enhancing additive manufacturing education using virtual rapid prototyping … · enhancing...

Paper ID #18200

Enhancing Additive Manufacturing Education Using Virtual Rapid Proto-typing Simulator Tool

Dr. Aditya Akundi, University of Texas, El Paso

Aditya Akundi is currently affiliated to Industrial Manufacturing and Systems Engineering department,and Research Institute for Manufacturing and Engineering Systems at University of Texas, ElPaso.

He earned a Bachelor of Technology in Electronics and Communication Engineering from JawaharlalNehru Technological University, India. He earned a Master of Science in Electrical and Computer En-gineering at the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). Intrigued by Systems Engineering , he earned aPh.D in Electrical and Computer Engineering, with a concentration in Industrial and Systems Engineer-ing (ISE) at Unniversity of Texas in 2016. His research is focused on undersanding Complex Technicaland Socio-Technical Systems from an Infromation Theortic approach. He has worked on a number ofprojects in the field of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Systems Engineering, Additive Manufactur-ing and Green Energy Manufacturing. His research interests are in Systems Engineering & Architecture,Complex systems, Systems testing and Application of Entropy to Complex Systems.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2017

ENHANCING ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING EDUCATION USING VIRTUAL RAPID PROTOTYPING SIMULATOR TOOL

Abstract The increased use of agile manufacturing through 3-D printing in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) there have been several Additive Manufacturing projects commissioned by U.S Navy, Pentagon and associated defense industries. Worth mentioning is the use of 3D printers by defense giants such to manufacture tools and components used for building F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. With the widely observed use of Additive Manufacturing technologies for agile product development in industries, there exists a vital need on innovating, identifying and establishing innovative ways to train emerging manufacturing engineering workforce. This paper, investigates the use of a virtual Rapid Prototyping (RP) simulator developed at The University of Texas at El Paso especially for training and preparing students to meet the needs of industry and for promoting advanced manufacturing technologies in higher education. Considering the increase in computer aided education in this industrial era, RP simulator tool developed provides interested users with a hands on training with an immersive virtual experience to better understanding AM at no significant cost. The developed Rapid Prototyping (RP) simulator tool provided a platform that aided in a hybrid instructional approach for providing both hands-on and virtual learning. The authors in this paper, explore if a non-traditional instruction approach like the RP simulator could compete with and/or substitute to the traditional method (i.e., a face-to-face class). Background

With commercial and technological advances of 3-D printing in the current manufacturing continuum, many industries and disciplines are looking to effectively integrate additive manufacturing. A given 3-D printing technology usually unfolds with a computer-aided model to design a product, manufacturing it layer by layer using material such as plastics, metals and in some cases human tissues. Usually, after the design freeze of a product, industries aim for mass production to rapidly introduce it to the market with a slash in time for production. It is projected that the global 3-D printing industry value will rapidly grow from a current $4.5 Billion in 2014 to $17.2 Billion in 2020. 3-D Printing, a technology that makes manufacturing agile along with significantly reducing the waste co-products, is being widely adapted by Pentagon and associated defense industries for several applications along with making sophisticated military equipment. In June 2014, Aerojet Rocket dyne successfully tested an engine built entirely using 3-D printing technology1. Over the past 2 years, U.S. Department of Defense has spent more than $2 million on 3-D printers, with their uses ranging from research in the field of medical health to weapons development. Also, it is to be noted that the Obama administration has launched a $30 million pilot program that includes research on using 3-D printing for building weapon parts2. Considering this widely-adopted technology trend, there is a significant need to address the technical skills of the emerging workforce and improve their quality of training especially in the field of additive manufacturing. As 21st century industries transition to globally interconnected conglomerates (Industry 4.0), the training programs also need to evolve to provide the high-tech skills required3. This portrays a need for innovative focused advanced engineering training techniques that can increase the pool of highly skilled American workers with required proficiency. However, the main implication of teaching emerging technologies in academia pertains to not many institutions (both schools and colleges) continually being able to afford and

procure the required technology infrastructure. Accessibility boundaries and constraints limit a given students exposure to emerging technology though available at several major institutions4. Authors of this paper towards exploring innovative pedagogical methods in keeping students interested along with an aim of providing unrestricted 24x7 access to technology training, provide an overview of a tutorial on 3D printing technology developed based on Uprint SE plus 3D printer. This tutorial was developed with a main goal of providing access to students 24x7 for understanding and learning the operation of the said 3D printer without any incurred cost, harm, or even training personnel hours. Developed as a successor to legacy Virtual Cyber-Based Rapid Manufacturing tutorial based on (FDM) 3000 machine5,6, this tutorial is a result of the efforts an attempt at Industrial, Manufacturing and Systems Engineering (IMSE) Department of The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP). The authors foresee to integrate this tutorial to the current Industrial and Manufacturing courses both at an undergraduate and a graduate level at UTEP. Overview of Uprint SE plus based Rapid Prototyping simulator development

