Additive Manufacturing Drone Design Challenge

Author(s):  
Shawn Weeks ◽  
Rodrigo Merino Osorno ◽  
Bryce Prestwich ◽  
Logan Sanford ◽  
Abolfazl Amin
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan David Blake ◽  
Cynthia Waters ◽  
Simon Esau ◽  
John Kizito

2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rohan Prabhu ◽  
Scarlett R. Miller ◽  
Timothy W. Simpson ◽  
Nicholas A. Meisel

Abstract Additive manufacturing (AM) processes offer unique capabilities (i.e., opportunities) yet inherent limitations (i.e., restrictions) due to the layer-by-layer fabrication of parts. Despite the newfound design freedom and increased use of AM, limited research has investigated how knowledge of the AM processes affects the creativity of students’ ideas after being exposed to AM. This study investigates this gap through an experimental study with 343 participants recruited from a junior-level mechanical engineering design course. The participants were exposed to three variations in design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) education: (1) no DfAM, (2) restrictive DfAM, and (3) opportunistic and restrictive (dual) DfAM education. The effects of these three interventions were measured through differences in (1) participants’ self-reported use of DfAM in a design challenge and (2) expert assessment of the creativity of the outcomes from the said design challenge. The results of the study indicated that variations in DfAM content did not result in differences in the participants’ self-reported use of either opportunistic or restrictive DfAM, with all three groups reporting similar levels of emphasis. Further, participants from all three groups reported higher use of restrictive DfAM techniques, compared with opportunistic DfAM. Moreover, while variations in the content had no effect on the creativity (uniqueness and usefulness) of the participants’ design outcomes, teaching both opportunistic and restrictive DfAM did result in the generation of designs with greater AM technical goodness—a novel and significant finding in our study. The results of this study highlight the need for DfAM educational interventions that encourage students to not only learn about but also integrate both opportunistic and restrictive concepts effectively into their creative design process. This would result in the generation of innovative products that leverage the design freedom enabled by AM, yet addressing the limitations inherent in the process.


2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (03) ◽  
pp. 180-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Henke ◽  
J. T. Schantz ◽  
D. W. Hutmacher

ZusammenfassungDie Behandlung ausgedehnter Knochen-defekte nach Traumata oder durch Tumoren stellt nach wie vor eine signifikante Heraus-forderung im klinischen Alltag dar. Aufgrund der bestehenden Limitationen aktueller Therapiestandards haben Knochen-Tissue-Engineering (TE)-Verfahren zunehmend an Bedeutung gewonnen. Die Entwicklung von Additive-Manufacturing (AM)-Verfahren hat dabei eine grundlegende Innovation ausgelöst: Durch AM lassen sich dreidimensionale Gerüstträger in einem computergestützten Schichtfür-Schicht-Verfahren aus digitalen 3D-Vorlagen erstellen. Wurden mittels AM zunächst nur Modelle zur haptischen Darstellung knöcherner Pathologika und zur Planung von Operationen hergestellt, so ist es mit der Entwicklung nun möglich, detaillierte Scaffoldstrukturen zur Tissue-Engineering-Anwendung im Knochen zu fabrizieren. Die umfassende Kontrolle der internen Scaffoldstruktur und der äußeren Scaffoldmaße erlaubt eine Custom-made-Anwendung mit auf den individuellen Knochendefekt und die entsprechenden (mechanischen etc.) Anforderungen abgestimmten Konstrukten. Ein zukünftiges Feld ist das automatisierte ultrastrukturelle Design von TE-Konstrukten aus Scaffold-Biomaterialien in Kombination mit lebenden Zellen und biologisch aktiven Wachstumsfaktoren zur Nachbildung natürlicher (knöcherner) Organstrukturen.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tao Zhang ◽  
Sanjay Sampath ◽  
Jon P. Longtin ◽  
David J. Hwang

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document