Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Citation: Liang, J., Powers, J., and Stevens, S., “A Tailor Welded Blanks Design of Automotive Front Rails by ESL Optimization for Crash
Safety and Lightweighting,” SAE Technical Paper 2018-01-0120, 2018, doi:10.4271/2018-01-0120.
Abstract
with baseline. A 3rd gen AHSS, NEXMET™1000, was selected
U
tilizing the tailor welded blanks (TWBs) design along on four parts of the front rails to replace the baseline HSLA350.
with the latest AHSS grades for the front rails on a sedan The optimal tailored frontal rail design using NEXMET™1000
was studied to reduce the weight of the vehicle and grade was obtained through ESL thickness optimization and
improve the crash safety performance. To find the most efficient validated by US-NCAP full frontal impact. Compared with
material usage, the front rail parts were tailored into multiple HSLA350, the NEXMET™1000 grade offers better crash safety
blanks with varying thickness. A structural thickness optimiza- performance with more weight reduction potential.
tion study of the tailored front rails was conducted for IIHS An optimal thickness coefficient is proposed in this study
moderate overlap frontal crash, and the tailored blank thickness to evaluate the material efficiency of the tailored blanks and
was set as design variable. The equivalent static loads (ESL) the amount of thickness changes required for each blank to
method was adopted for the thickness optimization, which reach the most efficient material usage. The optimal TWB
allows many design variables to be optimized simultaneously. thickness configurations for HSLA350 and NEXMET™1000
The torsion and bending stiffness of the sedan body in prime grades through ESL were evaluated using this optimal thick-
were set as design constraints, and would not be compromised. ness coefficient. The critical locations on front rails for crash
The optimal thickness configurations of the TWB designs by safety were identified and the amount of thickness changes
ESL optimization suggest that the weight of the frontal rails can needed characterized. The tailor welded blanks technology
be reduced by more than 30% while still maintaining the crash can be implemented in the front rail design to reduce weight
safety performance. These TWB designs were validated by and improve crash safety. This optimal thickness coefficient
US-NCAP full frontal impact and show similar performance can guide the automotive design for lightweighting.
Keywords
Structural optimization, Moderate overlap frontal crash, Tailor welded blanks (TWBs), Optimal thickness coefficient
Equivalent static loads (ESL) method, 3rd Gen AHSS,
W
of multiple AHSS grades, optimization can be employed to
ith increased pressure from governments and regula- identify the best steel grade and gauge (thickness) for each part
tion agencies to improve the fuel economy and to meet the requirements. Among those optimization methods,
reduce the greenhouse gas emission, reducing sizing, topometry, shape and topology optimizations are the
vehicle weights proves to be an integral part of the solution. To most popular in automotive industry and have been adopted
achieve the weight reduction target, advanced high strength steels by commercial software such as Optistruct and DesignStudio.
(AHSS) have been used widely in vehicles, especially on body- Yet all those optimization methods are based on static linear
in-white (BIW) and closures [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Those AHSS grades load cases. When it comes to nonlinear and dynamic response
offer high yield and tensile strength compared with traditional optimization, above conventional techniques used in linear
steel grades. And thus the crash and safety, oil canning, dimpling static response optimization become too time costly and some-
and other performance can still be reached with thinner gauges times unfeasible. Especially for large scale problems such as
[7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. Now steel companies are launching the next full vehicle crash, the problems have large nonlinearity (material
and 3rd generation AHSS grades that offer even higher yield and plasticity, large structure deformation, etc.) and the analysis is
tensile strength with improved formability [13, 14]. carried out in the time domain [24]. It is difficult to include
Structural optimization methods have been developed to nonlinear dynamic response analysis in mathematical model
meet the requirements of reducing vehicle weight while meeting and obtain the response sensitivity information for optimization.
