Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

ABSTRACT
Topology optimization is an optimization method that employs mathematical tools
to optimize material distribution in a part to be designed. Earlier developments of
topology optimization considered conventional manufacturing techniques that have
limitations in producing complex geometries. This has hindered the topology
optimization efforts not to fully be realized. With the emergence of additive
manufacturing (AM) technologies, the technology that builds a part layer upon a layer
directly from three dimensional (3D) model data of the part, however producing complex
shape geometry is no longer an issue. Realization of topology optimization through AM
provides full design freedom for the design engineers.
This report focuses on topologically optimized design approach for additive
manufacturing with a case study on lightweight design of jet engine bracket. The study
result shows that topology optimization is a powerful design technique to reduce the
weight of a product while maintaining the design requirements if additive manufacturing
is considered.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 1

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Topology optimization is a mathematical tool to make optimized material
distribution in a part to be designed. By doing so, it gives us a part topology that is more
natural and more complex. There is different topology optimization approaches
developed during the last three decades. For instance, set level approach, homogenization
method, SIMP method and density approach are among the main topology optimization
techniques. The initial topology optimization developments considered the conventional
manufacturing techniques that are either subtractive or formative. These conventional
manufacturing systems have limitations in producing complex shape geometries as they
have different manufacturing constraints. The birth of additive manufacturing gave
another bright future opportunity for topology optimization as with additive
manufacturing (AM) technologies; producing complex shape geometry is achievable.
This is because, in AM, the systems do not require any tooling for producing a part. For
this and other similar capabilities of the technologies, topology optimization and additive
manufacturing are considered ideal couples.
To implement AM technology in production of functional parts, advances in
materials technology and design optimization are considered as the key areas of current
research. Regarding the last mentioned research challenge, a design approach that can
directly transfer the design concept of the engineer to a produced part without any due
consideration for manufacturing constraint and enable optimum utilization of the part
under loading is sought. If proper and efficient algorithms are developed, topology
optimization techniques can play a key role in the future development of AM technology.
The role of topology optimization in AM to design a lightweight product [5].

1.1 Topology Optimization

Topology optimization is one of the structural optimization techniques that
optimizes the distribution of material within a specified design space for a given loading
and boundary conditions while fulfilling the performance requirements of the product.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 2

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

Most of the topology optimization techniques are carried out by collective use of
Computer Aided Design (CAD) concept, Finite Element Analysis (FEA) concept and
different optimization algorithms in consideration of different manufacturing techniques
as shown on the topology optimization process on Figure 1.1 [4]. The use of CAD in
topology optimization is to make a rough/initial model of the product to be optimized,
whereas FEA is used to see the distribution of stresses and displacements throughout the
product. The topology optimization is performed to remove the areas of the part that are
not sufficiently supporting the applied loads and not undergoing significant deformation
and thus not contributing to the overall performance of the part.
Based on the design problem requirement, different optimization algorithms are
used to remove the portion of the material in the product that are not supporting the
applied load. Moreover, the topology optimization is done to satisfy certain design
objectives and maintain the design constraints. Based on the problem at hand, the
objectives might be to minimize the compliance of the part, i.e. to maximize the stiffness
of the part, as compliance is the inverse of the stiffness; the constraints could be the
maximum allowable deformation, the maximum mass fraction and so on.
Topology optimization generates the optimal shape of a mechanical structure.
Given a predefined domain in the 2D/3D space with boundary conditions and external
loads, the intention is to distribute a percentage of the initial mass on the given domain
such that a global measure takes a minimum. Without any further decisions and guidance
of the user, the method will form the structural shape thus providing a first idea of an
efficient geometry. The design space is discretized by the finite element method to
represent the material distribution and at the same time the structural behavior.

