IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,223,238

Granted Patent B2

US 12,223,238 · App. 17/346,141 · Granted Feb 11, 2025

Generative design shape optimization with controlled convergence for computer aided design and manufacturing

Inventors: Konara Mudiyanselage Kosala Bandara (Beckenham, GB); Hooman Shayani (Longfield, GB); Dagmara Lilianna Szkurlat (London, GB)

Assignee: Autodesk, Inc.

G06F30/20 B29C64/393 B33Y10/00 B33Y50/02 G06F30/17 G06F2111/04 G06F2111/10 G06F2113/10 G06F2119/04

View Patent ↗

Loading inventors, assignments & file history…

Monitor This Case

Get email alerts when status or documents change.

Order Certified Copies

Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.

Order via The Patent Place →

Pre-filled with this patent's details

Quick Facts

Patent No.: US 12,223,238
App. No.: 17/346,141
Granted: Feb 11, 2025
Kind: B2

External Links

USPTO Patent Center↗ Full Patent PDF↗

Abstract

Methods, systems, and apparatus, including medium-encoded computer program products, for computer aided design of physical structures using generative design processes. A method includes obtaining one or more design criteria for a modeled object including at least one design constraint; calculating a series of target values for the at least one design constraint, from an initial target value to a final target value; iteratively modifying a generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises performing numerical simulation of the modeled object, computing shape change velocities for an implicit surface in a level-set representation of the three dimensional shape in accordance with respective ones of target values in the series of target values, starting from the initial target value and ending with the final target value, and updating the level-set representation using the shape change velocities.

Claims (95)

1. A method comprising:

obtaining, by a computer aided design program, a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure will be manufactured, one or more design criteria for the modeled object, and one or more in-use load cases for the physical structure, wherein the one or more design criteria include at least one design constraint;

identifying an iteration amount;

calculating a series of target values for the at least one design constraint, from an initial target value to a final target value, in accordance with the iteration amount and a function;

iteratively modifying, by the computer aided design program, a generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria and the one or more in-use load cases for the physical structure, wherein the iteratively modifying comprises:

performing numerical simulation of the modeled object in accordance with a current version of the three dimensional shape and the one or more in-use load cases to produce a current numerical assessment of a physical response of the modeled object,

computing shape change velocities for an implicit surface in a level-set representation of the three dimensional shape in accordance with respective ones of target values in the series of target values, starting from the initial target value and ending with the final target value,

updating the level-set representation using the shape change velocities to produce an updated version of the three dimensional shape of the modeled object, and

repeating at least the performing, the computing and the updating until a predefined number of shape modification iterations have been performed or until the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space converges to a stable solution for the one or more design criteria and the one or more in-use load cases; and

providing, by the computer aided design program, the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure corresponding to the modeled object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one design constraint comprises at least one design constraint without a defined shape gradient, wherein the computing comprises computing the shape change velocities for the implicit surface in accordance with a proxy shape gradient output that is adjusted by an adaptive controller using an input control parameter that is a measure of error between a normalized current value for the at least one design constraint without the defined shape gradient and a normalized next target value from the respective ones of the target values in the series of target values, wherein the measure of error changes with a reference value that is changed at least once during the iteratively modifying.

3. The method of claim 2 , wherein the series of target values comprises target changes in a volume fraction of the generatively designed three dimensional shape.

4. The method of claim 3 , wherein the iteratively modifying for the iteration amount is only a first portion of the iteratively modifying, and the method comprises using the final target value in the series of target values in determining the measure of error during all of a second portion of the iteratively modifying.

5. The method of claim 2 , wherein the adaptive controller is a proportional-integral-derivative controller, and wherein the iteratively modifying comprises:

adjusting proportional, integral and derivative components of the proportional-integral-derivative controller to slow shape changes in response to an oscillation in the generatively designed three dimensional shape;

adjusting the proportional, integral and derivative components of the proportional-integral-derivative controller to effect a first level of increase in shape changes in response to repetition of success or failure to satisfy the normalized next target value; and

adjusting the proportional, integral and derivative components of the proportional-integral-derivative controller to effect a second level of increase in shape changes in response to the repetition of success or failure having a relative error with respect to the normalized next target value that exceeds a threshold, wherein the second level of increase in shape changes is greater than the first level of increase in shape changes.

