Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Procedia
Available
Available Manufacturing
online 00 (2017) 000–000
atatwww.sciencedirect.com
online www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect 
Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 903–909
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017, MESIC 2017, 28-30 June
Manufacturing Engineering Society
2017, International Conference
Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain2017, MESIC 2017, 28-30 June
2017, Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain
Study for the selection of design software for 3D printing
Study for
Manufacturing the selection
Engineering of design
Society International software
Conference forMESIC
2017, 3D printing
2017, 28-30 June
topological
2017, Vigo optimization
(Pontevedra), Spain
topological optimization
a a a
Costing modelsA. A.for
García-Domínguez
capacity optimization
García-Domínguez a
*, J. Claverain , M.A.
*, J. Claver , M.A.
Sebastián
Industry
Sebastián 4.0:
a Trade-off
between
of Constructionused capacity andNational
operational efficiency
Department of Construction and Manufacturing Engineering. National University of Distance Education, Madrid (Spain)
a

Department
a
and Manufacturing Engineering. University of Distance Education, Madrid (Spain)

Abstract
A. Santanaa, P. Afonsoa,*, A. Zaninb, R. Wernkeb
Abstract a
University of Minho, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
This works exposes de criteria considered inbUnochapecó,
the selection89809-000
of an appropriate
Chapecó, design software when optimization is included as one
SC, Brazil
This
of theworks exposes
objectives de criteria
of the considered
design and productivein the selection
process. of an appropriate
Different approachesdesign software when
to optimization optimization
concept is included
are identified. as one
Main aspects
of the objectives of the design and productive process. Different approaches
for topological optimization are exposed and then analyzed on different software. to optimization concept are identified. Main aspects
for topological
Finally, obtainedoptimization
optimization areresults
exposed
are and thenand
shown analyzed on different
compared, and whensoftware.
it is possible, the exportable model for 3D printing is
Abstract
Finally,
includedobtained optimization results are shown and compared, and when it is possible, the exportable model for 3D printing is
and analyzed.
included
© 2017 TheandAuthors.
analyzed.Published by Elsevier B.V.
Under
© 2017 the
The concept
Authors. of "Industry
Published
Peer-review under responsibility by the4.0",
of Elsevier production
B.V.
scientific committee processes will be pushed
of the Manufacturing to beSociety
Engineering increasingly interconnected,
International Conference
© 2017 The Authors.
Peer-review under Published by
responsibility of Elsevier
the B.V. committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference
scientific
information
2017. based on a real time basis and, necessarily, much more efficient. In this context, capacity optimization
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
2017.beyond the traditional aim of capacity maximization, contributing also for organization’s profitability and value.
goes
Keywords:lean
Indeed, optimization; software selection;
management 3D printing; improvement
and continuous parametric design approaches suggest capacity optimization instead of
Keywords: optimization; software selection; 3D printing; parametric design
maximization. The study of capacity optimization and costing models is an important research topic that deserves
contributions from both the practical and theoretical perspectives. This paper presents and discusses a mathematical
1. Introduction
model for capacity management based on different costing models (ABC and TDABC). A generic model has been
1. Introduction
developed and it was used to analyze idle capacity and to design strategies towards the maximization of organization’s
HereThe
value. introduce
trade-offthecapacity
paper, and put a nomenclature
maximization if necessary,
vs operational in a is
efficiency box with the same
highlighted and font
it is size
shownas the
thatrest of the
capacity
HereThe
paper. introduce
paragraphsthe paper,
continueandfrom
put here
a nomenclature
and are only ifseparated
necessary, byin a box with
headings, the same font
subheadings, imagessizeand
as formulae.
the rest ofThethe
optimization
paper. The
might hidecontinue
paragraphs
operational
from
inefficiency.
here and are only separated by headings, subheadings, images and formulae. The
section
© headings
2017 The Authors.arePublished
arrangedbybyElsevier
numbers,
B.V.bold and 10 pt. Here follows further instructions for authors.
section headings
Additive are arranged
manufacturing in by numbers,
general, andbold
3D and 10 pt.inHere
printing follows offers
particular, furthersome
instructions for authors.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering significant benefits Conference
Society International such as the
Additive manufacturing in general, and 3D printing in particular, offers
possibility to obtain complex shapes, lightened shapes or higher levels of personalization,
2017. some significant benefits
without the such as the
restrictions
possibility to obtain complex shapes, lightened shapes or higher levels of personalization,
imposed by conventional manufacturing processes. Technologies and materials involved in this new production type without the restrictions
imposed Cost
Keywords: by conventional manufacturing
Models; ABC; TDABC; processes. Technologies
Capacity Management; and materials
Idle Capacity; Operational involved in this new production type
Efficiency

