Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

29th CIRP Design 2019 (CIRP Design 2019)

Detailed design process and assembly considerations for snap-fit joints

using additive manufacturing
Jorge Luis Amayaa,*, Emilio A. Ramíreza, Maldonado Galarza F.a, Jorge Hurela
aAdvanced Machining and Prototyping Laboratory (CAMPRO), Faculty of Mechanical and Production Sciences Engineering (FIMCP),
ESPOL Polytechnic University, Campus Gustavo Galindo Km 30.5 Vía Perimetral, P.O. Box 09-01-5863, Guayaquil, Ecuador

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +593-42-269-295. E-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract

The use of additive manufacturing (AM) technology has been widely adopted due to the facility to produce highly complex elements compared
to conventional fabrication processes. Additionally, AM technology is rapidly developing straightforward systems enabling designers to make
products faster, despite current technology limitations (i.e. processing defects, materials properties, etc.). However, not only AM technology or
products must be analyzed to have concrete solutions to all existing limitations. This means, it is necessary to take into account AM design
process to propose simpler solutions. Elements manufactured by AM technology have dimension limitations on build size regarding printers
building capabilities, especially when the elements are more volumetric than the building chamber. In those cases, AM design process takes a
significant role and a potential solution is to divide big elements in sections, which are later 3D-printed and joined using snap-fits, as the cheapest
and fastest connectors available. Thus, the present work explores the detail design stages of a proposed design methodology for elements´ coupling
by snap-fit joints using AM technology. The design methodology is tested on the assembly of parts from a 1-gallon plastic container. A finite
element simulation for the parts coupling scenarios is presented and the effects of part’s deflection on the detail design stages are analyzed. In
addition, a final design validation regarding assembly ergonomics and retention forces are discussed in order to avoid part decoupling problems
or material failure.

© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CIRP Design Conference 2019.

Keywords: Design method, Additive manufacturing, Snap-fit.

1. Introduction building chamber, studies have proposed voxelization-oriented

division methods and posterior part interlocking assembly
Additive manufacturing (AM) is a layer-by-layer fabrication procedures [2], however, they have been deemed inappropriate
technology used to construct computer-aided designs (CAD) for hollow parts and precision models. Other studies have
models or prototypes. The use of AM technology has been tested model division via Binary Space Partitioning, and
widely adopted due to the facility to produce highly complex posterior connector-guided joining with bonding agents [3].
elements compared to conventional fabrication processes, with In order to avoid the use of fasteners or adhesives as joining
a growing list of materials (e.g. polymers, metal powder, methods, a proposed potential solution is the addition of snap-
ceramics) depending of model’s functional requirements and fit features to the printed parts, which consists on a flexible
AM technology capabilities. element that deflects during the assembly and fixes in the
Even though recent advances on AM permit process mating component.
stability on industrial applications and economic feasibility, Previous studies have developed general design
elements manufactured by AM technology have dimension methodologies for models division, which are later 3D-printed
limitations regarding printers building capacities and work and joined using snap-fits, taking into account Design for
piece volumes [1]. Thus, for parts greater than the printer Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) criteria’s [4].

2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CIRP Design Conference 2019.
10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.271

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687 681

Nomenclature

𝛼𝛼 Mounting angle
𝛼𝛼 " Corrected mounting angle
𝛽𝛽 Dismounting angle
𝛽𝛽" Corrected dismounting angle
𝛿𝛿% Part A deflection
𝛿𝛿& Part B deflection
𝛿𝛿'()*+, Deflection correction factor
𝛿𝛿-./ Simulated joining deflection
𝜀𝜀)(1) Calculated strain
𝐸𝐸- Secant Modulus
𝐹𝐹( Assembly force
𝐹𝐹4 Disassembly force
𝐹𝐹5 Deflection force
𝐹𝐹5" Corrected deflection force
𝐾𝐾 Stress concentration factor
𝐿𝐿8 Deflection beam length
𝜇𝜇 Material friction coefficient
𝑄𝑄 Feature location factor
𝑅𝑅8 Base radius
𝑇𝑇8 Feature thickness
𝑇𝑇= Wall thickness
𝑊𝑊8 Deflection beam width
𝑦𝑦 Retention mechanism height

