ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

CASE STUDY: GENERATIVE DESIGN OF A BRACKET, PART 1

NOTES:

You will need to take many screenshots to complete this case study. Note that the platform will only accept files
that are 10MB or less. You can compress your images by altering their resolution in a photo-editing program such
as MS Paint, Word, or Adobe Acrobat. After completing your assignment, the file size can be reduced in
Microsoft Word by selecting an image, clicking on the "Picture tools: Format" ribbon, then clicking
"Compress pictures". Select the compression size that reduces your file size to smaller than 10 Mb.

Compressing photos in Microsoft Word

1
If you aren't using Microsoft Word, the next easiest method is to first save the document as a PDF, and
then use another application to reduce the file size. If you have Adobe Acrobat (Adobe Reader does not
have this feature), open the PDF in Adobe Acrobat, then save it as a “Reduced Size PDF,” as shown in the
below. Besides Adobe products, other open online tools exist, such as TinyPDF (http://www.tinypdf.com/) that
can be used to reduce the filesize of PDFs.

Saving a reduced size PDF in Adobe Acrobat

- Alternatively, you can title your images – e.g. using the following nomenclature “Task 1, Question 2” and
then indicate in the text here which images correspond to which answers. Then you may update your
images as separate files.
- Be sure to save your copy of this case study, as you will use some of the answers gathered to make
comparative assessments later.
- This case study is a composite document. You will read the prompt, write your answers, and review the
rubric (to help guide your submissions) all in this same document. Then, save a copy and upload to
submit.
- You may want to write your answers in a different color than the main text so your reviewer can identify
them easily. Dark blue (like this) is a good option.
- Click the number on the right-hand side of the Table of Contents to navigate to that page.

2
 -

Table of Contents – Part 1

BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................................4
SCENARIO.............................................................................................................................................................5
TASK 1: CURRENT DESIGN ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................8
RUBRIC FOR TASK 1..........................................................................................................................................9
TASK 2: BRACKET LOADING ANALYSIS...................................................................................................10
RUBRIC FOR TASK 2........................................................................................................................................13
TASK 3: GENERATIVE DESIGN SETUP.......................................................................................................14
RUBRIC FOR TASK 3........................................................................................................................................16
TASK 4: TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION AND ANALYSIS...........................................................................17
RUBRIC FOR TASK 4........................................................................................................................................18
TASK 1: AM PROCESS SELECTION..............................................................................................................19
RUBRIC FOR TASK 1........................................................................................................................................20
TASK 2: USING GENERATIVE DESIGN FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS..........................................21
RUBRIC FOR TASK 2........................................................................................................................................24
TASK 3: MANUFACTURABILITY COMPARISON OF GENERATIVELY DESIGNED BRACKETS...25
RUBRIC FOR TASK 3........................................................................................................................................26

3
BACKGROUND

The Arbitrary Aviation Company (AAC), founded in 1940, began as a sheet-metal forming contract manufacturer
for aerospace companies and the U.S. Department of Defense. During World War II, AAC was increasingly
tasked with scaling up their manufacturing facilities to accommodate increased demand and new process capacity
to support the war effort, including machining operations for many of the small parts used in the final craft. By
1950, AAC had several facilities across the American Midwest, and served as sole-supplier for several
commercial and military aircraft bodies. After a series of mergers and acquisitions with specialized fabrication
facilities in the early 60s, and, later, early adopters of carbon fiber composite technology in the 70’s, AAC began
designing and producing their own commercial bodies and wings for volume production.

Since their transition to aircraft manufacturer, AAC has specialized in Class II designated craft by the United
States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), meaning that they possess a wingspan of 49-78 feet (~15-24
meters), and fit a low-volume of passengers (approximately 50, depending on the interior of the plane and
sensitivity of the purchasing airline to customer satisfaction), and are therefore largely limited to domestic
operation within the United States of America. More recently, AAC has established a notable presence in India,
China and some European markets.

AAC’s unique history had enabled it to, with some important exceptions, vertically integrate within the United
States. All of their primary manufacturing operations were located domestically, a point of pride that had defined
AAC’s corporate branding, including the popular jingle, “This Sky is Our Sky.” Beyond mere marketing, their
domestic approach was a compelling selling point. The Tenerife disaster of 1977, which resulted in 583 deaths,
had made many passengers wary of air travel. Though the tragedy was due to human error rather than
electromechanical failure, AAC used their “American Made” guarantee as a way to bolster consumer confidence
and increase their sales.

AAC’s growth strategy was successful, and, by 2018, AAC accounted for 3.5% of the global fleet of commercial
aircraft in operation, with annual revenues exceeding $17bn.

Despite this success, AAC has faced substantial increasing pressure from competitors in recent years. For their
competitors, offshoring of manufacturing facilities had enabled lower-cost production through reduced labor
costs, and further distributing their manufacturing operations across several specialized international facilities
could improve marginal productivity on individual components. Moreover, major organizational investments into
lean production systems facilitated greater production control throughout the manufacturing process. In total,
these efforts created a unique operational and supply-chain advantage for AAC’s competition.

