Structural Optimization for Vehicle Dynamics Loadcases

Christopher Eccles
General Motors Company

2011-01-0058
Published 04/12/2011

Copyright 2011 SAE International doi:10.4271/2011-01-0058

ABSTRACT
As mass reduction becomes an increasingly important enabler for fuel economy improvement, having a robust structural development process that can comprehend Vehicle Dynamics-specific requirements is correspondingly important. There is a correlation between the stiffness of the body structure and the performance of the vehicle when evaluated for ride and handling. However, an unconstrained approach to body stiffening will result in an overly-massive body structure. In this paper, the authors employ loads generated from simulation of quasi-static and dynamic vehicle events in ADAMS, and exercise structural finite element models to recover displacements and deflected shapes. In doing so, a quantitative basis for considering structural vehicle dynamics requirements can be established early in the design/development process. The objective of the authors was to develop more comprehensive structural optimization loadcases by utilizing analysis of the suspension and the loads it imparts on the chassis structure during a handling maneuver. This paper illustrates two new methods of developing vehicle structure for vehicle dynamics: inertia relief step steer and statically constrained roll.

these loads by the body structure allows for a lighter weight design that also provides the foundation for a high quality handling feel. Since there are many, often competing, structural requirements - Crashworthiness, Durability, NVH considerations, etc, it becomes increasingly important to understand the mass and cost implications of improved performance within a discipline like vehicle dynamics. If the relationship between performance, mass, and cost within each discipline can be understood then the requisite balance can be achieved. By using structural optimization analysis4,5 together with vehicle dynamics simulation the vehicle body can be developed to react to loads in a very specific and targeted manner. For example, both the linearity and magnitude of global body deformation at a stabilizer mount during a cornering event can be adjusted. In this case chassis tuning capability would be enhanced by setting and achieving appropriate roll stiffness distribution targets. Additionally, by optimizing across different loadcases and response locations, design synergy (or efficiency) is maximized.

INTRODUCTION
One aspect of global vehicle structural development for stiffness involves tuning the response of the body to suspension and powertrain input. From the customers' perspective these responses are often perceived as vibrations and/or noise. However, there are also circumstances when the response, although transient, is more static in nature. In other words, there are gross elastic body deflections associated with variable quasi-static loads. One such circumstance occurs during a cornering maneuver1,2,3 (another example might be a ride swell). Naturally, the efficient reaction to

THE STEP-STEER APPROACH

An event that can provide much insight within the Vehicle Dynamic's regime is a step-steer input. Once steady state is attained at the conclusion of the event, the loading on the vehicle is similar to a typical cornering maneuver. However by its nature, the step-steer event generates a lot of transient information. Observation of the deformed shapes of the body in conjunction with inspection of the tire force plots suggests that it may be convenient to divide the event into three

distinct phases: turn-in, roll, and transition to steady state. Figure 1 indicates the steering wheel angle relative to time through the event. The step-steer maneuver is idealized over a finite period of time, moving from the straight ahead position to 40 degrees over a 0.1 second period. The forward velocity of the vehicle in this case is 100 kph.

Figure 2. The lateral forces generated by each tire over the step steer event.

Figure 1. The steering wheel turn-in step steer event is idealized over a finite time. Examining Figures 2 and 3 provides insight into how the tires react to the dynamics of the vehicle body through the event. Phases 1, 2 and 3 are indicated on the charts. Phase 1 (TurnIn) has a duration of approximately 0.06 seconds. At the start of the event, the front tires generate lateral force because of the slip angles generated by the driver input. Due to body inertia and various system compliances the rear tires have not responded at this point. Phase 2 is considered to have started when the vehicle body begins to roll, as evidenced by the change in vertical force in Figure 3. The lateral force in the front tires continues to build though Phase 2. Phase 3 is defined as starting when the rear tires begin to generate a lateral force. The front tires have an inflection in the lateral force at this instant. Phase 3 continues until steady state cornering is achieved. (For illustrative purposes, the event has the steering wheel rotation begin arbitrarily at time = 2 seconds)

Figure 3. The vertical forces acting on each tire over the step steer event. An ADAMS flexbody model is used to extract loads at the suspension interface points and at points where significant masses are attached to the body (the powertrain for example). These loads are then employed in a Vanderplaats Research & Development Genesis6 model to generate a structural optimization loadcase for each one of these phases. Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the response of the ADAMS model for each one of the cornering phases.

