13th IFAC Workshop on Intelligent Manufacturing Systems

13th IFAC
August Workshop
12-14, on Intelligent
2019. Oshawa, CanadaManufacturing Systems
13th IFAC
August Workshop
12-14, on Intelligent
2019. Oshawa, CanadaManufacturing Systems
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
13th IFAC Workshop on Intelligent
August 12-14, 2019. Oshawa, Canada Manufacturing Systems
August 12-14, 2019. Oshawa, Canada
ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 52-10 (2019) 212–217
Customization of Automotive Structural Components using Additive
Customization of Automotive Structural Components using Additive
Customization of Automotiveand
Manufacturing Structural
TopologyComponents using Additive
Optimization
Customization of Automotiveand
Manufacturing Structural
TopologyComponents using Additive
Optimization
Manufacturing and Topology Optimization
Manufacturing and Topology Optimization Davin Jankovics*. Ahmad Barari*
Davin Jankovics*.  Ahmad Barari*
Davin Jankovics*.  Ahmad Barari*
*University of Ontario Davin Institute
Jankovics*. Ahmad Barari*
 Technology,
of Oshawa, ON L1G 0C5
*University of Ontario Institute  Technology, Oshawa, ON L1G 0C5
of
Canada (Tel: 905-721-8668;
*University of Ontario e-mail:
Institutedavin.jankovics@uoit.ca,
of Technology, Oshawa, ahmad.barari@uoit.ca).
ON L1G 0C5
Canada (Tel: 905-721-8668;
*University of Ontario e-mail:
Institutedavin.jankovics@uoit.ca,
of Technology, Oshawa, ahmad.barari@uoit.ca).
ON L1G 0C5
Canada (Tel: 905-721-8668; e-mail: davin.jankovics@uoit.ca, ahmad.barari@uoit.ca).
Canada (Tel: 905-721-8668; e-mail: davin.jankovics@uoit.ca, ahmad.barari@uoit.ca).
Abstract: This paper presents a framework for the design of automotive components using topology
Abstract:
optimization This andpaper presents
additive a framework
manufacturing (AM). for Thethe long
design of automotive
production times, components
post processing, using andtopology
surface
Abstract:
optimization This andpaper presents
additive a framework
manufacturing (AM). for Thethe long
design of automotive
production times, components
post processing, using andtopology
surface
Abstract:
quality of This
AM paper
processes presentsdeters a framework
companies for
from the design
deploying of
it
optimization and additive manufacturing (AM). The long production times, post processing, and surface automotive
as a true components
manufacturing using
solution, topology
often
quality
optimization
relegating of AM
it and
to processes
additive
the deters
prototyping companies
manufacturing stage. (AM).
Many from The deploying
long
improvements it
productionas
willa true
times,
be manufacturing
post
necessary processing,
to solution,
overcome and often
surface
these
quality of AM processes deters companies from deploying it as a true manufacturing solution, often
relegating
quality of
deficiencies, it however
AM toprocesses
the prototyping
the deters
newest stage. Many
companies
developments from inimprovements
deploying
design for it will
as
additive a be
true necessary
manufacturing
manufacturing to overcome
show solution,
promise. these
often
The
relegating it to the prototyping stage. Many improvements will be necessary to overcome these
deficiencies,
relegating
use of topologyit however
to the
optimizationthe newest
prototypingwith developments
anstage.
overhang Many and inimprovements
design
build forconstraint
time additive
will manufacturing
be
can necessary
help maximize show
to promise.
overcome
the The
these
advantages
deficiencies, however the newest developments in design for additive manufacturing show promise. The
use of topology
deficiencies,
of AM, optimization
whilehowever
reducing the with an
thenewest
issues ofoverhang
wasteful and
developments in build
support designtime
forconstraint
material additive can help
manufacturing
and lengthy printmaximize
times.showAthe advantages
promise.
case study Theis
use of topology optimization with an overhang and build time constraint can help maximize the advantages
of
use AM,
of
presented while
topology reducing
optimization
that reducing
explores the the issues
with
a practical anof wasteful
overhang
example support
and
ofsupport build material
time
a high-performance and
constraint lengthy
can
vehicle print
help times.
maximize
upright A
and its thecase study
advantages
design using is
of AM,
presented while
that reducing
explores a practical issues of wasteful
example ofsupport material
a high-performance and lengthy print times. A case study is
of AM, while
topology
presented that explores the
optimization. issues of
a practical wasteful
example material and vehicle
of a high-performance lengthy upright
vehicle print times.
upright
and its
A case
and its
design
design
using
study
using is
topology
presented optimization.
that explores a practical example of a high-performance vehicle upright and its design using
topology
© 2019, IFAC optimization.