Unfortunately for AAC, the Board’s strong commitment to producing high-quality, American-made and
assembled aircraft would ultimately prevent them from leveraging the cost savings of offshoring their production
facilities and forced them to pursue a strategy of relying on a wholly domestic supply chain. This difficult
situation meant that the senior executives within the company had limited options for implementing a cost-
reduction strategy to try to keep up with the efficiencies realized by their competitors while also placating the
desires of the Board.

In short, AAC would need to find another way to stay competitive.

4
SCENARIO

AAC’s Learning Collaboratively Program recently tasked a team of manufacturing engineers, product designers,
and executives with attending Additive Manufacturing for Innovative Design and Production. AAC had for some
time been considering purchasing a metal AM machine for advanced prototyping and low-volume tooling
operations and hoped that the team would walk away from the course with the knowledge necessary to make an
informed purchase and construct the business case for the use of AM in these operations. AAC already uses
polymer-based systems for prototyping and limited production, and recent advances in metals AM equipment had
piqued the interest of the company’s CTO, Paul Wright.

Fortunately, for AAC, the team learned, in addition to their anticipated usage of metal AM, the technology is
proving to be an effective production method for flyaway parts. Moreover, if parts designed for AM could be
made lighter than current designs suited to machining and/or casting, then perhaps AAC could translate a higher
production cost of these parts to the customer through reduced fuel consumption.

After initial review, the team identified the B-0128-g bracket, made of Ti6Al4V, as a suitable part for conversion
to additive manufacturing. The CTO, Paul has asked you re-design the bracket for production by AM, in order to
take full advantage of the AM design space. The CAD geometry file and a higher resolution drawing can be found
here and here, respectively.

5
EXHIBIT A: Bracket drawing

6
 EXHIBIT B: Original B-0128-g design

The B-0128-g is machined from a block of wrought Ti6Al4V. The product team, in collaboration with
Procurement, chose this bracket for several reasons:

 The lead time for this bracket is supposed to be about a week, but due to frequent supplier delays, AAC is
forced to order batches of brackets several months in advance, according to its expected production
schedule.

 The “buy to fly” ratio of the bracket is approximately 5:1, meaning approximately 80% of the stock
material is removed during machining. Although the scrap can be sold, this is still a considerable waste,
and the scrap value is very low.

 The bracket is stiffer and stronger than it needs to be for its application, and therefore is unnecessarily
heavy. The team speculates that its weight could be reduced via design for AM, creating value to the end-
user.

7
TASK 1: CURRENT DESIGN ANALYSIS

For the below questions, explicitly state the calculation you used to arrive at your conclusions when appropriate.
As referenced earlier, The CAD Geometry file, B-0128-g – 0037 Rocker Arm Bracket, can be here. When
describing the workpiece’s dimensions, do not account for a machining tolerance; the workpiece's dimensions
should be accurate to the bounding box of the component.

Q: Conventionally, the bracket is machined from a block of wrought titanium. What is the approximate length
(parallel to the x direction) of workpiece needed to machine the current design (all answers in mm)?
A: The total length in X-Direction will be 152mm.

Q: What is the approximate width (parallel to the y direction) of workpiece needed to machine the current design
(all answers in mm)?
A: The total length in Y-Direction will be 56mm.

Q: What is the approximate height (parallel to the z direction) of workpiece needed to machine the current design
(all answers in mm)?
A: The total length in Z-Direction will be 72mm.

Q: What is the volume of the current bracket in mm^3? Note this can be queried in Fusion 360 as the
“properties” of the part when right clicking on the body in question, as shown in the Tutorial: Fusion360 PDF.
Express your answer in mm^3. Do not round your answer. Fusion will give you a volume with 3 decimal places.
A: The volume of the current bracket is 116647.555 mm^3.

Q: Based on the above, what percentage of the titanium block will become waste in the machining process?
Round your answer to the nearest percentage point. Do not include a “%”, only include numbers in your answer.
A: 81

Q: If the wrought stock material costs $60 per kg, what is the cost associated with unused (i.e. removed) material?
Assume the density of titanium is 4.5 g/cm^3. Briefly explain how you got your answer. Neglect the scrap value
of the chips and costs of lubricant/coolant, chip handling, etc. Round your answer down to the nearest dollar.
A: The cost of wasted material will be $134 and, this is calculated by multiplying the volume of wasted
material with the density to get the mass of the material and then multiplied with the cost of material.

8
RUBRIC FOR TASK 1

Learning Objective assessed: Ability to extract part information from Fusion 360 and perform a cost analysis
based on this information.

5 - (Excellent): Student correctly identifies key dimensions using Fusion 360 and uses these dimensions to
correctly calculate the percent of stock titanium that is wasted, and the value lost due to this waste.