Figure 4. Phase 1, t= 2.06s, is characterized by the front tires generating lateral force which then loads the front bay structure through the suspension in a lateral-type loadcase.

Figure 6. Phase 3, t=2.6s, is defined by the loads all rising to their steady state cornering values, as defined by the original input. Equilibrium for a point in time at the end of each phase is assumed which allows a snapshot of the suspension interface loads to be applied in three separate loadcases to an inertia relief structural optimization model. Assumptions of equilibrium and the lack of complete mass definition in the structural model were justified by comparison of the deformed shapes in both the Genesis and the ADAMS models. Given the spring-in-series nature of the body and suspension systems it could be argued that this is a circular approach to a nonlinear problem. However, the compliances of the suspension relative to the body are so dissimilar that for an event such as cornering, suspension loads are generally insensitive to body stiffness. In other words, loads extracted from a rigid model of the body will be essentially the same as those derived from an elastic model of the body. Applying a more complicated (but more realistic) force distribution to the model invites the tracking of suspension interface points for the loadcase in question. By doing this, flexure (in multiple degrees of freedom) can be evaluated not only at a single point of force application, but at all the suspension interface locations. Tracking points at these locations of interest, in addition to reference locations such as points on the rockers, or critical driver interfaces for example, are set up as user-defined responses for the optimization problem.

Figure 5. Phase 2, t=2.15s, the vehicle has begun to roll, and there is now a larger vertical component to the loads on the structure, the rear tires are about to generate lateral force.

Figure 7. Phase 2 twist plot showing the rotation of various tracking points (deg) vs. length along the vehicle (mm)

Standard practice for analytical suspension development requires applying various loads at the tire patches while the vehicle is constrained to ground, usually at its rockers. Constraining the vehicle in this fashion mimics the constraints found in a typical Kinematics and Compliances testing (or Vehicle Handling-) facility. This VHF method has been shown to work very well for suspension development but it is not appropriate for global body structure development because of the close proximity and extent of the constraints to the applied loads. On the other hand, standard practice for vehicle body structure development is to apply a simple torsional load at the shock absorber mounts with the constraints at the shock absorbers or spring seats of the opposite end7. By combining the VHF loadcase with the principles of the body structure development loadcase, the structure can be developed and optimized for vehicle dynamics. In a manner similar to the step-steer approach, an ADAMS model is used to generate the loads that will be used in the structural optimization model. However, in this case the front tire patches are articulated in roll while the rear spring seats or shock absorber mounts are constrained. Loads are recovered at the front suspension interfaces and then applied in a single loadcase to a similarly constrained structural optimization model (Figure 9 below). By doing this we have an additional static global torsion loadcase that instead of being driven by a simple shock absorber couple is being driven by predominantly by the road springs and the stabilizer bar mounts. As with the step-steer loadcase this allows for the optimization of additional interface points. The same approach can be reversed so that loads are applied at the rear of the vehicle while it is constrained at the front.

Figure 8. Phase 2 Twist (Rx) rates histogram (deg/mm) showing the slope of the tracking points in the twist plot in figure 7 relative to the rockers Upper and lower bounds representing ideal flexures can be used to constrain the twist rate responses in the optimization analysis. Depending on the type of optimization being performed (topometry, topology, etc) the structure can be tuned either up or down to meet the targets. It should be noted that all three phases show, to varying degrees, there are elements of both bending and torsion present in the responses. Torsion across the passenger compartment is particularly noticeable for phase 2 shown in Figures 7 & 8 above.

THE VEHICLE HANDLING FIXTURE APPROACH

With the knowledge of how important the torsional performance of the body structure was to the transient handling, new impetus was applied to further develop relevant load cases for study.

