Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Leveraging Geometric Shape Complexity, in Optimal Design for Additive Manufacturing

1,995 views

Published on

Additive manufacturing (AM) technology enables the possibility of realizing highly efficient, optimized structural components with configurations not achievable using conventional manufacturing methods. The Altair and Solid Thinking toolsets provide advanced capabilities to design structural topologies to minimize weight and maximize other performance criteria. However, conventional manufacturing processes require application of design constraints, such as directional access for machining, in the optimization that limit the structural efficiency of the resulting design. AM can remove many of these constraints to allow for more efficient configurations under the applied loading conditions. Case studies show the potential to reduce weight up to 30% for components with applied bending and torsional loads by allowing increased complexity configurations that could only be manufactured additively.

Published in: Engineering
  • Be the first to comment

Leveraging Geometric Shape Complexity, in Optimal Design for Additive Manufacturing

  1. 1. Copyright © 2015 by Optimal Structures, LLC LEVERAGING GEOMETRIC SHAPE COMPLEXITY IN OPTIMAL DESIGN FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING Yobani Martinez Robert Taylor Optimal Structures 2015 ATCx Conference Houston, TX October 8, 2015
  2. 2. Introduction • Objective: Use Solid Thinking Inspire to develop structural design concepts to leverage additive manufacturing capabilities • DFAM Discussion • Case studies • Hinge • Upright • UAV • Observations
  3. 3. Design for Additive Manufacture • AM enables • Low volume (lot size of one) • Easier design change integration (prototyping, customization) • Piece part reductions (component combination) • Complexity • Geometric shape • Hierarchical—shape complexity across multiple size scales • Material—pointwise, layerwise • Functional—assemblies, mechanisms • Product performance improvement (design to match physics) • Multi-functionality (structural and thermal and fluid and…)
  4. 4. Design for Additive Manufacture • Increased geometric shape complexity can improve structural performance (design to match physics) • Capability to fabricate layer unrelated to layer shape • Machining, molding operations limited by tool accessibility, mold separation requirements • Extreme complexity possible—mesostructures • Lattice structures • Load efficiency interaction • Bending vs. Torsion • Focus of current study
  5. 5. Aircraft Door Hinge Study • Compare optimized configuration for conventional and additive manufacturing • Requirements • Loads • Bending • Side loadtorsion • Constraints • Displacement • Stress • Stability • Topology Optimization • Package Space (design, nondesign) • Objective: maximize stiffness • Constraint: volume fraction • Conventional Manufacture (draw direction) vs Additive Manufacture (no draw direction)
  6. 6. Aircraft Door Hinge Study 40% Volume Fraction 30% Volume Fraction With draw direction—conventional manufacturing Without hole With hole
  7. 7. Aircraft Door Hinge Study 40% Volume Fraction 30% Volume Fraction Without draw direction—additive manufacturing
  8. 8. Aircraft Door Hinge Study Surface Definition using Evolve • MeshNURBS to remove data noise • Complex surfaces—lofts, blends
  9. 9. New CAD Part Conventional Manufacturing Process • With draw direction constraint • Total mass 6.8 lbs Aircraft Door Hinge Study
  10. 10. Additive Manufacturing Process • Without draw direction constraint • Total mass 4.6 lbs (-33%) Aircraft Door Hinge Study
  11. 11. Formula Race Car Upright Study • Compare optimized configuration for conventional and additive manufacturing • Requirements • Loads • Hard turn • x-bending • y-torsion • Braking • Z-bending • Constraints • Displacement • Stress • Stability Weight 2.68 lbs Space 12 x 3 x 5.5 in. Aluminum 6061
  12. 12. Formula Race Car Upright Study • Compare optimized configuration for conventional and additive manufacturing • Topology Optimization • Package Space (Design, Nondesign) • Objective: maximize stiffness • Constraint: volume fraction • Conventional Manufacture (draw direction) vs Additive Manufacture (no draw direction)
  13. 13. With draw direction—conventional manufacturing Formula Race Car Upright Study Volume Fraction 25% Volume Fraction 35% Volume Fraction 45%
  14. 14. Formula Race Car Upright Study Without draw direction—additive manufacturing Volume Fraction 25% Volume Fraction 30%
  15. 15. Min Value .9’’Min Value .5’’ Min Value .7’’Min Value .3’’ Formula Race Car Upright Study Without draw direction—additive manufacturing • 30 % volume fraction • Max is double the min
  16. 16. Formula Race Car Upright Study • Surface modeling in Evolve • Separate design, non-design regions • Start with polymesh cube • Move and deform to match topology results • Nurbify
  17. 17. Formula Race Car Upright Study • Surface modeling in Evolve • Import non- design regions • Trim, blend, edit to get final model
  18. 18. Draw constraint Draw constraint Formula Race Car Upright Study No draw constraint Ongoing Work • Size, shape optimization Automotive Upright Optimization for Additive Manufacture
  19. 19. UAV Design Study • Rapidly develop fuselage internal structural configuration concept for FDM-printed aircraft • Thin wall structure • Determine internal stiffening configuration • 5 load conditions—bending about 2 axes Wing bending Wing torsion Pitch Down Vector Pitch Up Vector Nose landing
  20. 20. UAV Design Study • Configuration • Topology interpretation for thin wall structure not always intuitive • No buckling effects considered • Sizing challenge • Hollow members with infill patterns • Strength • Stiffness • Stability
  21. 21. Observations • Inspire greatly accelerates topology optimization process for supported modeling capabilities • Excellent start, not final design • Additive manufacturing enables complexity • Geometric shape can closely match physics (load efficiency interaction)—weight reduction • Topology-optimized configuration requires CAD expertise—Evolve can help • Increases complexity of downstream shape and sizing optimization needed to satisfy strength, stiffness, and stability criteria

×