CAD-BASED CAD-BASED DESIGN DESIGN PROCESS PROCESS FOR FOR FATIGUE FATIGUE ANALYSIS, ANALYSIS, RELIABILITYRELIABILITYANALYSIS, ANALYSIS, AND

AND DESIGN DESIGN OPTIMIZATION OPTIMIZATION

K.K. Choi, V. Ogarevic, J. Tang, and Y.H. Park Center for Computer-Aided Design College of Engineering The University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

CONTENTS OF THE PROCESS

l

l l l l l
arc

Create a Pro/E CAD Model of a Typical Passenger Vehicle System and Automatically Translate It Into DADS Dynamics Model Perform Dynamics Simulation of the Car Model Over a Typical Road Profile Create Parameterized CAD Model and FE Models of the Front Right Lower Control Arm Perform Fatigue Life Analysis of the Lower Control Arm Perform CAD-Based Fatigue Design Sensitivity Analysis and Optimization of the Lower Control Arm Reliability-Based Analysis and Design Optimization
Automotive Research Center
Center for Computer Aided Design

Pro/E MODEL OF THE VEHICLE SYSTEM

26 Bodies Model

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

DADS MODEL OF THE VEHICLE SYSTEM

l

Total of 22 Rigid Bodies l Simulation Parameters:

7 seconds straight line run n RMS2 road profile: 0.316 in. average peak to valley height n Speed 10 m/sec
n

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

FRONT RIGHT SUSPENSION

FR_Lower Control Arm

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

Pro/E MODEL OF THE LOWER CONTROL ARM

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

JOINT REACTION FORCE HISTORIES

(X-Direction at Three Joints)

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

FE MODEL OF THE LOWER CONTROL ARM

l Total Number of Elements: 297 l Element Type: ANSYS 20-Node Solid l Total Number of Nodes: 1977 l Total Number of DoF: 5931 l Mesh Generator: MSC/PATRAN

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

FATIGUE LIFE PREDICTION APPROACH

l

l l l l

Obtain and Convert Joint Reaction Forces and Inertial Forces From Rigid or Flexible Multibody Dynamics Simulation in the Format Readable by DRAW Create FE Models That Are Consistent with the CAD Model of the Structural Component Superimpose Stress Time Histories for All Surface Nodes of the FE Model Using Hybrid Method Perform Preliminary Analysis To Identify Critical Regions Perform Refined Analysis for Higher Fidelity Fatigue Life Predictions
Automotive Research Center
Center for Computer Aided Design

arc

COMPUTATIONAL FLOW CHART

Interface DADS_READER DADS Output File Dynamic Analysis DADS CAD Model (LCA) Dynamic Information Frame Information Dynamic Parameters Superposition Tool Stress Coefficients Preliminary Analysis Tool Dynamic Stress Time History Refined Analysis Tool Crack Initiation Life Geometry PATRAN or HyperMesh FE Model Critical Region

Load Vector Calculation Tool Quasi Static Load Vectors FEA Tool ANSYS & NASTRAN

Vehicle System

Pro/E

DRAW

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

STRESS HISTORY AT CRITICAL NODE

(Three Principal Stresses)

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

ALGORITHM FOR FATIGUE LIFE PREDICTIONS IN DRAW

l l l l l

Compute Stress/strain and Damage Parameter History Edit and Rainflow Count Damage Parameter History Identify Surface Critical Region Using Preliminary Life Analysis with von Mises Strain Approach Estimate Elastic-plastic Strain at Critical Region Refine Life Predictions at Critical Region Using von Mises Strain Approach or More Advanced Critical Plane Approaches

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

ESTIMATION OF ELASTIC-PLASTIC STRAINS

l l

Uniaxial Case:
n

Neubers Rule and Remberg-Osgood Equation

Multiaxial Case:
Equivalent strain energy density approach n Assumed elastic-plastic loading paths n Currently linear kinematic hardening plasticity model (Mroz Model) is being implemented
n

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

LIFE PREDICTION METHODS

l

Equivalent Strain Methods:

Von Mises equivalent strain approach with SmithWatson-Topper theory n ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code approach
n