1. Introduction
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-91-398-60-88
* Corresponding
E-mail address:author. Tel.: +34-91-398-60-88
agarcia5250@alumno.uned.es
The cost
E-mail of idle
address: capacity is a fundamental information for companies and their management of extreme importance
agarcia5250@alumno.uned.es
in modern©production
2351-9789 systems.
2017 The Authors. In general,
Published it isB.V.
by Elsevier defined as unused capacity or production potential and can be measured
in several©under
2351-9789
Peer-review ways: tons of production,
2017responsibility
The Authors. Published
of available
by Elsevier
the scientific B.V.hours
committee of manufacturing,
of the Manufacturing etc.Society
Engineering The International
management of the 2017.
Conference idle capacity
Peer-review underTel.:
* Paulo Afonso. responsibility
+351 253 of the761;
510 scientific committee
fax: +351 253 604of741
the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
E-mail address: psafonso@dps.uminho.pt

2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
2351-9789 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Manufacturing Engineering Society International Conference 2017.
10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.155
904 A. García-Domínguez et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 903–909
2 A. García-Domínguez, J. Claver, M.A. Sebastián / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000

increase steadily [1], and in the same way additive manufacturing is actually applied in a wide range of fields. Thus,
the impact of this new manufacturing technologies in the way in which we design and obtain our products in very
different productive sectors is really significant [2].
The new possibilities of the manufacturing stage involves new opportunities during the design stage. Additive
manufacturing allows a great number of new possibilities, and the greater the possibilities the more important the
optimization process. It is possible to optimize important aspects of the production process of the pieces or of their
service response from the design stage. Thus, optimization processes allows to further improve the possibilities offered
by additive manufacturing [3,4]. This optimization can be focused on one or more objectives and can be applied in
many different applications.
In that sense, one of the most interesting fields of study is the structural optimization of pieces, which will be based
on Finite Element Method (FEM) [5-8]. Thus, during the last years there has been high scientific production on
additive manufacturing issues and the application and possibilities of these technologies have been analyzed and
improved from very different fields and industries [9,10]. All these aspects are of interest in both productive and
educational contexts [11].
This way, optimization software have a key role [12] and choosing the suitable tool is critical. Design software of
interest on optimization matters can be divided in two groups. The ones that base the optimization process on unitary
variables obtained from finite element mesh, what means that the piece is defined using a discretized model, and the
ones which base the optimization process on variables from parametric models. Figure 1 shows these two groups and
the main kind of optimization processes which are able to carry out.

Fig. 1. Classes of optimization according to the kind of model

Using a parametric model the geometry of the piece will be defined by different parameters, in such a way that
when their values change the geometry of the piece changes too. The definition of the geometry through the variables
is essential. In addition, it is possible to establish relations between these parameters. Thus, changing one parameter
involves the change of another. On the other hand, using models based on a finite element mesh, the variables are not
determined through the geometry, but through the size of each one of the finite elements that define the mesh. In these
cases the initial shape is unknown, what is useful in very initial design stages, having much less initial shape conditions
and therefore limitations. Thus, as shown in Figure 1, parametric models are mainly useful for size and shape
optimization and mesh models for topological optimization.
For a more flexible process of optimization, compatibility between both kinds of models is needed. Both ways of
work are mainly independent, and some studies have been developed in order to encourage their connection [13,14].
The discretization of a parametric model in order to obtain a mesh models is easy, but the parametrization of mesh
models is not. Manufacturing process is based on the model, so a good model can be the difference between good and
bad results [15].
Some software have incorporated the parametrization of meshes using different techniques. One of them is called
“morph” and is used in animation. The meshes are deformed for their adaptation to movements and gestures. Initial
and final states are defined and then all the intermediate states, which can be parametrized, are defined. Another system
called “free-form deform” can control the initial and final states, by generating envelopes which transmit the
deformation to the mesh. These envelopes are called “morphing box” or “free-form deform geometry” [16].
 A. García-Domínguez et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 903–909 905
A. García-Domínguez, J. Claver, M.A. Sebastián / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000 3

This study represents the first stage of a wider work, in which a methodology for the optimization of pieces
for additive manufacturing by 3D printing is proposed [17]. In that context, the selection of an adequate tool means a
crucial choice.

2. Methodology

This work is contextualized in a wider work focused on the development of optimization methodologies for 3D
printing, and it is necessary to identify the most suitable software for this objective. Firstly, an initial stage is focused
on the identification of multi-objective and topological software.
Main multi-objective optimization software are identified. Then, aspects as the software developer and the nature
of the source, this means open or closed source, are indicated. When an additional program is needed for establishing
the workflow between simulation and optimization tools, both the program required and its developer are indicated
too. Fifty four software are considered. In a similar way, main topology optimization software are identified and
analysed. In the cases in which they are included in multi-objective optimization software, this aspect is considered
too. Forty two software of topology optimization are considered.

