Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Availableonline
Available online atwww.sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com
Availableatonline at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
ProcediaCIRP
Procedia CIRP00
00(2017)
(2018)000–000
000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia CIRP 79 (2019) 113–118 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

12th
12thCIRP
CIRPConference
ConferenceononIntelligent
IntelligentComputation
ComputationininManufacturing
ManufacturingEngineering,
Engineering,18-20
CIRPJuly
ICME2018,
'18
12th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing
Gulf of Naples, Italy Engineering, CIRP ICME '18
Methodology28th forCIRP
designDesign Conference,
process of aMay 2018, Nantes,
snap-fit
Methodology for design process of a snap-fit joint made by additive jointFrance
made by additive
A new methodology to analyzemanufacturing
the functional and physical architecture of
manufacturing
existing products
Emilio A. Ramírez a for an assembly
a oriented
a product family a identificationa,
a, Fausto Caicedoa, Jorge Hurela, Carlos G. Helgueroa, Jorge Luis Amayaa,*
Emilio A. Ramírez , Fausto Caicedo , Jorge Hurel , Carlos G. Helguero , Jorge Luis Amaya *
a
ESPOL Polytechnic University, Advanced Machining and Prototyping Laboratory CAMPRO, Faculty of Mechanical and Production Sciences Engineering
a Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
ESPOL Polytechnic University,
FIMCP,Advanced
Campus Machining and Prototyping
Gustavo Galindo Km 30.5 VíaLaboratory CAMPRO,
Perimetral, P.O. BoxFaculty of Mechanical
09-01-5863, andEcuador
Guayaquil, Production Sciences Engineering
FIMCP, Campus Gustavo Galindo Km 30.5 Vía Perimetral, P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Guayaquil, Ecuador
Écoleauthor.
* Corresponding Nationale
Tel.:Supérieure d’Arts etE-mail
+593-42-269-295. Métiers, Arts et jorge-luis.amaya@espol.edu.ec
address: Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +593-42-269-295. E-mail address: jorge-luis.amaya@espol.edu.ec
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: paul.stief@ensam.eu

