CAD-BASED

CAD-BASED DESIGN
DESIGN PROCESS
PROCESS FOR
FOR
FATIGUE
FATIGUE ANALYSIS,
ANALYSIS, RELIABILITY-
RELIABILITY-
ANALYSIS,
ANALYSIS, AND
AND DESIGN
DESIGN OPTIMIZATION
OPTIMIZATION

K.K. Choi, V. Ogarevic, J. Tang, and Y.H. Park

Center for Computer-Aided Design
College of Engineering
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA 52242

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 CONTENTS OF THE PROCESS
l Create a Pro/E CAD Model of a Typical Passenger Vehicle
System and Automatically Translate It Into DADS
Dynamics Model
l Perform Dynamics Simulation of the Car Model Over a
Typical Road Profile
l Create Parameterized CAD Model and FE Models of the
Front Right Lower Control Arm
l Perform Fatigue Life Analysis of the Lower Control Arm
l Perform CAD-Based Fatigue Design Sensitivity Analysis
and Optimization of the Lower Control Arm
l Reliability-Based Analysis and Design Optimization

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 Pro/E MODEL OF THE VEHICLE SYSTEM

26 Bodies Model

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
DADS MODEL OF THE VEHICLE SYSTEM

l Total of 22 Rigid Bodies

l Simulation Parameters:
n 7 seconds straight line run
n RMS2 road profile: 0.316
in. average peak to valley
height
n Speed 10 m/sec

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 FRONT RIGHT SUSPENSION

FR_Lower Control Arm

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 Pro/E MODEL OF THE LOWER
CONTROL ARM

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 JOINT REACTION FORCE HISTORIES
(X-Direction at Three Joints)

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 FE MODEL OF THE LOWER
CONTROL ARM
l Total Number of Elements: 297
l Element Type: ANSYS 20-Node Solid
l Total Number of Nodes: 1977
l Total Number of DoF: 5931
l Mesh Generator: MSC/PATRAN

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 FATIGUE LIFE PREDICTION
APPROACH
l Obtain and Convert Joint Reaction Forces and Inertial
Forces From Rigid or Flexible Multibody Dynamics
Simulation in the Format Readable by DRAW
l Create FE Models That Are Consistent with the CAD
Model of the Structural Component
l Superimpose Stress Time Histories for All Surface Nodes
of the FE Model Using Hybrid Method
l Perform Preliminary Analysis To Identify Critical Regions
l Perform Refined Analysis for Higher Fidelity Fatigue Life
Predictions

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 COMPUTATIONAL FLOW CHART
Interface Dynamic Frame
DADS_READER Information Information

DADS Load Vector Dynamic Preliminary

Output File Calculation Tool Parameters Analysis Tool

Dynamic Quasi Static Superposition Dynamic Stress Critical

Vehicle
Analysis Load Vectors Tool Time History Region
System
DADS

CAD FEA Tool Stress Refined

Pro/E Model ANSYS & Coefficients Analysis Tool
(LCA) NASTRAN
Crack Initiation Life

Geometry
PATRAN or FE Model DRAW
HyperMesh

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 STRESS HISTORY AT CRITICAL NODE
(Three Principal Stresses)

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 ALGORITHM FOR FATIGUE LIFE
PREDICTIONS IN DRAW

l Compute Stress/strain and Damage Parameter History

l Edit and Rainflow Count Damage Parameter History
l Identify Surface Critical Region Using Preliminary
Life Analysis with von Mises Strain Approach
l Estimate Elastic-plastic Strain at Critical Region
l Refine Life Predictions at Critical Region Using von
Mises Strain Approach or More Advanced Critical
Plane Approaches

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 ESTIMATION OF ELASTIC-PLASTIC
STRAINS

l Uniaxial Case:
n Neuber’s Rule and Remberg-Osgood Equation
l Multiaxial Case:
n Equivalent strain energy density approach
n Assumed elastic-plastic loading paths
n Currently linear kinematic hardening plasticity model
(Mroz Model) is being implemented

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 LIFE PREDICTION METHODS
l Equivalent Strain Methods:
n Von Mises equivalent strain approach with Smith-
Watson-Topper theory
n ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code approach

l Critical Plane Methods:

n Tensile strain based critical plane approach
(Fatemi-Socie)
n Shear strain based critical plane approach
(Fatemi-Kurath)

