skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Part decomposition and assembly-based (Re) design for additive manufacturing: A review
Additive Manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D printing, has been highlighted as a complementary method to the traditional (subtractive and formative) manufacturing. This mainly results from its distinctive characteristics to directly produce complex shapes and assemblies without an assembly process. With these aspects, AM has affected the way products are designed and formed, which leads to an exclusive research area, known as Design for AM (DfAM). As a step towards addressing DfAM, this paper reviews the literature on re-designing an original model into assemblies produced in AM, named as Part Decomposition (PD). Although PD has received less attention in DfAM compared with Part Consolidation (PC) that is re-designing assemblies into a consolidated single part, PD has been studied with various motives and challenges for AM. To investigate the research trend in PD, 37 main publications are categorized under five motives including printability, productivity, functionality, artistry and flexibility. Additionally, from technical and methodological aspects, relevant studies are organized into decomposition issues (automatic, semi-automatic and manual decompositions), buildup issues (orientation decision for single- and multi-part and packing problem), and assembly issues (connection design and assembly process planning). As witnessed in this comprehensive review, the concept of PD leaves further research challenges spanning several disciplines. Along this line, we further elaborate future research directions of PD under three main categories: (1) enhancing the AM productivity for mass customization; (2) developing novel decomposition methods and guidelines; and (3) applying conventional design methodologies to PD.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1727190
PAR ID:
10071648
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Additive manufacturing
Volume:
22
ISSN:
2214-7810
Page Range / eLocation ID:
230-242
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; (, Proceedings of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference)
    null (Ed.)
    Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM) processes present designers with unique capabilities while imposing several process limitations. Designers must leverage the capabilities of AM — through opportunistic design for AM (DfAM) — and accommodate AM limitations — through restrictive DfAM — to successfully employ AM in engineering design. These opportunistic and restrictive DfAM techniques starkly contrast the traditional, limitation-based design for manufacturing techniques — the current standard for design for manufacturing (DfM). Therefore, designers must transition from a restrictive DfM mindset towards a ‘dual’ design mindset — using opportunistic and restrictive DfAM concepts. Designers’ prior experience, especially with a partial set of DfM and DfAM techniques could inhibit their ability to transition towards a dual DfAM approach. On the other hand, experienced designers’ auxiliary skills (e.g., with computer-aided design) could help them successfully use DfAM in their solutions. Researchers have investigated the influence of prior experience on designers’ use of DfAM tools in design; however, a majority of this work focuses on early-stage ideation. Little research has studied the influence of prior experience on designers’ DfAM use in the later design stages, especially in formal DfAM educational interventions, and we aim to explore this research gap. From our results, we see that experienced designers report higher baseline self-efficacy with restrictive DfAM but not with opportunistic DfAM. We also see that experienced designers demonstrate a greater use of certain DfAM concepts (e.g., part and assembly complexity) in their designs. These findings suggest that introducing designers to opportunistic DfAM early could help develop a dual design mindset; however, having more engineering experience might be necessary for them to implement this knowledge into their designs. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; ; (, Proceedings of the ... ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences)
    Additive Manufacturing (AM) is a novel process that enables the manufacturing of complex geometries through layer-by-layer deposition of material. AM processes provide a stark contrast to traditional, subtractive manufacturing processes, which has resulted in the emergence of design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) to capitalize on AM’s capabilities. In order to support the increasing use of AM in engineering, it is important to shift from the traditional design for manufacturing and assembly mindset, towards integrating DfAM. To facilitate this, DfAM must be included in the engineering design curriculum in a manner that has the highest impact. While previous research has systematically organized DfAM concepts into process capability-based (opportunistic) and limitation-based (restrictive) considerations, limited research has been conducted on the impact of teaching DfAM on the student’s design process. This study investigates this interaction by comparing two DfAM educational interventions conducted at different points in the academic semester. The two versions are compared by evaluating the students’ perceived utility, change in self-efficacy, and the use of DfAM concepts in design. The results show that introducing DfAM early in the semester when students have little previous experience in AM resulted in the largest gains in students perceiving utility in learning about DfAM concepts and DfAM self-efficacy gains. Further, we see that this increase relates to greater application of opportunistic DfAM concepts in student design ideas in a DfAM challenge. However, no difference was seen in the application of restrictive DfAM concepts between the two interventions. These results can be used to guide the design and implementation of DfAM education. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; (, Proceedings of the ... ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences)
    Design for manufacturing provides engineers with a structure for accommodating the limitations of traditional manufacturing processes. However, little emphasis is typically given to the capabilities of processes that enable novel design geometries, which are often a point of focus when designing products to be made with additive manufacturing (AM) technologies. In addition, limited research has been conducted to understand how knowledge of both the capabilities (i.e., opportunistic) and limitations (i.e., restrictive aspects) of AM affects design outcomes. This study aims to address this gap by investigating the effect of no, restrictive, and both, opportunistic and restrictive (dual) design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) education on engineering students’ creative process. Based on the componential model of creativity [1], these effects were measured through changes in (1) motivation and interest in AM, (2) DfAM self-efficacy, and (3) the emphasis given to DfAM in the design process. These metrics were chosen as they represent the cognitive components of ‘task-motivation’ and ‘domain relevant skills’, which in turn influence the learning and usage of domain knowledge in creative production. The results of the study show that while the short (45 minute) DfAM intervention did not significantly change student motivation and interest towards AM, students showed high levels of motivation and interest towards AM, before the intervention. Teaching students different aspects of DfAM also resulted in an increase in their self-efficacy in the respective topics. However, despite showing a greater increase in self-efficacy in their respective areas of training, the students did not show differences in the emphasis they gave to these DfAM concepts, in the design process. Further, students from all three education groups showed higher use of restrictive concepts, in comparison to opportunistic DfAM. 
