Science Progress (2012), 95(3), 255-282

doi: 10.3184/003685012X13420984463047

Overview of current additive

manufacturing technologies and
selected applications
TIMOTHY J. HORN AND OLA L. A. HARRYSSON

ABSTRACT
Three-dimensional printing or rapid prototyping are processes by which
components are fabricated directly from computer models by selectively curing,
depositing or consolidating materials in successive layers. These technologies
have traditionally been limited to the fabrication of models suitable for product
visualization but, over the past decade, have quickly developed into a new
paradigm called additive manufacturing. We are now beginning to see additive
manufacturing used for the fabrication of a range of functional end use components.
In this review, we briefly discuss the evolution of additive manufacturing from its
roots in accelerating product development to its proliferation into a variety of
fields. Here, we focus on some of the key technologies that are advancing additive
manufacturing and present some state of the art applications.

Keywords: additive manufacturing, rapid prototyping, 3D printing, solid

freeform fabrication, direct digital manufacturing
Timothy J. Horn is a PhD student in ISE. Mr Horn holds a
Master of Integrated Manufacturing and Systems Engineering
from N.C. State. His current research is focused on new
applications for rapid prototyping and rapid manufacturing
technology for the medical device industry. Mr Horn also
works with researchers and manufacturers throughout the
southeast USA on developing new concepts and ideas into
fully manufacturable products.
Contact E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Ola L. A. Harrysson joined the ISE Department at North

Carolina State University in Raleigh, in 2002. He is now in
charge of its Rapid Prototyping and Additive Manufacturing
Laboratory which houses a number of polymer and metal
additive manufacturing technologies. Born in Sweden, he
received his bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering from
Dala University. He gained his PhD in Industrial Engineering
from the University of Central Florida. Dr Harrysson has
collaborated with the orthopedics department at the college
of veterinary medicine at North Carolina State University for
over 10 years and has completed many research projects. Dr
Harrysson teaches courses in product development, manufacturing processes, and
biomodeling at both the undergraduate and graduate level.

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 255

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 255 9/7/2012 9:46:48 AM

 Introduction
It remains to be seen what the long term implications of additive
manufacturing will be. In many regards, it is a technology that is still
in its infancy and it represents a very small segment of manufacturing
overall. That small segment is growing quickly but the future is by
no means certain. Scarcely a quarter century has passed since the first
stereolithography systems for rapid prototyping appeared on the market.
In that short time, additive manufacturing has not only become relatively
common place in science, academia, and industry, but it has also evolved
from a method to quickly produce visual models into a new manufacturing
paradigm. In the past two decades, revenues associated with products and
services show that additive manufacturing has grown into a multi-billion
dollar industry1.
Additive manufacturing has the potential to radically change the way in
which many products are made and distributed. Throughout history, key
innovations in manufacturing technology have had a profound impact
on our society and our culture. An examination of the applications and
technologies reviewed here suggests that additive manufacturing may
become a truly disruptive technology. To understand just exactly how
disruptive a technology additive manufacturing is, we must examine the
historical context of traditional manufacturing.
Prior to the industrial revolution goods were typically produced by
skilled artisans and were often tailored to satisfy a specific, individual
demand. While this approach may have had many inherent advantages
to the consumer (i.e. high quality, custom parts on demand) it is doubtful
that system could have persisted under the growing demands of society.
The invention of the first machine tools (that is tools capable of precisely
controlling the relative motion between a tool and a work piece) along
with advances in fixturing and metrology facilitated the manufacture of
interchangeable parts which, in turn, supported the development of the
mass production system. The model of mass production also has many
clear advantages to both the producers and the consumers of products,
including; high throughput, high quality and product consistency at a low
unit cost. This, of course, comes at the cost of reduced product diversity.
In the last century, the means by which many goods are manufactured
has been radically enhanced by computer controlled machinery and
automation. However, in general, the basic methods and materials are
quite similar to those used at the turn of the 19th century. Bulk materials
must still be either cut, formed, or molded in order to fabricate value-
added products. In fact, a large portion of the products that we consume
or use at the present time are manufactured using processes like forming,
injection molding, casting, extrusion, stamping, and machining. Each one

256 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 256 9/7/2012 9:46:48 AM

 of these processes requires some form of tooling (mold, die, flask, stamp,
fixture, etc.). For instance, if we consider casting an exhaust manifold in
steel we must first design and fabricate a sand or investment mold with
the negative shape of the final part. A metal stamped part, as simple as a
washer, requires a die and a large stamping press in order to be produced.
A simple plastic cover for a smart phone requires an injection mold that
may cost thousands of dollars and an injection molding machine that
may costs hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. The cost and
time dedicated to the design and fabrication of tooling that supports
mass production represents a significant percentage of the total cost of a
product.
The natural result of high tooling costs is that within a given mass
production system there is an inverse relationship between the quantity
of a product that is produced and the variety of product designs available.
It is necessary that we recognize that production tooling is not only
expensive, but it also constrains the design of products based on innate
limitations imposed by the various mass production processes. This is a
widely studied area of manufacturing known as design for manufacture
(DFM).
As a brief example, consider a plastic injection molded part. One of the
key limitations is that the mold must provide for the easy removal of the
part. This means that the part must have slightly outward sloping surfaces
(called positive draft), as inward sloping surfaces would essentially lock
the part to the mold like a dovetail making it impossible to remove.
Further, the injection mold itself must be precisely machined, ground,
and polished from a block of metal, and the processes that are used to
do that, like milling with a cutting tool, also have similar limitations
(i.e. the cutting tool must be able to access the feature that will be cut).
Increasing the complexity of the part to better serve a given function can
drive up the cost of the tooling required for producing it and, in many
cases, the optimal design for a given purpose is impossible to produce
using traditional mass production methods.
Additive manufacturing represents a fundamentally new method of part
fabrication. It is the process of fabricating components directly from
3D computer models by selectively depositing, curing, or consolidating
materials one layer upon the next. Each layer represents the cross-sectional
geometry of the part at a given height. This is a stark contrast to traditional
manufacturing processes like forming, casting, and machining because
tooling is not required to produce a part. The freeform nature of additive
manufacturing is therefore changing the way we look at traditional DFM
constraints. In many cases the traditional constraints no longer apply.
By building parts additively, in layers, components can be manufactured
with extremely complex geometries, such as internal channels, undercut

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 257

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 257 9/7/2012 9:46:48 AM

 features, or engineered lattice structures with controlled and/or variable
porosity. These are features that are extremely difficult or impossible to
produce with traditional methods.
The implication of this is quite simple to recognize but at the same
time has a profound result. Removing the need for tooling facilitates
the economical production of small lot sizes of parts (as low as one)
without sacrificing interchangeability, thereby reducing the lead time
for production (because the tools do not need to be produced), allowing
flexibility in the supply chain and the production location (parts can be
made where and when they are demanded), and raising the possibility
of transitioning from a system of mass production to one off mass
customization2. It also means that design changes incur much less cost
in production so products can potentially be customized to conform to
the needs of the individual consumer. In many ways this concept goes
far beyond the definition of most existing mass customization models in
which mass produced components are fabricated and then assembled on
demand to specific customer orders.

