Cost Estimation of Layer Additive Manufacturing using Break-down Approach

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Science

Aditya Mahadik

August 2018

© 2018 Aditya Mahadik. All Rights Reserved.

 2

This thesis titled

Cost Estimation of Layer Additive Manufacturing using Break-down Approach

by

ADITYA MAHADIK

has been approved for

the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering

and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by

Dale Masel

Associate Professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering

Dennis Irwin

Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology

 3

ABSTRACT

MAHADIK, ADITYA, M.S., August 2018, Industrial and Systems Engineering

Cost Estimation of Layer Additive Manufacturing using Break-down Approach

Director of Thesis: Dale Masel

Cost estimation of additive manufacturing is helpful for designers and engineers at the

preliminary design stage to understand the cost impact of alternative designs. There are

several models of cost estimation of additive manufacturing, but most of them require

detailed information to provide precise cost estimation. This research develops a

methodology for cost estimation of parts produced by additive manufacturing using

limited number of primary user input parameters. The break-down approach is used to

calculate the total cost which is the addition of the cost components: machine, material,

labor, and post-processing. These primary user input parameters are used to calculate

secondary parameters. To increase the accuracy of an estimates, secondary parameters

can be changed by the user depending on the availability of those part or process

parameters. The methodology supports the selection of additive manufacturing technique

based on time and cost. The build time is calculated by studying the machine activities

for preparation of a single layer on the selected process and multiplying it by the total

number of layers. The methodology incorporates the yield of the AM process, the

uncertainty in the number of hours of machine operation per day, the machine life, and

the support structure factor.

The methodology is implemented to develop the additive manufacturing cost

estimation tool (AMCET). The comparison of actual and estimated build time is
 4

presented for FDM, SLA, and Polyjet. The actual cost of the parts manufactured using

Polyjet is compared with their estimated cost. The accuracy of the model lies within

average error of 5% for time estimation and 20% for cost estimation. This research

supports the quick and accurate cost estimation with little information for parts

manufactured using additive manufacturing.

 5

DEDICATION

I dedicate my thesis to Industrial and Systems Engineering faculty and students at Ohio

University. The support received from everyone at Ohio University was great.
 6

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr. Dale Masel for his

continuous support, motivation, patience, and immense knowledge. His guidance helped

all the time during the research and writing this thesis. I could not imagine having a better

advisor and mentor for my master’s thesis.

I would like to thank the rest of thesis committee: Dr. Dusan Sormaz, Dr. Tao Yuan,

and Dr. David Stowe for their feedback, comments, and encouragement.

I am thankful to Misako Hata at Ohio University Innovation Center for allowing me to

work in lab and supporting with valuable information. I appreciate the support extended

by Ohio University ETM department by providing relevant information to complete the

research.

I thank my friend and colleague Aniruddha Joshi for his excellent collaboration. He

supported me greatly and was always willing to help. Also, I thank all my friends at Ohio

University for their company and valuable inputs.

Most Importantly, I would like to thank my family and especially my wife Bhakti.

Due to her inspiration, support and affection I could pursue my masters and thesis

audaciously.
 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3
Dedication ........................................................................................................................... 5
Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 6
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ 9
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 10
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 11
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 11
1.2 Motivation ............................................................................................................... 13
1.3 Objective ................................................................................................................. 15
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 17
2.1 Cost Estimation Techniques ................................................................................... 17
2.1.1 Intuitive Techniques......................................................................................... 17
2.1.2 Analogical Techniques ..................................................................................... 19
2.1.3 Analytical Techniques...................................................................................... 21
2.1.4 Parametric Techniques ..................................................................................... 23
2.1.5 Software Cost Estimation Tools ...................................................................... 24
2.2 Methods of Additive Manufacturing ...................................................................... 26
2.2.1 Material Extrusion ........................................................................................... 26
2.2.2 Vat Photo-polymerization ................................................................................ 28
2.2.3 Material Jetting ................................................................................................ 28
2.3 Cost Estimation of Additive Manufacturing ........................................................... 29
2.3.1 Break-down Approach ..................................................................................... 30
2.3.2 Activity Based Approach ................................................................................. 33
2.3.3 Parametric Approach........................................................................................ 37
2.4 Time Estimation of Additive Manufacturing.......................................................... 38
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................... 39
3.1 Approach ................................................................................................................. 39
3.2 Machine Cost .......................................................................................................... 43
 8

3.3 Material Cost........................................................................................................... 47

3.4 Labor Cost............................................................................................................... 52
3.5 Post-Processing Cost Calculation ........................................................................... 55
3.6 Yielded Cost ........................................................................................................... 57
3.7 Build Time Estimation of Additive Manufacturing ................................................ 58
3.7.1 Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) ................................................................. 59
3.7.2 Stereolithography (SLA) .................................................................................. 61
3.7.3 Polyjet .............................................................................................................. 63
Chapter 4: Testing and Results ......................................................................................... 68
4.1 Implementation of Model ....................................................................................... 68
4.2 Testing of Parts using Polyjet ................................................................................. 71
4.3 Testing of Parts using SLA ..................................................................................... 78
4.4 Testing of Parts using FDM .................................................................................... 80
4.5 Comparison of Parts Using Different Techniques .................................................. 81
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 84
5.1 Summary of Results ................................................................................................ 84
5.2 Application of AMCET .......................................................................................... 84
5.3 Future Work ............................................................................................................ 85
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 87
APPENDIX A: PART INFORMATION FOR STEREOLITHOGRAPHY .................... 92
 9

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1 Classification of cost estimation methods [8] .................................................... 17

Figure 2 Classification of intuitive techniques [8] ............................................................ 18
Figure 3 Classification of analogical techniques [8]......................................................... 20
Figure 4 Classification of analytical techniques [8] ......................................................... 21
Figure 5 Material extrusion process [26] .......................................................................... 27
Figure 6 Vat photo-polymerization process [28] .............................................................. 28
Figure 7 Material jetting process [30] ............................................................................... 29
Figure 8 Cost Estimation model using break-down approach .......................................... 41
Figure 9 Machine and operator time relationship ............................................................. 54
Figure 10 Top view of build platform of Polyjet machine with dimensions .................... 65
Figure 11 Primary user input screen ................................................................................. 69
Figure 12 Secondary machine input parameters. .............................................................. 70
Figure 13 Output Screen of AMCET ................................................................................ 71
Figure 14 Comparison of build time by Polyjet................................................................ 72
Figure 15 Cost component comparison of four large parts for Polyjet............................. 74
Figure 16 Cost component comparison of six small parts for Polyjet ............................. 75
Figure 17 Build time comparison using SLA ................................................................... 78
Figure 18 Build time Comparison for FDM ..................................................................... 80
Figure 19 (a) CAD model of Part A (b) CAD model of Part B ........................................ 81
Figure 20 Build time comparison of AM techniques........................................................ 82
Figure 21 Total cost comparison of AM techniques ......................................................... 83
 10

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 t-Test values of hypothesis testing ....................................................................... 52

Table 2 Comparison of build time by Polyjet ................................................................... 73
Table 3 Comparison of cost components for Polyjet Technique ...................................... 76
Table 4 Comparison of build time using SLA .................................................................. 79
Table 5 Comparison of build time using FDM ................................................................. 81
Table 6 Part information for SLA ..................................................................................... 92
 11

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Additive Manufacturing (AM) is the technique of producing parts directly from three-

dimensional Computer Aided Design (3D CAD) models by adding thin layers of material

over each other, resulting in the desired final geometry. AM simplifies the process of

producing complex parts because extra tools and fixtures are not required. AM requires a

basic understanding of the part geometry, the machines, and the materials to use the

technology. Because of this easy usage, AM technology is becoming widely popular. The

parts produced from AM technology can be used to understand feasibility of a design.

Moreover, AM is not only limited to prototyping or modelling, but also used for

functional parts and mass production [1].

Traditional manufacturing requires the analysis of the features to determine the order

of fabrication, the process requirements, and the needed tools and fixtures, whereas these

tasks can be avoided in AM. To convert the raw material into a finished good, traditional

manufacturing often requires the product to flow through different workstations, whereas

in AM the multiple workstations may not be required. Often, part(s) can be printed on a

single machine with an additional finishing activity [1], [2].

AM starts with conceptualization of the design in 3D CAD software, where a designer

can model the desired part geometry. Once the part model is complete, one can proceed

with printing that part. The 3D model needs to be converted into a file format called STL

(Standard Tessellation Language) which is input to the software installed on AM

machine. STL is a standard data transmission format which approximates the surface of
 12

the solid model with triangles. Once the CAD file is converted to STL, necessary

manipulations can be made to ensure its feasibility for printing and generating the support

structure. After loading the file to the AM machine, required parameters can be set on the

machine to build the part. Depending on the design, shape, layer thickness, and various

configured parameters, the AM machine builds the part layer by layer. After the part is

built, it can be removed and treated with various post-processing activities, such as

cleaning, removing the support structure, and super-finishing based on the application

[1].

The International Standard ASTM 52900:2015 has been developed on AM with an

agreement between ISO and ASTM to create a common set of ISO/ASTM standards.

This standard describes the seven different categories of AM processes [3]. These seven

categories are mentioned and described further. (1) Binder jetting is the process in which

powder material is bound together with the deposition of adhesive particles wherever

bonding is needed. (2) Direct energy deposition is the process in which material is melted

and fused using an energy source such as laser or electron beam to deposit layers to form

an object. (3) In material extrusion processes, material is melted inside the chamber and

deposited through the nozzle to form an object in multiple layers. (4) In material jetting

the minute particles of the material are deposited over each other in the layers to form a

desired object. (5) Powder bed fusion uses thermal energy to selectively fuse the powder

present in the powder bed. (6) Sheet lamination is the process of forming an object from

sheets of material using adhesive. (7) Vat photo-polymerization cures the liquid

photopolymer present in the vat using a laser to form an object.

 13

AM can produce parts in an efficient and cost-effective way as compared to

conventional manufacturing. Parts can be transferred digitally and printed near the

manufacturing facility where they are needed to reduce the transportation cost. The lead

time for AM products is relatively less compared to traditional manufacturing since the

final product is printed on a single machine. Less waste and rework enable AM to have

better environmental effects. Designers and engineers can create designs in an innovative

way so that cost-effective options can be explored. Further, designers and engineers can

make the prototypes to analyze the performance so that decisions for development and

production can be made. AM supports an efficient supply chain by minimizing

processing steps, assembling activities, and reducing inventory. The AM technology has

applications in several industries such as aerospace, defense, automotive, commercial,

healthcare, and dental [2], [5]. Due to these noteworthy applications of AM, it can be

considered as an alternative to traditional manufacturing processes such as casting,

machining, molding, fabricating, and welding.

1.2 Motivation

Cost Estimation (CE) is the process of predicting the cost of a product before it is

manufactured. The cost of the product can be estimated using techniques such as

quantitative models or historical data [4], [8]. An estimate of the product cost should be

known for making decisions, such as identifying business potential, performing the

break-even analysis, analyzing the contribution of resources, and value engineering (cost

reduction). To make the decision about whether to buy or manufacture the products, the

cost of the products should be known. CE is of prime importance in budget preparation,

 14

making design changes in the product, forecasting business prospects, and devising

methods of production. Costing can help sales and marketing divisions of a company to

offer quotations to customers in a precise manner. An accurate quotation is needed

because an overpriced quotation could result in the loss of an order and an underpriced

quotation could result in the loss of money [4].

To estimate the manufacturing cost, it is necessary to consider all the components

associated with the cost, such as the material, the labor, the machine, and the tooling.

These cost components contribute in different percentages to constitute the product cost.

Changes in these components occur if there is a change in the method of manufacturing,

the use of machine, or a variation in the materials. It is challenging for designers and

manufacturing companies to make changes in the design, processes, quality, and

manufacturing technique if the cost associated with the cost components is not known.

There are several approaches to manufacturing CE. They include operations-based,

break-down, activity-based costing, parametric, regression analysis, and artificial neural

network.

Studies have been conducted to analyze the cost contributors based on the energy

consumption, the production capacity, the time and the relevant activities involved [6],

[8]. Most of the existing models developed are dedicated to specific AM technologies

such as fused deposition modelling, stereo-lithography, and selective laser sintering.

There are some models which estimate the cost for any AM technology, although

modifications based on the specific process parameters is lacking in current research.

Additionally, the existing models have not combined the effect of factors such as the
 15

speed of AM the machine, the life of the machine, the expected working hours, the

quality of the final product, the recycling rate of the material, and the manual activities

involved.

The estimated global revenue of AM goods was around $967 million in 2013. Out of

this, the US contributed $367 million, or 38% to the global production [2]. It is also

estimated that the revenue of the AM market will reach approximately $50 billion by

2030 and $100 billion by 2040. This indicates that there is an enormous potential for AM.

The growth in AM will occur if the technology and infrastructure supporting AM makes

progress [2]. Additionally, in the detailed analysis, it is identified that the potential

reduction in the manufacturing costs of AM is expected to be about 60% in next 5 years

and another 30% in next 10 years [5].

