International Journal of Crashworthiness

ISSN: 1358-8265 (Print) 1754-2111 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcrs20

Buckling considerations and cross-sectional

geometry development for topology optimised
body in white

J. Christensen , C. Bastien , M. V. Blundell & P. A. Batt

To cite this article: J. Christensen , C. Bastien , M. V. Blundell & P. A. Batt (2013) Buckling
considerations and cross-sectional geometry development for topology optimised body in white,
International Journal of Crashworthiness, 18:4, 319-330, DOI: 10.1080/13588265.2013.792442

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2013.792442

Published online: 01 May 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 199

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcrs20
International Journal of Crashworthiness, 2013
Vol. 18, No. 4, 319–330, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13588265.2013.792442

Buckling considerations and cross-sectional geometry development for topology

optimised body in white
J. Christensen∗, C. Bastien, M.V. Blundell and P.A. Batt
Faculty of Engineering and Computing, Coventry University, Coventry, UK
(Received 11 January 2013; final version received 2 April 2013)

This paper will investigate how current state-of-the-art structural optimisation algorithms, with an emphasis on topology
optimisation, can be used to rapidly develop lightweight body in white (BIW) concept designs, based on a computer aided
design envelope. The optimisation models included in the paper will primarily focus on crashworthiness and roof crush
scenarios as specified in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 216 standard. This paper is a continuation
of a previously published paper, which investigated the potential effects of recently proposed changes to FMVSS 216 upon
BIW mass and architecture using topology optimisation. The paper will investigate the possibilities of including buckling
considerations of roof members directly into current state-of-the-art topology optimisation algorithms. This paper will also
demonstrate the potential for developing a detailed BIW design including cross-sectional properties based on a styling
envelope.
Keywords: finite element topology optimisation; FMVSS 216; roof crush; body in white (BIW); lightweight vehicle
architecture; buckling

1. Introduction cases based on linear static finite element (FE) modelling.

In 2003, it was estimated that approximately 10,000 fatali-
ties occurred on US roads due to rollovers [12]. This high-
lights the severity of the crashes associated with rollovers;
the influence of the roof strength is discussed in [10]. In light
of this, recent changes to the FMVSS 216 standard has been
proposed. The potential effects of these changes upon body
in white (BIW) architecture and mass have previously been
investigated using topology optimisation, inertia relief and
a hybrid electrical vehicle case study [5]. The only variation
between the individual models of the study in [5] was the
(pitch and roll) angles associated with the roof crush sce-
nario. The pitch angle  and the roll angle θ are illustrated
in Figure 1. Furthermore, the applied loading magnitude
was increased to three times the unloaded vehicle weight
(45 kN), i.e. excluding fuel, passengers etc., as suggested
in [3,11,13,14].
The study in [5] included 11 models and found that the
estimated mass value of the roof, denoted as 1 in Figure 2,
did not vary significantly as a function of the pitch and roll
angle variations.
This may initially seem controversial, as other pa-
pers investigating the effects of the proposed FMVSS 216
changes, such as [4], found that the magnitude of force dis-
tribution within the roof changes significantly as a function
of the pitch and roll angles. However, at this point, it is
important to remember that topology optimisation extracts
the most ‘efficient’ load paths according to the applied load
As the magnitudes of the applied forces did remain constant
throughout the study [5], the effects of the change of angles
could be accommodated by changing the load paths, with
only minor changes to overall BIW mass.
The effects and importance of buckling and localised
crushing of the roof pillars as significant factors in the
overall crash performance of the roof have been discussed
in [4], thereby making these potential parameters of topol-
ogy optimisation. Using commercially available topology
optimisation software, it is not feasible to directly imple-
ment the above parameters as variables into optimisation
models.
Firstly, buckling cannot be calculated for solid (three-
dimensional (3D)) elements. Secondly, it is important to
recognise the ‘relative simplicity’ of the models in ques-
tion. In general, the outcome of FE-based topology optimi-
sation does not contain detailed information relating to e.g.
cross-sectional geometry, which is required in order to draw
accurate estimations on the likelihood of buckling and/or
localised crushing of the roof pillars occurring.
To include buckling and localised crushing (with a sat-
isfactorily level of accuracy), as parameters in connection
with topology optimisation, alternative optimisation algo-
rithms, such as the homogenisation method, could possibly
be employed [2]. However, these algorithms have proven
extremely difficult, if not impossible to apply to anything
but very simple geometries, let alone a ‘complex’ design

