Design for Additive Manufacturing Betatype Capability Demonstration. June 2016

Transcription

1 Design for Additive Manufacturing Capability Demonstration June 2016

2 Contents 1 Manual & Automatic Optimisation 2 Hardware Used 3 Lattice Generation 4-5 Component Validation Random Lattice Structure 6 Unitform Lattice Converted to stl. 7 File Fixing Magics 8 File Fixing Other Software 9 Processer Renishaw 10 Simulated Renishaw 11 Route 12 Renishaw AM250 (Actual) Timings and Summary 15 Within Lattice Generation 16 File Fixing Magics 17 File Fixing Other Software 18 Processer & Simulated Time Renishaw 19 Timings and Summary 20 Manual & Automatic Optimisation 21 Overview This project received MTC SME Reach Support. For more information, contact: handbook@the-mtc.org

3 Manual Optimisation fixer file file Automatic Optimisation Rhino / stp. Within fixer file file 1

4 Hardware Used HP ZBook : 4 x Intel Core i7 CPU 2.50GHz RAM: 24GB 2

5 Lattice Generation 10mins fixer file file Lattice structures produced using Rhino / grasshopper / intra-lattice Uniform and random lattice structures produced Both files taken forward for simulations Only uniform structure taken forward for assessment as an stl Uniform Lattice Structure Random Lattice Structure Unit cell topology X Unit cell size 2mm Beam thickness mm Grading Linear through z Beam count ~120,000 File size 39mb Time 10mins Unit cell topology Unit cell size Beam thickness Grading Beam count File size Time N/A N/A mm Linear through z 37mb 10mins 3

6 Component Validation Random Lattice Structure 10mins 170mins fixer file file Component validation carried out in COMSOL Lattice structure exported from Rhino as a.dxf file Lattice modelled as beam elements with associated thicknesses (grading through z, mm) Skin modelled as 2D elements with associated thickness Skin-lattice connections modelled as fused joints 4

7 Component Validation Random Lattice Structure 10mins 170mins fixer file file 5

8 Uniform Lattice Converted to stl. 25mins 170mins fixer file file Unit cell topology X Unit cell size 2mm Beam thickness mm Grading Linear through z Beam count ~120,000 Triangle count 9,525,963 File size 465mb Time 15mins 6

9 File Fixing Magics 25mins 170mins fixer file 135mins file Triangle count 9,525,963 File size 465mb 135 mins Triangle count 8,988,797 File size 439mb 7

10 File Fixing Other Software 25mins 170mins fixer file file Netfabb professional Limitstate:FIX Blue screen of death Programme crash 8

11 Processer Renishaw 25mins 170mins fixer file 135mins file Processing failure Open edges (errors seen in Magics) 9

12 Simulated Renishaw 25mins 170mins fixer file 135mins 135mins file 1,519mins In reality, a build would not be able to take place given the failure to create a slice file For the purpose of comparison, a slice file has been created from wireframe geometry and a build (using standard scan parameters) has been simulated Both periodic and randomised lattice structures were taken forward for build simulation Results Periodic 2mm Lattice Single blade = 1,519 mins 15 blade array = 9,005 mins High Density Randomised Lattice Single blade = 2,285 mins 15 blade array = 22,727 mins 10

13 Route 25mins 170mins fixer file 16mins file Action Software Time Lattice Slicing 202 seconds Solid Slicing Netfabb seconds Path Optimisaiton 84 seconds MTT Generation 501 seconds TOTAL 967 seconds mins 11

14 Renishaw AM250 (Actual) 25mins 170mins fixer file 16mins file 2mm Uniform Unit Cell (simulated) Single blade = 1,061 mins 15 blade array = 4,477 mins High density Randomised lattice (simulated) Single blade = 1,148 mins 15 blade array = 5,712 mins 12

15 Timings and Summary No build processor and AM simulated build times available as route is not possible fixer file file Design Workflow Timings STL. workflow CAD geometry Fixer 135* N/A processor FAIL N/A engine N/A Workflow 13

16 Timings and Summary Comparisons Single Turbine Blade Array of 15 Turbine Blades Design Number of Simulated speed Dosing Estimated Estimated Simulated Speed Designation Elements Time (mins) improvement Percentage Dosing Marking Improvement (x) (%) Time (mins) Time (mins) Time (mins) (x) Periodic 2mm Lattice % Current Periodic 2mm lattice High Density % Randomised Lattice Current High Density % Randomised Lattice 14

17 Within Lattice Generation Quad beam elements used - modelling with a higher 205mins Unit cell size 2mm Generating lattice = 10mins Beam thickness mm Beam profile Quad Grading Linear through z Beam count 124,272 Triangle count 2,305,358 identified using within software number of faces causes software crashes Computational limitation on lattice density was file Within X Optimisation = 180mins / stp. Rhino Unit cell topology Simulation set up = 15mins File size Optimisation time 15 fixer 180 mins file

18 File Fixing Magics Rhino / stp. Within 205mins fixer file 10mins file Magics 10 mins 16

19 File Fixing Other Software Rhino / stp. Within 205mins fixer file 10mins file Errors fixed in Netfabb (5 mins processing time) Overlapping/intersecting errors still seen when imported back into magics Programme crashed during error fixing 17

20 Processer & Simulated Time Renishaw Rhino / stp. Within 205mins fixer file 10mins file 167mins MTT file generated using Renshaw s plug in for Magics Processing time of 167mins Simulated Times Single blade = 1,519 mins 15 blade array = 9,005 mins 18

21 Timing Comparison Rhino / stp. Within fixer file file STL. Workflow timings (mins) CAD geometry 25 Within optimisation 205 Fixer 10 processor 167 AM simulated 1519/9005 (single blade/15 blade array) 19

22 Manual Optimisation Can not build component through conventional route fixer file file Automatic Optimisation Rhino / stp. Within fixer file file 21 20

23 The Challenge Additive manufacturing enables the ability to manufacture highly complex geometry. However, the complexity of these geometries is limited by the current workflow: The AM workflow requires the generation of a surface meshed geometry (usually.stl). Due to this there a limit to the achievable geometry complexity. Highly complex/dense lattice structures are extremely time consuming to computationally validate through conventional finite element techniques. times increase exponentially with geometrical complexity MTC s Solution In the partnership with, the MTC developed a workflow that was based around s software, through creation of a highly complex lattice demonstrator component. The workflow incorporates lattice based modelling and validation via finite element analysis whilst avoiding the bottleneck of faceted data representation. The Outcome A quantitative assessment of the limitations of the current workflow It has been demonstrated that processing a geometry of this complexity is not manageable through the current workflow. A method of computationally validating highly complex lattice structures was demonstrated. speed improvements of up to 4x where demonstrated when using s generated build file, compared to the machine manufactures build file A demonstration of how lattice structures and additional functionality could be incorporated into an aerospace component Benefits to the Client The AM designer is now able to design and validate highly complex and efficient geometries which were previously not possible times for complex geometries are substantially reduced 22 21

24 DISCLAMER: The data contained in this document contains proprietary information and it may not to be copied or communicated to a third party or used for any other purpose than that which it was supplied without the MTC s prior written consent. MTC This project received MTC SME Reach Support. For more information, contact: handbook@the-mtc.org