Background and origins

Rapid prototyping first emerged as a means to accelerate the time
consuming and costly process of iterative product design, thereby
reducing time to market, improving product quality, and ultimately
reducing the costs. Traditionally, one of the difficulties with bringing an
idea to the market was that the production of prototypes of new designs
often required the same or similar expensive tooling to those used in
mass production. These “traditionally made” prototypes would then
be evaluated and tested. Any problems uncovered, either in function,
fit, or from marketing studies would be corrected and a new prototype
would be designed and fabricated. This process would repeat until the
final product was ready for production, which could take anywhere
from six months to several years. Naturally, this approach was very time
consuming and expensive. By printing physical prototypes directly from
three dimensional computer aided design (CAD) data, rapid prototyping
offered designers the opportunity to quickly run through many design
iterations and conduct market studies. This benefit has become even more
vital today since product life cycles continue to decrease and companies
must develop new products in order to remain competitive.
This was essentially the impetus for the development of the first rapid
prototyping systems, called stereolithography apparatus (SLA), patented
by Charles Hull in 1986 (Patent #US4575330) and marketed by 3D
Systems. Stereolithography is based on the concept of photopolymerization
by which monomers are linked into a polymer chain using photons. In

258 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 258 9/7/2012 9:46:48 AM

 stereolithography, a laser beam spot is numerically controlled by mirrors
to trace the profile and raster the area of a cross section of a given geometry
onto the surface of a photo-curable resin. The first layer is supported from
below by a vertically actuated platform. The wavelength (UV), intensity,
and exposure are carefully controlled to cure the resin. After the layer is
completed, the build platform is lowered, the resin is allowed to settle
(or spread across the surface) and the process repeats for the next cross
section of the part geometry. Overhanging and down facing surfaces
of parts must be supported from below by a network of structures that
are generated as part of the build file. A very detailed description of the
stereolithography process is provided by Jacobs3.
One of the keys to unlocking the potential of layer based additive
manufacturing was the development of the standard STL file format.
STL (or stereolithography) is currently used by most additive processes
and is available as a standard format on most CAD systems4. The STL
format describes the external surface of the 3D CAD model with a series
of triangular facets connected at the vertices. The STL data include the
XYZ Cartesian coordinates of each vertex, as well as a vector normal to
the triangle face (which indicates which side of the triangle represents
both the inside and the outside of the part). The size and number of
triangles can vary depending upon the accuracy of the process and the
tolerances required. The STL part model is oriented in Cartesian space
and software is used to slice the model parallel to the XY plane in discrete
increments equal to the layer thickness. Because the vertices of each of
the surface triangles are known, it is a relatively simple matter to calculate
the coordinates of the intersection between the triangles and the slicing
plane. These intersection points are connected to form the contour of each
layer that is then used to control the machine (Figure 1A).
While approximating CAD surfaces with triangles is an effective and
simple method for representing geometries and slicing models, it should
be noted that it inherently builds geometric errors into the fabricated parts
(Figure 1B). This can be partially offset by reducing the size (and increasing
the number) of the facets, but only at the cost of increasing the data storage
requirements. It is clear that additive processes can reduce or eliminate
the need for traditional DFM constraints, however, they also introduce
a new and quite different set of constraints on designers. For instance,
each layer or slice of the part approximates a discrete representation of
the cross sectional geometry. As one layer is stacked upon the next, a
geometric stair-step error is introduced. This error is intrinsic to all additive
processes (Figure 1C). Other geometric limitations often encountered in
additive processes include minimum wall thickness and build orientation
(properties are highly dependent upon build orientation). For many, if
not most, applications limitations like these would normally not cause a

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 259

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 259 9/7/2012 9:46:48 AM

 Figure 1 (A) The process of converting a three-dimensional CAD geometry to a .STL
surface model. The coordinates of the intersection points between the slicing plane
and the legs of each facet are calculated and then connected to form the geometry of
each slice contour. (B) The geometric error that results from approximating a curve
with line segments. (C) The geometric error that results from approximating a three
dimensional geometry with discrete layers.

problem in particular for models intended for evaluation, visualization,

or demonstration. To this point, the constraints associated with additive
processes have not been studied to the same extent as with traditional
manufacturing. A thorough accounting and standardization of these
constraints will likely be a key factor in widespread adoption of additive
manufacturing as a production tool. As products produced with additive
manufacturing technologies are implemented in various industries and
are incorporated into complex assemblies, tolerances to geometric errors
such as these are likely to become more and more critical.

Additive manufacturing systems

Very soon after the development of the stereolithography technology many
different types of rapid prototyping processes were developed and are still
widely used today. As it would be impossible to include an adequate
description of each, we are including several sources in the reference list
that provide an in depth discussion of the many additive manufacturing
processes3-5. While there are a wide variety of technologies, most of
these operate on the same underlying principle that material is selectively
cured, consolidated, or deposited layer upon layer. The following section
provides a brief overview of some of the key processes.
One alternative approach, which can reduce processing times and the
high cost of components typically associated with stereolithography

260 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 260 9/7/2012 9:46:49 AM

 (specifically lasers), is to use digital light projection technology (DLP).
With DLP the silhouette of each layer is projected onto the surface of a
resin that is cured by light either in the visible or the UV spectrum. These
systems typically have the build platform inverted so that the finished
parts are upside down; this has the added benefit of minimizing the
amount of material required in the build tank at any given time.
Very soon after the development of stereolithography, the use of inkjet
printing technology to deposit a binder onto a powder bed in a layer
wise fashion was developed by a research group at MIT and marketed
to numerous companies in the early 1990s5. Collectively, technologies
that utilize print heads to deposit materials are now referred to as 3D
printing technologies. This approach offered a relatively low cost solution
for printing 3D models. One of the advantages is that these systems are
capable of producing full color models which can accurately depict
the appearance of a finalized product design and has even been used
to demonstrate finite element analysis results. While inkjet printing
systems have usually been used for product visualizations, models
can be infiltrated with different materials such as epoxy or even room
temperature vulcanizing rubbers to achieve a range of material properties.
Inkjet printer models have also been used for the direct fabrication of
ceramic shells for investment casting6. Other systems deposit a binder
on metal powders; the resulting 3D model can be sintered and infiltrated
with another metal (such as bronze) to produce metal parts. A detailed
review of 3D printing technologies is provided in the references7. Similar
inkjet printing technologies have also been used to deposit photosensitive
resins which are then subsequently cured by a UV light source. One
benefit of this method is the ability to print multiple materials or colors
within a single layer. The same concept also facilitates the fabrication of
products with functionally graded materials wherein the composition of
a component can gradually vary from one material to another resulting
in unique properties that cannot be achieved otherwise. One of the
key barriers to the practical implementation of this is the absence of a
generalized CAD format that can accommodate and translate functionally
graded material data.
Another technology that was developed relatively early on is the deposition
of thermoplastics by extrusion through a heated nozzle. This typically
involves feeding a filament of thermoplastic, such as polycarbonate (PC)
or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), through an extrusion nozzle
which is translated about a build platform using numerical control. The
process has often been described as an automated glue gun. The extrusion
speed, temperature, and nozzle travel rate are controlled to selectively
deposit the material onto a build platform or previous layers, fusing one
layer onto the next. While this technology often utilizes commercially