1.3 Objective

The objective of this thesis is to develop a cost estimation model for parts made

through AM using a break-down approach. The total cost is addition of the cost

components: the material, the machine, the labor, and the post-processing. The total cost

will be calculated by primary user parameters which are limited in number. If additional

part or process parameters are available, the user can enter the secondary input

parameters to increase the accuracy of an estimate.

Secondary input parameters are dependent on the values for the primary input

parameters. The cost component parameters are used to estimate the sub-component cost

for material, machine, labor and post-processing. The cost component parameters are

calculated, based on the primary and the secondary input parameters. By combining
 16

respective sub-component cost estimates, the component cost estimates (material,

machine, labor, and post-processing) are generated. Finally, by addition of these

component estimates, the total cost estimate is generated.

The uncertainty involved in the machine operation hours is addressed by considering

minimum, most likely, and maximum values as a user input to determine expected

machine operation hours for estimating the machine cost per hour.

The building time is estimated by considering the total number of layers and the time

to prepare a single layer. The single layer preparation time is estimated by finding four

critical activities. First, the time to lower the platform; second, the time to move the

machine (print) head; third, the time to deposit the layer, and finally, the time to fuse the

material to form a layer of an object. The specific model of time estimation is developed

for individual processes (FDM, SLA, and Polyjet) by analyzing activities undergone by

the machine during the part building.

 17

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Cost Estimation Techniques

This section discusses the classification of the cost estimation techniques. There are

numerous classifications available for CE according to the approach type, the granularity

level, and the phase of applicability [7]. The approach type categorizes CE methods into

qualitative and quantitative which are commonly used in the literature [8], [9], and [10].

Granularity level classifies CE into top-down and bottoms-up approaches. The phase of

applicability classifies models into early prediction and late estimation based on the data

available during cost estimation [7].

Niazi et al. [8] presented a hierarchical classification of product cost estimation (PCE),

subdivided into qualitative and quantitative techniques. Qualitative techniques can be

further classified as intuitive and analogical techniques, whereas quantitative can be

divided into analytical and parametric techniques as shown in Figure 1 [8].

Figure 1 Classification of cost estimation methods [8]

2.1.1 Intuitive Techniques

Intuitive techniques are developed based on the knowledge of an expert to make rules,

decisions, and judgements to prepare a cost estimate. Depending on the experience, the
 18

domain expert can predict the cost of the product with certain information. This technique

can further be categorized as case-based techniques and decision support techniques as

shown in Figure 2 [8].

Figure 2 Classification of intuitive techniques [8]

Case-based techniques generate the estimate based on the past designs which are

similar to the new design. This system uses the past design and makes necessary changes

to meet the requirements of the new design. This approach is useful to make an estimate

at the preliminary design stage so that estimation time is minimized. Case-based

reasoning was applied by Ficko et al. [11] to develop an intelligent system to provide the

cost of the tool used for tool manufacturing. The cost was predicted by using similar

features from previous CAD models for which the cost was known. This technique can

only be used when similar past design data is available to generate an estimate.

Decision support techniques use the knowledge of an expert to support decision

making during the cost estimation process for evaluating design alternatives. This

technique uses information such as product characteristics, manufacturing constraints,

 19

and design functions to prepare rules or logical statements. This technique is further

classified as rule based, expert system, or fuzzy logic as shown in Figure 2 [8].

A rule-based system uses the process time and the cost calculation of the part based on

design and manufacturing constraints. This approach requires a set of experts in the area

and may be time consuming. The model developed by Gayretli et al. [12] calculated the

process time and the product cost depending on the user constraints such as

manufacturing processes and product features.

An expert system is developed using automated logical reasoning to sort the

knowledge in the database to mimic the human expert. Venkatachalam et al. [13]

developed an object-and-rule-based system which could select the cost-effective

processes based on the design and the production constraints. Additionally, their system

could determine the manufacturing cost of the different processes. This system may give

quick and accurate results; however, it requires complex programming.

A fuzzy logic system can handle the uncertainty involved in CE. The system is formed

by identifying a set of input variables and an output variable (cost) to develop the model.

The fuzzy model determines fuzzy inference by a defined set of rules and these

inferences can be used to predict the cost. Predicting complex features using fuzzy logic

may be time consuming [14].

2.1.2 Analogical Techniques

Analogical techniques are part of qualitative techniques which are based on historical

data to derive an estimate. Analogical cost models are further sub-classified as regression

models and neural network models as shown in Figure 3 [8].

 20

Figure 3 Classification of analogical techniques [8]

Regression analysis models are developed by considering historical parts’ design

features such as height, length, width, volume, and weight to determine a linear

relationship with the cost of the product. This technique is mostly reliable when similar

cost data and necessary product parameters are available [8]. Ruffo et al. [15] considered

parts’ height, volume, and a bounding box to develop a build-time estimator using

regression analysis for selective laser sintering.

A neural network model uses Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) to simulate

biological neurons for information processing. In an engineering neural network, the

models are applied where a relationship between input and output parameters is

unknown. The training set — that is, the number of examples observed from the system

— is used for learning. The build time for fused deposition modelling was estimated

using ANN by Di Angelo and Stefano [16] using parts’ geometrical data. Availability and

reliability of the data are the major limitations of this technique [8].
 21

2.1.3 Analytical Techniques

Analytical techniques are based on the summation of the components of the resources

that are utilized during production. The product cost is expressed in terms of operations

and activities involved during manufacturing the product [10]. Analytical techniques are

further classified as tolerance-based, activity-based, break-down, operation-based, and

feature-based, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Classification of analytical techniques [8]

Tolerance-based cost models are constructed by considering the design tolerance

specification of the part along with the manufacturing processes. Singh [17] introduced a

model based on design tolerance with multiple objectives: to minimize the unit cost, to

minimize the quality loss, and to minimize the lead time. The cost-tolerance relations

were developed to determine the product cost. These models are useful to recognize cost-

effective design tolerances but require detailed design information.

Activity-based cost estimation is prepared from the cost incurred by the activities

during manufacturing the product. The activity-based model is developed by classifying

the activities and estimating the cost elements. Activities are classified as machine-based,

labor-based, technical, and administration-service-based. The unit rates are used with
 22

activity times to generate an aggregate cost estimate [18]. This model is widely used in

production environments to prepare quotations and estimate the cost of products or

processes. This method is easy to implement because the cost of activities can be

determined effectively.

The break-down approach calculates the product cost by identifying the resources

consumed during manufacturing the product and then adding each to derive the unit cost.

Son [19] developed a cost model using the break-down approach which classified the

costs as well-structured costs and ill-structured costs. The well-structured costs included

production costs such as labor, material, depreciation, machine, tool, floor space, and

computer software. The ill-structured costs were further classified as the quality and the

flexibility cost. The quality cost included expenses incurred for inspection and prevention

of defects. The flexibility cost was addition of the cost incurred for setup, waiting, idle

time of the machine, and inventory carrying cost. The break-down approach is generally

easy to adopt although it requires detailed information of the resources consumed [8].

The operation-based approach identifies the operations involved during manufacturing

the part. The cost model is generally the function of time required to manufacture the

part. Jung [20] proposed a cost model which considers operation time, set-up time, and

non-operation time to estimate manufacturing cost. The manufacturing cost was

calculated using equation 1.

𝑇
Manufacturing Cost = (𝑅𝑜 + 𝑅𝑚 ) [( 𝑄𝑠𝑢) 𝑇𝑜𝑡 + 𝑇𝑛𝑜 ] + 𝑀𝑐 + 𝐹𝑒 (1)

where,

Ro = Operator’s rate
 23

Rm = Machine rate

Tsu = Setup time

Q = Batch size

Tot = Operation time

Tno = Non-operation time

Mc = Material cost

Fe = Factory expenses

Operation-based cost models can help to prepare alternate process plans to optimize

results; however, these models require exhaustive design and process planning data.

Feature-based cost estimation uses an approach of identification of features and then

adding up the respective cost associated with each feature. The features can be design-

based or process-based. The design-related features include geometrical details and

materials used, whereas process-related can be machining, casting, and molding. This

methodology allows the user to select the feature as either design or manufacturing so

that cost can be predicted [21]. This way, product cost can be estimated by recognizing

features and allocating the cost to generate an estimate. This method is effective to

determine the cost for higher features; however, it can be difficult to identify the cost for

small and complex features [8].

2.1.4 Parametric Techniques

Parametric models are derived based on the relationship between a product’s

functional or technical characteristics and the cost. The parametric approach considers the

resources consumed during a product’s development, production, and maintenance. Cost

 24

Estimation Relationships (CERs) are developed to establish the cost model [22]. The

models can estimate the cost during the preliminary design stage using single or multiple

CERs. The estimates can be generated quickly during very early stages of design using

the parametric technique.

Duverlie and Castelain [10] estimated the cost of a diesel engine piston using the

parametric method and the case-based reasoning method. The cost estimation formulas

were determined using linear and second degree polynomial regression. The results

concluded that using the parametric method, the cost can be estimated very quickly, but

the reason for the root cause is unknown. This is because of the principle of regression

which gives the general trend. On the other hand, case-based reasoning allows the user to

consider the particular case and gives more accurate results [10]. The parametric method

is useful where the cost drivers (parameters) are known; however, it is ineffective where

the cost drivers are not identified [8].

2.1.5 Software Cost Estimation Tools

Chan et al. [23] developed a model using big data analytic tools to estimate the

manufacturing cost of AM products based on similar products in the past. To estimate the

cost, the CAD model can be submitted online to the cost analytic service provider, who

has the database and the data mining tools. The 17 feature vectors were extracted from

the uploaded model based on the geometry of the part, the manufacturing process, and the

material. These feature vectors were used as an input to a predictive model to estimate the

cost. The predictive model was developed using machine learning algorithms and

statistical regression by considering a dataset of 135 products.

 25

The results revealed that the costs predicted using the big data analytic tool were

within maximum of 7% error. However, the availability of the relevant product and

production data are the major limitations of the data-driven model. Additionally, the

accuracy of the model is dependent on the quality and quantity of the data used for

developing the model. The developed model does not consider post-processing activities,

labor cost, and overheads for cost estimation.

A hierarchical cost estimation tool was developed by Koonce et al. [24] to estimate the

cost of manufacturing the part at any stage of design. The developed tool supports design

time cost estimation using Federated Intelligent Product Environment (FIPER). This

research was the part of National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) and

Advanced Technology Program (ATP). The tool was developed with the capability to

generate an estimate with whatever data is available.

During the early stage of design, an estimate can be generated by considering simple

parametric cost relations. However, in the later stage of design, an estimate can be

developed by considering design features or process plans. The FIPER cost estimation

tool was framed with a cost engine, a graphical user interface (GUI) and an element

builder. Elements (part, operation or inspection) are identified with costs in the FIPER

environment. These elements are coded as java classes and stored in the library. To

generate an estimate, elements are linked to design or process parameters and total cost is

estimated by addition of all the cost elements. The model was tested with 80 large

rotational jet engine parts and concluded that the accuracy of an estimate was improved

by 22% [24].
 26

SEER for Manufacturing (SEER-MFG) by Galorath [25] is a software tool which

helps a manufacturer to estimate the cost so that design and manufacturing decisions can

be made. SEER-MFG also enables engineers to explore alternative manufacturing

solutions. The cost estimation model is a knowledge base and uses parametric cost

modeling to support costing. The modeling engine is designed with a multifaceted

approach on time and motion studies, company project history, and cost relationship

formulae. More than 75 manufacturing processes are pre-configured in the software.

SEER-MFG can generate a cost estimate directly from a 3D CAD model. The

software provides the cost break-down for labor, material, and tooling by considering

setup, operation, inspection, and rework. Further, the software enables users to select an

alternate machining operation, surface finish, tolerance, and assembly operations to a

generate detailed estimate. Finally, SEER-MFG provides various charts, graphs, and

reports for summarizing model outcome and work-in-progress.

2.2 Methods of Additive Manufacturing

There are several techniques available for additive manufacturing and they are divided

in to seven categories according to ASTM 52900:2015 [3]. Each process has a unique

method of manufacturing, distinct machines, specific to the use of material, application to

industry, advantages, and disadvantages. Below, three categories of AM are discussed

along with the working principle and steps involved during manufacturing.

2.2.1 Material Extrusion

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is one example of a material extrusion process.

The machine is loaded with material in the form of spool. The material is simultaneously
 27

drawn through the nozzle and heated in the liquefier chamber, to deposit layer by layer as

shown in Figure 5 [26]. The nozzle moves in a horizontal direction to deposit the

material, then the platform moves vertically down after depositing the layer. Since the

material is added through a nozzle, the pressure and speed must be kept constant to get

accurate results [27].

Figure 5 Material extrusion process [26]

FDM is an inexpensive and easily-accessible technology. Since material is extruded in

the semi-liquid phase from the nozzle and directly prints the part, wastage is minimum in

this process. The FDM process has restricted accuracy due to the use of filament and

nozzle radius dimension. Since the cross-sectional area needs to be filled by part material

and/or support material, the process is slow compared to others [27].

