Evaluating the Feasibility of Topology Optimization and Generative Design for Use in Hobbyist 3D Printing ‘Angel Ken Young 12-Karangalan Applied Sciences and Engineering Track June 2024 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements in the Most Outstanding Natural and Applied Sciences and Engineering Student (MONASES) Award for AY 2023-2024,CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the background of the study on the efficiency of topology optimization and generative design in functional 3D printing for non-industrial applications. Background of the Study 3D printing is a relatively new method of manufacturing that enables us to convert 3D models into real objects, primarily by building objects layer by layer. In recent years, it has gained significant popularity among hobbyists due to its various benefits and applications as detailed in “The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering” (Gao et al., 2015). As a brief summary, the features highlighted are as follows: design flexibility, cost efficiency of geometric complexity, dimensional accuracy, reduced need for assembly, and time and cost efficiency in production runs. Design flexibility allows designers to create models without having to account for the limitations of other manufacturing methods, such as drilling angles and tooling for CNC machines. This freedom also allows for parts to be printed in one piece rather than having to be assembled like parts created with more traditional methods. The ability to place material only where it is needed is also the reason why this is a prime candidate for topology optimization and generative design, which will be discussed later. The cost of geometric complexity is noticeably lower in 3D printing compared to other manufacturing methods. This means that a significant increase in a part's complexity, such as internal voids and organic curves, can still be achieved without the need for additional tools, mounts, or time. Most desktop printers have great dimensional accuracy, being able to achieve dimensions around 50 microns of the original file. The last benefit discussed in the paper that is relevant to this one is 3D printing'’s suitability for low-quantity manufacturing. Part prototypes and components that only need to be created in low numbers caneasily be produced via 3D printing, as opposed to the high startup costs typically incurred by processes like injection molding Another factor that has contributed significantly to the widespread adoption of 3D printing is the affordability of capable 3D printers. A brand-new Ender 3V2 printer by Creality can be purchased for as low as $200. In terms of manufacturing capabilities, this printer can produce objects of similar quality to more expensive models, such as the same company's K1, albeit with fewer features, a smaller build size, and lower speed, A wide variety of easily accessible resources and user-friendly software has also contributed to its rising popularity. Large design libraries can be accessed through Cults3D, MyMiniFactory, and Thingiverse. With the help of these resources, enthusiasts can collaborate in a shared environment and even profit from their efforts. The market size was predicted to reach 20.37 billion USD in 2023, with an expected annual compound growth rate of around 22.4% (SkyQuest Technology Consulting Pvt. Ltd., 2022). The two primary forms of 3D printing used outside of the professional sector are Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) and Stereolithography (SLA), both of which use different materials and methods to create the end product (Kafle et al., 2020). FDM printing, also known as Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), is a process that creates items layer by layer by extruding thermoplastic along a predetermined path through a heated nozzle. On the other hand, SLA builds these layers by selectively curing portions of the photopolymer resin vat. This can be accomplished in one of two ways: either by masking the areas that shouldn't be cured and shining the light source on the vat for long enough to solidify the layer (Masked Stereolithography), or by utilizing a laser to cure the resin in paths (Digital Light Processing), much like FDM. After a layer is completed, the build platform is raised to make space for the next layer of resin to be cured. Once printing is finished, the object is washed to remove excess resin and then cured,wherein the model is put into a chamber with more UV lights to solidify the resin fully Traditionally, designing parts for manufacturing began with manual drafting. Engineers and designers would draw detailed blueprints by hand. This was a lengthy and labor-intensive process that frequently required several iterations to improve the design, Manual drafting also limited the complexity of designs, as intricate geometries were challenging to accurately depict and reproduce without the aid of simulated models (Giesecke et al., 2011). This is compounded by the fact that these drawings can only show one perspective at a time. Understanding these blueprints is quite difficult without a good understanding of engineering and what the part is designed to do. With the advent of high-powered computers and displays with greater visual fidelity, Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software has revolutionized the field of design and manufacturing. CAD