4 - (Good): Student correctly identifies key dimensions using Fusion 360 and uses these dimensions to incorrectly
perform the calculations of the percent of stock titanium that is wasted, and the value lost due to this waste.

3 - (Fair): Student incorrectly identifies one or more of the key dimensions using Fusion 360 and uses these
dimensions to incorrectly perform the calculations of the percent of stock titanium that is wasted, and the value
lost due to this waste.

2 - (Weak): Student incorrectly identifies most of the key dimensions using Fusion 360 and uses these dimensions
to perform incomplete calculations of the percent of stock titanium that is wasted, and the value lost due to this
waste.

1 - (Poor): Student fails to extract key dimensions using Fusion 360 and provides incomplete calculations of the
percent of stock titanium that is wasted, and the value lost due to this waste.

9
TASK 2: BRACKET LOADING ANALYSIS

You’ll first need to undertake an engineering review of the current bracket to determine what your constraints and
objectives are for the redesign. Shown below are loading conditions for the bracket.

EXHIBIT B: Isometric view of loading conditions

10
 EXHIBIT C: Side view of loading conditions

The bracket is fixed to the base plate, shown in black, with bolts through the holes marked in red. Each bolt has a
preload of 4.5kN applied and the bolt head diameter is 20mm; it can be assumed that each bolt head distributes
this force evenly over the area where the bolt head contacts the bracket. The bracket is attached to the rest of the
assembly via a pin, shown in blue. The assembly the bracket attaches to (not shown), fits entirely within the space
between the two pin locating walls.

During operation, the pin exerts an upward force of 10kN and a lateral force of 5kN on the bracket at the same
time.

You have information about the loads applied to the pin that attaches the bracket to the rest of the plane, but to run
topology optimization, you need to know the loads and constraints on the bracket.

11
 EXHIBIT D: Force labels

Q: For the given load case, give the magnitudes and directions of each of the forces labelled on the figure
shown, as well as the constraints on the bracket.
A:
F1,z= 5.0 KN
F2,z= 5 KN
F3,z= 4.5 KN
F4,z= 4.5 KN
F1,y= 2.5 KN
F2,y= 2.5 KN
Constraints:

IMPORTANT: When importing these forces through Fusion's Generative Design workflow, make sure you use
these forces, or you will get erroneous results. You will need to create a separate load case for each force
(although the force can have components in the Z and Y directions).

12
RUBRIC FOR TASK 2

Learning Objective assessed: Knowledge of force analysis and interpretation of the loads and constraints of a
mechanical design problem.

5 - (Excellent): Student correctly identifies all force magnitudes, directions, and constraints

4 - (Good): Student only makes one error identifying force magnitudes, directions, and or constraints

3 - (Fair): Student only makes two errors identifying force magnitudes, directions, and or constraints

2 - (Weak): Student makes three errors identifying force magnitudes, directions, and or constraints

1 - (Poor): Student incorrectly identifies more than three force magnitudes, directions, and or constraints

13
TASK 3: GENERATIVE DESIGN SETUP

You have access to the CAD model of the original bracket here, and you will use Generate to perform topology
optimization on the original bracket design.

In order to setup the Generative Design workflow in Fusion 360, you must first start with a CAD file which
defines the “preserve” and the “obstacle” geometries necessary to produce the optimized part. We have provided
you with a file that already includes bodies for the generative design workflow. The file is named
Bracket_GD_Setup.f3d which can be found here. A screenshot is included below:

05/07/20 Note: for this assignment, please select a “medium” synthesis resolution. Lower resolutions are
prone to errors with this geometry.

Your superiors at AAC would like to know more about how generative design works. Answer the questions
below from a general perspective (though you may wish to use the provided configuration as an illustrative
example).

14
Q: For both “preserve” and “obstacle” geometries, list and describe (in at least 75 words) at least two
considerations that engineers must account for when defining and labeling each geometry type.

Preserve Geometry (75 words):

In Generative design preserve regions or bodies are the entities that should remain in the final part to make it
function properly. These regions or bodies include the holes for the fasteners or flanges. This option makes sure
that the final part should have these geometries present in it. Secondly, this include the region/bodies which are
supporting or load bearing entities. So it is necessary to define the preserve geometries in the design prior to
generative design study.

Obstacle Geometry (75 words):

The term obstacle geometries in generative design are the regions or bodies, which prohibits the material
generation in the area where these geometries exist. These are generally used for following purposes: firstly, these
make space for the tools which are used for assembling or disassembling the products such as spanners or
screwdrivers. Secondly, these geometries also free space for the different parts of the assembly to fit in the space
properly to work properly in an assembly.

Q: If printing the bracket using SLM, what overhang angle and minimum strut thickness would you use in
your design? (HINT: You may wish to refer back to the L-PBF/SLM chapter of the Knowledge Base).

Type your answer here…

15
RUBRIC FOR TASK 3

Learning Objective assessed: Understand the principles of generative design and know how to set up a scenario to
perform a software-based optimization. Also demonstrate ability to search technical documentation for critical
design parameters.