∗
Corresponding author. Email: aa8867@coventry.ac.uk


C 2013 Taylor & Francis
320 J. Christensen et al.
Figure 1. Pitch and roll angle according to FMVSS 216.
volume, such as the one illustrated in Figure 2 (including a
large number of elements and design space based on com-
plex Boolean operations).
The implementation of buckling and localised crush-
ing as parameters in topology optimisation is not certain to
lead to significant changes in the results of the FMVSS 216
study of [5]. This is primarily linked to the objective of the
optimisation, which was to minimise the BIW mass whilst
constrained by maximum displacement criteria. It there-
fore follows that the optimisation will define/retain the load
paths where they are most ‘efficient’. Consequently, the
optimisation will attempt to maximise the forces in the in-
dividual load paths, inadvertently increasing the likelihood
of buckling.
This fact raises an interesting question with respect
to obtaining the lightest roof structure. To prevent buck-
ling of ‘long beams’, i.e. the roof members, obtained using
commercial software, as illustrated in Figure 3 (displaying
relative element density), the cross sections of these will
subsequently have to be dimensioned accordingly during
the optimisation process.
This does in essence mean that (for a constant value of
Young’s Modulus) the second moment of area I, needs to be
defined. As there is a clear limit to the outer dimension of
Figure 2. Roof area definition.
Figure 3. Example of roof topology; relative element density.
these beams, due to packaging space, i.e. design envelope,
the only remaining option is to increase the material gauge,
inadvertently leading to an increase in mass, disregarding a
possible change of material.
On the other hand, if the aspects and limitations stated
above were considered and actively used during the topol-
ogy optimisation process, the general outcome (topology)
may be significantly different. This is based on the fact
that ‘shorter beams’ will be less likely to experience buck-
ling, hence I may be decreased. This is, however, likely to
considerably increase the complexity of the roof structure,
possibly invoking manufacturing constraints. Finally, it is
far from certain that the overall mass of the ‘short beam’
structure is less than that of the ‘long beam’ structure, this
warrants further analysis and is the main focus of atten-
tion of this paper. The problem will be approached using
existing topology optimisation algorithms as used in [5].
Figure 4 illustrates the proposed overall algorithm for
BIW development using structural optimisation. The main
focus of this paper will be step 3 of Figure 4. Before this is
completed step 2 as was originally completed in [5] will be
revisited; I value estimations. There are some immediate
 International Journal of Crashworthiness
Figure 4. Overall proposed optimisation methodology.
complications of how the I-value estimation could be made
an active parameter within the topology optimisation algo-
rithm, let alone as a constraint. This will be the focus of
attention in the following section.
2. Implementation of I-value
To fully implement an accurate I-value within topology
optimisation a meta-modelling technique similar to that
used in the shape and size optimisation of [9] could be
adopted. However, this approach was deemed infeasible
in this connection, particularly as topology optimisation
determines the general load paths without providing high
levelled details of cross-sectional properties.
Therefore, it was much more feasible to include an
approximation of the local I-value within the topology op-
timisation algorithm. To do so, the following points of con-
sideration needed to be addressed:
(1) Establish how the local I-values could be estimated.
(2) Determine how the I-values could be used to evaluate
the probability of the occurrence of buckling.
(3) Define how to implement step 2 into the topology opti-
misation algorithm.
To determine a feasible methodology for estimating the
appropriate I-values for the ‘local roof beams’, a case study
was performed. The intention was to use size optimisation
of a fixed cross-sectional geometry, i.e. no shape optimi-
sation, and include the buckling factor as a constraint. To
do so, wireframe models of representative topologies of
four models from the results of the topology optimisation
study [5] were used. The four selected models are listed in
Table 1.
It is important to note that the selected models in
Table 1 contain the current EuroNCAP set-up ( =
θ = 0◦ ); this grouping also included the current
FMVSS 216 set-up [5]. Model 7, also listed in
Table 1, represented the highest mass reduction of the orig-
inal FMVSS 216 topology optimisation study, although the
321
Table 1. Selected models for case study.
Model # Pitch angle (◦ ) Roll angle θ (◦ )
1 0 0
4 10 40
6 5 45
7 10 45
maximum mass difference between all models of this study
was found to be less than 0.5% [5]. It is also worth not-
ing that other studies, such as [1,3,13], have found that the
combination of a 10◦ pitch angle , and a 45◦ roll angle θ
constitutes the ‘worst case loading scenario’.
To evaluate the likelihood of buckling eigenvalue based
algorithms are commonly used in FE. However, due to the
usage of inertia relief in connection with the topology op-
timisation, it is not feasible to use an eigenvalue-based ap-
proach as the two methods are incompatible. Therefore, it
was chosen to use Euler’s buckling formula to estimate the
critical buckling load, F crit , Equation (1),
π2 · E · I
Fcrit = , (1)
k · L2
where E is Young’s modulus, I is the second moment of area,
k is the slenderness ratio and L is the length of the beam
member. For the remainder of this paper, k will be set to 1.
The length L of each beam member was predetermined (and
fixed) based on the outcome of the topology optimisation
results. L was determined on a member basis (based on
a constant mesh size), as opposed to an element basis, as
illustrated in Figure 5.
For the purpose of conducting the size optimisation,
in order to estimate the I-values, a tubular cross section
of unity thickness was selected for convenience, as this
left only one variable parameter: the diameter d. It has to
be noted that the general cross-sectional geometry (shape)
was irrelevant, as the impending task was to estimate ap-
propriate I-values for buckling estimations. With the above
definitions, the buckling factor, Bf , could be estimated using
Figure 5. Example of wireframe model.
322 J. Christensen et al.

