Fulltext03 PDF

Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering
Master’s Thesis 30 hp | Master of Science – Mechanical Engineering & Machine Design

Spring 2019 | LIU-IEI-TEK-A--19/03414—SE
Integrating Design
Optimization in the
Development Process using
Simulation Driven Design
Authors: Daniel Haraldsson

Marcus Svensson
Supervisors: Johan Salomon, Scania CV AB

Johan Persson, Linköping University
Examiner: Mehdi Tarkian, Linköping University
Linköping University
SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden
013-28 10 00, www.liu.se
Abstract
This master thesis has been executed at Scania CV AB in Södertälje, Sweden.
Scania is a manufacturer of heavy transport solutions, an industry which is chang-
ing rapidly in order to meet stricter regulations, ensuring a sustainable future.
Continuous product improvements and new technologies are required to increase
performance and to meet markets requirements. By implementing design optimiza-
tion in the design process it enables the potential of supporting design exploration,
which is beneficial when products with high performance are developed.
The purpose was to show the potential of design optimization supported by
simulation driven design as a tool in the development process. To examine an alter-
native way of working for design engineers, elaborating more competitive products
in terms of economical and performance aspects. Furthermore, to minimize time
and iterations between divisions by developing better initial concept proposals.
The alternative working method was developed iteratively in parallel with a case
study. The case study was a suction strainer and were used for method improve-
ments and validation, as well as decision basis for the included sub-steps.
The working method for implementing design optimization and simulation
driven design ended up with a procedure consisted of three main phases, con-
cept generation, detail design and verification. In the concept generation phase
topology optimization was used, which turned out to be a beneficial method to
find optimized solutions with few inputs. The detail design phase consisted of a
parameterized CAD model of the concept which then was shape optimized. The
shape optimization enabled design exploration of the concept which generated
valuable findings to the product development. Lastly the optimized design was
verified with more thorough methods, in this case verification with FE-experts.
The working method was tested and verified on the case study component,
this resulted in valuable knowledge for future designs for similar components. The
optimized component resulted in a performance increase where the weight was
decrease by 54% compared with a reference product.
Keywords: Design optimization, Topology optimization, Simulation driven de-

sign, Parametric CAD models, Frequency response analysis.
i
Acknowledgments
This thesis is the final assignment for master’s studies at Linköping University.
The work has been conducted at Scania CV AB during the spring 2019, covering
20 weeks of work equal to 30 credits. The thesis was challenging but has given us
valuable knowledge both in an academic and an industry perspective.
We would like to thank Scania and everyone involved in our thesis for making
this possible. Additional thanks to our supervisor, Johan Salomon, for the help-
fulness and engagement to make our time inspiring and pleasant. We are thankful
to perform our work at the NMBO department, the positive attitude and interest-
ing discussions has been worthwhile. Another thanks to Mikael Tellner and Tina
Louka for valuable insights within the subject of optimization and simulation.
We are also thankful for the feedback and support from our supervisor at
Linköping University, Johan Persson. And finally, we would like to show our
gratitude to our opponent, Mattias Andersson, for providing valuable feedback
and dedication of time and effort throughout the thesis.
Linköping, June, 2019
Daniel Haraldsson Marcus Svensson
iii
Nomenclature
Abbreviation Meaning
CAD Computer-Aided Design
CATIA V5 Computer-Aided Three-Dimensional Interactive Application V5
DOE Design of Experiments
FE Finite Element
FEM Finite Element Method
GAS Generative Assembly Structure Analysis
HEEDS Hierarchical Evolutionary Engineering Design System
KBE Knowledge Based Engineering
MDO Multidisciplinary Design Optimization
NMBO Base engine lubrication system
PD Product Development
SDD Simulation-Driven Design
TO Topology Optimization
v
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Purpose and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Deliverables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.5 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Theoretical framework 5
2.1 Product development process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.2 Design Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 CAD-modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1 Parametrization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.2 Knowledge based engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.3 CAD model robustness and flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.1 Multidisciplinary design optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.2 Topology optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Simulation driven design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.1 Finite element method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4.2 Frequency response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.5 Sand casting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3 Thesis methodology 19
3.1 Pre-study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.1.1 Literature study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1.2 Study of current working method and case study . . . . . . 20
3.2 Development of working procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2.1 Method development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.2 Case study validation of working process . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4 Current situation analysis 23

4.1 Product Development method at Scania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.1.1 General description of product development process . . . . 23
4.1.2 Design engineer’s role in the process . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
vii
4.2 The case study component- Suction strainer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.1 Description of the component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.2 Requirements on the suction strainer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5 Results 29
5.1 Developed method results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.1.1 Phase 1: Start-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.2 Phase 2: Design requirements and concept generation . . . 30
5.1.3 Phase 3: Detail design and design exploration . . . . . . . . 30
5.1.4 Phase 4: Design verification and final decision . . . . . . . . 31
5.2 Case study results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2.1 Case study-Phase 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2.2 Case study-Phase 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.2.3 Case study-Phase 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2.4 Case study-Phase 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.2.5 Case study improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6 Discussion 45
6.1 Methodology discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.2 Result discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.2.1 Developed working method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.2.2 Case study discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7 Conclusion 51
7.1 Research question 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.4 Future work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Bibliography 55
List of Figures
2.1 Product development process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 The design process paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Morphological transformation levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 Topological transformation levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 Benefits with implementing KBE in the design process . . . . . . . 9
2.6 LHS example, two dimensional with four sample points . . . . . . 11
2.7 Illustration of a Pareto front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.8 Illustration of a topology optimized beam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.9 Meshed triangular elements in a rectangular domain . . . . . . . . 14
2.10 Representation of the effect of junction and creation of hot spot . . 16
2.11 Design requirements for sand casting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1 Thesis methodology flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1 Product development process at Scania AB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.2 Design engineers role in product development . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.3 The reference suction strainer developed at Scania . . . . . . . . . 26
4.4 The acceptance criteria for reduce the risk of oscillations. . . . . . 27
5.1 Developed method with the different phases. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.2 Design boundary used as input to Inspire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.3 The optimized solution from Inspire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.4 The first CATIA developed concept of the suction strainer. . . . . 35
5.5 The optimization architecture used in the case study . . . . . . . . 36
5.6 The frequency and excitation amplitude in X,Y and Z-direction . . 37
5.7 The second CATIA developed concept of the suction strainer. . . . 38
5.8 Description of the parameters used in the concept. . . . . . . . . . 39
5.9 Maximum stress in Y-direction resulted from frequency excitation. 40
5.10 Correlation matrix design parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
5.11 Comparison between the developed and original suction strainer. . 42
List of Tables
4.1 Material properties for the suction strainer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.1 The optimization results for the selected design . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.2 Results from the verification in Abaqus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.3 Comparison of the original suction strainer and the developed concept 43
Chapter 1
Introduction
This master thesis is performed in collaboration with the engine department

NMBO at Scania CV AB. Scania is a manufacturer of heavy transport solutions
including trucks and buses. NMBO are responsible for designing and testing vari-
ous components of the base engine, components with the main purpose to lubricate
the engine.
In order to meet a sustainable future within an industry which is changing
rapidly and becoming more regulated, continuous development of each component
is required to minimize emissions. By reducing the total weight of the trucks and
buses the fuel consumption is reduced and the load carrying capacity is increased
[1]. Optimizing components to increase their performance and minimize weight is
therefore desirable, reducing the environmental impact and providing more com-
petitive products.
1.1 Background
The most critical factor in profit-driven enterprises is the ability to develop suc-
cessful products with an economic success, where the development process is one
of the fundamental parts [2]. Since the product development process requires
man-hours, the total development cost of products can be reduced by changing
companies working methods. Scania’s development process starts with an initial
CAD model from a design engineer followed by analysis from FE-experts. Based
on the simulation results the design engineer makes changes and send the CAD
model to the simulation engineers iteratively until the product meets the require-
ments. Then the component needs to be physically tested and approved from an
assembly and purchasing point of view until the final design gets approved [3].
This development process requires many changes to the CAD model and therefore
time due to demands from the different disciplines. Since the design process is
time consuming there is short amount of time for increasing the performance of
the components even further.
The complexity of products are increasing successively and by implementing
design optimization at an early stage in the design process, the support for the
1
2 Introduction
decision making increases. The design engineer can deliver a better initial pro-
posal for the specific product, this induces fever iterations between the different
disciplines. The procedure of design optimization can to a high extent explore re-
lationships between the various properties of a product. By using an optimization
algorithm together with simulation driven design, the exploration of the design
space increases and simultaneously a product with higher performance can be
found and created [4].
1.2 Purpose and Goals

The purpose of this master thesis is to encourage the usage of design optimization
as a tool in the development process. To examine an effective alternative way of
working to minimize iterations between design engineers and FE-experts. Another
purpose is to implement optimization and simulation driven design in Scania’s
product development process and show the potential of how to elaborate more
competitive products, in terms of economical and performance aspects.
The goal is to develop a working process which can be implemented at Scania in
order to work more efficiently and optimize various similar products. This working
process will be validated and applied on a case study of an already existing product
which is a suction strainer.
1.3 Research questions

