AAM Design 1 Design Methodology PDF

Version 2011 European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.
be) 1
Design Design Methodology

Table of contents

1. Design methodology ............................................................................................................. 2
1.1 The design challenge: Low weight, low cost, low carbon footprint and high performance ......... 2
1.2 Introduction to the design process described in this manual ..................................................... 4
1.2.1 Overview of design process ........................................................................................... 4
1.2.2 Design Phases and Objectives ........................................................................................ 5
1.2.3 Design Tools ................................................................................................................ 9
1.2.4 .......................................................................................................................................

Version 2011 European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.be) 2
1. Design methodology
1.1 The design challenge: Low weight, low cost, low carbon
footprint and high performance

The principal reason for introducing aluminium into automobiles, i.e. the application of
aluminium alloys for vehicle components, sub-assemblies and full vehicle structures is to
achieve a significant weight reduction compared to traditional car designs based mainly on
steel and cast iron. At the same time, the aim must be to develop designs that are easy to
manufacture and cost effective whilst meeting the required performance criteria.

Today, the design and manufacture of cars must not only satisfy engineering criteria, but also
fulfil environmental, social and political aims, such as minimising waste and deposition,
satisfying recycling targets, respecting health and safety regulations as well as reducing
emissions and saving resources. High emphasis is now given to the environmental
performance of an automobile over its total life cycle. The aim is to minimise the overall
environmental impact of the vehicle production stage (including materials production), service
life and end-of-life phase (including recovery and recycling of the materials).

A particular challenge is the treatment of end-of-life vehicles. In the future, therefore, it is
envisaged that increased emphasis will be put on the disassembly of selected components for
optimum recovery of the material value. This will enhance the traditional recycling route of
end-of-life vehicles (shredder and subsequent metal sorting). Design for disassembly is thus
an important development theme, requiring careful consideration of material combinations
and manufacturing methods during early design phases in order to meet both ecological and
cost targets.

The finally realised weight of a system or a sub-system, however, may not be the lowest
weight achievable since cost is generally an overriding issue. Nevertheless, with proper
application, lightweighting with aluminium almost always delivers an improved performance of
the vehicle in addition to the lower fuel consumption (which translates into lower CO
2

emissions). Lightweighting with aluminium enables better acceleration, shorter braking
distance, easier handling, increased car body stiffness and a lower centre of gravity at a
modest cost increase, factors which also contribute in particular to an enhanced safety
performance.

A good example of for such a performance enhancement is body structure of the Audi TT
roadster. Different aluminium product forms, but also steel are used at specific locations in the
body structure with the following results:

Weight reduction of 100 kilograms compared to an equivalent all steel construction
Significantly reduced body-in-white mass for coup and roadster versions (weight
reduction of 100 kg leading to a total weight of 206kg)
Balanced front / rear axle weight distribution
Improved torsional stiffness (coup +50%, roadster +100%).

An interesting part is the lower A post, a high pressure die cast multi-functional aluminium
component that links the side member, the sill, the A post and the wind-shield cross-member.
The specific benefits include a very precise part geometry and the maximum use of the
available space to ensure high stiffness and structural integrity in crash.

For the car owner, the extensive use of aluminium translates to:
Easier handling during cornering
Shorter braking distance
7.5 to 12.5 grams lower CO
2
emissions per kilometre
Lower fuel consumption
More uniform tyre wear.


Body structure of the AUDI TT roadster
Source: http://www.automobilesreview.com/tag/tt/

The body structure consists of 140 kg Aluminium (68%):
63 kg of sheet,
45 kg of castings,
32 kg of extruded sections,
as well as of 66 kg steel (32%).

1.2 Introduction to the design process described in this
manual

Automobile manufacturers have at their disposal a wealth of expertise in designing and
manufacturing vehicles with a wide range of materials. The body structure and the skin panels
have traditionally been manufactured from various steel grades. However, with the current
focus on the reduction of fuel consumption and overall greenhouse gas emissions, other
materials, and in particular aluminium, are used to achieve a significant reduction in the
weight of the car body.

While most of the general design principles that have been developed for steel are also valid
for aluminium structures, best results are always obtained if there is enough design freedom
to apply an aluminium-oriented design, rather than just to substitute aluminium for steel in
existing part designs.

This section will describe a design process that is later illustrated by case studies. Some
vehicle manufacturers and first tier suppliers are already expert with aluminium as the
example of the Audi TT structure shows. They have developed sophisticated procedures
based on their accrued knowledge, in order to manage the design process with aluminium.
We hope, however, that the following will be a useful introduction for both young and
experienced engineers who wish to explore more fully the differences between designing with
steel and aluminium.
1.2.1 Overview of design process

A design process can be used for further developing existing objects or for producing
completely new ones. The detailed content of each design project is likely to be different since
it will depend on its specific objectives, the starting point and the available resources. Certain
logical steps are often taken in order to be able to make qualified decisions selecting the best
of the options available at specific points along the time-line called gates.