5 - (Excellent): Student accurately does ALL of the following: (1,2) lists at least two considerations for each type
of geometry (“preserve” and “obstacle”); (3,4) describes why those considerations are important to the Fusion 360
generative design process (in at least 75 words for each geometry type); and (5) accurately determines the
overhang angle and minimum strut thickness. Answers are entirely correct with supporting material.

4 - (Good): Student accurately does at least 4/5ths of the following: (1,2) lists at least two considerations for each
type of geometry (“preserve” and “obstacle”); (3,4) describes why those considerations are important to the
Fusion 360 generative design process (in at least 75 words for each geometry type); and (5) accurately determines
the overhang angle and minimum strut thickness. Answers are mostly correct with supporting material.

3 - (Fair): Student accurately does at least 3/5ths of the following: (1,2) lists at least two considerations for each
type of geometry (“preserve” and “obstacle”); (3,4) describes why those considerations are important to the
Fusion 360 generative design process (in at least 75 words for each geometry type); and (5) accurately determines
the overhang angle and minimum strut thickness. Answers are mostly correct with (weak or incorrect) supporting
material.

2 - (Weak): Student either incorrectly answers significant portions of the assignment or accurately does at least
2/5ths of the following: (1,2) lists at least two considerations for each type of geometry (“preserve” and
“obstacle”); (3,4) describes why those considerations are important to the Fusion 360 generative design process
(in at least 75 words for each geometry type); and (5) accurately determines the overhang angle and minimum
strut thickness. Answers are somewhat correct with (weak or incorrect) supporting material.

1 - (Poor): Student either incorrectly answers most of the assignment or accurately does at least 1/5ths of the
following: (1,2) lists at least two considerations for each type of geometry (“preserve” and “obstacle”); (3,4)
describes why those considerations are important to the Fusion 360 generative design process (in at least 75 words
for each geometry type); and (5) accurately determines the overhang angle and minimum strut thickness.
Answers are rarely correct with little to no support material, or incorrect supporting material.

16
TASK 4: TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION AND ANALYSIS

With your design file already open in Fusion360, apply the loads upon the preserve geometries as stated in your
answers to Task #2. Use “Titanium 6Al-4V” as your material (which can be found in the Fusion 360 Additive
Material Library) and select "Additive" for your manufacturing process, applying the rules you identified at the
end of Task #3 as your process constraints.

Now, run the program on this scenario at a coarse resolution using a safety factor of 1.5. Instructions for doing
this can be found in the PDF available from the Computation Driven Design Chapter (also available on this case
study’s page). After running the simulation, examine the three results given by Fusion and select the best
design using your judgement. Paste an image of this below:

Figure 1: Selection from Task 4 Study

Q: Inspect the resulting bracket and explain in 50 or more words where material was removed and why.

A: While doing the stress analysis on the original bracket there was large amount of areas where there were no or
less amount of stress acting for example the back angled face is minimal now. That way, in generative design
study those areas have been removed and material is added where stress is having more impact such as, below the
above circular bodies.

Q: Compare the mass of the new bracket as compared to the original bracket - what is the mass reduction from
the original bracket to the optimized design?

A: The mass of the original bracket was 526 grams, but after getting the results from generative design studies
with the above criteria the mass of the body is 139 grams. The mass reduction in this case is 387 grams which
means the bracket generated from the study has 387 grams’ lesser mass than original design with factor of safety
1.5.

17
Q: Given AAC’s safety factor, you feel that a more robust part might be needed to pass certification; you
speculate that your part should instead have a safety factor of 1.65.

In at least 150 words, Identify the areas of greatest stress (with an annotated image) and describe what
elements of the design you would modify (using images as appropriate) to accomplish this reduction. Also
reference what post processing techniques you would use to improve the fatigue resistance of your metal part.

Figure 2: Areas to be Modified

Figure 3: Stress Plot

18
 Figure 4: Highest Stress Areas

A: All the above three figures are taken from initial generative design study, in figure 3 and 4 the stress plot and
highest stress areas are shown respectively. With reference to figure 4 the red areas are highly stressed so to cater
this the geometry of that area could be changed for example some material could be added here to reduce the
intensity of the stresses. Secondly, there are some areas that require some modification as there will be issue while
3D printing and to improve the aesthetics for instance, in figure 2 there are some holes in the model that can be
filled during the model modification in the Fusion360.

The 3D printed parts from Selective Laser Melting process will have high surface roughness and residual powder
left on the surface and to increase the fatigue resistance of the parts, there are some post processing process which
can be applied. The effective process of improving the fatigue resistance of the titanium SLM printed parts is hot
isostatic pressing (HIP) treatment. In this a pressure vessel is used to apply the pressure evenly on the body to
reduce the pores in the parts which then increase the mechanical properties of the 3D printed parts.

19
RUBRIC FOR TASK 4

Learning Objective assessed: Perform topology optimization using Generate and analyze the results of this
optimization to determine the suitability of the optimized design for the use case.