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 FATIGUE CRACK INITIATION LIFE
CONTOUR
(Preliminary Analysis with von Mises Equivalent-Strain Approach)

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 CRITICAL REGION IDENTIFICATION
PROCEDURE
LIST OF CRITICAL NODES

l User Selected Points

l Preliminary Fatigue
Analysis
n Calculate linear elastic von
Mises strain
n Calculate fatigue crack
initiation life for all surface
nodes
n Select critical nodes with
minimum life
n The procedure is automated
in DRAW

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 REFINED FATIGUE ANALYSIS AT THE
CRITICAL NODES
(Equivalent Strain Method)

Preliminary Refined Analysis Refined Analysis

Node Analysis (with Neuber) (with EP)
No.
Cycles Years Cycles Years Cycles Years

560 2.8901E8 64 2.8295E8 62 2.2432E8 50

583 3.2312E8 72 3.1671E8 70 3.5239E8 78

590 1.217E10 2700 2.7053E8 60 3.9165E8 87

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 CAD-BASED SHAPE OPTIMIZATION
APPROACH
l Implement CAD-based Shape Design Parameterization
Capability within Pro/E Environment
l Use HyperMesh or PATRAN for Mesh Generation,
ANSYS or NASTRAN for FEA, and DRAW for Fatigue
Life Prediction
l Develop a Design Velocity Field Computation Method
Based on Pro/E Shape Design Parameter
l Hybrid Method Is Used for Sensitivity Computation
n Continuum DSA for Sensitivity of the Dynamic Stresses
n Finite Difference for Sensitivity of the Fatigue Life

l DOT Is Used for CAD-based Shape Design Optimization

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 COMPUTATIONAL FLOW CHART
Pro/E
Environment

Mesh Generator Mesh Generator CAD

Pro/ENGINEER Modeler
HyperMesh or PATRAN

Design Design
Life Prediction DRAW Parameterization Parameterization

Sensitivity
Velocity Filed Velocity Field
Analysis DSA
Computation Computation

4-Step Design Trade-off What-if Sensitivity

Design Process Optimization Determination Study Display

Design DOT
Optimization
Design
Update

DSO

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
CAD-BASED DESIGN PARAMETERIZATION

l CAD Model Must Be

Well-Constructed :
• Able to regenerate
perturbed models in
large design space
• Maintain topology
when regenerating
• Exported geometry
must support mesh
generation by
HyperMesh or
PATRAN

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 DESIGN PARAMETERIZATION
l Design Parameters Are Chosen From Pro/E Feature
Dimensions Such as Length, Radii, General Surface, etc.
l Design Parameters Selection by Pointing and Clicking at
Pro/E Display
l Identify FE Nodes on CAD Surfaces
n PATRAN generates a file including FE surface node information
n This step is automated if meshes are generated by Pro/E

l Boundary Design Velocity Fields Are Computed Using

Finite Difference Method Based on CAD Regeneration
l Domain Velocity Fields (Velocity of Interior Nodes) Are
Computed Using Boundary Displacement Method

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 SELECTED DESIGN PARAMETERS
l Independent Section Dimensions (Heights and Widths) Are Selected
as Design Parameters

s5 s6

s4
Design Parameter Description
d1043 height at s1
d1044 width at s1
s3
d1036 height at s2
d1037 width at s2
d1029 height at s3
d1030 width at s3
d837 height at s4
s2 d838 width at s4
s1
d842 height at s5
d843 width at s5
d854 height at s6
d855 width at s6

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 OPTIMIZATION PROBLEM

l Objective Function - Minimize Volume

l 66 Constraint Functions - Fatigue Life
Longer Than 11 Years at 66 Critical
Nodes
l 12 Shape Design Parameters
l MFD Algorithm Is Used for
Optimization

DP Value(mm) Lower Bd Upper Bd DP Value(mm) Lower Bd Upper Bd

d1043 17.0 12.0 22.0 d837 30.0 25.0 35.0
d1044 12.0 7.0 17.0 d838 30.5 25.5 35.5
d1036 20.0 15.0 26.0 d842 24.0 19.0 29.0
d1037 13.0 7.0 18.0 d843 15.0 10.0 20.0
d1029 29.0 24.0 34.0 d854 24.0 19.0 29.0
d1030 14.0 9.0 19.0 d855 14.0 9.0 19.0

