A Cost–Benefit–Reliability (CBR) Framework for Additive and Hybrid Manufacturing of Electronic Assemblies

Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM) processes for metals, polymers, and ceramics are increasingly applied to high-reliability electronic assemblies. These applications require manufacturing routes that meet aggressive size, weight, and power (SWaP) targets while satisfying environmental standards like MIL-STD-810H and MIL-STD-883. This paper proposes a reliability-aware Cost–Benefit–Reliability (CBR) framework to evaluate when additive and hybrid manufacturing provide measurable advantages over conventional methods. A taxonomy of relevant AM technologies is mapped to specific electronic functions and material properties. Decision criteria—including geometric complexity, production volume, lead time, and failure-mode mitigation—are quantified using the CBR model. Four defense-electronics case studies demonstrate quantitative trade-offs in SWaP, cost, and reliability across metal and hybrid workflows. AM-specific failure mechanisms are addressed through design-for-additive-manufacturing (DfAM) guidelines and qualification pathways. A correlation-aware Monte Carlo formulation and global sensitivity analysis show that AM failure rate and nonrecurring engineering (NRE) cost are the dominant drivers of CBR decision uncertainty. The results indicate that additive and hybrid manufacturing are most advantageous for low-volume, high-complexity assemblies, and that process qualification is essential for successful adoption.