The research questions to answer in this thesis work are:
• RQ1: How can design optimization involving CAD and FEM aid the design
process?
• RQ2: How can topology optimization support concept generation early in
the design process?
• RQ3: What differences and similarities does the developed working process
have compared to a traditional development process at a truck manufacturer?
1.4 Deliverables
During the thesis the following deliverables will be performed gradually:
• Investigate the requirements on the case study.
• Develop a working method for how design engineers can work with design
optimization.
• Apply the method and develop an optimized suction strainer.
• Evaluate the developed design suggestion of the suction strainer.
• Evaluate the working method where design optimization has been imple-
mented.
1.5 Delimitations 3
1.5 Delimitations
The thesis work is performed from a design engineers’ point of view. Since the main
focus is on how design optimization can be used to provide a more competitive final
product. The provided working method will focus on how the design engineering
should work to minimize the required iterations between different disciplines.
The developed working method will be applied on only one case study, but
the method should be applicable on similar products. The development of the
case study component will stop at FE-verification, which means no prototypes or
physical testing will be performed.
For this thesis Altair Inspire will be used for topology optimization, CATIA
V5 will be used for CAD-modelling, CATIA Frequency Analysis will be used for
calculations and Heeds will be used as the optimization software. These software’s
will be investigated mainly because Scania is using them today which makes it
easier to implement the findings in their development process.
4 Introduction
Chapter 2
Theoretical framework
This chapter describes the theory and literature studies relevant for the thesis and
the studied field. The chapter covers areas such as product development process,
CAD-modelling, optimization, simulation driven design and relevant manufactur-
ing methods.
2.1 Product development process

In order to develop competitive and profitable products on the market it is of
great interest to work efficiently. This chapter describes the fundamental steps of
product development and the design paradox.
2.1.1 Design Process

According to Ulrich and Eppinger the product development process is a sequence
of activities consisting of the workflow in figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Product development process [5].
5
6 Theoretical framework
The product development process starts with the planning phase which defines
the opportunities and evaluates the market objectives and potential technologies.
When ending the planning phase, the mission statement of the product should be
defined, containing the business goals, target market and limitations [5].
After the planning phase ends the concept development phase starts. The
crucial task in this phase is to identify the needs and generate several concepts
with desired performance. Followed by selecting one or a few concepts for further
development and testing.
When one concept has been chosen the process continuous into the system-level
design where the architecture of the product is determined. The product concept
is decomposed into several subsystems and parts, were the crucial components are
preliminary designed. The assembly scheme for production should also be defined
in this phase.
The following phase is detail design, where each part is fully specified in terms
of material, geometries and tolerances. The manufacturing preparation of the
components should also be completed in this phase and production cost should be
definite.
The next step is testing and refinement phase were the product performance is
evaluated by simulations or physical testing making sure it will fulfil the require-
ments before entering the final phase which is production ramp up.
In the production and ramp up phase the assembly staff are educated and if
there are any production related issues left they should be solved before the full
scale production [5].
2.1.2 Design Paradox

The design paradox describes the evolvement of the product development process.
When a project starts the engineers have brief knowledge about the design prob-
lems to solve. During the early phase of the product development process there
are large possibilities to make changes since few decisions have been made. As the
project progresses the knowledge of the subject increases. However, the possibility
of design changes are very limited and costly due to already established decisions
[6][7]. Generally, wrong decisions in the conceptual product development can in-
crease the manufacturing cost by more than 60%. It is therefore important to map
and solve potential problems as early as possible [8]. This dilemma is called the
design paradox and is illustrated in figure 2.2.
2.2 CAD-modelling 7
Figure 2.2: The design process paradox [7] .
2.2 CAD-modelling
In order to work more efficiently with product development there are several tools
which can be used. This chapter describes how to work smarter with CAD-
modelling, integrating information by knowledge based engineering (KBE) and
how to make models more usable and flexible using parametrization.
2.2.1 Parametrization
One way of making the product development process more time efficient is to
develop reusable CAD-models. This can be done by controlling the CAD-model
with parameters which are non-geometric features. The basic idea is to be able to
reuse the CAD model by modifying its geometry with minimal effort [9]. Making
it possible to generate several versions in for example a product family [10].
There are various levels of parametrization which are divided into morpho-
logical and topological transformations. Morphological transformations represent
changes in shape while topological transformations involve positioning of objects
and features within a CAD-model [11].
As figure 2.3 shows, the morphological transformation contains four levels.
Fixed object is the lowest level which corresponds to a model without the ability
to change shape. The parameterized object level represents models with possibility
to change shape with the help of parameters, lacking relations between the various
parameters. The equation-based relation level involves dependencies between pa-
rameters. The top level of morphological transformation is script-based relations
describing relations with programming [11].
Figure 2.3: Morphological transformation levels [11].
Figure 2.4 illustrates the topological transformation levels, which concerns

adding, removing and changing instances in a CAD-model. The levels in topo-
logical transformation increases the complexity in how instances are handled from
manually instantiated to fully automated instantiation [11].
Figure 2.4: Topological transformation levels [11].

2.2 CAD-modelling 9
2.2.2 Knowledge based engineering

Engineering knowledge is a fundamental part when developing products were the
traditional way of storing the knowledge have been various books, technical docu-
ments and manufacturing drawings. Knowledge based engineering (KBE) has the
purpose of embedding the knowledge into suitable software’s making the knowl-
edge reusable and the development process faster. By integrating knowledge in
technology platforms the possibility for effective collaboration between different
disciplines increase because of easier access [12] [13]. Within the area of CAD
modelling example of knowledge of interest to integrate can be various rules and
guidelines about the manufacturing method, geometry and other crucial informa-
tion for the specific components [14]. KBE also act as a support for design op-
timization since it connects design parameters and functional requirements with
optimization formalizations [15].
Implementing knowledge based engineering in the design process can reduce
the development time needed since the needed time for routine work decreases, see
figure 2.5. Decreasing the amount of time needed for routine tasks enables more
time for innovative work in the design process [14].
CAD software’s often include KBE modules since it is a crucial part in the
design process where repetitive work can be minimized. One example of a CAD
software offering modules for enabling the potential of KBE is CATIA [14].
Figure 2.5: Benefits with Implementing KBE in the design process [14].
2.2.3 CAD model robustness and flexibility

Design optimization and knowledge based engineering requires flexible and robust
CAD-models. Flexible in the sense it has the possibility to adapt and change
shapes and configurations, making it possible to have a product family covered by

a CAD-model. The CAD-models’ flexibility therefore increases by the amount of
product variations they can represent. Robustness can be explained as the ability
for a CAD-model to be flexible without encountering instability errors. The higher
the robustness, the fewer error occurs [11].
Developing advanced CAD-models which are flexible and robust for design
optimization is an experimental process, since there is no specific recommendation
on how to successfully develop CAD-models with these qualities. However, there
are ways to measure the robustness, so improvements can be made until the model
meets the required level for successfully carrying out optimization.
Robustness can be calculated using equation 2.1 where RSc represents the
robustness and the index Sc indicates robustness for the sub space. NFailures
corresponds to the number of trials resulting with errors and NUpdates are the
number of trials. Note, the number of trials needs to be sufficiently large in order
to get a robustness with statistical relevance [11].
NF ailures
RSc = 1 − (2.1)
NU pdates
2.3 Optimization
Optimization can be explained as finding the best solution among several feasible
ones. The feasible solutions are all solutions not violating any constraints. Ob-
jective function is the function describing the desired property which can either
be minimized or maximized. Where the objective function can represent vari-
ous properties such as weight, efficiency and manufacturing cost. The constraints
are properties expressed with functions which have limits not to be exceeded, for
example maximum allowed stress or minimum flow performance [16].
One way of describing the mathematical formulation of an optimization prob-
lem can be expressed as below. Where f(x) is one or several objective functions,
g(x) and h(x) are constraint functions and the vector x represent the design vari-
ables [16].
Objective function(s):
f(x)k k=1,2,3,..., K
Subjected to:
g(x)i ≤ 0 i=1,2,3,..., m <n
h(x)j =0 j=1,2,3,..., r <n
where
 
x1
 x2 
x= . 
 
 .. 
xn
2.3 Optimization 11
Within optimization experiments are changes of inputs by a given rule and iden-
tifying the correlating output. Design of experience (DOE) is the umbrella term
for techniques to efficiently guide selection of experiments [17]. Latin Hypercube
sampling is one DOE technique which is inspired by a mathematical combination
namely the Latin Square, where an N x N matrix is filled with N objects so they
cover each row and column in the matrix, see figure 2.6. This technique can be
adapted to cover and explore the design space within optimization [18].
Figure 2.6: LHS example in 2D with N=4 [18].
2.3.1 Multidisciplinary design optimization

When developing complex engineering systems with several interest from two or
more disciplines, multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) is a useful tool to
use early in the development process when there is still a high level of design free-
dom. The MDO can map the relations and dependencies between each subsystem,
enabling a greater understanding of the system characteristics [19]. The gained
knowledge serves as a well-founded base to make decisions from in the design pro-
cess. MDO facilitates more design exploration which increases the possibility to
find optimal solutions [20].
Using concurrent design where interest from all disciplines are combined, com-
promised global optimums for the system can be reached. Instead of finding opti-
mums for each subsystem which most likely will not collaborate due to conflicting
relations [20]. Since MDO handles conflicting objectives from various disciplines,
no single optimum exists but instead several Pareto optimal solutions. The Pareto
front illustrates the trade-off between the objectives where each design solution on
the Pareto front is a non-dominated design and is therefore an optimal solution
[21]. Figure 2.7 illustrates an example of a Pareto front where the non-dominated
solutions are Pareto optimal and the other solutions are feasible dominated solu-
tions [16].
Figure 2.7: Illustration of a Pareto front [16].
2.3.2 Topology optimization