6. The method of claim 5 , wherein the oscillation is more than two pairs of consecutive successes or failures to satisfy the normalized next target value, wherein the repetition of success or failure to satisfy the normalized next target value is repetition that occurs over a number of iterations equal to or greater than ten percent of the iteration amount, wherein the threshold is ten percent, wherein the adjusting in response to the oscillation comprises reducing the proportional component, reducing the integral component, and reducing or resetting the derivative component, wherein the adjusting in response to the repetition of success or failure comprises increasing the proportional component, reducing the integral component, and setting the derivative component to zero, and wherein the adjusting in response to the relative error exceeding the threshold comprises increasing the integral component and setting the derivative component to zero.

7. The method of claim 2 , wherein the iteratively modifying comprises changing the reference value multiple times, but not in each iteration of the iteratively modifying for the iteration amount, and changing the reference value comprises changing the reference value based on a moving average of normalized current value for the at least one design constraint over at least two prior iterations.

8. The method of claim 7 , comprising using the adaptive controller to smooth the changing of the reference value.

9. The method of claim 2 , wherein the at least one design constraint without a defined shape gradient comprises a first equality constraint and a second equality constraint, the first equality constraint having a first input control parameter to a first adaptive controller, the second equality constraint having a second input control parameter to a second adaptive controller, and computing the shape change velocities for the implicit surface in accordance with the proxy shape gradient comprises:

using a maximum shape change amount provided by the first and second adaptive controllers when none of the first and second equality constraints are inversely proportional to shape change;

using a minimum shape change amount provided by the first and second adaptive controllers when none of the first and second equality constraints are proportional to shape change; and

using an average shape change amount provided by the first and second adaptive controllers when both at least one of the first and second equality constraints is inversely proportional to shape change and at least one of the first and second equality constraints is proportional to shape change.

10. The method of claim 2 , wherein the at least one design constraint without a defined shape gradient comprises a first inequality constraint and a second inequality constraint, the first inequality constraint having a first input control parameter to a first adaptive controller and having a first importance factor that is multiplied with a shape change amount provided by the first adaptive controller, the second inequality constraint having a second input control parameter to a second adaptive controller and having a second importance factor that is multiplied with a shape change amount provided by the second adaptive controller, and computing the shape change velocities for the implicit surface in accordance with the proxy shape gradient comprises:

adjusting the first importance factor based on whether or not one or more other constraints, including the second inequality constraint, were violated in a prior iteration of the iteratively modifying; and

adjusting the second importance factor based on whether or not one or more other constraints, including the first inequality constraint, were violated in the prior iteration of the iteratively modifying.

11. The method of claim 10 , comprising using the adaptive controller to stabilize adjustments of the first and second importance factors.

12. The method of claim 10 , wherein the one or more design criteria comprise multiple design constraints, which include the first inequality constraint and the second inequality constraint, the method comprises grouping the multiple design constraints into a first group and a second group, the first group containing all of the multiple design constraints that are effected by volume changes, the second group containing one or more remaining ones of the multiple design constraints that are not effected by volume changes, and wherein computing the shape change velocities comprises using an augmented Lagrangian method that applies an adjustment factor to a sum of shape change contributions from the first group but does not apply the adjustment factor to a shape change contribution from the second group.

13. The method of claim 1 , wherein the one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems comprise an additive manufacturing machine, and the method comprises:

generating toolpath specifications for the additive manufacturing machine from the three dimensional model; and

manufacturing the physical structure corresponding to the object with the additive manufacturing machine using the toolpath specifications.

