Adaptive Support Structures for Solid Freeform Fabrication

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing Solid Freeform Fabrication (SFF) techniques face challenges with inadequate support structures that require significant human interaction, often resulting in excessive or insufficient support, geometrical mismatches, and limited variation in support geometries, leading to inefficiencies and increased post-processing needs.

Innovation Solution

The development of adaptive support generation methods that analyze part geometries to determine optimal support regions, shapes, and sizes, minimizing the number of supports while ensuring strength, using techniques such as pixel-based analysis and sliced data processing to automate the support creation process.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Extent of automation

If prior art support structure methods are used, then supports can be generated for SFF parts, but they require a large amount of human interaction for inspection and editing

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesupport generation automationVSAvoidmanual inspection and editing requirement
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The support structure generation system performs self-inspection and self-correction by automatically detecting geometric mismatches between supports and part geometries, and adjusting support parameters without requiring manual intervention. The system serves itself by identifying and correcting its own deficiencies in support generation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback mechanisms by continuously monitoring the geometric alignment between generated supports and actual part geometries during the build process, then using this information to automatically adjust and optimize support structures for subsequent layers, eliminating the need for manual inspection and editing.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Productivity

If prior art support structure methods are used, then supports can be generated quickly, but they tend to be excessive or insufficient in number

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesupport generation speedVSAvoidsupport adequacy and geometry matching
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts support parameters such as diameter, spacing, and distribution based on real-time analysis of part geometry and local structural requirements. By changing these parameters adaptively rather than using fixed patterns, the system achieves both high productivity and precise support adequacy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The support generation system applies different support characteristics to different regions of the part based on local geometric features and structural needs. Critical areas receive denser or stronger supports while less critical areas use minimal supports, achieving precise support adequacy throughout the part without excessive material usage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

3Device complexity

If prior art support structure methods are used, then supports can be generated with simple geometries, but they create geometrical mismatches with the actual part geometries being cured

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesupport geometry complexityVSAvoidsupport-part geometry alignment
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSManufacturing precision

Solution Approach 1:

The support generation system transitions from static, predetermined support geometries to dynamic, adaptive support structures that automatically adjust their geometry to match the actual part surfaces being built. This dynamic adaptation ensures precise geometric alignment without requiring overly complex manual design processes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary geometric analysis and support planning before the actual build process begins, pre-calculating optimal support locations and geometries based on the digital model. This preliminary action ensures that supports are geometrically matched to the part before curing begins, eliminating mismatches without adding complexity during the build process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

4Ease of manufacture

If uniform support thickness is used throughout the support structure, then manufacturing is simplified, but support efficiency decreases and more supports are required

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesupport structure manufacturing simplicityVSAvoidbuild throughput
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The support structure implements variable thickness where the base portion has greater thickness for structural strength and stability, while the tip portion has reduced thickness to minimize contact area and support scars on the part. This local differentiation in thickness optimizes both manufacturing efficiency and build throughput.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The support structure transitions from uniform one-dimensional thickness to a three-dimensional graduated thickness profile that tapers from the base to the tip. This dimensional variation allows the support to maintain strength where needed while minimizing material usage and contact area, improving build efficiency without complicating manufacturing.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Data Source

PatentEP2481555B1Region-based supports for parts produced by solid freeform fabrication
Publication Date: 2021.08.25 3D SYSTEMS INC
  • EP2481555B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP2481555B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP2481555B1 patent drawingFigure 3~5

AI summary

Methods for generating supports (30) for parts (50) produced by solid freeform fabrication ("SFF") are disclosed. The method includes defining a plurality of layers (L) that make up the part, and for each layer, determining those regions (R) that required support. The method also includes merging the regions for the different layers (L) into one or more common regions that require support, and providing at least one support for each of the one or more common regions. The result is that fewer supports are used as compared to conventional SFF fabrication methods.