Teaching Design Freedom: Exploring the Effects of Design for Additive Manufacturing Education on the Cognitive Components of Students’ Creativity

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Domain Knowledge ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Design For Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Task Motivation ◽  
Cognitive Components ◽  
Traditional Manufacturing ◽  
Education Groups

Design for manufacturing provides engineers with a structure for accommodating the limitations of traditional manufacturing processes. However, little emphasis is typically given to the capabilities of processes that enable novel design geometries, which are often a point of focus when designing products to be made with additive manufacturing (AM) technologies. In addition, limited research has been conducted to understand how knowledge of both the capabilities (i.e., opportunistic) and limitations (i.e., restrictive aspects) of AM affects design outcomes. This study aims to address this gap by investigating the effect of no, restrictive, and both, opportunistic and restrictive (dual) design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) education on engineering students’ creative process. Based on the componential model of creativity [1], these effects were measured through changes in (1) motivation and interest in AM, (2) DfAM self-efficacy, and (3) the emphasis given to DfAM in the design process. These metrics were chosen as they represent the cognitive components of ‘task-motivation’ and ‘domain relevant skills’, which in turn influence the learning and usage of domain knowledge in creative production. The results of the study show that while the short (45 minute) DfAM intervention did not significantly change student motivation and interest towards AM, students showed high levels of motivation and interest towards AM, before the intervention. Teaching students different aspects of DfAM also resulted in an increase in their self-efficacy in the respective topics. However, despite showing a greater increase in self-efficacy in their respective areas of training, the students did not show differences in the emphasis they gave to these DfAM concepts, in the design process. Further, students from all three education groups showed higher use of restrictive concepts, in comparison to opportunistic DfAM.

Fresh in My Mind! Investigating the Effects of the Order of Presenting Opportunistic and Restrictive Design for Additive Manufacturing Content on Creativity

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Manufacturing Processes ◽  
Design For Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Undergraduate Engineering ◽  
Traditional Manufacturing ◽  
Order Of Presentation ◽  
Am Processes ◽  
Design For Am

Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM) processes present designers with creative freedoms beyond the capabilities of traditional manufacturing processes. However, to successfully leverage AM, designers must balance their creativity against the limitations inherent in these processes to ensure the feasibility of their designs. This feasible adoption of AM can be achieved if designers learn about and apply opportunistic and restrictive design for AM (DfAM) techniques at appropriate stages of the design process. Researchers have demonstrated the effect of the order of presentation of information on the learning and retrieval of said information; however, there is a need to explore this effect within DfAM education. In this paper, we explore this gap through an experimental study involving 195 undergraduate engineering students. Specifically, we compare two variations in DfAM education: (1) opportunistic DfAM followed by restrictive DfAM, and (2) restrictive DfAM followed by opportunistic DfAM, against only opportunistic DFAM and only restrictive DfAM training. These variations are compared through (1) differences in participants’ DfAM self-efficacy, (2) their self-reported DfAM use, and (3) the creativity of their design outcomes. From the results, we see that only students trained in opportunistic DfAM, with or without restrictive DfAM, present a significant increase in their opportunistic DfAM self-efficacy. However, all students trained in DfAM — opportunistic, restrictive, or both — demonstrated an increase in their restrictive DfAM self-efficacy. Further, we see that teaching restrictive DfAM first followed by opportunistic DfAM results in the generation of ideas with greater creativity — a novel research finding. These results highlight the need for educators to account for the effects of the order of presenting content to students, especially when educating students about DfAM.

Impact of Timing in the Design Process on Students' Application of Design for Additive Manufacturing Heuristics

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-56
Author(s):  
Anastasia Schauer ◽  
Kenton Fillingim ◽  
Katherine Fu
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Design Activity ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Design For Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Design Heuristics ◽  
Traditional Manufacturing ◽  
The Way

