Composite Structures Vol. 38, No. l-4, pp. 351-359, 1997 8 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

All rights reserved Printed in Great Britain 0263-8223/97/$17.00 + 0.00 PII:SO263-8223(97)00070-6

Optimal design of composite hood with reinforcing ribs through stiffness analysis
Dae-Young Kwak,=* Jin-Ho Jeong,b Jae-Seung Cheon & Yang-Ibek Im *
Kia Motor Company, Kwangmyungshi, Kyunggido 781-1, South Korea bHyundai Motor Company, Namyangmyun, Whasunggun, Kyunegido 445-850, South Korea Computer Aided Materials Processing Laboratory Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Taejon 305-701, South Korea

Fiber glass reinforced composites like sheet molding compounds (SMC) have recently been widely used in the fabrication of two-piece automobile hoods for passenger cars. In the present investigation, a one-piece composite hood with reinforcing ribs was optimally designed and manufactured by resin transfer molding in order to reduce manufacturing cost. In order to obtain the optimal design, stiffness analyses for deflections due to self-weight, oil canning, and torsion test conditions were carried out by applying the ABAQUWStandard program. Based on these analyses, the thickness dimension of the composite hood required to maintain a stiffness comparable to a conventional steel hood was determined. For optimization studies of the weight reduction of the currently proposed one-piece composite hood with reinforcing ribs, IDESIGN program was employed. Based on a recursive quadratic programming technique, the thickness dimensions of the reinforcing ribs were optimized. The deflection ratios between fiber glass reinforced composite and conventional steel hoods were minimized in the optimization studies. From the present studies, it was found that the weight saving effect obtained by introducing the optimally designed one-piece composite hood was 37% compared to the conventional steel hood. This ranged approximately from 30 to 40% for composite hoods manufactured by resin transfer molding, depending on the composite materials used. Through these studies, it was confirmed that the one-piece composite hood was a preferable design and manufacture, compared to currently used composite hood made in two pieces, in terms of weight reductions and manufacturing cost without losing the stiffness required. Copyright 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

Recent environmental issues require less fuel consumption with better efficiency. Due to such a requirement, one of the major design constraints for passenger cars is to reduce their weight. Weight reduction can be achieved by either redesigning its structure and size or introducing new light-weight materials for body components without sacrificing the safety of the vehicles [ 11. Since the optimal design of reinforcement geometry and arrangements for better stiffness is of importance in automotive structure design,
*Corresponding author. 351

numerous studies for weight reduction have been carried out so far. Radaj et al. [2], conducted finite element structural design analysis and Melosh [3] carried out static and dynamic analyses of bottom frame for Ford using NASoptimization analysis of TIUN. Also, automotive structure design with a beam element was conducted by Bennett et al. [4]. A simplified stick model was proposed by Choon et al. [5] for structural analysis. In order to apply new light-weight materials in the manufacture of body components instead of steel, it is necessary to estimate the new required dimension of the same part without loss of safety or stiffness. Fenyes [6] studied the applications of high-strength steel, aluminum