To provide a brief background, uPrint SE plus 3D printer is manufactured by Stratasys Inc. It is an FDM technology based machine that is highly integrated where all its tasks are a set of pre-coded modules which are automatically performed. The operation of this printer is based on a simple interface provided that helps the users to navigate and operate the machine easily. Illustrated in figure 1 is uPrint SE plus 3D printer.

Figure 1. uPrint SE Plus 3D Printer manufactured by Stratasys

To replicate the exact functionality of the printer’s real time operation and its response to the given commands in the virtual simulator, a touch interface was developed for the user to see exactly how the printer reacts to the commands given by mimicking every function of the control panel related to uPrint SE plus-3D printer. To set a scenario, if there is no part being built by the printer and if there is no part set in the queue of the printer, the control panel display an “Idle” status. Similarly, if the printer has a part in queue to be build, the display message on the panel changes to “Start Part” status. There are several similar steps that transition from one to the other illustrated in figure 2 as a flow chart that are embedded into the virtual simulator.

Figure 2. The flowchart of uPrint SE Plus 3D printer used to replicate into the Virtual Simulator To provide a user rich and immersive experience, two major steps were involved in developing the simulator. The first step was to extract the 3-dimensional model of the printer itself i.e. in this case the model of uPrint SE plus 3D printer. However, to replicate the printer actions in the simulator the model had to be transferred to a file compatible with a programming language. The 3D model of the printer was created in SolidWorks software (shown in Figure 3). Later involved using this model to replicate the printer’s actions with the help of a programing interface. This included saving the 3D model developed using solid works to a standard vrml97 format which was then converted to a .x file compatible with c-sharp programing language. Illustrated in figure 4 are the 3D model and its conversion to .X file.

Figure 3. uPrint SE plus 3D model developed in SolidWorks software

Figure 4. uPrint SE plus 3D model in (a) VRML 97 and (b) X file

The virtual simulator was initially developed to run on Windows and Mac-OS platform computers however; with the intention to extend this simulator to be used on mobile based platforms such as tablets and cell phones, visual studio was used to develop a graphical user interface (GUI). Figure 5 illustrates the screen shots of the beta version of mobile compatible uPrint simulator.

Figure 5. Screenshots of mobile beta version of the uPrint simulator

uPrint Simulator for Additive Manufacturing Learning

With the main goal of the simulator development being enhancing student educational experience, especially to improve student learning in Additive Manufacturing domain, the authors looked to understand the influence of the tool in student learning compared to traditional approach. This tool was integrated to the course titled “3D Printing: Basics and Applications” at IMSE UTEP. The course was designed to deal with various aspects of additive and subtractive application ranging from prototyping to production. A major emphasis was on using AM technologies for direct manufacturing of end-user parts. The Student Learning outcomes (SLOs) of the course at its completion were for each student to be able to:

•Provide a comprehensive overview of 3D Printing technologies including descriptions of related technologies including design and 3DP-specific software and post-processing/part finishing approaches. •Discuss the wide variety of new and emerging applications like micro-scale 3DP, medical applications, direct printing of electronics and directly manufacturing end-use components. •Explain the capabilities, limitations, and basic principles of alternative 3DP technologies. •Evaluate and select appropriate 3DP technologies for specific applications. •Apply 3DP techniques (including CAD) to a challenging rapid manufacturing application. •Identify, explain, and prioritize some of the important research challenges in 3DP.