(International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
topology Topology
optimization. Optimization, Additive Manufacturing, 3D Printing, Automotive
Keywords: Topology Optimization, Additive Manufacturing, 3D Printing, Automotive
Keywords: Topology Optimization, Additive Manufacturing, 
3D Printing, Automotive
Keywords: Topology Optimization, Additive Manufacturing, 3D Printing, Automotive
 need to be considered. Most AM processes use a layer-based
1. INTRODUCTION 
1. INTRODUCTION  need to be where
approach, considered.
materialMostis AM processes
deposited oneuselayera layer-based
at a time,
need to be considered. Most AM processes use a layer-based
1. INTRODUCTION approach,
need
being to be
fused where
with material
considered.
the Most
previous is deposited
AM processes
layer as itone layer
use at Support
a time,
a layer-based
progresses.
Improvements to the1.fuel economy
INTRODUCTION of vehicles is crucial to the approach,
being fused where
with material
the previous is deposited
layer as itone layer
progresses. at Support
a time,
Improvements
reduction of to the
carbon fuel economy
emissions of
that vehicles
negatively is crucial
affect to the
the approach,
material where
willwith
thenthematerial
be deposited is deposited
during one
each layer at
layer, which a time,
then
Improvements to the fuel economy of vehicles is crucial to the material being fused
willwith
thenthe previous
beadeposited layer
during as it
eachprogresses.
layer, which Support
then
reduction
ImprovementsAs
environment. of carbon
to the emissions
fuel economy
regulations that
tighten, negatively
of vehicles
the use affect
isofcrucial
more the being
must fused
be removed in previous layer
post-processing
tonon- material will then be deposited during each layer, which then as it progresses.
step. This is Support
necessary
reduction of carbon emissions that negatively affect the must be removed in a post-processing step. This is necessary
environment.
reduction
traditional,
environment. of As
carbon
lighter
As
regulations
emissions
components
regulations
tighten,
willthat
tighten,
the
become use
negatively
the
of more
necessary
use affect
of more to meet the material
non-
non-
in order
must be towill
removedthensuccessful
ensure beadeposited
in post-processingduring
printing of each
step. layer,
This iswhich
overhanging then
structures
necessary
traditional,
environment. lighter
As components
regulations will
tighten, become
the necessary
use of more to meet
non- in order
must
that be
would to ensure
removed successful
otherwisein a fail to printing
post-processing
print of step.
(Vanek, overhanging
This
Galicia, is structures
necessary
& Benes,
targets. Of lighter
traditional, course,components
these structures will becomemust also comply
necessary with in order to ensure successful printing of overhanging structures
to meet
targets. that
in would
order otherwise
to ensure offail
successful toprinting
print (Vanek,
isofimpeded Galicia,
overhanging & Benes,
by structures
stringentOf
traditional,
targets. Of
course,
lighter
safety
course,
these structures
components
regulations,
these and
structures
must also
willgenerally
become
must mustcomply
necessary
also be to
comply ablewith
meet
with to 2014).
that wouldThe speed
otherwise deposition
fail to print (Vanek, Galicia, this,
& and
Benes,
stringent
targets. Ofsafety
course,regulations,
these and
structures generally
must must
also be
comply ablewith to 2014).
that would
material Theis speed
otherwise
also of
wasted deposition
fail to
along print
with is
(Vanek,
a impeded
reduced Galicia,by
surfacethis,
& and
Benes,
finish
withstand safety
stringent the abuse of daily commuters.
regulations, and generally There are many
must be able ways 2014). The speed of deposition is impeded by this, and
to material
withstand the abuse ofthis,
daily commuters. is also wasted along2016). with a impeded
reduced surface this,finish
stringent
to go aboutsafety
withstand regulations,
achieving
the abuse of dailybut and
the topic
commuters. ofThere
generally thismust
There
are many
paper
are bewill
many
ways
able
focus
ways to 2014).
material The
quality (Lalehpour speed
is also &ofBarari,
wasted deposition
along withisTherefore,
a reduced this by paper
surface and
will
finish
to go about achieving this, but the topic of this paper will focus quality
material (Lalehpour
is
discuss (Lalehpouralso &
wasted
various methods Barari,
along 2016).
to allow with Therefore,
a reduced this paper
surface will
finish
withstand
on aboutthe
to gothe use abuse
of oftopology
achieving daily
this, but commuters.
topic ofThere
theoptimization are
this paperandmanywill ways quality
additive
focus discuss various methods & Barari, 2016).for
to allow
additive manufacturing
forTherefore,
additive this paper will
manufacturing
on
to go the
about
manufacturing use ofthe topology
achieving
in this,
design but the optimization
process. topic of this and will
paper additive
focus quality
discuss (Lalehpour
of automotive
various & Barari,
parts
methods using
to 2016).
a topology
allow for Therefore,
additive this paper
optimized
manufacturing will
design
on the use of topology optimization and additive of automotive
discuss various parts using
methods to a topology
allow for additive optimized design
manufacturing
manufacturing
on in the
the use inofthe topology design process. approach.
optimization and additive of automotive parts using a topology optimized design
manufacturing design process.
Topology optimization
manufacturing in the design refers
process. to a form of structural approach. of automotive parts using a topology optimized design
approach.