Design Pre-Prototype Design Development Industrialisation
New technology scanning /
Concept studies
Prototype Studies Detailed Design Product and Process
Design / Validation
Industrialisation
and Trials
Pilot
runs
SOP
ramp
GATE
Technology
Selection
GATE
Design Freeze
GATE
Tooling
Simulation
Acceptance
Tooling tryout
manufacturing
plant
GATE
Implementation
Readiness
GATE
Prototype
Selection
GATE
Design &
Process
Sign-Off
Tooling
tryout at
tooling
manufacturer
SOP
Design Brief
(Cahier de
Charge)

Time-line for complete Concept to Start of Production (SOP) projects
Source: Roger Hall

The single common element in all design projects is the design brief that describes the overall
objectives of the project, such as, for example, an electric niche vehicle with a very short
wheelbase, whose target customer is young families living in the city, etc.

The design brief is then translated into specific deliverables for each department working on
the project. Typical deliverables might include weight reduction, improved safety for
occupants and pedestrians, cost reduction, etc.

The scope of a design project is further defined by detailed product requirements and the
imposed constraints which form the specific boundary conditions of the project.

Some common project boundary conditions
Source: Roger Hall
1.2.2 Design Phases and Objectives

In the automotive industry, clean sheet design projects are relatively rare because of their
long duration, high cost and potentially higher risk than the development of proven designs,
but also because of the possibilities ti integrate carry-over parts. Some examples of recent
clean sheet designs are the Mercedes SLS, BMW 1 series, Fiat 500 and the GM electric
vehicle. The advantages of a clean sheet design include a full freedom in the location and
choice of power unit, power train and suspension. Thus they are most interesting for vehicles
using new, alternative power systems. Better packaging can improve safety and access to
hydrogen storage units or batteries and other rigid components that may be required by fuel
cell and electric motor powered vehicles. Improved packaging of the main functional units
directly influences the potential to maximise the ratio of passenger compartment volume to
the vehicle length (e.g. important for the attractiveness of city cars for families).

When designing with aluminium, a clean sheet approach will also deliver more efficient
structures. Larger beam sections, large thin-walled castings and straight or bent extrusions
may be used more effectively and also packaged to deliver stiffness and strength targets as
efficiently as possible.


Design and Development Projects
Source: Roger Hall
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s

o
f

T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y

I
N
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N

t
i
m
i
n
g
F
u
l
l

F
r
e
e
d
o
m

o
f

D
e
s
i
g
n

"
C
l
e
a
n

S
h
e
e
t
"
N
e
w

D
e
s
i
g
n

C
y
c
l
e

o
n

E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
M
i
d
-
l
i
f
e

F
a
c
e
-
L
i
f
t
C
o
s
t

R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

E
x
e
r
c
i
s
e
D
e
s
i
g
n

P
r
e
-
P
r
o
t
o
t
y
p
e
D
e
s
i
g
n

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
N
e
w

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

s
c
a
n
n
i
n
g

/

C
o
n
c
e
p
t

s
t
u
d
i
e
s
P
r
o
t
o
t
y
p
e

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

D
e
s
i
g
n
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

a
n
d

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

D
e
s
i
g
n

/

V
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

T
r
i
a
l
s
P
i
l
o
t

r
u
n
s
S
O
P

r
a
m
p
G
A
T
E

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
A
T
E

D
e
s
i
g
n

F
r
e
e
z
e
G
A
T
E

T
o
o
l
i
n
g

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e

T
o
o
l
i
n
g

t
r
y
o
u
t
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

p
l
a
n
t
G
A
T
E

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
G
A
T
E

P
r
o
t
o
t
y
p
e

S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
A
T
E

D
e
s
i
g
n

&

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

S
i
g
n
-
O
f
f

T
o
o
l
i
n
g

t
r
y
o
u
t
a
t

t
o
o
l
i
n
g

m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
S
O
P
D
e
s
i
g
n

B
r
i
e
f

(
C
a
h
i
e
r
d
e

C
h
a
r
g
e
)
N
e
w
D
e
s
i
g
n
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
M
B
S
L
S
F
u
e
l
C
e
l
l
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
G
M
E
V
1
/
2
M
o
d
u
l
e
i
n
n
e
w
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
B
M
W
S
e
r
i
e
s
A
u
d
i
T
T
M
a
r
k
I
I
F
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
,
r
i
d
e
a
n
d
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
,
p
o
w
e
r
t
r
a
i
n
S
t
y
l
i
n
g
B
o
n
n
e
t
,
B
u
m
p
e
r
,
w
i
n
g
s
,
d
o
o
r
L
a
g
u
n
a
I
I
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
g
a
u
g
e
a
n
d
g
r
a
d
e
t
u
n
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
f
i
n
e
t
u
n
i
n
g


Design and development projects can start at different points along the above time-line
according to their nature and the degree of experience that has been accumulated with all of
the relevant technologies.

