Advertisement

Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 59, Issue 5, pp 1789–1812 | Cite as

Parametric modeling and multiobjective crashworthiness design optimization of a new front longitudinal beam

  • Libin Duan
  • Haobin JiangEmail author
  • Guoqing Geng
  • Xuerong Zhang
  • Zhanjiang Li
Industrial Application

Abstract

The front longitudinal beam (FLB) is the most important energy-absorbing and crashing force–transmitting structure of a vehicle under front-impact collision. For better weight reduction and crashworthiness of the FLB, a new structure, variable rolled blank–variable cross-sectional shape FLB (VRB-VCS FLB), is proposed. It has both the continuous variation of thickness and variable cross-sectional shape in space. As the thickness distribution and cross-sectional shape change continuously, the proposed structure evolves into three distinct forms, i.e., the uniform-thickness FLB, variable rolled blank FLB, and variable cross-sectional shape FLB. However, literature on parametric modeling and crashworthiness design optimization of the VRB-VCS FLB is very limited. This paper proposes a parametric modeling method of VRB-VCS FLB with manufacturing constraints. Multiobjective crashworthiness design optimization is performed to explore the lightweightness and crashworthiness performance of the VRB-VCS FLB. Firstly, thickness distribution and cross-sectional shape parameters are defined. Secondly, local parametric subsystem front-impact model is established to balance accuracy and efficiency. Thirdly, a multiobjective optimization model of VRB-VCS FLB is constructed. Finally, a fully automated design of experiment platform is established to improve the data collection efficiency, and epsilon-support vector regression technique and non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II are utilized to search the Pareto optimal frontier. The numerical results show that the lightweightness and crashworthiness of the VRB-VCS FLB are significantly improved when compared with the uniform-thickness FLB.

Keywords

Parametric modeling Multiobjective crashworthiness optimization Front longitudinal beam (FLB) Variable rolled blank (VRB) Variable cross-sectional shape (VCS) 

Nomenclature

CTZ

Constant-thickness zone

FLB

Front longitudinal beam

FLB-inner

FLB inner plate

FLB-outer

FLB outer plate

MOO

Multiobjective optimization

NSGA-II

Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II

OLHS

Optimal Latin hypercube sampling

PCF

Peak crushing force

SEA

Specific energy absorption

TTZ

Thickness transition zone

UT FLB

Uniform-thickness FLB

UT FLB-inner

Uniform-thickness FLB inner plate

VCS

Variable cross-sectional shape

VCS FLB

Variable cross-sectional shape FLB

VRB

Variable rolled blank

VRB FLB

Variable rolled blank FLB

VRB-VCS FLB

Variable rolled blank–variable cross-sectional shape FLB

VRB-VCS FLB-inner

VRB-VCS FLB inner plate

ε-SVR

Epsilon-support vector regression

Notes

Funding information

The authors would like to thank the support of National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51805221) and Research Project funded by China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (No. 2018M640460). The authors also wish to thank Jiangsu Planned Projects for Postdoctoral Research Fund (NO. 2018K018C). This work was supported by the high-performance computing platform of Jiangsu University.