Figure 6. Results from diameter sizing.

Equation (2), roof sheets, as illustrated in Figure 6. The values are not to
be interpreted as the final (ready for production) masses, as
Element axial force shape-optimisation has not been completed as this stage. In
Bf = < 1. (2) fact another sizing optimisation will need to be completed
Fcrit
at a later stage in order to further optimise the structure. It is
The ‘element axial force’, used in Equation (2), is deter- important to remember that the overall purpose of the above
mined by the maximum axial force occurring within any was to investigate the first step of the potential for including
element of the member in question. As long as Bf re- buckling considerations within topology optimisation, i.e.
mains less than 1, linear buckling is not likely to occur. step 2 of Figure 4.
The above methodology was relatively simple to include as Furthermore, the wireframe models included in the
a constraint within a sizing optimisation, using commercial study (Tables 1 and 2) were kept as close to the ‘original’ as
software. possible, in particular this meant the inclusion of a signifi-
The results from the four models listed in Table 1, are cant number of ‘curved beams’, as indicated by Figure 5 and
listed in Table 2, and illustrated in Figure 6. Figure 6. Revising the topology prior to ‘I-value determi-
The estimated masses listed in Table 2 include A-, B-, C- nation’ may have a significant effect on the estimated mass
and D-pillars as well as the main roof structure, excluding results in Table 2. Nevertheless, the mass results listed in
Table 2 may be compared relative to each other in order to
better understand the ‘relative influence’ of the pitch and
Table 2. Results from I-value estimation (sizing optimisation). roll angles upon the roof structure. On this basis, it can
be seen that the current EuroNCAP test,  = θ = 0◦ , is
Pitch Roll Final of ‘medium severity’, based on the final mass estimation.
angle angle estimated
Model # (◦ ) θ(◦ ) mass (kg) Even more interesting model 7 ( = 10◦ , θ = 45◦ ) rep-
resents a significantly higher estimated mass value with
1 0 0 42.1 a difference of approximately 11% relative to model 6
4 10 40 41.0 ( = 5◦ , θ = 45◦ ) highlighting the necessity for subse-
6 5 45 39.7 quent sensitivity studies as discussed in [5]. This is in
7 10 45 44.4
line with the findings of [1,3,13], who established that the
 International Journal of Crashworthiness 323

‘worst crash loading scenario’ occurs when  = 10◦ and

θ = 45◦ , thus substantiating the appropriateness of the re-
sults obtained by means of topology optimisation and the
subsequent I-value estimation by scaling the diameters.
This does, however, not solve the previously proposed
problem of a ‘long beam structure’ versus a ‘short beam
structure’, as the I-value is only considered subsequent to
the completion of the topology optimisation. The next steps
of how this could be achieved will be the focus of attention
in the following section.