Figure 1.1 : Topology Optimization [4]

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 3

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

Sr. Title Author Year Findings

No.
1. Support Structure Deckard 2016 Objective is to find the best shape
Constrained Topology that will result in the best solution.
Optimization For Parameters of shapes are
Additive Manufacturing dimensions of the optimized parts
or a set of variables describing the
shape.
2. Overview Of Current Harryson 2009 Rapid prototyping are processes by
Additive Manufacturing which components are fabricated
Technologies And directly from computer models by
Selected Applications selectively curing, depositing
materials in successive layers.
3. Topology Optimization Melissa 2018 It was found in each case that
for Additive Orme significant weight savings occurred
Manufacturing as an in the topologically optimized
Enabler for Light version.
Weight
4. Usefulness Of Non- Sigmund 2011 It is a non-gradient method, and
gradient Approaches In thus eliminates difficulties emerged
Topology Optimization from analytical derivations and
computational implementation of
gradients.
5. Manufacturing Yassine 2017 Combine topology optimization
Comparison of methods with laser fusion
conception methods production methods could provide a
using industrial codes rational tool for obtaining parts.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 4

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

Sr. Title Author Year Findings

No.
6. A multi-object topology Luke 2019 A new methodology which
optimization approach Ryan mathematically considers additive
for cost and time manufacturing cost and build time
minimization in alongside the structural
additive manufacturing performance of a component during
the topology optimization
procedure.
7. Self supporting Ming Li 2017 The usage of convolution operator
topology optimization and the associated numerical
for additive techniques enables the self
manufacturing supporting structure to be reliable
generated with high efficiency and
robustness.
8. Topology Optimization John 2017 The development of the
for additive Wiley implementation of constraints
manufacturing involved for structures as well as
specially additive manufacturing
9. Additive manufacturing Wayne 2019 A systematic classification is
Thomas developed mapping the critical
attributes of additive manufacturing
and the typical requirements.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 5

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

2.1 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

Topology optimization is a powerful design approach to save time, material and
energy that are not economically achievable with any other manufacturing process if
explored to its maximum by considering additive manufacturing. Additive manufacturing
(also referred to as 3D printing) is an emerging manufacturing technology that has the
potential to outpace or replace the conventional manufacturing approaches. AM is defined
as “process of joining materials to make objects from 3Dmodel data, usually layer
upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing methodologies” [7]. Additive
manufacturing technology has unique capabilities; shape complexity (produces any shape
that can be designed), materials complexity (processes multi-material products),
hierarchical complexity (products internal structure ranging from meso scale to macro
scale) and functional complexity (produces multiple parts as a single functional product).
Topology optimization has started long time ago with consideration of the existing
manufacturing techniques. However, the existing techniques did not benefit sufficiently
from this design approach because there are manufacturing constraints for the optimized
designs. The optimized topology could not be produced, as there are limitations on the
geometric complexity to produce with the existing manufacturing techniques [11].
In product development process, lightweight design has huge benefits including
reduction in material consumption, reduction in processing and energy consumption. The
potential approach to reduce the weight of a product is to use the topology optimization
with additive manufacturing techniques as reported elsewhere [9]. Topology optimization
can be employed for new product design or redesigning of an already existing product so
that lightweight product can be obtained while maintaining its functional requirements.
Topology optimized lightweight design can be realized by using different materials
internal structures: solid structures or cellular structures. Topology optimization with
additive manufacturing is considered to redesign a bracket to reduce its weight from 70
gm to around 42 gm, which is about 40% reduction. A similar opportunity in re-designing
a bracket with more lightweight that was manufactured using laser additive
manufacturing is reported in [13]. These kinds of geometries are very difficult to
manufacture using the traditional techniques but they can be realized with additive
manufacturing.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 6