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 DESIGN HISTORY
l Optimal Design Is Obtained in 11 Iterations

Cost Function History Design Parameter History

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 LIFE CONTOUR AT INITIAL AND
OPTIMAL DESIGNS

Initial Design Optimal Design

DP Initial (mm) Optimal DP Initial (mm) Optimal

Volume(mm3) Initial Optimal d1043 17.0 17.3 d837 30.0 25.0
d1044 12.0 9.8 d838 30.5 25.5
195786.5 173787.8 d1036 20.0 26.0 d842 24.0 19.0
d1037 13.0 7.0 d843 15.0 13.1
d1029 29.0 31.1 d854 24.0 20.7
d1030 14.0 10.9 d855 14.0 9.0

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 DESIGN OPTIMIZATION STARTING FROM
TWO DIFFERENT INITIAL DESIGNS

Initial Design I Initial Design II

DP Design I Design II DP Design I Design II

3 d1043 17.0 17.0 d837 30.0 30.0

Volume(mm ) Design I Design II
d1044 12.0 16.0 d838 30.5 30.5
195786.5 210118.1 d1036 20.0 20.0 d842 24.0 24.0
d1037 13.0 17.0 d843 15.0 15.0
d1029 29.0 29.0 d854 24.0 24.0
d1030 14.0 18.0 d855 14.0 14.0

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 COMPARISON OF OPTIMAL DESIGNS OF
INITIAL DESIGNS I & II

Optimal Design I Optimal Design II

3 DP Design I Design II DP Design I Design II

Volume(mm ) Design I Design II
d1043 17.3 17.4 d837 25.0 25.0
173787.8 173809.0 d1044 9.8 9.8 d838 25.5 25.5
d1036 26.0 26.0 d842 19.0 19.0
d1037 7.0 7.0 d843 13.1 12.7
d1029 31.1 31.3 d854 20.7 20.6
d1030 10.9 10.6 d855 9.0 9.0
arc Automotive Research Center
Center for Computer Aided Design
 RELIABILITY-BASED DESIGN
OPTIMIZATION (RBDO)
Design Model
Definition
l Mathematical Formulation:
Distributional and deterministic design FORM for
Failure Functions
vectors θ=[θ1,θ2,...,θn1]T and b=[b1,b2,...,bn2]
min. W(b,θ θ) Yes
Update
STOP Optimum Design
s.t. ?
Model
Pf i = P(g i (b,θ ) ≤ 0) ≤ PfUi , i = 1 − m No

Reliability-Based
bj ≤ bj ≤ bj , j = 1 − n1
L U
DSA

θ Lk ≤ θ k ≤ θUk , k = 1 − n2 Optimization
Algorithms
(DOT)
l Reliability Constraints Are Assumed to be
Mutually Independent and No Correlation
Exists Between Them

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 RANDOM VARIABLE SPACES
l Transformation Matrix T: U = T(X) from a non-normally distributed
random variable space X to a standard normally distributed random
variable space U where
U i = Φ −1 ( fXi ( x)), i = 1 − n
U Φ: Cumulative Distribution
X 2 Function (CDF)
2
Failure Region P
f
g(U) < 0
MPP U *
MPP U*

0 β
Mean Value
Safe Region
Point
g(U) > 0 Major Contribution
b to Failure Probability
From this Area
fX (x) Reliability
X1 Index β
U1
0 0 (FORM)
(SORM)
Failure Surface
f U (u)
g(X) = 0 Failure Surface
g(U) = 0

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 NUMERICAL EXAMPLE
TRACKED VEHICLE ROAD ARM
l Multibody Dynamics Model: 17 Rigid Bodies

R 17
16
X3R
R R15
R 1X
10
1 X2 R 14
9 R 2 R 13
R R R
8 R 12
7 R R 11
6 R 3
5 R
Roadarm 4

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 SHAPE DESIGN PARAMETERIZATION
bi, i = 1,3,5,7
Cubic Curves

