An official website of the United States government
Abstract Additive Manufacturing (AM) is a technology capable of producing designs that challenge those from traditional manufacturing methods. AM is of high interest for advanced capabilities such as leveraging free complexity and having the ability to manufacture multi-part products that are manufactured as a single assembled. By leveraging design heuristics for AM, the final design can be manufactured in a shorter timeframe with less material consumption while still maintaining the initial engineering goals of the design. Despite the promising potential of AM, there is a growing concern that designers are not utilizing the design heuristics that embody successful AM. When designers resort to using design heuristics for Traditional Manufacturing (TM) with the unintentional purpose of translating these heuristics to AM, they are not creating efficient designs for AM and are unable to reap the benefits of using AM. To remedy this problem, intervening early in the design process can help address any concerns regarding the use of AM design heuristics. This work explores the design heuristics that students use in creating designs in the context of TM and AM. Once the common design heuristics students use in their designs are identified, future studies will further investigate the specific features that these students are using to address them through early interventions. This work found that incorporating complex shapes and geometries and considering the minimum feature size are significant axioms for influencing the manufacturability of a design for both TM and AM.
more »
« less
This content will become publicly available on March 1, 2026
Exploring the Manifestation of Design for Manufacturing Heuristics in Students' Early-Stage Engineering Design Concepts
Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM) can produce designs in a manner that greatly differs from the methods used in the older, more familiar technologies of traditional manufacturing (TM). As an example, AM's layer-by-layer approach to manufacturing designs can lead to the production of intricate geometries and make use of multiple materials, made possible without added manufacturing cost and time due to AM's “free complexity.” Despite this contrasting method for manufacturing designs, designers often forgo the new design considerations for AM (AM design heuristics). Instead, they rely on their familiarity with the design considerations for TM (TM design heuristics) regardless of the intended manufacturing process. For designs that are intended to be manufactured using AM, this usage of TM design considerations is wasteful as it leads to unnecessary material usage, increased manufacturing time, and can result in designs that are poorly manufactured. To remedy this problem, there is a need to intervene early in the design process to help address any concerns regarding the use of AM design heuristics. This work aims to address this opportunity through a preliminary exploration of the design heuristics that students naturally leverage when creating designs in the context of TM and AM. In this study, 117 students in an upper-level engineering design course were given an open-ended design challenge and later tasked with self-evaluating their designs for their manufacturability with TM and AM. This evaluation of the students' designs was later repeated by relevant experts, who would identify the common design heuristics that students are most likely to use in their designs. Future studies will build on these findings by cementing early-stage design support tools that emphasize the significant heuristics found herein. For example, this work found that the design heuristic “incorporating complexity” was the most significant indicator of designs most suited for AM and should therefore be highly encouraged/emphasized when guiding designers in the use of AM. In doing so, it will be possible for early-stage design support tools to maximally improve designs that are intended to be manufactured for AM.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2042917
- PAR ID:
- 10586763
- Publisher / Repository:
- American Society of Mechanical Engineers
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Mechanical Design
- Volume:
- 147
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 1050-0472
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
Abstract 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. These limitations 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, few studies have objectively assessed the integration of DfAM in student engineering designers’ design outcomes. Furthermore, limited research has explored how the use of DfAM affects the students’ AM designs’ achievement of design task objectives. This research explores this gap in literature through an experimental study with 301 undergraduate students. Specifically, participants were exposed to either restrictive DfAM or dual DfAM (both opportunistic and restrictive) and then asked to participate in a design challenge. The participants’ final designs were evaluated for (1) build time and build material (2) the use of the various DfAM concepts, and (3) the features used to manifest these DfAM concepts. The results show that the use of certain DfAM considerations, such as part complexity, number of parts, support material mass, and build plate contact area (corresponding to warping tendency), correlated with the build material and build time of the AM designs—minimizing both of which were objectives of the design task. The results also show that introducing participants to opportunistic DfAM leads to the generation of designs with higher part complexity and lower build plate contact area but a greater presence of inaccessible support material.more » « less
