THE COMMERCIAL AND PERFORMANCE BENEFITS

OF APPLYING STRUCTURAL OPTIMISATION TO

MODERN ENGINEERING DESIGN
Martin Gambling
Managing Director, GRM
 Overview
• Background
• Simple Technical Justification
• Commercial Justification
• Examples of Current Methods
• Developing Technologies
• Summary

2
 Background
• Begin using optimisation in 1998
– DoE Pedestrian Safety
• Developed methods of optimisation for Crash
– DoE & RSM Techniques
– ESL coupled optimisation (Genesis & LS-DYNA)
• Founded GRM in 2003 and became reseller of
Vanderplaats R&D optimisation software
• Developed several optimisation methods & tools
– TruForm (Topology for Abaqus & SolidWorks)
– OptiAssist (Composite Laminate Optimisation Tools)

3
 GRM
Engineering Consultancy FE Analysis & Optimisation
Software
Optimisation UK & EU Sales
Design Engineering Technical Support
Structural Analysis Standard & Bespoke Training
Composites Software Development
 Simple Technical Justification
• Simple L-shape structure presented to 149 full and part-time
students
• Asked to choose ribs that would provide optimum stiffness/mass
ratio
• Topology optimisation performed using VR&D Genesis for
comparison

5
 Simple Technical Justification
• Optimum value achieved using Topology optimisation = 5.76
• 1 person achieved the optimum solution
• Mean value = 3.51

Optimum Solution

6
 Simple Technical Justification
• Composite box under bending
• Target to achieve 5mm displacement
with minimum number of plies
– Allowable plies = CF Cloth @ 0˚ or 45˚
– Laminates must be uniform on
• Sides
• Top & Bottom

Constant Laminate Constant Laminate

on Sides on Sides

7
 Simple Technical Justification
• Presented to experienced structural analysts, many with composite
material experience and optimised using VR&D Genesis
• 11% achieved optimum result
• Mean result 23% heavier than optimum
Better Worse
90 1.8
80 1.6
70 1.4
Optimum Solution

Frequency
60 1.2
50 1
40 0.8
30 0.6
20 0.4
10 0.2
0 0
0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3
Mass
Results NormDist

8
 Commercial Justification
• Commercial study undertaken by Meridian Lightweight Technologies
and Swansea Metropolitan University
• Meridian adopted CAE and optimisation led approach for several
years for their casting design

• Conceptual designs are delivered with reduced cost and timings of

approximately 75% when 3D CAD is not required and 20% when 3D
CAD is required
• Annual costs of CAE led studies ~ £133,200
• Annual costs of CAD led studies ~ £402,000

9
 Examples Applications of
Latest Methods
• The Reinforcement Derivation Method®
• RDM® for Automotive BIW Improvement
• RDM® for Casting Design

10
 The Reinforcement Derivation
Method® (RDM)
• RDM enables rapid identification of the
optimal load path identification and
reinforcement pattern development

• Process allows:
– Idealised load path identification
– Automatic optimisation of rib patterns

• User has control of candidate rib

patterns generated, ensuring
feasible designs are developed
 RDM®’s Application to
Automotive BIW Design
• Classical BIW Topology
Optimisation can be hard to
interpret.
• It also creates structures that are
not specific to a manufacturing
process, when an Automotive
BIW is generally defined by its
annual volumes.
• Can only ever be applied
before a platform/chassis
is defined.

BIW Topology
Optimisation Result
Automotive BIW Improvement
• An existing FE structure is
our starting point.

• The RDM® region is

automatically created in
Design Studio over the top
at user-defined limits.

• Genesis carries out an

optimisation for multiple
load-cases, removing
superfluous material and
only leaving the most
important parts.
 Interpreting the Results
• The RDM® result is ideal for identifying areas of weakness and
demonstrates the most effective solution.
• However, the results need to be interpreted into feasible changes
which will satisfy manufacturing and practicality constraints. 3
options apply:

• Joining (Spot-
welds) • Geometry
– No additional mass Modifications
– Minimal cost increase
– Minimal mass addition • Additional
– No extra tools or
processing
Components
– Largest stiffness
improvements
Geometry Updates
• Geometry change
in upper corner of
boot aperture to
reduce offset in
flow of load-paths.
– 0.06kg (0.01%)
mass increase
– 3.7Hz (13%)
increase in first
mode.
Cast Armrest Rib Pattern
Development
• Casting/Moulding model
designed without rib
pattern.
• The RDM® tool
automatically generates
candidate ribs based upon
user manufacturing &
design rules
• Genesis carries out an
optimisation for multiple
load-cases, eliminating ribs
not required to meet the
loading requirements
Developing Methods

17
 Topology Approach to
Automotive Crash Optimisation
Objective:
• To develop a method to carry out concept optimisation of a vehicle
structure in for multi load cases (MDO)

Benefits:
• Ability to handle thousands of design variables, opening methods
like Topology, Topometry and Topography to crash
• Ability to consider NVH load cases at the same time
• Due to coupled nature of simulation contacts are considered
• No need to create approximate load cases
• Automated management tool, runs in the background until
convergence

Automotive Topology optimisation using Genesis.

“Current methods and directions for the future”
Dr Tayeb Zeguer – Jaguar Land Rover Ltd.
 Example 1:
Non-Linear Crashworthiness Topometry
Extensive
thickening of Diagonal thickening
tunnel sides indicates need for
and bulkhead to bracing to prevent
reduce intrusion bellying of tunnel
from engine to sides and creating
bulkhead a load path out to
impact the sills (as shown)

Baseline Model Updated Model

Automotive Topology optimisation using Genesis.

“Current methods and directions for the future”
Dr Tayeb Zeguer – Jaguar Land Rover Ltd.
 Example 2:
Non Linear Methods – Head Impact
• Objective: To develop a method to carry out concept
topology optimisation of bonnet reinforcement
considering both static strength and dynamic pedestrian
requirements

Genesis Stiffness Load Case LS-DYNA Pedestrian Head Impact

Automotive Topology optimisation using Genesis.

“Current methods and directions for the future” 20
Dr Tayeb Zeguer – Jaguar Land Rover Ltd.
 Example 2:
Non Linear Methods – Head Impact
Topology Results Considering:
• Torsion, Bending, Rear Beam Stiffness, 20 x Head
Impacts
LS-DYNA HIC Vs Design Cycle
4000

3500

HIC From Simulation

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Topology Result for Each Design Cycle
Design Cycle

Automotive Topology optimisation using Genesis.

“Current methods and directions for the future”
Dr Tayeb Zeguer – Jaguar Land Rover Ltd.
 Summary
• Demonstrated both a technical and commercial
justification for optimisation
• Positively, industry seems to be more ready than
ever to embrace optimisation to meet design
needs
• Methods still developing at a rapid pace
• Some challenges still remain as optimisation
techniques continue to mature

22
THE COMMERCIAL AND PERFORMANCE BENEFITS
OF APPLYING STRUCTURAL OPTIMISATION TO
MODERN ENGINEERING DESIGN

Martin Gambling
Managing Director, GRM

Thank You!