Process Parameter Optimization of Metal Additive M

H.Y. Chia et al.
J Mater Inf 2022;2:16 Journal of Materials

DOI: 10.20517/jmi.2022.18
Informatics
Review Open Access
Process parameter optimization of metal additive man-

ufacturing: a review and outlook
Hou Yi Chia, Jianzhao Wu, Xinzhi Wang, Wentao Yan*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117575, Singapore.
*Correspondence to: Assistant Prof. Wentao Yan, Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singa-pore 117575, Singapore. E-mail: [email protected] ; ORCID: 0000-0001-8480-6375
How to cite this article: Chia HY, Wu J, Wang X, Yan W. Process parameter optimization of metal additive manufacturing: a review
and outlook. J Mater Inf 2022;2:16. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/jmi.2022.18
Received: 30 Jun 2022 First Decision: 4 Aug 2022 Revised: 1 Sep 2022 Accepted: 13 Sep 2022 Published: 9 Oct 2022
Academic Editors: Xingjun Liu, Qian Li Copy Editor: Jia-Xin Zhang Production Editor: Jia-Xin Zhang
Abstract
The selection of appropriate process parameters is crucial in metal additive manufacturing (AM) as it directly in-
fluences the defect formation and microstructure of the printed part. Over the past decade, research efforts have
been devoted to identifying “optimal” processing regimes for different materials to achieve defect-free manufactur-
ing, which mostly involve costly trial-and-error experiments and computationally expensive mechanistic simulations.
Hence, it is apropos to critically review the methods used to achieve the optimal process parameters in AM. This work
seeks to provide a structured analysis of current methodologies and discuss systematic approaches toward general
optimization work in AM and the process parameter optimization of new AM alloys. A brief review of process-induced
defects due to process parameter selection is given and the current methods for identifying “optimal processing win-
dows” are summarized. Research works are analyzed under a standard optimization framework, including the design
of experiments and characterization, modelling and optimization algorithms. The research gaps that preclude multi-
objective optimization in AM are identified and future directions toward optimization work in AM are discussed. With
growing capabilities in AM, we should reconsider the definition of the “optimal processing region”.
Keywords: Additive manufacturing, process parameters, optimization, modeling, design of experiments
INTRODUCTION
Metal-based additive manufacturing (AM) has many methodological variants, including powder bed fusion
(PBF), electron beam melting (EBM), direct energy deposition (DED), wire-arc additive manufacturing (WAAM)
and binder jetting (BJ). Regardless of the method used, metal AM processes involve a plethora of process pa-
© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, shar
ing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you
give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate
if changes were made.
www.jmijournal.com
Page 2 of 34 H.Y. Chia et al. J Mater Inf 2022;2:16 I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/jmi.2022.18
rameters that influence the usually high heat input and cooling rates (except in processes without localized
heat sources, e.g., BJ). The thermal history of the AM process affects the microstructure of the AM part, which
consequently affects its mechanical properties, such as tensile strength, ductility, surface roughness, fatigue
life and hardness. Hence, a proper understanding and optimal control of the process parameters are key to
producing quality AM parts. Therefore, for any given design objective, manufacturing objective and feedstock
material, optimal process parameters should be determined.
Nevertheless, the optimization of process parameters in AM is a challenging endeavor, owing to the wide
process space and parameter selection. More importantly, minute variations in processing parameters affect
the cooling rate and heat input, therefore requiring more careful control during processing for consistency
and reliability. It is clear that the large parameter space in AM requires more sophisticated approaches for
optimization rather than simple trial and error.
Without standardized parameter selection criteria, certification remains a major roadblock for metal AM to
be widely applied in industry [1] . A key reason is the lack of suitable metrics for quality and control, of which
process parameters are the inherent prerequisites. According to the AMSC Roadmap published in 2018 [2] ,
parameter control has been identified as a research gap (PC5 and QC3) due to the many sources of variability
during the AM process. As a complete understanding is currently unavailable, qualification can only be ob-
tained through qualification test pieces of various geometries. In its subsequent update in 2022 [3] , standards
have been developed to address the issue, but these published standards contain no quantitative description or
requirements for process parameter selection. Moreover, ISO/ASTM 52910:2018(E) standard [4] has identified
that considerable time can be spent on experimental iteration to determine the optimal process parameters,
thereby increasing the upfront engineering costs. Hence, the trial-and-error method of determining the opti-
mized process parameters can easily deter interested parties from utilizing AM due to its cost-ineffectiveness.
Most companies also treat process parameter control as intellectual property to retain a competitive advan-
tage. Therefore, a universal indicator for part quality is highly coveted. The AMSC suggested a single (or few)
process parameter(s) that can combine both material and process parameters independent of the material and
machine. For example, the NASA MFSC SPEC 3717 standard suggests the use of top melt pool characterization
and melt pool depth and width measurements as informative of process health. Therefore, process parameter
optimization is directly connected to the issue of standardization and is a highly relevant problem for industry.
In AM, the optimization of process parameters first begins by identifying a suitable processing map for a given
material. Over the past decade, efforts have been focused on processing regions with near-zero defects. There-
after, a suitable combination of parameters within this processing window is then identified according to the
design objectives of the AM user. As the change in process parameters usually leads to conflicting objectives,
the optimization of process parameters in AM is effectively a multi-objective optimization engineering prob-
lem. Ideally, the optimization procedure should consider multiscale and transient effects unique to the AM
process.
To perform an effective optimization, accurate and reliable models that relate the process parameters to their
properties are required. The understanding of these process-structure-property (PSP) relations is therefore
crucial and is determined through combined efforts in experiments and simulations. If a sufficiently rigorous
PSP model is defined, different algorithms can be applied with the PSP model as a fitness function to perform
a multi-objective optimization study. However, it is often the case that a complete description of the complex
physical mechanisms occurring in metal AM is not immediately available or remains lacking. Although power-
ful and accurate mechanistic numerical models have been developed, they remain computationally expensive.
Consequently, experimental optimization methods are usually still performed and surrogate models are de-
veloped, from basic methods, such as surface regression, to more sophisticated methods, such as machine
learning (ML). Due to the complexity of the physical process, ML has recently gained traction in AM research
H.Y. Chia et al. J Mater Inf 2022;2:16 I http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/jmi.2022.18 Page 3 of 34
as a useful tool to identify PSP relations and provide sufficiently accurate predictions for optimization.
There is abundant literature on the process parameter optimization of different metal AM materials and nu-
merous review articles on the topic of AM. These articles acknowledge and highlight the need for process
parameter optimization in AM. However, there has been no attempt to summarize and evaluate the meth-
ods used to achieve optimal process parameters in AM. The objective of this work is to critically review the
methods of optimization of process parameters in AM research and outline possible research directions and
optimization strategies. We believe such a review will be especially helpful in the process optimization of new
AM alloys and general optimization work for AM practitioners. In this review, literature on the optimization
of process parameters in AM is compiled and systematically classified under the traditional optimizing frame-
work of design of experiments (DoE) and modelling and optimization. A brief review on the defects due to
inappropriate defect selection and optimal processing window is given to provide context for discussion. The
effectiveness, limitations and potential of the optimization work carried out in AM are discussed and possible
research gaps are suggested.
PROCESS PARAMETERS AND DEFECT FORMATION IN METAL AM

The main goal of manufacturing is to create a functional part. Ideally, a functional part of superior quality re-
quires the manufactured part to be defect-free. This is especially true in metal processing for most engineering
applications, where micro-defects, such as pores, generally act as crack and fatigue initiation sites, resulting in
deterioration of the mechanical properties. Technologies in metal AM are largely derived from powder metal-
lurgy, wherein the relative density of the green part is crucial to its mechanical properties. Consequently, the
notion of “process parameter optimization” in the past decade has been used to identify the process space for
minimum porosity [5–7] .
In metal AM methods that utilize local concentrated heat sources (e.g., PBF, EBM, DED and WAAM), the de-
fects are grouped into two main categories based on their severity, which have been identified and studied [7–10] ,
namely, (i) pores and voids and (ii) cracks, delaminations or distortions. Pores and voids are the main defect in
AM parts with no significant distortion, delamination or cracking. In contrast, cracks, delaminations and dis-
tortions (which can arise due to pores) are more severe as they render the manufactured part unusable, disrupt
the manufacturing process, and have the potential to cause direct harm to the machine itself, e.g., distorted
or delaminated parts may collide with the recoater blade or drum in PBF processes, or the deposition nozzle
in DED processes. Most machines with a fail-safe mechanism will directly halt the manufacturing process if
any collision events are detected. For minor distortions and cracks, the manufacturing process may not be
disrupted as there will be no significant detectable collisions. However, the part will become unusable and can
only be inspected after retrieval from the manufacturing chamber. Similarly, if significant distortion occurs,
the machine may halt and the part formed from the previous layers would be unusable. In both cases, it is a
waste of time, effort and material. Regardless of the manufacturing method, all the aforementioned defects
arise due to an inappropriate combination of process parameters and any defects should be mitigated or even
exploited to achieve a superior part.
Pores and voids can be largely classified into a lack of fusion defects, gas porosities and keyhole porosities,
all of which occur under different process parameter combinations. Currently, relative densities greater than
99% are easily achievable [11–13] . However, the existence of porosities should not be of primary concern; rather,
the formation mechanisms and morphology of these pores play a greater role in determining the mechanical
properties. Gong et al. showed that parts with keyhole porosities of 1% had little effect on tensile strength,
while a lack of fusion porosities of the same level had a detrimental effect on the mechanical properties [14] . In
fact, under static loading conditions, small porosities lower than a critical size (dependent on material) may
be harmless [15] . The morphology of such pores are more significant, where Kasperovich et al. suggested that
sharp irregularities in the pores can act as stress concentrators based on classification of the voids via principal
curvature analysis [16] . Moreover, Snow et al. highlighted that the formation of such pores and voids may be
partly stochastic, as the complete systematic control of certain conditions, such as power fluctuations, particle
packing and spatter, remains intractable [17] . Hence, it is clear that it is not the existence of pores that determines
the part quality, but instead its geometry and formation mechanism. Given the prevalence and susceptibility of
the formation of pores, the complete elimination of pores and voids is impractical and unnecessary. Therefore,
admissible pores should be considered depending on the application of the AM part.
More importantly, processing parameters have a direct influence on type-I macro-residual stresses in AM,
induced by the rapid cyclical heating and cooling during processing [18,19] . These high residual stresses may
induce cracks [20–23] , delaminations [24] and distortions [25,26] . Bartlett et al. concluded from several studies
that the lowest possible (effective) energy input should be used to minimize residual stresses [27] . While the
mitigation of residual stresses via control of process parameters is a solution, base plate preheating can partly
reduce the magnitude of residual stresses and mitigate the problems induced by residual stresses [28–33] . How-
ever, this solution comes at the expense of reduced mechanical performance, as larger grain sizes are obtained
due to lower cooling rates. Moreover, the preheating temperature has to be designed according to the thermo-
dynamic system of the alloy. If the preheating temperature exceeds a threshold, undesirable microstructures
may adversely affect the mechanical properties of the material [32] . Furthermore, preheating requires higher
energy consumption during processing and the careful design of thermal control of the base plate to ensure
even and homogeneous heating. Hence, it is still desirable to directly control the residual stress characteristics
via process parameter selection.
In addition to the aforementioned defects, physical phenomena arising from parameter selection can be further
exploited to enhance the quality of AM parts. Notably, the parameters of the processing atmosphere have been
shown to have a significant influence on the AM part. The pressure of the chamber may be adjusted to control
the melt pool morphology [34] and keyhole stability [35] . Under specific processing conditions, the in-situ nano-
oxides that form may induce inoculation and beneficial grain refinement effects [36,37] . Moreover, Ikehata et al.
demonstrated that the use of different gas atmospheres and their concentration can be calibrated to achieve
grain refinement, suggesting that even the gas content in the chamber is a potential processing parameter [38] .
The nominal laser power delivered to the powder bed can also be reduced by the shielding gas properties [39] .
Moreover, the control of the shielding gas type and velocities affect the printed quality. The shielding gas ve-
locities can disrupt the powder bed and affect the porosity [39,40] . In addition, the shielding gas can directly
influence the vapor plume characteristics [39,41,42] , where the impingement angle of the vapor plume has also
been observed to disrupt the powder bed [43,44] . The vapor plume shape determined by its relative direction to
the shielding gas flow can also possibly affect the oxidation and reduction characteristics [45] . Consequently,
the oxidation characteristics would affect the melt pool dynamics and part quality due to the level of oxygen
content. The vapor plume that forms under different process parameters also results in different spatter char-
acteristics, which have been identified to cause defects in AM parts. The control of beam parameters, such as
laser defocus [46] or beam diameter [47] , can also be used to reduce the build time. The control of shielding gas
parameters is also essential to ensure the proper removal of by-products while preventing disruption to the
powder bed [48,49] .
In addition, other methods for grain refinement exist, such as ultrasound [50,51] , the direct introduction of
nanoparticles for inoculation [52–58] and the introduction of carbon nanotubes for grain refinement and rein-
forcement [59–61] . Magnetic fields can also be used to control the solidification behavior and microstructure
formation [62,63] . Essentially, the number of parameters that can be controlled in an AM system could increase
indefinitely as the technology develops. Nevertheless, increasing our knowledge regarding the processing al-
lows us to introduce additional control measures to potentially reduce the variability and uncertainty that are
rampant across AM systems. For example, the fact that many studies do not include the effect of varying layer
thickness, chamber processing conditions (direction of scan and speed flow), spreader velocity etc., already
accounts for a significant variation observed across different machines, despite using the same process param-
eters. The optimal parameters determined for one alloy system may change depending on the machine used,
the lifetime of the machine, its geographical location etc., and these effects remain unknown.
In contrast, in metal AM processes that do not utilize localized heat sources during processing, problems aris-
ing from residual stress can be avoided. BJ is one such unique metal AM technique, where the fusion of a
material occurs separately. However, problems related to powder-based processes remain in BJ and crucial
effects related to the binding and debinding process arise. Instead of the instantaneous heat input during
manufacturing, the main process parameters are the fluid properties of the binding agent governing droplet
breakup and adhesion, binder-powder compatibility, binder saturation and curing parameters (time and tem-
perature) [64–66] . As BJ is different from the aforementioned AM processes, the mechanisms are not elaborated
in detail here as it is not the focus of this review. Nonetheless, the discussions of the optimization framework
in finding optimal process parameters remain relevant.
Therefore, for any processing technique, it is of utmost importance to understand the formation mechanisms
of defects or other process phenomena and subsequently identify the process parameters that can influence
these formation mechanisms. In PBF or DED, the process parameters fundamentally dictate the thermal input
to the material, effectively influencing the melt pool dimensions, solidification characteristics and thermal his-
tory. The microstructural evolution, defects and mechanical properties are correspondingly affected. Hence,
any parameter that influences the conditions for thermal input and material behavior is a potential process
parameter and therefore many process parameters can naturally be identified. For example, in the PBF pro-
cess, the parameters, mechanisms and defects can be categorized as shown in Figure 1 (with reference to Sun
et al. [67] ). Similar process-mechanism-defect relations have been summarized by Svetlizky et al. for DED
processes and Li et al. for BJ processes [7,66] .
OPTIMAL PROCESSING WINDOW

