In this project, SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation and Markforged Simulation were used to optimize a reinforcement bracket for a race car before it was manufactured. Aerodynamic simulation helped determine the loads acting on the part, while Eiger was used to optimize its print orientation, infill, and continuous carbon fiber reinforcement. The final 3D-printed part achieved a worst case safety factor of 2.18 while keeping material usage and manufacturing costs under control.

A difference in handling between the left and right sides of a race car may seem minor. At high speeds, however, it can reveal an important mechanical or aerodynamic issue.

That is exactly what happened with one of the vehicles sponsored by Solidxperts. The driver noticed a difference in how the car behaved from one side to the other. After several inspections, the team discovered that the splitter, the component located at the front and underneath the vehicle, had partially detached on one side.

A reinforcement bracket was needed to securely hold the splitter in place without negatively affecting the vehicle’s aerodynamics. Since only a small number of vehicles required the part, additive manufacturing offered a fast and cost-effective solution.

The project followed three main steps:

1. Optimize the bracket geometry using SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation.

2. Determine the loads that the part would need to withstand.

3. Optimize its print orientation and manufacturing parameters using Markforged Simulation in Eiger.

Simulation makes it possible to evaluate multiple concepts virtually before spending time and material on physical prototypes. It can help answer practical questions such as:

• Does the part’s shape increase aerodynamic drag?

• Will the component withstand the expected loads?

• Which print orientation provides the best mechanical performance?

• Where should continuous carbon fiber be added?

• Can the required safety factor be achieved without unnecessarily increasing cost?

In this project, simulation created a link between design and manufacturing. The results from the fluid analysis were used to define the structural loads, and the printing parameters were then adjusted based on the stresses acting on the part.

SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation is directly integrated into SOLIDWORKS. Its setup tools guide users through the definition of fluids, units, boundary conditions, and simulation goals.

To reproduce a demanding operating condition, the team simulated a total relative air speed of 300 km/h, representing a vehicle traveling at 200 km/h with a 100 km/h headwind.

The primary objective was to measure the drag force acting on the reinforcement bracket. This value would later be used as an input load for the structural validation of the part.

The mesh divides the simulation domain into small cells where the software solves the fluid flow. Local mesh refinement can be applied around surfaces and details that have a greater influence on the results.

A mesh preview makes it possible to review the setup before running the calculation. This is an important step, since a simulation is only as reliable as the assumptions, boundary conditions, and mesh used to represent the real-world situation.

Once the calculation was complete, flow trajectories made it possible to visually confirm how the air moved around the part. The first configuration produced a drag force of approximately 14 to 15 N.

To maintain a conservative margin, the team also analyzed the part without considering the beneficial aerodynamic effect of the vehicle body. This more severe scenario produced approximately 20 N of drag, and this value was retained for the next stage of the project.

A design study can automatically vary several parameters, including:

• The radius of the leading edge

• The thickness of the part

• Its angle

• Other dimensions that influence the airflow

Instead of manually modifying and recalculating each version, the software can compare multiple scenarios to identify the geometry that minimizes drag. This approach reduces the number of physical prototypes required and speeds up concept validation.

Once the bracket geometry had been defined, the next step was to establish the design loads. Three objectives were selected:

• Withstand an aerodynamic load of 40 N, representing the conservative 20 N drag force multiplied by a factor of two.

• Support a vertical load of 25 N per screw, for a total of 50 N, representing the weight and forces acting on the splitter.

• Achieve an overall safety factor greater than 2.

These conditions were then reproduced in Eiger.

The upper connection to the vehicle body was modeled as a fixed constraint, while the lower mounting points were represented by supports that allowed certain movements while restricting the required transverse motion.

A 3D-printed part does not have the same mechanical properties in every direction. The material is generally weaker along the Z-axis, which corresponds to the direction in which layers are stacked, due to the nature of interlayer bonding.

The goal is therefore to orient the part so that its weakest direction is exposed to the lowest stresses.

Two orientations were compared in Eiger:

The horizontal orientation increased the safety factor by 56%, while the estimated cost increased by only about 1.5%. It was therefore selected as the starting point for the final optimization.

The costs presented in this case study are specific to the project and are primarily intended to compare different configurations. Actual costs may vary depending on the material, machine, print settings, and production conditions.

After selecting the print orientation, the team compared several manufacturing parameters, including:

• Infill density and pattern

• Number of walls

• Number of floor and roof layers

• Placement of continuous fiber

• Total material usage

Eiger’s optimization capabilities proposed a continuous carbon fiber-reinforced configuration capable of exceeding the target safety factor.