Most studies in snap-fit applications focus on a feature-level

design methodology; this means them often consider the
dimensioning of the deformable beam of the joint and the
locking mechanisms for diverse snap-fit types and cross-
sectional areas [5]. Although traditional snap-fit design
methodologies have been developed for polymer injection
applications [6 – 8], 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 [9].
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 document further explores a previous study
regarding design methodology for additive manufactured snap-
Fig. 1. Proposed methodology for additive manufactured snap-fit joints
fit joints, which considered the interaction of conceptual and
design process.
detail design, and a posterior design evaluation stages [4]. The
objective of this article is to enhance the detail design stages,
Once design process has been validated, the final product
and introduce a finite element simulation procedure for design
can be manufactured. Previous studies for snap-fit systems
validation stages.
design methodologies have separately considered conceptual
and detail design frameworks [10], however there has been no
2. Snap-fit joints: Design process methodology for AM
formal integration between these design stages.
Based on the previously proposed design methodology for
A systematic design procedure for additive-manufactured
snap-fit systems made by AM technology [4], new
snap-fit systems can be developed accounting for general
considerations regarding design validation stages and finite
design guidelines. Common design methodologies are formed
element evaluations are shown on Fig. 1. Posterior sections
by four main stages: performance conditions or design
further details the procedure stages. The flowchart starts with
specifications, conceptual design, detail design, and lastly a
the definition of design constraints and process limitations in
design validation stage.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 682 Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687

the Design Specifications stage which ultimately defines the corresponding design constraints and process limitations. The
joint performance conditions and design parameters. following subsections describes the three process considered in
The Conceptual Design stages starts with the calculation of this preliminary design.
printing material strain limits, followed by the partitioning
mating design and the snap-fit systems type selection and 2.2.1. Material Strain Limits
location. In contrast with the previous methodology, the Detail The initial step in the conceptual design stages corresponds
Design stages now is formed by two procedures, i.e. the to the calculation of the printing material strain limits. This
deflection mechanism dimensioning and the retention deformation restriction is mainly influenced by the presence of
mechanism dimensioning. a definite yield point in the printing material stress-strain curve
The first step of the Design Validation stages is a and the number of cycles of frequent assemblies and
preliminary evaluation of the joint strain, followed by a finite dismounting motions for the mating parts. The need of material
element simulation of the joint in order to verify expected characterization data in this stage is crucial as it can affect the
strains when applying a certain deflection force. Furthermore, posterior joint deformation validation.
the validation stages now considers a parallel evaluation of
assembly and disassembly forces in order to assess joint 2.2.2. Part Mating Design
ergonomics and retention forces, respectively. A primary partitioning method can be selected based on the
The final stage of the process corresponds to the 3D printing general model configuration, and the printing building chamber
manufacturing of the pieces with the added designed and volume. As previous studies suggest, this model subdivision
validated snap-fit joints. As stated in previous studies, the stage can be further optimized according to an efficient
design process could be linear from an ideal standpoint but is partitioning approach, which depends on support material
iterative in most cases. Considering that the iterative condition utilization and printing times, and offers a quantitative
could occur in the detail design or design validation stages, the validation. Both considerations of the efficient partitioning
initial design is subject to change [4]. approach can be competing measures, as one orientation can
use less support material but complete in a greater printing
2.1. Performance conditions & parameters time.
The anisotropy of the parts associated with the 3D-printer
The present study is focused on previous defined design building directions could be a considerable restriction;
considerations or process limitations, which are AM therefore, the printing approach, as well as model wall
technology, printing material, model geometry and snap-fit thickness and model overhangs, can also affect the selected
retention conditions. These restrictions are considered as input partitioning method and the posterior snap-fit features location.
variables to the methodology and will not change during the
design process. 2.2.3. Snap-fit System Type & Location
AM technology considerations refers to machinery specific The snap-fit system, as an assembly mechanism, consists on
constraints. Parameters such as printing layer thickness, locking features, locating features and enhancement features
limitations on small features printing, need of support [10]. The locking features, consisting of the deflection and
structures, and building chamber dimensions affect directly to retention mechanisms, are responsible for restricting the
the model partitioning in the part mating design stage and movement between mating parts in the assembly direction. The
posterior feature dimensioning. most common types of locking features are the cantilever,
Regarding printing material, mechanical properties torsional and annular snap-fit joints. According to the snap-fit
characterization is needed for the detail design stages such as joint type, the location of the locking feature should be oriented
in material deformation limits calculation and deflection and in order to distribute the principal stresses along the most
retention mechanisms dimensioning. resistant building direction.
Overall model geometry needs to be accounted as it can
limit the partitioning approach and the location of the snap-fit 2.3. Detail Design
features due to aesthetic or functional requirements. Model
wall thickness and weight could also influence the final joining Two simultaneous processes regarding the dimensioning of
design. deflection mechanism and the retention mechanism of the
The last design specification considered in the proposed locking features are mainly considered at the detail design
design process corresponds to the retention condition of the stages. For the following subsections, general guidelines and
snap-fit system, which refers to operational restraints such as calculations are shown based on the available literature
in the need of a permanent joint, or if the joint will be subject regarding general snap-fit features design for cantilever snap-
to frequent assembly and disassembly motions. These fit joints [6 – 8]. The variables and geometry to be used in this
requirements can influence both conceptual and detail design subsections are shown on Fig. 2.
stages.
2.3.1. Deflection Mechanism Dimensioning
2.2. Conceptual Design The geometry of the deflection mechanism can be defined
as a function of the snap-fit feature thickness 𝑇𝑇8 , which can be
The conceptual design stages establishes a framework for selected based on the positioning of the feature relatively to the
the posterior joining features dimensioning, based on the part wall where it is mounted.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687 683

