Original Article

Proc IMechE Part C:

J Mechanical Engineering Science
Multiobjective sequential optimization for 0(0) 1–9
! IMechE 2015

a vehicle door using hybrid materials Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

tailor-welded structure DOI: 10.1177/0954406215607901

pic.sagepub.com

Jianguang Fang1,3, Yunkai Gao1, Guangyong Sun2,

Chengmin Xu1 and Qing Li3

Abstract
To achieve lightweight vehicle door, this paper presents a novel design with a hybrid material tailor-welded structure
(HMTWS). A multiobjective optimization procedure is adopted to generate a set of solutions, in which the door stiffness
and mass are taken as objective functions, and the material types and plate thicknesses are regarded as the discrete and
continuous design variables, respectively. To improve the optimization efficiency, Kriging algorithm is used for generating
surrogate model through a sequential sampling strategy. The non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II (NSGA-II) is
employed to perform the multiobjective optimization. It is found that for the same computational cost, the sequential
sampling strategy can yield more accurate optimization results than the conventional one-step sampling strategy. Most
importantly, HMTWS is found more competent than the traditional thin-walled configurations made of steel or other
lighter mono-materials for maximizing the usage of materials and stiffness of the vehicular door structures.

Keywords
Hybrid materials tailor-welded structure, tailor-welded blank, vehicular door, sequential sampling, multiobjective opti-
mization, Kriging model

Date received: 21 April 2015; accepted: 1 September 2015

attributable to their unique material properties, espe-

Introduction
Lightweight design of vehicle structures has become
an increasingly critical issue for energy concern and
environment conservation nowadays. To achieve a
lighter structure, the applications of proper tailor-
welded blanks (TWB) structures have proven rather
effective in automotive industry.1 Particular effort was
made to the design of TWB structure for an automo-
tive door using topology, shape, and size optimiza-
tions and/or design of experiments (DoE).2–5 In this
regard, Song and Park6 conducted a multidisciplinary
optimization (MDO) of a vehicular front door using a
TWB structure for the stiffness, natural frequency and
side impact crashworthiness criteria. Shi et al.7 devel-
oped a lightweight design for automotive front side
rails based on TWB configuration, in which the cri-
teria of strength, bending stiffness and torsion rigidity
of the TWB structure were taken into account in
order to determine the sheet thicknesses. Pan et al.8
proposed a metamodel-based lightweight design of B-
pillar with TWB structure subjected to the crash-
worthiness constraints in vehicular roof crush and
side impact.
Recently, there is increasing interest in aluminum
and magnesium alloys in automotive industry
cially lightweight. In this regard, Hosseini-Tehrani
and Nikahd9 found that a hybrid front side rail struc-
ture made of steel and aluminum had better charac-
teristics from the perspectives of passenger safety and
material efficiency. Logan10 developed a hybrid
material configuration by using magnesium and alu-
minum and achieved a more than 40% weight reduc-
tion whilst improving mechanical performance
significantly compared with conventional steel body-
in-white structure. Cui et al.11 proposed to design
lightweight vehicular body assemblies using multi-
material construction with low cost penalty, where
1
School of Automotive Studies, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacture for Vehicle
Body, Hunan University, Changsha, China
3
School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering, The
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
Corresponding author:
Yunkai Gao, School of Automotive Studies, Tongji University, Shanghai
201804, China.
Email: gaoyunkai@tongji.edu.cn
Guangyong Sun, State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and
Manufacture for Vehicle Body, Hunan University, Changsha 410082,
China.
Email: sgy800@126.com

Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 4, 2016

2 Proc IMechE Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science 0(0)
different materials, such as aluminum, magnesium,
steel and carbon fiber, were utilized as the potential
candidates for selection. Ince et al.12 investigated the
impact behaviors of the crash boxes made of steel and
aluminum materials experimentally and numerically,
and they then optimized the hybrid crash box to min-
imize the weight.
To achieve better combination of dissimilar mater-
ials, substantial efforts have been devoted to the devel-
opment of different tailored welding technologies. For
example, Schubert et al.13 exemplified the prototype
structures made of aluminum, titanium, magnesium
and their combinations by using laser beam joint tech-
nology. Merklein and Giera14 performed butt joints of
dissimilar steel and aluminum sheets with laser-
assisted friction stir welding. Shigematsu et al.15
explored TWBs comprised of aluminum and magne-
sium alloys, in which friction stir welding process was
employed. Sahin16 welded austenitic stainless steel
and aluminum materials using the friction welding
technology. Although there have been some studies
available on joining dissimilar materials, the investi-
gations into optimization of TWB structures with
hybrid materials in automotive industry have not
been well reported yet in literature.
Most (if not all) real-life engineering problems
are characterized by multiple conflicting require-
ments, between which an appropriate trade-off
should be made through multiobjective optimization
(MOO).17–19 Instead of seeking a unique optimal solu-
tion, MOO often generates a spectrum of solutions to
provide decision-makers with more insightful
information.
Figure 1. Loading conditions for door stiffness analyses. (a) Lower lateral, (b) upper lateral, and (c) vertical sag.
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 4, 2016
This paper takes into account both TWB configur-
ation and hybrid material usage, aiming to design a
novel hybrid materials tailor-welded structure
(namely, HMTWS) for vehicle door structure using
MOO, in which the Kriging surrogate technique and
sequential sampling-based optimization work
together to reduce the computational cost. The rest
of the paper is organized as follows. The following
section describes the finite element modeling of
TWB and hybrid materials tailor-welded structure
as well as defines the specific optimization problem.
The Design optimization methodology section 3
presents the methodology adopted in the door
design case, including the Non-dominated Sorting
Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II), Kriging approxima-
tion, and sequential sampling-based MOO. The next
section provides the results and discussions of the
TWB door structural design with hybrid materials.
Finally, some conclusions are drawn in the last
section.
Design optimization of a HMTWS vehi-
cle door
Numerical modeling and experimental validation of
the door structure19
As illustrated in Fang et al.,19 the finite element (FE)
models of a vehicle door, subjected to four different
load conditions, i.e. lower lateral, upper lateral, verti-
cal sag, and free–free boundary conditions, and the
first three are established in Figure 1. The FE models
are run in commercial code MSC.NASTRAN.20
Fang et al. 3

Table 1. Result comparison between FEA and physical tests.

Indicator Simulation Experiment Difference

Mass (m) 22.13 kg 22.20 kg 0.32%

Vertical sag (Dsag) 4.49 mm 4.53 mm 0.88%
Natural frequency (f) 40.45 Hz 40.71 Hz 0.64%
Upper lateral (Dupper) 2.86 mm 2.83 mm 1.06%
Lower lateral (Dlower) 1.67 mm 1.68 mm 0.60%

Table 1 provides the comparison between finite elem-

ent analysis (FEA) results and experimental data19 of
the conventional steel door structure. All the FE
results are found to agree very well with the experi-
mental results. Therefore, the FE models are con- Figure 2. Design variables.
sidered accurate for the subsequent design
optimization.

Table 2. Material properties for TWB door structure.