5 - (Excellent): Student correctly performs ALL of the following: (1) includes an image of a correctly generated
bracket and (2) provides a strong explanation (in at least 50 words) explaining why material was removed in the
locations where it was removed; (3) correctly compares the mass of the original bracket to the generated bracket;
(4) and identifies areas of greatest stress and relief methods; (5) and identifies correct post processing techniques.

4 - (Good): Student correctly performs at least 4/5ths of the following: (1) includes an image of a correctly
generated bracket and (2) provides a strong explanation (in at least 50 words) explaining why material was
removed in the locations where it was removed; (3) correctly compares the mass of the original bracket to the
generated bracket; (4) and identifies areas of greatest stress and relief methods; (5) and identifies correct post
processing techniques.

3 - (Fair): Student correctly performs at least 3/5ths of the following: (1) includes an image of a correctly
generated bracket and (2) provides a strong explanation (in at least 50 words) explaining why material was
removed in the locations where it was removed; (3) correctly compares the mass of the original bracket to the
generated bracket; (4) and identifies areas of greatest stress and relief methods; (5) and identifies correct post
processing techniques.

2 - (Weak): Student correctly performs at least 2/5ths of the following: (1) includes an image of a correctly
generated bracket and (2) provides a strong explanation (in at least 50 words) explaining why material was
removed in the locations where it was removed; (3) correctly compares the mass of the original bracket to the
generated bracket; (4) and identifies areas of greatest stress and relief methods; (5) and identifies correct post
processing techniques.

1 - (Poor): Student correctly performs at least 1/5ths of the following: (1) includes an image of a correctly
generated bracket and (2) provides a strong explanation (in at least 50 words) explaining why material was
removed in the locations where it was removed; (3) correctly compares the mass of the original bracket to the
generated bracket; (4) and identifies areas of greatest stress and relief methods; (5) and identifies correct post
processing techniques.

20
ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING FOR
INNOVATIVE DESIGN AND PRODUCTION

CASE STUDY: GENERATIVE DESIGN OF A BRACKET, PART 2

Your design was, by all accounts, a success! But, to paraphrase the great poet Christopher Wallace: “With greater
successes, come greater challenges.”

You are now tasked with defining AAC’s production strategy for the bracket. In addition, you are asked to
broadly comment on the wider applicability of generative design to AAC’s portfolio of manufactured parts.

TASK 1: AM PROCESS SELECTION

Among the AM processes you’ve learned about, you are considering SLM, EBM, DED, and Binder Jetting to
produce the bracket.

Q: In at least 50 words per process, describe the principle of operation for each process mentioned above.

A. Selective laser melting (SLM) is the process in which laser melts the specified thickness of powdered materials
and then add another layer of powder to be melted and in this way the parts get 3D printed in layers. This process
is performed in a closed inert environment that is mostly pressurized which eliminates the oxygen contamination.

EBM or electron beam melting is identical to SLM but in this electron beam is used instead of laser beam. This
process is performed in vacuum instead of inert environment and in this system the bed temperature kept higher
around 600 °C but the process will remain the same as SLM.

In Direct Energy Deposition (DED), the material could be used as powder form or wire form. The material is
pushed through a nozzle and melted with centered heat source, and the heat source could be laser beam or
electron beam. This process is also taken place in closed inert environment to protect the material from oxidation.

The binder jetting technology is also a powder based process but instead of laser or electron beams, a binder is
used to hold the powdered material layers together. In this process the 6 axis robots are used to make a green
product which then is post processed to get the final results.

Q: In at least 200 words, which process do you think is most suitable for manufacturing the optimized
bracket? Why? Make sure to reference process specific characteristics such as the processes’ throughput,
its resolution, post-processing requirements, part size constraints, feature size constraints, etc.

A. There are several techniques to produce this bracket as described above, but for this bracket SLM will have
some advantages over other process. The reason for that is the bracket is going to be used in a critical area where
it should perform effectively to decrease the chances of failures as it could be devastating for overall assembly.
The plus points of SLM over other techniques are, the parts have the ability to tune the mechanical and thermal
properties whereas the parts from binder jetting are relatively have less mechanical properties, it’s a relatively low
cost process in contrast to others. As compare to EBM it has faster speed to print the parts and its resolution is
better than EBM as in EBM the minimum layer thickness range starts from 100µm whereas in SLM it starts from
50µm. In binder jetting the size, volume and shape of porosity might change in the same batch due to the
shrinkage issue in this process. With reference to size of the parts this bracket can easily be made with both SLM
and EBM but taking consideration of other parameter the SLM has the edge over others.

21
RUBRIC FOR TASK 1

Learning Objective assessed: Knowledge of the AM process spectrum and application of that knowledge to
determine whether or not an AM process is suitable for a specific design.

