Surface Roughness Considerations in Design for Additive Manufacturing: A Space Industry Case Study

Additive Manufacturing (AM), commonly known as 3D printing, represents manufacturing technology that creates objects layer by layer based on 3D model data. AM technologies have capabilities that provide engineers with new design opportunities outside the constraints of traditional subtractive manufacturing. These capabilities of AM have made it attractive for manufacturing components in the space industry., where parts are often bespoke and complex. In particular, Laser Powder Bed Fusion (LPBF) has attracted attention due to its ability to produce components with the part properties required for space applications. Additionally, the precision of the laser enables the production of innovative near-net shape and low-weight part designs. However, due to the powdered metal material, the LPBF process is categorised with rough surfaces in the as-built state. The extent and effect of surface roughness are closely linked to geometrical design variables, including build orientation, overhangs, support structure, and build parameters; hence the more intricate the design, the more difficult the removal of this roughness. Consequently, the as-built surface for most applications is too rough and could adversely affect proprieties, i.e., fatigue. Hence, practical Design for AM (DfAM) supports should be developed that understand how design factors, such as surface roughness, will impact a part’s performance. This thesis therefore presents literature reviews on research related to LPBF surface roughness and design support, exploring the trends in managing surface roughness and investigations on the characteristics of design support. Additionally, through a space industry case study, a proposed process involving additive manufacturing design artefacts (AMDAs) is considered to investigate and describe the relationship between design, surface roughness, and performance. The review found that, in general, research focuses on the relationship between surface roughness and LPBF build parameters, material properties, or post-processing. There is very little support for design engineers to consider how surface roughness from an AM process affects the final product (less than 1% of the review articles). In investigating surface roughness, the AMDA process identified characteristics that impact roughness levels and geometric adherence to part design. Additionally, twelve characteristics of design support were identified and considered to review the AMDA process. The process aided the evaluation of design uncertainties and provided indications of part performance. However, iterations of the process can be required to clarify product-specific design uncertainties. Though, the designer obtains a better understanding of their design and the AM process with each iteration. The inclusion of the requirement to set evaluation criteria for artefacts was recommended to develop the AMDA process as design support