adaptation for am versus design for am
TRANSCRIPT
Adaptation for AM (AfAM)Versus
Design for AM (DfAM)
Kevin Brigden MEng
Applications Engineer
Additive Manufacturing Products
Renishaw plc
Brooms Road, Stone Business Park
Stone, Staffordshire ST15 0SH
United Kingdom
Fax +44 (0) 1785 812 115
Direct Line +44 (0) 1785 285 168
www.renishaw.com
Conventional
DfAM optimised
Adapted
• Adaptation for AM (AfAM):
– The redevelopment or modification of existing product designs to better suit the
design constraints imposed by additive manufacture; leveraging AM specific
benefits
– Existing product design specification (PDS) and system-level design reduce
available ‘design space’
• Design for AM (DfAM):
– The wholesale ‘blank sheet’ design and development of a new product; fully
exploiting the opportunities the technology provides
– Considerably more open design space and ability to influence system-level design
decisions
Slide 24/25/2016
AM Competence development
Slide 34/25/2016
Competence = Knowledge + Skills + Experience
AM Competence development
Slide 44/25/2016
Kn
ow
led
ge
AM metallurgy
Design for manufacture
Validation and quality assurance
Skil
ls
Advanced level, CAD/CAE literate design engineers
Machine operators/process support technicians
Exp
eri
en
ce
Process limitations
Post-processing (heat treatment, surface finishing etc.)
Finish machining
‘Renishaw AM Solution Centre’ Development
Plans
4/25/2016
Renishaw Solutions Centres and Applications support
• Hydraulic manifold for a circuit operating at pressures in the order of
200-500bar
• Weight limited application
• Simple circuit consisting of two check valves, a solenoid valve and
their associated outlet ports (male insert type)
A common design problem
Slide 64/25/2016
Slide 74/25/2016
Conventional
AfAM
DfAM
Design evolution
Product Specification
Conventional Solution: Block Manifold
Slide 84/25/2016
Benefits
• A simple solution to the problem
• Easy to design
• Fast to manufacture
Limitations
• Sub-optimal performance due to cross-drillings
• Massively inefficient use of material
• 8 additional components in the form of pressure plugs
Mass: 4.6kg (10lbs)
AfAM Design Flow
Slide 94/25/2016
Extraction
Pressure vessel
Scaffold
Machining Ops
Adapted for AM
Slide 104/25/2016
Benefits
• A significant reduction in mass
• Improved hydraulic performance
• ‘Drop-in’ replacement for conventional part
• Pressure plugs no longer needed
Limitations
• Horizontal passageways need support and machining
allowances can’t be too aggressive
• Removal of material reduces rigidity and complicates
machiningMass: 1kg (2.2lbs)
• True DfAM products are always clean sheet designs
• Customer has a specific product application in mind
• Adherence to a product development methodology as per any other
conventional design process
• Engineering due diligence: cost/benefit, concept evaluation, design
optimisation, compromises for manufacture etc.
DfAM Checklist
Slide 114/25/2016
DfAM concept development
Component-level feature opportunity
System-level specification
Slide 124/25/2016
Product design specification cycle
Designed for AM
Slide 134/25/2016
Benefits
• Extremely efficient use of material
• Alignment of valves allows for entirely self-supporting part
• High rigidity aids finish machining
• Consolidation of outlet ports into design
Limitations
• High degree of CAD complexity/difficulty
• System-level engineering and design must be flexible in
order to react to and incorporate the potential advantages
of DfAM MASS: 0.4kg (0.89lbs)
Version Mass (kg) Saving
Conventional 4.6 -
AfAM 1.0 78%
DfAM 0.4 91%
Slide 144/25/2016
Conventional AfAM DfAM
Summary
Slide 154/25/2016
Design space
Process
De
sig
n s
pa
ce
(fre
ed
om
to
ch
an
ge)
Process Process
Form Form
Fit
Function?
Direct part
replacement
Adapt
for AM
Design
for AM
Conventional Solution: Block Manifold
Slide 164/25/2016
Adapted for AM
Slide 174/25/2016
Designed for AM
Slide 184/25/2016
Slide 194/25/2016
Thank you
Your product
design
Renishaw
expertise
Your AM
process
Global
support