Crash topology optimization is a typical nonlinear dynamic response structural topology optimization problem, which is one of the most difficult problem in the structural design field. The equivalent static load method (ESLM) provides a well-defined pattern to solve such difficult problems, which can convert a nonlinear dynamic response optimization into multi-load steps optimization problem with the equivalent static loads (ESLs). However, due to the large deformation in the crash condition and nodal characteristics of the ESLs, it is hard to solve the crash topology optimization directly using the standard ESLM. To expand the application scope of the ESLM, an improved ESLs calculation method is proposed by using the model order reduction method and energy principle, which only acting on some nodes and can be scaled adaptively. Correspondingly, to enrich the connotation of topology optimization, a crash topology optimization method is proposed by using the improved ESLs, which can solve the numerical problems in the design domain by guaranteeing the topology optimization with the improved ESLs perform in the linear rang. First, the principle of the standard ESLM is introduced, and corresponding problems and deficiencies in solving the crash topology optimization are summarized. Then, to solve the above problems, the improved ESLs calculation method is proposed. Meanwhile, the corresponding crash topology strategy is proposed based on the improved ESLs. Finally, to verify the effectiveness and engineering application value of the proposed crash topology optimization method, a test-verified frontal crash simulation model of the BEV front-end is established, and their safety parts are redesigned by using the proposed method. The results show that, the proposed method can effectively solve the crash topology optimization of thin-walled structures under large deformation crash condition. This method also provides a new idea and practical method for the crashworthiness and lightweight design of automobile structures.
ChenYMaJWangS.Spatial regression analysis of pedestrian crashes based on point-of-interest data. J Data Anal Inf Process2020; 8(1): 1–19.
2.
AhmadiPTorabiSHAfsanehH, et al. The effects of driving patterns and PEM fuel cell degradation on the lifecycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Int J Hydrogen Energy2020; 45(5): 3595–3608.
3.
AmatoFCasseeFRDenier van der GonHA, et al. Urban air quality: the challenge of traffic non-exhaust emissions. J Hazard Mater2014; 275: 31–36.
4.
MazurkiewiczŁMałachowskiJTomaszewskiM, et al. Performance of steel pipe reinforced with composite sleave. Compos Struct2018; 183: 199–211.
PietrońKMazurkiewiczŁSybilskiK, et al. Correlation of bone material model using voxel mesh and parametric optimization. Materials2022; 15(15): 5163.
7.
WangCQWangDFZhangS.Design and application of lightweight multi-objective collaborative optimization for a parametric body-in-white structure. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2016; 230(2): 273–288.
8.
ZhouGMaZDLiG, et al. Design optimization of a novel NPR crash box based on multi-objective genetic algorithm. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2016; 54: 673–684.
9.
DuanLJiangHGengG, et al. Parametric modeling and multiobjective crashworthiness design optimization of a new front longitudinal beam. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2019; 59: 1789–1812.
10.
GaoQZhaoXWangC, et al. Multi-objective crashworthiness optimization for an auxetic cylindrical structure under axial impact loading. Mater Des2018; 143: 120–130.
11.
FontanaMAraujoALMadeiraJFA. Optimization of a thin-walled composite crash absorber. Thin-Walled Struct2020; 155: 106826.
12.
MazurkiewiczŁABukałaJMałachowskiJ, et al. BVS stent optimisation based on a parametric model with a multistage validation process. Mater Des2021; 198: 109363.
13.
PatelNM.Crashworthiness design using topology optimization, in University of Notre Dame. Notre Dame, IN: University Of Notre Dame, 2007.
14.
FangJSunGQiuN, et al. On design optimization for structural crashworthiness and its state of the art. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2017; 55(3): 1091–1119.
15.
RenCMinHMaT, et al. Efficient structure crash topology optimization strategy using a model order reduction method combined with equivalent static loads. Proc IMechE2020; 234(7): 1897–1911.
16.
ParkS-OChoiW-HParkG-J.Dynamic response optimization of structures with viscoelastic material using the equivalent static loads method. Proc IMechE, Part2021; 235(2-3): 589–603.
17.
WangLLiZGuK.An interval-oriented dynamic robust topology optimization (DRTO) approach for continuum structures based on the parametric Level-Set method (PLSM) and the equivalent static loads method (ESLM). Struct Multidiscipl Optim2022; 65(5) (150): 1--j21.