2.1. Implementation of I-value estimation within

topology optimisation
Although the results from the size optimisation estimat-
ing the local I-values suggestively produce reasonable
approximations they cannot straightforwardly be imple-
mented within a topology optimisation algorithm, such as
the one employed in [5]. Using a mathematically based
topology optimisation algorithm and the solid isotropic ma-
terial with penalisation (SIMP) interpolation scheme two
primary problems needed to be addressed; the identifica-
tion of ‘beams’, i.e. load paths, and how to include the
I-value estimations as active parameters within the algo-
rithm. At this point, it is important to highlight that it was
necessary to use static modelling as 3D (solid) elements
were used for the topology optimisation [5]. Therefore, it
was not feasible to consider using one or several (explicit)
dynamic crash analyses. This is due to the fact that the
central processing unit time would dramatically increase
as a function of the small timestep (t); a consequence
of the small element size required for the 3D elements.
To increase t element mass could be added; this would,
however, need to be of significant magnitude making the FE
model incompatible with the real world physics of the crash
event.
Consequently linear static (implicit) finite element anal-
ysis (FEA) would be the starting point for the I-value esti-
mations.
With the starting point defined, the next part-task for the
I-value estimations could be approached. This was the issue
of how to ‘define/identify’ the load paths within a specific
iteration of the topology optimisation process, in order to
model these as ‘beams’ for estimation of appropriate I-
values. This was, however, a very complex task, which
may be envisaged by observing the example in Figure 7,
illustrating relative element density.
The example in Figure 7 clearly demonstrates the com-
plexity of (explicitly and uniquely) identifying the primary
structural load paths within any iteration. Considering cur-
rent state-of-the-art modelling/optimisation algorithms, it
is believed that this proposed technique has the highest
potential to resolve this issue by means of logical math-
ematical expressions embedded within the FE solver, i.e.
observing and using Boolean expressions based on the cur-
Figure 7. Example of topology iteration; relative element density.
rent (iteration) values of the relative element densities. If
this problem was to be solved, it would also aid in the of-
ten lengthy task of post-processing the optimisation results,
by offering a certain level of ‘automation’ with the aim
of obtaining a computer-aided design (CAD) model to be
used for further analysis, or indeed additional structural op-
timisation. Implementation of this feature would, however,
require disassembly of the commercial FE solver, which is
prohibited and therefore not possible at this stage. Follow-
ing the identification of load paths the next step would be to
include the I-value estimations as active constraints within
the topology optimisation.
2.2. Active estimation of I-values
Assuming that the above problem was solved, the next step
would then be to implement the I-value estimations within
the topology optimisation algorithm. This would initially
not pose a significantly challenging problem, as this could
simply be obtained by means of a constraint imposed within
the topology optimisation problem definition, in the exact
same manner as e.g. a displacement constraint. In this case,
the methodology proposed in the previous section could be
straightforwardly employed.
However, this would theoretically neither provide a sig-
nificant engineering nor scientific advancement as the end
results would most likely not differ considerably from those
illustrated in Figure 6 or those listed in Table 2. The rea-
son for this is simply that such an approach would merely
include the local I-values as ‘inactive constraints’, and not
actively guiding/influencing the topology optimisation pro-
cess or results.
If the I-value estimations were to be actively included,
the task at hand would become significantly more com-
plex, as the ‘fundamental’ decision-making process of the
topology optimisation algorithm would have to be rede-
fined [1,2]. The fact that the I-value estimations include the
324 J. Christensen et al.
Figure 8. Representation of FE model.
length of the beam, which would not be defined at that stage
of the topology optimisation process, adds further complex-
ity to the problem, as previously discussed and illustrated
by Figure 7.
The two aspects discussed above thus make it ex-
tremely difficult to implement the I-value estimations, and
indirectly the buckling considerations, as an active param-
eter within a topology optimisation algorithm. Evaluating
whether or not solving the extremely complex tasks dis-
cussed above would be worthwhile taking on was in essence
a question of estimating the potential effects of ‘long fat
beams’ versus ‘short thin beams’ as previously discussed.
In this context, it was deemed that the influence upon the
final roof design would most likely be negligible, partially
due to manufacturing limitations in terms of cost versus the
potential mass reduction in percent. In addition, it needed
to be considered that the topology optimisation was com-
pleted using linear static FEA, as discussed in [5–9,15].
Furthermore, the Eulerian buckling formula, Equation (1),
assumes linear material behaviour. Thereby the method of
superposition was in principle applicable, as the penalisa-
tion factor p equalled 1 in [5]. Consequently it was unlikely
that any significant difference in results would be found
between completing the I-value estimations subsequent to
the topology optimisation, or including these directly in the
topology optimisation step, provided that the latter were not
actively guiding the optimisation process, further analyses
are, however, required to support this claim. It therefore be-
came clear that if the buckling phenomena were to be ‘fully
implemented’ into a topology optimisation algorithm, using
3D elements, the fundamental principles of the algorithm
would have to be revised, as well as disassembly of the FE
solver.
In light of the above, it was deemed acceptable to com-
plete the I-value estimations subsequent to the topology
optimisation as previously completed and listed in Table 2
and illustrated by Figure 6.
2.3. Substantiation of results
Prior to generating (manufacturable) local cross sections,
the results obtained via the topology and subsequent size
optimisation were substantiated via dynamic (explicit) non-
linear FE modelling. This was conducted using the informa-
tion from the topology optimisation as well as the I-value
estimations, to create (two-dimensional (2D)) shell models,
as illustrated in Figure 6.
The four models were separately meshed, using an ele-
ment size of 4 mm, leading to the creation of approximately
360,000 elements per model. The models used the LS-Dyna
‘MAT 003: Plastic Kinematic’ material card with the pa-
rameters listed in Table 3.
A rigid plate was subsequently inserted above the
A-pillars in all four models, with the angles defined in
Table 1. During the analysis, these rigid plates were sub-
jected to a prescribed displacement of 250 mm perpendic-
ular to the surface of the plate, i.e. moving in the yz-plane,
Figure 8, with a velocity of 5 mph [3], thus simulating a roof
crush scenario. The model set-up is illustrated in Figure 8.
The contact force between the rigid plate and the roof
structure was measured during the analyses. This could
subsequently be compared to the applied force of 45 kN
used for the topology and size optimisations [5], in order
to evaluate the performance of the roof structure relative
Table 3. Material parameters for explicit analysis.
Parameter Value SI unit
Young’s modulus (E) 210,000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio (ν) 0.3
kg
Volumetric mass 7850
density (ρ) m3
Plastic tangent 1000
hardening modulus
(ETAN)
 International Journal of Crashworthiness
Figure 9. Results of explicit FE analysis, force vs. time.
to the original requirements. Figure 9 displays the contact
force (between the rigid plate and the roof structure) as a
function of time. Figure 9 substantiates the validity of the
approach, as the peak contact force of all four individual
models exceed 45 kN.
Figure 10 illustrates the deformed roof (model 7) at
t = 0.15 s, i.e. at a rigid plate displacement of 250 mm. The
results in Figure 10 indicate that the roof structure does not
exhibit significant buckling. The figure also indicates that
only localised deformation occurs, indirectly suggesting
that the structure is ‘over dimensioned’. It must, however,
Figure 10. Deformed roof structure, model 7, t = 0.15 s.
325
be reiterated that the structure has been derived based on
topology optimisation incorporating; front, rear, side and
pole crash scenarios, which inevitably have influenced the
topology of the structure. The results of the FE analyses
thus substantiate that the obtained structures perform as
anticipated, the next step is therefore to generate (detailed)
local cross-sectional geometry.
3. Generation of local cross-sectional geometry
To generate the detailed local cross sections of the roof, in
preparation for manufacturing, an optimisation algorithm
326 J. Christensen et al.

