Comparison between components designed and manufactured using different methods
| Conventionala | Traditional design methodb | Design 1 (this study) | Design 4 (this study) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing method: | Milled in Aluminium | Arcam + centrifugal | Arcam + centrifugal | EOS + centrifugal |
| Weight: | 1.8 kg | 1.47 kg (−18%) | 1.25 kg (−30%) | 1.23 kg (−32%) |
| Manufacturing cost: | n.a. | £5,738 | £4,980 | £4,880 |
| Conventional | Traditional design method | Design 1 (this study) | Design 4 (this study) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milled in Aluminium | Arcam + centrifugal | Arcam + centrifugal | EOS + centrifugal | |
| 1.8 kg | 1.47 kg (−18%) | 1.25 kg (−30%) | 1.23 kg (−32%) | |
| n.a. | £5,738 | £4,980 | £4,880 |
Notes:
Given by the company providing the case study.
Designed in parallel with this paper using a more conventional method combining topology optimisation with manual CAD interpretation and CAE analyse