Downloaded from SAE International by Swinburne Univ Of Technology, Saturday, September 08, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2002-01-1242

Manufacturing Considerations and Structural

Optimization for Automotive Components
Uwe Schramm, Harold Thomas and Ming Zhou
Altair Engineering, Inc.

SAE 2002 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
March 4-7, 2002

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760
 Downloaded from SAE International by Swinburne Univ Of Technology, Saturday, September 08, 2018

The appearance of this ISSN code at the bottom of this page indicates SAE’s consent that copies of the
paper may be made for personal or internal use of specific clients. This consent is given on the condition,
however, that the copier pay a per article copy fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. Operations
Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 for copying beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or
108 of the U.S. Copyright Law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying such as copying for
general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new collective works, or for
resale.

Quantity reprint rates can be obtained from the Customer Sales and Satisfaction Department.

To request permission to reprint a technical paper or permission to use copyrighted SAE publications in
other works, contact the SAE Publications Group.

All SAE papers, standards, and selected

books are abstracted and indexed in the
Global Mobility Database

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions. For permission to publish this paper in full or in part, contact the SAE Publications Group.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Swinburne Univ Of Technology, Saturday, September 08, 2018
Manufacturing Considerations and Structural Optimization for
Automotive Components
Uwe Schramm, Harold Thomas and Ming Zhou
Copyright © 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
Structural optimization techniques are more and more
used in the design of automotive structures and
components. Manufacturing considerations have always
been an obstacle to use optimization techniques in a
more efficient way. This paper presents to distinguished
techniques to include manufacturability in the
optimization process. The first technique described is a
manufacturing constraint for topology optimization. The
second one is the use of topology optimization to reduce
the number of spot welds in a vehicle.
INTRODUCTION
The last decade has seen tremendous progress in
structural optimization research and application. Many
finite element based algorithms have matured and have
been implemented into software packages applicable to
day-to-day practical problems. Although the development
of algorithms and methods is moving ahead, structural
optimization lacks acceptance in the industry. Still, the
number of applications is limited and the design process
follows traditional means.
The objective of the design process is to create a cost-
effective design that meets certain expectations towards
functionality and appearance. The design is created in an
iterative process where the analysis of the structural
behavior leads to changes in the design. It is very
common that these changes are obtained using a trial
and error approach. The use of optimization technology
will change the design process into a process driven
directly by computational analysis. The design problem
can be given as a structural optimization problem. The
application of structural optimization allows an efficient
search for the right combination of design variables for a
certain design.
Very little attention has been paid to manufacturing
aspects in optimal structural design. Most automotive
structures are manufactured by sheet metal component
welded together. Spot and seam welding is applied. The
2002-01-1242
Altair Engineering, Inc.
welding process is very labor intensive. Hence, saving a
number of welds drive down the labor cost.
Also, the manufacturing methods like casting has not
been taken into consideration so far, but can if applied in
the conceptual design phase lead to substantial cost
savings.
Topology optimization methods as implemented in Altair
OptiStruct [1] are very efficient to perform structural
optimization for automotive components and assemblies.
THE DESIGN PROCESS
The design process can be viewed as an optimization
process to find structures and structural parts that fulfill
certain expectation towards their economy, functionality
and appearance [2]. Generally, the design process is an
iterative procedure consisting of the following
components:
• Conceptual design
• Design
• Testing
• Optimization
Changes to the design are introduced in all phases of the
process. At a certain stage of this process changes to the
concept become prohibitive. Hence, for example, the
concept phase plays a fundamental role concerning
overall efficiency of the design and the cost of the overall
development process.
This view of the process is quite theoretical. However, it
can be used to define the use of computational methods
to create and verify a design. These days, using topology
optimization preceding the design can even extend this
process. In each stage of the process computational
methods are available. Depending on the character of
the problem, the design optimization is performed using
integrated or general optimization tools. Hence,
 Downloaded from SAE International by Swinburne Univ Of Technology, Saturday, September 08, 2018

computational means can be used to automate the process. But still, in parts that are mainly under torsional
design process as a whole. load, large enclosures define the optimum structure, and
these are difficult to manufacture (Fig 2.).
In the concept phase of a design process, the freedom of
the designer is just limited by the specifications of the
design (Fig 1). Today, the decision on how a new design
should look like is mostly based on a benchmark design
or on previous designs. The decision-making is based on
the experience of those involved in the design process.
However, preliminary design tools such as topology and
topography optimization can be introduced to enhance
the process [3]. Topography optimization is a new
methodology for preliminary sheet metal design has
become available lately [4]. This method is an application
of shape optimization and allows the design of draw
beads in sheet metal. This is of broad interest for
automotive applications. The concept can be based on
results of a computational optimization rather than
guessing by using topology and topography optimization.
The initial design step is then already based on input
Figure 2. Control arm with enclosure due to torsional load.
generated using computational analysis. This way
topology and topography optimization redefines the role
of computational analysis and simulation in the design
process. Computational analysis has matured from a
testing tool to a design tool.
The solution would be to develop a technology that
defines a draw direction to open up the design into one
direction only. This would allow for better casting and
milling manufacturability.

Harzheim [6] developed such a method using a Soft-Kill-

Option method for topology optimization. The draw
direction was determined based on a regular mesh with
hexahedral elements.

&RQFHSWXDO'HVLJQ'HVLJQ7HVWLQJ2SWLPL]DWLRQ

Figure 1. Decision making in the design process.

DRAW DIRECTION CONSTRAINTS

One of the major problems in topology optimization that

needs to be addressed is the manufacturability of the
optimization result. The transfer of a topology
optimization result into a design still needs a lot of
manual interference. The design needs to include
manufacturing consideration and practically recreates the
optimization result in a CAD system. There is some help Figure 3. Constrained density design variables.
like geometry recovery tool such as OSSmooth, which is
part of Altair OptiStruct [1]. But due to the sometimes
unclear topology optimization result this involves much
creativity which may lead to a loss of performance of the
design compared to the optimization result. Methods Zhou [7] suggests a similar method that would be valid
pioneered by Altair Engineering, such as minimum for arbitrary meshes and is based on a computational
member size control [5] help already to improve the
 Downloaded from SAE International by Swinburne Univ Of Technology, Saturday, September 08, 2018
optimization method. This method is commercially
available in Altair OptiStruct v5.1 [1].
The idea is to constrain the design variables in a
topology optimization in sliding direction (Fig. 3).
The topology optimization is then written as
min f ( )
gj( ) ≤ 0
0 ≤ ρ i ≤ ρ i +1 ≤ ρ i + 2 ≤  ≤ ρ M
An efficient implementation has been found to allow the
use of the sliding direction constraints in an mathematical
optimization algorithm.
As an example, an engine mount bracket will be shown
here [8]. This project has been performed about five
years ago using a homogenization and optimality criteria
method for topology optimization implemented in Altair
OptiStruct version 3.0. The design was derived from the
topology optimization result and an additional shape
optimization process was necessary to evolve at the final
design (Fig. 4c).
Figure 4a. Original design that defined the starting point
Figure 4b. Topology optimization result
A new layout with a reduced mass for a given design was
sought. The new design should have equal or better
strength characteristics than the existing design. The
mass of the initial design, which is manufactured from
cast aluminum, was 950g. Figure 3a shows the original
part. The design space is defined by the space of the
existing design. The following six load cases are of
interest: Drive off forward; drive off backwards; driving
into a pot hole; driving out of a pot hole; loads from an
attached belt transmission; transportation of the engine
block for assembly.
The result of the topology optimization (Fig. 4b) was
transformed into a new design that was further improved
using a shape optimization. The final design (Fig. 4c) has
a structural mass of 730g, with deformations equal or
less than the initial design and stresses less than the
allowable.
Figure 4c. Final design
Applying the novel draw direction constraints directly to
the topology optimization immediately yields a conceptual
design that is close to the previous final design and is
manufacturable using casting as manufacturing method
(Fig. 5).
Figure 5a. Topology optimization result with draw direction constraint.
View 1.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Swinburne Univ Of Technology, Saturday, September 08, 2018

optimization problem solved was to minimize the

compliance (measure of stiffness) and to constrain the
volume of the (solid) weld elements to 60% of their
original volume. This would lead to a reduction of the
number of welds of 40%.

Figure 7 shows the model of the cantilever beam, figure

8 summarizes the results.

Figure 5b. Topology optimization result with draw direction constraint.

View 2.

With the new method it is possible to further reduce the

time for the design process and omit a cycle of shape
optimizations.
Figure 7. Cantilever beam.
SPOT WELD REDUCTION

Topology optimization can be used to reduce the number

of existing spot welds in a finite element model. If the
model is acceptable for modeling the stiffness of the
structure, the weld point reduction can be translated to
the final design.

Many car companies today use the so-called Area

Contact Method (ACM) for modeling spot welds. This
model puts a solid in the place of the spot weld and uses
RBE3 rigid bodies to connect the solid to the adjacent
shell structures (Fig. 6).
a) b) c)

Figure 8. a) Base line 34 MIG welds, 260 ACM welds; b) Optimization

result, 156 welds, 40% reduction; c) Final layout, 17 MIG welds, 50%
reduction, same stiffness as initial design.

The stiffness of the final design was the same as that of

the base line.

The topology optimization model uses the density

Figure 6. ACM spot weld model. method and a high penalty factor. The simulations have
been performed using Altair OptiStruct [1].

The same method can be applied to full body in white

designs to reduce the number of welds or to estimate the
A benchmark model was developed that is a simple influence of missing or bad weld connections.
cantilever beam under a bending/torsion load (Fig. 7).
The model is welded using 34 MIG welds, each modeled
with 8 ACM welds. The target is to reduce the number of
welds and maintain the stiffness of the structure. The
 Downloaded from SAE International by Swinburne Univ Of Technology, Saturday, September 08, 2018

CONCLUSION 5. Zhou, M., Shyy, Y.K. and Thomas, H.L. (1999)

Checkerboard and minimum member size control in
rd
Two novel optimization techniques have been introduced topology optimization. Proceedings of the 3 World
that assist in the inclusion of manufacturing aspects into Congress of Structural and Multidisciplinary
structural optimization. Both methods have been applied Optimization, Buffalo, New York.
to automotive applications and it has been show the they 6. Harzheim, L., and Graf, G. (2000) TopShape: An
are very effective in creating more efficient designs and Attempt to Create Design Proposals Including
the also help reducing the design cycle time. Manufacturing Constraints, Proceedings of the
OptiCon2000, Irvine, CA.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 7. Zhou, M., Shyy, Y.K, and Thomas, H. (2000)
Topology Optimization with Manufacturing
th
The engine mount bracket is used courtesy of the Constraints, Proceedings of the 4 World Congress
Volkswagen AG. of Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,
Dalian, China.
REFERENCES 8. Meyer-Prüßner, R. (1997). Prozeßkette Topologie-
optimierung, Beiträge zum NAFEMS Seminar zur
1. Altair OptiStruct, User’s Manual v5.1, (2002) Altair Topologieoptimierung, Aalen, Germany, 12.1 - 12.5.
Engineering Inc., Troy, MI (In German).
2. Schramm, U. (1998). Structural Optimization – An
Efficient Tool in Automotive Design. ATZ – CONTACT
Automobiltechnische Zeitschrift, 100 Part 1: 456-462,
Part 2: 566-572. (In German, English in ATZ Altair Engineering, Inc.
Worldwide).
3. Schramm, U., Thomas, H.L., Zhou, M., and Voth, B. 2445 McCabe Way
(1999) Topology Optimization with Altair OptiStruct,
Proceedings of the Optimization in Industry II Irvine, CA 92614
Conference, Banff, CAN.
4. Voth, B. (1999) Using Automatically Generated Email: schramm@altair.com
Shape Variables to Optimize Stamped Plates. Altair
Internal Report.