Figure 11. Cross section of metal sheet.

Figure 12. Segments for cross section.

was created. This did also build on the outcome of the
topology optimisation as well as the I-value estimations.
The first step in this process was to define a roof segment 3.2. Six segment model
model to allow for the cross sections of the roof to vary in The cross section of a modern day vehicle does not only
size, and shape, throughout the structure, with the aim of consist of a single segment. Typically six segments are used
minimising the roof mass. as illustrated in Figure 12. These are defined by the letters
A–G, excluding C which denotes the centroid of the entire
cross section. The local (segment i) coordinate axes are
3.1. Segment model denoted Yi and Zi , αi denotes the angle of rotation between
As roof members are typically manufactured from (metal) the local and global coordinate system. It was assumed that
sheets, it was decided that ‘conventional’ manufacturing t remains constant for all segments; as previously stated the
processes would be used in connection with the roof de- roof members were to be manufactured using metal sheets
sign. The cross section of each roof member would consist of uniform thickness.
of a series of segments. The cross section of a flat metal The coordinates for the centroid C were obtained by
sheet would consist of one single segment, as illustrated in Equation (4),
Figure 11.
The segment example in Figure 11 is located in the
1 
6
yz-plane, is defined by the two endpoints A and B with YC = ASi · YCi
the coordinates (YA , ZA ) and (YB , ZB ), respectively. The ACS i=1
(4)
coordinates of the centroid C of the segment are (YC , ZC ). 1 
6
Finally, the thickness of the segment is denoted t and the ZC = ASi · ZCi ,
ACS i=1
angle between the segment and the y-axis is denoted α. The
area of the segment, the angle α and the coordinates for
the centroid C can all be obtained providing A, B and t are where ACS is the area of the entire cross sections, ASi is the
known parameters. area of the individual segment, Figure 11, whilst YCi and
Using the parallel axis theorem, the expressions for the ZCi are the coordinates of the centroid for the individual
second moment of area around the centroid C with respect segment. The second moments of area for the entire cross
to the global coordinate system axes can be defined as section can thus be obtained by firstly determining these for
expression (3), the individual segment i, with respect to the global coor-
dinate system using the parallel axes theorem, expression

ICy1 + ICz1 ICy1 − ICz1  (5),
ICY = + cos (2α) 
2 2  ICy1
ICy1 + ICz1 − ICz1
cos (2α) 
ICy1
ICZ = + (ICY )i = (ICi Y )i + SAi · (dZ )2
2 2 , (5)
(ICZ )i = (ICi Z )i + SAi · (dY )2
t · lAB
3 (lAB ) · t
3
= ∧ ICy1 = , (3)
12 12 where dY and dZ are the relative distances from the cen-
troid of the individual segment to the centroid of the com-
where lAB is the length of the line segment between point A bined cross section. The second moments of area for the
and point B. entire cross section can subsequently be obtained using
 International Journal of Crashworthiness 327

Figure 13. Initial design variables for shape optimisation.

expression (6), points in order to then extract the minimum section mass.
Indeed, computing a response surface from more than 1000

6 points was not an efficient method of optimisation, as it
ICY = (ICY )i used a significant amount of disk space and caused an ex-
i=1
. (6)
6 cessive memory shortfall when DOE response points had
ICZ = (ICZ )i to be reloaded for the computation of the response surface.
i=1
The direct optimisation method was mostly chosen because
Thereby the second moment of area for any cross section solving each optimisation in an Excel spreadsheet took just
can be calculated regardless of the number of segments a few seconds with acceptable results, as will be discussed
within the cross section. later.
The methodology presented above was subsequently To conduct the optimisation, it was necessary to define
programmed into a spreadsheet, which could be used to the design variables including initial values and constraint
immediately calculate the second moments of area for any magnitudes. The majority of these would have to be set on a
cross section. The calculations of the spreadsheet were sub- local level, i.e. for each roof member (section); however, pa-
sequently validated using commercial CAD and FE soft- rameters such as the mass of the roof would be monitored
ware as well as manual calculations. Following this, the on a global level. Figure 13 represents a ‘typical’ cross-
spreadsheet was set up to be able to calculate and store the sectional roof profile and can be used as a starting point for
second moments of area for a series of cross sections in con- an example to define design variables. The coordinates of
nection with each other, which could be used to calculate points A–G (excluding C) were potential design variables
these for the entire roof structure. for the optimisation process. In this particular case, A, B
and D were fixed as these in essence define the external
profile, i.e. the A-surface of the vehicle. Thereby three de-
3.3. Optimisation of cross sections sign variables remained, namely the coordinates of points
E, F and G. There were, however, some restrictions on how
With the ability to calculate the second moments of area for
these would be able to change, which was primarily related
all roof members, these could be equated to the outcome
to the resulting interior cabin space (head room).
of the individual I-value estimations discussed in Section
1, illustrated in Figure 6. It should also be noted that parts
of the cross section will follow the outer profile, i.e. the A-
surface of the vehicle. This meant that the I-value could be
used as a constraint in connection with shape and size op-
timisation with the objective of minimising the roof mass.
Alternatively, the objective could also be to maximise the
I-values of the cross-sections, as the anticipated change in
roof mass was low. Nevertheless, the ultimate aim of the
exercise was to define manufacturable cross-sections of the
roof. The optimisation was to be conducted using commer-
cial software, which aimed to use design of experiments
(DOE), as described in [9] in order to build the response
surface of the vehicle cross section. Due to the vast number
of design variables and design variable levels, it was found
advantageous to perform a direct optimisation eliminating
the need to compute the response surface from experimental Figure 14. Updated design variables for shape optimisation.
328 J. Christensen et al.

Table 4. Parameters for initial shape and size optimisation.

