INVESTIGATING PERCEIVED MEANINGS AND SCOPES OF DESIGN FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

The 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 despi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Berni, Aurora, Borgianni, Yuri, Obi, Martins, Pradel, Patrick, Bibb, Richard
Format: Conference Proceeding
Language:English
Subjects:
Additive manufacturing
Classification
Design engineering
Design optimization
Designers
International conferences
Optimization techniques
Product development
Questionnaires
Teachers
Teaching
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The 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.
ISSN:2732-527X
2732-527X
DOI:10.1017/pds.2021.455