Assessing the Manufacturability of Students' Early-Stage Designs Based on Previous Experience with Traditional Manufacturing and Additive Manufacturing

IF 2.9 3区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL Journal of Mechanical Design Pub Date : 2023-10-20 DOI:10.1115/1.4063564
Seth Pearl, Nicholas Meisel
{"title":"Assessing the Manufacturability of Students' Early-Stage Designs Based on Previous Experience with Traditional Manufacturing and Additive Manufacturing","authors":"Seth Pearl, Nicholas Meisel","doi":"10.1115/1.4063564","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":50137,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mechanical Design","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mechanical Design","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063564","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
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
基于传统制造和增材制造经验评估学生早期设计的可制造性
随着增材制造(AM)使用的增加,希望最大化AM潜力的设计师必须重新考虑他们可能更熟悉的传统制造(TM)公理。虽然以前的研究已经调查了可能影响概念生成过程中产生的设计的潜在影响,但很少有研究明确针对早期概念的可制造性,以及之前的经验和制造过程中启动内容的呈现如何影响这些概念。本文的研究解决了这一知识差距,特别是针对设计师经验导致的概念生成差异,并提出了传统制造设计(DFTM)和增材制造设计(DFAM)公理。为了了解设计师如何在设计过程的早期进行设计创作,并调查潜在的影响因素,本研究的参与者被要求完成一个以概念生成为中心的设计挑战。在这个设计挑战之前,这些参与者的一个随机子集收到了关于DFTM和DFAM考虑因素的启动内容。这些参与者的最终设计被评估为传统可制造性和增材可制造性,并与没有收到启动内容的参与者的最终设计进行比较。结果表明,制造经验水平较低的学生创造的设计更适合TM。此外,随着设计师制造经验水平的提高,更适合AM的设计数量也在增加。这与在评估这些设计时较高的自我报告使用DFAM公理有关。这些结果表明,当涉及到为任何一种制造过程创建设计时,具有高制造经验水平的学生依赖于他们以前的经验。最后,虽然制造启动内容显著影响设计的传统可制造性,但启动内容并未增加设计中自述制造设计公理的数量。
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
Journal of Mechanical Design
Journal of Mechanical Design 工程技术-工程:机械
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
18.20%
发文量
139
审稿时长
3.9 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Mechanical Design (JMD) serves the broad design community as the venue for scholarly, archival research in all aspects of the design activity with emphasis on design synthesis. JMD has traditionally served the ASME Design Engineering Division and its technical committees, but it welcomes contributions from all areas of design with emphasis on synthesis. JMD communicates original contributions, primarily in the form of research articles of considerable depth, but also technical briefs, design innovation papers, book reviews, and editorials. Scope: The Journal of Mechanical Design (JMD) serves the broad design community as the venue for scholarly, archival research in all aspects of the design activity with emphasis on design synthesis. JMD has traditionally served the ASME Design Engineering Division and its technical committees, but it welcomes contributions from all areas of design with emphasis on synthesis. JMD communicates original contributions, primarily in the form of research articles of considerable depth, but also technical briefs, design innovation papers, book reviews, and editorials.
期刊最新文献
Joint Special Issue on Advances in Design and Manufacturing for Sustainability Optimization of Tooth Profile Modification Amount and Manufacturing Tolerance Allocation for RV Reducer under Reliability Constraint Critical thinking assessment in engineering education: A Scopus-based literature review Accounting for Machine Learning Prediction Errors in Design Thinking Beyond the Default User: The Impact of Gender, Stereotypes, and Modality on Interpretation of User Needs
×
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