18.
TrillerJImmelRTimmerA, et al. The difference-based equivalent static load method: an improvement of the ESL method’s nonlinear approximation quality. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2021; 63(6): 2705–2720.
19.
CavazzutiMBaldiniABertocchiE, et al. High performance automotive chassis design: a topology optimization based approach. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2011; 44(1): 45–56.
20.
DuddeckFVolzK.A new topology optimization approach for crashworthiness of passenger vehicles based on physically defined equivalent static loads. In: Proceedings ICRASH conference, Milano, 2012.
21.
ChristensenJBastienCBlundellMV.Effects of roof crush loading scenario upon body in white using topology optimisation. Int J Crashworthiness2012; 17(1): 29–38.
22.
ChoiWSParkGJ.Transformation of dynamic loads into equivalent static loads based on modal analysis. Int J Numer Methods Eng1999; 46(1): 29–43.
23.
ChoiWSParkGJ.Structural optimization using equivalent static loads at all time intervals. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng2002; 191(19-20): 2105–2122.
24.
ParkGJKangBS.Validation of a structural optimization algorithm transforming dynamic loads into equivalent static loads. J Optim Theory Appl2003; 118(1): 191–200.
25.
KangB-SParkG-JAroraJS.A review of optimization of structures subjected to transient loads. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2006; 31(2): 81–95.
26.
ChoiW-SParkKBParkGJ.Calculation of equivalent static loads and its application. Nucl Eng Des2005; 235(22): 2337–2348.
27.
ParkKJLeeJNParkGJ.Structural shape optimization using equivalent static loads transformed from dynamic loads. Int J Numer Methods Eng2005; 63(4): 589–602.
28.
LeeH-AParkG-J.Topology optimization for structures with nonlinear behavior using the equivalent static loads method. J Mech Des2012; 134(3): 1--14.
29.
LeeH-AYiS-IParkG-J, et al. Optimization of a structure with contact conditions using equivalent loads. In: 12th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Victoria, BC, Canada, 2008.
30.
HongEPYouBJKimCH, et al. Optimization of flexible components of multibody systems via equivalent static loads. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2010; 40(1-6): 549–562.
LeeYAhnJSParkGJ.Crash optimization of an automobile frontal structure using equivalent static loads. Trans Korean Soc Automot Eng2015; 23(6): 583–590.
33.
LeeJ-JParkG-J.Shape optimization of the initial blank in the sheet metal forming process using equivalent static loads. Int J Numer Methods Eng2011; 85(2): 247–268.
34.
LeeJ-JJungU-JParkG-J.Shape optimization of the workpiece in the forging process using equivalent static loads. Finite Elem Anal Des2013; 69: 1–18.
35.
YiSILeeJYParkGJ.Crashworthiness design optimization using equivalent static loads. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2012; 226(1): 23–38.
36.
JeongSBYoonSXuS, et al. Non-linear dynamic response structural optimization of an automobile frontal structure using equivalent static loads. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2010; 224(4): 489–501.
37.
YiS-ILeeH-AParkG-J.Optimization of a structure with contact conditions using equivalent loads. J Mech Sci Technol2011; 25(3): 773–782.
38.
YangZ-JChenXKellyR.A topological optimization approach for structural design of a high-speed low-load mechanism using the equivalent static loads method. Int J Numer Methods Eng2012; 89(5): 584–598.
39.
JangHHLeeHALeeJY, et al. Dynamic response topology optimization in the time domain using equivalent static loads. AIAA J2012; 50(1): 226–234.
40.
LiMTangWYuanM.Structural dynamic topology optimization based on dynamic reliability using equivalent static loads. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2014; 49(1): 121–129.
41.
RicciardiAPEgerCAGCanfieldRA, et al. Nonlinear aeroelastic-scaled-model optimization using equivalent static loads. J Aircr2014; 51(6): 1842–1851.
42.
LeeH-AParkG-J.Nonlinear dynamic response topology optimization using the equivalent static loads method. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng2015; 283: 956–970.
43.
JungU-JParkG-J.A new method for simultaneous optimum design of structural and control systems. Comput Struct2015; 160: 90–99.
44.
StolpeM.On the equivalent static loads approach for dynamic response structural optimization. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2014; 50(6): 921–926.
45.