Literature suggest that for joints extending from a wall, the

feature thickness can be equal to the wall thickness; while for
joints protruding from a wall, feature thickness can be 0.5 or
0.6 times the wall thickness. These limitations are mainly
considered for injection molding applications [6].
Having defined the feature thickness 𝑇𝑇8 , the deflection
mechanism beam length 𝐿𝐿8 needs to be greater than five times
the feature thickness, but less than ten times the thickness
value. Current cantilever snap-fit modelling treats the
deflection mechanism as a beam with a fixed support and a free
end. Thus, beam width 𝑊𝑊8 should be less than half the value of Fig. 2. Proposed methodology for additive manufactured snap-fit joints
the beam length, as higher values could present calculations design process.
errors due to plate-like behavior. Furthermore, in order to
mitigate stress concentration factors on the feature base, a base The height 𝑦𝑦 of the retention mechanism can be selected
radius 𝑅𝑅8 is considered to be equal or greater than half the based on the deflection mechanism length and thickness ratio.
feature thickness. For a 𝐿𝐿8 /𝑇𝑇8 ratio of 5, 𝑦𝑦 values should be less than the feature
The geometric relationships for the deflection mechanism thickness; while for ratios of near 10, this height is suggested
dimensioning detailed on this subsection are summarized on to be equal to feature thickness. This height corresponds to the
Table 1, as a function of feature thickness 𝑇𝑇8 . maximum deflection of the snap-fit joint during assembly or
disassembly motions.
Table 1. Geometric relationships for deflection mechanism dimensioning. Common mounting angle values are in the range of 25 to 30
Variable Description Relationship degrees, in order to ease the assembly procedures. Angles
Thickness for feature greater than 45 degrees make the joining difficult to assembly.
extending from a wall
𝑇𝑇8 = 𝑇𝑇= The dismounting angle selection depends on the feature
𝑇𝑇8 retention condition. In general, for a non-releasing joint,
Thickness for feature common angle values are above 80 degrees. For a releasing
protruding from a wall
𝑇𝑇8 = 0.5𝑇𝑇= joint, the dismounting angle will depend on the desired feature
retention force.
𝐿𝐿8 Beam length 5𝑇𝑇8 < 𝐿𝐿8 < 10𝑇𝑇8
2.4. Design Validation Stages
𝑊𝑊8 Beam width 𝑊𝑊8 < 0.5𝐿𝐿8
The proposed design validation stages are of great
𝑅𝑅8 Base radius 𝑅𝑅8 ≤ 0.5𝑇𝑇8 importance as it compromises the evaluation of the snap-fit
joint system performance conditions, prior to the model
2.3.2. Retention Mechanism Dimensioning additive manufacturing production.
The retention mechanism is comprised of a raised surface
with a front or mounting angle 𝛼𝛼 that engages the part during 2.4.1. Strain Preliminary Evaluation
mating procedures, and back or dismounting angle 𝛽𝛽 that Having defined the deflection and retention mechanism
permits or inhibits the removal of the part. The following dimensions, the calculated joint strain can be found as a
retention mechanism dimensioning considerations are detailed function of feature thickness and length, retention mechanism
on Table 2. height, and a feature location factor 𝑄𝑄, as shown on Eq. 1 based
on beam theory calculations.
Table 2. Geometric considerations for retention mechanism dimensioning.
Variable Description Relationship 𝑇𝑇8 𝑦𝑦
𝜀𝜀)(1) = 1.5 (1)