Abstract
Abstract
The use of additive manufacturing (AM) technology has been widely adopted due to its facility to produce highly complex
Abstract
The use ofNevertheless,
elements. additive manufacturing (AM) technology
elements fabricated by AM have has been widelylimitations
dimension adopted due to its facility
regarding printerstobuilding
producecapabilities
highly complex
(e.g.
elements.
Inelements Nevertheless,
more volumetric
today’s business elements
than
environment, thethe fabricated
printers
trend towards by AM
building have dimension
chamber).
more product varietyAand limitations
potential solution
customization regarding
is is printers
to divide
unbroken. Due building
elements capabilities
in sections, the
to this development, which (e.g.
need are
of
elements
later
agile and more volumetric
3D-printed and joined
reconfigurable than
usingthe
production printers
snap-fits.
systems building
The
emerged present chamber).
to cope work A potential
with proposes
various an AMsolution
products design
and is to divideTo
methodology
product families. elements
fordesign in sections,
elements´
and which
couplingproduction
optimize are
by snap-
later
fit
systems 3D-printed
joints.
as A
well as and
model joinedthe
todivision
choose using
and snap-fits.
parts
optimal assembly
productThe present
case study
matches, work proposes
is presented
product ananalyze
analysis to AM design
methods arethe methodology
parts
needed. mating for elements´
Indeed, design
most ofinthe
terms coupling
of
known joiningby
methods snap-
features
aim to
fit joints.
analyze Asupport
model
a product
resistance, division
or one and
product
material partsonassembly
family
consumption caselevel.
the physical
and printingstudy is presented
Different
times. tofamilies,
product analyze however,
the parts may
mating design
differ inin
largely terms
termsofofjoining features
the number and
resistance,
nature
© 2018 ofThe support
Authors.material
components. This factconsumption
Published impedes
by and printing
anB.V.
Elsevier efficient times. and choice of appropriate product family combinations for the production
comparison
© 2018AThe
system.
© 2019 The
Peer-review
newAuthors.
under Published
responsibility
methodology
Authors. by Elsevier
ofElsevier
is proposed
Published by B.V. committee
the scientific
to analyze
B.V. of the 12th
existing products in CIRP Conference
view of on Intelligent
their functional Computation
and physical in Manufacturing
architecture. The aim is to cluster
Peer-review
Engineering.
these productsunder
in responsibility
new assembly of the
oriented scientific
product committee
families for of
the the 12th CIRP
optimization Conference
of existing on Intelligent
assembly lines Computation
and the inof
creation Manufacturing
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 12th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturingfuture reconfigurable
Engineering.
Engineering.
assembly systems. Based on Datum Flow Chain, the physical structure of the products is analyzed. Functional subassemblies are identified, and
a Keywords:
functionalDesign method,
analysis Additive manufacturing,
is performed. Moreover, aSnap-fit
hybrid functional and physical architecture graph (HyFPAG) is the output which depicts the
Keywords: Design method, Additive manufacturing, Snap-fit
similarity between product families by providing design support to both, production system planners and product designers. An illustrative
example of a nail-clipper is used to explain the proposed methodology. An industrial case study on two product families of steering columns of
1. Introduction
thyssenkrupp precision.
Presta France is then carried out to give a first industrial evaluation of theA potential solution is to divide the elements in
1. Introduction precision.
sections, Aproposed
which are
approach.
potential
latersolution
3D-printedis to
anddivide
joinedthe elements
using in
snap-fits.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
sections, which
Snap-fits are later
joints are 3D-printed and joined using snap-fits.
mechanical features for part mating
Additiveunder
Peer-review manufacturing (AM)
responsibility of theisscientific
a layer-by-layer
committeefabrication
of the 28th CIRP Design Conference 2018.
Additive used
manufacturing (AM) is a layer-by-layer fabrication Snap-fits
based joints deformation,
on material are mechanical featuresa flexible
in which for part element
mating
technology to construct computer-aided designs (CAD)
technology used to construct computer-aided designs (CAD) based on material deformation, in which
deflects during the assembly and fixes in the mating a flexible element
models or
Keywords: prototypes.
Assembly; Design Themethod;useFamily
of AM technology has been
identification
models or prototypes. Thefacility
use oftoAM technology deflects duringAlthough
the assembly and fixessnap-fit in the mating
widely adopted due to the produce highly has been
complex component. traditional design
widely adopted due to the facility to produce highly complex component.
methodologies Although
have been traditionalfor polymer
developed snap-fit injection
design
elements compared to conventional fabrication processes.
elements compared to conventional fabrication processes. methodologies
