Costewrthj

NIST Special Publication 1176
Costs and Cost Effectiveness of

Additive Manufacturing
A Literature Review and Discussion
Douglas S. Thomas and Stanley W. Gilbert
This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1176
NIST Special Publication 1176
Costs and Cost Effectiveness of

A Literature Review and Discussion
Douglas S. Thomas
Stanley W. Gilbert
Applied Economics Office
Engineering Laboratory
This publication is available free of charge from:

http://dx.doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.1176
December 2014
U.S. Department of Commerce

Penny Pritzker, Secretary
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Willie May, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Acting Director
Abstract
The use of additive manufacturing has increased significantly in previous years. Additive
manufacturing is used by multiple industry subsectors, including motor vehicles,
aerospace, machinery, electronics, and medical products. Currently, however, additive
manufactured products represent less than one percent of all manufactured products in the
U.S. As the costs of additive manufacturing systems decrease, this technology may
change the way that consumers interact with producers. Additive manufacturing
technology opens up new opportunities for the economy and society. It can facilitate the
customized production of strong light-weight products and it allows designs that were not
possible with previous manufacturing techniques. Various challenges, however, can
impede and slow the adoption of this technology. In many instances, the cost of
producing a product using additive manufacturing processes exceeds that of traditional
methods. This report examines literature on the costs of additive manufacturing and seeks
to identify those instances where additive manufacturing might be cost effective and also
identify potential means for reducing costs when using this technology. Current research
on additive manufacturing costs reveals that this technology is cost effective for
manufacturing small batches with continued centralized manufacturing; however, with
increased automation distributed production may become cost effective. Due to the
complexities of measuring additive manufacturing costs, current studies are limited in
their scope. Many of the current studies examine the production of single parts. Those
that examine assemblies tend not to examine supply chain effects such as inventory and
transportation costs along with decreased risk to supply disruption. Currently, research
also reveals that material costs constitute a major proportion of the cost of a product
produced using additive manufacturing. However, technologies can often be
complementary, where two technologies are adopted alongside each other and the
benefits are greater than if they were adopted individually. Increasing adoption of
additive manufacturing may lead to a reduction in raw material cost through economies
of scale. The reduced cost in raw material might then propagate further adoption of
additive manufacturing. There may also be economies of scale in raw material costs if
particular materials become more common rather than a plethora of different materials.
The additive manufacturing system is also a significant cost factor; however, this cost has
continually decreased. Between 2001 and 2011 the average price decreased 51 % after
adjusting for inflation.
Keywords: Additive manufacturing; manufacturing; 3D printing; supply chain;

technology diffusion
ii
iii
Preface
This study was conducted by the Applied Economics Office in the Engineering
Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The study provides
aggregate manufacturing industry data and industry subsector data to develop a
quantitative depiction of the U.S. additive manufacturing industry.
Disclaimer
Certain trade names and company products are mentioned in the text in order to adequately specify the
technical procedures and equipment used. In no case does such identification imply recommendation or
endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor does it imply that the products are
necessarily the best available for the purpose.
Cover Photographs Credits

Microsoft Clip Art Gallery Images used in compliance with Microsoft Corporations non-commercial use
policy.
iv
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank all those who contributed so many excellent ideas and
suggestions for this report. Special appreciation is extended to Kevin Jurrens of the
Engineering Laboratorys Intelligent Systems Division for his technical guidance,
suggestions, and support. Special appreciation is also extended to Dr. David Butry and
Dr. Robert Chapman of the Engineering Laboratorys Applied Economics Office for their
thorough reviews and many insights and to Ms. Shannon Takach for her assistance in
preparing the manuscript for review and publication. The author also wishes to thank Dr.
Nicos Martys, Materials and Structural Systems Division, for his review.
vi
vii
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ II
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................. IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................................... VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. VIII
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... IX
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................................ IX
1
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
1.2
1.3
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES, MATERIALS, AND LITERATURE ....................................... 5

2.1
2.2
2.3
BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................... 1
PURPOSE ............................................................................................................................................. 3
SCOPE AND APPROACH........................................................................................................................... 3
PROCESSES .......................................................................................................................................... 5
MATERIALS .......................................................................................................................................... 6
COST LITERATURE.................................................................................................................................. 6
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING COSTS AND BENEFITS ...................................................................... 11

3.1 ILL-STRUCTURED COSTS........................................................................................................................ 12
3.1.1
Inventory and Transportation ............................................................................................... 12
3.1.2
Consumers Proximity to Production..................................................................................... 12
3.1.3
Supply Chain Management ................................................................................................... 14
3.1.4
Vulnerability to Supply Disruption ........................................................................................ 14
3.2 WELL-STRUCTURED COSTS.................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.1
Material Costs ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.2
Machine Cost ........................................................................................................................ 19
3.2.3
Build Envelope and Envelope Utilization ............................................................................... 20
3.2.4
Build Time ............................................................................................................................. 21
3.2.5
Energy Consumption ............................................................................................................. 21
3.2.6
Labor ..................................................................................................................................... 24
3.3 PRODUCT ENHANCEMENTS AND QUALITY ................................................................................................ 24
COST MODELS AND COMPARISONS .............................................................................................. 27

4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
IMPLEMENTATION AND ADOPTION OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING ........................................... 39

5.1
5.2
TWO MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING COST MODELING ............................................ 27

OTHER COMPARISONS TO TRADITIONAL MANUFACTURING ......................................................................... 31
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING COST ADVANTAGE ........................................................................................ 33
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING TOTAL ADVANTAGE....................................................................................... 35
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING AND FIRM CAPABILITIES ................................................................................. 39

ADOPTION OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING .............................................................................................. 42
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 47
viii
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Example of Traditional Manufacturing Flow ................................................. 13
Figure 3.2: Example of Traditional Supply Chain Compared to the Supply Chain for
Additive Manufacturing with Localized Production ............................................ 15
Figure 3.3: Cost Distribution of Additive Manufacturing of Metal Parts by varying
Factors ................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 3.4: Cost Comparison of Injection Molding and Additive Manufacturing for a
Selected Product, Atzeni et al. (2010) .................................................................. 18
Figure 3.5: Cost Breakout, Hopkinson and Dickens (2003) ............................................. 20
Figure 3.6: Cost Comparison for Selective Laser Sintering ............................................. 21
Figure 3.7: Energy Consumption per kg Deposited (Baumers et al. 2011) ...................... 23
Figure 3.8: Energy Consumption, Magnol, Lepicart, and Perry (2006) ........................... 23
Figure 3.9: Energy Efficiency of Selective Laser Sintering, Cassandra and Seepersad
(2012), megajoules ................................................................................................ 25
Figure 4.1: Hopkinson and Dickens (2003) Cost Model Compared to Injection Molding
............................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 4.2: Ruffo, Tuck, and Hague Cost Model ............................................................. 29
Figure 4.3: Cost Model Comparison (Ruffo, Tuck, and Hague vs. Hopkinson and
Dickens) ................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 4.4: Breakeven Point for High-Pressure Die-Casting and Selective Laser Sintering,
Atzeni and Salmi (2011) ....................................................................................... 32
Figure 4.5: Time and Labor Needed to Produce a Manufactured Product ....................... 36
Figure 4.6: Time, Labor, and Natural Resources Needed to Produce a Manufactured
Product .................................................................................................................. 36
Figure 5.1: Necessities of a Firm ...................................................................................... 39
Figure 5.2: Flexibility and Controllability ........................................................................ 40
Figure 5.3: Chain of Capability ........................................................................................ 41
Figure 5.4: Forecasts of U.S. Additive Manufacturing Shipments, by Varying Market
Saturation Levels .................................................................................................. 45
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Additive Manufacturing Shipments, 2011 ......................................................... 2
Table 2.1: Additive Manufacturing Process and Material Combinations........................... 6
Table 2.2: Literature on the Costs of Additive Manufacturing ........................................... 8
Table 2.3: Literature on the Build Time of Additive Manufacturing ................................. 9
Table 2.4: Literature on the Energy Consumption of Additive Manufacturing ............... 10
Table 3.1: Cost Breakout, Hopkinson and Dickens (2003) .............................................. 19
Table 4.1: Indirect Cost Activities (Ruffo, Tuck, and Hague 2006a) ............................... 29
Table 4.2: Production Costs Compared, Atzeni and Salmi (2011) ................................... 32
Table 5.1: Forecasts of U.S. Additive Manufacturing Shipments by Varying Market
Potential ................................................................................................................ 44
ix
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
In 2011, the world produced approximately $11.3 trillion in manufacturing value added,
according to United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) data. The U.S. produced
approximately 17 % of these goods, making it the second largest manufacturing nation in
the world, down from being the largest in 2009. Many products and parts made by the
industry are produced by taking pieces of raw material and cutting away sections to
create the desired part or by injecting material into a mold; however, a relatively new
process called additive manufacturing is beginning to take hold where material is
aggregated together rather than formed in a mold or cut away. Additive manufacturing is
the process of joining materials to make objects from three-dimensional (3D) models
layer by layer as opposed to subtractive methods that remove material. The terms additive
manufacturing and 3D printing tend to be used interchangeably to describe the same
approach to fabricating parts. This technology is used to produce models, prototypes,
patterns, components, and parts using a variety of materials including plastic, metal,
ceramics, glass, and composites. Products with moving parts can be printed such that the
pieces are already assembled. Technological advances have even resulted in a 3D-Bioprinter that one day might create body parts on demand.1, 2
Additive manufacturing is used by multiple industry subsectors, including motor
vehicles, aerospace, machinery, electronics, and medical products.3 This technology dates
back to the 1980s with the development of stereolithography, which is a process that
solidifies layers of liquid polymer using a laser. The first additive manufacturing system
available was the SLA-1 by 3D Systems. Technologies that enabled the advancement of
additive manufacturing were the desktop computer and the availability of industrial
lasers.
Although additive manufacturing allows the manufacture of customized and increasingly
complex parts, the slow print speed of additive manufacturing systems limits their use for
mass production. Additionally, 3D scanning technologies have enabled the replication of
real objects without using expensive molds. As the costs of additive manufacturing
systems decrease, this technology may change the way that consumers interact with
producers. The customization of products will require increased data collection from the
end user. Additionally, an inexpensive 3D printer allows the end user to produce
polymer-based products in their own home or office. Currently, there are a number of
polymer systems that are within the budget of the average consumer.
Economist. Printing Body Parts: Making a Bit of Me. <http://www.economist.com/node/15543683>

Quick 2009.. 3D Bio-printer to Create Arteries and Organs. <http://www.gizmag.com/3d-bioprinter/13609/>
3
Wohlers, Terry. Wohlers Report 2012: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing State of the Industry.
Wohlers Associates, Inc. 2012.
1
2
Globally, an estimated $967 million in revenue was collected for additive manufactured
goods4 with the U.S. accounting for an estimated $367 million or 38 % of global
production in 2013. 5 Table 1.1 provides a comparison of additive manufactured products
and total industry production for 2011. Additive manufactured products are categorized
as being in the following sectors: motor vehicles; aerospace; industrial/business
machines; medical/dental; government/military; architectural; and consumer
products/electronics, academic institutions, and other. The consensus among wellrespected industry experts is that the penetration of the additive manufacturing market
was 8 % in 2011;6 however, as seen in Table 1.1, goods produced using additive
manufacturing methods represent between 0.01 % and 0.05 % of their relevant industry
subsectors. Thus, additive manufacturing has sufficient room to grow.
Table 1.1: Additive Manufacturing Shipments, 2011
Category
Relevant NAICS Codes
Percent of
Total AM Made
Products
Shipments of
US Made AM
Products
($millions,
2011)*
Total
Shipments
($millions,
2011)
AM Share
of Industry
Shipments
Motor vehicles
Aerospace
NAICS 3361, 3362, 3363

19.5%
48.0
445 289.4
0.01%
NAICS 336411, 336412,
12.1%
29.8
157 700.7
0.02%
336413
Industrial/business machines
NAICS 333
10.8%
26.6
365 734.8
0.01%
Medical/dental
NAICS 3391
15.1%
37.2
89 519.5
0.04%
Government/military
NAICS 336414, 336415,
6.0%
14.8
32 784.4
0.05%
336419, 336992
Architectural
NAICS 3323
3.0%
7.4
72 186.9
0.01%
Consumer products/electronics,
All other within NAICS
33.6%
82.7
895 709.8
0.01%
academic institutions, and other
332 through 339
TOTAL
NAICS 332 through 339
100.0%
246.1
2 058 925.5
0.01%
* These values are calculated assuming that the percent of total additive manufacturing made products for each industry is the same
for the U.S. as it is globally. It is also assumed that the U.S. share of AM systems sold is equal to the share of revenue for AM
products
Note: Numbers may not add up to total due to rounding
There have been three proposed alternatives for the diffusion of additive manufacturing.
The first is considered by many to be the most extreme where a significant proportion of
consumers purchase additive manufacturing systems or 3D printers and produce products
themselves.7 The second is a copy shop scenario, where individuals submit their designs
to a service provider that produces it.8 Both of these scenarios are considered by many to
Wohlers Associates, Inc. 2014: 129.
5
This value is calculated with the assumption that the U.S. share of additive manufacturing systems sold
equates to the share of products produced using additive manufacturing systems. The share of additive
manufacturing systems is available in Wohlers, Terry. Wohlers Report 2012: Additive Manufacturing and
3D Printing State of the Industry. Wohlers Associates, Inc. 2012: 134.
6
Wohlers Associates, Inc. 2012: 130.
7
Neef, Andreas, Klaus Burmeister, Stefan Krempl. 2005. Vom Personal Computer zum Personal
Fabricator (From Personal Computer to Personal Fabricator). Hamburg: Murmann Verlag.
8
4
be somewhat less likely.9 The third scenario involves additive manufacturing being
adopted by the commercial manufacturing industry, changing the technology of design
and production. Additive manufacturing is seen as a practical alternative for commercial
manufacturing in high wage economies, making it an opportunity for advancing U.S.
manufacturing while maintaining and advancing U.S. innovation.
The U.S. is currently a major user of additive manufacturing technology and the primary
producer of additive manufacturing systems. Approximately 62.8% of all
commercial/industrial units sold in 2011 were made by the top three producers of
additive manufacturing systems: Stratasys, Z Corporation, and 3D Systems based out of
the United States.10 Approximately 64.4 % of all systems were made by companies based
in the United States. If additive manufacturing has a saturation level between 5 % and
35 % of the relevant sectors, it is forecasted that it might reach 50 % of market potential
between 2031 and 2038, while reaching near 100 % between 2058 and 2065. The
industry would reach $50 billion between 2029 and 2031, while reaching $100 billion
between 2031 and 2044.11
1.2 Purpose
Additive manufacturing technology opens up new opportunities for the economy and
society. It can facilitate the production of strong light-weight products for the aerospace
industry and it allows designs that were not possible with previous manufacturing
techniques. It may revolutionize medicine with biomanufacturing. This technology has
the potential to increase the well-being of U.S. citizens and improve energy efficiency in
ground and air transportation. However, the adoption and diffusion of this new
technology is not instantaneous. With any new technology, new standards, knowledge,
and infrastructure are required to facilitate its use. Organizations such as the National
Institute of Standards and Technology can enable the development of these items; thus, it
is important to understand the costs and benefits of the additive manufacturing industry.
This report examines literature on the costs of additive manufacturing and seeks to
identify areas where it maintains a cost advantage and identify potential areas for cost
reductions.
1.3 Scope and Approach

This report focuses on the costs of additive manufacturing; however, many of the
advantages of additive manufacturing may lie in improvements of the finished good.
Therefore, there is some discussion on the product improvements that result from
additive manufacturing technologies. Section 2 provides an overview of the processes
Baumers, Martin. Economic Aspects of Additive Manufacturing: Benefits, Costs, and Energy
Consumption. 2012. Doctoral Thesis. Loughborough University.
10
3D Systems purchased Z Corporation in 2012. Stratasys merged with Objet in 2012 and is now
incorporated in Israel.
11
Thomas, Douglas S. Economics of the U.S. Additive Manufacturing Industry. NIST Special Publication
1163. 2013. <http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=913515>
9
and materials used in additive manufacturing. It also discusses the literature on additive
manufacturing costs and categorizes them by their process and material combination.
Section 3 provides a discussion and examination of the costs and benefits of additive
manufacturing. It is broken into ill-structured costs, well-structured costs, and product
enhancements and quality. Section 4 provides an examination of the cost models used to
examine additive manufacturing. Section 5 provides a discussion on the trends in
implementation and adoption of additive manufacturing.
2 Additive Manufacturing Processes, Materials, and

Literature
There are a number of additive manufacturing processes; however, at first glance it may
appear that there are more types than in actuality. Many companies have created unique
system and material names in order to differentiate themselves, which has created some
confusion. Fortunately, there has been some effort to categorize the processes and
materials using standard methods. The categorization and descriptions of processes and
materials below relies heavily on Wohlers (2012) and ASTM International Standards.12
2.1 Processes
The total global revenue from additive manufacturing system sales was $502.5 million
with U.S. revenue estimated at $323.6 million. These systems are categorized into
various different processes. ASTM International Committee F42.91 on Additive
Manufacturing Technologies has developed standard terminologies. Provided below are
the categories and adapted definitions from the ASTM F2792 standard:
Binder Jetting: This process uses liquid bonding agent deposited using an inkjet-print
head to join powder materials in a powder bed.
Directed Energy Deposition: This process utilizes thermal energy, typically from a laser,
to fuse materials by melting them as they are deposited.
Material Extrusion: These machines push material, typically a thermoplastic filament,
through a nozzle onto a platform that moves in horizontal and vertical directions.
Material Jetting: This process, typically, utilizes a moving inkjet-print head to deposit
material across a build area.
Powder Bed Fusion: This process uses thermal energy from a laser or electron beam to
selectively fuse powder in a powder bed.
Sheet Lamination: This process uses sheets of material bonded to form a threedimensional object.
Vat Photopolymerization: These machines selectively cure a liquid photopolymer in a vat
using light.
12
2.2 Materials
Approximately $327.1 million was spent globally on materials for additive
manufacturing in 2011.13 There are two primary types of materials: plastics and metals.
There are also ceramics, composites, and other materials that are used as well, but are not
as common. Wohlers groups the materials into eight categories:
Polymers and polymer blends
Composites
Metals
Graded/hybrid metals
Ceramics
Investment casting patterns
Sand molds and cores
Paper
Certain processes lend themselves to certain materials. Table 2.1 presents the
combinations of additive manufacturing processes and their corresponding materials. The
combinations that are left blank are material/process combinations that are not currently
utilized.
Table 2.1: Additive Manufacturing Process and Material Combinations

Vat
photopolymerization
Material
extrusion
Material
jetting
Binder
jetting
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Polymers and polymer blends

Composites
Metals
Graded/hybrid metals
Ceramics
Investment casting patterns
Sand molds and cores
Paper
Sheet
lamination
Powder
bed fusion
x
x
x
x
x
Directed
energy
deposition
x
x
x
x
x
x
Source: Wohlers, Terry. Wohlers Report 2012: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing State of the
Industry. Wohlers Associates, Inc. 2012.
2.3 Cost Literature

There are two major motivational categories for examining additive manufacturing costs.
The first is to compare additive manufacturing processes to other traditional processes
such as injection molding and machining. The purpose of these types of examinations is
13
to determine under what circumstances additive manufacturing is cost effective. The

second category involves identifying resource use at various steps in the additive
manufacturing process. The purpose of this type of analysis is to identify when and where
resources are being consumed and whether there can be a reduction in resource use.
Table 2.2 provides a literature list for cost studies on additive manufacturing categorized
by the combinations of additive manufacturing processes and corresponding materials
shown in Table 2.1. The areas in black are those areas that are not possible (i.e., they are
the empty cells from Table 2.1) while those with an x indicate possible combinations
but no cost literature was identified. One column has been added to indicate studies that
examine both additive manufacturing and traditional manufacturing. The documents
listed in the table are heavily relied on for characterizing the costs of additive
manufacturing. Two major components that affect costs are the build time and the energy
consumption of additive manufacturing systems. Although these issues will not be
discussed at significant length, a selection of literature is categorized in Table 2.3 and
Table 2.4.
Table 2.2: Literature on the Costs of Additive Manufacturing

Material
extrusion
Polymers, polymer
blends, and
composites
T.A. Grimm
(2010)*;
Hopkinson and
Dickens (2003);
Hopkinson
(2006); Baumers
(2012)
Metals
Material jetting
T.A. Grimm
(2010)*
Binder
jetting
Vat photopolymerization
T.A. Grimm
(2010)*
T.A. Grimm
(2010)*;
Hopkinson and
Dickens (2003);
Hopkinson
(2006); Li (2005)
Graded/hybrid
metals
Powder bed fusion
T.A. Grimm (2010)*
Ruffo, Tuck, and Hague