Retention mechanism
𝑦𝑦 < 𝑇𝑇8
𝐿𝐿X8 𝑄𝑄
height, for 𝐿𝐿8 /𝑇𝑇8 ≅ 5
𝑦𝑦
According to the available literature, the location factor 𝑄𝑄
Retention mechanism
𝑦𝑦 = 𝑇𝑇8 can be found as a function of the 𝐿𝐿8 /𝑇𝑇8 ratio and the location
height, for 𝐿𝐿8 /𝑇𝑇8 ≅ 10
of the snap-fit relative to the part. Tabular and graphical data is
available for cantilever snap-fit joints perpendicular to a solid
𝛼𝛼 Mounting angle 𝛼𝛼 = 25°~30°
wall, perpendicular in the interior area of a wall, perpendicular
to a wall and to an edge, perpendicular to a wall and parallel to
Dismounting angle,
𝛽𝛽 > 80° an edge, and for a joint in-plane with a wall at an edge [6].
non-releasing joint
𝛽𝛽 The calculated strain value is compared to the maximum
strain, which is defined as the division of the material strain
Dismounting angle,
𝛽𝛽 = 𝑓𝑓(𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟) limits by a stress concentration factor 𝐾𝐾 = 𝑓𝑓(𝑅𝑅8 /𝑇𝑇8 ).
releasing joint

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 684 Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687

included as a reference to denote that the primary deflection

effects should occur on Part A (i.e. the deflection features). The
joint operational point 𝑃𝑃 shows the corrected deflection force
𝐹𝐹5" and the joining deflection 𝛿𝛿-./ , which can be calculated
from the simulation results using Eq. 3 and Eq. 4, respectively.

𝑦𝑦
𝐹𝐹5" = 𝐹𝐹5 (3)
𝛿𝛿% + 𝛿𝛿&

𝑦𝑦𝛿𝛿%
𝛿𝛿-./ = (4)
𝛿𝛿% + 𝛿𝛿&
Fig. 3. Graphical correction for part deflection using finite element simulation
results. Part A: having deflection features, and Part B: with retention features.
In addition, the simulation results are used to define a
If the strain on the features is greater than the permissible deformation corrector factor 𝛿𝛿'()*+, , which is employed to
strain limits, corrections should be made on the conceptual adjust the calculated strain values, and find the effective
design stages or in the snap-fit feature geometry values, mounting and dismounting angles. This deflection correction
depending on the amount of the difference. factor is equal to the ratio of the joining deflection and the
For small deviations, a simple feature dimension correction retention feature height 𝛿𝛿-./ /𝑦𝑦.
can be sufficient, but for greater values a more in-depth
analysis of the feature location and/or part mating orientation 2.4.3. Assembly Forces calculation and Ergonomics
is needed. In the flowchart, the unacceptable condition is validation
connected to the part mating design as it corresponds to the Joint system assembly forces are a function of the corrected
worst-case scenario. deflection force 𝐹𝐹5" , material friction coefficient and a corrected
mounting angle 𝛼𝛼 " . Equations 5 and 6 shows the corresponding
2.4.2. Finite Element Simulation formulae for mounting angle correction and assembly forces
In order to verify the deformation scenarios for the part calculation, respectively.
joints, a stage of finite element simulation is considered to
include the part-specific rigidity effects during the joint 𝑦𝑦𝛿𝛿'()*+,
deflection. For the simulations, the needed deflection force 𝐹𝐹5 𝛼𝛼 " = 𝛼𝛼 + tanab c d (5)
𝐿𝐿8
is calculated as a function of the previous defined geometry,
the calculated strain 𝜀𝜀)(1) , and the material secant Modulus 𝐸𝐸Z , 𝜇𝜇 + tan 𝛼𝛼′
as shown on Eq. 2. 𝐹𝐹𝑎𝑎 = 𝐹𝐹′𝑃𝑃 (6)
1 − 𝜇𝜇 tan 𝛼𝛼′