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018
2
A TAILOR WELDED
A TAILORBLANKS
WELDEDDESIGN
BLANKS
OF DESIGN
AUTOMOTIVE
OF AUTOMOTIVE
FRONT RAILS
FRONT
BY ESL
RAILS
OPTIMIZATION
BY ESL OPTIMIZATION 2
Response surface method (RSM) has been used to reduce by multiplying the linear stiffness matrix with the displacement
the cost for nonlinear response optimization [25, 26]. A response field at certain time obtained from nonlinear analysis (crash
surface is constructed based on limited sample points (either analysis in this research). A linear optimization will be
from simulation or experiment) using a linear or quadratic fitting conducted in given design region with the equivalent static
to approximate a complicated problem. The design of experi- loads. Nonlinear analysis and linear ESL optimization are
ments (DOE) is generally used for sample point generation and conducted sequentially in the optimization simulation until
the least squares regression for function approximation. No the convergence criteria is satisfied.
response sensitivity analysis is required for RSM method. Yet the Two iteration loops exist in this ESL optimization,
approximated results may not be accurate due to the high nonlin- internal iterations and external iterations. The internal itera-
earity between the input variables (part thickness, materials, tions are linear optimization in the design domain, while the
shape, etc.) and the response function in vehicle crash. And the external iterations relate the data flow between analysis
computation becomes more costly with additional design variables. domain and design domain [32]. While for conventional opti-
The equivalent static loads method (ESL) has been mization, only internal iterations happen in the design domain.
proposed to solve the nonlinear and dynamic response opti- For the ESL optimization, the process includes analysis
mization problems [27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32]. In the ESL method, domain and design domain. Nonlinear crash safety analysis
the equivalent static loads are calculated and applied during is conducted in the analysis domain with the full vehicle crash
optimization instead of nonlinear and dynamic loads. A linear model and the displacement fields at certain times were
static optimization is conducted in given design region to get obtained. The governing equation can be expressed as:
the optimal solution instead. For nonlinear optimization with M ( b,z N ( t ) )
z N ( t ) + C ( b,z N ( t ) ) z N ( t )
many design variables and thus require many cases to calculate,
ESL method offers an affordable solution. It has been verified + K ( b,z N ( t ) ) z N ( t ) = f ( t ) ( t = t 0 ,t1 ,,t l ) (1)
in thickness optimization [27], shape optimization [29] and
topology optimization [30, 31, 32], and adopted in commercial Where M is the mass matrix, b is the design variable
software such as VRAND DesignStudio and MSC Nastran. vector and zN(t) the displacement vector. C is the damping
Tailored blank design, including tailor welded blanks matrix, and K is the stiffness matrix. z N ( t ) is the acceleration
(TWB) and tailor rolled blanks, have been used widely in auto vector and z N ( t ) is the velocity vector. The constant l is the
industries to build lighter and more fuel efficient vehicles [33, total number of time steps for integration. f(t) is the external
34, 35, 36, 37]. Those technologies allow parts with varying load vector and t is the time. The nonlinear displacement zN(t)
thickness feasible using conventional stamping tools. With the at all the time steps can be obtained from Eq. (1).
best material gauge and grade in the right position, the material With the displacement field from nonlinear analysis
utilization is greatly enhanced for lightweighting and crash safety domain (t = s), the ESL load is calculated as:
performance. In this research, the tailor welded blanks design f eqz ( s ) = K L ( b ) * Z N ( t ) ( s = 1, 2, , l ) (2)
of front rails on a sedan was studied and the possibility to further
Where f eq ( s ) is the equivalent static load. KL(b) is the stiff-
z
reduce weight and improve crash performance investigated. The
ESL method was used to run the structural optimization analysis ness matrix of the linear static model. ZN(t) is the displacement
and find the optimal thickness configuration for the TWB field at time s = t from nonlinear analysis domain. The notation
designs. A 3rd generation AHSS steel grade, NEXMET™1000, s is used in the linear static analysis as a non-time domain
was applied on four parts of the front rails, and ESL thickness variable, and is equal to t from the nonlinear analysis domain.
optimizations with multiple mass reduction targets were The ESL load obtained from Eq. (2) is applied as an
conducted to find the optimal thickness configurations. A external load in the linear static model and a conventional
comparison is made between the baseline HSLA350 grade and structural optimization can be conducted to obtain the optimal
the NEXMET™1000 grade on their performance in improving design variable configuration under defined constraints with
the frontal crash safety and reducing the vehicle weight. improved time efficiency. The crash model is updated then with
An optimal thickness coefficient is proposed to evaluate the new design variables from design domain and another
the material efficiency of the TWB blanks for a certain mass round of nonlinear crash analysis and linear static optimization
saving target and the percentage of thickness change required will be conducted following the process in Figure 1.
to reach the most efficient material usage for a certain TWB
blank. The value for each tailored blank on the front rails was FIGURE 1 ESL optimization process.
calculated using the ESL thickness optimization results and
plotted. This optimal thickness coefficient can be used as a
reference in vehicle part design for light weighting.