352

D.-Y Kwak, J.-H. Jeong, J.-S. Cheon, Y.-T. Im

and graphite-epoxy for weight savings in automobiles. In particular, it is well known that the use of engineering plastics, which was limited to bumpers and inner components in the past, is being expanded to outer components [7-91. With the rapid development of computer technology and numerical methods, the field of optimization is actively being studied by many researchers. In general, the optimization problem in structure design in the automotive industry can be divided into two processes: a determination process of cross-section, shape, and configuration; and a total optimization process based on the design variables selected. Numerous optimization algorithms and programs to solve such problems have been developed so far. IDESIGN [lo] is one such program, which can solve the optimization problems interactively. It consists of several algorithms such as cost function boundings quadratic programming recursive (CFB), (RQP), linearization method of Pshenichny (LINRM), and the conjugate gradient method [l 11. Thus, it is adequate for applications to various engineering fields. The major purpose of this study is to design a hood in one piece with rib-type reinforcements made of sheet molding compounds (SMC), thermoset based composites reinforced with fiber-glass. Currently, SMC hoods are manufactured in two pieces and bonded together by applying adhesives [7]. In order to achieve this goal, simplified structural analysis was conducted by applying the ABAQUS/Standard program to determine deflections due to selfoil canning, and torsion for a weight, conventional hood made of aluminum killed steel under the assumption that the material properties were isotropic. Similar studies were carried out for composite materials by changing the thickness of the hood. By comparing the numerical data for deflection levels obtained from simulations, the weight saving effect was investigated between aluminum killed steel and composite materials. In order to optimize the weight reduction of the one-piece plastic hood, IDESIGN was applied based on the RQP method by selecting the thickness of the reinforcements as a primary design variable and the deflection ratios between aluminum killed steel and plastic hoods as object functions. The total weight of the hood was given as a constraint. Based on the optimization results, the one-piece composite hood was made by applying resin

transfer molding. It was found that the weight saving ranged from 30 to 40% through the present investigation.

STIFFNESS ANALYSIS Stiffness analysis process In order to estimate the necessary hood thickness made of composite materials such as SMC, structural analysis of a conventional aluminum killed steel hood was made to establish the reference data for the stiffness requirement. In general, stiffness analysis is conducted by estimating and comparing the deflections subjected to external loads. For self-weight and torsion analyses, the global stiffness of the hood is compared by examining maximum deflection values, whereas in oil canning analysis, the localized stiffness is compared. In the present investigation, self-weight, torsion, and oil canning analyses were undertaken for global and local stiffness comparisons using the ABAQUSl Standard program. The geometry of the hood was idealized for computational simplicity into a one-piece hood with stiffening ribs as shown in Fig. l(a) and (b). In Fig. l(b), the arrangement is shown and in Table 1, the dimensions of each reinforcing rib are summarized. Due to geometric symmetry only half of the hood was used in simulations. Although the material properties were anisotropic, they were assumed to be isotropic for numerical simplicity. The material properties used in the present investigation are summarized in Table 2 for aluminum killed steel and SMC [12]. The boundary and loading conditions used in the self-weight and oil canning analyses are approximated as depicted in Fig. 2(a) and (b), respectively. In these figures, A-A represents the line of symmetry, B the points of simple supports, and C the hinged boundary points. For the self-weight analysis, the gravitational body force was the only external loading applied. However, the gravitational effects were neglected in oil canning and torsion analyses. A concentrated load of 50 N was applied at point D in oil canning analysis. For torsion analysis, concentrated loads of 40 N were applied at the given point C as shown in Fig. 2(c). Here, A-A is the line of skew-symmetry and B is the fixed point.

Optimal design of a composite automobile hood

353
steel and SMC

ANALYSIS RESULTS A number of thickness variations were used for self-weight, oil canning, and torsion analyses. The numerical results obtained from simulations for aluminum killed steel and SMC are compared in Table 3 and Fig. 3 in consideration

able 2. Physical properties of high strength SMC High

strength steel Youngs modulus (MPa) Poissons ratio Yield strength (MPa) Density (kglm3) 210 x lo3 0.29 91.3 7833 14 x lo3 0.49 55.0 1700

(4

Fig. 1. Schematic diagrams of (a) automobile hood and (b) structure of reinforcements used.

fbble 1. The dimension of each reinforcing rib in Fig. l(b)

Reinforcing ribs Rib 1 Rib Rib Rib Rib Rib Rib Rib 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Width (mm) 150 G 80 s: 100 50 60

Initial thickness

2tst,,, ( = 2 x 0.7 mm)

(cl

Fig. 2. The boundary conditions used for (a) self-weight, (b) oil canning, and (c) torsion deflection analyses.