(2006a); Baldinger and
Duchi (2013); Ruffo and
Hague (2007); Hopkinson
and Dickens (2003);
Hopkinson (2006);
Baumers (2012); Zhang
and Bernard (2014);
Atzeni et al. (2010)
Rickenbacher (2013)*;
Baumers et al. (2012);
Baumers (2012); Baumers
et al (2013); Atzeni,
Iuliano and Salmi (2011);
Atzeni and Salmi (2012);
Lindemann et al. (2012);
Lindemann et al. (2013)
Ceramics
Investment
casting patterns
Sand molds and
cores
Sheet lamination
x
x
x
x
Paper
Undesignated
Material
Khajavi et al. (2014)
* 3D Printing
research that includes
Traditional
Manufacturing
Hopkinson (2006);
Ruffo, Tuck, and Hague
(2006a); Ruffo and
Hague (2007);
Hopkinson and Dickens
(2003); Atzeni et al.
(2010); Li (2005)
Directed
energy
deposition
Allen (2006)
Table 2.3: Literature on the Build Time of Additive Manufacturing
Material
extrusion
Polymer, polymer
blend, and
composites
Metals
Material
jetting
Binder
jetting
Giannatsis et al.
(2001); Chen and
Sullivan (1996);
Campbell (2008)
Graded/hybrid
metals
Investment
casting patterns
Paper
Powder bed fusion
Choi and Samavedam

(2002); Ruffo et al.
(2006b); Munguia et al.
(2009); Zhang and
Bernard (2014); Kruth
et al. (2005)
Rickenbacher et al.
(2013)
Ceramics
Sand molds and

cores
Sheet
lamination
x
x
Directed
energy
deposition
Undesignated
Process
x
x
Di Angelo
and Di
Stefano
(2011)
Undesignated
Material
Additive
Manufacturing
research that
includes
Traditional
Manufacturing
Table 2.4: Literature on the Energy Consumption of Additive Manufacturing
Material
extrusion
Polymers, polymer
blends, and
composites
Mognol et al.
(2006);
Baumers
(2011); Luo et
al. (1999)
Metals
Material
jetting
Binder
jetting
Mognol et al.
(2006); Luo et al.
(1999)
Graded/hybrid
metals
Investment
casting patterns
Paper
Powder bed fusion
Sreenivasan et al. (2009);

ATKINS (2007); Telenko
and Seepersad (2010);
Telenko and Seepersad
(2012); Paul and Anand
(2012); Kellens et al.
(2011);Verma and Rai;
Baumers (2011);
Sreenivasan and Bourell
(2009); Baumers et al.
(2010); ; Luo et al. (1999);
Kellens et al. (2010);
Sreenivasan et al. (2010)
Baumers et al. (2012);

Baumers et al (2013);
Mognol et al. (2006);
Baumers (2011);
Sreenivasan et al. (2010)
Ceramics
Sand molds and

cores
Sheet
lamination
x
x
x
x
x
10
Undesignated
Process
ATKINS (2007);
Telenko and
Seepersad
(2012)
Morrow et al.
(2007)
Directed
energy
deposition
Additive
Manufacturing
research that
includes
Traditional
Manufacturing
ATKINS
Project (2007)
ATKINS Project
(2007);
Morrow et al.
(2007)
3 Additive Manufacturing Costs and Benefits

As discussed by Young (1991), the costs of production can be categorized in two ways.14
The first involves those costs that are well-structured such as labor, material, and
machine costs. The second involves ill-structured costs such as those associated with
build failure, machine setup, and inventory. In the literature, there tends to be more focus
on well-structured costs of additive manufacturing than ill-structured costs; however,
some of the more significant benefits and cost savings in additive manufacturing may be
hidden in the ill-structured costs. Moreover considering additive manufacturing in the
context of lean production might be useful.
A key concept of lean manufacturing is the identification of waste, which is classified
into seven categories:
1) Overproduction: occurs when more is produced than is currently required by
customers
2) Transportation: transportation does not make any change to the product and is a
source of risk to the product
3) Rework/Defects: discarded defects result in wasted resources or extra costs
correcting the defect
4) Over-processing: occurs when more work is done than is necessary
5) Motion: unnecessary motion results in unnecessary expenditure of time and
resources
6) Inventory: is similar to that of overproduction and results in the need for
additional handling, space, people, and paperwork to manage extra product
7) Waiting: when workers and equipment are waiting for material and parts, these
resources are being wasted
Additive manufacturing may impact a significant number of these categories. For
example, additive manufacturing may significantly reduce the need for large inventory,
which is a significant cost in manufacturing. In 2011, there was an average of
$208 billion or the equivalent of 14 % of annual revenue held in inventory for mediumand high-tech manufacturing15 with an estimated cost of $52 billion or 3 % of revenue.16
Reducing inventory frees up capital and reduces expenses. The following sections will
attempt to discuss some of the potential savings and benefits of additive manufacturing as
well as its costs.
Young, Son K. A Cost Estimation Model for Advanced Manufacturing Systems. International Journal
of Production Research. 1991. 29(3): 441-452.
15
For this report, medium- and high-tech manufacturing includes NAICS 333 through 336, which includes
machinery, computer, electronic product, electrical equipment, and transportation equipment
manufacturing.
16
It is assumed that the cost of holding inventory is 25 % of the value of the inventory.
14
11
3.1 Ill-Structured Costs

Many costs are hidden in the supply chain, which is a system that moves products from
supplier to customer. Additive manufacturing may, potentially, have significant impacts
on the design and size of this system, reducing its associated costs.17
3.1.1 Inventory and Transportation
Inventory: At the beginning of 2011, there were $537 billion in inventories in the
manufacturing industry, which was equal to 10 % of that years revenue. The resources
spent producing and storing these products could have been used elsewhere if the need
for inventory were reduced. Suppliers often suffer from high inventory and distribution
costs. Additive manufacturing provides the ability to manufacture parts on demand. For
example, in the spare parts industry, a specific type of part is infrequently ordered;
however, when one is ordered, it is needed quite rapidly, as idle machinery and
equipment waiting for parts is quite costly. Traditional production technologies make it
too costly and require too much time to produce parts on demand. The result is a
significant amount of inventory of infrequently ordered parts.18 This inventory is tied up
capital for products that are unused. They occupy physical space, buildings, and land
while requiring rent, utility costs, insurance, and taxes. Meanwhile the products are
deteriorating and becoming obsolete. Being able to produce these parts on demand using
additive manufacturing reduces the need for maintaining large inventory and eliminates
the associated costs.
Transportation: Additive manufacturing allows for the production of multiple parts
simultaneously in the same build, making it possible to produce an entire product.
Traditional manufacturing often includes production of parts at multiple locations, where
an inventory of each part might be stored. The parts are shipped to a facility where they
are assembled into a product, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. Additive manufacturing has the
potential to replace some of these steps for some products, as this process might allow for
the production of the entire assembly. This would reduce the need to maintain large
inventories for each part of one product. It also reduces the transportation of parts
produced at varying locations and reduces the need for just-in-time delivery.
3.1.2 Consumers Proximity to Production
As previously discussed, three alternatives have been proposed for the diffusion of
additive manufacturing. The first is where a significant proportion of consumers purchase
additive manufacturing systems or 3D printers and produce products themselves.19 The
Reeves P. (2008) How the Socioeconomic Benefits of Rapid Manufacturing can Offset Technological
Limitations. RAPID 2008 Conference and Exposition. Lake Buena Vista, FL: 1-12.
18
Walter, Manfred, Jan Holmstrom and Hannu Yrjola. Rapid Manufacturing and its Impact on Supply
Chain Management. Logistics Research Network Annual Conference. September 9-10, 2004. Dublin,
Ireland.
19
17
12
Figure 3.1: Example of Traditional Manufacturing Flow
Manufacturing of
Component A
Inventory of A
Manufacturing of
Component B
Inventory of B
Transport
of parts
Manufacturing of
Component C
Inventory of C
Transport
of parts
Transport
of parts
Assembly
of
product
second is a copy shop scenario, where individuals submit their designs to a service
provider that produces goods.20 The third scenario involves additive manufacturing being
adopted by the commercial manufacturing industry, changing the technology of design
and production. One might consider a fourth scenario. Because additive manufacturing
can produce a final product in one build, there is limited exposure to hazardous
conditions, and there is little hazardous waste,21 there is the potential to bring production
closer to the consumer for some products (i.e., distributed manufacture). For example,
currently, a more remote geographic area may order automotive parts on demand, which
may take multiple days to be delivered. Additive manufacturing might allow some of
these parts or products to be produced near the point of use or even onsite.22 Further,
localized production combined with simplified processes may begin to blur the line
between manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers as each could potentially produce
products in their facilities.
Khajavi et al. (2014) compare the operating cost of centralized additive manufacturing
production and distributed production, where production is in close proximity to the
consumer.23 This analysis examined the production of spare parts for the air-cooling
ducts of the environmental control system for the F-18 Super Hornet fighter jet, which is
a well-documented instance where additive manufacturing has already been
implemented. The expected total cost per year for centralized production was
$1.0 million and $1.8 million for distributed production. Inventory obsolescence cost,
initial inventory production costs, inventory carrying costs, and spare parts transportation
costs are all reduced for distributed production; however, significant increases in
personnel costs and the initial investment in additive manufacturing machines make it
20
21
Huang, Samuel H., Peng Liu, Abhiram Mokasdar. 2013 Additive Manufacturing and Its Societal
Impact: A Literature Review. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 67: 11911203.
22
Holmstrom, Jan, Jouni Partanen, Jukka Tuomi, and Manfred Walter. Rapid Manufacturing in the Spare
Parts Supply Chain: Alternative Approaches to Capacity Deployment. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management. 2010. 21(6) 687-697.
23
Khajavi, Siavash H., Jouni Partanen, Jan Holmstrom. 2014 Additive Manufacturing in the Spare Parts
Supply Chain. Computers in Industry. 65: 50-63.
13
more expensive than centralized production. Increased automation and reduced machine
costs are needed for this scenario to be cost effective. It is also important to note that this
analysis examined the manufacture of a relatively simple component with little assembly.
One potential benefit of additive manufacturing might be to produce an assembled
product rather than individual components. Research by Holmstrm et al. (2010), which
also examines spare parts in the aircraft industry, concurs that, currently, on demand
centralized production of spare parts is the most likely approach to succeed; however, if
additive manufacturing develops into a widely adopted process, the distributed approach
becomes more feasible.24
3.1.3 Supply Chain Management
The supply chain includes purchasing, operations, distribution, and integration.
Purchasing involves sourcing product suppliers. Operations involve demand planning,
forecasting, and inventory. Distribution involves the movement of products and
integration involves creating an efficient supply chain.25 Reducing the need for these
activities can result in a reduction in costs. Some large businesses and retailers largely
owe their success to the effective management of their supply chain. They have used
technology to innovate the way they track inventory and restock shelves resulting in
reduced costs. Walmart, for example, cut links in the supply chain, making the link
between their stores and the manufacturers more direct. It also began vender managed
inventory (VMI), where manufacturers were responsible for managing their products in
Walmarts warehouses. It advanced its communication and collaboration network. The
management of the supply chain can be the factor that drives a company to market
leadership. Additive manufacturing may have significant impacts on the manufacturing
supply chain, reducing the need for supply chain management. This technology has the
potential to bring manufacturers closer to consumers, reducing the links in the supply
chain.
3.1.4 Vulnerability to Supply Disruption
If additive manufacturing reduces the number of links in the supply chain and brings
production closer to consumers, it will result in a reduction in the vulnerability to
disasters and disruptions. Every factory and warehouse in the supply chain for a product
is a potential point where a disaster or disruption can stop or hinder the production and
delivery of a product. A smaller supply chain with fewer links means there are fewer
points for potential disruption. Additionally, if production is brought closer to consumers
it will result in more decentralized production where many facilities are producing a few
products rather than a few facilities producing many products. Disruptions in the supply
chain might result in localized impacts rather than regional or national impacts. Figure
3.2 provides an example that compares traditional manufacturing to additive
manufacturing. Under traditional manufacturing, material resource providers deliver to
Holmstrm, Jan, Jouni Partanen, Jukka Tuomi, and Manfred Walter. 2010. Rapid Manufacturing in the
Spare Parts Supply Chain: Alternative Approaches to Capacity Deployment. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology. 21(6): 687-697.
25
University of San Francisco. Walmart: Keys to Successful Supply Chain Management.
<http://www.usanfranonline.com/resources/supply-chain-management/walmart-keys-to-successful-supplychain-management/#.U5IDQfldXzg>
24
14
the manufacturers of parts and components, who might deliver parts and components to
each other and then to an assembly plant. From there the assembled product is delivered
to a retailer or distributer. A disruption at any of the points in manufacturing or assembly
may result in a disruption of deliveries to all the retailers or distributers if there is not
redundancy in the system. Additive manufacturing with localized production does not
have the same vulnerability. First, there may not be any assembly of parts or components.
Second, a disruption to manufacturing does not impact all of the retailers and distributers.
Figure 3.2: Example of Traditional Supply Chain Compared to the Supply Chain for Additive
Manufacturing with Localized Production
Traditional
Manufacturing
Additive
Manufacturing
Material Resource
Providers
Manufacturing of
Parts and
Components
Localized Production
Assembly of Parts
and Components
Retailer or
Distribution
3.2 Well-Structured Costs

3.2.1 Material Costs
With geometric freedom, additive manufacturing allows products to be produced using
less material while maintaining the necessary performance. Products can be produced at
the level of performance needed rather than significantly exceeding the necessary
performance level because of limitations in traditional manufacturing. Currently,
however, the price of materials for additive manufacturing can often exceed those of
traditional manufacturing.
Metal Material Costs: As discussed previously, metal and plastic are the primary
materials used for this technology. Currently, the cost of material for additive
manufacturing can be quite high when compared to traditional manufacturing. Atzeni and
Salmi (2011) showed that the material costs for a selected metal part made from
aluminum alloys was 2.59 per part for traditional manufacturing and 25.81 per part for
15
additive manufacturing using selective laser sintering; thus, the additive manufacturing
material was nearly ten times more expensive.26
Other research on metal parts confirms that material costs are a major cost driver for this
technology as seen in Figure 3.3, which presents data for a sample part made of stainless
steel. For this example, four cost factors are varied and the production quantity is a little
less than 200 for the base case. This analysis provides insight into identifying the largest
costs of additive manufacturing. The first cost factor that is varied is the building rate,
which is the speed at which the additive manufacturing system operates. In this example,
it is measured in cubic centimeters per hour. The second factor that is varied is the
machine utilization measured as the number of hours per year that the machine is
operated. The third factor is the material cost and the last factor is the machine
investment costs, which include items related to housing, using, and maintaining the
Figure 3.3: Cost Distribution of Additive Manufacturing of Metal Parts by varying Factors
100%
Percent of Cost
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
6.3
12
20
Building rate in
ccm/h
4500
6000
7800
40
Machine
Utilization h/yr
89
600
200
320
500
Machine
investment costs
( thousands)
Material Costs
(/kg)
Building process fix
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
Preparation costs
4%
7%
9%
4%
5%
6%
5%
4%
3%
6%
5%
4%
Oven
3%
4%
5%
3%
3%
4%
3%
3%
2%
4%
3%
3%
Material costs
11%
17%
23%
11%
14%
16%
5%
11%
46%
16%
14%
11%
postprocessing costs
7%
10%
13%
7%
8%
9%
7%
7%
4%
9%
8%
7%
Machine costs
74%
59%
47%
74%
69%
64%
78%
74%
45%
63%
68%
74%
Source: Lindemann C., U. Jahnke, M. Moi, and R. Koch. Analyzing Product Lifecycle Costs for a Better
Understanding of Cost Drivers in Additive Manufacturing. Proceedings of the 2012 Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium.
<http://utwired.engr.utexas.edu/lff/symposium/proceedingsArchive/pubs/Manuscripts/2012/2012-12Lindemann.pdf>
Note: The orange star indicates the base model.
Atzeni, Eleonora and Alessandro Salmi. (2012) Economics of Additive Manufacturing for End-Usable
Metal Parts. International Journal of Advanced manufacturing Technology. 62: 1147-1155.
26
16
additive manufacturing system. Among other things, this includes energy costs, machine
purchase, and associated labor costs to operate the system. The base model has a build
rate of 6.3 ccm/hr, a utilization of 4500 h/yr, a material cost of 89 , and a machine
investment cost of 500 000 . For comparison, the base case is shown four times in the
figure, with each one shown with a star. On average, the machine costs accounted for
62.9 % of the cost estimates in Figure 3.3 (note that the base case is only counted once in
the average). This cost was the largest even when building rate was more than tripled and
other factors were held constant. This cost was largest in all but one case, where material
costs were increased to 600 /kg. The second largest cost is the materials, which, on
average, accounted for 18.0 % of the costs; however, it is important to note that this cost
is likely to decrease as more suppliers enter the field.27 Post processing, preparation, oven
heating, and building process fix were approximately 8.4 %, 5.4 %, 3.3 %, and 1.9 %,
respectively.
The material costs for additive manufacturing are significant; however, technologies can
often be complementary, where two technologies are adopted alongside each other and
the benefits are greater than if they were adopted individually. One example is computer
aided design and computer aided manufacturing, as both are needed to be utilized for the
other to be valuable. Additive manufacturing and the raw materials that are used may be a
condition where they are complementary.28 All additive manufacturing requires raw
materials, and according to Stoneman (2002) this may create a feedback loop.29
Increasing adoption of additive manufacturing may lead to a reduction in raw material
cost through economies of scale. The reduced cost in raw material might then propagate
further adoption of additive manufacturing. There may also be economies of scale in raw
material costs if particular materials become more common rather than a plethora of
different materials.
Plastic Material Costs: Atzeni et al (2010) compared the costs of manufacturing a lamp
holder using injection molding compared to the additive manufacturing process of
selective laser sintering using two different machines: EOS SLS P730 and EOS SLS
P390.30 A significant portion of the cost for injection molding is the mold itself, which
accounts for between 84.6 % and 97.7 % of the cost as seen in Figure 3.4. For additive
manufacturing, the major costs are the machine cost per part, which is between 58.7 %
and 65.9 % of the cost, and the material cost per part, which is between 29.1 % and
30.4 % of the cost. The P730 is cost effective for production volumes of 73 000 or less
while the P390 is cost effective for 87 000 or less.
Lindemann C., U. Jahnke, M. Moi, and R. Koch. Analyzing Product Lifecycle Costs for a Better
Understanding of Cost Drivers in Additive Manufacturing. Proceedings of the 2012 Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium.
<http://utwired.engr.utexas.edu/lff/symposium/proceedingsArchive/pubs/Manuscripts/2012/2012-12Lindemann.pdf>
28
29
Stoneman, Paul. The Economics of Technological Diffusion. 2002. Oxford: Blackwell.
30
Atzeni, Eleonora, Luca Iuliano, Paolo Minetola, and Alessandro Salmi. 2010. Redesign and Cost
Estimation of Rapid Manufactured Plastic Parts. Rapid Prototyping Journal 16 (5): 30817.
27
17
Hopkinson and Dickens (2003) also investigate the additive manufacturing costs of a
polymer part, as discussed in Section 4. 31 The costs are calculated for two parts, a lever
and a cover, using stereolithography, fused deposition modeling, and laser sintering. A
cost breakout for the lever is provided in Figure 3.5 and Table 3.1. The material cost
represented 25 % of the cost for stereolithography, 39 % for fused deposition modeling,
and 74 % for laser sintering. Ruffo et al. (2006a) conduct a similar analysis using the
same part.32 The cost of additive manufactured parts is calculated by Ruffo et al. using an
Figure 3.4: Cost Comparison of Injection Molding and Additive Manufacturing for a Selected
Product, Atzeni et al. (2010)
7
6
Cost per assembly ()
5
4
3
2
1
0
IM 5000
IM
20000
IM
100000
IM
500000
AM
P730
AM
P390
Machine operator cost per part
0.018
0.009
0.004
0.001
0.054
0.117
Material cost per part
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.011
0.382
0.360
Machine cost per part
0.083
0.042
0.024
0.014
0.867
0.694
Assembly cost per part
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.035
0.012
0.012
Mold cost per part
6.240
2.900
1.075
0.335
Note: The number following IM is the number of assemblies; thus, IM 5000 is injection
molding with 5000 assemblies made. The number following AM is the model of the
machine; thus, AM P730 is additive manufacturing machine EOS SLS P730. P390 is the
EOS SLS P390.
Hopkinson, Neil, and Phill M. Dickens. Analysis of Rapid Manufacturing Using Layer Manufacturing
Processes for Production. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C : Journal of
Mechanical Engineering Science. 2003. 217(C1): 31-39. <https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspacejspui/handle/2134/3561>
32
Ruffo, M, Christopher Tuck, Richard J.M. Hague. Cost Estimation for Rapid Manufacturing Laser
Sintering Production for Low to Medium Volumes. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture. 2006. 1417-1427.
<https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/4680>
31
18
Material Costs
Labor Costs Machine Costs
Other
Table 3.1: Cost Breakout, Hopkinson and Dickens (2003)
Number per platform

