Additive Manufacturing Support Structure Optimization

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

In additive manufacturing, selecting optimal machine parameters and designing supporting structures is manually intensive, leading to inefficiencies and increased material consumption, with manual placement resulting in production-induced residual stresses and parasitic deformations.

Innovation Solution

A simulation-based method that optimizes component positioning and generates supporting structures automatically, using process and component optimization criteria to minimize material usage and stress, incorporating methods like Nelder-Mead and SIMP for optimal placement and topology optimization.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If manual approach is used for selecting machine parameters and designing supporting structures, then flexibility and adaptability are maintained, but time consumption and complexity increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvemanual control flexibilityVSAvoiddevelopment and production time

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs supporting structure design and machine parameter selection in advance through automated algorithms before actual production. The system pre-calculates optimal supporting structures based on component geometry and production parameters, eliminating the need for manual iteration during production setup.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent replaces manual mechanical design processes with computer-based simulation and optimization algorithms. The system uses automated computational methods to determine supporting structure configurations and machine parameters, substituting human expertise with algorithmic processing.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

2Adaptability or versatility

If manual placement of supporting structures is used, then design flexibility is maintained, but material consumption increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedesign flexibilityVSAvoidmaterial consumption

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The patent optimizes supporting structure parameters such as thickness, density, and geometry through automated algorithms. The system adjusts these parameters to minimize material usage while ensuring sufficient support functionality, replacing manual estimation with precise computational optimization.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The patent creates digital models and simulations of supporting structures before physical production. The system uses virtual prototypes to test and optimize supporting structure designs, allowing multiple iterations without consuming additional physical material.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #26Copying

3Manufacturing precision

If additional supporting structures are added to ensure accuracy, then component precision is improved, but production-induced residual stresses and parasitic deformations increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecomponent accuracyVSAvoidresidual stresses and deformations

Core Design Contradiction:

Manufacturing precisionVSObject-generated harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies supporting structures selectively only where needed based on local geometric features and stress analysis. The system identifies specific regions requiring support and designs localized supporting structures rather than adding uniform support throughout, minimizing unnecessary material and stress introduction.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent uses simulation feedback to evaluate the impact of supporting structures on component quality. The system iteratively tests different supporting structure configurations and selects those that achieve required precision while minimizing residual stresses and deformations.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

4Productivity

If simulation-based optimization is implemented, then productivity and material efficiency are improved, but device complexity and computational requirements increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveproduction efficiencyVSAvoidsimulation system complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent develops a multi-functional simulation system that performs multiple tasks including supporting structure design, machine parameter optimization, and quality prediction within a single integrated platform. The system combines various analytical functions into one unified tool, reducing the need for multiple separate software systems.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS10456979B2Optimization of a production process

Publication Date: 2019.10.29 SIEMENS AG

AI summary

A method (1) for optimizing a production process for a component (20, 32) that is to be manufactured by additive manufacturing by means of simulation (2) of the production process (50) includes: a) ascertaining a position of the component (20, 32) in a production space that has been optimized according to a process optimization criterion (7); b) calculating displacements and/or stresses in the component (20, 32) that can be caused by the production process (50); c) ascertaining supporting structures (31) that counteract the displacements and/or stresses that have been optimized according to the process optimization criterion (7); and d) ascertaining at least a portion of the design of the component (20, 32) that has been optimized according to a component optimization criterion (8).