5 - (Excellent): Student correctly does ALL of the following: (1) Student describes each process in at least 50
words each. (2) Student then selects a “best” process and justifies this selection. (3,4,5 where each point
corresponds to one characteristic) Selection refers to at least 3 characteristics of the process, which may
include but are not limited to: machine cost, operational cost, process complexity, materials
compatibility, process throughput, dimensional accuracy, part size, and/or post-processing.

4 - (Good): Student correctly does 4/5ths of the following: (1) Student describes each process in at least 50 words
each. (2) Student then selects a “best” process and justifies this selection. (3,4,5 where each point
corresponds to one characteristic) Selection refers to at least 3 characteristics of the process, which may
include but are not limited to: machine cost, operational cost, process complexity, materials
compatibility, process throughput, dimensional accuracy, part size, and/or post-processing.

3 - (Fair): Student correctly does 3/5ths of the following: (1) Student describes each process in at least 50 words
each. (2) Student then selects a “best” process and justifies this selection. (3,4,5 where each point
corresponds to one characteristic) Selection refers to at least 3 characteristics of the process, which may
include but are not limited to: machine cost, operational cost, process complexity, materials
compatibility, process throughput, dimensional accuracy, part size, and/or post-processing.

2 - (Weak): Student correctly does 2/5ths of the following: (1) Student describes each process in at least 50 words
each. (2) Student then selects a “best” process and justifies this selection. (3,4,5 where each point
corresponds to one characteristic) Selection refers to at least 3 characteristics of the process, which may
include but are not limited to: machine cost, operational cost, process complexity, materials
compatibility, process throughput, dimensional accuracy, part size, and/or post-processing.

1 - (Poor): Student correctly does 1/5ths of the following: (1) Student describes each process in at least 50 words
each. (2) Student then selects a “best” process and justifies this selection. (3,4,5 where each point
corresponds to one characteristic) Selection refers to at least 3 characteristics of the process, which may
include but are not limited to: machine cost, operational cost, process complexity, materials
compatibility, process throughput, dimensional accuracy, part size, and/or post-processing.

22
TASK 2: Using Generative Design for Comparative Analysis

Recognizing that screening AAC’s library of hundreds of thousands of parts for suitable AM candidates would
require extreme effort, your supervisors instead ask you to evaluate a few exemplary applications for their
suitability for generative design and additive manufacturing.

For simplicity’s sake, you decide to run three generative design studies for the B-0128-g bracket in different
application scenarios, which will provide you with a proxy assessment for understanding the applicability of
generative design to different classes of components.

Maximum Prior
Maximum Production
SCENARIO Load (Bolt Cost Sensitivity Production
Load (Pins) Quantity
Holes) Method
Twice (2x) Twice (2x)
1 Low ~1,000/yr Machine
Nominal Nominal
2 Nominal Nominal High ~1,000/yr Machine
Half (.5x) Half (.5x)
3 High ~100,000/yr Cast, machine
Nominal Nominal

In all scenarios, the components are made from metal.

For each Study, Fusion360 will present you with several options that “solve” the generative design challenge
you’ve presented the software with. Now, you need to choose specific combinations of designs / materials /
manufacturing processes for each of the three scenarios listed above.

05/07/20 Note: for this assignment, please select a “medium” synthesis resolution. Lower resolutions are
prone to errors with this geometry.

Configure and run the generative design studies that compare:

(1) Two materials:

a. Titanium 6Al-4V
b. Stainless Steel 316L
i. Under materials, in the library dropdown, select Fusion 360 Material Library and then
Metals and finally Stainless Steel 316L

23
(2) Manufacturing process choices:
a. Unrestricted:
b. Additive Manufacturing (using the constraints you identified in Part 1, Task 3 of this assignment)
c. Machining Configurations (as identified in the following table)

24
For each scenario, select a design / material / manufacturing process combination which is most suitable to the
conditions described in the scenario. Take and paste a screenshot for each scenario, and comment, in no less than
150 words, why you chose the outcome you did for each scenario. Make sure to compare the design you chose
against other solutions produced by the generative study (if any), and comment on the specific features of
the design you selected. Additionally, be sure to comment on where material was removed, and why (there may
be different reasons for each design). Use additional images as appropriate to illustrate your conclusions.

1. Scenario One:

The selected outcome will be manufactured by 3-Axis milling with orientation as Y- or Y+ and the material
of construction is Titanium 6AI-4V. The reason for selecting this outcome is, to manufacture this bracket the
cost will be lowest as shown in figure 7 and secondly, the mass is lowest while meeting all the design criteria
set at the start of this generative design study. When it comes to maximum deflection in the part it is also in
the lowest range with respect to others.

There will be some manufacturing constraints, for example to drill all four holes the orientation of the part
will need to be changed. To overcome this issue another outcome could be selected which is of same material
but manufacturing process will be additive but to manufacture that the cost will be twice than the selected
outcome. Therefore, the selected outcome will be feasible to manufacture with some constraint that can be
eliminated easily.