Topology
optimization optimization
that is refers
designed to to
find a anform optimal of structural
geometry approach. 2. BACKGROUND
Topology optimization refers to a form of structural
optimization
Topology that is designed
optimization refers to to find a an optimal geometry
based on a set
optimization of constraints.
that is designed Finite
to findelementanformoptimal of structural
analysis is used in
geometry 2. BACKGROUND
2. BACKGROUND
based on a set
optimization
an iterative of constraints.
that
manner istodesigned
determine Finite
to whatelement
find analysis
an optimal
material in the is current
used in
geometry 2. BACKGROUND
based
an on a set
iterative of constraints.
manner to determine Finite element
what materialanalysis
in theis current
used in 2.1 Additive Manufacturing and Topology Optimization in
based
mesh on a setbe
should of kept
constraints.
solid, Finite
and whichelementshould analysis
be setis to
used voidin 2.1 Additive Manufacturing and Topology Optimization in
an
meshiterative
should manner
be kept to determine
solid, and what
which material
should in
be the
set current
to void the Automotive Industry
an
meshiterative
(Huang & manner
should Xie,
be kept tosolid,
2010). determine
Inand what
thewhich material
implementations
should in set
be thethatcurrent
to are 2.1
void 2.1
Additive Manufacturing and Topology Optimization in
the Automotive
Additive Industry
Manufacturing and Topology Optimization in
(Huang & here,
Xie, 2010).solid,In the implementations setthat are
mesh
(Huang should
considered & Xie, be this
kept means
2010). and
Inthatthe which
for a givenshould
design
implementations be domain, to void
that are The the
the the
Automotive Industry
Automotive Industry
use of additive manufacturing in the automotive industry
considered
(Huang
optimized here,
Xie,this
&structure means
2010).
will useInthatthe
the for a given design
implementations
least amount domain,
of materialthat the are
for The use of additive manufacturing in the automotive industry
considered here, this means that for a given design domain, the or any
optimized
considered
the maximum structure
here, will
this means
amount use the least
that for aHowever,amount of
given design domain, material for
the The use other high-production
of additive manufacturing environment
in the automotive has been low,
industry
optimized structure willofusestiffness.
the least amount while topology
of material for or The any other
usealmost
limited high-production
of additive to theenvironment
manufacturing
exclusively in the automotive
prototyping hascomponents.
of been low,
industry
the maximum
optimized
optimization amount
structure willof stiffness.
use the leastHowever,
amount while
of topology
material for or any other high-production environment has been low,
the maximumdoes amount create of compliance
stiffness. However, optimal structures
while topology for a limitedor
Theanymain almost
other exclusively
high-production
identified factor that to the prototyping
environment
limits its widespreadof
hascomponents.
been
use islow,
the
optimization
the maximum
given constraint does
amount create of
and designcompliance
stiffness. optimal
However,
domain, structures
while
it does for
topology
not for a
takea The limited almost exclusively to the prototyping of components.
optimization does create compliance optimal structures cost main
limitedof identified
almost
operating factor
exclusively
an AM that
to the
system limits itsitswidespread
prototyping
due to low of use israte
components.
production the
given constraint
optimization
manufacturability does and
create
into design
compliance
account domain,
natively. optimal it does
structures
Structures not
it take
for
creates a The main identified factor that limits its widespread use is the
given constraint
manufacturability and
into design
account domain,
natively. it does
Structures not
it take
creates cost
The of operating
main identified
(Baumers, Dickens,an AM
factor
Tuck,system
that
& due
limits
Hague, to its low
its 2016). production
widespread In rate
use is the
traditional
given constraint
are often difficult
manufacturability and
intoor design
impossible
account domain,
natively. it
to Structuresdoes
manufacture not take
using (Baumers,
it creates cost of operating an AM system due to its low production rate
cost Dickens,
of operating
automotive an AM
manufacturing,Tuck,system & Hague,
due to its 2016). In
low productiontraditional
rate
are often processes.
manufacturability
traditional
are often
difficult
difficult intoor
orOne impossible
account natively.
method
impossible toto
to
manufacture
Structures
avoid this isit the
manufacture
using
creates
using (Baumers, Dickens,
use automotive Tuck, AM methods
& Hague, cannot
2016). keep
In up with
traditional
traditional processes. One method to avoid this is the use (Baumers,
the rate of manufacturing,
Dickens,
production Tuck,
achieved AM
& methods
Hague,
by processes cannot
2016). such keep
In as up with
traditional
injection
are often difficult orOne to impossible automotive manufacturing, AM methods cannot keep up with
additive
traditional manufacturing
processes. allow
method totoavoid
the building manufacture
of this theusing
theseiscomplex, use the rate of production
automotive casting,achieved
manufacturing, AMby processes
methods such
cannot as injection
keep up there
with
additive
traditional
organic manufacturing
processes. One
structures. to allowmethodthe building
to avoidof this the use moulding,
theseiscomplex, die
the rate of production or stamping.
achieved by However,
processes presently
such as injection
additive manufacturing to allow the building of these complex, moulding, the rate of die casting,
production
exists an opportunity or stamping.