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 261

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 261 9/7/2012 9:46:49 AM

 relevant thermoplastics as a raw material, the nature of the deposition
process results in parts with anisotropic properties. The technology was
originally called fused deposition modeling (FDM®) which was marketed
by Stratasys Inc. Recently many of the original patents on this technology
have expired. Due in part to the relative simplicity and the availability of
safe, cheap materials, these thermoplastic extrusion technologies are now
relatively inexpensive. The price point has dropped low enough that these
machines are accessible to the general public.
If additive manufacturing is going to become a commercially relevant
production tool for fabricating functional components a wider variety of
materials will be required. Laser sintering (LS) is one technology that
offers the potential to address this need. Rather than using a laser to
cure photosensitive resins, the laser energy is used to heat and consolidate
layer upon layer of polymer powder. In theory, this suggests that any
thermoplastic that can be rendered into a powder form of the appropriate
size and morphology could be processed using LS. Typically the resulting
parts are only sintered (partially melted and consolidated) but still strong
enough to be used for many applications. One advantage of LS, like other
powder based additive manufacturing systems, is that there is no need
for support structures underneath down-facing or overhanging surfaces.
The powder naturally serves this purpose and is easily removed after the
part has been completed. While much of the recent work in this area has
focused on the development and use of industrially relevant materials
(including composites) the practical utilization of LS for the fabrication
of polymer components is currently restricted to a relatively small
number of materials. According to a recent study this limited use may
be attributed to several factors beyond insufficient material properties
including: the limited availability of polymers in powder form suitable
for processing with LS, the lack of consistency between machines, lack
of process control and repeatability, and the narrow process parameter
window of many of the materials8.
The importance of utilizing industrial materials for additive manufacturing
is by no means limited to polymers. The recent development of direct
metal technologies is indicative of the transition from rapid prototyping
to additive manufacturing of functional components. The printing of
metal parts has for many years been seen as the next frontier of additive
manufacturing. The initial attempts to produce metal parts with additive
processes were indirect, meaning that they were used to create tooling
for metal forming processes rather than making the parts directly. For
instance, resin and wax based components have been printed for the
fabrication of investment casting shells and sand casting forms from
which parts could be cast. The ability to completely eliminate the tool

262 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 262 9/7/2012 9:46:49 AM

 from the production equation and to fabricate parts directly from metals
has generated significant interest in a wide variety of industries. As it turns
out, in addition to the fabrication of parts using polymers, LS systems are
also capable of processing metals. However, components made using
LS are often porous, and require subsequent post sintering/heat treating
in order to achieve acceptable material properties. A newer adaptation of
the same technology called laser melting (LM) has the capability to fully
melt rather than sinter the powder. This, however, requires a high power
laser, but generally eliminates the need for secondary sintering. Although
the surface finish and accuracy is considered very good, components
naturally have high internal stresses caused by thermal gradients induced
during processing and therefore require post build heat treatment9. One
of the distinct advantages, like polymeric systems, is that in theory a wide
variety of metal materials can be processed in this way.
Using a laser to melt metal powders is not the only metal additive
manufacturing technology. Rather than controlling the position of a laser
spot over the surface of a powder bed, a family of technologies called
directed energy uses a focused energy beam (laser or electron beam) to
melt metal powders or wire that is deposited by a nozzle. The substrate
platform is typically mounted on a computer controlled stage to create a
weld pool in which the deposited materials are simultaneously fed by a
delivery system. The substrate is moved beneath the stationary beam to
deposit a thin cross section, thereby creating the desired geometry for
each layer. After deposition of each layer, the nozzle and beam assembly
is incremented vertically and the process repeats; building a three
dimensional component with each successive layer being supported by
the previous ones. In the case of wire feed systems, there is an increased
interest in applications involving microgravity environments. However,
relatively low accuracy, internal stresses (from thermal processing), and
high porosity are several of the main disadvantages of these systems. In
addition, directed energy systems are not adept at producing overhanging
features because of the difficulty in producing supporting structures.
However,the nature of the process does facilitate the deposition of material
in five or more axes (as opposed to just three). This makes directed energy
technologies an interesting solution for the freeform repair of complex
metal structures.
Another direct metal additive manufacturing technology uses ultrasonic
energy to produce solid state bonding between successive layers of thin foils
and this process is called ultrasonic consolidation. A computer controlled
milling machine is then used between each layer to cut the cross sectional
geometry of the part from each bonded layer. This technology represents
a hybrid, additive-subtractive process. Primarily because the ultrasonic
consolidation takes place at low temperatures, the resulting parts exhibit

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 263

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 263 9/7/2012 9:46:49 AM

 high accuracy without the internal stresses that are common with other
direct metal additive manufacturing processes. A benefit associated with
low temperature bonding of layers is the potential to embed sensors and
electronics into components as they are being fabricated. The solid state
bonding process also facilitates the layering of dissimilar metals and even
ceramic based metal matrix composites10.
A relatively new direct metal additive manufacturing technology is the
electron beam melting (EB) process. Like LS and LM, EB is a powder
based process. However, rather than using a laser beam to melt or sinter
powder, a focused electron beam is used to selectively melt layers of
powder. First, a tungsten filament is heated to over 3000º C which causes
electrons to be emitted; then a potential difference between a cathode and
an anode causes the electrons to accelerate. The electrons are focused
and deflected using magnetic coils to form a narrow high energy beam
that strikes the surface of the powder. When this happens, the kinetic
energy transferred through friction creates the heat that is necessary to
melt the metal powder. This makes EB a very energy efficient process
when compared to laser light which is mostly reflected away from the
melt pool during processing. The energy density within the electron
beam can be as high as 106 kW cm-2. The process is carried out inside
of a vacuum chamber in order to prevent scattering of the electron beam
caused by collisions with gas atoms. Further, the vacuum environment
prevents oxidation of the hot metal materials and greatly reduces the
risk for contaminations. The electron beam is also used to periodically
scan the powder bed in order to maintain a high temperature inside the
build chamber which greatly reduces internal stresses caused by thermal
gradients. Parts fabricated using EB typically have a surface roughness
that is comparable to cast parts due to the sintering of particles adjacent
to the melt pool. Materials fabricated using EB can be fully dense and
with properties closely matching the values found in cast and wrought
materials with similar composition. The principal advantages of the EB
process are the relatively low input energy required, the good mechanical
properties of the finished components, the ability to fabricate in a vacuum
(which is important for highly reactive metals such as titanium), and the
ability to manufacture relatively large metal components without high
internal stresses. The key limitations of the process include relatively high
expense and relatively small build volumes. Another important point is
that although the high energy density is capable of melting most materials
the electrons must have a pathway to ground which usually limits EB to
the processing of metallic powders.