14. A system comprising:

a non-transitory storage medium having instructions of a computer aided design program stored thereon; and

one or more data processing apparatus configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to:

obtain a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure will be manufactured, one or more design criteria for the modeled object, and one or more in-use load cases for the physical structure, wherein the one or more design criteria include at least one design constraint;

identify an iteration amount;

calculate a series of target values for the at least one design constraint, from an initial target value to a final target value, in accordance with the iteration amount and a function;

iteratively modify a generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria and the one or more in-use load cases for the physical structure, wherein the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to iteratively modify the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object by being configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to

perform numerical simulation of the modeled object in accordance with a current version of the three dimensional shape and the one or more in-use load cases to produce a current numerical assessment of a physical response of the modeled object,

compute shape change velocities for an implicit surface in a level-set representation of the three dimensional shape in accordance with respective ones of target values in the series of target values, starting from the initial target value and ending with the final target value,

update the level-set representation using the shape change velocities to produce an updated version of the three dimensional shape of the modeled object, and

repeat at least the performing, the computing and the updating until a predefined number of shape modification iterations have been performed or until the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space converges to a stable solution for the one or more design criteria and the one or more in-use load cases; and

provide, by the computer aided design program, the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure corresponding to the modeled object using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.

15. The system of claim 14 , comprising an additive manufacturing machine, wherein the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to generate toolpath specifications for the additive manufacturing machine from the three dimensional model, and manufacture the physical structure corresponding to the object with the additive manufacturing machine using the toolpath specifications.

16. The system of claim 14 , wherein the at least one design constraint comprises at least one design constraint without a defined shape gradient, wherein the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to compute the shape change velocities by being configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to compute the shape change velocities for the implicit surface in accordance with a proxy shape gradient output that is adjusted by an adaptive controller using an input control parameter that is a measure of error between a normalized current value for the at least one design constraint without the defined shape gradient and a normalized next target value from the respective ones of the target values in the series of target values, wherein the measure of error changes with a reference value that is changed at least once during the iteratively modifying.

17. The system of claim 16 , wherein the series of target values comprises target changes in a volume fraction of the generatively designed three dimensional shape.

18. The system of claim 17 , wherein the iterative modification of the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object is only a first portion of the iterative modification of the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object, and the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to use the final target value in the series of target values in determining the measure of error during all of a second portion of the iterative modification of the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object.

19. The system of claim 16 , wherein the adaptive controller is a proportional-integral-derivative controller, and wherein the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to iteratively modify the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object by being configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to:

adjust proportional, integral and derivative components of the proportional-integral-derivative controller to slow shape changes in response to an oscillation in the generatively designed three dimensional shape;

adjust the proportional, integral and derivative components of the proportional-integral-derivative controller to effect a first level of increase in shape changes in response to repetition of success or failure to satisfy the normalized next target value; and

adjust the proportional, integral and derivative components of the proportional-integral-derivative controller to effect a second level of increase in shape changes in response to the repetition of success or failure having a relative error with respect to the normalized next target value that exceeds a threshold, wherein the second level of increase in shape changes is greater than the first level of increase in shape changes.

20. The system of claim 19 , wherein the oscillation is more than two pairs of consecutive successes or failures to satisfy the normalized next target value, wherein the repetition of success or failure to satisfy the normalized next target value is repetition that occurs over a number of iterations equal to or greater than ten percent of the iteration amount, wherein the threshold is ten percent, wherein the adjustment in response to the oscillation comprises reducing the proportional component, reducing the integral component, and reducing or resetting the derivative component, wherein the adjustment in response to the repetition of success or failure comprises increasing the proportional component, reducing the integral component, and setting the derivative component to zero, and wherein the adjustment in response to the relative error exceeding the threshold comprises increasing the integral component and setting the derivative component to zero.

21. The system of claim 16 , wherein the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to iteratively modify the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object by being configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to change the reference value multiple times, but not in each iteration of the iterative modification of the generatively designed three dimensional shape of the modeled object, and the change of the reference value comprises a change in the reference value based on a moving average of normalized current value for the at least one design constraint over at least two prior iterations.

22. The system of claim 21 , wherein the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to use the adaptive controller to smooth the change in the reference value.