Platform build time
Production rate per hour
Hours per year in operation
production volume total per year
Machine and ancillary equipment ()
Equipment depreciation cost per year ()
Machine maintenance cost per year ()
Total machine cost per year ()
Machine cost per part ()
Machine operator cost per hour ()
Set-up time to control machine (min)
Post-processing time per build (min)
Labor cost per build ()
Labor cost per part ()
Material per part (kg)
Support material per part (kg)
Build material cost per kg ()
Support material cost per kg ()
Cost of material used in one build ()
Material cost per part ()
Total cost per part ()
Stereolithography
190
26.8
7.09
7 884
55 894
1 040 000
130 000
89 000
219 000
3.92
5.30
33
49
7.24
0.04
0.0047
275.20
1.29
5.25
Fused
deposition
Laser
modeling sintering
75
1056
67.27
59.78
1.11
17.66
7 884
7 884
8 790
139 269
101 280
340 000
12 660
42 500
10 560
30 450
23 220
72 950
2.64
0.52
5.30
5.30
10
120
60
360
6.18
42.37
0.08
0.04
0.0035
0.0016
400.00
54.00
216.00
1 725.72
1.75
1.63
4.47
2.20
activity based cost model, where each cost is associated with a particular activity. They
make an estimate that compares with Hopkinson and Dickens and another estimate that
uses recycling of material. As illustrated in Figure 3.6, material is 69 % of the cost in the
first estimate and 55 % in the second estimate.
3.2.2 Machine Cost
In addition to material costs, machine cost is one of the most significant costs involved in
additive manufacturing. The average selling price of an industrial additive manufacturing
system was $73 220 in 2011.33 Although the price is up from $62 570 in 2010, the price
has fallen for most years prior to this point. Between 2001 and 2011, the price decreased
51 % after adjusting for inflation.34 While the trends in machine costs are generally
downward, large differences remain between the costs for polymer-based systems and
metal-based systems, and the tremendous growth in sales of low-cost, polymer-based
34
Ibid
33
19
Figure 3.5: Cost Breakout, Hopkinson and Dickens (2003)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Cost per Part ()
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Laser sintering
Fused deposition
modeling
Stereolithography
Laser sintering
Fused deposition
modeling
Stereolithography
0.00
systems during this time has strongly influenced the average selling price of additive
manufacturing systems.
For metal material cost studies, Hopkinson and Dickens (2003) showed that machine
costs ranged from 23 % to 75 % of a metal part, as seen in Table 3.1. The cost difference
between the different types of additive manufacturing machinery was quite significant
ranging between $0.1 million typically for polymer systems and $1.0 million typically for
metal systems. One might surmise that the proportion might have decreased over time;
however, the machine cost estimates for Lindemann et al. (2012) ranged from 45 % to
78 % of the cost of a metal part, as seen in Figure 3.3. Atzeni et al. (2010) show that
machine cost per part was between 59 % and 66 % of the cost of a plastic part, as seen in
Figure 3.4.
3.2.3 Build Envelope and Envelope Utilization
The size of the build envelope35 and the utilization of this envelop both have an impact on
the cost of an additive manufactured product. The size of the build envelope has two
impacts. First, products can only be built to the size of the build envelope, which means
that it might not be possible to build some products using additive manufacturing
technologies without enlarging the build envelope. The second impact of the build
envelope is related to utilizing the total amount of build capacity. A significant efficiency
factor lies in the ability to exhaust the available build space. For example, Baumers et al.
(2011) examined the impact of capacity utilization on energy using six different machines
(Arcam - A1, MTT Group - SLM 250, EOS GmbH - EOSINT M 270, Concept Laser
GmbH - M3 Linear, Stratasys Inc - FDM 400 mc, and EOS GmbH - EOSINT P390) and
35
The build envelope is the maximum area for part production in an additive manufacturing system.
20
Figure 3.6: Cost Comparison for Selective Laser Sintering

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Hopkinson and Ruffo et al.
Dickens
Ruffo et al.
with recycling
four different materials (titanium, stainless steel, and two kinds of polymers). As seen in
Figure 3.7, the full build case, where the build envelope is fully utilized, uses less energy
per kilogram deposited than one single part being produced for all six different machines.
The EOSINT P 390 has the largest build volume and has the largest difference in energy
consumption between a single part and full build.
3.2.4 Build Time
Build time is a significant component in regard to estimating the cost of additive
manufacturing and a number of software packages are available for estimating build
time.36, 37 There tends to be two approaches to estimating build time: 1) detailed analysis
and 2) parametric analysis.38 Detailed analysis utilizes knowledge about the inner
workings of a system, while parametric analysis utilizes information on process time and
characteristics such as layer thickness. Build time estimations tend to be specific to the
system and material being used. Although this is an important factor in the cost of
additive manufacturing, the details of build time are beyond the scope of this report.
3.2.5 Energy Consumption
Some cost studies for additive manufacturing, such as Hopkinson and Dickens (2003),
included an examination of energy consumption, but they did not include energy in their
Ruffo, Massimiliano, Christopher Tuck, and Richard Hague. 2006. Empirical Laser Sintering Time
Estimator for Duraform PA. International Journal of Production Research 44 (23): 513146.
37
Campbell, I., J. Combrinck, D. De Beer, and L. Barnard. 2008. Stereolithography Build Time
Estimation Based on Volumetric Calculations. Rapid Prototyping Journal. 14(5): 271-279.
38
Di Angelo, Luca, and Paolo Di Stefano. 2011. A Neural Network-Based Build Time Estimator for
Layer Manufactured Objects. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 57 (1-4):
21524. doi:10.1007/s00170-011-3284-8.
36
21
reporting, as it contributed less than one percent to the final cost.39 Energy consumption,
however, is an important factor in considering the cost of additive manufacturing
compared to other methods of manufacturing, especially in terms of examining the costs
from cradle to grave. Energy studies on additive manufacturing, however, tend to focus
only on the energy used in material refining and by the additive manufacturing system
itself. These studies are discussed below.
Metal: As discussed previously, Baumers et al. (2011) examined energy consumption
among a number of machines.40 The results shown in Figure 3.7 provide the results for
energy consumption among these machines. Morrow et al. (2007) compares direct metal
deposition to conventional tool and die manufacturing.41 This work identifies that energy
consumption is driven by the solid-to-cavity volume ratio. At low ratios, the additive
manufacturing process of direct metal deposition minimizes energy, while at high ratios
computer numeric controlled milling minimizes energy consumption. Other studies tend
to focus on accurately predicting energy consumption and minimizing energy
consumption for additive manufacturing. Envelope utilization and build orientation are
among the issues for reducing energy consumption. Mognol, Lepicart, and Perry (2006)
examine the impact of part orientation for three systems: Stratasys FDM 3000, 3D
Systems Thermojet, and EOS EOSINT M250 Xtended.42 They examined 18 positions for
a single part. Due to the change in the position of the part, the energy consumed could
increase between 75 % and 160 % depending on the system, as illustrated in Figure 3.8.
This figure also illustrates that the position for one system may have low energy
consumption, but for another system it might not have a low consumption.
Plastic Material: Telenko and Seepersad (2012) examined energy consumed in the
production of nylon parts using selective laser sintering and compared these results to
that of injection molding.43 This analysis included a small build of 50 parts and a full
build of 150 parts. The results are displayed in Figure 3.9 with injection mold values (IM)
being shown both with the energy consumed for the production of the mold and without
the mold. As seen in the figure, the small build for selective laser sintering used less
energy than the small build for injection molding (including the energy for the mold).
However, the energy for the full build was approximately 69 % higher. For the full build,
approximately 60 % of the energy was used in nylon production and 37 % was used in
part manufacture for selective laser sintering.
40
41
Morrow, W.R., H. Qi, I. Kim, J. Mazumder, and S.J. Skerlos. 2007. Environmental Aspects of LaserBased and Conventional Tool and Die Manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (10): 93243.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.030.
42
Mognol, Pascal, Denis Lepicart, and Nicolas Perry. 2006. Rapid Prototyping: Energy and Environment
in the Spotlight. Rapid Prototyping Journal 12 (1): 2634. doi:10.1108/13552540610637246.
43
Telenko, Cassandra, and Carolyn Conner Seepersad. 2012. A Comparison of the Energy Efficiency of
Selective Laser Sintering and Injection Molding of Nylon Parts. Rapid Prototyping Journal 18 (6): 472
81.
39
22
Figure 3.7: Energy Consumption per kg Deposited (Baumers et al. 2011)
Energy consumption (MJ per kg deposited)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
A1
(Metal)
SLM250
(Metal)
EOSINT
M 270
(Metal)
M3
Linear
(Metal)
FDM 400 EOSINT P

mc
390
(Polymer) (Polymer)
Single Part
177
106
339
588
536
4849
Full Build
61
83
241
423
519
107
Figure 3.8: Energy Consumption, Magnol, Lepicart, and Perry (2006)

250
Thermojet
14
FDM System
12
200
EOS Sytem
10
150
8
100
6
4
50
2
0
0
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Position
23
Energy Consumption for FDM System (MJ)
Energy Consumpton for Thermojet and FDM

System (MJ)
16
Sreenivasan and Bourell (2009) examined the energy use of selective laser sintering using
nylon material, building two full chamber build[s] of prosthetic parts.44 They identify
the components that are major consumers of energy: chamber heaters (37 %), stepper
motors for piston control (26 %), roller drives (16 %), and the laser (16 %).
3.2.6 Labor
As illustrated in Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.6, labor tends to be a small portion of the
additive manufacturing cost. Labor might include removing the finished product or
refilling the raw material among other things. From Figure 3.6, Hopkinson and Dickens
estimate labor at 2 % of the cost, while Ruffo et al. estimate it at 2 % and 3 %. It is
important to note that additional labor is built into the other costs such as the material
cost and machine cost, as these items also require labor to produce.
3.3 Product Enhancements and Quality

Although the focus of this report is the costs of additive manufacturing, it is important to
note that there are product enhancements and quality differences due to using this
technology. There is more geometric freedom with additive manufacturing and it creates
more flexibility; however, there are limitations, as some designs require support
structures and means for dissipating heat in production.45 However, complexity does not
increase the cost of production as it does with traditional methods. With the exception of
the design cost, each product produced can be customized at little or no expense. There is
significant need for custom products in the medical sector for replacement joint implants,
dental work, and hearing aids among other things.46 There is also the possibility of
customers designing their own products or customizing them. One concern with additive
manufacturing, however, is quality assurance. Currently, there is a need for standard
methods to evaluate and ensure accuracy, surface finish, and feature detail to achieve
desired part quality.
Sreenivasan, R., and D.L. Bourell. 2009. Sustainability Study in Selective Laser Sintering An Energy
Perspective. In 20th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication SymposiumAn Additive
Manufacturing Conference, Austin/TX/USA, 3rd5th August. Austin, TX.
45
46
Doubrovski, Zjenja, Jouke C. Verlinden, and Jo M.P. Geraedts. Optimal Design for Additive
Manufacturing: Opportunities and Challenges. Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design
Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. August
29-31, 2011. Washington DC.
44
24
Figure 3.9: Energy Efficiency of Selective Laser Sintering, Cassandra and Seepersad (2012),
megajoules
2000
1800
1600
Megajoules
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
IM Small
Build
Recycled Steel Mold Production
Nylon Production
IM Small
Build (incl.
mold)
IM Full
Build
461
165
IM Full
Build (incl.
mold)
20
SLS Full
Build
345
1036
43
43
214
641
461
165
496
496
Build Preheat
Part Manufacture
SLS Small
Build
20
59
25
59
26
4 Cost Models and Comparisons

4.1 Two Major Contributions to Additive Manufacturing Cost
Modeling
There are two cost models that receive significant attention in additive manufacturing: 1)
Hopkinson and Dickens (2003) and 2) Ruffo et al. (2006a).47, 48, 49 The cost of additive
manufactured parts is calculated by Hopkinson and Dickens based on calculating the
average cost per part and three additional assumptions: 1) the system produces a single
type of part for one year, 2) it utilizes maximum volumes, and 3) the machine operates
for 90 % of the time. The analysis includes labor, material, and machine costs. Other
factors such as power consumption and space rental were considered but contributed less
than one percent of the costs; therefore, they were not included in the results. The average
part cost is calculated by dividing the total cost by the total number of parts manufactured
in a year. Costs can be broken into machine costs, labor costs, and material costs. The
costs are calculated for two parts, a lever and a cover, using stereolithography, fused
deposition modeling, and laser sintering. A cost breakout for the lever is provided in
Figure 3.5 and Table 3.1, which shows that in this analysis laser sintering was the
cheapest additive manufacturing process for this product. Machine cost was the major
contributing cost factor for stereolithography and fused deposition modeling while the
material cost was the major contributor for laser sintering.
Hopkinson and Dickens estimate an annual machine cost per part where the machine
completely depreciates after eight years; that is, it is the sum of depreciation cost per year
(calculated as machine and ancillary equipment divided by 8) and machine maintenance
cost per year divided by production volume. The result is a machine cost per part that is
constant over time, as seen in Figure 4.1. Also seen in the figure is a comparison to
injection molding
The cost of additive manufactured parts is calculated by Ruffo et al. using an activity
based cost model, where each cost is associated with a particular activity. They produce
the same lever that Hopkinson and Dickens produced using selective laser sintering. In
Ruffo, M, Christopher Tuck, Richard J.M. Hague. Cost Estimation for Rapid Manufacturing Laser
Sintering Production for Low to Medium Volumes. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture. 2006. 1417-1427.
<https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/4680>
48
49
47
27
Figure 4.1: Hopkinson and Dickens (2003) Cost Model Compared to Injection Molding
Cost per part ()
Injection Molding
AM (Hopkinson and Dickens)
0
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
Number of Parts
Adapted from Hopkinson and Dickens (2003)
their model, the total cost of a build (C), is the sum of raw material costs and indirect
costs. The raw material costs are the price (Pmaterial), measured in euros per kilogram,
multiplied by the mass in kg (M). The indirect costs are calculated as the total build time
(T) multiplied by a cost rate (Pindirect). The total cost of a build is then represented as:
= +
The cost per part is calculated as the total cost of a build (C) divided by the number of
parts in the build. In contrast, Ruffo et al. indicate that the time and material used are the
main variables in the costing model. It was assumed that the machine worked 100
hours/week for 50 weeks/year (57 % utilization). The estimated indirect cost per hour is
shown in Table 4.1. Their cost model and the total costs are shown in Figure 4.2.
There are three different times that are calculated in Ruffo et al.s model: 1) time to laser
scan the section and its border in order to sinter; 2) time to add layers of powder; and
3) time to heat the bed before scanning and to cool down slowly after scanning, adding
layers of powder or just waiting time to reach the correct temperature. The sum of these
times is the build time () and the resulting cost model along with the Hopkinson and
Dickens model is shown in Figure 4.3. The Ruffo et al. model has a jagged saw tooth
shape to it, which is due to the impact of a new line, layer, or build. Each time one of
these is added, average costs increase irregularly from raw material consumption and
process time. At 1600 parts, the cost of the lever is estimated at 2.76 per part compared
to Hopkinson and Dickens 2.20 for laser sintering. Ruffo et al. also conducted an
examination where unused material was recycled. In this examination, the per-unit cost
was 1.86. A comparison of the costs is made in Figure 3.6.
28
Table 4.1: Indirect Cost Activities (Ruffo, Tuck, and Hague 2006a)
Activity
Cost/hr ()
Production labor/machine hour

Machine costs
7.99
14.78
Production overhead
5.90
Administrative overhead
0.41
Figure 4.2: Ruffo, Tuck, and Hague Cost Model
Cost of the Build
Direct Cost
Indirect Cost
Material
-Parts Volume (58 per kg)
-Waste (50% of unused powder)
Production Overhead
2
Labor
-Technician + other (32 770+22 %)
-Facility Rent (130.5 per m )

2
-Ancillary Equipment (246.5 m )

-Energy (1.5 per hour)
Administrative Overhead
-Labor (not provided)
-Hardware (2175+ 435/yr)
-Software (2175+ 435/yr)
-Consumables (1450)
Machine
-Purchase Absorption (386 860)
-Maintenance (21 750)
-Software (7250+ 2900/yr)
-Hardware (4350+ 870/yr)
29
Figure 4.3: Cost Model Comparison (Ruffo, Tuck, and Hague vs. Hopkinson and Dickens)
Adapted from Ruffo et al. and Hopkinson and Dickens
Many of the cost studies assume a scenario where one part is produced repeatedly;
however, one of the benefits of additive manufacturing is the ability to produce different
components simultaneously. Therefore, a smart mix of components in the same build
might achieve reduced costs. In a single part production, the per part cost for a build is
the total cost divided by the number of parts; however, the cost for different parts being
built simultaneously is more complicated. Ruffo and Hague (2007) compare three costing
methodologies for assessing this cost. The first method is based on parts volume where
= ( )
Where
= cost of part i
= volume of part i
= volume of the entire build
_
_
= _ ( + + ) + _
= mass of the planned production proportional to the object volumes, and the
time to manufacturing the entire build
= time to laser-scan the section and its border to sinter powder
= time to add layers of powder
= time to heat the bed before scanning and to cool down after scanning and
adding layers of powder
= an index going from one to the number of parts in the build
30
also equals C from above, which is the total cost of a build. The second method is
based on the cost of building a single part and is represented as the following:
=
where
=
+
( )
Also, i is the index of the part being calculated, j is the index for all parts manufactured in
the same bed, is the number of parts identified with i, and is the cost of a single
part i estimated using the earlier equation for C. The third method is based on the cost of
a part built in high-volume. It is similar to the second method, only the cost variables in
are calculated using a high number of parts rather than a single part. It is represented as
the following:
=
where
+
( )
Where is a hypothetical number, which approaches infinity, of manufactured parts

i.
Ruffo and Hague use a case study to evaluate the validity of estimating the per part cost.
The results suggest that only the third model provides a fair assignment method. The
other two were identified as being inappropriate due to the result drastically reducing the
estimated cost of larger components at the expense of smaller parts.
4.2 Other Comparisons to Traditional Manufacturing

Atzeni and Salmi (2011) showed that the per assembly processing cost for a landing gear
assembly for a 1:5 scale model of the P180 Avant II by Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.
(i.e., the machine cost per assembly), with an estimated five years of useful life, was
472.50 for the additive manufacturing process of selective laser sintering (see Table
4.2). Compared to high-pressure die-casting, the mold cost and processing cost per part
were 0.26 + 21 000/N, where N is the number of parts produced. For production runs
of less than 42, selective laser sintering was more cost effective than the traditional
process of high-pressure die-casting (see Figure 4.4).
31
Table 4.2: Production Costs Compared, Atzeni and Salmi (2011)
Material cost per part

Pre-processing cost per part
Processing cost per part*
Post-processing cost per part
Assembly
Total
High-Pressure DieCast Part ()

2.59
0.26+21 000/N
17.90
0.54
21.29+21 000/N
Selective Laser
Sintering Part ()
25.81
8.00
472.50
20.00
526.31
*Includes the mold for die-casting
Figure 4.4: Breakeven Point for High-Pressure Die-Casting and Selective Laser Sintering, Atzeni and
Salmi (2011)
Cost per Assembly ()
5000
4500
High-Pressure Die-Cast Part
4000
Selective Laser Sintering
3500
3000
2500
Production
Volume
equals 42
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
25
50
Production Volume
75
100
The aerospace industry often uses costly raw materials, which have high performance and
low weight. These high performance materials are not only costly to purchase, but can
also be costly to machine down using traditional manufacturing methods. Allen (2006)
compares additive manufacturing to machining for aero engine parts.50 This work
provides a more generic comparison of the two processes. The cost of providing a near
net shape using machining was estimated as the following:
= ( ) ( )
Where
Allen, Jeff. 2006. An Investigation into the Comparative Costs of Additive Manufacture vs. Machine
from Solid for Aero Engine Parts. In Cost Effective Manufacture via Net-Shape Processing, 17-1 17-10.
Meeting Proceedings RTO-MP-AVT-139. Paper 17. DTIC Document.
<http://www.rto.nato.int/abstracts.asp>
50
32
= cost of providing a near net shape using machining

= volume of original billet
= density of titanium
= cost of ring rolled forged material
= volume of component
= cost of machining
The cost of producing a near net shape using additive manufacturing was estimated as
the following:
=
Where
= cost of producing a near net shape using additive manufacturing
= volume of component
= density of titanium
= specific cost of deposited titanium
This work concluded that additive manufacturing is cost effective in instances where the
buy/fly ratio is 12-1 compared to more conventional ratios which tend to be lower.
Note that the buy/fly ratio is calculated as the volume of the billet () divided by the
volume of the component (). It is a means for representing how much material must be
machined away. Allen concludes that additive manufacturing techniques are attractive for
components with a high buy/fly ratio, have a complex shape that requires significant
machining, has a high material cost, and has slow machining rates.
4.3 Additive Manufacturing Cost Advantage