Abstract The goal of this work is to study the way student designers use design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) rules, or heuristics. It can be challenging for novice designers to succeed at creating successful designs for additive manufacturing (AM), given its differences from traditional manufacturing methods. A study was carried out to investigate the way novices apply DfAM heuristics when they receive them at different points in the design process. A design problem was presented to students, and three different groups of student participants were given a lecture on DfAM heuristics at three different points in the design process. The novelty and quality of each of the resulting designs was evaluated. Results indicate that although the DfAM heuristics lecture had no impact on the overall quality of the designs generated, participants who were given the heuristics lecture after the initial design session produced designs that were better suited for 3D printing in the second phase of the design activity. However, receiving this additional information appears to prevent students from creatively iterating upon their initial designs, as participants in this group did not experience an increase in novelty between the two sessions. Additionally, receiving the heuristics lecture increased all students' perceptions of their ability to perform DfAM-related tasks. These results validate the practicality of design heuristics as AM training tools while also emphasizing the importance of iteration in the design process.

scholarly journals REVIEW OF DESIGN HEURISTICS AND DESIGN PRINCIPLES IN DESIGN FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 2571-2580
Author(s):  
Filip Valjak ◽  
Angelica Lindwall
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Design Principles ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Design For Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Design Heuristics ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Support Methods

AbstractThe advent of additive manufacturing (AM) in recent years have had a significant impact on the design process. Because of new manufacturing technology, a new area of research emerged – Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) with newly developed design support methods and tools. This paper looks into the current status of the field regarding the conceptual design of AM products, with the focus on how literature sources treat design heuristics and design principles in the context of DfAM. To answer the research question, a systematic literature review was conducted. The results are analysed, compared and discussed on three main points: the definition of the design heuristics and the design principles, level of support they provide, as well as where and how they are used inside the design process. The paper highlights the similarities and differences between design heuristics and design principles in the context of DfAM.

Complex Solutions for Complex Problems? Exploring the Role of Design Task Choice on Learning, Design for Additive Manufacturing Use, and Creativity

2019 ◽  
Vol 142 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Problem Statement ◽  
Design Task ◽  
Complex Solutions ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Am Processes

Abstract The integration of additive manufacturing (AM) processes in many industries has led to the need for AM education and training, particularly on design for AM (DfAM). To meet this growing need, several academic institutions have implemented educational interventions, especially project- and problem-based, for AM education; however, limited research has explored how the choice of the problem statement influences the design outcomes of a task-based AM/DfAM intervention. This research explores this gap in the literature through an experimental study with 175 undergraduate engineering students. Specifically, the study compared the effects of restrictive and dual (restrictive and opportunistic) DfAM education, when introduced through design tasks that differed in the explicit use of design objectives and functional and manufacturing constraints in defining them. The effects of the intervention were measured through (1) changes in participant DfAM self-efficacy, (2) participants' self-reported emphasis on DfAM, and (3) the creativity of participants' design outcomes. The results show that the choice of the design task has a significant effect on the participants' self-efficacy with, and their self-reported emphasis on, certain DfAM concepts. The results also show that the design task containing explicit constraints and objectives results in participants generating ideas with greater uniqueness compared with the design task with fewer explicit constraints and objectives. These findings highlight the importance of the chosen problem statement on the outcomes of a DfAM educational intervention, and future work is also discussed.

Complex Solutions for Complex Problems?: Exploring the Effects of Task Complexity on Student Use of Design for Additive Manufacturing and Creativity

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Task Complexity ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Problem Statement ◽  
Design Task ◽  
Complex Design ◽  
Complex Solutions ◽  
Future Work

Abstract The integration of additive manufacturing (AM) processes in many industries has led to the need for AM education and training, particularly on design for AM (DfAM). To meet this growing need, several academic institutions have implemented educational interventions, especially project- and problem-based, for AM education; however, limited research has explored how the choice of the problem statement influences the design outcomes of a task-based AM/DfAM intervention. This research explores this gap in the literature through an experimental study with 222 undergraduate engineering students. Specifically, the study compared the effects of restrictive and dual (restrictive and opportunistic) DfAM education, when introduced through either a simple or complex design task. The effects of the intervention were measured through (1) changes in student DfAM self-efficacy, (2) student self-reported emphasis on DfAM, and (3) the creativity of student AM designs. The results show that the complexity of the design task has a significant effect on the participants’ self-efficacy with, and self-reported emphasis on, certain DfAM concepts. The results also show that the complex design task results in participants generating ideas with greater median uniqueness compared to the simple design task. These findings highlight the importance of the chosen problem statement on the outcomes of a DfAM educational intervention, and future work is also discussed.