Design variables YE , ZE , YF , ZF , YG , ZG, R1 , R2 , R3,

Optimisation responses
Optimisation constraints
Optimisation objective
TR1 , TR2 , TR3 , TR4
R3, TR1 , TR2 , TR3 , TR4
ACS , ICY , ICZ
ICY = fixed; ICZ = fixed
Minimise ACS

blend surfaces would have to be used. The optimisation

Figure 15. Optimised cross section.
In addition to the actual coordinates of E, F and G,
the gauge thickness of the individual segments (1 to 6)
could also be design variables. However, as modern day
roof structures usually use a minimum steel gauge thickness
of 0.7 mm for reasons other than crash performance, it was
decided to set the gauge thickness of the six segments to
0.7 mm.
Figure 13 also displays four potential reinforcements
(R1 , R2 , R3 and R4 ) which could be ‘inserted’ or
‘removed’ using simple Boolean operators. Furthermore,
the gauge thickness of the four potential reinforcements,
TR1 , TR2 , TR3 and TR4 were also included as design vari-
ables, which could either assume the discrete values of
1.0 mm or 0.7 mm.
Finally manufacturing constraints were taken into ac-
count during the optimisation process; it was assumed that
the roof structure would be tack welded and use a sheet
metal forming process, which meant that blank holders and
parameters are summarised in Table 4.
Based on the information summarised by Table 4, the
optimisation problem was set up using Microsoft Excel
coupled with Altair HyperStudy to directly solve the op-
timisation problem. Using the roof rail as a case study, it
was found that the most efficient solution, given the de-
sign variable in Table 4 used the reinforcement R1 with a
gauge thickness (TR1 ) equal to 1.0 mm; this scenario met all
(mathematical) optimisation constraints, including match-
ing the I-value to that of the previous estimation. Despite
this, there were concerns about the manufacturability of
the proposed design; hence, it was decided to insert two
additional points (H and J ) to guide the profile of the rein-
forcement R1 , the updated design variables are illustrated in
Figure 14. With these changes the optimisation process was
repeated and a manufacturable design was obtained. This
consisted of three parts: the inner panel, the outer panel and
the reinforcement, as illustrated by Figure 15.
To substantiate the feasibility of the proposed man-
ufacturing methodology with respect to the design in
Figure 15, the geometry was analysed using FE-based sheet
metal forming analysis (Altair HyperForm). This analysis
used 2D (shell) elements with an average mesh size of
5 mm; the material parameters used are defined in Table 5.