Many of the cost studies examine costs such as material and machine costs; however,
many of the benefits may be hidden in inventory and supply chain costs. For instance, a
dollar invested in automotive assembly takes 10.9 days to return in revenue. It spends 7.9
days in material inventory, waiting to be utilized. It spends 19.8 hours in production time
and another 20.6 hours in down time when the factory is closed. Another 1.3 days is
spent in finished goods inventory.51 Moreover, of the total time used, only 8% is spent in
actual production. According to concepts from lean manufacturing, inventory and
waiting, which constitute 92% of the automotive assembly time, are two of seven
categories of waste. This is just the assembly of an automobile. The production of the
engine parts, steering, suspension, power train, body, and others often occur separately
and also have inventories of their own. Additionally, all of these parts are transported
between locations. The average shipment of manufactured transportation equipment
travels 801 miles. For the US, this amounts to 45.3 billion ton-miles of transportation
equipment being moved annually. Because additive manufacturing can, in some instances
now and possibly more in the future, build an entire assembly in one build, it reduces the
need for some of the transportation and inventory costs, resulting in impacts throughout
the supply chain. It is important to note that the ability to produce more complex
51
Calculated from data in the Annual Survey of Manufactures and the Quarterly survey of plant capacity
utilization.
33
assemblies, such as those in an automobile, is still developing and involves some

speculation about future capabilities. In addition to building complete or partial
assemblies, there is also the potential of reducing the size of the supply chain through
distributed manufacturing. Therefore, in order to understand the cost difference between
additive manufacturing and other processes, it is necessary to examine the costs from raw
material extraction to production and through the sale of the final product. This might be
represented as:
= (, + , ) + (, + , + , )
+ (, + , + , ) + + +
Where
= Cost of producing an additive manufactured product
= Cost of material inventory for refining raw materials () and for
manufacturing () for additive manufacturing ()
= Cost of the process of material extraction (), refining raw materials (), and
manufacturing (), including administrative costs, machine
costs, and other relevant costs for additive manufacturing ()
= Cost of finished goods inventory for material extraction (), refining raw
materials (), and manufacturing () for additive manufacturing ()
= Cost of wholesale trade for additive manufacturing ()
= Cost of retail trade for additive manufacturing ()
= Transportation cost throughout the supply chain for an additive manufactured
Product ()
This could be compared to the cost of traditional manufacturing, which could be
represented as the following:
= (, + , + , ) + (, + , + , + , )
+ (, + , + , + , ) + +
+
Where
= Cost of producing a product using traditional processes ()
= Cost of material inventory for refining raw materials (), producing
intermediate goods (), and assembly () for traditional manufacturing
()
= Cost of the process of material extraction (), refining raw materials (),
producing intermediate goods (), and assembly (), including
administrative costs, machine costs, and other relevant costs for traditional
manufacturing ()
= Cost of finished goods inventory for material extraction (), refining raw
materials (), producing intermediate goods (), and assembly () for
traditional manufacturing ()
= Cost of wholesale trade for traditional manufacturing ()
34
= Cost of retail trade for traditional manufacturing ()

= Transportation costs throughout the supply chain for a product made using
traditional manufacturing ()
Currently, there is a better understanding about the cost of the additive manufacturing
process cost ( ) than there is for the other costs of additive manufacturing.
Additionally, most cost studies examine a single part or component; however, it is in the
final product where additive manufacturing might have significant cost savings.
Traditional manufacturing requires numerous intermediate products that are transported
and assembled, whereas additive manufacturing can achieve the same final product with
fewer component parts and multiple components built either simultaneously or in the
same location. For example, consider the future possibility of an entire jet engine housing
being made in one build using additive manufacturing compared to an engine housing
that has parts made and shipped for assembly from different locations with each location
having its own factory, material inventory, finished goods inventory, administrative staff,
and transportation infrastructure among other things. Additionally, the jet engine housing
might be made using less material, perform more efficiently, and last longer because the
design is not limited to the methods used in traditional manufacturing; however, many of
these benefits would not be captured in the previously mentioned cost model. To capture
these benefits one would need to include a cradle to grave analysis.
4.4 Additive Manufacturing Total Advantage

At the company level, the goal is to maximize profit; however, at the societal level there
are multiple stakeholders to consider and different costs and benefits. At this level, one
might consider the goal to be to minimize resource use and maximize utility. Dollar
values are affected by numerous factors such as scarcity, regulations, and education costs
among other things that impact how resources are efficiently allocated. The allocation of
resources is an important issue; however, understanding the societal impact of additive
manufacturing requires separating resource allocation issues from resource utilization
issues.
The factors of production are, typically, considered to be land (i.e., natural resources),
labor, capital, and entrepreneurship; however, capital includes machinery and tools,
which themselves are made of land and labor. Additionally, a major element in the
production of all goods and services is time, as illustrated in many operations
management discussions. Therefore, one might consider the most basic elements of
production to be land, labor, human capital, entrepreneurship, and time. The human
capital and entrepreneurship utilized in producing additive manufactured goods are
important, but these are complex issues that are not a focus of this report. The remaining
items land, labor, and time constitute the primary cost elements for production. It is
important to note that there is a tradeoff between time and labor (measured in labor hours
per hour), as illustrated in Figure 4.5. For example, it takes one hundred people less time
to build a house than it takes for one person to build a house. It is also important to note
that there is also a tradeoff between time/labor and land (i.e., natural resources), as
illustrated in Figure 4.6. For example, a machine can reduce both the time and the
35
Figure 4.5: Time and Labor Needed to Produce a Manufactured Product
Figure 4.6: Time, Labor, and Natural Resources Needed to Produce a Manufactured Product
36
number of people needed for production, but utilizes more energy. The triangular plane in
the figure represents possible combinations of land, labor, and time needed for producing
a manufactured good. Moving anywhere along this plane is simply an alteration of
resource use. A company can maximize profit by either altering resources or by reducing
the resources needed for production. Moving along the plane in Figure 4.6 may result in a
more efficient allocation of resources for a firm and for society; however, it does not
reduce the combination of resources needed for production. Therefore, when examining
the cost and benefits of a product or process from a societal perspective, it becomes
apparent that one needs to measure land, labor, and time needed for production in order
to understand whether there has been a reduction in the combination of resources needed
to produce a manufactured good. If additive manufacturing results in a reduction in the
resources needed for production, then that plane will move toward the origin as illustrated
in Figure 4.6.
In addition to production, manufactured goods are produced to serve a designated
purpose. For example, automobiles transport objects and people; cell phones facilitate
communication; and monitors display information. Each item produced is designed for
some purpose. In the process of fulfilling this purpose more resources are expended in the
form of land, labor, and time. Additionally, a product with a short life span results in
more resources being expended to reproduce the product. Additionally, the disposal of
the old product may result in expending further resources. Additive manufactured
products may provide product enhancements, new abilities, or an extended useful life.
The total advantage of an additive manufactured good is the difference in the use of land,
labor, and time expended on production, utilization, and disposal combined with the
utility gained from the product compared to that of traditional manufacturing methods.
This can be represented as the following:
= (, + , + , ) (, + , + , )
= (, + , + , ) (, + , + , )
= (, + , + , ) (, + , + , )
= ( ) ( )
= The total advantage of additive manufacturing compared to traditional methods
for Land (), labor (), time (), and utility of the product ().
= The land or natural resources needed using additive manufacturing processes () or
traditional methods () for production (), utilization (), and disposal () of the
product
= The labor hours per hour needed using additive manufacturing processes () or
traditional methods () for production (), utilization (), and disposal () of the
product
37
= The time needed using additive manufacturing processes () or traditional

methods () for production (), utilization (), and disposal () of the product
( ) = The utility of a product manufactured using additive manufacturing processes,
including the utility gained from increased abilities, enhancements, and
useful life.
( ) = The utility of a product manufactured using traditional processes, including the
utility gained from increased abilities, enhancements, and useful life.
In this case production includes material extraction, material refining, manufacturing, and
transportation among other things. Unfortunately, our current abilities fall short of being
able to measure all of these items for all products; however, it is important to remember
that these items must be considered when measuring the total advantage of additive
manufacturing. An additional challenge is that land, labor, time, and utility are measured
in different units, making them difficult to compare. An additive manufactured product
might require more labor but reduce the natural resources needed. In this instance, there
is a tradeoff.
38
5 Implementation and Adoption of Additive

Manufacturing
Additive manufacturing is significantly different from traditional methods; thus,
determining when and how to take advantage of the benefits of additive manufacturing is
a challenge in and of itself. Additionally, the manufacturing industry is oriented toward
optimizing production using traditional methods. Identifying products that benefit from
increased complexity, or being produced in closer proximity to consumers, or
understanding the impact on inventory is complex and difficult as it impacts factors that
are difficult to measure.
5.1 Additive Manufacturing and Firm Capabilities

In order to create products and services, a firm needs resources, established processes,
and capabilities.52 Resources include natural resources, labor, and other items needed for
production. A firm must have access to resources in order to produce goods and services.
The firm must also have processes in place that transform resources into products and
services. Two firms may have the same resources and processes in place; however, their
products may not be equivalent due to quality, performance, or cost of the product or
service. This difference is due to the capabilities of the firm; that is, capabilities are the
firms ability to produce a good or service effectively. Kim and Park (2013) present three
entities of capabilities (see Figure 5.1): controllability, flexibility, and integration.53
Figure 5.1: Necessities of a Firm
Adapted from Kim, Bowon and Chulsoon Park. (2013). Firms Integrating Efforts to Mitigate the Tradeoff
Between Controllability and Flexibility. International Journal of Production Research. 51(4): 1258-1278.
Kim, Bowon. Supply Chain Management: A Learning Perspective. Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology. Coursera Lecture 1-2.
53
Kim, Bowon and Chulsoon Park. (2013). Firms Integrating Efforts to Mitigate the Tradeoff Between
Controllability and Flexibility. International Journal of Production Research. 51(4): 1258-1278.
52
39
Controllability is the firms ability to control its processes. Its primary objective is to
achieve efficiency that minimizes cost and maximizes accuracy and productivity.
Flexibility is the firms ability to deal with internal and external uncertainties. It includes
reacting to changing circumstances while sustaining few impacts in time, cost, or
performance. According to Kim and Park, there is a tradeoff between controllability and
flexibility; that is, in the short term, a firm chooses combinations of flexibility and
controllability, sacrificing one for the other as illustrated in Figure 5.2. Over time, a firm
can integrate and increase both flexibility and controllability through technology or
knowledge advancement among other things. In addition to the entities of capabilities,
there are categories of capabilities or a chain of capabilities, which include basic
capabilities, process-level capabilities, system-level capabilities, and performance. As
seen in Figure 5.3, basic capabilities include overall knowledge and experience of a firm
and its employees, including their engineering skills, safety skills, and work ethics among
other things. Process-level capabilities include individual functions such as assembly,
welding, and other individual activities. System-level capabilities include bringing
capabilities together to transform resources into goods and services. The final item in the
chain is performance, which is often measured in profit, revenue, or customer satisfaction
among other things.
Figure 5.2: Flexibility and Controllability
Adopting a new technology, such as additive manufacturing, can have significant impacts
on a firms capabilities. As discussed in the previous sections, in some instances the per
unit cost can be higher for additive manufacturing than for traditional methods. The result
is that a firm sacrifices controllability for flexibility; thus, it makes sense for those firms
that seek a high flexibility position to adopt additive manufacturing. In some instances,
however, additive manufacturing can positively affect controllability. Additive
manufacturing can reduce costs for products that have complex designs that are costly to
manufacture using traditional methods. As the price of material and systems comes down
40
for additive manufacturing, the controllability associated with this technology will
increase, making it attractive to more firms.
In addition to the tradeoff between flexibility and controllability, additive manufacturing
can also directly impact a firms chain of capability, including the basic, process-level,
and system-level capabilities. At the basic level, additive manufacturing requires new
knowledge, approaches, and designs. These new knowledge areas can be costly and
difficult to acquire. At the process-level, a firm that adopts additive manufacturing is
abandoning many of its current individual functions to adopt a radically new production
method. Former functions might have required significant investment in order to fully
develop. Many firms may be apprehensive in abandoning these capabilities for a new
process, which itself may require significant investment to fully develop. Finally, additive
manufacturing can impact the system-level capability, as it is not only a process that
affects the production of individual parts, but also the assembly of the parts. All of these
changes can make it costly and risky for a business to adopt additive manufacturing
technologies and can result in reducing the rate at which this technology is adopted.
Figure 5.3: Chain of Capability
41
5.2 Adoption of Additive Manufacturing

Globally, 6494 industrial additive manufacturing systems were delivered in 2011 with a
cumulative total of 49 035 systems being delivered between 1988 and 2011.54 Of these,
18 780 were deployed in the U.S. The growth in the cumulative number of additive
manufacturing systems in the U.S. between 2010 and 2011 was 15.3 %.55 It is difficult to
predict the impact that additive manufacturing will have on future products. Currently,
many believe that it may result in significant changes in how products are manufactured;
however, there are often predictions from the past that have not come to fruition.
Therefore, it is advantageous to attempt to better understand the potential future of
additive manufacturing. Data from Wohlers provides some limited ability to examine past
adoptions of additive manufacturing to conjecture about future adoptions.56
The status of some of the variables that affect the adoption of additive manufacturing
technologies can be observed through existing articles and texts; however, many issues
cannot be substantiated without gathering additional data. Surveys can often be used to
assess a producer or users opinion of a new technology, but this is often a resource
intensive process. Thomas (2013) uses domestic unit sales to estimate future adoptions of
additive manufacturing.57 Using the number of domestic unit sales58, the growth in sales
can be fitted using least squares criterion to an exponential curve that represents the
traditional logistic S-curve of technology diffusion. The most widely accepted model of
technology diffusion was presented by Mansfield59:
() =
1
1 +
where
() = the proportion of potential users who have adopted the new technology by time t;
= location parameter; and
= Shape parameter ( > 0).
In order to examine additive manufacturing, it is assumed that the proportion of potential
units sold by time t follows a similar path as the proportion of potential users who have
adopted the new technology by time t. In order to examine shipments in the industry, it is
assumed that an additive manufacturing unit represents a fixed proportion of the total
55
Ibid
56
Ibid.
57
Thomas, Douglas. 2013. Economics of the U.S. Additive Manufacturing Industry. NIST Special
Publication 1163. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
Technology.
58
59
Mansfield, Edwin. Innovation, Technology and the Economy: Selected Essays of Edwin Mansfield.
Economists of the Twentieth Century Series (Brookfield, VT: 1995, E. Elgar).
54
42
revenue; thus, revenue will grow similarly to unit sales. The proportion used was
calculated from 2011 data. The parameters and are estimated using regression on the
cumulative annual sales of additive manufacturing systems in the U.S. between 1988 and
2011. United States system sales are estimated as a proportion of global sales. This
method provides some insight into the current trend in the adoption of additive
manufacturing technology. Unfortunately, there is little insight into the total market
saturation level for additive manufacturing; that is, there is not a good sense of what
percent of the relevant manufacturing industries (shown in Table 1.1) will produce parts
using additive manufacturing technologies versus conventional technologies. In order to
address this issue, a modified version of Mansfields model is adopted from Chapman60:
() =
1 +
where
= market saturation level in percent.
Because is unknown, it is varied between 0.15 % and 100 % of the relevant
manufacturing shipments, as seen in Table 5.1. The 0.15 % is derived from Wohlers
estimate that the 2011 sales revenue represents 8 % market penetration, which equates to
$3.1 billion in market opportunity and 0.15 % market saturation. At this level, additive
manufacturing is forecasted to reach 50 % market potential in 2018 and 100 % in 2045,
as seen in the table. A more likely scenario seems to be that additive manufacturing
would have between 5 % and 35 % market saturation. At these levels, additive
manufacturing would reach 50 % of market potential between 2031 and 2038 while
reaching 100 % between 2058 and 2065, as seen in Table 5.1. The industry would reach
$50 billion between 2029 and 2031 while reaching $100 billion between 2031 and 2044.
As illustrated in Figure 5.4, it is likely that additive manufacturing is at the far left tail of
the diffusion curve, making it difficult to forecast the future trends; thus, some caution
should be used when interpreting this forecast. The figure illustrates the diffusion at each
market saturation level presented in Table 5.1 with the exception of the 0.50 % and
0.15 % levels, as they are too small to be included in this graph.
Chapman, Robert. Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Construction Systems Integration
and Automation Technologies in Commercial Buildings. NISTIR 6763. December 2001. National
Institute of Standards and Technology.
60
43
Table 5.1: Forecasts of U.S. Additive Manufacturing Shipments by Varying Market Potential
Market
Potential of
Relevant
Manufacturing
(percent of
shipments)
Market
Potential,
Shipments
($billions
2011)
Approximate
Year 100%
of Market
Potential
Reached
Approximate
Year 50% of
Market
Potential
Reached
Approximate
Year $100
Billion in
Shipments is
Reached
Approximate
Year $50
Billion in
Shipments is
Reached
R2
100.00
$2 058.9
2069
2042
2031
2028
0.948
75.00
$1 544.2
2068
2041
2031
2028
0.948
$1 029.5
2067
2039
2031
2029
0.948
45.00
$926.5
2066
2039
2031
2029
0.948
40.00
$823.6
2066
2038
2031
2029
0.948
35.00
$720.6
2065
2038
2031
2029
0.948
$617.7
2065
2037
2031
2029
0.948
25.00
$514.7
2064
2037
2032
2029
0.948
20.00
$411.8
2063
2036
2032
2029
0.948
15.00
$308.8
2062
2035
2032
2029
0.948
$205.9
2061
2033
2033
2029
5.00
$102.9
2058
2031
2044
2031
0.948
0.948
1.00
$20.6
2052
2025
0.949
0.50
$10.3
2050
2023
0.949
$3.1
2045
2018
0.950
50.00
30.00
10.00
0.15
Technology.
44
Figure 5.4: Forecasts of U.S. Additive Manufacturing Shipments, by Varying Market Saturation
Levels
Cumulative AM
Systems
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1600
AM Shipments ($2011 Billion)
1500
1400
Market Potential: $2059 Billion
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Technology.
45
2060
2058
2056
2054
2052
2050
2048
2046
2044
2042
2040
2038
2036
2034
2032
2030
2028
2026
2024
2022
2020
2018
2016
2014
2012
2010
46
6 Summary
Current research on additive manufacturing costs reveals that this technology is cost
effective for manufacturing small batches with continued centralized manufacturing;
however, with increased automation distributed production may be cost effective. Due to
the complexities of measuring additive manufacturing costs, current studies are limited in
their scope. Many of the current studies examine the production of single parts and those
that examine assemblies do not examine supply chain effects such as inventory and
transportation costs along with decreased risk to supply disruption. Currently, research
also reveals that material costs constitute a major proportion of the cost of a product
produced using additive manufacturing. Technologies can often be complementary,
where two technologies are adopted alongside each other and the benefits are greater than
if they were adopted individually. Increasing adoption of additive manufacturing may
lead to a reduction in raw material cost through economies of scale. The reduced cost in
raw material might then propagate further adoption of additive manufacturing. There may
also be economies of scale in raw material costs if particular materials become more
common rather than a plethora of different materials. The additive manufacturing system
is also a significant cost factor; however, this cost has continually decreased. Between
2001 and 2011 the average price decreased 51 % after adjusting for inflation.61
A number of factors complicate minimizing the cost of additive manufacturing, including
build orientation, envelope utilization, build time, energy consumption, product design,
and labor. The simple orientation of the part in the build chamber can result in as much as
160 % increase in the energy consumed. Additionally, fully utilizing the build chamber
reduces the per-unit cost significantly. Each of these issues must be considered in the cost
of additive manufacturing, making it difficult and complicated to minimize costs. These
issues, likely, slow the adoption of this technology, as it requires advanced knowledge.
Additive manufacturing not only has implications for the costs of production, but also the
utilization of the final product. This technology allows for the manufacture of products
that might not have been possible using traditional methods. These products may have
new abilities, extended useful life, or reduce the time, labor, or natural resources needed
to use these products. For example, automobiles might be made lighter, reducing fuel
costs or combustion engines might be designed to reduce cooling needs. For this reason,
there is a need to track the land (i.e., natural resources), labor, and time expended on
production, utilization, and disposal along with the utility gained from new designs. The
difficulty in measuring these items, likely, slows the adoption of additive manufacturing.
61
The price was adjusted using the Consumer Price Index for all consumers for all areas from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics. This adjustment, likely, underestimates the degree of price deflation, as it does not
account for quality and productivity improvements specific to these systems. Unfortunately, there is not a
price index that accounts for these issues.
47
48
Bibliography with Abstracts

Allen, Jeff. 2006. An Investigation into the Comparative Costs of Additive Manufacture
vs. Machine from Solid for Aero Engine Parts. In Cost Effective Manufacture via NetShape Processing, 17-1 17-10. Meeting Proceedings RTO-MP-AVT-139. Paper 17.
DTIC Document. <http://www.rto.nato.int/abstracts.asp>
An overview of the relative economics of producing a near net shape by Additive Manufacturing (AM)
processes compared with traditional machine from solid processes (MFS) is provided.
A relationship is developed to estimate the specific cost of AM material required to achieve a (typical)
30% saving over conventional MFS techniques. The use of AM techniques are shown to be
advantageous for parts which have a high buy:fly ratio, have a complex shape, have a high cost of raw
material used for machining from solid, have slow machining rates and are difficult and expensive to
machine.
The specific cost of material deposited by additive manufacturing systems required to give a 30%
saving over conventional Machine from solid techniques is estimated for a typical aerospace alloy
over a range of buy:fly ratios.
The specific costs of a typical aerospace alloy deposited by present and future additive manufacturing
systems are estimated and compared with the required specific costs estimated above.
It is concluded that additive manufacture is commercially viable using present additive manufacturing
systems for components with a buy:fly ratio of about 12:1. For projected future additive manufacturing
systems economic production of components with a buy:fly ratio of about 3 should be feasible.
Alexander, Paul, Seth Allen, and Debasish Dutta. 1998. Part Orientation and Build Cost
Determination in Layered Manufacturing. Computer-Aided Design 30 (5): 34356.
doi:10.1016/S0010-4485(97)00083-3.
As more choices of materials and build processes become available in layered manufacturing (LM), it
is increasingly important to identify fundamental problems that underlie the entire field. Determination
of best build orientation and minimizing build cost of a part are two such issues that must be
considered in any LM process. By decoupling the solution to these problems from a specific LM
technology, not only can the solution be applied to a variety of processes, but more realistic cost
comparisons of parts built on different machines become possible.
Allen, Jeff. 2006. An Investigation into the Comparative Costs of Additive Manufacture
vs. Machine from Solid for Aero Engine Parts. DTIC Document.
An overview of the relative economics of producing a near net shape by Additive Manufacturing (AM)
processes compared with traditional machine from solid processes (MFS) is provided.
A relationship is developed to estimate the specific cost of AM material required to achieve a (typical)
30% saving over conventional MFS techniques. The use of AM techniques are shown to be
advantageous for parts which have a high buy:fly ratio, have a complex shape, have a high cost of raw
material used for machining from solid, have slow machining rates and are difficult and expensive to
machine.
The specific cost of material deposited by additive manufacturing systems required to give a 30%
saving over conventional Machine from solid techniques is estimated for a typical aerospace alloy
over a range of buy:fly ratios.
49
The specific costs of a typical aerospace alloy deposited by present and future additive manufacturing
systems are estimated and compared with the required specific costs estimated above.
It is concluded that additive manufacture is commercially viable using present additive manufacturing
systems for components with a buy:fly ratio of about 12:1. For projected future additive manufacturing
systems economic production of components with a buy:fly ratio of about 3 should be feasible.
ATKINS Project. 2007. Manufacturing a Low Carbon Footprint: Zero Emission