To analyze student learning outcomes and towards understanding student learning effectiveness, the legacy virtual simulator FDM 3000 (see Tseng et al, 2014 for more details on FDM 3000 simulator) that was previously developed at IMSE UTEP was used in order to compare the influence of the new RP simulator in AM learning. To understand the efficiency of the developed virtual learning tool for AM,”3D printing-Basics & Applications” class helped in collecting data/info related to teaching effectiveness through using (1) FDM 3000 Machine, (2) U-Print Machine, (3) The old version RP simulator (on FDM 3000) and (4) The new version RP simulator(on uPrint SE Plus); to understand if a non-traditional instruction approach like the old/new version RP simulator could compete with and/or substitute to the traditional method (i.e., a face-to-face class). Illustrated in figure 6 is the approach used to collect data.

Figure 6. Data Collection Approach Used

The students were divided into 2 control groups and 2 experimental groups wherein; the student of control groups were involved with face to face instruction of the AM technology using Hands-on training and display of the (a) FDM 3000 and (b) uPrint SE plus 3D printers. The students of experimental groups were given access to the RP simulators developed i.e. (a) Legacy FDM 3000 RP simulator and (b) New uPrint based SE plus 3D printer based RP simulator. Mentioned in the sections below are the details and tools used for data collection and analysis.

Survey Results Control Group # 1

Pre-course and post-course questionnaires: Pre-course and post-course questionnaires were developed in order to know the initial opinions of the students about distant education, the technologies involved, and if there was any change in their opinion after getting exposed to the new method. The pre- and post-course questionnaires were given to three categories. The compiled responses for the pre-course questionnaire are tabulated as shown below.

Table 1: Control Group # 1 Pre-survey results Category Question Feedback (%)

Why did you enroll in this course?

To fill requirement (3) Fulfill elective credit (5) I wanted to learn how RP can be used with a ME degree (5)

Did you have any experience with using rapid prototyping machines prior to this course?

No (12) Yes (0)

Have you ever had any experience related to remote operation and/or monitoring of a piece of equipment?

No (10) Yes (2)

Do you feel that high quality learning can take place without having face-to-face interaction?

No (9) Yes (3)

Students Awareness and Understanding of multimedia laboratory

Do you think you can learn as much or more using multimedia (i.e., using many content forms including audio, still images, animation, video, and interactive content) instruction when compared to traditional instruction with a live instructor?

Affirmative (8) Neutral (5) Negative (0) Strongly Negative ()) Other (0)

Do you think a virtual facility lab experience would be _________ that of a traditional lab experience?

Better than (1) The same as (9) Worse than(2)

Are you comfortable with learning technical information over the internet, for instance, using YouTube learn a skill or process?

Strongly Affirmative (1) Affirmative (7) Neutral (2) Negative (2) Strongly Negative (0)

Rate the level of your knowledge in rapid prototyping. Excellent (1) Good (5) Basic (1) Weak (3) Very Weak (2)

Rate the level of your experience in web-based training. For instance have you taken an online course?

Excellent (1) Good (8) Basic (3) Weak (0) Very Weak (0)

Rate the level of your knowledge in the use of the Internet. Excellent (5) Good (7) Basic (0) Weak (0) Very weak (0)

In addition to web-based instruction, do you think remote operation and/or monitoring using the Internet of (for) rapid prototyping equipment or other equipment is important?

Strongly (2) Affirmative(7) Affirmative(3) Neutral(0)

Negative (0) Strongly negative (0)

Understanding of the effectiveness of different technology-based instruction methods on online learning

Do you think that technology having access to lab instructions, manuals, and other course materials over the internet is

Highly Important (6) Important (6) Neutral (0) Not Important (0) Useless (0)

Do you think that the lack of an instructor’s presence can be overcome by incorporating new technologies in courses (using something like an intelligent tutoring system)?

Strongly Agree (4) Agree (4) Neutral (4) Disagree (0) Strongly Disagree (0)

Do you think you could learn as well in an online course as in the classroom setting?

Strongly affirmative Affirmative (4) Neutral (4) Negative (3) Strongly Negative (1) Other (0)

Do you think that having a multimedia laboratory experience will help you enhance your skills and knowledge for the future.