applications, have studies
other been developedhave for polymer
reported that injection
additive-
Due to AM technology development, it is possible to
1.manufacture
Introduction
Due to AM technology applications,
of the product other
range studies
and have
have reported
characteristics similarthat
a manufactured additive-
and/or
products with adevelopment,
growing list of it is possible(e.g.
materials to manufactured snap-fits joints behavior to
manufacture products with a growing list of materials (e.g. manufactured
assembled
injected in snap-fits
this
features system.
and that joints
In this
previous have
context, a similar
the
developed main behavior
challenge
design rules to
in
for
polymers, metal powder, ceramics) depending of model’s
polymers, metal
the powder,
Due to requirements fast and ceramics)
development depending
in the of model’s
domain of injected features
dimensioning
modelling and are and that
applicable
analysis previous
is now developed design
[3].not only to cope with single rules for
functional AM technology capabilities.
functional
communication requirements
and an and AM technology
ongoing trend of capabilities.
digitization and dimensioning
The objective
products, are applicable
a limited of
product [3]. oris existing
this article
range to present a systematic
product families,
Even though recent advances on AM permit process
Even though
digitalization, recent
manufacturing advances
enterprises on AM permit process
are facing feasibility,
important The
procedure
but objective
also to beforable of
snap-fit this article
feature
to analyze toiscompare
anddesign toandpresent a systematic
elements
products coupling
to define
stability on industrial applications and economic
stability on procedureon for snap-fit feature design and mating
elementsparts,
coupling
challenges
elements inindustrial
today’s applications
manufactured market
by AMenvironments:and economic
technology feasibility,
a continuing
have dimension based
new product operating
families. Itconditions
can be observedof the that classical part
existing
elements manufactured by AM technology have dimension based
geometry,on printing
operating conditions
material and AM of technology
the matingused, parts,
in part
order
limitations
tendency regarding
towards reductionprinters building
of product capacities times
development and work
and product families are regrouped in function of clients or features.
limitations regarding printers building capacities and work geometry,
to avoid theprinting
use of material and
fasteners or AM technology
adhesives as used,
joining in order
methods.
piece volumes
shortened [1].lifecycles. In addition, there is an increasing
product However, assembly oriented product families are hardly to find.
piece volumes [1]. have proposed to avoid the use of fasteners
Additionally, or adhesives as joining methods.
Previous
demand studies
of customization, being at the thedivision
same time of parts
in a greater
global On the product the
Additionally, familyproposed
the
procedure
level, products
proposed procedurediffer considers
mainly in two
considers
the
the
Previous studies
than the printer have proposed
building chamber the division of parts greater subdivision of a single element, accounting general Design for
competition with competitors all overbased on a voxelization
the world. This trend, main characteristics:
subdivision of a single(i) element,
the number of components
accounting general and (ii) the
Design for
than the with
method, printer
an building chamber
interlocking approach based
to onmodel
final a voxelization
assembly Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) criteria’s, which bases
which is inducing the development from macro to micro type of components
Manufacturing and (e.g.
Assemblymechanical,
(DFMA) electrical, electronical).
criteria’s, which bases
method,
[2]. with an this
However, interlocking
joining approach
method to final
have model
been assembly
reported as on multiple-part design for ease of manufacturing and ease of
markets, results in diminished lot sizes due to augmenting onClassical methodologies
multiple-part design forconsidering mainly single
ease of manufacturing andproducts
ease of
[2]. However,forthis
inappropriate hollow joining
objectsmethod
and have that
models beenrequire
reported as
further assembly.
product varieties (high-volume to low-volume
inappropriate for hollow objects and models that require furtherproduction) [1]. or solitary,
assembly. already existing product families analyze the
To cope with this augmenting variety as well as to be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
identify
2212-8271possible
© 2017 The optimization
Authors. Published potentials in the existing
by Elsevier B.V. causes difficulties regarding an efficient definition and
2212-8271 ©under
Peer-review 2017responsibility
The Authors. of Published by Elsevier
the scientific B.V.of the 11th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering.
committee
production system, it is important to have a precise knowledge comparison of different product families. Addressing this
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 11th CIRP Conference on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering.