23. The system of claim 16 , wherein the at least one design constraint without a defined shape gradient comprises a first equality constraint and a second equality constraint, the first equality constraint having a first input control parameter to a first adaptive controller, the second equality constraint having a second input control parameter to a second adaptive controller, and the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to compute the shape change velocities for the implicit surface in accordance with the proxy shape gradient by being configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to:

use a maximum shape change amount provided by the first and second adaptive controllers when none of the first and second equality constraints are inversely proportional to shape change;

use a minimum shape change amount provided by the first and second adaptive controllers when none of the first and second equality constraints are proportional to shape change; and

use an average shape change amount provided by the first and second adaptive controllers when both at least one of the first and second equality constraints is inversely proportional to shape change and at least one of the first and second equality constraints is proportional to shape change.

24. The system of claim 16 , wherein the at least one design constraint without a defined shape gradient comprises a first inequality constraint and a second inequality constraint, the first inequality constraint having a first input control parameter to a first adaptive controller and having a first importance factor that is multiplied with a shape change amount provided by the first adaptive controller, the second inequality constraint having a second input control parameter to a second adaptive controller and having a second importance factor that is multiplied with a shape change amount provided by the second adaptive controller, and the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to compute the shape change velocities for the implicit surface in accordance with the proxy shape gradient by being configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to:

adjust the first importance factor based on whether or not one or more other constraints, including the second inequality constraint, were violated in a prior iteration of the iteratively modifying; and

adjust the second importance factor based on whether or not one or more other constraints, including the first inequality constraint, were violated in the prior iteration of the iteratively modifying.

25. The system of claim 24 , wherein the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to use the adaptive controller to stabilize adjustments of the first and second importance factors.

26. The system of claim 24 , wherein the one or more design criteria comprise multiple design constraints, which include the first inequality constraint and the second inequality constraint, the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to group the multiple design constraints into a first group and a second group, the first group containing all of the multiple design constraints that are effected by volume changes, the second group containing one or more remaining ones of the multiple design constraints that are not effected by volume changes, and wherein the one or more data processing apparatus are configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to compute the shape change velocities by being configured to run the instructions of the computer aided design program to use an augmented Lagrangian method that applies an adjustment factor to a sum of shape change contributions from the first group but does not apply the adjustment factor to a shape change contribution from the second group.

27. A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoding a computer aided design program operable to cause one or more data processing apparatus to perform operations comprising:

identifying an iteration amount;

calculating a series of target values for the at least one design constraint, from an initial target value to a final target value, in accordance with the iteration amount and a function;

updating the level-set representation using the shape change velocities to produce an updated version of the three dimensional shape of the modeled object, and

28. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 27 , wherein the at least one design constraint comprises at least one design constraint without a defined shape gradient, wherein the computing comprises computing the shape change velocities for the implicit surface in accordance with a proxy shape gradient output that is adjusted by an adaptive controller using an input control parameter that is a measure of error between a normalized current value for the at least one design constraint without the defined shape gradient and a normalized next target value from the respective ones of the target values in the series of target values, wherein the measure of error changes with a reference value that is changed at least once during the iteratively modifying.

29. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 28 , wherein the series of target values comprises target changes in a volume fraction of the generatively designed three dimensional shape, and wherein the iteratively modifying for the iteration amount is only a first portion of the iteratively modifying, and the operations comprise using the final target value in the series of target values in determining the measure of error during all of a second portion of the iteratively modifying.

30. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 28 , wherein the at least one design constraint without a defined shape gradient comprises a first equality constraint and a second equality constraint, the first equality constraint having a first input control parameter to a first adaptive controller, the second equality constraint having a second input control parameter to a second adaptive controller, and computing the shape change velocities for the implicit surface in accordance with the proxy shape gradient comprises:

using a maximum shape change amount provided by the first and second adaptive controllers when none of the first and second equality constraints are inversely proportional to shape change;

using a minimum shape change amount provided by the first and second adaptive controllers when none of the first and second equality constraints are proportional to shape change; and

31. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 28 , wherein the at least one design constraint without a defined shape gradient comprises a first inequality constraint and a second inequality constraint, the first inequality constraint having a first input control parameter to a first adaptive controller and having a first importance factor that is multiplied with a shape change amount provided by the first adaptive controller, the second inequality constraint having a second input control parameter to a second adaptive controller and having a second importance factor that is multiplied with a shape change amount provided by the second adaptive controller, and computing the shape change velocities for the implicit surface in accordance with the proxy shape gradient comprises:

32. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 31 , comprising using the adaptive controller to stabilize adjustments of the first and second importance factors.

33. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 31 , wherein the one or more design criteria comprise multiple design constraints, which include the first inequality constraint and the second inequality constraint, the operations comprise grouping the multiple design constraints into a first group and a second group, the first group containing all of the multiple design constraints that are effected by volume changes, the second group containing one or more remaining ones of the multiple design constraints that are not effected by volume changes, and wherein computing the shape change velocities comprises using an augmented Lagrangian method that applies an adjustment factor to a sum of shape change contributions from the first group but does not apply the adjustment factor to a shape change contribution from the second group.

34. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 27 , wherein the adaptive controller is a proportional-integral-derivative controller, and wherein the iteratively modifying comprises:

35. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 34 , wherein the iteratively modifying comprises changing the reference value multiple times, but not in each iteration of the iteratively modifying for the iteration amount, and changing the reference value comprises changing the reference value based on a moving average of normalized current value for the at least one design constraint over at least two prior iterations.

36. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 35 , wherein the operations comprise using the adaptive controller to smooth the changing of the reference value.

37. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 34 , wherein the oscillation is more than two pairs of consecutive successes or failures to satisfy the normalized next target value, wherein the repetition of success or failure to satisfy the normalized next target value is repetition that occurs over a number of iterations equal to or greater than ten percent of the iteration amount, wherein the threshold is ten percent, wherein the adjusting in response to the oscillation comprises reducing the proportional component, reducing the integral component, and reducing or resetting the derivative component, wherein the adjusting in response to the repetition of success or failure comprises increasing the proportional component, reducing the integral component, and setting the derivative component to zero, and wherein the adjusting in response to the relative error exceeding the threshold comprises increasing the integral component and setting the derivative component to zero.

38. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 27 , wherein the one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems comprise an additive manufacturing machine, and the operations comprise:

generating toolpath specifications for the additive manufacturing machine from the three dimensional model; and

manufacturing the physical structure corresponding to the object with the additive manufacturing machine using the toolpath specifications.

Assignments (2)

CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR ASSIGNEE Recorded Aug 19, 2022

From: AUTODESK, INC.

To: AUTODESK, INC.

Reel/Frame 061572/0061 →

ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jul 7, 2021

From: BANDARA, KONARA MUDIYANSELAGE KOSALA; SHAYANI, HOOMAN; SZKURLAT, DAGMARA LILIANNA

To: AUTODESK, INC.

Reel/Frame 056778/0808 →

Continuity (2)

Provisional Application 63044666 · Jun 26, 2020

Related Publication 20220004682A1 · Jan 6, 2022

References Cited (99)

US 7068851B1 · Berkner · 2006 [cited by applicant]

US 7451013B2 · Coleman et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]

US 9370609B2 · Grohowski, Jr. · 2016 [cited by applicant]

US 10467807B1 · Strater et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]

US 10635088B1 · Bandara et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]

US 11321508B2 · Harris et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]

US 11663379B2 · Harris et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]

US 11669660B2 · Schmidt et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]

US 11675333B2 · Bandara et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]

US 20040024472A1 · Evans et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]

US 20070047810A1 · Grady · 2007 [cited by applicant]

US 20080015827A1 · Tryon et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]

US 20090161724A1 · Timans · 2009 [cited by applicant]

US 20100185312A1 · Wang et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]

US 20100292966A1 · Wang et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]

US 20120059637A1 · Yu · 2012 [cited by applicant]

US 20130063512A1 · Takagi et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]

US 20130124149A1 · Carr et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]

US 20140156229A1 · Norato et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]

US 20150190971A1 · Musuvathy et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]

US 20160034621A1 · Huang · 2016 [cited by applicant]

US 20170024910A1 · Griffin et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]

US 20170348901A1 · Hara et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]

US 20180032060A1 · Zeng et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]

US 20180046732A1 · Bergin et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]

US 20180079149A1 · Suresh et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]

US 20180345647A1 · Morris et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]

US 20180349531A1 · Morris et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]

US 20190366703A1 · Bacher et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]

US 20200015128A1 · Stojanovski et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]

