Interview with Professor Ian Campbell: Pioneering Design for Additive Manufacturing at Loughborough University

Professor Ian Campbell is a leading researcher at Loughborough University, where the Design for Additive Manufacturing (DAM) programme is redefining how complex parts are conceived and produced. With more than forty peer‑reviewed publications, he serves as editor of the Rapid Prototyping Journal and has been a consultant for Wohlers Associates since 2014.

In this interview we explore the evolution of additive manufacturing (AM), the role of automation, and the promise of mass customisation and hybrid production.

Q: How did you first become involved in AM?

I began my journey during a Master’s program at Warwick University in 1993, when stereolithography was still a nascent technology. A move to Nottingham University later that year gave me access to the campus’s stereolithography machine, and I focused my PhD on the relationship between design and rapid prototyping.

My premise was that rapid prototyping would evolve into a full‑scale production process—a vision few could imagine in the 1990s. If that were true, designers would need to learn how to design specifically for it. That became the core of my doctoral research.

Q: Ironically, today design for additive manufacturing is a huge talking point. Where are we with that, and what progress needs to be made?

Progress is uneven. Certain companies, especially in aerospace, already harness AM’s strengths for lightweighting, intricate internal geometries, and topology optimisation. However, many designers still lack a deep understanding of AM’s capabilities and have not had the opportunity to reimagine their workflows around it.

There is a noticeable knowledge gap across the design community. New graduates are now receiving education that includes AM, but seasoned professionals often need exposure to the technology to unlock its benefits.

This gap is a key focus of the new Masters’ programme we recently launched, which equips students with both theoretical knowledge and hands‑on experience.

Q: Where do you see design for AM in five years?

Five years from now, I anticipate a broader recognition of AM as a viable production route, prompting widespread adoption of design‑for‑AM principles—especially among the next generation of designers who will be trained in the technology from day one.

We also expect a surge in design automation. Tools such as topological optimisation already exist, and emerging software can automatically generate lattice structures, eliminating the bottleneck of manual geometry creation. A richer ecosystem of automation tools will be essential to fully exploit AM’s potential.

Ultimately, a comprehensive suite of automated design tools will streamline the entire workflow, from concept to finished part.

Q: Automation is a key trend in AM right now. How do you see automation evolving for AM?

Current AM processes still rely heavily on manual labor. Automation can optimise part placement, predict build times, and simulate surface finish based on orientation. Future systems will feature closed‑loop feedback, automatically adjusting parameters to improve quality mid‑build.

Recent software allows designers to input critical constraints—contact points, force loads—and have the CAD system autonomously grow the geometry, complementing traditional topology optimisation that removes material.

There is substantial opportunity to extend automation across the value chain, from ideation to post‑processing.

Q: You’re currently leading a research project on customisation for the automotive industry. Could you tell me more?

The project partners with Romanian suppliers to explore customised components for automotive applications. Pilot studies examine functional customisation—such as suspension tuning for driving styles—and aesthetic customisation, like ergonomic handles or dashboard contours.

Q: What are you hoping to achieve from the pilot studies?

Our goal is to develop mass‑customisation toolkits that let manufacturers create a standard part and then allow end‑users to tweak parameters, resulting in a co‑created product. We are investigating interface design, parameter limits, and the added value perceived by consumers.

We aim to shift the design process so that the manufacturer supplies a base or unfinished design, and the customer finalises it—an approach that fosters user engagement and product ownership.

Q: Do you see this form of “co‑creation” as something that will become more commonplace in 3D printing in the future?

Co‑creation is already present in limited forms—for instance, Mini’s product customisation options. However, fully customizable functional parts are still rare, largely because manufacturers must ensure safety, functionality, and cost‑effectiveness. Continued research is needed to bridge that gap.

In sectors like automotive, enabling users to alter a part’s shape requires rigorous validation. Some companies are open to limited variation, while others may restrict customization altogether.

Customisable ergonomics—such as a hair dryer handle tailored to hand size—can deepen emotional attachment and encourage longer product lifespans, aligning with sustainable design goals.

Q: Loughborough University is pioneering what it calls “hybrid and multi‑systems AM”. Can you explain what this means?

Hybrid manufacturing merges additive and subtractive processes within a single machine. At Loughborough, we explore both metal and polymer systems.

Q: How does this hybrid manufacturing approach work for metal systems?

Companies such as Matsuura and DMG Mori now offer machines that can add material via deposition and then switch to CNC milling tools for finishing. This cycle can repeat as needed, enabling precise internal and external surfaces without additional machining steps.

Hybrid metal AM supports one‑stop production: a CAD file is fed into a single machine that delivers a finished part. For aerospace, this translates to fewer components, lower assembly costs, and weight savings that reduce fuel consumption.

Q: Is the hybrid manufacturing process for polymers quite different then?

The principle is the same—deposition followed by machining—but polymer processes operate at lower temperatures. Our goal is to combine geometric freedom with high accuracy and cost efficiency for everyday products.

Q: What other research projects are on the horizon at Loughborough University?

We are expanding into additive manufacturing of composite materials, controlling fibre orientation to enhance strength, stiffness, and weight. This initiative involves several international partners.

Q: Can you tell us a bit more about the new Masters’ programme at Loughborough University?

The one‑year, three‑semester Design for Additive Manufacture programme immerses students in AM fundamentals, advanced CAD tools, and practical projects. Coursework includes topology optimisation, voxel modelling, and a capstone project that redesigns or creates a product from scratch.

Q: Finally, what’s the next trend in AM that you’re most excited about?

One exciting development is the scale of AM machines. As build volumes grow beyond the half‑metre cube, we’re witnessing applications ranging from architectural façades to large aircraft components. This scalability unlocks new design possibilities.

Metamaterials—materials engineered to exhibit properties not found in nature—are another frontier. Using complex geometries, we can create auxetic structures that expand laterally when compressed, or design parts that respond predictably to thermal gradients. 4D printing, where shape change is driven by stimuli such as heat, could enable adaptive components for space or consumer products.

Click here to learn more about the Additive Manufacturing Research Group (AMRG) at Loughborough University. Check out our recent interview with Dr Richard Buswell of Loughborough University.