264 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 264 9/7/2012 9:46:49 AM

 The current state of additive manufacturing
The direct fabrication of parts using additive manufacturing has many
distinct advantages that have been briefly touched on. There is currently
a great deal of excitement directed towards the additive manufacturing
of metal components for a variety of applications. This technology has
the potential to facilitate the use of new materials and geometries that
may not have been possible before. However,we must be mindful that
parts produced using additive manufacturing will almost certainly require
secondary post processing or machining operations just like any other
near net shaped parts, especially if these parts are expected to be used in
moving assemblies. The issues of achieving tight tolerances (of which
surface finish is only one of many) will become paramount. This brings
new challenges, such as efficiently and economically post processing
freeform components with a batch size of as low as one.
Of the polymer processes that have been discussed, while some are
currently suitable for additive manufacturing, most are still only useful
for prototyping, visualization and demonstration. Parts made using
photopolymers are typically brittle and exhibit poor mechanical properties.
Furthermore, nearly all rapid prototyping processes result in parts with a
relatively high degree of anisotropy. Generally speaking, the variety of
materials that are readily available to designers and engineers wishing to
utilize additive manufacturing is severely limited. Nevertheless there is
currently a moderate variety of materials and significant progress being
made in the development of new materials. Additive manufacturing is still
most commonly used for modeling and prototyping, but as the technology
progresses towards the manufacture of production quality parts a wider
variety of materials capable of meeting commercial standards needs to be
investigated.
We have discussed that one of the key advantages of additive manufacturing
is that it may eliminate the need for the tooling and long lead times required
to produce a part. This, in turn, facilitates the practical implementation of
small batch size production. Taking this concept one step further, additive
manufacturing opens the possibility of pushing the manufacturing stage
downstream closer and closer to the consumer, allowing products,
or families of products, to be produced to meet individual consumer
requirements. The changes in traditional DFM constraints also hints at
the possibility of the consumers themselves modifying or even designing
products and then manufacturing them, perhaps in their own homes.
While to a large extent the interest focused on agile decentralized
manufacturing is beginning to become apparent, current technological
limitations indicate that not all products are presently well suited or
practical for economic production using additive manufacturing. For

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 265

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 265 9/7/2012 9:46:49 AM

 instance, consider an injection molding machine that may be capable of
producing hundreds of thousands of uniform, FDA approved, statistically
controlled and certified petri dishes for cell culturing. In cases such as
this it clearly will make more sense to rely on the traditional injection
molding process at the present time. So the question becomes, under
what circumstances does production using an additive manufacturing
process make sense? From a purely economic standpoint, the tool-less
production of the simple petri dish using additive methods might result
in extraordinarily high unit costs. However, the elimination of traditional
DFM constraints has a deceptively broad impact; it is not simply a
matter of producing the same products that would have otherwise been
made using traditional methods and materials. To truly capitalize on the
freedom of design that additive manufacturing has to offer an entirely new
thought process is required. Consider that same petri dish with a network
of internal microfluidic channels designed for carrying out a specific set
of complex experiments. The current state of additive manufacturing
technology readily addresses the need to make unique and complex value
added products in small quantities. The following section highlights a few
specific examples and research efforts in which additive manufacturing
has been used to this effect.

Applications of additive manufacturing for aerospace

materials and components
In the aerospace industry, additive manufacturing has started to gain
acceptance for several reasons. First, it has the potential to greatly
reduce the so called buy to fly ratio (the mass of the material required to
manufacture a part divided by the mass of the final part that flies on the
airplane). For many aerospace parts processed using traditional methods,
this ratio can be as high as 20:1. With near net shape parts fabricated with
tool-less additive manufacturing, the buy-to-fly ratio approaches one.
The efficient use of material is often a vital concern for many aerospace
applications. High performance alloys used for aerospace applications
(Ti-6Al-4V, Inconel 625, GRCop-84, etc.) are typically associated
with high prices. The machining of chips from a billet is not efficient
or economical for many of these materials. It is often the high cost of
these materials that points to the need for near net shape manufacturing
processes. The utilization of high performance, exotic materials can be
greatly increased as direct metal additive manufacturing systems only
consolidate the material that is required for the near net shape part, so that
the raw material (powder metal in most cases) may then be recycled several
times without adversely affecting the physical properties. One such alloy

266 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 266 9/7/2012 9:46:49 AM

 that has generated a great deal of interest is titanium aluminide (Ti-Al).
Gamma phase TiAl (γ-TiAl) has many properties that are of particular
interest to the aerospace industry for the fabrication of blades used in
high speed gas turbine engines. For instance, at high temperatures γ-TiAl
exhibits low density and retention of specific strength, modulus, creep
and corrosion resistance. However, despite the desirable characteristics
of γ-TiAl, one of the major barriers to its widespread use has been
associated with difficulties in processing. Typical problems in processing
include porosity, chemical inhomogeneities, and poor microstructure (the
properties of γ-TiAl are highly microstructure dependent). For extrusion
and forging, the manufacturing costs are extremely high, the internal
microstructure is very difficult to control and most heterogeneities can be
traced back to the source ingots used. Casting of γ-TiAl has not been able
to produce satisfactory results either. The high reactivity of the material
coupled with high porosity has resulted in scrap rates as high as 80%11.
Direct metal additive manufacturing offers a cost-effective route for the
production of complex shapes in γ-TiAl . By using pre-alloyed powders
as a source material, the layer-wise process is capable of producing a
much more homogenous composition12. Biamino et al. showed that the
electron beam melting process could be used to successfully fabricate
γ-TiAl components with an axial length of 300 mm (Figure 2A) with
homogenous composition, fine grain structure and low porosity.13 This
clearly demonstrates a production scenario in which the benefits of
additive manufacturing outweigh the costs, facilitating the manufacture
of a product that was virtually impossible before.

Additive manufacturing for structural optimization

Structural foams have been used for a wide variety of applications, from
weight reduction and impact absorption to filters and heat exchangers.
Traditionally these foams have been fabricated by generating gas bubbles
in moulten metal or plastic (closed cell foams) or by vapour deposition
of metal onto carbon scaffolds (open cell foams). These methods result
in what are known as stochastic structures, that have random variations
in the size, shape and distribution of cells14. For a long time, theoretical
non-stochastic structures, with repeating unit cell geometries or precisely
determined characteristics were the subject of mathematical interest but
the lack of production methods to fabricate such structures presented a
significant barrier to their use. Additive manufacturing technologies
facilitate the production of non-stochastic structures in a wide variety
of materials with geometries that can be optimized for a given set of
constraints (Figure 2B). Research in this area has also uncovered some
interesting limitations of the additive processes with respect to non-

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 267

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 267 9/7/2012 9:46:49 AM

 stochastic foams such as identifying minimum strut angles that can
feasibly be built or reconciling the differences between the idealized
computer model (CAD, finite element etc.) and the true manufactured
geometry of individual lattice struts (Figure 2C)15. Additive fabrication
of non-stochastic lattice structures also introduces the possibility of
fabricating components with unique properties such as auxetic constructs,
that is, a component that exhibits a negative Poisson’s ratio. Poisson’s
ratio describes the ratio of the transverse strain (perpendicular to the
applied load), to the axial strain (in the direction of the applied load).
In modest terms, most materials get thinner in the middle when they are
stretched and, fatter in the middle when they are compressed because
of the conservation of volume. Auxetic structures exhibit the opposite
behavior which has many interesting applications, from energy absorbing
structures and blast attenuation, to the development of components that
exhibit very low thermal expansion at high temperatures (Figure 2D).
The design of structural aerospace components often involves making
trade-offs between conflicting objectives. Many optimization criteria
can be used but weight reduction while maintaining a specified stiffness,
strength or displacement is a very common goal. Reduced weight in
one or more components can significantly improve the fuel carrying
capacity, range, and manoeuvrability of the structure. The challenge is
to reduce weight without compromising strength – particularly at higher
temperatures.
Without traditional DFM design constraints, there has been a renewed
interest towards utilizing shape and topology optimization. When complex
organic structures such as wood or bone are examined it is striking how
structural material is only used where it is needed (i.e. where there is a
stressor). The same concept can be extended to engineering structures,
however, many of these freeform organic structures cannot be made using
traditional manufacturing methods. A layered approach to manufacturing
not only takes advantage of advances in structural optimization that have
been hitherto unrealized, but also incorporates structural optimization
into an entirely new class of products.
In topology optimization, the material is represented by voxels (three-
dimensional pixels) constrained by some predefined geometric
boundaries. Loading and support conditions are defined along with
objectives like minimizing weight. The output is generated by iteratively
adding or removing voxels of material until all of the constraints are
satisfied. Similarly, the finite element method has been used to optimize
the loading performance of non-stochastic structures based on various
loading conditions (Figure 2E)16 .