The optimization process will terminate if the change of the FIGURE 2 The 40% offset frontal crash model of a sedan
design variables b is smaller than the convergence parameter ε. car for ESL thickness optimization.
The models in the nonlinear analysis domain and the
linear design domain do not have to be the same. As can be
seen in Figure 1, the nonlinear model is a full vehicle model
while the linear model is a body in prime of the same vehicle.
DesignStudio will map the displacement results from analysis
domain to the design domain based on the part IDs and node
coordinates and return the optimized thickness or other
design parameters back to analysis domain for further
nonlinear analysis and linear optimization.
© SAE International
Model Setup for IIHS
Moderate Overlap
Frontal Crash and ESL FIGURE 3 Parts chosen for thickness optimization.
Thickness Optimization
The vehicle frontal structure is designed to absorb crash
energy of the moving vehicles and thus reduce the intrusion
into the occupant compartment and protect the passenger
from any physical injury. The IIHS moderate overlap test is
especially severe and requires only 40% of the frontal vehicle
width to manage the crash energy and protect the driver from
injury. In this frontal 40% offset crash, the vehicle moves at
40mph and strike a deformable barrier with its 40% frontal
© SAE International
For the TWB technology, the thickness ratio between two maximal frontal intrusion on firewall is set as design objective
neighboring blanks has significant effects on formability and to be minimized. The optimal thickness configuration with
structural performance, and should be no more than 2.0 [39, each mass reduction achievement was obtained. Figures 4 to
40]. In this study, the thickness ratio is considered as design 8 show the optimal thickness value (gauge) for each TWB
constraint in the ESL optimization and cannot be greater than blank. Note that the baseline front rail thickness values are
1.5 during optimization. plotted directly at 0% mass reduction, and are not optimized.
An optimal thickness coefficient φ for a certain TWB As shown, the thickness of several TWB blanks (for example
blank is proposed here to evaluate the efficiency of that blank dv5, dv9, dv10, dv11, dv19, dv20 and dv29) was increased for
under a mass saving target. The value of this coefficient repre- most mass reduction cases to improve the crash safety and
sents the percentage of thickness change required for this some thickness (for example dv1, dv2, dv3, dv7, dv16, dv17,
blank to reach the most efficient material usage under a certain dv21, dv23 and dv24) reduced to save weight and improve the
mass saving target. This value is obtained by linear interpola- material efficiency. Those TWB blanks get different thickness
tion from neighboring sample points. to fully utilize the material properties, showing the necessity
of using TWB design for front rails.
n
æ t -t ö The TWB blank thickness in the LS-Dyna crash model
j = åwi * ç i b ÷ (3)
i =1 è tb ø was updated using the optimal thickness configurations from
ESL optimization, and single crash analysis was conducted
Where n is the number of sample points from chosen ESL
for each configuration. The corresponding maximum frontal
runs with different weight reductions achieved to take into
intrusions for each optimal thickness configuration are shown
account. ti is the optimal thickness for a TWB blank of the ith
in Figure 9. As can be seen, all the TWB designs show
sample point from ESL optimization and tb is the baseline
improved frontal intrusion performance compared with the
thickness of that blank. wi is the weight factor of the ith sample
baseline. The safety rating for moderate overlap frontal crash
point, and the sample point closer to the target will get a higher
weight factor. The sample points cannot be too far from the
target, as crash performance is highly non-linear, and linear FIGURE 4 The optimal TWB thickness with design
interpolation may not work well. The sum of the weight factors variable 1-5.
of a certain TWB blank should equal one.
n
åw
i =1
i = 1 (4)
© SAE International
required to reach the optimal material efficiency.