Topology optimization (TO) is a general form in structural optimization, the
method places materials anywhere inside a boundary to achieve optimal perfor-
mance solutions with a given set of conditions. In a three-dimensional case the
basic idea is to let the finite elements in the design boundary take values 0 or 1,
when the value is set to 0 no material is placed and vice versa. The number of
elements are minimized to achieve the optimal performance with its given design
constraints [22]. An example where TO has been implemented can be seen in
figure 2.8.
There are areas where topology optimization is beneficial, for instance when
a new product is developed it is often designed from different concepts with a
potential of satisfying the requirements. These concepts are often developed based
from existing components or from experience. When a product in a new field is
developed, TO can be implemented early in the design process to evaluate different
possible solutions. The benefit with the method is the usage of few number of input
variables needed for the algorithm to find the first solution. The input data can
for instance be the boundary conditions and the given sets of loads [23].
2.4 Simulation driven design 13
Figure 2.8: Illustration of a topology optimized beam [23].
2.4 Simulation driven design

The usage of simulation driven design (SDD) can broaden and explore scenarios
to evaluate different design opportunities. The design performance can increase
as well as enable verification of physical properties earlier in the design process
[24]. Simulation-driven design is defined by Sellgren [25] as, ”a design process
where decisions related to the behaviour and the performance of the design in all
major phases of the process are significantly supported by computer based product
modeling and simulation”.
The use of simulation can be implemented in several disciplines, such as fluid-
and solid mechanics. The main advantage is enabling developers to test the func-
tionalities and receive feedback iteratively before significant development commit-
ments are made [26]. Investigated systems can often be very complex because of
interaction between several physical domains, the numerical models used in simu-
lations can be used to decrease the complexity and give a solution to the system.
However, physical testing of the system is often beneficial to test the hypothesis
and verify the results [25].
2.4.1 Finite element method

The fundamental reason to use the finite element method (FEM) is to find solutions
to a complex problem, the solution approximates the exact solution but is often
adequate to most existing problems. Because the existing mathematical tools are
not sufficient to find exact solutions. By using more computational efforts into the
problem, the approximated solution can be improved and refined in a cost- and
time-effective way [27].
The finite element method is a key feature in most development processes, and
is often implemented in stress analysis, thermal analysis, fluid flow analysis, etc.
The analyst determines for instance displacement in stress analysis or the heat
flux in a thermal analysis.
The general working principle for the method is to divide the problem domain
into small interconnected subregions called finite elements, see figure 2.9 [28]. This
makes the theory applicable to a wide range of different boundary value problems,
a boundary value is described as the existing solution in the domain of a body to-
gether with a set of constraints called boundary conditions. There exist three main
categories of boundary value problems, equilibrium and steady-state, eigenvalue
problems and transient problems. An equilibrium problem is often solid mechanic
problems where the displacement or stress distribution is defined. In an eigenvalue
problem the natural frequencies are calculated. The type of transient problems
are time-dependent and are used for instance when there is interest of finding the
response of time-varying forces [27].
Figure 2.9: Meshed triangular elements in a rectangular domain [28].
According to Liu and Quek [28], the procedure of using the finite element
method consist primarily of four steps:
1. Modelling of the geometry
2. Meshing of the geometry
3. Define material property
4. Specification of boundary and loading conditions.
In engineering design the geometry is created in a CAD-software. However,
the ”real” CAD-model created by the designer is often very complex and need to
be simplified in order to perform a good analysis. The model can then be meshed
were the geometry is divided into small pieces. It is important to have the right
coarse of the mesh, providing an accurate result while decreasing the simulation
time. The type of material and which load conditions the geometry is subjected
to must be defined before the analysis is performed [28].
2.4.2 Frequency response

Structures and components can under certain conditions start to vibrate either in a
constant or exaggerated motion. Resonant vibration is characterized by modes and
the phenomena is caused due to combination of the materials elastic and inertial
properties. Problems regarding the topic is common in machinery environment
during operation [29].
Vibrations are caused by a combination of resonant vibration and a forced
vibration. The forced vibration can be caused by unbalances, external loads,
2.5 Sand casting 15
ambient excitation or internally generated forces. A structures level of deflection,

strain and stress, caused by static loading is typically amplified significantly by
vibration response when subjected to resonant vibration.
Modes are implicit properties of a structure and they are determined by the
structural stiffness, the mass and damping properties. Each individual mode is
defined by mode shape, mode damping and the natural frequency. Structures
modes will therefore change if the boundary conditions or the material properties
are changed.
Frequency response function measure dynamic properties in mechanical com-
ponents. The measurement can be defined as resulting velocity, acceleration or
displacement response per given excitation force as an input. The response curve
of a structure is represented by a summation of the response curves for each mode.
A mechanical structure is sensitive at certain natural frequencies (modal fre-
quencies) since the modes will act as amplifiers, meaning a small input force causes
a very large response. The critical regions on a frequency response curve are the
section where high amplitude is combined with high frequency [29].
2.5 Sand casting

One of the most popular manufacturing method is sand casting. This is due to the
diversity of different materials, for its cost effectiveness and because of its great
geometric freedom capability [30]. The casted parts can vary in size and weight
from a dozen of grams to several tons. Sand casting is characterized as the use
of sand as mold material with a suitable bonding agent, which the desired shape
of the component can be created in. Common materials which are widely used
in sand casting are cast iron, magnesium and aluminium. The method is often
used when prototypes are made because of its inexpensive molds compared with
other sufficient casting processes. However, the method is only favourable for low
volume production [31].
The manufacturing method can receive sufficient tolerances and surface finish
for a large field of applications. For an aluminium component with a size around
1500 mm an expected tolerance will be around ±0.75 mm with a surface finish of
50-150 µm [32].
When designing sand casted components there are several factors to consider.
There is no manual to follow strictly because of different geometries creates dif-
ferent behaviours, therefore guidelines or rules has been developed to assist in the
development process [33].
Some design considerations to consider when developing sand casted compo-
nents are [30][33]:
• Use simple flowing lines with minimum projection in opposite directions.
• Build in strength of design instead of adding material, such as ribs to stiffen
and strengthen castings.
• Minimize the need of usage of cores, number of cores increase complexity
and expense.
• Avoid sudden changes in section thickness, this occur unintended in junctions

and will create hot spots, see figure 2.10.
• Avoid sharp corners and use fillets in a high extent.
• Extensive horizontal flat surfaces should be avoided, because of warpage.
• Long transport sections for the melt must have a suitable wall thickness.
• Seek after a straight parting line for the component.
• Design it to be easy to pour and have into account where the ricer will be
located.
Figure 2.10: Representation of the effect of junction and creation of hot spot [31].
However, there exist dimensioning rules to follow when designing components

for sand casting. For all vertical surfaces a positive draft angle should be used,
otherwise the detachment of the molded component can be difficult. The recom-
mended draft angle should be somewhere between 0.5°to 2°. To stiffen or strength-
ening castings ribs should be used, the size of rib is dimensioned depending on the
wall thickness. The rib thickness should be somewhere between 1 to 1.5 times the
wall thickness. The wall thickness cannot be smaller than 3 mm for sand casted
components. In the design sharp edges shall be avoided, when an L-junction is
created the preferable inner radius can be set to the wall thickness and the outer
to two times the wall thickness [30]. A summarize of the dimensioning rules can
be seen in figure 2.11.
2.5 Sand casting 17
Figure 2.11: Design requirements for sand casting.

Chapter 3
Thesis methodology
This chapter describes the methodology and working procedure adapted in this
thesis. The work was divided into two main parts, first a pre-study was performed
and based on those findings the main work and result generation were conducted.
The general workflow outline for the thesis is presented in figure 3.1.
The first phase, pre-study, included a literature study in the investigated field,
as well as a current situation analysis of Scanias working method to get knowledge
and find improvement potentials. In the thesis a developed method was tested
and improved with a case study component. The requirements on the case study
was in this stage defined and documented.
The second part of the work was the primary result generation, this process was
accomplished in an iterative manner, where the working method was developed
in parallel with the case study validation. Finally, the thesis result was presented
with a final developed working method as well as a finalized case study.
Figure 3.1: Thesis methodology flow.
3.1 Pre-study
To provide a knowledge base for this thesis, studies of relevant literature in the
field and former thesis work was realized. A study of the current working method
19
20 Thesis methodology
and case study requirements was also conducted.
3.1.1 Literature study

To provide a knowledge foundation about the areas covered in the thesis a litera-
ture study was performed. The gained knowledge served as a support for making
adequate decisions throughout the thesis, as well as answering the research ques-
tions. Previous work and research within the relevant areas were studied. The
information was gathered mainly from technical reports, books and scientific arti-
cles. However, some information about how Scanias current working process came
from their internal documents such as standards and guidelines.
Previous thesis work within similar field were studied with the main purposes of
narrowing down the scope of the thesis, in addition to absorbing their conclusions
and findings. The study of previous thesis work was not used as a base for the
theoretical chapter of the thesis. It was instead used as an inspiration how to plan
the project and giving ideas of suitable research questions for the field etc.
3.1.2 Study of current working method and case study

Scanias product development process was investigated by reviewing their com-
pany standards within the subject and by confirming the gained information with
employed design engineers. The investigation of how design engineers work at
Scania with product development served the purpose to be used as comparison
with the developed working method. The information about how Scania works
with product development can be seen in detail in chapter 4.1.
To provide knowledge about the suction strainer a thorough investigation about
the case study component was done. The investigation covered the basic function,
sub features and constraints due to the operating environment of the component.
The investigation also covered the interfaces not allowed to change, manufactur-
ing method and associated geometry limitations etc. The information about the
suction strainer can be seen in chapter 4.2.
3.2 Development of working procedure

