Research Papers

A Design for Additive Manufacturing Ontology to Support Manufacturability Analysis

[+] Author and Article Information
Samyeon Kim

Digital Manufacturing and Design Centre,
Singapore University of Technology and Design,
8 Somapah Road,
Singapore 487372, Singapore
e-mail: samyeon_kim@sutd.edu.sg

David W. Rosen

The George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30332;
Digital Manufacturing and Design Centre,
Singapore University of Technology and Design,
8 Somapah Road,
Singapore 487372, Singapore
e-mails: david.rosen@me.gatech.edu; david_rosen@sutd.edu.sg

Paul Witherell

Systems Integration Division,
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
100 Bureau Drive,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
e-mail: paul.witherell@nist.gov

Hyunwoong Ko

Systems Integration Division,
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
100 Bureau Drive,
Gaithersburg, MD 20899
e-mail: hyunwoong.ko@nist.gov

1Corresponding author.

2Present address: School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore.

Manuscript received December 11, 2018; final manuscript received March 26, 2019; published online June 13, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Charlie C. L. Wang.

J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng 19(4), 041014 (Jun 13, 2019) (10 pages) Paper No: JCISE-18-1319; doi: 10.1115/1.4043531 History: Received December 11, 2018; Accepted March 27, 2019

Design for additive manufacturing (DFAM) provides design freedom for creating complex geometries and guides designers to ensure the manufacturability of parts fabricated using additive manufacturing (AM) processes. However, there is a lack of formalized DFAM knowledge that provides information on how to design parts and how to plan AM processes for achieving target goals. Furthermore, the wide variety of AM processes, materials, and machines creates challenges in determining manufacturability constraints. Therefore, this study presents a DFAM ontology using the web ontology language (OWL) to semantically model DFAM knowledge and retrieve that knowledge. The goal of the proposed DFAM ontology is to provide a structure for information on part design, AM processes, and AM capability to represent design rules. Furthermore, the manufacturing feature concept is introduced to indicate design features that are considerably constrained by given AM processes. After developing the DFAM ontology, queries based on design rules are represented to explicitly retrieve DFAM knowledge and analyze manufacturability using Semantic Query-enhanced Web Rule Language (SQWRL). The SQWRL rules enable effective reasoning to evaluate design features against manufacturing constraints. The usefulness of the DFAM ontology is demonstrated in a case study where design features of a bracket are selected as manufacturing features based on a rule development process. This study contributes to developing a reusable and upgradable knowledge base that can be used to perform manufacturing analysis.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Gibson, I., Rosen, D. W., and Stucker, B., 2015, Additive Manufacturing Technologies: 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, Springer US, New York, NY.
Jee, H., and Witherell, P., 2017, “A Method for Modularity in Design Rules for Additive Manufacturing,” Rapid Prototyp. J., 23(6), pp. 1107–1118. [CrossRef]
Dinar, M., and Rosen, D. W., 2017, “A Design for Additive Manufacturing Ontology,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 17(2), p. 021013. [CrossRef]
Rebaioli, L., and Fassi, I., 2017, “A Review on Benchmark Artifacts for Evaluating the Geometrical Performance of Additive Manufacturing Processes,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech., 93(5), pp. 2571–2598. [CrossRef]
Moylan, S., Slotwinski, J., Cooke, A., Jurrens, K., and Donmez, M. A., 2014, “An Additive Manufacturing Test Artifact,” J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol., 119, pp. 429–459. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mani, M., Witherell, P., and Jee, H., 2017, “Design Rules for Additive Manufacturing: A Categorization,” ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences (DETC2017-68446), Cleveland, OH, ASME Paper No. V001T002A035.
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), 2018, “Owl Web Ontology Language Current Status,” https://www.w3.org/standards/techs/owl#w3c_all. Accessed Jan. 10, 2018.
Franz, B., Diego, C., Deborah, L. M., Daniele, N., and Peter, F. P.-S., 2003, The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation, and Applications, Cambridge University Press, New York, p. 545.
Eddy, D., Krishnamurty, S., Grosse, I., Perham, M., Wileden, J., and Ameri, F., 2015, “Knowledge Management With an Intelligent Tool for Additive Manufacturing,” ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (DETC2015-46615), Boston, MA, ASME Paper No. V01AT02A023.