Thickness Optimization
of TWB Design FIGURE 5 The optimal TWB thickness with design variable
A sedan model from NCAC was used in this research, and its
front rail parts were tailored into multiple blanks with baseline
HSLA350 grade as in Figure 3. IIHS moderate overlap frontal
crash analysis and ESL thickness optimization were conducted.
The sedan crash model is a full vehicle model, as shown in
Figure 2. The barrier model was developed by LSTC and used
in this 40% offset crash.
In the design domain for ESL method, the maximum
number of internal iterations is set as 5, which means the
linear optimization will return once the optimization itera-
© SAE International
FIGURE 6 The optimal TWB thickness with design FIGURE 9 Frontal intrusion for the TWB design of front
variable 11-20. rails using HSLA350.
© SAE International
© SAE International FIGURE 10 Stiffness performance for the TWB design of
FIGURE 7 The optimal TWB thickness with design
front rails using HSLA350.
variable 21-23.
© SAE International
© SAE International
saving targets (10%, 20% and 30%) were calculated and plotted
in Figure 11. The thickness configurations from ESL in Table 1
were used as sample points to obtain the material efficiency for
a certain mass saving target by linear interpolation between
© 2018 SAE International. All Rights Reserved.
Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of Nottingham - Kings Meadow Campus, Saturday, August 11, 2018
TABLE 1 TWB design of frontal rails with different mass are always below −0.4 mm, showing their inefficiency and
reduction targets using HSLA350 grade. their thickness can be further reduced to save weight.
Maximal Maximal
Torsion intrusion intrusion
Mass
reduction
(KN-m/
rad)
Bending
(N/mm)
@ LOC
(mm)
@ UOC
(mm) Adoption of the
Baseline
5.40%
1318.51
1319.96
2386.52
2390.41
179.81
135.45
75.07
41.85
NEXMET™1000 on Front
7.83% 1319.49 2389.93 142.37 50.27 Rails
9.75% 1319.19 2388.18 143.68 51.90
11.99% 1319.17 2387.63 136.78 41.11 The AHSS grades have been used widely in automotive parts
13.91% 1318.52 2386.97 135.61 41.46 for crash safety and light-weighting. The AHSS grades have
higher yield and tensile strength, and thus more energy
16.63% 1317.61 2383.45 142.57 43.56
absorption potential than traditional steel grades [7, 8, 9].
19.74% 1318.51 2379.15 137.19 36.23
NEXMET™1000 grade is a newly launched 3rd generation
© SAE International
24.42% 1316.12 2370.74 141.93 37.08 steel grade with very high yield and tensile strength, as in
29.14% 1313.80 2361.78 147.45 43.94 Figure 12. It can be adopted in frontal parts of the vehicle to
33.45% 1311.80 2352.13 148.04 46.49 improve the crash safety and achieve further weight reduction.
38.49% 1306.69 2339.61 150.95 40.16 Four parts in the front rails have been replaced with
NEXMET™1000 grade as shown in Figure 13 (parts with
design variables 11-20 and design variables 24-30). The same
neighboring sample points. For a 10% mass saving target, the
40% offset frontal crash optimization was conducted and the
9.75% and 11.99% sample points were taken into account and
optimal thickness configuration for the TWB designs obtained.
the weight factor was calculated to be 0.888 and 0.112 respec-
ESL optimization was conducted for the TWB design
tively according to the distance of the corresponding sample
with 30 design variables assigned to different tailored blank
points to the target. For the 20% mass saving, the 19.74% and
thickness. The optimal thickness configuration with different
24.42% sample points were taken into account and the weight
factor was set as 0.944 and 0.056 respectively. For the 30% mass
FIGURE 12 AK Steel’s NEXMET™1000 grade with higher
saving, the 29.14% and 33.45% sample points were taken into
account and the weight factor was set as 0.8 and 0.2 respectively. yield and tensile strength.
