A Characterization of 3D Printability

Additive manufacturing technologies are positioned to provide an unprecedented innovative transformation in how products are designed and manufactured. Due to differences in the technical specifications of AM technologies, the final fabricated parts can vary significantly from the original CAD models, therefore raising issues regarding accuracy, surface finish, robustness, mechanical properties, functional and geometrical constraints. Various researchers have studied the correlation between AM technologies and design rules. In this work we propose a novel approach to assessing the capability of a 3D model to be printed successfully (a.k.a printability) on a specific AM machine. This is utilized by taking into consideration the model mesh complexity and certain part characteristics. A printability score is derived for a model in reference to a specific 3D printing technology, expressing the probability of obtaining a robust and accurate end result for 3D printing on a specific AM machine. The printability score can be used either to determine which 3D technology is more suitable for manufacturing a specific model or as a guide to redesign the model to ensure printability. We verify this framework by conducting 3D printing experiments for benchmark models which are printed on three AM machines employing different technologies: Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), Binder Jetting (3DP), and Material Jetting (Polyjet).

[1]  Michael Donn,et al.  Metrics for measuring complexity of geometric models , 2016 .

[2]  Hoejin Kim,et al.  A review on quality control in additive manufacturing , 2018 .

[3]  Ioannis Fudos,et al.  3D Printing Technologies & Applications: An Overview , 2019, Proceedings of CAD'19.

[4]  Vasiliki Stamati,et al.  A parametric feature-based approach to reconstructing traditional filigree jewelry , 2011, Comput. Aided Des..

[5]  T. K. Kundra,et al.  Additive Manufacturing Technologies , 2018 .

[6]  Nathan Decker,et al.  A simplified benchmarking model for the assessment of dimensional accuracy in FDM processes , 2015 .

[7]  Jarek Rossignac,et al.  Shape complexity , 2005, The Visual Computer.

[8]  A. Bandyopadhyay,et al.  Additive manufacturing: scientific and technological challenges, market uptake and opportunities , 2017 .

[9]  David W. Rosen,et al.  Additive Manufacturing Technologies: Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital Manufacturing , 2009 .

[10]  Michael Johnson,et al.  An investigation and evaluation of computer-aided design model complexity metrics , 2018 .

[11]  Karthik Ramani,et al.  The Design for Additive Manufacturing Worksheet , 2016 .

[12]  Paolo Minetola,et al.  Benchmarking of FDM Machines through Part Quality Using IT Grades , 2016 .

[13]  Alain Bernard,et al.  Feature based building orientation optimization for additive manufacturing , 2016 .

[14]  Paul Witherell,et al.  Design Rules for Additive Manufacturing: A Categorization , 2017 .

[15]  Lara Rebaioli,et al.  A review on benchmark artifacts for evaluating the geometrical performance of additive manufacturing processes , 2017 .

[16]  Yaoyao Fiona Zhao,et al.  Additive manufacturing-enabled design theory and methodology: a critical review , 2015 .

[17]  Les A. Piegl,et al.  Ten challenges in 3D printing , 2015, Engineering with Computers.

[18]  David W. Rosen,et al.  Design for Additive Manufacturing , 2015, Additive Manufacturing Technologies.

[19]  A. Ramya,et al.  3D PRINTING TECHNOLOGIES IN VARIOUS APPLICATIONS , 2016 .

[20]  P. Witherell,et al.  DESIGN RULES WITH MODULARITY FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING , 2015 .

[21]  Michael G. Strintzis,et al.  3-D Model Search and Retrieval From Range Images Using Salient Features , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.

[22]  Guido A.O. Adam,et al.  On design for additive manufacturing: evaluating geometrical limitations , 2015 .

[23]  F. Martina,et al.  Design for Additive Manufacturing , 2019 .