Addi-
tive Manufacture, J. Nucl. Mater., Vol
522, 2019, p 45–53, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.JNUCMAT.2019.04.049
212. M. Moorehead, K. Bertsch, M. Niezgoda,
C. Parkin, M. Elbakhshwan, K. Srid-
haran, C. Zhang, D. Thoma, and A.
Couet, High-Throughput Synthesis of
Mo-Nb-Ta-W High-Entropy Alloys via
Additive Manufacturing, Mater. Des.,
Vol 187, 2020, p 108358, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108358
213. H. Dobbelstein, M. Thiele, E.L. Gurevich,
E.P. George, and A. Ostendorf, Direct
Metal Deposition of Refractory High
Entropy Alloy MoNbTaW, Phys. Proced.,
Vol 83, 2016, p 624–633, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.PHPRO.2016.08.065
214. O. Mireles, J. Caffrey, T. Godfroy, O.
Rodriguez, and C. Cox, Additive Manu-
facture of U-8Mo for LEU Space Nuclear
Power Systems, Proc. JANNAF Additive
Manufacture TIM, 2020, p 7523
215. M.T. Stawovy, Comparison of LCAC and
PM Mo Deposited Using Sciaky EBAM,
Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater., Vol 73,
2018, p 162–167, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijrmhm.2018.02.009
216. J.L. Johnson and T. Palmer, Directed
Energy Deposition of Molybdenum, Int.
J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater., Vol 84,
2019, p 105029, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijrmhm.2019.105029
217. P. Rebesan, M. Ballan, M. Bonesso, A.
Campagnolo, S. Corradetti, R. Dima, C.
Gennari, G.A. Longo, S. Mancin, M. Man-
zolaro, G. Meneghetti, A. Pepato, E. Vis-
conti, and M. Vedani, Pure Molybdenum
Manufactured by Laser Powder Bed
Fusion: Thermal and Mechanical Charac-
terization at Room and High Temperature,
Addit. Manuf., 2021, p 102277, https://doi.
org/10.1016/J.ADDMA.2021.102277
218. P. Fernandez-Zelaia, C. Ledford, E.A.I.
Ellis, Q. Campbell, A.M. Rossy, D.N.
Leonard, and M.M. Kirka, Crystallo-
graphic Texture Evolution in Electron
Beam Melting Additive Manufacturing
of Pure Molybdenum, Mater. Des., Vol 207,
2021, p 109809, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matdes.2021.109809
219. G. Marinelli, F. Martina, H. Lewtas, D.
Hancock, S. Ganguly, and S. Williams,
Functionally Graded Structures of
Refractory Metals by Wire Arc Additive
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
Metal Additive Manufacturing in the Space Industry / 457
Manufacturing, Sci. Technol. Weld. Join.,
Vol 24, 2019, p 495–503, https://doi.org/
10.1080/13621718.2019.1586162
220. C. Sungail and A. Abid, Spherical Tanta-
lum Feed Powder for Metal Additive
Manufacturing, Met. Powder Rep., Vol
73, 2018, p 316–318, https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.MPRP.2018.03.046
221. D.R. Jones, S.J. Fensin, B.G. Ndefru, D.
T. Martinez, C.P. Trujillo, and G.T.
Gray, Spall Fracture in Additive Manu-
factured Tantalum, J. Appl. Phys., Vol
124, 2018, p 225902, https://doi.org/
10.1063/1.5063930
222. H. Assadi, H. Kreye, F. Gärtner, and T.
Klassen, Cold Spraying—A Materials Per-
spective, Acta Mater., Vol 116, 2016,
p 382–407, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.act
amat.2016.06.034
223. G. Marinelli, F. Martina, S. Ganguly, and
S. Williams, Microstructure, Hardness
and Mechanical Properties of Two Dif-
ferent Unalloyed Tantalum Wires Depos-
ited via Wire + Arc Additive Manufacture,
Int. J. Refract. Met. Hard Mater., Vol 83,
2019, p 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijrmhm.2019.104974
224. D.M. Jafarlou, B.C. Sousa, M.A. Glea-
son, G. Ferguson, A.T. Nardi, D.L. Cote,
and I.R. Grosse, Solid-State Additive
Manufacturing of Tantalum Using High-
Pressure Cold Gas-Dynamic Spray,
Addit. Manuf., Vol 47, 2021, p 102243,
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDMA.2021.
102243
225. P. Bangalore Venkatesh, L. Osborne, M.
Fitzpatrick, M. Hollinbeck, and D.
Barnes, Pulse Performance Analysis of
a 45 Newton Additively Manufactured
Bipropellant Thruster, J. Propuls. Power,
2021, p 1–10, https://doi.org/10.2514/1.
b38326
226. M. Hedges and N. Calder, Near Net
Shape Rapid Manufacture and Repair by
LENS, Cost Eff. Manuf. via Net-Shape
Process., Meet. Proc. RTO-MP-AVT-
139, Vol 2, 2006, p 13
227. “Certified for Universal Success: Additive
Manufacturing of Satellite Components,”
EOS GmbH, 2018, https://www.eos.info/
01_parts-and-applications/case_studies_
applications_parts/_case_studies_pdf/
en_cases/cs_m_aerospace_ruag_en.pdf
228. P. Rochus, J.-Y. Plesseria, M. van Elsen, J.-
P. Kruth, R. Carrus, and T. Dormal, New
Applications of Rapid Prototyping and
Rapid Manufacturing (RP/RM) Technolo-
gies for Space Instrumentation, Acta Astro-
naut., Vol 61, 2007, p 352–359, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2007.01.004
229. O. Sigmund and K. Maute, Topology
Optimization Approaches: A Compara-
tive Review, Struct. Multidisc. Optim.,
Vol 48, 2013, p 1031–1055, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00158-013-0978-6
230. J. Liu, A.T. Gaynor, S. Chen, Z. Kang, K.
Suresh, A. Takezawa, L. Li, J. Kato, J.
Tang, C.C.L. Wang, L. Cheng, X. Liang,
and A.C. To, Current and Future Trends
in Topology Optimization for Additive
Manufacturing, Struct. Multidisc. Optim.,
Vol 57, 2018, p 2457–2483, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00158-018-1994-3
231. F. Cucinotta, E. Guglielmino, G. Longo, G.
Risitano, D. Santonocito, and F. Sfravara,
Topology Optimization Additive Manu-
facturing-Oriented for a Biomedical Appli-
cation, Advances on Mechanics, Design
Engineering and Manufacturing II, Lec-
ture Notes in Mechanical Engineering,
Springer, Cham, 2019, p 184–193, https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12346-8_18
232. “An Inside Look at How AM Aluminum
Alloys Are Possible Using RAM Tech-
nology,” Elementum, https://www.ele-
mentum3d.com/white-papers/an-inside-
look-at-how-am-commercial-aluminum-
alloys-are-made-possible-using-ram-
technology/
233. M. Benedetti, A. du Plessis, R.O. Ritchie,
M. Dallago, S.M.J. Razavi, and F. Berto,
Architected Cellular Materials: A
Review on Their Mechanical Properties
towards Fatigue-Tolerant Design and
Fabrication, Mater. Sci. Eng. R, Rep.,
Vol 144, 2021, p 100606, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.mser.2021.100606
234. A. du Plessis, S.M.J. Razavi, M. Bene-
detti, S. Murchio, M. Leary, M. Watson,
D. Bhate, and F. Berto, Properties and
Applications of Additively Manufactured
Metallic Cellular Materials: A Review, Prog.
Mater. Sci., Vol 125, 2022, p 100918, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2021.100918
235. Large Scale Metal Lattice Structure for
Complex Satellite Part, Metal AM,
2017, https://www.metal-am.com/large-
scale-metal-lattice-structure-complex-
satellite-part/, accessed March 22, 2021
236. L. Chougrani, J.-P. Pernot, P. Véron, and
S. Abed, Parts Internal Structure Defini-
tion Using Non-Uniform Patterned Lat-
tice Optimization for Mass Reduction in
Additive Manufacturing, Eng. Comput.,
Vol 35, 2019, p 277–289, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00366-018-0598-2
237. “Future Ariane Propulsion Module: Sim-
plified by Additive Manufacturing,” EOS,
2018, https://www.eos.info/01_parts-and-
applications/case_studies_applications_
parts/_case_studies_pdf/en_cases/cs_m_
aerospace_arianegroup_en.pdf
238. “NASA Tests Limits of 3-D Printing with
Powerful Rocket Engine Check,” National
Aeronautics and Space Administration,
2013, https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/
systems/sls/3d-printed-rocket-injector.
html, accessed March 16, 2021
239. “Hot-Fire Tests Show 3-D Printed Rocket
Parts Rival Traditionally Manufactured
Parts,” National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, 2013, https://www.nasa.
gov/exploration/systems/sls/3dprinting.
html, accessed March 15, 2021
 458 / Applications of Additive Manufacturing
240. M. Leary, Design for Additive Manu-
facturing, Elsevier, 2020, https://doi.org/
10.1016/C2017-0-04238-6
241. W.E. King, A.T. Anderson, R.M. Fer-
encz, N.E. Hodge, C. Kamath, S.A. Khair-
allah, and A.M. Rubenchik, Laser Powder
Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing of
Metals; Physics, Computational, and
Materials Challenges, Appl. Phys. Rev.,
Vol 2, 2015, p 041304, https://doi.org/
10.1063/1.4937809
242. H.L. Wei, T. Mukherjee, W. Zhang, J.S.
Zuback, G.L. Knapp, A. De, and T. DebRoy,
Mechanistic Models for Additive Manu-
facturing of Metallic Components, Prog.