 28

2.2.2 Vat Photo-polymerization

Stereolithography (SLA) is one example of a vat photo polymerization technique,

which uses a vat of resin polymer to build the object layer by layer. An ultraviolet (UV)

laser is used to harden or cure the required resin to form the cross-section of an object.

Resin is cured by photo-polymerization where light is directed by a computer-controlled

mirror. The platform is moved downward after each layer is cured to bring a fresh resin

coat as shown in Figure 6 [28].

Figure 6 Vat photo-polymerization process [28]

SLA gives high accuracy and surface finish. A wide range of materials are available

including general purpose and specialty, depending on specific application. Support

structures are generally required, so additional support removal and post-processing is

necessary [29].

2.2.3 Material Jetting

Polyjet printing is one example of a material jetting technique in which material is

jetted on the build platform through a nozzle in the form of drops or continuously as

shown in Figure 7 [30]. The platform is lowered down once material is deposited so that
 29

a new layer can be deposited to build a part layer by layer. The deposited material is

usually cured or hardened using UV light [31].

Figure 7 Material jetting process [30]

This process achieves high accuracy due to minute droplet deposition. Also, polyjet

allows the use of multiple materials together for producing the part. Support material is

often required, which needs additional post-processing [32].

2.3 Cost Estimation of Additive Manufacturing

There are several models for additive manufacturing cost estimation which are based

on different methodologies. Many of the researchers have adopted an activity-based

costing model to determine the cost [38-42]. This approach seems to be pragmatic,

detailed, and provides better results. However, there are other models including

parametric, operation-based, activity-based, break-down, statistical regression, and ANN.

These models have been developed considering either a specific AM technology or by

general CE for AM. Below the CE models developed for AM are discussed.
 30

2.3.1 Break-down Approach

In 1998, Alexander et al. [33] developed a generic CE model for AM using the break-

down approach. The model calculated the total cost by adding the cost involved in pre-

build preparation, build, and post-build.

The pre-build cost considered the time required for entering the parameters into the

AM software, positioning and scaling the part, generating the support structure, slicing

the part, and creating the road path by AM software. Build cost considered the cost of the

part including the support structure, which was the product of the time to build and the

cost of running the machine. Further, the model included the labor cost to remove the

support structure, finishing activities, and cost of extra material required during post

processing.

Alexander et al. also developed specific models for cost estimation of FDM and SLA.

They calculated the cost with different orientation to determine the lowest cost. The

model assumes that the activities of pre-build, build, and post-build are independent, but

these might be inter-dependent. This model has not accounted for the factors such as life

of machine, quality of part, and simultaneous production of multiple parts.

A break-down CE approach was also adopted by Hopkinson and Dickens [34] to

determine the total cost for producing the parts through AM. They made a comparison of

parts manufactured by AM with injection molding. The total cost was broken-down into

machine, material, and labor cost.

Machine cost was calculated by considering various parameters such as production

rate, platform build time, production volume, depreciation of machine, and equipment.
 31

Labor cost was calculated by considering parameters such as build time, machine

operator cost per hour, setup time, and post processing time. Material cost was generated

by multiplying the weight of material including the support and the material cost per

kilogram. The cost of manufacturing the part by injection molding was obtained from a

quotation.

The results showed that AM technology is preferred for low volume production and

may compete with injection molding in terms of cost for relatively high volume. Results

also concluded that machine cost plays a major role in production cost. Hopkinson and

Dickens [34] considered machine uptime as 90%, which means around 46 weeks of

operation in a year. This has led to an overestimation of working time of machine as a

machine may not be productive due to maintenance or break-down. Machine power

consumption and space rental were ignored during the cost estimation [6].

Yim and Rosen [35] developed a cost estimation model using the break-down

approach which integrated overall cost by addition of four sub-costs: purchase cost,

machine operation cost, material cost, and labor cost. Purchase cost was derived

considering build time. Operation cost was the product of build time and operation rate.

Build time was calculated by adding recoating time, material processing time, and delay

time. Material cost was estimated by considering part volume, material rate, support

structure factor, recycling factor, and number of parts. Labor cost was the product of

labor rate and labor time.

Cost estimates were generated for SLA, FDM, and Ink-jet to compare with the quoted

prices. The results exhibited that the estimated model predicted the cost with average
 32

error of 18.2%. However, the models can be used for cost comparison and selection of

AM technology. To increase the accuracy of this model, more factors could be

considered such as maintenance of machine, post-processing activities, and machine

rejection rate. Also, it was assumed that machine up time was 95% during useful life

which was highly optimistic [6].

Piili et al. [36] used the break-down approach to determine the total cost and build

time estimation of laser additive manufacturing of stainless steel products. The

manufacturing cost was the addition of direct cost, indirect cost, and energy consumption

for selective laser sintering process. The build time was computed by software supported

by AM machine. They compared two scenarios for platform filling: first, creating a single

part at a time and second, completely filling the platform with 40 pieces.

The results showed that time per piece when manufacturing a single part was 529

minutes whereas for multiple pieces it was 102 minutes. Hence, it was evident that

manufacturing time was heavily dependent on recoating time (the time to move the print

head) of the AM machine. The recoating time remains constant even if the number of

pieces were changed. As observed by other researchers, Piili et al. [36] confirmed that

machine cost was the highest contributor in total cost, but could be reduced to 6% by

building multiple parts as compared with a single part. Therefore, optimal utilization of

the building platform is a very important factor that the user should consider while

selecting the process.

A cost model for calculation of a single part by simultaneously manufacturing

multiple or mixed parts (with different geometry) was developed by Rickenbacher et al.
 33

[37]. The cost model used the break-down approach developed by Alexander et al. [33]

including pre-build, build, and post build activities. Additionally, this model calculated

the total cost by adding the cost of preparing geometric data, the cost of building the job

assembly, the cost of machining setup, the cost of building up the part, the cost of

removing the part from the selective laser melting (SLM) machine and the cost to

separate parts from the substrate plate. To estimate the build time, Rickenbacher et al.

[37] used 24 different jobs to develop linear regression model.

This cost model can be used to estimate the cost of manufacturing multiple parts with

similar or different part geometries to reduce setup time and manufacturing time. Due to

this, the total manufacturing cost per part can be reduced. The model by Rickenbacher et

al. [37] does not consider warm-up and cool-down time. This model considered a

uniform hourly rate of labor and does not consider the operator’s skill level. It also does

not consider the cost of energy for the SLM process. It can also be noted that the time

estimation approach was not validated by authors [6].

2.3.2 Activity Based Approach

Lindemann et al. [38] used ‘time driven activity-based costing’ which considered

different influence factors based on utilization of resources. The model was developed by

considering four main processes: preparation of the part, production of the part, labor in

removing part and support structure, and post-processing to improve material properties.

The cost of manufacturing was estimated by adding fixed cost and machine operation

cost. Fixed cost included expenses incurred in gas consumption and labor cost. Machine

operation cost was calculated by multiplying the machine hourly rate and the time to
 34

build the part. Material cost was calculated in similar way as calculated by Ruffo et al.

[43].

The results of the Lindemann et al. [38] model concluded that machine cost was the

largest contributor to the total cost followed by material cost. The third cost driver was

data preparation, for pre- and post-processing activities [6]. The various assumptions

made regarding build rate, utilization rate, machine investment cost, and material cost can

be refined to generate a better cost estimate.

Baumers et al. [39] developed a CE model by considering direct cost, indirect cost,

and energy consumption for the SLS process using activity-based costing. The direct cost

was material cost, which was calculated by multiplying the material weight (including the

support structure) and the material rate. The indirect cost rate (which contains machine

cost, production labor, and administrative overheads) was multiplied by the build time.

The energy consumption estimate was multiplied by the rate of electricity to obtain the

energy consumption cost.

They also used a regression model to estimate the time and energy consumed by a

single layer depending on the geometry of the part. The results confirmed that estimated

time and energy were within 10% of the error as compared with actual machine values.

The combined estimate of cost and energy consumption may be utilized to examine the

effect on different parts [39]. This model did not consider many factors such as build

preparation, machine cleaning, and post processing, which could increase the accuracy of

an estimate.
 35

A model was developed by Schröder et al. [40] based on time-driven activity-based

costing and implemented into a software tool. The model evaluated the process cost for

AM technologies and performed sensitivity analysis to identify important parameters

(cost drivers) for sample parts. They developed the model by considering recycling of

waste material, the support structure, the calculation of manufacturing time, the

maximum number of products which can be manufactured simultaneously, the

complexity involved in product design, time for post-processing, and the integration of

quality management methods. By using the activity-based costing approach, they

identified seven main processes for the cost model which were: (1) design and planning;

(2) material processing; (3) machine preparation; (4) manufacturing; (5) post-processing;

(6) administration; and (7) sales and quality. The cost calculation tool took 77 different

inputs which were divided into process specific information.

The sensitivity analysis demonstrated three major findings: (1) the investment cost of

the machine played a major role; (2) optimization can be achieved in post-processing

activities for small bodies and high quantities; (3) economies of scale exist for small

products, whereas large products are independent from the ordered quantity. Costabile et

al. [6] mentioned that the cost model of Schröder et al. [39] included the sales and

administration cost; however, the activities involved in sales and administration were not

specified. AM cost model should include only manufacturing cost for cost accounting.

The break-even analysis provided by Atzeni et al. [41] compared selective laser

melting (SLM) with high-pressure die casting and 5-axis machining. An aeronautical

component – landing gear – was selected to estimate the production volume of AM

 36

compared to traditional technologies. The analysis revealed that two pairs of aluminium

landing gear were produced within 2.5 days from the availability of the CAD model with

the SLM technique. However, mold and actual production of the part took several weeks

using 5-axis machining. The result of this study demonstrated that AM technology can be

profitable for small-to-medium batch production for metal products.

Enhanced activity-based cost estimation approach was adopted by Baumers et al. [42]

on a blower component to compare the unit cost using a selective laser sintering (SLS)

technique against computer numerical control (CNC) machining and tungsten inert gas

(TIG) welding. Their framework integrated four aspects: the optimization of capacity

utilization; identification of ancillary process steps; build failure effect; and design

adaptation into the costing model.

The basic model considered the direct cost as the product of material price and weight

of the part. Indirect cost was derived from the time to manufacture the blower component

and the cost of energy. The model included the labor cost incurred in setup separately.

Further, the model integrated capacity utilization with the computational build volume

packaging approach to optimize the build capacity. Build failure effect (i.e., failure of

single layer preparation) was incorporated in the model by considering a constant discrete

probability of 0.025%. This probability tree model was integrated in the costing model.

Energy savings arising from design adaptation of AM was modelled in terms of cost,

considering savings over several years [42].

The results revealed that the largest cost component was indirect cost which

contributed 37%. The indirect cost included machine cost, wire erosion, and overheads.
 37

The second contributor of cost was risk of build failure which was 26%, indicating that

process instability can affect AM. Share of cost was due to labor component, post-

processing activities, and setup activities. By considering AM technology over traditional

manufacturing, the cost saving of around 37.5% was reported. The probability of build

failure was assumed to be constant. However, it could be a function of geometry of the

part [42].

2.3.3 Parametric Approach

Ruffo et al. [43] developed a model based on a parametric and engineering approach

and constructed cost estimation relationships for SLS. The total cost was the addition of

direct cost (material consumed during manufacturing) and indirect cost (time to build the

part). This model improved on the model by Hopkinson and Dickens [34] by considering

machine utilization as 57% which was more realistic. They also considered the labor cost

incurred for making the product and the material recycling limit (thermal treatment of

powder). By considering this model, the break-even point between AM and injection

molding changed from 14,000 parts (as calculated by Hopkinson and Dickens), to 15,500

parts. The significance of material cost reduced to 33% from 78% for the SLS compared

with the old model. This model also concluded that machine investment and its

maintenance contributed 38%, changing from the previous perception of 24%. However,

the model developed by Ruffo et al. ignored the possible machine failure, post-processing

time, and lead time [6].

 38

2.4 Time Estimation of Additive Manufacturing

The analytical method was used by Zhang and Bernard [44] to create a generic model

for estimating build time of a part produced by SLS. The total time was computed by

adding machine preparation time, layer drawing time, layer preparation time, and

operation time. The build time was estimated using the height of building parts and the

layer thickness. Zhang and Bernard [44] concluded that producing multiple parts with

different heights could improve the production rate and build time distribution. However,

the authors did not validate this model in an actual production environment, hence

accuracy and reliability cannot be guaranteed.

An artificial neural network (ANN) technique was used by Di Angelo et al. [45] to

estimate the manufacturing time using FDM for six test cases which had complex

geometries and required a support structure. The build time estimator system (BTES) was

created based on back-propagation ANN with two hidden layers. The model was

developed using 75 nodes with each hidden layer and output node used to estimate the

manufacturing time. The model was programmed using the MATLAB Neural Network

toolbox [46]. To estimate the manufacturing time, the driving factors were evaluated for

selected models using the STL file. These driving factors were used to train the ANN

using back-propagation training rules. The manufacturing time estimated using this

model was within an error of 20%. The error can be minimized by including the detailed

activities required to manufacture an object.

 39

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Approach

The cost estimation model developed in this research has a hierarchical structure, as

shown in Figure 8. The total cost of the part is broken-down into four main components:

machine, material, labor, and post-processing.

