Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 45 (2009) 456 -- 462

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Finite Elements in Analysis and Design

journal homepage: w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / f i n e l

Simplified modelling of joints and beam-like structures for BIW optimization in a

concept phase of the vehicle design process
D. Mundo a,∗ , R. Hadjit b , S. Donders b , M. Brughmans b , P. Mas b , W. Desmet c
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Calabria, 87036 Arcavacata di Rende, Italy
b
LMS International, Interleuvenlaan 68, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Division PMA, B-3001, Leuven, Belgium

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The paper proposes an engineering approach for the replacement of beam-like structures and joints in
Received 3 March 2008 a vehicle model. The final goal is to provide the designer with an effective methodology for creating a
Received in revised form 3 December 2008 concept model of such automotive components, so that an NVH optimization of the body in white (BIW)
Accepted 10 December 2008
can be performed at the earliest phases of the vehicle design process. The proposed replacement method-
Available online 7 February 2009
ology is based on the reduced beam and joint modelling approach, which involves a geometric analysis of
Keywords:
beam-member cross-sections and a static analysis of joints. The first analysis aims at identifying the beam
Beam center nodes and computing the equivalent beam properties. The second analysis produces a simplified
Joint model of a joint that connects three or more beam-members through a static reduction of the detailed
Conceptual design joint FE model.
NVH In order to validate the proposed approach, an industrial case-study is presented, where beams and joints
Vehicle body of the upper region of a vehicle's BIW are replaced by simplified models. Two static load-cases are defined
to compare the original and the simplified model by evaluating the stiffness of the full vehicle under
torsion and bending in accordance with the standards used by automotive original equipment manufac-
turer (OEM) companies. A dynamic comparison between the two models, based on global frequencies
and modal shapes of the full vehicle, is presented as well.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the parameterization of models difficult and time-consuming [1]. As

In highly competitive markets, design engineers face the chal-
lenging problem of developing products, which must fulfil complex
and even conflicting design criteria. In the field of automotive indus-
try, the task of improving various functional performance attributes,
such as safety, noise and vibrations, ecological impact etc., is made
more and more difficult by the necessity of launching new products
or renewing existing models in an increasingly short time frame. In
order to make the complexity of the design criteria compatible with
the necessity of reducing the time-to-market, predictive computer-
aided engineering (CAE) methods must be already available in the
early phases of the design process.
Traditional computer-aided design (CAD) software packages have
a very limited applicability in early design stages, since they require
detailed data of the vehicle. Besides, they are based on the traditional
definition of geometry via points, lines and surfaces, thus making
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +39 984 494673.
E-mail address: d.mundo@unical.it (D. Mundo).
a result, the experience of engineers is a key factor for the selection
of proper structural concepts at the beginning of the design process.
Recently, research efforts have been spent to enable designers to
use CAE as a support in the conceptual phase of the design process,
when functional performance targets are defined, while detailed ge-
ometrical data are still unavailable. The objective is to improve the
initial CAD design, hence shortening the design cycle [2–5].
In the field of NVH and crashworthiness prediction, several con-
cept modelling approaches have been proposed by researchers. They
can be classified into three categories: methods based on predecessor
FE models, methods from scratch, and methods concurrent with CAD.
Methods belonging to the first category, which includes mesh
morphing and concept modification approaches [6–8], are used to de-
sign a variant or incremental improvement of an existing vehicle
model. By using a predecessor FE model, early CAE predictions can
be performed to identify issues and to include possible countermea-
sures already in the initial CAD design.
If a new car concept is to be designed and a predecessor FE model
is not available, methods “from scratch” can be used to support the
design process during the early design phases. Two classes of meth-
ods are distinguished. The first class is topology design optimization,