354

D.-Y Kwak, J.-H. Jeong, J.-S. Cheon, Y-T Im

Table 3. Deflection results obtained for stiffness analyses

Thickness

ratio

Weight ratio

Weight reduction (%) Self-weight

Deflection

ratio

Oil canning 2.344 1.732 1.270 0.969 0.772 0.635 0.501

Torsion 3.195 2.529 2.307 1.664 1.378 1.153 0.974

2.0 E 2:6 2.8 :::

0.435 0.478 0.522 0.565 0.608 0.652 0.696

56.5 55.2 47.8 43.5 39.2 34.8 30.4

1.628 1.508 1.414 1.334 1.265 1.205 1.151

of weight reduction and stiffness levels. The thickness ratio, percentage of weight reduction, and deflection ratio used in Table 3 were defined as follows: Thickness Ratio Thickness = Thickness of SMC hood killed steel hood

of aluminum

Weight Reduction

(%) =

!
2.0

...,...,.
2.5 3.0

Thickness

ratio

lfrom

Weight of SMC hood Weight of aluminum

x 100

killed steel hood (2)

Fig. 3. Comparison of deflection curves obtained self-weight, oil canning, and torsion analyses.

Deflection =
Initial Design Variable 4 ABAQUS Stiffness Analysis

Ratio value of SMC hood value of killed steel hood (3)

Maximum deflection Maximum deflection

aluminum

Optimized Design Variable

Fig. 4. Flow chart of the optimization

process.

As shown in Table 3, the deflection ratios obtained under the present simulation conditions are 1.151, 0.501, and 0.974 for self-weight, oil canning, and torsion studies, respectively, when the thickness ratio used was 3.2. From the results, it can be construed that the thickness ratio of 3.2 was safe enough based on the stiffness consideration. This result leads to a weight reduction of 30% when SMC was used as a replacement for aluminum killed steel. In Fig. 3, as the deflection curves are lower than the reference deflection ratio line for oil canning and torsion tests, it can be found that the

Optimal design of a composite automobile hood

355

stiffness of the SMC hood is better than that of aluminum killed steel.

OPTIMAL

DESIGN

Optimal design process In order to enhance the weight reduction effect and to achieve a more efficient stiffness distri-

(a)
1.5 , 1.4

0.8 I 0

4 No. of iteration

bution within the prescribed design conditions, the optimization analyses were carried out by selecting the thickness of the reinforcing ribs as a primary design variable. The thickness of the outer hood without reinforcements was assumed to be three times thicker than the one of aluminum killed steel based on the results obtained from previous stiffness analyses. The optimization was carried out for three cases according to the selection of object functions as follows. The deflection ratios between one-piece SMC and conventional aluminum killed steel hoods due to self-weight and torsion were used as object functions in the first and second cases of optimization, respectively. In the third case, the weighted deflection ratio obtained from self-weight and torsion analyses was selected as an object function. The total weight of the SMC hood and the minimum and maximum thicknesses of the reinforcing ribs were identically constrained for all three optimization cases. The optimization modeling for each case was formulated as follows.

(b)
1.4 ,

(a)

.o 5 ;;i L4 : 83 $2 a kl 0

Reinforcement (b)
0 2 4 6 8 10

no.

6r

No. of iteration

.i& I,,
1 2 3 4

, ,,, ,
5 6 7 8 9

Reinforcement

no.

,
5 .o 4 E z3 tf2 3 & 0.9 I 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9

No. of iteration

Reinforcement Fig.

no.

Fig.

5. Comparison of deflection curves obtained from self-weight and torsion analyses with optimized thicknesses for three case studies: (a) case (i), (b) case (ii), and (c) case (iii).

6. Resultant thickness ratios of reinforcements based on different optimization processes due to (a) self-weight, (b) torsion, and (c) weighted self-weight and torsion analyses.