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

Designers at ARUP in Netherlands have also explored the opportunity of topology

optimization for additive manufacturing by redesigning a steel node for a tensegrity
structure . In their research, they found out that the topology-optimized design for
additive manufacturing could enable the weight reduction of the node from 20 kg to 5 kg
(75% reduction) without compromising the functional and structural performance of the
product. Lightweight topology optimized automotive control arm design with lattice
structure is investigated as another opportunity to be produced using additive
manufacturing [8].
Figure 2.1 shows topology optimized design process. First, the original CAD
design is drawn in 3D-CAD modeling software. The original design is then structurally
analyzed with the given loading conditions to see the stress and displacement distribution.
Based on the stress and displacement distribution, the topology optimization removes
material from areas that does not significantly contribute to carry the applied loads. Based
on the topology optimization result the part is remodeled in CAD software. The new
CAD model is then verified with FEA to carry the loads and to satisfy the design
requirements. If the model satisfies the verification physical model verification is done
using any of physical prototyping methods. If not the remodeling is done again until
verification is done. The final design is then prepared for the final additive
manufacturing. The process is employed in the next section, case study, to redesign a jet
engine bracket to show the potential of topology optimized design for additive
manufacturing [11].

Original Topology Re-modelling Design Final

3D-CAD Optimization 3D-CAD Verification Design
Model Model

Figure 2.1: Topology optimized design process [11]

2.2 Types of Finite Element Method for Topology Optimization

Topology optimization can be implemented through the use of finite element
methods for the analysis and optimization techniques based on Moving asymptotes,
Genetic algorithms. A brief discussion on these methods is given below.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 7

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

2.2.1 Method of Moving Asymptotes (MMA)

Method of Moving Asymptotes was developed by Svanberg175. MMA uses a
special type of convex approximation. For each step of the iterative process, a strictly
convex approximating sub-problem is generated and solved. Moving asymptotes control
the generation of sub problems and stabilize and speed up the convergence.

2.2.2 Optimality Criteria Method

This method was proposed by Prager for solving continuous and discrete systems.
This is based on finding suitable criteria for specialized design conditions and developing
iterative procedure to find optimum design.

2.2.3 Sequential Convex Programming

The objective function is approximated by a uniformly convex function, inequality
constraints by convex functions, and equality constraints by linear functions. Thus,
optimization problem is replaced by a separable, convex, and nonlinear sub-problem
which is much easier to solve. Numerical results show the advantages of an interior
point method for solving the sub-problem. It is possible to reduce the size of the internally
generated linear systems, where the major part of the computing is spent to m, which is
favorable when m is small compared to n as is the case for topology optimization
problems.

2.2.4 Level Set Method

The level-set method is a numerical method for finding the shapes.
Numerical computations can be done on grids with curves and surfaces using level set
method. This approach is called the Eulerian approach. Also, the level-set method
makes it very easy to follow shapes that change topology, for example when a shape
splits in two, develops holes, or the inverse of these operations. For modeling time
varying objects Level-set method a great tool.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 8

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

2.2.5 Genetic Algorithm

The GA operates on a representation of the geometry and the simplest form
of representation is a (binary) bit-array representation which defines the geometry by
an array of ‘on’ and ‘off’ bits (i.e. ones and zeroes) that correspondingly maps onto the
design space.

2.2.6 Morphological Genetic Algorithm

To overcome the shortcomings of checkerboard patterns and the lack of control
over structural connectivity, a morphological representation had been developed. In this
method chromosome representation and a set of genetic operators are designed to
increase the geometric characteristics of optimally good designs in the process of
evolution.
In the morphological representation, the structure is characterized by a set of
input/output locations. Typical support points or the load points are the input locations
and the points where the structural behavior is of importance are the output locations.
More than two input/locations must be defined in every structure. This is because every
structure must have parts that interact with its surroundings by way of at least one fixed
support region (input location) and one loading region (output location).

2.3 Holistic Process Flow

In order to Additively Manufacture components that are worthy of spacecraft or
aircraft flight is necessary that they be created with reliable and repeatable mechanical
and material properties. To this end, a holistic process flow has been developed and
established to ensure reliable and repeatable AM parts. The holistic process flow, which
is illustrated in Figure 2.2 includes: candidate part selection; topology optimization for
Additive Manufacturing, including AM design considerations (e.g., support structure
removal, powder removal, minimization of residual stresses through support structure
design, and part design); finite element modeling for analytic verification; AM fabrication
of the artifacts and in-process testing coupons; and, final verification at both coupon and
component levels. With two separate feedback loops, the holistic process-flow includes
verification steps that are incorporated to insure that: (a) the optimized design can also be

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 9

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

withstand the specified loading conditions (first feedback loop) and (b) the mechanical
integrity and performance of the manufactured component is suitable for conditions in
which it will be employed (second feedback loop). The process flow is discussed in more
detail elsewhere [9].

