More Like this

1. Assessing the Manufacturability of Students’ Early-Stage Designs Based on Previous Experience With Traditional Manufacturing and Additive Manufacturing

   https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063564  

   Pearl, Seth; Meisel, Nicholas A (January 2024, Journal of Mechanical Design)

   Abstract As additive manufacturing (AM) usage increases, designers who wish to maximize AM’s potential must reconsider the traditional manufacturing (TM) axioms they may be more familiar with. While research has previously investigated the potential influences that can affect the designs produced in concept generation, little research has been done explicitly targeting the manufacturability of early-stage concepts and how previous experience and the presenting of priming content in manufacturing affect these concepts. The research in this paper addresses this gap in knowledge, specifically targeting differences in concept generation due to designer experience and presenting design for traditional manufacturing (DFTM) and design for additive manufacturing (DFAM) axioms. To understand how designers approach design creation early in the design process and investigate potential influential factors, participants in this study were asked to complete a design challenge centered on concept generation. Before this design challenge, a randomized subset of these participants received priming content on DFTM and DFAM considerations. These participants’ final designs were evaluated for both traditional manufacturability and additive manufacturability and compared against the final designs produced by participants who did not receive the priming content. Results show that students with low manufacturing experience levels create designs that are more naturally suited for TM. Additionally, as designers’ manufacturing experience levels increase, there is an increase in the number of designs more naturally suited for AM. This correlates with a higher self-reported use of DFAM axioms in the evaluation of these designs. These results suggest that students with high manufacturing experience levels rely on their previous experience when it comes to creating a design for either manufacturing process. Lastly, while the manufacturing priming content significantly influenced the traditional manufacturability of the designs, the priming content did not increase the number of self-reported design for manufacturing (DFM) axioms in the designs. 

   more » « less
2. Favoring Complexity: A Mixed Methods Exploration of Factors That Influence Concept Selection When Designing for Additive Manufacturing

   https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4050303  

   Prabhu, Rohan; Leguarda, Rainmar L.; Miller, Scarlett R.; Simpson, Timothy W.; Meisel, Nicholas A. (October 2021, Journal of Mechanical Design)

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract The capabilities of additive manufacturing (AM) open up designers’ solution space and enable them to build designs previously impossible through traditional manufacturing (TM). To leverage this design freedom, designers must emphasize opportunistic design for AM (DfAM), i.e., design techniques that leverage AM capabilities. Additionally, designers must also emphasize restrictive DfAM, i.e., design considerations that account for AM limitations, to ensure that their designs can be successfully built. Therefore, designers must adopt a “dual” design mindset—emphasizing both, opportunistic and restrictive DfAM—when designing for AM. However, to leverage AM capabilities, designers must not only generate creative ideas for AM but also select these creative ideas during the concept selection stage. Design educators must specifically emphasize selecting creative ideas in DfAM, as ideas perceived as infeasible through the traditional design for manufacturing lens may now be feasible with AM. This emphasis could prevent creative but feasible ideas from being discarded due to their perceived infeasibility. While several studies have discussed the role of DfAM in encouraging creative idea generation, there is a need to investigate concept selection in DfAM. In this paper, we investigated the effects of four variations in DfAM education: (1) restrictive, (2) opportunistic, (3) restrictive followed by opportunistic (R-O), and (4) opportunistic followed by restrictive (O-R), on students’ concept selection process. We compared the creativity of the concepts generated by students to the creativity of the concepts they selected. The creativity of designs was measured on four dimensions: (1) uniqueness, (2) usefulness, (3) technical goodness, and (4) overall creativity. We also performed qualitative analyses to gain insight into the rationale provided by students when making their design decisions. From the results, we see that only teams from the restrictive and dual O-R groups selected ideas of higher uniqueness and overall creativity. In contrast, teams from the dual R-O DfAM group selected ideas of lower uniqueness compared with the mean uniqueness of ideas generated. Finally, we see that students trained in opportunistic DfAM emphasized minimizing build material the most, whereas those trained only in restrictive DfAM emphasized minimizing build time. These results highlight the need for DfAM education to encourage AM designers to not just generate creative ideas but also have the courage to select them for the next stage of design. 

   more » « less
3. Mastering Manufacturing: Exploring the Influence of Engineering Designers’ Prior Experience When Using Design for Additive Manufacturing

   https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2021-71686  

   Prabhu, Rohan; Simpson, Timothy W.; Miller, Scarlett R.; Meisel, Nicholas A. (August 2021, 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
4. Favoring Complexity: A Mixed Methods Exploration of Factors that Influence Concept Selection in Design for Additive Manufacturing

   Prabhu, R.; Leguarda, R.; Miller, S. R.; Simpson, T. W.; Meisel, N. A. (August 2020, ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences)

   The capabilities of additive manufacturing (AM) open up designers’ solution space and enable them to build designs previously impossible through traditional manufacturing. To leverage AM, designers must not only generate creative ideas, but also propagate these ideas without discarding them in the early design stages. This emphasis on selecting creative ideas is particularly important in design for AM (DfAM), as ideas perceived as infeasible through the traditional design for manufacturing lens could now be feasible with AM. Several studies have discussed the role of DfAM in encouraging creative idea generation; however, there is a need to understand concept selection in DfAM. In this paper, we investigated the effect of two variations in DfAM education: 1) restrictive DfAM and 2) dual DfAM (opportunistic and restrictive) on students’ concept selection process. Specifically, we compared the creativity of the concepts generated by the students to the creativity of the concepts selected by them. Further, we performed qualitative analyses to explore the rationale provided by the students in making these design decisions. From the results, we see that teams from both educational groups select ideas of greater usefulness; however, only teams from the restrictive DfAM group select ideas of higher uniqueness and overall creativity. Further, we see that introducing students to opportunistic DfAM increases their emphasis on the complexity of designs when evaluating and selecting them. These results highlight the need for DfAM education to encourage AM designers to not just generate but also select creative ideas. 

   more » « less
5. But Will It Print? Assessing Student Use of Design for Additive Manufacturing and Exploring Its Effect on Design Performance and Manufacturability

   Prabhu, R.; Miller, S. (August 2019, 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