2212-8271©©2017
2212-8271 2019The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier B.V. B.V.
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review underresponsibility
responsibility
of of
thethe scientific
scientific committee
committee of the
of the 28th12th
CIRPCIRP Conference
Design on 2018.
Conference Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering.
10.1016/j.procir.2019.02.021
114 Emilio A. Ramírez et al. / Procedia CIRP 79 (2019) 113–118
E. A. Ramírez et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000

2. General Snap-fit design procedures: from made separately and there has been no formal integration
traditional manufacturing to AM between both design stages. Consequently, our study considers
the integration of the conceptual and detail design, on which
Most studies in snap-fit applications focus on a feature-level the results for the conceptual stages are used on the design
design methodology; this means them often consider the phases.
dimensioning of the deformable beam of the joint and the The proposed design methodology for Snap-fit systems
locking mechanisms for diverse snap-fit types and cross- design process made by AM technology is shown on Fig. 1.
sectional areas [4]. For instance, software-based tools have The flowchart starts with the input variables of performance
been developed for snap-fit selection and optimization and for and manufacturing conditions labeled as Design Specifications.
feature evaluation and machinery dimensioning for consumer The conceptual design stage includes the part mating design
products applications [5]. Furthermore, industry manufacturers and the Snap-fit systems type selection and location.
have developed snap-fit feature-dimensioning guidelines; The detail design section is formed by three independent
however, these design methodologies do not consider the procedures, which are material deflection limits calculation
location and orientation of snap-fit features nor additional based on the joint performance conditions, deflection
elements of the joint mechanism [6, 7]. mechanism geometry dimensioning, and, retention mechanism
Early studies have been made regarding a methodical geometry dimensioning.
procedure for an integral snap-fit joint design [8]; which
considers the locating features for part-mating positioning, the
snap-fit dimensioning and locking features, and additional
enhancement features design for assembly and disassembly
enablers, among other characteristics.
Concerning AM technologies, recent studies have stated that
the working principles of traditional snap-fit design prove to be
independent of the manufacturing process and have proposed
additive manufactured snap-fit design guidelines in which
previous methodology needs to be adapted to the restrictions of
the new manufacturing technology [3].
Seepersad, et al. [9] states that current design guides often
focus exclusively on process limitations instead of evaluating
the possible advantages in part fabrication, and, although this
can contribute to a poor utilization of the new manufacturing
technologies capabilities, there is still the need for an in-depth
evaluation of design conditions or principles. One of the many
considerations in AM applications is the orientation of the
printed pieces relatively to the building plates, as the discrete
characteristic of the layer-by-layer fabrication process is a
source for anisotropic properties. Previous studies have
developed a systematic approach for part orientation based on
a qualitative analysis of the concept designs [1].
The available literature seems to suggest the need of further
studies in developing design guidelines for integral snap-fit
joint fabrication adapted to some of the current fabrication
characteristics of AM technology. This present study does not
propose an exhaustive analysis for process characteristics
regarding a specific AM technology, but accounts for the
general considerations and the limitations that seemed to have
the most relevance.