0168-874X/$ - see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.finel.2008.12.003
 D. Mundo et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 45 (2009) 456 -- 462
where material is eliminated from an initial admissible design
domain in order to make the structure lighter without violating
functional requirements [9–11]. Performance based on the opti-
mized topological information is usually improved by optimizing
shape and size. The second class of methods “from scratch”, known
as functional layout design, aims at building a simplified concept
model, consisting of beams, joints and panels, which represents the
functional layout and which is used to predict the performance of the
model [12].
Methods concurrent with CAD are CAE tools available in an early
phase of the design process. These methods provide simulation re-
sults as soon as component-level CAD models are available, while
vehicle-level models are still unavailable [13].
Among the methods based on predecessor FE models, the
“reduced beam and joint modelling” approach has been recently
proposed by Donders et al. [14] to improve the fundamental NVH
behavior of a vehicle BIW. The proposed approach creates a reduced
modal model at the beam center nodes, to which beam elements
and joint superelements can be added, thus enabling a concept
modification of the body and an accurate prediction of dynamic
NVH performance. The commercial software program LMS Virtual
Lab. [15] includes a user-friendly implementation of the reduced
beam and joint modelling approach. Design engineers can define a
beam and joint layout, calculate the body reduced modal model and
perform efficient design modification and optimization of the body
beam-like sections and joint connections.
In this paper, the reduced beam and joint modelling approach is
employed to replace beams and joints of the predecessor FE model
with concept models. After identifying the beam center nodes as
the geometric center of the cross-sections, the equivalent beam
properties are calculated through a geometric analysis and applied
to simplified beam elements that connect the beam center nodes.
The stiffness parameters of thin-walled beams, as computed by
means of a geometric approach, need a correction that takes into
account section variations and discontinuities (holes, spot-welds,
stiffeners) [16,17]. For this purpose, proper correction factors are
defined and estimated for each beam-member by means of an
iterative model updating procedure. In a next step, a simplified
model of joints, connecting two or more beam-members, is then
obtained through a static reduction of the detailed FE model of the
joint.
In order to validate the proposed approach, a case-study is pre-
sented, in which beams and joints of the upper region of a vehicle
BIW are replaced by simplified models. A static comparison between
the original and the simplified model is performed by evaluating the
static stiffness of the full FE vehicle BIW under torsion and bend-
ing. A dynamic comparison between the two models, based on the
global frequencies and mode shapes of the full vehicle, is performed
as well.
2. The reduced beam and joint modelling approach
The reduced beam and joint modelling approach is proposed by
Donders et al. [14] for efficient modification of beams and joints
of a vehicle, based on the reduced modal model of the nominal
vehicle. The basic idea is to identify the so-called beam center nodes,
and to create a reduced modal model at these beam center nodes.
Subsequently, the mass and stiffness properties of the structure are
modified by connecting the beam center nodes through simple beam
elements and joint superelements. In this paper, simplified beam
and joint models are created to completely replace the original FE
model (without the necessity of the reduced modal model), so that
an optimization of the vehicle can be performed in the early phase
of conceptual design, when a detailed model of the structure is not
yet available.
457
yi z
zi
xi
x y
B.C.N.
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of a beam end-section.
In this section, an overview of the procedure that is used to es-
timate the mass and stiffness properties of the simplified beam and
joint models is provided.
2.1. Beam property estimation
Beam-like members, i.e. structures for which the dimension in
the longitudinal direction is much larger than the characteristic di-
mension of the cross-sectional area, are the primary structural ele-
ments in a BIW. They strongly influence the natural frequencies of
the vehicle body.
In the FE model of a vehicle, beam-like members are typically
thin-walled structures, formed by shell elements.
In order to replace the detailed mesh of such components by sim-
plified beam elements, a number of beam cross-sections are consid-
ered and the equivalent beam properties are computed for each of
them. For this purpose the following procedure is implemented:
(1) a cut node is selected in the region of the beam-member where
an intersection plane is to be applied,
(2) an axis system that defines the approximate beam direction and
intersection plane is defined,
(3) the primary member's shell elements along the intersection
plane are cut and analyzed to locate the beam center node in
the geometric center of the original cross-section,
(4) the following equivalent beam properties w.r.t. the beam center
node are computed:
• A: cross-section area;
• Ixx: torsional moment of inertia;
• Iyy, Izz: moments of inertia of area; and
• Iyz: product of inertia of area.
Here, x denotes the beam direction, and the y–z plane is the
intersection plane, as shown in Fig. 1. For an arbitrary cross-
section, the calculation of the properties can be implemented
by computing the equivalent beam properties for each shell
element that belongs to the cross-section, according to the
local principal axes (xi , yi , zi ). Then, a transformation from
the local axis system to that of the intersection plane (x, y, z)
is performed. Finally, a summation over all shell elements is
performed to find the global properties for that cross-section.
(5) the beam center node is connected to the surrounding mesh by
means of interpolation relations (Nastran superelements RBE3).
These relations are defined between each beam center node and
a particular node group, formed by all nodes of the shell ele-
ments that are defined at the intersection plane at the consid-
ered cross-section.
Typically, along each primary beam-member a number of intersec-
tion planes are defined, for which equivalent beam properties are
computed. The entire beam member can then be represented as a
series of linear beam elements taken from a standard FE library. An
example is shown in Fig. 2, where both the original detailed and the
simplified FE model of B-pillars of a vehicle BIW are represented.
458 D. Mundo et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 45 (2009) 456 -- 462
Fig. 2. (a) Original and (b) conceptual models of a BIW B-pillars.
Fig. 3. Original FE model of a joint group, extracted from the vehicle model for
static reduction.
2.2. Joint property estimation
Complementary to the simplified beam modelling approach de-
scribed in Section 2.1, a procedure for simplifying joints connecting
beam-like structural members in a vehicle body is proposed. After
evaluating the equivalent beam properties of all beam-members con-
nected by the joint, a joint group is created that includes the inter-
polation elements to the beam center nodes at the joint ends [15]. In
Fig. 3 an example is shown, in which the mesh of the joint that con-
nects the left B-pillar of the vehicle to the roof-rails is extracted from
the rest of the vehicle body. For this isolated joint model, Guyan re-
duction is used to calculate a small-sized representation of the joint.
Guyan reduction [18], also known as static condensation, is a
method to reduce the finite element stiffness and mass matrices
of structures. For an arbitrary structure, the basic static FE matrix
equation is given by
K ·x=F (1)
where K is the stiffness matrix, F and x are the force and the dis-
placement vectors, respectively. By identifying nt boundary degrees
of freedom (DOFs), which must be retained in the solution, and no
internal DOFs, which are to be removed by static condensation, the
system of Eq. (1) can be partitioned as follows:
     
