Additive Manufacturing: New Trends

in the 4th Industrial Revolution

Luigi M. Galantucci(&), Maria Grazia Guerra, Michele Dassisti,

and Fulvio Lavecchia

Dipartimento di Meccanica, Matematica e Management, Politecnico di Bari,

70126 Bari, Italy
[email protected]

Abstract. Among the enabling technologies of the fourth industrial revolution,

additive manufacturing (AM) is considered as a key factor for the success of the
new production paradigm.
In this paper, the role of the AM technologies in the new scenery will be
pointed out, focusing the attention on those factors enacting its success and its
widespread diffusion among the most important companies of the main indus-
trial sectors. These factors are mainly attributable to new materials of every
kind, from polymers to metals passing from the composites, as well as, new
processes, which open the possibility to reach new markets. The most relevant
innovations will be reported, especially those related to the industrial imple-
mentation of AM. The issues related to the metrology of the additive manu-
facturing products and the sustainability of these manufacturing processes will
be also described highlighting the main criticalities.

Keywords: Additive manufacturing
3D printing
Industry 4.0

AM processes
Materials
Additive repairing
Metrology
Sustainability

1 Introduction to the New Concept of Additive

Manufacturing

According to its definition, Industry 4.0 involves a set of technological advances

having a high impact in the current industrial landscape [1], leading to a strong inte-
gration of the industrial manufacturing with digital technologies.
The involvement of the additive manufacturing as an enabling factor of the Industry
4.0, changed the role of these technologies within the production scenery. In the
Factory 4.0 ecosystem, AM plays an important role inside the Advanced Manufac-
turing Systems (Fig. 1) [2].
Most of companies are already adopting AM techniques for the development of
prototypes, or for producing customized components. The costs of additive manufac-
turing decreased during the last years and, contemporary, speed and precision grew
up. In practical words, this allows the design and the fabrication of more complex,
stronger, lightweight geometries and, consequently, the application of additive man-
ufacturing to higher quantities of products.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

L. Monostori et al. (Eds.): AMP 2019, LNME, pp. 153–169, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18180-2_12
154 L. M. Galantucci et al.

Fig. 1. The factory 4.0 ecosystem – a set of technologies about to interconnect and disrupt plant
operations [2]. Source: https://www.rolandberger.com/ [2]

On the other hand, it is widely accepted the fact that AM is more suitable to high
value low volume products. Thus, the role of AM in the fourth industrial revolution is
not about replacing conventional mass manufacturing of large parts, which can exploit
the large-scale economies, but it is rather a matter of making shapes and products,
which are not either possible or cost-effective to manufacture through conventional
manufacturing techniques. More interesting is the mass customization of low volume
components, which can reach scale economies.
The concurrent development of hardware, software [3] and the intense research for
adopting new materials, from polymers, metals to ceramics and composites has been
key of success of AM technologies, so that multi-material components [4] become
possible, broadening the application fields [5, 6]. Currently, the aerospace, the auto-
motive, the biomedical and digital architectural design are the industrial sectors with
the greatest interests towards AM processes. These industrial sectors are, indeed,
particularly inclined to customization of products, as well as, the direct fabrication of
functional end-use products, which are other fundamental driving forces and trends of
AM processes. These are the real promises of AM, which have been enthusiastically
welcomed by some of the world’s biggest manufacturers, such as Airbus, Boeing, GE,
Ford and Siemens. Aerospace companies are already using additive manufacturing to
apply new designs that reduce aircraft weight, lowering their expenses for raw mate-
rials such as titanium alloys. Recently, the American giant GE acquired the european
additive manufacturing companies, Concept Laser GmbH and the Arcam AB, for 1.5$
billions to create a new business unit and print aircrafts and other components [7].
Another application in the aerospace field is about the repairing of damaged parts,
conducted through additive processes, which has many advantages in terms of time
needed, materials and costs. Moreover, from a logistic and economic point of view,
high-performance, decentralized additive manufacturing systems will reduce transport
distances and stock on hand.
 Additive Manufacturing: New Trends in the 4th Industrial Revolution 155

According to the Wolhers Report 2018, the growth of AM industry in 2017 was
about the 21% and the total estimate of $7.336 billion excludes internal investments of
both, large and small companies. Great investments are registered for R&D (Research
and Development) [8]. The growth in metal AM sales was exponential (about 875%) in
the past five years, whose, the 220% of growth, considering just the past two years.
According to this research, there are now 135 companies around the globe producing
industrial AM systems [9].
Another important datum is related to the origin of the machines sold in 2017: out
of 202 machines, 82 were not produced by the leading companies [10].

2 The Latest Innovation About Additive Manufacturing

One of the greatest advantages of the AM techniques is the large variety of materials
available. They are mainly grouped as polymers, metals, ceramics and composites
materials in different states: liquid, filament or paste, powder and solid sheets [11].
According to the ISO/ASTM classification [12], the latest technologies available
were investigated with the industrial cases.

2.1 Vat Photopolymerization

The leading company of the Vat Photopolymerization processes is the 3D Systems,
although there are several newly developed technologies.
Among others, the CLIP (Continuous Liquid Interface) [13–16] process emerged as
one of the most promising technology and it was developed by the Carbon 3D
company [17] placed in the US. The Carbon 3D slogan says: “Stop prototyping. Start
producing” and it represent exactly the expectation about the AM during the fourth
industrial revolution. The CLIP technology (Fig. 2), uses digital light projection,
oxygen permeable optics, and programmable liquid resins to produce parts. Instead of
printing a layer-by-layer object, which leads to extremely slow speed, this technique
uses light together with oxygen as an inhibiting agent, creating a solid and clean
structure at surprising speeds.