StolpeMVerbartARojas-LabandaS.The equivalent static loads method for structural optimization does not in general generate optimal designs. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2018; 58(1): 139–154.
46.
ParkG-JLeeY.Discussion on the optimality condition of the equivalent static loads method for linear dynamic response structural optimization. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2019; 59(1): 311–316.
47.
ChoiWHLeeYYoonJM, et al. Structural optimization for roof crush test using an enforced displacement method. Int J Autom Technol2018; 19(2): 291–299.
48.
LeeYHanYHParkSO, et al. Vehicle crash optimization considering a roof crush test and a side impact test. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2019; 233(10): 2455–2466.
49.
YoonJMLeeYParkSO, et al. Crash optimization considering the head injury criterion. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2019; 233(11): 2879–2890.
50.
DavoudiMKimC.Topology optimization for crashworthiness of thin-walled structures under axial crash considering nonlinear plastic buckling and locations of plastic hinges. Eng Optim2019; 51(5): 775–795.
51.
BaiYCZhouHSLeiF, et al. An improved numerically-stable equivalent static loads (ESLs) algorithm based on energy-scaling ratio for stiffness topology optimization under crash loads. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2019; 59(1): 117–130.
52.
RenCMinHMaT, et al. An effective topology optimization method for crashworthiness of thin-walled structures using the equivalent linear static loads. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2020; 234(14): 3239–3255.
53.
KimEKimHGBaekS, et al. Effective structural optimization based on equivalent static loads combined with system reduction method. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2014; 50(5): 775–786.
54.
LeeJChoM.Efficient design optimization strategy for structural dynamic systems using a reduced basis method combined with an equivalent static load. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2018; 58(4): 1489–1504.
55.
ChenT.Gradient-based equivalent static loads method for structure nonlinear dynamic optimization problem. Mech Eng J2015; 51(8): 116.
56.
TrillerJImmelRHarzheimL.Difference-based equivalent static load method with adaptive time selection and local stiffness adaption. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2022; 65(3): 1--17.
57.
LeeH-AParkG-J.A software development framework for structural optimization considering non linear static responses. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2015; 52(1): 197–216.
58.
LeeSJLeeHAYiSI, et al. Design flow for the crash box in a vehicle to maximize energy absorption. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2013; 227(2): 179–200.
59.
QuZ-Q.Model order reduction techniques with applications in finite element analysis: with applications in finite element analysis. New York: Springer Science & Business Media, 2004. pp.378.
60.
KarevAHarzheimLImmelR, et al. Free sizing optimization of a front hood using the ESL method: overcoming challenges and traps. Struct Multidiscipl Optim2019; 60(4): 1687–1707.
61.
KosteskiNPackerJAPuthliRS.A finite element method based yield load determination procedure for hollow structural section connections. J Constr Steel Res2003; 59(4): 453–471.
62.
ZhaoX-L.Deformation limit and ultimate strength of welded T-joints in cold-formed RHS sections. J Constr Steel Res2000; 53(2): 149–165.
63.
YuanXLiuXZuoJ.The development of new energy vehicles for a sustainable future: A review. Renew Sustain Energ Rev2015; 42: 298–305.
64.
WangCLiYZhaoW, et al. Structure design and multi-objective optimization of a novel crash box based on biomimetic structure. Int J Mech Sci2018; 138-139: 489–501.
65.
WangWSunXWeiX.Integration of the forming effects into vehicle front rail crash simulation. Int J Crashworthiness2016; 21(1): 9–21.
66.
AbdullahNAZSaniMSMSalwaniMS, et al. A review on crashworthiness studies of crash box structure. Thin-Walled Struct2020; 153: 106795.
67.
FangJGaoYSunG, et al. Dynamic crashing behavior of new extrudable multi-cell tubes with a functionally graded thickness. Int J Mech Sci2015; 103: 63–73.
68.
BaranowskiPDamaziakKMazurkiewiczL, et al. Analysis of mechanics of side impact test defined in UN/ECE Regulation 129. Traffic Inj Prev2018; 19(3): 256–263.
69.
MazurkiewiczLBaranowskiPKarimiHR, et al. Improved child-resistant system for better side impact protection. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2018; 97: 3925–3935.
70.
SybilskiKMałachowskiJ.Impact of disabled driver’s mass center location on biomechanical parameters during crash. Appl Sci2021; 11(4): 1427.