Koo Kot x F
· o = o (2)
Kto Ktt xt Ft
where subscripts t and o are used to designate the boundary and the
internal DOFs, respectively. From the first line of Eq. (2), the internal
displacement vector can be determined as
−1
xo = Koo (Fo − Kot · xt ) (3)
−1
By introducing the static reduction matrix Got =−Koo Kot and substi-
tuting Eq. (3) into the second line of Eq. (2), the following equation
is obtained:
Ktt,red · xt = Ft,red (4)
T F is the reduced loading vector, while K
where Ft,red = Ft + Got o tt,red =
Kto Got + Ktt is the nt x nt reduced stiffness matrix. Physically this
matrix represents the stiffness values between each pair of boundary
DOFs. This way, the stiffness of the structure has been condensed to
the boundary DOFs.
The same transformation can be used to condense the mass ma-
trix on the boundary DOFs, to obtain a reduced system also for dy-
namic analyses. However, while exact for the stiffness matrix, the
Guyan reduction is an approximation for the mass matrix. By re-
ducing the mass matrix, it is assumed for the considered structure
that inertia forces on internal DOFs are less important than elastic
forces transmitted by the boundary DOFs. This is true for very stiff
components or in cases where local dynamic effects can be ignored.
Therefore, the accuracy of the result is case dependent.
For each isolated joint model, a Guyan reduction is performed,
with the DOF of the joint's end nodes (i.e. beam center nodes) as
the boundary DOFs to be retained in the solution. The FE model
of the joint is thus reduced to a small superelement, consisting of
a reduced stiffness and mass matrix. For typical automotive joints,
the stiffness relations between the end points of the joint have a
much stronger influence on the global body behavior than the exact
distribution of mass on the joint. For this reason, Guyan reduction
of the joint structure to its joint end-nodes (i.e. beam center nodes)
seems an appropriate choice to create a small-sized representation
of the actual joint [14].
 D. Mundo et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 45 (2009) 456 -- 462 459

