Design for Manufacturing of Composites
Companies are constantly being challenged to find means to do things better, faster, and cheaper. Companies can no longer overdesign the product, nor can they afford a lengthy product development cycle time. The products can no longer be viewed individually, and designers can no longer pass the engineering concept to the manufacturing engineer for finding the ways to make it. The design engineer and manufacturing engineer need to work together to come up with a best design and manufacturing solutions for fabricating the products costeffectively. For example, if design and manufacturing engineers work separately to create the design of the outer body panels of automobiles, the manufacturing engineer will come up with a flat or square box-like product that is cheaper and quicker to make, but no one would buy it. On the other hand, the design engineer will come up with a design that is creative, eye-catching, and satisfies all customer needs and requirements, but it would be unaffordable. In either case, the product will not sell.
To be competitive, the product needs to be designed in a minimum amount of time, with minimum resources and costs. To meet current market needs, several philosophies, such as design for manufacturing, design for assembly, design for quality, design for life cycle, and concurrent design, are being developed. The primary aim of these philosophies is to think about the manufacturing, assembly, quality, or life-cycle needs during the design process. This is achieved by working concurrently in a concurrent engineering environment to avoid later changes in the design.
A product can be designed in many ways to meet functional, performance, and other requirements. Therefore, different organizations come up with different design concepts to meet the same application needs. The solution for an application depends on how the problem is defined to the designer as well as the knowledge and creativity of the designer. Because there are many design solutions to a problem, the question arises as to how to know which design is the best solution. It is also possible that there may be other designs that may be better than the realm of the designer. Design for manufacture is a tool that guides the designer in coming up with better design choices and then provides the optimum design. It is a tool for concept generation, concept approval, and concept improvement. It integrates processing knowledge into the design of a part to obtain maximum benefits and capabilities of the manufacturing method. To come up with the best design, the manufacturing engineer should have a good knowledge of the benefits and limitations of various composite manufacturing techniques. The team members should also be familiar with tools such as design for manufacturing (DFM), design for assembly (DFA), etc. for developing high-quality design. As compared to metals, composite materials offer the highest potential of utilizing DFM and part integration, and therefore can significantly reduce the cost of production.
Engineers utilizing isotropic materials such as aluminum and steel traditionally fabricate parts by first selecting raw materials from a design handbook based on performance requirements. Once the raw material is selected, the manufacturing process to fabricate the part is identified. This philosophy is not viable in the field of composite materials. With engineered composite materials, the material selection, design, and manufacturing processes all merge into a continuum philosophy embodying both design and manufacture in an integrated fashion. For example, a rod produced by filament winding, pultrusion, RTM, or braiding would impart distinct stiffness, damping, and mass characteristics due to different fiber and resin distributions and fiber volume fractions. Composites manufacturing processes create distinct microstructural properties in the product.
The best design example is Nature’s design in which different artifacts are grown in the entire system as a single entity. In contrast, engineers fabricate various parts and assemble them together. At present, we do not have biological manufacturing processes but we have plenty of opportunities for innovation by learning and imitating the no-assembly designs of the natural world.1 Designs in nature are strong but not necessarily stiff they are compliant. Nature tries to make the design compliant, whereas engineers traditionally make the structure and mechanism stiff. Ananthasuresh and Kota1,2 developed a one component plastic stapler in which they replaced the conventional steel stapler with no assembly design. Compliant mechanisms are single piece, flexible structures that deliver the desired motion by undergoing elastic deformation as opposed to rigid body motion.
Companies are constantly being challenged to find means to do things better, faster, and cheaper. Companies can no longer overdesign the product, nor can they afford a lengthy product development cycle time. The products can no longer be viewed individually, and designers can no longer pass the engineering concept to the manufacturing engineer for finding the ways to make it. The design engineer and manufacturing engineer need to work together to come up with a best design and manufacturing solutions for fabricating the products costeffectively. For example, if design and manufacturing engineers work separately to create the design of the outer body panels of automobiles, the manufacturing engineer will come up with a flat or square box-like product that is cheaper and quicker to make, but no one would buy it. On the other hand, the design engineer will come up with a design that is creative, eye-catching, and satisfies all customer needs and requirements, but it would be unaffordable. In either case, the product will not sell.
To be competitive, the product needs to be designed in a minimum amount of time, with minimum resources and costs. To meet current market needs, several philosophies, such as design for manufacturing, design for assembly, design for quality, design for life cycle, and concurrent design, are being developed. The primary aim of these philosophies is to think about the manufacturing, assembly, quality, or life-cycle needs during the design process. This is achieved by working concurrently in a concurrent engineering environment to avoid later changes in the design.
A product can be designed in many ways to meet functional, performance, and other requirements. Therefore, different organizations come up with different design concepts to meet the same application needs. The solution for an application depends on how the problem is defined to the designer as well as the knowledge and creativity of the designer. Because there are many design solutions to a problem, the question arises as to how to know which design is the best solution. It is also possible that there may be other designs that may be better than the realm of the designer. Design for manufacture is a tool that guides the designer in coming up with better design choices and then provides the optimum design. It is a tool for concept generation, concept approval, and concept improvement. It integrates processing knowledge into the design of a part to obtain maximum benefits and capabilities of the manufacturing method. To come up with the best design, the manufacturing engineer should have a good knowledge of the benefits and limitations of various composite manufacturing techniques. The team members should also be familiar with tools such as design for manufacturing (DFM), design for assembly (DFA), etc. for developing high-quality design. As compared to metals, composite materials offer the highest potential of utilizing DFM and part integration, and therefore can significantly reduce the cost of production.
Engineers utilizing isotropic materials such as aluminum and steel traditionally fabricate parts by first selecting raw materials from a design handbook based on performance requirements. Once the raw material is selected, the manufacturing process to fabricate the part is identified. This philosophy is not viable in the field of composite materials. With engineered composite materials, the material selection, design, and manufacturing processes all merge into a continuum philosophy embodying both design and manufacture in an integrated fashion. For example, a rod produced by filament winding, pultrusion, RTM, or braiding would impart distinct stiffness, damping, and mass characteristics due to different fiber and resin distributions and fiber volume fractions. Composites manufacturing processes create distinct microstructural properties in the product.
The best design example is Nature’s design in which different artifacts are grown in the entire system as a single entity. In contrast, engineers fabricate various parts and assemble them together. At present, we do not have biological manufacturing processes but we have plenty of opportunities for innovation by learning and imitating the no-assembly designs of the natural world.1 Designs in nature are strong but not necessarily stiff they are compliant. Nature tries to make the design compliant, whereas engineers traditionally make the structure and mechanism stiff. Ananthasuresh and Kota1,2 developed a one component plastic stapler in which they replaced the conventional steel stapler with no assembly design. Compliant mechanisms are single piece, flexible structures that deliver the desired motion by undergoing elastic deformation as opposed to rigid body motion.
4 comments:
Thanks, very impressive article. I appreciate you to continue your work.
Discover more here
Very interesting, good job and thanks for sharing such a good article..
Click this link now
T Rib liners provide superior strength and resistance, making them ideal for demanding applications. Our T Rib HDPE liner sheets offer exceptional durability, flexibility, and waterproofing for industrial and environmental projects. Perfect for lining canals, ponds, and reservoirs, they ensure long-lasting protection.
Post a Comment