    more » « less
  4. ; (, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences)
    Additive manufacturing (AM) enables engineers to improve the functionality and performance of their designs by adding complexity at little to no additional cost. However, AM processes also exhibit certain unique limitations, such as the presence of support material, which must be accounted for to ensure that designs can be manufactured feasibly and cost-effectively. Given these unique process characteristics, it is important for an AM-trained workforce to be able to incorporate both opportunistic and restrictive design for AM (DfAM) considerations into the design process. While AM/DfAM educational interventions have been discussed in the literature, limited research has investigated the effect of these interventions on students’ use of DfAM. Furthermore, limited research has explored how DfAM use affects the performance of students’ AM designs. This research explores this gap through an experimental study with 123 undergraduate students. Specifically, participants were exposed to either restrictive DfAM or dual DfAM (both opportunistic and restrictive) and then asked to participate in an AM design challenge. The students’ final designs were evaluated for (1) performance with respect the design objectives and constraints, and (2) the use of the various aspects of DfAM. The results showed that the use of certain DfAM considerations, such as minimum feature size and support material mass, successfully predicted the performance of the AM designs. Further, while the variations in DfAM education did not influence the performance of the AM designs, it did have an effect on the students’ use of certain DfAM concepts in their final designs. These results highlight the influence of DfAM education in bringing about an increase in students’ use of DfAM. Moreover, the results demonstrate the potential influence of DfAM in reducing build time and build material of the students’ AM designs, thus improving design performance and manufacturability. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; (, Journal of mechanical design)
    Research in additive manufacturing (AM) has increased the use of AM in many industries, resulting in a commensurate need for a workforce skilled in AM. In order to meet this need, educational institutions have undertaken different initiatives to integrate design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) into the engineering curriculum. However, limited research has explored the impact of these educational interventions in bringing about changes in the technical goodness of students’ design outcomes, particularly through the integration of DfAM concepts in an engineering classroom environment. This study explores this gap using an experimental study with 193 participants recruited from a junior-level course on mechanical engineering design. The participants were split into three educational intervention groups: (1) no DfAM, (2) restrictive DfAM, and (3) restrictive and opportunistic (dual) DfAM. The effects of the educational intervention on the participants’ use of DfAM were measured through changes in (1) participants’ DfAM self-efficacy, (2) technical goodness of their AM design outcomes, and (3) participants’ use of DfAM-related concepts when describing and evaluating their AM designs. The results showed that while all three educational interventions result in similar changes in the participants’ opportunistic DfAM self-efficacy, participants who receive only restrictive DfAM inputs show the greatest increase in their restrictive DfAM self-efficacy. Further, we see that despite these differences, all three groups show a similar decrease in the technical goodness of their AM designs, after attending the lectures. A content analysis of the participants’ design descriptions and evaluations revealed a simplification of their design geometries, which provides a possible explanation for the decrease in their technical goodness, despite the encouragement to utilize the design freedom of AM to improve functionality or optimize the weight of the structure. These results emphasize the need for more in-depth DfAM education to encourage the use of both opportunistic and restrictive DfAM during student design challenges. The results also highlight the possible influence of how the design problem is stated on the use of DfAM in solving it. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email