US 20200089826A1 · Liu et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]

US 20200134918A1 · Wang · 2020 [cited by applicant]

US 20200150623A1 · Bandara · 2020 [cited by examiner]

US 20200151286A1 · Willis et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]

US 20200376552A1 · Fukuda et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]

US 20210232120A1 · Marinov et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]

US 20210350036A1 · Burla · 2021 [cited by examiner]

US 20210365004A1 · Weinberg et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]

US 20210365007A1 · Kim et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]

US 20220004678A1 · Harris · 2022 [cited by applicant]

US 20220004679A1 · Harris et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]

US 20220091580A1 · Bandara et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]

US 20220237344A1 · Harris et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]

US 20230145217A1 · Harris et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]

US 20230324882A1 · Bandara et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]

US 20230325555A1 · Harris et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]

CN 103294843 · 2013 [cited by applicant]

CN 107748916 · 2018 [cited by applicant]

CN 107145663 · 2020 [cited by applicant]

CN 110992356 · 2020 [cited by applicant]

CN 111144038 · 2020 [cited by applicant]

CN 111259255 · 2020 [cited by applicant]

CN 111274730 · 2020 [cited by applicant]

EP 2778992 · 2014 [cited by applicant]

JP 2018167565 · 2018 [cited by applicant]

KR 1020160012996 · 2016 [cited by applicant]

WO WO2016141474 · 2016 [cited by applicant]

WO WO2017186786 · 2017 [cited by applicant]

WO WO2020097216 · 2020 [cited by applicant]

Arisoy, Erhan et al., “Design and Topology Optimization of Lattice Structures using Deformable Implicit Surfaces for Addictive Manufacturing”, Aug. 2-5, 2015, Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Design Engineerin… [cited by examiner]

Shapes and Geometries: Metrics, Analysis, Differential Calculus and Optimization, 2nd ed., Delfour et al., 2011, Chapter 1, Sections 10-11, pp. 36-54. [cited by applicant]

Shapes and Geometries: Metrics, Analysis, Differential Calculus and Optimization, 2nd ed., Delfour et al., 2011, Chapters 9-10, pp. 457-570. [cited by applicant]

U.S. Appl. No. 62/758,053, filed Nov. 9, 2018, Marinov et al. [cited by applicant]

Arisoy et al., “Design and Topology Optimization of Lattice Structures Using Deformable Implicit Surfaces for Additive Manufacturing,” in ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers an… [cited by applicant]

Arrieta et al., “Optimal design of aircraft structures with damage tolerance requirements”, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Aug. 2005, 30(2):155-163. [cited by applicant]

Dapongy et al., “Geometric Constraints for Shape and Topology Optimization in Architectural Design”, Computational Mechanics, 2017, 59(6):933-965. [cited by applicant]

Delfour et al., “Shapes and Geometries: Metrics, Analysis, Differential Calculus and Optimization”, 2011. [cited by applicant]

Gibou et al., “A Review of Level-set Methods and Some Recent Applications,” Journal of Computational Physics (2018) 353:82-109. [cited by applicant]

Guest and Zhu, “Casting and Milling Restrictions in Topology Optimization via Projection-based Algorithms,” in ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineerin… [cited by applicant]

Ikeya and Shimoda, “Multi-objective Free-form Optimization for Shape and Thickness of Shell Structures with Composite Materials,” in 11th World Congress on Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimisation (2015) 6 pages. [cited by applicant]

Joshi et al., “CAD-integrated Topology Optimization (BGCE Honours Project),” Department of Informatics, Technical University of Munich (2016) 77 pages. [cited by applicant]

Langelaar, “Topology Optimization for Multi-axis Machining,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. (2019) 351:226-252. [cited by applicant]

Liu and Ma, “A Survey of Manufacturing Oriented Topology Optimization Methods,” Advances in Engineering Software (2016) 100:161-175. [cited by applicant]

Liu et al., “Current and Future Trends in Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization (2018) 57:2457-2483. [cited by applicant]

Lu et al., “Build-to-Last: Strength to Weight 3D Printed Objects,” ACM Trans. Graph. (2014) 33(4):97:1-97:10. [cited by applicant]

