Próximos SlideShares
Leveraging Geometric Shape Complexity, in Optimal Design for Additive Manufacturing
- 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. 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. 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. 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. 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)
- 6. Aircraft Door Hinge Study 40% Volume Fraction 30% Volume Fraction With draw direction—conventional manufacturing Without hole With hole
- 7. Aircraft Door Hinge Study 40% Volume Fraction 30% Volume Fraction Without draw direction—additive manufacturing
- 8. Aircraft Door Hinge Study Surface Definition using Evolve • MeshNURBS to remove data noise • Complex surfaces—lofts, blends
- 9. New CAD Part Conventional Manufacturing Process • With draw direction constraint • Total mass 6.8 lbs Aircraft Door Hinge Study
- 10. Additive Manufacturing Process • Without draw direction constraint • Total mass 4.6 lbs (-33%) Aircraft Door Hinge Study
- 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. 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. With draw direction—conventional manufacturing Formula Race Car Upright Study Volume Fraction 25% Volume Fraction 35% Volume Fraction 45%
- 14. Formula Race Car Upright Study Without draw direction—additive manufacturing Volume Fraction 25% Volume Fraction 30%
- 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. 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. Formula Race Car Upright Study • Surface modeling in Evolve • Import non- design regions • Trim, blend, edit to get final model
- 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. 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. 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. 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
Entre para ver os comentários