𝑊𝑊8 𝑇𝑇8X 𝐸𝐸Z 𝜀𝜀)(1) The ergonomics validation is made with the results from the
𝐹𝐹5 = (2)
6𝐿𝐿8 assembly forces calculation multiplied by the number of snap-
fit features. This validation consists on the comparison of the
As stated before, snap-fit modeling is based on beam theory force needed to join the parts and acceptable forces for manual
calculations considering a rigid support and the force acting in assembly.
the free end. However, the rigidity of the joint base will depend Lee and Gu [11] reported a mean value of roughly 81 N for
on the parts configurations. The finite element simulation stage acceptable insertion forces in manual assembly of small
ultimately shows a more accurate feature deformation when connectors, and a mean maximum force of 141 N. It is also
applying a certain deflection force. With the simulation results, noted that acceptable and maximum coupling forces depend on
a feature deflection correction can be graphically determined, the posture and size of the mating parts.
thus accounting for the lack of rigidity on the features support If the assembly forces surpass the acceptable insertion
and refining the posterior assembly and disassembly forces. forces, the proposed methodology suggest the revision of
In order to estimate the deflection during joining deflection mechanism dimensions. A possible correction
procedures, both mating parts are considered to have a linear approach is to vary the feature width 𝑊𝑊8 , as it does not affect
behavior and the individual deflections results are plotted, as the feature deflection results, but lowers the required deflection
show on Fig. 3. Part A is defined as the part with the deflection forces.
features, and Part B having the retention features.
As shown in the graph, for a calculated 𝐹𝐹5 , the model 2.4.4. Disassembly Forces calculation and Retention
considers a deflection 𝛿𝛿% greater than the retention feature evaluation
height 𝑦𝑦 for Part A, to account for greater joint base flexibility Having similar considerations as in the assembly forces
effects. For the Part B curve, the intersection with the X axis is calculations, the formulae for dismounting angle correction and
located at 𝑦𝑦, and the part deflection 𝛿𝛿& is subtracted, so that the disassembly forces calculation are shown on Eq. 7 and 8,
operational point can be graphically determined. A dotted line, respectively.
corresponding to a rigid behavior for Part B, has also been

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687 685

𝑦𝑦𝛿𝛿'()*+,
𝛽𝛽" = 𝛽𝛽 − tanab c d (7)
𝐿𝐿8

𝜇𝜇 + tan 𝛽𝛽"
𝐹𝐹4 = 𝐹𝐹5" (8)
1 − 𝜇𝜇 tan 𝛽𝛽"

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 Fig. 4. Part mating design: model division.
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.

2.5. Additive Manufacturing

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 and testing procedures.

3. Case Study: Finite element revision for a 1-gallon plastic

container division Fig. 5. Part 4 total deformation finite element simulation results.

