Evaluating design uncertainties in additive manufacturing using design artefacts: examples from space industry

Abstract

The use of metal Additive Manufacturing (AM) has increased in recent years with potential benefits for novel design solutions and efficient manufacturing. In order to utilise these potentials, engineers need to address uncertainties related to product design and the AM process. This paper presents a design process utilising product-specific AM Design Artefacts (AMDAs) to assess uncertainties identified during design. The process emphasises the importance of concurrently developing the product and AM knowledge. Based on a research collaboration with industry, three case studies describe the use of this process in the development of products for AM. In total, six different types of AMDAs show how AM-related uncertainties are resolved to provide confidence in design solutions and manufacturability. The contributions of this paper are: (i) a design process where AMDAs are used as support in evolving and defining an AM design specification, (ii) an example of how Design for AM (DfAM) is practiced in industry and of typical AM uncertainties that are encountered and addressed, and (iii) an example of how collaborative research can facilitate new knowledge for both industry and academia. The practical implication is a DfAM process for engineers to use and adapt according to existing AM knowledge.

A Design for Qualification Framework for the Development of Additive Manufacturing Components—A Case Study from the Space Industry

“…The findings showed that it would be beneficial to consider qualification as early as possible in order to design components that can be qualified, especially when designing for a new manufacturing process like AM. The second study focused on understanding how engineers can improve how they design components for AM, while at the same time developing an understanding for the AM process [59]. The findings showed that specific uncertainties related to the design and the AM process are beneficially explored, tested and evaluated by using part-specific artefacts.…”

“…The studies are hence referenced in the description of the framework where appropriate. The overall research process is shown in Figure 2 where the time frame for collection of the different data are indicated, as is the completion of the related papers [1,22,59]. Table 1.…”

“…Table 1. Completion of the related papers [1], [22] and [59] are indicated for reference (note that for Reference [59] submission is indicated).…”

“…In general, design artefacts were used iteratively during the design process, which allowed the definition of the component geometries and understanding of post-process capabilities. Further information about the process of working with design artefacts can be found in Dordlofva & Törlind's research [59]. Close collaboration with the AM supplier turned out to be essential during this iterative design process where the supplier's process expertise aided in identifying what uncertainties to evaluate and how to solve specific manufacturing-related issues.…”

“…A consequence of that AM processes are relatively immature is that engineering teams need to develop AM process understanding as products are developed (as exemplified in the case study). In a recent paper [59], the value of using purposely designed test artefacts to evaluate AM uncertainties related to manufacturability, post-process capabilities and material properties was studied. It was shown that the strength of using purposely designed test artefacts is that they are representative of the product being designed and part-specific uncertainties can therefore be evaluated.…”