Project #2 Topology Optimization

ME 366 Computer Aided Engineering & Manufacturing

Kinley Koontz
11/03/2021

Overview
In this project, SolidWorks part files and simulations were utilized to guide the design of
a small part based on weight and displacement. A blank design was given with forces and
constraints applied and a stress and resultant displacement simulation was conducted to
determine areas with the lowest stress in the design. This graphical representation informed the
design cuts that were made to the blank design and another analysis was then conducted to
ensure that the resultant displacement was below the maximum allowable. In addition, the cost
and mass/displacement distribution for each iteration was calculated which determined what cuts
could be made to the next iteration. If the part was mass dominant, the next one would then need
to be displacement dominant through changing the design to decrease the overall displacement of
the part. This process was repeated for four iterations to determine the lowest cost part and create
the lowest weight design.
For the lowest cost design, a meshing analysis was conducted to determine that as the
resolution of the mesh increased, the displacement also increased to the point of convergence. In
order to validate the results for the lowest weight part, a 4-element nodal analysis was conducted.
The results from this analysis demonstrated that using rough estimation and some math enabled a
fairly accurate determination for the displacement comparable to using a high-end software. For
the final aspect of the project, the lowest weight design was converted into a .dxf file and put into
the OMAX software. This software creates a cutting file that informs the path of a waterjet cutter
which will eventually cut out this optimized design. Overall, this project was vital to discovering
how to create and analyze a topologically optimized and low cost part that can be machined
through waterjet cutting. The final part designed through this process can be seen in Figure 1
below.
Fall 2021

Figure 1. Overall Picture of Final Optimized Lightest Weight Part

Fall 2021

Optimization and Cost Discussion

The first part of this section demonstrates the initial geometry (Figure 1), mass properties
(Figure 2), resultant displacement (Figure 3), and stress simulation (Figure 4) of the given blank
as designed in SolidWorks. The mass was the same as the given information in the lab and the
displacement was slightly off at 0.13401 mils instead of 0.13402 mils. This blank was mass
dominant and had a low cost of 0.80 which was determined through the cost analysis equation,
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
( )2 +( )2
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 = √ 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥
. The cost analysis results are laid out in Table 1.
2

Figure 2: Blank Geometry

Figure 3: Blank Mass Properties

Fall 2021

Figure 4: Blank Resultant Displacement Simulation

Figure 5: Blank vonMises Stress Simulation

As seen in the stress simulation, there are many sections on the right side, in the middle,
and on the bottom of the part that have low enough stresses, as indicated by the dark blue, to be
removed and not compromise the integrity of the part while lowering cost and mass. The
following section details each iteration created and the decision-making process that corresponds
with it.
 Approach #1

Iteration 1
For Iteration 1, Figure 5 informed the first cut decisions as the dark blue areas
demonstrated areas that could be removed. Because there was dark blue around the middle hole,
I decided to create trapezoidal cutouts to take out a large area while not creating more stress
around the hole. This allowed me to lower the mass and the displacement while not deviating too
far from the initial stress map. Next, I decided to take half circle cuts out of the top and bottom
where there was also lower stress and to not create sharp lines that would increase the stress in
those areas. I also decided to take out the lower stress sections on the right side as the lower
corner was not very structurally necessary and the small part inside the square was not either.
The mass of the part ended up being 0.018768 which is about a 0.004 difference. The difference
for the displacement was determined as a function of the 0.25 max displacement and ended up
being the dominant variable in this iteration. The total cost ended up being higher than the blank
which can be contributed to the increase of the resultant displacement caused by removing
material and increasing the stress in other areas like around the corners of the trapezoids. Below,
the geometry (Figure 6), the mass properties (Figure 7), the resultant displacement (Figure 8),
and the stress (Figure 9) are represented.