Straight bi, i = 2,4,6,8

Lines
x'3

x'1
Cross Sectional Shape Design Parameters:
b1, b3, b5, b7 Design Parameters:
b2, b4, b6, b8

1236 20 in.
Intersection 1
b1, b2 Intersection 2 Intersection 4 x'3
Torsion 12 b3, b4 Intersection 3 b7, b8
Bar x'2
b5, b6

Intersection 1 Intersection 3
Intersection 2
Intersection 4
x'3
x'2 x'2
Center of the
Roadwheel x'1
x'1

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
DETERMINISTIC DESIGN OPTIMIZATION
l Objective Function - Minimize Volume
l Constraint Function - 24 Fatigue Life Greater Than
20 Years
1340
1227
1287
1140 1012 472
1023 1391
922
1311 1216
843
1008
505
1544 547
x'3 x'1 x'3
742
x'2 439 1380
1129
926
x'1
1433
918 x'2
1519

Function Description Lower Bound Current Design Status

Cost Volume 487.678 in3
Constraint 1 Life at node 1216 9.63E+6 (20 Year) 9.631E+6 blocks Active
Constraint 2 Life at node 926 9.63E+6 (20 Year) 8.309E+7 blocks Inactive
Constraint 3 Life at node 1544 9.63E+6 (20 Year) 8.926E+7 blocks Inactive
Constraint 4 Life at node 1519 9.63E+6 (20 Year) 1.447E+8 blocks Inactive
Constraint 5 Life at node 1433 9.63E+6 (20 Year) 2.762E+8 blocks Inactive

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 RANDOM VARIABLES FOR
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Random Variables Mean Value Standard Deviation Distribution
Young’s Modulus E 30.0E+6 0.75E+6 LogNormal
Fatigue Strength Coefficient s'f 1.77E+5 0.885E+4 LogNormal
Fatigue Ductility Coefficient e'f 0.41 0.0205 LogNormal
Fatigue Strength Exponent b -0.07300 0.00365 Normal
Fatigue Ductility Exponent c -0.6 0.003 Normal
Tolerance b1 2.889 in. 0.032450 Normal
Tolerance b2 1.583 in. 0.019675 Normal
Tolerance b3 2.911 in. 0.031703 Normal
Tolerance b4 1.637 in. 0.019675 Normal
Tolerance b5 2.870 in. 0.031703 Normal
Tolerance b6 2.420 in. 0.026352 Normal
Tolerance b7 2.801 in. 0.032496 Normal
Tolerance b8 4.700 in. 0.050568 Normal

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 FOUR-STEP INTERACTIVE DESIGN
l Reliability-Based Design Model Definition
n Objective function - minimize volume
n Constraints - failure probability of fatigue life Š 1%
n Design parameters - mean values of b1 to b8

l Interactive Design
n An improved design obtained in two iterations
n 10 FORMs, 2 Reliability-Based DSAs (5 days on HP9000/755)

Function Description Pf = F(-b) Pf = F(-b) Changes

at “Optimum” 2 RB Designs
Cost Volume 436.722 in3 447.691 in3 2.5%
Constraint 1 Life at node 1216 0.476% 0.532% 0.056
Constraint 2 Life at node 926 3.24% 0.992% -2.2
Constraint 3 Life at node 1544 3.21% 0.998% -2.2
Constraint 4 Life at node 1519 0.83% 0.721% -0.11
Constraint 5 Life at node 1433 0.023% 0.018% -0.005

arc Automotive Research Center

Center for Computer Aided Design
 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
l The Connection Between Pro/E and DADS Seems to Be Working
Properly and Efficiently
l DRAW Code Efficiently Identified Fatigue Critical Regions During the
Preliminary Analysis
l DRAW Refined Analysis Provided Higher Fidelity Predictions on the
Fatigue Critical Locations
l DSO Provided Accurate Design Sensitivity Information Very Efficiently
l Very Similar Optimal Designs Are Obtained from Two Different Initial
Designs
l CAD-Based Design Model Is Critical for Multidisciplinary CAE Analysis
and Design Optimization
l CAD-Based Design Model Will Allow Connection of CAE to CAD-
CAM
l Reliability-Based Design Optimization Provides High Quality Designs
That Are Cost Effective in Manufacturing Process
arc Automotive Research Center
Center for Computer Aided Design