# Optimized One-Click Development for Topology- Optimized Structures +
## 3 Results
### Manufacturing of Design Proposals  
In this article, the previously described formulation of manufacturing conflicts improves the obtained design proposals' direct manufacturability. The manufacturing rate controls the strictness of the manufacturing conflicts. As avoiding support at all costs is not always a goal-orientated approach, the manufacturing conflict rate is modified in the range of 0.5-1.0 to determine the appropriate manufacturing rate for the given application example. The results are given in Figure 13.  
Based on the results in Figure 13, a manufacturing rate of \(g=0.7\) is chosen for the MaSmo configuration, as it is a good compromise between the original TO result and improved manufacturability. Furthermore, the influence of the manufacturing angle \(\omega\) is shown in Figure 14.  
These results show that the manufacturing angle also heavily influences the convergence behavior of the TO. Moreover, the precise effect of the manufacturing angle on the TO result shows that the method works. For selecting the appropriate manufacturing angle, a  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Configuration** & **Algorithm** & **Manufacturing Constraints** & **Target Volume** & **Real Volume** & **Iterations** \\ \hline Reference & – & – & 100\% & 100\% & – \\ Redesigned & TOSS & no & 75\% & 77.2\% & 100 \\ Smoothed & TOSS & no & 75\% & 74.6\% & 100 \\ MaSmo & TOSS & Yes & 75\% & 75.6\% & 41 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Overview of the TO settings of all configurations. Since reference is the initial design space, no TO is performed for this configuration. All volumes are referenced on the volume of the reference configuration.  
Figure 14: TO results for various manufacturing angles \(\omega\) at the manufacturing rate \(g=0.7\), all elements whose design variable is greater than 0.1 are displayed. Additionally, the number of iterations until convergence is noted. (**a**) \(\omega=15\) deg, iterations: 76; (**b**) \(\omega=45\) deg, iterations: 41 (**c**) \(\omega=75\) deg, iterations: 100.  
Figure 13: TO results for various manufacturing rates \(g\). All elements whose design variable is greater than 0.1 are displayed. Additionally, the number of iterations until convergence is noted (**a**) \(g=0.5\) iterations: 87; (**b**) \(g=0.6\), iterations: 41; (**c**) \(g=0.7\) iterations = 41; (**d**) \(g=0.8\) iterations: 99; (**e**) \(g=0.9\) iterations: 99; and (**f**) \(g=1.0\) iterations: 100.  
common practice is followed by choosing 45 deg. To shortly summarize the manufacturing conflict settings, an overview is given in Table 3.  
Subsequently, all four configurations are additively manufactured. The resulting printing times, actual plastic volumes deposited in total, and support volumes are compared in Table 4.  
It is important to note that there is a significant change in the relative values between the plastic volume and the real volume after TO. MaSmo leads to shorter print time, and additionally, the needed support volume can be reduced by 47.4%. In addition, it is important to emphasize here that for redesigned, the support volume takes 0.76% of the total plastic volume.