This review explores the intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Generative Design (GD) in engineering within the mechanical, industrial, civil, and architectural domains. Driven by advances in AI and computational resources, this intersection has grown rapidly, yielding over 14,000 publications since 2016. To map the research landscape, this review employed semantic search and Natural Language Processing, parsing 14,355 publications to ultimately select the 88 most relevant studies through clustering and topic modelling. These studies were categorised according to AI and GD techniques, application domains, benefits, and limitations, providing insights into research trends and practical implications. The results reveal a significant growth in the integration of advanced generative AI methods, notably Generative Adversarial Networks for direct design generation, alongside the continued use of genetic algorithms and surrogate models (e.g., Convolutional Neural Networks and Multilayer Perceptrons) to manage computational complexity. Structural and aerodynamic applications were the most common, with benefits including improvements in computational efficiency and design diversity. However, barriers remain, including data generation costs, model accuracy, and interpretability. Research opportunities include the development of generalisable foundation surrogate models, the integration of emerging generative methods such as diffusion models and large language models, and the explicit consideration of manufacturability constraints within generative processes.

Whilst prior works have characterised the affordances of prototyping methods in terms of generating knowledge about a product or process, the types, or ‘dimensions’ of knowledge towards which they contribute are not fully understood. In this paper we adapt the concept of ‘design domains’ as a method to interpret, and better understand the contributions of different prototyping methods to design knowledge in new product development. We first synthesise a set of ten dimensions for design knowledge from a review of literature in design-related fields. A study was then conducted in which participants from engineering backgrounds completed a Likert-type questionnaire to quantify the perceived contributions to design knowledge of 90 common prototyping methods against each dimension. We statistically analyse results to identify patterns in the knowledge contribution of different methods. Results reveal that methods exhibit significantly different contribution profiles, suggesting different methods to be suited to different knowledge. Thus, this paper indicates potential for new methods, methodology and processes to leverage such characterisations for better selection and sequencing of methods in the prototyping process.

In order to manufacture functional parts using filament deposition modelling (FDM), an understanding of the machine’s capabilities is necessary. Eliciting this understanding poses a significant challenge due to a lack of knowledge relating manufacturing process parameters to mechanical properties of the manufactured part. Prior work has proposed that this could be overcome through the creation of capability profiles for FDM machines. However, such an approach has yet to be implemented and incorporated into the overall design process. Correspondingly, the aim of this paper is two-fold and includes the creation of a comprehensive capability profile for FDM and the implementation of the profile and evaluation of its utility within a generative design methodology. To provide the foundations for the capability profile, this paper first reports an experimental testing programme to characterise the influence of five manufacturing parameters on a part’s ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and tensile modulus (E). This characterisation is used to train an artificial neural network (ANN). This ANN forms the basis of a capability profile that is shown to be able to represent the mechanical properties with RMSEP of 1.95 MPa for UTS and 0.82 GPa for E. To validate the capability profile, it is incorporated into a generative design methodology enabling its application to the design and manufacture of functional parts. The resulting methodology is used to create two load bearing components where it is shown to be able to generate parts with satisfactory performance in only a couple of iterations. The novelty of the reported work lies in demonstrating the practical application of capability profiles in the FDM design process and how, when combined with generative approaches, they can make effective design decisions in place of the user.

This paper provides an overview and appraisal of the International Design Engineering Annual (IDEA) challenge - a virtually hosted design hackathon run with the aim of generating a design research dataset that can provide insights into design activities at virtually hosted hackathons. The resulting dataset consists of 200+ prototypes with over 1300 connections providing insights into the products, processes and people involved in the design process. The paper also provides recommendations for future deployments of virtual hackathons for design research.

This paper demonstrates the unpredictability of outcomes that result from compounding variabilities when using generative design (GD) coupled with additive manufacturing (AM). AM technologies offer the greatest design freedom and hence are most able to leverage the full capability of generative design (GD) tools and thus maximize potential improvements, such as weight, waste and cost reduction, strength, and part consolidation. Implicit in all studies reported in the literature is the fundamental assumption that the use of GD, irrespective of user experience or approach followed, yields high-performing and/or comparable design outputs. This work demonstrates the contrary and shows that achieving high performance with GD tools requires careful consideration of study setup and initial conditions. It is further shown that, when coupled with the inherent variability of AM parts, the potential variation in the performance of the design output can be significant, with poorer designs achieving only a fraction of that of higher-performing designs. This investigation shows how AM by Material Extrusion (MEX), which is used to manufacture components with polylactic acid (PLA), varies through different design pathways, bridging MEX and GD. Through a practical study across nine independently generated designs, the breadth of performance—due to initial GD conditions and MEX part strength unpredictability—is shown to reach 592%. This result suggest that current GD tools, including their underlying workflows and algorithms, are not sufficiently understood for users to be able to generate consistent solutions for an input case. Further, the study purports that training and consideration on GD setup are necessary to apply GD toolsets to achieve high-performing designs, particularly when applied in the context of MEX.

To improve understanding of prototyping practice at the fuzzy front end of the design process, this article presents an analysis of a prototyping dataset captured during the IDEA challenge – a 4-day virtually hosted hackathon – using Pro2booth, a web-based prototype capture tool. The dataset comprised 203 prototypes created by four independent teams working in university labs across Europe supported by interviews carried out with each of the teams after the event. The results of the study provide nine key findings about prototyping at hackathons. These include elucidation of the purposes of prototypes in physical, digital and sketch domains and characterisation of teams’ prototyping practices and strategies. The most successful strategy focused on learning about the problem or solution space, often via physical prototypes rather than following more prescriptive ‘theoretical’ methodologies. Recommendations on prototyping strategies in hackathons or similar scenarios are provided, highlighting the importance of practical strategies that prioritise learning and adaptation. The results of this study raise the broader question to the wider research community of how design research and teaching should balance high-level strategic approaches with more hands-on ‘operational’ prototyping.