Until the mid-1980s, aluminium applications in the car body and in particular all-aluminium
vehicles were very rare and almost all car manufacturers envisaging the use of aluminium for
structural applications worked intensively with their materials suppliers, universities and
engineering partners to validate aluminium-oriented design concepts. Nowadays, aluminium
concept studies tend to concentrate on the development of new technologies delivering
greater design possibilities, improvements in car body stiffness and crash energy absorption
capability, final quality and cost reduction.

Aluminium structures are becoming more cost and weight efficient owing to the development
of stronger, more formable alloys, better joining systems and the availability of improved
numerical simulation methods for aluminium. Simultaneous engineering enables the
integration of new technologies at all phases of the design and development project.


Simultaneous activities for a typical project
Source: Roger Hall
P
R
O
J
E
C
T

A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y

P
H
A
S
E
S
A
u
t
o

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
e
r
s
A
u
t
o

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r

A
d
v
a
n
c
e
d

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
A
u
t
o

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
A
u
t
o

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r

P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
A
u
t
o

M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r

P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
i
e
s
P
r
o
f
e
s
i
o
n
a
l

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

o
r
g
a
n
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h

d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
S
u
p
p
l
i
e
r

p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
D
e
s
i
g
n

P
r
e
-
P
r
o
t
o
t
y
p
e
D
e
s
i
g
n

D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n
N
e
w

t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

s
c
a
n
n
i
n
g

/

C
o
n
c
e
p
t

s
t
u
d
i
e
s
P
r
o
t
o
t
y
p
e

S
t
u
d
i
e
s
D
e
t
a
i
l
e
d

D
e
s
i
g
n
P
r
o
d
u
c
t

a
n
d

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

D
e
s
i
g
n

/

V
a
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
i
s
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

T
r
i
a
l
s
P
i
l
o
t

r
u
n
s
S
O
P

r
a
m
p
G
A
T
E

T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
A
T
E

D
e
s
i
g
n

F
r
e
e
z
e
G
A
T
E

T
o
o
l
i
n
g

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

A
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e

T
o
o
l
i
n
g

t
r
y
o
u
t
m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g

p
l
a
n
t
G
A
T
E

I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
a
d
i
n
e
s
s
G
A
T
E

P
r
o
t
o
t
y
p
e

S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

G
A
T
E

D
e
s
i
g
n

&

P
r
o
c
e
s
s

S
i
g
n
-
O
f
f

T
o
o
l
i
n
g

t
r
y
o
u
t
a
t

t
o
o
l
i
n
g

m
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
e
r
S
O
P
D
e
s
i
g
n

B
r
i
e
f

(
C
a
h
i
e
r
d
e

C
h
a
r
g
e
)

1.2.3 Design Tools

New materials and processes can lead to step-change improvements in product performance
and attractiveness. The drawback is that, until they are fully known, there is always an
associated risk that needs to be managed.

In reality, even known products can suddenly develop a new failure mode. There are four
main levels at which physical uncertainty or scatter is seen: loads, boundary / initial
conditions, material properties, and geometry. Numerical simulation assumptions and
simplifications add another equally important form of uncertainty that may not be associated
with the physics of the problem. The automotive industry is no stranger to these problems and
has adopted and developed many tools to enable robust and efficient production of vehicles.

This section intends to highlight the major differences between aluminium and steel that
influence the physics that forms the basis for design decisions from concept to product sign-
off. These differences are highlighted by a brief discussion of aluminium in a multi-material
structure using basic tools that are already familiar to most automotive design engineers.

DFMEA Design Failure Modes and Effects Analysis
This is an iterative process that becomes more refined as the design and development
process matures. Its aim is to identify potential failure modes, identify corrective actions and
to assess remaining risk. The designer can also use this technique to identify useful physical
properties of the material that might otherwise go unnoticed.

Consider the four main uncertainties identified by Dr Marczyk in the context of a stamped
aluminium panel in a steel structure.

