CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 22Additive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesTopology Optimization in EngineeringAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies

Cost Minimization in Metal Additive Manufacturing Using Concurrent Structure and Process Optimization

Huang, Runze, Ulu, Erva, Kara, Levent Burak, Whitefoot, Kate S.·2017·Volume 2A: 43rd Design Automation Conference
DOI 10.1115/detc2017-67836
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Metals-additive manufacturing (MAM) is enabling unprecedented design freedom and the ability to produce significantly lighter weight parts with the same performance, offering the possibility of significant environmental and economic benefits in many different industries. However, the total production costs of MAM will need to be reduced substantially before it will be widely adopted across the manufacturing sector. Current topology optimization approaches focus on reducing total material volume as a means of reducing material costs, but they do not account for other production costs that are influenced by a part’s structure such as machine time and scrap. Moreover, concurrently optimizing MAM process variables with a part’s structure has the potential to further reduce production costs. This paper demonstrates an approach to use process-based cost modeling in MAM topology optimization to minimize total production costs, including material, labor, energy, and machine costs, using cost estimates from actual MAM operations. The approach is demonstrated in a simple case study of a Ti64 cantilever produced with electron beam melting (EBM). Results of a concurrent optimization of the part structure and EBM process variables are compared to an optimization of the part structure alone. The results show that, once process variables are considered, it is more cost effective to include more material in the part through a combination of (1) building additional thin trusses with a faster laser speed and (2) increasing the thickness of other truss members and decreasing laser velocity to create larger melt pools that reduce the number of passes required, thereby reducing build time. Concurrent optimization of the part’s structure and MAM process parameters leads to 7% lower estimated total production costs and approximately 50% faster build time than optimizing the part’s structure alone.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1115/detc2017-67836

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Huang, R., Ulu, E., Kara, L. B., & Whitefoot, K. S.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Volume 2A: 43rd Design Automation Conference
Publisher
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Published
2017-08-06
DOI
10.1115/detc2017-67836
OpenAlex
W2765567366
Cited by
22
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
5.79
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Additive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Topology Optimization in Engineering
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Keywords
metal additive manufacturing, topology optimization, production cost minimization, electron beam melting, Ti64, process parameter optimization, laser speed, melt pool size, build time reduction, truss structures, cost modeling

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