Figure 16. Results from sheet metal forming analysis of optimised cross section.
 International Journal of Crashworthiness
Table 5. Material parameters for sheet forming analysis.
Parameter Value SI unit
Young’s modulus (E) 210,000 MPa
Poisson’s ratio (ν)   0.3
Yield stress value σy 315 MPa
Friction coefficient (FC) 0.125
Figure 16 displays the relative thinning of the sheets after
the forming process.
Figure 16 displays relatively minor variation in thick-
ness for all three parts analysed.
The part found to have the largest variation of gauge
thickness, as a function of the forming process was the outer
panel. In this case, the maximum increase (of thickness) was
0.429% and the minimum decrease was −0.235%, mean-
ing a maximum thickness of 0.703 mm and a minimum
thickness of 0.698 mm, based on an initial gauge thickness
of 0.7 mm. All elements of the analyses were below the
failure level of the forming limit diagram.
The results of the sheet forming analyses thus sub-
stantiate that the parts can be manufactured without any
significant variations of thickness, indicating that the antic-
ipated structural performance of the previously conducted
FE analyses can indeed be obtained.
4. Conclusion and next steps
The starting point for this paper was complications un-
covered during a previous study, which used topology op-
timisation to investigate the potential effects of proposed
changes to FMVSS 216 upon BIW architecture [5]. The
use of topology optimisation enables the possibility of sig-
nificant reductions in BIW mass, particularly in connec-
tion with ‘alternatively’ fuelled vehicles, such as HEV. Al-
though the outcome of the study suggested that currently
available topology optimisation software can be used for
BIW load path extraction, it was recognised that buck-
ling effects, which is the primary failure mode for rollover
events, were not taken into account. The study in this pa-
per has investigated various options for considering buck-
ling as part of the optimisation process. Initially, it was
investigated how this could be included (as an active pa-
rameter) during the topology optimisation process. This
approach was, however, deemed unfeasible using current
commercially available (topology) optimisation algorithms,
as the detailed information related to the geometry (of
the roof sections) are not available during the topology
optimisation.
As buckling could not be included as an ‘active param-
eter’ within topology optimisation, the potential for im-
plementing it as a ‘passive’ parameter was investigated.
Recognising that topology optimisation uses linear static
FEA (and a penalisation factor of 1 was used in [5]), the
method of superposition was deemed applicable, meaning
329
that the buckling calculations could be performed subse-
quently to the completion of the topology optimisation.
Consequently, an ‘I-value’ estimation study was set up
using the load paths from the topology optimisation and
circular tubes with a gauge thickness of 1.0 mm to esti-
mate the required I-values of each roof member in order
to successfully withstand buckling failure in the event of a
vehicle rollover.
Dynamic (explicit) non-linear FE analysis was used to
substantiate the structural performance of the obtained load
path and I-values. The results of these analyses clearly
indicated that the structures obtained were fully capable of
withstanding the applied loading.
Subsequently, a combined shape and size optimisation
study was set up in order to derive manufacturable cross
sections based on the topology optimisation and I-value es-
timations. Finally, the manufacturability of these cross sec-
tions were substantiated using FE-based sheet metal form-
ing analysis to estimate the variations of gauge thickness,
and indirectly the structural performance of the manufac-
tured parts.
In conclusion, this paper has demonstrated the potential
for using current state-of-the-art commercially available
optimisation software to obtain a manufacturable BIW able
to meet crash performance requirements, based on a styling
(CAD) surface.
The paper also recognises that revised (topology) opti-
misation algorithms would be very beneficial in the effec-
tiveness and validity of the overall methodology.
References
[1] Altair Engineering, Inc. Altair Hyperworks Manual, Altair
Engineering, Inc., Troy, MI, 2010.
[2] M.P. Bendsoe and O. Sigmund, Topology Optimization, The-
ory Methods and Applications, Berlin, 2004.
[3] E.C. Chirwa, and Q. Peng, Modelling of roof crush using
the newly updated FMVSS 216, ICRASH, Washington, DC,
2010.
[4] E.C. Chirwa, R.R. Stephenson, S.A. Batzer, and R.H. Grze-
bieta, Review of the Jordan rollover system (JRS) vis-à-vis
other dynamic crash test devices, Int. J. Crashworthiness 15
(5) (2010), pp. 553–569.
[5] J. Christensen, C. Bastien, and M.V. Blundell, Effects of roof
crush loading scenario upon body in white using topol-
ogy optimisation, Int. J. Crashworthiness 12 (1) (2012),
pp. 29–38.
[6] J. Christensen, C. Bastien, M.V. Blundell, A. Gittens, and
M. Dickison, Integration of electric motor and alternator in
smart lightweight vehicles, Proceedings of the 4th Interna-
tional Conference on Mechanical Engineering and Mechan-
ics, 2011, pp. 921–932. ISBN978-1-933100-40-1.
[7] J. Christensen, C. Bastien, M.V. Blundell, A. Gittens, and
O. Tomlin, Lightweight hybrid electrical vehicle structural
topology optimisation investigation focusing on crashwor-
thiness, Int. J. Vehicle Struct. Syst. 3 (2) (2011), pp. 113–122.
[8] J. Christensen, C. Bastien, M.V. Blundell, O. Grimes, A.
Apella, G. Bareham, and K. O’Sullivan, Modelling of
lightweight hybrid electric vehicle architectures in case of
the newly updated FMVSS 216 roof crush scenarios, The
330 J. Christensen et al.
International Crashworthiness Conference, ICRASH, Mi-
lano, Italy, 2012.
[9] J. Christensen, C. Bastien, M.V. Blundell, and J. Kurakins,
Lightweight body in white design using topology-, shape and
size optimisation, Electric Vehicle Symposium (EVS26),
Los Angeles, California, 2012.
[10] D. Friedman, and C.E. Nash, Measuring rollover roof
strength for occupant protection, Int. J. Crashworthiness 8
(1) (2003), pp. 97–105.
[11] R.H. Grzebieta, A.S. McIntosh, and M. Bambach, How
stronger roofs prevent diving injuries in rollover crashes,
ICRASH, Washington, DC, 2010.
[12] S.A. Richardson, G. Rechnitzer, R.H. Grzebieta, and E.
Hoareau, An advanced methodology for estimating vehi-
cle rollover propensity, Int. J. Crashworthiness 8 (1) (2003),
pp. 63–72.
[13] R.R. Stephenson, The case for a dynamic rollover test,
ICRASH, Washington, DC, 2010.
[14] F. Tahan, K. Digges, and P. Mohan, Sensitivity study of
vehicle rollovers to various initial conditions – finite el-
ement model based analysis, ICRASH, Washington, DC,
2010.
[15] J. Trollope, C. Bastien, J. Christensen, C. Kingdom, and M.V.
Blundell, Optimisation of a common vehicle architecture in-
cluding electric vehicle, hydrid electric vehicle and inter-
nal combustion engines propulsion systems for durability
and crash performance, The International Crashworthiness
Conference (ICRASH), Milano, Italy, 2012.