The total cost of the part is calculated by adding machine cost, material cost, labor

cost, and post-processing cost as shown in equation 2.

𝐶𝑡 = 𝐶𝑚𝑐 + 𝐶𝑚𝑡 + 𝐶𝑙𝑏 + 𝐶𝑝𝑝 (2)

where,

Ct = Total cost

Cmc = Machine cost

Cmt = Material cost

Clb = Labor cost

Cpp = Post-processing cost

 Figure 8 represents the methodology developed in this research for cost estimation of

AM. The first level consists of the primary user input parameters and the AM technique.

These are minimum inputs required in the system. The second level is the secondary

input parameters which are already configured in the model with the default values. The

values in the secondary level are dependent on the parameters entered by the user in the

first level. However, if the user has information about these secondary parameters, the

user can edit the values.

The third level shows cost component parameters, which are calculated from the

primary and secondary parameters. These cost component parameters are required to

calculate sub-component cost parameters. The fourth level forms the sub-component

costs calculated from cost component parameters. The fifth level consists of component

cost estimates which are calculated by adding sub-component costs. The final level has

the total cost estimate which is formed by addition of component cost estimates to

generate the total cost estimate.

 Primary
Level 1 User Inputs

Optional
Secondary
Level 2 Parameters

Cost -
Component
Level 3 Parameters

Sub-
Component
Level 4 s Cost
Estimate

Component
Level 5 Cost
Estimate

Figure 8 Cost Estimation model using break-down approach

 Figure 8 illustrates the methodology and detailed components of the model. As an

example, the machine cost calculation is explained below considering different levels.

1. Level 1 consists of the primary user input parameters, which are machine type and

expected machine operation hours per day. These parameters are required from the

user to estimate the machine cost.

2. Level 2 is composed of secondary input parameters such as machine life, layer

thickness, and machine speed which will be selected automatically depending the type

of machine specified in the primary input parameters. For level 1 and 2 there are

additional primary and secondary parameters configured in the model; however, only

a few are illustrated in Figure 8.

3. Level 3 contains component cost parameters which include machine hourly rate,

machine operation cost, machine-built rate, and others calculated based on primary

and secondary parameters. For example, machine hourly rate is calculated using

machine operation hours and machine life.

4. Level 4 consists of the sub-component cost estimates which are machine operation

cost and repair and maintenance cost. Machine operation cost is estimated by

multiplying machine hourly rate and machine operation time.

5. Level 5 is the addition of all sub-component costs to generate the machine cost

estimate.

6. Finally, all component cost estimates are added as shown in equation 2 to get the total

cost estimate.

Cost estimates of material, labor, and post-processing are generated in similar

way.
 43

3.2 Machine Cost

The machine cost consists of the cost incurred for owning, operating, and maintaining

the machine used for manufacturing the part. Hence, the machine cost is calculated by the

addition of the sub-component cost parameters, which are machine operation cost and

repair and maintenance cost incurred for the AM machine as represented in Figure 8. The

machine cost is calculated using equation 3.

𝐶𝑚𝑐 = 𝐶𝑜𝑝 + 𝐶𝑟𝑝 (3)

where,

Cop = Machine operation cost

Crp = Machine repair and maintenance cost

The machine operation cost is calculated by multiplying the hourly operating cost and

the time required to manufacture the part. Manufacturing the part requires several

activities to be performed on the machine. During these activities, the machine is engaged

and is not available to start on a new part. Hence, the time to perform all those activities

should be considered to estimate the time required to manufacture the part. These

activities are loading material in the machine, setup activities on the machine, part

manufacturing, part removal, parameter setting, and machine cleaning. Machine

operation cost is calculated using equation 4.

𝐶𝑜𝑝 = (𝑇𝑚 + 𝑇𝑙 + 𝑇𝑠 + 𝑇𝑟 + 𝑇𝑝 + 𝑇𝑐 ) ∙ 𝐶𝑚𝑟 (4)

where,

Tm = Part manufacturing time

Tl = Material (including support material) loading time

Ts = Setup time (machine adjustment before starting)

 44

Tr = Part removal time

Tp = Parameter setting time

Tc = Cleaning time

Cmr = Machine hourly operating cost

Machine hourly operating cost is used to calculate the machine operation cost.

Machine hourly operating cost is calculated by dividing the equivalent annual purchase

cost of the machine by number of hours operated per year. The machine hourly operating

cost is calculated using equation 5.

𝐶𝐸𝐴𝐶
𝐶𝑚𝑟 = (5)
12 ∙ 𝑁𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 ∙ 𝐸[𝐻]

where,

CEAC = Equivalent annual purchase cost

Ndays= Number of working days in a month

E[H] = Expected operating hours in a day

The number of working days in a month is a secondary input and the user can edit this

value depending on the number of days for which the machine is expected to operate.

Further, the annual cost of owning is divided by months, number of working days, and

expected hours of operation in a day to calculate the unit cost of operation.

A single value for machine operation hours per day may not be accurate and might

introduce an error. This value is important because the number of machine operation

hours is directly proportional to the machine operation cost. The triangular distribution is

used in this research to determine an accurate estimate and deal with the uncertainty

involved in estimating the machine operation hours.

 45

The triangular distribution is useful since it is easy to estimate the minimum, most

likely, and maximum values that define the distribution. The expected machine operation

hours are calculated using minimum, most likely, and maximum values as an primary

user input in the model. The expected machine operating hours is the mean of all three

values and is calculated as shown in equation 6 [47].

𝐻𝑚𝑖𝑛 +𝐻𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 +𝐻𝑚𝑎𝑥

𝐸[𝐻] = (6)
3

where,

Hmin = Minimum machine operation hours in a day

Hmost = Most likely machine operation hours in a day

Hmax = Maximum machine operation hours in a day

The equivalent annual purchase cost of the machine is calculated using the purchase cost

(present worth) of the machine for a specific time-period considering machine life and fixed

rate of interest [48]. The equivalent annual purchase cost is calculated using equation 7.

𝑟 ∙ (𝑃𝑉)
𝐶𝐸𝐴𝐶 = (7)
1−(1+𝑟)−𝑛

where,

r = Rate of interest

PV = Purchase price of the machine

n = Expected life of machine

It is assumed that the cost incurred for repair and maintenance of the machine is

proportional to the time for which the machine is operating for producing the part. Hence,

machine repair and maintenance cost are calculated by considering the time to perform
 46

all those activities for manufacturing the part – loading material in the machine, setup

activities on machine, parameter setting, part removal, and machine cleaning.

Therefore, repair and maintenance cost of the machine is calculated using equation 8.

𝐶𝑟𝑝 = (𝑇𝑚 + 𝑇𝑙 + 𝑇𝑠 + 𝑇𝑟 + 𝑇𝑝 + 𝑇𝑐 ) ∙ 𝐶𝑟𝑟 (8)

where,

Crr = cost of repair and maintenance per hour

The repairs and maintenance are calculated by considering a certain percentage of the

cost of owning, because it is assumed that repairs and maintenance are proportional to the

equivalent annual purchase cost of the machine. Hence, to simplify the calculation it is

assumed that the annual repairs and maintenance are a fixed percentage of the equivalent

annual purchase cost.

If the cost of repairs and maintenance is not readily available in terms of the

percentage of the cost of owning machine, the user may have to convert it into a

percentage to enter model. It is assumed that the value of annual cost of repairs and

maintenance is variable percentage of equivalent annual purchase cost of the machine.

This variable is configured as a secondary input parameter and can be edited by the user

to generate accurate estimate on the availability of the data. Hence the unit cost of repairs

and maintenance of the machine is calculated using equation 9.

𝑥 ∙ 𝐶𝐸𝐴𝐶
𝐶𝑟𝑟 = 𝑥 ∙ 𝐶𝑚𝑟 = (9)
12 ∙ 𝑁𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠 ∙ 𝐸[𝐻]

where,

x = variable percentage of machine operation cost

 47

Part manufacturing time (Tm) is calculated by considering the specific AM process.

This is explained in further section 3.7.

3.3 Material Cost

The material cost is calculated by considering the primary inputs given by the user and

default values of secondary input parameters. The primary material parameters include

type of material, part volume, and dimensions. The dimensions of the part include length,

width, and height of the part which specifies the bounding box of the part in X, Y, and Z

planes, respectively. These primary material input parameters are used to estimate the

material cost of the part. The secondary input parameters consist of material density,

support structure factor, rejection rate, and recycling rate. Secondary material parameters

can be edited to enhance the accuracy of the material cost estimate.

Material cost of the part is estimated using the type of material being manufactured

and the mass of material required including the support structure. Hence, part material

cost is calculated by the addition of the cost of material and the cost of support structure

required for the part, using equation 10.

𝐶𝑚𝑡 = 𝐶𝑝𝑚 + 𝐶𝑠𝑚 (10)

where,

Cpm = Product material cost

Csm = Support structure material cost

Product material cost and support structure material cost are calculated by considering

the mass of material consumed and the unit cost of material. Part material cost is

calculated using equation 11.

𝐶𝑝𝑚 = 𝑄𝑝𝑚 ∙ 𝑐𝑝𝑚 (11)

 48

where,

Qpm = Mass of material

cpm = Unit rate of material

Similarly support material is calculated using equation 12.

𝐶𝑠𝑚 = 𝑄𝑠𝑚 ∙ 𝑐𝑠𝑚 (12)

where,

Qsm = Mass of support material

csm = Unit rate of support material

The mass of material required for the part is estimated by using the value provided by

the user for the volume of the part. The total quantity of material consumed for

manufacturing the part is calculated by multiplying volume of the part by the density of

the material, as shown in equation 13.

𝑄𝑝𝑚 = 𝑉𝑝𝑚 ∙ 𝐷𝑝𝑚 (13)

where,

Vpm = Volume of the part

Dpm = Density of the part

There are two types of support material required for most AM parts. One is the base

support material which is required on the platform so that the part can be manufactured

on the base support structure. This base support material enables easy removal of the part

from the base plate without damaging the part. The other is the part support material,

which is required to hold up free-standing and disconnected features during

manufacturing of parts. The part support material is manufactured simultaneously with

the part. The part support material and base support material can be the same as the part
 49

being manufactured or can be different [49]. These sacrificial support materials are

removed after the part is manufactured.

The mass of base support material depends on the base area of the part, the type of

AM technique, the layer thickness and the material used for manufacturing. Prior to

manufacturing of the actual part, a constant number of layers of base support material is

deposited. The mass of base support material is calculated using equation 14.

𝑄𝑏𝑠 = 𝐴𝑏𝑠 ∙ 𝑇𝑙 ∙ 𝑛𝑏𝑠 ∙ 𝐷𝑠𝑚 (14)

where,

Abs = Base area of the part

nbs = Number of layers for base support material

Dsm = Density of support material

Tl = Layer thickness

The base area of the part is calculated by multiplying length and width of the part

which are primary user input parameters.

The mass of the part support material varies with part design. This is accounted for by

the support factor. The support factor is the ratio of the part support volume to the part

volume. If the support factor is more than one, this means the volume of support material

is greater than the volume of part material; however, if the support factor value is less

than one, part support volume is less than part volume.

The mass of part support material depends on the volume of the part, the density of

support material, and the support factor. The mass of part support material is calculated

using equation 15.

𝑄𝑝𝑠 = 𝑆𝑓 ∙ 𝑉𝑝𝑚 ∙ 𝐷𝑠𝑚 (15)

 50

where,

Sf = Support factor

The support factor is a secondary user input parameter and the value can be edited by

the user. The density of support material depends on the type of support material.

The value of the support factor varies depending on part geometric dimensions,

design, and additive manufacturing process. Hence, instead of considering a constant

value of support, the factor linear equations were developed with part geometrical

parameters. To develop linear equations the support factor was considered the dependent

parameter and part geometrical parameters were considered as independent parameters.

The part geometrical parameters were the ratio of part volume and bounding box

(V/XYZ); the area of the base of the part (XY); the breadth of the part (Y); and the height

of the part (Z).

To test if there is a relationship between any of the part geometric parameters and the

support factor, hypothesis testing was used. The significance of the linear regression

model for deriving the support factor was validated using hypothesis testing. It was

assumed that the error component is distributed normally in the linear regression model

and α = 0.05 [50]. To test the hypothesis whether slope equals zero, the following

hypotheses were considered.

To test the relationship the constructed hypotheses were:

Null Hypothesis, 𝐻0 : 𝛽1 = 0

Alternate Hypothesis, 𝐻1 : 𝛽1 ≠ 0
 51

If we fail to reject the null hypothesis then the average value of Sf will be used for the

model; otherwise the linear equation will be used to calculate the support factor. To test

the hypotheses, the t-Test statistic T0 was used, which is calculated using equation 16.
̂1 −0
𝛽
𝑇0 = (16)
√(𝜎2 ⁄𝑆𝑥𝑥 )

where,

T0 = t-Test statistic

σ = Residual error

Sxx = Error sum of squares

𝛽̂1 = Unbiased estimator of true slope β1

The value of T0 was compared to check whether it lay within the critical region using

equation 17.

