Structural engineering in the automotive industry has moved towards weight reduction and passive safety whilst maintaining a good structural performance. The development of Additive Manufacturing (AM) technologies has boosted design freedom, leading to a wide range of geometries and integrating functionally-graded lattice structures.
This paper presents three AM-oriented numerical optimization methods, aimed at optimizing components made of: i) bulk material, ii) a combination of bulk material and graded lattice structures; iii) an integration of solid, lattice and thin-walled structures.
The optimization methods were validated by considering the steering column support of a mid-rear engine sports car, involving complex loading conditions and shape.
The results of the three methods are compared, and the advantages and disadvantages of the solutions are discussed. The integration between solid, lattice thin-walled structures produced the best results, with a mass reduction of 49.7% with respect to the existing component.
BarbieriSGGiacopiniMMangerugaV, et al.
A design strategy based on topology optimization techniques for an additive manufactured high performance engine piston. Procedia Manuf2017;
11: 641–649.
2.
Orquéra M, Campocasso S and Millet D. Some principles to optimise an additively manufactured multi-component product. Journal of Engineering Design 2020; 31(4): 219–240.
3.
KongBSParkDK.Design optimization of the cowl cross bar – light cowl cross bar satisfying 5 performances. Int J Automot Technol2018;
19: 387–391.
4.
Cao TB, Kedziora S, Sellen S, et al. Optimization assisted redesigning a structure of a hydrogen valve: the redesign process and numerical evaluations. Int J Interact Des Manuf 2020; 14: 613–629.
5.
ManiosSELagarosNDNassiopoulosE.Nested topology optimization methodology for designing two-wheel chassis. Front Built Environ2019;
5: 34.
6.
CavazzutiMBaldiniABertocchiE, et al.
High performance automotive chassis design: a topology optimization based approach. Struct Multidisc Optim2011;
44: 45–56.
7.
MantovaniSLo PrestiICavazzoniL, et al.
Influence of manufacturing constraints on the topology optimization of an automotive dashboard. Procedia Manuf2017;
11: 1700–1708.
8.
ZuoKTChenLPZhangYQ, et al.
Manufacturing- and machining-based topology optimization. Int J Adv Manuf Technol2006;
27: 531–536.
9.
VatanabeSLLippiTNDe LimaCR, et al.
Topology optimization with manufacturing constraints: a unified projection-based approach. Adv Eng Softw2016;
100: 97–112.
10.
HarzheimLGrafG.A review of optimization of cast parts using topology optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim2005;
30: 491–497.
11.
HarzheimLGrafG.A review of optimization of cast parts using topology optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim2006;
31: 388–399.
12.
JunkSKlerchBNasdalaL, et al.
Topology optimization for AM using a component of a humanoid robot. Procedia CIRP2018;
70: 102–107.
13.
AbdiMAshcroftIWildmanRD.Design optimisation for an additively manufactured automotive component. IJPT2018;
7: 142–161.
14.
SilvaFJGCampilhoRDSGGouveiaRM, et al.
A novel approach to optimize the design of parts for additive manufacturing. Procedia Manuf2018;
17: 53–61.
15.
PlocherJPanesarA.Review on design and structural optimisation in additive manufacturing: towards next-generation lightweight structures. Mater Design2019;
183: 108164.
16.
BrackettDAshcroftIHagueR. Topology optimization for additive manufacturing. In: Proceedings of the solid freeform fabrication symposium, Austin, TX, 8–10 August 2011. vol.1, pp.348–362.
17.
Patterson AE, Lee YH and Allison JT. Overview of the Development and Enforcement of Process-Driven Manufacturability Constraints in Product Design. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2019 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Volume 4: 24th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 13th International Conference on Micro- and Nanosystems, Anaheim, California, USA, 18-21 August 2019, vol. 59223, p. V004T05A001. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
18.
JiangJXuXStringerJ.Support structures for additive manufacturing: a review. JMMP2018;
2: 64.
19.
Mugwagwa L, Dimitrov D, Matope S, et al. A methodology to evaluate the influence of part geometry on residual stresses in selective laser melting. In: Competitive Manufacturing, International Conference on Competitive Manufacturing (COMA ‘16), Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch University, South Africa, 27-29 January 2016.
20.
GaynorATGuestJK.Topology optimization considering overhang constraints: eliminating sacrificial support material in additive manufacturing through design. Struct Multidisc Optim2016;
54: 1157–1172.
21.
LangelaarM.Topology optimization of 3D self-supporting structures for additive manufacturing. Additive Manuf2016;
12: 60–70.
22.
WangYGaoJKangZ.Level set-based topology optimization with overhang constraint: towards support-free additive manufacturing. Comput Meth Appl Mech Eng2018;
339: 591–614.
LiuJGaynorATChenS, et al.