Enterprise Feasibility Study. Project No: N0012J. Loughborough University.
Abstract unavailable.
Atzeni, Eleonora, Luca Iuliano, Paolo Minetola, and Alessandro Salmi. 2010. Redesign
and Cost Estimation of Rapid Manufactured Plastic Parts. Rapid Prototyping Journal 16
(5): 30817.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to highlight how rapid manufacturing (RM) of plastic parts
combined with part redesign could have positive repercussion on cost saving.
Design/methodology/approach Comparison between two different technologies for plastic part
production, the traditional injection molding (IM) and the emergent RM, is done with consideration of
both the geometric possibilities of RM and the economic aspect. From an extended literature review,
the redesign guidelines and the cost model are identified and then applied to a component selected for
its shape complexity. It is an assembly that was redesigned for RM purpose, in order to take advantage
of additive manufacturing potentialities. The geometric and economic differences between IM and RM
are discussed.
Findings This research evidences that currently in Western Europe RM combined with redesign can
be economically convenient and competitive to IM for medium volume production of plastic parts.
Consequently, this is a great opportunity to keep the production in Europe instead of moving it
overseas.
Research limitations/implications As regards manufacturing costs, results presented in this study are
mainly based on cost estimation provided by Italian companies and it is assumed that the plant is
located in Western Europe.
Practical implications The research assesses the feasibility of making functional and operational
plastic parts without the use of traditional manufacturing processes by redesign for RM.
Originality/value Two different kinds of research papers comparing RM and IM exist in literature:
on the one hand, the two techniques are evaluated from the economical point of view, on the other, the
part redesign is analyzed. No paper considers the interrelation between redesign and cost estimation.
In this work, these aspects are combined to point out that a remarkable cost reduction is obtained
when the component shape is modified to exploit RM advantages.
Atzeni, Eleonora, and Alessandro Salmi. 2012. Economics of Additive Manufacturing

for End-Usable Metal Parts. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 62 (9-12): 114755.
Additive manufacturing (AM) of metal parts combined with part redesign has a positive repercussion
on cost saving. In fact, a remarkable cost reduction can be obtained if the component shape is
modified to exploit AM potentialities. This paper deals with the evaluation of the production volume
for which AM techniques result competitive with respect to conventional processes for the production
of end-usable metal parts. For this purpose, a comparison between two different technologies for metal
50
part fabrication, the traditional high-pressure die-casting and the direct metal laser sintering additive
technique, is done with consideration of both the geometric possibilities of AM and the economic point
of view. A design for additive manufacturing approach is adopted. Costs models of both processes are
identified and then applied to an aeronautical component selected as case study. This research
evidences that currently additive techniques can be economically convenient and competitive to
traditional processes for small to medium batch production of metal parts.
Atzeni, Eleonora, Luca Iuliano, and Allessandro Salmi. 2011. On the Competitiveness
of Additive Manufacturing for the Production of Metal Parts. 9th International
Conference on Advanced Manufacturing Systems and Technology.
Additive Manufacturing (AM) of metal parts combined with part redesign has positive repercussion on
cost saving. In fact a remarkable cost reduction can be obtained if the component shape is modified to
exploit AM potentialities. This paper deals with the evaluation of the production volume for which AM
techniques result competitive with respect to conventional processes. For this purpose a comparison
between two different technologies for metal part production, the traditional high pressure die casting
(HPDC) and the innovative AM, is done with consideration of both the geometric possibilities of AM
and the economic point of view. Redesign guidelines and costs models are identified and then applied
to an aeronautical component selected as case study. This research evidences that currently additive
techniques can be economically convenient and competitive to traditional processes for low volume
production of metal parts.
Baldinger, M., and A. Duchi. 2013. Price Benchmark of Laser Sintering Service
Providers. In High Value Manufacturing: Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid
Prototyping: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced Research in
Virtual and Rapid Prototyping, Leiria, Portugal, 1-5 October, 2013, 37. Leiria, Portugal:
CRC Press.
Additive manufacturing is not only use for rapid prototyping in product development but increasingly
for rapid manufacturing meaning for production of final parts. Besides limitations around materials,
quality and standards, cost is one of the major barriers to more widespread adoption. Due to the high
investment for rapid manufacturing equipment and lack of knowledge, many companies choose to buy
instead of make additively manufactured parts. Despite the importance of cost, there is limited insight
into the price structure of additive manufacturing service providers. This study aims to narrow this
gap through global price benchmark of labor sintering service providers.
Bartolo, Paulo Jorge da Silva, Mateus Artur Jorge, Fernando da Conceicao Batista,
Henrique Amorim Almeida, Joao Manuel Matias, Joel Correia Vasco, Jorge Brites
Gaspar, et al., eds. 2007. Virtual and Rapid Manufacturing: Advanced Research in
Virtual and Rapid Prototyping. CRC Press.
Collection of 120 peer-reviewed papers that were presented at the 3rd International Conference on
Advanced Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping, held in Leiria, Portugal in September 2007.
Essential reading for all those working on V&RP, focused on inducing increased collaboration
between industry and academia. In addition to keynotes dealing with cutting-edge manufacturing
engineering issues, contributions deal with topical research virtual and rapid prototyping (V&RP),
such as: 1. biomanufacturing, 2. CAD and 3D data acquistion technologies, 3. materials, 4. rapid
tooling and manufacturing, 6. advanced rapid prototyping technologies and nanofabrication, 7. virtual
environments, 8. collaborative design and engineering and 9. various applications.
51
Baumers, Martin. 2012. Economic Aspects of Additive Manufacturing: Benefits, Costs

and Energy Consumption.
Additive Manufacturing (AM) refers to the use of a group of technologies capable of combining
material layer-by-layer to manufacture geometrically complex products in a single digitally controlled
process step, entirely without moulds, dies or other tooling. AM is a parallel manufacturing approach,
allowing the contemporaneous production of multiple, potentially unrelated, components or products.
This thesis contributes to the understanding of the economic aspects of additive technology usage
through an analysis of the effect of AM s parallel nature on economic and environmental performance
measurement. Further, this work assesses AM s ability to efficiently create complex components or
products. To do so, this thesis applies a methodology for the quantitative analysis of the shape
complexity of AM output. Moreover, this thesis develops and applies a methodology for the combined
estimation of build time, process energy flows and financial costs. A key challenge met by this
estimation technique is that results are derived on the basis of technically efficient AM operation.
Results indicate that, at least for the technology variant Electron Beam Melting, shape complexity may
be realised at zero marginal energy consumption and cost. Further, the combined estimator of build
time, energy consumption and cost suggests that AM process efficiency is independent of production
volume. Rather, this thesis argues that the key to efficient AM operation lies in the user s ability to
exhaust the available build space.
Baumers, M., C. Tuck, R. Hague, I. Ashcroft, and R. Wildman. 2010. A Comparative

Study of Metallic Additive Manufacturing Power Consumption. In 21st Annual
International Solid Freeform Fabrication SymposiumAn Additive Manufacturing
Conference, Austin/TX/USA, 9th11th August. Austin, TX.
Efficient resource utilisation is seen as one of the advantages of Additive Manufacturing (AM). This
paper presents a comparative assessment of electricity consumption of two major metallic AM
processes, selective laser melting and electron beam melting. The experiments performed for this study
are based on the production of a common power monitoring geometry. Due to the technologys
parallel nature, the degree of build volume utilization will affect any power consumption metric.
Therefore, this work explores energy consumption on the basis of whole builds - while compensating
for discrepancies in packing efficiency. This provides insight not only into absolute levels of power
consumption but also on comparative process efficiency.
Baumers, M., C. Tuck, R. Wildman, I. Ashcroft, and R. Hague. 2011. Energy Inputs to
Additive Manufacturing: Does Capacity Utilization Matter? In 22nd Annual
International Solid Freeform Fabrication SymposiumAn Additive Manufacturing
Conference, Austin/TX/USA, 8th10th August.
The available additive manufacturing (AM) platforms differ in terms of their operating principle, but
also with respect to energy input usage. This study presents an overview of electricity consumption
across several major AM technology variants, reporting specific energy consumption during the
production of dedicated test parts (ranging from 61 to 4849 MJ per kg deposited). Applying a
consistent methodology, energy consumption during single part builds is compared to the energy
requirements of full build experiments with multiple parts (up to 240 units). It is shown empirically
that the effect of capacity utilization on energy efficiency varies strongly across different platforms.
52
Baumers, M., C. Tuck, R. Wildman, I. Ashcroft, E. Rosamond, and R. Hague. 2012.

Combined Buildtime, Energy Consumption and Cost Estimation for Direct Metal Laser
Sintering. In 23rd Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication SymposiumAn
Additive Manufacturing Conference, Austin/TX/USA, 6th8th August.
As a single-step process, Additive Manufacturing (AM) affords full measurability with respect to
process energy inputs and production cost. However, the parallel character of AM (allowing the
contemporaneous production of multiple parts) poses a number of problems for the estimation of
resource consumption. A novel combined estimator of build-time, energy consumption and production
cost is presented for the EOSINT M270 Direct Metal Laser Sintering system. It is demonstrated that
the quantity and variety of parts demanded and the resulting ability to utilize the available machine
capacity impact process efficiency, both in energy and in financial terms.
Baumers, Martin, Chris Tuck, Ricky Wildman, Ian Ashcroft, Emma Rosamond, and
Richard Hague. 2013. Transparency Built-in Energy Consumption and Cost Estimation
for Additive Manufacturing. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17 (3): 41831.
doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00512.x.
The supply chains found in modern manufacturing are often complex and long. The resulting opacity
poses a significant barrier to the measurement and minimization of energy consumption and therefore
to the implementation of sustainable manufacturing. The current article investigates whether the
adoption of additive manufacturing (AM) technology can be used to reach transparency in terms of
energy and financial inputs to manufacturing operations. AM refers to the use of a group of electricitydriven technologies capable of combining materials to manufacture geometrically complex products in
a single digitally controlled process step, entirely without molds, dies, or other tooling. The single-step
nature affords full measurability with respect to process energy inputs and production costs. However,
the parallel character of AM (allowing the contemporaneous production of multiple parts) poses
previously unconsidered problems in the estimation of manufacturing resource consumption. This
research discusses the implementation of a tool for the estimation of process energy flows and costs
occurring in the AM technology variant direct metal laser sintering. It is demonstrated that accurate
predictions can be made for the production of a basket of sample parts. Further, it is shown that,
unlike conventional processes, the quantity and variety of parts demanded and the resulting ability to
fully utilize the available machine capacity have an impact on process efficiency. It is also
demonstrated that cost minimization in additive manufacturing may lead to the minimization of
process energy consumption, thereby motivating sustainability improvements.
Behdani, Behzad, Zofia Lukszo, Arief Adhitya, and Rajagopalan Srinivasan. 2009.
Agent-Based Modeling to Support Operations Management in a Multi-Plant Enterprise.
In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing and
Control, Okayama, Japan, March 26-29, 2009, 32328. Okayama, Japan: IEEE.
A global industrial enterprise is a complex network of different distributed production plants
producing, handling, and distributing specific products. Agent-based modeling is a proven approach
for modeling complex networks of intelligent and distributed actors. In this paper we will demonstrate
how an agent-based model can be used to evaluate the dynamic behavior of a global enterprise,
considering both the system-level performance as well as the components' behavior. Such quantitative
model can be very useful for predicting the effects of local and operational activities on plant
performance and improving the tactical and strategic decisionmaking at the enterprise level.
53
Byun, Hong S., and Kwan H. Lee. 2006. Determination of Optimal Build Direction in
Rapid Prototyping with Variable Slicing. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 28 (3-4): 30713. doi:10.1007/s00170-004-2355-5.
Several important factors must be taken into consideration in order to maximize the efficiency of rapid
prototyping (RP) processes. The ability to select the optimal orientation of the build direction is one of
the most critical factors in using RP processes, since it affects part quality, build time, and part cost.
This study aims to determine the optimal build-up direction when a part is built with the variable layer
thickness for different RP systems. The average weighted surface roughness (AWSR) that is generated
from the stair stepping effect, the build time, and the part cost using the variable layer thickness are all
considered in the process. Using the multi-attribute decision-making method, the best orientation is
determined among the orientation candidates chosen from the convex hull of a model. The validity of
the algorithm is illustrated by an example. The algorithm can help RP users select the best build-up
direction of the part and create an efficient process planning.
Campbell, I., J. Combrinck, D. De Beer, and L. Barnard. 2008. Stereolithography Build

Time Estimation Based on Volumetric Calculations. Rapid Prototyping Journal. 14(5):
271-279.
Purpose Not all the inventors and designers have access to computer-aided design (CAD)
software to transform their design or invention into a 3D solid model. Therefore, they cannot
submit an STL file to a rapid prototyping (RP) service bureau for a quotation but perhaps only a
2D sketch or drawing. This paper proposes an alternative approach to build time estimation that
will enable cost quotations to be issued before 3D CAD has been used.
Design/methodology/approach The study presents a method of calculating build time
estimations within a target error limit of 10 per cent of the actual build time of a prototype. This
is achieved by using basic volumetric shapes, such as cylinders and cones, added together to
represent the model in the 2D sketch. By using this information the build time of the product is
then calculated with the aid of models created in a mathematical solving software package.
Findings The development of the build time estimator and its application to several build
platforms are described together with an analysis of its performance in comparison with the
benchmark software. The estimator was found to meet its target 10 per cent error limit in 80 per
cent of the stereolithography builds that were analysed.
Research limitations/implications The estimator method was not able to handle multicomponent complex parts builds in a timely manner. There is a trade-off between accuracy and
processing time.
Practical implications The output from the estimator can be fed directly into cost quotations to
be sent to RP bureau customers at a very early stage in the design process.
Originality/value Unlike all the other build estimators that were encountered, this method
works directly from a 2D sketch or drawing rather than a 3D CAD file.
Chapman, Robert. Benefits and Costs of Research: A Case Study of Construction

Systems Integration and Automation Technologies in Commercial Buildings. NISTIR
6763. December 2001. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
This report focuses on a critical analysis of the economic impacts of past, ongoing, and planned
research of the NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) construction systems integration
and automation technologies (CONSIAT) program. The CONSIAT program is an interdisciplinary
54
research effort within BFRL - in collaboration with the Construction Industry Institute, the private
sector, other federal agencies, and other laboratories within NIST - to develop key enabling
technologies, standard communication protocols, and advanced measurement technologies needed to
deliver fully- integrated and automated project process (FIAPP) products and services to the
construction industry. The results of this analysis demonstrate that the use of FIAPP products and
services will generate substantial cost savings to the owners and managers of commercial buildings
and a contractors engaged in the construction of those buildings. The present value of savings
nationwide expected from the use of FIAPP products and services is nearly $1.4 billion (measured in
1997 dollars). Furthermore, because of BFRL's involvement, FIAPP products and services are
expected to be commercially available in 2005. If BFRL had not participated in the development of
FIAPP products and services, the commercial introduction of FIAPP products and services is expected
to be delayed until 2009. Consequently, potential cost savings accruing to commercial building owners
and managers and to contractors over the period 2005 through 2008 would have been foregone. The
present value of these cost savings is approximately $120 million. These cost savings measure the
value of BFRL's contribution for its CONSIAT-related investment costs of approximately $29.1 million.
Stated in present value terms, every public dollar invested in BFRL's CONSIAT-related research,
development, and deployment effort is expected to generate $4.13 in cost savings to the public.
Chen, Calvin C., and Paul A. Sullivan. 1996. Predicting Total Build-Time and the
Resultant Cure Depth of the 3D Stereolithography Process. Rapid Prototyping Journal 2
(4): 2740. doi:10.1108/13552549610153389.
Accurate build-time prediction for making stereolithography parts not only benefits the service
industry with information necessary for correct pricing and effective job scheduling, it also provides
researchers with valuable information for various build parameter studies. Instead of the conventional
methods of predicting build time based on the parts volume and surface, the present predictor uses the
detailed scan and recoat information from the actual build files by incorporating the algorithms
derived from a detailed study of the laser scan mechanism of the stereolithography machine. Finds that
the scan velocity generated from the stereolithography machine depends primarily on the systems
laser power, beam diameter, materials properties and the users specification of cure depth. Proves
that this velocity is independent of the direction the laser travels, and does not depend on the total
number of segments of the scan path. In addition, the time required for the laser to jump from one spot
to another without scan is linearly proportional to the total jump distance, and can be calculated by a
proposed constant velocity. Most profoundly, the present investigation concludes that the machine uses
a velocity factor which is only 68.5 per cent of the theoretical calculation. This much slower velocity
results in an undesired amount of additional cure and proves to be the main cause of the Z dimensional
inaccuracy. The present build-time predictor was developed by taking into account all the factors
stated above, and its accuracy was further verified by comparing the actual build-time observed for
many jobs over a six month period.
Choi, S. H, and S Samavedam. 2002. Modelling and Optimisation of Rapid

Prototyping. Computers in Industry 47 (1): 3953. doi:10.1016/S0166-3615(01)001403.
This paper proposes a Virtual Reality (VR) system for modelling and optimisation of Rapid
Prototyping (RP) processes. The system aims to reduce the manufacturing risks of prototypes early in
a product development cycle, and hence, reduces the number of costly design-build-test cycles. It
involves modelling and simulation of RP in a virtual system, which facilitates visualisation and testing
the effects of process parameters on the part quality. Modelling of RP is based on quantifying the
measures of part quality, which includes accuracy, build-time and efficiency with orientation, layer
thickness and hatch distance. A mathematical model has been developed to estimate the build-time of
the Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) process. The model incorporates various process parameters like
layer thickness, hatch space, bed temperatures, laser power and sinter factor, etc. It has been
integrated with the virtual simulation system to provide a test-bed to optimise the process parameters.
55
Di Angelo, Luca, and Paolo Di Stefano. 2011. A Neural Network-Based Build Time
Estimator for Layer Manufactured Objects. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 57 (1-4): 21524. doi:10.1007/s00170-011-3284-8.
A correct prediction of build time is essential to calculate the accurate cost of a layer manufactured
object. The methods presented in literature are of two types: detailed-analysis- and parametric-based
approaches. The former require that a lot of data, related to the kinematic and dynamic performance
of the machine, should be known. Parametric models, on the other hand, are of general use and
relatively simple to implement; however, the parametric methods presented in literature only provide a
few of the components of the total build time. Therefore, their performances are not properly suited in
any case. In order to overcome these limitations, this paper proposes a parametric approach which
uses a more complete set of build-time driving factors. Furthermore, considering the complexity of the
parametric build time function, an artificial neural network is used so as to improve the method
flexibility. The analysis of the test cases shows that the proposed approach provides a quite accurate
estimation of build time even in critical cases and when supports are required.
Diegel, Olaf, Sarat Singamneni, Stephen Reay, and Andrew Withell. 2010. Tools for
Sustainable Product Design: Additive Manufacturing. Journal of Sustainable
Development 3 (3).
The advent of additive manufacturing technologies presents a number of opportunities that have the
potential to greatly benefit designers, and contribute to the sustainability of products. Additive
manufacturing technologies have removed many of the manufacturing restrictions that may previously
have compromised a designers ability to make the product they imagined. Products can also be
extensively customized to the user thus, once again, potentially increasing their desirability, pleasure
and attachment and therefore their longevity. As additive manufacturing technologies evolve, and
more new materials become available, and multiple material technologies are further developed, the
field of product design has the potential to greatly change. This paper examines how aspects of
additive manufacturing, from a sustainable design perspective, could become a useful tool in the
arsenal to bring about the sustainable design of consumer products.
Dietrich, David M., and Elizabeth Cudney. 2011. Impact of Integrative Design on
Additive Manufacturing Quality. International Journal of Rapid Manufacturing 2 (3):
12131.
To move additive manufacturing (AM) into a realm of credible manufacturing, quality evaluation
techniques must be established to highlight the potential gains of AM technologies in the field of
production quality in terms of dimensional control. This research aims to express the relationship
among AM-enabled integrative design and quality evaluation techniques. The methodology proposed
is backed by a comprehensive literature review that covers AM dimensional quality and conventional
quality assessment techniques for production. The research proposes modelling the positive impact of
integrating design using Taguchi's quality loss function (QLF) and tolerance stack-up models. In
addition, the research provides a straightforward way to evaluate AM-enabled integrated designs that
promotes the proliferation of AM technology as a sustainable and credible manufacturing method. A
case study is presented that describes how to apply Taguchi?s QLF to AM integrated designs.
Direct Manufacturing Research Center. Project CoA2MPLy: Costing Analysis for