Tcritical = ±𝑇𝛼,𝑛−2 (17)

2

The linear equation was developed with different parameters using two datasets to

predict the value of the support factor. Table 1 represents the parameters — x values —

used to construct the linear equation, the number of observations, the t-Test statistics, and

the critical region values for the t-tests.

Hypothesis
Dataset Parameter Observations T0 Tcritical
test
1 Dataset 1 Ratio (V/XYZ) 11 -1.08 ±2.26
2 Dataset 1 XY 11 0.64 ±2.26
3 Dataset 1 Y 11 0.48 ±2.26
4 Dataset 1 Z 11 1.70 ±2.26
5 Dataset 2 Ratio (V/XYZ) 20 -1.40 ±3.197
 52

6 Dataset 2 XY 20 -1.70 ±3.197

7 Dataset 2 Y 20 0.48 ±3.197
8 Dataset 2 Z 20 -0.27 ±3.197
9 Dataset 2 ZSA 20 -1.52 ±3.197

Table 1 t-Test values of hypothesis testing

Using t-Test it is observed that the value of T0 lies between the critical values for all

the parameters, implying that we fail to reject the null hypothesis. So, there is no

evidence 𝛽1 ≠ 0. Therefore, the average value of Sf will be used.

3.4 Labor Cost

Labor cost is calculated by considering the time required for the operator to perform

manual activities. Labor cost is the addition of the cost to set up the machine, the cost to

manufacture the part, and the cost to remove the part. For each activity in manufacturing

a part, labor cost is calculated by estimating the time spent by the operator and the

operator (labor) rate which is the hourly cost of the operator. Labor rate is the primary

user input entered in the model to estimate the labor cost. The time spent by the operator

during setting up the machine, manufacturing the parts, and removing the parts are

configured as secondary user input parameters. The labor cost is calculated as shown in

equation 18.

𝐶𝑙𝑏 = 𝐶𝑠𝑐 + 𝐶𝑚𝑝 + 𝐶𝑝𝑟 (18)

where,

Csc = Cost to perform machine setup

Cmp = Cost to manufacture the part

Cpr = Cost to remove the part

 53

The cost incurred in setup activities is estimated by multiplying the time for the setup

activities and the hourly labor rate. Setup activities include loading of material into the

machine, setting parameters on the machine, generating the STL file (including necessary

modifications required in the STL file), and adjusting the machine before starting. The

times required for these activities are configured as secondary user input parameters in

the model and are calculated based on the primary input parameters, which are type of

AM technique and machine type. The setup cost is calculated using equation 19.

𝐶𝑠𝑐 = (𝑇𝑙 + 𝑇𝑝 + 𝑇𝑓 + 𝑇𝑠 ) ∙ 𝑂𝑟 (19)

where,

Tl = Material loading time

Tp = Parameter setting time

Tf = STL file generating and modifying time

Ts = Adjusting machine time

Or = Operator hourly cost

During manufacturing the part, it may not be necessary for the operator to be present.

The operator may only inspect the part at a regular interval to ensure the process is

progressing correctly. Hence, labor cost during manufacturing is calculated by the time

spent by the operator during manufacturing the part, using equation 20.

𝐶𝑚𝑝 = 𝑇𝑚𝑜 ∙ 𝑂𝑟 (20)

where,

Tmo = time spent by an operator during manufacturing a batch

 54

Time spent by the operator during manufacturing is estimated by calculating number

of visits required during manufacturing and time spent per visit. Time spent by operator

is calculated using equation 21.

𝑇𝑚𝑜 = 𝑁𝑣 ∙ 𝑇𝑣 (21)

where,

Tv = Time spent by the operator during a single visit

Nv = Number of visits made by the operator during part manufacturing

It is considered that the time spent by the operator during manufacturing a batch, other

than attending the machine, is the auxiliary time (Tn) i.e. time spent on other duties.

Figure 9 shows time spent by the operator during a single visit (Tv) and auxiliary time

(Tn).

Figure 9 Machine and operator time relationship

It can be seen from Figure 9 that the time spent by the operator during a single visit

(Tv) and the auxiliary time (Tn) make a cycle, which repeats depending on the part

manufacturing time. Hence, the number of visits is calculated by dividing the part

manufacturing time by the time spent during a single visit and auxiliary time, using

equation 22.
 55

𝑇𝑚 +
𝑁𝑣 = (𝑇 ) (22)
𝑣 + 𝑇𝑛

where,

Tn = Operator non-productive time

Tm = Part manufacturing time

Using an equation 22, the number visits will be rounded down up the next integer

considering first visit is accounted. The time spent by the operator during a single visit

and operator non-productive time are the secondary user input in the model.

The cost of part removal is calculated by multiplying the time required to remove the

part and operator hourly cost as shown in equation 23.

𝐶𝑝𝑟 = 𝑇𝑟 ∙ 𝑂𝑟 (23)

where,

Tr = Time to remove the part

The time required for part removal is configured as a secondary user input parameter.

3.5 Post-Processing Cost Calculation

Post-processing is the activity performed to complete the part after it is removed from

the platform. These are removing the support structure, cleaning, curing, polishing,

sanding, and any other finishing activities. Post-processing cost is calculated by

considering the material and the labor time consumed for these activities, shown in

equation 24.

𝐶𝑝𝑝 = 𝐶𝑚𝑝 + 𝐶𝑙𝑝 (24)

where,

Cmp = Cost of material for post-processing

 56

Clp = Cost of labor for post-processing

Some post-processing activities such as support structure removal, water treatment,

and polishing the part might consume additional material. The amount and the type of

material consumed for post-processing varies. These materials are considered to calculate

post-processing material cost. Post-processing material cost is calculated by the

summation of respective quantities and material rates using equation 25.

𝐶𝑚𝑝 = ∑ 𝑃𝑚𝑖 ∙ 𝑃𝑐𝑖 (25)

where,

Pmi = Amount of post-processing material i

Pci = Unit cost of post-processing material i

Post-processing labor cost is estimated by considering the time required during each

post-processing activity and the operator hourly cost. During different post-processing

activities, the operator hourly cost might vary depending upon skill and knowledge

required by the operator. Post-processing labor cost is calculated by summation of

respective time and operator hourly cost using equation 26.

𝐶𝑙𝑝 = ∑ 𝑃𝑙𝑗 ∙ 𝑃ℎ𝑗 (26)

where,

Plj = Time spent by operator during post-processing activities j

Phj = Operator hourly cost for post-processing activities j

The cost of materials and operator hourly cost for post-processing are primary user

inputs entered in the model. The amount of material and time required by the operator are

secondary input parameters.

 57

3.6 Yielded Cost

The total cost calculated using equation 2 does not account for defects during additive

manufacturing processes. Some of the manufactured parts may not meet expected quality

standards and may be rejected as defective parts. The cost of defective parts has to be

borne by the acceptable parts and this is accounted in the model by calculating the

yielded cost.

The yield factor (Yf) is defined as the ratio of the number of acceptable parts to the

total number of parts manufactured. Yield factor is used to calculate the yielded total

cost. The total cost is divided by the yield factor to determine the yielded cost —

effective cost per good (acceptable) part after manufacturing [51]. The yielded total cost

(Cty) is calculated as shown in equation 27.

𝐶𝑡
𝐶𝑡𝑦 = (27)
𝑌𝑓

where,

Cty = Yielded total cost

Ct = Total cost

Yf = Yield factor

The yield factor affects the total cost inversely. If the number of defective parts

produced during manufacturing is low, the yield factor is high. Therefore, a higher yield

factor will generate a lower cost estimate. The yield factor is configured in the model as a

secondary input parameter, so the user may edit the value corresponding to a specific AM

machine. This enables the user to account for defects of additive manufacturing in cost

estimation.
 58

3.7 Build Time Estimation of Additive Manufacturing

The time required to manufacture a part is estimated by breaking down the processes

for additive manufacturing. The part manufacturing time (Tm) is estimated by determining

the time required to build each layer, then summing these times to get the total time.

The number of layers for the part depends on the layer thickness of the process and

height of the part being manufactured. The layer thickness of the part is determined by

the type of processes and machine specification. The number of layers in the part is

calculated using equation 28.

ℎ𝑝
𝑛𝑝 = (28)
𝑇𝑙

where,

np = Number of layers of the part

hp = Height of the part or dimension of the part in z direction

Tl = Layer thickness

For manufacturing each layer, the process is broken down into four activities. First,

the machine platform moves down a distance equivalent to the layer thickness. Second,

the machine (printer) head moves in the X-Y plane before deposition of material based on

the part’s geometry. Third, the material is deposited. Finally, the material is fused to form

a layer of the object. These steps may vary; two of the steps might occur simultaneously,

dependent on the specific AM technique. The following section explains the time

estimation equations for specific AM techniques.

 59

3.7.1 Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM)

In FDM, the material is drawn through a nozzle to deposit a layer on the build

platform. The time required to deposit layer k is calculated by dividing the volume of

layer k by the deposition rate. After deposition of layer k, the material is fused (cured).

The time required to fuse the material of layer k is calculated by dividing the volume of

layer k by the rate of fusion.

Material deposition and fusion activities take place simultaneously. The time to

complete the deposition and fusion depends on the part’s geometry, machine

specification, and material characteristics. After the deposition, a layer may not be fused

(cured) even if the deposition is complete. In this case next layer can only be deposited

after the fusion of the previous layer is complete. In other cases, the deposition time will

be more than the fusion time and deposition time will be considered for determining the

time for a single layer. Hence, the time required for the longer activity is considered —

the maximum of the deposition time and the fusion time — to estimate the time to

prepare a single layer.

After deposition and fusion of a layer, the platform is lowered to deposit a new layer.

The time required to lower the machine platform is calculated by dividing the layer

thickness by the speed of machine lowering.

The time required to manufacture a part along with the part support structure using

FDM is calculated using equation 29.

𝑛𝑝
𝑉𝑝𝑘 +𝑉𝑠𝑘 𝑉𝑝𝑘 +𝑉𝑠𝑘 𝑇
(𝑇𝑝 )𝐹𝐷𝑀 = ∑ [𝑚𝑎𝑥 ( 𝑅𝑑
,
𝑅𝑓
) + 𝑆𝑙 ] (29)
𝑘=1 𝑙

where,
 60

(Tp)FDM = Time required to manufacture a part along with part support

structure using FDM

Vpk = Part volume of layer k

Vsk = Support volume of layer k

Rd = Deposition rate of material

Rf = Fusion rate of material

Tl = Layer thickness

Sl = Platform lowering speed

The ratio of mass of part support material and density of support material is volume of

part support material. Hence, we get equation 30.

𝑉𝑠 = 𝑆𝑓 ∙ 𝑉𝑝 (30)

where,

Vs = Volume of part support material

Hence from equation 31 for any layer k we can derive equation 31.

𝑉𝑠𝑘 = 𝑆𝑓 ∙ 𝑉𝑝𝑘 (31)

By substituting the value of Vsk from equation 32 we get, time to manufacture a part

along with part support structure for FDM, as shown equation 32.
𝑛𝑝
𝑉𝑝𝑘 ∙ (1+𝑆𝑓 ) 𝑉𝑝𝑘 ∙ (1+𝑆𝑓 ) 𝑇
(𝑇𝑝 )𝐹𝐷𝑀 = ∑ [𝑚𝑎𝑥 ( 𝑅𝑑
,
𝑅𝑓
) + 𝑆𝑙 ] (32)
𝑘=1 𝑙

The volume of layer k is calculated by multiplying the cross-sectional area of layer k

and the layer thickness. The deposition rate of material (Rd), the fusion rate of material

(Rf), layer thickness (Tl), and platform lowering speed (Sl) are the secondary user input
 61

parameters, configured in the model and calculated based on the primary user input

parameters.

In the FDM process, base support material deposition requires an additional time

which is not accounted for by equation 32. Hence the additional time required to deposit

the base support material is given by equation 33.

𝑛𝑠
𝑉 𝑉𝑏𝑘 𝑇
(𝑇𝑠 )𝐹𝐷𝑀 = ∑ [𝑚𝑎𝑥 ( 𝑅𝑏𝑘 , ) + 𝑆𝑙] (33)
𝑑 𝑅𝑓 𝑙
𝑘=1

where,

(Ts)FDM = Time required to manufacture base support structure using FDM

Vbk = Volume of base support structure for layer k

ns = Number of layers for base support structure

The times calculated using equation 32 and 33 are added to get the total time required

to manufacture a part along with the support structure.

3.7.2 Stereolithography (SLA)

In SLA, a UV laser scans the resin to form the cross-sectional area of an object by

curing the resin. The time to cure layer k by UV light is calculated by dividing the cross-

sectional area of layer k by the scanning speed of the laser. After scanning the resin, the

platform is moved down to bring a fresh coat of resin material on the cured material. The

time required to lower the platform is calculated by dividing the layer thickness by the

platform lowering speed. A fresh coat of resin is spread across the platform by moving

the blade or roller. The time required to move a blade across the platform is calculated by

dividing the length of platform by the blade (roller) movement speed.

 62

The time required to manufacture the part along with part support structure using SLA

is calculated as shown in equation 34.