Optimization for a HMTWS vehicle door
Elastic Poisson’s Density
As a simple treatment on the weld line, the coincident
ID Material modulus (GPa) ratio (kg/m3)
node method8 is generally used to tie adjacent shell
elements around the weld zone of the two connecting 1 Steel 210 0.30 7850
sheet components. Note that although the welding 2 Aluminum 72 0.33 2720
connection between two disparate parts with different 3 Magnesium 45 0.37 1840
thicknesses and materials could play a significant role
in affecting local mechanical properties,1,21 it can be
modeled by a simplified approach without accounting follows
for local effects of welding properties because the 8  
blank size is much larger than the size of heat-affected >
> Min 8 m, Dsag
zones (HAZs) in practical applications.22,23 Thus, the >
>
>
> >
> f 540:45Hz
geometric details and specific material properties of < >
>
< upper 42:86mm
D
ð1Þ
the weld line can be approximately neglected in the >
> s:t: Dlower 41:67mm
>
> >
>
design model. >
> >
> 0:6mm4T i 43:0mmi ¼ 1, 2, . . . , , 5
: :
Although the partition of weld line of the inner Mj ¼ 1, 2, 3j ¼ 1, 2, . . . , , 5
door panel may be determined by topology optimiza-
tion,2,24 the locations of weld lines of the inner door
panel are assumed to be a given condition in this Design optimization methodology
study. Four thicknesses (T1, T2, T3, and T4) and the Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II
corresponding materials (M1, M2, M3, and M4) at dif-
ferent locations (see Figure 2) are taken as the design
(NSGA-II)
variables of the inner door panel. Besides, the thick- To conduct structural optimization, evolutionary
ness and material of the outer panel are also con- algorithms, such as genetic algorithm (GA), particle
sidered to be the design variables, i.e. T5 and M5 as swarm optimization (PSO)25–28 and artificial bee
in Figure 2. To achieve the lightweight design to a colony (ABC),29,30 have been implemented in engin-
large extent, each material can be selected from eering applications. To conduct multiobjective opti-
either aluminum or magnesium in addition to the con- mization defined in equation (1) that involves both
ventional steel in this study, indicating the discrete continuous and discrete design variables, we adopted
variables. The mechanical properties of these three the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II
materials are summarized in Table 2. (NSGA-II) algorithm as proposed by Deb et al.31
This study aims to simultaneously maximize the NSGA-II has proven rather effective for vehicular
vertical sag stiffness and to minimize the structural design problems.18,32 A better design set can be gen-
mass, while constraining other stiffness indices at cer- erated by using elitist non-dominated sorting in terms
tain levels. Thus, the multiobjective optimization of crowding distance after each generation. Finally,
problem for the door structure is formulated as a the optimal non-dominated set is obtained with con-
standard mathematical form in terms of mixed vari- vergence of the iteration to form the Pareto frontiers.
ables (i.e. continuous thickness variables and discrete In this study, binary tournament selection based on
material type variables), objectives and constraints as constraint-dominate definition31 was used to handle

Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 4, 2016

4 Proc IMechE Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science 0(0)

Table 3. Details of NSGA-II parameters used in this study. modeling starts with proper selection of sampling
points. In this paper, the optimal Latin Hypercube
NSGA-II Parameter name Value
sampling (OLHS)38 is implemented to generate initial
Population size 100 sample data.
Number of generations 500 As one commonly used surrogate approach,
Crossover probability 0.9 Kriging model was originally developed for mining
Mutation probability 0.1 and geo-statistical applications involving spatially
Distribution index for crossover 2.0
and temporally correlated data. The Kriging model
assumes the deterministic response of a system to be
Distribution index for mutation 20
a stochastic process function yðxÞ, consisting of a
regression model and a stochastic error39

yðxÞ ¼ fðxÞT b þ zðxÞ ð2Þ

Initialization of parent population (size N)
Initialize an empty archive
where b is a column vector with all the regression
Evaluate parent population parameters, b ¼ ½1 , 2 , . . . , , p T ; fðxÞ is the column
vector comprising basis functions, fðxÞ ¼
Rank population ½ f1 ðxÞ, f2 ðxÞ, . . . , , fp ðxÞT ; p denotes the number of
basis functions; zðxÞ represents a stochastic parameter
Genetic operators with zero mean, variance  2 , and nonzero covariance.
Selection