268 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 268 9/7/2012 9:46:49 AM

 Figure 2 (A) Titanium aluminide turbine blade fabricated using EB (photo courtesy of
Arcam AB, Sweden), the microstructure and composition are also shown. (B) Examples
of titanium alloy (Ti6Al4V) non-stochastic lattice structures fabricated using EB. (C)
The geometry of a single strut from a Ti6Al4V lattice fabricated using EB, the surface
roughness and variations in the geometry pose new challenges for modeling. (D)
Examples of Ti6Al4V structures made using EB that exhibit a negative Poisson’s ratio
and, an illustration showing the face of one of the unit cells. (E) An example of structural
optimization, the seed geometry (left) and the optimized geometry based on specific loads
and constraints (right). The samples in B–E were fabricated at NC State University.

Optimized thermal management

There has been growing interest in the use of additive manufacturing for
the fabrication of structures that have been designed for efficient thermal
management. Early interest in this area focused on the fabrication of
tooling (injection molding, electrodes for spark erosion, die casting etc.).
Efficient cooling of tools and dies can reduce the cycle time which will
reduce the part unit cost in a mass production operation. Using traditional
manufacturing methods, however, cooling channels could only be drilled
through molds in few key places and only in straight lines. This results
in inefficient and uneven part cooling and potentially part distortion.
The freedom of additive processes allows molds to be fabricated with
internal cooling channels conformal to the mold surfaces in order to
improve cooling efficiency, reduce cycle times and to equalize cooling/

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 269

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 269 9/7/2012 9:46:50 AM

 shrinkage rates to improve part quality17. For some high throughput
applications, the improvements in cycle time that can be realized amount
to significant savings, notwithstanding the shorter lead times and lower
costs typically associated with rapid tooling. The wider variety of additive
processes capable of direct part fabrication coupled with freeform design
capabilities has also led to a new interest in incorporating thermal
management as a congruent consideration in many component designs.
Recently, optimized mesh structures for high-surface area heat exchangers
have been developed and manufactured using processes like LM and EB
for a wide variety of applications such as automotive, aerospace and
computer industries18. Another interesting example of this has been the
additive fabrication of novel radio frequency (RF) structures. This has
coincided with the development of process parameters for high thermal
conductivity materials such as copper and copper alloys. Pure copper has
a relatively high thermal conductivity (401 W m−1 K−1 at 300K) which is
ideal for thermal management applications. In the case of RF structures,
a critical issue for high average power, high brightness photoinjectors
is that they are currently limited to relatively low duty cycles. Efficient
cooling through the utilization of conformal cooling channels built in,
using direct metal additive manufacturing, can greatly reduce thermal
stresses and result in high duty cycle and high gradient photoinjectors19.

Integrated assemblies facilitated by additive

manufacturing
Another opportunity facilitated by tool-less direct metal additive
manufacturing techniques like EB is the direct integration of components
such as pumps, fluid passages, and pistons into lightweight mesh structures.
The direct integration of such components significantly decreases overall
weight, optimizes mechanical properties, decreases fabrication time,
decreases material waste, and decreases material costs. Work being done
by the Materials Processing Group at Oak Ridge National Laboratories
(Knoxville, TN) is utilizing additive manufacturing technologies to
fabricate advanced robotic systems based on hydraulic and pneumatic
actuation (Figure 3A), as well as a new class of lightweight, compact
underwater robotic systems in which the robot base, hydraulic pump,
reservoir, and accumulator are combined and integrated into a single
lightweight structure (Figure 3B).

270 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 270 9/7/2012 9:46:50 AM

 Figure 3 Photographs provided courtesy of Oak Ridge National Laboratories
(Knoxville, TN) showing (A) a lightweight robotic hand designed specifically
for additive manufacturing using EB that utilizes stochastic network structures
as well as hydraulic and pneumatic actuation. (B) Lightweight, compact
underwater robotic system fabricated using EB in which the robot base,
hydraulic pump, reservoir, and accumulator are combined and integrated into
a single structure. The internal features are shown in the CAD model (inset).

Applications of additive manufacturing in medicine

The medical implications of rapid prototyping and additive manufacturing
were recognized very soon after the technologies became commercially
available. Medical imaging modalities such as computed tomography
(CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission
tomography are usually examined in a two-dimensional slice format. In
the early 1990s in Europe, a consortium of companies and universities
launched the Phidias project (after the Greek sculptor). This project
focused on combining the software, hardware, machinery and materials
to create accurate patient specific models from medical imaging data.
A key component in the development of patient specific treatments
using additive manufacturing is to acquire accurate three-dimensional
representations of the anatomy into a computer modeling environment for
further manipulation. One of the results of Phidias was the development
of software (Materialise, Belgium) capable of identifying and joining

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 271

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 271 9/7/2012 9:46:50 AM

 features from two-dimensional slices into three-dimensional computer
models in stereolithography (.stl) format. Specific features (such as bones,
organs, arteries etc.) can then be isolated and extracted based on contrast
thresholding. Algorithms are used to convert the voxel data into a .stl
surface model. Depending on the imaging technology used, the software
can be used for the acquisition and reconstruction of skeletal and/or soft
tissue geometry data.

Additive manufacturing in pre-surgical planning

In cases of severely abnormal anatomy, models fabricated with additive
processes provide a tool for surgeons to better understand unique,
intricate anatomical relationships that are difficult to visualize using
two-dimensional images. Medical models have been widely used in
maxillofacial and craniofacial reconstruction20, as well as for the planning
of complex distraction osteogenesis procedures for correction of severe
deformities. In addition to being planning tools, three-dimensional,
patient specific models are also often used to carry out rehearsals of new
or complex procedures. Models can combine bony tissue data with high
resolution MRI data (in which contrast is introduced into the vascular
structure). Some of the most complex cases that have involved the use
of 3D physical models derived from medical imaging data have been
the planning of separation surgeries for conjoined twins. This presents
significant challenges because of the complexities of the shared anatomy.
One of the more extreme examples is the separation of craniopagus twins.
These twins are joined at the cranium with two separate and individual
brains but a shared vascular system. Starting in 2001 Medical Modeling
(Golden, CO), fabricated numerous models of the patients anatomy, from
vascularization to full scale models with simulated skin (Figure 4). The
process took over a year and a half to plan, but ultimately the surgeries
were successfully performed in 200321. The use of 3D models fabricated
with additive manufacturing processes proved to be an essential part of the
surgical planning process and it is unlikely that cases such as this would
be considered without them. Similar models have also been utilized on a
more basic scientific level to improve the understanding of complex fluid
dynamics in tissues and diseases such as an abdominal aortic aneurism (a
permanent dilation of the aorta)22. Models made with additive processes
have been used for both the direct study of procedures, as well as the
experimental validation of finite element models.