achieved by However,
processes presently
such as there
injection
organic
additivestructures.
manufacturing to allow the building of these complex, moulding, die casting,toorproduce
stamping. the However,
tooling required presentlyfor these
there
organic
Additivestructures.
manufacturing (AM) is a set of fabrication exists moulding,an opportunity
operations die
using AM.to
casting, orproduce
stamping. the However,
tooling required presentlyfor these
there
organic structures. exists an
operations opportunity to produce the tooling
using AM.to produce the tooling required for these required for these
Additive
technologies manufacturing
that overcomes (AM) is a set
manyisofathesetlimitations of fabrication exists an
set by operations using AM. opportunity
Additive manufacturing (AM) of fabrication Conventional tooling
technologies
Additive that overcomes
traditional manufacturing (AM)many isof the Itlimitations set theby operations using AM. currently requires a massive investment
technologies manufacturing
that overcomes methods.
many ofatheset ofenables
limitationsfabrication
set by Conventional
due toolingand
to the difficulty currently requirestoa machine
time required massive the investment
durable
traditional
technologies
straightforward manufacturing
that overcomes
creation of complex methods.
many of the
structures It enables
limitations
that set
otherwise the
by Conventional
due to the tooling
difficulty currently
and time requirestoa machine
required massive the investment
durable
traditional
straightforward manufacturing
creation of methods.
complex structures It enables
that otherwise the Conventional
materials used. tooling
Here, currently
various requires
AM a
processes massivesuch investment
as direct
traditional
would requiremanufacturing
many processing methods. or notItbe that
steps,structures enables at all.
feasible the due to the difficulty and time required to machine the durable
straightforward
would require creation
many of
processing complexsteps, or not be otherwise
feasible at all. materials
due
metal to the
laser used. Here,
difficulty
sintering andvarious
(DMLS),time AM
required
wire arcprocesses
to machine
additive such the as direct
durable
manufacturing
straightforward
Of course, there creation stillofconstraints
areprocessing complex structures
fornot AM that otherwise materials used. Here, various AM processes such as direct
would
Of require
course, many
there areprocessing
still constraintssteps, or fornot AM be processes
feasible atthat
processes all. metal
that materialslaserused.
sintering
Here, (DMLS),
variouswire AMarc additive such
processes manufacturing
as direct
Of course, there are still constraints for AM processes that metal
would require many steps, or be feasible at all.
metal
laser sintering
laser sintering
(DMLS),
(DMLS),
wire
wire
arc
arc
additive manufacturing
additive manufacturing
Of course, there are still constraints for AM processes that
2405-8963 © 2019, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright@ 2019 IFAC 212
Peer review under
Copyright@ responsibility of International Federation of Automatic
2019 IFAC 212Control.
Copyright@ 2019 IFAC
10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.10.066 212
Copyright@ 2019 IFAC 212
2019 IFAC IMS
August 12-14, 2019. Oshawa, Canada Davin Jankovics et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-10 (2019) 212–217
(WAAM), and fused deposition modelling (FDM) can be used
to produce various types of molds and dies with much shorter
lead times and less overall cost due to the many fewer
operations needed (Bubna, Humbert, Wiseman, & Manes,
2016; Leal et al., 2017). This is promising, but to make AM
viable for more automotive components, its strengths and
weaknesses must be accounted for during the design process
itself. This requires that created components utilize AM’s full
capabilities to perform far better than conventional parts.
Due to the inherent weight-savings that can be gained from
using topology optimization during the design process, there
has been significant interest in its viability. Many examples
have been discussed, including vehicle frames/chassis,
suspensions, subframes, transfer cases, cross car beams, doors,
engine cradles, and others (Baskin et al., 2008; Cavazzuti et
al., 2011; Chiandussi, Gaviglio, & Ibba, 2004; Laxman &
Mohan, 2007; C. Li & Kim, 2015; C. Li, Kim, & Jeswiet,
2015; G. Li, Xu, Huang, & Sun, 2015; Marchesi et al., 2015;
R. J. Yang & Chahande, 1995). Although there are many
literature examples, it remains uncertain if any mass-produced
vehicle has a topology optimized part that hasn’t been heavily
compromised from its initial optimal design to be
manufactured using traditional means.
2.2 Design for Additive Manufacturing
Additive manufacturing has the ability to produce parts in one
step with minimal post processing, where conventional
methods would take many or otherwise be impossible. This
gives AM the flexibility to make many different types of
components, for many different purposes. However, AM
processes still have their own limitations. Traditional design
for manufacturing methods consider normal fabrication
constraints, but in a design for AM philosophy some of these
are eliminated, while new ones are created.
One unique consideration for AM produced parts is that they
exhibit a staircase effect, where a surface in the model
geometry is approximated using flat layers (Fig. 2). This leads
to tolerancing issues that must be considered and corrected
before printing begins (Barari, 2012). The angle and thickness
of walls, including the number of perimeter layers must also
be selected in order to ensure successful printing (Adam &
Zimmer, 2015). Support structures must also be used where
geometry is not sufficiently self-supporting (Strano, Hao,
Everson, & Evans, 2013), and often a post processing step
must be used to improve the final surface quality of the part
(Jamiolahmadi & Barari, 2014; Lalehpour & Barari, 2016).