3. Additive-manufactured Snap-fit design process

Methodology

A systematic procedure for additive-manufactured snap-fit

systems can be developed accounting for general design
guidelines. Common design methodologies are formed by four
main stages: performance conditions or design specifications,
conceptual design, detail design, and lastly a design validation
stage. Once design process has been validated, the final product
can be manufactured.
Previous studies have established methodologies for Snap-
fit systems design in a conceptual framework and in a detail
design framework [8]; however, these approaches have been Fig. 1. Proposed methodology of design process for snap-fit joint.
 Emilio A. Ramírez et al. / Procedia CIRP 79 (2019) 113–118
E. A. Ramírez et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
A design validation stage is also considered to give a
feedback to both conceptual and detail design phases. This
validation is formed by a feature deformation analysis based on
material limits and deflection mechanism geometry, an
ergonomics check for ease of part mating based on assembly
and disassembly forces, and a final evaluation of the retention
features for the snap-fit joint.
The final stage of the process corresponds to the 3D printing
manufacturing of the pieces with the added designed and
validated snap-fit joints. Each node of the flowchart is detailed
on the following sections.
Before describing the methodology in detail, it is necessary
to know that the design process could be linear from an ideal
standpoint but is iterative in most cases. Considering that the
iterative condition could occur in the detail design or design
validation stages, the initial design is subject to change.
3.1. Performance Conditions
The present study focuses on four main design
specifications or performance conditions of the snap-fit system,
which are AM technology, printing material, model geometry
and snap-fit performance conditions. These restrictions are
considered as input variables to the methodology and will not
change during the design process.
AM technology considerations refers to machinery specific
constraints. Parameters such as printing layer thickness and
building chamber dimensions affect directly to the model
partitioning in the part mating design stage. Also, it is important
to evaluate the printing procedure beforehand to know the
limitations on small features printing and the need of support
structures, as this result could impact in the posterior
dimensioning of the snap-fit system.
Regarding printing material, mechanical properties
characterization is needed for the detail design stages such as
in material deformation limits calculation and deflection and
retention mechanisms dimensioning.
Overall model geometry needs to be accounted as it can
limit the partitioning approach and the location of the snap-fit
features due to aesthetic or functional requirements. Model
wall thickness and weight influence the final joining design.
The last design specification considered in the proposed
design process corresponds to the performance condition of the
snap-fit system. This input refers to operational restraints such
as in the need of a permanent joint, or if the joint will be subject
to frequent assembly and disassembly motions. These
requirements can influence both conceptual and detail design
stages.
3.2. Conceptual Design
After the definition of the input parameters to be used, the
conceptual design stages take place. This preliminary design
constitutes the initial framework for the mating features.
3.2.1. Part Mating Design
This first conceptual design stage refers to the subdivision
of the initial model. As stated before, a primary partitioning
method can be selected based on the general model
configuration, and the building chamber volume of the printer.
115
Although, current 3D printing capabilities offers
manufacturing advantages over traditional manufacturing
methods, the final printing approach can be further optimized
by accounting for the additive manufacturing technology
characteristics. A possible method of optimization is to
consider the part printing orientation of the model sections.
From the primary partitioning, the designer can evaluate the
subdivision according to an efficient partitioning approach,
which depends on support material utilization and printing
times, and offers a quantitative validation. Both considerations
of the efficient partitioning approach can be competing
measures, as one orientation can use less support material but
complete in a greater printing time.
The anisotropy of the parts associated with the 3D-printer
building directions could be a considerable restriction;
therefore, the printing approach, as well as model wall
thickness and model overhangs, can also affect the selected
partitioning method and the posterior snap-fit features location.
3.2.2. Snap-fit System Type and Location selection
The snap-fit system, as an assembly mechanism, consists on
locking features, locating features and enhancement features
[8].
Locking features are responsible for restricting the
movement between mating parts in the assembly direction (i.e.
one degree of freedom DOF). The most common types of
locking features are the cantilever, torsional and annular snap-
fit joints. The locking feature can be further divided in two
mechanisms: the deflection mechanism and the retention
mechanism.
The deflection mechanism is chosen based on the mating
part geometry and is deflected to couple the retention
mechanism. Depending the desired operational deflection, it
will have a different mechanical behavior and resistance. The
retention mechanism is defined by the assembly/disassembly
operation and it produces the interference between the mating
parts.
According to the snap-fit joint type, the location of the
locking feature should be oriented in order to distribute the
principal stresses along the most resistant building direction.
Locating features (e.g. locators, catches) are used to
constraint the remaining DOF, guide the locking features, and
establish a reference between the mating parts.
Enhancement features are the attributes of locking and
location features that ease the performance of the snap-fit joint
and the manufacturing (e.g. assembly or disassembly aid).
3.3. Detail Design
With the results of the conceptual design stages, in depth
analysis of the used material and the dimensioning of the snap-
fit features is considered in the detail design stages. For the
following subsections, a general guideline for feature design is