Given the plethora of parameters that can be identified during the AM process, a direct treatment of this mul-
tivariate problem is impractical. Instead, key objectives and parameters are identified to simplify the problem.
The key objectives are defined by quantifiable physical metrics at various scales, such as physical conditions
(melt pool modes and aspect ratios), defects (relative density, porosity and distortion tolerance), mechanical
properties (surface roughness and tensile and fatigue properties), microstructural properties (grain phases,
grain size, grain aspect ratio, grain boundary angle and grain misorientation) or manufacturing performance
(time, energy, cost and efficiency). In contrast, the key parameters are controllable process parameters limited
by the capability and customizability of the machine. Owing to the complex metallurgical process that occurs
during AM, the key parameters may be identified simply by the consideration of bulk energy input during
the process. In particular, the influences of the heat power (P), scanning velocity (v), hatch spacing (h) and
layer thickness (t) on the AM part quality are most commonly investigated in PBF. These four parameters are
commonly characterized as a volumetric energy density (VED) [5] . In addition to VED, other parameter com-
binations have been proposed, such as linear input energy density, linear energy density and surface energy
density [67] . Although VED is a common method for characterizing the energy input, it has been shown to be
unreliable due to the overt physical simplification.
Across the literature, the most common method to characterize the energy input in the AM process is VED.
Its prevalence is partly due to early efforts that focused on optimizing part porosity, which VED provided
sufficient prediction for. However, while simple bulk energy considerations, such as VED, are easier to quantify
and are heavily used in most experiments, they fail to accurately capture the effects from complex physical
phenomena in AM [74,75] . Therefore, VED may be able to provide an aggregate prediction of the porosity
Figure 1. Process parameters in the PBF process, which affect the process mechanisms and defect formation in AM. DED processes also
share similar defects, though the formation mechanisms may differ slightly. Illustrated here are the uncovered mechanisms for PBF, which
include powder spreading [68] , melting [69] , spattering [43] and vapor plume [70] . The defects range from gas, keyhole pores, lack of fusion
pores to cracks [71] , delamination [72] and distortion [73] .
but not the mechanical properties [11] . As the parameters do not correlate strictly in a linear fashion, direct
comparisons by VED only could be misleading [16] . In fact, different parameter combinations with the same
VED values could yield different mechanical properties. For example, Greco et al. showed that the SLM of
stainless steel parts under the same VED yielded different microhardness characteristics [76] . The simplified
VED consideration ignores the crucial transient dynamic effects, particularly the thermal history that governs
both the evolution of the microstructures and the effect of distortion by the residual stresses.
Despite the limitations of using VED, it remains a popular option as it provides a semi-quantitative comparison
for basic analysis and comparison between different process parameters. Research has focused on the influence
on these key parameters in AM due to the simple quantification. It is generally observed from the multitude
of studies in metal-based AM, as well as the studies in laser-based fusion welding, that laser power has the
most significant effect, followed by the laser scan velocity [77,78] . Further evidence of laser power being a more
dominant process parameter is seen in the derived parameters, such as the normalized enthalpy parameter [79]
and the dimensionless “keyhole” parameter [80] to determine the keyhole mode transition. There is currently no
de-facto parameter that is able to universally characterize the AM process, as identified by the ASMC research
gap. Regardless, these four main parameters alone already have competing influence with one another on the
key objectives, such as the melt pool dimensions, porosity and microstructure.
Similar to the welding process, in the PBF and DED processes, the mode is primarily differentiated into the heat
conduction and keyhole modes [81,82] . It is possible to characterize the modes in AM by considering a simple
thermal model and the application of the non-dimensionality of processing variables. Usually, if the laser power
is too low and the scanning velocity is too high, lack of fusion occurs and a complete print is not obtained. In
contrast, the keyhole mode in the PBF process is generally avoided as it introduces keyhole porosities through
the collapse of the keyhole [79,83,84] . As such, there is a “Goldilocks” zone where a suitable power and velocity
combination can be obtained. However, the notion that the keyhole mode is necessarily undesirable may not
be equivocal. In fact, experiments suggest that a power-velocity combination that corresponds to a stable
keyhole mode may be beneficial. Scime and Beuth [85] examined the cross-sectional morphology of melt pools
processed under the keyhole regime and found that the occurrence of keyhole porosities was infrequent. Works
by Zhao et al. also suggest that the existence of a stable keyhole regime is possible [69,86] . Indeed, a stable keyhole
with no keyhole porosities arising from keyhole collapse would be ideal given its deeper penetration, which
theoretically would allow for a larger layer thickness and shorter build time. Still, the keyhole mode is still
generally avoided as the stochastic nature of the keyhole fluctuation is difficult to exactly predict and control.
In contrast, Jadhav et al. demonstrated that the keyhole mode may be favorable for metals and alloys with high
conductivity, such as copper [87] . Under these conditions, metals with high conductivity are able to conduct
heat away rapidly before the unstable keyhole collapses, thereby avoiding pore formation.
In addition to changes in the melt pool dimensions, process parameters have a more fundamental impact on
the microstructure of the material. The rapid heating and cooling cycles in AM are characteristic of the AM
process. Rapid cooling rates of 105 −107 𝐾 ·𝑠−1 and correspondingly high-temperature gradients 106 −107 𝐾 ·𝑚 −1
have been reported for PBF processes [88] . Due to rapid solidification, the microstructures formed are generally
a mix of equiaxed or epitaxial crystals at the periphery and dendritic along the scan direction [89] [Figure 2].
Notably, some process parameters have been identified to have a direct influence on grain morphology. For
example, in 17-PH stainless steel, the laser power and scanning velocity directly influence the austenitic grain
size [77] . In fact, by careful adjustment of the process parameters (power and velocity), < 011 > grains can
be produced in stainless steel, which can simultaneously improve the ductility and strength of steel, thereby
overcoming the conventional trade-off between these two properties [90] . Interestingly, a lamellar microstruc-
ture with alternating < 100 > and < 110 > grains can be obtained solely by the control of process parameters
alone [91] .
Similarly, the beam shape of the laser can be designed to alter the microstructure formation. For example,
Roehling et al. demonstrated that the use of elliptical beam shape can improve the mechanical properties of
the printed part [92] . The solidification direction in AM is highly directional. As the crystallization occurs in
a preferential direction during the AM process, it is also common for AM parts to exhibit anisotropic prop-
erties [93] . Due to overlaps, the remelting of the overlapping regions between the melt pool creates new mi-
crostructural textures and features that cannot be achieved through conventional manufacturing [94] , such as
spiralling microstructures [95] , lamellar grains in SS316L [91] or duplex microstructures in Ti-6Al-4V [96] [Fig-
ure 2C-F]. In this regard, the metal microstructure can be directly controlled through the adjustment of the
process parameters, which is indirectly the objective of many studies attempting to optimize the mechanical
properties. Due to the unique microstructures in AM, some alloys manufactured via AM have comparable or
superior mechanical strength compared to their conventionally manufactured counterparts (such as casting
or wrought) [12,97–103] [Figure 2E-F]. However, this rapid heating and cooling process generates high residual
stresses in metal AM during fabrication, which may lead to warpage and cracking [19] . Moreover, due to the
prevalence of pores in metal-based AM, the fatigue performance of AM components is generally poorer than
parts manufactured through conventional means [104,105] .
Figure 2. Microstructures and mechanical properties in AM. (A) Microstructure of a melt pool, equiaxed at the periphery and dendritic
along the solidification direction [89] . (B) Spiral microstructure pattern observed due to 67 degree layer rotation scanning strategy [95] . (C)
Lamellar grains comprised of alternating < 100 > and < 110 > grains in stainless steel 316L by altering laser power and scanning speed [91] .
(D) Preferred nucleation of < 110 > grains in stainless steel 316L [90] . (E) AM SS316L has a good combination of uniform elongation and yield
stress compared to conventionally manufactured counterparts [99] and its corresponding microstructure. (F) AM Ti-6Al-4V with duplex
𝛼-grains and 𝛼-laths, enabled by the deliberate introduction of pores, followed by hot isostatic pressing [96] .
Given the conflicting objectives presented in both the melt pool dimensions and microstructure, most studies
have defined an optimal processing window for AM materials, obtained mostly through experiments. The
notion of a processing window for laser processing is a common strategy, as explained and expanded by Ion
et al. [106] . In AM, the processing map methodology has been proposed as early as 2001 [107] and applied to
different materials [108] . Processing windows are often presented as a surface contour plot of the design criteria
with power and velocity in the main axes, with the critical lines differentiating the processing regimes [Fig-
ure 3A]. The optimal processing window approximately quantifies the relation between the input parameters
and output objectives and provides a visualization and guideline to achieve the desired objectives. Within such
a window, a combination of process parameters can be suggested to avoid undesirable defects induced by key-
hole modes or improve melt pool adhesion [109] . Moreover, the printability of new alloys can also be assessed
via the processing map methodology. Johnson et al. performed simulations and experiments to generate the
process map for Ni-5 wt.%Nb and the CoCrFeMnNi high entropy alloy [110] . However, the authors highlighted
the importance of the quantification of uncertainty to outline the boundaries of printability.
In contrast, normalized process diagrams [107,111] have also been proposed to narrow the processing region
for prediction in the early research of new alloys [Figure 3B]. The effect of the process parameters may be
Figure 3. Processing maps in AM. (A) Conventional processing map for defect-free print represented by laser power and scan velocity as
the two main axes. It consists of four regions: keyholing; balling; lack of fusion; printable region. A stable keyhole may be optimal for the
build rate and part quality. (B) Normalized process diagrams [111] to evaluate the printability of different alloys based on material properties
and enthalpy input. (C) Keyhole process diagram [69] that describes the boundary where the keyhole becomes unstable. (D) Normalized
enthalpy [79] to delineate the regions between conduction and keyhole modes in AM. (E) Universal scaling law for keyholes [80] to describe
the stability and variability of a keyhole based on a ‘keyhole number’.
estimated by comparing with energy input to the material properties. In fact, the use of non-dimensional maps
or parameters may shed light on certain universal characteristics of AM, which are not immediately observable
from the raw data alone. Such “scaling laws” could be derived, such as a scaling of melt pool dimensions [112]
and the differentiation of conduction and keyhole modes in AM [79,80,113] [Figure 3C-E]. These examples further
suggest the potential of using other dimensionless parameters in AM [114–116] to aid the characterization and
identification of suitable processing regions during the early stages of research for new AM alloys, thereby
alleviating the experimental burden. For example, dimensionless parameters could be used to estimate the
effects of thermal distortion and chemical composition [117] .
It would be prudent to consider analytical and non-dimensional approaches for early process map generation.
Thereafter, simulations combined with experiments can be used to further refine the search directions within
the process space to more accurately deduce the specific points for printing. For example, Tang et al. used
the analytical Rosenthal solution and assumed an elliptical geometry to estimate the lack of fusion defects and
predict the porosity under different energy densities [118] . Gordon et al. built on this concept by considering the
keyhole boundary predicted by the drilling velocities to propose a “defect structure property map” [119] . Zhang
et al. proposed a practical framework by reducing the theoretically infinite search space to a finite region with
upper and lower bounds using the Eagar-Tsai thermal model [120] . The printability map was then calibrated
via Bayesian statistical modeling with single-track experiments. However, the elliptical criteria adopted by the
three aforementioned studies are arguably over-simplified, though they are sufficient for regions where the
conduction mode is encountered for rough mapping purposes [118–120] .
Moreover, most optimization processes consider the parameters to be constant. This may not be true as a
level of uncertainty exists during the printing process. While uncertainty analysis methods can be applied,
there are some parameters that have been evaluated in detail. For example, it is well known that the effective
layer thickness changes during printing and reaches a steady state [121–123] , different from its nominal (user-set)
powder thickness. Such a phenomenon occurs due to the powder packing density and material consolidation
during each deposition [123] . Hence, processing windows should ideally take into account such effects for opti-
mization, as suggested and demonstrated by Ahn et al. [124] . This example suggests that optimized parameters
may differ between the initial stage and steady-state stage of printing and the assumption that parameters are
“constant” is only applicable when a quasi-steady-state process has been achieved.
Finally, the optimization of process parameters in AM must be context specific. For instance, the minimization
of pores need not be a necessary goal. From a traditional engineering perspective, better material properties
in metals can be achieved with minimum porosity (densification). Thus, most work in metal AM is devoted
to identifying processing regions with minimum porosity, which usually corresponds to improved fatigue [125]
and corrosion properties [126,127] for AM parts. However, pores can be deliberately introduced and exploited
to improve mechanical properties. Bustillos et al. demonstrated a microstructural engineering approach, in
which they deliberately processed Ti6-Al-4V with a lack of fusion defects and subsequently used hot isostatic
pressing to ‘heal’ such defects [96] . Through this approach, an unprecedented strength and ductility combina-
tion for Ti6-Al-4V was achieved. This study demonstrates that the traditional notion of the ‘optimal processing
region’ in AM need not be the region with minimal porosity. Deliberate porosity engineering may provide an
alternative in AM processing, which on a larger scale, corresponds to lattice design [128] .
Moreover, the optimal process parameters for one property of interest do not necessarily translate to other
properties. For example, Gong et al. showed that different optimal process parameters are obtained to achieve
maximized tensile strength, hardness and fatigue resistance in Ti-6Al-4V [14] . Therefore, the AM practitioner
should then prioritize the manufacturing objectives based on the application requirements and select a suitable
process parameter combination. A further discussion of the formal definition of such an optimization prob-
lem is included below. On this note, in certain scenarios, maximizing the mechanical properties is not the goal.
For example, it is a traditional notion that the surface roughness of AM parts should be minimized for bet-
ter fatigue properties. This is applicable for applications in the aerospace [129] and automotive [130] industries,
where structural efficiency and integrity are key. However, in the production of medical implants, a higher
surface roughness is desired for osteogenesis, while the mechanical properties are not maximized but tailored
to match the bone [131] . In contrast, for orthodontic applications, the fabrication of customized brackets re-
quires minimal distortion and porosity [132] . These studies demonstrate that optimization problems are always
context specific and reinforce the need for robust PSP models for multi-objective optimization problems to be
feasible.
In summary, the control of process parameters is directly linked to the part quality, as the parameters influence
the physics during processing. The poor selection of process parameters will result in poorly fabricated parts
and wasted time, materials and energy. Traditionally, the optimal parameters refer to densification of the parts.
Yet, in certain applications, we may want to tailor the desired outputs that may not correspond to the highest
strength or ductility of the part. Hence, optimal process parameters have to be determined for the application
objectives.
Figure 4. Optimization framework in AM summarized into four sections: design of experiments; characterization; modelling; optimization.
Numerical simulations can support the characterization (sampling of process space) and modelling aspects of optimization.
OPTIMIZATION FRAMEWORKS IN AM
In the discussion of the optimization of process parameters in AM, we may distinguish the approach into two
main phases. The first phase is to determine the optimal process parameters for a defect-free window. This
is commonly quantified by the part porosity or the relative density of the AM part. The second phase is the
refinement within such a window and involves identifying the specific process parameter combination that
is able to meet, or even exceed, the requirements of the AM user. Often the influence of process parameters
on the goals and part performance are conflicting. As such, the optimization of parameters in AM to meet
user-defined objectives is effectively a multi-objective optimization problem.
Optimization frameworks in AM can be systematically summarized to comprise four main sections: DoE; char-
acterization (data collection); modelling; optimization [Figure 4]. DoE methods describe strategies to sample
the process space for investigation. These sampling points are then characterized, which in AM include the
porosity, microstructure and mechanical properties, which have been the focus of the past decade. The data
collection is followed by a surrogate modelling of the input-output relations, such as regression, response sur-
face modelling (RSM), Kriging, support vector machines (SVM) and artificial neural networks. Subsequently,
an optimization algorithm, such as gradient descent, Pareto search, particle swarm optimization and evolution-
ary algorithms, are used to locate the minima points. Under such a framework, the process-structure-property
relations (and their inverse) can be approximated.
In fact, most processing maps have been obtained in this manner. Early efforts at optimizing process parame-
ters for AM were largely experimental, focusing on the material characterization. This experimental research
in metal AM has largely followed the sequential progress (process characterization, modelling, improvement,
monitoring and comparison and finally process reliability) described and detailed in the Engineering Statistics
Handbook by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [133] . Thereafter, the data obtained
from experiments are fitted with classical response surface models or regression (which strictly speaking, are
surrogate models). Note that the data acquisition for modelling need not be experimental; if sufficiently rig-
orous mechanistic models are developed, analytical or numerical models can be employed to sample the pro-
Table 1. Process parameter optimization studies on different materials and the methods used
Optimization method AM technique Material Optimization problem and study Ref.
Taguchi and ANOVA SLM Ti6Al4V Porosity [134]
Full factorial DoE SLM Invar36 and SS316L Density, tensile strength and Fracture [82]
Basic study of few parameters SLM Inconel 718 Surface roughness and fatigue life [125]
Full Factorial DoE and regression SLM Invar36 and SS316L Density, tensile, fracture [135]
Full factorial DoE and regression SLM AlSi10Mg Microstructure, high cycle fatigue and fracture [104]
Full factorial DoE and regression SLM and SEBM Ti4Al4V Density, tensile, fatigue [14]
Full factorial DoE and regression SLM Iron-based powders Balling (density) [29]
Full factorial DoE and regression SLM SS316L Roughness [136]
Full factorial DoE and regression SEBM SS316L Tensile strength and relative density [137]
Full factorial DoE and regression SLM Ti6Al4V Melt pool dimensions [138]
factorial design SLM Maraging steel Relative density [139]
Full factorial DoE SLM Ti6Al4V Porosity [16]
Full factorial DoE SLM and EBM Ti6Al4V Porosity [140]
RSM with ANOVA DED Ti-15Mo Melt pool dimensions [141]
RSM with ANOVA SLM Ti6Al4V Elastic modulus, surface roughness, ultimate compressive strength, porosity [131]
Full factorial DoE SLM SS316L Tensile strength [142]
Full factorial DoE SLM Martensitic CX SS Surface roughness and relative density [143]
RSM SLM Ti6Al4V Surface roughness [144]
Taguchi and ANOVA BJ SS316L Transverse rupture strength [145]
Taguchi and ANOVA BJ SS420 Surface roughness and dimensional accuracy [146]
cessing space. Therefore, AM models at different length scales could replace experiments (digital twins) in
sampling the process space for optimization purposes.
Design of experiments and characterization
In the NIST handbook, the DoE is described in the section “Process Improvement”. Parametric studies were
implemented in the earlier stages of AM research when the main focus was to create fully dense parts and
reduce part porosity. In AM, early parametric studies of the process parameters utilized DoE methods that
include full factorial design, Taguchi and so on, which sampled the process space for investigation, followed
by analysis with the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and RSM. Some of the methods used in parametric studies
are tabulated in Table 1.
In Table 1, the most common method is a 𝐿 –level, 𝑘 –factor full factorial design method. Usually, 𝑘 = 2 factors
(power and scanning speed for laser-based methods or current and scanning speed for electron beam-based
methods), while 𝐿 varies when no specific statistical method is specified. This is the most basic method, where
the full range of process parameters at different levels separated at constant intervals is studied. For example,
in a study of the influence of processing parameters on the density and mechanical properties of Invar36 and
316L stainless steel [135] , three different levels of laser power (200–300 W), scanning velocity (600–1000 mm/s)
and hatch spacing (0.08–0.12 mm) were investigated. Evidently, the full factorial method is straightforward,
easy to implement and commonly used when there is no prior information on the material properties and no
expectation of the outcome.
However, this method is time consuming and inefficient due to the exponential increase in experiments re-
quired for each increase in interval (commonly described as the “curse of dimensionality” [147] ). For example,
in the same aforementioned study of Invar36 and 316L stainless steel [135] , simply having 𝑘 = 3 factors at 𝐿 = 3
different levels required 𝑁 = 𝐿 𝑘 = 33 = 27 samples. As the interval of the studied parameters is usually large,
the result obtained from a full factorial experimental study usually has low resolution, requiring regression
models to fit the data.
Experiments in AM are costly due to both the material cost of the powder and the operational cost of keeping
the AM machine on for extended periods of time [148] . More importantly, experimental characterization can
be time consuming. Therefore, it is important to conduct the lowest number of experiments possible while
extracting the maximum amount of information from the number of samples available. As such, statistical
methods are used to significantly reduce the number of experiments while maintaining the range of study.
Common methods in AM include orthogonal, fractional factorial and Taguchi’s (parameter) method, ana-
lyzed with ANOVA and RSM. Such methods are also commonly found in other engineering applications. In a
parametric optimization study for Ti6Al4V [134] , the application of Taguchi’s method allowed the researchers
to obtain the optimal combination with 16 samples via ANOVA and signal-to-noise ratio considerations. Sta-
tistical methods and analysis can therefore aid experimentalists to reduce the number of experiments to obtain
the optimal processing parameters. Simultaneously, it is common that a surrogate model can also be obtained
with regression methods, such as the polynomial surface response methodology (e.g., RSM). Response surface
methodologies are easy to implement and cost-effective. In a study of the optimization of Ti-6Al-4V, Elsayed
et al. demonstrated that the output responses of surface roughness, porosity, elastic modulus and compres-
sive strength due to three inputs can be modelled with the use of only 17 samples [131] . Similarly, the corrosion
properties of AM high entropy alloys can also be optimized using RSM [149] . Data-driven methods are sensitive
to data uncertainty since they rely on the accuracy of the data.
However, as each experiment uses a different AM machine and powder, the results cannot be easily translated
and compared with one another. Even if the same machine and same process parameters are used, the results
may not be consistently reproducible [150] . On this basis, it was demonstrated that data from previous studies
can be utilized for current optimization problems despite having different processing equipment and materials.
This can be achieved by generalization of the sequential minimum energy design method and characterizing
the difference in responses between prior and current studies as a probability distribution. Using this method,
the authors showed that an optimal combination of parameters can be obtained with just five experiments [151] .
Regardless of the current limitations of experimental methods, experimental optimization will remain the first
go-to method for empirical observation, especially for the characterization of new alloys. However, with the
development of simulation capabilities, it presents a possibility where we can predict and design new alloys
via simulations, which can be subsequently validated with experiments instead of performing trial-and-error
characterization.
Modelling for optimization

