IP Library Granted Patent US 12,608,510
Granted Patent B2
US 12,608,510 · App. 17/707,886 · Granted Apr 21, 2026

Computer aided generative design with feature thickness control to facilitate manufacturing and structural performance

Inventors: Benjamin McKittrick Weiss (Tualatin, OR); Nigel Jed Wesley Morris (Toronto, CA); Adrian Adam Thomas Butscher (Toronto, CA); Jesus Rodriguez (Farmington, MI)
Assignee: Autodesk, Inc.
G06F30/12G06T19/20G06F2111/04G06F2119/18G06T2219/2016G06T2219/2021
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 12,608,510
App. No.
17/707,886
Granted
Apr 21, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

Methods, systems, and apparatus, including medium-encoded computer program products, for computer aided design with feature thickness control, include: a three-dimensional modeling program configured to provide voxelized thinning including preparing a voxelized sheet and line skeleton for a three-dimensional shape of a three-dimensional model, and/or ramped scaling based thickness constraint application during shape and/or topology generation including modifying an amount of change indicated by a current numerical assessment generated by numerical simulation. The three-dimensional modeling program can be an architecture, engineering and/or construction program (e.g., building information management program), a product design and/or manufacturing program (e.g., a CAM program), and/or a media and/or entertainment production program (e.g., an animation production program).

Claims (72)

1 . A method comprising:

obtaining, by a computer aided design program, a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure is to be manufactured, one or more design criteria for the modeled object, and a thickness specification for the modeled object;

iteratively varying, by the computer aided design program, a three-dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria, wherein the iteratively varying comprises performing a first set of two or more iterations following a second set of zero or more iterations, and wherein during the first set of two or more iterations, the iteratively varying comprises modifying an amount of change indicated by a current numerical assessment of the modeled object, which is generated by numerical simulation, in each iteration of the first set of two or more iterations for use in updating a current version of the three-dimensional shape in the iteration;

wherein the modifying comprises, for each location of multiple locations in a current version of the three-dimensional shape, slowing a shape change, at the location, in a direction toward the thickness specification by an amount that is based on a difference between the thickness specification and a measured thickness at the location when the measured thickness complies with the thickness specification; and

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

2 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the iteratively varying comprises iteratively varying both the three-dimensional shape and a topology of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria, wherein the modifying comprises, for each location of multiple locations in a current version of the three-dimensional shape, forcing a shape change, at the location, in a direction toward the thickness specification when the measured thickness does not comply with the thickness specification.

3 . The method of claim 2 , wherein the forcing comprises forcing a shape change in a direction toward the thickness specification by an amount that is based on a difference between the thickness specification and the measured thickness at the location.

4 . The method of claim 2 , wherein the modifying comprises, for each location of the multiple locations in the current version of the three-dimensional shape:

estimating a prospected change in thickness at the location using either the slowed shape change or the forced shape change; and

adjusting either the slowed shape change or the forced shape change using the estimated change in thickness at the location.

5 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the second set is a second set of one or more iterations, and the iteratively varying comprises performing a third set of two or more iterations between the second set of one or more iterations and the first set of two or more iterations, and wherein during the third set of two or more iterations, the iteratively varying comprises:

for each location of multiple locations in a current version of the three-dimensional shape, slowing a shape change, at the location, in a direction toward the thickness specification when a measured thickness at the location is within a range of values, one side of the range of values being set by an adjustment control variable; and

changing the adjustment control variable over the course of the third set of two or more iterations to move closer to the thickness specification.

6 . The method of claim 5 , wherein the iteratively varying comprises extending the first set of two or more iterations beyond an iteration at which the one or more design criteria are satisfied, in order to ensure no further forced shape changes are needed.

7 . The method of claim 5 , wherein the second set is a second set of two or more iterations, and wherein no change, based on the thickness specification, in the amount indicated by the numerical assessment is performed during the second set of two or more iterations.

8 . The method of claim 5 , wherein the iteratively varying comprises measuring thickness values for the three-dimensional shape, the measuring comprising:

preparing a voxelized sheet and line skeleton for the three-dimensional shape; and

defining the thickness values for the three-dimensional shape using the voxelized sheet and line skeleton.

9 . The method of claim 5 , wherein the thickness specification is a maximum thickness value.