Crossover Sequential sampling-based multiobjective

Mutation
Evaluate child population
Elitism
Combine parent and child population and rank population
Copy N best individuals to parent population
Stopping criteria
No
Yes
Output the Pareto front sets
Figure 3. Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II
(NSGA-II).
the three constraints in equation (1). The NSGA-II
parameters for the door design here are chosen as in
Table 3, where the number of generation was deter-
mined by checking convergence19 and the others from
our previous experience.33,34 Figure 3 provides a flow-
chart for depicting the optimization procedure of the
NSGA-II algorithm.
Kriging approximation model
In many engineering designs, an optimization algo-
rithm is inefficient to be directly combined with
FEA model since enormous computational cost is
usually required during optimization iterations. As
an alternative, the metamodels or surrogate modeling
techniques have proven fairly effective to evaluation
performances.30,35–37 This approach establishes a
mathematical relationship of functional responses
with regard to design variables. In practice, surrogate
optimization
Although surrogate approximation is an effective
alternative to reducing simulation time, a key issue
is how to achieve an acceptable modeling accuracy
with a minimum number of training points. For this
reason, this paper adopts a sequential sampling strat-
egy to update the surrogate models in an iterative
fashion during optimization until the final model is
sufficiently accurate and the optimization process is
properly converged.40 The sequential sampling strat-
egy allows to take advantage of information gathered
from previous modeling iterations; thus, the metamo-
del can be improved gradually with newly generated
training points until the accuracy of the yielded meta-
model becomes satisfactory.41–43
In this study, the sequential sampling strategy fol-
lows a simple approach proposed by Biron et al.42 as
follows
Step 1:Generate the Kriging model based on the exist-
ing sampling data available and obtain the Pareto
solution to the multiobjective optimization (equa-
tion (1)).
Step 2:Select validation points disperse uniformly in
the Pareto frontier (11 points in this study);
Step 3:Conduct FEA for mechanical responses at each
of these validation points to calculate the con-
straints and objectives in equation (1);
Step 4:Calculate the error metrics of each validation
point by comparing the metamodeling values with
the corresponding FEA values according to equa-
tion (3);
Step 5:If the accuracy criteria are satisfied, terminate
the sequential sampling procedure and go to Step
6. Otherwise, add these validation points as new
sample points to the training point set and

Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 4, 2016

Fang et al. 5

20
m
f
15 Dsag
Dupper
Dlower

ε/%
10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Iteration NO.

Figure 5. Iteration history of the sequential objectives and

constraints.

7
Iteration 0
Iteration 22

5
Dsag / mm

Figure 4. Flowchart of the design for HMTWS door 2

structure.

1
continue the sequential update of Kriging model 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
m / kg
and optimization from Step 1.

The error metric can be defined as Figure 6. Comparison of Pareto frontiers before and after
iterations.
Xn  
" ¼ 1=n yi  y^ i =yi ð3Þ
i¼1

where yi and y^ i are the FEA value and the corres-
ponding surrogate approximate value, respectively,
and n is the number of the selected validation
points. In this study, the optimization is considered
converged adequately if the error metric is smaller
than 1% (i.e. " 5 1 %) for each objective and con-
straint function.
In summary, the proposed optimization design
procedure for the TWB door structure can be depicted
in the flowchart in Figure 4.
Results and discussions
Iteration history of sequential sampling procedure
In this study, the sample size of the initial DoE train-
ing points is 50. The initial errors were substantially
higher than a satisfactory level (" 5 1% here) and
thus the procedure of sequential sampling update
and optimization is adopted. During the entire
sequential process the convergence history is summar-
ized in Figure 5. It can be seen that after 22 iterations
of sequential sampling and optimization procedure,
the objectives and constraints converge adequately.
Specifically, the errors calculated with 11 validation
points gradually decrease though some fluctuations
are observed during the iterations. After the optimiza-
tion process, the errors converge to the predefined
level (" < 1%).
Figure 6 compares the Pareto frontiers before and
after the sequential sampling iterations (i.e. iterations
0 and 22, respectively). It is interesting to note that
there are large differences between them in terms of
objective ranges. After the sequential optimization the
Pareto frontier actually moves up and right in the
objective space. From both Figures 6 and 7, the
sequential procedure is necessary for generating an
accurate Pareto frontier in this case.

Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 4, 2016

6 Proc IMechE Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science 0(0)

Advantage of sequential sampling-based
optimization
To compare the sequential sampling based optimiza-
tion with the conventional one-step sampling-based
optimization, the corresponding Pareto frontiers are
also plotted together in Figure 7. The training points
in the one-step sampling strategy are generated using
OLHS, and the sample size is assigned the same as
that of the total sample points (i.e. 303 (¼
50 þ 2311) points) from the sequential sampling
procedure so that the two different sampling strategies
have the same computational cost in terms of the full
finite element analyses. Although a clear difference
can be observed in these two Pareto curves, it remains
unknown which is better and more realistic from
modeling accuracy perspective.
3.5
One-step Sampling based Optimization
Sequential Sampling based Optimization
3 Kriging prediction value. More importantly, com-
2.5
Dsag / mm
Figure 8 plots the accuracy comparison of the opti-
mal solutions generated from these two different sam-
pling strategies. Eleven optimal solutions on the
corresponding Pareto frontiers (Figure 7) are used
for the comparative analysis. It is evident that for
all the indicators (i.e. the objectives and constraints),
the sequential sampling based optimization generates
much more accurate solutions, in which all the mod-
eling errors based on sequential sampling strategy are
lower than 1% (as seen in Figure 5), whereas the
errors from the one-step sampling procedure are
much larger, especially for the vertical sag stiffness
whose error is up to around 5%, which is considered
unacceptable in this design case.
Optimization results
Tables 4–6 give the 11 optimal solutions and their
corresponding objectives and constraints of the
sequential sampling based optimization. It can
found that the individual error of each optimum is
fairly small compared to the FEA value with
pared to the original steel door structure (see Table
1), the novel HMTWS obtained from optimization
can improve the objectives (i.e. decrease the mass
and improve vertical sag stiffness), and simultan-

eously satisfy all these three stiffness constraints as

defined in equation (1).
2
Furthermore, the objectives conflict with each
other, i.e. the vertical sag stiffness performance deteri-
orates while the mass decreases and vice versa. In
1.5
engineering applications, the Pareto frontier provides
the decision-maker with insightful information to
guide the structural design of the TWB door. For
1
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
example, Tables 4–6 indicate that more light materials
m / kg (i.e. magnesium and aluminium) may be utilized if the
emphasis is placed on the lighweighting, while the
Figure 7. Accuracy comparison of the two sampling conventional steel material may be the main material
strategies. if the vertical sag stiffness is our design preference.

Advantage of using HMTWS

In order to further illustrate the advantages of
HMTWS over conventional single material structures,
we also conducted other three multiobjective opti-
mizations using three different mono-material struc-
tures. All thicknesses in the inner panel in Figure 3 are
considered the same for the conventional structures,
and the outer and inner panel thicknesses (i.e. Touter
and Tinner) are taken as design variables. Thus, the
optimization problems can be formulated as
8  
>
> Min 8 m, Dsag
>
>
< >
> f 540:45Hz
<
Dupper 42:86mm : ð4Þ
>
> s:t:
>
> >
> D 41:67mm
: : lower
Figure 8. Pareto frontier comparison of the two sampling 0:6mm4Touter , Tinner 43:0mm
strategies.

Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 4, 2016

Fang et al. 7

Table 4. Optimal solutions.

No. M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

1 3 1 1 1 1 3.00 2.45 3.00 3.00 3.00

2 2 1 1 1 1 1.67 2.09 3.00 3.00 2.40
3 2 1 1 1 2 1.96 2.89 3.00 3.00 3.00
4 3 2 1 1 3 1.34 3.00 3.00 2.80 2.82
5 3 2 1 1 3 1.42 3.00 3.00 2.30 1.93
6 3 2 1 2 3 1.61 2.60 3.00 3.00 2.45
7 3 2 1 3 3 2.47 2.91 3.00 2.80 1.62
8 3 2 1 3 3 2.91 3.00 2.85 2.23 1.73
9 3 2 1 3 3 2.70 3.00 2.63 2.26 1.81
10 3 2 1 3 3 3.00 3.00 2.32 2.34 1.84
11 3 2 2 3 3 2.81 3.00 3.00 2.65 2.07

Table 5. Objectives of the optimal solutions.