Current modelling efforts in the optimization of AM process parameters are summarized in Figure 5. The
optimization of AM process parameters requires a relation from the processing inputs to outputs. Earlier, we
elaborated that experiments have worked towards this objective by classical methods via RSM or regression via
VED. Such efforts are, strictly speaking, simple data-driven surrogate models. However, such models can only
provide approximations due to oversimplified parameters. Therefore, a deeper understanding and modelling
of the PSP relations are necessary for a more adequate description of AM part quality from its process param-
eters, for example, through the efforts of mechanistic modelling. Mechanistic modelling efforts at multiple
length scales in AM can thus provide the input-output relation needed for optimization purposes. However,
current mechanistic models still incur relatively high computational costs, which render them unfeasible for
optimization studies. Hence, other more sophisticated data-driven approaches, such as Kriging, SVM, GP, NN
and so on, have since been applied in AM, which have gained tremendous interest for the precipitation and
resurgence of the field of ML. Nonetheless, these data-driven models are often criticized for being “black-box”
models without a physical basis. Here, as we discuss the validity of applying these models for optimization in
AM, we find that the crucial link is creating appropriate surrogate models derived from mechanistic models.
Mechanistic modelling
Like most metallurgical problems, it is almost impossible to derive a priori information from first principles
due to the multi-scale multi-physics interaction in the AM process. Understanding the PSP relationship in
AM remains a daunting task, although the physical mechanisms from the nanoscale (e.g., twinning and nano-
oxides), microscale (e.g., fish-scale microstructure and columnar-equiaxed transition) and mesoscale (e.g.,
powder bed dynamics, melt pool dynamics and vapor plume) have been increasingly clarified over the years
with experiments and simulations. Experimental characterization of the AM process is highly challenging due
Figure 5. Modelling for optimization in AM. The process map in AM has mostly been characterized using experiments, which are costly.
Analytical models (e.g. Rosenthal’s solution [152] ) provide rapid prediction of the process map but become inaccurate when convection
effects are significant. High-fidelity models (e.g. thermal-fluid melt pool simulations for melt pool [153] , novel computational fluid dynam-
ics and finite element model (CFD-DEM) coupling for stress prediction [23] , phase field (PF) models for microstructure [154] and crystal
plasticity and finite element model coupling (CP-FEM) for micro-residual stresses [155] ) can account for such complex physics but have
limited simulation scale. Data generated from experiments include porosity [96] , melt pool dimensions and microstructure [89] , tensile char-
acteristics [96] and fatigue characteristics [156] . Similarly, simulations can generate data such as melt pool dimensions and the temperature
field [35] , melt pool microstructure data [154] and residual stresses [157,158] . The data generated by these models can be further analyzed with
data-driven algorithms to generate surrogate models to generate the response maps.
to the extremely short time scales that occur from the rapid solidification rates in AM. Currently, state-of-
the-art experimental characterization of the melting process uses high-speed imaging to capture the melting
process and its dynamic interaction with the powder bed, such as powder spattering and denudation induced
by the vapor plume [43] . Importantly, the use of in-situ operando X-ray synchrotrons has revealed many crucial
information, such as the keyhole dynamics, its instability and pore formation [69] , and effects of nanoparticle
additions [159] . Moreover, the combination of Schlieren imaging and in-situ x-ray operando imaging provides
a simultaneous observation of the AM process and reveals the interaction between the vapor plume and melt-
ing process [70] . However, these experiments require specialized equipment, are challenging to perform and
only provide two-dimensional information (cross-sectional). Three-dimensional interactions may not be thor-
oughly captured.
Hence, mechanistic modelling through analytical or numerical simulations can aid researchers in probing
the physical interactions during the AM process by increasing the accessibility to investigate underlying phe-
nomena at shorter time scales. Such models and their descriptions have already been reviewed by various
authors [160–162] . Therefore, a review of mechanistic models will not be repeated here. Instead, the applicability
of these models for optimization applications is discussed.
The mechanistic modelling of AM across different length scales is an active area of research. For the purposes
of optimization, we can distinguish mechanistic models into analytical, numerical and semi-analytical models.
Most modelling in AM has focused on the mesoscale, i.e., the melt pool. At this scale, analytical models are
computationally inexpensive. These models are borrowed from laser welding research, which are variants
of Rosenthal’s solution, such as Rylakin’s model, Eagar-Tsai’s model and so on. However, these models are
only applicable in the conduction regime as the models assume pure conduction; when melt pool convection
becomes significant, the prediction will deviate from actual case [163] . Such analytical models also fail to predict
the volatile nature of the keyhole.
In contrast, validated numerical models offer greater accuracy. FEMs are the only practical models used for
part-scale modeling and simulation. Non-FEMs at the part scale have also been developed, for example, Yang
et al. proposed a physically-based PSP model for process parameter optimization of Ti6Al4V with a focus on
the mechanical property prediction of yield strength, flow stress and strain hardening [164] . However, part-scale
models are unable to provide accurate temperature fields at the melt pool level as they ignore fluid dynamic
effects. High-fidelity models that incorporate the fluid dynamic effects [35,165,166] (usually CFD models) are able
to capture the effect of Marangoni convections widening or deepening the melt pool, evaporation, advection
of materials and the effects of vapor plume. However, such models are computationally costly and have limited
simulation scale. Although high-fidelity mechanistic models are able to accurately predict PSP relations, they
are limited by their exorbitant computationally requirements that are prohibitive. Realistically, high-fidelity
models cannot be used for multi-objective optimizations as it is computationally intractable to sample the
process space directly. Therefore, only analytical mechanistic models have been used to sample the process
space for the identification of processing regions and optimization purposes.
However, mechanistic models can still serve as the foundation for the development of physics-based surrogates,
which can then sample the process space with less computational time. Moreover, it is frequently espoused
that the study of single tracks via experiments and simulations could reveal crucial dynamics to aid in process
improvement. However, the use of single-track results must undergo calibration to reflect results at the part
level, as the missing link is the effect of thermal history and dissipation. Hence, such a link would be desirable
if single-track results are used for the prediction of the part-scale properties.
Surrogate modelling
Surrogate models, as the name implies, are not true descriptors of the physical mechanisms that occur but are
sufficiently descriptive for engineering applications [167] . Surrogate models can be developed to approximate
the mechanistic models or can have no physical basis and used as-is, even when the physics of the AM process
are not fully known (black-box). For example, the early use of regression and quantification via VED is the
simplest surrogate model [136] [Figure 6]. More frequently, the RSM is adopted to illustrate the output response
surface due to laser power and scanning velocity. However, there is a growing trend to use more sophisticated
data-driven algorithms, i.e., ML, to directly predict the output response from process parameter inputs.
The use of ML in AM is a burgeoning area of research (beginning circa 2016) and has been made possible due
to two main reasons. Firstly, there has been a recent surge of interest and hype in ML-based research since
2010. This has resulted in a myriad of free-access and easy-to-use open-source algorithms and programs for
anyone to use in any application. Secondly, an enormous amount of data in AM has been generated from ex-
periments and simulations for the past two decades. Therefore, it is natural and practical that ML is applied to
AM optimization due to the availability of both algorithms and databases. This allows optimization in AM to
Figure 6. Surrogate models to describe the response output. (A) Surface roughness and porosity described using regression via VED
parameter [136] . (B) Response surface obtained with Gaussian process modelling [168] . (C) Process maps generated using support vector
machine [169] . (D) Schematic of a neural network (obtained from Wang et al. [170] ).
be conducted resourcefully in a cost-effective manner provided the researcher has access to past data. Recent
reviews on the ML methods applied in AM have listed and elaborated comprehensively on the multiple appli-
cations of ML in metal AM, such as process planning, parameter optimization, geometric sensing and control,
defect detection and mitigation, quality prediction and assessment, cost estimation and data simplification for
analysis [170–172] . In this section, only the methods used in process parameter optimization are discussed. Sim-
ilar to the experimental methods discussed earlier, ML methods applied in process parameter optimization
are largely focused on obtaining a processing map of zero-defect manufacturing. For example, Yeung et al.
used neighboring-effect modelling to optimize the scan strategy [173] . Wang et al. used a two-level data-driven
surrogate model to perform a process optimization under uncertainty with equiaxed grains as the optimiza-
tion objective [174] . Mondal et al. used a hybrid data-driven method to predict the melt pool dimensions via a
low-cost Gaussian process (GP) surrogate model developed from an experimentally validated analytical three-
dimensional model [175] . Narayana et al. used an ANN to generate process maps for the optimization of build
height and density [176] . Nguyen et al. setup an ANN to minimize the porosity Ti6Al4V [177] . These methods,
including GP regression models, ANNs, random forest networks and regression Trees, are briefly listed in
Table 2.
Many of the methods listed here are GP models. GP models are useful as they adopt many properties inherent
in the Gaussian normal distribution. Furthermore, the mathematical properties associated with the multi-
variate form allow matrix computations to be performed more efficiently for a small data set. A comprehensive
elaboration on the GP in ML is written in this textbook [182] . Elaborated briefly, in the context of ML, the GP
assumes the data points as a collection of random variables with joint Gaussian distributions with a mean value
of zero. This then allows the covariance parameter to be tweaked as a smoothing parameter. The covariance
between each distinct parameter is therefore reflected in the spatial distance between any two data points and
is typically defined by a kernel function.
Table 2. List of surrogate models using ML methods.

