MATERIALS TESTING FOR WELDING AND ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING APPLICATIONS 633

Optimum design of automobile

components using lattice structures
for additive manufacturing
Büşra Aslan and Ali Rıza Yildiz,
Bursa, Turkey
Article Information
Correspondence Address
Prof. Dr. Ali Rıza Yıldız
Department of Automotive Engineering
Uludağ University
Görükle, Bursa, Turkey
E-mail: aliriza@uludag.edu.tr
Keywords
Topology optimization, size optimization,
suspension arm of vehicle, additive
manufacturing, lattice structural optimization
In today’s world, reducing fuel consumption is one of the most important
goals for the automotive industry. For this reason, weight reduction is
one of the main topics in this research and for various companies. In
this research, topology optimization was conducted on a suspension arm
as a means of ensuring balance in automobiles. Subsequently, the model,
formed by topology optimization was filled with a lattice structure and
re-optimized by size optimization to obtain optimum dimensions for the
model. These operations are described as lattice structure optimization.
Additive manufacturing (3D printer) is necessary to produce complex
models (after topology and lattice structure optimization). A static analy-
sis of the new models was conducted by using the finite element method,
and the results were compared with those of the initial design of the
model. As a result of the comparison, positive results were obtained,
and it was shown that topology optimization and lattice structural opti-
mization could be used in the design of vehicle elements. According to
the results obtained from lattice structure optimization, design struc-
ture can be formed more reliably than via topology optimization. In
addition, both configurations and layouts of the cellular structures have
a special effect on the overall performance of the lattice structure.

In today’s competitive environment, it is
not enough for producers to develop prod-
ucts that are durable and meet customer
demands in order to gain an advantage
over producers of similarproducts. Manu-
facturers need to add value to their prod-
ucts in order to stay ahead of their competi-
tors. For this reason, weight reduction is
important for the automotive industry. Be-
cause consumers prefer driving fuel-saving
vehicles with low CO2 emission values de-
termined by international standards, these
elements are put into force daily to increase
value. In the literature, many optimization
methods have been developed and used for
solving real-world optimization problems
from design to manufacturing [1-72].
In particular, structural optimization is
used for the reduction of weight. The palette
of optimization possibilities can be classified
as topology, topography, size, shape, and lat-
tice structure optimization. In this paper, to-
pology optimization and lattice structure op-
timization (topology optimization and size
optimization) were used. 3D printing was
needed to produce the new complex struc-
ture. At present, 3D printing or additive
manufacturing is the process of taking a de-
sign from a digital environment and produc-
ing it layer by layer. For the last 20 years,
this method has been used in the automotive
industry, the medical field, the aircraft in-
dustry, product industry, in education, archi-
tecture, and many other sectors [6-13].
Formulation of Optimum
Design Problems
The following 5-step procedure can be used
for many optimal design problems [14]:
Step 1: Define the problem
Step 2: Gather data about the problem
Step 3: D
 etermine and identify design
variables
Step 4: Determine the goal function
Step 5: Determine boundary conditions
Structural optimization
Structural designs are needed to create de-
sign configurations that provide various
characteristic indicators such as strength,
stiffness, and cost. A model with the lowest
mass and maximum performance is impor-
tant for the design according to boundary
conditions and the loads applied during the
design [15-20].
Structural optimization (size, shape, to-
pology, and lattice structure optimization)
techniques change the shape, size, and to-
pology of a design for the best structure,
depending on boundary conditions and
loads applied to the design.

62 (2020) 6  © Carl Hanser Verlag, München  Materials Testing

634 MATERIALS TESTING FOR WELDING AND ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING APPLICATIONS
Topology optimization
The essential goal is to reach the best de-
signs in the primary phase of the product
development process, taking into account
product performance, production time, and
production cost for every industry. The new
design in the product development process
must be economically producible and have
simple and standard shapes instead of ran-
dom complex shapes [33].
The topology of construction is identified
by the number of holes, the connections of
rods, and the number of beams. Topology
optimization aims to create a configuration
with the most appropriate configuration
between all possible configurations and
user-defined configuration sets, taking into
account forces and boundary conditions
[34, 35]. Moreover, topology optimization
doesn’t change the existing geometry of a
structure. Nevertheless volume is reduced
in the internal structure.
Many methods have been improved and
become easier and applicative for topology
optimization.
• Material distribution method (SIMP)
• Level set approach (LSA)
• Evolutionary structural optimization
(ESO)
• Homogenization method (HM)
• Optimality criteria method (OCM)
Material distribution
method (SIMP)
According to the material distribution
method, a fixed finite element is used for
the design area. Material density depends
on elastic modulus, element thickness, and
physical properties (hardness, heat con-
duction, magnetic permeability, porosity,
etc.). Von Mises stress distribution is used
to adjust the thickness of the optimum ele-
ments.