Strongly Agree (2) Agree (8) Neutral (2) Disagree (0) Strongly disagree(0)

Knowledge in Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) system

Please provide a self-assessment of your knowledge in basic operations in FDM systems (such as the FDM 300 machine of u-Print)

Awareness (3) Knowledge and understanding (8) Application skills Analysis skills(1) Expert

Please provide a self-assessment of your knowledge in calibrating the FDM systems (such as the FDM 300 machine of u-Print)

Awareness(3) Knowledge and understanding (8) Application skills(1) Analysis skills(0) Expert

Please provide a self-assessment of your knowledge in manufacturing a part using the FDM systems (such as the FDM 300 machine of u-Print)

Awareness (4) Knowledge and understanding (7) Application skills(1)

Table 2: Control Group # 1Post-survey results

Category Question Feedback Compare your Virtual tutorial experience with

that of a conventional face-to-face teaching approach

It is better than what you expected. (3) It was roughly the same experience. (3) The ability to pause, rewind, etc. allowed detailed examination of process. (3) Other (1)

Do you see any specific areas where the Virtual tutorial experience is better when compared to that of the conventional face-to-face teaching approach? Explain.

I am a face-to-face person; multimedia is a waste of time. I was able to go at my own pace. Student can understand better. The ability to rewind and play parts again is extremely useful. When the student work and do not have time to attend school.

In which of the following areas do you believe the Virtual approach serves education better when compared to that of the conventional face-to-face teaching approach?

The virtual class materials could be available and seen when a student misses classes.(4) The virtual class materials could be used as an aid for the course. The course slides or any related information could be online, so that the students would be able to review the materials at any time. (7) The virtual class materials would be available anytime compared to limited availability of the instructor. (6)

Do you feel that high quality learning can take place without having face-to-face interaction? Explain.

Yes. (4) No (4)

Do you think you can learn as much or more using multimedia (i.e., using many content forms including audio, still images, animation, video, 3D video, and interactive content) instruction when compared to traditional instruction with a live instructor?

Strongly Affirmative (1) Affirmative (3) Negative (8) Neutral (2) Strongly negative (3) Other

Do you think a multimedia/virtual lab experience would be __ that of a traditional lab experience?

Better than (3) The same as. (2) Worse than Other (1)

Rate the level of your knowledge in rapid prototyping.

Excellent (1) Good (5) Basic (3) Weak Very weak Other

In addition to web-based instruction, do you think remote operation and/or monitoring using the internet for rapid prototyping equipment or other equipment is important?

Strongly affirmative (3) Affirmative (3) neutral negative (1) strongly negative other

Having access to lab instructions, manuals, and other course materials over the internet is

Highly important (4) Important (3) Neutral (1) Not important Useless Other

I understand that the lack of an instructor’s presence can be overcome by incorporating new technologies in courses (using something like an intelligent tutoring system).

Strongly agree Agree (4) Neutral (3) Disagree Strongly disagree (1) Other

Do you think you can learn as well in an online course as in a classroom setting?

Strongly affirmative Affirmative (2) neutral negative 4) strongly negative other(2)

I think that having a Virtual laboratory experience will help me enhance my skills and knowledge for the future.

Strongly agree (1) Agree (6) Neutral (1)

Disagree Strongly disagree Other

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) System Knowledge

Please provide a self-assessment of your knowledge in the basic operations in Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) systems (such as the FDM 3000 machine).

Awareness Knowledge and understanding (3) Application skills (2) Analysis skills(2) Expert

Please provide a self-assessment of your knowledge in calibrating the Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) systems (such as the FDM 3000 machine).

Awareness (1) Knowledge and understanding (1) Application skills (3) Analysis skills(2) Expert

Please provide a self-assessment of your knowledge in manufacturing a part using the Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) systems (such as the FDM 3000 machine).

Awareness Knowledge and understanding (1) Application skills (4) Analysis skills(2)

Figure 7: Control group #1 activities

Control Group # 2

Table 3: Control Group # 2 Pre-survey results Category Question Feedback (%)


To fill requirement (3) Fulfill elective credit (7) I wanted to learn how RP can be used with a ME degree


No (8) Yes (2)


No (9) Yes (1)


No (2) Yes (8)



Affirmative (3) Neutral (4) Negative (2) Strongly Negative (1) Other (0)




Strongly Affirmative (2) Affirmative (4) Neutral (4) Negative Strongly Negative (0)


Excellent Good (5) Basic (3) Weak (1) Very Weak (1)



Rate the level of your knowledge in the use of the Internet.