25
 Figure 5: Scenario 1 Selected Outcome

Figure 6: Max. Displacement Graph of Scenario 1

26
 Figure 7: Cost/Piece in Scenario 1

2. Scenario Two

Figure 8: Scenario 2 Selected Outcome

27
 Figure 9: Max. Displacement Graph of Scenario 2

Figure 10: Cost/Piece in Scenario 2

A. The manufacturing option for above selected bracket outcome is unrestrictive and the material of
construction is Titanium 6AI-4V. The main objective of the study is to pick the generative design which is
lower in cost, less mass and perform its operations effectively. To the context of this selected outcome has
min. factor of safety is 1.5 which was our design requirement. Although, the selected part is not lightest and
not the price is lowest in the scenario but with reference to deflection it is the minimum in contrast to other
parts.

28
In this method too, there will be some manufacturing constraints, for example to drill all four holes the
orientation of the part will need to be changed. To overcome this issue another outcome could be selected
which is of same material but manufacturing process will be additive but to manufacture that the cost will be
twice than the selected outcome. Therefore, the selected outcome will be feasible to manufacture with some
constraint that can be eliminated easily.

3. Scenario Three

Figure 11: Scenario 3 Selected Outcome

Figure 12: Max. Displacement Graph of Scenario 3

29
 Figure 13: Cost/Piece in Scenario 3

A. The selected outcome will be manufactured by additive manufacturing with orientation as Y+ and the
material of construction is Stainless Steel 316L. The reason for selecting this outcome is, to manufacture this
bracket the cost will be lowest as shown in figure 13 and secondly, the mass is lowest while meeting all the
design criteria set at the start of this generative design study. When it comes to maximum deflection in the
part it is also in the lowest range with respect to others.

In this case, as the manufacturing process is additive so the manufacturing constraint that were present in the
previous selections will not be a hurdle. But, in this case the support structure will be required to support the
bottom section of the bracket and the upper holes.

30
RUBRIC FOR TASK 2

Learning Objective assessed: Knowledge of specifics related to different additive manufacturing processes and
how one would compare designs from a Fusion 360 study.

5 - (Excellent): Student correctly does ALL of the following FOR EACH SCENARIO: (1) Includes a photo of
their chosen bracket design and then; (2) in at least 150 words; (3) describes why a specific manufacturing
process removed material where it did; (3) comments on specific features of the design they chose, (4,5) and how
the cost/material/manufacturing method is most effective for each scenario. Student is thoughtful in their answers
and accurately answers each part of each prompt.

4 - (Good): Student correctly does at least 4/5ths of the following FOR EACH SCENARIO: (1) Includes a photo
of their chosen bracket design and then; (2) in at least 150 words; (3) describes why a specific manufacturing
process removed material where it did; (3) comments on specific features of the design they chose, (4,5) and how
the cost/material/manufacturing method is most effective for each scenario. Student is thoughtful in their answers
and accurately answers each part of each prompt. Student is almost fully correct in their analysis.

3 - (Fair): Student correctly does at least 3/5ths of the following FOR EACH SCENARIO: (1) Includes a photo of
their chosen bracket design and then; (2) in at least 150 words; (3) describes why a specific manufacturing
process removed material where it did; (3) comments on specific features of the design they chose, (4,5) and how
the cost/material/manufacturing method is most effective for each scenario. Student is thoughtful in their answers
and accurately answers each part of each prompt. Student either does not fully answer each scenario or is
somewhat incorrect in their analysis.

2 - (Weak): Student correctly does at least 2/5ths of the following: FOR EACH SCENARIO: (1) Includes a photo
of their chosen bracket design and then; (2) in at least 150 words; (3) describes why a specific manufacturing
process removed material where it did; (3) comments on specific features of the design they chose, (4,5) and how
the cost/material/manufacturing method is most effective for each scenario. Student is thoughtful in their answers
and accurately answers each part of each prompt. Student either does not answer large parts of each scenario or is
incorrect in large parts of their answer.

1 - (Poor): Student correctly does at least 1/5ths of the following FOR EACH SCENARIO: (1) Includes a photo
of their chosen bracket design and then; (2) in at least 150 words; (3) describes why a specific manufacturing
process removed material where it did; (3) comments on specific features of the design they chose, (4,5) and how
the cost/material/manufacturing method is most effective for each scenario. Student is thoughtful in their answers
and accurately answers each part of each prompt. Student either is missing the vast majority of each answer or is
largely incorrect in their analysis.

31
TASK 3: MANUFACTURABILITY COMPARISON OF GENERATIVELY DESIGNED BRACKETS

Now, you must consider not just the performance optimization of your component, but its overall
manufacturability.

Q: From your previous study, select three titanium parts – one which uses the Additive manufacturing
constraints (pick the one with the best manufacturability), one which is unrestricted, and one which uses a
machining manufacturing constraint. Consider their feasibility to manufacture as well as cost when
determining manufacturability.

Take a screenshot of all three parts and paste them below. Make sure to identify which part is which as well as
their safety factor, mass, and cost estimate.