Figure 2.2: Holistic process flow [9]

2.3.1 Candidate Part Selection

Because a component can be additively manufactured does not mean that it is
necessarily suitable. To benefit from Additive Manufacturing, added value should be
found in terms of reducing weight, manufacturing lead time, part consolidation, added
functionality, added complexity, or combating obsolescence. Not all flight components
are suitable for Additive Manufacturing. The case studies that are discussed in this
chapter have been identified as suitable candidates for Additive Manufacturing due to the
fact that they will be significantly lighter in weight than their subtractive counterparts,
and will be fabricated on a rapid timescale (concept to validation in eight weeks). The test
cases presented have been purposely selected because they have the potential to
experience significant weight reductions over their nominal counterparts. Not all AM
topologically optimized designs will experience the same weight reduction.

2.3.2 Topology Optimization for AM

The discipline of topology optimization has been used in industry for over two
decades and it describes a mathematical method to determine the optimum
distribution of material in design space for a given set of loading and boundary
conditions. Early application of topology optimization was found on General Motors
Power train for under hood brackets and was utilized with subtractive manufacturing.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 10

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

Until recently, manufacturing constraints limited the utilization of topology

optimization because conventional manufacturing could not always produce a
topologically optimize component. The advent of AM, however, has revealed renewed
interest in the discipline of topology optimization, because many topologically optimized
components can now be made with AM that were not possible otherwise.
Because the topology optimization exercise removes material from all locations
where it is not necessary to support the specific loads or satisfy specific boundary
conditions, resulting components often contain structures that are not constant in cross
section and resemble tree branches or bones, and hence, are termed ‘bionic’ or ‘organic’.
The fabrication of hollow structures, structures with internal cooling channels, organic,
bionic shaped structures, and structures filled with lattice elements cannot be made via
Additive Manufacturing.

2.3.3 FEM Design Verification

All analysis and optimization in this work was performed with Altair’s
Hyperworks 14.0, which uses Hypermesh as pre-processor, OptiStruct as solver, and
Hyperview for post-processing. A convergence study was not carried out in this work;
however, the results are validated through a material test campaign that is the final step of
the holistic process flow and is described in subsequent sections of this work. The
material is Additively Manufactured aluminum alloy AlSi10Mg, which is assumed to
behave as a linear elastic material. The material properties from previous AM material
characterization studies have been employed in this effort.
The mesh size in the analysis has been constrained to be relatively small in order
to properly assess stress concentrations (approximately 1 million elements and around
300,000 Nodes, with a mesh size of approx. 1.2–2.5 mm [47–98 thousandths of an inch]).
The AM parts are modeled with solid elements (tetra).
Due to the fact that Additive Manufacturing is still a relatively new process and it
lacks a heritage database from which to draw, highly conservative design allowable were
used. Moreover, in addition to the usual safety factors employed for developing space
products, an AM Conservatism Factor of 1.5 has also been incorporated, which allows for
a ‘comfort zone’ to compensate for its lack of heritage data.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 11

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

2.3.4 Additive Manufacturing

All of the components in this paper were fabricated on an EOS M290 machine
housed at Morf 3D in El Segundo, California, which has a maximum power output of 370
W, and were built with a 30-micron layer thickness. The build plate was elevated to 165C
in an effort to mitigate internal residual stresses and to eliminate the need for subsequent
heat treatment, which reduces the mechanical values considerably. The material used was
virgin AlSi10Mg powder characterized with D10, D50, and D90 values of 22.7, 41.8, and
69.8 microns, respectively. For clarity, D10 is the diameter at which 10% of the powder’s
mass is comprised of particles with a diameter less than this value, and so on for D50 and
D90. The additive manufacturing environment was flushed with argon gas. Materialise
Magics software was used to prepare the data and to generate support structures.
EOSPRINT software was used to design and optimize build parameters.
Five Vertical and five horizontal tensile coupons, three density cubes, and three
thin walled hermetically sealed powder archival components were added to each build
plate along with the desired artifacts.

