Renishaw plc T

+44 (0)1453 524524

New Mills, Wotton-under-Edge, F +44 (0)1453 524901
Gloucestershire, GL12 8JR E uk@renishaw.com
United Kingdom www.renishaw.com

Is topological optimisation really optimal?

Light-weight, efficient product design is one of the key drivers packaged beside the bell-crank component determine the
behind the increasing adoption of additive manufacturing overall envelope that we have to play with. When it finally
(AM) for series production. AM supports a range of comes to designing the “meat” of the part, we are aiming for
light-weighting approaches including generative design something that is light and not going to break.
techniques such as topological optimisation. These iterative
methods explore many possible design solutions and result Design space
in components with organic forms that mimic efficient natural
structures. 1000 N
Bearing free to rotate about axis 42
AM’s flexibility enables the manufacture of complex forms,
making it the ideal means to realise such designs. However,
it is a mistake to think that designs that have been optimised 8
for load bearing can simply be printed at the touch of a
button. Whilst it is possible to make just about any shape that
a optimisation tool can produce, the resulting build can be Target of 41 105
very inefficient to print and finish. load transfer

Conventional design approach

As pointed out in the feature article Can you build AM parts
without support?, best practice in ‘design for AM’ requires
us to think about how a part will be built so that we minimise
unnecessary support structures. This process inevitably
results in some modifications to our design so that we either
eliminate supports, or integrate supporting structures into the
product itself.
This feature article looks at a ‘real world’ approach to
integrating topological optimisation into an AM design
process. We will use a case study to explore how modern
weight reduction techniques can be combined with
conventional engineering design approaches to develop a
practical solution. The emphasis is on speed and on getting
the job right first time.
Case study: suspension bell-crank
Our illustrative example is a pivoting bell crank from the
suspension system for a racing car, modelled with the spring
at full-travel.
Before we look at generative design solutions, let’s consider
a conventional approach to give us a baseline. Taking
account of the fixed points defined in the design space, we
can quickly arrive at a sensible and reasonably light-weight
design. Reducing the weight of a component can be quite
simple, particularly when that component is under a bending
load. Most of the strength is required where the loads are
greatest so this means we can remove weight to form a
conventional ‘I’ beam cross section. After about 30 minutes
work, we have a workable solution:
Finite element analysis (FEA) is a critical tool in AM part
design, enabling us to evaluate the strength of alternative
structures, no matter how complex they may be. The part
volume is divided up into thousands of discrete regions
and FEA is used to calculate stresses and strains in each
element, comparing each to its neighbours in an iterative
process. Once the solver has got to the point where there is
relatively little variation between each iteration, the solution is
said to have “converged”. Note that the quality of this analysis
depends on the quality of the defined initial conditions - if
assumptions or simplifications are made, then the analysis
may be flawed.
When we run our conventional bell-crank design through
FEA we see no large stress raisers and the peak loads are
where we would expect them to be:

In this case, most of the design work would ordinarily focus

on the mechanics of a suspension design: motion paths,
leverage ratios, wheel travel rates etc. These determine the
points in space where the interfaces need to be and the
loads to be transferred. All the other elements that must be

© 2017 Renishaw plc. All rights reserved. Page 1 of 4

Blog: Is topological optimisation really optimal?
The safety factor is overly generous (8.5), indicating that
we could shave some more weight off the part. But this is a
good, pragmatic starting point. It’s mass in Ti6Al4V is 338 g.
Topological optimisation basics
Topological optimisation is a technique used to reduce the
weight of a component by removing material that is not
required to bear the anticipated loads. First we create an
allowable design envelope within which the component can
be generated. Next we create regions within or attached to
this envelop through which loads are transferred into the bulk
volume.
Allowable design space for our bell-crank case study, starting with the
conventional design shown earlier. We have simplified the geometry
by getting rid of chamfers, fillets and machined features. We nominate
“non-design” space (green) by creating separate bodies within the
model - these are assumed to be rigidly connected to the main body.
Next an FEA analysis is performed on this design space
under the same load conditions as before. The topological
optimisation step involves determining how much each
element contributes to the structure. The constraint here
could be stress, strain energy, or resonant frequency. Each
element is given a weighting and we can eliminate the
low-scoring elements from the structure to achieve our
performance goals. What we are trying to do here is get
something that indicates where the load paths run through
the part and to form a representation of a single, contiguous
body with material only where we need it.
We now have a reduced-volume component comprised of
the higher-scoring elements. This is generally rather irregular,
and so a clean up stage is needed to form these elemental
shapes into smoother structures. We do this by constructing
geometry around the mesh using polyNURB technology.
© 2017 Renishaw plc. All rights reserved.
The representative geometry can then be exported as a
parasolid file that can be imported into CAD software for
further modification and analysis.
Topological optimisation of the bell-crank, eliminating unnecessary
elements to leave a reduced-volume part. The resulting structure is
subsequently encased in polyNURB surfaces to result in a smooth,
organic component. We have performed this in Altair’s solidThinking
Inspire software.
Common sense tells us that removing material from the
part will also reduce both its strength and its stiffness. It
makes sense, therefore, to run this new design through an
independent FEA analysis to check that it still meets the
design criteria with an appropriate safety factor.
FEA analysis of the topologically optimised design, using ANSYS
structural analysis software. The safety factor is reduced to 5 and
rigidity also falls, while peak stresses increase, but all of this is
expected and within acceptable limits.
All of this has taken us a little longer than in the baseline
case - perhaps 3 or 4 hours of design effort. But the result is
a 46% reduction in mass to 181 g.
Sub-optimal optimisation
So, we have an efficient part design, but this does not
necessarily mean that the results are optimal from the point
of view of building a successful component. The problem is
that we have designed for function, but not for manufacture.
In our case study, the resulting design needs lots of supports
to make it buildable, even in the most suitable orientation. If
we give little or no thought to how the part is to be orientated
during the design stage, then this is where we can end up.
And the pain doesn’t stop there. Each time we make changes
to the design, even small modifications that do not invalidate
the stress analysis, we enter a loop of exporting a new STL
model and supporting it afresh - at least an hour of work
each time in this case.
Page 2 of 4
Blog: Is topological optimisation really optimal?