Critical Plane Methods:

n

Tensile strain based critical plane approach (Fatemi-Socie) n Shear strain based critical plane approach (Fatemi-Kurath)

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION LIFE CONTOUR

(Preliminary Analysis with von Mises Equivalent-Strain Approach)

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

CRITICAL REGION IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE

LIST OF CRITICAL NODES

User Selected Points l Preliminary Fatigue Analysis

n

Calculate linear elastic von Mises strain n Calculate fatigue crack initiation life for all surface nodes n Select critical nodes with minimum life n The procedure is automated in DRAW

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

REFINED FATIGUE ANALYSIS AT THE CRITICAL NODES

(Equivalent Strain Method)
Node No. Preliminary Analysis Cycles 560 583 590 2.8901E8 3.2312E8 1.217E10 Years 64 72 2700 Refined Analysis (with Neuber) Cycles 2.8295E8 3.1671E8 2.7053E8 Years 62 70 60 Refined Analysis (with EP) Cycles 2.2432E8 3.5239E8 3.9165E8 Years 50 78 87

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

CAD-BASED SHAPE OPTIMIZATION APPROACH

l

Implement CAD-based Shape Design Parameterization Capability within Pro/E Environment l Use HyperMesh or PATRAN for Mesh Generation, ANSYS or NASTRAN for FEA, and DRAW for Fatigue Life Prediction l Develop a Design Velocity Field Computation Method Based on Pro/E Shape Design Parameter l Hybrid Method Is Used for Sensitivity Computation
n

Continuum DSA for Sensitivity of the Dynamic Stresses n Finite Difference for Sensitivity of the Fatigue Life
l
arc

DOT Is Used for CAD-based Shape Design Optimization

Automotive Research Center
Center for Computer Aided Design

COMPUTATIONAL FLOW CHART

Pro/E Environment
Mesh Generator Mesh Generator HyperMesh or PATRAN Pro/ENGINEER CAD Modeler

Life Prediction Sensitivity Analysis 4-Step Design Process Design Optimization Design Optimization DOT

DRAW

Design Parameterization

Design Parameterization

DSA

Velocity Filed Computation What-if Study Sensitivity Display

Velocity Field Computation

Trade-off Determination

Design Update

DSO
arc
Automotive Research Center
Center for Computer Aided Design

CAD-BASED DESIGN PARAMETERIZATION

l

CAD Model Must Be Well-Constructed : Able to regenerate perturbed models in large design space Maintain topology when regenerating Exported geometry must support mesh generation by HyperMesh or PATRAN

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

DESIGN PARAMETERIZATION
l

Design Parameters Are Chosen From Pro/E Feature Dimensions Such as Length, Radii, General Surface, etc. l Design Parameters Selection by Pointing and Clicking at Pro/E Display l Identify FE Nodes on CAD Surfaces
PATRAN generates a file including FE surface node information n This step is automated if meshes are generated by Pro/E
n

Boundary Design Velocity Fields Are Computed Using Finite Difference Method Based on CAD Regeneration l Domain Velocity Fields (Velocity of Interior Nodes) Are Computed Using Boundary Displacement Method
Automotive Research Center
Center for Computer Aided Design

arc

SELECTED DESIGN PARAMETERS

l

Independent Section Dimensions (Heights and Widths) Are Selected as Design Parameters
s5 s4 s6

Design Parameter

Description

s3

s2 s1

d1043 d1044 d1036 d1037 d1029 d1030 d837 d838 d842 d843 d854 d855

height at s1 width at s1 height at s2 width at s2 height at s3 width at s3 height at s4 width at s4 height at s5 width at s5 height at s6 width at s6

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM
l l

l l

Objective Function - Minimize Volume 66 Constraint Functions - Fatigue Life Longer Than 11 Years at 66 Critical Nodes 12 Shape Design Parameters MFD Algorithm Is Used for Optimization

DP d1043 d1044 d1036 d1037 d1029 d1030

Value(mm) Lower Bd Upper Bd 17.0 12.0 20.0 13.0 29.0 14.0 12.0 7.0 15.0 7.0 24.0 9.0 22.0 17.0 26.0 18.0 34.0 19.0