Fig. 2. Image of continuous liquid interface production (CLIP) process. Source: https://www.
carbon3d.com/ [17]
156 L. M. Galantucci et al.

A CLIP device is similar to a DLP device without a tiltable vat and instead with a
UV and a special membrane similar to contact lenses, permeable to oxygen and
transparent to UV [18].
Oxygen concentration at the bottom of the vat is thus sufficiently high to create a
“dead zone” where radical polymerization does not occur. By regulating the flow of
oxygen, through the membrane, dead zones are created, which cannot be cured by the
UV light. The software adjusts the process, with a constant control of the chemical
reactions, the heat distribution and the build-up stress, following the shape and size of
the object, which then grows and emerges from the polymer liquid in a continuous and
incredibly precise way. The main advantage of this technique is linked to the printing
time, which is between 25 and 100 times lower than the main competitors. The
mechanical properties, resolution, and surface finish are comparable with injection-
moulded products. Looking at the needs of customers like BMW Group and General
Electric, Speedcell, defined as a production unit, is a direct response: “For our cus-
tomers, this means that their product development cycles no longer need to include the
antiquated stages of the production process that include design, prototyping, tools, and
therefore production. Now products can be designed and built on a platform that is also
production, eliminating prototyping and intermediate parts such as the production of
special tools” [17]. The Speedcell includes two brand new hardware components, a part
washer, allowing optimal cleaning and simplified finishing of the parts and the new M2
3D Printer, with 189 mm  118 mm  326 mm of working volume. The materials
are polymers: polyurethane for medical use, elastomeric polyurethane [19], epoxy,
rigid polyurethane, flexi polyurethane.
Among the Carbon 3D industrial applications, the Adidas case has become one of
the most representative of the potential of this technology, with the Adidas Futurecraft
3D, exploiting the capability of this technology to produce very complex lattice
structure. Generally, the midsole has different lattice structures in the heel and forefoot,
to account for different cushioning needs while running.
Another example of an ultra-rapid 3D printer exploiting the SLA principle is the
NewPro 3D, whose technology is named ILI (Intelligent Liquid Interface) [20]. This
main advance consists of a transparent wettable membrane between the photo-curing
resin and the light source, chemically designed to enable faster movement between
cured layers.
Very recently, the Michigan University developed a new SLA technology up to
100 faster than conventional printing approaches [21]. This method solidifies the
liquid resin using different light wavelengths, to control where the resin hardens and
where it stays fluid. The key of success lies in the chemistry of the resin. In conven-
tional systems, there is only one reaction. A photoactivator hardens the resin wherever
light hits it. In the Michigan system, there is also a photoinhibitor, which responds to a
different wavelength of light. Rather than barely controlling solidification in a 2D
plane, as current vat-printing techniques do, the new 3D printer can harden the resin at
any 3D place near the illumination window. The Michigan University team has sent
three patent applications to protect the multiple inventive aspects of the approach, and
they are going to launch a start-up company.
 Additive Manufacturing: New Trends in the 4th Industrial Revolution 157

2.2 Binder Jetting

Material jetting technologies are also improving their characteristics. Among others,
HP developed the JET Fusion for the 3D printing of PA and the realization of full
coloured functional parts. The 3D print bar has 30,000 nozzles spraying 350 million
drops per second [22]. Comparing the JET Fusion technology process with a powder
based process like Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), it is much faster, see Fig. 3. The
first printing material used was nylon but the roadmap includes metals, plastics, and
ceramics. In particular, metals indeed implied in the HP Metal Jet for the production of
high volumes of parts, even large parts, with a binder jetting build size of
430  320  200 mm and HP voxel-level 1200  1200 dpi of resolution [23].

Fig. 3. Jet fusion vs powder based fusion. Source: https://www8.hp.com/us/en/printers/3d-

printers.html

2.3 Powder-Bed-Fusion
Powder-based processes involves the use of polymers, composites, ceramics or metals.
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), Selective Laser Melting (SLM) are examples of
powder-bed fusion processes. The leading company of powder-based processes is the
German EOS. Among others, the EOS P500 for laser sintering of plastic parts, reduces
cost-per-part by more than 30%, processes polymer materials at operating temperatures
of up to 300 °C, enabling maximum material flexibility and putting this machine on the
industrial scale. The EOS P 800 is the world’s first laser sintering system for the AM of
high-performance plastic products at the necessary high process temperatures (up to
385 °C), exploiting the HTLS principle (High-Temperature Laser Sintering). During
the production process, the integrated Online Laser Power Control module (OLPC)
continuously monitors laser performance, ensuring reproducible and optimized results
on the components. The other version, EOS P 810, is mostly suitable for serial pro-
duction of composite components.
158 L. M. Galantucci et al.

Among the new processes, it is of great interest the new High Speed Sintering
(HSS) [24], developed by the University of Loughborough in UK (UK patent
No. 0317387.9). According to a study conducted in 2000, the SLS was considered able
to produce small components up to 14,000 more economically than injection moulding
[25], although, it was not implied as a high volume manufacturing technique. The most
affecting cost item, indeed, is the machine cost, which is dictated by the cost of the
equipment required for manufacture and the speed of production achieved. Differently
from the SLS, the HSS process involves the sintering of 2D profiles of layers of powder
without the need for a laser, but using an infrared source. The sintering can take place
thanks to the addition of a secondary material to promote energy absorbance in the
selected areas, such as carbon black. The material used is mostly nylon (Duraform
Nylon 12) and the main advantage of this technology is the speed of the process, 10 to
100 faster than current industrial 3D printing processes and with the potential to
produce up to 100,000 parts a day [26]. HSS is now able to compete on price and speed
with high volume injection moulding, without the associated design limitations.
For the production of metal components using DLMS (Direct Metal Laser Sin-
tering), EOS offers a comprehensive selection of metal powders ranging from alu-
minium, steel, as well as, titanium, nickel and cobalt chrome alloys. This allows the
manufacturing of highly customized products. The new series M300 for metal additive
manufacturing is a result of the cooperation with Siemens, including Siemens control
and drive components from the Totally Integrated Automation (TIA) portfolio. The 3D
systems launched the DMP Factory 500 Solution [27], comprising function-specific
modules designed to maximize the efficiency. Each module within the factory solution
is fully integrated with a Removable Print Module (RPM), for a controlled print
environment, and designed to move between printer and powder modules without
interrupting the production workflow. Powder Management Modules (PMMs) are
designed to efficiently recycle the unused powder and to prepare the RPM for the next
build. Besides, the EOS, new companies emerged on the market.
Among these, Renishaw [29] launched an ultra-high productivity multi-laser AM
system, the RenAM 500Q, featuring four high-power 500 W lasers accessing the
powder bed simultaneously, with a significant improvement in productivity and cost
per part (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4. Conventional machining vs additive manufacturing. Source: https://www.pma.org/apsc/

assets/presentations/Skulan.pdf [28]
 Additive Manufacturing: New Trends in the 4th Industrial Revolution 159

2.4 Material Extrusion

Stratasys is the leading company in FDM based techniques. Among the new machi-
nes, it can be mentioned the new series Carbon Fiber Edition, which prints with FDM
Nylon 12 Carbon Fiber and Acrylonitrile Styrene Acrylate (ASA) [30].
The Metal X series machines, launched by the Markforged company, exploits the
Atomic Diffusion Additive Manufacturing (ADAM) technology [31], which prints
metal powder bound in a plastic matrix. ADAM is an end-to-end process based on
powder captured in a plastic binder (which makes it safe to handle), which gives the
part shape one layer at a time (Fig. 5). The sinterization takes place in a furnace,
burning off the binder and solidifying the powder into the final fully-dense (99.7%)
metal part. The materials adopted are 17-4 PH Stainless Steel (launch material), and
other materials in beta testing, such as Tool Steel (H13, A2, D2), Titanium Ti6Al4 V,
Inconel (IN) 625, Copper, Aluminum (6061, 7075). The turning point, which add
further value on the Markforged products, is the comprehensive cloud-based fleet
management solution called Eiger. There are thousands of Markforged printers pro-
ducing parts all over the world, like a distributed farm. Among them, the 20% are used
in operations to manufacture sample parts: about 6.5 k parts per month. Moreover, it is
up to 10 less expensive than alternative metal additive manufacturing technologies
and up to a 100 less than traditional fabrication technologies like machining or
casting [32].

Fig. 5. Description of ADAM process steps. Source: https://markforged.com/metal-x/ [32]

Markforged company, generally, produces FFF machines for both, composites and
metals. Among composites, the Onyx, is 40% stiffer than ABS and it can be printed on
its own or reinforced with continuous fibers. Carbon fiber can also be printed and it is
strong enough to replace aluminum at half the weight for end-use parts. Fiberglass is
used to print parts that are an order of magnitude stiffer than typical 3D printed objects
at a more affordable price [33]. Respect to the simple fiberglass, the HSHT fiberglass
features a higher impact resistance and Heat Deflection Temperature (HDT). Kevlar, a
low density and highly durable material, is also used. Besides metal powders bounded
in a plastic matrix, Markforged produce also the FFF machines for metal extrusion.
Materials for the extrusion are 17-4 PH Stainless Steel, widely used in the
160 L. M. Galantucci et al.

manufacturing, aerospace, petroleum, and medical industries (if heat treated, it has an
ultimate tensile strength of 1250 MPa and a Rockwell Hardness of 36 HRC) and H13
Tool Steel, a material optimized for high temperature (if heat treated, it can reach a
Rockwell hardness of 46–50 and an ultimate tensile strength of 1500 MPa) and wear
applications (moulds, wear inserts) [33].
Another company dedicated to material extrusion is the Italian Roboze [35], spe-
cialized in 3D printing of PEEK. Patented mechatronic movements in x and y make
Roboze 3D printers some of the most accurate FFF 3D printing systems, ensuring
mechanical repeatability and high precision for production of small batches and on-
demand products. The Roboze feature a Beltless System™ with 0.025 mm of
mechanical accuracy. The ARGO 500 (Fig. 6), mounting the (High Viscosity Poly-
mers) HVP extruder, designed and manufactured by Roboze, reaches temperatures up
to 550 °C, which allows the extrusion of high viscosity polymers, such as Car-
bon PEEK, PEEK and ULTEM ™ AM9085F. The controlled printing environment
played also an important role: it is thermostatic, dehumidified and capable of reaching
180 °C, to offset the deformation of thermoplastic materials, particularly those with
large dimensions and to ensure perfect adhesion to the build plate. Argo 500 is
equipped with a vacuum plate system that simplifies and speeds up the printing pro-
cess. Considering all the machine models, Roboze CARBON PEEK adds extra thermal
stability and rigidity to the simple PEEK.

Fig. 6. ARGO500 produced by Roboze. Source: https://3dprint.com/194165/roboze-argo-500-

3d-printer/ [34]

The addition of specially selected Carbon Fibers improve mechanical properties of

the material and increase its HDT maintaining its properties even at a higher temper-
ature. Moreover, the Carbon PA, Polyamide reinforced with 20% carbon fibers, rep-
resents an eco-friendly, safety solution (for its weight reduction and metal
replacement). Functional-Nylon, ABS-ESD and other 3 advanced materials leads to the
highest level of versatility. Applications of these machines are reported in [36–38].
 Additive Manufacturing: New Trends in the 4th Industrial Revolution 161

A preliminary study was conducted in [39] for assessing the feasibility of realizing
a low-cost AM system which is a hybrid between a fused filament fabrication 3D
printer, derived from an open-source project, and a 2D commercial inkjet printer with
the aim to obtain fully coloured AM parts. The very revolution of this printer is its
capability of incorporate electronic components in the final product.

3 Additive Repairing of Aerospace Components

A very interesting application of AM is the repairing of damaged parts, arising from its
integration with reverse engineering processes [40]. The additive repairing is defined as
the set of additive technologies that allow to repair parts by adding material selectively
in the damaged areas. The currently available manual repairing processes are time and
labour intensive and produce inconsistent quality. The automation of such recovery
processes of worn parts is of significant importance to meet the stringent quality
requirements [41]. Ever more attention, indeed, is paid to the life cycle of the products,
and it is preferable to repair damaged parts, especially when it is difficult or expensive
to produce them, both from an economic and environmental point of view. The Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) on the energy and environmental impacts showed that, when
the repair volume is 10% (1.56 kg), there is at least a 45% carbon footprint
improvement and a 36% saving in total energy respect to replacing the part with a new
one [42]. The repair of worn parts is of great interest for aerospace industries to extend
the life cycle of aerospace parts [43]. In [42] Wilson et al. demonstrated the effec-
tiveness of laser-direct deposition in repairing defective voids in two turbine airfoils
based on a new semi-automated geometric algorithm. In [44] Xue et al. investigated the
feasibility of repairing fretting damaged RR501 K fuel injectors using laser cladding of
L-605 alloy powder. Although, it is of paramount importance for the success of the
repairing process, the integration with reverse engineering, which consists of acquiring
the 3D dimensions of the damaged area, in order to compare it with the original model,
defining the deposition paths of the material where it is necessary and, finally, checking
the success of deposition process. Based on the scanned repair model with different
defects, a reverse engineering (RE)-based geometry reconstruction method was pro-
posed and developed in [43] for the nominal geometry reconstruction of a worn blade.
In [45] Heralić et al. developed and integrated with the robot control system a 3D
scanning system for automatic in-process control of the deposition. 3D digitization
systems are usually adopted to acquire a worn part’s geometry in the format of
polygonal mesh. Then identification and positioning of the part’s damaged area can be
achieved by comparing the nominal CAD model with the 3D model of the defective
part surface [41]. Non-contact techniques, and particularly optical measuring tech-
niques, are suitable for this kind of applications, because they have the unique capa-
bility of acquiring the 3D model of the entire damaged area in far shorter time than
CMMs. The surface geometry of the worn part can be scanned and digitized into a set
of point clouds by using various 3D optical scanning systems [41, 43–46].
In this context, in 2016, GE Avio and the Politecnico di Bari opened a facility in
Bari, called Apulia Repair Development Centre for Additive Repairs, which is inside
the repair research laboratory network of GE Avio, joining different expertise with the
162 L. M. Galantucci et al.

Fig. 7. Cold spray developed by GE Avio. Source: https://www.ge.com/reports/secret-weapon-

supersonic-blaster-rebuilds-jet-parts-flying-powder/ [47]

aim to develop innovative repairing procedures for aerospace engines based on the
laser deposition and cold spray (reference lab for GE repair in the world - Fig. 7),
involving components such as, the GE90, mounted on the Boeing 777 and the GEnx
mounted on the 787 Dreamliner and the 747-8.

4 Metrology of AM Parts

The great advantages connected to the implementation of AM systems, e.g. the real-
ization of complex and unconventional shapes, as well as the possibility to use different
materials at the same time, pose some unsolved issues, which can be summarized in
one thing: the need for quality assurance after production. The quality assurance
encompasses the concept of dimensional metrology and material verification.
Regarding the dimensional metrology, there are, currently, different approaches com-
prising in-situ [48], inside the building chamber, ex-situ and offline, to indicate the
measurement outside the chamber. The metrology of AM parts is of paramount
importance, when considering AM products as final products and not just prototypes.
The possibility to ascertain the functional properties, shape and dimensional tolerances
represents a conditio-sine-qua-non when answering the market request for reliable AM-
built parts. Considering just the off-line techniques, contact-measuring systems, such as
CMMs (Coordinate Measuring Machines), are not suitable for inspecting complex
shapes and they are limited by the accessibility of some surfaces. Non-contact tech-
niques are more suitable and they are divided into optical and x-ray based systems.
Optical systems are widely used for complex geometries, such as free-form geometries
with cooperative surface characteristics and they are potentially suitable for such
verifications [49, 50]. Although, when measuring polymers, widely adopted in AM,
there are issues related to the translucency of these materials and they have to be
 Additive Manufacturing: New Trends in the 4th Industrial Revolution 163

considered [51]. In [52] a photogrammetry-based technique was used as measuring tool

for AM micro-fluidic devices with challenging surface texture (visible and tactile)
characteristics. The measurement of polymers is successfully done by x-ray based
computed tomography, thanks to the low density of such materials. Differently from
CMMs, when adopting non-contact measuring systems, it is not easy to assign a
geometrical tolerance (ISO 1101:2017), to a freeform shape and connect this to its
function and manufacturability [53], since proper specifications systems, as defined in
ISO 1101, has not been developed for complex freeform shapes. The poor surface
finish represents a great limitation in dimensional verification when considering the
form error and the measurement uncertainty is greatly affected by this component.
Thus, post-processing operations are generally required [54–56]. Moreover, the
material quality of AM parts must be inspected, especially when dealing with powder-
based process of metals, e.g. in terms of undesirable grain characteristics and unex-
pected porosity, as well as internal features, such as internal channels. Considering the
material quality check and the presence of internal feature, computed tomography
(CT) results to be the most suitable non-destructive measuring technique [57], which
allows simultaneously the dimensional verification of the external and internal shapes,
as well as, the porosity and material’s defects check. The CT scanning systems are also
suitable for verifying assembled structures, which are easily realized by AM processes.