Current and future trends in topology optimization for additive manufacturing. Struct Multidisc Optim2018;
57: 2457–2483.
25.
LearyMMerliLTortiF, et al.
Optimal topology for additive manufacture: a method for enabling additive manufacture of support-free optimal structures. Mater Des2014;
63: 678–690.
26.
Mantovani S, Campo GA and Ferrari A. Additive manufacturing and topology optimization: A design strategy for a steering column mounting bracket considering overhang constraints. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science. 2020. DOI: 10.1177/0954406220917717.
27.
GibsonLJAshbyMF.Cellular solids: structure and properties.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999.
28.
AshbyMF.The properties of foams and lattices. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci2006;
364: 15–30.
29.
LakeMSKlangEC.Generation and comparison of globally isotropic space-filling beam structures. AIAA J1992;
30: 1416–1424.
30.
ChengLZhangPBiyikliE, et al.
Efficient design optimization of variable-density cellular structures for additive manufacturing: theory and experimental validation. Rapid Prototyping J2017;
23: 660–677.
31.
PanesarAAbdiMHickmanD, et al.
Strategies for functionally graded lattice structures derived using topology optimisation for additive manufacturing. Additive Manuf2018;
19: 81–94.
32.
MantovaniSCampoGAFerrariA, et al.
Optimization methodology for automotive chassis design by beam frame: a preliminary investigation using the lattice approach. Adv Transdiscipl Eng2018;
7: 984–992.
33.
AshbyM.Hybrid materials to expand the boundaries of material‐property space. J Am Ceram Soc2011;
94: s3–s14.
34.
SantosaSPWierzbickiTHanssenAG, et al.
Experimental and numerical studies of foam-filled sections. Int J Impact Eng2000;
24: 509–534.
35.
AhmadZThambiratnamDP.Dynamic computer simulation and energy absorption of foam-filled conical tubes under axial impact loading. Comput Struct2009;
87: 186–197.
36.
LiCKimIY.Topology, size and shape optimization of an automotive cross car beam. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2015;
229: 1361–1378.
37.
BendsøeMP.Optimal shape design as a material distribution problem. Struct Opt1989;
1: 193–202.
38.
ZhouMShyyYKThomasHL.Checkerboard and minimum member size control in topology optimization. Struct Multidisc Optim2001;
21: 152–158.
39.
FrazierWE.Metal additive manufacturing: a review. J Mater Eng Perform2014;
23: 1917–1928.
40.
MowerTMLongMJ.Mechanical behavior of additive manufactured, powder-bed laser-fused materials. Mater Sci Eng A2016;
651: 198–213.
41.
LewandowskiJJSeifiM.Metal additive manufacturing: a review of mechanical properties. Annu Rev Mater Res2016;
46: 151–186.
42.
KokYTanXPWangP, et al.
Anisotropy and heterogeneity of microstructure and mechanical properties in metal additive manufacturing: a critical review. Mater Des2018;
139: 565–586.
43.
PommatauGCabannesKMontredonF, et al. Issue for design, modelling and laser beam manufacturing of structures including aluminum lattices. In: ECSSMET2018 European conference on spacecraft structures, materials and environmental testing, Noordwijk, Netherlands, 28 May–01 June 2018.
44.
CampoGAVettorelloAGiacaloneM.Optimization methodology for continuous heterogeneous structures: a preliminary design of an engine mounting bracket. Kem2019;
827: 116–121.
45.
SolaADefantiSMantovaniS, et al.
Technological feasibility of lattice materials by Laser-Based powder bed fusion of A357.0. 3D Print Additive Manuf2020;
7: 1–7.
46.
MaskeryIAremuAOParryL, et al.
Effective design and simulation of surface-based lattice structures featuring volume fraction and cell type grading. Mater Des2018;
155: 220–232.
47.
ZhengXFuZDuK, et al.
Minimal surface designs for porous materials: from microstructures to mechanical properties. J Mater Sci2018;
53: 10194–10208.
48.
Protection of occupant against a frontal collision, ECE Regulation No. 94 Revision 2, United Nations of March 1995.
49.
KimKCKimCM.Analysis process of a steering system using a concept model for idle vibration. Int J Automot Technol2008;
9: 337–346.
50.
KangZZhangXJiangS, et al.
On topology optimization of damping layer in shell structures under harmonic excitations. Struct Multidisc Optim2012;
46: 51–67.
51.
ZhangXKangZ.Dynamic topology optimization of piezoelectric structures with active control for reducing transient response. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng2014;
281: 200–219.
52.
KulkarniKBThyagarajanRS.Optimizing the effects of body attachment stiffness on steering column in-vehicle modes. SAE Paper 2001-01-0041,
2001.
53.
CraigRRJrBamptonM.Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses. AIAA J1968;
6: 1313–1319.