Nakayama and Shimoda, “Shape-topology Optimization for Designing Shell Structures,” in VII European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering (2016) 10 pages. [cited by applicant]

Sigmund and Maute, “Topology Optimization Approaches—a Comparative Review,” Struct. Multidisc. Optim. (2013) 48:1031-1055. [cited by applicant]

Van Dijk et al., “Level-set Methods for Structural Topology Optimization: a Review,” Struct. Multidisc. Optim. (2013) 48:437-472. [cited by applicant]

Vatanabe et al., “Topology Optimization with Manufacturing Constraints: a Unified Projection-based Approach,” Advances in Engineering Software (2016) 100:97-112. [cited by applicant]

Wikipedia.org [online], “Dirichlet Boundary Condition”, published on Sep. 4, 2019 [retrieved on Feb. 11, 2020], retrieved from URL<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dirichlet_boundary_condition>, 2 pages. [cited by applicant]

Wikipedia.org [online], “PID Controller”, published on Sep. 28, 2019, [retrieved on Sep. 30, 2019], retrieved from URL<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PID_Controller&oldid=918304036>, 22 pages. [cited by applicant]

Xia et al., “A Level Set Based Method for the Optimization of Cast Part,” Struct. Multidisc. Optim. (2010) 41:735-747. [cited by applicant]

U.S. Appl. No. 16/186,136, filed Nov. 9, 2018, Strater et al. [cited by applicant]

Brackett et al., “Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing,” in Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (2011) 15 pages. [cited by applicant]

Covarrubias et al., “Effect of Build Angle on Surface Properties of Nickel Superalloys Processed by Selective Laser Melting”, Journal of Metals, Dec. 2017, 70(3):336-342. [cited by applicant]

Dakshnamoorthy, “Automated Lattice Optimization of Hinge Fitting with Displacement Constraint,” Thesis for Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Arlington, Dec. 2016, 57 pages. [cited by applicant]

Dzugan et al., “Effects of thickness and orientation on the small scale fracture behaviour of additively manufactured Ti-6A1-4V,” Materials Characterization, Apr. 2018. 143:94-109. [cited by applicant]

Emmendoerfer, et al., “A level set approach for topology optimization with local stress constraints”, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Engng 2014; 99:129-156 (Year: 2014). [cited by applicant]

Garland et al., “Multi-Objective Optimal Design of Functionally Gradient Materials,” In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Aug. 21, 2016, 5010… [cited by applicant]

Gournay, et al., “Shape and Topology Optimization of The Robust Compliance Via the Level Set Method,” ESAIM: COCV vol. 14, No. 1, 2008, pp. 43-70 (Year: 2008). [cited by applicant]

Hoglund, “An Anisotropic Topology Optimization Method For Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Fused Filament Fabrication,” Thesis for Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Baylor University, Aug. 2016, 182 pages. [cited by applicant]

James, et al., “Stress-based topology optimization using an isoparametric level set method”, Finite elements in Analysis and Design 58 (2012) 20-30 (Year: 2012). [cited by applicant]

Novotny, et al., “Topological Sensitivity Analysis for Three-dimensional Linear Elasticity Problem”, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg. 196 (2007) 4354-4364 (Year: 2007). [cited by applicant]

Reddy et al., “Application of topology optimization and design for additive manufacturing guidelines on an automotive component,” In International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information i… [cited by applicant]

Ulu et al., “Enhancing the structural performance of additively manufactured objects through build orientation optimization,” Journal of Mechanical Design, Nov. 2015, 137(11):12 pages. [cited by applicant]

Ulu et al., “Enhancing the Structural Performance of Additively Manufactured Objects”, arXiv:1811.00548v1, Nov. 2018, 104 pages. [cited by applicant]

Wilczynski et al., “Optimal design of machine components using notch correction and plasticity models,” Computers and Structures, Jul. 2007, 85(17-18):1382-1398. [cited by applicant]

Zhou et al., “Anisotropic Multicomponent Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing with Build Orientation Design and Stress-Constrained Interfaces”, arXiv:1911.10393v1, Nov. 2019, 13 pages. [cited by applicant]