The main purpose with this thesis was to provide an alternative way of working
with product development as a design engineer using design optimization. Hence
a working procedure was developed and presented for Scania. The thesis method-
ology used for developing the working procedure is illustrated in figure 3.1. The
working procedure was carried out in an iterative approach, where an alternative
method was realized and tested on a case study to gather valuable information.
The method was then improved until it delivered as anticipated. The final method
is presented and described in chapter 5.1.
3.2 Development of working procedure 21
3.2.1 Method development

A working method was provided to aid a more efficient way of working with prod-
uct development from the perspective of a design engineer working with design
optimization. The method described the fundamental parts to think about in or-
der to successfully carry out optimization and simulation driven design. With a
purpose to find better solutions earlier in the development process, with less re-
sources required. The method serves as a material which a design engineer should
be able to use for future work. Note, the method is not a thorough manual to be
used as a step by step process.
3.2.2 Case study validation of working process

In parallel with the development of the working method, the suggested procedure
was validated with a case study. This gave a standing point for reflecting over
decisions made when applying the developed method on the case study. Hopefully,
providing design engineers deeper understanding when using the method from this
thesis in future development projects.
22 Thesis methodology
Chapter 4
Current situation analysis
This chapter describes the current product development method at Scania and a
pre-study of the investigated case study component. The information presented
in this chapter has been collected from internal sources at Scania and published
reports in the field.
4.1 Product Development method at Scania

This section describes the product development at Scania and how different disci-
plines work in a cross-functional organization to deliver desired products.
4.1.1 General description of product development process

The product development process (PD) at Scania has been developed to be able
to handle a global perspective and in high extent promote parallel work as much
as possible. This is a cross-functional organization system, which enables high
interactions between different departments and specializations to achieve common
goals. The PD process can be seen in figure 4.1, and describes the different stages.
The main activities are Concept development, Product development and Product
follow-up, where the project progresses from a concept or idea to a fully devel-
oped product implemented in production. Advanced engineering and research is
often used when new areas of investigation is necessary. A team of researchers,
often external sources, and experienced engineers develop a solution to the specific
problem [3].
In the first stage, concept development, a group with high degree of cross-
functionality investigates business possibilities and the different technical solutions.
An iterative approach is used between disciplines to find the best working concept
and to utilize as much knowledge as possible. Here a lot of preliminary CAD
models and simulations results are compiled to find a suitable solution. Finally,
the product requirements are set, and a detailed design needs to be developed.
Next in the PD process, product development, a finalized product needs to
be prepared for the production. The previous work is considered and further
23
24 Current situation analysis
Figure 4.1: Product development process at Scania.
development is performed. An iterative approach between CAD, simulation and

physical testing is used to reach desired goals and to minimize uncertainties. The
product specifications can be updated along the way, which increase number of
iterations. When the developed product has passed the requirements and all tests,
it is ready to be produced.
The product is then followed up to maintain and update if necessary. There are
different assignment tasks in this phase, it can be a quality check, product change
request, design adjustments or cost reduction. Documentation about important
learning from the development is compiled, it is called lesson learning and is used
to minimize appearance of similar problems and to transfer knowledge between
employees. This phase improves Scania’s opportunities to deliver more competitive
products to their customers [3].
4.1.2 Design engineer’s role in the process

The design engineer at Scania has a wide range of activities, depending on the stage
of the project and type of product. They often work as coordinators between the
different disciplines during the development process for the specific product, see
figure 4.2. The design engineer is involved during the whole process from concept to
final product, and has the main activities to specify requirements, creating CAD-
models and update existing products. To be the coordinator require knowledge
from the different disciplines more specific FEM and CFD departments. The work
between the disciplines are an iterative process, which means when a CAD-model
is created and analysed with CFD- and FEM-simulations. The results are gathered
and necessary improvement is made to the product iteratively [3][34].
4.2 The case study component- Suction strainer 25
Figure 4.2: Design engineers role the in product development process [34].
4.2 The case study component- Suction strainer

In order to have a well-functioning engine the lubrication is a key factor. This
is mainly executed by the oil. The primary purpose of oil is to minimize friction
and wear between components and to dissipate heat from fundamental parts. The
motor oil cleans the engine and collects harmful particles, and it is therefore im-
portant to have a high exchange of oil cleaned successively by the oil filter [35].
When the oil is not used, it is stored in the oil pan. When the engine is operating,
it is picked up with a suction strainer and transferred into the engine. The suc-
tion strainer is therefore a fundamental part to ensure good and consistent flow of
oil. The performance of the component depends on several factors and need to be
fulfilled to reach desirable results.
4.2.1 Description of the component

The main function of the suction strainer is to ensure a good oil pick up from
the sump into the engine internals. The oil-pump creates a suction force and
transport oil through the inlet and outlet, before feeding it into the engine, see
figure 4.3. At the end of the inlet a filter is attached to prevent harmful pieces
making the way into the engine. The suction strainer is mounted below the engine
block with three bolts, the placement of these mounting points are far away from
the oil inlet pipe. The inlet pipe placement needs to be in this position in order to
minimize risk of oil starvation, when the vehicle is in critical places such as inclines.
The connection between the mounting points and the suction pipe are designed
to have a rigid structure withstanding the external conditions and to ensure a
physical fitment inside the oil pan. The component also has run-off angles and
holes at suitable locations to ensure no creation of oil pockets. Another function
is measurement of the oil-level which is accomplished by inserting an oil-stick in

the oil-stick container, see figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3: The reference suction strainer developed at Scania.
The suction strainer is low volume production item and is therefore manufac-
tured using sand casting. The material used is aluminium and has the properties
shown in table 4.1.
Table 4.1: Material properties for the suction strainer.
Properties Value
Material EN AC-43100 SF
Density 2770 kg/m3
Young’s modulus 71 GPa
Poisson ratio 0.33
Yield strength 150 MPa
Fatigue limit 45 MPa
4.2.2 Requirements on the suction strainer

There are several restricting factors to consider when developing the suction strainer.
The manufacturing method, sand casting, has geometric freedom capability but
there are still rules to follow, see section 2.5. The geometric boundary for the
suction strainer is limited by several surrounding components in the engine, such
4.2 The case study component- Suction strainer 27
as oil pan, balancing shafts, engine block etc. The design was also limited by the
fixed position of the mounting points, oil pick-up location and oil-stick container.
Since the component is placed inside an engine the loading conditions it must
withstand are vibrations during runtime. The vibrations induce fatigue on the
component and frequency calculations had to be performed to find stress concen-
trations and fatigue limits. The engine has a specific frequency spectrum which
defines the acceleration excitation which is acting on the component. These values
have been measured by physical testing for Scanias various engines. Generally, the
engines does not exceed a frequency range of 300 Hz, see figure 4.4. An investi-
gation of the eigenfrequency of the suction strainer must be performed. If the
natural frequency is below 300 Hz the component can start to oscillate and get
damaged. By using this limit the probability of oscillations for the component de-
creases significantly. The component must also have a adequate stiffness to ensure
a low deflection.
Figure 4.4: The acceptance criteria for reduce the risk of oscillations.
Chapter 5
Results
This chapter presents the gathered results from the method development and the
results from the newly developed case study component. Followed by performance
comparison between the developed and the original component.
5.1 Developed method results

The developed working method for implementing design optimization and simu-
lation driven design in the development process is illustrated in figure 5.1. The
method is divided into four phases, each phase includes relevant tasks. The tasks
could be conducted simultaneously or sequentially, before a new phase in the prod-
uct development process starts.
Figure 5.1: Developed method with the different phases.
29
30 Results
5.1.1 Phase 1: Start-up

The initial phase when developing a component is to identify what type of project
to be executed, for example a concept development or detail development project.
Different types of projects give diverse prerequisites in terms of design opportu-
nities. From a design optimization perspective, a detail development project will
most likely encounter a more restricted design space compared to a concept de-
velopment project. Since decisions about neighbouring components for a detail
development project affects the design freedom greatly. While the design freedom
in the start of a concept development project is in general greater when a project
starts from scratch.
The start-up phase contains identifying all the disciplines of interest for the
project. The goal of the phase is to define the problem, identify the goals, the
interests from each discipline and potential conflicting interest. When the phase
is finished the departments should have a common idea of the expected outcomes
and what each department is expected to deliver. The project plan should also
be created during phase one, which should make all stakeholders familiar with the
time scope and the amount of resources for the project.
5.1.2 Phase 2: Design requirements and concept generation

In this phase all the requirements on the product should be defined. This could for
instance be type of manufacturing method and its limitations. Other examples of
requirements can be constraints in terms of minimum allowed eigenfrequency, flow
performance or maximum allowed stress for the specific product. Setting up all
the design requirements and load cases in the correct way are crucial. If the set-
up differs from the real environment the risk of component failure or inadequate
performance increase.
Next step in the phase is to define and create a model of the design space and
the fixed geometries as well as product functions. Which serves the purpose for
topology optimization, giving the design engineer an idea of where the material is
needed and how the initial concept could look like. The fixed geometries are the
functionalities not allowed to change when performing the topology optimization.
By setting up load cases and supports the component can be optimized with the
objectives of maximizing the stiffness or minimizing the mass. The result of the
topology optimization serves as a conceptual proposal of the structure, which
fulfills the desired requirements. This concept serves as a decision basis for further
development.
5.1.3 Phase 3: Detail design and design exploration

From the previous phase the design engineer should obtain a concept from the
topology optimization, regarding how the product could look like along with all
the requirements. The geometry should then be modelled in a CAD software in a
flexible and robust way. The CAD model should be parameterized in order to be
enable shape optimization, meaning various dimensions of the geometry are able
to vary using parameters. The manufacturability of the concept should be verified
5.2 Case study results 31
in some manner, making sure the simulations are not performed in vain with a
concept not manufacturable.
The CAD model should then be analysed with relevant simulation models, in
either the used CAD software or in another software for simulations. By setting up
the simulation framework with relevant load cases and supports the optimization
software can then explore the design space by varying the parameters in the sim-
ulation model. Resulting in various design suggestions to be compared in terms
of the desired performance. One of the design suggestions will be chosen and
analysed further for verification.
5.1.4 Phase 4: Design verification and final decision