272 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 272 9/7/2012 9:46:50 AM

 Custom medical devices fabricated with additive
manufacturing
Additive manufacturing is also being used for the direct creation of
custom medical devices. An often referred to example is the additive
manufacturing of custom fitted in the ear hearing aids. Traditionally,
these devices would have been manually created by a skilled technician,
but now waxy impressions are made of the patient’s outer ear and three
dimensional scanning is used to digitize the impression and the resulting
CAD model is modified to accommodate internal circuitry. The models
are then sent to an additive manufacturing machine for printing and
delivery to the individual customers after the electronic components are
installed23. This example also illustrates how additive manufacturing has
facilitated the mass customization of a product.

Figure 4 Photograph provided courtesy of Medical Modeling (Golden, CO) showing

a model of the skull craniopagus twins, the bone and vasculature are different colors,
and a window has been removed from the model to facilitate detailed examination.

Additive manufacturing of orthopedic implants

With the recent improvements in direct metal additive processes
like electron beam melting and selective laser sintering as well as the
availability of some biocompatible plastics for additive manufacturing,
there has been a great deal of interest in the direct fabrication of patient
specific medical implants and devices. Titanium alloy, Ti6Al4V, is

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 273

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 273 9/7/2012 9:46:51 AM

 available for many direct metal additive processes and is often used in
medical applications because of its biocompatibility.
One of the primary barriers to the practical implementation of direct metal
additive manufacturing technologies has been attributed to the various
regulatory agencies, particularly in the United States, but recently the US
Food and Drug administration has approved the production of certain
products fabricated using Arcam’s EBM process1. Several companies,
including Adler Ortho S.r.l (Italy), have been manufacturing standard,
commercial sizes of acetabular cups for hip replacement surgeries using
the Arcam electron beam melting process (Figure 5A). One of the primary
benefits of using direct metal fabrication for a standardized part such as
this is that engineered lattice structures which can be optimized for the
specific requirements of the implant such as bone ingrowth surfaces can
be incorporated and built into the parts. This eliminates several process
steps associated with traditional manufacturing methods. In the case of
these new implants, surfaces of the implant that come in contact with the
bone have been optimized for osseointegration. According to Adler Ortho
S.r.l, since 2007, over 15,000 of these units have been sold.
The same structural optimization concepts that have been applied to direct
metal fabrication in the aerospace and automotive industry have also been
utilized in the biomedical field, particularly for reducing the stiffness
of orthopedic implants such as hip stems (Figure 5B) or limb sparing
constructs. Skeletal tissues adapt to mechanical stimuli, adding bone
where it is needed and removing bone where it is not needed. Typical hip
stems are much stiffer than the host bone and, over time, this can cause
stress shielding, bone resorption, and, potentially, the premature failure of
the bone surrounding the implant. Additive processes allow the structure
of the stem to be optimized to match the stiffness, or flexibility, of the host
bone, reducing stress shielding24.
Lattice structures fabricated with EB have also been utilized in a
relatively new form of prosthetic attachment that involves the use of a
transcutaneous osseointegrated implant. This is a bone anchored implant
that breaches the skin barrier at the amputation site with an abutment
that facilitates the attachment of prosthetic limbs directly to the skeletal
system. For situations requiring load bearing prosthetic lower limbs,
these osseointegrated implants have addressed many of the problems
associated with traditional (socket type) prosthetics (Figure 5C). Recent
studies have focused on the biocompatibility of these structures, both in
vitro25 and in vivo.26

274 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 274 9/7/2012 9:46:51 AM

 Figure 5 Photographs showing several orthopedic implants fabricated using EB.
(a) Acetabular hip cup with integrated bone ingrowth surface (photographs courtesy
of Adler Ortho S.r.l, Italy). (b) Low stiffness hip stem implant optimized to promote
bone ingrowth and reduce stress shielding. (c) Patient specific transcutaneous
osseointegrated implant for the direct attachment of a prosthetic limb to the skeletal
anatomy. The implants in B and C were fabricated at NC State University.

Additive manufacturing in tissue engineering

The flexibility in geometries and materials that additive manufacturing
accommodates coupled with precision computer control of the placement
of those materials has given rise to a very interesting application; tissue
engineering. The layered nature of additive manufacturing facilitates
the generation of complex tissue scaffolds. The scaffolds are often in
the form of porous implants designed to provide structural support for
seeded/deposited living cells. The bounding geometry of the scaffolds
themselves can be derived from patient specific medical imaging data to
repair a specific wound, fracture, or defect (Figure 6).
To build such scaffolds a wide variety of biocompatible and
bioresorbable polymers or ceramics can be used in conjunction with
existing additive manufacturing systems. These include polymers
like polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), polycaprolactone (PCL), and

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 275

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 275 9/7/2012 9:46:51 AM

 hydroxyapatite (HA) composites. Another scaffold-like strategy is to
encapsulate viable cells in hygrogels (hydrophilic polymer such as gelatin),
which has been demonstrated for a variety of cell types. The encapsulated
cells are then deposited using additive manufacturing. Much of the
research associated with tissue scaffolds focused on the optimization of
pore sizes, culturing and manufacturing methods (cold extrusion, inkjet
printing, etc.). One of the greatest challenges to overcome is the difficulty
in transporting nutrients through the scaffold. Cell mobility is also a key
issue; the growth and proliferation of the cells is, after all, the objective.
In the case of hydrogels, the retention of three dimensional geometries
and proliferation of the cells through the cross linked polymer has posed
significant challenges.

Figure 6 Photograph showing tissue scaffolds fabricated at NC State University

into the the patient-specific geometry of a human ear using an extrusion-deposition
process. Such scaffolds can be seeded with autologous cells to reduce the likelihood
of implant rejection.

One possible solution is to eliminate the need for scaffolds in the first
place. Congruent with research on the freeform fabrication of scaffolds,
new techniques have been developed that facilitate the computer
controlled, layer by layer deposition of living tissue cells. This represents
the first steps towards the assembly and manufacture of biologically
relevant and functional organs for transplantation in end stage therapies.

276 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 276 9/7/2012 9:46:52 AM

 A key advantage is that these organs would be autologous, manufactured
starting from the patient’s own stem cells, therefore the risk of rejection
would be greatly reduced. Three-dimensional organ printing also allows
the precise positioning and placement of several differentiated cell types
within a single construct. Recently regenerated bladders have been
fabricated and implanted into human patients28.
One of the challenges associated with this technology has been to
maintain the efficacy of living cells throughout the positioning and
deposition processes. Nakamura et al. has utilized commercial inkjet
printing technology (low temperature, static-electricity actuated) with
bovine vascular endothelial cells suspended in culture media in place of
the ink. SEM analysis found that the printing process did not damage the
living cells29. The next major hurdle has been to assemble cells into viable
tissues. Research conducted at the Wake Forest Institute of Regenerative
Medicine resulted in the inkjet printing of rectangular scaffold/cell
constructs measuring roughly 8 x 6 x 4 mm (using human amniotic fluid
derived stem cells and bovine aortic endothelial cells) and subsequently
culturing and implanting them in mice. MRI evaluations were conducted
at five, eight and 10 week time intervals along with surgical removal and
subsequent histological/microscopic examination. Both the MRI and
histological data showed post implantation vascularization of the tissue
constructs30. Tissue constructs, however, have been relegated to relatively
thin sections due in large part to the need for cells to access nutrients and
dispose of waste via vascular pathways. In order to fabricate functioning
tissues suitable for clinical application, a vascular network built within the
tissue construct would then be necessary. The first steps have been taken
in this direction with the demonstration that current additive processes
are capable of printing complex intra-organ vascular trees and that the
organization of specialized cells can be controlled with additive processes
to produce vascular rings31.
The ability to use inkjet printing and other extrusion technologies to place
and deposit viable cells brings up an interesting notion: if it is possible to
print living cells, then what about other materials? In fact, a wide variety
of materials can be printed together with cells including specific chemical
and pharmaceutical compounds designed to enhance cell proliferation
and growth. The precise placement and deposition of functional
compounds falls under the definition of a relatively new class of additive
manufacturing collectively referred to as direct write technologies.