Optimization method AM technique Material Optimization problem and study Ref.
ANN with Monte-Carlo simulation EBM CoCr Optimal process map, porosity [169]
RFN PBF IN718 Porosity [178]
GP with metropolis-hastings MCMC algorithm PBF SS316L Melt pool dimensions [168]
GP model with Bayesian estimation PBF 17-4PHSS Porosity [179]
GP with regression tree SLM SS316L Melt pool dimensions [180]
GP PBF SS316L and 17-4PHSS Porosity [181]
Deep learning with ANN SLM Ti6Al4V Porosity [177]
ANN DED Ti6Al4V Porosity and build height [176]
The advantage of the GP model is its relatively easy implementation and ability to smooth out noisy environ-
ments with a limited number of training data. This makes GP an “efficient and effective regression tool with
few input features and a small data set” [172] . However, when the number of data increases or the size of the
input increases, we can expect the performance of the GP to decrease as the computation for the inversion
of a growing N × N matrix will be increasingly expensive. Regardless, given a sufficiently large amount of
data, the application of the GP is able to predict relatively accurate results. For example, a surrogate model
obtained from a GP response surface fitted with 139 samples showed that the error of the prediction was within
measurement error [168] .
In contrast, neural networks (NNs) contain multiple hidden layers that connect an input and output layer.
Similar to biological neural systems, every node in the hidden layers is connected to one another via an acti-
vation function. One then seeks to minimize the error of prediction by minimizing the associated weight for
each connection, commonly through a back-propagation algorithm based on gradient descent. Even though
no a priori relations were known between the input and output factors, the NN is able to “learn” the rela-
tions and predict outputs given certain combination of inputs, such as determining the optimal parameter set
for the minimal porosity of SLM Ti6Al4V [177] . Although both the GP and NNs do not entirely describe the
physics of AM, they can be used as surrogate models for both optimal processing window predictions and
multi-objective optimization problems. The use of ML may help uncover some physical relations only with
human interpretation.
Depending on the application, the choice of the surrogate model can be selected based on its unique advantages
or limitations [183,184] . For example, An et al. showed that GP works well only when the covariance function
is properly defined, while neural networks perform better for complex high-dimensional models with large
noise, though huge amounts of training data sets are required [185] . Moreover, surrogate models can be chosen
based on the data characteristics. For example, RSM is better able to approximate the overall trend of true
models and performs well at fitting convex problems [186,187] . In contrast, Kriging, radial basis functions and
support vector regression are more suitable for multi-modal and non-linear problems [187,188] . Within these
functions, RBF is recommended for high-order non-linear problems, while Kriging is recommended for low-
order nonlinear problem in high-dimensional space [183,189] . Therefore, the data characteristics determine the
application of surrogate models. The same can be said for process parameter searching and optimization. As
seen in articles utilizing the processing window approach, in most alloy systems, the porosity change due
to power and velocity is relatively smooth. Thus, RSM has been the popular choice to describe such trends.
However, when a greater number of parameters are considered, a higher dimensional data set is encountered.
In these cases, the response has often been described as non-linear. Hence, ANN approaches are popular to
describe multiple-input and multiple-output problems.
Optimization: single and multiobjective
Overview of optimization algorithms
There are two phases of optimization of the process parameters in AM. In the first phase, the optimal processing
window is identified. The second phase is the application of multi-objective optimization algorithms within the
processing window, via an appropriate surrogate or mechanistic model of the PSP. Generally, this distinction
can also be viewed as a “rough” and “fine” optimization, as it is more practical to first reduce the search in
global space and subsequently optimize within a locally defined space.
In AM, commonly identified objectives include the minimization of build time, energy consumption, reducing
porosity and improving mechanical properties. If a single-objective optimization problem is defined (such as
porosity), there are straightforward algorithms that can obtain the minimum (or maximum) response value.
However in AM, multiple conflicting objectives are often encountered. For example, build time has always
been criticized as a main setback for the wide adoption of AM. Two main process parameters are physically
relevant in influencing the build time, namely, the scanning speed and layer thickness. Although there is
a great incentive to increase scanning speeds to minimize build time, reduce energy consumption and pro-
cessing cost, the corresponding heat input power is effectively reduced which may lead to poor densification
(Section 3). Higher scan speeds could also increase cooling rate, which can achieve finer grains and mi-
crostructures [190,191] , with a tradeoff in ductility. Hence, unless better microstructural features can be obtained
for printing at lower speeds, processing at the highest scanning speed possible is always desired. In contrast,
increasing the layer thickness reduces the number of layers for printing, thus decreasing the build time. There-
fore, for the shortest possible build time, the greatest possible layer thickness should be adopted, provided that
there is no compromise to part property due to defect formation. For example, Leicht et al. showed that in the
SLM of stainless steel, increasing the layer thickness up to 80 𝜇m still yielded acceptable tensile properties [192] .
Necessarily, the build height of the designed object directly influences the build time, which in turn is directly
related to its build orientation, while surface roughness requirements will subsequently be affected depending
on whether it is upskin or downskin.
Hence, AM usually presents itself as a multi-objective optimization problem and multi-objective optimization
algorithms are required to narrow and refine the parameter space in AM, provided that the input-output rela-
tions are known. Much of the work in the previous decade has been on the processing window for AM and
the literature for user-defined multi-objective optimization in metal-based AM is limited but growing. It is
clear that the main obstacle for achieving full a priori multi-objective optimization capability in AM is the
availability of accurate and reliable models for the optimization function. It is also possible that one can carry
out multi-objective optimization studies in welding [193] or non-metal AM [194] and subsequently implement
similar methodologies into metal AM.
The general multi-objective optimization problem (MOP) can be expressed as follows:

𝑚𝑖𝑛𝐹 (𝑋) = ( 𝑓1 (𝑋), 𝑓2 (𝑋), · · · , 𝑓𝑟 (𝑋)) 𝑋 ∈ Ω ∈ 𝑅𝑛
(1)
s.t 𝑔𝑖 (𝑋) ≤ 0 𝑖 = 1, 2, · · · , 𝑘
where 𝑓𝑖 (𝑋)(𝑖 = 1, 2, · · · , 𝑟) is a sub-objective of the optimization problem, 𝑋 = (𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , · · · 𝑥𝑛 ) is the decision
vector, Ω is the decision space and 𝑔𝑖 (𝑋) ≤ 0(𝑖 = 1, 2, · · · , 𝑘) is the constraint function. Multi-objective
optimization methods can be divided into three categories based on their decision-making methods: pre-
decision methods; post-decision methods; interactive decision-making methods [195] .
(1) Pre-decision methods

The pre-decision method (including scalarization approach [196] ) gives decision information before optimizing
the search and the weighted sum method is one of the most representative methods. The weighted sum method
converts multi-objective optimization into a single-objective problem solving by assigning different weight
values to sub-objectives [197] :
∑
𝑟
𝑚𝑖𝑛𝐹 (𝑋) = 𝜔𝑖 𝑓𝑖 (𝑋) 𝑋 ∈ Ω ∈ 𝑅𝑛
𝑖=1 (2)
s.t 𝑔𝑖 (𝑋) ≤ 0 𝑖 = 1, 2, · · · , 𝑘
where 𝜔𝑖 is the weight of the 𝑖𝑡ℎ sub-objective. The weighted sum method is the simplest and most direct
method to solve multi-objective problems, but it is difficult to obtain the optimal solution for non-convex
search spaces.
(2) Post-decision methods

The post-decision method first generates a set of solutions that are optimal for some sub-objectives or that all
sub-objectives are “non-inferior” for decision makers to choose. Non-dominated sorting is a typical represen-
tative of post-decision-making methods and it is also a widely used multi-objective solution method. The opti-
mal solution of a multi-objective problem is a set of non-dominated solutions and the set of all non-dominated
solutions constitutes a non-dominated solution set. If and only if 𝑋1 , 𝑋2 satisfy the following relationship:
∀𝑖 ∈ {1, 2, . . . , 𝑟 }, 𝑓𝑖 (𝑋1 ) ≤ 𝑓𝑖 (𝑋2 )
(3)
∧∃𝑖 ∈ {1, 2, . . . , 𝑟 }, 𝑓𝑖 (𝑋1 ) < 𝑓𝑖 (𝑋2 )
then 𝑋1 dominates 𝑋2 , expressed as 𝑋1 ≻ 𝑋2 . In addition, if and only if the following relationship is satisfied:
{𝑋 ∈ Ω | 𝑋 ≻ 𝑋1 } = ∅ (4)
then there is no other feasible solution to dominate 𝑋1 in the decision space and 𝑋1 is deemed a non-dominated
solution of 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝐹 (𝑋) .
(3) Interactive decision-making methods

The interactive decision-making method is realized through the continuous interaction of the process of
decision-making and optimization. In the optimization process, both pre- and post-decision methods may
be used. For example, with variable weight optimization, the weight value of each sub-objective is adjusted
in real time according to the results of the previous optimization. The interactive decision-making method is
difficult to determine the decision preference in advance, so the efficiency of the optimization process is low.
Usually, there is no unique combination of the process parameter inputs that can maximize all response out-
puts. For any vector in the design space, the improvement in one of the objective functions may lead to the
deterioration of another objective function. The low or negative correlation between any two objective func-
tions does not guarantee a direct improvement in the result obtained when one of the objective functions has
been improved. Therefore, a Pareto optimal solution is obtained, which describes a non-dominated solution
on the objective space that represents a possible vector input given the compromises imposed by the conflicting
objectives. Multiple Pareto optimal solutions can be obtained, and the set of Pareto optimal solutions is known
as the Pareto front. A key goal in performing multi-objective optimization is to achieve an acceptable trade-off
between conflicting objective responses within reasonable computation time. Although no absolute optimum
is obtained, it is still necessary to explore the Pareto front to understand how outputs can be maximized given
the existing trade-offs.
Application of multi-objective optimization algorithms

The aforementioned optimization problems are now mostly solved with intelligent optimization algorithms,
including evolutionary algorithms, which are stochastic approaches that mimic evolution theory and gene se-
lection. Such algorithms are inspired by human intelligence, the social nature of biological groups and the
laws of natural phenomena. The algorithm first generates a random population sample with genes assigned
to different properties in the input. The “evolution” occurs by selecting favorable genes, i.e., inputs with cor-
respondingly favorable outputs, and allowing both “crossover” and “mutation” to generate a new population
with a new set of genes. The iteration process is halted when a favorable sample size is obtained. In fact, most
multi-objective optimization studies in AM available in the literature use some form of evolutionary approach.
However, these studies have mostly been demonstrative. Table 3 summarizes these multi-objective optimiza-
tion techniques, which includes non-dominated sorting genetic algorithms (NSGAs), multi-objective particle
Table 3. Summary of methods used in multi-objective optimization for metal AM