In the final phase the concept from the shape optimization needs to be verified
with calculation experts. The experts should perform more computational expen-
sive analysis, making sure the selected concept fulfils requirements of for example
eigenfrequency, fatigue and flow etc. The main goal with the developed method is
to provide a better initial proposal to verify with the calculation experts, not to
eliminate the need of verification from these disciplines.
When the concept is confirmed by the calculation experts, the next step is
to make physical testing and to verify the results with the responsible discipline.
The physical testing will vary greatly depending on the type of product and some
products might not need this step. When the concept has passed the verification
with the disciplines mentioned above, the stakeholders should make a final decision
regarding the products future.
5.2 Case study results

The developed method, described in chapter 5.1, was implemented on a case study
component. The original component and its requirements has been described in
detail in chapter 4.2. The case study results are described in the same order as
the proposed method.
5.2.1 Case study-Phase 1

The goal with this case study was to develop a suction strainer design with lower
weight compared to an already existing component, the newly developed com-
ponent should withstand the given requirements. The question to be answered
was:
• Can an alternatively suction strainer be developed with lower weight and

still meet the requirements?
The disciplines involved for this project was primarily design engineers and cal-
culation engineers with competence in the field of vibrations- and frequency cal-
culations. The reason why those disciplines were involved was because of the
components operating environment. If this project was to develop a totally new
32 Results
concept the discipline of CFD should be involved as well, but because of perfor-
mance satisfaction for the already existing fluid pipes in the design those was not
involved.
In this phase it was decided that the design engineer should do most of the
development work and the calculation engineer should in the end verify the pro-
posed concept. The calculations performed had a level of difficulty which in some
extent was executable for a design engineer to give a good result estimation.

In this phase of the project the goal was to compile a preliminary concept showing
the functions and the possibilities. The outcome from this phase was used as the
decision basis for detail development.
Define design boundary

The process started by investigating the already existing suction strainer and defin-
ing where the biggest potential of improvement existed. Since the surrounding
components was not changeable, the placement for mounting holes, oil stick con-
tainer and suction pipe was fixed. This gave the biggest potential of improvement
to be the structure in between those parts.
The existing suction strainer was developed to not interfere with surrounding
components, the acceptable design boundary for the structure was defined by
drawing a geometrical boundary in CATIA where material can be added without
interfering, see figure 5.2. The interfering components for this case was balancing
shaft from the top and swash plate from the bottom, other small components
such as screws had to be considered. The defined boundary as well as the fixed
geometries, mounting points, oil-stick container, suction pipe, was then used as
the input to the topology optimization.
Topology optimization in Altair Inspire

The topology optimization was performed in Altair Inspire, the software can with
few inputs give a solution to the problem based on the geometry created in CATIA.
When the CATIA model was created and saved it was loaded into Inspire and the
optimization problem could be defined.
First, the created design boundary was defined as the acceptable design space
to place material in as well as creating and specifying the type of material for the
component. The material for this component was aluminium, EN AC-43100 SF,
the specific material properties can be seen in table 4.1 in chapter 4.2.1. The load
cases were then added to the model, mounting holes were set to fixed displacement,
and loads was set in X, Y and Z-direction at the suction pipe. This placement of
forces gave a good distribution of material and was a approximation to give the
component high stiffness.
Inspire has a built-in function to take manufacturing methods into account, the
component was going to be sand-casted which set requirements on the possibility
for easy removal from the mold. By placing a shape control in the software at a
Figure 5.2: Design boundary used as input to Inspire.
suitable partition plane for the component, the optimization algorithm took the
mould removal into account.
The optimization problem was then defined with the input to maximize the
stiffness as the objective. The problem was constrained by a minimum allowed
eigenfrequency of 300 Hz, as well as a minimum thickness of 5 mm, see chapter
4.2.2.
The result from the optimization run can be seen in figure 5.3. The material
placement, in orange, had a structure with several branches from the mounting
points to the suction pipe. The oil-stick cup was connected to one of the mounting
holes. The optimized solution was used as a baseline for the parametric CAD-
modelling in CATIA, the model was inserted into CATIA for simplifying the re-
creation of the optimized solution.

The suction strainer concept was developed and had to be prepared for shape
optimization. The basic idea was to mimic the Inspire optimized shape and create
a parametric CAD model.
Parametric CAD model

When the parametric CAD model was developed, the parameters were chosen so
the model had a certain geometric freedom. The geometric freedom was required
for enabling exploration of designs during shape optimization later in Heeds. The
34 Results
Figure 5.3: The optimized solution from Inspire.
parameters were enabled to vary the elliptic cross sections of the braces at various
positions. The angles of where the braces were connected to the fixed geome-
tries and the ratio of where brace 2 connected to brace 1 was also varied with a
parameter. The result of the concept is illustrated in figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4: The first CATIA developed concept of the suction strainer.
The optimization problem and architecture

Before the optimization algorithm could find different solutions to the parametric
CAD-model, the optimization problem had to be defined and concretized. The ob-
jective for the optimization was set to minimize the weight of the suction strainer,
and had to be constrained by the eigenfrequency, fatigue stress and the geometric
freedom.
The eigenfrequency had to be at least 300 Hz for the first eigenmode, the reason
why this constraint excised was to avoid natural oscillations of the suction strainer
since frequencies in the engine during operating typically does not exceed this
value, see chapter 4.2.2. To fulfil the fatigue constraint the induced stress in the
component was not allowed to exceed 6 MPa, which was based on the fatigue limit
for the material and safety factor. The optimization problem included a geometry
interference check, ensuring the suggested design did not interfere with surrounding
components. A summarization of the optimization problem is illustrated below.
36 Results
The general optimization problem:
Minimize:
Mass [kg]
Subjected to:
Eigenfrequency > 300 Hz
Fatigue limit, σ f < 6 MPa
Geometry interference check = OK
To solve the optimization problem the practical approach was described in

an architecture of the information flow, see figure 5.5. The central part is the
optimization algorithm and was handled by Heeds. The software was assigned to
manage the design parameters range of acceptable minimum and maximum values.
As well as the responses from the different conducted analysis from CATIA.
Figure 5.5: The optimization architecture used in the case study.
The first CATIA analysis was a geometry check and consisted of a Clash Anal-
ysis, secondly a Frequency Case and three Harmonic Dynamic Response Cases was
calculated. The Clash Analysis was performed to make sure the suggested designs
from Heeds did not result in interference with the surrounding components in the
engine. If the Clash analysis found an interference between the suction strainer and
the nearby components, the design was considered to be failed and the Frequency
Analysis and the Harmonic Dynamic Response Cases were not computed.
The Frequency Case calculated the eigenmodes for each design. In the Fre-
quency Case the mounting holes were restrained with fixed displacement and
rotation. The Frequency Case was then used as the reference for the restraint
excitation in the Harmonic Dynamic Response cases. Three different Harmonic

Dynamic Response Cases was used for excitation of the suction strainer in X-, Y-
and Z-direction. For each direction a representation was inserted which included
the accelerations in the respective directions at certain frequencies occurring in
the central of gravity for the suction strainer. The excitation representations are
visualized in figure 5.6. The resulted fatigue stress caused by excitation of the
component was captured and analysed, the maximum stress had to be less than
the fatigue constraint of 6 MPa in order to be considered feasible.
Figure 5.6: The frequency and excitation amplitude in X,Y and Z-direction.
Optimization results
The parametric CAD model was then optimized using Heeds as the solver and CA-
TIA analysis for evaluating designs, one example of a feasible design from Heeds
can be seen in figure 5.4. The concept did fulfil the constraints regarding mini-
mum allowed eigenfrequency for the three modes, it also fulfilled the constraints
regarding fatigue limit when exciting the component according to the excitation
spectra in X-, Y- and Z-direction.
However, this concept did not fulfil the requirements regarding manufactura-
bility for sand casting since the cross sections varied too much which generates
hot spots. Nor was the concept cost efficient since it would have required several
partition planes for the braces which results in a more expensive manufacturing
process of the mould. From the Heeds optimization the conclusion was drawn
that the cross sections of the braces were large in order to reach the minimum
allowed eigenfrequency and not for the fatigue limit since no design violated the
constraint of 6 MPa. Which implies the concept could be improved to a structure
using less material while still fulfilling the eigenfrequency constraints. The deci-
sion was made to redo phase 3 from the beginning, to find a concept fulfilling the
requirements for the manufacturing method.
38 Results
Revision of the Parametric model

Based on the findings from evaluation of the first concept, a second concept was
developed to improve the faults. The concept can be seen in figure 5.7 and the
concept was developed by combining the topology optimization in Inspire with the
guidelines for sand casting described in chapter 2.5. The new concept had even
cross sections for enabling consistent flow and to avoid hot spots. It also used a
less complex geometry simplifying the creation of the mould, since the partition
plane can follow one surface. Rather than the previous concept which used braces
at different levels in the space, which makes a more complex mould for ensuring
draft angles at all braces in the partition plane. The new concept did also use
the guideline of strengthening the component by using ribs in the design rather
than adding material. The design avoided sharp corners and sudden changes in
material thickness.
Figure 5.7: The second CATIA developed concept of the suction strainer
The parameters used in the second concept can be seen in figure 5.8. For
example the material thicknesses were controlled individually for the geometries
to the left and right. The rib thicknesses placed underneath the left and right
geometry was also changed individually. The parameter values for the design is
summarized in table 5.1.
Figure 5.8: Description of the parameters used in the concept
To make sure the CAD-model had parameters enabling a wide range of con-
figurations with few errors, a robustness and flexibility analysis was conducted.
The robustness for the model was calculated using equation 2.1. The analysis
was performed on 100 different design configurations in the design space using the
Latin Hypercube design of experiments technique. Of these 100 designs five failed
which implies a robustness of 95%.
Optimization results for the second concept

