Multi-component structure optimization for combining 3-D printed and commercially available parts

Patent metadata

Field	Value
Publication number	US-11947335-B2
Application number	US-202117522690-A
Country	US
Kind code	B2
Filing date	Nov 9, 2021
Priority date	Dec 30, 2020
Publication date	Apr 2, 2024
Grant date	Apr 2, 2024

Abstract

Aspects of methods, apparatuses, and computer-readable media for performing multi-material selection optimization (MMSO) to provide topologically and geometrically optimized multi-component structures (MCSs) across a plurality of design inputs and constraints are proposed. In some embodiments, a 3-D print model of an object based on load case criteria is obtained. A portion of the 3-D print model is determined that can be replaced with a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) part model such that the load case criteria remain satisfied. The portion or the 3-D print model can then be replaced with the COTS part model to determine the MCS model. In various embodiments, a mesh representation of the model can be generated, and plurality of optimization techniques can be used to determine the MCS model.

First claim

What is claimed is:

1. A method for determining a multi-component structure (MCS) model, comprising:
obtaining a 3-D print model of an object, wherein the 3-D print model is based on load case criteria;
determining a portion of the 3-D print model that can be replaced with a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) part model, such that the load case criteria remain satisfied; and
replacing the portion with the COTS part model to determine the MCS model,
wherein replacing the portion with the COTS part model includes performing multi-objective analysis based on a plurality of objective functions, and
wherein the objective functions comprise at least evaluating structural performance or a number of joints.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein determining the portion of the 3-D print model that can be replaced by the COTS model includes evaluating a plurality of evaluation metrics against a plurality of design requirements.

3. The method of claim 2 , wherein the evaluation metrics include at least a structural performance factor, a 3-D print cost, a COTS part cost, an assembly cost, or a lifecycle cost.

4. The method of claim 1 , wherein obtaining the 3-D print model includes determining the 3-D print model based on the load case criteria.

5. The method of claim 4 , wherein determining the 3-D print model is further based on at least a design space, a non-design space including a hard point or connection, a size, shape, density, material and weight requirement, an ecological and environmental consideration, a COTS count requirement, and a parts, assembly, and lifecycle cost.

6. The method of claim 4 , wherein determining the 3-D print model includes performing topology optimization to identify a load path based on the load case criteria.

7. The method of claim 6 , wherein determining the 3-D print model is further based on a non-design space, the non-design space including a hard point or a connection.

8. The method of claim 4 , wherein determining the 3-D print model includes performing mesh segmentation to generate a mesh representation of the object based at least in part on the load case criteria, the generated mesh representation including a surface mesh.

9. The method of claim 8 , wherein determining the portion of the 3-D print model that can be replaced by the COTS model includes analyzing the mesh representation to match the COTS part model with a geometry of a portion of the mesh representation.

10. The method of claim 1 , wherein replacing the portion with the COTS part model includes determining a plurality of different potential replacements, each potential replacement including a potential portion of the 3-D print model and a potential COTS part model, wherein at least the potential portion or the potential COTS part model is different with different potential replacements.

11. The method of claim 10 , wherein replacing the portion with the COTS part model includes comparing the potential replacements based on one or more input criteria.

12. The method of claim 11 , wherein comparing the potential replacements includes determining where each potential replacement lies along a pareto frontier.

13. The method of claim 11 , wherein comparing the potential replacements includes performing size optimization on the potential COTS part model of one of the potential replacements or performing topology optimization on the potential portion of the 3-D printed part of one of the potential replacements.

14. The method of claim 1 , wherein the COTS part model includes at least a plate, a tube, a pipe, a fastener, or an extrusion.

15. The method of claim 1 , wherein the MCS model includes a plurality of different materials.

16. The method of claim 1 , wherein the 3-D print model includes a node model.

17. A non-transitory computer readable medium having code stored therein for determining a multi-component structure (MCS) model, wherein the code when executed by at least one processor causes the at least one processor to:
obtain a 3-D print model of an object, wherein the 3-D print model is based on load case criteria;
determine a portion of the 3-D print model that can be replaced with a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) part model, such that the load case criteria remain satisfied; and
replace the portion with the COTS part model to determine the MCS model,
wherein replacing the portion with the COTS part model includes performing multi-objective analysis based on a plurality of objective functions, and
wherein the objective functions comprise at least evaluating structural performance or a number of joints.

18. The computer readable medium of claim 17 , wherein determining the portion of the 3-D print model that can be replaced by the COTS model includes evaluating a plurality of evaluation metrics against a plurality of design requirements.

19. The computer readable medium of claim 18 , wherein the evaluation metrics include at least a structural performance factor, a 3-D print cost, a COTS part cost, an assembly cost, or a lifecycle cost.

20. The computer readable medium of claim 17 , wherein obtaining the 3-D print model includes determining the 3-D print model based on the load case criteria.

21. The computer readable medium of claim 20 , wherein the 3-D print model is further based on at least a design space, a non-design space including a hard point or connection, a size, shape, density, material and weight requirement, an ecological and environmental consideration, a COTS count requirement, and a parts, assembly, and lifecycle cost.

22. The computer readable medium of claim 20 , wherein determining the 3-D print model includes performing topology optimization to identify a load path based on the load case criteria.

23. The computer readable medium of claim 22 , wherein determining the 3-D print model is further based on a non-design space, the non-design space including a hard point or a connection.

24. The computer readable medium of claim 20 , wherein determining the 3-D print model includes performing mesh segmentation to generate a mesh representation of the object based at least in part on the load case criteria, the generated mesh representation including a surface mesh.

25. The computer readable medium of claim 24 , wherein determining the portion of the 3-D print model that can be replaced by the COTS model includes analyzing the mesh representation to match the COTS part model with a geometry of a portion of the mesh representation.

26. The computer readable medium of claim 17 , wherein replacing the portion with the COTS part model includes determining a plurality of different potential replacements, each potential replacement including a potential portion of the 3-D print model and a potential COTS part model, wherein at least the potential portion or the potential COTS part model is different with different potential replacements.

27. The computer readable medium of claim 26 , wherein replacing the portion with the COTS part model includes comparing the potential replacements based on one or more input criteria.

28. The computer readable medium of claim 27 , wherein comparing the potential replacements includes determining where each potential replacement lies along a pareto frontier.

29. The computer readable medium of claim 27 , wherein comparing the potential replacements includes performing size optimization on the potential C

Assignees

• Divergent Tech Inc

Inventors

• Chen Jinbo
• Morgan Michael

Classifications

• B33Y50/00

  Data acquisition or data processing for additive manufacturing · CPC title

• G06F2119/18

  Manufacturability analysis or optimisation for manufacturability · CPC title

• G06F2113/10

  Additive manufacturing, e.g. three-dimensional [3D] printing · CPC title

• G06F2111/06

  Multi-objective optimisation, e.g. Pareto optimisation using simulated annealing [SA], ant colony algorithms or genetic algorithms [GA] · CPC title

• G06F30/23

  using finite element methods [FEM] or finite difference methods [FDM] · CPC title