Multi-Material Topology Optimization: A Practical Approach and Application

Roper, Stephen; Li, Daozhong; Florea, Vlad; Woischwill, Christopher; Kim, Il Yong

doi:10.4271/2018-01-0110

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Analysis of the physical components shows similar strain marks along the primary load path between the three-bolt points and the bolted revolute joint on the inboard side of the control arm; indicating that the use of a semi-dense infill region did not disturb the load path. The same load path can also be seen in Figure 10a from the topology output by Roper et al (2018).…”

Section: Modeling Control Armmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Similar to the prototype racing wheel, the control arm test case highlights the ability to use semi-dense infill styles in assembly modeling scenarios where components are loaded beyond a self-supporting state; sufficient to support dynamic testing of the model. A modified tensile rig stretched the control arm, first optimized by Roper et al (2018), replicating a tensile force from an inward turn. A three-bolt pattern on the outboard end of the control arm was fixed through the bolts to the base while the inboard revolute joints were stretched at a constant strain rate.…”

Section: Modeling Control Armmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Additive manufacturing infill optimization for automotive 3D-printed ABS components

Schmitt

Mehta

Kim

2020

RPJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Lightweighting of components in the automotive industry is a prevailing trend influenced by both consumer demand and government regulations. As the viability of additively manufactured designs continues to increase, traditionally manufactured components are continually being replaced with 3D-printed parts. The purpose of this paper is to present experimental results and design considerations for 3D-printed acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) components with non-solid infill sections, addressing a large gap in the literature. Information published in this paper will guide engineers when designing fused deposition modeling (FDM) ABS parts with infill regions. Design/methodology/approach Uniaxial tensile tests and three-point bend tests were performed on 12 different build configurations of 20 samples. FDM with ABS was used as the manufacturing method for the samples. Failure strength and elastic modulus were normalized on print time and specimen mass to quantify variance between configurations. Optimal infill configurations were selected and used in two automotive case study examples. Findings Results obtained from the uniaxial tensile tests and three-point bend tests distinctly showed that component strength is highly influenced by the infill choice selected. Normalized results indicate that solid, double dense and triangular infill, all with eight contour layers, are optimal configurations for component regions experiencing high stress, moderate stress and low stress, respectively. Implementation of the optimal infill configurations in automotive examples yielded equivalent failure strength without normalization and significantly improved failure strength on a print time and mass normalized index. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to experimentally determine and quantify optimal infill configurations for FDM ABS printed parts. Published data in this paper are also of value to engineers requiring quantitative material properties for common infill configurations.

show abstract

Section: Modeling Control Armmentioning

confidence: 55%

Section: Modeling Control Armmentioning

confidence: 99%

Additive manufacturing infill optimization for automotive 3D-printed ABS components

Schmitt

Mehta

Kim

2020

RPJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With MMTO, the added design freedom always yields TO results of similar or superior performance compared to the standard SMTO using SIMP. Several researchers verified this by comparing the performance of SMTO and MMTO for industry problems 3,13‐16 . For the MMTO method described above, M − 1 design vectors are required to solve an M phase MMTO problem, which includes one void phase; or m design vectors for an m material MMTO problem.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Several researchers verified this by comparing the performance of SMTO and MMTO for industry problems. 3,[13][14][15][16] For the MMTO method described above, M − 1 design vectors are required to solve an M phase MMTO problem, which includes one void phase; or m design vectors for an m material MMTO problem. The size of each design vector is equal to the total number of finite elements in the model, n. Thus, the total number of design variables in an m material MMTO are equal to the product of m design vectors and n finite elements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Material interface control in multi‐material topology optimization using pseudo‐cost domain method

Shah

Pamwar

Sangha

et al. 2020

Numerical Meth Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent drive for producing lightweight and high performance designs on reduced timelines has promoted the need for computational design generation tools such as Multi-Material Topology Optimization (MMTO). However, MMTO has drawn some industry skepticism as it assumes different material elements to be perfectly fused together. To address this concern, in this article, a novel pseudo-cost domain (PCD) method is proposed which mathematically determines individual material interfaces in MMTO solutions. The proposed methodology employs a user defined joint cost model to weigh the distinct material interfaces relative to each other. An innovative approach to tailor the MMTO design considering the relative cost of each material interface is presented. The proposed methodology can consider any number of materials and their respective interfaces, and it is defined in such a way that increasing the number of materials has minimal effect on computational time. The methodology is formulated in a smooth and differentiable manner and the sensitivity expressions required by gradient-based optimization solvers are presented. A series of example problems are provided to demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed methodology.

show abstract

“…The MMTO framework was applied to weight minimization problems for lightweight design by Li and Kim . Roper et al and Florea et al of Kim's group have demonstrated the efficacy of MMTO when compared to SMTO for real‐world design problems. The added design freedom provided by multiple material phases typically yields structures of similar or superior performance compared to the SMTO SIMP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous single‐loop multimaterial and multijoint topology optimization

Florea

Pamwar

Sangha

et al. 2019

Numerical Meth Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary As the aerospace and automotive industries continue to strive for efficient lightweight structures, topology optimization (TO) has become an important tool in this design process. However, one ever‐present criticism of TO, and especially of multimaterial (MM) optimization, is that neither method can produce structures that are practical to manufacture. Optimal joint design is one of the main requirements for manufacturability. This article proposes a new density‐based methodology for performing simultaneous MMTO and multijoint TO. This algorithm can simultaneously determine the optimum selection and placement of structural materials, as well as the optimum selection and placement of joints at material interfaces. In order to achieve this, a new solid isotropic material with penalization‐based interpolation scheme is proposed. A process for identifying dissimilar material interfaces based on spatial gradients is also discussed. The capabilities of the algorithm are demonstrated using four case studies. Through these case studies, the coupling between the optimal structural material design and the optimal joint design is investigated. Total joint cost is considered as both an objective and a constraint in the optimization problem statement. Using the biobjective problem statement, the tradeoff between total joint cost and structural compliance is explored. Finally, a method for enforcing tooling accessibility constraints in joint design is presented.

show abstract

Multi-Material Topology Optimization: A Practical Approach and Application

Cited by 20 publications

References 16 publications

Additive manufacturing infill optimization for automotive 3D-printed ABS components

Additive manufacturing infill optimization for automotive 3D-printed ABS components

Material interface control in multi‐material topology optimization using pseudo‐cost domain method

Simultaneous single‐loop multimaterial and multijoint topology optimization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About