Radar chart is used to show the coefficient for each TWB
blank for each mass saving target. Each design variable is
displayed on an axis radially arranged as equi-angular spokes
around a center point. As can be seen, the values of dv9, dv10,
dv19, dv20 and dv29 are always positive, indicating their high
material efficiency and further potential in improving crash
safety of the vehicle by increasing their thickness. On the
contrary, the values for dv1, dv7, dv17, dv21, dv23 and dv24
© SAE International
mass reduction targets was obtained. Figures 14 to 18 show FIGURE 17 The optimal TWB thickness with design
the optimal thickness values (gauge) for each TWB blank at variable 21-23.
front rails. Again, the baseline front rail thickness is plotted
directly at 0% mass reduction. As can be seen, some TWB
blank thickness (for example dv5, dv9, dv10, dv11, dv20 and
dv29) was increased for most weight reduction achievements
© SAE International
FIGURE 18 The optimal TWB thickness with design
© SAE International
variable 24-30.
FIGURE 19 Frontal intrusion for the TWB design of front FIGURE 21 The optimal thickness coefficient for the
rails using NEXMET™1000 on four parts. TWB blanks.
© SAE International
© SAE International
FIGURE 20 Stiffness performance for the TWB design of For the optimal thickness configurations of TWB front
front rails using NEXMET™1000 on four parts. rails using NEXMET™1000 on four parts, the optimal thick-
ness coefficient φ for mass saving targets of 10%, 20%, 30%
and 40% of all the TWB blanks were interpolated based on
the thickness configurations of those sample points from ESL
optimization and plotted in Figure 21.
For 10% mass saving, the 9.75% and 14.75% sample points
were taken into account and the weight factor was set to 0.95
and 0.05 respectively. For 20% mass saving, the 19.86% and
22.50% sample points were taken into account and the weight
factor was set as 0.947 and 0.053 respectively. For 30% mass
saving, the 28.22% and 33.65% sample points were taken into
account and the weight factor was set to 0.672 and 0.328
© SAE International
28.22% 1314.77 2363.47 139.33 44.66 Figure 22. It is necessary to use the NCAP frontal impact to
33.65% 1309.37 2351.53 135.03 40.76 validate the TWB design configurations of front rails obtained
37.65% 1308.57 2341.55 130.87 36.41 through ESL optimization. The velocity was differentiated to
40.77% 1303.17 2331.44 134.09 35.39 obtain the acceleration pulse. The vehicle acceleration pulse
FIGURE 22 The US-NCAP frontal impact model of a FIGURE 24 Acceleration pulses on the driver side for TWB
sedan car. designs of front rails using NEXMET™1000 grade.
© SAE International
© SAE International
(in -G’s) was measured at the B-pillar under rocker area on
both the driver side and passenger side of the vehicle. The
TWB designs of front rails using both HSLA350 and
NEXMET™1000 were validated by the US-NCAP frontal compromise the safety performance. For the NEXMET™1000
crash test, to make sure the TWB designs do not compromise grade, the peak acceleration for the 4.58%, 9.75%, 14.75%,
the full frontal crash performance. 19.86% mass reduction configurations of TWB designs show
The acceleration pulses on the driver side during NCAP significantly higher acceleration pulses than baseline, due to
frontal impact for the TWB designs of front rails were plotted the high yield and tensile strength of the material grade and
in Figure 23 for HSLA350 and in Figure 24 for NEXMET™1000. thus increased rigidity and toughness. The thickness configu-
For TWB design using HSLA350 grade, the peak acceleration rations for 22.5%, 28.22%, 33.65%, 37.65% and 40.77% mass
for the 5.4% mass reduction configuration are higher than the reductions show lower peak acceleration than the baseline,
baseline, increasing the probability of serious injury for the and thus can be adopted in the lightweighting design.
driver. The reason is that the increased material efficiency and The acceleration pulses on the passenger side during NCAP
toughness of front rails by TWB design (which is good to frontal impact for the TWB design of front rails were plotted
control the intrusion for 40% offset crash) make the vehicle in Figures 25 and 26 for HSLA350 and NEXMET™1000 grades
too rigid for full frontal impact (which is controlled by accel- respectively. For HSLA350 grade, the 5.4% mass reduction
eration pulse). The configurations of 9.75%, 13.91%, 19.74%, configuration shows significantly higher peak acceleration than
24.42%, 29.14% and 33.45% mass reduction cases show similar the baseline, while all other configurations show similar or
or lower peak acceleration on the drive side, thus will not lower peak accelerations than the baseline. For the
FIGURE 23 Acceleration pulses on the driver side for TWB FIGURE 25 Acceleration pulses on the passenger side for
designs of front rails using HSLA350 grade. TWB designs of front rails using HSLA350 grade.