The results for the selected design from the shape optimization in Heeds are sum-
marized in table 5.1. The mass of the concept was 0.69 kg and the maximum stress
was 5.6 MPa. The maximum stress occurred when excitating the component in
Y-direction, the sensitive areas are visualized in figure 5.9. The most sensitive
spots were the rib placed above the surface and the rib connecting the suction
pipe and the closest mounting point.
40 Results
Table 5.1: The optimization results for the selected design.
Response Value
Mass 0.69 Kg
Frequency Mode 1 316 Hz
Von Mises Stress X-direction 4.6 MPa
Von Mises Stress Y-direction 5.6 MPa
Von Mises Stress Z-direction 2.3 MPa
Rib Height 15.36 mm
Material Thickness R 3.28 mm
Material Thickness L 3 mm
Rib Thickness Right 5.04 mm
Rib Thickness MP12 3 mm
Rib Thickness Above 3 mm
Rib Thickness Left 4 mm
Hole Size L 100 mm
Hole Size R L 50 mm
Hole Size R U 50 mm
Figure 5.9: Maximum stress in Y-direction resulted from frequency excitation.

A Pearson correlation matrix of the two most critical responses was created,
which which was the first eigenmode and the mass. The figure 5.10 illustrates the
parameters which the responses mentioned were most sensitive to. One important
note from the correlation matrix was the first eigenmodes large sensitive to the
mass of the suction strainer. Which is a reason why the shape optimization in
Heeds reached a lower limit of acceptable mass for not violating the eigenfrequency
constraint. The frequency constraint was most sensitive to be the rib height, since
it affects the moment of inertia the most. The mass was most sensitive to the
material thickness of the left geometry and its corresponding hole size.
Figure 5.10: Correlation matrix design parameters.

The last step in the development process was to verify the optimized concept. The
calculations used in the optimization framework were simplified which required a
complementing calculation method with greater precision. This method was more
computational expensive and advanced, the calculation was therefore performed in
Abaqus. Instead of using a frequency response as in the optimization framework
a random response analysis was performed to calculate the stresses. The stresses
were compared using root-mean-square von Mises stress (RMISES), the calculated
RMISES should be below 12 MPa, which was based on the fatigue limit of the
material. The results from the analysis can be seen in table 5.2, the results showed
that the developed component fulfilled the requirements.
From the verification analysis improvements on the developed method was
found. The improvements to be made on the component was to increase radius
sizes in critical places subjected to stress concentrations and fatigue. This kind of
improvements does not need to be verified again and were therefore implemented
on the case study component.
42 Results
Table 5.2: Results from the verification in Abaqus.
Response Value
Frequency Mode 1 [Hz] 314
RMS Mises Stress X-Direction [MPa] 5.5
RMS Mises Stress Y-Direction [MPa] 9.7
RMS Mises Stress Z-Direction [MPa] 6.6
5.2.5 Case study improvements

The developed suction strainer was compared with the original component, this
was conducted to verify the potential of implementing optimization in the develop-
ment process. The comparison between the two components can be seen in figure
5.11, the developed concept showed that less material in the middle could be used
and still fulfil the requirements.
Figure 5.11: Comparison between the developed and original suction strainer.
When performing frequency- and harmonic dynamic response analysis with

the same set up in CATIA, several conclusions were realized. The results for
the comparison are summarized in table 5.3. Firstly, the weight reduction from
the original suction strainer to the optimized concept was 53,4 %. The weight
reduction gave a negative impact on the three eigenmodes as the table shows. The
reason why this correlation exists can be explained by the theory in chapter 2.4.2,
which describes that modes are implicit properties determined by the mass, the
structural stiffness and the damping properties.
Table 5.3: Comparison of the original suction strainer and the developed concept.
Response Developed Original

Mass [Kg] 0.69 1.48
Frequency Mode 1 [Hz] 316 347
Von Mises Stress X-direction [MPa] 4.6 4.01
Von Mises Stress Y-direction [MPa] 5.6 1.22
Von Mises Stress Z-direction [MPa] 2.3 2.61
44 Results
Chapter 6
Discussion
This chapter discuss the outcome from the thesis and is divided into two parts.
First the methodology is discussed, which describes how it may has affected the
outcome. In the second part the main results are discussed.
6.1 Methodology discussion

The developed working method was elaborated in parallel with the case study,
which gave a good insight in what steps used when developing the suction strainer.
Due to the parallel approach the developed working method was refined iteratively
when the case study needed changes. This resulted in a relatively general working
method for suction strainers and similar products. If the method would have been
developed before evaluation on the case study, the method would most likely be
more general and easier to apply to a larger variation of products.
One aspect which could change the method used for the thesis was if the
case study would be a concept development project rather than an improvement
project. Since the suction strainer was relatively pre-defined, the geometrical
boundaries were restricted and the design freedom was not as large as in a concept
development project. Furthermore, since the suction strainer was already under
development the first phase in the developed method was mostly defined regarding
the requirement, goals and disciplines involved etc.
The authors made the decision to exclude interviews in the pre-study. The
main reason behind this decision was judged by the authors that the information
gained from the interviews would not be worth the time required for conducting
interviews and processing the collected data. Note, the judgement was based on
several factors, one was the authors availability to previous degree project within
the subject where interviews had been conducted. Where the findings from the
interviews were similar as documented internal standards at Scania which the au-
thors used instead. Another reason why official interviews during the pre-study
was not conducted was because the authors preferred to verify with the theoretical
framework instead. The findings and conclusions from internal documents were
verified with the supervisor which can be interpreted as a type of interview, how-
45
46 Discussion
ever not official with forms etc. The interviews would cover what the development
engineers at Scania thinks about the current working method. Which would be a
good base when developing the suggested working method and avoiding flaws in
the current method.
6.2 Result discussion

In this chapter the findings from the developed method is discussed and compared
with the development method used at Scania. The chapter does also cover a
discussion of the results from the case study with a main focus of the findings
from the topology- and shape optimization as well as the design verification.
6.2.1 Developed working method

The method has been developed to showcase how design optimization and simu-
lation driven design can be used. The developed method is in a design engineers
point of view with the main focus on design of components. Which brings the
issue of directly replacing a more general method for all kinds of projects, from
system design projects to designing of specific components. Since several steps
are specific within detail design and carries the approach of being able to perform
optimization on an investigated component completely. In order for the method to
be used at Scania, for various components, it would probably need a more general
view. However, to be able to answer the research questions the method needed to
be more complete and specific. The method was developed with Scanias current
working method and Ulrich and Eppingers product development process as sup-
port. The biggest similarity between the methods are the sequence of activities
which is concept generation followed by detail development and lastly verification.
Because of this similarity it enables an easy integration among the methods and
integration for a desired working procedure, meaning a combination of the three
methods will fulfill the product development process. The biggest differences be-
tween the three methods are the number of phases from idea to final product and
which extent and generality each phase has.
In Scanias product development method it is crucial to have a global perspec-
tive and a possibility for parallel workflow. These factors have not been taken into
account for the developed method since the focus have been design optimization
from a design engineers point of view. However, an integration of the design op-
timization in the companies development process should not prohibit the global
perspective and parallel workflow.
The method provided in this thesis was developed in parallel with applying it
on a case study, the investigated component has most likely affected the method
in a certain way rather keeping a widely applicable method. For instance, Ulrich
and Eppingers method have a step called system level design, the step involves
investigation of the products architecture and subsystems. This kind of step is not
considered in the developed method since the case study was already well defined.
The step would most likely be involved in the process if several case studies would
6.2 Result discussion 47
be performed, this would however not be time efficient given the time accessible
during the thesis.
6.2.2 Case study discussion