greatly improves the productivity and accuracy of designs by enabling designers to produce 3D models quickly and efficiently. Most modem software also allows for the automatic generation of blueprints and plans based on the designed model. CAD software aids designers greatly in being able to create designs more easily, quickly, and efficiently. Sharing of the designs has also become much easier, as the project files containing all of the information put into the model such as all of the measurements, materials, and drawings can be exported as a single file and sent via email or other transmission methods. CAD software has also made it possible to modify a pre-existing model’s parameters easily, and even simulate these models for things like static stress testing and aerodynamic testing. These capabilities speed up the design process and allow for the creation of more complex and optimized parts that manual drafting could not easily achieve. ‘Along the evolution process for CAD software, advanced features such as. topology optimization and generative design have become more prevalent and accessible to users. Topology optimization is a computational method thatsimulates user-defined load cases and optimizes the placement of materials in a specific area for these loads and boundary conditions. It does this by removing material that contributes less to the overall strength or rigidity of the part over the volume it takes up. This process keeps only the parts that are critical in maintaining the strength or rigidity of the part depending on the user's needs, allowing for more efficient and lightweight structures (Bendsoe & Sigmund, 2003). On the other hand, generative design makes use of Al algorithms to produce a wide range of design options based on predetermined limits and specifications. The wide range of models this process creates allows designers to get a better insight into possible alternative designs that can be used for the given task (Khan & Awan, 2018). The incorporation of generative design and topology optimization into CAD software emphasizes their importance in the field of design and manufacturing. In addition to improving CAD's functionality, these tools help hobbyists and professionals alike to produce high-performance, optimized parts more efficiently. The use of generative design and topology optimization in a variety of industries has already been the subject of earlier research. The application of topology optimization in engineering was demonstrated by Bendsae and Sigmund (2003). Similarly, Khan and Awan investigated the benefits of generative design for computer-aided design (2018). Despite this, research particularly aimed at addressing the viability and advantages of these techniques for hobby 3D printing is lacking. This study aims to close this gap by evaluating the viability and effectiveness of generative design and topology optimization in non-industrial, hobbyist applications. The main objective of this paper is to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of generative design and topology optimization for 3D printing at the hobbyist level. Through the destructive testing of models generated using the free software Fusion 360, the research will assess if these techniques can be adapted for non-industrial applications and their impact on the functionality andquality of 3D-printed parts, specifically focusing on the balance between weight and part strength. Statement of Problem and Objectives The accessibility of advanced design tools such as topology optimization and generative design for hobbyist 3D printing remains unclear. Although these tools have proven to be very beneficial in professional sectors, there is insufficient research on their viability and usability in a non-industrial setting. The objectives of this study are to answer the following questions: 4. What are the specific improvements in weight-to-strength ratio and material usage when using topology optimization and generative design in 3D printed parts? 2. What are the time and cost implications of incorporating topology optimization and generative design into hobbyist 3D printing projects? 3. Can hobbyists with limited technical expertise successfully utilize topology optimization and generative design tools to create functional 3D printed parts? Significance of the Study Hobbyists: Evaluating the feasibility of using topology optimization and generative design in hobbyist 3D printing has the potential to expand the capabilities of non-professional designers and makers. Augmented with tools typically left to automotive and aerospace engineers, hobbyists will be able to create more efficient and functional parts (Sigmund & Maute, 2013), saving not only on prototyping time but also material, both in testing and for the final product, Economie and Environmental Impact: Using these technologies has the potential to significantly reduce not only the materials used but also the electricity consumed when prototyping and manufacturing parts (Ford & Despeisse, 2016).The reduction of this has a direct impact on the environment and the sustainability of additive manufacturing. The money saved from this can make the barrier to entry even lower than it already is, giving the industry even more room to grow. Educational Value: Educators and students studying STEM subjects can benefit greatly from introducing enthusiasts to these