Min c (ρ) (1)
∑ e=1 v eρe ≤ V 0 < ρ ≤ ρe ≤ 1 (2)
N
e = 1, ..., N (3)
c(ρ) = fTu, K(p)u = f (4)
K(ρ) = ∑ e=1 ρep K e (5)
N
with f and u: load vector and displacement,
respectively, K: hardness matrix dependent
on the constant material density ρ in the el-
ements, Ke: hardness matrix for each ele-
ment and N: number of density variables.
Level set approach (LSA)
The level set approach is a border-based struc-
tural optimization method. The structural
boundary can be defined during the optimiza-
tion operation with the level set approach.
min: C(u, Φ) = ∫Ω Eε(u)H(ϕ)dΩ (6)
∫Ω H(Φ)dΩ ≤ Vf (7)
∫Ω Eε(u)ε(v)H(Φ)dΩ (8)
= ∫Ω bvH(Φ)d + ∫Γs fvΓsu⎪ΓD (9)
= 0∀v ∈ U (10)
with Vf: boundary value of the material vol-
ume, E: material property, ε(u): tensile
value for the displacement, v: permissible
displacement area, f: surface shots and
H(Φ): unit step function (Heaviside func-
tion) [36, 37]:
⎪⎧ 1,Φ ≥ 0
H(Φ) = ⎨ (11)
⎩⎪ 0,Φ < 0
Evolutionary structural
optimization (ESO)
The population is used as a design area in
this method. The population is developed
with the help of a selection mechanism in
the loop until the optimum result is reached.
The elements remove certain regions of the
design area for the suitable structure (maxi-
mum resistance and minimum weight) in
the evolutionary algorithm.
In general, the minimization problem of
compliance can be expressed as follows
min: c = UT KU (12)
V ducted in two optimization stages. In the
≤ Vf (13)
V0
KU = F (14)
x = [0.1] (15)
The evolutionary algorithm has the same
variable as SIMP except for the vector of
element design variable x.
Homogenization method (HM)
The homogenization method was developed
by Kikuchi and Bendsoe (1988). In this
method, the material density is considered
as a microstructure. The microstructure is
a composite material with an infinite num-
ber of small voids. The homogenization
method performs similarly to the density
method, which differs according to the des-
ignation of the design variables [38, 39].
Optimality criteria
method (OCM)
The optimization criteria method can be
used to develop highly efficient calculation
programs for solving single load problems
minx: c(x) = UT KU (16)
N
∑ (xe )PueT k0ue = ∑ e=1ce (x)
N
(17)
e=1
V(x)
=f (18)
V0
KU = F (19)
0 < xmin ≤ x ≤ 1 (20)
with U and F: local displacement value and
the load vector, respectively, K: local hard-
ness matrix, ue: element displacement vec-
tor, k0: element hardness value, x: design
variable, xmin: minimum relative density, N:
element number, p: penalty factor, f: volume
ratio, V(x) and V0: design of volume and de-
sign space of volume, respectively [40].
Lattice structure optimization
Lattice systems involve complex structures
that use minimal material to fill the volume
while rigidity is maintained. Furthermore,
they can be designed to provide impact en-
ergy damping, vibration, and isolation from
sounds. Alternatively, their low densities
make them effective heat insulators.
Lattice structural optimization is con-
first stage, classical topology optimization
is performed. Optimum material distribu-
tion is ensured in the design area. In the
second stage, the structure obtained in the
first stage is transformed into an open lat-
tice structure and then re-optimized by us-
ing a size optimization method.
Literature Review
Chen et al. [41] have suggested the topol-
ogy optimization method be used as gener-
ally with and without specific restrictions
on the samples, and having the new models
be compared with the initial model.
Evans et al. [42] have explained the ad-
vantages of applying lattice cells on the
62 (2020) 6
 MATERIALS TESTING FOR WELDING AND ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING APPLICATIONS
sandwich panels and that they be ultra-light
structures with hardness and strength.
Heidrich et al. [43] have developed a heat
exchanger using a tetrahedron diamond
lattice design due to its thermal proper-
ties,. Subsequently, they tested the new
heat exchanger and compared it with the
existing heat exchanger.
Hussein et al. [44] have suggest that lat-
tice structures be used to reduce the weight
of the support structure in additive produc-
tion (SLM). This study has shown that the
production time can be shortened.
Iyibilgin et al. [45] have developed test
specimens consisting of five different lat-
tice structures, including honeycomb,
square, diamond, triangle, and circle, fol-
lowing which the test specimens are com-
pared with respect to strength properties
and production times.
Lan, Maskery et al. [46] have aimed to
show the impact and mechanical proper-
ties of a lattice structure. To this end, they
have produced two different lattice struc-
tures and compared them with respect to
impact analysis.