10 . The method of claim 5 , wherein the thickness specification corresponds to a thickness aspect ratio, and the thickness specification is adjusted at the location based on a ratio of an assessed thickness at the location with respect to a length of a portion of the current version of the three-dimensional shape, the portion containing the location.

11 . The method of claim 5 , wherein the thickness specification is a minimum thickness value.

12 . The method of claim 5 , wherein the measured thickness complies with the thickness specification when the thickness at the location satisfies (i) a maximum thickness value, (ii) a thickness aspect ratio, or (iii) a minimum thickness value, with a buffer set in accordance with an estimate of thickness measurement error.

13 . The method of claim 12 , wherein the slowing is controlled by a first function, and the forcing is controlled by a second function.

14 . 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:

obtaining a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure is to be manufactured, one or more design criteria for the modeled object, and a thickness specification for the modeled object;

iteratively varying a three-dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria, wherein the iteratively varying comprises performing a first set of two or more iterations following a second set of zero or more iterations, and wherein during the first set of two or more iterations, the iteratively varying comprises modifying an amount of change indicated by a current numerical assessment of the modeled object, which is generated by numerical simulation, in each iteration of the first set of two or more iterations for use in updating a current version of the three-dimensional shape in the iteration;

wherein the modifying comprises, for each location of multiple locations in a current version of the three-dimensional shape, slowing a shape change, at the location, in a direction toward the thickness specification by an amount that is based on a difference between the thickness specification and a measured thickness at the location when the measured thickness complies with the thickness specification; and

providing the three-dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.

15 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14 , wherein the second set is a second set of one or more iterations, and the iteratively varying comprises performing a third set of two or more iterations between the second set of one or more iterations and the first set of two or more iterations, and wherein during the third set of two or more iterations, the iteratively varying comprises:

for each location of multiple locations in a current version of the three-dimensional shape, slowing a shape change, at the location, in a direction toward the thickness specification when a measured thickness at the location is within a range of values, one side of the range of values being set by an adjustment control variable; and

changing the adjustment control variable over the course of the third set of two or more iterations to move closer to the thickness specification.

16 . A system comprising:

a non-transitory storage medium having instructions of a three-dimensional modeling program stored thereon; and

one or more data processing apparatus configured to run the instructions of the three-dimensional modeling program to perform operations comprising:

obtaining a design space for a modeled object, for which a corresponding physical structure is to be manufactured, one or more design criteria for the modeled object, and a thickness specification for the modeled object;

iteratively varying a three-dimensional shape of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria, wherein the iteratively varying comprises performing a first set of two or more iterations following a second set of zero or more iterations, and wherein during the first set of two or more iterations, the iteratively varying comprises modifying an amount of change indicated by a current numerical assessment of the modeled object, which is generated by numerical simulation, in each iteration of the first set of two or more iterations for use in updating a current version of the three-dimensional shape in the iteration;

wherein the modifying comprises, for each location of multiple locations in a current version of the three-dimensional shape, slowing a shape change, at the location, in a direction toward the thickness specification by an amount that is based on a difference between the thickness specification and a measured thickness at the location when the measured thickness complies with the thickness specification; and

providing the three-dimensional shape of the modeled object for use in manufacturing the physical structure using one or more computer-controlled manufacturing systems.

17 . The system of claim 16 , wherein the three-dimensional modeling program is (i) an architecture, engineering and/or construction program, (ii) a product design and/or manufacturing program, and/or (iii) a media and/or entertainment production program.

18 . The system of claim 16 , wherein the iteratively varying comprises iteratively varying both the three-dimensional shape and a topology of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria, wherein the modifying comprises, for each location of multiple locations in a current version of the three-dimensional shape, forcing a shape change, at the location, in a direction toward the thickness specification when the measured thickness does not comply with the thickness specification.

19 . The system of claim 18 , wherein the forcing comprises forcing a shape change in a direction toward the thickness specification by an amount that is based on a difference between the thickness specification and the measured thickness at the location.

20 . The system of claim 18 , wherein the modifying comprises, for each location of the multiple locations in the current version of the three-dimensional shape:

estimating a prospected change in thickness at the location using either the slowed shape change or the forced shape change; and

adjusting either the slowed shape change or the forced shape change using the estimated change in thickness at the location.

