Crashworthiness Optimization of an Automotive Front Bumper in Composite Material

Authors: S. Boria

Abstract:

In the last years, the crashworthiness of an automotive body structure can be improved, since the beginning of the design stage, thanks to the development of specific optimization tools. It is well known how the finite element codes can help the designer to investigate the crashing performance of structures under dynamic impact. Therefore, by coupling nonlinear mathematical programming procedure and statistical techniques with FE simulations, it is possible to optimize the design with reduced number of analytical evaluations. In engineering applications, many optimization methods which are based on statistical techniques and utilize estimated models, called meta-models, are quickly spreading. A meta-model is an approximation of a detailed simulation model based on a dataset of input, identified by the design of experiments (DOE); the number of simulations needed to build it depends on the number of variables. Among the various types of meta-modeling techniques, Kriging method seems to be excellent in accuracy, robustness and efficiency compared to other ones when applied to crashworthiness optimization. Therefore the application of such meta-model was used in this work, in order to improve the structural optimization of a bumper for a racing car in composite material subjected to frontal impact. The specific energy absorption represents the objective function to maximize and the geometrical parameters subjected to some design constraints are the design variables. LS-DYNA codes were interfaced with LS-OPT tool in order to find the optimized solution, through the use of a domain reduction strategy. With the use of the Kriging meta-model the crashworthiness characteristic of the composite bumper was improved.

Keywords: Composite material, crashworthiness, finite element analysis, optimization.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1314538

References:

[1] A. I. J. Forrester, A. Sobester, and A. J. Keane. Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling - A Practical Guide. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2008.
[2] S.S. Esfahlani, H. Shirvani, S. Nwaubani, A. Shirvani, H. Mebrahtu, “Comparative study of honeycomb optimization using Kriging and radial basis function”, Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Letters, Vol. 3, (2013).
[3] H. Wang, G.Y. Li, E. Li, Time-based metamodeling technique for vehicle crashworthiness optimization, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 199, N. 37-40, 2497-2509, (2010).
[4] H. Fang, M. Rais-Rohani, Z. Liu, M.F. Horstemeyer, A comparative study of metamodeling methods for multiobjective crashworthiness optimization, Computers and Structures, Vol. 83, pp. 2121-2136, (2005).
[5] M. Avalle, G. Chiandussi, G. Belingardi, Design optimization by response surface methodology: application to crashworthiness design of vehicle structures, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 24, pp. 325-332, (2002).
[6] G.G. Wang, S. Shan, Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 129, N. 4, pp. 370-380, (2007).
[7] N. Stander, T. Goel, Metamodel sensitivity to sequential adaptive sampling in crashworthiness design, Proceedings of the 12th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Victoria, (2008).
[8] J. Fang, G. Sun, N. Qiu, H.N. Kim, Q. Li, On design optimization for structural crashworthiness and its state of the art, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 55, N. 3, pp. 1091-1119, (2016).
[9] F. Duddeck, S. Hunkeler, P. Lozano, E. Wehrle, D. Zeng, Topology optimization for crashworthiness of thin-walled structures under axial impact using hybrid cellular automata, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 54, pp. 415-428, (2016).
[10] A. Forrester, A.J. Keane, Recent advanced in surrogate-based optimization, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 45, N. 1-3, pp. 50-79, (2009).
[11] N. Stander, K.J. Craig, On the robustness of a simple domain reduction scheme for simulation-based optimization, Engineering Computations, Vol. 19, N. 4, pp. 431-450, (2002).
[12] G. Matheron. Kriging, or Polynomial Interpolation Procedures? A contribution to polemics in mathematical geology. Transaction, LXX:240, 244, 1967.
[13] J. Sacks, S. B. Schiller, and W. J. Welch. Designs for Computer Experiments. Technometrics, 31(1), 1989.
[14] D. R. Jones, M. Schonlau, and W. J. Welch. E_cient Global Optimization of Expensive Black-Box Functions. Journal of Global Optimization, 13(4):455,492, 1998.
[15] N. Cressie. The origins of kriging. Mathematical Geology, 22(3):239, 252, 1990.
[16] T. W. Simpson, J. D. Poplinski, P. N. Koch, and J. K. Allen. Metamodels for Computer-based Engineering Design: Survey and recommendations. Engineering with Computers, 17(2):129, 150, 2001.
[17] J. P. C. Kleijnen. Kriging metamodeling in simulation: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 192(3):707, 716, 2009.
[18] S. Koziel, D. E. Ciaurri, and L. Leifsson. Surrogate-Based Methods. In Computational Optimization, Methods and Algorithms, Studies in Computational Intelligence, pages 33, 59. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-20859-1 3.
[19] I. Arsenyev. Efficient Surrogate-based Robust Design Optimization Method. PhD thesis, Technische Universitat Munchen, 2017.
[20] J. Sacks, W. J. Welch, T. J. Mitchell, and H. P. Wynn. Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments. Statistical Science, 4(4):433, 435, 1989.
[21] G. Belingardi, A.T. Beyene, E.G. Koricho, Geometrical optimization of bumper beam profile made of pultruded composite by numerical simulation, Composite Structures, Vol. 102, pp. 217-225, (2013).
[22] L. Farkas, S. Donders, D. Schildermans, D. Moens, D. Vandepitte, Optimisation study of a vehicle bumper subsystem with fuzzy parameters, Proceedings of ISMA2010-USD2010, pp. 5015-5026, (2010).
[23] S. Boria, J. Obradovic, G. Belingardi, On design optimization of a composite impact attenuator under dynamic axial crushing, FME Transaction, 45 (3), 435-440, 2017.