The Earlier the Better? Investigating the Importance of Timing on Effectiveness of Design for Additive Manufacturing Education

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Layer By Layer ◽  
Design For Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Layer Deposition ◽  
Subtractive Manufacturing ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Design Ideas ◽  
Am Processes

Additive Manufacturing (AM) is a novel process that enables the manufacturing of complex geometries through layer-by-layer deposition of material. AM processes provide a stark contrast to traditional, subtractive manufacturing processes, which has resulted in the emergence of design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) to capitalize on AM’s capabilities. In order to support the increasing use of AM in engineering, it is important to shift from the traditional design for manufacturing and assembly mindset, towards integrating DfAM. To facilitate this, DfAM must be included in the engineering design curriculum in a manner that has the highest impact. While previous research has systematically organized DfAM concepts into process capability-based (opportunistic) and limitation-based (restrictive) considerations, limited research has been conducted on the impact of teaching DfAM on the student’s design process. This study investigates this interaction by comparing two DfAM educational interventions conducted at different points in the academic semester. The two versions are compared by evaluating the students’ perceived utility, change in self-efficacy, and the use of DfAM concepts in design. The results show that introducing DfAM early in the semester when students have little previous experience in AM resulted in the largest gains in students perceiving utility in learning about DfAM concepts and DfAM self-efficacy gains. Further, we see that this increase relates to greater application of opportunistic DfAM concepts in student design ideas in a DfAM challenge. However, no difference was seen in the application of restrictive DfAM concepts between the two interventions. These results can be used to guide the design and implementation of DfAM education.

scholarly journals An additive manufacturing oriented design approach to mechanical assemblies

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Germain Sossou ◽  
Frédéric Demoly ◽  
Ghislain Montavon ◽  
Samuel Gomes
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Design For Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Post Processing ◽  
Mechanical Assembly ◽  
Build Orientation ◽  
Assembly Design ◽  
Conventional Design ◽  
Downstream Processes ◽  
Assembly Operations

Abstract Firstly introduced as a prototyping process, additive manufacturing (AM) is being more and more considered as a fully-edged manufacturing process. The number of AM processes, along with the range of processed materials are expanding. AM has made manufacturable shapes that were too difficult (or even impossible) to manufacture with conventional technologies. This has promoted a shift in engineering design, from conventional design for manufacturing and assembly to design for additive manufacturing (DFAM). Research efforts into the DFAM field have been mostly dedicated to part's design, which is actually a requirement for a better industrial adoption. This has given rise to topologically optimized and/or latticed designs. However, since AM is also capable of manufacturing fully functional assemblies requiring a few or no assembly operations, there is a need for DFAM methodologies tackling product's development more holistically, and which are, therefore, dedicated to assembly design. Considering all the manufacturing issues related to AM of assembly-free mechanisms and available post-processing capabilities, this paper proposes a top-down assembly design methodology for AM in a proactive manner. Such an approach, can be seen as the beginning of a shift from conventional design for assembly (DFA) to a new paradigm. From a product's concept and a selected AM technology, the approach first provides assistance in the definition of the product architecture so that both functionality and successful manufacturing (including post-processing) are ensured. Particularly, build-orientation and downstream processes' characteristics are taken into account early in the design process. Secondly, for the functional flow (energy, material, signal) to be appropriately conveyed by the right amount of matter, the methodology provides guidance into how the components can be designed in a minimalism fashion leveraging the shape complexity afforded by AM. A mechanical assembly as case study is presented to illustrate the DFAM methodology. It is found that clearances and material (be it raw unprocessed material or support structures) within them plays a pivotal role in a successful assembly's design to be additively manufactured. In addition, the methodology for components' design proves to be an efficient alternative to topology optimization. Though, the approach can be extended by considering a strategy for part consolidation and the possibility to manufacture the assemblies with more than one AM process. As regards components' design, considering anisotropy can also improved the approach. Highlights Additive manufacturing is capable of printing fully functional assemblies without any assembly operations. It is found that Design For Additive Manufacturing is currently mainly focused on part's design. A process-independent, structured and systematic method for designing assembly-free mechanisms (for AM) is proposed. Build orientation and downstream processes (including post-processing capabilities) are taken into account early in the design process. A method - based on functional flows - for part's design in a minimalist fashion, is proposed.