Even with this considered, AM allows designers much more
flexibility in creating their design, with the processes allowing
for higher complexity parts including preassembled parts,
lattices, microstructures, organic shapes, and internal features
(Thompson et al., 2016; S. Yang & Zhao, 2015).
3. METHODOLOGY
If AM is ever going to be practical in a manufacturing setting,
advances must be made in order to keep costs down and
improve the speed and success of printing, while also reducing
the post processing required on the parts.
213
213
3.1 Topology Optimization – SIMP Method
One of the most widely used topology optimization methods
is known as the solid isotropic material penalization scheme
(SIMP). Like most other topology optimization methods, the
objective is to minimize compliance (in other words, maximize
stiffness), while satisfying a constraint such as volume or mass
(Huang & Xie, 2010). Here, compliance (c) in the structure can
be measured using finite element analysis (FEA) and is
calculated in (1). Here, U and F represent the displacement and
force vectors, with K representing the global stiffness matrix.
The volume fraction is represented by, f, with V and V0 being
the material volume and design domain volume respectively.
𝑁𝑁
𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 : 𝑐𝑐(𝜌𝜌) = 𝑈𝑈𝑇𝑇 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 = ∑(𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 )𝑝𝑝 𝑢𝑢𝑒𝑒𝑇𝑇 𝑘𝑘 𝑒𝑒 𝑢𝑢𝑒𝑒 (1)
𝑥𝑥
𝑒𝑒=1
𝑉𝑉(𝜌𝜌)
𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡: = 𝑓𝑓
𝑉𝑉0
; 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 = 𝐹𝐹
; 0 < 𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ≤ 𝑥𝑥 ≤ 1
Element densities (𝜌𝜌) are modified heuristically in a scheme
(2) using the bi-section algorithm and the optimality criteria
(Sigmund, 2001). Elements are penalized using the parameter,
p, to converge the design to as close to completely solid and
void elements as possible. To limit the amount an element can
be updated, a numerical constraint (m) is included.
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 𝐵𝐵𝑒𝑒 ≤ 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 − 𝑚𝑚)
𝜂𝜂
𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 𝒙𝒙(𝝆𝝆𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 , 𝝆𝝆𝒆𝒆 − 𝒎𝒎)
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 − 𝑚𝑚) < 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 𝐵𝐵𝑒𝑒 < 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(1, 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 + 𝑚𝑚)
𝜂𝜂
𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒∗ = (2)
𝒆𝒆 𝑩𝑩𝜼𝜼
𝝆𝝆 𝒆𝒆
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(1, 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 + 𝑚𝑚) ≤ 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 𝐵𝐵𝑒𝑒
𝜂𝜂
{ 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎(𝟏𝟏, 𝝆𝝆𝒆𝒆 + 𝒎𝒎) }
With 𝐵𝐵𝑒𝑒 = − , 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 numerical damping coefficient 𝜂𝜂 =
1 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝜂𝜂
𝜆𝜆 𝜕𝜕𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒
1/2.
A simple example of the iterative process is shown in (Fig. 1).
With this implementation, an optimal shape is achieved with
just the definitions of a design domain and boundary
conditions. However, the final geometry will often require
further processing to be manufactured.
Fig. 1. Topology Optimization with design domain and
boundary condition on the left, with various iteration results
shown.
2019 IFAC IMS
214
August 12-14, 2019. Oshawa, Canada Davin Jankovics et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-10 (2019) 212–217
3.2 Overhang Constraints
As mentioned above, there exists a clear need to include
additional constraints to the optimization process. In terms of
conventional manufacturing there have been several promising
developments, including constraining the drawing direction,
extrusion, casting, uncertainties, and more (Fukumoto, Lum,
Biro, Boomer, & Zhou, 2003; Liu & Ma, 2016; Schramm,
Thomas, & Zhou, 2002; Sigmund, 2009; Zhou, Fleury, Shyy,
Thomas, & Brennan, 2002). However, these inherently build
the restrictions of their respective traditional manufacturing
processes into the design of the part, possibly limiting the
potential benefits of the topology optimization. In this regard,
the restrictions of additive manufacturing are more in-line with
the shapes produced with “raw” topology optimization.
Due to the nature of layer-based AM, there exists a limit to the
amount of overhang to which material can reliably be
deposited on. This is dependent on the angle of the wall of the
part with respect to the build platform (Fig. 2), with the exact
limit often being approximately 45°. Many approaches have
been described to limit the development of material under this
criteria, including (Brackett, Ashcroft, & Hague, 2011;
Langelaar, 2016, 2017; Leary, Merli, Torti, Mazur, & Brandt,
2014; Mirzendehdel & Suresh, 2016). The basic idea most of
these methods implement is penalization of the material that
violates the various angle constraints.
Fig. 2. Staircase effect of AM layer-based process.
