Metal additive manufacturing, which uses a layer-by-layer approach to fabricate parts, has many potential advantages over conventional techniques, including the ability to produced complex geometries, fast new design part production, personalised production, have lower cost and produce less material waste. While these advantages make AM an attractive option for industry, determining process parameters which result in specific properties, such as the level of porosity and tensile strength, can be a long and costly endeavour. In this review, the state-of-the-art in the control of part properties in AM is examined, including the effect of microstructure on part properties. The simulation of microstructure formation via numerical simulation and machine learning is examined which can provide process quality control and has the potential to aid in rapid process optimisation via closed loop control. In-situ monitoring of the AM process, is also discussed as a route to enable first time right production in the AM process, along with the hybrid approach of AM fabrication with post-processing steps such as shock peening, heat treatment and rolling. At the end of the paper, an outlook is presented with a view towards potential avenues for further research required in the field of metal AM.

This article details the ESAFORM Benchmark 2021. The deep drawing cup of a 1 mm thick, AA 6016-T4 sheet with a strong cube texture was simulated by 11 teams relying on phenomenological or crystal plasticity approaches, using commercial or self-developed Finite Element (FE) codes, with solid, continuum or classical shell elements and different contact models. The material characterization (tensile tests, biaxial tensile tests, monotonic and reverse shear tests, EBSD measurements) and the cup forming steps were performed with care (redundancy of measurements). The Benchmark organizers identified some constitutive laws but each team could perform its own identification. The methodology to reach material data is systematically described as well as the final data set. The ability of the constitutive law and of the FE model to predict Lankford and yield stress in different directions is verified. Then, the simulation results such as the earing (number and average height and amplitude), the punch force evolution and thickness in the cup wall are evaluated and analysed. The CPU time, the manpower for each step as well as the required tests versus the final prediction accuracy of more than 20 FE simulations are commented. The article aims to guide students and engineers in their choice of a constitutive law (yield locus, hardening law or plasticity approach) and data set used in the identification, without neglecting the other FE features, such as software, explicit or implicit strategy, element type and contact model.