How to identify products suitable for Additive Manufacturing?

​It is unlikely AM will replace conventional manufacturing technologies. Yet, the significant advantages of AM [link] are too good to ignore. For instance, almost any shape can be manufactured with AM. The design process can then focus on improving functions. This is a challenge for designers, who are not familiar with these new manufacturing technologies. So how do you know if a product is a suitable candidate for AM?

Need for selection criteria

Not all parts of a system are equally suited for Additive Manufacturing [1]. A design analysis is necessary to identify those parts where AM provides the biggest benefits. We review four selection criteria that can be applied to select components for a (re-)design to fully exploit the geometric freedom of AM.

Functions integration

Can functions or sub-parts be merged into one component?
Can the number of interfaces and/or joints be minimised? Can the product be reduced in size or volume while achieving the same function?
Can the assembly time be reduced?

The objective is to identify assemblies (= groups of parts) which can be redesigned into one single part.
Typical candidates are:

• single-function assemblies split in several parts due to manufacturing constraints;
• complex assemblies made of  single-function parts, each manufactured separately to reduce design and fabrication complexity.

Customization

How many design variations are expected?
Can this product be separated/assembled in core and customisable add-ons?
How much variation between design versions?
What are typical batch sizes?

​Individualization means meeting different customers’ requirements and involves significant design variations and smaller lot sizes. To make economic sense, products become an assembly of standard components and customized add-ons to create individualized product at sensible costs.
The standard parts are mass produced conventionally whereas the customized parts are manufactured in small lot sizes.
 
Typical candidates tend to be consumer products found at human/surroundings interfaces.

Weight and materials costs savings

Can weight-reduction improve performance of the components?
Can material volume be reduced to save money at equal or superior performance?
Can topology be optimised?

​Selectively placing material in locations required by the function (typically via topology optimisation) tends to increase the geometric complexity of the component. However, in contrast to conventional manufacturing, where increased complexity does lead to higher costs, with AM, this reduces material, weight and costs.
 
Typical candidates are complex load bearing parts found in mobile and dynamic applications.

Operation efficiency

How could the product operate more efficiently? How can losses be reduced during operation? How can performance be improved during operation?
How can mass or energy transport be maximised?
How can energy conversion be improved?
How can component servicing be made easier?
How can life expectancy of product be improved?
Can running costs be lowered? 

​The objective is to improve the efficiency of the product in operation. Typical candidates include components involved in energy production.

Success requirements for AM-specific designs

To be successful, AM-specific design needs to bring technological and economic benefits by

• lowering manufacturing costs (simplifying the assembly, limiting investment in specific expensive tools)
• adding benefits during product operation (lower operating costs, higher productivity, unique performance)
• offering value for performance to customers
• What are typical batch sizes?

References
[1] Klahn C, Leutenecker B, Meboldt M. Design for Additive Manufacturing – Supporting the Substitution of Components in Series Products. Procedia CIRP 2014;21:138–43.