𝑛𝑝
𝐴𝑝𝑘 +𝐴𝑠𝑘 𝑇𝑙 𝐿
(𝑇𝑝 )𝑆𝐿𝐴 = ∑ [
𝑆𝑠
+
𝑆𝑙
+
𝑆𝑚
] (34)
𝑘=1

where,

(Tp)SLA = Time required to manufacture the part using SLA

Apk = Cross-sectional area of part for layer k

Ask = Cross-sectional area of part support for layer k

Ss = Scanning speed of laser of SLA machine

L = Length of the platform

Sm = Blade or roller speed

The volume of layer k is calculated by multiplying the area of layer k and the layer

thickness. Hence layer volumes can be calculated as shown in equations 35 and 36.

𝑉𝑝𝑘 = 𝐴𝑝𝑘 ∙ 𝑇𝑙 (35)

𝑉𝑠𝑘 = 𝐴𝑠𝑘 ∙ 𝑇𝑙 (36)

By substituting the value of Vpk and Vsk from equation 36 and 37 into equation 32;

equation 38 is derived.

𝐴𝑠𝑘 ∙ 𝑇𝑙 = 𝑆𝑓 ∙ 𝐴𝑝𝑘 ∙ 𝑇𝑙 (37)

By dividing Tl from both the sides in equation 37 we can get equation 38.

𝐴𝑠𝑘 = 𝑆𝑓 ∙ 𝐴𝑝𝑘 (38)

By substituting the value of Ask from equation 38 into equation 34, the time to

manufacture the part along with part support structure using SLA is derived as shown in

equation 39.
 63
𝑛𝑝
𝐴𝑠𝑘 ∙ (1+𝑆𝑓 ) 𝑇 𝐿
(𝑇𝑝 )𝑆𝐿𝐴 = ∑ [ + 𝑆𝑙 + 𝑆 ] (39)
𝑘=1 𝑆𝑆 𝑙 𝑚

The scanning speed of the laser, the length of the platform, and the blade or roller

speed are secondary user input parameters, configured in the model and calculated based

on the primary user input parameters.

In SLA, the base support material is formed by curing the resin, which takes additional

time, which is not considered by equation 39. The additional time required to

manufacture the base support structure is calculated using equation 40.

𝑛𝑠
𝐴𝑏𝑘 𝑇 𝐿
(𝑇𝑠 )𝑆𝐿𝐴 = ∑ [ + 𝑆𝑙 + 𝑆 ] (40)
𝑘=1 𝑆𝑆 𝑙 𝑚

(Ts)SLA = Time required to manufacture base support structure using SLA

Abk = Cross-sectional area of base support material for layer k

ns = Number of layers for base support structure

The cross-sectional area of base support material is calculated by multiplying length

and breadth of the part. The times calculated using equation 39 and 40 are added to get

the total time to manufacture a part along with the support structure.

3.7.3 Polyjet

The time required to construct a layer using a Polyjet technique is estimated by

addition of the times of the activities of Polyjet machine. The machine (printer) head

moves across the cross-sectional area of the layer based on the part’s geometry.

The time required to move the Polyjet machine (printer) head is calculated by

considering the maximum length (movement in the x-direction) and maximum breadth

(movement the in y-direction) of the parts while building on the machine platform.
 64

The maximum length travelled by the machine head will be dependent on the number

and size of parts being manufactured on the build platform. The total length travelled by

the machine head for manufacturing a single layer will be dependent on the length from

the default position of printer head, the gap between the parts, the maximum length, and

the maximum breadth of all the parts as shown in Figure 10. The machine head

movement is calculated by dividing the length travelled by the machine head by the speed

of machine head movement.

After a layer of material is deposited, the platform moves down to deposit a new layer

of the part. The time required to move the platform is calculated by dividing the layer

thickness by the speed of platform lowering.

The build time to manufacture the part using Polyjet technology is calculated using

equation 41.

𝑛𝑝 +𝑛𝑠
𝐿 𝑇
(𝑇𝑝 )𝑃𝐽𝑇 = ∑ [( 𝑘 ) + 𝑙 ] (41)
𝑘=1 𝑆ℎ 𝑆 𝑙

where,

(Tp)PJT = Time required to manufacture the part using Polyjet technology

Lk = Length travelled by machine (printer) head to deposit layer k

Sh = Speed of Polyjet machine (printer) head movement.

The speed of the Polyjet machine (printer) head movement, the deposition rate of

material, the layer thickness, and the platform lowering speed are the secondary user

input parameters, configured in the model and selected based on the primary user input

parameters. The time required to construct the base support material is dependent on the

number of additional layers of base support structure (ns). The part support material is
 65

deposited along with the part material. Therefore, the time required to generate the part

support material is considered by the length travelled by machine (printer) head in

equation 42.

The length travelled by the machine head is explained in the example below. Consider

three parts with different geometries and dimensions being manufactured on a Polyjet

machine as shown Figure 10. The machine head is shown at the default position on the

top left corner in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Top view of build platform of Polyjet machine with dimensions

The distance travelled by the machine head in the x-direction on every pass is

equivalent to the length of the platform (Lx). To deposit the material, the machine head

moves from the default position, P0, towards the end of platform, shown as position P1.

After reaching P1, the print head comes back to the default position P0. Deposition and

curing take place during the movement of print head.

 66

The total distance travelled by the machine head in the y-direction to complete a single

layer depends on the maximum breadth of a part and the breadth of the print head (Hy).

On the second pass, the machine head moves in the y-direction a distance equivalent to

breadth of the print head (Hy) then towards position P2. After reaching P2, the print head

comes back to the default position P0 in a rectilinear manner. The distance travelled on

the second pass is calculated by addition of the two times the breadth of the print head

(Hy) and the length of the platform (Lx). During this movement, deposition and curing are

continuously taking place.

The machine head moves sequentially to visit positions P1, P2, P3, and P4 from the

default position P0 to complete the deposition of a single layer. The number of passes is

calculated using equation 42 and depends on the maximum breadth of a part.

𝑃𝑦𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑁𝐻 = (42)
𝐻𝑦

where,

NH = Number of passes the print head makes moving in x and y-directions

Pymax = Maximum dimension of a part in y-direction (breadth)

Hy = Dimension of print head in y-direction (breadth)

The maximum breadth of a part will be used for calculation as the user needs to enter

maximum part dimensions in the primary input parameters. The dimension of the print

head in the y-direction (breadth) will be automatically selected from the database

depending on the selection of specific Polyjet machine.

The total distance travelled by the machine head for depositing a single layer and

covering the maximum breadth of the part is given by equation 43.

 67
𝑁𝐻
𝐿𝑘 = 2 ∙ [∑𝑖,𝑗=1 𝑛 ∙ 𝐻𝑦 ] + 2 ∙ 𝑁𝐻 ∙ [𝐿𝑐 + 𝐿𝑥 ] (43)

where,

Lc = Length from default position to the start of platform

Lx = Length of the platform

From the sum of a finite arithmetic series it can be derived,

𝑁𝐻 +1
∑𝑁 𝐻
𝑛=1 𝑛 = 𝑁𝐻 ∙ ( ) (44)
2

By substituting the equations 44 into equation 43, provides equation 45.

𝑁𝐻 +1
𝐿𝑘 = 2 ∙ 𝑁𝐻 [𝐻𝑦 ∙ ( ) + 2 ∙ (𝐿𝑐 + 𝐿𝑥 )] (45)
2

Using equation 45, the total length travelled by the print head can be calculated and

used in equation 41 to estimate the time to manufacture a single layer.

 68

CHAPTER 4: TESTING AND RESULTS

The methodology discussed has been implemented to develop the additive

manufacturing cost estimation tool (AMCET) — an Excel-based tool to generate

manufacturing cost estimates of AM parts. In this section the implementation of AMCET

will be discussed. The results generated by AMCET will be validated by comparing with

the times and costs of actual manufactured parts.

Section 4.1 explains the architecture and features of AMCET. In section 4.2, the

validation of build time and cost are presented for Polyjet with actual manufactured parts.

Sections 4.3 and 4.4 discusses the validation of build time estimation for SLA and FDM

techniques respectively.

In section 4.5, the results of two different parts manufactured using Polyjet, SLA, and

FDM techniques are presented and compared with estimates generated by AMCET. The

actual build time and cost of each part are compared with estimates of AMCET.

4.1 Implementation of Model

AMCET consists of three sections: a primary user input screen, multiple secondary

user input screens, and an output area.

Figure 11 shows the primary user input screen. At the top of the screen, the method of

manufacturing can be selected by the user. Then, the user can enter primary input

parameters based on the part design. These primary user input parameters are organized

by grouping them into machine, material, labor, and post-processing.

 69

Figure 11 Primary user input screen

The user can select the method of manufacturing out of the three AM techniques to

generate an estimate. After selecting the AM technique, the user can select the specific

AM machine and enter the primary machine input parameters. Further, the user can select

the specific material required from the AMCET database. Based on the part geometry the

user can enter the volume and the bounding box dimensions of the part into the material

parameters.

Labor rate and visit interval can be entered as primary labor input parameters as

shown in Figure 11. Further, based on the specific post-processing required on the part,

the user can enter the rate and quantity of the material. The “Configure” button provided

on each area of the primary user input parameters enables the user to view the secondary

user input screen for that area.

 70

Figure 12 shows the secondary parameters for the machine. Based on the selection of

primary user input parameters, the secondary machine parameters are configured.

Figure 12 Secondary machine input parameters.

As shown in Figure 12, the machine life, working days, machine platform

dimensions, repair and maintenance costs, and machine speeds are entered automatically

from the database depending on the specific machine type selected. To change the

configured parameters, the user can enter a different value for any parameter. As shown

in Figure 12, the 21 working days was configured in the model as the default. However,

the user has entered 20 working days which is now the input for calculation of the

machine cost.

Similarly, there are secondary material, labor, and post-processing parameters where

the user can change the values as required.

 71

Figure 13 shows the screenshot of the output area where total cost is displayed along

with a chart of cost. The total cost and yielded cost of the part are displayed along with

the cost of machine, material, labor, post-processing material, and post-processing labor.

Figure 13 Output Screen of AMCET

The output screen provides the cost break-down of total cost. AMCET enables the

user to generate the cost of identical parts (batch) together and the cost of a single part.

The usage (e.g., kilogram of material) and rates (e.g., $/kg) of each cost component are

displayed by AMCET which helps the user to understand the consumption and unit cost

of each cost component. The graphical representation of total cost break-down enables a

user to quickly identify the major cost contributor in the process.

4.2 Testing of Parts using Polyjet

In this section, the estimates of 10 parts generated by AMCET are validated by

comparing with actual data of parts manufactured using the Polyjet technique. The parts

were manufactured at the Ohio University Innovation Center using Stratasys Objet 350
 72

Connex 3D printer [52]. The build time, material cost, machine cost, and labor cost are

estimated using AMCET and compared with actual values of the manufactured parts.

Figure 14 shows a graphical representation of the build time comparison of Polyjet

technique.

Part 10 07:09
01:06 06:45
Part 9
00:52
Part 8 00:3500:31
03:18
Part 7 03:13
Part 6 01:10
Part 5 00:09 01:11
00:08 00:46
Part 4 00:56
Part 3 00:16
00:18
Part 2 07:19
Part 1 06:30 06:42
06:37
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00
Build Time (H:M)
Estimates by AMCET Actual Build Time

Figure 14 Comparison of build time by Polyjet

By comparing the build times, it is noted that the estimates generated by AMCET have

mean absolute error of 20.9%. Some reasons for the errors include variations in machine

head speed, complex geometry of the part, and error in the estimate of the support

structure volume. For example, Part 4 is under-estimated because the volume support

structure considered for estimating a time is lower than actual support structure required

for manufacturing the part. Because the volume of the support structure is

underestimated, the time to manufacture the part is also underestimated.

Table 2 displays the actual and estimated build time of the ten parts manufactured at

the Ohio University Innovation Center using Stratasys Objet 350 Connex 3D printer and

the estimated times using AMCET.

 73

Part Actual Time Estimated Time by

Number (H:M) AMCET (H:M) Error
1 6:37 6:30 -1.7%
2 6:42 7:19 9.2%
3 0:18 0:16 -11.1%
4 0:56 0:46 -17.8%
5 0:08 0:09 12.5%
6 1:11 1:10 -1.4%
7 3:13 3:18 2.5%
8 0:35 0:31 -11.4%
9 0:52 1:06 26.9%
10 6:45 7:09 5.9%
Average 1.3%
Standard Deviation 13.2%

Table 2 Comparison of build time by Polyjet

The average error and standard deviation are considered because they help

understanding how well the estimates compare to the actual values. The average error

should be close to zero to ensure low average error. The standard deviation measures the

variations in the errors. When average error is near to 0%, a low standard deviation

confirms that errors are mostly close to 0%, whereas a high value of standard deviation

indicates that errors are spread over a wider range.

The average error generated by AMCET for build time estimation of Polyjet is 1.3%

with standard deviation of 13.2%, showing that AMCET can estimate the manufacturing

time of the parts using Polyjet technique with reasonable accuracy with acceptable

variation.