Musen, M. A., 2015, “The Protégé Project: A Look Back and a Look Forward,” AI Matters, 1(4), pp. 4–12. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Kim, S., Rosen, D. W., Witherell, P., and Ko, H., 2018, “Linking Part Design to Process Planning by Design for Additive Manufacturing Ontology,” 3rd International Conference on Progress in Additive Manufacturing (Pro-AM), Singapore, 14–17 May, pp. 303–308.
Allada, V., and Anand, S., 1996, “Machine Understanding of Manufacturing Features,” Int. J. Prod. Res., 34(7), pp. 1791–1819. [CrossRef]
Noy, N. F., and McGuinness, D. L., 2001, “Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology,” Stanford Knowledge Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford Medical Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001-0880.
International Organization for Standardization, 2015, ISO/ASTM 52900:2015 (ASTM F2792), Additive Manufacturing—General Principles—Terminology.
Uschold, M., and Gruninger, M., 1996, “Ontologies: Principles, Methods and Applications,” Knowl. Eng. Rev., 11(2), pp. 93–136. [CrossRef]
Wierda, L. S., 1991, “Linking Design, Process Planning and Cost Information by Feature-Based Modelling,” J. Eng. Des., 2(1), pp. 3–19. [CrossRef]
Filippi, S., and Cristofolini, I., 2007, “The Design Guidelines (DGLs), a Knowledge-Based System for Industrial Design Developed Accordingly to ISO-GPS (Geometrical Product Specifications) Concepts,” Res. Eng. Des., 18(1), pp. 1–19. [CrossRef]
Kranz, J., Herzog, D., and Emmelmann, C., 2015, “Design Guidelines for Laser Additive Manufacturing of Lightweight Structures in TiAl6V4,” J. Laser Appl., 27, p. S14001. [CrossRef]
O’Connor, M., and Das, A., “SQWRL: a Query Language for OWL,” Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on OWL: Experiences and Directions (OWLED'09), pp. 208–215.
Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., Boley, H., Tabet, S., Grosof, B., and Dean, M., 2004, “SWRL: A Semantic Web Rule Language Combining OWL and RuleML,” https://www.w3.org/Submission/SWRL/. Accessed Jan. 10, 2018.
Ponche, R., Kerbrat, O., Mognol, P., and Hascoet, J.-Y., 2014, “A Novel Methodology of Design for Additive Manufacturing Applied to Additive Laser Manufacturing Process,” Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 30(4), pp. 389–398. [CrossRef]
Redwood, B., 2018, “How to Design Parts for Metal 3D Printing,” https://www.3dhubs.com/knowledge-base/how-design-parts-metal-3d-printing. Accessed Oct. 29, 2018.
Xometry, 2016, “Design Guide: Direct Metal Laser Sintering,” https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/340051/Design_Guides/Xometry_DesignGuide_DMLS.pdf. Accessed Oct. 29, 2018.
The Association of German Engineers, 2015, VDI 3405-3:2015 Additive Manufacturing Processes, Rapid Manufacturing—Design Rules For Part Production Using Laser Sintering and Laser Beam Melting.
Carter, W. T., Erno, D. J., Abbott, D. H., Bruck, C. E., Wilson, G. H., Wolfe, J. B., Finkhousen, D. M., Tepper, A., and Stevens, R. G., 2014, “The GE Aircraft Engine Bracket Challenge: An Experiment in Crowdsourcing for Mechanical Design Concepts,” 25th Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX, Aug. 4–6, pp. 1402–1411.
Kellner, T., 2013, “Jet Engine Bracket From Indonesia Wins 3D Printing Challenge,” https://www.ge.com/reports/post/77131235083/jet-engine-bracket-from-indonesia-wins-3d-printing/. Accessed Oct. 29, 2018.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Overview of DFAM ontology structure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

DFAM ontology hierarchy of (a) higher classes, (b) Feature, (c) Parameter, and (d) AM capability

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Object properties between classes in the DFAM ontology

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Overhang feature (a) based on downskin angle (θ) and normal vector (n⇀) of downskin area and (b) with support structure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

A rule development process for manufacturability analysis and design recommendation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

GE jet engine bracket: (a) conventional design and (b) optimized design for AM

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Individual usage of an instance in the Protégé tool

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

A result of a query for clearance

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

A result of a query for downskin angle of the tilted wall

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

A result of a query for overhang features that require supports

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Alternative hole cross sections: teardrop (a) and diamond (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

A result of a query for hole cross-sectional recommendations



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In