5 Sustainability

Sustainability of AM technologies represent a critical issue to be take into account if we

wish the outcomes of this revolution to be long-lasting and affordable to our civilized
societies. Additive manufacturing technologies, depending on the specific technology,
are typically seen as “cleaner” and they allow to fulfill the “Reduce” sustainability
principle either in terms of resource or pollution, as follows: allow the manufacturing
processes to consume the exact amount of material commanded (contrary to conven-
tional machining which produces waste material); reduce manufacturing efforts by
simplifying assembly processes [58]; allow savings and opportunities in using new
recycled materials [59]; use less energy intensive manufacturing processes; allow
eliminate the use of harmful ancillary process enablers [60]; less harmful materials
[61]; potential to completely eliminate supply chain operations associated with the
production of new tooling [60], the same for spare parts [62]; allow savings in the
supply chain, say due to production close to use places due to regional and delocalized
characteristics (which may be sometime less efficient [63]; reduction in weight of
transport-related products [60], reducing inventory wastes [62], reduction in quality
problems due to product simplification [62], saving opportunities and new businesses
in Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul [60]). Another sustainability principle addressed
by additive manufacturing technologies is Redesign: they allow increase design free-
dom, with potential design-for-maintenance features to prolong life of products [62]
(i.e., durability due to repairing, remanufacturing and reuse possibilities, also called
“design for longevity” [63]), parts with superior energy consumption in service due to
innovative functions embedded (e.g. cooling channels, gas flow paths [60], etc.).
164 L. M. Galantucci et al.

Tipical sustainability assessment of AM consider many factors such as primary and

secondary materials, product life-cycle [64, 65], quantification of environmental impact
limited to the production setting, focusing on criteria related to the sustainability of
manufacturing process, such as: standby and in-process energy consumption [kWh/kg]
[65–68] which typically is proportional to machining time, the cooling-heating pro-
cesses, the part geometry [65], the warm-up and cool-down procedures upon discretion
of operator, that may also be dependent on job type (say process rate, process effi-
ciency, productivity, etc.) [67]; material waste or scraps flows [kg]; emissions gener-
ated during production. The usage profile of the additive machines is critical to the
assessment but rarely performed [65].
Other more interesting issues should also be added to the sustainability analysis of
AM technologies, in a cradle-to-cradle perspective, such as: product supply chain
issues such as transportation related measures (energy consumption [kWh], pollution
[land usage, toxicity, climate change]); product usage impacts in terms of energy in-use
energy consumed; product’s end-of-life issues in terms of energy, recycling rates,
disposal costs, pollutions; tooling supply chain [65]; machine tool life cycle [65];
manufacturing system reconfiguration, which may lead to better capital use [59];
societal impacts – positive: say, for instance, potentials of creating new businesses by
creating value to customers adding services to products [62], or from opportunities
from circular economy [63]; societal impacts – negative: health problems (say,
potential toxicity, environmental hazards, and chemical degradability of solvents used
for their removal still remains a topic [69]); counterintuitive negative effects may
appear, such as disposable products use habits against traditional long-lasting products
(say printable wheel chain, etc.).
According to the above, studies performed with an accurate profile shows that the
common belief of “cleanness” of additive technologies, which one of the sustainability
pillar, is not always assured tout court [65]. The same is for cost effectiveness (the other
sustainability pillar), where AM technologies proved to be cost effective only for
manufacturing small batches with continued centralized manufacturing [70]: with the
increasing automation the distributed production based on AM may become cost
effective in the next future. Another point is that it is not yet clear whether many
applications of 3D printing exhibit an absence of scale economies resulting from the
present indivisibility of manufacturing tooling [63].
New issues are emerging on sustainability of AM technologies, which can add new
perspectives to the discussion about the sustainability of this manufacturing paradigm.
The new idea of Design for Sustainable Additive Manufacturing [71], allowing to
minimize the whole flux consumption (electricity, material and fluids) during manu-
facturing steps. Also, new opportunities of changing the way of working are appearing,
provided AM allows end-users to have a feasible and more sustainable alternative when
maintaining, repairing, overhauling or replacing components and spare parts [60].
 Additive Manufacturing: New Trends in the 4th Industrial Revolution 165

6 Conclusions

From their beginning, AM technologies have greatly changed their role within the
manufacturing scenery. The newly developed AM machines demonstrated their
capabilities to enter the market not just for the fabrication of prototypes but for the
manufacturing of final products. The main factor is related to the needs for highly
customized products in many fields, such as biomedical, automotive and aerospace.
The AM process are becoming ever faster and the rising of new rapid technologies
is in rapid increase. AM is an enabling technology for the Factory of Future I4.0 within
the Digital Manufacturing paradigm. Another successful application regards the
additive repairing of aerospace components. The high-volume production is also
possible with some kinds of technologies. The industrial world is rapidly changing and
the AM is going to remain one of the leading factor.

