Search for: All records

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. 

Abstract Applications for additive manufacturing (AM) continue to increase as more industries adopt the technology within their product development processes. There is a growing demand for designers to acquire and hone their design for AM (DfAM) intuition and generate innovative solutions with AM. Resources that promote DfAM intuition, however, historically default to physical or digitally non-immersive modalities. Immersive virtual reality (VR) naturally supports 3D spatial perception and reasoning, suggesting its intuitive role in evaluating geometrically complex designs and fostering DfAM intuition. However, the effects of immersion on DfAM evaluations are not well-established in the literature. This study contributes to this gap in the literature by examining DfAM evaluations for a variety of designs across modalities using varying degrees of immersion. Specifically, it observes the effects on the outcomes of the DfAM evaluation, the effort required of evaluators, and their engagement with the designs. Findings indicate that the outcomes from DfAM evaluations in immersive and non-immersive modalities are similar without statistically observable differences in the cognitive load experienced during the evaluations. Active engagement with the designs, however, is observed to be significantly different between immersive and non-immersive modalities. By contrast, passive engagement remains similar across the modalities. These findings have interesting implications on how organizations train designers in DfAM, as well as on the role of immersive modalities in design processes. Organizations can provide DfAM resources across different levels of immersion, enabling designers to customize how they acquire DfAM intuition and solve complex engineering problems. 

Abstract Solving problems with additive manufacturing (AM) often means fabricating geometrically complex designs, layer-by-layer, along one or multiple directions. Designers navigate this 3D spatial complexity to determine the best design and manufacturing solutions to produce functional parts, manufacturable by AM. However, to assess the manufacturability of their solutions, designers need modalities that naturally visualize AM processes and the designs enabled by them. Creating physical parts offers such visualization but becomes expensive and time-consuming over multiple design iterations. While non-immersive simulations can alleviate this cost of physical visualization, adding digital immersion further improves outcomes from the visualization experience. This research, therefore, studies how differences in immersion between computer-aided (CAx) and virtual reality (VR) environments affect: 1. determining the best solution for additively manufacturing a design and 2. the cognitive load experienced from completing the DfAM problem-solving experience. For the study, designers created a 3D manifold model and simulated manufacturing it in either CAx or VR. Analysis of the filtered data from the study shows that slicing and printing their designs in VR yields a significant change in the manufacturability outcomes of their design compared to CAx. No observable differences were found in the cognitive load experienced between the two modalities. This means that the experiences in VR may influence improvements to manufacturability outcomes without changes to the mental exertion experienced by the designers. This presents key implications for how designers are equipped to solve design problems with AM. 

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. 

Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM) is a rapidly growing technology within the industry and education sectors. Despite this, there lacks a comprehensive tool to guide AM novices in evaluating the suitability of a given design for fabrication by the range of AM processes. Existing design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) evaluation tools tend to focus on only certain key process-dependent DfAM considerations. By contrast, the purpose of this research is to propose a tool that guides a user to comprehensively evaluate their chosen design and educates the user on an appropriate DfAM strategy. The tool incorporates both opportunistic and restrictive elements, integrates the seven major AM processes, outputs an evaluative score, and recommends processes and improvements for the input design. This paper presents a thorough framework for this evaluation tool and details the inclusion of features such as dual-DfAM consideration, process recommendations, and a weighting system for restrictive DfAM. The result is a detailed recommendation output that helps users to determine not only “Can you print your design?” but also “Should you print your design?” by combining several key research studies to build a comprehensive user design tool. This research also demonstrates the potential of the framework through a series of user-based studies, in which the opportunistic side of the tool was found to have significantly improved novice designers’ ability to evaluate designs. The preliminary framework presented in this paper establishes a foundation for future studies to refine the tool’s accuracy using more data and expert analysis. 

This work addresses the challenges of acquiring additive manufacturing data, given the complexities and design possibilities of such structures. Researchers in additive manufacturing struggle with scarcity and unsuitability of 2D datasets which pose further difficulties. To overcome these concerns, this research presents an application, AddLat2D, for generating 2D lattice structure datasets tailored to user specifications. Building upon a previous version of the application (Baldwin et al., 2023, 2022), this work highlights our development and usage of AddLat2D to generate datasets that have custom image size and pixel intensity values. 

Additive manufacturing is advantageous for producing lightweight components while addressing complex design requirements. This capability has been bolstered by the introduction of unit lattice cells and the gradation of those cells. In cases where loading varies throughout a part, it may be beneficial to use multiple, distinct lattice cell types, resulting in multi-lattice structures. In such structures, abrupt transitions between unit cell topologies may cause stress concentrations, making the boundary between unit cell types a primary failure point. Thus, these regions require careful design to ensure the overall functionality of the part. Although computational design approaches have been proposed, smooth transition regions are still difficult to achieve, especially between lattices of drastically different topologies. This work demonstrates and assesses a method for using variational autoencoders to automate the creation of transitional lattice cells, examining the factors that contribute to smooth transitions. Through computational experimentation, it was found that the smoothness of transition regions was strongly predicted by how closely the endpoints were in the latent space, whereas the number of transition intervals was not a sole predictor. 

Abstract The intersection between engineering design, manufacturing, and artificial intelligence offers countless opportunities for breakthrough improvements in how we develop new technology. However, achieving this synergy between the physical and the computational worlds involves overcoming a core challenge: few specialists educated today are trained in both engineering design and artificial intelligence. This fact, combined with the recency of both fields’ adoption and the antiquated state of many institutional data management systems, results in an industrial landscape that is relatively devoid of high-quality data and individuals who can rapidly use that data for machine learning and artificial intelligence development. In order to advance the fields of engineering design and manufacturing to the next level of preparedness for the development of effective artificially intelligent, data-driven analytical and generative tools, a new design for X principle must be established: design for artificial intelligence (DfAI). In this paper, a conceptual framework for DfAI is presented and discussed in the context of the contemporary field and the personas which drive it.