A Design for Additive Manufacturing Ontology

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Dinar ◽  
David W. Rosen
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Knowledge Base ◽  
System Integration ◽  
Domain Knowledge ◽  
Description Logic ◽  
Design For Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Traditional Design ◽  
Subtractive Manufacturing ◽  
Future Work

Design for additive manufacturing (DFAM) gives designers new freedoms to create complex geometries and combine parts into one. However, it has its own limitations, and more importantly, requires a shift in thinking from traditional design for subtractive manufacturing. There is a lack of formal and structured guidelines, especially for novice designers. To formalize knowledge of DFAM, we have developed an ontology using formal OWL/RDF representations in the Protégé tool. The description logic formalism facilitates expressing domain knowledge as well as capturing information from benchmark studies. This is demonstrated in a case study with three design features: revolute joint, thread assembly (screw connection), and slider-crank. How multiple instances (build events) are stored and retrieved in the knowledge base is discussed in light of modeling requirements for the DFAM knowledge base: knowledge capture and reuse, supporting a tutoring system, integration into CAD tools. A set of competency questions are described to evaluate knowledge retrieval. Examples are given with SPARQL queries. Knowledge documentation is the main objective of the current ontology. However, description logic creates multiple opportunities for future work, including representing and reasoning about DFAM rules in a structured modular hierarchy, discovering new rules with induction, and recognizing patterns with classification, e.g., what leads to “successful” vs. “unsuccessful” fabrications.

scholarly journals INVESTIGATING PERCEIVED MEANINGS AND SCOPES OF DESIGN FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 1937-1946
Author(s):  
Aurora Berni ◽  
Yuri Borgianni ◽  
Martins Obi ◽  
Patrick Pradel ◽  
Richard Bibb
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Design For Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Hands On ◽  
The Future

AbstractThe concept of Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) is gaining popularity along with AM, despite its scopes are not well established. In particular, in the last few years, DfAM methods have been intuitively subdivided into opportunistic and restrictive. This distinction is gaining traction despite a lack of formalization. In this context, the paper investigates experts' understanding of DfAM. In particular, the authors have targeted educators, as the perception of DfAM scopes in the future will likely depend on teachers' view. A bespoke survey has been launched, which has been answer by 100 worldwide-distributed respondents. The gathered data has undergone several analyses, markedly answers to open questions asking for individual definitions of DfAM, and evaluations of the pertinence of meanings and acceptations from the literature. The results show that the main DfAM aspects focused on by first standardization attempts have been targeted, especially products, processes, opportunities and constraints. Beyond opportunistic and restrictive nuances, DfAM different understandings are characterized by different extents of cognitive endeavor, convergence vs. divergence in the design process, theoretical vs. hands on approaches.

A Design for Additive Manufacturing Ontology

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahmoud Dinar ◽  
David W. Rosen
Keyword(s):  
Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Knowledge Base ◽  
System Integration ◽  
Domain Knowledge ◽  
Description Logic ◽  
Design For Additive Manufacturing ◽  
Ontology Language ◽  
Subtractive Manufacturing ◽  
Description Framework ◽  
Future Work

Design for additive manufacturing (DFAM) gives designers new freedoms to create complex geometries and combine parts into one. However, it has its own limitations, and more importantly, requires a shift in thinking from traditional design for subtractive manufacturing. There is a lack of formal and structured guidelines, especially for novice designers. To formalize knowledge of DFAM, we have developed an ontology using formal web ontology language (OWL)/resource description framework (RDF) representations in the Protégé tool. The description logic formalism facilitates expressing domain knowledge as well as capturing information from benchmark studies. This is demonstrated in a case study with three design features: revolute joint, threaded assembly (screw connection), and slider–crank. How multiple instances (build events) are stored and retrieved in the knowledge base is discussed in light of modeling requirements for the DFAM knowledge base: knowledge capture and reuse, supporting a tutoring system, integration into cad tools. A set of competency questions are described to evaluate knowledge retrieval. Examples are given with SPARQL queries. Reasoning with semantic web rule language (SWRL) is exemplified for manufacturability analysis. Knowledge documentation is the main objective of the current ontology. However, description logic creates multiple opportunities for future work, including representing and reasoning about DFAM rules in a structured modular hierarchy, discovering new rules with induction, and recognizing patterns with classification, e.g., what leads to “successful” versus “unsuccessful” fabrications.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document