References

  1. Alavi Nia A, Parsapour M (2014) Comparative analysis of energy absorption capacity of simple and multi-cell thin-walled tubes with triangular, square, hexagonal and octagonal sections. Thin Wall Struct 74:155–165Google Scholar
  2. Ali M, Ohioma E, Kraft F et al (2015) Theoretical, numerical, and experimental study of dynamic axial crushing of thin walled pentagon and cross-shape tubes. Thin Wall Struct 94:253–272Google Scholar
  3. Alves M (2000) Material constitutive law for large strains and strain rates. J Eng Mech 126(2):215–218Google Scholar
  4. Beik V, Fard M, Jazar R (2016) Crashworthiness of tapered thin-walled S-shaped structures. Thin Wall Struct 102:139–147Google Scholar
  5. Cai K, Wang D (2017a) Optimizing the design of automotive S-rail using grey relational analysis coupled with grey entropy measurement to improve crashworthiness. Struct Multidiscip O 56(6):1539–1553Google Scholar
  6. Cai KF, Wang DF (2017b) Optimizing the design of automotive S-rail using grey relational analysis coupled with grey entropy measurement to improve crashworthiness. Struct Multidiscip O 56(6):1539–1553Google Scholar
  7. Chahardoli S, Nia AA (2017) Investigation of mechanical behavior of energy absorbers in expansion and folding modes under axial quasi-static loading in both experimental and numerical methods. Thin Wall Struct 120:319–332Google Scholar
  8. Chen MF, Tzeng GH (2004) Combining grey relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an expatriate host country. Math Comput Model 40(13):1473–1490zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke SM, Griebsch JH, Simpson TW (2005) Analysis of support vector regression for approximation of complex engineering analyses. J Mech Design 127(6):1077–1087Google Scholar
  10. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S et al (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. Evolutionary Computation, IEEE Transactions 6:182–197Google Scholar
  11. Duan LB, Sun GY, Cui JJ et al (2016) Crashworthiness design of vehicle structure with tailor rolled blank. Struct Multidiscip O 53(2):321–338Google Scholar
  12. Duan LB, Xiao NC, Li G et al (2017a) Design optimization of tailor-rolled blank thin-walled structures based on epsilon-support vector regression technique and genetic algorithm. Eng Optimiz 49(7):1148–1165Google Scholar
  13. Duan LB, Xiao NC, Hu ZH et al (2017b) An efficient lightweight design strategy for body-in-white based on implicit parameterization technique. Struct Multidiscip O 55(5):1927–1943Google Scholar
  14. Duan LB, Li GY, Cheng AG et al (2017c) Multi-objective system reliability-based optimization method for design of a fully parametric concept car body. Eng Optimiz 49(7):1247–1263MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Duddeck F, Hunkeler S, Lozano P et al (2016) Topology optimization for crashworthiness of thin-walled structures under axial impact using hybrid cellular automata. Struct Multidiscip O 54(3):415–428Google Scholar
  16. Elmarakbi A, Long YX, Macintyre J (2013) Crash analysis and energy absorption characteristics of S-shaped longitudinal members. Thin Wall Struct 68:65–74Google Scholar
  17. Fang JG, Gao YK, Sun GY et al (2015) Dynamic crashing behavior of new extrudable multi-cell tubes with a functionally graded thickness. Int J Mech Sci 103:63–73Google Scholar
  18. Halquist J (2007) LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual version 971. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, LivermoreGoogle Scholar
  19. Hao WQ, Xie JM, Wang FH (2017) Theoretical prediction of the progressive buckling and energy absorption of the sinusoidal corrugated tube subjected to axial crushing. Comput Struct 191:12–21Google Scholar
  20. Hilmann J, Paas M, Haenschke A et al (2007) Automatic concept model generation for optimisation and robust design of passenger cars. Adv Eng Softw 38(11–12):795–801Google Scholar
  21. Hou S, Li Q, Long S et al (2008) Multiobjective optimization of multi-cell sections for the crashworthiness design. Int J Impact Eng 35(11):1355–1367Google Scholar
  22. Hunkeler S, Duddeck F, Rayamajhi M et al (2013) Shape optimisation for crashworthiness followed by a robustness analysis with respect to shape variables. Struct Multidiscip O 48(2):367–378Google Scholar
  23. JS P (1994) Optimal Latin-hypercube designs for computer experiments. J Stat Plan Infer 39(1):95–111MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim JH, Ko DH, Seo PG et al (2014) Limits considering the deformation characteristics of tailor rolled blank during hot stamping. Trans Mater Process 23(6):351–356Google Scholar
  25. Kopp R, Wiedner C, Meyer A (2005) Flexible rolling for load-adapted blanks. Int Sheet Metal Rev 4:20–24Google Scholar
  26. Li GY, Xu FX, Sun GY et al (2015) A comparative study on thin-walled structures with functionally graded thickness (FGT) and tapered tubes withstanding oblique impact loading. Int J Impact Eng 77:68–83Google Scholar
  27. Li Z, Duan LB, Chen T et al (2018) Crashworthiness analysis and multi-objective design optimization of a novel lotus root filled tube (LFT). Struct Multidiscip O 57(2):865–875Google Scholar
  28. Liu XH (2011) Prospects for variable gauge rolling: technology, theory and application. J Iron Steel Res Int 18(1):1–7Google Scholar
  29. Liu S-T, Tong Z-Q, Tang Z-L et al (2014) Design optimization of the S-frame to improve crashworthiness. Acta Mech Sinica 30(4):589–599Google Scholar
  30. Lu RH, Liu XH, Chen S et al (2017) Axial crashing analysis for tailor rolled square tubes with axially graded both wall thickness and material strength. Thin Wall Struct 117:10–24Google Scholar