Mater. Sci., Vol 116, 2021, p 100703,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmatsci.2020.
100703
243. C. Meier, R.W. Penny, Y. Zou, J.S.
Gibbs, and A.J. Hart, Thermophysical
Phenomena in Metal Additive Manu-
facturing by Selective Laser Melting:
Fundamentals, Modeling, Simulation,
and Experimentation, Annu. Rev. Heat
Transf., Vol 20, 2017, p 241–316,
https://doi.org/10.1615/AnnualRevHeat
Transfer.2018019042
244. A. du Plessis, Effects of Process Parameters
on Porosity in Laser Powder Bed Fusion
Revealed by X-Ray Tomography, Addit.
Manuf., Vol 30, 2019, p 100871, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2019.100871
245. A. du Plessis, J.M. Waller, S.G. le Roux,
I. Yadroitsava, I. Yadroitsev, J. Els, and
J. Prinsloo, X-Ray Computed Tomogra-
phy Inspection in Metal Additive
Manufacturing: The Role of Witness
Specimens, Structural Integrity of Addi-
tive Manufactured Materials and Parts,
N. Shamsaei and M. Seifi, Ed., ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA,
Downloaded from http://dl.asminternational.org/handbooks/edited-volume/chapter-pdf/667793/a0006983.pdf
by Chalmers University of Technology user
on 30 March 2024
2020, p 139–156, https://doi.org/10.1520/
STP 163120190109
246. A. du Plessis and E. Macdonald, Hot Iso-
static Pressing in Metal Additive
Manufacturing: X-Ray Tomography
Reveals Details of Pore Closure, Addit.
Manuf., Vol 34, 2020, p 101191, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101191
247. S.A. Niknam, M. Mortazavi, and D. Li,
Additively Manufactured Heat Exchan-
gers: A Review on Opportunities and
Challenges, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.,
Vol 112, 2021, p 601–618, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00170-020-06372-w
248. H.M. Khan, Y. Karabulut, O. Kitay, Y.
Kaynak, and I.S. Jawahir, Influence of the
Post-Processing Operations on Surface
Integrity of Metal Components Produced
by Laser Powder Bed Fusion Additive
Manufacturing: A Review, Mach. Sci.
Technol., Vol 25, 2020, p 118–176, https://
doi.org/10.1080/10910344.2020.1855649
249. P.R. Gradl, O.R. Mireles, C.S. Protz, and
C.P. Garcia, Ed., Metal Additive Manu-
facturing for Propulsion Applications,
American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc., Reston, VA, 2022,
https://doi.org/10.2514/4.106279
250. “Recommended Guidance for Certifica-
tion of AM Component,” AIA Additive
Manufacturing Working Group, 2020
251. “Notification of a Proposal to Issue a
Certification Memorandum: Additive
Manufacturing,” European Union Avia-
tion Safety Agency, 2020
252. B.E. Paton and V.F. Lapchinskii, Weld-
ing in Space and Related Technologies,
1st ed., Cambridge International Science
Publishing Limited, Kiev, Ukraine, 1997
253. C. Clinton, “Make It, Don’t Take
It—In-Space Manufacturing and Lunar
Construction Technology Development
at NASA Marshall Space Flight Center,”
Future In-Space Operations Working
Group, 2020, https://doi.org/http://fiso.
spiritastro.net/arc hivelist.htm
254. T.J. Prater, N.J. Werkheiser, and F.E. Led-
better, “Summary Report on Phase I and
Phase II Results from the 3D Printing in
Zero-G Technology Demonstration Mis-
sion,” National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, 2018, https://doi.org/https://
ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20180002403
255. M.M. Johnston, M.J. Werkheiser, M.P.
Snyder, and J.E. Edmunson, 3D Printing
in Zero-G ISS Technology Demonstra-
tion, AIAA Space Conference and Expo-
sition, American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics Inc., 2014, https://doi.
org/10.2514/6.2014-4470
256. M. Abney, C. Evans, M. Mansell, and M.
Swickrath, Series Bosch System Devel-
opment, 42nd Int. Conference on Envi-
ronmental Systems, American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc.,
Reston, VA, 2012, https://doi.org/10.
2514/6.2012-3554
257. A. du Plessis, E. MacDonald, J.M. Wal-
ler, and F. Berto, Non-Destructive Test-
ing of Parts Produced by Laser Powder
Bed Fusion, Fundamentals of Laser
Powder Bed Fusion of Metals, Elsevier,
2021, p 277–300, https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-824090-8.00016-0
258. A. du Plessis, I. Yadroitsev, I. Yadroit-
sava, and S.G. le Roux, X-Ray Micro-
computed Tomography in Additive
Manufacturing: A Review of the Cur-
rent Technology and Applications, 3D
Print. Addit. Manuf., Vol 5, 2018,
p 227–247, https://doi.org/10.1089/3dp.
2018.0060