References
1. Pereira, A.C., Romero, F.: A review of the meanings and the implications of the Industry 4.0
concept. Procedia Manuf. 13, 1206–1214 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.
032
2. Hosseini, M.: What will the future look like under Industry 4.0 and digital transformation in
the healthcare space ? (2015). https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/
roland_berger_digital_transformation_in_healthcare_20150421.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2019
3. Galantucci, L.M., Lavecchia, F.: Direct digital manufacturing of ABS parts: an experimental
study on effectiveness of proprietary software for shrinkage compensation. Int. J. Digit.
Content Technol. Its Appl. 6, 546–555 (2012). https://doi.org/10.4156/jdcta.vol6.issue19.66
4. Thompson, M.K., Moroni, G., Vaneker, T., Fadel, G., Campbell, R.I., Gibson, I., Bernard,
A., Schulz, J., Graf, P., Ahuja, B., Martina, F.: Design for additive manufacturing: trends,
opportunities, considerations, and constraints. CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 65, 737–760
(2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2016.05.004
5. Guo, N., Leu, M.C.: Additive manufacturing: technology, applications and research needs.
Front. Mech. Eng. 8, 215–243 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-013-0248-8
6. Wong, K.V., Hernandez, A.: A review of additive manufacturing. ISRN Mech. Eng. 2012,
1–10 (2012). https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/208760
7. Michaels, D.: Europe Leads as Industrial 3-D Printing Takes Shape (2018). https://www.wsj.
com/articles/europe-leads-as-industrial-3-d-printing-takes-shape-1493976603. Accessed 23
Jan 2019
8. McCue, T.J.: Wohlers Report 2018: 3D Printer Industry Tops $7 Billion (2018). https://
www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2018/06/04/wohlers-report-2018-3d-printer-industry-rises-21
-percent-to-over-7-billion/#2aca53b2d1a4. Accessed 23 Jan 2019
9. Goldense, B.L.: Metal AM: Metal Additive Manufacturing Hits Critical Mass (2018). https://
www.machinedesign.com/3d-printing/metal-am-metal-additive-manufacturing-hits-critical-
mass. Accessed 22 Jan 2019
10. McCue, T.J.: On Growth Path With Almost $3 Billion In Revenue (2018). https://www.
forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2018/08/30/3d-printing-service-bureaus-on-growth-path-with-almo
st-3-billion-in-revenue/#24fdad2d8d59. Accessed 23 Jan 2019
166 L. M. Galantucci et al.

11. Bourell, D., Pierre, J., Leu, M., Levy, G., Rosen, D., Beese, A.M., Clare, A.: Materials for
additive manufacturing. CIRP Ann. - Manuf. Technol. 66, 659–681 (2017). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cirp.2017.05.009
12. ISO/ASTM Standard 5290, Standard Terminology for Additive Manufacturing – General
Principles – Part 1: Terminology (2015)
13. Desimone, I.J.M., Hill, C., Ermoshkin, A., Us, N.C., Samulski, E.T., Hill, C., Us, N.C.,
Lawton, A., Examiner, P., Del, J.S.: (12) United States Patent, 2 (2016)
14. Stansbury, J.W., Idacavage, M.J.: 3D printing with polymers: challenges among expanding
options and opportunities. Dent. Mater. 32, 54–64 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.
2015.09.018
15. Do, A.V., Khorsand, B., Geary, S.M., Salem, A.K.: 3D printing of scaffolds for tissue
regeneration applications. Adv. Healthc. Mater. 4, 1742–1762 (2015). https://doi.org/10.
1002/adhm.201500168
16. Tumbleston, J.R., Shirvanyants, D., Ermoshkin, N., Janusziewicz, R., Johnson, A.R., Kelly,
D., Chen, K., Pinschmidt, R., Rolland, J.P., Ermoshkin, A., Samulski, E.T., Desimone, J.M.:
Additive manufacturing. Continuous liquid interface production of 3D objects. Sicence 347,
1349–1352 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa2397
17. Carbon, Continuous Liquid Interface Production (CLIP) process (2019). https://www.
carbon3d.com/. Accessed 22 Jan 2019
18. Ligon, S.C., Liska, R., Stampfl, J., Gurr, M., Mülhaupt, R.: Polymers for 3D printing and
customized additive manufacturing. Chem. Rev. 117, 10212–10290 (2017). https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00074
19. Miller, A.T., Safranski, D.L., Wood, C., Guldberg, R.E., Gall, K.: Deformation and fatigue
of tough 3D printed elastomer scaffolds processed by fused deposition modeling and
continuous liquid interface production. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 75, 1–13 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.06.038
20. Wang, F., Wang, F.: Liquid resins-based additive manufacturing. J. Mol. Eng. Mater. 5(05),
1740004 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1142/S2251237317400044
21. de Beer, M.P., van der Laan, H.L., Cole, M.A., Whelan, R.J., Burns, M.A., Scott, T.F.:
Rapid, continuous additive manufacturing by volumetric polymerization inhibition pattern-
ing. Sci. Adv. 5, eaau8723 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau8723
22. HP Jet Fusion 3D Printing Solution. Reinventing prototyping and manufacturing, Hewlett-
Packard Development Company (2016). http://www8.hp.com/us/en/pdf/printers/3d-printers/
4AA6-4892ENA-P.pdf. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
23. HP, HP METAL JET (2019). https://www8.hp.com/us/en/printers/3d-printers/metals.html.
Accessed 22 Jan 2019
24. Thomas, H.R., Hopkinson, N., Erasenthiran, P.: High speed sintering – continuing research
into a new rapid manufacturing process. In: Proceedings of 17th Solid Freedom Fabrication
Symposium, pp. 682–691 (2006). http://sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/2006TOC%0Ahttp://
sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/Manuscripts/2006/2006-59-Thomas.pdf
25. Hopkinson, N., Dickens, P.: Analysis of rapid manufacturing - using layer manufacturing
processes for production. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. (2003). https://
doi.org/10.1243/095440603762554596
26. Bennett, M.R.: High Speed Sintering, Loughborough University (2019). https://www.
highspeedsinteringtechnology.com/about/. Accessed 23 Jan 2019
27. 3D SYSTEM, DMP Factory 500 (2019). https://www.3dsystems.com/3d-printers/dmp-
factory-500. Accessed 22 Jan 2019
28. Skulan, D.: Practical guidance from design to production. 25 Years Automot. Part Supplied
Conf. - Precis. Met. Assoc. (2018). https://www.pma.org/apsc/assets/presentations/Skulan.
pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2019
 Additive Manufacturing: New Trends in the 4th Industrial Revolution 167