As in (Jankovics, Gohari, & Barari, 2018), the optimality
criteria can be solved with a new constraint on the area of an
element. The element area sensitivities can be calculated for
supporting elements (3), which are then used to penalize the
elements, and update them as in (4-5).
𝐴𝐴(𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 − 𝜌𝜌𝑗𝑗 )
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 ≠ 𝜌𝜌𝑗𝑗
∂A
|𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 − 𝜌𝜌𝑗𝑗 |
| =
∂ρi face −𝐴𝐴 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 = 𝜌𝜌𝑗𝑗 = 𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚
{ 𝐴𝐴 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜌𝜌𝑖𝑖 = 𝜌𝜌𝑗𝑗 = 𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 }
1 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝜕𝜕
𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒 = − [ 𝑒𝑒 + 𝛿𝛿 𝑒𝑒 ]
𝜂𝜂
𝜆𝜆 𝜕𝜕𝜌𝜌 𝜕𝜕𝜌𝜌
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒 ≤ 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 − 𝑚𝑚)
𝜂𝜂
𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 𝒙𝒙(𝝆𝝆𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎 , 𝝆𝝆𝒆𝒆 − 𝒎𝒎)
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝜌𝜌𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 , 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 − 𝑚𝑚) < 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒 < 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(1, 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 + 𝑚𝑚)
𝜂𝜂
𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒∗ = (5)
𝝆𝝆𝒆𝒆 𝑪𝑪𝒆𝒆
𝜼𝜼
𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(1, 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 + 𝑚𝑚) ≤ 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒 𝐶𝐶𝑒𝑒
𝜂𝜂
{ 𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎(𝟏𝟏, 𝝆𝝆 + 𝒎𝒎)
𝒆𝒆
This scheme will result in geometry that is much more suitable
for AM than the normal topology optimization, however, it
still follows the volume constraint as set by the SIMP method.
3.3 Build Time Constraint
Another, less explored constraint is the manufacturing time of
the AM process itself (Ryan & Kim, 2019). In a layer-based,
deposition AM system, one of the most critical issues with
producing parts on a large scale is the time to print. This time
to print can be described as the amount of material per layer of
the model to be printed, in terms of infill material, as well as
the perimeters that must be deposited to achieve sufficient
exterior and interior shell surface finishes. As with the
constraint for build angle, another constraint can be added for
the amount of material to be printed.
To setup any AM process, first a build orientation and layer
thickness must be specified for the selected component. The
component is then “sliced” (Dolenc & Mäkelä, 1994; Gohari,
Barari, & Kishawy, 2016) based on these settings to retrieve
the cross-section information, from which the toolpaths are
generated. The idea is to use this information to guide a
topology optimization towards a design that reduces the time
to print and material used. This can be accomplished during
the topology optimization by directly slicing the FEA mesh,
(instead of converting it to an STL as is the norm for slicing)
and using that to calculate the perimeter and area of the slice.
The slice heights can be based directly on the desired setting
for surface quality, and then mapped to the resolution of the
FEA mesh, as these may not directly match.
Fig. 3. Direct slicing of a FEA mesh.
From this, two lists are developed; one with the elements
sitting on the exterior perimeters, and one with elements on the
interior perimeters. Next, a metric is applied to the value of
(3)
these perimeters. If the value of the exterior perimeter exceeds
a set value, a penalty is applied to the elements sitting on that
exterior. This is done to persuade the topology optimization to
“shrink” the outer perimeter. If the interior perimeters exceed
(4)
a certain value, now an advantage is applied to the elements
sitting on that perimeter, with the goal of collapsing any voids
in the slice. With this implementation, the time to print each
layer will be inherently reduced, which consequently leads to
a reduction in manufacturing cost.
}
214
2019 IFAC IMS
August 12-14, 2019. Oshawa, Canada Davin Jankovics et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-10 (2019) 212–217
4. CASE STUDY
One of the most weight critical automotive areas is in
motorsports. Here, even a small reduction in mass can improve
the dynamic performance of the vehicle, leading to better on-
track results. Whereas production vehicles require their
components to be economical for production on large scales,
race teams can produce less than one vehicle per year, with
possible revenue being directly tied to that car’s performance.
Therefore, any advantage to be gained will be explored, even
if the costs would normally prohibit such an improvement.
Here, a typical small formula racecar wheel upright (Fig. 4)
will be examined through design with topology optimization
in mind.
Fig. 4. Wheel assembly (left to right): lock nut, wheel bearing,
upright, hub, brake caliper, rotor, and rim.
As with any topology optimization, first a design domain must
be specified. Here, the maximum dimensions inside the wheel
rim are considered for the domain (about 20 cm in diameter,
by 6 cm in depth), with exclusions for the suspension mounts,
brake caliper, and wheel bearing and hub assembly (Fig. 5).
Base element size was 3 mm, with refinements around all
holes. The material was selected as aluminum 7075.