21 . The system of claim 17 , wherein the second set is a second set of one or more iterations, and the iteratively varying comprises performing a third set of two or more iterations between the second set of one or more iterations and the first set of two or more iterations, and wherein during the third set of two or more iterations, the iteratively varying comprises:

for each location of multiple locations in a current version of the three-dimensional shape, slowing a shape change, at the location, in a direction toward the thickness specification when a measured thickness at the location is within a range of values, one side of the range of values being set by an adjustment control variable; and

changing the adjustment control variable over the course of the third set of two or more iterations to move closer to the thickness specification.

22 . The system of claim 21 , wherein the iteratively varying comprises extending the first set of two or more iterations beyond an iteration at which the one or more design criteria are satisfied, in order to ensure no further forced shape changes are needed.

23 . The system of claim 21 , wherein the second set is a second set of two or more iterations, and wherein no change, based on the thickness specification, in the amount indicated by the numerical assessment is performed during the second set of two or more iterations.

24 . The system of claim 21 , wherein the iteratively varying comprises measuring thickness values for the three-dimensional shape, the measuring comprising:

preparing a voxelized sheet and line skeleton for the three-dimensional shape; and

defining the thickness values for the three-dimensional shape using the voxelized sheet and line skeleton.

25 . The system of claim 21 , wherein the thickness specification is a maximum thickness value.

26 . The system of claim 21 , wherein the thickness specification corresponds to a thickness aspect ratio, and the thickness specification is adjusted at the location based on a ratio of an assessed thickness at the location with respect to a length of a portion of the current version of the three-dimensional shape, the portion containing the location.

27 . The system of claim 21 , wherein the thickness specification is a minimum thickness value.

28 . The system of claim 21 , wherein the measured thickness complies with the thickness specification when the thickness at the location satisfies (i) a maximum thickness value, (ii) a thickness aspect ratio, or (iii) a minimum thickness value, with a buffer set in accordance with an estimate of thickness measurement error.

29 . The system of claim 28 , wherein the slowing is controlled by a first function, and the forcing is controlled by a second function.

30 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the iteratively varying comprises extending the first set of two or more iterations beyond an iteration at which the one or more design criteria are satisfied, in order to ensure no further forced shape changes are needed.

31 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the second set is a second set of two or more iterations, and wherein no change, based on the thickness specification, in the amount indicated by the numerical assessment is performed during the second set of two or more iterations.

32 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the iteratively varying comprises measuring thickness values for the three-dimensional shape, the measuring comprising:

preparing a voxelized sheet and line skeleton for the three-dimensional shape; and

defining the thickness values for the three-dimensional shape using the voxelized sheet and line skeleton.

33 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the thickness specification is a maximum thickness value.

34 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the thickness specification corresponds to a thickness aspect ratio, and the thickness specification is adjusted at the location based on a ratio of an assessed thickness at the location with respect to a length of a portion of the current version of the three-dimensional shape, the portion containing the location.

35 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the thickness specification is a minimum thickness value.

36 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the measured thickness complies with the thickness specification when the thickness at the location satisfies (i) a maximum thickness value, (ii) a thickness aspect ratio, or (iii) a minimum thickness value, with a buffer set in accordance with an estimate of thickness measurement error.

37 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 36 , wherein the slowing is controlled by a first function, and the forcing is controlled by a second function.

38 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14 , wherein the iteratively varying comprises iteratively varying both the three-dimensional shape and a topology of the modeled object in the design space in accordance with the one or more design criteria, wherein the modifying comprises, for each location of multiple locations in a current version of the three-dimensional shape, forcing a shape change, at the location, in a direction toward the thickness specification when the measured thickness does not comply with the thickness specification.

39 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 38 , wherein the forcing comprises forcing a shape change in a direction toward the thickness specification by an amount that is based on a difference between the thickness specification and the measured thickness at the location.

40 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 38 , wherein the modifying comprises, for each location of the multiple locations in the current version of the three-dimensional shape:

estimating a prospected change in thickness at the location using either the slowed shape change or the forced shape change; and

adjusting either the slowed shape change or the forced shape change using the estimated change in thickness at the location.