29. Renishaw, RenAM 500Q (2017). https://www.renishaw.com/en/renam-500q–42781.

Accessed 23 Jan 2019
30. Stratasys, FORTUS 380MC Carbon Fiber Edition (2018). https://www.stratasys.com/3d-
printers/fortus-380-carbon-fiber-edition. Accessed 22 Jan 2019
31. Mark, G.: A Revolutionary New Way to Manufacture Metal Parts (2017). https://
markforged.com/blog/adam/. Accessed 23 Jan 2019
32. Markforged, Metal X (2017). https://markforged.com/metal-x/. Accessed 22 Jan 2019
33. Markforged, The world’s strongest 3D printing materials (2019). https://markforged.com/
materials/. Accessed 6 Jan 2019
34. Scott, C.: Roboze Unveils the New ARGO 500 3D Printer at formnext (2017). https://
3dprint.com/194165/roboze-argo-500-3d-printer/. Accessed 23 Jan 2019
35. Roboze, Technology Engineering and research serving worldwide manufacturing (2019).
https://www.roboze.com/en/technology.html. Accessed 22 Jan 2019
36. Cicala, G., Pergolizzi, E., Piscopo, F., Carbone, D., Recca, G.: Hybrid composites
manufactured by resin infusion with a fully recyclable bioepoxy resin. Compos. Part B Eng.
132, 69–76 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2017.08.015
37. Cicala, G., Latteri, A., Del Curto, B., Lo Russo, A., Recca, G., Farè, S.: Engineering
thermoplastics for additive manufacturing: a critical perspective with experimental evidence
to support functional applications. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 15, 10–18 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.5301/jabfm.5000343
38. Jeanmonod, D.J., Rebecca, K., et al.: Suzuki, We are IntechOpen, the world’ s leading
publisher of Open Access books Built by scientists, for scientists TOP 1% Control of a
Proportional Hydraulic System. Intech Open. 2, 64 (2018). https://doi.org/10.5772/32009
39. Regina, F., Lavecchia, F., Galantucci, L.M.: Preliminary study for a full colour low cost
open source 3D printer, based on the combination of fused deposition modelling (FDM) or
fused filament fabrication (FFF) and inkjet printing. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 12, 979–993
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-017-0432-x
40. Galantucci, L.M., Percoco, G., Spina, R.: Evaluation of rapid prototypes obtained from
reverse engineering. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 217, 1543–1552 (2003)
41. Li, L., Li, C., Tang, Y., Du, Y.: An integrated approach of reverse engineering aided
remanufacturing process for worn components. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 48, 39–50
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2017.02.004
42. Wilson, J.M., Piya, C., Shin, Y.C., Zhao, F., Ramani, K.: Remanufacturing of turbine blades
by laser direct deposition with its energy and environmental impact analysis. J. Clean. Prod.
80, 170–178 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.05.084
43. Gao, J., Chen, X., Yilmaz, O., Gindy, N.: An integrated adaptive repair solution for complex
aerospace components through geometry reconstruction. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 36,
1170–1179 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-006-0923-6
44. Xue, L., Donovan, M., Li, Y., Chen, J., Wang, S., Campbell, G.: Integrated rapid 3D
mapping and laser additive repair of gas turbine engine components. In: 32nd International
Congress on Applications of Lasers & Electro-Optics, ICALEO 2013, pp. 318–325 (2013)
45. Heralić, A., Christiansson, A.K., Lennartson, B.: Height control of laser metal-wire
deposition based on iterative learning control and 3D scanning. Opt. Lasers Eng. 50, 1230–
1241 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optlaseng.2012.03.016
46. Yilmaz, O., Gindy, N., Gao, J.: A repair and overhaul methodology for aeroengine
components. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 26, 190–201 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rcim.2009.07.001
47. Bovalino, Y.M.: ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING Secret Weapon: This Supersonic Blaster
Rebuilds Jet Parts With Flying Powder (2017). https://www.ge.com/reports/secret-weapon-
supersonic-blaster-rebuilds-jet-parts-flying-powder/. Accessed 23 Jan 2019
168 L. M. Galantucci et al.