DP d837 d838 d842 d843 d854 d855

Value(mm) Lower Bd Upper Bd 30.0 30.5 24.0 15.0 24.0 14.0 25.0 25.5 19.0 10.0 19.0 9.0 35.0 35.5 29.0 20.0 29.0 19.0

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

DESIGN HISTORY
l

Optimal Design Is Obtained in 11 Iterations

Cost Function History

Design Parameter History

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

LIFE CONTOUR AT INITIAL AND OPTIMAL DESIGNS

Initial Design
DP Initial (mm) Optimal 17.0 12.0 20.0 13.0 29.0 14.0 17.3 9.8 26.0 7.0 31.1 10.9

Optimal Design
DP d837 d838 d842 d843 d854 d855 Initial (mm) Optimal 30.0 30.5 24.0 15.0 24.0 14.0 25.0 25.5 19.0 13.1 20.7 9.0

Volume(mm3)

Initial 195786.5

Optimal 173787.8

d1043 d1044 d1036 d1037 d1029 d1030

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

DESIGN OPTIMIZATION STARTING FROM TWO DIFFERENT INITIAL DESIGNS

Initial Design I
DP Design I 17.0 12.0 20.0 13.0 29.0 14.0 Design II 17.0 16.0 20.0 17.0 29.0 18.0 DP d837 d838 d842 d843 d854 d855

Initial Design II
Design I 30.0 30.5 24.0 15.0 24.0 14.0 Design II 30.0 30.5 24.0 15.0 24.0 14.0

Volume(mm ) Design I Design II 195786.5 210118.1

d1043 d1044 d1036 d1037 d1029 d1030

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

COMPARISON OF OPTIMAL DESIGNS OF INITIAL DESIGNS I & II

Optimal Design I
Volume(mm )
3

Optimal Design II
DP d1043 d1044 d1036 d1037 d1029 d1030 Design I Design II 17.3 9.8 26.0 7.0 31.1 10.9 17.4 9.8 26.0 7.0 31.3 10.6 DP d837 d838 d842 d843 d854 d855 Design I Design II 25.0 25.5 19.0 13.1 20.7 9.0 25.0 25.5 19.0 12.7 20.6 9.0
Center for Computer Aided Design

Design I 173787.8

Design II 173809.0

arc

Automotive Research Center

RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN OPTIMIZATION (RBDO)

Design Model Definition

l Mathematical Formulation:

Distributional and deterministic design vectors =[1,2,...,n1]T and b=[b1,b2,...,bn2] min. W(b,) STOP s.t. Pf i = P(g i (b , ) 0) PfU , i = 1 m i

FORM for Failure Functions Yes Optimum ? No Reliability-Based DSA Optimization Algorithms (DOT)

Update Design Model

bj bj bj ,
L U U L k k k ,

j = 1 n1 k = 1 n2

l Reliability Constraints Are Assumed to be

Mutually Independent and No Correlation Exists Between Them

arc
Automotive Research Center
Center for Computer Aided Design

RANDOM VARIABLE SPACES

l Transformation Matrix T: U = T(X) from a non-normally distributed

random variable space X to a standard normally distributed random variable space U where U i = 1 ( fXi ( x)), i = 1 n
X U
2 2

: Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) P MPP U * f MPP U*

Failure Region g(U) < 0

Mean Value Point

0
Safe Region g(U) > 0 b

Major Contribution to Failure Probability From this Area U1

fX (x) 0 Failure Surface g(X) = 0 X1 0

Reliability Index

(FORM) (SORM) f U (u) Failure Surface g(U) = 0

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

NUMERICAL EXAMPLE TRACKED VEHICLE ROAD ARM

l Multibody Dynamics Model: 17 Rigid Bodies

10

Roadarm

R 17 16 X3R R R15 X R 1 X2 R 14 1 9 R R 13 2 R R R 8 R R 7 6 R 3 5 R
4

12

11

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

SHAPE DESIGN PARAMETERIZATION

Cubic Curves

bi, i = 1,3,5,7

x'3

Straight Lines

bi, i = 2,4,6,8

x'1 Cross Sectional Shape Design Parameters: b1, b3, b5, b7 Design Parameters: b2, b4, b6, b8