technologies as they provide a useful means of helping them apply abstract ideas to practical situations and deepen their understanding of the basic ideas of optimum design. Community and Collaboration: Innovation in this sector can be met with excitement and a renewed passion within the community. The utilization of these tools can contribute to the improvement of the quality of publicly available files. These hobbyists have also spearheaded research and development for novel techniques, such as arc overhangs (Kohut, 2023) and non-planar 3d printing (O'Connell, 2021). The study might promote increased cooperation among enthusiasts, as access to advanced design tools has made it easier for enthusiasts to share optimal designs and ideas, which has improved the quality and productivity of 3D printed items overall. Methodology To gather the relevant information on the efficiency of the methods described above, bracket designs generated using topology optimization and generative design will be used, with a hand-modeled part serving as a reference. All parts will have the same dimensions and mounting points. The infill density of these parts will be adjusted so that the parts have the same weight, or within 5 grams of each other. Three distinct infill densities—roughly 0%, 25%, and 50% in comparison to the control model—will be exported for each model. The same material, Standard Grey PLA from the Esun brand, will be used for the test. To avoid variation resulting from varying printing conditions, the components will be printed using the same printer with the same settings.For the actual testing, the bracket will be mounted to a fixed wall or object. The other end of the bracket will have a rope and a force measurement tool fixed to it, The device will then be pulled downwards until the part breaks. The part's efficiency can then be calculated by taking the maximum force withstood by the part and dividing it by the weight of the final product. To guarantee consistency in the results, each design and infill ratio will undergo testing three times. Below are images of the models to be used: VVrP Fig.1 - Unoptimized Fig. 2 - Topology Fig. 3 - bracket Optimized bracket Machine-generated bracket Fig. 4-Unoptimized _ Fig. 5 - Topology Fig. 6 - bracket Optimized bracket Machine-generated bracketScope and Delimitation This study focuses on evaluating the efficiency of topology optimization and generative design for hobbyist 3D printing using tools provided by Fusion 360. Fusion 360 was selected due to its powerful capabilities and the free access. it offers to students, making it an accessible option for hobbyists and educational purposes. Only one type of filament, Standard Grey PLA from the brand Esun, will be used throughout the study to maintain consistency and ensure that the results are directly comparable. This choice of filament is intended to control variables related to material properties, as the study's primary aim is to compare the design methodologies rather than the materials used The infill densities were chosen to be 0%, 25%, and 50% as these are the most common percentages used by hobbyists. Anything more would be considerably more expensive and wasteful both in time and materials. References Bendsge, M. P., & Sigmund, O. (2003). Topology Optimization: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Springer. Ford, S., & Despeisse, M. (2016). Additive manufacturing and sustainability: an exploratory study of the advantages and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 1573-1587. Gao, W,, Zhang, Y., Ramanujan, D., Ramani, K., Chen, Y., Williams, C. B., ... & Zavattieri, P. D. (2015). The status, challenges, and future of additive manufacturing in engineering. Computer-Aided Design, 69, 65-89. Giesecke, F. E., Mitchell, A., Spencer, H. C., Hill,|.L., Dygdon, J, T., Novak, J. E., & Lockhart, S, (2011). Technical Drawing with Engineering Graphics. Peachpit Press.Gupta, A., Singh, R., & Verma, R. (2015). Role of additive manufacturing in engineering education. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research, 4(2), 131-138. Kafle, A., Luis, E., Silwal, R., Pan, H. M., Shrestha, P. L., & Bastola, A. K. (2020). 3D/4D Printing of Polymers: Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM), Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), and Stereolithography (SLA). Polymers, 13(18), 3101. https://doi,ora/10.3390/polym13183101 Khan, S., & Awan, M. J. (2018). A generative design technique for exploring shape variations. Advanced Engineering Informatics, 38, 712-724. https://doi,org/10.1016/j,aei.2018.10.005 Kohut, A. (2023, March 3). Printing With Arc Overhangs Is Now Easier Than Ever. ALL3DP https://all3dp.com/4/printing-with-arc-overhangs-is-now-easi an-ever/ O'Connell, J. (2021, January 31). Non-Planar 3D printing: All you need to know. ALLDP. https://all3dp.com/2/non-planar-3d-printing-simply-explained/ Sigmund, O., & Maute, K. (2013). Topology optimization approaches. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 48(6), 1031-1055. SkyQuest Technology Consulting Pvt. Ltd. (2022, August 8). 3D printing Market: 10 million 3D Printers to Sold by 2030 Thanks to Declining Cost and Advancing Technology. GlobeNewswire News Room. htt Awww. newswire m/en/news-rel [2022) 249.41 1n/3D-printing-Market-10-million-3D-Printers-to-Sold-by-2030-Thanks-to-De clining-Cost-and-Advancing-Technology htm!