Figures 15 and 16 represent the cost components of the parts manufactured at the Ohio

University Innovation Center. The parts are divided into two groups (large parts and

small parts) for simplification of representation:

 74

Estimated $267.00 $115.00 $52.00

Part 4

Actual $219.00 $118.00 $40.00

Estimated $74.00 $59.25 $35.00

Part 3

Actual $58.94 $51.33 $30.00

Estimated $92.52 $62.47 $40.00

Part 2

Actual $76.59 $56.25 $30.00

Estimated $85.74 $110.00 $52.00

Part 1

Actual $83.00 $102.67 $40.00

$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 $500
Material Cost Machine cost Labor Cost

Figure 15 Cost component comparison of four large parts for Polyjet

Figure 15 compares the cost components for actual and estimated cost for the four

large parts. The estimated total cost is higher for all the four parts. The material, machine,

and labor cost of most of the parts are estimated higher than the actual cost.
 75

Part 10 Estimated $16.40 $26.81 $22.50

Actual $21.51 $22.40 $30.20

Estimated $8.40 $18.75 $20.00

Part 9

Actual $10.64 $14.70 $15.00

Estimated $9.67 $18.91 $20.00

Part 8

Actual $7.91 $14.67 $15.00

Estimated $5.79 $21.17 $22.50

Part 7

Actual $8.78 $17.10 $22.50

Estimated $7.15 $18.30 $10.00

Part 6

Actual $10.64 $16.97 $7.33

Estimated $7.54 $19.85 $22.50

Part 5

Actual $6.40 $14.67 $22.50

$0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00

Material Cost Machine cost Labor Cost

Figure 16 Cost component comparison of six small parts for Polyjet

Figure 16 compares the cost components for actual and estimated cost for the six small

parts. The estimated material cost is higher for four of the parts and lower for two of the

parts. The estimated machine cost is higher for all the parts, whereas labor cost is equal

for two parts and higher for four parts.

Table 3 represents the values of cost components of the ten parts manufactured with

the Polyjet technique.

 76

Part Number Actual Estimated

Machine Cost
Material Cost

Labor Cost
Labor Cost

Labor Cost

Error in

Error in

Error in
Machine

Machine
Material

Material
Cost

Cost

Cost

Cost
1 $83.00 $102.6 $40.00 $85.74 $110.0 $52.00 3.3% 7.1% 30.0%

2 $76.59 $56.25 $30.00 $92.50 $62.47 $40.00 20.8% 11.1% 33.3%

3 $58.94 $51.33 $30.00 $74.00 $59.25 $35.00 25.6% 15.4% 16.7%

4 $219.0 $118.0 $40.00 $267.0 $115.0 $52.00 21.9% -2.5% 30.0%

5 $6.40 $14.67 $22.50 $7.54 $19.85 $22.50 17.8% 35.3% 0.0%

6 $10.64 $16.97 $7.33 $7.15 $18.30 $10.00 -32.8% 7.8% 36.4%

7 $8.78 $17.10 $22.50 $5.79 $21.17 $22.50 -34.1% 23.8% 0.0%

8 $7.91 $14.67 $15.00 $9.67 $18.91 $20.00 22.3% 28.9% 33.3%

9 $10.64 $14.70 $15.00 $8.40 $18.75 $20.00 -21.1% 27.6% 33.3%

10 $21.51 $22.40 $30.20 $16.40 $26.81 $22.50 -23.8% 19.7% -25.5%

Average -0.01% 17.4% 18.8%

Standard 25.1% 11.7% 20.7%

Deviation

Table 3 Comparison of cost components for Polyjet Technique

 77

Material costs estimated using AMCET have some variations as compared with the

actual cost. One reason is the difference in estimated and actual mass of support material.

AMCET considers the support factor and part volume to calculate the mass of support

material. However, the actual material (resin) consumption for support structure is

determined by the software used for Polyjet machine. Hence, constant value of support

factor can lead to underestimation of actual mass of support material. For all the ten parts

where mass of support material is overestimated has higher material estimated cost.

However, where mass of support material is underestimated has lower material cost.

Although material cost is estimated with an average error of less than 1%, the standard

deviation of 25.1% shows that there is a greater range of values.

Machine cost estimated using AMCET is higher than actual machine cost for most of

the parts with average error of 17.4% and standard deviation of 11.7%. The approach

used in determining the actual machine cost has considered the straight-line depreciation

which is the reason for over-estimation of the machine cost. If the interest rate in

AMCET is reduced to 0% from 10% then actual and estimated hourly machine operating

cost are nearly equal. Moreover, machine cost estimate uses various parameters such as

machine useful life, number of working days, and interest rate.

AMCET estimates the labor cost higher than actual for most of the cases. This is due

to the estimates are calculated by adding part loading time, setup time, operator time

spent during manufacturing, part removing time, and machine cleaning time. Whereas

only the machine time is used for calculating the actual labor cost. Hence additional labor

times will lead to higher estimation of labor cost. The average error for labor cost is
 78

18.8% which shows reasonable accuracy and standard deviation of 20.7% indicate wider

range of estimates.

4.3 Testing of Parts using SLA

The build times of 12 parts manufactured using SLA were compared with the AMCET

estimate to validate the accuracy of SLA time estimation. The parts were downloaded

from the Thingiverse website [53] in the form of .STL files and detailed information is

provided in Appendix A. The SLA machine build time was estimated for these 12 parts using

PreForm Software developed by Formlabs [54]. Figure 17 represents the comparison of the

build time estimated by PreForm Software and by AMCET.

03:18
12 03:24
02:22
11 02:40
00:38
10 00:45

9 05:20
04:48
02:08
8 02:35

7 01:58
02:13
6 03:06
03:08
5 07:42
06:51
4 04:05
03:43
02:15
3
02:25
04:06
2 04:11
04:10
1
04:26
00:00 01:00 02:00 03:00 04:00 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00

AMCET Estimate Machine Estimate

Figure 17 Build time comparison using SLA

 79

The build time estimated by AMCET for SLA parts has some variation as compared with

machine estimated time. The reason for this may be due to machine parameters (laser

scanning speed), complex part geometries, and error in estimation of the volume of

support structure. Also, due to the complex geometry of the part, the time required to

scan each layer could vary, although equation 40 assumes a constant time for each layer.

The estimates generated using AMCET take limited inputs from the user and are still able to

provide the times similar to PreForm Software.

Table 4 represents the analysis of build time using SLA for Pre-Form and AMCET.

Part Machine Estimate AMCET

Error
Number H:M Estimate H:M
1 4:26 4:10 -6.0%
2 4:11 4:06 -1.9%
3 2:25 2:15 -6.9%
4 3:43 4:05 9.8%
5 6:51 7:42 12.4%
6 3:08 3:06 -1.0%
7 2:13 1:58 -11.2%
8 2:35 2:08 -17.4%
9 4:48 5:20 11.1%
10 0:45 0:38 -15.5%
11 2:40 2:22 -11.2%
12 3:24 3:18 -2.9%
Average -3.4%
Standard Deviation 10.1%

Table 4 Comparison of build time using SLA

The time estimated by AMCET for manufacturing parts using SLA has an average error of

-3.4%, which indicates the accuracy of time estimation. Moreover, the standard deviation of

10.1%, demonstrates that estimated values are close to machine estimates. Hence AMCET

can be used to predict the build time of parts for SLA technique.
 80

4.4 Testing of Parts using FDM

The build time data was collected for six parts manufactured separately at the Ohio

University ETM Department using FDM technology on Makerbot Replicator Z18 [55]

3D printer. The comparison of actual build time by machine and build time estimated by

AMCET is shown in Figure 18.

01:35
6 01:54
Part Names

5 03:58
04:34
4 01:42
01:22
3 00:49
00:45
2 16:05
13:59
00:00 03:00 06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00
Build Time (H:M)
AMCET Estimate H:M Actual time H:M

Figure 18 Build time Comparison for FDM

The actual build time and estimated build time have a few variations. This may be due

to variation in the machine parameters such as a change in deposition rate and print head

speed during printing for complex part geometry, whereas equation 33 considers a

constant deposition rate and print head speed. Also, the difference in the volume of the

support structure can also introduce an error for estimation of the build time, because the

volume of the support structure is calculated by assuming a support factor.

The actual build time and estimated build time of six parts using AMCET are

tabulated in Table 5.
 81

Actual AMCET
Part
Estimate Estimate Error Analysis
Numbers
H:M H:M
1 9:34 9:05 -5.0%
2 13:59 16:05 15.0%
3 0:45 0:49 8.8%
4 1:22 1:42 24.3%
5 4:34 3:58 -13.1%
6 1:54 1:35 -16.6%
Average 2.2%
Standard Deviation 16.4%

Table 5 Comparison of build time using FDM

Error analysis shows that the build time estimated with an average error of 2.2%

confirms the accuracy of time estimation of AMCET for FDM. The standard deviation of

16.4% indicates that the build time estimates are clustered around the mean.

4.5 Comparison of Parts Using Different Techniques

The estimates generated using AMCET were evaluated by manufacturing two parts

using the three different techniques. The purpose of manufacturing two parts with three

different AM technique is to compare estimated and actual build time and total cost.

Figure 19(a) shows the CAD model of Part A and Figure 19(b) shows the CAD model

of Part B. Both parts were manufactured using Polyjet, SLA, and FDM.

Figure 19 (a) CAD model of Part A (b) CAD model of Part B

 82

These two parts were manufactured using Polyjet technique at the Ohio University

Innovation Center using Stratasys Objet 350 Connex 3D printer. For SLA, the parts were

manufactured using Formalab’s Form 2 printer and the FDM parts were manufactured

using the Makerbot Replicator Z18 printer at the Ohio University ETM Department.

Figure 20 shows the build time comparison for AMCET estimates and actually

manufacturing the parts using the three AM techniques.

06:00 Machine
Time
04:49
05:00
04:30 AMCET
Build Time (H:M)

04:00 03:30 Estimate

03:31
03:00 02:30
01:39 01:47 01:55
02:00 01:38 01:19
01:12
00:57
01:00

00:00
Polyjet FDM SLA Polyjet FDM SLA

Part A Part B

Figure 20 Build time comparison of AM techniques

The graph shows that the actual time required to manufacture Part A and Part B is

least for FDM, followed by Polyjet and SLA. AMCET estimates also show that FDM is

the fastest technique, followed by Polyjet and SLA.

AMCET can be used to compare the build time estimates of various AM techniques

for the same part and select the technique which produces parts in the least amount of

time. This will enable the user to decide which technique can produce the maximum

output.
 83

Figure 21 represents the total cost comparison of the two parts manufactured using

three AM techniques.

$120
$100.82 Actual Cost
$100
$76.52 AMCET
$80
Total Cost

Estimate
$60
$42.22
$40 $32.36 $37.35 $31.31
$27.14 $27.94 $22.89
$18.26$18.34
$20 $15.34

$-
Polyjet FDM SLA Polyjet FDM SLA

Part A Part B

Figure 21 Total cost comparison of AM techniques

The graph shows the actual total cost of Part A and Part B are highest for the Polyjet

technique followed by SLA and FDM. The estimates generated by AMCET also confirm

that the estimated total cost is highest for Polyjet followed by SLA and FDM for both the

parts.

AMCET also enables designers and engineers to compare the cost of three AM

techniques for various designs by entering the user input parameters. The user can

identify the least expensive AM technique and select the process for manfuacturing.
 84

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

5.1 Summary of Results

AMCET was developed by using a break-down approach to incorporate important cost

components: machine, material, labor, and post-processing. This specific approach has

not been explored in the past research of AM cost estimation. AMCET was developed by

integrating important factors from the cost point of view which have not been considered

in the previous research for AM cost estimation. These factors include the yield of AM

process, the uncertainty in machine operation hours, the machine life, the support

structure factor, and the operator visit time during manufacturing.

AMCET has a similar approach of cost estimation for three AM technologies although

it has a process-specific approach of calculating the build time for each AM technique.

This approach helps in calculating the cost for different AM technologies by changing the

process, so that the results can be compared.

The estimates generated by AMCET have some errors but are accurate enough for

time and cost estimation purposes. The results section presents the comparison of actual

build time versus AMCET estimates for three AM technologies and cost comparison for

Polyjet. These results validate the correctness of the AMCET methodology and the

modeling approach. The user can make use of AMCET to estimate the time and cost of

various parts at the early stages of designs. Moreover, AMCET helps selecting the

suitable AM process based on the cycle time and cost constraints.

5.2 Application of AMCET

AMCET can help designers to understand the changes in the cost of a product in the

preliminary design stage for AM technologies with little information. AMCET can help
 85

to select a specific additive manufacturing technique over traditional manufacturing.

AMCET also supports researchers and engineers with a quick cost estimation by

requiring limited primary user input. However, they can provide additional information

into the secondary user input parameters to increase the accuracy of the estimate.