2.3.5 Mechanical and Material Verification

The next step in the holistic process flow is testing. None of the components in
this work required subsequent heat treatment due to the fact that they were built with an
elevated build plate temperature of 165C. Hence the coupons were cut from the build
plate with a wire EDM, and were sent directly to the testing laboratory. The co-fabricated
coupons are tested for Ultimate Tensile Strength, Yield Strength, Elongation, and density,
and their values must be greater than or equal to the acceptance allowables imposed by
the customer.
After removing the components from the build plate with the wire EDM, their
support structures were removed, and all accessible surfaces were media blasted. Further,
attachment points and mating surfaces were machined to achieve the tolerances required
for their function. The components or component assembly was subjected to vibration
testing consisting of a combination of the following: low level sine, sine dwell, and
random vibration.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 12

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

In addition to structurally testing the components, each component was scanned

via Computed Tomography (CT) in order to identify the internal pores, inclusion, or
cracks within the resolution of the CT scanner. Additionally, a 3D model of the fabricated
components was generated with the CT scan data and compared to the nominal CAD file
from which it was fabricated. A comparison of the two files was used to generate a heat
map illustrating any geometric deviations as compared to the allowable set forth from the
customer.

2.4 Case Study of Jet Engine Bracket

In this study, a jet engine bracket shown in Figure 2.3 is considered as a case
study to show the potential of topology optimized design approach in reducing the weight
of a product if coupled with additive manufacturing [11]. The original bracket is based on
General Electric (GE) design. The bracket is designed to sustain different loading
conditions shown in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.3: Original jet engine bracket [11]

Figure 2.4: Loading conditions and function description of the engine bracket [11]

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 13

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

2.4.1 Analysis of the Original Bracket

Structural finite element analysis is carried out on the original bracket to see the
stress distribution in the part. The contour plots shown in Figure 2.5 show the von Misses
stress distribution for all the load cases in the part. The large areas of the part that are
shown in blue color in the contour plot indicate inefficient use of material. It is very likely
that these areas of the part need material removal as they have negligible effect on the
performance of the part.

Figure 2.5: FEA of original engine bracket [11]

2.4.2 Design Optimization

In this study, the bracket is redesigned using topology optimization design approach
considering four loading conditions. The objective of the study is to reduce the weight of
the bracket while satisfying all the design requirements. Altair Hypemesh 14 Optistruct

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 14

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

commercial software is employed for the topology optimization. The design requirements
for the engine bracket are listed below.
1. The optimized geometry must fit within the original part envelope.
2. The material was Ti-6Al-4V with the assumed yield strength of 904 MPa at the
service temperature (23oC).
3. Minimum material feature size (wall thickness): 1.13 mm.
4. Interface 1: 19 mm diameter pin. The pin was to be considered infinitely stiff for
analysis purposes.
5. Interfaces 2–5: 9.5-24 AS3239-26 machine bolts. Nut faces 10.287 mm max ID
and 14.173 mm min OD. The bolts were to be considered infinitely stiff.

The initial stage of the topology optimization is to divide the part into design (green)
and non-design (yellow) spaces as shown in Figure 2.6. This is to separate the part into
two parts; design space, a space on which the topology optimization is carried out and
non-design space, a space that has nothing to do with the topology optimization and is
unchanged. Furthermore, the non-design space is the part of the object through which, it
is connected to others parts. Both spaces are then meshed using the same tool, Altair
Hypemesh 14 Optistruct commercial software as shown in Figure 2.7. The mesh is done
very fine with element size of 0.25 mm to obtain an even and acceptable materials
distribution throughout the part.