Excellent (9) Good (2) Basic (0) Weak (0) Very weak (0)


Strongly (2) Affirmative(6) Affirmative(2) Neutral(0) Negative (0) Strongly negative (0)





Strongly Agree (1) Agree (2) Neutral (3) Disagree (2) Strongly Disagree (01




Strongly Agree (2) Agree (5) Neutral (3) Disagree (0) Stromgly disagree(0)



Awareness (4) Knowledge and understanding (5) Application skills Analysis skills Expert


Awareness(8) Knowledge and understanding Application skills(1) Analysis skills(0) Expert

Table 4: Control Group #2 Post-survey results

Category Question Feedback Compare your Virtual tutorial experience

with that of a conventional face-to-face teaching approach

It is better than what you expected. (5) It was roughly the same experience. (4) The ability to pause, rewind, etc. allowed detailed examination of process. (2) Other






Yes. (4) No (6)


Strongly Affirmative (2) Affirmative (3) Negative (3) Neutral (1) Strongly negative (1) Other


Better than (3) The same as. (5) Worse than (1) Other (1)






Highly important (7) Important (3) Neutral Not important Useless Other


Strongly agree Agree (6) Neutral (1) Disagree (2) Strongly disagree (1) Other


Strongly affirmative (3) Affirmative (1) neutral negative (3) strongly negative (3) other


Strongly agree (1) Agree (5) Neutral (4) Disagree Strongly disagree Other



Awareness (3) Knowledge and understanding (5) Application skills(4) Analysis skills Expert


Awareness (3) Knowledge and understanding (6) Application skills(1) Analysis skills(1) Expert



Figure 8: Control group #2 activities

Experimental Group # 1

Table 5: Experimental Group # 1 Pre-survey results Category Question Feedback (%)




No (12) Yes (0)


No (10) Yes (2)


No (9) Yes (3)



Affirmative (8) Neutral (5) Negative (0) Strongly Negative ()) Other (0)









Rate the level of your knowledge in the use of the Internet.

Excellent (5) Good (7) Basic (0) Weak (0) Very weak (0)











Strongly Agree (2) Agree (8) Neutral (2) Disagree (0) Stromgly disagree(0)



Awareness (3) Knowledge and understanding (8) Application skills

Analysis skills(1) Expert


Awareness(3) Knowledge and understanding (8) Application skills(1) Analysis skills(0) Expert


Awareness (4) Knowledge and understanding (7) Application skills

Table 6: Experimental Group # 1 Post-survey results Category Question Feedback

Compare your Virtual tutorial experience with that of a conventional face-to-face teaching approach

It is better than what you expected. (6) It was roughly the same experience. (2) The ability to pause, rewind, etc. allowed detailed examination of process. (3) Other (1)


I am a face-to-face person; multimedia is a waste of time. I was able to go at my own pace. (6) Student can understand better. The ability to rewind and play parts again is extremely useful. When the student work and do not have time to attend school.




Yes. (5) No (5)


Strongly Affirmative Affirmative (5) Negative (2) Neutral (3) Strongly negative Other


Better than (2) The same as. (5) Worse than (2) Other (1)






Highly important (1) Important (9) Neutral Not important Useless Other


Strongly agree Agree (6) Neutral (3) Disagree (1) Strongly disagree Other


Strongly affirmative Affirmative (2) neutral negative (3) strongly negative (4) other (1)


Strongly agree Agree (7) Neutral (2) Disagree (1) Strongly disagree Other



Awareness (2) Knowledge and understanding (4) Application skills (4) Analysis skills Expert




Awareness (2) Knowledge and understanding (5) Application skills (3) Analysis skills() Expert

Figure 9: Experimental group #1 activities

Experimental Group # 2

Table 7: Experimental Group # 2 Pre-survey results Category Question Feedback (%)




No (8) Yes (1)


No (8) Yes (2)


No (9) Yes (1)



Affirmative (4) Neutral (1) Negative (2) Strongly Negative (2) Other (0)





Rate the level of your knowledge in rapid prototyping. Excellent Good (1) Basic Weak Very Weak



Rate the level of your knowledge in the use of the Internet. Excellent (2) Good (7) Basic (1)

Weak (0) Very weak (0)











Strongly Agree (1) Agree (6) Neutral (1) Disagree (2) Strongly disagree(0)



Awareness (2) Knowledge and understanding (8) Application skills Analysis skills(1) Expert (1)