Optimization method AM technique Material Study Ref.
NGSA & MOPSO SLS General Minimize surface roughness and time [198]
MOGA DMD Ti–6Al–4V & Inconel 718 Powder waste & laser energy consumption [199]
MOGA SLS General surface roughness and energy consumption [200]
NGSA-ll SLM Ti6Al4V powders weight and mechanical performance of the structure [201]
m-APO SLM Ti6Al4V Mechanical properties of material(modulus of elasticity and ultimate tensile strength) [197]
NGSA SLM SS316L Surface roughness, tensile strength and time consumption [202]
Figure 7. An iteration process of NSGA-II.
Figure 8. (A) Crossover and (B) mutation operators of NSGA-II, which changes the chromosomes in each iteration.
swarm optimization (MOPSO), multi-objective genetic algorithms (MOGAs) and multi-objective accelerated
process optimization (m-APO). These methods differ in terms of their selection process for the optimal solu-
tion, as elaborated in the subsequent paragraphs.
The NSGA-II algorithm is famous for its elitist and fast computations [203] and is one of the most popular
evolutionary algorithm for optimization in AM [198,204] and other processing communities. The criteria for
selection of the optimal solution is determined by the Pareto dominance and crowding distance, and the ob-
tained solution possesses elite preservation and explicit diversity preserving mechanisms, which ensure good
convergence and diversity.
The main operations of NSGA-II include fitness calculations, non-dominated sorting, crowding distance eval-
uation, selection, crossover and mutation. Figure 7 illustrates an iteration process of NSGA-II and its key
operations [205] . During the 𝑡 𝑡ℎ iteration of NSGA-II, it begins by choosing from the current population 𝑃𝑡
and the solutions will go through crossover and mutation, as shown in Figure 8. The new population 𝑃𝑡′ is
combined with 𝑃𝑡 to construct 𝑅𝑡 . Individuals of 𝑅𝑡 will be then sorted into different fronts, 𝑍1 , 𝑍2 , . . . , and
solutions from the same front are non-dominated to each other. The initial population of the next iteration 𝑃𝑡+1
is formed by choosing the solution fronts sequentially. In the case of adding a front 𝑍𝑖 resulting in overpop-
ulation, the individuals of 𝑍𝑖 are sorted based on the corresponding crowding distances and only individuals
with larger crowding distances are chosen to form 𝑃𝑡+1 . These steps will be repeated until the exit criteria are
met.
Padhye and Deb [198] used NSGA-II for multi-objective optimization in selective laser sintering, where surface
roughness and build time were considered as the main objective functions. Furthermore, the implementation
of performance measurements, such as attainment surface and hypervolume indicator, approximated the best
non-dominated set from the available solutions and measured the diversity, as well as the convergence of the
solutions. This result shows that the NSGA-II ensures good convergence and diversity. The use of decision
choice is known as the “knee point”. Meng et al. used NSGA-II to solve a multi-objective optimization problem
by formulating mathematical equations to represent the energy absorption and density of bio-inspired struc-
tures [201] . The most satisfactory Pareto points selected to be the solution are obtained by the use of the “knee
point”, from the Pareto set. Meng et al. concluded that the NSGA-II can be used to optimize the mechanical
properties of the fabricated product by SLM [201] . The experimental results obtained are larger than the opti-
mization results due to the existence of manufacturing errors in the structural dimensions during SLM. The
results obtained are slightly higher than the optimization result. However, the relative errors of all parameters
are less than 10%, which shows that the multi-objective optimization model has a high predictive ability.
MOPSO is different in terms of the selection process for optimal solution, with the main difference of identi-
fying the personal best (p-best) and global best (g-best) [206,207] . The use of MOPSO provides a reduction in
computation time and improves the convergence performance of the solution. The obtained solutions have
good convergence and a diversity and spread along the Pareto-optimal front. There are different strategies for
selecting p-best and g-best, with random-random and dominance based probability strategies being the best
performers. The potential solutions move through the search space, the solutions are known as particles and
are associated with the position and velocity vectors [198] . The best position attained by the particle are attracted
to the best of the particle attractors in a certain neighborhood. The method even includes a “turbulence factor”
to preserve the diversity of the population and the searching process is made efficient by archiving the most
recent non-dominated solutions [198] . Zhang et al. reported that this method was highly competitive in terms
of convergence and diversity in comparison with other state-of-the-art algorithms [208] . This method can be
applied to wide applications and the Pareto points from the result were the best possible solution. This method
is capable of minimizing objectives simultaneously to obtain a set of non-dominated solutions. Padhye and
Deb [198] explained the methodology and also showed that the major difference between MOPSO and PSO is
the implementation of p-best and g-best. This result shows that the MOPSO encounters difficulties to optimize
due to the absence of potential global guides and discontinuous function landscapes. Furthermore, the article
also made a comparison between the obtained result to show that NSGA dominates MOPSO. There is a clear
indication that MOPSO suffers from well-known drawback of premature convergence. The result also shows
that NSGA outperforms MOPSO in most cases, by achieving better convergence and spread. Even though
the majority of NSGA solutions dominate the MOPSO solutions, MOPSO is capable of finding better extreme
solutions. While MOPSO provides a reduced computation cost, the cause was due to pre-mature convergence.
This comparison clearly shows the superiority of NSGA and MOPSO.
The m-APO starts with a classical approach to the multi-objective problem. However, it differs from other
methods in its space-filling methodology [151] . The space-filling method uses an analogy of electrical charges
for the design points, where a higher magnitude of charges is assigned to a lower response value and that the
design points would repel each other to obtain well-distributed Pareto points. This ensures a better diversity of
solution among the mentioned optimization methods. Aboutaleb et al. applied this method onto a case study
to identify optimal process parameters, which helps to optimize the mechanical properties of the end prod-
ucts [197] . The research gap identified by the researcher is the optimization of multiple mechanical properties of
the fabricated part in an efficient manner. This method is able to effectively approximate the Pareto front with
a few rounds of experiments by identifying and leveraging the similarities of the different sub-problems, which
shortens the multi-objective optimization procedure. Aboutaleb et al. found that the computation cost for the
optimization process using m-APO was reduced by 51.8%, as compared to the same Pareto solutions obtained
from the extended full factorial design [151] . Aboutaleb et al. performed another study on this optimization
method and the result obtained also shows a reduction in the number of experiments by 20% as compared to
a full factorial DOE plan [209] . This method is capable of providing the benefit of reduced computational cost
for identifying the optimal solution as compared to a full factorial DOE plan.
MOGA is designed for fast Pareto convergence and was selected by Yan et al. to perform the optimization,
where the energy cost and powder waste were viewed as two objective functions [199] . The result shows that
the design greatly reduces the laser energy cost while mentioning that the real-time optimization is time con-
suming (several hours). Strano et al. also showed that using the MOGA for multi-objective optimization
minimizes the surface roughness value by up to 50% [200] . The significant improvement in the result displayed
the capability of MOGA method in finding solutions to find the required objective.
Although we acknowledge that these algorithms have different advantages and performance in terms of their
convergence speed, spreadability of Pareto front and robustness (ability to reach global optima), we believe
they are relatively insignificant at the current stage of process parameter optimization for AM research. The
minute differences in computational speed required between the optimization algorithms are inconsequential
compared to the modelling efforts and computational requirements for parameter search via mechanistic or
data-driven models. Moreover, studies with RSM and SVM have shown that the output responses of current
parameters of interest (e.g., porosity) are relatively smooth. Hence, the performance of these optimization
algorithms applied in current scenarios are likely to be similar. Therefore, the choice of multi-objective op-
timization algorithm has hitherto less significance. Nonetheless, they are listed for completeness to illustrate
the approaches used in AM research. NGSA-II can be recommended as it is a popular and relatively easy
algorithm to apply and is included in most software packages.
DISCUSSION
The discussion of the various techniques in DoE, data collection and modelling is tabulated in Table 4. However,
comparisons between optimization algorithms have been left out as we believe it should not be the main focus
for current research in process parameter optimization of AM.
Despite the different techniques offered to evaluate optimal process parameters for manufacturing, we believe
that the straightforward full-factorial design experimental work will remain as the primary method as it is
direct and reliable. This is pertinently true for the development of process parameters for new alloys with
unknown behavior or novel processing techniques with unknown mechanisms. Statistical methods may not
provide the same level of resolution for unexplored parameter space and the presupposition that the system
behavior is well behaved outside the scope of study may not be true. However, when finding parameters
for well-known alloys (e.g., SS316L, Ti-6Al-4V and IN625) in a new system (i.e., a new machine or powder
obtained from a different supplier), statistical methods are recommended because previous studies have already
demonstrated that the output responses of the entire processing map are relatively smooth (mild gradient
changes).
While it is one of the goals for mechanistic numerical models to replace the number of experiments for pa-
rameter searching, we believe that current simulations models remain relatively immature for comprehensive
behavioral predictions of new alloy systems. More work is needed to evaluate the thermodynamic behavior
between elements and their environment during AM processing. Thus, experimental techniques for parameter
finding remain necessary. Nonetheless, validated simulations for known alloys can be used to assist in paramet-
ric studies under new systems (i.e., a new machine), though to a limited extent. Many parameters in current
simulations are empirical yet crucial for numerical results, e.g., heat transfer coefficients, fluid flow coefficients
and so on, which are heavily dependent on system characteristics. Overall, more work is needed in simulations
to provide a sufficient level of capability to predict or at least guide the search for process parameters for new
Table 4. Summary of the methodologies, their advantages, disadvantages and their applicability in AM
Methodology Advantages Disadvantages Applicability in process parameter search and op-
timization
Design of Experiments (Data sampling strategy)
Full factorial de- The most common and straightforward method
sign • Simple and straightforward • Number of experiments or due to ease of application with no expertise re-
• Able to capture interaction ef- samples needed grows expo- quired. Direct analysis can be performed when-
fects to a limited degree nentially when number of lev- ever results are obtained. Without comprehensive
• Allows application of RSM els and factors analyzed in- models, full factorial design is still recommended
to approximately quantify creases for investigations into new alloys, novel methods
changes or techniques.
Taguchi (and Taguchi’s method is inherently more effective for
fractional) fac- • Orthogonality significantly re- • Requires some level of experi- early stage of AM process search. As we have
torial designs duces the number of experi- ence to determine control and now some level of understanding of key process pa-
ments required noise variables rameters, the effectiveness of Taguchi method has
• Allows consideration of more • Does not show interaction ef- waned. Nonetheless, it can still be used for explo-
parameters fects ration of unstudied parameters, but they will not
• Allows identification of key be comprehensive.
parameters
Characterization (Data collection)

Experiments Although time consuming, experiments are still
• Ground truth • Characterization processs is the ground-truth, needed for validation. In process
• Relatively straightforward time consuming and resource parameter search, statistical methods are recom-
process intensive mended for alloys with previous studies that show
relatively linear responses.
Surrogate mod- Probably the most practical option for process
els for data gen- • Computationally inexpensive • Reliability of model heavily de- parameter search via simulation. Highly recom-
eration for sufficiently accurate re- pends on accuracy of the data mended for future multi-objective optimization
sults studies.
Modelling
Analytical Only for approximating melt pool dimensions and
mechanistic • Almost-instantaneous calcu- • Mostly valid for conduction- temperature field. Analytical models have fre-
models lation mode regimes quently been used for outlining the process param-
eter space, but it is usually inaccurate and requires
further calibration.
High-fidelity nu- Validated models have been developed but remain
merical mecha- • Considers complex multi- • Computationally expensive lacking in accounting physical phenomena. With
nistic models physics interactions • Mostly proprietary codes sufficient level of fidelity, these models should be
• High-fidelity and inter- used for the behaviour prediction of new alloys
pretable results systems and processing conditions. Results from
these models should be converted into surrogate
models for multi-objective optimization studies.
Regression Frequently used to quantify output responses
(Linear or multi- • Straightforward • Limited and simplified analy- with VED, though with limited success as stud-
dimensional) • Easy to implement sis ies have shown that some input parameters have
• Interaction effects may not be greater effects. Recommended only for early ex-
captured ploration and simple quantification, and for non-
dimensionalization methods.
Response Frequently used with full factorial studies to de-
surface method- • Straightforward and easy to • Mostly applicable for 3 vari- scribe the output response of the study. May be
ology visualize ables sufficient for industry use and multi-objective op-
• Relatively accurate for convex • Performs better only when re- timization study, if the target output responses be-
responses sponse surface is smooth have smoothly.
• Higher dimensional surfaces
Surface vector SVM has been used for in-situ monitoring (classifi-
machines • Suitable for classification • Requires appropriate kernel cation of defects), classification of melting modes
(or regression) of high- function and outlining in process maps. Recommended for
dimensional data • Limited interpretability in-situ monitoring and optimization applications.
Gaussian Pro- Recommended for surrogate modelling when ex-
cess • Easy to implement • Suffers when covariance ma- perimental datasets are available and uncertainty
• Smooths out noisy data trix is ill-defined quantification.
alloys and systems.
On the topic of modelling, mechanistic (physics-based) and surrogate (data-driven) models are often com-
pared with the main contrasts in their computational requirements and the interpretability of the results.
Kouraytem et al. provided a comprehensive discussion and comparison between physics-based and data-
driven models used in AM [162] . For parameter searching in process parameter optimization, computational
speed and accuracy are key [147,167] . Thus, surrogate models are more practical for searching the parameter
space due to their significantly reduced computational requirements. Interpretability is not a significant issue
in this regard. The prediction speed offered by surrogate models can even allow the possibility of real-time
in-situ monitoring and optimization. Regardless, the generation of surrogate models does not preclude the
need for data acquisition and collection. To generate such data via experiments, considerable lead time will
be incurred. Therefore, validated mechanistic models can replace experiment work for the generation of data
points. Subsequently, surrogate models can be developed with reference to these generated points for process
parameter searching.
While different techniques can be used in metal AM, their optimization frameworks are similar. The ap-
proaches for DoE, characterization, modelling and optimization algorithms do not have specific advantages
when applied in any metal AM technique. However, the prioritization of the objectives during optimization
may differ due to differences in the processing mechanism. For example, Mukherjee and Debroy [210] com-
pared the printability of SS316L via PBF, DED with a laser and DED with a gas metal arc heat source. They
found that the percentage changes in the output responses (residual stress, distortion and chemical compo-
sition) are different based on techniques, i.e., chemical composition changes are larger for PBF but residual
stresses and distortion issues are more crucial for DED. Hence, the optimal process parameters for PBF can be
more influenced towards reducing the changes in chemical composition, while the optimal process parameters
for DED are more oriented towards reducing distortion. Similarly, with the AM of copper [211] as an example,
we observe that tuning the optical absorptivity and atmosphere control has a larger influence on processing
copper for laser-based processes; however, these are not problems in electron-beam processes. Therefore, pro-
cess parameters for laser-based processes are selected near the stable keyhole mode to achieve better bonding.
Hence, the prioritization of objectives for optimization studies will likely be different for different AM meth-
ods. If densification is the primary objective, the AM practitioner must thereafter prioritize the objectives for
optimization based on the AM technique and application requirements.
It should be reiterated that in AM optimization, there is no one-size-fits-all rule for the determination of de-
sign objectives and constraints. The determination of which output parameters are objectives and constraints
is wholly context dependent. For example, while it is common to desire zero-porosity parts with low surface
roughness for engineering applications due to fatigue considerations, high porosity and surface roughness are
actually desirable characteristics in the AM part for bone grafts in biomedical applications for osseointegra-
tion [131] .
CONCLUSION
Research gaps
There are two aspects to consider when considering the research gaps of process parameter optimization. The
first pertains to gaps for process parameter searching, while the second pertains to factors that limit the pos-
sibility of multi-objective optimization studies. Collectively, the key gaps we found for process parameter
searching are (i) the incomplete understanding and awareness of process parameters, (ii) the difficulty in un-
derstanding the chemical changes during processing and (iii) a lack of reliable high-throughput models with
rapid computational times.
The multi-objective optimization problem is a hugely relevant problem for industrial applications but is under-
researched as it is hindered by a key issue, i.e., a lack of accurate PSP models with reasonable computation
time. While optimal processing windows have been obtained for many materials, there are no universal mod-
els to describe response outputs due to the inputs. Although this gap is partly filled by the development of
numerical models, the direct application of these models into optimization problems is computationally un-
feasible. In fact, current numerical models remain lacking. For example, with present knowledge and ca-
pabilities, the reliable and comprehensive prediction of microstructures for new alloys remains unattainable.
Microstructural research in AM remains an intrinsically material-specific problem and requires characteriza-
tion studies, especially where alloying physics under intense evaporation, huge compositional inhomogeneity
and unprecedented cooling rates remain largely unknown. More research is needed to develop the material
and thermodynamic database and computational tools to predict the microstructures at different process pa-
rameter combinations. As numerical models become increasingly complex, there will be the a need to convert
the high-fidelity but time-consuming models into appropriate surrogate models for efficient computation. Fur-
thermore, although impressive high-fidelity models have been developed for AM at different length scales, the
linkage between these different scales remains lacking, e.g., how to reliably estimate the bulk thermal history
of multi-layers and multi-tracks based on the high-fidelity simulations of a single track. As experimental and
numerical data for metal AM increases, ML will definitely play a role in shaping AM research. However, a
pure black-box model approach commonly used in ML, while feasible, would not be sufficient for a thorough
understanding of the underlying physics. Instead, a hybrid physics-based ML for metal AM may be a better
approach to incorporate both well-known physics and unknown correlations in AM [212,213] . We believe that
higher resolution imaging techniques will continue to be relevant for the experimental validation of numerical
models to better understand the rapid melting and solidification of the AM process.
Moreover, the comparison of results between published studies remains highly limited. Firstly, the use of dif-
ferent materials prohibits direct comparison, especially due to different characteristic crystallographic textures.
Nonetheless, the use of normalized diagrams or non-dimensional variables [115,116] , subjected to introduction
of physically motivated tweaking parameters, may be able to address the non-comparability between different
materials. A dimensionless parameter that is consistent for comparison may suggest universality in metal AM
regardless of the material applied. Secondly, the comparison of data is difficult when the metal AM process
is sensitive to variances in equipment and powder used in metal AM, leading to reproducibility issues even
within the same powders or equipment. The issue of reliability and reproducibility reiterates the problem of
standardization, which remains due to lack of understanding, or even awareness, of factors that can affect the
AM process. As characterization of AM parts of the same material yield different results, quantification and
standardization becomes difficult. A key problem which remains under-researched, is the chemical composi-
tional differences that arise during processing. Minute changes in chemical compositions of alloys can affect
the thermodynamic behavior of the phase system, and thus, their properties. The difficulty is compounded
as the physio-chemical behavior of the alloys under intense evaporation and cooling rates make in–depth,
in–situ experimental investigations nigh impossible. Moreover, AM machines have many components (laser,
piston, sensors, spreader, actuators, motors and so on) and their wear and tear may influence the factors that
affect heat input and chemical variations. Uncertainty and variation remain key issues in AM, which deserves
another review altogether.
For future optimization problems, especially for the identification of processing regions for new alloys, an
increasing refining approach is recommended. By using already existing scaling laws and non-dimensional
models, an initial processing region can be first estimated. Data can be sampled within an initial processing
space either with experiments or simulations. Surrogate models can therefore be developed in two aspects,
namely, surrogate models for simulations or surrogate models for the entire process space. The entire goal is
to reduce the computational resource and experimental effort required to evaluate the process space such that
the ‘optimal’ parameter can be found.
Future outlook
At the core of many scientific questions in metal AM is the materials science of metal AM, which has a charac-
teristic high thermal gradient and rapid solidification at the microscale during manufacturing, leading to the
Figure 9. Tailored microstructures and materials using additive manufacturing: (A) functionally graded density [214] ; (B) tailored microstruc-
tures via beam shaping [215] ; (C) AM of Ti6Al4V bonded with SS316L with copper acting as intermediary [216] ; (D) AM of CuCrZr with Steel
1.2790 [217] .
formation of microstructural patterns and textures not achievable or encountered in traditional metallurgy.
This requires current research to update current knowledge in AM-focused metallurgy. As such, PSP relations
remain a central focus for AM research.
However, for the AM practitioner for industrial and application purposes, applied methods would be of greater
interest. In the big picture, process parameter optimization is only a small but crucial part in the process chain
of metal AM. As such, models with sufficient accuracy and acceptable prediction capabilities are adequate
for industrial needs. As much of optimization work in AM is largely empirical and statistical, there will be
an increasing use of data-driven techniques and ML as tools for surrogate modelling and optimization. For
application of ML in AM, we would expect a hybrid physics-based ML to be developed to combine physical
knowledge while including uncaptured phenomena to optimize process parameters in design for AM. Surro-
gate models developed with high-fidelity simulations as the foundation are expected to help accelerate this
field.
The precise control of process parameters theoretically allows the AM practitioner to fabricate parts down to
the microscale, i.e., total microstructural control. This opens a myriad of design possibilities, such as function-
ally graded materials [214] , tailored microstructures [215] and even multi-metal print capability [216,217] , allowing
creation of parts that are impossible in conventional manufacturing methods [Figure 9]. The realization of
this exciting prospect (total microstructure control) in metal AM starts with having a strong foundation of
optimization control and capability of the process parameters. With such possibilities, it is necessary for us to
reflect and reconsider the notion of ‘optimal processing region’ merely from a densification perspective.
DECLARATIONS
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge members of the Yan Group for fruitful discussions towards the preparation of this
work.
Authors’ contributions
Proposed and conceived the review, collated, analyzed and organized the literature, wrote and provided stylis-
tic/grammatical revision on the manuscript: Chia HY
Collated, analyzed and organized the literature, wrote and provided stylistic/grammatical revision on the
manuscript: Wu J, Wang X
Provided supervision, acquired funding, wrote and provided stylistic/grammatical revision on the manuscript:
Yan W
Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.
Financial support and sponsorship