3. Case-study

3.1. Model description

Fig. 4 shows an industrial BIW model, consisting of 123 panels

that are modelled with linear shell elements. The constituent panels
are assembled by means of about 3000 spot-weld connections [19],
which are represented in the FE model by means of Hexa solid ele-
ments [15]. In order to validate the reduced beam and joint modelling
approach, as described in the previous section, a group of beam-like
structures, labelled in Fig. 4 as B1 . . . B5 , are selected and replaced by
equivalent simple beams.
In total, 10 beams are selected for the replacement, namely the
A and B-pillars and the longitudinal and transversal roof-rails. Four
joints, symmetrically arranged w.r.t. the longitudinal plane of the
vehicle, connecting these beams are labelled in Fig. 4 as J1 , J2 , J3
and J4, are statically reduced. Fig. 5 shows the simplified BIW model,
where the detailed shell models of the beam-like structures have
been replaced by simple two-node beam elements. The number
and length have been selected based on the geometric characteris-
tics (i.e. length and cross-section variations) of the original mesh.
The original FE joint models have been removed from the BIW FE
model, and the joints have been represented by static superelements
(i.e., the equivalent mass and stiffness matrices of each joint).

3.2. Static comparison

To validate the proposed approach, static and dynamic indica-

tors of the full vehicle performance are considered. These indicators
Fig. 6. Static load-cases defined to estimate the BIW stiffness under (a) torsion and
are evaluated for both the original BIW model and the simplified
(b) bending.
(or conceptual) model. To assess the static behavior, the torsional
and bending stiffness of the BIW are calculated. The body is clamped
at the rear suspensions, while static vertical forces are applied at the
front suspensions (points A and B in Fig. 6). Based on the estimation
of the vertical displacements vA and vB at the excitation points, the
bending and torsion deflection angles b and t are determined as
 
v + vB
b = arctan A (5)
2L
 
v − vB
t = arctan A (6)
W

where L and W denote the wheelbase and the width of the car,
respectively, measured at the front suspension points.
Based on the torsional deflection t , the torsional stiffness Kt is
determined as
M
Kt = (7)
Fig. 4. Original FE model of the BIW. t
where M = F · W is the moment applied at the front suspension,
resulting from two oppositely oriented forces F.
Similarly, the bending stiffness Kb is determined from b as

Fig. 5. Conceptual FE model of the BIW. The original meshes of 10 beam-members
and four joints are replaced by simplified beam elements and joint superelements.
2FL
Kb = (8)
b
where F is the vertical force applied at the frontal suspension loca-
tion.
The stiffness properties of the BIW are estimated for both the
models in Figs. 4 and 5, by performing a static FE analysis (Nastran-
Sol 101) with both models. In Table 1, the torsional and bending
stiffness indicators are listed, as well as the approximation involved
by the simplified model w.r.t. the original model. The results show
that the bending stiffness of the original vehicle model is accurately
predicted by the model with the replaced simplified beams and
joints, while a significant discrepancy between the original and the
460 D. Mundo et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 45 (2009) 456 -- 462

simplified models is obtained for torsion. In the latter case, the stiff- free–free conditions is performed, the first six modes are rigid body
ness of the full vehicle body is overestimated by 10.15%, which sug- modes. From mode seven onwards, the natural modes are found. The
gests that the definition of correction factors is indeed required. This original model of the vehicle body has 10 non-rigid modes in the
will be evaluated and assessed in Section 4. frequency range of interest. Only five out of them are global modes
of the BIW, since the remaining modes involve a local deformation
3.3. Dynamic comparison of the structure. The eigenfrequency values of the five global modes
are used as dynamic indicators to evaluate the correlation between
In order to compare the simplified and the original model in terms the original and the conceptual BIW model. In Table 2, the global
of dynamic behavior, the frequencies and mode shapes of the BIW frequencies of both models are listed. Also the dynamic comparison
are estimated through an FE modal analysis (Nastran-Sol 103) in the shows that the conceptual model overestimates the stiffness of the
low-frequency range of 0–50 Hz. When a normal mode analysis in full structure. It can be seen that the natural frequencies are shifted
upwards by an amount in the range 0.15–6.70%.
A further comparison between the two models is also performed
Table 1 in terms of modal shapes by using the modal assurance criterion
Torsional and bending stiffness of the original and of the conceptual FE model.
(MAC) [20]. Let V1 and V2 be the modal matrices of the original and
Torsion Bending the modified model, respectively. The correlation index between two
generic modes {V1 }i belonging to the first matrix and {V2 }j belonging
Original model Concept model Original model Concept model
to the second matrix can be evaluated as [21]
Stiffness
(Nm/rad) 1.456E+05 1.603E+05 5.013E+04 5.036E+04 ({V1 }H
i
{V2 }j )2
 (%) – 10.15 – 0.45 MACi,j = (9)
({V1 }i {V1 }j )({V2 }H
H
i
{V2 }j )