Figure 6: Iteration 1 Geometry

Fall 2021

Figure 7: Iteration 1 Mass Properties

Figure 8: Iteration 1 Resultant Displacement Simulation

Fall 2021

Figure 9: Iteration 1 vonMises Stress Simulation

Iteration 2
Iteration 2 is a variation of iteration 1 in that keeps the same idea of removing area from
the same places, however, it increases the mass and lowers the displacement, shown in Figure
12, to create a model that is mass dominant. Because of the high stress, that was created around
the corners of the inner trapezoids, I shortened their length and added the triangular mass
additions inside which decreased it shown in Figure 13. This also increased the mass which
helped make the iteration mass dominant, this can be seen in Figure 11. I also decreased the arc
height of the bottom to reduce the stress at the top and increase mass. The stress map
demonstrated that more material could have been removed from the bottom, top, and middle
section, however, I risked increasing the displacement and lowering the mass to the point that
this iteration would not represent a switch in dominance modes. I could have instead gone back
and further edited my Iteration 1 to achieve an overall lower mass and still be able to switch
between modes.
Fall 2021

Figure 10: Iteration 2 Geometry

Figure 11: Iteration 2 Mass Properties

Fall 2021

Figure 12: Iteration 2 Resultant Displacement Simulation

Figure 13: Iteration 2 vonMises Stress Simulation

The cost for this iteration ended up being the lowest overall according to Table 1. This is
largely in part to the extremely low displacement value and relatively low mass. Both variables
and their ratios to the maximum values create an overall lower cost. This piece will later be
analyzed through a mesh analysis.
Fall 2021

Iteration 3
In the third iteration I decided to take a different approach to altering the first design.
Instead of adding mass to the bottom, I took off more to decrease the mass and therefore increase
the deflection to give it a higher individual cost. I also wanted to keep the mass, which can be
found in Figure 15, lower than the previous iteration to keep the cost lower than the previous
one. It turns out that this was the most costly piece which surprised me but I assume it is because
the displacement had such a high ratio in this design piece. The displacement is represented in
Figure 16 and the stress in Figure 17 that demonstrates the loss of more blue area than the last
iteration.

Figure 14: Iteration 3 Geometry

Figure 15: Iteration 3 Mass Properties

Fall 2021

Figure 16: Iteration 3 Resultant Displacement Simulation

Figure 17: Iteration 3 vonMises Stress Simulation

Fall 2021

Iteration 4
For iteration 4, I wanted to build off my design in Iteration 3 by taking off the rough edge
on my bottom cut and decreasing the size of the two inner cuts. This allowed me to increase the
mass, shown in Figure 19, and therefore switch it to be more mass dominant in this iteration. I
also wanted to lower the cost from last time which means that I needed to decrease the deflection
as well, that is why I moved the right side of the first trapezoid shape closer to the leftmost edge.

Figure 18: Iteration 4 Geometry

Figure 19: Iteration 4 Mass Properties

Fall 2021

Figure 20: Iteration 4 Resultant Displacement Simulation

Figure 21: Iteration 4 vonMises Stress Simulation

Describe the logic behind each of your four (or more) iterations for Approach 1. Why did you
remove material? Why did you put some material back? How did you identify where the best
locations for material removal were? Include the required screen captures described in the
project description
Fall 2021

Approach #2
The second approach is to try and get the part to the lightest weight possible. My
approach was to remove large amounts of material in between both left and right inner markers
and increase the size of the inner cuts dramatically. I also increased the left side ellipse size to
take out more of the dark blue coloring on the Iteration 4 graph. I also took more material off of
the left side. This design took me a few tries to get the mass lower and lower each time. Thinking
back on the design process, I could have joined the outer cuts with the circle to make one large
middle cut and extend the cut even into the right side of the piece. If I would have thought that
was allowed in the design, I definitely would have done that. The cost of this piece was also
lower than all the other iterations besides iteration 2. This was a pro of this design approach
because it naturally lowered the cost as well as making it displacement dominant.

Figure 22: Lightest Weight Design Geometry

Figure 23: Lightest Weight Mass Properties

Fall 2021

Figure 24: Lightest Weight Resultant Displacement Simulation

Figure 25: Lightest Weight vonMises Stress Simulation

Fall 2021

Individual Cost Table

This table represents all the necessary data that I collected during this lab. This helped me
to determine how I should alter my design with each different iteration and approach. This also
helps provide insight into the value of the part and other important quality metrics for the part
which is relevant to manufacturing and industry.