This research is supported by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, under its Academic Research Fund Tier
2 (MOE-T2EP50121-0017). Financial support from the Presidential Graduate Fellowship at the National Uni-
versity of Singapore is gratefully acknowledged by Hou Yi Chia.
Conflicts of interest
All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
REFERENCES
1. Seifi M, Gorelik M, Waller J, et al. Progress towards metal additive manufacturing standardization to support qualification and certifica
tion. JoM 2017;69:439–55. DOI
2. AMSC. Standardization roadmap for additive manufacturing, version 2.0; 2018. Available from: https://63.241.103.54/Shared%20Doc
uments/%20Activities/AMSC/AMSC_Roadmap_June_2018.pdf [Last accessed on 23 Sep 2022]. Available from: https://share.ansi.org
/SharedDocuments/StandardsActivities/AMSC/AMSC_Roadmap_June_2018.pdf.
3. AMSC. April 2022 Progress Report on AMSC Roadmap v2 Gaps; 2022. Available from: https://share.ansi.org/SharedDocuments/Sta
ndardsActivities/AMSC/April_2022_Progress_Report_AMSC_Roadmap_v2_Gaps.pdf [Last accessed on 23 Sep 2022].
4. Additive manufacturingdesignrequirements, guidelines and recommendations. Geneva, CH: International Organization for Standard
ization; 2018. DOI
5. Gu DD, Meiners W, Wissenbach K, Poprawe R. Laser additive manufacturing of metallic components: materials, processes and mecha
nisms. Int Mater Rev 2012;57:133–64. DOI
6. Yap CY, Chua CK, Dong ZL, et al. Review of selective laser melting: materials and applications. Appl Phys Rev 2015;2:041101. DOI
7. Svetlizky D, Das M, Zheng B, et al. Directed energy deposition (DED) additive manufacturing: Physical characteristics, defects, chal
lenges and applications. Mater Today 2021;49:271–95. DOI
8. Cunningham RW. Defect formation mechanisms in powderbed metal additive manufacturing. Carnegie Mellon University; 2018. DOI
9. Kim FH, Kim FH, Moylan SP. Literature review of metal additive manufacturing defects. US Department of Commerce, National
Institute of Standards and Technology; 2018. DOI
10. Brennan M, Keist J, Palmer T. Defects in metal additive manufacturing processes. J Mater Engin Perform 2021:1–11. DOI
11. Carter LN, Wang X, Read N, et al. Process optimisation of selective laser melting using energy density model for nickel based superalloys.
Mater Sci Techn 2016;32:657–61. DOI
12. Fayazfar H, Salarian M, Rogalsky A, et al. A critical review of powderbased additive manufacturing of ferrous alloys: process parameters,
microstructure and mechanical properties. Mater Des 2018;144:98–128. DOI
13. Liu S, Shin YC. Additive manufacturing of Ti6Al4V alloy: A review. Mater Des 2019;164:107552. DOI
14. Gong H, Rafi K, Gu H, et al. Influence of defects on mechanical properties of Ti–6Al–4 V components produced by selective laser
melting and electron beam melting. Mater Des 2015;86:545–54. DOI
15. Du Plessis A, Yadroitsava I, Yadroitsev I. Effects of defects on mechanical properties in metal additive manufacturing: A review focusing
on Xray tomography insights. Mater Des 2020;187:108385. DOI
16. Kasperovich G, Haubrich J, Gussone J, Requena G. Correlation between porosity and processing parameters in TiAl6V4 produced by
selective laser melting. Mater Des 2016;105:160–70. DOI
17. Snow Z, Nassar A, Reutzel EW. Review of the formation and impact of flaws in powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf
2020:101457. DOI
18. Li C, Liu Z, Fang X, Guo Y. Residual stress in metal additive manufacturing. Proced Cirp 2018;71:348–53. DOI
19. Mercelis P, Kruth JP. Residual stresses in selective laser sintering and selective laser melting. Rap Prot J 2006. DOI
20. Denlinger ER, Heigel JC, Michaleris P. Residual stress and distortion modeling of electron beam direct manufacturing Ti6Al4V. Proc
Instit Mechan Engin, Part B: J Engin Manuf 2015;229:1803–13. DOI
21. Harrison NJ, Todd I, Mumtaz K. Reduction of microcracking in nickel superalloys processed by selective laser melting: a fundamental
alloy design approach. Act Material 2015;94:59–68. DOI
22. Bauereiß A, Scharowsky T, Körner C. Defect generation and propagation mechanism during additive manufacturing by selective beam
melting. J Mater Proc Techn 2014;214:2522–28. DOI

23. Chen F, Yan W. Highfidelity modelling of thermal stress for additive manufacturing by linking thermalfluid and mechanical models.
Mater Des 2020;196:109185. DOI
24. Mukherjee T, Zhang W, DebRoy T. An improved prediction of residual stresses and distortion in additive manufacturing. Comput Mater
Sci 2017;126:360–72. DOI
25. Liang X, Chen Q, Cheng L, Hayduke D, To AC. Modified inherent strain method for efficient prediction of residual deformation in direct
metal laser sintered components. Comput Mech 2019;64:1719–33. DOI
26. Prabhakar P, Sames WJ, Dehoff R, Babu SS. Computational modeling of residual stress formation during the electron beam melting
process for Inconel 718. Addit Manuf 2015;7:83–91. DOI
27. Bartlett JL, Li X. An overview of residual stresses in metal powder bed fusion. Addit Manuf 2019;27:131–49. DOI
28. Shiomi M, Osakada K, Nakamura K, Yamashita T, Abe F. Residual stress within metallic model made by selective laser melting process.
CIRP ann 2004;53:195–98. DOI
29. Kruth JP, Froyen L, Van Vaerenbergh J, et al. Selective laser melting of ironbased powder. J mater proc techn 2004;149:616–22. DOI
30. Vrancken B, Buls S, Kruth JP, Van Humbeeck J. Influence of preheating and oxygen content on selective laser melting of Ti6Al4V. In:
Proceedings of the 16th RAPDASA Conference; 2015. Available from: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/1748568?limo=0 [Last accessed on 23
Sep 2022].
31. Roberts IA. Investigation of residual stresses in the laser melting of metal powders in additive layer manufacturing 2012. Available
from: https://wlv.openrepository.com/handle/2436/254913 [Last accessed on 23 Sep 2022]. Available from: https://wlv.openrepository
.com/handle/2436/254913.
32. Ali H, Ma L, Ghadbeigi H, Mumtaz K. Insitu residual stress reduction, martensitic decomposition and mechanical properties enhance
ment through high temperature powder bed preheating of selective laser melted Ti6Al4V. Mater Sci Engin: A 2017;695:211–20. DOI
33. Corbin DJ, Nassar AR, Reutzel EW, Beese AM, Michaleris P. Effect of Substrate thickness and preheating on the distortion of laser
deposited Ti–6Al–4V. J Manuf Sci Engin 2018;140. DOI
34. Calta NP, Martin AA, Hammons JA, et al. Pressure dependence of the lasermetal interaction under laser powder bed fusion conditions
probed by in situ Xray imaging. Addit Manuf 2020;32:101084. DOI
35. Wang L, Zhang Y, Chia HY, Yan W. Mechanism of keyhole pore formation in metal additive manufacturing. npj Comput Mater 2022;8:1–
11. DOI
36. Yan F, Xiong W, Faierson E, Olson GB. Characterization of nanoscale oxides in austenitic stainless steel processed by powder bed
fusion. Script Mater 2018;155:104–8. DOI
37. Haines MP, Peter NJ, Babu S, Jägle EA. Insitu synthesis of oxides by reactive process atmospheres during LPBF of stainless steel.
Addit Manuf 2020;33:101178. DOI
38. Ikehata H, Mayweg D, Jägle E. Grain refinement of Fe–Ti alloys fabricated by laser powder bed fusion. Mater Des 2021;204:109665.
DOI
39. Shen H, Rometsch P, Wu X, Huang A. Influence of gas flow speed on laser plume attenuation and powder bed particle pickup in laser
powder bed fusion. JoM 2020;72:1039–51. DOI
40. Weaver J, Schlenoff A, Deisenroth D, et al. Inert gas flow speed measurements in laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing 2021.
DOI
41. Caballero A, Suder W, Chen X, Pardal G, Williams S. Effect of shielding conditions on bead profile and melting behaviour in laser
powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 2020;34:101342. DOI
42. Reijonen J, Revuelta A, Riipinen T, Ruusuvuori K, Puukko P. On the effect of shielding gas flow on porosity and melt pool geometry in
laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 2020;32:101030. DOI
43. Bidare P, Bitharas I, Ward R, Attallah M, Moore AJ. Fluid and particle dynamics in laser powder bed fusion. Act Materi 2018;142:107–20.
DOI
44. Chen H, Yan W. Spattering and denudation in laser powder bed fusion process: multiphase flow modelling. Acta Material 2020;196:154–
67. DOI
45. Eo DR, Chung SG, Jeon JM, Cho JW. Melt pool oxidation and reduction in powder bed fusion. Addit Manuf 2021;41:101982. DOI
46. Metelkova J, Kinds Y, Kempen K, et al. On the influence of laser defocusing in selective laser melting of 316L. Addit Manuf 2018;23:161–
69. DOI
47. Sow M, De Terris T, Castelnau O, et al. Influence of beam diameter on Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) process. Addit Manuf
2020;36:101532. DOI
48. Ladewig A, Schlick G, Fisser M, Schulze V, Glatzel U. Influence of the shielding gas flow on the removal of process byproducts in the
selective laser melting process. Addit Manuf 2016;10:1–9. DOI
49. Anwar AB, Pham QC. Study of the spatter distribution on the powder bed during selective laser melting. Addit Manuf 2018;22:86–97.
DOI
50. Martin JH, Yahata BD, Hundley JM, et al. 3D printing of highstrength aluminium alloys. Nature 2017;549:365–69. DOI
51. Yang Z, Wang S, Zhu L, et al. Manipulating molten pool dynamics during metal 3D printing by ultrasound. Appl Phys Rev 2022;9:021416.
DOI
52. AlMangour B, Baek MS, Grzesiak D, Lee KA. Strengthening of stainless steel by titanium carbide addition and grain refinement during
selective laser melting. Mater Sci Engin: A 2018;712:812–18. DOI
53. Ghayoor M, Mirzababaei S, Lee K, et al. Strengthening of 304L stainless steel by addition of yttrium oxide and grain refinement during
selective laser melting. In: 2019 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium. University of Texas at Austin; 2019. DOI
54. Lin TC, Cao C, Sokoluk M, et al. Aluminum with dispersed nanoparticles by laser additive manufacturing. Nature Comm 2019;10:1–9.
DOI
55. Gao C, Wang Z, Xiao Z, et al. Selective laser melting of TiN nanoparticlereinforced AlSi10Mg composite: microstructural, interfacial,
and mechanical properties. J Mater Proc Techn 2020;281:116618. DOI
56. Liu X, Liu Y, Zhou Z, et al. Grain refinement and crack inhibition of selective laser melted AA2024 aluminum alloy via inoculation with
TiC–TiH2. Mater Sci Engin: A 2021;813:141171. DOI
57. Zhai W, Zhou W, Nai SML. Grain refinement and strengthening of 316L stainless steel through addition of TiC nanoparticles and
selective laser melting. Mater Sci Engin: A 2022;832:142460. DOI
58. Xiao F, Wang S, Wang Y, et al. Niobium nanoparticleenabled grain refinement of a crackfree high strength AlZnMgCu alloy manu
factured by selective laser melting. J Alloys Compo 2022;900:163427. DOI
59. Basariya MR, Srivastava V, Mukhopadhyay N. Microstructural characteristics and mechanical properties of carbon nanotube reinforced
aluminum alloy composites produced by ball milling. Mater Des 2014;64:542–49. DOI
60. Wang P, Zhang B, Tan CC, et al. Microstructural characteristics and mechanical properties of carbon nanotube reinforced Inconel 625
parts fabricated by selective laser melting. Mater Sci Techn 2016;112:290–99. DOI
61. Wang Lz, Chen T, Wang S. Microstructural characteristics and mechanical properties of carbon nanotube reinforced AlSi10Mg compos
ites fabricated by selective laser melting. Optik 2017;143:173–79. DOI
62. Kao A, Gan T, Tonry C, Krastins I, Pericleous K. Thermoelectric magnetohydrodynamic control of melt pool dynamics and microstructure
evolution in additive manufacturing. Phil Trans Royal Soci A 2020;378:20190249. DOI
63. Wang L, Yan W. Thermoelectric magnetohydrodynamic model for laserbased metal additive manufacturing. Phys Rev Appl
2021;15:064051. DOI
64. Lores A, Azurmendi N, Agote I, Zuza E. A review on recent developments in binder jetting metal additive manufacturing: materials and
process characteristics. Powd Metall 2019;62:267–96. DOI
65. Ziaee M, Crane NB. Binder jetting: a review of process, materials, and methods. Addit Manuf 2019;28:781–801. DOI
66. Li M, Du W, Elwany A, Pei Z, Ma C. Metal binder jetting additive manufacturing: a literature review. J Manuf Sci Engin 2020;142.
DOI
67. Sun S, Brandt M, Easton M. Powder bed fusion processes: an overview. Laser addit manuf 2017:55–77. DOI
68. Escano LI, Parab ND, Xiong L, et al. Revealing particlescale powder spreading dynamics in powderbedbased additive manufacturing
process by highspeed xray imaging. Sci rep 2018;8:1–11. DOI
69. Zhao C, Parab ND, Li X, et al. Critical instability at moving keyhole tip generates porosity in laser melting. Science 2020;370:1080–86.
DOI
70. Bitharas I, Parab N, Zhao C, et al. The interplay between vapour, liquid, and solid phases in laser powder bed fusion. Nat Comm
2022;13:1–12. DOI
71. Sola A, Nouri A. Microstructural porosity in additive manufacturing: The formation and detection of pores in metal parts fabricated by
powder bed fusion. J Adv Manuf Proc 2019;1:e10021. DOI
72. Levkulich NC. An experimental investigation of residual stress development during selective laser melting of Ti6Al4V. Wright State
University; 2017. Available from: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_olink/r/1501/10?clear=10&p10_accession_num=wright15151
12797193544 [Last accessed on 23 Sep 2022].
73. Chen Q, Liang X, Hayduke D, et al. An inherent strain based multiscale modeling framework for simulating partscale residual defor
mation for direct metal laser sintering. Addit Manuf 2019;28:406–18. DOI
74. Bertoli US, Wolfer AJ, Matthews MJ, Delplanque JPR, Schoenung JM. On the limitations of volumetric energy density as a design
parameter for selective laser melting. Mater Des 2017;113:331–40. DOI
75. Prashanth KG, Scudino S, Maity T, Das J, Eckert J. Is the energy density a reliable parameter for materials synthesis by selective laser
melting? Mater Res Lett 2017;5:386–90. DOI
76. Greco S, Gutzeit K, Hotz H, Kirsch B, Aurich JC. Selective laser melting (SLM) of AISI 316L—impact of laser power, layer thickness,
and hatch spacing on roughness, density, and microhardness at constant input energy density. Int J Adv Manuf Techn 2020;108:1551–62.
DOI
77. Gu H, Gong H, Pal D, et al. Influences of energy density on porosity and microstructure of selective laser melted 174PH stainless steel.
In: 2013 Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium. vol. 474; 2013. DOI
78. Liu Y, Liu C, Liu W, et al. Optimization of parameters in laser powder deposition AlSi10Mg alloy using Taguchi method. Opt Laser
Techn 2019;111:470–80. DOI
79. King WE, Barth HD, Castillo VM, et al. Observation of keyholemode laser melting in laser powderbed fusion additive manufacturing.
J Mat Proc Techn 2014;214:2915–25. DOI
80. Gan Z, Kafka OL, Parab N, et al. Universal scaling laws of keyhole stability and porosity in 3D printing of metals. Nat Comm 2021;12:1–8.
DOI
81. Rai R, Elmer J, Palmer T, DebRoy T. Heat transfer and fluid flow during keyhole mode laser welding of tantalum, Ti–6Al–4V, 304L
stainless steel and vanadium. J phys D: Appl phys 2007;40:5753. DOI
82. Maamoun AH, Xue YF, Elbestawi MA, Veldhuis SC. Effect of selective laser melting process parameters on the quality of al alloy parts:
Powder characterization, density, surface roughness, and dimensional accuracy. Materials 2018;11:2343. DOI
83. Bayat M, Thanki A, Mohanty S, et al. Keyholeinduced porosities in Laserbased Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) of Ti6Al4V: Highfidelity
modelling and experimental validation. Add Manuf 2019;30:100835. DOI

84. Cunningham R, Zhao C, Parab N, et al. Keyhole threshold and morphology in laser melting revealed by ultrahighspeed xray imaging.
Science 2019;363:849–52. DOI
85. Scime L, Beuth J. Melt pool geometry and morphology variability for the Inconel 718 alloy in a laser powder bed fusion additive
manufacturing process. Addit Manuf 2019;29:100830. DOI
86. Zhao C, Fezzaa K, Cunningham RW, et al. Realtime monitoring of laser powder bed fusion process using highspeed Xray imaging
and diffraction. Sci rep 2017;7:1–11. DOI
87. Jadhav SD, Goossens LR, Kinds Y, Van Hooreweder B, Vanmeensel K. Laserbased powder bed fusion additive manufacturing of pure
copper. Addit Manuf 2021;42:101990. DOI
88. DebRoy T, Wei H, Zuback J, et al. Additive manufacturing of metallic components–process, structure and properties. Progr Mat Sci
2018;92:112–224. DOI
89. Piglione A, Dovgyy B, Liu C, et al. Printability and microstructure of the CoCrFeMnNi highentropy alloy fabricated by laser powder
bed fusion. Materi Lett 2018;224:22–25. DOI
90. Sun Z, Tan X, Tor SB, Chua CK. Simultaneously enhanced strength and ductility for 3Dprinted stainless steel 316L by selective laser
melting. NPG Asia Mater 2018;10:127–36. DOI
91. Sun Sh, Ishimoto T, Hagihara K, et al. Excellent mechanical and corrosion properties of austenitic stainless steel with a unique crystal
lographic lamellar microstructure via selective laser melting. Script Materi 2019;159:89–93. DOI
92. Roehling TT, Shi R, Khairallah SA, et al. Controlling grain nucleation and morphology by laser beam shaping in metal additive manu
facturing. Mater Des 2020;195:109071. DOI
93. Kok Y, Tan XP, Wang P, et al. Anisotropy and heterogeneity of microstructure and mechanical properties in metal additive manufacturing:
a critical review. Mater Des 2018;139:565–86. DOI
94. Dilip J, Zhang S, Teng C, et al. Influence of processing parameters on the evolution of melt pool, porosity, and microstructures in
Ti6Al4V alloy parts fabricated by selective laser melting. Progr Addit Manuf 2017;2:157–67. DOI
95. Pham MS, Dovgyy B, Hooper PA, Gourlay CM, Piglione A. The role of sidebranching in microstructure development in laser powder
bed fusion. Nat Comm 2020;11:1–12. DOI
96. Bustillos J, Kim J, Moridi A. Exploiting lack of fusion defects for microstructural engineering in additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf
2021;48:102399. DOI
97. Körner C. Additive manufacturing of metallic components by selective electron beam melting—a review. Int Mater Rev 2016;61:361–77.
DOI
98. Gorsse S, Hutchinson C, Gouné M, Banerjee R. Additive manufacturing of metals: a brief review of the characteristic microstructures
and properties of steels, Ti6Al4V and highentropy alloys. Sci Techn adv Mater 2017;18:584–610. DOI
99. Wang YM, Voisin T, McKeown JT, et al. Additively manufactured hierarchical stainless steels with high strength and ductility. Nat
Mater 2018;17:63–71. DOI
100. Zhang LC, Liu Y, Li S, Hao Y. Additive manufacturing of titanium alloys by electron beam melting: a review. Adv Engin Mater
2018;20:1700842. DOI
101. Zhang Y, Wu L, Guo X, et al. Additive manufacturing of metallic materials: a review. J Mater Engin Perform 2018;27:1–13. DOI
102. Moeinfar K, Khodabakhshi F, Kashanibozorg S, Mohammadi M, Gerlich A. A review on metallurgical aspects of laser additive manu
facturing (LAM): Stainless steels, nickel superalloys, and titanium alloys. J Mater Res Techn 2021. DOI
103. Guo L, Zhang L, Andersson J, Ojo O. Additive manufacturing of 18% nickel maraging steels: defect, structure and mechanical properties:
A review. J Mater Sci Techn 2022. DOI
104. Brandl E, Heckenberger U, Holzinger V, Buchbinder D. Additive manufactured AlSi10Mg samples using Selective Laser Melting (SLM):
Microstructure, high cycle fatigue, and fracture behavior. Mater Des 2012;34:159–69. DOI
105. Spierings AB, Starr TL, Wegener K. Fatigue performance of additive manufactured metallic parts. Rap Prot J 2013. DOI
106. Ion JC, Shercliff HR, Ashby MF. Diagrams for laser materials processing. Acta Metall Et Mater 1992;40:1539–51. DOI
107. Beuth J, Klingbeil N. The role of process variables in laserbased direct metal solid freeform fabrication. JoM 2001;53:36–39. DOI
108. Beuth J, Fox J, Gockel J, et al. Process mapping for qualification across multiple direct metal additive manufacturing processes. In:
Solid freeform fabrication proceedings. Univ. Tex. Austin; 2013. pp. 655–65. DOI
109. Tran HC, Lo YL. Systematic approach for determining optimal processing parameters to produce parts with high density in selective
laser melting process. Int J Adv Manuf Techn 2019;105:4443–60. DOI
110. Johnson L, Mahmoudi M, Zhang B, et al. Assessing printability maps in additive manufacturing of metal alloys. Act Mater 2019;176:199–
210. DOI
111. Thomas M, Baxter GJ, Todd I. Normalised modelbased processing diagrams for additive layer manufacture of engineering alloys. Acta
Mater 2016;108:26–35. DOI
112. Rubenchik AM, King WE, Wu SS. Scaling laws for the additive manufacturing. J Mater Proc Techn 2018;257:234–43. DOI
113. Hann D, Iammi J, Folkes J. A simple methodology for predicting laserweld properties from material and laser parameters. J Phys D:
Appl Phys 2011;44:445401. DOI
114. Wang Z, Liu M. Dimensionless analysis on selective laser melting to predict porosity and track morphology. J Mater Proc Techn
2019;273:116238. DOI
115. Mukherjee T, Manvatkar V, De A, DebRoy T. Dimensionless numbers in additive manufacturing. J Appl Phys 2017;121:064904. DOI
116. Van Elsen M, AlBender F, Kruth JP. Application of dimensional analysis to selective laser melting. Rapid Prot J 2008. DOI
117. Mukherjee T, Zuback J, De A, DebRoy T. Printability of alloys for additive manufacturing. Sci rep 2016;6:1–8. DOI
118. Tang M, Pistorius PC, Beuth JL. Prediction of lackoffusion porosity for powder bed fusion. Addit Manuf 2017;14:39–48. DOI
119. Gordon JV, Narra SP, Cunningham RW, et al. Defect structure process maps for laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Addit
Manuf 2020;36:101552. DOI
120. Zhang B, Seede R, Xue L, et al. An efficient framework for printability assessment in laser powder bed fusion metal additive manufac
turing. Addit Manuf 2021:102018. DOI
121. Spierings AB, Levy G. Comparison of density of stainless steel 316L parts produced with selective laser melting using different powder
grades. In: Proceedings of the Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium. Austin, TX; 2009. pp. 342–53. DOI
122. Bidare P, Maier RRJ, Beck RJ, Shephard JD, Moore AJ. An openarchitecture metal powder bed fusion system for insitu process
measurements. Addit Manuf 2017;16:177–85. DOI
123. Jansen D, Hanemann T, Radek M, et al. Development of actual powder layer height depending on nominal layer thicknesses and selection
of laser parameters. J Mater Proc Techn 2021;298:117305. DOI
124. Ahn IH. Determination of a process window with consideration of effective layer thickness in SLM process. Int J Adv Manuf Techn
2019;105:4181–91. DOI
125. Gockel J, Sheridan L, Koerper B, Whip B. The influence of additive manufacturing processing parameters on surface roughness and
fatigue life. Int J Fat 2019;124:380–88. DOI
126. Qian C, Xu H, Zhong Q. The influence of process parameters on corrosion behavior of Ti6Al4V alloy processed by selective laser
melting. J Laser Appl 2020;32:032010. DOI
127. Vukkum V, Gupta R. Review on corrosion performance of laser powderbed fusion printed 316L stainless steel: effect of processing
parameters, Manufacturing defects, postprocessing, feedstock, and microstructure. Mater Des 2022:110874. DOI
128. McGregor M, Patel S, McLachlin S, Vlasea M. Architectural bone parameters and the relationship to titanium lattice design for powder
bed fusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manufact 2021;47:102273. DOI
129. BlakeyMilner B, Gradl P, Snedden, et al. Metal additive manufacturing in aerospace: a review. Mater Des 2021;209:110008. DOI
130. Vasco JC. Additive manufacturing for the automotive industry. In: Addit Manuf. Elsevier; 2021. pp. 505–30. DOI
131. Elsayed M, Ghazy M, Youssef Y, Essa K. Optimization of SLM process parameters for Ti6Al4V medical implants. Rapid Prot J 2019.
DOI
132. Yang Y, Lu Jb, Luo ZY, Wang D. Accuracy and density optimization in directly fabricating customized orthodontic production by
selective laser melting. Rap Prot J 2012. DOI
133. Rej R. NIST/SEMATECH ehandbook of statistical methods; 2003. DOI
134. Sun J, Yang Y, Wang D. Parametric optimization of selective laser melting for forming Ti6Al4V samples by Taguchi method. Opt Laser
Techn 2013;49:118–24. DOI
135. Yakout M, Elbestawi M, Veldhuis SC. Density and mechanical properties in selective laser melting of Invar 36 and stainless steel 316L.
J Mater Proc Techn 2019;266:397–420. DOI
136. Wang D, Liu Y, Yang Y, Xiao D. Theoretical and experimental study on surface roughness of 316L stainless steel metal parts obtained
through selective laser melting. Rap Prot J 2016. DOI
137. Wang C, Tan X, Liu E, Tor SB. Process parameter optimization and mechanical properties for additively manufactured stainless steel
316L parts by selective electron beam melting. Mater Des 2018;147:157–66. DOI
138. Gong H, Gu H, Zeng K, et al. Melt pool characterization for selective laser melting of Ti6Al4V prealloyed powder. In: Solid freeform
fabrication symposium; 2014. pp. 256–67. DOI
139. Mutua J, Nakata S, Onda T, Chen ZC. Optimization of selective laser melting parameters and influence of post heat treatment on
microstructure and mechanical properties of maraging steel. Mater Des 2018;139:486–97. DOI
140. Gong H, Rafi K, Gu H, Starr T, Stucker B. Analysis of defect generation in Ti–6Al–4V parts made using powder bed fusion additive
manufacturing processes. Addit Manuf 2014;1:87–98. DOI
141. Bhardwaj T, Shukla M, Paul C, Bindra K. Direct energy depositionlaser additive manufacturing of titaniummolybdenum alloy: Para
metric studies, microstructure and mechanical properties. J Alloys Comp 2019;787:1238–48. DOI
142. Diaz Vallejo N, Lucas C, Ayers N, et al. Process optimization and microstructure analysis to understand laser powder bed fusion of 316L
stainless steel. Metals 2021;11:832. DOI
143. Dong D, Chang C, Wang H, et al. Selective laser melting (SLM) of CX stainless steel: theoretical calculation, process optimization and
strengthening mechanism. J Mater Sci Techn 2021;73:151–64. DOI
144. Oyesola M, Mpofu K, Mathe N, et al. Optimization of selective laser melting process parameters for surface quality performance of the
fabricated Ti6Al4V. Int J Adv Manuf Techn 2021;114:1585–99. DOI
145. Shrestha S, Manogharan G. Optimization of binder jetting using Taguchi method. JoM 2017;69:491–97. DOI
146. Chen H, Zhao YF. Process parameters optimization for improving surface quality and manufacturing accuracy of binder jetting additive
manufacturing process. Rap Prot J 2016;22:527–38. DOI
147. Sobester A, Forrester A, Keane A. Engineering design via surrogate modelling: a practical guide. John Wiley & Sons; 2008. DOI
148. Thomas DS, Gilbert SW. Costs and cost effectiveness of additive manufacturing. NIST Spec Public 2014;1176:12. DOI
149. Dada M, Popoola P, Aramide O, Mathe N, Pityana S. Optimization of the corrosion property of a high entropy alloy using response
surface methodology. Mater Today: Proc 2021;38:1024–30. DOI
150. Dowling L, Kennedy J, O’shaughnessy S, Trimble D. A review of critical repeatability and reproducibility issues in powder bed fusion.
Mat Des 2020;186:108346. DOI
151. Aboutaleb AM, Bian L, Elwany A, et al. Accelerated process optimization for laserbased additive manufacturing by leveraging similar
prior studies. IISE Trans 2017;49:31–44. DOI
152. Plotkowski A, Kirka MM, Babu S. Verification and validation of a rapid heat transfer calculation methodology for transient melt pool
solidification conditions in powder bed metal additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf 2017;18:256–68. DOI
153. Wang L, Zhang Y, Yan W. Evaporation model for keyhole dynamics during additive manufacturing of metal. Phys Rev Appl
2020;14:064039. DOI
154. Yang M, Wang L, Yan W. Phasefield modeling of grain evolutions in additive manufacturing from nucleation, growth, to coarsening.
Npj Comput Mater 2021;7:1–12. DOI
155. Grilli N, Hu D, Yushu D, Chen F, Yan W. Crystal plasticity model of residual stress in additive manufacturing using the element
elimination and reactivation method. Comput Mech 2021:1–21. DOI
156. Yadollahi A, Shamsaei N. Additive manufacturing of fatigue resistant materials: challenges and opportunities. Int J Fat 2017;98:14–31.
DOI
157. Yang Y, Allen M, London T, Oancea V. Residual strain predictions for a powder bed fusion Inconel 625 single cantilever part. Int Mater
Manuf Innov 2019;8:294–304. DOI
158. Li C, Liu J, Fang X, Guo Y. Efficient predictive model of part distortion and residual stress in selective laser melting. Addit Manuf
2017;17:157–68. DOI
159. Qu M, Guo Q, Escano LI, et al. Controlling process instability for defect lean metal additive manufacturing. Nat Comm 2022;13:1–8.
DOI
160. Markl M, Körner C. Multiscale modeling of powder bed–based additive manufacturing. Ann Rev Mater Res 2016;46:93–123. DOI
161. Wei H, Mukherjee T, Zhang W, et al. Mechanistic models for additive manufacturing of metallic components. Progr Mater Sci
2021;116:100703. DOI
162. Kouraytem N, Li X, Tan W, Kappes B, Spear AD. Modeling process–structure–property relationships in metal additive manufacturing:
a review on physicsdriven versus datadriven approaches. J Phys: Mater 2021;4:032002. DOI
163. Promoppatum P, Yao SC, Pistorius PC, Rollett AD. A comprehensive comparison of the analytical and numerical prediction of the
thermal history and solidification microstructure of Inconel 718 products made by laser powderbed fusion. Engineering 2017;3:685–94.
DOI
164. Yang X, Barrett RA, Harrison NM, Leen SB. A physicallybased structureproperty model for additively manufactured Ti6Al4V. Mater
Des 2021;205:109709. DOI
165. Khairallah SA, Anderson AT, Rubenchik A, King WE. Laser powderbed fusion additive manufacturing: physics of complex melt flow
and formation mechanisms of pores, spatter, and denudation zones. Act Mater 2016;108:36–45. DOI
166. Yan W, Qian Y, Ge W, Lin S, Liu WK, et al. Mesoscale modeling of multiplelayer fabrication process in selective electron beam melting:
interlayer/track voids formation. Mater Des 2018;141:210–19. DOI
167. Jiang P, Zhou Q, Shao X. Surrogate modelbased engineering design and optimization. Springer; 2020. DOI
168. Tapia G, Khairallah S, Matthews M, King WE, Elwany A. Gaussian processbased surrogate modeling framework for process planning
in laser powderbed fusion additive manufacturing of 316L stainless steel. Int J Adv Manuf Techn 2018;94:3591–603. DOI
169. Aoyagi K, Wang H, Sudo H, Chiba A. Simple method to construct process maps for additive manufacturing using a support vector
machine. Addit manuf 2019;27:353–62. DOI
170. Wang C, Tan X, Tor S, Lim C. Machine learning in additive manufacturing: Stateoftheart and perspectives. Addit Manuf
2020;36:101538. DOI
171. DebRoy T, Mukherjee T, Wei H, Elmer J, Milewski J. Metallurgy, mechanistic models and machine learning in metal printing. Nat Revi
Mat 2020:1–21. DOI
172. Meng L, McWilliams B, Jarosinski W, et al. Machine learning in additive manufacturing: a review. JoM 2020;72:2363–77. DOI
173. Yeung H, Yang Z, Yan L. A meltpool prediction based scan strategy for powder bed fusion additive manufacturing. Addit Manuf
2020;35:101383. DOI
174. Wang Z, Liu P, Xiao Y, et al. A datadriven approach for process optimization of metallic additive manufacturing under uncertainty. J
Manuf Sci Engin 2019;141. DOI
175. Mondal S, Gwynn D, Ray A, Basak A. Investigation of melt pool geometry control in additive manufacturing using hybrid modeling.
Metals 2020;10:683. DOI
176. Narayana PL, Kim JH, Lee J, et al. Optimization of process parameters for direct energy deposited Ti6Al4V alloy using neural networks.
Int J Adv Manuf Techn 2021:1–15. DOI
177. Nguyen DS, Park HS, Lee CM. Optimization of selective laser melting process parameters for Ti6Al4V alloy manufacturing using
deep learning. J Manuf Proc 2020;55:230–35. DOI
178. Kappes B, Moorthy S, Drake D, Geerlings H, Stebner A. Machine learning to optimize additive manufacturing parameters for laser pow
der bed fusion of Inconel 718. In: Proceedings of the 9th international symposium on superalloy 718 & derivatives: Energy, aerospace,
and industrial applications. Springer; 2018. pp. 595–610. DOI
179. Tapia G, Elwany AH, Sang H. Prediction of porosity in metalbased additive manufacturing using spatial Gaussian process models. Addit
Manuf 2016;12:282–90. DOI
180. Kamath C. Data mining and statistical inference in selective laser melting. Int J Adv Manuf Techn 2016;86:1659–77. DOI
181. Meng L, Zhang J. Process design of laser powder bed fusion of stainless steel using a Gaussian processbased machine learning model.
JoM 2020;72:420–28. DOI
182. Williams CK, Rasmussen CE. Gaussian processes for machine learning. vol. 2. MIT press Cambridge, MA; 2006. DOI
183. Goel T, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Queipo NV. Ensemble of surrogates. Struct Multidisc Optim 2007;33:199–216. DOI
184. Wang GG, Shan S. Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. J Mech Des Apr 2007;129:370–80.
DOI
185. An D, Kim NH, Choi JH. Practical options for selecting datadriven or physicsbased prognostics algorithms with reviews. Reli Engin
Syst Saf 2015;133:223–36. DOI
186. Younis A, Dong Z. Trends, features, and tests of common and recently introduced global optimization methods. Engin Optimiz
2010;42:691–718. DOI
187. Dong H, Li C, Song B, Wang P. Multisurrogatebased differential evolution with multistart exploration (MDEME) for computationally
expensive optimization. Adv Engin Softw 2018;123:62–76. DOI
188. DíazManríquez A, Toscano G, Coello Coello CA. Comparison of metamodeling techniques in evolutionary algorithms. Soft Comp
2017;21:5647–63. DOI
189. Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW. Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Mult Optim
2001;23:1–13. DOI
190. Yadroitsev I, Krakhmalev P, Yadroitsava I, Johansson S, Smurov I. Energy input effect on morphology and microstructure of selective
laser melting single track from metallic powder. J Mater Proc Techn 2013;213:606–13. DOI
191. Liu J, Song Y, Chen C, et al. Effect of scanning speed on the microstructure and mechanical behavior of 316L stainless steel fabricated
by selective laser melting. Mater Des 2020;186:108355. DOI
192. Leicht A, Fischer M, Klement U, Nyborg L, Hryha E. Increasing the productivity of laser powder bed fusion for stainless steel 316L
through increased layer thickness. J Mater Engin Perf 2021;30:575–84. DOI
193. Wu J, Zhang S, Sun J, Zhang C. Datadriven multiobjective optimization of laser welding parameters of 6061T6 aluminum alloy. J
Phys: Conf Ser 2021 apr;1885:042007. DOI
194. Zhang P, Zhang C, Liu L. Toughening 3Dprinted Zrbased bulk metallic glass via synergistic defects engineering. Mater Res Lett
2022;10:377–84. DOI
195. Coello CAC, Lamont GB, Van Veldhuizen DA, et al. Evolutionary algorithms for solving multiobjective problems. vol. 5. Springer;
2007. DOI
196. Rao SS. Engineering optimization: theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons; 2019. DOI
197. Aboutaleb AM, Mahtabi MJ, Tschopp MA, Bian L. Multiobjective accelerated process optimization of mechanical properties in laser
based additive manufacturing: Case study on Selective Laser Melting (SLM) Ti6Al4V. J Manuf Proc 2019;38:432–44. DOI
198. Padhye N, Deb K. Multiobjective optimisation and multicriteria decision making in SLS using evolutionary approaches. Rapid Prot J
2011. DOI
199. Yan J, Battiato I, Fadel GM. A mathematical modelbased optimization method for Direct Metal Deposition of multimaterials. J Manuf
Sci Engin 2017;139. DOI
200. Strano G, Hao L, Everson R, Evans K. Multiobjective optimization of selective laser sintering processes for surface quality and energy
saving. Proc Inst Mech Engin, Part B: J Engin Manuf 2011;225:1673–82. DOI
201. Meng L, Zhao J, Lan X, Yang H, Wang Z. Multiobjective optimisation of bioinspired lightweight sandwich structures based on selective
laser melting. Virt Phys Prot 2020;15:106–19. DOI
202. Li J, Hu J, Cao L, et al. Multiobjective process parameters optimization of SLM using the ensemble of metamodels. J Manuf Proc
2021;68:198–209. DOI
203. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan T. A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGAII. IEEE trans evolcomput
2002;6:182–97. DOI
204. AsadollahiYazdi E, Gardan J, Lafon P. Multiobjective optimization approach in design for additive manufacturing for fused deposition
modeling. Rapid Prot J 2019. DOI
205. Wu J, Lian K, Deng Y, Jiang P, Zhang C. Multiobjective parameter optimization of fiber laser welding considering energy consumption
and bead geometry. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Engin 2021:1–14. DOI
206. Jiang P, Cao L, Zhou Q, et al. Optimization of welding process parameters by combining Kriging surrogate with particle swarm opti
mization algorithm. Int J Adv Manuf Techn 2016;86:2473–83. DOI
207. Padhye N. Topology optimization of compliant mechanism using multiobjective particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the
10th annual conference companion on genetic and evolutionary computation; 2008. pp. 1831–34. DOI
208. Zhang Y, Wang S, Ji G. A comprehensive survey on particle swarm optimization algorithm and its applications. Math Probl Engin
2015;2015. DOI
209. Aboutaleb AM, Tschopp MA, Rao PK, Bian L. Multiobjective accelerated process optimization of part geometric accuracy in additive
manufacturing. J Manuf Sci Engin 2017;139. DOI
210. Mukherjee T, DebRoy T. Printability of 316 stainless steel. Sci Techn Weld Join 2019;24:412–19. DOI
211. Campagnoli MR, Galati M, Saboori A. On the processability of copper components via powderbased additive manufacturing processes:
Potentials, challenges and feasible solutions. J Manuf Proc 2021;72:320–37. DOI
212. Xie X, Bennett J, Saha S, et al. Mechanistic datadriven prediction of asbuilt mechanical properties in metal additive manufacturing.
npj Comput Mater 2021;7:1–12. DOI
213. Du Y, Mukherjee T, DebRoy T. Physicsinformed machine learning and mechanistic modeling of additive manufacturing to reduce
defects. Appl Mater Today 2021;24:101123. DOI
214. Loh GH, Pei E, Harrison D, Monzón MD. An overview of functionally graded additive manufacturing. Add Manuf 2018;23:34–44. DOI
215. Shi R, Khairallah SA, Roehling TT, et al. Microstructural control in metal laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing using laser
beam shaping strategy. Acta Mater 2020;184:284–305. DOI
216. Tey CF, Tan X, Sing SL, Yeong WY. Additive manufacturing of multiple materials by selective laser melting: Tialloy to stainless steel
via a Cualloy interlayer. Addit Manuf 2020;31:100970. DOI
217. Anstaett C, Seidel C, Reinhart G. Fabrication of 3D multimaterial parts using laserbased powder bed fusion. In: Proceedings of the 28th
Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium; 2017. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/2152/89963 [Last accessed
on 22 Sep].