Direct write technologies

Although there are a great deal of similarities, direct write technologies
are often differentiated from other additive manufacturing methods by

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 277

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 277 9/7/2012 9:46:52 AM

 the minute scale of the products and the wide variety of materials that
can potentially be used. Direct write methods range from the use of
inkjet (or other jetting technologies) to fine extrusion nozzles to nano-
scale dip pen methods. Typically, direct write technologies are being
utilized for the fabrication of features ranging from a few nanometers to
a few millimeters. The materials used, usually in the form of specially
formulated “inks” or slurries, often consist of nano-particles suspended in
a solution. These materials can include polymers, ceramics, metals, and as
we have discussed, biological agents. A far more extensive review of the
diversity of processing modalities, materials, and applications is provided
in the references32. The ability to use such a wide variety of materials
is significant in that we are beginning to see direct write technologies
utilized for the 3D fabrication of functional electronic devices. Like
many of the other technologies that have been discussed, the fundamental
challenges facing direct writing are associated with the limited number
of materials that have been developed and investigated. While in theory a
wide variety of materials can be used, there is a great deal of research and
expense required for the development of each new material (each material
must be combined with the appropriate mixture of solvents, binders, etc.)
Yet, these technologies offer tremendous promise for the future as these
challenges are transcended. Most direct write technologies are designed
to deposit material on some form of substrate. When used in conjunction
with macro scale additive processes it is conceivable that fully functional
products can be fabricated. Already these technologies have been used
to fabricate resistors, capacitors, conductive pathways, transistors, and
semiconductors into complete functional circuits.

Near term outlook for additive manufacturing

Additive manufacturing has grown considerably in the past decade and it
is beginning to gain traction as a viable process well beyond the simple
tactile/visual models for which it was originally intended. This overview
provides only a small glimpse of some of the fascinating applications
that these technologies are being used for. How additive manufacturing
will shape the future and how additive manufacturing will be utilized
has been the subject of intense discussion, speculation, and a great deal
of hyperbole. While additive manufacturing essentially frees designers,
engineers, and scientists alike from many of the constraints associated
with traditional manufacturing, it is still a developing technology and it
is not yet a silver bullet. The freedom afforded by this technology also
brings with it an entirely new set of challenges and constraints. Consider
the resolution associated with the thickness of discrete layers, the surface
roughness of components, poor dimensional accuracy, minimum feature

278 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 278 9/7/2012 9:46:52 AM

 sizes (i.e. thin walls, ribs, slots, etc.), and anisotropy associated with
different part orientations. These are just a few examples of some of the
new manufacturing constraints that will need to be considered. So far,
unlike traditional DFM rules, not a great deal of attention has been given
to these limitations. Of course, this is in part due to the fact that only
now have these constraints become a critical issue for manufacturing.
Standardization of these rules and processes will likely be a driving factor
in the acceptance of additive processes as production tools. One recent
development in this arena has been the formation of ASTM subcommittee
F42 and ISO technical committee 261 on additive manufacturing
technologies. So far the ASTM committee has published two documents.
One ASTM F2972-12a standardizes the terminology for additive
manufacturing technologies (a considerable achievement). The other,
ASTM F2915-12, outlines a new file format that is intended to replace the
STL format called the Additive Manufacturing Format (AMF). The STL
format was an elegant solution for translating three dimensional CAD data
into a series of discrete two dimensional contours that additive processes
could produce (especially given the limited computational power available
at the time). As we have discussed, the STL format approximates the
surface geometry of a part with a series of interconnected triangular facets
and little more. Modern additive manufacturing processes are making use
of a wide variety of materials, colors, and compositions. The AMF format
(V1.1) is seeking to address the requirements of new systems for multiple
materials, functionally graded and even composite (mixed) materials.
The AMF format also facilitates the inclusion of data regarding surface
texture and engineered porosities. As was demonstrated earlier, the STL
format has very specific shortcomings with regards to the accuracy of
production quality components. The AMF has begun to address this by
including the possibility of generating surfaces with curved “triangular”
facets to improve part accuracy. Still, neither the AMF nor the STL format
has a provision for carrying geometric dimension and tolerance data
through the production process. Even if these data are not used directly
by additive manufacturing processes, they are likely to play a critical role
in any secondary post processing or finishing operations.
The finishing of parts fabricated by additive manufacturing, particularly
direct metal parts, will become a significant challenge in the future. Clearly
in some scenarios (such as the additive manufacturing of compressor
blades that were discussed) this is not going to be the case. For small batch
sizes, however, it appears that this is only starting to become apparent as
more and more aerospace and automotive manufacturers begin to adopt
and use selected AM components. The difficulty is one of quantities and
flexibility. For most applications, direct metal additive manufactured
parts can be considered near net shape components just like forgings and

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 279

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 279 9/7/2012 9:46:52 AM

 castings. However,unlike forgings or castings the production quantities
for many AM parts are typically very small, so the hard automation
and fixturing that was once used for finishing is no longer applicable or
practical. Much of the effort in this area has focused on the improvement
of the surface finish of AM parts, however, it is important to remember
that surface finish is only one of many dozens of potential tolerance
callouts. It is also clear that new finishing (machining /grinding/EDM)
technologies will be required that make use of adaptive automation,
measurement and fixturing; especially if solid metal components are
integrated with functionally graded structures.
The issue of limited materials is also a key challenge looking forward.
This is true both for polymer and metal based additive technologies, and
several of the references that we have presented have cited the need for
a wider variety of industrially relevant materials. At the same time it will
be important for manufacturers to embrace the new material possibilities
associated with additive manufacturing. The example of the ability to
process Ti–Al using EB is a clear demonstration of this concept.
Another issue that has arisen in many of the works cited here is the
relatively small size of the build volumes and long processing times for
many AM processes. The processing time is often offset by the ability to
manufacture unique geometries; however, the small build volumes still
represent a significant barrier to the adoption of AM in many fields.
With that said, the wide range of fields in which AM is being adopted
indicates that machinery manufacturers will continue to work to
address these needs as the technology gains traction. One sector of the
industry that is attracting significant attention lately has been additive
manufacturing in the hobby market. As was discussed earlier, the price of
some additive manufacturing machines has dropped so low that they can
be purchased and operated by the general public (currently these systems
range from a few hundred dollars up to about 5000 dollars)33. This has
generated a great deal of excitement about the possibility of home-based
3D printing. Almost all of these low end AM systems are based on the
extrusion of thermoplastics. To a large extent, the sudden appearance
of low cost AM was facilitated by the expiration of key FDM® patents
followed by the availability of a variety of open source CAD, STL, and
slicing software platforms1. The ability for home users to access and/
or create CAD representations of parts has already prompted alarms
about the protections of IP, safety, and, of course, liability. Generally
the quality of parts produced is lower than the quality expected from
industrial machines; however, users are able to recreate a wide variety
of parts and generate new innovations. While it is reminiscent of the file
sharing controversy associated with the music industry, what remains to

