DFAM: WHY PURPOSEFUL GEOMETRY MUST REPLACE PASSIVE OPTIMISATION

Laurence Coles & Manolis Papastavrou, Founders, Metamorphic AM

Additive Manufacturing (AM) is often celebrated for the freedom it offers designers, freedom from tooling, freedom from conventional constraints, freedom to explore geometry at levels once unimaginable. Yet for all its promise, AM has also become trapped in a cycle of what can perhaps be called superficial innovation. Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM), as commonly practiced today, has become a misnomer. Rather than embracing the full potential of AM, many engineers merely adapt existing designs or lean heavily on software-driven outputs, confusing automation with optimisation.

At Metamorphic, we believe it’s time to rethink DfAM, not just in how it is applied, but in what it fundamentally stands for. It’s time to move from passive optimisation to purposeful geometry, where function defines form, where human intent drives digital tools, and where the design process becomes an active act of engineering, not just an exercise in software manipulation.

THE COMFORT (AND COST) OF AUTOMATION

Walk into most AM design offices today, and you’ll see the same set of tools: topology optimisation engines and latticing software that are often used alongside traditional CAD packages. These tools are powerful, but their power is often misapplied.

Topology optimisation, for example, is widely used to reduce weight or improve stress distribution. But the geometries it produces are frequently unmanufacturable without extensive rework, or worse, they are geometrically “interesting” without offering meaningful performance advantages. They provide answers, yes, but only to problems that are well-defined.

This is the illusion of optimisation, the belief that a geometry — once passed through an algorithm — is automatically “better.” But in reality, these tools are simply executing pre-coded logic. They cannot comprehend the full context of an engineering challenge. They cannot prioritise conflicting objectives. And they certainly cannot account for downstream processes like post-processing, qualification, or in-service behaviour.

Too often, engineers are lulled into believing they’ve innovated when, in fact, they’ve merely delegated.

DESIGN AS AN ACT OF ENGINEERING

At Metamorphic, we advocate a different approach. We see DfAM not as a software process, but as a form of design-led engineering. We begin not with a model, but with a mission. What should this part do? What are its boundary conditions, performance demands, and lifecycle constraints? What materials, pocesses, and post-processing realities must we contend with?

Only once these questions are answered do we turn to digital tools. And when we do, we use them as instruments not decision-makers. Parametric modelling, multi-objective optimisation, Finite Element Analysis (FEA), and machine learning are all part of our toolkit, but they are wielded with intent, not dependency.

This mindset allows us to generate geometries that are not only functionally superior but also more manufacturable, more scalable, and ultimately more valuable to our customers.

FROM COMPLEXITY TO CAPABILITY

The AM sector often prides itself on complexity. The more intricate the lattice, the more organic the form, the more radical the part appears, the more it is celebrated. But complexity is not a proxy for capability.

We ask a different question. Does the complexity serve the purpose? In our view, geometry must always be a reflection of performance goals, whether that’s stiffness, heat transfer, vibration damping, or something else entirely. When geometry is driven by intent, complexity becomes a consequence, not a goal. It is purposeful, predictable, and often surprisingly elegant.

Consider our static mixer case study. This is a good example where performance depends on how the fluids flow and how they mix. We used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in tandem with custom parametric design to develop a bespoke braided static mixer structure. This is not a lattice that exists in any commercial software. Its complexity wasn’t the result of an artistic algorithm, it was derived from an understanding of fluid mechanics, and heat exchange. The part works not because it’s complex, but because it’s engineered.

COMPUTATIONAL TOOLS: PARTNERS, NOT ORACLES

We are not anti-software. Far from it. In fact, much of our success depends on advanced computational tools. But we use them with clarity and constraint.

Multi-objective optimisation, for instance, is incredibly powerful when exploring trade-offs such as those between stiffness and weight, between thermal performance and structural integrity, between manufacturability and performance. But these explorations are only valuable when the parameters are bounded, the variables are understood, and the output is interpreted with engineering judgement.

Machine learning, too, holds potential in design exploration. But ML must be trained and validated, which is computationally expensive, and then ultimately interpreted within the context of the application. It augments design, it doesn’t own it.

At Metamorphic, we don’t feed a problem into a tool and accept what comes out. We ask better questions, iterate more thoughtfully, and challenge the assumptions embeded in the algorithms themselves. Our goal isn’t to generate just any old solution, it’s to generate the right solution.

MANUFACTURABILITY IS NOT AN AFTERTHOUGHT

One of the most overlooked flaws in passive optimisation workflows is the lack of consideration for manufacturability. A design might perform brilliantly in simulation, only to fail during printing, casting, or assembly. Overhanging features, unsupported structures, anisotropic properties, and post-processing incompatibilities can all render a beautiful geometry practically useless.

We avoid these pitfalls by designing with process in mind. This includes manufacturability checks within our computational design workflows, considerations for thermal gradients, collaborating (for example) with manufacturing experts and machinists, and building in tolerance strategies from the beginning.

RETHINKING QUALIFICATION AND COMPLIANCE

Passive optimisation also falls short when it comes to part qualification, particularly in regulated sectors such as aerospace, medical, and energy. Designs that push boundaries without understanding process stability, material variation, or inspection constraints are unlikely to make it past the certification police.

Purposeful geometry, on the other hand, is inherently more qualifiable. It is engineered not just for performance, but for predictability. It accounts for material behaviour, process tolerance, and inspection resolution.

This pragmatic approach unlocks AM for mainstream use, not just for prototypes or low-volume parts, but in the industrial heart of supply chains.

THE FUTURE OF DFAM: BESPOKE, NOT GENERIC

Where does this leave DfAM? Well, basically it’s at a crossroads. One path leads to continued dependence on generic tools, pre-baked algorithms, and cookie-cutter geometries that rarely realise the true potential of AM. The other leads to bespoke, intent-driven design, where every part is a result of engineering clarity, where every tool is used in context, and where every geometry is tied to purpose.

Metamorphic stands firmly on the second path. We are not software evangelists, we are what you could call engineering optimists. We believe that tools don’t innovate but people do. And when engineers are given the freedom to think, the discipline to iterate, and the support of well-chosen computational platforms, the results are transformative.

Across multiple sectors, AM is being asked to do more. But meeting those expectations will require more than better machines. It will require better thinking.

At Metamorphic, we are placing a stake in the ground. Passive optimisation is not enough. Purposeful geometry is the future.

This shift is not just philosophical, it’s practical. It means engaging earlier in the design process. It means collaborating across disciplines. It means building smarter tools that serve engineers, not supplant them. And it means treating every project as a unique challenge, not another checkbox to pass through an automated pipeline.

SUMMARY

DfAM is at its most powerful when it becomes an act of purposeful creation, not just a response to constraints, but a pursuit of excellence. To realise the full promise of AM, we must stop outsourcing innovation to software. We must stop equating geometric novelty with design success. And we must embrace the hard, rewarding work of engineering parts that are not only manufacturable and perform well, but which are also meaningful.

At Metamorphic, we’re not interested in what the software says is possible. We’re interested in what we know is achievable when experience, computation, and intent work together. In a nutshell, what we are saying is let’s not just design for AM. Let’s design with purpose.