Process Parameter Optimization of Metal Additive M

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Process Parameter Optimization of Metal Additive M

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Process Parameter Optimization of Metal Additive M

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

H.Y. Chia et al.

J Mater Inf 2022;2:16 Journal of Materials

Review Open Access

Process parameter optimization of metal additive man-

Department of Mechanical Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117575, Singapore.

Keywords: Additive manufacturing, process parameters, optimization, modeling, design of experiments

PROCESS PARAMETERS AND DEFECT FORMATION IN METAL AM

OPTIMAL PROCESSING WINDOW

Full factorial DoE and regression SLM SS316L Roughness [136]

factorial design SLM Maraging steel Relative density [139]

Full factorial DoE SLM Ti6Al4V Porosity [16]

Full factorial DoE SLM and EBM Ti6Al4V Porosity [140]

RSM with ANOVA DED Ti-15Mo Melt pool dimensions [141]

Full factorial DoE SLM SS316L Tensile strength [142]

RSM SLM Ti6Al4V Surface roughness [144]

Taguchi and ANOVA BJ SS316L Transverse rupture strength [145]

Modelling for optimization

Table 2. List of surrogate models using ML methods.

RFN PBF IN718 Porosity [178]

GP model with Bayesian estimation PBF 17-4PHSS Porosity [179]

GP with regression tree SLM SS316L Melt pool dimensions [180]

GP PBF SS316L and 17-4PHSS Porosity [181]

Deep learning with ANN SLM Ti6Al4V Porosity [177]

ANN DED Ti6Al4V Porosity and build height [176]

The general multi-objective optimization problem (MOP) can be expressed as follows:

(1) Pre-decision methods

(2) Post-decision methods

(3) Interactive decision-making methods

Application of multi-objective optimization algorithms

Table 3. Summary of methods used in multi-objective optimization for metal AM

MOGA SLS General surface roughness and energy consumption [200]

Figure 7. An iteration process of NSGA-II.

Characterization (Data collection)

alloys and systems.

Availability of data and materials

Financial support and sponsorship

melting. J Mater Proc Techn 2014;214:2522–28. DOI

modelling and experimental validation. Add Manuf 2019;30:100835. DOI

You might also like