proposed, the authors encourage the review of available
literature [6, 7, 10], regarding general snap-fit features design.
3.3.1. Material Deformation Limits
For establishing material deformation limits, a primary
design strain of the joint can be considered depending on the
116 Emilio A. Ramírez et al. / Procedia CIRP 79 (2019) 113–118
E. A. Ramírez et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
presence of a definite yield point in the printing material stress-
strain curve. The need of material characterization data in this
stage is crucial as it can affect the posterior joint deformation
validation, thus compromising the previous conceptual design.
In addition, the performance conditions of the joint, such as
the number of cycles for frequent assembly and disassembly
motions, or the position of the snap-fit features relatively to the
part walls, affect as a factor to the prior design strain.
Furthermore, this factor will also vary if the material has a
flexible or brittle behavior.
The maximum permissible strain of the joint is equal to the
design strain divided by a stress concentration factor. This
stress concentration is located in the interface of the snap-fit
and the wall where it is mounted, acting in the surface subjected
to bending deformation. For diminishing the effects of stress
concentration, literature suggests the use of fillets of a value of
50% the snap-fit feature thickness, which produces a stress
concentration factor of 1.5 in these interfaces.
3.3.2. Deflection Mechanism Dimensioning
The geometry of the deflection mechanism can be defined
as a function of the snap-fit feature thickness; however, the
available literature lacks in information for the proper selection
of this dimension.
Nevertheless, an initial design value can be selected based
on the positioning of the feature relatively to the part wall
where it is mounted. If the feature extends from a wall, the
feature thickness can equal to the wall thickness. For features
protruding from a wall, literature suggests a factor of 50% to
60% of wall thickness for feature thickness values, based on
tests for filling and flow problems, as well as cooling problems,
on injection molding applications [10].
3.3.3. Retention Mechanism Dimensioning
The final dimensioning stage is the definition of the
retention mechanism, which is comprised of a sloped surface
that engages the part during the mating procedures and permits
or inhibits the removal of the parts. The overhang of the
retention mechanism can be defined as a function of the feature
length to thickness ratio.
Common values for insertion angles tends to be less than 45
degrees, as greater values make the joining difficult to
assembly. For the disassembly interfaces, the angles will vary
depending if the joint needs to be releasing or non-releasing.
Typical angular values of the sloped removal surfaces for non-
releasing joints are above 80 degrees.
For a releasing joint, an additional consideration is the
presence of external loads along the mating directions. If no
loads are present, the retention angle can be equal to a threshold
value that accounts for part weight effects and is a function of
the material friction coefficient. If external loads are applied,
the retention angle should have a value in between the threshold
value and 80 degrees.
3.4. Design Validation
The design validation stages are of great importance as it
compromises a series of tests or performance conditions
evaluation to ensure the successful application of the snap-fit
joint system in the final part joining, prior to the additive
manufacturing production.
3.4.1. Deformation Validation
The deformation validation stage compares the strain
obtained while deflecting the snap-fit feature with the
permissible feature strain defined on the material deformation
limits. The feature strain depends on the snap-fit feature type
geometry. For some feature configurations, as in cantilever
snap-fit joints, the feature deflection and strain and can be
obtained based on beam theory calculations.
Additional factors of feature positioning relatively to part
wall and corrections factors due to mating parts deflection in
finite element simulation should also be considered for a final
strain value calculation.
If the final strain on the features is greater than the
permissible strain limits, corrections should be made on the
conceptual design stages or on the snap-fit feature geometry
values, depending on the amount of the difference.
For small deviations, a simple feature dimension correction
can be sufficient, but for greater values a more in-depth
analysis of the feature location and/or part mating orientation
is needed. In the flowchart, the unacceptable condition is
connected to the part mating design as it corresponds to the
worst-case scenario.
3.4.2. Assembly and Disassembly forces calculation
The force needed to deflect the snap-fit features depends on
feature geometry and type. As this deflection force acts on the
sloped surfaces of the joint during the union or removal of the
parts, the assembly and disassembly forces are calculated as the
projected force along the mating or release direction.
The assembly and disassembly forces are a function of the
deflection force, material friction coefficient and the effective
angle of the slope considering mating simulations correction
factors. This correction factor accounts for actual part
deformation, as the general equations assumes that the only
deformable element is the snap-fit feature. The available
literature [6, 7, 10] have additional information regarding
calculation formulas.
3.4.3. Ergonomics Validation
The ergonomics validation is made with the results from the
assembly forces calculation. This validation consists on the
comparison of the force needed to join the parts and acceptable
forces for manual assembly.
Lee and Gu [11] reported a mean value of roughly 81 N for
acceptable insertion forces in manual assembly of small
connectors, and a mean maximum force of 141 N. It is also
noted that acceptable and maximum coupling forces depend on
the posture and size of the mating parts.
If the assembly forces surpass the acceptable insertion
forces, the proposed methodology suggest the evaluation of the
predefined snap-fit feature dimensions. A possible correction
approach is to vary the feature width as it does not affect the
feature deflection results but lowers the required deflection
forces.
 Emilio A. Ramírez et al. / Procedia CIRP 79 (2019) 113–118 117
E. A. Ramírez et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000