1236 Torsion Bar

Intersection 1 b1, b2 Intersection 2 Intersection 4 12 b3, b4 Intersection 3 b7, b8 b5, b6

20 in.

x'3 x'2

Intersection 1 Intersection 3 Intersection 2 Intersection 4

x'3

x' 2

Center of the Roadwheel

x'2 x'1

x' 1

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

DETERMINISTIC DESIGN OPTIMIZATION

l l

Objective Function - Minimize Volume Constraint Function - 24 Fatigue Life Greater Than 20 Years
1340 1227 1287 1140 1023 843 505 547 1311 1391 472 1012 922

1216 1008

x'3 x' 2 x' 1

1544

439 1519

1380 1129 1433

742 926 918

x'1

x'3 x'2

Function Cost Constraint 1 Constraint 2 Constraint 3 Constraint 4 Constraint 5

Description Volume Life at node 1216 Life at node 926 Life at node 1544 Life at node 1519 Life at node 1433

Lower Bound 9.63E+6 (20 Year) 9.63E+6 (20 Year) 9.63E+6 (20 Year) 9.63E+6 (20 Year) 9.63E+6 (20 Year)

Current Design 487.678 in3 9.631E+6 blocks 8.309E+7 blocks 8.926E+7 blocks 1.447E+8 blocks 2.762E+8 blocks

Status Active Inactive Inactive Inactive Inactive

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

RANDOM VARIABLES FOR RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Random Variables Mean Value Youngs Modulus E 30.0E+6 Fatigue Strength Coefficient s'f 1.77E+5 Fatigue Ductility Coefficient e'f 0.41 Fatigue Strength Exponent b -0.07300 Fatigue Ductility Exponent c -0.6 Tolerance b1 2.889 in. Tolerance b2 1.583 in. Tolerance b3 2.911 in. Tolerance b4 1.637 in. Tolerance b5 2.870 in. Tolerance b6 2.420 in. Tolerance b7 2.801 in. Tolerance b8 4.700 in. Standard Deviation 0.75E+6 0.885E+4 0.0205 0.00365 0.003 0.032450 0.019675 0.031703 0.019675 0.031703 0.026352 0.032496 0.050568 Distribution LogNormal LogNormal LogNormal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

FOUR-STEP INTERACTIVE DESIGN

l

Reliability-Based Design Model Definition

n

Objective function - minimize volume n Constraints - failure probability of fatigue life 1% n Design parameters - mean values of b1 to b8 l

Interactive Design
n

An improved design obtained in two iterations n 10 FORMs, 2 Reliability-Based DSAs (5 days on HP9000/755)
Function Cost Constraint 1 Constraint 2 Constraint 3 Constraint 4 Constraint 5 Description Volume Life at node 1216 Life at node 926 Life at node 1544 Life at node 1519 Life at node 1433 Pf = F(-b) at Optimum 436.722 in3 0.476% 3.24% 3.21% 0.83% 0.023% Pf = F(-b) 2 RB Designs 447.691 in3 0.532% 0.992% 0.998% 0.721% 0.018% Changes 2.5% 0.056 -2.2 -2.2 -0.11 -0.005

arc

Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

l The Connection Between Pro/E and DADS Seems to Be Working l l l l l l l

Properly and Efficiently DRAW Code Efficiently Identified Fatigue Critical Regions During the Preliminary Analysis DRAW Refined Analysis Provided Higher Fidelity Predictions on the Fatigue Critical Locations DSO Provided Accurate Design Sensitivity Information Very Efficiently Very Similar Optimal Designs Are Obtained from Two Different Initial Designs CAD-Based Design Model Is Critical for Multidisciplinary CAE Analysis and Design Optimization CAD-Based Design Model Will Allow Connection of CAE to CADCAM Reliability-Based Design Optimization Provides High Quality Designs That Are Cost Effective in Manufacturing Process
Automotive Research Center
Center for Computer Aided Design

arc