356

D.-Y Kwak, J.-H. Jeong, J.-S. Cheon, Y-1: Im

Case (i): find the ti (i = 1, 2, .... 9) values which will minimize the equation
(dweighthlC

f=
(6weight)steel

(4)

subject to M Total
5 Mcritical( = 2tsteeJ I (tihaximum( = 6.5tsteeJ (6) =

0.65 Msteel)

(5)

(tihlinimum( I (ri)

Case (ii): find the ti (i = 1, 2, .... 9) values which will minimize the equation
(dtorsionkMC

f=
@torsionAteel

(7)

subject to
M Total
sMcritical( = 2tsteeJ (ti)Maximum( = =

0.65 MsteeJ

(8)

(tih4inimum( 2 (It;> 5

6.5tsteeJ

(9)

Fig. 8. Photographs of (a) foam core mould and (b) foam core manufactured by RTM.

Fig. 7. Photographs

of (a) upper and (b) lower moulds used for RTM.

Fig. 9. Photograph of top and bottom surfaces of the onepiece composite hood manufactured by RTM.

Optimal design of a composite automobile hood

lhble 4. The materials used in manufacturing

357

composite hoods by RTM and the measured weight reduction ratios for each case

Resin type (product name)

Epoxy (Epolite 2410/2183 (10044)) Vynilester Resin (AROTAN Q6530) Novolac Type Vynilester Resin (SR-841L) Epoxy (Epclite 241012310 (100:14)) Phenol Versatil Unsaturated Polyester Resin (R401) Epoxy (Epolite 2410/2180 (100: 7.5)) Unsaturated Polyester Resin (R459) Epoxy (Epolite 2434/2347)

Weight reduction (%) 32% 35% 32% 31% 40% 35% 37% 34% 30%

Case (iii): find the ti (i = 1, 2, .... 9) values which will minimize the equation

analyses again until desired values were obtained. Sensitivities of the object function and the constraint were calculated by applying the linear perturbation method as follows
8.f -= at,

f(ti+Ati) - f(tJ
Ati

(13)

aMTotal

MTotal(ti+AtJ -MTotdti)
=

ati

Ati

(14)

subject to M Total2 Moritical(= 0.65 MsteeJ (11)

Optimal design results

5 (ti) s (thaximum(= 6*5tsteeJ

(12)

where tig 6, and M are the thicknesses of the reinforcing ribs as illustrated in Fig. l(b), deflection value obtained from the structural analysis and the total weight of the hood. a represents the weighting factor used in optimization. In order to solve the above optimization problems, the recursive quadratic programming method provided in IDESIGN was used. The flow chart of optimization process used in the present study is given in Fig. 4. As can be seen, the deflection ratio was computed using the ABAQUS/Standard program in the same manner as previously mentioned for stiffness analyses. The object function values were separately determined for three different cases according to their definitions as previously introduced. These object function values were provided as input for IDESIGN and the modified design variables, ti, were used for structural

In Fig. 5(a), (b) and (c), the deflection ratios calculated by three different optimization cases, (i), (ii), and (iii), as introduced previously, are depicted at every iteration number. As seen in Fig. 5(a), the object function value, namely the deflection ratio obtained from self-weight analyses became lower than the reference value of one as the number of iterations increased, whereas the deflection ratio obtained from torsion analyses increased. This result showed that only the self-weight deflection ratio was minimized, while the torsion deflection ratio was not controlled. For case (ii), in contrast to the results of case (i), only the torsion deflection ratio was minimized. In this case, the self-weight deflection ratio was bounded, but the desired value less than the reference value of one was not obtained. From these results, it is found out that it was necessary to include the deflection ratios obtained from both the selfweight and torsion analyses into the object function. In order to satisfy the reference value for stiffness in both cases of optimization due to

