Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:30:53.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INVESTIGATING PERCEIVED MEANINGS AND SCOPES OF DESIGN FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Aurora Berni ,
Yuri Borgianni ,
Martins Obi ,
Patrick Pradel  and
Richard Bibb
Aurora Berni
Affiliation:
Free University of Bolzano-Bozen
Yuri Borgianni*
Affiliation:
Free University of Bolzano-Bozen
Martins Obi
Affiliation:
Loughborough University
Patrick Pradel
Affiliation:
Loughborough University
Richard Bibb
Affiliation:
Loughborough University
*
Borgianni, Yuri, Free University of Bolzano-Bozen, Faculty of Science and Technology, Italy, yuri.borgianni@unibz.it

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The concept of Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) is gaining popularity along with AM, despite its scopes are not well established. In particular, in the last few years, DfAM methods have been intuitively subdivided into opportunistic and restrictive. This distinction is gaining traction despite a lack of formalization. In this context, the paper investigates experts' understanding of DfAM. In particular, the authors have targeted educators, as the perception of DfAM scopes in the future will likely depend on teachers' view. A bespoke survey has been launched, which has been answer by 100 worldwide-distributed respondents. The gathered data has undergone several analyses, markedly answers to open questions asking for individual definitions of DfAM, and evaluations of the pertinence of meanings and acceptations from the literature. The results show that the main DfAM aspects focused on by first standardization attempts have been targeted, especially products, processes, opportunities and constraints. Beyond opportunistic and restrictive nuances, DfAM different understandings are characterized by different extents of cognitive endeavor, convergence vs. divergence in the design process, theoretical vs. hands on approaches.

Keywords

Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)Early design phasesDesign methodsopportunistic DfAMrestrictive DfAM
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 1937 - 1946
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Barclift, M., Simpson, T.W., Alessandra Nusiner, M., Miller, S. (2017). “An Investigation into the Driving Factors of Creativity in Design for Additive Manufacturing”, in: IDETC-CIE2017. Volume 3: 19th International Conference on Advanced Vehicle Technologies; 14th International Conference on Design Education; 10th Frontiers in Biomedical Devices. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2017-68395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blösch-Paidosh, A., Shea, K. (2019). “Design Heuristics for Additive Manufacturing Validated Through a User Study”, Journal of Mechanical Design Vol. 141 No.4 p. 041101. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4041051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, J.W., Alperovich, J., Chawla, P., Ma, J., Reid, T.N., Ramani, K. (2017). “The Design for Additive Manufacturing Worksheet”, Journal of Mechanical Design Vol. 139 No. 10, p. 100904. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4037251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boothroyd, G. (1994) “Product design for manufacture and assembly”, Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 505-520. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-4485(94)90082-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BS EN ISO/ASTM 52910:2019 (2019) BSI Standards Publication Additive manufacturing - Design - Requirements, guidelines and recommendations’Google Scholar
Design Council (2005) Eleven lessons: managing design in eleven global brands A study of the design process. London.Google Scholar
Erlingsson, C. and Brysiewicz, P. (2017) “A hands-on guide to doing content analysis”, African Journal of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 93–99. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.08.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, S., Rosen, D. W., Witherell, P. Ko, H. (2019). “A design for additive manufacturing ontology to support manufacturability analysis”, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, Vol. 19 No. 4, p. 041014. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4043531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumke, M., Watschke, H., Hartogh, P., Bavendiek, A.-K., Vietor, T. (2018). “Methods and tools for identifying and leveraging additive manufacturing design potentials”, International Journal of Interactive Design and Manufacturing Vol. 12, pp. 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-017-0399-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. R., Koch, G. G. (1977). “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data”, Biometrics, Vol. 33, pp. 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laverne, F., Segonds, F., Anwer, N., Le Coq, M. (2015). “Assembly Based Methods to Support Product Innovation in Design for Additive Manufacturing: An Exploratory Case Study”, Journal of Mechanical Design Vol. 137 No. 12, p. 121701. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4031589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laverne, F., Segonds, F., D'Antonio, G., Le Coq, M. (2017). “Enriching design with X through tailored additive manufacturing knowledge: a methodological proposal”, International Journal of Interactive Design and Manufacturing Vol. 11, pp. 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-016-0314-7Google Scholar
Mani, M., Witherell, P., Jee, H. (2017). “Design rules for additive manufacturing: a categorization”. In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2017-68446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meisel, N.A., Woods, M.R., Simpson, T.W., Dickman, C.J. (2017). “Redesigning a Reaction Control Thruster for Metal-Based Additive Manufacturing: A Case Study in Design for Additive Manufacturing”, Journal of Mechanical Design Vol. 139 No. 10, p. 100903. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4037250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, R., Brackena, J., Clinton B, A., Jablokowa, K., Simpson, T.W., Meisel, N.A. (2020a). “Additive creativity: investigating the use of design for additive manufacturing to encourage creativity in the engineering design industry”, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 198–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2020.1813633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, R., Miller, S.R., Simpson, T.W., Meisel, N.A. (2020b). “Fresh in My Mind! Investigating the Effects of the Order of Presenting Opportunistic and Restrictive Design for Additive Manufacturing Content on Creativity”. Presented at the ASME 2020 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2020-22449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, R., Miller, S.R., Simpson, T.W., Meisel, N.A. (2018a). “Teaching Design Freedom: Exploring the Effects of Design for Additive Manufacturing Education on the Cognitive Components of Students’ Creativity”. Presented at the ASME 2018 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2018-85938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prabhu, R., Miller, S.R., Simpson, T.W., Meisel, N.A. (2018b). “The Earlier the Better? Investigating the Importance of Timing on Effectiveness of Design for Additive Manufacturing Education”. Presented at the ASME 2018 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2018-85953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyzdek, T. (2003). The six sigma handbook, McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
Reichwein, J., Vogel, S., Schork, S., Kirchner, E., 2020. “On the Applicability of Agile Development Methods to Design for Additive Manufacturing”, Procedia CIRP Vol. 91, pp. 653–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2020.03.112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, M.K., Moroni, G., Vaneker, T., Fadel, G., Campbell, R.I., Gibson, I., Bernard, A., Schulz, J., Graf, P., Ahuja, B., Martina, F. (2016). “Design for Additive Manufacturing: Trends, opportunities, considerations, and constraints”. CIRP Annals Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 737–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2016.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watschke, H., Bavendiek, A.-K., Giannakos, A., Vietor, T. (2017). “A methodical approach to support ideation for additive manufacturing in design education”. In: DS 87-5 Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED17), 41–50.Google Scholar
Zhu, Z., Anwer, N., Mathieu, L. (2017). “Deviation Modeling and Shape transformation in Design for Additive Manufacturing”. Procedia CIRP Vol. 60, pp. 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.01.023CrossRefGoogle Scholar