Lin and Chou [47] have recommended an
optimization algorithm in two-steps. This
algorithm is based on the homogenization
method for topology optimization. In the
first step, the topology optimization method
is applied to the model, following which to-
pology optimization is re-applied to ensure
better quality.
M. Millan et al. [48] have developed a
programmatic method (PLG) as an alterna-
tive to traditional CAD software that is
dedicated to producing lattice structures.
The lattice structure is produced directly
from STL format by using the PLG method.
Lattice optimization is the next step after
the topology optimization. The main task is
to develop a new algorithm for the design
of lattice structures. Various methods have
been recommended for lattice structures.
Nguyen et al. [49] have proposed a two-
stage to produce lightweight material (CLS-
Conformal Lattice Structure). First, they
have developed a computer-aided design
technology to produce CLS efficiently, fol-
lowing which they have presented a new
method for efficiently optimizing CLS.
Rozvany [50] has stated that topology op-
timization is more advantageous than shape
and size optimization, and it is rapidly de-
veloping a structural optimization method.
Santos R. B. et al. [51] have proposed a
topological approach to reduce the weight
of the model, applying von-Mises stress,
and multi-forces. They have explained that
the topology optimization derived is an al-
62 (2020) 6
ternative for the model, including von-
Mises stress and multi-load.
Tang et al. [52] have studied the orienta-
tion of lattice cells, claiming that the posi-
tioning of the lattice structure has a signifi-
cant impact on structural properties.
Yang and Chuang [53] have determined
the topology of the structure by using the
density method to provide an alternative to
the homogenization method. The purpose
of this method is to maximize the stiffness
and the lowest eigenvalue of the structure.
Yıldız et al. [8,54] have used new tech-
niques for the deficiencies of topology opti-
mization and shape optimization.
Yıldız et al. [55] have designed a new
model by using a topology optimization
method to minimize production time and
cost. According to the results, topology op-
timization can be used for vehicle parts.
Yiqiang Wang et al. [57] have developed
a cage system emphasizing regularity and
graduality in two ways. They have observed
that the structure, arranged gradually,
achieves better mechanical results than the
uniform structure.
In this study, mechanical properties of
the current model were primarily obtained,
following which von-Mises stress and dis-
placement values were determined by us-
ing finite element analysis.
Afterward, design variables, objective
function, optimization constraints, and
boundary conditions were determined for
structure optimization. After the required
definitions for optimization, the model was
optimized by using the density method un-
til a new geometry was reached. The new
model, containing a lattice structure, was
re-optimized by using size optimization.
Topology and lattice
structure optimization of the
suspension arm
The suspension arm is a part of the suspen-
sion. It is located in the front wheel align-
ment and connects the front wheels to the
car’s chassis. When cars encounter bumps
and pits etc., the suspension arm dampens
the pulse of the wheels and protects against
any impact that may occur in the front
seats of the vehicles (see Figure 1).
Topology optimization begins when a
finite element model (FEM) is set up. The
suspension arm is divided by available
and non-available regions for topology op-
timization. While blue regions are indi-
cated as available, material can be re-
moved; where green regions are indicated
as non-available, material cannot be re-
635
moved, (see Figure 2). Furthermore, exist-
ing boundary conditions and applied loads
are shown in Figure 1. In this study, two
different forces (Y and Z directions) were
applied to the model.
Topology optimization is applied to in-
crease the hardness of a material without
altering the external dimensions of the
part. For this reason, restrictions apply to
prevent material from being removed from
the outside of the model.
In this paper, topology optimization was
performed by using the density method on
the material model.
Steel was used for the analysis, and has
the following mechanical characteristics:
• Density ρ = 7850 kg × m-3
• Elasticity modulus E = 210 GPa
• Poisson’s ratio PR = 0.3
First, a static analysis was carried out on
the suspension arm. According to the re-
sults, the maximum displacement on the
existing suspension arm was 0,0917 mm,
and the maximum stress 252 MPa (see Fig-
ures 3 and 4).
The design variables and the response
functions were defined for the optimization
algorithm. In topology optimization, the
volumetric fraction and compliance were
defined as the response function for the
suspension arm.
Following design variables, response
functions, and constraints were estab-
Figure 1: Initial control arm design
Figure 2: The finite element model before
optimization
636 MATERIALS TESTING FOR WELDING AND ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING APPLICATIONS
lished. Compliance minimization was de-
termined as the objective function, and the
volumetric fraction with a maximum value
Figure 3: Displacement values of the model (mm)
Figure 5: Density distribution of the material in
the model
Figure 7: Redesigned model after topology
optimization
Figure 10: Different lattice structures for CHEXA
element
of 0.3 was determined as the design con-
straint for topology optimization. All opera-
tions were performed using FEM.