Figure 2.6: Design (green) and non-design (yellow) spaces [11]

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 15

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

Figure 2.7: Meshing of the engine bracket [11]

All the loading conditions and the constraints are then applied on the part through
the non-design spaces. The loads are applied separately on the part through the two
horizontal hole surfaces defined as non-design spaces as shown on Figure 2.8 to make the
part ready for optimization. The torque is applied as two equivalent force couples in
different directions as there was a problem in the software to apply a torque.

Figure 2.8: Loads applied on the engine bracket [11]

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 16

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

The topology optimization tool computes the stress and displacement distribution
on the part for all the loads separately. Based on the stress and displacement distribution,
parts that are supporting fewer loads or not significantly contributing to support the load
are removed resulting in a very natural geometry shown in Figure 2.9 (left). As optimized
the geometry is a very natural rough geometry showing the optimized material layout
throughout the part. Since the initial optimized geometry from the tool is rough and does
not look good aesthetically, remodelling of the part is important. The final design is then
prepared on Autodesk Inventor Professional following the topology optimization as
closely as possible as shown in Figure 2.9 (right).

Figure 2.9: Topology optimized geometry: as optimized (left) and re-modelled final part (right) [11]

The newly designed part will have to sustain the same mechanical load while
fulfilling the same design requirements. The final design has to be verified with the given
design criteria that is the yield strength. The von Misses stress values for all the load
cases should not exceed the yield strength. The structural verification analysis is done on
ANSYS R17 Academic Educational tool. As shown in Figure 2.10 the von Misses
stresses for all the cases are below the yield strength of the material.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 17

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

Figure 2.10: Final engine bracket design stress verification contour plots [11]

The final design satisfies the yielding condition with safety factor from 1.11 to
2.17. The final design is additive manufactured using fused deposition modelling (FDM)
Fortus 450 from Stratasys for the physical design verification as shown in Figure 2.11.
The final design resulted in 65% weight reduction, which is from 2.067 kg original part to
0.72 kg final one.

Figure 2.11: Additive manufactured final engine bracket design [11]

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 18

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

2.5 Benefits of Topology Optimization

1. Freedom of design: Any design and shape can be manufactured by applying

Topology optimization.
2. Elimination of production steps: Less production steps are required to
manufacture the product and finishing step is eliminated.
3. Creating lightweight structures: After applying topology optimization, the
support structure carrying no loads and stress is removed this can ultimately
reduce the size and weight of structures.
4. Reducing time-to-market: No longer does a manufacturer need to wait until
market research is completed to justify tooling investment. By AM an
organization can enter a new market in days, not weeks or months.
5. Better component quality: Components that have intricate parts, especially
small components, can benefit from the additive manufacturing processes.
Typically, components with small moving pieces require strict manufacturing
tolerances and highly controlled assembly processes to reduce the number of
component defects. Using the additive manufacturing technology of today,
manufacturers can print entire components, moving pieces and all, with
extremely precise tolerances. Thus, improving product quality and red
6. It reduces waste production: It generates significantly less waste than
traditional manufacturing methods. For example, a milling machine works by
removing material from a block that is bigger than the product itself will be.
The removed material is usually in the form of chips that cannot be reused and
therefore end up as waste. On the other hand AM works differently. Instead of
removing material, it adds material layer by layer so that only what is required
gets used. In this way, it can reduce material costs and waste by as much as 90
percent.
7. Complexity is free: It actually costs less to print a complex part instead of a
simple cube of the same size. The more complex the faster and cheaper it can
be made through additive manufacturing.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 19

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

2.6 Limitations

1. Slow build rates: Many printers lay down material at a speed of one to five
cubic inches per hour. Depending on the part needed, other manufacturing
processes may be significantly faster.
2. High production costs: Sometimes, parts can be made faster using techniques
other than additive manufacturing, so the extra time can lead to higher costs.
Additionally, high-quality additive manufacturing machines can cost anywhere
from $300,000 to $1.5 million, and materials can cost $100 to $150 per pound.
3. Considerable effort in application design and setting process parameters:
Extensive knowledge of material design and the additive manufacturing
machine itself is required to make quality parts.
4. Requires post-processing: The surface finish and dimensional accuracy may
be lower quality than other manufacturing methods.
5. Discontinuous production process: Parts can only be printed one at a time,
preventing economics of scale.
6. Limited component size/small build volume: In most cases, polymer
products are about 1 cubic yard in size, while metal parts may only be one
cubic foot. While larger machines are available, they will come at a cost.
7. Poor mechanical properties: Layering and multiple interfaces can cause
defects in the product.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 20

