The Design for Additive Manufacturing Worksheet

Abstract

Additive manufacturing (AM) technologies have become integral to modern prototyping and manufacturing. Therefore, guidelines for using AM are necessary to help users new to the technology. Many others have proposed useful guidelines, but these are rarely written in a way that is accessible to novice users. Most guidelines (1) assume the user has extensive prior knowledge of the process, (2) apply to only a few AM technologies or a very specific application, or (3) describe benefits of the technology that novices already know. In this paper, we present a one-page, visual design for additive manufacturing worksheet for novice and intermittent users which addresses common mistakes as identified by various expert machinists and additive manufacturing facilities who have worked extensively with novices. The worksheet helps designers assess the potential quality of a part made using most AM processes and indirectly suggests ways to redesign it. The immediate benefit of the worksheet is to filter out bad designs before they are printed, thus saving time on manufacturing and redesign. We implemented this as a go-no-go test for a high-volume AM facility where users are predominantly novices, and we observed an 81% decrease in the rate of poorly designed parts. We also tested the worksheet in a classroom, but found no difference between the control and the experimental groups. This result highlights the importance of motivation since the cost of using AM in this context was dramatically lower than real-world costs. This second result highlights the limitations of the worksheet.

Constraint Replacement-Based Design for Additive Manufacturing of Satellite Components: Ensuring Design Manufacturability through Tailored Test Artefacts

“…The method presented in this article takes this procedure one step forward by utilizing the results from the test artifacts to iteratively improve the design of a product and ensure its manufacturability and quality. Moreover, studies conducted by authors such as Booth et al [47] highlight the need for establishing process-and product-specific guidelines to accurately account for the unique limitations of each AM process. Implementing product-tailored design artifacts supports the development of a knowledge database or design guideline adapted to a specific product and AM process.…”

Additive Manufacturing Review: Early Past to Current Practice

“…The majority of design for AM methods and computational tools has been focused on the embodiment design stage when the topology, shape, and dimensions of parts are optimized and processing variables (e.g., orientation, support structures) are adjusted along with the part design. One category of research focuses on the development of design guidelines and design allowables-many of which are AM process-specific-for helping designers avoid common mistakes when designing their parts (e.g., [98][99][100][101][102][103]). The guidelines may recommend minimum feature sizes and clearances, orientations for improved surface finish and strength, strategies for effective use of support structures and their minimization and removal, and many others.…”

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

“…Design for AM (DfAM) is field of research with many contributions in recent years [36][37][38][39]. Methods and guidelines have been proposed for different purposes, for example methods to inspire novel designs [39][40][41], guidelines for manufacturability with specific processes [42][43][44] or to generally guide in assessing suitable designs [45]. Kumke et al [36] categorize DfAM research into DfAM in the strict sense (concerning the design of the component) and DfAM in the broad sense (concerning part and process selection and manufacturability).…”