0
Technical Brief

Evaluation of Design Feedback Modality in Design for Manufacturability

[+] Author and Article Information
Prashant Barnawal

Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering,
Iowa State University,
3004 Black Engineering,
Ames, IA 50011
e-mail: imprsnt@gmail.com

Michael C. Dorneich

Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering,
Iowa State University,
3004 Black Engineering,
Ames, IA 50011
e-mail: dorneich@iastate.edu

Matthew C. Frank

Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering,
Iowa State University,
3004 Black Engineering,
Ames, IA 50011
e-mail: mfrank@iastate.edu

Frank Peters

Industrial and Manufacturing Systems Engineering,
Iowa State University,
3004 Black Engineering,
Ames, IA 50011
e-mail: fpeters@iastate.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design for Manufacturing Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received July 23, 2016; final manuscript received June 9, 2017; published online July 27, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Irem Tumer.

J. Mech. Des 139(9), 094503 (Jul 27, 2017) (5 pages) Paper No: MD-16-1528; doi: 10.1115/1.4037109 History: Received July 23, 2016; Revised June 09, 2017

The early conceptual design phase often focuses on functional requirements, with limited consideration of the manufacturing processes needed to turn design engineers' conceptual models into physical products. Increasingly, design and manufacturing engineers no longer work in physical proximity, which has slowed the feedback cycle and increased product lead-time. Design for manufacturability (DFM) techniques have been adopted to overcome this problem and are critical for faster convergence to a manufacturable design. DFM tools give feedback in textual and graphical modalities. However, since information modality may affect interpretability, empirical evidence is needed to understand how manufacturability feedback modalities affect design engineers' work. A user study evaluated how novice design engineers' design performance, workload, confidence, and feedback usability were affected by textual, two-dimensional (2D), and three-dimensional (3D) feedback modalities. Results showed that graphical feedback significantly improved performance and reduced mental workload compared to textual and no feedback. Differences between 3D and 2D feedback were mixed. Three-dimensional was generally better on average, but not significantly so. However, the usability of 3D was significantly higher than 2D. Conversely, providing feedback in textual modality was often no better than not providing feedback. The study will benefit manufacturing industries by demonstrating that early 3D manufacturability feedback improves novice design engineers' performance with less mental workload and streamlines the design process resulting in cost-saving and reduction of product lead-time.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

3D integrated feedback displaying graphical feedback from cast-ana

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Part models used in the study

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In