Awareness(4) Knowledge and understanding (5) Application skills(1) Analysis skills(0) Expert(1)


Awareness (3) Knowledge and understanding (6) Application skills (3)

Table 8: Experimental Group # 2 Post-survey results

Category Question Feedback Compare your Virtual tutorial experience with that of

a conventional face-to-face teaching approach It is better than what you expected. (1) It was roughly the same experience. (6) The ability to pause, rewind, etc. allowed detailed examination of process. (1) Other (1)






Yes. (6) No (3)


Strongly Affirmative Affirmative (6) Negative (3) Neutral Strongly negative (1) Other


Better than (3) The same as. (5) Worse than (3) Other

Rate the level of your knowledge in rapid prototyping. Excellent (1) Good (8) Basic (1) Weak Very weak Other


Strongly affirmative (1) Affirmative (8) neutral negative strongly negative other (1)


Highly important (6) Important (3) Neutral (1) Not important Useless Other


Strongly agree (2) Agree (6) Neutral (1) Disagree

Strongly disagree (1) Other


Strongly affirmative (2) Affirmative (6) neutral negative (1) strongly negative other (1)


Strongly agree Agree (5) Neutral (3) Disagree (1) Strongly disagree (1) Other



Awareness (1) Knowledge and understanding (6) Application skills (1) Analysis skills Expert (2)


Awareness (1) Knowledge and understanding (6) Application skills (1) Analysis skills Expert (1)


Awareness Knowledge and understanding (7) Application skills (1) Analysis skills(1) Expert (1)

Figure 10: Experimental group #2 activities

Written Test Results Analysis Through using test scores from four different groups, Tukey’s test was used to determine/identify significance “within” and “between” groups. Table 9 illustrates the input databased on 4 independent treatments used for the analysis i.e. the original scores from each group (i.e., Control group #1 & #2; Experimental group #1 & #2).

Table 9: The test scores from each group Groups A B C D

Input Data 60 90 80 90 70 80 80 70 70 100 80 90 90 100 60 100 100 90 50 70 80 90 80 90 80 70 80 80 90 90 80 90 70 100 70 90 60 100 60 70

In order o develop a One-Way ANOVA table for the different independent, a descriptive statics table was generated as illustrated in table 10 and Table 11 illustrates the One-way ANOVA table generated.

Table 10: Statics of the Data Gathered

Treatment A B C D Pooled Total observations 10 10 10 10 40

sum 770.00 910.00 720.00 840.00 3,240.00 mean 77.00 91.00 72.00 84.00 81.00

sum of squares 60,900.00 83,700.00 53,000.0 71,600.00 269,200.00 sample variance 178.88 98.88 128.88 115.55 173.33 sample std. dev. 13.37 9.94 11.35 10.74 13.16 std. dev. of mean 4.22 3.144 3.59 3.39 2.08

Table 11: One-way ANOVA Table for the data

Source Sum of Squares

(SS)

Degrees of Freedom df

Mean Square

MS

F Statistic P-Value

Treatment 2060 3 686.67 5.26 0.004107 Error 4700 36 130.56 Total 6760 39

It is seen from Table 11 that the p-value from the ANOVA table is lower than 0.05, implying that one or more treatments ae significantly different. Based on this, in order to identify the significantly different treatments a Tukey HSD test is performed. For each pair of means of the observed data the values of individual Q (

!"#!$

%&'(

) statistic is calculated which is then used to

determine the p-value. To compute P for each comparison a studentize range calculator7 is used. Illustrated in Table 12 are the results.

Table 12: Results to determine the significant pairs Treatment Pairs Q Value p-Value A vs B 3.8746 0.0449289 p < 0.05

A vs C 1.3838 0.7395670 p > 0.05 A vs D 1.9373 0.5234511 p > 0.05 B vs C 5.2584 0.0036391 p < 0.05 B vs D 1.9373 0.5234511 p > 0.05 C vs D 3.3211 0.1060461 p > 0.05