Fig. 2. Software selection for topology optimization

Fig. 3. Software selection for multiobjective optimization

After this first stage of identification, an initial selection of topology optimization and multi-objective optimization
software is done. Aspects considered include free licence software, supporting documentation, integration between the
two kinds of optimization, and a direct export to 3D printing format. After this first screening the number of software
decrease significantly. Figures 2 and 3 resume this initial selection.
Then, a case of study is defined and optimization process is ran on the selected software. Main initial aspects, such
as geometry importation, geometry mesh, or load and supports definition, are defined for each case. Firstly, topological
optimization is analysed and then, multi-objective optimization is incorporated by using the most appropriate software.
906 A. García-Domínguez et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 903–909
4 A. García-Domínguez, J. Claver, M.A. Sebastián / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000

Figure 4. Definition of geometry and load conditions for the case of study

Figure 4 shows the initial definition of the proposed case of study. Proposed piece consists in a hook that will be
manufactured by 3D printing, and which design is wanted to be optimized in terms of resistance, quality and cost. In
order not to condition the optimized final result, and thus make possible the valuation of the considered software, it is
necessary to start from geometries as simple as possible. Main design conditions are indicated below:
 Movements and rotations on the three axes are restricted. The hook will be fixed to a vertical surface.
 A load of 15 Kg is located on the middle of the piece.
 The piece will be manufactured by Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) using ABS filament and a Market
Replicator 2X.

3. Results

Topological optimization of the proposed case of study is studied using each one of the selected software indicated
in Figure 2. For each alternative the analyses is divided in three parts: pre-processor, optimization and post-processor.
Figure 5 resumes graphically the results generated during the optimization process on the selected software.

Fig. 5. Optimization process on different software

 A. García-Domínguez et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 903–909 907
A. García-Domínguez, J. Claver, M.A. Sebastián / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000 5

In the pre-processor stage it is not possible to define the same number of nodes for the mesh in each software. Thus,
from a same geometry imported from CATIA V5, the number of nodes is defined by the default settings of the
corresponding optimization software. Thus, main aspects such as format of the archive, units, type of elements, number
of nodes or elements defined on the model, load conditions and support conditions, are defined for each case.
In the same way, solver configuration is described, including the time of the process, optimization objective,
restrictions, variables and the number of iterations. Optimization objective is focused on obtaining maximum
resistance with as less material as possible. Each software use different algorithms with different variables, so this
process starts from different variables in each case.
Finally, obtained optimization results are shown and compared. And when it is possible, the exportable model for
3D printing is included and analysed. As shown in Figure 5, only two of the analysed software offer this possibility:
Optistruct (Altair) and Millpede (Grasshopper). Table 1 shows the 3D printing conditions established for both
alternatives in order to compare the results and the optimization process in each case. From both software the models
are exported to Cura 15.04, a g-code generation software needed for subsequent manufacturing stage by 3D printing.

Table 1. 3D printing conditions using Cura 15.04.

QUALITY OPTIONS (MEDIUM)
Layer height 0.2
Initial layer thickness 0.3
Initial layer line width 100%
Shell thickness 1
Enable retraction Yes
Speed 50mm/s
Distance 4.5mm
FILL OPTIONS
Bottom/Top thickness 0.6
Fill density 50%
SPEED AND TEMPERATURE
Printing speed 50mm/s
Travel speed 150mm/s
Bottom layer speed 20mm/s
Other speeds From printing speed
Printing temperature 230ºC
Bed temperature 110ºC
Enable cooling fan Activated
Minimal layer time 5seg
SUPPORTS
Support type Everywhere
Platform adhesión type Raft
FILAMENT
Diameter 1.75mm
Flow 100%

Then, considering only the two software which allow to export the optimized models to 3D printing compatible
models, main aspects of interest are compared. Figure 6 resumes graphically the results obtained.
908
6 A. García-Domínguez
A. García-Domínguez, et al. / Procedia
J. Claver, M.A. Sebastián Manufacturing
/ Procedia 13 (2017)
Manufacturing 903–909
00 (2017) 000–000

Fig. 6. 3D printing results comparison

The volume reduction obtained using Millipede (Grasshopper) is higher than using Optistruct (Altair). The number
of nodes, both initial and final, is much smaller for Millipede (Grasshopper). Although this has not influence on
optimization times, it is of importance if work flow want to be defined for further analysis. The simpler the mesh is
and the less the number of nodes are, the easier it will be working with the geometry of the piece and incorporating
further criteria to the analysis.
Using the software Cura 15.04 and the conditions indicated in Table 1, manufacturing times are compared. As
indicated in Figure 6 the difference between both alternatives is of one hour. Thus, Millipede (Grasshopper) achieves
a reduction in time of 20.7%. The amount of material used has a direct impact on manufacturing cost. In this sense,
Figure 6 shows that Millipede (Grasshopper) solution is 34% cheaper than Optistruct (Altair).

