A Comparative Study of Virtual Reality and Computer-Aided Design to Evaluate Parts for Additive Manufacturing

John K. Ostrander, Lauren Ryan, Snehal Dhengre, Christopher McComb, T. Simpson, N. Meisel
{"title":"A Comparative Study of Virtual Reality and Computer-Aided Design to Evaluate Parts for Additive Manufacturing","authors":"John K. Ostrander, Lauren Ryan, Snehal Dhengre, Christopher McComb, T. Simpson, N. Meisel","doi":"10.1115/detc2019-97480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Virtual Reality (VR) has been shown to be an effective assistive tool in the engineering design process, aiding designers in ergonomics studies, data visualization, and manufacturing simulation. Yet there is little research exploring the advantages of VR to assist in the design for the additive manufacturing (DfAM) process. VR may present advantages over traditional computer-aided design (CAD) tools, and these advantages may be more evident as designs become more complex. The following study investigates two types of environments: 1) Immersive Virtual Reality (VR) and 2) Non-Immersive Virtual Reality (CAD) and the advantages that each environment gives to designers to assess parts for additive manufacturing. The two environments are compared to assess potential differences in DfAM decision-making. Participants familiar with DfAM are tasked with evaluating five designs of varying complexity using the Design for Additive Manufacturing Worksheet. Participant scores, evaluation times, and self-reported metrics are recorded and analyzed. Our findings indicate that as part complexity increases, DfAM scores and evaluation times increasingly differ between VR and CAD groups. We found that the VR group evaluates more complex parts at a faster rate, but with a lower accuracy when compared to the CAD group. In evaluating self-reported metrics, both groups were relatively similar; however, the CAD group reported improved confidence in identifying stress concentrations in DfAM parts. Our findings in this research identify VR as a design evaluation tool that enhances evaluation speed which speaks to its efficiency and usability; however, VR in its current form may not present the resolution necessary to identify smaller details when compared to CAD, the more accurate evaluation tool.","PeriodicalId":365601,"journal":{"name":"Volume 2A: 45th Design Automation Conference","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 2A: 45th Design Automation Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2019-97480","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Virtual Reality (VR) has been shown to be an effective assistive tool in the engineering design process, aiding designers in ergonomics studies, data visualization, and manufacturing simulation. Yet there is little research exploring the advantages of VR to assist in the design for the additive manufacturing (DfAM) process. VR may present advantages over traditional computer-aided design (CAD) tools, and these advantages may be more evident as designs become more complex. The following study investigates two types of environments: 1) Immersive Virtual Reality (VR) and 2) Non-Immersive Virtual Reality (CAD) and the advantages that each environment gives to designers to assess parts for additive manufacturing. The two environments are compared to assess potential differences in DfAM decision-making. Participants familiar with DfAM are tasked with evaluating five designs of varying complexity using the Design for Additive Manufacturing Worksheet. Participant scores, evaluation times, and self-reported metrics are recorded and analyzed. Our findings indicate that as part complexity increases, DfAM scores and evaluation times increasingly differ between VR and CAD groups. We found that the VR group evaluates more complex parts at a faster rate, but with a lower accuracy when compared to the CAD group. In evaluating self-reported metrics, both groups were relatively similar; however, the CAD group reported improved confidence in identifying stress concentrations in DfAM parts. Our findings in this research identify VR as a design evaluation tool that enhances evaluation speed which speaks to its efficiency and usability; however, VR in its current form may not present the resolution necessary to identify smaller details when compared to CAD, the more accurate evaluation tool.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
虚拟现实与计算机辅助设计在增材制造零件评价中的比较研究
在工程设计过程中,虚拟现实(VR)已被证明是一种有效的辅助工具,可以帮助设计师进行人体工程学研究、数据可视化和制造仿真。然而,很少有研究探索VR在辅助增材制造(DfAM)工艺设计中的优势。VR可能比传统的计算机辅助设计(CAD)工具更有优势,而且随着设计变得越来越复杂,这些优势可能会更加明显。以下研究调查了两种类型的环境:1)沉浸式虚拟现实(VR)和2)非沉浸式虚拟现实(CAD),以及每种环境给设计师评估增材制造零件的优势。对这两种环境进行比较,以评估DfAM决策的潜在差异。熟悉DfAM的参与者的任务是使用增材制造设计工作表评估五个不同复杂性的设计。参与者得分、评估时间和自我报告的指标被记录和分析。我们的研究结果表明,随着部件复杂性的增加,VR组和CAD组之间的DfAM评分和评估时间差异越来越大。我们发现,与CAD组相比,VR组以更快的速度评估更复杂的部件,但准确性较低。在评估自我报告指标时,两组相对相似;然而,CAD组报告在识别DfAM部件的应力集中方面提高了信心。我们的研究结果表明,VR是一种设计评估工具,可以提高评估速度,从而提高其效率和可用性;然而,与CAD(更准确的评估工具)相比,目前形式的VR可能无法提供识别小细节所需的分辨率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Inverse Thermo-Mechanical Processing (ITMP) Design of a Steel Rod During Hot Rolling Process Generative Design of Multi-Material Hierarchical Structures via Concurrent Topology Optimization and Conformal Geometry Method Computational Design of a Personalized Artificial Spinal Disc With a Data-Driven Design Variable Linking Heuristic Gaussian Process Based Crack Initiation Modeling for Design of Battery Anode Materials Deep Reinforcement Learning for Transfer of Control Policies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1