The AM can improve the product development through fast printing, multi materials combination and metals printing made easier. Designing geometrically the parts is independent from AM. Several articles have been published in this area.

Of course. There are some advantages that result from the additive manufacturing processes alone. But additive manufacturing also allows the production of extremely complex structures due to the layer-by-layer build-up process. Exactly for this purpose, the generation of geometries is sometimes complicated with conventional CAD programs because, for example, tools for lattice generation or similar tools are missing.

For this reason I am working on the design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) and how it could be integrated into the conventional design process.

Sebastian Kuschmitz completed the questionnaire, all the best to you with your research.

Best Regards

Martin

Many thanks Martin McKie , I really appreciate it.

Sebastian Kuschmitz no problem, I’ll give it a share, I know how difficult it can sometimes be to get a decent number of respondents to questionnaires.

That would be great. Thanks a lot.

The questionnaire has been completed

Thank you very much Sara Thamer Hadi

Completed. Share the results please!

Check out nTopology, they are solving the geometry from the inside out and evolving a software with implicit solutions rather that BRep geometry. They are the future software for DFAM as I see it moving forward.

MEK

Thank you very much Federico Faure . I will share the results :)

Matthew Kibler I can agree with you. nTop is a very good tool that already does many things right. But the STL export is still in need of improvement.

Sebastian,

Would you please elaborate on your STL export statement?

What are the known issues?

Who is attempting to solve them?

Thanks, MEK

Matthew Kibler the problem I noticed is that the exported STL files become extremely large because the mesh is created very inefficiently. To my knowledge there is no way to influence the mesh in terms of fineness. For this reason the exported STL files always become very large and can not be processed with common slicers.

For this reason I have created several small STL files. Once with Catia and once with nTop. In one block the STL with catia was about 10 times smaller than the same block with nTop. The resolution with Catia was also more than sufficient.

The processing in the slicer worked with both files (because also the part of ntop had a manageable size), but if the parts become more complex, it is sometimes difficult with ntop.

I don't know if someone is already working on this problem. It should be known at ntopology.

Sebastian Kuschmitz Thank you for the useful information. I will review with ntop and see the options.

Best,

MEK

To help to interpret your survey data later on, you might want to take a short look to these too :-)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260363177_Digital_Design_Process_and_Additive_Manufacturing_of_a_Configurable_Product

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260389312_Evaluation_of_Different_Monitoring_Methods_of_Laser_Additive_Manufacturing_of_Stainless_Steel

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260363182_Digital_design_and_manufacturing_process_comparison_for_new_custom_made_product_family_-_A_case_study_of_a_bathroom_faucet

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284786399_Art-technology_Collaboration_and_Motivation_Sources_in_Technologically_Supported_Artwork_Buildup_Project

Best regards,

Assoc. Prof. Ari Happonen

Thank you Ari Happonen . I will have a look :)

Hello Sebastian, I reached out to Ntopology on this topic. Here is what they had to say.

nTopology is a huge proponent of the 3MF format and are even a member of the 3MF consortium. A 3MF file will often be 65% smaller than the same data stored in STL form, while including more rich information on things like units. But we take that further and allow for storing beam based lattices in 3MF format, which significantly reduces the file size compared to a mesh for the same design.

For certain manufacturing processes we allow for direct export of slice data so there is no need to convert to a mesh to begin with. For vector based slices the user can use decimation techniques to further reduce the amount of data, while still capture the exact detail of the part. Or like with 3MF we can handle lattices in a more efficient manner, by treating lattices as point exposures rather than contours which. We also enable image based slicing export for certain resin based manufacturing methods.

Finally, the nTop file itself is design to be compact, instead of storing and caching results because we use implicit modeling techniques we can store the recipe to generate the part rather than the discrete form saving huge amounts of storage before it comes time to export.

If you can share more about your process I'd be glad to give you some detailed information on the approaches we can take that are best for you.

Might be worth reaching out to them for your specific requirements.

MEK

Dear Sebastion,

you mentioned that your asking your question "...how product development will change with regard to additive manufacturing..." related to dissertation work.

Usually it means, that you have some sort of focus / limitations / area of interest, you specially research in this particular context.

What is your case, is it like mass scale industrial products? Certain product categories or application areas etc.?

I'm thinking Food and clothes industries probably differ a lot from consumables, electronics and heavy machinery industries, in relation to your question.

B.R.,

Ari

Dear Ari Happonen ,

the focus in my dissertation is the systematically provision of design knowledge for the additive manufacturing processes. Because of that i inspect the whole product development process to classify the need in the terms of additive manufacturing. Especially for the design phase.

I am not investigating a specific sector, although your assumption that there are major differences here is certainly correct.

Best regards

Sebastian

Hello Matthew Kibler ,

thank you for reaching out :)

the 3mf file is a good compromise. I have used it since i have recognized, that there are some advantages. Nonetheless i would like to use stl format, because of compatibility to the most programms.

The ntop file itself is really good and derives huge performance while using, like the hole ntop programm.

Best regards

Sebastian

Good idea. :)

Hi,

you might want to read our paper:

New Promises AI Brings Into Circular Economy Accelerated Product Design: Review on Supporting Literature

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336276030_New_Promises_AI_Brings_Into_Circular_Economy_Accelerated_Product_Design_Review_on_Supporting_Literature

Generally speaking, more AI, design support and automated enhancement and consideration for additive manufacturing production means are taken into account in design phase, the better the end result can be. For example, if design phase is enhanced, then the later phases can be improved. For example, it is easier to make products to support CE philosophy.

B.R.,

Ari