M Dsag

No. Kriging (kg) FEA (kg) Error (%) Kriging (mm) FEA (mm) Error (%)

1 46.21 46.18 0.06 1.39 1.39 0.17

2 41.63 41.62 0.01 1.40 1.40 0.02
3 33.27 33.19 0.22 1.42 1.42 0.15
4 27.62 27.60 0.06 1.46 1.46 0.28
5 24.02 24.04 0.08 1.54 1.54 0.02
6 19.28 19.31 0.14 1.59 1.59 0.01
7 16.62 16.61 0.09 1.71 1.71 0.06
8 16.17 16.18 0.05 1.88 1.88 0.04
9 16.03 16.03 0.02 2.05 2.04 0.04
10 15.85 15.86 0.03 2.33 2.33 0.02
11 15.07 15.05 0.12 2.67 2.68 0.03

Table 6. Constraints of the optimal solutions.

f Dupper Dlower
No.
Kriging (Hz) FEA (Hz) Error (%) Kriging (mm) FEA (mm) Error (%) Kriging (mm) FEA (mm) Error (%)

1 58.69 59.52 1.39 1.43 1.47 2.25 0.73 0.73 0.32

2 57.09 57.34 0.44 1.59 1.60 0.08 0.77 0.77 0.03
3 64.29 65.10 1.24 1.63 1.64 0.65 0.82 0.82 0.03
4 60.68 61.95 2.04 2.28 2.26 1.00 0.98 0.97 1.04
5 58.60 58.90 0.51 2.55 2.53 0.84 1.15 1.14 0.52
6 63.91 63.72 0.30 2.52 2.54 0.50 1.21 1.21 0.22
7 58.19 58.14 0.09 2.83 2.83 0.19 1.50 1.50 0.16
8 58.73 58.86 0.22 2.85 2.85 0.16 1.65 1.65 0.16
9 59.33 59.36 0.04 2.86 2.86 0.03 1.64 1.64 0.06
10 59.34 59.38 0.07 2.86 2.86 0.16 1.64 1.64 0.04
11 60.97 61.14 0.28 2.86 2.86 0.15 1.58 1.58 0.02

The Pareto frontiers of structures made of three either better sag stiffness can be obtained for the
mono-materials and HMTWS are displayed together same mass or lower mass can be obtained for
in Figure 9. Apparently, HMTWS is much more pro- the same sag stiffness. Besides, a simple substitution
mising than any of mono-material structures, i.e. of steel with lighter materials, such as magnesium or

Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 4, 2016

8 Proc IMechE Part C: J Mechanical Engineering Science 0(0)
4
3.305
3.5
3.300
3
Dsag / mm
2.5
3.295
15.915 15.920
2
1.5
1
15 20 25 30 35 40
m / kg
Figure 9. Pareto frontier comparison of HMTWS and differ-
ent single-material structures.
aluminum, can reduce the mass only within a very
narrow range of sag vertical stiffness as shown in
the Pareto space. In other words, compared with
steel, a magnesium door can reduce the mass only
when vertical sag deformation is around 3.3 mm,
and an aluminum door can do so only when vertical
sag deformation lies in between 2.4 and 2.7 mm.
It should be pointed out that in the sequential sam-
pling and modeling procedure, these 11 validation
points are selected from the current Pareto frontier
uniformly. Addition of these optimal validation
points to the training data set allows to particularly
enhance the modeling accuracy near the optimum
domain. Such a sampling bias is generally considered
positive to the design optimization and it enables a
more accurate final solution as shown in this study.
Note that although the results of this door design
case study demonstrated the potential of using
HMTWS, the extra economic issues during the form-
ing and joining process of fabricating the structures
should be also evaluated in the design. Nevertheless,
this is beyond the scope of this paper.
Concluding remarks
To achieve the lightweight design for a vehicle door,
we presented a novel hybrid material tailor-welded
structure (HMTWS) by taking into account both
tailor-welded blank (TWB) structure and hybrid use
of different materials. To make a proper trade-off
between the structural mass and vertical sag stiffness
subjected to static and dynamic stiffness constraints,
the multiobjective optimization (MOO) approach was
adopted. In this study, the thicknesses and material
types of the inner and outer panels were regarded as
the continuous and discrete variables, respectively.
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 4, 2016
The non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm II
(NSGA-II) was employed to generate Pareto fron-
tiers, integrated with the sequential sampling-based
metamodeling technique. From the optimization
results, we can come to the following specific
conclusions.
1. Compared with the conventional steel and other
single lighter material structures, the novel
15.925 15.930
HMTWS door with both TWB technique and
Steel hybrid materials can significantly improve the
Aluminium design objectives of vertical sag stiffness and light-
Magnesium weight, while satisfying all the other stiffness
HMTWS
constraints.
2. Compared with the one-step sampling strategy
that has the similar computational cost, the
45 50
sequential sampling strategy yielded more accur-
ate and realistic optimal solutions.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: The supports from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (51575172), the Hunan
Provincial Science Foundation of China (13JJ4036), the
Doctoral Fund of Ministry of Education of China
(20120161120005) are acknowledged. The first author
is a recipient of the doctoral scholarships from both
China Scholarship Council (CSC) and the University of
Sydney.
References
1. Xu FX, Sun GY, Li GY, et al. Experimental study on
crashworthiness of tailor-welded blank (twb) thin-walled
high-strength steel (hss) tubular structures. Thin-Wall
Struct 2014; 74: 12–27.
2. Shin JK, Lee KH, Song SI, et al. Automotive door design
with the ulsab concept using structural optimization.
Struct Multidiscipl Optimiz 2002; 23: 320–327.
3. Lee KH, Shin JK, Song SI, et al. Automotive door
design using structural optimization and design of
experiments. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile
Engineering 2003; 217: 855–865.
4. Lee KH and Kang DH. Structural optimization of an
automotive door using the kriging interpolation
method. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile
Engineering 2007; 221: 1525–1534.
5. Zhu P, Shi YL, Zhang KZ, et al. Optimum design of an
automotive inner door panel with a tailor-welded blank
structure. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile
Engineering 2008; 222: 1337–1348.
6. Song SI and Park GJ. Multidisciplinary optimization
of an automotive door with a tailored blank. Proc
IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering 2006; 220:
151–163.
Fang et al.
7. Shi YL, Zhu P, Shen LB, et al. Lightweight design of
automotive front side rails with twb concept. Thin-Wall
Struct 2007; 45: 8–14.
8. Pan F, Zhu P and Zhang Y. Metamodel-based light-
weight design of b-pillar with twb structure via support
vector regression. Comput Struct 2010; 88: 36–44.
9. Hosseini-Tehrani P and Nikahd M. Two materials s-
frame representation for improving crashworthiness
and lightening. Thin-Wall Struct 2006; 44: 407–414.
10. Logan S. A lightweight automobile body concept fea-
turing ultra-large, thin-wall structural magnesium cast-
ings. Magnes Technol 2007; 41–49.
11. Cui XT, Wang SX and Hu SJ. A method for optimal
design of automotive body assembly using multi-mate-
rial construction. Mater Des 2008; 29: 381–387.