Additive Manufacturing (AM) during Product Lifecycle.
Doubrovski, Zjenja, Jouke C. Verlinden, and Jo MP Geraedts. 2011. Optimal Design for
Additive Manufacturing: Opportunities and Challenges. In Proceedings of the ASME
56
2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and

Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2011 August 29-31, 2011,
Washington, DC, USA, 63546. Washington, DC, USA: American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
Additive Manufacturing (AM) represents a maturing collection of production technologies also known
as rapid prototyping, rapid manufacturing and three-dimensional printing. One of the most promising
aspects of AM is the possibility to create highly complex geometries. Despite a growing body of
knowledge concerning the technological challenges, there is a lack of methods that allow designers to
effectively deal with the new possibilities.
This article presents a literature survey on the impact that AM can have on design. The survey was
focused on the new opportunities of fabrication processes, the relationship between structure and
performance, and optimization approaches. We applied Olsens three-link chain model to relate
product structure with performance, linked by strength, stiffness, compliance, dynamic, thermal, and
visual properties. We also use this model to base our proposed Design for Additive Manufacturing
(DfAM) method.
The findings show that there is a growing body of knowledge in the field of design for AM (DfAM), yet
only considers a subset of properties. Furthermore, the knowledge on materials, computational
optimization, computer aided design, and behavioral simulation embody separated domains and
related software support. This is in contrast with design engineering, which requires a holistic
approach to conceptualize new products.
Economist. Feb 18th 2010 Printing Body Parts: Making a Bit of Me.
<http://www.economist.com/node/15543683>
Abstract unavailable
Fogliatto, Flavio S, and Giovani J. C Da Silveira. 2011. Mass Customization Engineering

and Managing Global Operations. London: Springer.
The analysis and implementation of mass customization (MC) systems has received growing
consideration by researchers and practitioners since the late 1980s. In this paper we update the
literature review on MC presented in a previous paper (Da Silveira, G., Borenstein, D., Fogliatto,
F.S., 2001. Mass customization: literature review and research directions. International Journal of
Production Economics, 72 (1), 1-13), and identify research gaps to be investigated in the future. Major
areas of research in MC, and journals in which works have been published are explored through
summary statistics. The result is a concise compendium of the relevant literature produced on the topic
in the past decade.
Fogliatto, Flavio S., Giovani J. C. da Silveira, and Denis Borenstein. 2012. The Mass
Customization Decade: An Updated Review of the Literature. International Journal of
Production Economics 138 (1): 1425. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.002.
Mass customization (MC) has been hailed as a successful operations strategy across manufacturing
and service industries for the past three decades. However, the wider implications of using MC
approaches in the broader industrial and economic environment are not yet clearly understood. Mass
Customization: Engineering and Managing Global Operations presents emerging research on the role
of MC and personalization in today's international operations context. The chapters cover MC in the
context of global industrial economics and operations. Moreover, the book discusses MC topics that
are relevant.
57
Giannatsis, J, V Dedoussis, and L Laios. 2001. A Study of the Build-Time Estimation

Problem for Stereolithography Systems. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing 17 (4): 295304. doi:10.1016/S0736-5845(01)00007-2.
In this paper the problem of build-time estimation for Stereolithography systems is examined.
Experimental results from various case studies indicate that the accuracy of estimation greatly
depends on the type of part geometry representation processed and the uncontrolled laser power
fluctuations. It is shown that estimation based on sliced (CLI) representation can be extremely
accurate, assuming that the average laser power during fabrication can be predicted. On the other
hand, estimations based on tessellated (STL) representation, although not so accurate, satisfy the
accuracy requirements imposed at early stages of the Stereolithography process, where no slice data
are available. As part of this study, build-time itself is also analyzed and factors affecting it are
identified and investigated experimentally. Results indicate that hatching time depends not only on the
hatching distance and speed, as originally assumed, but also on the number of hatching vectors
employed.
Gibson, Ian, David W. Rosen, and Brent Stucker. 2010. Additive Manufacturing
Technologies. Springer.
Additive Manufacturing Technologies: Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing deals with
various aspects of joining materials to form parts. Additive Manufacturing (AM) is an automated
technique for direct conversion of 3D CAD data into physical objects using a variety of approaches.
Manufacturers have been using these technologies in order to reduce development cycle times and get
their products to the market quicker, more cost effectively, and with added value due to the
incorporation of customizable features. Realizing the potential of AM applications, a large number of
processes have been developed allowing the use of various materials ranging from plastics to metals
for product development. Authors Ian Gibson, David W. Rosen and Brent Stucker explain these issues,
as well as:
-Providing a comprehensive overview of AM technologies plus descriptions of support technologies
like software systems and post-processing approaches
-Discussing the wide variety of new and emerging applications like micro-scale AM, medical
applications, direct write electronics and Direct Digital Manufacturing of end-use components
-Introducing systematic solutions for process selection and design for AM
Additive Manufacturing Technologies: Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing is the
perfect book for researchers, students, practicing engineers, entrepreneurs, and manufacturing
industry professionals interested in additive manufacturing.
T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc. 2010. 3D Printer Benchmark: North American Edition.
Edgewood, KY: T. A. Grimm & Associates, Inc.
58
Hasan, S., and A.E.W. Rennie. 2008. The Application of Rapid Manufacturing
Technologies in the Spare Parts Industry. In 19th Annual International Solid Freeform
Fabrication SymposiumAn Additive Manufacturing Conference, Austin/TX/USA, 4th
6th August. Austin, TX.
The advancement of Rapid Manufacturing (RM) has ushered the possibility of realising complex
designs. This paper identifies the potential of possible applications of RM in the spare parts industry.
It further underlines the need for a fully functional RM supply chain before proposing an e-business
enabled business model for RM technologies.
Holmstrm, Jan, and Jouni Partanen. 2014. Digital Manufacturing-Driven

Transformations of Service Supply Chains for Complex Products. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 19 (4): 421 430.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the forms that combinations of digital
manufacturing, logistics and equipment use are likely to take and how these novel combinations
may affect the relationship among logistics service providers (LSPs), users and manufacturers of
equipment.
Design/methodology/approach Brian Arthurs theory of combinatorial technological evolution
is applied to examine possible digital manufacturing-driven transformations. The F-18 Super
Hornet is used as an illustrative example of a service supply chain for a complex product.
Findings The introduction of digital manufacturing will likely result in hybrid solutions,
combining conventional logistics, digital manufacturing and user operations. Direct benefits can
be identified in the forms of life cycle extension and the increased availability of parts in
challenging locations. Furthermore, there are also opportunities for both equipment
manufacturers and LSPs to adopt new roles, thereby supporting the efficient and sustainable use
of digital manufacturing.
Research limitations/implications The phenomenon of digital manufacturing-driven
transformations of service supply chains for complex product does not yet fully exist in the real
world, and its study requires cross-disciplinary collaboration. Thus, the implication for research
is to use a design science approach for early-stage explorative research on the form and function
of novel combinations.
Practical implications Digital manufacturing as a general-purpose technology gives LSPs an
opportunity to consolidate demand from initial users and incrementally deploy capacity closer to
new users. Reengineering the products that a manufacture currently uses is needed to increase
the utilization of digital manufacturing.
Originality/value The authors outline a typology of digital manufacturing-driven
transformations and identify propositions to be explored in further research and practice.
Holmstrm, Jan, Jouni Partanen, Jukka Tuomi, and Manfred Walter. 2010. Rapid
Manufacturing in the Spare Parts Supply Chain: Alternative Approaches to Capacity
Deployment. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 21 (6): 68797.
doi:10.1108/17410381011063996.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe and evaluate the potential approaches to
introduce rapid manufacturing (RM) in the spare parts supply chain.
59
Design/methodology/approach Alternative conceptual designs for deploying RM technology in

the spare parts supply chain were proposed. The potential benefits are illustrated for the aircraft
industry. The general feasibility was discussed based on literature.
Findings The potential supply chain benefits in terms of simultaneously improved service and
reduced inventory makes the distributed deployment of RM very interesting for spare parts
supply. However, considering the trade-offs affecting deployment it is proposed that most
feasible is centralized deployment by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), or deployment
close to the point of use by generalist service providers of RM.
Research limitations/implications The limited part range that is currently possible to produce
using the technology means that a RM-based service supply chain is feasible only in very
particular situations.
Practical implications OEMs should include the consideration of RM in their long-term
service supply chain development.
Originality/value The paper identifies two distinct approaches for deploying RM in the spare
parts supply chain.
Hopkinson, Neil. 2006. Production Economics of Rapid Manufacture. In Rapid

Manufacturing: An Industrial Revolution for the Digital Age, 14757.
Hopkinson, Neil, and P. Dickens. 2003. Analysis of Rapid Manufacturingusing Layer

Manufacturing Processes for Production. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 217 (1): 3139.
Rapid prototyping (RP) technologies that have emerged over the last 15 years are all based on the
principle of creating three-dimensional geometries directly from computer aided design (CAD) by
stacking two-dimensional profiles on top of each other. To date most RP parts are used for prototyping
or tooling purposes; however, in future the majority may be produced as end-use products. The term
rapid manufacturing in this context uses RP technologies as processes for the production of end-use
products.
This paper reports findings from a cost analysis that was performed to compare a traditional
manufacturing route (injection moulding) with layer manufacturing processes (stereolithography,
fused deposition modelling and laser sintering) in terms of the unit cost for parts made in various
quantities. The results show that, for some geometries, it is more economical to use layer
manufacturing methods than it is to use traditional approaches for production in the thousands.
Hopkinson, Neil, Richard Hague, and Philip Dickens, eds. 2006. Rapid Manufacturing:
An Industrial Revolution for the Digital Age. John Wiley & Sons.
Rapid Manufacturing is a new area of manufacturing developed from a family of technologies known
as Rapid Prototyping. These processes have already had the effect of both improving products and
reducing their development time; this in turn resulted in the development of the technology of Rapid
Tooling, which implemented Rapid Prototyping techniques to improve its own processes. Rapid
Manufacturing has developed as the next stage, in which the need for tooling is eliminated. It has been
shown that it is economically feasible to use existing commercial Rapid Prototyping systems to
manufacture series parts in quantities of up to 20,000 and customised parts in quantities of hundreds
60
of thousands. This form of manufacturing can be incredibly cost-effective and the process is far more
flexible than conventional manufacturing.
Rapid Manufacturing: An Industrial Revolution for the Digital Age addresses the academic
fundamentals of Rapid Manufacturing as well as focussing on case studies and applications across a
wide range of industry sectors. As a technology that allows manufacturers to create products without
tools, it enables previously impossible geometries to be made. This book is abundant with images
depicting the fantastic array of products that are now being commercially manufactured using these
technologies.
-Includes contributions from leading researchers working at the forefront of industry.
-Features detailed illustrations throughout.
Rapid Manufacturing: An Industrial Revolution for the Digital Age is a groundbreaking text that
provides excellent coverage of this fast emerging industry. It will interest manufacturing industry
practitioners in research and development, product design and materials science, as well as having a
theoretical appeal to researchers and post-graduate students in manufacturing engineering, product
design, CAD/CAM and CIFM.
Huang, Samuel H., Peng Liu, Abhiram Mokasdar, and Liang Hou. 2013. Additive
Manufacturing and Its Societal Impact: A Literature Review. The International Journal
of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 67 (5-8): 11911203. doi:10.1007/s00170-0124558-5.
Thirty years into its development, additive manufacturing has become a mainstream manufacturing
process. Additive manufacturing build up parts by adding materials one layer at a time based on a
computerized 3D solid model. It does not require the use of fixtures, cutting tools, coolants, and other
auxiliary resources. It allows design optimization and the producing of customized parts on-demand.
Its advantages over conventional manufacturing have captivated the imagination of the public,
reflected in recent mainstream publications that call additive manufacturing the third industrial
revolution. This paper reviews the societal impact of additive manufacturing from a technical
perspective. Abundance of evidences were found to support the promises of additive manufacturing in
the following areas: (1) customized healthcare products to improve population health and quality of
life, (2) reduced environmental impact for manufacturing sustainability, and (3) simplified supply
chain to increase efficiency and responsiveness in demand fulfillment. In the mean time, the review
also identified the need for further research in the areas of life-cycle energy consumption evaluation
and potential occupation hazard assessment for additive manufacturing.
Igoe, Tom, and Catarina Mota. 2011. A Strategists Guide to Digital Fabrication.
Strategy+Business, no. 64 (Autumn): 110.
Rapid advances in manufacturing technology point the way toward a decentralized, more customercentric "maker" culture. Here are the changes to consider before this innovation takes hold.
Kechagias, John, Stergios Maropoulos, and Stefanos Karagiannis. 2004. Process BuildTime Estimator Algorithm for Laminated Object Manufacturing. Rapid Prototyping
Journal 10 (5): 297304. doi:10.1108/13552540410562331.
A method for estimating the build-time required by the laminated object manufacturing (LOM) process
is presented in this paper. The proposed algorithm taking into account the real process parameters
and the information included in the part's STL-file performs a minimum manipulation of the file, and
calculates total volume, total surface area and flat areas involved in fine cross-hatching. A number of
experiments performed verify the applicability of the algorithm in process build-time estimation. The
61
time prediction estimates are within 7.6 per cent of the real build-times for the LOM process. It is
believed that, through specific minor adjustments, the algorithm could well be employed in process
build-time estimation for similar rapid prototyping processes.
Kellens, K., E. Yasa, Renaldi, W. Dewulf, JP Kruth, and J.R. Duflou. 2011. Analyzing
Product Lifecycle Costs for a Better Understanding of Cost Drivers in Additive
Manufacturing. In 22nd Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium
An Additive Manufacturing Conference, Austin/TX/USA, 8th10th August. Austin, TX.
Manufacturing processes, as used for discrete part manufacturing, are responsible for a substantial
part of the environmental impact of products, but are still poorly documented in terms of their
environmental footprint. The lack of thorough analysis of manufacturing processes has as consequence
that optimization opportunities are often not recognized and that improved machine tool design in
terms of ecological footprint has only been targeted for a few common processes.
Additive manufacturing processes such as Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and Selective Laser Melting
(SLM) allow near-net shape manufacturing of complex work pieces. Consequently, they inherently
offer opportunities for minimum-waste and sustainable manufacturing. Nevertheless, powder
production, energy consumption as well as powder losses are important and not always optimized
environmental impact drivers of SLS and SLM. This paper presents the results of a data collection
effort, allowing to assess the overall environmental impact of these processes using the methodology of
the CO2PE! (Cooperative Effort on Process Emissions in Manufacturing) initiative.
Based on the collected LCI data, a subsequent impact assessment analysis allows indentifying the most
important contributors to the environmental impact of SLS/SLM. Next to the electricity consumption,
the consumption of inert gasses proves to be an important cause of environmental impact. Finally, the
paper sketches the improvement potential for SLS/SLM on machine tool as well as system level.
Kellens, Karel, Wim Dewulf, Wim Deprez, Evren Yasa, and Joost Duflou. 2010.
Environmental Analysis of SLM and SLS Manufacturing Processes. In Proceedings of
LCE2010 Conference, 42328. Hefei, China.
Manufacturing processes, as used for discrete part manufacturing, are responsible for a substantial
part of the environmental impact of products, but are still poorly documented in terms of
environmental footprint. In this paper, first a short description is offered about the CO2PE! Initiative
and the methodology used to analyse manufacturing unit processes. In a second part, the energy and
resource flows inventorisation and impact assessment of some sample products made by Selective
Laser Melting (SLM) and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) processes are performed.
Kellens, Karel, Wim Dewulf, Michael Overcash, Michael Z. Hauschild, and Joost R.
Duflou. 2012. Methodology for Systematic Analysis and Improvement of
Manufacturing Unit Process Life-Cycle Inventory (UPLCI)CO2PE! Initiative
(cooperative Effort on Process Emissions in Manufacturing). Part 1: Methodology
Description. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17 (1): 6978.
doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0340-4.
Purpose This report proposes a life-cycle analysis (LCA)-oriented methodology for systematic
inventory analysis of the use phase of manufacturing unit processes providing unit process datasets to
be used in life-cycle inventory (LCI) databases and libraries. The methodology has been developed in
the framework of the CO2PE! collaborative research programme (CO2PE! 2011a) and comprises two
approaches with different levels of detail, respectively referred to as the screening approach and the
in-depth approach.
62
Methods The screening approach relies on representative, publicly available data and engineering
calculations for energy use, material loss, and identification of variables for improvement, while the
in-depth approach is subdivided into four modules, including a time study, a power consumption study,
a consumables study and an emissions study, in which all relevant process in- and outputs are
measured and analysed in detail. The screening approach provides the first insight in the unit process
and results in a set of approximate LCI data, which also serve to guide the more detailed and complete
in-depth approach leading to more accurate LCI data as well as the identification of potential for
energy and resource efficiency improvements of the manufacturing unit process. To ensure optimal
reproducibility and applicability, documentation guidelines for data and metadata are included in both
approaches. Guidance on definition of functional unit and reference flow as well as on determination
of system boundaries specifies the generic goal and scope definition requirements according to ISO
14040 (2006) and ISO 14044 (2006).
Results The proposed methodology aims at ensuring solid foundations for the provision of high-quality
LCI data for the use phase of manufacturing unit processes. Envisaged usage encompasses the
provision of high-quality data for LCA studies of products using these unit process datasets for the
manufacturing processes, as well as the in-depth analysis of individual manufacturing unit processes.
Conclusions In addition, the accruing availability of data for a range of similar machines (same
process, different suppliers and machine capacities) will allow the establishment of parametric
emission and resource use estimation models for a more streamlined LCA of products including
reliable manufacturing process data. Both approaches have already provided useful results in some
initial case studies (Kellens et al. 2009; Duflou et al. (Int J Sustain Manufacturing 2:8098, 2010);
Santos et al. (J Clean Prod 19:356364, 2011); UPLCI 2011; Kellens et al. 2011a) and the use will be
illustrated by two case studies in Part 2 of this paper (Kellens et al. 2011b).
Khajavi, Siavash H., Jouni Partanen, and Jan Holmstrm. 2014. Additive Manufacturing
in the Spare Parts Supply Chain. Computers in Industry 65 (1): 5063.
As additive manufacturing (AM) evolves to become a common method of producing final parts, further
study of this computer integrated technology is necessary. The purpose of this research is to evaluate
the potential impact of additive manufacturing improvements on the configuration of spare parts
supply chains. This goal has been accomplished through scenario modeling of a real-life spare parts
supply chain in the aeronautics industry. The spare parts supply chain of the F-18 Super Hornet
fighter jet was selected as the case study because the air-cooling ducts of the environmental control
system are produced using AM technology. In total, four scenarios are investigated that vary the
supply chain configurations and additive manufacturing machine specifications. The reference
scenario is based on the spare parts supplier's current practice and the possible future
decentralization of production and likely improvements in AM technology. Total operating cost,
including downtime cost, is used to compare the scenarios. We found that using current AM
technology, centralized production is clearly the preferable supply chain configuration in the case
example. However, distributed spare parts production becomes practical as AM machines become less
capital intensive, more autonomous and offer shorter production cycles. This investigation provides
guidance for the development of additive manufacturing machines and their possible deployment in
spare parts supply chains. This study contributes to the emerging literature on AM deployment in
supply chains with a real-world case setting and scenario model illustrating the cost trade-offs and
critical requirements for technology development.
Kim, Bowon. Supply Chain Management: A Learning Perspective. Korea Advanced