  31. Meyer A, Wietbrock B, Hirt G (2008) Increasing of the drawing depth using tailor rolled blanks—numerical and experimental analysis. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 48(5):522–531Google Scholar
  32. Mohammadiha O, Ghariblu H (2017) Optimal shape design of functionally graded thickness inversion tubes subjected to oblique loading. Struct Multidiscip O 56(3):587–601MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Montoya MC, Costas M, Díaz J et al (2015) A multi-objective reliability-based optimization of the crashworthiness of a metallic-GFRP impact absorber using hybrid approximations. Struct Multidiscip O 52(4):827–843Google Scholar
  34. Nia AA, Hamedani JH (2010) Comparative analysis of energy absorption and deformations of thin walled tubes with various section geometries. Thin Wall Struct 48(12):946–954Google Scholar
  35. Pirmohammad S, Saravani SA (2018) Crashworthiness performance of stiffened foam-filled tapered structures under axial and oblique dynamic loads. Latin Am J Solids Struct 15(5):e52Google Scholar
  36. Qiu N, Gao YK, Fang JG et al (2018) Topological design of multi-cell hexagonal tubes under axial and lateral loading cases using a modified particle swarm algorithm. Appl Math Model 53:567–583Google Scholar
  37. Rais-Rohani M, Solanki K, Eamon C (2006) Reliability-based optimization of lightweight automotive structures for crashworthiness. 11th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference. Portsmouth, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  38. Rajabiehfard R, Darvizeh A, Alitavoli M et al (2016) Experimental and numerical investigation of dynamic plastic behavior of tube with different thickness distribution under axial impact. Thin Wall Struct 109:174–184Google Scholar
  39. Shields MD, Zhang JX (2016) The generalization of Latin hypercube sampling. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 148:96–108Google Scholar
  40. Song XG, Sun GY, Li GY et al (2013) Crashworthiness optimization of foam-filled tapered thin-walled structure using multiple surrogate models. Struct Multidiscip O 47(2):221–231MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Sun GY, Xu FX, Li GY et al (2014) Crashing analysis and multiobjective optimization for thin-walled structures with functionally graded thickness. Int J Impact Eng 64:62–74Google Scholar
  42. Tang Z, Liu S, Zhang Z (2012) Energy absorption properties of non-convex multi-corner thin-walled columns. Thin Wall Struct 51:112–120Google Scholar
  43. Tran T (2017) Crushing analysis of multi-cell thin-walled rectangular and square tubes under lateral loading. Compos Struct 160:734–747Google Scholar
  44. Tran T, Hou SJ, Han X et al (2015) Crushing analysis and numerical optimization of angle element structures under axial impact loading. Compos Struct 119:422–435Google Scholar
  45. Usta F, Eren Z, Kurtaran H et al (2018) Crashworthiness optimization of nested and concentric circular tubes using response surface methodology and genetic algorithm. Latin Am J Solids Struct 15(5):e42Google Scholar
  46. Wang D, Cai K (2017) Optimizing the static–dynamic performance of the body-in-white using a modified non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm coupled with grey relational analysis. Eng Optimiz:1–19Google Scholar
  47. Wang W, Qiu XM (2018) Analysis of the carrying capacity for tubes under oblique loading. J Appl Mech-T Asme 85(3).  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4038921
  48. Wu SY, Sun GY, Wu X et al (2017) Crashworthiness analysis and optimization of fourier varying section tubes. In J Non-Linear Mech 92:41–58Google Scholar
  49. Xiao N-C, Li Y-F, Yang Y et al (2014) A novel reliability method for structural systems with truncated random variables. Struct Saf 50:57–65Google Scholar
  50. Xiao N-C, Zuo MJ, Zhou C (2018a) A new adaptive sequential sampling mehtod to construct surrogate models for efficient reliability analysis. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 1(69):330–338Google Scholar
  51. Xiao N-C, Zuo MJ, Guo W (2018b) Efficient reliability analysis based on adaptive sequential sampling design and cross-validation. Appl Math Model 58:404–420MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  52. Xu FX, Zhang X, Zhang H (2018) A review on functionally graded structures and materials for energy absorption. Eng Struct 171:309–325Google Scholar
  53. Ying L, Dai MH, Zhang SZ et al (2017) Multiobjective crashworthiness optimization of thin-walled structures with functionally graded strength under oblique impact loading. Thin Wall Struct 117:165–177Google Scholar
  54. Zhang X, Zhang H (2013) Theoretical and numerical investigation on the crush resistance of rhombic and kagome honeycombs. Compos Struct 96:143–152Google Scholar
  55. Zhang H, Zhang X (2016) Crashworthiness performance of conical tubes with nonlinear thickness distribution. Thin Wall Struct 99:35–44Google Scholar
  56. Zhang Y, Lu MH, Sun GY et al (2015) On functionally graded composite structures for crashworthiness. Compos Struct 132:393–405Google Scholar
  57. Zimmer H (2010) SFE-CONCEPT reference manual v4, vol 2. SFE-GmbH, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Libin Duan
    • 1
  • Haobin Jiang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Guoqing Geng
    • 1
  • Xuerong Zhang
    • 1
  • Zhanjiang Li
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Automotive and Traffic EngineeringJiangsu UniversityZhenjiangChina
  2. 2.Nanjing Yueboo Power System Co., Ltd.NanjingChina

Personalised recommendations