358

D.-Y Kwak, J.-H. Jeong, J.-S. Cheon, Y-T. Im

self-weight and torsion, weighting factors were introduced in the third case of optimization. When the same weighting factor of 0.5 was imposed on both self-weight and torsion deflection ratios, deflection ratios of 0.9742 and 0.9381 were obtained, respectively, as shown in Fig. 5(c). Thus, it can be construed that both self-weight and torsion deflection ratios are satisfied by imposing a weighting factor of 0.5 on each deflection ratio. According to this figure, object function values and deflection ratios converged as the number of iterations increased for this case. Also, for all three cases, a weight reduction of 37% in the SMC hood was achieved compared to the aluminum killed steel hood. Therefore, both the stiffness and weight reduction were improved through optito the initial design mization compared obtained from structural analyses only. Figure 6 shows the bar graphs of the resultant reinforcement thickness ratios for three cases of optimization, (i), (ii), and (iii). As shown in Fig. 6(a) and (b), reinforcements 3 and 2 have dominant influences on the self-weight and torsion deflection ratios, respectively. However, for case (iii), as can be seen in Fig. 6(c), the dominant components are reinforcements 2, 3, 5, and 6. Thus, different reinforcement design was necessary, depending on the selection of the object function.

piece composite hoods manufactured by resin transfer molding is shown in Fig. 9. The weights of the manufactured hoods were measured, and based on these, it was found that the actual weight reduction ranged from 30 to 40%. Table 4 summarizes the materials used in manufacturing the composite hoods and the actual weight reductions for each case.

CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions were obtained from the present investigation. A weight reduction of around 30% was achieved by applying SMC as a substitute for aluminum killed steel, when the thickness ratio was 3.2. The optimization results showed that an additional 7% weight reduction can be obtained compared to the initial design. This leads to a better design in terms of weight saving without sacrificing the stiffness of the hood. According to experimental observations, the final weight reduction ranged between 30 and 40%, which is very close to the value obtained from the optimization. A one-piece composite hood designed in the present investigation can reduce the manufacturing cost by removing the bonding process.

MANUFACTURING HOOD

THE COMPOSITE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Through the optimal design process, a onepiece type composite hood was designed. For the purpose of checking the manufacturability of the designed hood, composite hoods were manufactured by a resin transfer molding (RTM) process. For this purpose, RTM moulds were manufactured in three parts, the upper and lower RTM moulds and the foam core. The RTM moulds were made of epoxy. By using a foam core, a one-piece composite hood with rib-type reinforcements could be manufactured. The widths of the reinforcing ribs were the same as the values given in Table 1, but the thicknesses were determined from the third case of the optimization results. Figure 7 shows photographs of the upper and lower moulds and the foam core mould and manufactured foam core for rib-type reinforcements can be seen in Fig. 8. A photograph of one of the one-

The authors are thankful for the grants from the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Ministry of Trade and Industry under which this work was possible.

REFERENCES
1. Kim, C.W. and Kim, J.H., Light weight vehicle design

by stick model. KSAE Trans., 1990, 12, 97-106. 2. Radaj, D., Zimmer, A. and Geissler, H., Finite element analysis, an automobile engineers tool. SAE Trans., 1974,740338,228-243. 3. Melosh, R.J., Finite element analysis of automobile structures. SAE Trans., 1974, 740319, 1341-1355. 4. Bennett, J.A. and Nelson, M.F., An optimization capability for automotive structures. SAE Trans., 1979, 790972,2186-2198. 5. Choon, T.C., Mohammadtrab, H. and Ei-Essawi, M., Generic stick model of a vehicle structure. SAE Trans., 1986, 860825, 235-241.

Optimal

design of a composite

automobile

hood

359

6. Fenyes, P.A., Structural optimization with alternate materials - minimum mass design of the primary structures. SAE Trans., 1981,810228,992-1001. 7. Automotive Plastics Report, Market Search, Toledo, Ohio, USA, 1992. 8. Kim, K.T. and Im, Y.T., Experimental study on physical properties of compression molded SMC parts under plane strain condition. Composite Structures, 1996,35,131-141.

9. Jeong, J. H. and Im, Y. T., Estimation of sink mark depth in compression molded SMC parts with substructures, J. Composite Materials (in press). 10. Arora, J. S., Introduction to Optimum Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989. 11. Arora, J. S., Theoretical Manual for ZDESZGN Report No. ODL-85.9, The University of Iowa, 1985. 12. Engineering Materials Handbook 1, Composites, ASM International, 1989.