Engineering with Computers

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 277–289 | Cite as

Parts internal structure definition using non-uniform patterned lattice optimization for mass reduction in additive manufacturing

  • Laurent ChougraniEmail author
  • Jean-Philippe Pernot
  • Philippe Véron
  • Stéphane Abed
Original Article


Today, being able to generate and produce shapes that fit mechanical and functional requirements and having as low as possible mass is crucial for aerospace and automotive applications. Besides, the rise of new additive manufacturing technologies has widened the possibilities for designing and producing complex shapes and internal structures. However, current models, methods and tools still represent a limitation to that new horizon of printable shapes. This paper addresses the way internal lattice structures can be generated and optimized to reduce the mass of a product. A new framework is introduced that allows the modeling and optimization of non-uniform patterned lattice structures. Using non-uniform structures, additional degrees of freedom are introduced and allow the definition of a wide variety of shapes which can better fit the requirements. First, a non-uniform patterned lattice structure is generated using the results of an initial finite element analysis. This initial structure is then optimized while iteratively removing the beams considered as useless with respect to a user-specified mechanical criteria. At each iteration, the lattice structure is sent to a finite element solver that returns the von Mises stress map used to drive the simplification process. Here, the simulations are performed on the wireframe lattice structures to speed up the optimization loops. Once this process is completed, the final structure is no longer fully patterned, but it is re-organized to reduce the mass while satisfying the mechanical criteria. This approach is illustrated with examples coming from our prototype software.


Additive manufacturing 3D modelling Shape optimization Lattice structures Finite element analysis Mass reduction Bio-mimicry Topology optimization Variable neighborhood search 


  1. 1.
    Gebhardt A (2018) Understanding additive manufacturing. Hanser Publishers, MunichCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dragan Kreculj BR (2013) Review of impact damages modelling in laminated composite aircraft structures. Tehnicki vjesnik Pregled modeliranja udarnih ostecenja u laminatnim kompozitnim konstrukcijama letjelica 20(3):485–495Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Duysinx P, Bendsoe MP (1998) Topology optimization of continuum structures with local stress constraints. Numer Methods Eng 43(8):1453–1478MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou X, Chen L, Huang Z (2017) The simp-srv method for stiffness topology optimization of continuum structures, CAD Center, School of Mechanical Science and Engineering, HuaZhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, 430074. P.R, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allaire G, Dapogny C, Frey P (2011) Topology and geometry optimization of elastic structures by exact deformation of simplicial mesh. Ecole polytechnique centre de mathématiques appliquées UMR CNRS 7641Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang X, Xie YM (2010) A further review of ESO type methods for topology optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 41:671–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deng X, Wang Y, Yan J, Liu T, Wang S (2016) Topology optimization of total femur structure: application of parametrized level set method under geometric constraints. J Mech Design 138:011402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang HV (2005) A unit cell approach for lightweight structure and compliant mechanism. Ph.D. thesis, Georgia Institute Of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Witzel U, Preuschoft H (2005) Finite-element model construction for the virtual synthesis of the skulls in vertebrates: case study of diplodocus. The Anatomical Reord, special issue: Finite Element Analysis in Vertebrate. Biomechanics 283(2):391–401Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Witzel U, Preuschoft H (2014) International design conference. DubrovnikGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Avsec M (2016) Biomimicry and 3d printing. Third Annual Benesch 3D printing conference spotlights biomimicry, startups, and legal issues in additive manufacturingGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rousseau J, Gibaud A (2007) Cristallographie gTomTtrique et radiocristallographie. Dunod (ISBN: 978-2-10-050198-4)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hadi A, Vignat F, Villeneuve F (2015) Design configurations and creation of lattice structures for metallic additive manufacturing. 14eme Colloque National AIP PRIMECA. La PlagneGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Suard M, Villeneuve DR, Vignat F (2015) characterization and optimization of lattice structures made by electron beam melting. Ph.D. thesis, Grenoble INP, France, GrenobleGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alzahrani M, Choi SK, Rosen DW (2015) Design of truss-like cellular structures using relative density mapping method. Mater Des 85:349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Howell JA (2005) an experimental study of the effect of stress and strain on bone development. Anat Rec 13:349–360Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Darwin C (1859) The origin of species by mean of natural selection. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Howell JA (1986) The law of bone remodeling. translation of the German, 1892 edn. Springer, Heidelberg (1986)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bondy JA, Murty USR (1982) Graph theory with applications. Department of Combinatorics and Optimization. University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Springer, New York (ISBN: O-444-19451-7)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Watts DM, Hague RJ (2006) Exploiting the design freedom of RM, Rapid Manufacturing Research Group. Loughborough University, Wolfson School of Mechanical and Manufacturing EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Piegl L (1995) The NURBS Book. Elseyier Science Publishing Co, Amsterdam (1995) (ISBN: 978-3-642-97385-7)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    CEA (2018) Cast3m general notice.
  24. 24.
    CEA (2018) Cast3m, up to date von mises notice and website.
  25. 25.
    Allaire G (2006) Conception optimale de structures, vol 58. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Teufelhart S, Reinhart G (2012) optimization of strut diameters in lattice structures. Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium. Proceedings: SFF Symposium—an additive manufacturing conference, held at the University of Texas in Austin on August 6–8, 2012. Austin, pp 719–733Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tam KMM, Coleman JR, Fine NW, Mueller CT (2015) Stress line additive manufacturing (slam) for 2.5-d shells. In: Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium, Amsterdam Future VisionsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurent Chougrani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jean-Philippe Pernot
    • 2
  • Philippe Véron
    • 2
  • Stéphane Abed
    • 1
  1. 1.Poly-ShapeSaint-Pierre-du-PerrayFrance
  2. 2.Arts et MétiersLISPEN, HeSamParisFrance

Personalised recommendations