Figure 4: Von Mises stress values of the model
(MPa)
Figure 6: Model formed after topology
optimization
Figure 8: Displacement values of the model after
topology optimization
Figure 9: Stress values of
the model created after
topology optimization
The aim of topology optimization is to
identify the optimum dispensation of a ma-
terial for the design space according to
boundary conditions and forces (see Fig-
ure 5). The model result of the topology op-
timization (see Figure 6) was used for the
new model.
After the new model was designed by us-
ing topology optimization results (see Fig-
ure 7), static analysis was applied to the
new model, obtained after material reduc-
tion. As a result of the static analysis,
0.112 mm was obtained as the maximum
displacement value (see Figure  8) and
184 MPa as the maximum von Mises stress
(see Figure 9).
Subsequently, lattice structure optimiza-
tion was applied to the suspension arm
model. Lattice structure optimization is
carried out in two stages, as previously
mentioned. In the first step of lattice struc-
ture optimization, classical topology opti-
mization is applied to the model. In the
second step of lattice structure optimiza-
tion, the result is converted to a porous
model. In this study, three types of cellular
structures were used for lattice structure
optimization (see Figure 10).
In the final analysis, a size optimization
method is used as an optimization method.
Size optimization seeks the best material
thickness or dimensions and is used when
the material is not required to reduce, add,
or change the shape.
Size optimization provides optimum val-
ues in areas such as thickness, beam cross-
section properties, spring hardness, as
well as material the property elements of
structural elements or two-dimensional el-
ements (shell).
With respect to size optimization, total
volume and compliance were chosen as ap-
plicable for size optimization. Minimize
volume was deemed an objective function.
After lattice structure optimization was
concluded, we achieved a new model with cel-
lular structures (see Figures 11, 12, and 13).
As shown in Table 1, the mass of the sus-
pension arm of the vehicle model decreased
62 (2020) 6
 MATERIALS TESTING FOR WELDING AND ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING APPLICATIONS
Figure 11: I. type of Lattice structure
by 10.1 % thanks to topology optimization.
Thanks to lattice structure optimization,
different results of mass are obtained for
three different cell types. The mass of the
suspension arm components decreases by
8.43 % in the cell structure of the first type,
6.59 % in the second cell structure, and
10.9 % in the third type. When maximum
displacement results are examined, the
lowest deformation value is seen in the sec-
ond type of lattice structure after topology
optimization. According to the maximum
stress results, the lowest value is seen in
the second type of cell structure after topol-
ogy optimization. All stress values are be-
low yield stress, and so may be neglected.
Analysis results were examined for three
different lattice structures, and different
mechanical properties were obtained for
the model designed thanks to the charac-
teristic features of the geometries of each
lattice type.
Conclusions
In this paper, topology optimization and
lattice structural optimization were con-
ducted to develop the suspension arm in
the front wheel assemblies of vehicles.
Static analysis and optimization studies
were carried out by using the finite ele-
ment method.
Fundamentally, the aim intended to show
the effects on weight, displacement, and
stress of topology optimization and to show
Topology
Model Initially
opt.
Mass (kg) 1.403 1.260
% Change – -10.1
Max. displacement (mm) 0.091 0.112
Max. von Mises stress (MPa) 252 184
Table 1: Comparative results for suspension arm component
62 (2020) 6
Figure 12: II. type of Lattice structure
the effects of the lattice structure optimiza-
tion method using different lattice types.
It was observed that the new design
weight was lighter than the initial model,
and that the stress values for four different
models were lower than the maximum per-
missible limit (yield strength) for the mate-
rial. Moreover, the results of the analysis
were examined for lattice structures, and it
was seen that different mechanical proper-
ties were obtained for the model designed.
When the three lattice types were com-
pared, two types revealed greater advan-
tages than other due to the shape of the
cellular structure.
Based on these results, it can be con-
cluded that both strength improvement
and the weight reduction could be achieved
by using various types of lattice structure
and topology optimization in the model.
References
1 B. S. Yildiz, H. Lekesiz, A. R. Yildiz: Structural
design of vehicle components using gravita-
tional search and charged system search algo-
rithms, Materials Testing 58 (2016), No. 1,
pp. 79-81
DOI:10.3139/120.110819
2 A. Balkan, A. R. Yildiz, Sadiq M. Sait,
S. Bureerat: Optimum design of air suspension
driver seats using recent structural optimiza-
tion techniques, Materials Testing 62 (2020),
No. 3, pp. 242-250
DOI:10.3139/120.111477
3 B. S. Yildiz, A. R. Yildiz, S. Bureerat, N. Pholdee,
Sadiq M. Sait, V. Patel: The Henry gas solubility
I. Type II. Type II. Type
of lattice of lattice of lattice
structure opt. structure opt. structure opt.
