Engineering design approaches and a comparative study of topology optimization tools

Ketevan Kveselava, Irakli Bochorishvili, Levan Jiqidze, Liana Tedeshvili, Zurab Samkharadze
{"title":"Engineering design approaches and a comparative study of topology optimization tools","authors":"Ketevan Kveselava, Irakli Bochorishvili, Levan Jiqidze, Liana Tedeshvili, Zurab Samkharadze","doi":"10.52340/2023.05.04.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the paper there are presented engineering approaches of generative design, the authors note that the advent of additive manufacturing AM (Additive Manufacturing) reveals the limits of current computer-aided design CAD (Computer Aided Design) systems and, at the same time, emphasizes topology optimization TO (Topology Optimization) and generative design of the potential of GD (Generative Design) tools, that have not been fully exploited until now. In contrast to the traditional approach to design, where designers take a dominant role at each stage of the engineering design process, the paper notes that the introduction of such tools in the product development process leads to simulation design approaches, which implies a significant change in the designer's role. For this purpose, the paper presents a comparison of two different additive manufacturing design methods, namely TO and GD on products obtained using tools. The comparison aims to reflect the evolution of the traditional approach when using TO and GD tools, and to highlight the potential and limitations of these optimization tools when integrated with CAD systems. In addition, this comparative study itself can be a useful and practical source for designers to identify the most suitable approach based on their needs and project resources. A comparative study is conducted by examining a prototype rocker arm and brake pedal design for a Formula Student racing car. Their results, in terms of mechanical performance, show that TO and especially GD tools can be effectively used early in the AM-oriented design process to modify components and make them lighter and stronger.","PeriodicalId":12686,"journal":{"name":"GEORGIAN SCIENTISTS","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GEORGIAN SCIENTISTS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52340/2023.05.04.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the paper there are presented engineering approaches of generative design, the authors note that the advent of additive manufacturing AM (Additive Manufacturing) reveals the limits of current computer-aided design CAD (Computer Aided Design) systems and, at the same time, emphasizes topology optimization TO (Topology Optimization) and generative design of the potential of GD (Generative Design) tools, that have not been fully exploited until now. In contrast to the traditional approach to design, where designers take a dominant role at each stage of the engineering design process, the paper notes that the introduction of such tools in the product development process leads to simulation design approaches, which implies a significant change in the designer's role. For this purpose, the paper presents a comparison of two different additive manufacturing design methods, namely TO and GD on products obtained using tools. The comparison aims to reflect the evolution of the traditional approach when using TO and GD tools, and to highlight the potential and limitations of these optimization tools when integrated with CAD systems. In addition, this comparative study itself can be a useful and practical source for designers to identify the most suitable approach based on their needs and project resources. A comparative study is conducted by examining a prototype rocker arm and brake pedal design for a Formula Student racing car. Their results, in terms of mechanical performance, show that TO and especially GD tools can be effectively used early in the AM-oriented design process to modify components and make them lighter and stronger.
工程设计方法和拓扑优化工具的比较研究
在本文中,提出了生成设计的工程方法,作者指出,增材制造AM(增材制造)的出现揭示了当前计算机辅助设计CAD(计算机辅助设计)系统的局限性,同时强调了拓扑优化TO(拓扑优化)和生成设计的潜力的GD(生成设计)工具的生成设计,直到现在还没有得到充分利用。在传统的设计方法中,设计师在工程设计过程的每个阶段都发挥主导作用,与此相反,本文指出,在产品开发过程中引入此类工具导致了仿真设计方法,这意味着设计师的角色发生了重大变化。为此,本文比较了两种不同的增材制造设计方法,即使用工具获得的产品的TO和GD。对比的目的是反映传统方法在使用to和GD工具时的演变,并强调这些优化工具在与CAD系统集成时的潜力和局限性。此外,这种比较研究本身可以是一个有用的和实用的来源,设计师可以根据他们的需求和项目资源确定最合适的方法。通过对某学生方程式赛车摇臂和制动踏板设计样机进行对比研究。就机械性能而言,他们的研究结果表明,在面向am的设计过程中,可以有效地在早期使用TO,特别是GD工具来修改组件,使其更轻、更强。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信