The automatically generated configuration was then refined further. Fiber layers that were initially adjacent to one another were separated by a layer of Onyx, as the bonding between Onyx and fiber can be preferable to stacking fiber directly against fiber.

The fiber groups were also distributed toward the upper and lower regions of the part to create a structure similar to a sandwich panel.

This arrangement improves stiffness while placing reinforcement where it provides the greatest benefit.

The final configuration achieved a safety factor of 2.18, exceeding the original target of 2.

The estimated manufacturing cost remained around $30, while still being lower than some of the configurations proposed during the optimization process.

The workflow made it possible to develop a reinforcement bracket that met the project’s three main objectives:

• Minimize aerodynamic impact

• Withstand the loads experienced on the racetrack

• Reduce both manufacturing costs and the number of physical iterations

Using SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation together with Markforged Simulation creates a digital workflow that connects design, validation, and manufacturing.

This approach makes it possible to:

• Measure realistic loads instead of relying on arbitrary estimates

• Quickly compare multiple geometries

• Reduce the number of physical prototypes

• Select a print orientation based on mechanical performance

• Strategically place continuous fiber reinforcement

• Balance cost, print time, and part performance

• Accelerate the production of low-volume parts

For automotive, industrial, and manufacturing applications, this workflow helps engineers make better decisions before the first physical part is even printed.

A high-performance 3D-printed part depends on more than its geometry. Its performance is also influenced by the actual loads it experiences, its print orientation, the selected material, and the placement of reinforcement.

The experts at Solidxperts can help you integrate SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation and Markforged solutions into your product development process. By validating concepts earlier, you can reduce iterations and manufacture parts that are better suited to their real-world operating environment.

A high-performance 3D-printed part depends on more than its geometry. Its performance is also influenced by the actual loads it experiences, its print orientation, the selected material, and the placement of reinforcement.

The experts at Solidxperts can help you integrate SOLIDWORKS Flow Simulation and Markforged solutions into your product development process. By validating concepts earlier, you can reduce iterations and manufacture parts that are better suited to their real-world operating environment.

Contact our experts to discuss your next simulation or additive manufacturing project.

A new piece of jewelry can begin with just a few lines in a CAD software. But before it becomes a piece made of gold, silver, or another precious metal, that design still has to go through an essential step: becoming a physical model precise enough to be integrated into the casting process.

And this is where things get interesting.

What happens when a design is particularly complex? When a customer requests a customization? When several variations of the same model need to be produced? Or when a model needs to be manufactured quickly without creating new tooling?

Additive manufacturing offers a direct answer: produce the wax model directly from the digital file.

This is precisely the application for which 3D Systems’ MultiJet Printing (MJP) solutions have been developed. By combining a printer designed for jewelry models, dedicated wax materials, and 3D Sprint preparation software, the workflow can move directly from digital design to a model intended for the lost-wax casting process.

In jewelry manufacturing, a few fractions of a millimeter can make a significant difference.

A model may contain fine details, sharp edges, organic shapes, or complex geometries. For the final result to remain faithful to the original design, the wax model must reproduce these characteristics accurately.

The ProJet MJP 2500W Plus was specifically developed to produce wax casting patterns for jewelry applications. It uses VisiJet 100% wax materials designed to produce models faithful to the CAD design, with sharp edges and precise detail definition. 3D Systems also indicates that certain materials are designed to melt like traditional casting waxes and burn out without ash residue.

The MJP 300W Plus offers several print modes designed to meet different production requirements. Its Premium ZHD mode uses an 8 μm layer thickness, while the QHD and XHD modes use 14.1 μm and 16 μm layer thicknesses, respectively. The system’s stated typical dimensional accuracy is ±0.0508 mm per 25.4 mm of part dimension.

The MJP 300W Plus also offers a QHD mode with a stated resolution of 2,400 × 1,800 × 1,800 dpi. These different print modes make it possible to adapt the process to the desired balance between detail, surface quality, and productivity.

The goal is therefore not simply to produce a model that resembles the original design. It is to reproduce the characteristics of the digital model as accurately as possible before integrating it into the casting process.

The answer lies in the workflow.

When a model is produced using traditional methods, several intermediate steps may be required. Depending on the application, creating a master model and a mold may also be part of the process.

3D wax printing offers a different approach: the digital file becomes the direct starting point for manufacturing the physical model.

CAD model → digital preparation → wax printing → lost-wax casting → final metal part

This approach makes it possible to produce a physical model directly from the digital design. A modification made to the CAD file can then be prepared for a new print without necessarily having to recreate a master model or mold for every variation.