3.4.4. Retention Performance Evaluation

The final design evaluation corresponds to the comparison

of the calculated disassembly forces to the expected joint
feature resistance.
If the disassembly forces are not greater enough to ensure a
reliable joint, the retention angle should be increased thus
increasing the retention capability. This correction does not
interfere with the general feature dimensioning. An additional
consideration in this phase is the resistance of the sloped area,
as it can fail by shear forces during part releasing.

3.5. Additive Manufacturing Test

Once the detail design has been validated, the final stage of
the proposed methodology is the 3D-printing of the model parts
and physical assembly procedures.

4. Case Study: A 1-gallon plastic container

Fig. 2. Mating Part Design: Model division alternatives.
The printing of a 1-gallon plastic container is considered for
evaluation of the design methodology. The design Table 1. Support Material consumption for model division alternatives
specifications for the manufacturing of the model are based on Support Estimated
MultiJet Printing technology using ABS (Acrylonitrile Division alternatives Material Printing Time
Butadiene Styrene) plastic for model part construction, with the Reduction* (hours)
utilization of permanent joints that does not affect the overall Alternative A: 2-part Division 66% 66
outward appearance. Alternative B: 3-part Division 74% 62
The 3D-printer used for the construction of the elements was Alternative C: 6-part Division 73% 84
a 3DSystems ProJet 3510 SD, with a building chamber of
* Compared to original model support material requirements.
298.45x185.42x208.78 mm for the X, Y and Z directions
respectively. The model gross dimensions are 277x115x206
The part mating sequence for the 6-part division starts with
mm, but the selected printing equipment needs an additional
the union of the parts C2 and C3 (Fig. 2). Both parts then lock
5.48 mm for a removable base in the Z building direction,
to the part C1, followed by the part C4. The remaining parts
therefore, the model does not fit in the building chamber and
(C5 and C6) are first joined together, and the locked to the main
needs to be printed in sections. For the part mating design, three
body.
alternatives for model division were tested: a 2-part division, a
Loop-style cantilever locks were considered for the snap-fit
3-part division and a 6-part division, which are shown on Fig.
systems, and they were located in the parts perpendicular to the
2. These approaches were evaluated in terms of support
printing building directions, in order to distribute the deflection
material consumption and estimated printing time, giving more
forces along the construction layers. Different sets of locators
importance on material economy.
and catches were designed to restrict additional DOF for all the
The results for support material consumption and estimated
mating parts. An example of the designed snap-fit system,
printing times of each alternative are reported on Table 1, the
regarding locks (deflection mechanism and retention
percentages shown for support material reduction are compared
mechanisms), locators and catches, can be seen on Fig. 3, for
to the original model support requirements, obtained from the
the mating interfaces of parts C2 and C5.
printer software.
The deflection mechanism design was based on a special
The first division approach (2-part division) was discarded
case of snap-fit extended from a wall. Instead of extending the
due to the relatively low performance in terms on material
features from the wall, they were designed to extend parallel to
economy. Although the 3-part division have a better overall
the wall, thus preserving the outside model appearance and
performance in printing times and support material reduction,
locating all mating features inside the body.
further analysis of the part geometries indicate that the snap-fit
From the required performance conditions of the snap-fit
joints could not be located perpendicular to the building
system, and building material, the maximum allowable strain
direction, resulting in poor mechanical performance of the
was calculated and compared to the design strain obtained by
deflection mechanisms. Additionally, this type of division
the feature dimensions, in order to make a first validation of the
affected the overall model aesthetic with divisions along
deflection mechanism geometry.
symmetry planes.
The assembly and disassembly forces were calculated based
Even though the estimated printing times for the 6-part
on the available literature [6, 7, 10]. A value of nearly 3.3 N per
division were longer that the other alternatives, it accounts for
