No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Hybrid Prototyping: Pure Theory or a Practical Solution to Accelerating Prototyping Tasks?
Part of:
Design for Additive Manufacturing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 July 2019
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Physical prototyping is critical activity in the produce development process, but the cost and time required to produce prototypes hinders it use in the design process. Hybrid prototyping through coupling LEGO and FDM printing is presented as an approach to address these issues. After establishing the separate design rules for FDM printing and LEGO, this paper created new set of rules called Design for Fabrication (DfF) for hybrid prototyping. These cover the three main considerations (Technical, Process, and Design) that the designer and process planning must include to practically implement LEGO and FDM hybrid prototyping. The DfF rules were considered in a prototype of a computer mouse. While the fabrication time was not reduced as expected, it showed that the rules could be practically implemented in a real-world example. Additional considerations were identified that are to be included in the DfF rules.
Further work is required to realise the predicted step-change reduction in fabrication time. The first approach is to leverage multiple printers to parallelise the printing. The second is to reduce fidelity while maintaining high fidelity in key regions of interest.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 759 - 768
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- © The Author(s) 2019
References
Beyer, D., Gurevich, S., Mueller, S., Chen, H.-T. and Baudisch, P. (2015), “Platener: Low-Fidelity Fabrication of 3D Objects by Substituting 3D Print with Laser-Cut Plates”, In Proceedings of the ACM CHI'15 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul Korea, Vol. 1, pp. 1799–1806. http://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702225Google Scholar
Boa, D., Mathias, D. and Hicks, B. (2017), “Evolving lego: Prototyping requirements for a customizable construction kit”, In Proceeding of 21st International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 2017, The Design Society, Vancouver, Canada, Vol. 4, pp. 297–306.Google Scholar
Boujut, J.-F. and Blanco, E. (2003), “Intermediary Objects as a mean to foster Co-operation”, Engineering Design Computer Supported Cooperative Work, (1998), pp. 205–219.Google Scholar
Camburn, B., Viswanathan, V., Linsey, J., Anderson, D., Jensen, D., Crawford, R., … Wood, K. (2017), “Design prototyping methods: state of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines”, Design Science, Vol. 3 No. 13. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.10Google Scholar
Conner, B. P., Manogharan, G. P. and Meyers, K. L. (2015), “An assessment of implementation of entry-level 3D printers from the perspective of small businesses”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 582–597. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-09-2014-0132Google Scholar
Enjary, D. (2007), “The Unofficial LEGO Advanced Building Techniques Guide”, Retrieved November 8, 2018, from https://joncraton.org/media/files/UnofficialLEGOAdvancedBuildingTechniquesGuide.pdfGoogle Scholar
Goguelin, S., Flynn, J. M. and Dhokia, V. (2016), “A bottom-up design framework for CAD tools to support design for additive manufacturing. Smart Innovation”, Systems and Technologies, Vol. 52, pp. 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32098-4_35Google Scholar
Goudswaard, M., Hicks, B. and Nassehi, A. (2018), “Towards the Democratisation of Design: Exploration of Variability in the Process of Filament Deposition Modelling in Desktop Additive Manufacture”, Transdisciplinary Engineering Methods for Social Innovation of Industry 4.0, (October). https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-898-3-125Google Scholar
Gower, R., Heydtmann, A. and Petersen, H. (1998), “Lego: Automated Model Construction”, European Study Group with Industry, pp. 81–94.Google Scholar
Hallgrimsson, B. (2012), Prototyping and Modelmaking for Product Design. Laurence King Publishing, London.Google Scholar
Hess, T. and Summers, J. D. (2013), “Case study: Evidence of prototyping roles in conceptual design”, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED13, The Design Society, Seoul Korea, Vol. 1, pp. 249–258.Google Scholar
James Dyson Foundation. (2010), “Engineering Box - Teacher's Pack”. James Dyson Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.jamesdysonfoundation.co.uk/resources/engineering-box-teachers-pack/Google Scholar
Jensen, M., Elverum, C. and Steinert, M. (2017), “Eliciting unknown unknowns with prototypes: Introducing prototrials and prototrial-driven cultures”, Design Studies, Vol. 49, pp. 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.12.002Google Scholar
Lennings, A. F., Broek, J. J., Horváth, I., Sleijffers, W. and de Smit, A. (2000), “Editable Physical Models for Conceptual Design”, In Proceedings of the TMCE2000 Symposium. Delft, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Luo, S.-J., Yue, Y., Huang, C.-K., Chung, Y.-H., Imai, S., Nishita, T., … Chen, B. (2015), “Legolization: Optimizing LEGO Designs”, ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2816795.2818091Google Scholar
Mathias, D., Hicks, B., Snider, C. and Ranscombe, C. (2018), “Characterizing the Affordances and Limitations of Common Prototyping Techniques to Support the Early Stages of Product Development”, In International Design Conference - Design 2018, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 1257–1268.Google Scholar
Mathias, D., Hicks, B., Snider, C. and Ranscombe, C. (2019), “Accelerating Product Prototyping Through Hybrid Prototyping Methods: Investigating and Characterising the Affordances of Coupling of FDM Printing and LEGO”. Submitted to Design Studies, Vol. 62, pp. 68–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.04.003Google Scholar
Menold, J., Jablokow, K. W. and Simpson, T. W. (2017), “Prototype for X (PFX): A holistic framework for structuring prototyping methods to support engineering design”. Design Studies, Vol. 50, pp. 70–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.03.001Google Scholar
Mueller, S., Mohr, T., Guenther, K., Frohnhofen, J. and Baudisch, P. (2014), “faBrickation : Fast 3D Printing of Functional Objects by Integrating Construction Kit Building Blocks”, In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Toronto, Canada, pp. 3827–3834. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557005Google Scholar
Otto, K. and Wood, K. (2001), Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development (1st ed.), Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Redwood, B., Schoffer, F. and Garret, B. (2017), The 3D Printing Handbook. 3D Hubs B.V., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Sass, L. and Oxman, R. (2006), “Materializing design: The implications of rapid prototyping in digital design”, Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 325–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.11.009Google Scholar
Singh, K. (2006), “Industrial motivation for interactive shape modeling: a case study in conceptual automotive design”, ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Courses, pp. 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/1185657.1185671Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. T. and Eppinger, S. D. (2016), Product Design and Development (6th ed.), McGraw-Hill Education, New York.Google Scholar
Ultimaker, B. V. (2018), “Ultimaker 3”. Retrieved from https://ultimaker.com/en/products/ultimaker-3Google Scholar
Viswanathan, V. and Linsey, J. (2011), “Understanding physical models in design cognition: A triangulation of qualitative and laboratory studies”, Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE, pp. 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2011.6142848Google Scholar
Wall, M. B., Ulrich, K. T. and Flowers, W. C. (1992), “Evaluating prototyping technologies for product design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01580518Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access