Purpose This paper aims to provide a holistic framework and systematic analysis of large-format additive manufacturing (LFAM) technologies, bridging the gap between equipment systems, processing methodologies and materials. Design/methodology/approach The review constructs a systematic analysis by proposing a novel classification framework for LFAM equipment based on kinematic configurations and systematically comparing three core process strategies: monolithic deposition, segment-and-assemble and distributed and cooperative printing. Findings The study establishes a taxonomy of LFAM systems (workpiece-fixed, workpiece-moving and system-moving) and elucidates their tradeoffs. It highlights methodological convergence and scale-dependent tradeoffs in efficiency and thermal control, revealing persistent bottlenecks in computational scalability, process-structure coupling and multi-system coordination. Social implications text Originality/value This review provides a novel holistic framework that connects critical domains of LFAM and guides systematic decision-making, urging the adoption of AI-driven, digital-twin-enabled control architectures and standardized benchmarking.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: