Short answer

When planning for mass customization in additive manufacturing, adopt a 'standing' build orientation strategy and employ heuristic algorithms for 2D packing and scheduling to minimize overall production cycle time.

Field: Commercial Production
Source: Academic Publication (2018)
Method: Heuristic algorithm development and numerical simulation.
Sample: Numerical example tested up to 3,000 parts.
Evidence: Moderate effect

Optimizing build orientation and packing strategies in additive manufacturing can significantly reduce production cycle times, especially when dealing with a large volume of customized parts. This commercial production research insight is drawn from a 2018 study published in Academic Publication. Using Heuristic algorithm development and numerical simulation. with Numerical example tested up to 3,000 parts., researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: When planning for mass customization in additive manufacturing, adopt a 'standing' build orientation strategy and employ heuristic algorithms for 2D packing and scheduling to minimize overall production cycle time.

Study

Commercial ProductionHigh ImpactModerate effect

Standing Build Orientation Reduces Additive Manufacturing Cycle Time by 6% for Mass Customization

Optimizing build orientation and packing strategies in additive manufacturing can significantly reduce production cycle times, especially when dealing with a large volume of customized parts.

Academic Publication · 2018

Key Findings

01The 'standing' build orientation policy, which minimizes the projected area on the build tray, is more efficient than the 'laying' policy for mass customization in additive manufacturing.
02For a test case of 3,000 parts, the standing policy resulted in approximately 6% shorter cycle time compared to the laying policy.

Application

Design takeaway

How to apply

When designing for a batch of customized parts, analyze the projected area of each part in different orientations and prioritize orientations that allow for denser packing on the build plate to reduce the number of build jobs and overall cycle time.

Project actions

01When planning your production, consider how the orientation of your parts on the build plate affects how many can fit and how long the print will take.
02Investigate heuristic algorithms for packing and scheduling if your design project involves producing multiple unique items.

Method & Evidence

AimHow can build orientation, 2D packing, and scheduling be optimized in additive manufacturing to minimize cycle time for mass-customized production?

MethodHeuristic algorithm development and numerical simulation.

ProcedureThe study developed a three-step production planning process: determining build orientation (laying vs. standing), performing 2D packing of parts onto the build platform, and scheduling these parts across multiple machines. A heuristic algorithm was used to solve the packing and scheduling problems, and a numerical example was used to compare the 'laying' and 'standing' policies.

SampleNumerical example tested up to 3,000 parts.

ContextAdditive Manufacturing (AM) for mass customization.

Variables

IV["Build orientation policy (laying vs. standing)","Number of parts"]

DV["Cycle time"]

CV["Part shapes and sizes (within the numerical example)","Number of AM machines"]

Strengths & Limitations

Strengths

+Addresses a critical bottleneck in industrial-scale additive manufacturing.
+Provides a clear comparison between two distinct build orientation strategies.

Limitations

The specific heuristic algorithm used might not be optimal for all scenarios. The study does not account for potential support structure requirements, which can vary significantly with orientation.

Reliability & validity

The validity of the findings relies on the accuracy of the heuristic algorithm and the representativeness of the numerical example. Reliability would be assessed by replicating the simulation with different parameter sets.

Think critically

How might the optimal build orientation change if the primary goal shifts from minimizing cycle time to minimizing material waste or maximizing part strength?

Design Principles

"Optimize part orientation and spatial arrangement on the build platform to minimize additive manufacturing cycle time for mass-customized production."

For designers and engineers involved in mass customization using additive manufacturing, understanding the impact of production planning on efficiency is crucial. This research highlights how strategic decisions in build orientation and part arrangement directly influence throughput and cost-effectiveness.

What This Means for Your Design

For 3D printing lots of different items, it's faster to stand them up on the printer bed rather than lay them flat, especially if you have many items to print.

How to use in your project

1.Reference this study when discussing production planning, optimization strategies, or the impact of build orientation on cycle time in your design project.

Add to My Project

Quick Cite

Paragraph starter

The study by Oh, Zhou, and Behdad (2018) demonstrates that for mass customization in additive manufacturing, adopting a 'standing' build orientation policy, which minimizes the projected area on the build tray, can lead to a reduction in overall production cycle time. Their numerical example indicated a 6% improvement in cycle time for 3,000 parts compared to a 'laying' policy, highlighting the importance of strategic production planning in optimizing throughput.

Source

Academic Publication

Production Planning for Mass Customization in Additive Manufacturing: Build Orientation Determination, 2D Packing and Scheduling

journal · 2018

View source

Questions About This Research

What does the research say about standing build orientation reduces additive manufacturing cycle time by 6% for mass customization?: When planning for mass customization in additive manufacturing, adopt a 'standing' build orientation strategy and employ heuristic algorithms for 2D packing and scheduling to minimize overall production cycle time. Evidence: Academic Publication (2018).
Why does "Standing Build Orientation Reduces Additive Manufacturing Cycle Time by 6% for Mass Customization" matter for design?: For designers and engineers involved in mass customization using additive manufacturing, understanding the impact of production planning on efficiency is crucial. This research highlights how strategic decisions in build orientation and part arrangement directly influence throughput and cost-effectiveness.
How can designers apply this research?: When planning for mass customization in additive manufacturing, adopt a 'standing' build orientation strategy and employ heuristic algorithms for 2D packing and scheduling to minimize overall production cycle time.
What were the main findings?: The 'standing' build orientation policy, which minimizes the projected area on the build tray, is more efficient than the 'laying' policy for mass customization in additive manufacturing.. For a test case of 3,000 parts, the standing policy resulted in approximately 6% shorter cycle time compared to the laying policy.
What research method was used?: Heuristic algorithm development and numerical simulation. with Numerical example tested up to 3,000 parts..
How strong is the evidence?: Evidence strength is rated Moderate effect, based on a 2018 journal from Academic Publication.
What should I do differently in my next project?: When designing for a batch of customized parts, analyze the projected area of each part in different orientations and prioritize orientations that allow for denser packing on the build plate to reduce the number of build jobs and overall cycle time.
What are the limitations?: The study's findings are based on a numerical example and a specific heuristic algorithm; real-world implementation may encounter variations due to machine specifics, material properties, and complex part geometries.