feature for insertion forces was determined, which is less than
a better snap-fit joints location compared to the previous
the acceptable insertion forces [11], thus proving to be
alternatives, with a relatively good support material economy.
acceptable for the ergonomics validation stage. For the final
Also, this approach took advantage on the model surfaces and
design validation stage, the retention mechanism was evaluated
details to have a clean division.
mainly for shear stresses.
118 Emilio A. Ramírez et al. / Procedia CIRP 79 (2019) 113–118
E. A. Ramírez et al. / Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
Fig. 3. Examples for locks, locators and catches features.
Fig. 4. 1-gallon plastic container made by AM: (a) Printed parts, Final
model assembly (b) Isometric view and (c) Lateral view, Joints and locators
for parts (d) C2 and C5, and (e) C1 and C2.
A final analysis for the model parts was to evaluate the
impact of the addition of the additional features of locks,
locators and catches. The inclusion of the snap-fit system
represents an increase of 2.1% for part material utilization, an
increase of 1.8% for support material utilization, and an
increase of 3.5% of the overall estimated printing time.
With the validated design, the parts were 3D-printed and
then assembled following the joining procedure described.
Images of the printed parts and model assembly are shown on
Fig. 4.
5. Conclusions
The employment of the proposed methodology for snap-fit
systems design permitted to 3D-print and assemble a model of
a 1-gallon plastic container that could not be printed in a single
job due to 3D-printing building chamber limitations.
By accounting for part surfaces and geometries, the final
part mating and division approach resulted in a clean division
which does not affect the final model aesthetics and can ease
the location of the snap-fit system features.
Although there was a substantial reduction in support
material consumption compared to the original model, the
printing times augmented in the final part division iteration.
Even though the economic analysis is out of the scope of this
study, the final mating design iteration yielded an additional
reduction in printing costs. Further analysis for manufacturing
cost regarding cost of material and cost of equipment utilization
is needed.
The inclusion of the snap-fit system to the model parts had
an increase of 2.1% of part material utilization, which had little
effect on the overall part weight. Additionally, in some cases
these features served as stiffeners for vertical extended plates
such as in part C2, as shown on Fig. 3.
Future works aims to include a more in-depth analysis
regarding design specifications for the proposed methodology.
Additionally, the inclusion of a more detailed process for detail
design stages is needed in order to formally include finite
element analysis for deflection corrections and final assembly
and disassembly forces calculation.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Advanced Machining
and Prototype Laboratory CAMPRO, from ESPOL
Polytechnic University.
References
[1] Leutenecker-Twelsiek B, Christoph K, Meboldt M. Considering Part
Orientation in Design for Additive Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP, 50,
2016; 408-413.
[2] Song, P, Fu Z, Liu L, Fu CW. Printing 3D objects with interlocking parts.
Computer Aided Geometric Design 2015; 35-36: 137-148.
[3] Klahn C, Singer D, Meboldt M. Design Guidelines for Additive
Manufactured Snap-Fit Joints. Procedia CIRP, 50, 2016; 264-269.
[4] Ruan T, Luscher AF. A Web-Based Design Tool for Snap-Fit Features.
ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineering 2005; 937-945.
[5] Brock JM, Wright PK. Design Tool for Injection Molded Snap Fits in
Consumer Products. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 2002; 21: 32-39.
[6] BASF Corporation, Snap-fit design manual. 2007.
[7] Bayer Material Science LLC. Snap-fit joints for plastics - a design guide.
Pittsburg 2013.
[8] Genc S, Messler RW, Gabriele GA. A systematic approach to integral snap-
fit attachment design. Research in Engineering Design 1998; 10 (2): 84-93.
[9] Seepersad CC, Allison J, Sharpe C. The need for effective design guides in
additive manufacturing. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Engineering Design, ICED 2017; 5 (DS87-5): 309-316.
[10] Bonenberger PR. The first snap-fit handbook: Creating and managing
attachments for plastics parts. Hanser Publications 2016.
[11] Lee K, Gu K. Required forces in manually inserting a small object.
Yamamoto, Sakae; New Ergonomics Perspective: Selected papers of the
10th Pan-Pacific Conference on Ergonomics 2014; 91-94; CRC Press.