Institute of Science and Technology. Coursera Lecture 1-2.
As a human being, we all consume products and/or services all the time. This morning you got up and
ate your breakfast, e.g., eggs, milk, bread, fresh fruits, and the like. After the breakfast, you drove your
car to work or school. At your office, you used your computer, perhaps equipped with 27 LCD
monitor. During your break, you drank a cup of coffee and played with your iPhone. So on and so
63
forth. You probably take it for granted that you can enjoy all of these products. But if you take a closer
look at how each of these products can be made and eventually delivered to you, you will realize that
each one of these is no short of miracle. For example, which fruit do you like? Consider fresh
strawberries. In order for the strawberries to be on your breakfast table, there must be numerous
functions, activities, transactions, and people involved in planting, cultivating, delivering, and
consuming strawberries. Moreover, all of these functions, activities, transactions, and people are
connected as an integral chain, through which physical products like strawberries themselves and
virtual elements such as information and communication flow back and forth constantly. By grouping
related functions or activities, we have a supply chain, comprised of four primary functions such as
supplier, manufacturer, distributor, and finally consumer. A supply chain is essentially a value chain.
For the society or economy as a whole, the goal is to maximize value, i.e., to create satisfactory value
without spending too much. In order to create the maximum value for the strawberry supply chain,
every participant in the chain must carry out its function efficiently. In addition, all of the members
must coordinate with each other effectively in order to ensure value maximization. We have to face the
same issues for almost all the products and services we take for granted in our everyday life, e.g., cars,
hamburgers, haircuts, surgeries, movies, banks, restaurants, and you name it!
In this course, we want to understand fundamental principles of value creation for the consumers or
the market. We try to answer questions like how the product or service is made, how the value-creating
activities or functions are coordinated, who should play what leadership roles in realizing all these,
and so on. As our course title hints, we approach all of these issues from a learning perspective, which
is dynamic in nature and emphasizes long-term capability building rather than short-term symptomatic
problem solving.
Kim, Bowon and Chulsoon Park. (2013). Firms Integrating Efforts to Mitigate the
Tradeoff Between Controllability and Flexibility. International Journal of Production
Research. 51(4): 1258-1278.
We consider three manufacturing capabilities: controllability, flexibility, and integrating capability.
Controllability is a firm's ability to control its process to enhance efficiency and accuracy and to better
meet specifications. Flexibility is a firm's ability to cope with uncertainty and variation, both internal
and external. Integrating capability is a firm's ability to integrate and coordinate diverse functions and
parts of its supply chain, embodied in overall operations effectiveness and new product innovation. We
put forth two hypotheses. First, there is an inherent tradeoff between controllability and flexibility.
Second, a firm's integrating effort across its supply chain enables it to overcome such a tradeoff,
making it possible to improve both controllability and flexibility simultaneously. Using data from 193
manufacturing companies, we test our hypotheses. It turns out that the relationship between
controllability and flexibility is convex-shaped, indicating there are two distinct regions: one in which
the relationship is negative and the other, positive. Further, the firms in the positive relationship
region make significantly more effort to integrate, that is to say coordinate and communicate, across
their supply chains, implying that as the firm strives to integrate its supply chain functions, it can
mitigate the tradeoff between controllability and flexibility to a considerable extent.
Kruth, Jean-Pierre, Ben Vandenbroucke, van J. Vaerenbergh, and Peter Mercelis. 2005.
Benchmarking of Different SLS/SLM Processes as Rapid Manufacturing Techniques.
In Int. Conf. Polymers and Moulds Innovations (PMI), Gent, Belgium, April 20-23, 2005.
Gent, Belgium.
Recently, a shift of Rapid Prototyping (RP) to Rapid Manufacturing (RM) has come up because of
technical improvements of Layer Manufacturing processes. Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and
Selective Laser Melting (SLM) techniques are no longer exclusively used for prototyping and the
possibility to process all kind of metals yields opportunities to manufacture real functional parts, e.g.,
injection moulds (Rapid Tooling).
64
This study examines different SLS/SLM processes with regard to conditions that become very
important for manufacturing, speed and reliability. A benchmark model is developed facilitating to
test these conditions and to check the process limitations. This benchmark is manufactured by five
SLS/SLM machines which differ in process mechanism, powder material and optimal process
parameters. To find out process accuracy, a dimensional analysis is performed and the surface
roughness is measured. Besides, the benchmarks are tested for their mechanical properties such as
density, hardness, strength and stiffness. Finally, speed and repeatability are discussed as important
factors for manufacturing.
This paper presents the state of the art in SLS/SLM and aims at understanding the limitations of
different SLS/SLM processes to form a picture of the potential manufacturing applications of these
processes.
Li, Fang. 2006. Automated Cost Estimation for 3-Axis CNC Milling and
Stereolithography Rapid Phototyping.
http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/jspui/handle/1993/8882.
Rapid prototyping (RP) is a supplementary additive manufacturing method to the traditional Computer
Numerical Controlled (CNC) machining. The selection of the manufacturing method between RP and
CNC machining is currently based on qualitative analysis and engineers experience. There are
situations when parts can be produced using either of the methods. In such cases, cost will be the
decisive factor. However, lack of a quantitative cost estimation method to guide the selection between
RP and CNC machining makes the decision process difficult. This thesis proposes an automated cost
estimator for CNC machining and Rapid Prototyping. Vertical CNC milling and Stereolithography
Apparatus (SLA) RP technology are selected in specific, for cost modeling and process comparison. A
binary questionnaire is designed to help estimate the CNC setup cost. An SLA build time estimator is
implemented based on 3D systems SLA3500 machine. SLA post processing cost is also investigated.
Based on the developed methods, a prototype software tool was created with an output to Excel chart
to facilitate the selection. Five cases have been studied with the software and the predicted results are
found reasonable and effective.
Lindemann, C., U. Jahnke, M. Moi, and R. Koch. 2012. Analyzing Product Lifecycle
Costs for a Better Understanding of Cost Drivers in Additive Manufacturing. In 23rd
Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication SymposiumAn Additive
Manufacturing Conference, Austin/TX/USA, 6th8th August. Austin, TX.
The costs of additive manufactured parts often seem too high in comparison to those of traditionally
manufactured parts, as the information about major cost drivers, especially for additive manufactured
metal parts, is weak. Therefore, a lifecycle analysis of additive manufactured parts is needed to
understand and rate the cost drivers that act as the largest contributors to unit costs, and to provide a
focus for future cost reduction activities for the Additive Manufacturing (AM) technology. A better
understanding of the cost structure will help to compare the AM costs with the opportunity costs of the
classical manufacturing technologies and will make it easier to justify the use of AM manufactured
parts. This paper will present work in progress and methodology based on a sample investigated with
business process analysis / simulation and activity based costing. In addition, cost drivers associated
with metal AM process will be rated.
65
Lindemann, C., U. Jahnke, M. Moi, and R. Koch. 2013. Impact and Influence Factors of
Additive Manufacturing on Product Lifecycle Costs. In 24th Annual International Solid
Freeform Fabrication SymposiumAn Additive Manufacturing Conference,
Austin/TX/USA. Austin, TX.
At first sight the direct costs of Additive Manufacturing (AM) seem too high in comparison to
traditional manufacturing. Considering the whole lifecycle costs of parts changes the point of view.
Due to the modification of the new production process and new supply chains during a parts lifecycle,
producing companies can strongly benefit from AM. Therefore, a costing model for assessing lifecycle
costs with regard to specific applications and branches has been developed. The costing model
represents the advantages of AM monetary. For the evaluation of this model and the influence factors,
different case studies have been performed including different approaches in part redesign. Deeper
research is and will be carried out with respect to the AM building rates and the comparability of
various AM machines, as these facts are hardly comparable for end users. This paper will present the
methodology as well as the results of the case studies conducted over the whole product lifecycle.
Luo, Yanchun, Zhiming Ji, M.C. Leu, and R. Caudill. 1999. Environmental Performance
Analysis of Solid Freedom Fabrication Processes. In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE
International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, 1999. ISEE -1999, 16.
doi:10.1109/ISEE.1999.765837.
This paper presents a method for analyzing the environmental performance of solid freeform
fabrication (SFF) processes. In this method, each process is divided into life phases. Environmental
effects of every process phase are then analyzed and evaluated based on the environmental and
resource management data. These effects are combined to obtain the environmental performance of
the process. The analysis of the environmental performance of SFF processes considers the
characteristics of SFF technology, includes material, energy consumption, processes wastes, and
disposal. Case studies for three typical SFF processes: stereolithography (SL); selective laser
sintering (SLS); and fused deposition modeling (FDM) are presented to illustrate this method
Munguia, Javier, Joaquim de Ciurana, and Carles Riba. 2009 Neural-Network-Based

Model for Build-Time Estimation in Selective Laser Sintering. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part B, Journal of Engineering Manufacture. 223(8):
995-1003.
Cost assessment for rapid manufacturing (RM) is highly dependent on time estimation. Total build
time dictates most indirect costs for a given part, such as labour, machine, costs, and overheads. A
numberof parametric and empirical time estimators exist; however, they normally account for error
rates between 20 and 35 per cent which are then translated to inaccurate final cost estimations. The
estimator presented herein is based on the ability of artificial neural networds (ANNs) to learn and
adapt to different cases, so that the developed model is capable of providing accurate estimates
regardless of machine type or model. A simulation is performed with MATLAB to compare existing
approaches for cost/time estimation for selective laser sintering (SLS). Error rates observed from the
model range from 2 to 15 per cent, which shows the validity and robustness of the proposed method.
Mansfield, Edwin. Innovation, Technology and the Economy: Selected Essays of Edwin
Mansfield. Economists of the Twentieth Century Series (Brookfield, VT: 1995, E. Elgar).
This text brings together selected essays of Edwin Mansfield, who has been engaged for almost 40
years in the economics of technical change, a field of importance for analysts and decision-makers.
This text presents a quantitative analysis based largely on data collection from firms and other
economic units. These essays, which include some of the most frequently cited studies in the field, are
concerned with the process of industrial innovation, the nature, composition and effects of industrial
66
research and development, the relationships between technical change, economic growth and inflation,
the diffusion of innovations, international technology transfer, public policy toward civilian
technology, and intellectual property protection. These topics are central to many current debates
among both economic theorists and policy makers.
Mehrsai, Afshin, Hamid Reza Karimi, and Klaus-Dieter Thoben. 2013. Integration of
Supply Networks for Customization with Modularity in Cloud and Make-to-Upgrade
Strategy. Systems Science & Control Engineering 1 (1): 2842.
doi:10.1080/21642583.2013.817959.
Today, integration of supply networks (SNs) out of heterogeneous entities is quite challenging for
industries. Individualized demands are getting continuously higher values in the global business and
this fact forces traditional businesses for restructuring their organizations. In order to contribute to
new performances in manufacturing networks, in this paper a collaborative approach is recommended
out of modularity structure, cloud computing, and make-to-upgrade concept for improving flexibility
as well as coordination of entities in networks. A cloud-based framework for inbound and outbound
manufacturing is introduced for complying with the production of individualized products in the
turbulent global market, with local decision-makings and integrated performances. Additionally, the
complementary aspects of these techniques with new features of products are conceptually highlighted.
The compatibility of this wide range of theoretical concepts and practical techniques is explained here.
A discrete-event simulation out of an exemplary cloud-based SN is set up to define the applicability of
the cloud and the recommended strategy.
Minetola, Paolo. 2012. The Importance of a Correct Alignment in Contactless

Inspection of Additive Manufactured Parts. International Journal of Precision
Engineering and Manufacturing 13 (2): 21118. doi:10.1007/s12541-012-0026-2.
Nowadays products having complex freeform custom-made shapes can he fabricated without any tool
by means of additive manufacturing processes. Additive manufactured parts must be inspected for
quality to verify, that they meet dimensional and geometrical specifications among other requirements
just as any other product. Contactless inspection carried out with optical 3D scanners is preferred to
traditional pointwise measurements because of the higher amount of data retrieved in short times. A
key step of the contactless inspection process is the definition of the part reference frame for the
alignment of scan data. This paper considers different 3-2-1 alignments and analyze their influence on
the inspection results, putting in evidence that an inattentive or inaccurate definition of the part
reference frame can lead to incorrect evaluations of real part deviations.
Mognol, Pascal, Denis Lepicart, and Nicolas Perry. 2006. Rapid Prototyping: Energy
and Environment in the Spotlight. Rapid Prototyping Journal 12 (1): 2634.
doi:10.1108/13552540610637246.
Purpose To discuss integration of the rapid prototyping environmental aspects with the primary
focus on electrical energy consumption.
Design/methodology/approach Various manufacturing parameters have been tested on three rapid
prototyping systems: Thermojet (3DS), FDM 3000 (Stratasys) and EOSINT M250 Xtended (EOS). The
objective is to select sets of parameters for reduction of electrical energy consumption. For this, a part
is manufactured in several orientations and positions in the chamber of these RP systems. For each
test, the electrical power is noted. Finally, certain rules are proposed to minimize this electrical energy
consumption during a job.
Findings It is important to minimize the manufacturing time but there is no general rule for
optimization of electrical energy consumption. Each RP system must be tested with energy
consumption considerations under the spotlight.
67
Research limitations/implications The work is only based on rapid prototyping processes. The
objective is to take into consideration the complete life-cycle of a rapid prototyped part:
manufacturing of raw material as far as reprocessing of waste.
Practical implications Reduction of electrical energy consumption to complete a job.
Originality/value Currently, environmental aspects are not well studied in rapid prototyping.
Morrow, W.R., H. Qi, I. Kim, J. Mazumder, and S.J. Skerlos. 2007. Environmental
Aspects of Laser-Based and Conventional Tool and Die Manufacturing. Journal of
Cleaner Production 15 (10): 93243. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.030.
Solid Freeform Fabrication (SFF) technologies such as Direct Metal Deposition (DMD) have made it
possible to eliminate environmentally polluting supply chain activities in the tooling industry and to
repair and remanufacture valuable tools and dies. In this article, we investigate three case studies to
reveal the extent to which DMD-based manufacturing of molds and dies can currently achieve reduced
environmental emissions and energy consumption relative to conventional manufacturing pathways. It
is shown that DMDs greatest opportunity to reduce the environmental impact of tool and die
manufacturing will come from its ability to enable remanufacturing. Laser-based remanufacturing of
tooling is shown to reduce cost and environmental impact simultaneously, especially as the scale of the
tool increases.
Moylan, Shawn, John Slotwinski, April Cooke, Kevin Jurrens, and M. Alkan Donmex.
2013. Lessons Learned in Establishing the NIST Metal Additive Manufacturing
Laboratory. NIST Technical Note 1801. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
This publication presents a summary of lessons learned by NIST staff during establishment of the NIST
Metal Additive Manufacturing Laboratory and implementation of the metal additive manufacturing
capability at NIST. These lessons learned resulted from the first implementation of a metal additive
manufacturing system at NIST. While the NIST experiences were with a particular metal additive
manufacturing system, we believe that these lessons are relevant and have common aspects for
implementing other types of metal additive manufacturing systems. The intention is that this summary
document will help others to implement metal additive manufacturing capabilities in their facilities.
The NIST implementation spanned several months before the system was brought fully online,
including facility preparation, system installation, operator training, standard procedure development,
and initial experimental use. NIST staff members have been operating the machine for research
purposes since early 2011. Parts have been built using metal powders of one stainless steel and one
Cobalt-Chrome alloy. These lessons learned address room requirements, safety concerns, machine
operation, materials and process parameters, build design file preparation and support structures,
design guidelines, and post-processing of manufactured parts.
Mungua, J., J. Ciurana, and C. Riba. 2009. Neural-Network-Based Model for BuildTime Estimation in Selective Laser Sintering. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 223 (8): 9951003.
Cost assessment for rapid manufacturing (RM) is highly dependent on time estimation. Total build
time dictates most indirect costs for a given part, such as labour, machine costs, and overheads. A
number of parametric and empirical time estimators exist; however, they normally account for error
rates between 20 and 35 per cent which are then translated to inaccurate final cost estimations. The
estimator presented herein is based on the ability of artificial neural networks (ANNs) to learn and
adapt to different cases, so that the developed model is capable of providing accurate estimates
regardless of machine type or model. A simulation is performed with MATLAB to compare existing
68
approaches for cost/time estimation for selective laser sintering (SLS). Error rates observed from the
model range from 2 to 15 per cent, which shows the validity and robustness of the proposed method.
Neef, Andreas, Klaus Burmeister, Stefan Krempl. 2005. Vom Personal Computer zum
Personal Fabricator (From Personal Computer to Personal Fabricator). Hamburg:
Murmann Verlag.
Paul, Ratnadeep, and Sam Anand. 2012. Process Energy Analysis and Optimization in
Selective Laser Sintering. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 31 (4): 42937.
doi:10.1016/j.jmsy.2012.07.004.
Additive manufacturing (AM) processes are increasingly being used to manufacture complex precision
parts for the automotive, aerospace and medical industries. One of the popular AM processes is the
selective laser sintering (SLS) process which manufactures parts by sintering metallic, polymeric and
ceramic powder under the effect of laser power. The laser energy expenditure of SLS process and its
correlation to the geometry of the manufactured part and the SLS process parameters, however, have
not received much attention from AM/SLS researchers. This paper presents a mathematical analysis of
the laser energy required for manufacturing simple parts using the SLS process. The total energy
expended is calculated as a function of the total area of sintering (TAS) using a convex hull based
approach and is correlated to the part geometry, slice thickness and the build orientation. The TAS
and laser energy are calculated for three sample parts and the results are provided in the paper.
Finally, an optimization model is presented which computes the minimal TAS and energy required for
manufacturing a part using the SLS process.
Quick, Darren. 2009. 3D Bio-Printer to Create Arteries and Organs. Gizmag.

http://www.gizmag.com/3d-bio-printer/13609/.
Reeves, Philip. 2007. Rapid manufacturingBusiness Implementation & Global

Economic Value. Econolyst Ltd, UK.
Much has been written about the benefits of additive layer manufacturing for the production of end use
part otherwise known as Rapid Manufacturing (RM), as an alternative to moulding or machining or in
the manufacture of increasing complex geometries. Other additive manufacturing benefits have also
been discussed in the fields of materials science and mass personalisation. This paper looks beyond the
scientific and physical benefits of additive manufacturing into the more practical implications of
implementing RM into the main stream production environment.
The paper starts by discussing the current position of RM within the global manufacturing economy.
The paper then discusses the development of a simple iterative stage methodology for RM, which can
be implemented by businesses based on a six step approach. It is suggested that this could then
accelerate companies through the technology selection, justification and implementation of RM, either
through technology purchase or the establishment of dedicated RM supply chains.
The paper is the result of the authors engagement in both academic research projects as an industrial
partner, and through experience implementing RM technologies into both end use companies and
European regional technology centres.
69
Reeves Philip. (2008) How the Socioeconomic Benefits of Rapid Manufacturing can
Offset Technological Limitations. RAPID 2008 Conference and Exposition. Lake Buena
Vista, FL: 1-12.
Reeves, Philip. 2009. Additive ManufacturingA Supply Chain Wide Response to

Economic Uncertainty and Environmental Sustainability. Econolyst Limited, The
Silversmiths, Crown Yard, Wirksworth, Derbyshire, DE4 4ET, UK.
In this paper the author will review some of the current commercial applications of Additive Layer
Manufacturing (ALM) and the business benefits associated with technology adoption. The paper will
review applications such as Rapid Tooling, where ALM processes are being used to make fully dense
tool cavity inserts with highly efficient heating and cooling channels. This approach has been proven
to have clear down-stream economic benefits within the supply chain, resulting in reduced cycle times,
improved moulding quality and a lower carbon footprint.
The paper will also address how ALM is being used as a sustainable alternative to subtractive
machining in the production of high buy-to-fly ratio parts, and how different Design-ForManufacturing (DFM) rules associated with ALM, are being exploited to manufacture lighter weight,
energy efficient products with less raw material. The paper concludes with a look into the future,
possibly into a tool-less society, where consumer products are printed to order, using the consumers
own design data as-and-when they are needed, using either a globally distributed just-in-time supply
chain or inversely manufacture within the consumers own home.
Rickenbacher, L., A. Spierings, and K. Wegener. 2013. An Integrated Cost-Model for

Selective Laser Melting (SLM). Rapid Prototyping Journal 19 (3): 20814.
Purpose The integration of additive manufacturing (AM) processes into a production environment
requires a cost-model that allows the precise estimation of the total cost per part, although the part
might be produced in the same build job together with other parts of different sizes, complexities and
quantities. Several cost-models have been proposed in the past, but most of them are not able to
calculate the costs for each single part in a mixed build job or are not suitable for Selective Laser
Melting (SLM). The purpose of this paper is to develop a cost model, including all pre- and postprocessing steps linked to SLM.
Design/methodology/approach Based on collected data and the generic cost model of Alexander et
al., an adapted model was developed for the SLM process including all required pre- and postprocesses. Each process was analysed and modelled in detail, allowing an evaluation of the influences
of the different geometries on the cost of each part.
Findings By simultaneously building up multiple parts, the manufacturing as well as the set-up time
and therefore the total cost per part can be significantly reduced. In the presented case study a cost
reduction of 41 per cent can be achieved in average.
Originality/value Using different cost allocation algorithms, the developed cost model enables a
precise determination of total cost per part avoiding that any geometry is preferred in simultaneous
manufacture. This helps to optimize build jobs and to manufacture SLM parts more economically by
pooling parts from different projects, whereas the cost per part can still be precisely determined.
Ruffo, M., and R. Hague. 2007. Cost Estimation for Rapid Manufacturing-Simultaneous
Production of Mixed Components Using Laser Sintering. Proceedings of the Institution
70
of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 221 (11): 1585

