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
Introduction
Objective: Use Solid Thinking Inspire to develop
structural design concepts to leverage additive
manufacturing capabilities
DFAM Discussion
Case studies
Hinge
Upright
UAV
Observations
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
Hierarchicalshape complexity across multiple size scales
Materialpointwise, layerwise
Functionalassemblies, mechanisms
Product performance improvement (design to match physics)
Multi-functionality (structural and thermal and fluid and)
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 possiblemesostructures
Lattice structures
Load efficiency interaction
Bending vs. Torsion
Focus of current study
Aircraft Door Hinge Study
Compare optimized configuration for conventional
and additive manufacturing
Requirements
Loads
Bending
Side loadtorsion
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)
Aircraft Door Hinge Study
With draw directionconventional manufacturing

Without hole

40% Volume Fraction 30% Volume Fraction

With hole
Aircraft Door Hinge Study
Without draw directionadditive manufacturing

40% Volume Fraction 30% Volume Fraction

 Aircraft Door Hinge Study

Surface Definition using Evolve

MeshNURBS to remove data noise
Complex surfaceslofts, blends
Aircraft Door Hinge Study

Conventional Manufacturing Process

With draw direction constraint
Total mass 6.8 lbs

New CAD Part

Aircraft Door Hinge Study

Additive Manufacturing Process

Without draw direction constraint
Total mass 4.6 lbs (-33%)
Formula Race Car Upright Study
Weight 2.68 lbs
Compare optimized Space 12 x 3 x 5.5 in.
configuration for Aluminum 6061
conventional and additive
manufacturing
Requirements
Loads
Hard turn
x-bending
y-torsion
Braking
Z-bending
Constraints
Displacement
Stress
Stability
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)
Formula Race Car Upright Study
With draw directionconventional manufacturing

Volume Fraction 25% Volume Fraction 35% Volume Fraction 45%

Formula Race Car Upright Study
Without draw directionadditive manufacturing

Volume Fraction 25% Volume Fraction 30%

Formula Race Car Upright Study
Without draw directionadditive manufacturing

Min Value .3 Min Value .5 Min Value .7 Min Value .9

30 % volume fraction
Max is double the min
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
Formula Race Car Upright Study
Surface
modeling in
Evolve
Import non-
design regions
Trim, blend,
edit to get final
model
Formula Race Car Upright Study

Draw
constraint

No draw
Automotive Upright Optimization constraint
for Additive Manufacture

Ongoing Work
Size, shape
optimization

Draw
constraint
UAV Design Study
Rapidly develop fuselage internal Wing
structural configuration concept for bending
FDM-printed aircraft
Thin wall structure
Determine internal stiffening configuration
5 load conditionsbending about 2 axes Wing
torsion

Nose
landing

Pitch Up
Vector

Pitch Down
Vector
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
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 expertiseEvolve
can help
Increases complexity of downstream shape and sizing optimization
needed to satisfy strength, stiffness, and stability criteria