Figure 9. Vehicle dynamics loads and moments (arrows) from the rear constrained VHF roll simulation applied to the body structure optimization model. As with the step-steer method, tracking points are set up as responses in the optimization model. In this instance (Figure

10 below) rotational flexure about the vehicle x-axis is plotted.

shows how the spring to rocker twist rate has been improved using topology optimization. What is interesting about this particular example is that in the first iteration with no lower bound, the objective to minimize overall twist drove more stiffness into this response than was needed. By placing a lower bound on the constraint this problem is reduced and the possibility of a more optimized design can be explored. However, in this case there is still a minor constraint violation as a result of the need to satisfy the upper bound of a structurally related (coupled) loading point.

Figure 10. Twist (Rx) vs. location along the length of the vehicle. Figure 12. Front spring seat twist rate responses

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The primary benefit of using these new loadcases is being able to optimize the global response of the structure to manage loads associated with either a real-world vehicle dynamics event (step-steer) or a close approximation in the form of VHF distributed roll. An additional benefit of the step-steer method is that a simple un-massed body structure model can be used for fairly detailed early global structural development. The suspension constrained VHF method trades the virtual realism of a step-steer event for the ability to more easily correlate with a lab test. These new loadcases are a good demonstration of how optimization can be used for efficient structural design. By using commercial optimization software packages such as Genesis, mass efficient loadpathing and synergistic solutions to structural problems may be synthesized. The key, as with all structural analysis and optimization in particular, is to frame the problem correctly - these loadcases provide an opportunity to do that by placing optimization constraints on the structure that deliver efficient improvements to the performance of the body in real-world situations.

Figure 11. Twist rate along the length of the vehicle - the values of the gradients in the twist plot in Figure 10. The optimization problem is framed by setting the objective to be the minimization of overall twist from, for example, the front to rear shock mounts. Upper and lower bounds can then be applied as constraints on the calculated responses of twist rate as shown in the signature-histogram of Figure 11. Depending on the optimization method and the capability of the design space, changes are made to the structure (which in turn affects the signature-histogram) to satisfy the constraints and meet the vehicle dynamics requirements for stiffness and linearity along the length of the vehicle. Figure 12 below

REFERENCES
1. Sampo, E., Sorniotti, A., and Crocombe, A., Chassis Torsional Stiffness: Analysis of the Influence on Vehicle

Dynamics, SAE Technical Paper 2010-01-0094, 2010, doi: 10.4271/2010-01-0094. 2. Deakin, A., Crolla, D., Ramirez, J.P., and Hanley, R., The Effect of Chassis Stiffness on Race Car Handling Balance, SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-3554, 2000, doi: 10.4271/2000-01-3554. 3. Thompson, L.L., Soni, P.H., Raju, S., and Law, E.H., The Effects of Chassis Flexibility on Roll Stiffness of a Winston Cup Race Car, SAE Technical Paper 983051, 1998, doi: 10.4271/983051. 4. Baskin, D.M., Reed, D.B., Seel, T.N., Hunt, M.N. et al., A Case Study in Structural Optimization of an Automotive Body-In-White Design, SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-0880, 2008, doi:10.4271/2008-01-0880. 5. Chakravarty, R.R., Study of Topography Optimization on Automotive Body Structure, SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-1233, 2009, doi:10.4271/2009-01-1233. 6. Genesis Design Manual, Version 11.0, Vanderplaats Research & Development, Inc., November 2009. 7. Webb, G. G., Torsional Stiffness of Passenger Cars, IMechE Technical Paper C172/84, 1984

DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
VHF Vehicle Handling Fixture NVH Noise and Vibrational Harshness UCA Upper Control Arm LCA Lower Control Arm

CONTACT INFORMATION
Giles Bryer Advanced Program Structure Performance GM Tech Center 30001 Van Dyke, PO Box 9020, Warren, MI 48090 giles.bryer@gm.com Christopher Eccles Ride and Handling Simulation GM Tech Center 30001 Van Dyke, PO Box 9020, Warren, MI 48090 chris.eccles@gm.com

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to express gratitude to their colleagues and mentors at General Motors for allowing them the freedom to develop these new loadcases.
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. ISSN 0148-7191 Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. SAE Customer Service: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA) Fax: 724-776-0790 Email: CustomerService@sae.org SAE Web Address: http://www.sae.org Printed in USA