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

Conclusion

From the case study, it can be concluded that, topology optimization is a powerful
design concept to reduce the weight of structural products. The reduction of weight saves
huge amount of material and processing energy thus huge amount of money. It also
shows that the capability of topology optimization can be fully utilized with additive
manufacturing techniques, as the manufacturing constraints in the conventional methods
are no longer available. From the case study result, which is 65% weight reduction, it can
also be concluded that topology optimized design for additive manufacturing can reduce
huge portion of the mass thus result in lightweight design.
AM provides a route to physically realize very complex topologies that are
of greater optimality than achievable with traditional manufacturing processes.
Improvements to the efficiency of the topology optimization methods to allow small and
large scale features to coexist without requiring a prohibitive number of design variables
are required. The level set approach appears to offer some potential on this issue where
the design variables are the boundaries rather than the volume. Tools to aid the designer
in handling geometric complexity are also required. It is perhaps unrealistic to expect a
panacea of automatic tools to feature recognize and convert complex topology
meshes into a mathematical CAD form, but this would be very useful. Until there are
further developments in this area, remaining in the mesh form for geometric post-
processing appears to be the only realistic way of retaining the level of complexity in the
design.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 21

 Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing

References

[1] Rozvany G IN 2009 Struct. Multidiscipline. Optim. 37(3) pp 217-237.

[2] Sigmund O and Maute K 2013 Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 48(6) pp.1031-1055.
[3] Chau Le Topshape http://topshape.bm-rd.com/topology-optimization-overview/ Last accessed 13.06.17.
[4] Tomlin M and Meyer J 2011 Proc. of the 7th Altair CAE technology conf.
[5] Arora J 2004 Introduction to optimum design (San Diago- Elsevier Academic Press)
[6] Chang K H 2014 Design Theory and Methods Using CAD/CAE (London- Elsevier Academic Press).
[7] ASTM F2792-12a 2012 Standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies (Withdrawn
2015) (ASTM International- West Conshohocken).
[8] Gibson I, Rosen D W and Stucker B 2014 Additive manufacturing technologies: 3D printing, rapid
prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing (Springer-New York).
[9] Orme,M.;Gschweitl,M.;Ferarri,M.;Vernon,R.;Madera,I.;Yancey,R.;Mouriaux,F.AdditiveManufacturing
of Lightweight, Optimized, Metallic Components Suitable for Space Flight. AIAA J. Spacecr. Rocket.
2017, 54, 1050–1059.
[10] Doubrovski Z, Verlinden J C and Geraedts J M 2011 ASME 2011 Int. Design Engineering Technical
Conf. and Computers and Information in Engineering Conf. pp. 635-646.
[11] Grabcad Community, https://grabcad.com/challenges/ge-jet-engine-bracket-challenge Last accessed
02.08.2017.
[12] Strano G, Hao L, Everson R M and Evans K E 2013 the Int. J. of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology 66 pp. 1247–1254.
[13] Zhu J-H, Zhang W-H and Xia L 2016 Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 23 (4) pp. 595-622.
[14] Brackett D, Ashcroft I and Hague R, 2011 Proc of the solid freeform fabrication symp (Austin).
[15] Klahn C, Leutenecke B and Meboldt M 2014 Procedia CIRP 21 pp. 138-143.
[16] Lindemann C, Reiher T, Jahnke U and Koch R 2015 Rapid Prototyping J 21(2) pp. 216-227.
[17] Buchbinder D, Schleifenbaum H, Heidrich S, Meiners W and Bültmann J 2011 Physics Procedia 12
pp.271-278.

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, MGI-COET, Shegaon Page 22