Resultant
Dominant Total
Mass (lb) Displacement
Variable Cost
(mil)
Max Displacement
0.022854 0.25000 1.0000
Values or Mass?
Values 0.022854 0.134036 0.802325
Blank Mass
Costs 1 0.536144
Iteration Values 0.018768 0.215997 0.842872
Displacement
1 Costs 0.821213 0.863988
Iteration Values 0.020287 0.151921 0.760675
Mass
2 Costs 0.887678 0.607684
Iteration Values 0.018458 0.238475 0.883805
Displacement
3 Costs 0.807649 0.953900
Iteration Values 0.019910 0.20009 0.836521
Mass
4 Costs 0.871182 0.80036
Lightest Values 0.014984 0.239886
Displacement
Weight Costs 0.655640 0.959544 0.821763
Table 1. Cost of 4 Iterations (Approach #1) & Lightest Weight (Approach #2)

Mesh Size Analysis

For the lowest cost iteration, a mesh size analysis was conducted to demonstrate
convergence as the mesh resolution increases. Supporting screen captures of mesh sizes, most
coarse in Figure 26 and most fine in Figure 27, and corresponding results for displacement on a
convergence plot in Figure 28 are below.
Fall 2021

Figure 26: Lowest Cost Design (Iteration 2) Coarse Mesh

Figure 27: Lowest Cost Design (Iteration 2) Fine Mesh

Fall 2021

Mesh Size vs. Resultant Displacement

0.1615

0.161
Resultant Displacement (mils)

0.1605

0.16

0.1595

0.159

0.1585

0.158
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Mesh Size (clicks from coarse)

Figure 28: Mesh Size vs. Resultant Displacement Convergence Plot

Nodal Analysis
The SolidWorks simulation results were validated by manually completing a 1-D Nodal
Analysis of my lightest weight design. The calculation process includes drawing a 4 element
design system and representing it as springs in between nodes. I then used this estimation tool to
calculate the spring constant and conduct a matrix analysis on it that determines the deflection in
the part. This is a great way to estimate the solution with fairly high accuracy as demonstrated by
the deflection I found was 0.018 deflection and the SolidWorks model calculated 0.023. This
discrepancy is likely due to estimating a larger volume than actually present in the model which
decreases the deflection value.
Fall 2021

Figure 29: Lowest Weight Nodal Analysis Initial Drawing and Measurements
Fall 2021

Figure 30: Lowest Weight Nodal Analysis Spring Constant and Force Balancing
Fall 2021

Figure 31: Lowest Weight Nodal Analysis Matrix Calculations and Resultant Displacement

This was a great exercise because it demonstrated that we can validate a complex concept
through rough estimation and a simple algorithm that is comparable to using a high end software.

SolidWorks Layout
In this section, I have inserted a screen capture of the *.dxf file of my lightest weight
design as exported from SolidWorks. This is what I will upload into OMAX to create my cut file
to be cut with a waterjet cutter.
Fall 2021

Figure 32: Solidworks DXF file of Lowest Weight Part

OMAX Layout
The process of making a cut file was very straightforward and the software was easy to
use. First, I had to upload a .dxf file into the OMAX software from cad. Then, I select all and
make sure it is at a level 3 cut quality. Then, I take the lead lines and place them on the inner side
of the inner cuts first and then end with the last cut on the outside of the piece. One way I could
have improved this, and did later in combining the group file, is by moving the first v line closer
to the right size of the shape. This was then cleaned up and a file was produced that generated the
cutting path. This will be used to send instructions to a waterjet cutter.
Fall 2021

Figure 33: OMAX Lightest Weight Design Cut File

Group comparison
This is the Group Cost Table or the lightest weight part. I was pretty much in the middle
of our group in regard to the lowest weight but number 2 for the lowest cost. I had a knack for
being able to balance the equation to give the lowest cost, making me one of the most
economical designers.

Group P Cost of Lowest Cost Part Mass of Lightest Weight Part

Name (First and Last)
1 Kinley Koontz 0.760675 0.014984
2 Christian Sharpe 0 .771705 0.014951
3 Jace Johannesen 0.779187 0.014989
4 Elijah Whitaker 0.79406 0.014767
5 Daisha Johnson 0.75822 0.014718
6 Nik Xia 0.79382 0.014736
7 Nathan Black 0.76279 0.017271
8 Edward Kennedy 0.767692 .015786
9 Jonathan Blackwell .876227 .02292335
Table 2: The Group Data for Lowest Cost Part and Lightest Weight Part
Fall 2021

Conclusion
I was able to learn the entire process of designing a part, generating a simulation for
stress and displacement, analyze the results and optimize the design, then calculate the cost for
each design choice, and finally validate it and convert it to a cut file. This has been a great
learning experience and I can see how I might apply each of these concepts in my career. I am
looking forward to applying these skills in the lab.