© SAE International
© SAE International
FIGURE 26 Acceleration pulses on the passenger side for moderate overlap frontal crash, better firewall intrusion
TWB designs of front rails using NEXMET™1000 grade. performance can be expected using NEXMET™1000 with
more mass reduction potential (>40%). For US-NCAP full
frontal impact, a mass reduction of at least 28.22% is required
for the TWB design using NEXMET™1000 the keep the peak
acceleration similar or lower than the baseline. The latest
advancements in steel technology along with the ESL methods
will continue to move the automotive performance and
lightweighting forward.
An optimal thickness coefficient φ is proposed in this
study to evaluate the material efficiency of a TWB blank for
a certain mass saving target and the percentage of thickness
change required to reach the most efficient material usage.
The optimal thickness results through ESL using HSLA350
and NEXMET™1000 grades were evaluated using this optimal
© SAE International
thickness coefficient. The critical locations on front rails for
crash safety were identified and the amount of thickness
changes characterized. The locations that are overdesigned
for crash safety were also identified. This optimal thickness
coefficient can guide the automotive design for lightweighting.
11. Nakagaito, T., Matsuoka, S., Kaneko, S., Kawasaki, Y. et al., 26. Venter, G., Haftka, R.T., and Starnes, J.H., “Construction of
“Method for Manufacturing High Strength Galvanized Steel Response Surface Approximations for Design Optimization,”
with Excellent Formability,” U.S. Patent: US20140182748A1, AIAA Journal 36(12):2242-2249, 1998.
July 2014. 27. Jeong, S.B., Yi, S.I., Kan, C.D., Nagabhushana, V. et al.,
12. Thomas, G. and Garza-Martinez, L., “High Strength Steel “Structural Optimization of an Automobile Roof Structure
Exhibiting Good Ductility and Method of Production via Using Equivalent Static Loads,” Proceedings of the Institution
Quenching and Partitioning Treatment by Zinc Bath,” PCT/ of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile
US2014/038425, Nov 2014. Engineering 222(11):1985-1995, 2008.
13. Powers, J., Thomas, G., Gill, A. and Case, E., “AK Steel’s 28. Lee, H. A. and Park, G. J., “Development of an Optimization
Development of AHSS Steel Grades for Body Structures and Software System for Nonlinear Dynamics Using the
Their Applications,” International Automotive Body Equivalent Static Load Method,” 10th World Congress on
Congress, Sep 2016. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Orlando,
14. Petersen, E., “Development of Innovative Steel Grades and USA, May 2013.
Their Applications in Automotive Structures,” Great Designs 29. Genest, L., Jézéquel, L., Gillot, F. and Mercier, F., “Shape
in Steel, Livonia, Michigan, USA, May 2016. Optimization Method for Crashworthiness Design Based on
15. Vanderplaats, G.N., “Thirty Years of Modern Structural Equivalent Static Loads Concept,” 11th World Congress on
Optimization,” Advances in Engineering Software 16(2):81- Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Sydney,
88, 1993. Australia, Jun 2015.
16. Bendsoe, M.P., “Optimization of Structural Topology, Shape, 30. Jang, H. H. and Lee, H. A., “Dynamic Response Topology
and Material,” (Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 1995), Optimization in the Time Domain Using Equivalent Static
doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03115-5. Loads,” 52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Denver,
17. Bobaru, F. and Mukherjee, S., “Shape Sensitivity Analysis and
Colorado, Apr 2011, AIAA2011-2090.
