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.
2
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 |
|
---|
List of Tables:
|
|
---|
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,
7
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 | Material | |
Operation | Engrave as well as cut | Only cuts material |
material | ||
Hazard | Heat Affected Zone | Delamination |
Precision | Much more | Less Precise |
---|---|---|
|
Yes | Yes |
|
8500AED | 15000AED |
Low | High | |
High Quality | Low Quality | |
Risk | Low Risk | High Risk |
Materials | Metallics, Plastics, fiber | |
glass and fabrics. | ||
$20/Hour | $30/Hour | |
|
Yes | No |
|
0.15mm | 0.5mm |
3 to 10mm | 10 to 50mm | |
0.05mm | 0.2mm | |
Tolerance | ||
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.
9
5 minutes |
|||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
|||
Build Preparation | 20 minutes | ||
Post Processing | 10 hour | ||
END |
10
Based on the customer’s requirement similar material to nylon are considered. Material comparison is shown below:
Table 2 – Material Selection
Tensile |
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
(MPa) | (%) | ||||
MJF | 48 | 20 | 1.70 | 66 | |
FDM | 45 | 15 | 1.65 | 77 | |
SLA | 22 | 6 | 1.63 | 80 |
11
48 | 45 |
---|
|
---|
22
20
MJF PA 12 | ABS Resin |
---|
Material Cost Comparisison for 1000g 90
|
66 | 77 | 80 | |
---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
|
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 |
|
SLS | |
---|---|---|---|---|
|
±0.3mm | ±0.15mm | ±0.5mm | ±0.2mm |
|
||||
Layer Thickness | 70-100 microns | 25-100 microns | 50-400 microns |
|
Powder Bed Fusion | SLA | FFF | ||
Printer | M2 Printer | Ultimaker S3 | ||
|
HP | Carbon | Ultimaker |
|
0.8 mm | 0.5 mm | 2.0 mm | ||
Nylon PA 12 | SLA PA | ABS | SLS PA | |
No | Yes | Yes | No | |
|
|
|
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Electronics housing, jig and fixtures, |
||
Powder | Resin | Filament | Powder | |
Post Processing | Tumble Smoothing and Surface Finishing |
|
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 | ||
---|---|---|
36 minutes | Build Preparation | |
|
||
|
Post Processing | 6 hour |
C | ||
Quality Assurance | ||
END | ||
15
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
18
Result | Weight Reduction | |
---|---|---|
(Grams) | ||
|
||
|
|
---|
19
Result | Weight Reduction | |
---|---|---|
(Grams) | ||
|
|
20