where the superscript H denotes the conjugate transposed of a

Table 2 vector.
Dynamic comparison between the original and the conceptual FE model in terms Fig. 7 shows the resulting MAC matrix, evaluated by using all
of global frequencies and modal shapes.
the nodes that are shared by the original and the simplified model.
Mode n Modal shape Frequency (Hz) MACii The diagonal MAC values, which are listed in Table 2, show that the
concept model accurately approximates the detailed model in terms
Original model Concept model  (%)
of mode shapes.
1 1st Torsion 18.22 19.28 5.82 0.99
2 2nd Torsion 26.13 27.88 6.70 0.968 4. Correction factors
3 Lateral bending 39.36 40.01 1.65 0.989
4 Vertical bending 41.73 42.12 0.93 0.989
Based on the results of the previous static and dynamic analyses,
5 Mixed torsion+bending 47.85 47.92 0.15 0.99
it can be concluded that the stiffness parameters of thin-walled

Matrix_Graph1 (Model Assurance Criterion) >1

0.9

0.8
1

0.8 0.7

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.5

0.2 0.4

0 0.3
Id 10-47.9
Id 7-47.9

Id 8-41.7
Id 5-42.0

Id 7-39.4
Id 4-40.0

0.2
Id 3-26.1
Id 2-27.9

Id 1-19.3

Id 1-18.2

ues o del
val nal m
Mod Discrete cre
t e
rigi
0.1
e Se v
t.2 - alues Dis .1 - O
t
unco Se
rrec
ted M ode <0

Fig. 7. MAC matrix between the original and the conceptual model.
 D. Mundo et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 45 (2009) 456 -- 462 461

Fig. 8. Virtual test-case defined to estimate the correction factors.

beams, as computed by means of a geometric approach, involve an Fig. 9. History of the goal function as defined in Eq. (13).
overestimation of the global stiffness of the vehicle. Such a conclu-
sion is in line with the results reported in other research papers
[16,17], which suggest a correction of the beam properties in order Table 3
to take into account section variations and discontinuities (holes, Optimal values of the correction factors for bending stiffness parameters.
spot-welds, stiffeners). For this reason, proper correction factors are Correction factors
defined as the ratio between the actual value of each stiffness pa-
rameter and the nominal value. For instance, according to such a B1 B2 B3 B4 B5

definition, the equivalent bending stiffness parameters of a beam Ixx 0.260 0.157 0.311 0.007 0.001
end-section are given by Iyy 0.933 0.391 0.771 0.079 0.011
Izz 0.761 0.455 0.893 0.192 0.219
Iyy = cyy · Iyy,nom (10) Ixy 0.809 0.371 0.812 0.113 0.001

Izz = czz · Izz,nom (10 )

where Iyy,nom and Izz,nom are the stiffness parameters computed
through the geometric approach described in Section 2.1, while cyy
and czz are the corresponding correction factors.
A set of correction factors is then defined for each beam-member
and estimated by means of a model updating procedure, which is
described in the following sub-section.
4.1. Estimation of correction factors
In order to estimate proper correction factors by means of a model
updating procedure, the virtual test-case represented in Fig. 8 is used.
The vehicle body is clamped at the rear suspensions (points C and
D) and statically loaded at the front suspensions (points A and B).
The displacements of 10 control points Pi , (i = 1, . . . ,10) are estimated
and used to compare the static stiffness of the original model, used
as reference, and the simplified model. The following function is
defined as a measure of the difference between the simplified and
the original model in terms of static response to the load-case shown
in the Fig. 8
where the inequality constraint ensures that the actual set of cor-
rection factors defines a feasible solution.
An optimal and feasible solution can be searched for by means of
a genetic algorithm [22]. For this purpose, the constrained problem
defined above is transformed into an unconstrained problem by us-
ing a penalty formulation: a large cost-value is added to the objec-
tive function in case that the constraint is violated. Such a procedure
ensures that an unfeasible solution has a larger goal function than
any feasible solution. This enables the convergence of the algorithm
towards a global optimum, which fulfils all constraints. The original
constrained optimization problem is then replaced by the following
unconstrained problem:
Minimize f (c1 , . . . , cN ) + k(c1 , . . . , cN ) · C (13)
where C is a penalty cost-value, while k(c1 , . . . , cN ) is a Boolean func-
tion defined as

