Topological optimization study result

Assignment 2: Design for Additive Manufacturing

Abstract
This report is based on the comparison between the traditional machining method and additive manufacturing method for Multipurpose tool. This tool was analyzed using the finite element analysis for simulating the physical phenomena such as stress, strain and displacement on the part which helped in optimizing the design of the part. Then the part was optimized using topological optimization which helped in reducing the waste material and making the product cheaper and lighter. However, after analyzing a cost reduction of 92% was achieved and 50% of the material was removed from each part. Power consumption also reduced to 73% which will result in a breakeven point earlier than comparing with another method.

6.2.1) Cost Comparison of Traditional and Additive Manufacturing: ..................... 31 6.2.2) Cost Break down per product: ........................................................................ 33 6.2.3) Build Cost Model .............................................................................................. 33 6.3) Safety Analysis: ...................................................................................................... 34 6.3.1) Traditional Manufacturing: .............................................................................. 34 6.3.2) Additive Manufacturing: .................................................................................. 34 6.4) Environmental Analysis ......................................................................................... 35 6.4.1) Traditional Manufacturing Process: ............................................................... 35 6.4.2) Additive Manufacturing Process: ................................................................... 35 Chapter 7: Break-Even Analysis and ROI ........................................................................ 36 Chapter 8: Sustainability Quantification for Traditional and Topological Optimization ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Chapter 9: Risk and mitigation......................................................................................... 38 Chapter 10: Conclusion .................................................................................................... 40 Chapter 11: Bibliography.................................................................................................. 41 Websites : ...................................................................................................................... 41 Journals : ....................................................................................................................... 45 Books : ........................................................................................................................... 45

List of Figure:

Figure 18 – Multipurpose Tool
Figure 19 – 3d Multipurpose Tool
Figure 20 – STL file in Fusion 360
F Figure 21 – 13 Parts in MJF 4200 Build Figure 22 – 50 Parts in MJF 4200 Build Figure 23 – 100 Parts in MJF 4200 Build Figure 24 – PA 12 Multipurpose Tool Figure 25 – MJF4200 Printing Process Figure 26 – Time Comparison
Figure 27 – Cost Analysis
Figure 28 – Cost Breakdown
Figure 29 – Environmental Impact

24
25
25
26
26
27
27
28
30
32
33
35

List of Tables:

Graph No Graph 1 – Material Tensile Strength Comparison Graph 2 – Material Cost Comparison Graph 3 – Time Analysis	Page No 12

Chapter 1: Introduction

Spartan system is looking for an optimal method for manufacturing multipurpose tool that will be sustainable, cheap and strong which can be used in different engineering sectors.

Chapter 2: Part Selection

2.1) Selection of Product
The multipurpose tool is the requirement of the spartan systems Company. Initially, the customer wants 100 parts within a month. Later on, the order will be doubled based on the quality and cost of the product. Dimensions of 2d drawing are in centimetres.

The material should be cheap and strong,
The material should have a High tensile and High flexural Modulus,
Need 100 Parts within a month,
The material should be PA 12,
The material should be able to withstand the high temperature at least 60°C, The material should have a higher heat deflection temperature,

Figure 2 – Laser Cutting Vs Water Jet Cutting (Sculpeto, 2021)

3.1.1) Comparison of Current Machining Process:

-----------------	Laser Cutting	Water Jet Cutting
Manufacturing	Uses Laser to cut Material	Uses Water stream to cut
Technique	Uses Laser to cut Material	Material
Operation	Engrave as well as cut	Only cuts material
Operation	material	Only cuts material
Hazard	Heat Affected Zone	Delamination

Precision	Much more	Less Precise
Post Processing	Yes	Yes
Cost of 100 Pieces	8500AED	15000AED
	Low	High
	High Quality	Low Quality
Risk	Low Risk	High Risk
Materials	Metallics, Plastics, fiber
Materials	glass and fabrics.
	$20/Hour	$30/Hour
Material Burn	Yes	No
Minimum cutting slit	0.15mm	0.5mm
	3 to 10mm	10 to 50mm
	0.05mm	0.2mm
Tolerance	0.05mm	0.2mm
	20 to 70 inches	15 Inches
	per minute	Per-minute

Currently, the customer is using laser cutting for manufacturing multipurpose tool because it is cheaper and faster than water jet cutting. Laser cutting also gives a precise detail that is not possible with water jet cutting.


		5 minutes
Input the G-Code into the machine
Build Preparation	20 minutes

Post Processing	10 hour

END

Based on the customer’s requirement similar material to nylon are considered. Material comparison is shown below:

Table 2 – Material Selection

	Tensile			Material Cost for 1000g (AED)
	strength
	(MPa)	(%)
MJF	48	20	1.70	66
FDM	45	15	1.65	77
SLA	22	6	1.63	80

	48	45

	30

22
20

MJF PA 12	ABS Resin

Material Cost Comparisison for 1000g 90

Material Cost IAED)		66	77	80



	40
	30

Nylon PA12	PA	ABS Resin

Comment:

From the above chart, it can be seen that based on customer’s requirement MJF PA12 will be the best-suited material because it is cheaper as compared to other materials and nylon PA12 also have a great Tensile strength which is important for the multipurpose tool strength.

-----------------	Multi jet Fusion		Material Extrusion	SLS
Dimensional Accuracy	±0.3mm	±0.15mm	±0.5mm	±0.2mm
				165 × 165 × 320mm
Layer Thickness	70-100 microns	25-100 microns	50-400 microns	100 microns
	Powder Bed Fusion	SLA	FFF
Printer		M2 Printer	Ultimaker S3
Manufacturer	HP	Carbon	Ultimaker	Formlabs
	0.8 mm	0.5 mm		2.0 mm
	Nylon PA 12	SLA PA	ABS	SLS PA
	No	Yes	Yes	No
Strength	Low priced Material

Weakness
Common Application	Automotive, Medical and Electrical.		Electronics housing, jig and fixtures,
	Powder	Resin	Filament	Powder
Post Processing	Tumble Smoothing and Surface Finishing		Surface finish, polishing, gap filling, epoxy coating	Support Removal and surface smoothing.
Minimum Wall thickness	1mm	0.5mm	0.8mm	2.0mm
Minimum Hole size	1mm	0.5mm	2.0mm	1.5mm

Comment:

Start

Create a 3d Drawing 8 hour

		5 minutes
		5 minutes
36 minutes	Build Preparation
36 minutes	3D Printing of 100 Pieces
3 hour	Post Processing	6 hour
	C
	Quality Assurance
	END

Figure 7 – Meshed Multipurpose tool

4.1.1) Stress Result:

From the below Displacement result it can be seen that the tool can have a deflection of 4mm near the bottle opener and circle. So, these areas should have material left after topological optimization.

Figure 9 – Displacement Result

4.2) Topological Optimization:

Figure 13 – Preserve region

	Result	Weight Reduction
		Weight Reduction
		(Grams)
Percentage		(Grams)
0 %

	Mass Ratio: 53.72% Approx. Mass: 7 g

	Result	Weight Reduction
		Weight Reduction
		(Grams)
		(Grams)
50%		Mass Ratio: 50.60% Approx. Mass: 6 g