1.28487 1.31050 1.24998
-8.43 -6.59 -10.9
0.150 0.149 0.164
291 287 317
637
Figure 13: III. type of Lattice structure
optimization algorithm for optimum structural
design of automobile brake components, Mate-
rials Testing 62 (2020), No. 3, pp. 261-264
DOI:10.3139/120.111479
4 E. Kurtuluş, A. R. Yildiz, S. Bureerat, Sadiq M.
Sait: A novel hybrid Harris hawks- simulated
annealing algorithm and RBF-based metamodel
for design optimization of highway guardrails,
Materials Testing 62 (2020), No. 3, pp. 251-260
DOI:10.3139/120.111478
5 B. S. Yildiz, A. R. Yildiz: The Harris hawks
optimization algorithm, salp swarm algorithm,
grasshopper optimization algorithm and drag-
onfly algorithm for structural design optimiza-
tion of vehicle components, Materials Testing
61 (2019), No. 8, pp. 744-748
DOI:10.3139/120.111379
6 A. R. Yıldız, U. A. Kılıçarpa, E. Demirci: Topog-
raphy and topology optimization of diesel
engine components for light-weight design in
the automotive industry, Materials Testing 61
(2019), No. 1, pp. 27-34
DOI:10.3139/120.111277
7 B. S. Yıldız, A. R. Yildiz, E. I. Albak,
H. Abderazek, Sadiq M. Sait, S. Bureerat:
Butterfly optimization algorithm for optimum
shape design of automobile suspension com-
ponents, Materials Testing 62 (2020), No. 4,
DOI: 10.3139/120.111492
8 B. S. Yildiz, A. R. Yildiz: Comparison of grey
wolf, whale, water cycle, ant lion and sine-
cosine algorithms for the optimization of a
vehicle engine connecting rod, Materials
Testing 60 (2018), No. 3, pp. 311-315
DOI:10.3139/120.111153
9 A. R. Yildiz: A new hybrid particle swarm
optimization approach for structural design
optimization in automotive industry, Journal
of Automobile Engineering 226 (2012),
pp. 1340-1351
DOI:10.1177/0954407012443636
10 B. S. Yıldızt: Optimal design of automobile
structures using moth-flame optimization al-
gorithm and response surface methodology,
Materials Testing 62 (2020), No. 4, pp.371-377
DOI:10.3139/120.111494
11 H. Abderazek, A. R. Yildiz, S. Mirjalili:
Comparison of recent optimization algorithms
for design optimization of a cam-follower
mechanism, Knowledge-Based Systems 105
(2020), Article No: 105237
DOI:10.1016/j.knosys.2019.105237
638 MATERIALS TESTING FOR WELDING AND ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING APPLICATIONS
12 A. R. Yildiz, B. S. Yildiz, S. M. Sait, X. Y. Li: The
Harris hawks, grasshopper and multi-verse
optimization algorithms for the selection of
optimal machining parameters in manufactur-
ing operations, Materials Testing 61 (2019),
pp. 725-733
DOI:10.3139/120.111377
13 G. Karadere, Y. Duzcan, A. R. Yildiz: Light-
weight design of automobile suspension com-
ponents using topology and shape optimiza-
tion techniques, Materials Testing 62 (2020),
No. 5, pp. 454-458
DOI:10.3139/120.111503
14 A. R. Yildiz, H. Abderazek, S. Mirjalili:
A comparative study of recent non-traditional
methods for mechanical design optimization,
Archives of Computational Methods in
Engineering (2019)
DOI:10.1007/s11831-019-09343-x (in print)
15 B. S. Yildiz, H. Lekesiz: Fatigue-based struc-
tural optimisation of vehicle components,
International Journal of Vehicle Design 73
(2017), pp. 54-62
DOI:10.1504/IJVD.2017.10003398
16 A. R. Yildiz: A new hybrid differential evolu-
tion algorithm for the selection of optimal
machining parameters in milling operations,
Applied Soft Computing 13 (2013),
pp. 1561-1566
DOI:10.1016/j.asoc.2011.12.016
17 A. R. Yildiz: Cuckoo search algorithm for the
selection of optimal machining parameters in
milling operations, International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 64
(2013), pp. 55-61
DOI:10.1007/s00170-012-4013-7
18 F. Hamza, H. Abderazek, S. Lakhdar, D. Ferhat,
A. R. Yıldız: Optimum design of cam-roller
follower mechanism using a new evolutionary
algorithm, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 99
(2018), No. 5-8, pp. 1267-1282
DOI:10.1007/s00170-018-2543-3
19 B. S. Yildiz, A. R. Yildiz: Moth-flame optimization
algorithm to determine optimal machining
parameters in manufacturing processes,
Materials Testing 59 (2017), pp. 425-429
DOI:10.3139/120.111024
20 K. Lee: Principles of CAD/CAM/CAE Systems,
1st Ed., Addison Wesley, Boston, Massachusetts,
USA (1999)
21 B. S. Yildiz: A comparative investigation of