280 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 280 9/7/2012 9:46:52 AM

 be seen is whether these “low end” systems will remain in the realm of
hobbyists and educators, or if the technology will mature to a wider user
base. Soon other patents will expire, however, extruded thermoplastics
are particularly well suited for use by the home user. The raw materials
are non-toxic, cheap, and easy to handle. The systems are also relatively
simple and robust, which is not necessarily true for many of the other
systems we have discussed. On the other end of the spectrum, the
direct metal additive manufacturing systems are currently so extremely
expensive that only a few manufacturing companies and select research
groups are working with them.
The question of how mass customization and the decentralization/
distribution of manufacturing will truly influence the economy, supply
chain networks, and even the environment is yet unanswered. What is
clear is that the growing field of additive manufacturing has opened up
numerous applications that were never before possible and despite the
many shortcomings and challenges, it is clear that in the coming years it
is likely that additive processes will play an ever growing and important
role.

References
1. Wohlers, T. (2011). Wohlers Report 2011: Additive manufacturing and 3D
Printing State of the Industry Annual Worldwide Progress Report.
2. Cormier, D., Harrysson, O. L. and Mahale, T. (2003). J. Chin. Inst. Industr. Eng.,
20, 193-201.
3. Jacobs, P. F. (1992). Rapid prototyping and manufacturing: Fundamentals of
sterolithography. SME
4. Gibson, I., Rosen, D. W. and Stucker, B. (2010). Additive manufacturing
technologies: Rapid prototyping to direct digital manufacturing. Springer, New
York
5. Wohlers, T. (2005). Wohlers Report 2005: Additive manufacturing and 3D
Printing State of the Industry Annual Worldwide Progress Report.
6. Singh, R. (2010). Adv. Mater.Res., 86, 342-349.
7. Dimitrov, D., Schreve, K. and de Beer, N. (2006). Rapid Prototyp. J., 12,
136‑147.
8. Goodridge, R. D., Tuck, C. J. and Hague, R. J. (2012). Progr. Mater. Sci., 57,
229-267.
9. Vandenbroucke, B. and Kruth, J.P. (2007). Rapid Prototyp. J., 13, 196-203.
10. Ram, G. D., Robinson, C., Yang, Y. and Stucker, B. E. (2007). Rapid Prototyp.
J., 13(4), 226-235.
11. Wu, X. (2006). Intermetallics, 14, 1114-1122.
12. Cormier, D. , Harrysson, O., Mahale, T. and West, H. (2007) Res. Lett. Mater.
Sci.,2007, 1-4
13. Biamino, S., Penna, A., Ackelid, U., Sabbadini, S., Tassa, O., Fino, P. and
Gennaro, P. (2010). Intermetallics, 19, 776-781.
14. Williams, C., Cochran, J.K. and Rosen, D.W. (2011) Int. J. Adv. Manufact.
Techn., 53, 231-239

www.scienceprogress.co.uk Additive manufacturing technologies 281

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 281 9/7/2012 9:46:52 AM

 15. Cansizoglu, O., Harrysson, O. , Cormier, D., West, H. and Mahale, T. (2008)
Mater.Sci. Eng. A, 492(1-2), 468-474
16. Cansizoglu, O., Harrysson, O. , West, H. , Cormier, D. and Mahale, T. (2008)
Rapid Prototyp. J., 14, 114-122
17. Levy, G.N., Schindel, R. and Kruth, J.P. (2003). CIRP Annals-Manufact. Techn.,
52, 589-609
18. Wong, M., Tsopanos, S. , Sutcliffe, C.J. andOwen, I. (2005) Rapid Prototyp. J.,
13, 291-297
19. Frigola, P., Agustsson, R., Boucher, S., Murokh, A., Rosenzweig, J., Travish,
G., Faillace, L., Cormier, D. and Mahale, T. (2008) Proc. 11th European
Particle Accelerator Conf., 751-753 .
20. Gibson, I., Cheung, L.K., Chow, S.L., Cheung,W.L., Beh, S.L., Salvani, M. and
Lee, S.H. (2006) Rapid Prototyp. J., 12, 53-58
21. Christensen, A. M., Humphries, S. M., Goh, K. Y. C. and Swift, D. (2004).
Child's Nervous System, 20, 547-553.
22. Doyle, B.J., Morris, L.G., Callanan, A., Kelly, P., Vorp, D.A. and McGlouglin,
T.M. (2008) J. Biomed. Eng., 130, 034501
23. Reeves, P., Tucker, C., Hauge, R., (2011). In: F. S. Fogliatto and G. J. Da Silveira
(eds), Mass customization, pp. 275-289. Springer, London.
24. Harrysson , O.L.A , Cansizoglu, O. , Marcellin-Little, D.J., Cormier, D.R. and
West, H.A., (2007) Mater. Sci. Eng., 28, 366-373
25. Haslauer, C.M., Springer, J.C., Harrysson, O.L.A., Loboa, E., Moteiro-Riviere,
N.A. and Marcellin-Little, D.J. (2010) Med. Eng.Phys., 32, 645-652
26. Palmquist, A. , Snis, A., Emanuelsson, L., Browne, M. and Thomsen, P. (2011) J.
Biomater. Appl., E-published ahead of Print
27. Melchels, F.P.W., Domingos, M.A.N., Klein, T.J., Malda, J., Bartolo, P.J. and
Hutmacher, D.M. (2012) Additive Manufacturing of Tissues and Organs.
Progress in Polymer Science. Available Online 8 December 2011
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article /pii/S0079670011001328)
28. Atala, A. (2011) Br. Med. Bull., 97, 81-104
29. Nakamura, M., Kobayashi, A., Takagi, F., Watanabe, A., Hiruma, Y., Ohuchi, K.,
Iwasaki, Y., Horie, M., Morita, I. and Takatani,S. (2005) Tiss. Eng., 11,
1658‑1666
30. Xu, T., Olson, J., Zhao, W. , Atala, A., Zhu, J-M. and Yoo, J.J. (2008) J. Manufact.
Sci. Eng., 130, 1-7
31. Visconti, R. P., Kasyanov,V., Gentile, C., Zhang, J., Markwald,R.R. and Mironov,
V. (2010) Expert Opin. Biol. Ther., 10, 409-420.
32. Hon, K.K.B, Li, L. and Hutchings, I.M. (2008) CIRP Annals-Manufact. Techn.,
57, 601-620
33. 2011, Print me a Stradivarius, The Economist, 10 February 2011

282 Timothy J. Horn and Ola L. A. Harrysson

SPR1200056 Additive manufacturing technologies.indd 282 9/7/2012 9:46:52 AM