DfAM-refined design space for the bell-crank. The part will be attached
to the base plate by the tapered point shown in green on the right.
The green regions connecting the lateral holes, including along the
spine of the part, ensure that the shape now self-supports before any
topological optimisation is performed.

If we give little or no thought to how the part is to be

orientated during the design stage, then we will need lots of
supports to build it.

Supports are also bad news in other ways. They require extra
time and material to produce. As I pointed out in Can you
build parts without supports?, the regions where supports
and the part intersect may exhibit different local properties Topological optimisation starting from the DfAM-refined design space,
due to re-melting. Subsequent support removal and clean- with polyNURB surfaces added. Most of the design is buildable as it
is, but the highlighted strut, which will exhibit a significant overhang, is
up is time-consuming and has the potential to affect the problematic.
component integrity.
By taking care over the detail design of the struts, we can
Residual stress and heat dissipation are other potential
eliminate overhangs to make the component self-supporting.
bear-traps. With insufficient design for manufacture thinking
The problematic overhanging strut (highlighted below) has
up front, we may produce builds that exhibit unacceptable
been incorporated into some central webbing to make it
accumulations of heat and stress which, combined with a
buildable (See image below)
reliance on supports, may lead to build failures.

Intelligent design optimisation

If we plan to use AM to manufacture our efficient part
designs, we must think about build ability much earlier in
the process. We need to combine design for AM (DfAM) and
topological optimisation intelligently.

Intelligent design optimisation starts with a design space that

is in self-supporting

This starts at the design space definition. With a little more

thought, we can determine the direction in which we want the
part to build and generate a starting point for the optimisation Of course, we need to validate this new design. The FEA
process that is buildable without supports (we will deal with shows some slightly higher peak stresses than in the
the lateral holes later). In the case of our bell-crank, this previous design, but the factor of safety is still an acceptable
means defining a tapered base to attach it to the build plate, 3.2:
plus extra fixed regions that connect the load-bearing regions
together.

© 2017 Renishaw plc. All rights reserved. Page 3 of 4

Blog: Is topological optimisation really optimal?

Happily, the component mass has been further reduced to Summary

164 g. Note also that the build volume will be much lower
due to the self-supporting nature of the design. The total
design time in this case is about the same as the previous
optimisation process, but now we are not facing multiple build
preparation / redesign cycles thanks to the up-front DfAM
thinking.
Although AM is incredibly flexible in terms of what we can
build, we still need to be aware of the characteristics of
the process when we design components for printing. If
we optimise solely for function, we compromise our build
efficiency, quality and design intent.

By combining up front DfAM thinking with powerful

topology optimisation tools, we can create efficient, light-
weight designs that are also easy to manufacture in series
production.

Finalised build, in which we have designed in the build orientation,

and replaced all the lateral holes with self-supporting diamonds. The
struts have been carefully considered, with fillet radii added to reduce
stress raisers. An allowance has been made for wire EDM removal
from the build plate. Finally, finish machining operations have been
thought about and catered for.

Comparison of design solutions

The table below compares key metrics for the three designs
- the conventional original, topological optimisation alone,
and an intelligent combination of DfAM and topological
optimisation. We can see clear progress in terms of the
efficiency of the design, both in functional performance
and in terms of manufacturing efficiency. We also see a
predictable trade-off between mass and strength / rigidity.

The benefit of combining DfAM with topology optimisation is

perhaps best summarised by the image below:

Version Part mass Build Build Peak VM Peak Max Min FOS Peak Max Peak
(g) volume waste stress Principle Shear deflection
(cm3) (MPa) stress (MPa) (mm)
(MPa)

Original 338 N/A 77.3% 111 68.6 8.58 59.2 0.107

Top Opt 181 72.0 40.7% 190 217 5 103 0.254

DfAM 164 43.7 16.6% 294 202 3.23 88.0 0.349

About the author

Marc Saunders, Director of AM Applications

Marc Saunders has over 25 years’ experience in high tech manufacturing. In previous positions at Renishaw, he played a
key role in developing the company award-winning RAMTIC automated machining platform, and has also delivered turnkey
metrology solutions to customers in the aerospace sector.

Marc manages Renishaw’s global network of Additive Manufacturing Solutions Centres, enabling customers who are
considering deploying AM as a production process to gain hands-on experience with the technology before committing to a new
facility.

www.renishaw.com/additive

© 2017 Renishaw plc. All rights reserved. Page 4 of 4