eight recent population-based optimisation
algorithms for mechanical and structural
design problems, International Journal of
Vehicle Design 73 (2017), No. 1-3, pp. 208-218
DOI:10.1504/IJVD.2017.082603
22 B. S. Yildiz: Natural frequency optimization of
vehicle components using the interior search
algorithm, Materials Testing 59 (2017), No. 5,
pp. 456-458
DOI:10.3139/120.111018
23 E. Demirci, A. R. Yıldız: An experimental and
numerical investigation of the effects of geom-
etry and spot welds on the crashworthiness
of vehicle thin-walled structures, Materials
Testing 60 (2018), No. 6, pp. 553-561
DOI:10.3139/120.111187
24 E. Demirci, A. R. Yıldız: An investigation of the
crash performance of magnesium, aluminum
and advanced high strength steels and differ-
ent cross-sections for vehicle thin-walled en-
ergy absorbers, Materials Testing 60 (2018),
pp. 661-668
DOI:10.3139/120.111201
25 T. Guler, A. Demirci, A. R. Yıldız, U. Yavuz:
Lightweight design of an automobile hinge
component using glass fiber polyamide com-
posites, Materials Testing 60 (2018), No. 3,
pp. 306-310
DOI:10.3139/120.111152
26 A. R. Yildiz, E. Kurtuluş, E. Demirci,
B. S. Yildiz, S. Karagöz: Optimization of thin-
wall structures using hybrid gravitational
search and Nelder-Mead algorithm, Materials
Testing 58 (2016), No. 1, pp. 75-78
DOI:10.3139/120.110823
27 E. Demirci, A. R. Yıldız: A new hybrid
approach for reliability-based design optimiza-
tion of structural components, Materials
Testing 61 (2019), pp. 111-119
DOI:10.3139/120.111291
28 A. R. Yildiz: A novel hybrid whale nelder mead
algorithm for optimization of design and man-
ufacturing problems, International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 105
(2019), pp. 5091-5104
DOI:10.1007/s00170-019-04532-1
29 N. Pholdee, S. Bureerat, A. R. Yildiz: Hybrid
real-code population-based incremental learn-
ing and differential evolution for many-objec-
tive optimisation of an automotive floor-frame,
International Journal of Vehicle Design 73
(2017), No. 1-3, pp. 20-53
DOI:10.1504/IJVD.2017.082578
30 H. Özkaya, M. Yildiz, A. R. Yildiz, S. Bureerat,
B. S. Yildiz, Sadiq M. Sait: The equilibrium
optimization algorithm and the response
surface-based metamodel for optimal struc-
tural design of vehicle components, Materials
Testing, 62(2020), pp: 492-496
DOI:10.3139/120.111509
31 Saremi, S. Mirjalili, A. Lewis: Grasshopper
optimisation algorithm: theory and application,
Advances in Engineering Software 105 (2017),
pp. 30-47
DOI:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2017.01.004
32 A. R. Yildiz, F. Öztürk: Hybrid Taguchi-harmony
search approach for shape optimization,
Studies in Computational Intelligence 270
(2010), pp. 89-98
DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-04317-8_8
33 R. Johnson, D. Smith: Application of modern
structural optimization methods to formula
SAE chassis design, Proc. of the 43rd Conf. on
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials, p. 1341
DOI:10.2514/6.2002-1341
34 O. Sigmund: Design of Material Structures
Using Topology Optimization, Doctoral Thesis,
Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen,
Denmark (1994)
35 P. D. Dunning, H. K. Alicia Kim: A new hole
insertion method for level set based structural
topology optimization International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 93 (2013),
pp. 118-134
DOI:10.1002/nme.4384
36 J. D. Deaton, R. V. Grandhi, : A survey of struc-
tural and multidisciplinary continuum topol-
ogy optimization: Post 2000, Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization 49 (2014),
pp. 1-38
DOI:10.1007/s00158-013-0956-z
37 M. P. Bendsøe, O. Sigmund: Material interpola-
tion schemes in topology optimization, Archive
of Applied Mechanics 69 (1999), pp. 635-654
DOI:10.1007/s004190050248
38 M. P. Bendsøe, N.Kikuchi : Generating optimal
topologies in structural design using a homog-
enization method, Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering 71
(1988), pp. 197-224
DOI:10.1016/0045-7825(88)90086-2
39 I. Gov: Applying topology optimization to
design of planer machine parts, MSc Thesis,
The Institute for Graduate Studies in Natural
and Applied Sciences, Gaziantep University,
Gaziantep, Turkey, (2009)
40 Y. Chen, J. Lu, Y. Wei: Topology optimization
for manufacturability based on the visibility
map. Computer-Aided Design and Applications
13 (2016), pp. 86-94
DOI:10.1080/16864360.2015.1059199
41 A. G. Evans, J. W. Hutchinson, N. A. Fleck,
M. F. Ashby, H. N. G. Wadley, The topological de-
sign of multifunctional cellular metals, Progress
in Materials Science 46 (2001), pp. 309-327
DOI:10.1016/S0079-6425(00)00016-5
42 J. R. Heidrich, V. Gervasi, S. Kumpaty:
Synthesis of a compact tetralattice heat
exchanger using solid freeform fabrication and
comparison testing against a tube heat
exchanger, Proc. of 12th Annual Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium (2001)
DOI:10.26153/tsw/3352
43 A. Hussein, L. Hao, C. Yan, R. Everson,
P. Young: Advanced lattice support structures
for metal additive manufacturing, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 213 (2013),
pp. 1019-1026
DOI:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2013.01.020
44 O: Iyibilgin, C. Yigit, M. C. Leu: Experimental
investigation of different cellular lattice structures
manufactured by fused deposition modeling,
Proc. of Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium,
Austin, TX, USA (2013), pp. 895-907
DOI:10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108065
45 I. Maskery, A. Hussey, A. Panesar, A. Aremu,
C. Tuck, I. Ashcroft, R. Hague: An investiga-
tion into reinforced and functionally graded
lattice structures, Journal of Cellular Plastics
53 (2017), pp. 151-165
DOI:10.1177/0021955X16639035
46 C. Y. Lin, J. N. Chou: A two-stage approach for
structural topology optimization. Advances in
Engineering Software 30 (1999), pp. 261-271
DOI:10.1016/S0965-9978(98)00081-7
47 M. McMillan, M. Jurg, M. Leary, M. Brandt:
Programmatic lattice generation for additive
manufacture. Procedia Technology 20 (2015),
pp. 178-184
DOI:10.1016/j.protcy.2015.07.029
48 J. Nguyen, S. I. Park, D. W. Rosen, L. Folgar,
J. Williams: Conformal lattice structure design
and fabrication, Proc. of the Solid Freeform
Fabrication Symposium, Austin, TX (2012),
pp. 138-161
49 G. I. N. Rozvany: Aims, scope, methods, history
and unified terminology of computer-aided to-
62 (2020) 6
 MATERIALS TESTING FOR WELDING AND ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING APPLICATIONS
pology optimization in structural mechanics.
Structural and Multidisciplinary optimization
21 (2001), pp. 90-108
DOI:10.1007/s001580050174
50 R. B. Santos, C. G. Lopes, A. A. Novotny: Struc-
tural weight minimization under stress
constraints and multiple loading, Mechanics
Research Communications 81 (2017), pp. 44-50
DOI:10.1016/j.mechrescom.2017.02.005
51 Y. Tang, Y. Zhao: Lattice-skin structures design
with orientation optimization, Proc. of the
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (SFF),
Austin, TX, USA (2015), pp. 13-15
52 R. J. Yang, C. H. Chuang: Optimal topology
design using linear programming, Computers
and Structures 52 (1994), pp. 265-275
DOI:10.1016/0045-7949(94)90279-8
53 N. Ozturk, N. Kaya, F. Ozturk: Integrated opti-
mal topology design and shape optimization
using neural networks, Structural and
Multidisciplinary Optimization 25 (2003),
No. 4, pp. 251-260
DOI:10.1007/s00158-003-0300-0
54 A. R. Yildiz: Optimal structural design of
vehicle components using topology design and
optimization, Materials Testing 50 (2008),
pp. 224-228
DOI:doi.org/10.3139/120.100880
55 G. Rennera, A. Eka’r: Genetic algorithms in
computer aided design, Computer-Aided
Design 35 (2003), pp. 709-726
DOI:10.1016/S0010-4485(03)00003-4
56 Y. Wang, L. Zhang, S. Daynes, H. Zhang,
S. Feih, M. Y. Wang: Design of graded lattice
structure with optimized mesostructures for
additive manufacturing, Materials and Design
142 (2018), pp. 114-123
DOI:10.1016/j.matdes.2018.01.011
57 A. R. Yildiz: Optimization of cutting parame-
ters in multi-pass turning using artificial bee
colony-based approach, Information Sciences
220 (2013), pp. 399-407
DOI:10.1016/j.matdes.2018.01.011
58 A. R. Yildiz: A novel particle swarm optimization
approach for product design and manufacturing,
The International Journal of Advanced Manu-
facturing Technology 40 (2009), pp. 617-628
DOI:10.1007/s00170-008-1453-1
59 M. Kiani, A. R. Yildiz: A comparative study of
non-traditional methods for vehicle crashwor-