This chapter discusses the most important findings from the case study. It is
divided according to the main parts from the process, topology optimization, shape
optimization and design verification.
Topology optimization
The usage of topology optimization in the product development process turned
out to be a good concept generator. The topology optimized result gave valuable
information in a relatively easy and time-effective way. The method gave inspira-
tion to the finalized shape optimized concept, which indicates a product could be
developed in a time-effective way and desirable results could still be found.
However, the optimization method requires a correct input in order to reach the
desirable results. The boundary input for the case study was relatively easy, since
the case study was an improvement of an existing component the functionalities
and boundaries were already defined. If this was a totally new concept with
few limitations the topology optimization would be more complex, this would
require the designer to first define the functionalities, surrounding components
and fixed geometries before a material boundary was developed and optimized.
The definition of the input can also restrict the exploration of possible designs,
if the product has high extent of freedom several concepts proposals needs to be
developed with different boundary input data. Since the case study was pre-defined
one concept was enough.
The authors had no previous experience of Inspire and topology optimization,
the process of developing a working concept was done iteratively. If previous
knowledge existed about the process and program the outcome may had been
somewhat differently, more experience would give a better understanding of how
the optimization work.
The case study was only subjected to vibrations which generated a more com-
plex problem. In order for the topology optimization to place material load cases
had to be defined. The solution to this was to approximate loads in the non-fixed
geometries. Depending of this approximation the result outcome may differ.
When a design engineer has gained experience the usage of the topology opti-
mization can be usable in some cases and less usable in others. If the load case is
relatively straight forward and the component is simple as a bracket for example.
Then an experienced engineer can explore and evaluate a component faster with-
out topology optimization, by using CATIA analysis and simply cutting material
and see where material is needed. While if a component has a complex geome-
try and load case, the topology optimization will perform results an experience
engineer has difficulties to generate.
The design paradox, from chapter 2.1.2, implies changes becomes more trou-
blesome and costly when project knowledge increases as the project proceeds.
48 Discussion
When connecting these statements with topology optimization one can say by set-
ting up the topology optimization problem does require substantial knowledge of
the product. When working with product development projects knowledge of the
component already exists, since Scania uses their method called lesson learning de-
scribed in chapter 4.1.1 to avoid similar problems and transfer knowledge between
employees. This results in that design engineers should be able to find key infor-
mation when starting the project making big changes with topology optimization
acceptable and cost efficient.
Shape optimization
Overall, the shape optimization did not give a large benefit for the specific case
study after the topology optimization. The main reason why was because of the
narrow design space from start due to surrounding components. The topology
optimization gave a very large impact of the result by suggesting an optimized
geometry based on the design space and load case. The shape optimization would
have been more beneficial if the design freedom was larger, giving the optimization
algorithm more to work with. The case study had the objective of minimizing the
weight, which resulted in a small improvement from topology optimization to the
shape optimization result. When optimizing a component with multiple objectives
counteracting each other the shape optimization is of much greater interest. Since
it gives the user the possibility to evaluate the different possibilities and trade-offs
for various disciplines such as CFD, FEM etc.
In order to successfully carry out shape optimization, a robust and flexible
parametric CAD model is required. In order to allow the optimization algorithm
to explore a large design space and generate relevant results. Creating a para-
metric CAD model with the properties mentioned can be time consuming if the
engineer lacks experience or if the component is complex to make parametric. For
example, if the component has geometric tolerances prohibiting changes in certain
dimensions or if the product consists of complex shapes.
Measuring the robustness of the parametric CAD model before carrying out
the shape optimization, is a good verification making sure the CAD model is
suitable for shape optimization. Note, the level of robustness is a measurement
the user must be somewhat cautious about. Robustness changes with the design
space, which means a parametric CAD model with poor flexibility, can have a high
robustness if the design space is small. It is therefore better to increase the design
space and if the robustness decreases solve the flaws with the CAD model instead
of decreasing the design space.
When developing the CAD model the manufacturability should be considered,
which will lead to abnormalities from the geometry suggested from the topology
optimization. This was a good learning from the authors who for the first concept
followed the topology optimization too strictly, which lead to a concept which was
not suitable for sand casting. Therefor, the authors defined what requirements the
component needed to be manufacturable. Before a new parametric CAD model
was developed. The extra iteration was not between disciplines but within one
discipline, which would have led to an increase in the duration if it would appear
later in the design process.
6.2 Result discussion 49
For the shape optimization more parameters could have been used to find
designs with even better performance. The trade-off between perfecting the results
and the time required applies for every project covering optimization. Since the
case study only had the objective to minimize the weight, the importance of each
parameter was rather obvious. This might not be the case if for instance a problem
with multiple objectives or a complex geometry is considered.
The optimization problem for the suction strainer was relatively straight for-
ward, however it requires skill and experience to define optimization problems
correct. By making the optimization simplified in the beginning, visualization of
the optimization framework gets easier which might increase the understanding.
The need of experience increases with the complexity of the optimization problem.
If several disciplines are involved the time duration will increase, making it more
inconvenient when several disciplines need to work in parallel.
The frequency response analysis required the excitation accelerations acting on
the suction strainer which was accessible at Scania. If this would not be the case,
simplifications could be made by approximating constant acceleration. However,
this would give a worse approximation.
The selected design from the optimization in Heeds did not have performance
values at the various constraint limits. The reasoning behind the selection was be-
cause there will always be imperfections in the manufacturing and the simulations,
leading to deviation from the performance in reality. Which might result in a final
product with lower performance than the constraint limits. Therefore, selection
of designs not too close to the constraint values are a good safety consideration.
Design verification
The validation phase is fundamental to ensure achievement of product require-
ments. The kind of validation and extension will vary depending on type of prod-
uct and uncertainties regarding the operation environment. The case study com-
ponent was verified with a more accurate frequency calculation model compared
with the one used in the optimization framework. The reason this verification
was enough for this component was the previous experience of similar products.
Physical testing was neglected due to the scope, but it would verify the component
even further.
The verification of the design was performed by the authors, the reason being
if an FE-expert was going to perform the calculations it would have taken several
weeks, since the thesis was not prioritized. Therefore, an FE-expert consulted and
directed the calculations with correct method and procedure. The final decision
was done by the FE-expert but based on the generated results from the authors.
This would not affect the trustworthiness of the results.
Depending on the product the calculation model used in the optimization
framework can vary, the type of verification and calculations model need to be
defined in the start-up phase of the project. If the calculation model is accurate
enough and experience exist of similar components, the verification step could be
excluded.
50 Discussion
Chapter 7
Conclusion
This chapter summarizes the conclusions from this master thesis, covering the
goals, purposes and answering the research questions stated in the introduction
chapter. The goal with the thesis was to develop a working process including design
optimization and simulation driven design to implement at Scania. The method
was tested on a case study, ensuring the most valuable steps was included to
successfully carry out design optimization. The purpose of the thesis was to show
the potential with design optimization in the development process and how it can
minimize iterations among disciplines. This was achieved by showing a new design
with a weight reduction of 53,5% compared to the original design with minimum
amount of discipline iterations. The weight reduction results in an increase of the
components performance and since the weight correlates directly to the material
volume needed it also results in an improvement regarding economical aspects.
In order to meet a sustainable future continuous development of each com-
ponent to maximize performance and minimize weight is needed to minimize the
global emissions. By reducing the weight for one component does not make a
substantial impact, but for each weight optimized component the sum of emission
savings increases. When the weight of the vehicle is decreased the load carrying
capacity increases, which enables companies to reduce the number of journeys
needed to move same amount of freight [1].
7.1 Research question 1

How can design optimization involving CAD and FEM aid the design process?
Design optimization has the main advantage of making sure a product has the
desired properties. A more traditional design process involves several iterations
where designers and FE-experts collaborates until the product fulfils all the re-
quirements. Since this process can be time consuming, the product tends to be
good enough but not optimized. This is the subject were the design optimization
excels, since it enables automatic design exploration which improves the perfor-
51
52 Conclusion
mance while also minimizing the time-consuming iterations between the disci-
plines.
Using the proposed working method and following the instructions step by step
will in the long run reduce the development time and generate more competitive
products. Initially there will be a threshold when developing parametric CAD
models, using topology optimization in Inspire and shape optimization in Heeds.
However, when the user has used the method for one product the gained experience
will be applicable on the next product. Since the design engineers at Scania
already uses FEM modules for simplified calculations in CATIA, this part will not
be different when using the design optimization. The last step in the method is
verification with more computationally expensive simulations by FE-experts, this
verification step are also used at Scania in their development method today. The
developed working method is therefore adaptable to Scanias current process, it will
minimize the iterations needed between the design engineer and the FE-experts
by providing a better initial design.

How can topology optimization support concept generation early in the design pro-
cess?
Topology optimization is very useful in the concept generation phase, it will show
the user where material is needed and where it is useless. This might seem obvious
for experienced engineers however this is not the case. The topology optimization
will generate geometry suggestions using FEM calculations which even an experi-
enced engineer has difficulties to generate.
The developed method during this master thesis has integrated topology op-
timization as a step in the design process which the user can follow. Where a
thorough description will provide engineers with no or brief experience in topol-
ogy optimization the useful steps to carry out a topology study of a component.
The main advantage of the topology optimization is that it provides the user de-
sign suggestions which a user probably not generate, based on FEM calculations
where the material is needed. One disadvantage with the topology optimization is
that the users need to be certain of the load cases acting on the component, since
it computes where material is needed based on the load case. Which means the
suggested design is not relevant if the input assumptions are incorrect. Another
disadvantage is if no fixed geometries are defined such as mounting points and con-
nection pipes, then several concepts and therefore several topology optimizations
needs to be performed. Lastly the CAD modelling of the geometrical boundaries
the topology optimization requires can be time consuming and difficult to define.
The main difference with the design process used at Scania today is in their
concept development projects, the concepts are evaluated based on ranking func-
tionalities and what the project members think is the best. And in their prod-
uct development projects, the product is modelled up in CATIA directly without
any proper concept evaluation. Whereas the topology optimized shape can be
evaluated and then modelled in CATIA where adjustments are made to make it
7.3 Research question 3 53
manufacturable. The concept is automatically generated without any biased ideas

of what the engineer thinks is best based on how a geometry looks.