Figure 14: Additive, Mass 139 Grams, FOS 1.5 and Cost 289-425/Piece

32
 Figure 15: Unrestricted, Mass 104 Grams, FOS 1.52 and Cost 238-339/Piece

Figure 16: Machined, Mass 113 Grams, FOS 2.02 and Cost 244-457/Piece

In 50 words or more identify the major differences between the three parts. Whenever possible, reference the
images you shared above and/or specific aspects of the component geometry. You must compare the parts at least
along the axes of: Cost, Mass, and Safety Factor, but may consider other factors as well.

A. The major differences between these three are the factor of safety of the parts, as per machined part, it has the
largest factor of safety between these three, although, the mass is almost same but for machined part the bounding
33
box would be critical as this will have huge impact on mass. One of the most important factor in deciding the part
is the manufacturing cost of the part which in case of machined part could go upto $457/piece in comparison to
other two which $339/piece for unrestricted and $425/piece for additive manufacturing.

Assume you were planning to 3D print using Selective Laser Melting each of these 3 selected designs. In 100
words or more, describe how those differences would impact manufacturability and support requirements
for the parts. Identify what orientation would be best for minimizing the support requirements of each part, and
annotate the images to identify where support structure would be necessary. Whenever possible, reference the
images you shared above and/or specific aspects of the component geometry.

A. All three designs are aesthetically almost same, and best approach to 3D print in SLM is printing it on the 90°
angle. In this case the support structure will only be required at the bottom surface of the part, as it needs support
to keep its location and shape. Secondly, to support the upper rings which are also assigned as preserve regions
will require support from side to keep their hollow shape and location. In conclusion, as per the above findings it
is clear that this bracket requires more support on bottom surface and circular shape and best approach to 3D print
it, the nozzle axis will be Z-axis.

In your opinion, and in 50 words or more, does the increased performance gain of the Unrestricted
component justify any additional operational challenges of producing it, relative to the 2 constrained
designs, at scale?

A. Although, unrestricted manufacturing approach doesn’t take manufacturing method into account, but still
there would be some challenges to produce it properly, for example the upper hole’s shape would be difficult to
get it in round shape. In context, there will be need to post processing to make the geometry in the required shape.

34
RUBRIC FOR TASK 3

Learning Objective assessed: Understand the potential of AM to add value and be able to compare manufacturing
processes for process suitability.

5 - (Excellent): Student correctly does ALL of the following: (1) includes three bracket photos (a titanium
unrestricted bracket, a titanium additive bracket, and a machined titanium bracket), and includes the safety factor,
mass, and cost for each bracket; (2) identifies major differences between the three brackets; (3) identifies how
those differences would impact manufacturability; (4) annotate where each bracket would require supports; (5)
and finally makes a succinct argument towards which bracket would be best for the requirement outlined in this
case study. Student demonstrates strong understanding through insightful comments.

4 - (Good): Student correctly does at least 4/5ths of the following: (1) includes three bracket photos (a titanium
unrestricted bracket, a titanium additive bracket, and a machined titanium bracket), and includes the safety factor,
mass, and cost for each bracket; (2) identifies major differences between the three brackets; (3) identifies how
those differences would impact manufacturability; (4) annotate where each bracket would require supports; (5)
and finally makes a succinct argument towards which bracket would be best for the requirement outlined in this
case study. Student shows understanding but not all answers fulfill requirements.

3 - (Fair): Student correctly does at least 3/5ths of the following: (1) includes three bracket photos (a titanium
unrestricted bracket, a titanium additive bracket, and a machined titanium bracket), and includes the safety factor,
mass, and cost for each bracket; (2) identifies major differences between the three brackets; (3) identifies how
those differences would impact manufacturability; (4) annotate where each bracket would require supports; (5)
and finally makes a succinct argument towards which bracket would be best for the requirement outlined in this
case study. Student shows some understanding, but some answers are incorrect or incomplete.

2 - (Weak): Student correctly does at least 2/5ths of the following: (1) includes three bracket photos (a titanium
unrestricted bracket, a titanium additive bracket, and a machined titanium bracket), and includes the safety factor,
mass, and cost for each bracket; (2) identifies major differences between the three brackets; (3) identifies how
those differences would impact manufacturability; (4) annotate where each bracket would require supports; (5)
and finally makes a succinct argument towards which bracket would be best for the requirement outlined in this
case study. Student shows some understanding, but some answers are significantly incorrect or incomplete.

1 - (Poor): Student correctly does only 1/5ths of the following: (1) includes three bracket photos (a titanium
unrestricted bracket, a titanium additive bracket, and a machined titanium bracket), and includes the safety factor,
mass, and cost for each bracket; (2) identifies major differences between the three brackets; (3) identifies how
those differences would impact manufacturability; (4) annotate where each bracket would require supports; (5)
and finally makes a succinct argument towards which bracket would be best for the requirement outlined in this
case study. Student shows some understanding, but most answers are significantly incorrect or incomplete.

35