The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of traditional manufacturing vs additive manufacturing, the best method for the job
Open accessAbstract
Manufacturing industries and investors are always seeking to improve techniques to lower cost, energy and expand their capability. Additive manufacturing, started in the 1960s, has since had a rapid and continuous growth, bringing to light novel techniques to expand manufacturing capability and reinvent the wheel. At this stage, research and industry interest lie in determining where AM can replace or create new manufacturing systems. Traditional manufacturing refers to subtractive and long-established manufacturing methods, quality assured and implemented in the commercial space. This paper reviews the capability of AM and its current development to compete or add to established traditional manufacturing regions. Literature reveals the capability of AM to fit into established manufacturing regions for low and high production volume products. The paper comparison focuses on the similarities, differences, advantages and disadvantages found in AM vs SM studying the economic and quality management status of the industry today.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Metal Additive Manufacturing: A Review
Frazier, W. E. (2014) · Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance · doi:10.1007/s11665-014-0958-z · Cited by 5,984
The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering
Gao, W., Zhang, Y., Ramanujan, D., Ramani, K., Chen, Y., Williams, C. B., Wang, C. C. L., Shin, Y. C., Zhang, S., & Zavattieri, P. D. (2015) · Computer-Aided Design · doi:10.1016/j.cad.2015.04.001 · Cited by 2,631
3-D printing: The new industrial revolution
Berman, B. (2012) · Business Horizons · doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.003 · Cited by 2,481
Additive manufacturing and its societal impact: a literature review
Huang, S. H., Liu, P., Mokasdar, A., & Hou, L. (2013) · The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology · doi:10.1007/s00170-012-4558-5 · Cited by 1,862
Manufacturing engineering and technology
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-5145 · Cited by 1,595
Mass customization: Literature review and research directions
Da Silveira, G., Borenstein, D., & Fogliatto, F. S. (2001) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/s0925-5273(00)00079-7 · Cited by 1,311
Levy, G. N., Schindel, R., & Kruth, J. P. (2003) · CIRP Annals · doi:10.1016/s0007-8506(07)60206-6 · Cited by 1,121
Medical Applications for 3D Printing: Current and Projected Uses.
Ventola, C. L. (2014) · PubMed Central · Cited by 920
Making sense of 3-D printing: Creating a map of additive manufacturing products and services
Conner, B. P., Manogharan, G. P., Martof, A. N., Rodomsky, L. M., Rodomsky, C. M., Jordan, D. C., & Limperos, J. W. (2014) · Additive Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.addma.2014.08.005 · Cited by 750
Making mass customization work
Pine, B. J., & Victor, B. I. (1993) · Harvard business review · Cited by 722
Cited by
Study on Geometry, Dimensional Accuracy and Structure of Parts Produced by Multi Jet Fusion
Adach, M., Sokołowski, P., Piwowarczyk, T., & Nowak, K. (2021) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma14164510 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Pereira, T., Kennedy, J. V., & Potgieter, J.
- Venue
- Procedia Manufacturing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 30
- Pages
- 11-18
- ISSN
- 2351-9789 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2942343496
- Cited by
- 523
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 15.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of traditional manufacturing vs additive manufacturing, the best method for the job. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.003
- The paper
- Pereira, T., Kennedy, J. V., & Potgieter, J. (2019). A comparison of traditional manufacturing vs additive manufacturing, the best method for the job. Procedia Manufacturing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