The present study focuses on the analysis of a 1-gallon

plastic container 6-part partitioning for printing, and posterior
joining by snap-fit features designed following the proposed
methodology. The design specifications for the manufacturing
of the model are based on MultiJet Printing technology, using
ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) plastic for model part
construction, with the utilization of permanent joints that does
not affect the overall outward appearance.
Based on printing material properties, a material strain limit
of 2.49% was considered as a limiting factor for the features
dimensioning. According to the model division shown on
Fig. 4, the part mating sequence for the 6-part division starts
Fig. 6. Part 2A total deformation finite element simulation results.
with the union of the lateral Parts 2A and 2B. Both parts then
lock to the Part 4, followed by the Part 1. The remaining parts
Considering a 𝑄𝑄 location factor of 1.8 [6] and the
(3A and 3B) are first joined together, and the locked to the main
dimensions of the deflection mechanism, the calculated strain
body [4].
is equal to 1.97%, using Eq. 1. This calculated value is greater
The considered snap-fit type corresponds to a special case
than the predefined material limits. However, this difference
of a hook and loop snap-fit extended from a wall. Instead of
was considered as a small deviation, and further evaluated via
extending the features from the wall, they were designed to
finite element simulations.
extend parallel to the wall, thus preserving the outside model
Due to the lack of material characterization data, the Secant
appearance and locating all mating features inside the body [4].
Modulus of 783 MPa used for the deflection force calculation
The hook and loop geometry was selected for its behavior as a
was found by dividing the available values for ultimate stress
cantilever snap-fit, and due to the ease of printing the deflection
and elongation at break. By using Eq. 2, a deflection force of
features body perpendicular to printer building direction.
4.75N is calculated, which theoretically corresponds to a
Following the aforementioned geometric relationships and
deflection of 2mm (retention height).
considerations (Table 1 and 2), the deflection mechanism
Finite element simulations were conducted using this
dimensioning considers a feature thickness of 2mm (equal to
deflection force for Part 2A (part with deflection features) and
wall thickness), length of 13mm, width of 6mm, and a base
Part 4 (part with retention features), in order to graphically
radius of 1mm. Accordingly, the retention mechanism
verify the joining deflection. This pair of elements were
dimensioning stages results in a retention height of 2mm,
selected due to an expected rigid behavior for Part 4, having the
mounting angle of 25°, and a dismounting angle of 50°.
primary deflection effects on Part 2A. Figures 5 and 6 show the
results of total deformation for Part 4 and Part 2A respectively.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 686 Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687