12. Ince F, Turkmen HS, Mecitoglu Z, et al. A numer-
ical and experimental study on the impact behavior of
box structures. Procedia Engineering 2011; 10: 1736–
1741.
13. Schubert E, Klassen M, Zerner I, et al. Light-weight
structures produced by laser beam joining for future
applications in automobile and aerospace industry.
J Mater Process Technol 2001; 115: 2–8.
14. Merklein M and Giera A. Laser assisted friction stir
welding of drawable steel-aluminium tailored hybrids.
Int J Mater Form 2008; 1: 1299–1302.
15. Shigematsu I, Kwon YJ and Saito N. Dissimilar friction
stir welding for tailor-welded blanks of aluminum and
magnesium alloys. Mater Transact 2009; 50: 197–203.
16. Sahin M. Joining of stainless-steel and aluminium
materials by friction welding. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 2009; 41: 487–497.
17. Hou S, Li Q, Long S, et al. Multiobjective optimization
of multi-cell sections for the crashworthiness design. Int
J Impact Eng 2008; 35: 1355–1367.
18. Liao XT, Li Q, Yang XJ, et al. Multiobjective optimiza-
tion for crash safety design of vehicles using stepwise
regression model. Struct Multidiscipl Optimiz 2008; 35:
561–569.
19. Fang JG, Gao YK, Sun GY, et al. Multiobjective relia-
bility-based optimization for design of a vehicledoor.
Finite Element Anal Des 2013; 67: 13–21.
20. Nastran M. Linear static analysis user’s guide. USA:
MSC Software Inc, 2005.
21. Xu F, Sun G, Li G and Li Q. Experimental
investigation on high strength steel (hss) tailor-welded
blanks (twbs). J Mater Process Technol 2013; 214:
925–935.
22. Zhao KM, Chun BK and Lee JK. Finite element ana-
lysis of tailor-welded blanks. Finite Element Anal Des
2001; 37: 117–130.
23. Xu F, Sun G, Li G, et al. Crashworthiness design of
multi-component tailor-welded blank (twb) structures.
Struct Multidiscipl Optimiz 2013; 48: 653–667.
24. Yang R, Chuang CH, Che X, et al. New applications of
topology optimisation in automotive industry. Int J
Vehicle Des 2000; 23: 1–15.
25. Ebenhart R and Kennedy. Particle swarm optimization.
In: Proceeding IEEE inter conference on neural networks,
Perth, Australia, Piscat-away, 1995, pp.1942-1948.
Downloaded from pic.sagepub.com at Purdue University Libraries on June 4, 2016
9
26. Yıldız AR. A novel particle swarm optimization
approach for product design and manufacturing. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 2009; 40: 617–628.
27. Yildiz AR and Solanki KN. Multi-objective optimiza-
tion of vehicle crashworthiness using a new particle
swarm based approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
2012; 59: 367–376.
28. Yildiz AR. A new hybrid particle swarm optimization
approach for structural design optimization in the auto-
motive industry. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile
Engineering 2012; 226: 1340–1351.
29. Karaboga D. An idea based on honey bee swarm for
numerical optimization. In: Technical report-tr06,
Erciyes University, 2005.
30. Fang J, Gao Y, Sun G, et al. Optimization of spot-
welded joints combined artificial bee colony algorithm
with sequential kriging optimization. Adv Mech Eng
2014; 6: 573694.
31. Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, et al. A fast and elitist
multiobjective genetic algorithm: Nsga-ii. IEEE
Transact Evol Computat 2002; 6: 182–197.
32. Fu Y, Yang RJ and Yeh I. A genetic algorithm for
optimal design of an inflatable knee bolster. Struct
Multidiscipl Optimiz 2004; 26: 264–271.
33. Liao X, Li Q, Yang X, et al. A two-stage multi-objective
optimisation of vehicle crashworthiness under frontal
impact. Int J Crashworthiness 2008; 13: 279–288.
34. Gu X, Sun G, Li G, et al. A comparative study on
multiobjective reliable and robust optimization for
crashworthiness design of vehicle structure. Struct
Multidiscipl Optimiz 2013; 48: 669–684.
35. Hou S, Han X, Sun G, et al. Multiobjective optimiza-
tion for tapered circular tubes. Thin-Wall Struct 2011;
49: 855–863.
36. Fang J, Gao Y, Sun G, et al. Crashworthiness design of
foam-filled bitubal structures with uncertainty. Int J
Non-Linear Mech 2014; 67: 120–132.
37. Fang J, Gao Y, Sun G, et al. Parametric analysis and
multiobjective optimization for functionally graded
foam-filled thin-wall tube under lateral impact.
Computat Mater Sci 2014; 90: 265–275.
38. Park JS. Optimal latin-hypercube designs for computer
experiments. J Stat Plan Infer 1994; 39: 95–111.
39. Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell T, et al. Design and ana-
lysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 1989; 4:
409–423.
40. Sun G, Song X, Baek S, et al. Robust optimization of
foam-filled thin-walled structure based on sequential
kriging metamodel. Struct Multidiscipl Optimiz 2014;
49: 897–913.
41. Bonte MHA, Fourment L, Do TT, et al. Optimization
of forging processes using finite element simulations.
Struct Multidiscipl Optimizat 2010; 42: 797–810.
42. Biron G, Vadean A and Tudose L. Optimal design of
interference fit assemblies subjected to fatigue loads.
Struct Multidiscipl Optimizat 2013; 47: 441–451.
43. Kitayama S, Srirat J, Arakawa M, et al. Sequential
approximate multi-objective optimization using radial
basis function network. Struct Multidiscipl Optimizat
2013; 48: 501–515.