91.
Rapid manufacturing (RM) is a production method able to build components by adding material layer
by layer, and it thus allows the elimination of tooling from the production chain. For this reason, RM
enables a cost-efficient production of low-volume components favouring the customization strategy.
Previous work has been developed on costing methodologies applicable to RM, but it was limited to
the scenario of the production of copies of the same part. In reality, RM enables the production of
different components simultaneously, and thus a smart mix of components in the same machine can
achieve an enhanced cost reduction. This paper details this concept by proposing mathematical models
for the assignment of the full production cost into each single product and by validating through a case
study. This paper extends previous work on RM costing by adding the scenario of simultaneous
production of different parts.
Ruffo, M., C. Tuck, and R. Hague. 2006a. Cost Estimation for Rapid ManufacturingLaser Sintering Production for Low to Medium Volumes. Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 220 (9): 141727.
Rapid manufacturing (RM) is a modern production method based on layer by layer manufacturing
directly from a three-dimensional computer-aided design model. The lack of tooling makes RM
economically suitable for low and medium production volumes. A comparison with traditional
manufacturing processes is important; in particular, cost comparison. Cost is usually the key point for
decision making, with break-even points for different manufacturing technologies being the dominant
information for decision makers. Cost models used for traditional production methodologies focus on
material and labour costs, while modern automated manufacturing processes need cost models that
are able to consider the high impact of investments and overheads. Previous work on laser sintering
costing was developed in 2003. This current work presents advances and discussions on the limits of
the previous work through direct comparison. A new cost model for laser sintering is then proposed.
The model leads to graph profiles that are typical for layer-manufacturing processes. The evolution of
cost models and the indirect cost significance in modern costing representation is shown finally.
Ruffo, M., C. Tuck, and R. Hague. 2006b. Empirical Laser Sintering Time Estimator for
Duraform PA. International Journal of Production Research 44 (23): 513146.
The paper presents work on the development of a build-time estimator for rapid manufacturing. A time
estimator is required to develop a comprehensive costing tool for rapid manufacturing. An empirical
method was used to estimate build times using both simulated and actual builds for a laser sintering
machine. The estimator presented herein is based upon object geometry and, therefore, the
fundamental data driving the model are obtainable from current three-dimensional computer-aided
design models. The aim is to define a model describing the build times for a laser sintering machine
either for single or multiple objects.
Ruffo, M., C. Tuck, and R. Hague. 2007. Make or Buy Analysis for Rapid
Manufacturing. Rapid Prototyping Journal 13 (1): 2329.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to outline how rapid manufacturing (RM) could influence the
decision-making process for managers involved in make or buy decisions.
Design/methodology/approach A literature review on make or buy issues has been carried out and
the results of which have been distilled into a number of qualitative considerations. These
considerations have been formed into three possible make or buy scenarios: the firm has no experience
of rapid prototyping (RP) or RM; the firm already has an RP department; and the firm already has an
RM function. In order to analyse the decision further a quantitative approach has been taken, mainly
adapted to the last scenario but applicable also to the second scenario. Here, manufacturing cost data
71
has been directly compared with price information from two current RP bureaus. The differences
between RM cost and RP price have been studied.
Findings Strategically, the points analysed were in favour of the make option. Economically, the lack
of dedicated RM bureaus and the consequent use of RP costing has further pushed the make or buy
decision in favour of make.
Originality/value There is a lack of work on the implementation of RM as a mainstream
manufacturing process. Existing knowledge has begun to look at the use and costs of RM, however,
this paper highlights the lack of dedicated RM providers.
Senyana, Lionel Nduwayezu. 2011. Environmental Impact Comparison of Distributed

and Centralized Manufacturing Scenarios. Rochester Institute of Technology.
Centralized manufacturing and distributed manufacturing are two fundamentally different methods for
producing components. This work describes a centralized manufacturing scenario in which parts are
produced via forging and finish machining at one central location and are then shipped to the end
user. The distributed manufacturing model involves a scenario in which an additive manufacturing
process (Electron Beam Melting) is used to produce parts to near net shape with minimal finish
machining. Because the process doesn't require molds or dies, production can take place in small
production quantities "on demand" at job shops located close to the end user with little transportation.
In other words, parts are not produced until they are needed. This is in stark contrast to the centralized
model where large quantities of parts are produced and then distributed at a later date when needed
from warehouses. The aim of this thesis is to compare the environmental impact of these two different
production approaches under a variety of conditions. The SimaPro software package has been used to
model both approaches with input from the user involving part size, amount of finish machining,
transportation distances, mode of transportation, production quantities, etc. Results from simulation
models indicate that at small production quantities, the environmental impact of forging die
production dominates the centralized manufacturing model. As production quantity increases, finish
machining begins to dominate the environmental impact. Despite the large transportation distances
involved, the transportation distance and mode of transportation actually have relatively little impact
on overall environmental impact compared with other factors. Regardless of the production scenario
being evaluated, the distributed manufacturing approach had less environmental impact. The
production of titanium powder as the raw material contributed the majority of environmental impact
for this approach. Although this work examines environmental impact, it does not consider the cost of
producing a part. It should be pointed out, however, that the distributed manufacturing approach
could someday have a profound effect on supply chain management for replacement parts by reducing
or eliminating the need for warehouses along with associated inventory carrying costs, product
obsolescence costs, heating and cooling energy, etc.
Sreenivasan, R., and D.L. Bourell. 2009. Sustainability Study in Selective Laser
Sintering An Energy Perspective. In 20th Annual International Solid Freeform
Fabrication SymposiumAn Additive Manufacturing Conference, Austin/TX/USA, 3rd
5th August. Austin, TX.
This paper presents a sustainability analysis of Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) from an energy
standpoint. Data of electrical power consumed by the system over an entire build were acquired using
a LabVIEW 8.6 circuit. The power drawn by individual subsystems were also measured, and an energy
balance was performed. These data were then used to arrive at a Total Energy Indicator of the process
with the help of a specific type of Environmental and Resource Management Data (ERMD) known as
Eco-Indicators, which indicates the level of sustainability of the process.
72
Sreenivasan, R., A. Goel, and D.L. Bourell. 2010. Sustainability Issues in Laser-Based
Additive Manufacturing. Physics Procedia 5 (January): 8190.
doi:10.1016/j.phpro.2010.08.124.
Sustainability is a consideration of resource utilization without depletion or adverse environmental
impact. In manufacturing, important sustainability issues include energy consumption, waste
generation, water usage and the environmental impact of the manufactured part in service. This paper
deals with three aspects of sustainability as it applies to additive manufacturing. First is a review of
the research needs for energy and sustainability as applied to additive manufacturing based on the
2009 Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing Workshop. The second part is an energy assessment for
selective laser sintering (SLS) of polymers. Using polyamide powder in a 3D Systems Vanguard HiQ
Sinterstation, energy loss during a build was measured due to the chamber heaters, the roller
mechanism, the piston elevators and the laser. This accounted for 95% of the total energy
consumption. An overall energy assessment was accomplished using eco-indicators. The last topic is
electrochemical deposition of porous SLS non-polymeric preforms. The goal is to reduce energy
consumption in SLS of non-polymeric materials. The approach was to mix a transient binder with the
material, to create an SLS green part, to convert the binder, and then to remove the open, connected
porosity and to densify the part by chemical deposition at room temperature within the pore network.
The model system was silicon carbide powder mixed with a phenolic transient binder coupled with
electrolytic deposition of nickel. Deposition was facilitated by inserting a conductive graphite cathode
in the part center to draw the positive nickel ions through the interconnected porous network and to
deposit them on the pore walls.
Stoneman, Paul. The Economics of Technological Diffusion. 2002. Oxford: Blackwell.

This book presents a detailed overview of the economics of technological diffusion in all its various
dimensions. Topics covered include:
Game-theoretic approaches to the modelling of technological change
Finance and technological change
Technological change in international trade.
Telenko, Cassandra, and Carolyn Conner Seepersad. 2010. Assessing Energy

Requirements and Material Flows of Selective Laser Sintering of Nylon Parts. In 21st
Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication SymposiumAn Additive
Manufacturing Conference, Austin/TX/USA, 6th8th August, 810. Austin, TX.
Selective laser sintering (SLS) is a prominent technology for rapid manufacturing (RM) of functional
parts. SLS and competitive RM technologies are generally assumed to be more environmentally
sustainable than conventional manufacturing methods because the additive process minimizes tooling,
material waste, and chemical fluids. A thorough life cycle analysis (LCA) of the environmental impacts
of SLS has yet to be published. This study focuses on a section of the SLS part life-cycle. It tracks the
nylon powder material flows from the extraction and synthesis of the material to SLS part production.
Basic material properties and environmental effects are reported. Estimates of material waste and
energy use are also reported and compared with those of injection molding.
Telenko, Cassandra, and Carolyn Conner Seepersad. 2011. A Comparative Evaluation

of Energy Consumption of Selective Laser Sintering and Injection Molding of Nylon
Parts. Rapid Prototyping J 18: 47281.
Additive manufacturing is often advocated as a sustainable alternative to competing manufacturing
technologies. This research study focuses on estimating and comparing the energy consumption
required for different production volumes of nylon parts using either selective laser sintering (SLS) or
injection molding (IM). For IM & SLS, energy consumption is estimated for nylon material refinement
73
and part fabrication. For IM, energy consumption is also estimated for manufacturing the injection
molds and refining their metal feedstock. A paintball gun handle serves as a representative part for
calculating and normalizing material flows and processing times. For different sets of assumptions,
cross-over production volumes are calculated, at which the per-part energy consumption of the two
processes is equivalent. These energy-based cross-over production volumes are compared to similar
economic cross-over production volumes available in the literature.
Telenko, Cassandra, and Carolyn Conner Seepersad. 2012. A Comparison of the Energy
Efficiency of Selective Laser Sintering and Injection Molding of Nylon Parts. Rapid
Prototyping Journal 18 (6): 47281.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the energy consumed to fabricate nylon parts using
selective laser sintering (SLS) and to compare it with the energy consumed for injection molding (IM)
the same parts.
Design/methodology/approach Estimates of energy consumption include the energy consumed for
nylon material refinement, adjusted for SLS and IM process yields. Estimates also include the energy
consumed by the SLS and IM equipment for part fabrication and the energy consumed to machine the
injection mold and refine the metal feedstock required to fabricate it. A representative part is used to
size the injection mold and to quantify throughput for the SLS machine per build.
Findings Although SLS uses significantly more energy than IM during part fabrication, this energy
consumption is partially offset by the energy consumption associated with production of the injection
mold. As a result, the energy consumed per part for IM decreases with the number of parts fabricated
while the energy consumed per part for SLS remains relatively constant as long as builds are packed
efficiently. The crossover production volume, at which IM and SLS consume equivalent amounts of
energy per part, ranges from 50 to 300 representative parts, depending on the choice of mold plate
material.
Research limitations/implications The research is limited to material refinement and part fabrication
and does not consider other aspects of the life cycle, such as waste disposal, distributed 2
manufacturing, transportation, recycling or use. Also, the crossover volumes are specific to the
representative part and are expected to vary with part geometry.
Originality/value The results of this comparative study of SLS and IM energy consumption indicate
that manufacturers can save energy using SLS for parts with small production volumes. The
comparatively large amounts of nylon material waste and energy consumption during fabrication
make it inefficient, from an energy perspective, to use SLS for higher production volumes. The
crossover production volume depends on the geometry of the part and the choice of material for the
mold.
Thomas, Douglas. 2013. Economics of the U.S. Additive Manufacturing Industry. NIST
Special Publication 1163. Gaithersburg, MD: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Institute
of Standards and Technology.
There is a general concern that the U.S. manufacturing industry has lost competitiveness with other
nations. Additive manufacturing may provide an important opportunity for advancing U.S.
manufacturing while maintaining and advancing U.S. innovation. Additive manufacturing is a
relatively new process where material is joined together layer by layer to make objects from threedimensional models as opposed to conventional methods where material is removed. The U.S. is
currently a major user of additive manufacturing technology and the primary producer of additive
manufacturing systems. Globally, an estimated $642.6 million in revenue was collected for additive
manufactured goods, with the U.S. accounting for an estimated $246.1 million or 38.3 % of global
production in 2011. Change agents for the additive manufacturing industry can focus their efforts on
74
three primary areas to advance this technology: cost reduction, accelerating the realization of
benefits, and increasing the benefits of additive manufacturing. Significant impact on these areas may
be achieved through reduction in the cost of additive manufacturing system utilization, material costs,
and facilitating the production of large products. There is also a need for a standardized model for
cost categorization and product quality and reliability testing.
Tuck, Christopher, Richard Hague, and Neil Burns. 2007. Rapid Manufacturing: Impact
on Supply Chain Methodologies and Practice. International Journal of Services and
Operations Management 3 (1): 122.
This paper demonstrates the use of Rapid Manufacturing (RM) as the enabling technology for flexible
manufacturing in a number of industrial sectors. This paper discusses the evolution of Rapid
Prototyping (RP) to RM and the current issues that require further research for the successful
integration of this technology within manufacturing companies. The use of RM will have particular
impact on supply chain management paradigms such as lean and agile and has particular strategic fit
with mass customisation. The effect of RM will have on these paradigms is discussed and confirmed
with example cases from automotive production, motor sport and medical devices industries. In
conclusion, RM has already been shown in the three cases to offer benefits, particularly where fast
reconfiguration of the manufacturing process is required and with the production of customised
components.
University of San Francisco. Walmart: Keys to Successful Supply Chain Management.

<http://www.usanfranonline.com/resources/supply-chain-management/walmart-keys-tosuccessful-supply-chain-management/#.U5IDQfldXzg>
Vasquez, Mike. 2009. Economic and Technological Advantages of Using High Speed
Sintering as a Rapid Manufacturing Alternative in Footwear Applications.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Rapid manufacturing is a family of technologies that employ additive layer deposition techniques to
construct parts from computer based design models.[2] These parts can then be used as prototypes or
finished goods. One type of rapid manufacturing technology, Selective Laser Sintering, only allows for
a point-by-point sintering process to construct the 3D representations of CAD models. This makes for
long processing periods and is ineffective for high volume manufacturing. However, a new process
called high-speed sintering uses infrared energy to 'flash' the polymer powder at multiple points
making the layer deposition process much more time efficient. In effect each infusion of energy results
in an entire layer being constructed rather than a single point. One of the first industrial applications
for this technique is in performance footwear manufacturing. New Balance, a Boston based shoe and
apparel company, in collaboration with Loughborough University has an interest in exploring the
technology for low volume parts manufacturing as well as personalized footwear. High speed sintering
has the potential to replace injection molding for specific footwear and non-footwear applications.
This technology has several key advantages over injection molding including the ability to build
complex geometries that would be impossible with injection molding. Also as the technology continues
to evolve new materials could improve the mechanical performance of finished parts. Nevertheless, as
with commercializing any new technology identifying a cost effective implementation route is a pivotal
step.(cont.) This project addressed this concern by thoroughly investigating the current and potential
state of high speed sintering. The manufacture of a New Balance shoe part using both high speed
sintering and injection molding was directly compared. Several factors including time to manufacture
and cost were investigated.
75
Verma, Anoop, and Rahul Rai. 2013. Energy Efficient Modeling and Optimization of
Additive Manufacturing Processes. In 24th Annual International Solid Freeform
Fabrication SymposiumAn Additive Manufacturing Conference, Austin/TX/USA. Austin,
TX.
Additive manufacturing (AM) is a leading technology in various industries including medical and
aerospace for prototype and functional part fabrication. Despite being environmentally conscious,
avenues pertaining to further reducing the impact of AM on the environment exist. Material wastage
and energy consumption are two major concerns of the process that requires immediate attention. In
this research, a multi-step optimization enabling additive manufacturing process towards energy
efficiency is developed. Process objectives such as material waste and energy consumption are
minimized both in part and layer domain. Numerous examples are presented to demonstrate the
applicability of the developed approach. The models formulated here for selective laser sintering (SLS)
process can be easily extended to other additive manufacturing technologies.
Walter, Manfred, Jan Holmstrm, H. Tuomi, and H. Yrjl. 2004. Rapid Manufacturing
and Its Impact on Supply Chain Management. In Proceedings of the Logistics Research
Network Annual Conference, 910.
Suppliers of spare parts suffer from high inventory and distribution costs in many industries. Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) have attempted to reduce these supply chain costs by cutting
production lead-times, batch constraints and delivery lead-times. The emphasis in supply chain
management has been towards increased inventory turnover.
Today, rapid manufacturing technologies the ability to produce parts on demand without the need
for tooling and setup has the potential to become the basis for new solutions in supply chain
management. This paper presents new supply chain solutions made possible by both the centralised
and decentralised applications of rapid manufacturing. A decision-support model is outlined to help
supply chain managers better capture emergent business opportunities arising from rapid
manufacturing technology.
The logistical problems of the spare parts business in the aircraft industry are used as an example due
to the high technical and logistical requirements involved. The applications and benefits of rapid
manufacturing technologies in the supply chain for aircraft spare parts are presented.
Wohlers, Terry. Wohlers Report 2012: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing State of
the Industry. Wohlers Associates, Inc. 2012.
Wohlers, Terry. Wohlers Report 2014: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing State of
the Industry. Wohlers Associates, Inc. 2014.
Young, Son K. A Cost Estimation Model for Advanced Manufacturing Systems.

International Journal of Production Research. 1991. 29(3): 441-452.
As manufacturers continue to automate their factories, they discover that existing cost measures
should be updated. Much of the existing literature has discussed the why's but there is little about the
how's. This paper expands the cost concept to include quality and flexibility because they are critical
factors for performance evaluation and project justification of advanced manufacturing systems. Then,
76
a quantitative method of estimating the cost elements is illustrated. Finally, various approaches to
collecting parametric values of the cost model and applications of the cost model are presented.
Zhai, Yun. 2012. Early Cost Estimation for Additive Manufacture. Cranfield
University.
Additive Manufacture (AM) is a novel manufacturing method; it is a process of forming components by
adding materials. Owing to material saving and manufacturing cost saving, more and more research
has been focused on metal AM technologies. WAAM is one AM technology, using arc as the heat
sources and wire as the material to create parts with weld beads on a layer-by-layer basis. The
process can produce components in a wide range of materials, including aluminum, titanium and steel.
High deposition rate, material saving and elimination of tooling cost are critical characteristics of the
process. Cost estimation is important for all companies. The estimated results can be used as a datum
to create a quote for customers or evaluate a quote from suppliers, an important consideration for the
application of WAAM is its cost effectiveness compared with traditional manufacture methods. The aim
of this research is to find a way to develop a cost estimating method capable of providing
manufacturing cost comparison of WAAM with CNC. A cost estimation model for CNC machining has
been developed. A process planning approach for WAAM was also defined as part of this research. An
Excel calculation spreadsheet was also built and it can be easily used to estimate and compare
manufacture cost of WAAM with CNC. Using the method developed in this research, the cost driver
analysis of WAAM has been made. The result shows that reduced material cost is the biggest cost
driver in WAAM. The cost comparison of WAAM and CNC also has been made and the results show
that with the increase of buy-to-fly ratio WAAM is more economical than CNC machining.
Zhang, Y, and A Bernard. 2014. Generic Build Time Estimation Model for Parts
Produced by SLS. In High Value Manufacturing: Advanced Research in Virtual and
Rapid Prototyping: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advanced
Research in Virtual and Rapid Prototyping, Leiria, Portugal, 1-5 October, 2013.
Rapid Prototyping (RP) has evolved into Additive Manufacturing (AM) and plays an important role in
numerous application domains. Cost and lead time of AM become significant factors affecting the
comparison between AM and other traditional processes. The accuracy of build time estimation
directly affects the cost estimation for AM production. This paper introduces an analytical method to
build time estimation for parts, which takes real AM production context that was usually neglected by
former models into consideration. To illustrate the proposed method, an analytical generic build time
estimation model is constructed for SLS process with a simple calculation example. The results reflect
the importance of production context for the build time estimation.
77

Costewrthj

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Costewrthj

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Costewrthj

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NIST Special Publication 1176

Costs and Cost Effectiveness of

This publication is available free of charge from:

NIST Special Publication 1176

Costs and Cost Effectiveness of

This publication is available free of charge from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

Keywords: Additive manufacturing; manufacturing; 3D printing; supply chain;

Cover Photographs Credits

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES, MATERIALS, AND LITERATURE ....................................... 5

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING COSTS AND BENEFITS ...................................................................... 11

COST MODELS AND COMPARISONS .............................................................................................. 27

IMPLEMENTATION AND ADOPTION OF ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING ........................................... 39

TWO MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING COST MODELING ............................................ 27

ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING AND FIRM CAPABILITIES ................................................................................. 39

Economist. Printing Body Parts: Making a Bit of Me. <http://www.economist.com/node/15543683>

Relevant NAICS Codes

NAICS 3361, 3362, 3363

1.3 Scope and Approach

2 Additive Manufacturing Processes, Materials, and

Table 2.1: Additive Manufacturing Process and Material Combinations

Polymers and polymer blends

2.3 Cost Literature

to determine under what circumstances additive manufacturing is cost effective. The

Table 2.2: Literature on the Costs of Additive Manufacturing

Powder bed fusion

T.A. Grimm (2010)*

Ruffo, Tuck, and Hague

Khajavi et al. (2014)

Table 2.3: Literature on the Build Time of Additive Manufacturing

Powder bed fusion

Choi and Samavedam

Sand molds and

Table 2.4: Literature on the Energy Consumption of Additive Manufacturing

Powder bed fusion

Sreenivasan et al. (2009);

Baumers et al. (2012);

Sand molds and

3 Additive Manufacturing Costs and Benefits

3.1 Ill-Structured Costs

Figure 3.1: Example of Traditional Manufacturing Flow

3.2 Well-Structured Costs

Building process fix

Cost per assembly ()

Machine operator cost per part

Material cost per part

Machine cost per part

Assembly cost per part

Mold cost per part

Labor Costs Machine Costs

Table 3.1: Cost Breakout, Hopkinson and Dickens (2003)

Number per platform

Figure 3.5: Cost Breakout, Hopkinson and Dickens (2003)

Cost per Part ()

Labor cost per part ()

Material cost per part ()

Machine cost per part ()

Figure 3.6: Cost Comparison for Selective Laser Sintering

Material cost per part ()