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 Apr 5, 2022
From: WEISS, BENJAMIN MCKITTRICK; MORRIS, NIGEL JED WESLEY; BUTSCHER, ADRIAN ADAM THOMAS; RODRIGUEZ, JESUS
To: AUTODESK, INC.
Reel/Frame 059509/0352 →
Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 63286990 · Dec 7, 2021
Related Publication 20230177224A1 · Jun 8, 2023
References Cited (75)
US 7068851B1 · Berkner · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 10467807B1 · Strater et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10635088B1 · Bandara · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10751951B1 · Nguyen · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 11675333B2 · Bandara et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20070047810A1 · Grady · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20090161724A1 · Timans · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20120078585A1 · Ilies et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130063512A1 · Takagi et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130311450A1 · Ramani 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 20170024910A1 · Griffin et al. · 2017 [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 20200134918A1 · Wang · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200150623A1 · Bandara et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200151286A1 · Willis · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20210232120A1 · Marinov et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210263498A1 · Bandara et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210350036A1 · Kumar et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210356939A1 · Jaesung et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20220091580A1 · Bandara et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20240126933A1 · Burla et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
CN 107748916 · 2018 [cited by applicant]
CN 110992356 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
CN 111259255 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
EP 2778992 · 2014 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2017186786 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2020097216 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2021236054 · 2021 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2021262201 · 2021 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2021262456 · 2021 [cited by applicant]
Denk, Martin, Klemens Rother, and Kristin Paetzold. “Subdivision Surface mid-surface reconstruction of topology optimization results and thin-walled shapes using surface skeletons.” Proceedings of the Design Society 1 (… [cited by examiner]
Denk, Martin et al. “Fully automated subdivision surface parametrization for topology optimized structures and frame structures using euclidean distance transformation and homotopic thinning.” Proceedings of the Munich … [cited by examiner]
Morris, Nigel, Adrian Butscher, and Francesco Iorio. “A subtractive manufacturing constraint for level set topology optimization.” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 61, No. 4 (2020): 1573-1588. (Year: 2020). [cited by examiner]
Prohaska, Steffen, and H-C. Hege. “Fast visualization of plane-like structures in voxel data.” In IEEE Visualization, 2002. VIS 2002., pp. 29-36. IEEE, 2002. (Year: 2002). [cited by examiner]
Extended European Search Report in European Appln. No. 22211984.4. dated Apr. 25, 2023, 10 pages. [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]
Autodesk.com [online], “Modeling,” Jul. 2022, retrieved Sep. 19, 2022, retrieved from URL <https://www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/blog/july-2022-product-update-whats-new/#Modeling>, 11 pages. [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]
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]
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]
Schmitt et al., “Control of minimum member size in parameter-free structural shape optimization by a medial axis approximation,” Computational Mechanics, Sep. 2017, 61(6):717-727. [cited by applicant]
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]
Smell et al., “IM5000031: Generative Design in Fusion 360: Another Year Older, Another Year Better,” Autodesk University, 2021, 44 pages. [cited by applicant]
Wikipedia.org [online], “A* search algorithm,” Aug. 18, 2022, retrieved on Sep. 19, 2022, retrieved from URL <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A*_search_algorithm>, 13 pages. [cited by applicant]
Yin et al., “Topologically robust CAD model generation for structural optimisation,” CoRR, submitted on Jun. 2020, arXiv:1906.07631, 26 pages. [cited by applicant]
Extended European Search Report in European Appln No. 24217857.2, dated Feb. 27, 2025, 12 pages. [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]
Brackett et al., “Topology Optimization for Additive Manufacturing,” in Proceedings of the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (2011) 15 pages. [cited by applicant]
Dapogny et al., “Geometric Constraints for Shape and Topology Optimization in Architectural Design,” Computational Mechanics, Springer-Verlag, 2017, 59(6):933-965. 10.1007/s00466-017-1383-6. hal-01354004v3. [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]
Lee et al., “Building Skeleton Models via 3-D Medial Surface/Axis Thinning Algorithms,” CVGIP: Graphical Models and Image Processing, Nov. 1994, 56(6):462-478. [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]
Unknown author, “Topology Optimization R18.0 Feature and Usage Highlights,” © 2016 ANSYS, Inc., Mar. 12, 2017, 29 pages. [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]
Xia et al., “Constraints of Distance From Boundary to Skeleton: For the Control of Length Scale in Level Set Based Structural Topology Optimization”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 2015, 295:525-… [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]