Page 47 - IJB-6-4

Celik, et al. the physical prototype of the face shield, an AM

Candidate 5 Weighted Grade* grade 0.75 5 1 5 0.4 4 0.15 3 0.4 4 0.8 4 0.2 4 0.2 4 3.9 1 √ approach was utilized in this study; however, the
critical point here is that DfAM is a challenge
for most designers as the convenient design
methods that consider the unique capabilities of
AM technologies are needed. Depending on the
capabilities of the AM technology being utilized,

method whereby functional performance and/or
Candidate 4 Weighted grade 0.75 1 0.4 0.15 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 3.7 5 - DfAM can be described as a type of design
other key product lifecycle considerations such
as manufacturability, reliability, and cost can be
Grade*
optimized . In this regard, a useful worksheet/
[25]
3
4
4
4
5
5
3
4
application guide designed for novices to AM was
published by Booth et al. (2017) . In using the
[26]
DfAM method, some important approaches are
Candidate 3 Weighted Grade* grade 0.45 3 1 5 0.4 4 0.2 4 0.4 4 0.6 3 0.2 4 0.2 4 3.45 4 - in macroscale, mesoscale or microscale design
studies: Structural optimization approach (i.e.,
size, shape, and topological) and manufacturability
related to AM technology type, AM machine,
material, build orientation, surface quality needs,
The production of the prototype was realized
Candidate 2 Weighted Grade* grade 0.45 3 0.6 3 0.4 4 0.2 4 0.3 3 0.6 3 0.2 4 0.2 4 2.95 3 - production time, etc.
using an OEM - FDM machine with a production
volume capacity of 200 mm × 220 mm × 220 mm,
nozzle diameter of 0.4 mm at 210°C nozzle
temperature. The production material was PLA
thermoplastic with a filament diameter of 1.75 mm.
Table 6. Analysis of the alternative designs for a face shield.

face shield product handled in this study were
Candidate 1 Weighted grade 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.15 0.2 2.25 2 - Solid modeling and AM setup procedures for the
conducted under consideration of these key
approaches related to the DfAM methodology.
Grade* 2 2 4 4 2 2 3 4 To obtain time efficiency (short production),
optimally designed (geometry and topology),
*Grading scale: 1 – least important; 5 – most important
and a functionally readytouse prototype with
Weight (%) 15 20 10 5 10 20 5 5 satisfying surface quality, production trials were
made on STL conversion quality (geometrical
parameters) and production layer heights during
AM operations. The trials showed that despite
the rearrangements, more precise (use of smaller
triangles) STL conversion parameters and shorter
Analysis criteria Functional characteristics Life span Re-usage Complexity DfAM characteristics Ergonomics Environmental effect production layer heights gave a smoother surface
quality, the fine level of STL conversion (deviation
tolerance: 0.099 mm, angle tolerance: 10°, and
number of triangles: 16,736) and the layer height

of the physical prototype when considering the
No. Cost 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total score Rank Selected model of 0.25 provided satisfactory results in the use
time efficiency approach (approximately 35 min

International Journal of Bioprinting (2020)–Volume 6, Issue 4 43