As shown on Fig. 5, the maximum value for Part 4 total

deformation of 4.34e-3mm is considered as minimal, thus
behaving as a rigid part (𝛿𝛿& = 0).
For Part 2A (Fig. 6), simulation results for total deformation
varies depending the location of the deflection mechanism with
respect to the part. For the applied force of 4.75N, the total
deflection for feature (a) is 3.20mm, 5.62mm for feature (b),
and 4.69mm for feature (c). The deflection profiles for the
features were as predicted, having that the feature (b) was
expected to be the less rigid due to being located in the center
of Part 2A. Accordingly, deflection effects on feature (a) were
estimated to be more rigid due to the closeness to the part back
plate radius. Fig. 7. Part 2A total deformation finite element simulation results for
Even though the resultant total deformations greatly exceeds corrected feature deflection forces.
the expected 2mm deflection, simulation results show that
feature-specific deflection are of 1.33mm, 1.83mm, and, Since assembly and disassembly forces are directly
1.69mm for features (a), (b) and (c), respectively. The proportional to the deflection force, results clearly indicate that
maximum strain at the base of the joints of 1.22% is below the the initially calculated 𝐹𝐹5 will act as a maximum control value.
previously calculated value of 1.66%, therefore validating the For assembly forces, final values when considering the
feature strain resistance. corrected deflection forces 𝐹𝐹5" for each feature will tend to be
These first simulated results do not correspond to real less than the values found before the finite element simulation
deformation responses, as the parts will only deflect the 2mm stages, thus easing the validation of assembly ergonomics.
corresponding to the retention feature height 𝑦𝑦. In order to Nevertheless, this feature force diminishing effect has a bigger
estimate the deflection forces for each feature, Eq. 3 was used impact on the disassembly forces, which could potentially fail
to determine a corrected deflection force 𝐹𝐹5" . However, this the retention evaluation stages.
approximation considers a linear response, and does not
account for feature deflection interactions. 4. Conclusions
Several finite element simulations were carried on, in order
to account for feature deflection interactions and their non- The employment of the proposed methodology for snap-fit
linear behavior. The corrected deflection forces, as well as the systems design permitted to further analyze the detail design
base strain simulated results, are reported on Table 3. Last stages of a previously 3D-printed ensemble of a model for a
simulation iteration results are shown on Fig. 7. 1-gallon plastic container that could not be printed in a single
job due to 3D-printing building chamber limitations.
Table 3. Deflection forces finite element simulation results. Overall results could indicate that the currently available
First analysis Last iteration snap-fit system design formulae can predict the feature strain
Feature
𝐹𝐹5 [N] 𝛿𝛿% [mm] 𝐹𝐹5" [N] 𝛿𝛿% [mm] behavior to some extent, and, deflection failure regarding
(a) 4.75 3.20 4.18 2.05
material overstraining can be avoided by following the design
(b) 4.75 5.62 1.00 2.11
considerations.
(c) 4.75 4.69 2.28 2.02
However, the deflection forces greatly depend on part
geometry and feature location, and the effects of the initially
For the last iteration results, the corresponding feature- calculated forces does not correlate to the simulated responses.
specific deflection values are of 1.06mm, 0.55mm, and, In addition, feature location affects the necessary deflection
0.77mm for features (a), (b) and (c), respectively. The forces. Table 3 results shows the variance in feature deflection
maximum strain at the base of the joints of 1.01%. These last forces, which are directly proportional to assembly forces, and,
results further reinforces the feature resistance validation. more importantly, to the feature-specific retention forces.
As stated before, Part 4 is considered as rigid, thus 𝛿𝛿-./ Future work aims to consider a more in-depth analysis of
exclusively accounts for the effects on Part 2A deflections, and snap-fit features location, and its effects on deflection
the deflection correction factor 𝛿𝛿'()*+, is approximately 1. mechanism dimensioning. Furthermore, different part
With these considerations, the assembly and disassembly scenarios finite element analysis are needed in order to account
forces are calculated by using Eq. 5 through 8. Results are for case studies in which the part with the retention features
shown on Table 4. does not have a rigid behavior.

Table 4. Assembly and disassembly forces results.

Acknowledgements
Deflection force [N] 𝐹𝐹% [N] 𝐹𝐹h [N]
The authors would like to thank the Advanced Machining
𝐹𝐹5 4.75 7.07 29.37
and Prototype Laboratory CAMPRO, from ESPOL
4.18 (a) 6.22 25.85
Polytechnic University, for its contribution to this work.
𝐹𝐹5" 1.00 (b) 1.49 6.19
2.28 (c) 3.40 14.12

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.
 Jorge Luis Amaya et al. / Procedia CIRP 84 (2019) 680–687 687

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] Luo, L, Baran, I, Rusinkiewicz, S, and Matusik, W. Chopper partitioning
models into 3D-printable parts. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2012, 31
(6): 1.
[4] Emilio A. Ramírez, Fausto Caicedo, Jorge Hurel, Carlos G. Helguero,
Jorge Luis Amaya. Methodology for design process of a Snap-fit Joint
made by Additive Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP, 79C, 2019; 113-118.
[5] 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.
[6] Bonenberger PR. The first snap-fit handbook: Creating and managing
attachments for plastics parts. Hanser Publications 2016.
[7] BASF Corporation, Snap-fit design manual. 2007. Done
[8] Bayer Material Science LLC. Snap-fit joints for plastics - a design guide.
Pittsburg 2013. Done
[9] Klahn C, Singer D, Meboldt M. Design Guidelines for Additive
Manufactured Snap-Fit Joints. Procedia CIRP, 50, 2016; 264-269.
[10] Genc S, Messler RW, Gabriele GA. A systematic approach to integral
snapfit attachment design. Research in Engineering Design 1998; 10 (2):
84-93.
[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.

This is a resupply of March 2023 as the template used in the publication of the original article contained errors. The content of the article has remained unaffected.