Shape Optimization in Planar Elasticity Using the Element-
Free Galerkin Method,” Computer Methods in Applied 31. Yi, S.I., Lee, H.A., and Park, G.J., “Optimization of a
Mechanics and Engineering 190(32-33):4319-4337, 2001. Structure with Contact Conditions Using Equivalent
Loads,” Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology
18. Eschenauer, H.A. and Olhoff, N., “Topology Optimization of
25(3):773-782, 2011, doi:10.1007/s12206-011-0129-1.
Continuum Structures: A Review,” Applied Mechanics
Reviews 54(4):331-390, 2001. 32. Christensen, J., Bastien, C., and Blundell, M.V., “The
Feasibility of ESLM for BIW Roof Structure Development
19. Tanskanen, P., “The Evolutionary Structural Optimization
and Optimization,” Journal of Mathematical Research and
Method: Theoretical Aspects,” Computer Methods in Applied
Applications 1(2):34-47, 2013.
Mechanics and Engineering 191(47-48):5485-5498, 2002.
33. Kinsey, B., Liu, Z., and Cao, J., “A Novel Forming
20. Leiva, J. P., Watson, B. C. and Kosaka, I., “A Comparative
Technology for Tailor-Welded Blanks,” Journal of Materials
Study of Topology and Topometry Structural Optimization
Processing Technology 99(1-3):145-153, 2000.
Methods within the GENESIS SOFTWARE,” 7th World
Congresses of Structural and Multidisciplinary 34. Bhaskar, V.V., Narayanan, R.G., and Narasimhan, K., “Effect
Optimization, Seoul, Korea, May 2007. of Thickness Ratio on Formability of Tailor Welded Blanks,”
AIP Conference Proceedings 712(863), 2004.
21. Ide, T., Otomori, M., Leiva, J.P., and Watson, B.C.,
“Structural Optimization Methods and Techniques to 35. Safdarian, R., Jorge, R.M.N., Santos, A.D., Naeini, H.M.
Design Light and Efficient Automatic Transmission of et al., “A Comparative Study of Forming Limit Diagram
Vehicles with Low Radiated Noise,” Structural and Prediction of Tailor Welded Blanks,” International Journal of
Multidisciplinary Optimization 50(6):1137-1150, 2014. Material Forming 8(2):293-304, 2015.
22. Hassani, B., Tavakkoli, S.M., and Ghasemnejad, H., 36. Hirt, G., Abratis, C., and Ames, J., “Manufacturing of Sheet
“Simultaneous Shape and Topology Optimization of Shell Metal Parts from Tailor Rolled Blanks,” Journal for
Structures,” Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization Technology of Plasticity 30:1, 2005.
48(1):221-233, 2013. 37. Zoernack, M., “Material Related Design with Tailor Rolled
23. Guo, X. and Cheng, G., “Recent Development in Structural Products,” Great Designs in Steel, May 2016.
Design and Optimization,” Acta Mechanica Sinica 26:807- 38. “IIHS Moderate Overlap Frontal Crashworthiness
823, 2010. Evaluation Crash Test Protocol”, iihs.org. July 2017.
24. Lee, Y., Ahm, J. and Park, G., “Crash Optimization of 39. Chan, S.M., Chan, L.C., and Lee, T.C., “Tailor-Welded
Automobile Frontal and Side Structures Using Equivalent Blanks of Different Thickness Ratios Effects on Forming
Static Loads,” 11th World Congress on Structural and Limit Diagrams,” Journal of Material Processing Technology
Multidisciplinary Optimization, Sydney, Australia, 132(1-3):95-101, 2003.
June 2015. 40. Riahi, M. and Amini, A., “Effect of Different
25. Craig, K.J., Stander, N., Dooge, D.A., and Varadappa, S., Combinations of Tailor-Welded Blank Coupled with
“Automotive Crashworthiness Design Using Response Change in Weld Location on Mechanical Properties by
Surface Based Variable Screening and Optimization,” Laser Welding,” The International Journal of
Engineering Computations 22(1):38-61, 2005, Advanced Manufacturing Technology 67(5-8):1937-
doi:10.1108/02644400510572406. 1945, 2013.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the
content of the paper.
ISSN 0148-7191