Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Review examines design strategies for metal additive manufacturing, indicating implications for performance and manufacturability.
Metal additive manufacturing (AM) enables components with high geometric complexity and functional integration; however, these advantages are realized only when topology optimization (TO) aligns with AM-specific constraints. This review examines TO strategies for metal AM, with emphasis on laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) as the most established industrial route. It categorizes and assesses density-based methods, level-set approaches, and lattice or architected-material optimization, focusing on how each captures manufacturability (overhang limits, minimum feature size, surface roughness), physics (residual stress, thermal distortion), and AM-induced anisotropy. It further distinguishes algorithms that embed constraints directly into the TO loop from workflows that rely on post-optimization repair. It discusses implications for robustness and transferability across machines and alloys. Experimental and numerical evidence for titanium alloys, aluminum alloys, nickel-based superalloys, and stainless steels is synthesized to relate design decisions and processing conditions to reported gains in stiffness-to-weight ratio, strength, fatigue performance, and buy-to-fly efficiency. Persistent gaps include validation under realistic load spectra, uncertainty quantification, standardized benchmarks, microstructure-informed objectives, and sustainability metrics. Beyond synthesizing existing TO formulations and constraints, this review contributes a criteria-based decision structure linking TO method selection, constraint strategy, and process-physics coupling and identifies four inherent paradoxes defining the field’s open challenges.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nhanga et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: