This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Development Of A Practical Multi-disciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) Algorithm For Vehicle Body Design
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published April 05, 2016 by SAE International in United States
Annotation ability available
The present work is concerned with the objective of developing a process for practical multi-disciplinary design optimization (MDO). The main goal adopted here is to minimize the weight of a vehicle body structure meeting NVH (Noise, Vibration and Harshness), durability, and crash safety targets. Initially, for simplicity a square tube is taken for the study. The design variables considered in the study are width, thickness and yield strength of the tube. Using the Response Surface Method (RSM) and the Design Of Experiments (DOE) technique, second order polynomial response surfaces are generated for prediction of the structural performance parameters such as lowest modal frequency, fatigue life, and peak deceleration value. The optimum solution is then obtained by using traditional gradient-based search algorithm functionality “fmincon” in commercial Matlab package. The stated goal of optimization can also be achieved using a practical MDO methodology in which a substantially reduced set of cases need to be considered leading to a computationally efficient solution. The results of both the RSM-based and practical MDO methods are compared and it has been found that the current practical MDO methodology is substantially more efficient when compared to RSM-based optimization and predicts nearly the same solution as the latter. The practical MDO process is finally implemented on a real-world problem taking a full vehicle design problem as an example and the efficacy of the practical approach is demonstrated. It has been found that, using both the methods, a weight reduction of 16% with respect to the baseline design can be obtained and values of design variables yielded by the practical MDO methodology are nearly same as that of the RSM-based weight optimization technique. However, the practical MDO approach does not rely on response surfaces and has significantly higher throughput with a reduction in computation time of 76% as compared to the RSM-based method which requires further analysis for convergence.
CitationDeb, A., Srinivas, G., and Chou, C., "Development Of A Practical Multi-disciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) Algorithm For Vehicle Body Design," SAE Technical Paper 2016-01-1537, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4271/2016-01-1537.
- Haiba, M., Barton, D.C., Brooks, P.C., Levesley,M.C., The development of an optimisation algorithm based on fatigue Life, International Journal of Fatigue 25 (2003) 299-310
- Dong-Chan Lee, Chang-Soo Han, CAE(computer aided engineering)driven durability model verification for the automotive structure development,Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 45 (2009) 324 - 332
- Forsberg, J. and Nilsson, L., Evaluation of response surface methodologies used in crashworthiness optimization, International Journal of Impact Engineering, Volume 32, Issue 5, May 2006, pp. 759-777.
- Etman, L. F. P., Optimization of multibody systems using approximations concepts. Technical University Eindhoven, Eindhoven, 1997.
- Marklund P.-O., and Nilsson, L. Optimization of a car body component subjected to impact, Struct Multidisc Opt, 21 (2001), pp. 383-392.
- Giunta, A. A. , Watson, L. T. and Koehler, J. A comparison of approximating modeling techniques: polynomial versus interpolating models. Proceedings of the 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis & optimization, St Louis, 1998. p. 392-404.
- Gu, L., A comparison of polynomial based regression models in vehicle safety analysis, Proceedings of ASME design engineering technical conferences, Pittsburgh, PA, September 2001.
- Jin, R., Chen, W. and Simpson, T. W. Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modeling criteria, Struct Multidisc Opt, 23 (2001).
- Simpson, T. W., Maurey, T. M., Korte, J. J. and Mistree, F., Comparison of response surface and kriging models for multidisciplinary design optimization, Proceedings of the 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis & Optimization, St Louis, 1998, pp. 381-391.
- Deb, A., Chigullapalli, A., Chou, C., and Dutta, U., "A Practical Approach for Cross-Functional Vehicle Body Weight Optimization," SAE Technical Paper 2011-01-1092, 2011, doi:10.4271/2011-01-1092.
- Deb, A., Naravane, A. and Chou, C.C., A practical CAE-driven approach for weight optimization of an existing vehicle body, 2006 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, IMECE2006; Chicago, IL; 5-10 November 2006.
- Deb, A., Chou, C., Dutta, U., and Gunti, S., "Practical Versus RSM-Based MDO in Vehicle Body Design," SAE Int. J. Passeng. Cars - Mech. Syst. 5(1):110-119, 2012, doi:10.4271/2012-01-0098.
- Paul Mathews, Design of experiments with MINITAB, Pearson Education (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Delhi, India
- Michael Blundell and Damian Harty .,Multibody Systems Approach to Vehicle Dynamics, Page 181,Table:4.8
- Deb, A. and Naravane, A., An improved representation of vehicle incompatibility in frontal NCAP tests using a modified rigid barrier, International Journal of Crashworthiness, 11(1), 13-25 (2006).