An approach is presented to evaluate the structural performance of a vehicle model in terms of the joint stiffness. Seven major joints on the left and right sides of the vehicle body are identified, and each joint is decomposed in the finite element model and assigned a separate set of material properties. By adjusting the elastic modulus of each structural member, the effects of the joint stiffness on the full and offset frontal impacts as well as the vibration characteristics are examined. Latin hypercube sampling is used in the design of experiments to approximate the acceleration, the intrusion distance, and the fundamental vibration frequencies using full quadratic polynomial response surface models. Through direct differentiation, the sensitivities of the crash responses and the vibration responses to the joint stiffness are calculated. A constrained multi-objective optimization problem is formulated and solved to improve the structural responses by adjusting the stiffness at each joint. Evaluation of the car body structure based on the optimum joint stiffness showed a superior performance relative to the baseline model without a weight penalty. The results of both the sensitivity analysis and the design optimization are presented and discussed.
ZhuPZhangYChenGL. Metamodel-based lightweight design of an automotive front-body structure using robust optimization. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering2009; 223(9): 1133–1147.
2.
PowersJLaxmanSFarahaniASharifiH. Future Steel Vehicle Design Methodology: Detail Design Concept using 3G Optimization. SAE Technical Paper 2012-01-1345, 2012.
3.
KianiMGandikotaIParrishA. Surrogate-based optimisation of automotive structures under multiple crash and vibration design criteria. Int J Crashworthiness2013; 18(5): 473–482.
4.
LeivaJ PWangLRecekSWatsonB. Automobile body reinforcement by finite element optimization, J. Fin. Elem. Anal. Des.2004; 40(8): 879–893.
5.
DuddeckF. Multidisciplinary optimization of car bodies. Struct Multidisciplinary Optimization2007; 35: 375–389.
6.
KianiMShiozakiHMotoyamaK. Simulation-based design optimization to develop a lightweight body-in-white structure focusing on dynamic and static stiffness. Int J Veh Des2013 (in press).
7.
ParrishARais-RohaniMNajafiA. Crashworthiness optimization of vehicle structures with magnesium alloy parts. Int J Crashworthiness2012; 17: 259–281.
8.
HirschJ. Aluminum in innovative light-weight car design. Mater Trans, Japan Inst Metals2011; 52(5): 818–824.
9.
QatuMAbu-ShamsMHajianmalekiM. Application of Laminated Composite Materials in Vehicle Design: Theories and Analyses of Composite Beams. SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars-Mechanical Systems2013, 6(2), 1276–1282.
10.
GalánJSamekLVerleysenP. Advanced high strength steels for automotive industry. Revta Metalurgia2012; 48(2):118–131.
11.
KuriyamaYTakahashiMOhashiH. Trend of car weight reduction using high-strength steel. JSAE J2001; 55(4): 51–57.
d’IppolitoRRosarioRMauroO. Multi-disciplinary optimization of a vehicle spot weld layout under durability and NVH constraints. In: International conference on noise and vibration engineering, Leuven, Belgium, 15–17 September 2008, pp. 4111–4125. Red Hook, New York: Curran Associates.
15.
ChangD. Effects of flexible connections on body structural response. SAE paper 740041, 1974.
16.
OkabeATomiokaN. Estimating each element of joint stiffness matrix using neural network-estimation from the rotation vector at end of jointed part. SAE paper 2001-01-3219, 2001.
17.
LeeS BParkJRYimH J. Numerical approximation of vehicle joint stiffness by using response surface method. Int J Automot Technol2002; 3(3):117–122.
18.
XiangJYongCYouminG. Synchronized design optimization method of body joints and major cross sectional members. In: FISITA 2012 world automotive congress, Beijing, People’s Republic of China, 27–30 November 2012, pp. 531–538. London: FISITA.
19.
LubkinJ L. The flexibility of a tubular welded joint in a vehicle frame. SAE paper 740340, 1974.
20.
UrzuaPChoupingL. Parametric study of the T-joint stiffness of an aluminum car body. Master Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 1999.
21.
ChiRWangJ. Impact of joint on car body stiffness at concept design stage. In: 2011 international conference on consumer electronics, communications and networks, XianNing, China, 16–18 April 2011, pp. 406–409. New York: IEEE.
The National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC). Development & Validation of a Finite Element Model for the 1996 Dodge Neon Passenger Sedan. Report no. NCAC 2007-T-007, December2008.
24.
DondersSBrughmansMHermansLTzannetakisN. The effect of spot weld failure on dynamic vehicle performance. In: IMAC XXIII: 23rd conference and exposition on structural dynamics – structural health monitoring, Orlando, Florida, USA, 31 January–3 February 2005, 19 pp. Bethel, Connecticut: Society for Experimental Mechanics.
25.
SuhMWSuhrJYangWH. Condensed joint matrix method for the joint structure of a vehicle body. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering2002; 216(1): 35–41.
26.
LeeDCLeeJI. A structural optimization design for an aluminum-intensive vehicle. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering2003; 217(9): 771–779.
27.
HurDJLeeDC. Multidisciplinary optimal design concept for vehicle body structural design. Multidiscipline Modeling Mater Structs2005; 1(1): 73–85.
28.
LyuNLeeBSaitouK. Optimal subassembly partitioning of space frame structures for in-process dimensional adjustability and stiffness. Trans ASME, J Mech Des2006; 128(3): 527–535.
29.
WangHCeglarekD. Variation propagation modeling and analysis at preliminary design phase of multistation assembly systems. Assembly Automn2009; 29(2): 154–166.
30.
LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual, Vol. 2, Material models, Rev. 1196, Version 971. Livermore, California: Livermore Software Technology Corporation, 14February2012.
Rais-RohaniMSolankiKAcarEEamonC. Shape and sizing optimization of automotive structures with deterministic and probabilistic design constraints. Int J Veh Des2010; 54(1): 309–338.
33.
AcarE. Optimizing the shape parameters of radial basis functions: an application to automobile crashworthiness. Proc IMechE Part D: J Automobile Engineering2010; 224(12): 1541–1553.
34.
ZhuPPanFChenWZhangS. Use of support vector regression in structural optimization: application to vehicle crashworthiness design. Math Comput Simulation2012; 86: 21–31.
35.
SernaABucherC. Advanced surrogate models for multidisciplinary design optimization. In: 6th Weimar optimization and stochastic days 2009, Weimar, Germany, 15–16 October 2009, pp. 1–26. Weimar: Dynardo GmbH.
36.
SteinML. Large sample properties of simulations using Latin hypercube sampling. Technometrics1987; 29:143–151.
37.
AudzePEglaisV. New approach for planning out of experiments. Problems Dynamics Strengths1977; 35:104–107.
38.
BatesSJSienzJLangleyDS. Formulation of the Audze–Eglais uniform Latin hypercube design of experiments. Adv Eng Software2003; 34(8): 493–506.
39.
AllemangRJ. The modal assurance criterion (MAC): twenty years of use and abuse. In: IMAC XX: a conference on structural dynamics, Proceedings of the SPIE, Vol 4753, 2002, pp. 397–405. Bellingham, Washington: SPIE.
40.
VanderplaatsGN. Numerical optimization techniques for engineering design. 3rd edition.Colorado Springs, Colorado: Vanderplaats Research and Development, Inc., 1999.
41.
YildizA. A novel particle swarm optimization approach for product design and manufacturing. Int J Advd Mfg Technol2009; 40(5–6): 617–628.
42.
PeckCCDhawanAP. Genetic algorithms as global random search methods: an alternative perspective. Evolutionary Comput1995; 3(1): 39–80.
