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

Over 10 Million Study Resources Now at Your Fingertips