0 if I1 ∗ I2 > I12
k(c1 , . . . , cN ) = (14)
1 otherwise

  yi,A − yi,R   zi,A − zi,R  The optimization problem is solved by a genetic algorithm imple-
f (c1 , . . . , cN ) =  +  (11)
 y   z  mented in Matlab. In Fig. 9 the history of the goal function defined
i,R i,R
i
by Eq. (13) is shown.
where c1 , . . . , cN are the actual values of the correction factors, while Table 3 lists the optimal values of the correction factors evalu-
subscripts A and R refer to the actual and the reference model, re- ated for both bending stiffness-parameters of all the replaced beam-
spectively. members.
An optimization problem can be defined as the search for the The geometric approach used to compute the equivalent beam
vector of correction factors that minimizes the difference between parameters considers each cross-section as closed, even for the roof
the two models, that is cross members. This is the main reason why correction factors are
quite low (significantly lower than one), especially for these mem-
Minimize f (c1 , . . . , cN ) bers. Roof cross members, in fact, are formed by two panels con-
Subject to I1 ∗ I2 > I12 for all beams (12) nected to each other by glue connections, which are much more
462 D. Mundo et al. / Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 45 (2009) 456 -- 462

Table 4 a replacement scenario. Naturally, once the replacement model has

Torsional and bending stiffness of the original and the final conceptual FE model.
been established, a fast concept optimization is easily achievable.
Torsion Bending Individual beam properties can be modified, which is not possible
(or easily achievable) on the complex-shaped cross-sections of the
Original Final concept Original Final concept
model model model model actual shell mesh.

Stiffness
Acknowledgment
(Nm/rad) 1.456E+05 1.462E+05 5.013E+04 5.024E+04
 (%) – 0.46 – 0.22
The work presented in this paper has been performed in
the framework of the research project “Analysis Leads Design-
Table 5 Frontloading Digital Functional Performance Engineering”, which is
Dynamic comparison between the original and the final conceptual FE model in supported by I.W.T. Vlaanderen.
terms of global frequencies and modal shapes.