Companies planning to invest in additive manufacturing can make the use of AMCET

to determine manufacturing cost and decide the suitable process. AMCET can help

companies to generate an estimate irrespective of complex design by providing the

boundary box dimension. Unlike other additive manufacturing cost estimation software

where loading of an .STL file is mandatory to generate an estimate, AMCET can generate

an estimate by entering the geometric parameters. This will allow engineering companies

to protect their design by not having to share it outside an organization until the design is

complete.

Cost reduction in additive manufacturing is advantageous if multiple estimates are

available. AMCET can help manufacturing companies to reduce cost by providing the

multiple cost estimates considering different AM processes which has a significant

potential in future.

5.3 Future Work

Currently the methodology of cost estimation is implemented for three AM

techniques. It can be extended for additional techniques such as binder jetting, direct

energy deposition, powder bed fusion, and sheet lamination [3]. The process-specific

time estimation equations can be developed for these additional techniques.

 86

The data of post-processing would be useful to generate post-processing cost of the

part. The specific data on post-processing in terms of material consumed and labor hours

utilized would help estimating post-processing cost accurately.

Further, the accuracy of time and cost estimation can be improved if the required

amount of support structure is known accurately. The selection of the support factor can

be improved based on the part design and specific AM technique to generate more

precise estimates.

AMCET is configured with a limited database of the machines and the materials of

three AM techniques. However, the database can be enhanced, to include additional

options of machines and materials, enabling the user to generate an estimate with

additional option depending on specific requirement.

AMCET can be developed in Visual Basic or Java based program to increase the

flexibility of the user interface. This can also enable the user to extract the dimensional

inputs directly from a CAD model instead of entering them manually. The advanced

program-based tool could generate multiple result files which can be used for

comparison.
 87

REFERENCES

[1] Gibson, I., Rosen, D. W., and Stucker, B., “Introduction and Basic Principles,” in
Additive Manufacturing Technologies (Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital
Manufacturing), Springer, 2010, what is additive manufacturing, page 1-5.

[2] Douglas S. Thomas and Stanley W. Gilbert “Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Additive
Manufacturing” - A Literature Review and Discussion.

[3] Additive manufacturing - General principles - Terminology, ISO/ASTM 52900:2015.

[4] A.M.K. Esawi and M.F. Ashby, “Cost estimates to guide pre-selection of processes”,
Materials and Design Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages 605-616, June 2003.

[5] “Ronald Berger, Additive Manufacturing a game changer for the manufacturing
industry?”, Ronald Berger, Strategy Consultant, Munich, November 2013.

[6] Costabile, G., M. Fera, F. Fruggiero, A. Lambiase, and D. Pham. “Cost Models of
Additive Manufacturing: A Literature Review.” International Journal of Industrial
Engineering Computations, 2017, 263–83. DOI: 10.5267/j.ijiec.2016.9.001.

[7] A. Salmi, P. David, E. Blanco, and J. D. Summers, “A review of cost estimation

models for determining assembly automation level,” Computers & Industrial
Engineering, vol. 98, pp. 246–259, Aug. 2016.

[8] A. Niazi, J. S. Dai, S. Balabani, and L. Seneviratne, “Product Cost Estimation:

Technique Classification and Methodology Review,” Journal of Manufacturing Science
and Engineering, vol. 128, no. 2, p. 563, 2006.

[9] R. Roy, S. Kelvesjo, S. Forsberg, and C. Rush, “Quantitative and qualitative cost
estimating for engineering design,” Journal of Engineering Design, vol. 12, no. 2, pp.
147–162, 2001.

[10] P. Duverlie and J. M. Castelain, Cost Estimation During Design Step: Parametric
Method versus Case Based Reasoning Method, vol. 15. 1999.

[11] M. Ficko, I. Drstvenšek, M. Brezočnik, J. Balič, and B. Vaupotic, “Prediction of

total manufacturing costs for stamping tool on the basis of CAD-model of finished
product,” Journal of Materials Processing Technology, vol. 164–165, pp. 1327–1335,
May 2005.

[12] A. Gayretli and H. S. Abdalla, “An object-oriented constraints-based system for

concurrent product development,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing,
vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 133–144, 1999.
 88

[13] A. Venkatachalam, J. M. Mellichamp, and D. M. Miller, “A knowledge-based

approach to design for manufacturability,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 4,
no. 5, pp. 355–366, 1993.

[14] E. M. Shehab and H. S. Abdalla, “Manufacturing cost modelling for concurrent

product development,” Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 17, no. 4,
pp. 341–353, 2001.

[15] M. Ruffo, C. Tuck, and R. Hague, “Empirical laser sintering time estimator for
Duraform PA,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 44, no. 23, pp. 5131–
5146, Dec. 2006.

[16] L. Di Angelo and P. Di Stefano, “A neural network-based build time estimator for
layer manufactured objects,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, vol. 57, no. 1–4, pp. 215–224, Nov. 2011.

[17] N. Singh, “Integrated product and process design: a multi-objective modelling

framework,” Robotics and computer-integrated manufacturing, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 157–
168, 2002.

[18] A. Aderoba, “A generalised cost-estimation model for job shops,” International

Journal of Production Economics, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 257–263, 1997.

[19] Y. K. Son, “A cost estimation model for advanced manufacturing systems,”

International Journal of Production Research Vol. 29, no. 3, pp.441-452, 1991.

[20] J.-Y. Jung, “Manufacturing cost estimation for machined parts based on
manufacturing features,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 227–
238, 2002.

[21] D. Sormaz, P. Gannon, and S. Pulugurta, “Methodology for feature modelling and
cost estimation of large cast parts,” in IIE Annual Conference. Proceedings, 2013, p.
2349.

[22] Parametric Estimating Handbook, 4th ed., International Society of Parametric Analysts.
Vienna., VA. Virginia, 2008, 1-1-1-5.

[23] S. L. Chan, Y. Lu, and Y. Wang, “Data-driven cost estimation for additive
manufacturing in cybermanufacturing,” Journal of Manufacturing Systems, vol. 46, pp.
115–126, Jan. 2018.

[24] D. Koonce, R. Judd, D. Sormaz, and D. T. Masel, “A hierarchical cost estimation

tool,” Computers in Industry, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 293–302, Apr. 2003.
 89

[25] SEER for manufacturing: Parts, Process, and Assembly, [Online]. Available FTP:
http://galorath.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SEERforManufacturing2.pdfSEER

[26] I. Gibson, D. W. Rosen, and B. Stucker, “Extrusion based systems,” in Additive

Manufacturing Technologies (Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing),
Boston, MA: Springer US, 2010, Basic Principles, page 144-145.

[27] Chee Kai Chua, Kah Fai Leong, and Chu Sing Lim, “Solid-Based Rapid Prototyping
Systems”, in Rapid Prototyping: Principles and Applications, 3rd edition, World Scientific
Publishing Company, Singapore, 2010, page 143-145.

[28] I. Gibson, D. W. Rosen, and B. Stucker, “Photo-polymerization processes,” in

Additive Manufacturing Technologies (Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital
Manufacturing), Boston, MA: Springer US, 2010, Basic Principles, page 61-63.

[29] Chee Kai Chua, Kah Fai Leong, and Chu Sing Lim, “Liquid-Based Rapid
Prototyping Systems”, in Rapid Prototyping: Principles and Applications, 3rd edition,
World Scientific Publishing Company, Singapore, 2010, page 46-47.

[30] I. Gibson, D. W. Rosen, and B. Stucker, “Printing processes,” in Additive

Manufacturing Technologies (Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing),
Boston, MA: Springer US, 2010, Basic Principles, page 185-187.

[31] Liu Q, Orme M, “High precision solder droplet printing technology and the state-of-
the-art,” Journal of material processing technology 115 (2001) 271-283.

[32] Chee Kai Chua, Kah Fai Leong, Chu Sing Lim, “Liquid-Based Rapid Prototyping
Systems”, in Rapid Prototyping: Principles and Applications, 3rd edition, World Scientific
Publishing Company, Singapore, 2010, page 58-59.

[33] P. Alexander, S. Allen, and D. Dutta, “Part orientation and build cost determination
in layered manufacturing,” Computer-Aided Design, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 343–356, 1998.

[34] N. Hopkinson and P. 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, vol. 217, no. 1, pp. 31–
39, 2003.

[35] S. Yim and D. Rosen, “Build time and cost models for additive manufacturing
process selection,” Volume, vol. 2, p. 32nd, 2012.

[36] H. Piili, A. Happonen, T. Väistö, V. Venkataramanan, J. Partanen, and A. Salminen,

“Cost Estimation of Laser Additive Manufacturing of Stainless Steel,” Physics Procedia,
vol. 78, pp. 388–396, 2015.
 90

[37] L. Rickenbacher, A. Spierings, and K. Wegener, “An integrated cost-model for

selective laser melting (SLM),” Rapid Prototyping Journal, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 208–214,
2013.

[38] C. Lindemann, U. Jahnke, M. Moi, and R. Koch, “Analyzing product lifecycle costs
for a better understanding of cost drivers in additive manufacturing,” in 23th Annual
International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium–An Additive Manufacturing
Conference. Austin Texas USA 6th-8th August 2012.

[39] M. Baumers, C. Tuck, R. Wildman, I. Ashcroft, E. Rosamond, and R. Hague,

“Transparency Built-in: Energy Consumption and Cost Estimation for Additive
Manufacturing,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 418–431, Jun. 2013.

[40] M. Schröder, B. Falk, and R. Schmitt, “Evaluation of Cost Structures of Additive

Manufacturing Processes Using a New Business Model,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 30, pp.
311–316, 2015.

[41] E. Atzeni, L. Iuliano, G. Marchiandi, P. Minetola, A. Salmi E. Bassoli, L. Denti, and

A. Gatto, “Additive manufacturing as a cost-effective way to produce metal parts”, High
Value Manufacturing – Bártolo et al. (Eds) 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN
978-1-138-00137-4.

[42] M. Baumers, L. Beltrametti, A. Gasparre, and R. Hague, “Informing additive

manufacturing technology adoption: total cost and the impact of capacity utilisation,”
International Journal of Production Research, pp. 1–14, Jun. 2017.

[43] M Ruffo, C Tuck, and R Hague “Cost estimation for rapid manufacturing – laser
sintering production for low to medium volumes” May 2006.

[44] Y.Zhang and A. Bernard, “Generic build time estimation model for parts produced
by SLS” in High Value Manufacturing, Nantes, France, 2014, ISBN 978-1-138-00137-4.

[45] L. Di Angelo and P. Di Stefano, “A neural network-based build time estimator for
layer manufactured objects,” The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, vol. 57, no. 1–4, pp. 215–224, Nov. 2011.

[46] H. Demuth and M. Beale, “Neural network toolbox,” For Use with MATLAB. The
MathWorks Inc, vol. 2000, 1992.

[47] K. W. David, R. P. Sadowski, and D. Sturrock, Simulation with ARENA. McGraw-

Hill Education, 2006.

[48] D. G. Newnan, T. Eschenbach, and J. P. Lavelle, Engineering economic analysis,

vol. 2. Oxford University Press, 2004.
 91

[49] I. Gibson, D. W. Rosen, and B. Stucker, “Extrusion-Based Systems,” in Additive

Manufacturing Technologies (Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing),
Boston, MA: Springer US, 2010, Basic Principles, page 185-187.

[50] D. C. Montgomery and G. C. Runger, “Simple Linear Regression and Correlation,”

in Applied statistics and probability for engineers, third edition, Wiley, 2010, ch.10,
Hypothesis test on simple linear regression, page386-386.

[51] D. V. Becker and P. Sandborn, “Using yielded cost as a metric for modeling
manufacturing processes,” in Proceedings of the ASME 2001 Design Engineering
Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference,
2001.

[52] Specifications of Objet 350 Connext,[Online] Available at FTP:

http://www.stratasys.com/3d-printers/objet-350-500-connex3

[53] .STL files [Online] Available at FTP:

https://www.thingiverse.com/explore/collections/page:1

[54] Form-2 technical specifications [Online] Available at FTP: https://formlabs.com/3d-

printers/form-2/tech-specs/

[55] Makerbot replicator Z-18 technical specification [Online] Available at FTP:

https://www.makerbot.com/replicator-z18/
 92

APPENDIX A: PART INFORMATION FOR STEREOLITHOGRAPHY

The list of 12 part along with length (x), breath (y), height (z) and part volume is

listed in Table 6.

Part volume
Part Name x Inch y Inch z Inch
Number Inch3

1 Carv Cover 4.67 3.34 1.57 2.77

2 Air Funnel 3.34 3.34 1.77 2.27
3 Drawer Cutout 1.19 2.52 1.19 0.31
4 Dust Adaptor 1.61 1.50 2.14 0.70
5 Light Box 2.83 4.05 2.08 6.79
6 Minfix Jig 1.18 2.36 1.10 1.21
7 Centreur Rond 2.16 1.97 0.79 0.96
8 Track Stop 0.98 1.77 0.98 1.37
9 Vacmaster Festool 1.86 1.86 2.75 1.30
10 Tapa superior 4.01 1.57 0.18 0.75
11 Fitting Vise 3.99 0.44 1.12 1.13
12 Big Holder 2.44 3.14 1.13 5.04

Table 6 Part information for SLA

 !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

!
!
Thesis and Dissertation Services