thiness and NVH optimization, Archives of
Computational Methods in Engineering 23
(2016), pp. 723-734
DOI:10.1007/s11831-015-9155-y
62 (2020) 6
60 A. R. Yildiz, K. N. Solanki: Multi-objective opti-
mization of vehicle crashworthiness using a
new particle swarm based approach, The
International Journal of Advanced Manufactur-
ing Technology 59 (2012), pp. 367-376
DOI:10.1007/s00170-011-3496-y
61 S. Karagöz, A. R. Yildiz: A comparison of recent
metaheuristic algorithms for crashworthiness
optimisation of vehicle thin-walled tubes con-
sidering sheet metal forming effects, Interna-
tional Journal of Vehicle Design 73 (2017),
No. 1-3, pp. 179-188
DOI:10.1504/IJVD.2017.082593
62 H. J. Soh, J. H. Yoo: Optimal shape design of a
brake calliper for squeal noise reduction
considering system instability, Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D:
Journal of Automobile Engineering 224
(2010), No. 7, pp. 909-925
DOI:10.1243/09544070JAUTO1385
63 A. R. Yildiz, K. Saitou: Topology synthesis of
multi-component structural assemblies in
continuum domains, Transactions of ASME,
Journal of Mechanical Design 133 (2011),
No. 1, 011008-9
DOI:10.1115/1.4003038
64 K. Hamza, K. Saitou: Automated vehicle struc-
tural crashworthiness design via a crash mode
matching algorithm. Transactions of ASME,
Journal of Mechanical Design 133 (2011),
pp. 011003-1–011003-9
DOI:10.1115/1.4003037
65 P. Zhu, Y. Zhang, G. L. Chen: Metamodel-based
lightweight design of an automotive front-body
structure using robust optimization, Proceed-
ings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering 223
(2009), No. 9, pp. 1133-1147
DOI:10.1243/09544070JAUTO1045
66 A. R. Yildiz, B. S. Yildiz, S. M. Sait, S. Bureerat,
N. Pholdee: A new hybrid Harris hawks
Nelder-Mead optimization algorithm for solv-
ing design and manufacturing problems,
Materials Testing 61 (2019), No. 8, pp. 735-743
DOI:10.3139/120.111378
67 T. Kunakote, S. Bureerat: Multi-objective
topology optimization using evolutionary
algorithms, Engineering Optimization 43
(2011), No. 5, pp. 541-557
DOI:10.1080/0305215X.2010.502935
68 A. R. Yildiz: A comparative study of popula-
tion-based optimization algorithms for turning
operations, Information Sciences 210 (2012),
pp. 81-88
639
DOI:10.1016/j.ins.2012.03.005
69 A. R. Yildiz: Hybrid Taguchi-differential evolu-
tion algorithm for optimization of multi-pass
turning operations, Applied Soft Computing
13 (2013), No. 3, pp. 1433-1439
DOI:10.1016/j.asoc.2012.01.012
70 A. R. Yildiz, K. Solanki: Multi-objective optimi-
zation of vehicle crashworthiness using new
particle swarm based approach, International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
59 (2012), No. 1-4, pp. 367-376
DOI:10.1007/s00170-011-3496-y
71 A. R. Yildiz: Hybrid immune-simulated
annealing algorithm for optimal design and
manufacturing, International Journal of
Materials and Product Technology 34 (2009),
No. 3, pp. 217-226
DOI:10.1504/IJMPT.2009.024655
72 S. I. Song, G. J. Park: Multidisciplinary optimi-
zation of an automotive door with a tailored
blank, Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of
Automobile Engineering 220 (2006), No. 2,
pp. 151-163
DOI:10.1243/095440706X72772
Bibliography
DOI 10.3139/120.111527
Materials Testing
62 (2020) 6, pages 633-639
© Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG
ISSN 0025-5300
The authors of this contribution
Büşra Aslan received her Bachelor’s and Master’s
degree from the Department of Mechanical Engi-
neering, Gaziantep University in 2015 and Bursa
Technical University, Turkey, in 2019, respec-
tively. She has been studying at Gazi University
for her PhD in Mechanical Engineering since 2019.
Dr. Ali Rıza Yıldız is a Professor in the Depart-
ment of Automotive Engineering, Bursa Uludağ
University, Bursa, Turkey. His research interests
are the finite element analysis of automobile com-
ponents, additive manufacturing, metaheuristics,
lightweight design, composite materials, vehicle
design, vehicle crashworthiness, shape and topology
optimization of vehicle components, metaheuris-
tic optimization techniques, and sheet metal
forming. He has been serving as an Associate Edi-
tor for the Journal of Expert Systems, and Journal
of Computational Design and Engineering.