What differences and similarities does the developed working process have compared
to a traditional development process at a truck manufacturer?
The main difference between the developed working process and a traditional
working process is the usage of design optimization and simulation driven design.
The developed method is applicable for similar products but probably not general
enough to apply on all kind of products and systems. The main reasons for this
non generality was the need to be specific in order for a design engineer to be
able to use it and for the authors to validate the method on a case study. The
method was developed with Ulrich and Eppingers design process and Scanias de-
sign process as foundations, enabling the possibility for combining parts from the
three methods into a customized method for product development if needed. The
developed working process contains the same steps of concept development, detail
design and testing and refinement which both Ulrich and Eppingers and Scanias
method contains. However, the contents within the steps are different due to the
focus on design optimization. The developed method lacks the step of system level
design which Ulrich and Eppingers method contains however the surrounding com-
ponents should be evaluated in Phase 2 when defining the geometrical boundaries
for the topology optimization step. Neither does the developed method contain
the step of production ramp-up. Mainly because it was not needed to validate the
impact when using the design optimization method, it does not need to change
when using design optimization and the step used by Scania was considered to be
complete. Since the sequence of activities are the same for the developed method,
an integration of it into the traditional working method can easily be done.
54 Conclusion
7.4 Future work

The developed method provides a guidance on how to include design optimization
in the product development process at Scania for design engineers. The method is
directly applicable for suction strainers and similar products, however the method
should probably be broader and more general in order to be applicable for all
kinds of products. The developed method should be tested on for example an oil-
pan or exhaust system to verify if the method is applicable on other components,
or if not what the main differences are and how this prohibits the results. The
method does not focus on multidisciplinary design optimization due to the selected
case study and should be covered to make the method broader. The case study
should then investigate all calculations from various disciplines and how they can
be implemented in the optimization framework.
The method should be tested on a component in a concept development project,
to pinpoint differences in using the method when the design boundaries are larger
and more diffuse. The method could also be tested on the same suction strainer
once again by another person, to see how it performs and suggest improvement
suggestions.
The developed case study results relied on the designers ability to implement
manufacturability in the development of the CAD-model, the method propose
manufacturing guidelines for sand casting since this was what the case study was
manufactured with. Those guidelines could be exchanged with a casting simulation
software implemented in the optimization framework, this solution might result in
products with a better manufacturability in aspects of cost and castability.
Bibliography
[1] Inge Vierth, Samuel Lindgren, and Hanna Lindgren. Vehicle weight, modal
split, and emissions-an ex-post analysis for Sweden. Sustainability, MDPI,
2018.
[2] Athanasious Papageorgiou, Mehdi Tarkian, Kristian Amadori, and Johan

Ölvander. Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Aerial Vehicles: A re-
view of Recent Advancements. International Journal of Aerospace Engineer-
ing, 2018.
[3] Scania CV AB. Product development process, 3:rd edition, STD4303, 2013.
[4] Timothy W. Simpson and Joaquim R. R. A. Martins. Multidisciplinary De-
sign Optimization for Complex Engineered Systems: Report From a National
Science Foundation Workshop. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2011.
[5] Karl T. Ulrich and Steven D. Eppinger. Product Design and Development:
Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill, 2012.
[6] David G. Ullman. The Mechanical Design Process. McGraw-Hill, 2013.
[7] M Lindahl and J Tigerström. En liten lärobok om miljöeffektanalys. Institu-
tionen för maskinteknik, Högskolan i Kalmar, Kalmar, 3rd edition, 2006.
[8] Dejan Lukic, Mijodrag Milosevic, Stevo Borojevic, Mica Durdec, Jovan Vuk-
man, and Aco Antic. Manufacturing cost estimation in the conceputal process
planning. Machine Design, 8(3), 2016.
[9] Jorge D. Camba, Manuel Contero, and Pedro Company. Parametric CAD
modeling: An analysis of strategies for design reusability. Computer-Aided
Design, 2016.
[10] Jianxin Jiao and Mitchell M. Tseng. Fundamentals of product family archi-
tecture. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 2000.
[11] Kristian Amadori, Mehdi Tarkian, Johan Ölvander, and Petter Krus. Flex-
ible and robust CAD models for design automation. Advanced Engineering
Informatics, 2012.
55
56 Bibliography
[12] P Sainter, K Oldham, A Larkin, A Murton, and R Brimble. Product knowl-

edge management within knowledge-based engineering systems. In Design
Engineering Technical Conference, 2000.
[13] C. B. Chapman and M. Pinfold. Design engineering - a need to rethink the
solution using knowledge based engineering. Knowledge-Based Systems, 1999.
[14] Wojciech Skarka. Application of MOKA methodology in generative model
creation using CATIA. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence,
2007.
[15] Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, Alan Morris, and Michel J.L. van Tooren.
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Supported by Knowledge Based Engi-
neering. 2015.
[16] Rajesh Kumar Arora. Optimization: Algorithms and applications. Taylor &
Francis Group, London, first edition, 2015.
[17] Marco Cavazzuti and M. Cavazzuti. Optimization Methods: From Theory to
Design. 2013.
[18] Razi Sheikholeslami and Saman Razavi. Progressive Latin Hypercube Sam-
pling: An efficient approach for robust sampling-based analysis of environ-
mental models. Environmental Modelling and Software, 2017.
[19] Joseph P Giesing and Jean-Francois Marie Barthelemy. A summary of indus-
try MDO applications and needs. AIAA White Paper, 1998.
[20] Mehdi Tarkian. Design Automation for Multidisciplinary Optimization - A
High Level CAD Template Approach. Technical report, Linköping University,
Department of Management and Engineering, Linköping, 2012.
[21] Donald E. Grierson. Pareto multi-criteria decision making. Advanced Engi-
neering Informatics, 2008.
[22] Peter W. Christensen and Anders Klarbring. An Introduction to Structual
Optimization. Springer Science, Linköping, first edition, 2009.
[23] Nicklas Strömberg. Nonlinear FEA and Design Optimization for Mechanical
Engineers. Jönköping Univesity, Jönköping, third edition, 2012.
[24] Tatipala Sravan, Nikshep R. Suddapalli, Pilthammar Johan, Sigvant Mats,
and Johansson Christian. Simulation-Driven Design Approach for Design
and Optimization of Blankholder. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series,
Karlskrona, 2017. Blekinge Institute of Technology.
[25] Ulf Sellgren. Simulation-Driven Design - Motives , Means, and Opportunities.
PhD thesis, KTH, 1999.
[26] Stefan Thomke and Takahiro Fujimoto. Effect of ‘front-loading’ problem-
solving on product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 2000.
Bibliography 57
[27] Singiresu S. Rao. The finite Element Method in Engineering. Elsevier Science
& Technology, fourth edition, 2005.
[28] G. R. Liu and S. S. Quek. Finite Element Method: A Practical Course.
Elsevier Science Ltd., first edition, 2003.
[29] Brian J Schwarz and Mark H Richardson. Experimental Modal Analysis.
Vibrant Technology Inc., 1999.
[30] Santosh Reddy Sama and Guha P. Manogharan. Sand Casting Design Rules.
Pennsylvania State Univesrity, 2017.
[31] ASM International. Casting design and performance. Materials Park, Ohio,
1:st edition, 2009.
[32] John Campbell. Complete casting Handbook. Elsevier Ltd., UK, first edition,
2011.
[33] C.W. Ammen. The complete handbook of sand casting. Tab Books, USA,
first edition, 1979.
[34] ViChi Luu. Methodology development for parametric CAD modeling in Ca-
tia V5 to aid simulation driven design using turbine volute as a case study.
Technical report, Department of Managemen and Engineering, Linköping,
2015.
[35] W.L. Robertson. Lubrication in practice. Taylor and Francis, 2:nd edition,
1984.
58 Bibliography

Fulltext03 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fulltext03 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linköping University | Department of Management and Engineering

Master’s Thesis 30 hp | Master of Science – Mechanical Engineering & Machine Design

Authors: Daniel Haraldsson

Supervisors: Johan Salomon, Scania CV AB

Keywords: Design optimization, Topology optimization, Simulation driven de-

Linköping, June, 2019

Daniel Haraldsson Marcus Svensson

4 Current situation analysis 23

3.1 Thesis methodology flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.1 Product development process at Scania AB . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

5.1 Developed method with the different phases. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.1 The optimization results for the selected design . . . . . . . . . . . 40

This master thesis is performed in collaboration with the engine department

1.2 Purpose and Goals

1.3 Research questions

2.1 Product development process

2.1.1 Design Process

Figure 2.1: Product development process [5].

2.1.2 Design Paradox

Figure 2.2: The design process paradox [7] .

Figure 2.3: Morphological transformation levels [11].

Figure 2.4 illustrates the topological transformation levels, which concerns

Figure 2.4: Topological transformation levels [11].

2.2.2 Knowledge based engineering

2.2.3 CAD model robustness and flexibility

shapes and configurations, making it possible to have a product family covered by

Figure 2.6: LHS example in 2D with N=4 [18].

2.3.1 Multidisciplinary design optimization

Figure 2.7: Illustration of a Pareto front [16].

2.3.2 Topology optimization

Figure 2.8: Illustration of a topology optimized beam [23].

2.4 Simulation driven design

2.4.1 Finite element method

Figure 2.9: Meshed triangular elements in a rectangular domain [28].

2.4.2 Frequency response

ambient excitation or internally generated forces. A structures level of deflection,

2.5 Sand casting

• Avoid sudden changes in section thickness, this occur unintended in junctions

However, there exist dimensioning rules to follow when designing components

Figure 2.11: Design requirements for sand casting.

Figure 3.1: Thesis methodology flow.

and case study requirements was also conducted.

3.1.1 Literature study

3.1.2 Study of current working method and case study

3.2 Development of working procedure

3.2.1 Method development

3.2.2 Case study validation of working process

Current situation analysis

4.1 Product Development method at Scania

4.1.1 General description of product development process

Figure 4.1: Product development process at Scania.

development is performed. An iterative approach between CAD, simulation and

4.1.2 Design engineer’s role in the process

4.2 The case study component- Suction strainer

4.2.1 Description of the component

is measurement of the oil-level which is accomplished by inserting an oil-stick in

Figure 4.3: The reference suction strainer developed at Scania.

4.2.2 Requirements on the suction strainer

5.1 Developed method results

Figure 5.1: Developed method with the different phases.

5.1.1 Phase 1: Start-up

5.1.2 Phase 2: Design requirements and concept generation