Thus, for any pair of treatment p-values that are observed to be less than 0.05 (i.e. p < 0.05) would imply that the corresponding pair of population means are significantly different. The values highlighted in bold in the last column of table 12 indicate the identified groups that are significantly different. Conclusion and Future Work This paper explores the use of virtual technologies to teach the concepts of additive manufacturing especially, the inception and the development of Virtual Rapid Prototyping Simulator developed based on the functionality of UPrint SE plus 3D printer at UTEP. Once developed, the authors for exploring effective knowledge dissemination techniques in a university based environment, use this simulator to aide in a hybrid instructional approach for providing both hands-on and virtual learning onto students on Additive manufacturing technologies. Using the data gathered from the non-biased distribution of the students, based on comparison of Control vs. Experimental groups identified it was found that from the written test scores, “within” the control groups, Group #1 (i.e., face to face using FDM 3000) is significantly worse than Group #2 (i.e., face to face using U-Print) and “between” Group #2 and Group #3, the control group (i.e., group #2) is significantly better than the experimental Group (i.e., group #3 – the group used the old version of RP simulator). This portrays that the use of hybrid technologies such as the RP simulator developed at IMSE UTEP play a positively significant role in students to understand the concepts and the use of a given technology. The authors believe that continually improving the developed tool, especially integration more functions and parameters would help in enhancing the learning experience of the students along with enabling a platform for unrestricted access. Towards this goal, mentioned below are few improvements identified by the authors that constitute the future work of RP simulator development:

• Enhanced Interactive Education: Nowadays, computer-aided education is more and more popular, especially in the fields of engineering making it more user interactive and user immersive. In this industrial era, students especially interested in manufacturing education are in a need of hands-on training experience to get a deeper understanding of the theory instead of just learning knowledge theoretically. 3D vision based experience provides

livelier picture/view than the original 2D vision based experience. The 3D printer simulation process can be equipped with this feature for a better effect in the course. Integration of the virtual reality technology to the said will enrich the experience and will provide a genuine interactive education.

• Internet of Things: Internet of Things (IOT) is gaining more attention these days and is widely being used for finding effective ways for manufacturing and engineering technologies. However, the use of IOT in the field of education is still unexplored. The new simulator software will be integrated with Internet access. This enables in a knowledge-sharing platform for students to use the simulator and to share what they have with others. For example, they can share the 3D models they built, also can upload to the “cloud”, such as some internet sharing storage like “Dropbox”, “One drive” and “Google drive”. Instructors can directly “Push” assignments or tests through the simulator software/App, then check the status and get the result from the students simultaneously, which could help instructor finding/solving the problems more quickly.

• Extension of simulation to other 3D printers: Currently, the 3D printing technology is being developed day by day; besides Stratasys’s commercial desktop printers (uPrint and Mojo), like D4 Duplicator by Maker Geeks, Replicator 2X by MakerBot are popular desktop 3D printers in the market. This implies that, more students will have the opportunity to test/print on the real 3D printer machines with less cost. The simulation software/App may be enabled for more support features available on these 3D printer machines to make the simulator more compatible with all mainstream FDM machines in the markets.

References

1. Weisgerber, Marcus. "The Defense Industry Is Expanding the Use of 3D Printing." Defense One. N.p., 29 Sept. 2014. Web. 06 Oct. 2015. <http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2014/09/defense-industry-expanding-use-3d-printing/95396/>.

2. Levine, Susannah, and Alex Wright. "3D Printing Offers New Risk Challenges - Risk & Insurance." Risk & Insurance. N.p., 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 06 Oct. 2015.

3. Accenture Report. Digital Industry 4.0. http://www.accenture.com/microsites/digital-industry/Pages/home.aspx#/digital accessed on April 22, 2015.

4. Tseng, T. B., & Akundi, A., & Chiou, R., & Wicker, R., & Hu, Z. (2015, June), Development of 3D-Virtual Facility Tutorial Implemented in Mobile Environment to Enhance Additive Manufacturing Education Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.23856

5. Tseng, T. B., & Chiou, R., & Belu, R. G. (2014, June), Fusing Rapid Manufacturing with 3-D Virtual Facility and Cyber Tutor System into Engineering Education Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana. https://peer.asee.org/20527

6. Tseng, T. B., & Akundi, A., & Chiou, R., & Wicker, R., & Hu, Z. (2015, June), Development of 3D-Virtual Facility Tutorial Implemented in Mobile Environment to Enhance Additive Manufacturing Education Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.23856

7. http://onlinestatbook.com/2/calculators/studentized_range_dist.html

enhancing additive manufacturing education using virtual rapid prototyping … · enhancing...

Documents