Mode n Frequency (Hz) MACii References

Original model Final concept model  (%)
1 18.22 18.22 0.01
2 26.13 26.09 −0.15
3 39.36 39.31 −0.12
4 41.73 41.99 0.62
5 47.85 47.52 −0.68
flexible than spot-weld connections. Therefore, the stiffness overes-
timation involved by the geometric approach is much bigger than
for the other beam-members.
Finally, Tables 4 and 5 provide a comparison between the original
model and the simplified model, corrected by the optimal factors,
in terms of static stiffness, natural frequencies and modal shapes.
The results show that the final conceptual model correlates very
well with the detailed model, both in terms of static and dynamic
performance.
5. Conclusion
An engineering approach for the replacement of beam-like struc-
tures and joints in a vehicle model has been presented in this paper.
In order to validate the proposed approach, a case-study has been
defined, where A-pillars, B-pillars and roof-rails of a vehicle's BIW
have been replaced by equivalent beam models. Four joints, con-
necting the above-mentioned beam-like structures to each other,
have been replaced as well through a static reduction of the detailed
mesh. Two static load-cases have been defined to apply torsion and
bending to the full vehicle and compare the original and the simpli-
fied models. The stiffness of the full vehicle under the two loading
conditions has been evaluated and a difference of +0.46% and +0.22%
between the simplified and the original models has been obtained
for the torsion and bending load-case, respectively. A dynamic com-
parison between the two models, based on the first 10 frequencies
and modal shapes of the full vehicle, has been performed as well.
The dynamic behavior of the full vehicle is accurately predicted by
the simplified model. More specifically, in the comparison of the two
models, a maximum eigenfrequency difference of 0.68% and a MAC
value difference of 2.2% have been obtained. The quantitative results
described above are well in line with OEM requirements for concept
modification predictions in an early design stage.
In summary, a proof-of-concept of the feasibility of a stand-alone
beam and joint replacement layout has been realized, which enables
an accurate approximation of the global static and dynamic charac-
teristics. The stiffness correction factors can be derived in a single
optimization procedure (updating w.r.t. the predecessor model) in
[1] K. Volz, Car body design in the concept stage of vehicle development, in:
0.99 Proceedings of the Second European LS-DYNA Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden,
0.998 June 14–15, 1999.
[2] H. Van der Auweraer, J. Leuridan, The new paradigm of testing in todays product
0.998
development process, in: Proceedings of the ISMA2004, Leuven, Belgium,
0.978
September 20–22, 2004, pp. 1151–1170.
0.984
[3] H. Shiozaki, Y. Kamada, S. Kurita, S. Goossens, J. Van Herbruggen, V. Cibrario,
L. Poppelaars, CAE based vehicle development to reduce development time, in:
Proceedings of the JSAE Annual Congress, no. 20, Yokohama, Japan, 2005.
[4] R. Hadjit, M. Brughmans, H. Shiozaki, Application of fast body optimization
procedures to shorten car development cycles, in: Proceedings of the JSAE
Annual Congress, no. 18, Yokohama, Japan, 2005.
[5] B. Torstenfelt, A. Klarbring, Conceptual optimal design of modular car product
families using simultaneous size, shape and topology optimization, Finite
Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 1050–1061.
[6] L. Long, Design-oriented translators for automotive joints, Ph.D. Thesis,
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, September 1998.
[7] J. Pirada, S. Huang, S. Corn, C. Stawicki, X. Bohineust, Improvement of dynamic
models in car industry, in: Proceedings of the 15th International Modal Analysis
Conference, 1997, pp. 85–91.
[8] G. Prater Jr., A. Shahhosseini, E. Juo, P. Mehta, V. Furman, Finite element concept
models for vehicle architecture assessment and optimization, in: SAE 2005
World Congress Proceedings, no. 2005-01-1400, Detroit, MI, USA, 2005.
[9] M. Bendsoe, N. Olhoff, O. Sigmund, Topology Optimization—Theory, Methods,
and Applications, second ed., Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2004.
[10] L. Wang, P. Basua, J. Leiva, Automobile body reinforcement by finite element
optimization, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 40 (8) (2004) 879–893.
[11] S.L. Lee, D.C. Lee, J.-I. Lee, C.-S. Hand, K. Hedrick, Integrated process
for structural—topological configuration design of weight-reduced vehicle
components, Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43 (2007) 620–629.
[12] C. Chapman, M. Pinfold, The application of a knowledge based engineering
approach to the rapid design and analysis of an automotive structure, Advances
in Engineering Software 32 (12) (2001) 903–912.
[13] C. Ledermann, C. Hanske, J. Wenzel, P. Ermanni, R. Kelm, Associative parametric
CAE methods in the aircraft pre-design, Aerospace Science and Technology 9
(7) (2005) 641–651.
[14] S. Donders, Y. Takahashi, R. Hadjit, T. VanLangenhove, M. Brughmansa, B.
VanGenechten, W. Desmet, A reduced beam and joint concept modeling
approach to optimize global vehicle body dynamics, Finite Elem. Anal. Des.
(2009), doi:10.1016/j.finel.2008.12.004.
[15] LMS International, LMS Virtual, Laboratory Review 6B, November 2006.
[16] S.B. Lee, J.R. Park, H.J. Yim, Numerical approximation of vehicle joint stiffness by
using response surface method, International Journal of Automotive Technology
3 (3) (2002) 117–122.
[17] P. Vinot, S. Cogan, J. Piranda, Shape optimization of thin-walled beam-like
structures, Thin-Walled Structures 39 (7) (2001) 611–630.
[18] R. Guyan, Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices, AIAA Journal 3 (2) (1965)
380–387.
[19] S. Donders, M. Brughmans, L. Hermans, C. Liefooghe, W. Desmet, The robustness
of dynamic vehicle performance to spot weld failures, Finite Elements in
Analysis and Design 42 (8–9) (2006) 670–682.
[20] R.J. Allemang, D.L. Brown, A correlation coefficient for modal vector analysis,
in: Proceedings of the First International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando,
USA, 1982, pp. 110–116.
[21] W. Heylen, S. Lammens, P. Sas, Modal Analysis—Theory and Testing, KU Leuven
Press, Leuven, Belgium, 2006.
[22] D. Mundo, J.Y. Liu, H.S. Yan, Optimal synthesis of cam-linkage mechanisms for
precise path generation, Journal of Mechanical Design, ASME Transactions 128
(6) (2006) 1253–1260.