Next, the boundary conditions are set as per the maximum
loads for the static structural analysis. Axial and radial loads
are applied to the inner wheel bearing housing (A & B); a load
estimating braking force is applied to the brake caliper
mounting holes (C); the steering bracket also has a load
applied (D) to estimate dynamic steering forces; and the upper
and lower wishbone mounts are fixed on the inside (E), with
forces on the outer edge to simulate forces from the wishbone
mounting bracket (F).
215
215
Fig. 5. Design Domain for the Upright (red for exclude, blue
for design domain) (left); Boundary Conditions for the Static
Structural FEA (red for force, blue for fixed constraints)
(right).
Using a basic topology optimization scheme, the results show
an organic shape that minimizes compliance, with a 78%
reduction in mass from the design domain (Fig. 6-7). With an
additional additive manufacturing constraint on the overhang
angle, with the build direction as the Y-axis (Fig. 7), there is a
77% reduction in mass. When put into a standard 3D printing
slicer, the support material required is also reduced by 91%
with this new constraint. Although it should also be noted that
this is a 12% increase in compliance over the normal topology
optimized geometry.
Fig. 6. SIMP Topology Optimization (left); SIMP and
Overhang Constraint Optimization (right).
Fig. 7. SIMP Topology Optimization (left); SIMP and
Overhang Constraint Optimization (right). Build direction is in
the Y-axis.
5. CONCLUSION
A framework was presented in this paper that attempts to
advance the viability of additive manufacturing in the
automotive industry. Specifically, a design for additive
manufacturing outline using a combination of topology
optimization and overhang and build time constraints was
discussed. With further developments in AM technology and
methods of constraining topology optimization, superior part
functionality and less costly printing may allow an AM built
component to be a clear option for large-scale automotive
manufacturers.
2019 IFAC IMS
216
August 12-14, 2019. Oshawa, Canada Davin Jankovics et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-10 (2019) 212–217
ACKOWLEDGEMENTS
The research support provided by the Natural Science and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) is greatly
appreciated. Also, special thanks to the UOIT Motorsports
team for their help.
REFERENCES
Adam, G. A. O., & Zimmer, D. (2015). On design for
additive manufacturing: evaluating geometrical
limitations. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 21(6), 662–
670. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-06-2013-0060
Barari, A. (2012). Profile Tolerance Allocation for Rapid
Prototyping of Sculptured Surfaces in a Direct Slicing
Process. In Volume 2: 32nd Computers and
Information in Engineering Conference, Parts A and B
(pp. 469–474). ASME.
https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2012-71418
Baskin, D. M., Reed, D. B., Seel, T. N., Hunt, M. N., Oenkal,
M., Takacs, Z., & Vollmer, A. B. (2008). A Case Study
in Structural Optimization of an Automotive Body-In-
White Design. In 2008 World Congress. Detroit.
https://doi.org/10.4271/2008-01-0880
Baumers, M., Dickens, P., Tuck, C., & Hague, R. (2016). The
cost of additive manufacturing: Machine productivity,
economies of scale and technology-push.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102,
193–201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.02.015
Brackett, D., Ashcroft, I., & Hague, R. (2011). Topology
optimization for additive manufacturing. In
Proceedings of the solid freeform fabrication
symposium (pp. 348–362). Austin. Retrieved from
https://sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/Manuscripts/201
1/2011-27-Brackett.pdf
Bubna, P., Humbert, M. P., Wiseman, M., & Manes, E.
(2016). Barriers to Entry in Automotive Production and
Opportunities with Emerging Additive Manufacturing
Techniques. SAE Technical Paper, (2016-01–0329).
https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-0329
Cavazzuti, M., Baldini, A., Bertocchi, E., Costi, D.,
Torricelli, E., & Moruzzi, P. (2011). High performance
automotive chassis design: a topology optimization
based approach. Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, 44(1), 45–56.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-010-0578-7
Chiandussi, G., Gaviglio, I., & Ibba, A. (2004). Topology
optimisation of an automotive component without final
volume constraint specification. Advances in
Engineering Software, 35(10–11), 609–617.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADVENGSOFT.2003.07.002
216
Dolenc, A., & Mäkelä, I. (1994). Slicing procedures for
layered manufacturing techniques. Computer-Aided
Design, 26(2), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-
4485(94)90032-9
Fukumoto, S., Lum, I., Biro, E., Boomer, D. R., & Zhou, Y.
(2003). Effects of Electrode Degradation on Electrode
Life in Resistance Spot Welding of Aluminum Alloy
5182. Welding Journal, (November), 307–312.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11661-004-0122-8
Gohari, H., Barari, A., & Kishawy, H. (2016). Using
Multistep Methods in Slicing 2 ½ Dimensional
Parametric Surfaces for Additive Manufacturing
Applications. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(31), 67–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IFACOL.2016.12.163
Huang, X., & Xie, Y. . (2010). Evolutionary Topology
Optimization of Continuum Structures: Methods and
Applications. John Wiley & Sons.