4. Conclusions

The study developed in this work allows an initial identification of a lot of software of interest in the field of
optimization and additive manufacturing, which are of interest for further works. Then Initial criteria of selection are
defined and exposed, and a first screening is done selecting the ones more appropriated for the objectives of a particular
later work. Selected software are compared through different stages by using a case of study common to all them. And
the results obtained identify Millipede (Grasshopper) as the most interesting alternative from the ones identified.
Selection process applied allows to identify the most appropriated tool for the particular established objectives. But,
at the same time, different software are characterized and valued, which is of interest for further works with different
objectives.
By considering the selection criteria applied and the results obtained from the proposed case of study, Millipede
(Grasshopper) was selected as work tool for a subsequent work for the development of an optimization methodology
for 3D printing. This initial selection stage was key in the success of this further development.

Acknowledgements

This work comes from the activities developed whithin the framework of the doctoral thesis of the first author,
which is being done in the Escuela Internacional de Doctorado de la Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
(International School of Doctorate of the National University of Distance Education). Thus, the authors wants to thank
the support provided by this entity.
 A. García-Domínguez et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 13 (2017) 903–909 909
A. García-Domínguez, J. Claver, M.A. Sebastián / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2017) 000–000 7

References

[1] K.V. Wong, A. Hernández. A review of additive manufacturing, ISRN Mechanical Engineering. Vol. 2012, Article ID 208760, 10 pages, 2012.
[2] J. Romano, L, Ladani and M. Sadowski. Thermal Modeling of laser based additive manufacturing processes within common materials. Procedia
Manufacturing. Vol 1, 238 – 250, 2015.
[3] R. D´Aveni. The 3D printing revolution, Harvard Business Review. vol. 93 (5), 40-48, 2015.
[4] N. Gardan. Knowledge Management for Topological Optimization Integration in Additive Manufacturing, International Journal of
Manufacturing Engineering. Vol. 2014, Article ID 356256, 9 pages, 2014.
[5] Y. Zhang, A. Bernard, R. Kumar, R. Harik. Evaluating the Design for Additive Manufacturing: A Process Planning Perspective, Procedia CIRP,
vol. 21, pp 144-150, 2014.
[6] T. Zegard, G. H. Paulino. Bridging topology optimization and additive manufacturing. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Volume
53(1), pp 175–192, 2016
[7] D. Brackett, I. Ashcroft, R. Hague, Topology optimization for additive manufacturing, Proceedings of the 24th Solid Freeform Fabrication
Symposium (SFF‫׳‬11), Austin (USA), 2013.
[8] M. Langelaar. Topology optimization of 3D self-supporting structures for additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing, Volume 12, Part
A, pp 60–70, 2016.
[9] V.G. Sundararajan. Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing of Customized Meso-Structures using Homogenization and Parametric
Smoothing Functions. Thesis. University of Texas, 2010.
[10] M. Tomlin, J. Meyer. Topology Optimization of an Additive Layer Manufactured (ALM) Aerospace Part, Proceedings of the 7th Altair CAE
Technology Conference, 2011.
[11] Gang-Won Jang, Kyung Joo Kim, Yoon Young Kim. Integrated topology and shape optimization software for compliant MEMS mechanism
design, Advances in Engineering Software, 39(1), pp 1–14, 2008.
[12] A. García-Domínguez, A.M. Camacho, J. Claver and M.A. Sebastián. Valoración de la incorporación de experiencias aplicativas de impresión
3D en la docencia de materias vinculadas a distintos escenarios productivos. Proceedings of the XXIV CUIEET. Cádiz (Spain), 2016.
[13] H. Thomas, M. Zhou, U. Schramm. Issues of commercial optimization software development, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,
vol. 23(2), pp 97–110, 2002.
[14] W. Blattman. Generating CAD parametric features based on topology optimization results. Thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Birgham Young University. 2008.
[15] A. Sheffer and A. Ungor, Efficient Adaptive Meshing of Parametric Models, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering,
vol.1(4), 366- 375, 2001.
[16] H. Park, K.H. Lee. A new parametric control method for freeform mesh models, Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, vol. 27
(3), pp 313–320, 2005.
[17] A. Clarich, R. Russo, M. Carriglo. Multi-objective optimization with modeFRONTIER interfaces for ANSA and metaPOST. 4th ANSA &
µETA International Conference.
[18] A. García-Domínguez. Metodología para la optimización del diseño de piezas para la fabricación con impresión 3D. Tesina Fin de Máster.
UNED. 2015.