48. Everton, S.K., Hirsch, M., Stravroulakis, P., Leach, R.K., Clare, A.T.: Review of in-situ
process monitoring and in-situ metrology for metal additive manufacturing. JMADE 95,
431–445 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.01.099
49. Galantucci, L.M., Guerra, M.G., Lavecchia, F.: Photogrammetry applied to small and micro
scaled objects: a review (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89563-5_4
50. Lavecchia, F., Guerra, M.G., Galantucci, L.M.: Performance verification of a photogram-
metric scanning system for micro-parts using a three-dimensional artifact: adjustment and
calibration. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1806-3
51. Wilm, J., Madruga, D.G., Jensen, J.N., Gregersen, S.S., Doest, M.E.B., Guerra, M.G.,
Aanæs, H., De Chiffre, L.: Effects of subsurface scattering on the accuracy of optical 3D
measurements using miniature polymer step gauges. In: European Society for Precision
Engineering and Nanotechnology, Conference and Proceedings - 18th International
Conference and Exhibition on EUSPEN 2018, European Society for Precision Engineering
and Nanotechnology, Venice, pp. 449–450 (2018). http://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/
effects-of-subsurface-scattering-on-the-accuracy-of-optical-3d-measurements-using-miniatur
e-polymer-step-gauges(4ec1fe50-e7eb-44ef-8def-6beda94b4d02).html
52. Guerra, M.G., Volpone, C., Galantucci, L.M., Percoco, G.: Photogrammetric measurements
of 3D printed microfluidic devices. Addit. Manuf. 21 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
addma.2018.02.013
53. Cerardi, A., Meneghello, R., Concheri, G., Savio, G.: Form errors estimation in free-form 2D
and 3D geometries. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Innovative Methods in
Product Design, Venice, 15th–17th June, no. I (2011). https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/232957835_Form_errors_estimation_in_free-form_2D_and_3D_geometries
54. Galantucci, L.M., Lavecchia, F., Percoco, G.: Quantitative analysis of a chemical treatment
to reduce roughness of parts fabricated using fused deposition modeling. CIRP Ann. -
Manuf. Technol. 59, 247–250 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2010.03.074
55. Jin, Y., Wan, Y., Zhang, B., Liu, Z.: Modeling of the chemical finishing process for
polylactic acid parts in fused deposition modeling and investigation of its tensile properties.
J. Mater. Process. Technol. 240, 233–239 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2016.
10.003
56. Boschetto, A., Bottini, L.: Roughness prediction in coupled operations of fused deposition
modeling and barrel finishing. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 219, 181–192 (2015). https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2014.12.021
57. Thompson, A., Maskery, I., Leach, R.K.: X-ray computed tomography for additive
manufacturing: a review. Int. J. Metrol. Qual. Eng. 8, 17 (2017)
58. Ford, S., Despeisse, M., Viljakainen, A.: Extending product life through additive
manufacturing: the sustainability implications. In: Global Cleaner Production and Con-
sumption Conference (2015). https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.1.4561.9282
59. Despeisse, M., Ford, S.: The role of additive manufacturing in improving resource efficiency
and sustainability. In: Umeda, S., Nakano, M., Mizuyama, H., Hibino, H., Kiritsis, D., von
Cieminski, G. (eds.) Advances in Production Management Systems: Innovative Production
Management Towards Sustainable Growth, pp. 129–136. Springer (2015)
60. Sreenivasan, R., Bourell, D.L.: Sustainability study in selective laser sintering – an energy
perspective. Minerals, Metals and Materials Society/AIME, 420 Commonwealth Dr.,
P. O. Box 430 Warrendale PA 15086 USA, 9 (2010)
61. Bourell, D.L., Leu, M., Rosen, D.: Roadmap for additive manufacturing-Identifying the
future of freeform processing, The Univer, Austin, Texas (2009). http://wohlersassociates.
com/roadmap2009A.pdf
 Additive Manufacturing: New Trends in the 4th Industrial Revolution 169

62. Ford, S., Despeisse, M., Viljakainen, A.: Extending product life through additive manu-
facturing: the sustainability implications. Glob. Clean. Prod. Consum. Conf., 1–4 (2015).
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.1.4561.9282
63. Despeisse, M., Baumers, M., Brown, P., Charnley, F., Ford, S.J., Garmulewicz, A.,
Knowles, S., Minshall, T.H.W., Mortara, L., Reed-Tsochas, F.P., Rowley, J.: Unlocking
value for a circular economy through 3D printing: a research agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change. 115, 75–84 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.021
64. Kerbrat, O., Le Bourhis, F., Mognol, P., Hascoët, J.-Y.: Environmental impact assessment
studies in additive manufacturing. In: Muthu, S.S., Savalani, M.M. (eds.) Handbook of
Sustainability in Additive Manufacturing, vol. 2, pp. 31–63. Springer, Singapore (2016)
65. Faludi, J., Iribarne, M., Bayley, C., Bhogal, S.: Comparing environmental impacts of
additive manufacturing vs traditional machining via life-cycle assessment. Rapid Proto-
typ. J. 21, 14–33 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-07-2013-0067
66. Verma, A., Rai, R., DART Lab: Energy efficient modeling and optimization of additive
manufacturing processes, p. 12
67. Baumers, M., Tuck, C., Bourell, D.L., Sreenivasan, R., Hague, R.: Sustainability of additive
manufacturing: measuring the energy consumption of the laser sintering process. Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf. 225, 2228–2239 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/
0954405411406044
68. Meteyer, S., Xu, X., Perry, N., Zhao, Y.F.: Energy and material flow analysis of binder-
jetting additive manufacturing processes. Procedia CIRP 15, 19–25 (2014). https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2014.06.030
69. Huang, Y., Leu, M.C., Mazumder, J., Donmez, A.: Additive manufacturing: current state,
future potential, gaps and needs, and recommendations. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng. 137, 014001–
014001–014001–014010 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4028725
70. Thomas, D.S., Gilbert, S.W.: Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Additive Manufacturing,
National Institute of Standards and Technology (2014)
71. Le Bourhis, F., Kerbrat, O., Dembinski, L., Hascoet, J.-Y., Mognol, P.: Predictive model for
environmental assessment in additive manufacturing process. Procedia CIRP 15, 26–31
(2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.06.031