Jamiolahmadi, S., & Barari, A. (2014). Surface Topography
of Additive Manufacturing Parts Using a Finite
Difference Approach. Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Engineering, 136(6), 061009.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4028585
Jankovics, D., Gohari, H., & Barari, A. (2018). Constrained
Topology Optimization For Additive Manufacturing Of
Structural Components In Ansys®. In Proceedings of
The Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering
International Congress 2018. CSME-SCGM.
https://doi.org/10.25071/10315/35404
Lalehpour, A., & Barari, A. (2016). Post processing for
Fused Deposition Modeling Parts with Acetone Vapour
Bath. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 49(31), 42–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IFACOL.2016.12.159
Langelaar, M. (2016). Topology optimization of 3D self-
supporting structures for additive manufacturing.
Additive Manufacturing, 12, 60–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADDMA.2016.06.010
Langelaar, M. (2017). An additive manufacturing filter for
topology optimization of print-ready designs.
Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 55(3),
871–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-016-1522-2
Laxman, S., & Mohan, R. (2007). Structural Optimization:
Achieving a Robust and Light-Weight Design of
Automotive Components. In 2007 World Congress.
Detroit. https://doi.org/10.4271/2007-01-0794
Leal, R., Barreiros, F. M., Alves, L., Romeiro, F., Vasco, J.
C., Santos, M., & Marto, C. (2017). Additive
manufacturing tooling for the automotive industry.
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 92(5–8), 1671–1676.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-017-0239-8
2019 IFAC IMS
August 12-14, 2019. Oshawa, Canada Davin Jankovics et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 52-10 (2019) 212–217
Leary, M., Merli, L., Torti, F., Mazur, M., & Brandt, M.
(2014). Optimal topology for additive manufacture: A
method for enabling additive manufacture of support-
free optimal structures. Materials & Design, 63, 678–
690. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MATDES.2014.06.015
Li, C., & Kim, I. Y. (2015). Topology, size and shape
optimization of an automotive cross car beam.
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering,
229(10), 1361–1378.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0954407014561279
Li, C., Kim, I. Y., & Jeswiet, J. (2015). Conceptual and
detailed design of an automotive engine cradle by using
topology, shape, and size optimization. Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization, 51(2), 547–564.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-014-1151-6
Li, G., Xu, F., Huang, X., & Sun, G. (2015). Topology
Optimization of an Automotive Tailor-Welded Blank
Door. Journal of Mechanical Design, 137(5), 055001.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4028704
Liu, J., & Ma, Y. (2016). A survey of manufacturing oriented
topology optimization methods. Advances in
Engineering Software, 100, 161–175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ADVENGSOFT.2016.07.017
Marchesi, T. R., Lahuerta, R. D., Silva, E. C. N., Tsuzuki, M.
S. G., Martins, T. C., Barari, A., & Wood, I. (2015).
Topologically Optimized Diesel Engine Support
Manufactured with Additive Manufacturing. IFAC-
PapersOnLine, 48(3), 2333–2338.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IFACOL.2015.06.436
Mirzendehdel, A. M., & Suresh, K. (2016). Support structure
constrained topology optimization for additive
manufacturing. Computer-Aided Design, 81, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CAD.2016.08.006
Ryan, L., & Kim, I. Y. (2019). A multiobjective topology
optimization approach for cost and time minimization
in additive manufacturing. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering, 118(7), 371–394.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.6017
Schramm, U., Thomas, H., & Zhou, M. (2002).
Manufacturing Considerations and Structural
Optimization for Automotive Components. In SAE
2002 World Congress. Detroit.
https://doi.org/10.4271/2002-01-1242
217
217
Sigmund, O. (2001). A 99 line topology optimization code
written in Matlab. Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, 21(2), 120–127.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001580050176
Sigmund, O. (2009). Manufacturing tolerant topology
optimization. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 25(2), 227–239.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10409-009-0240-z
Strano, G., Hao, L., Everson, R. M., & Evans, K. E. (2013).
A new approach to the design and optimisation of
support structures in additive manufacturing. The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 66(9–12), 1247–1254.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-012-4403-x
Thompson, M. K., Moroni, G., Vaneker, T., Fadel, G.,
Campbell, R. I., Gibson, I., … Martina, F. (2016).
Design for Additive Manufacturing: Trends,
opportunities, considerations, and constraints. CIRP
Annals, 65(2), 737–760.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CIRP.2016.05.004
Vanek, J., Galicia, J. A. G., & Benes, B. (2014). Clever
Support: Efficient Support Structure Generation for
Digital Fabrication. Computer Graphics Forum, 33(5),
117–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12437
Yang, R. J., & Chahande, A. I. (1995). Automotive
applications of topology optimization. Structural
Optimization, 9(3–4), 245–249.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01743977
Yang, S., & Zhao, Y. F. (2015). Additive manufacturing-
enabled design theory and methodology: a critical
review. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 80(1–4), 327–342.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-6994-5
Zhou, M., Fleury, R., Shyy, Y.-K., Thomas, H., & Brennan,
J. (2002). Progress in Topology Optimization with
Manufacturing Constraints. In 9th AIAA/ISSMO
Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and
Optimization. Reston, Virigina: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics.
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2002-5614