This can be particularly interesting for customized jewelry, small production runs, and designs requiring multiple iterations.

Additive manufacturing does not replace every traditional jewelry manufacturing method. Instead, it offers another way to produce certain models when customization, geometric complexity, or process flexibility are priorities.

A precision 3D printer can only produce data that has been properly prepared for manufacturing.

This is why software plays an essential role in the workflow.

3D Sprint is 3D Systems’ additive manufacturing preparation and production management software. It is used to prepare digital data and organize models for compatible systems.

In jewelry applications, the preparation capabilities go beyond simply positioning models on a build platform. On the MJP 300W Plus, sprues and runners can be accessed through the Strut function, facilitating the addition of structures required to prepare certain parts for casting. The software also includes the Surface Enhance function, designed to improve certain surfaces depending on the needs of the model.

The result is a more cohesive workflow:

CAD design → preparation in 3D Sprint → MJP printing → wax model → casting

Digital preparation therefore becomes an integral part of the manufacturing process. The final result depends not only on the printer, but also on how the model is prepared for production.

Not every jewelry model requires the same balance between resolution, speed, and productivity.

This is why the MJP 300W Plus offers multiple print modes.

The XHD mode is designed to balance speed and quality for the production of larger batches.

The Premium ZHD mode, with an 8 μm layer thickness, is designed to produce highly detailed models, particularly for upward-facing surfaces.

The QHD mode offers a resolution of 2,400 × 1,800 × 1,800 dpi according to 3D Systems’ specifications.

This flexibility makes it possible to adapt the process to the model being produced. A highly detailed part may require a different priority than a production run consisting of a large number of models.

The best configuration is therefore not necessarily the one that maximizes resolution alone. The appropriate mode should be selected based on the required level of detail, geometry, and production volume.

Jewelry is an industry where customization plays an important role.

A model may need to be modified to meet a customer’s requirements. A collection may require several sizes or variations. A new design may need to be tested before being introduced into larger-scale production.

In these situations, digital manufacturing offers significant flexibility.

The design can be modified in the CAD file. The new file can then be prepared and printed.

The ability to move quickly between the physical model and the digital model reduces the distance between design and production.

The development process becomes more flexible: a design can be tested, modified, and reproduced as the project evolves.

One of the best ways to understand the value of a workflow is to look at what happens in a real production environment.

Narsakka, a Finnish jewelry company, integrated a 3D Systems wax 3D printing solution to produce models intended for casting.

According to the case study published by 3D Systems, Narsakka can produce 60 to 100 wax models in just four hours, helping reduce production lead times from several weeks to a few days.

The company uses the ProJet MJP 2500W with VisiJet M2 CAST material. The workflow also uses soluble and fusible support materials, allowing batch support removal and quick access to models ready for casting.

The case study also highlights another advantage of a digital workflow: flexibility. Narsakka uses the solution for both larger production batches and more specialized custom jewelry production.

According to 3D Systems, the company also eliminated the need for master models and rubber molds in its process and reported a 100% success rate for the parts produced as part of the case study. These results should naturally be understood within the specific context of Narsakka’s application and production process, but they clearly illustrate the potential of an integrated digital workflow.

Not all 3D printing technologies are designed to meet the same requirements.

For the production of jewelry models, several factors must be considered simultaneously:

• accuracy;

• the ability to reproduce fine details;

• surface quality;

• the material being used;

• compatibility with the casting process;

• production speed;

• the amount of post-processing required.

This is where 3D Systems’ approach becomes particularly interesting. The solution is not limited to a printer.

It combines an MJP technology designed for jewelry models, wax materials compatible with the casting process, and a software environment that enables files to be prepared for manufacturing.

For a jewelry manufacturer, this means evaluating the solution as a complete workflow rather than comparing only the resolution or speed of a machine.

Additive manufacturing does not change the creativity at the heart of jewelry making.

It changes how certain designs can be transformed into physical models.

A complex model can be prepared digitally. A customization can be integrated into the CAD file. Multiple variations can be produced. A wax model can then be integrated into the casting process.

For jewelry professionals in Montreal and across Quebec, MJP 3D printing offers a way to further integrate digital manufacturing into an existing workflow.

The question is not simply whether a 3D printer can produce a wax model.

The real question is:

What could you produce if your digital design could become a precise, repeatable casting pattern directly integrated into your production process?

With its MJP solutions, VisiJet wax materials, and 3D Sprint software, 3D Systems offers an integrated approach to bringing digital design closer to jewelry manufacturing.

From CAD to wax. From wax to metal. And from a digital idea to a real piece.