Boundary /
initial
Conditions
Material
Properties
Load
J oining Mechanical
E, , Rp, Rm, Ag,..
Vibration
Thermal
Thermal
DBTT, Conductivity,
Emissivity, Expansion
Coefficient, ...
Impact
Stiffnessof
attached structures
Internal stress
Environment
Aluminium Panel in Steel Structure
Geometry
Shape
Assembly
Tolerances Shaping
n-value, r-value, ...
Gravity
Air pressure
Structure Loads
Resistance
Electrical, Corrosion,
Thermal, Radiation,
Magnetic, ...

Under each major heading is a list of the parameters which have an affinity with each other,
and which might be important for the design of the envisaged component. Potential
manufacturing and in-service conditions may be thus investigated and the high-risk items can
be identified for solution very early in the design or development stages.

The selected parameters that are relevant for the design concept may then be laid out as a
herring-bone diagram in order to add further details for each parameter. In the simplified
example shown below, the product form is assumed to be a stamped sheet panel.

Once all of the options have been considered, one or more potential solutions can be outlined
specifying the aluminium product form, alloy and temper, surface conditions, joining methods,
etc. These then form the boundary conditions for the design development process. A herring-
bone diagram may be omitted for the further development of an existing, proven design
unless one or more of the major parameters is significantly changed.

Aluminium components can be shaped by a wide range of technologies including various
casting techniques, hot forging, cold forging, room temperature stamping, warm forming,
super-plastic forming, spinning, extruding, roll forming, etc. Each of these forming processes
has some specific limitations regarding the applicable alloy compositions, but it has also an
effect on the final material properties that have to withstand the loading conditions. Some
major differences between aluminium and steel with respect to the most commonly used
automotive component forming operations:

Casting
Lower energy requirement (casting temperatures lower than steel and iron)
Wide range of available casting methods
Steel dies may be used because of low melting point of aluminium
Advanced high pressure die casting processes produce thin-walled high
precision parts with very low porosity delivering almost wrought properties
Extrusion
Only available for aluminium (and magnesium) as commercial products
Adhesive Bonding
Cold Metal Transfer
Rivet Bonding
Spot Welding
Laser Brazing
Flame Brazing
Linishing / Polishing
Friction Stir Spot welding
Joining / Finishing
Robot Control
Hand Machine
Emery Cloth
Methods
Yield Strength
Tensile Strength
Expansion coefficient
Creep
Elastic Modulus
Conductivity
Properties
OEM
Do It Yourself
Repair Shop
Re-work Line
Competence
Steel
Aluminium
Zinc
Copper
Al2O3
Carbon
Material
Temperature Cycling
Paint system
Degrease
Salt / Acid
Scratches
Rain / Hail
Environment
Potential
Solutions
Material
Properties
Joining /
Finishing
Environment
Competence
Methods

Roll forming
Suitable for aluminium and steel
Aluminium may require more rolling stands than steel of the same strength
See Stamping comments for E, galling, n and r values
Stamping
Elastic Modulus
More spring back compensation may be required than for comparable
strength steel grade (Elastic modulus of aluminium 1/3 of steel)

Yield surface / Locus shape
Aluminium is closer to TRESCA than HILL 48 (commonly used for steel)
Use Cazacu-Barlat, Vegter or Hill 90 for aluminium
Friction
Tends to be slightly higher than with galvanised steel sheet
Appropriate surface topographies and modern hot melt lubricants minimise
this difference
Galling
Lower surface hardness and melting point than steel
Use suitable tooling materials and lubricants
Low temperature ductility
Ductility of aluminium improves at low temperature
Ductile brittle transition temperature (DBTT) is not an issue for aluminium
Strain rate sensitivity
Very low sensitivity at room temperature (compared to steel)
Flow stress and plastic strain tends to increase with increasing strain rate
Work hardening (strain hardening exponent n)
Higher than equivalent strength steel grades
Plastic Anisotropy (Lankford coefficient r)
Inferior to steel at room temperature
result of a deep-drawing operation is, however, for aluminium sheets less
dependent on the r-value than for steel sheets

In sheet stamping, these differences between aluminium and steel produce correspondingly
different post forming thickness and strain distributions in the final part. Additionally, local
design and process modifications, for example to compensate for the low r value, may further
influence the local material characteristics in the formed panel and thus the behaviour of the
final part under critical loads such as a crash.


Experimental and theoretical yield loci and r-value - AA 3103-O
Source: Proceedings of the Romanian Academy Series A, Volume 3, Number 3/2002.
Recent Anisotropic Yield Criteria for Sheet Metals

In the example outlined below in more details, the idea of inserting an aluminium panel into a
steel structure is considered simultaneously from product, operating environment and
manufacturing perspectives. Additional details on the function of the panel need to be added
now in order to complete the FMEA specification. We will define its function as a non-visible
panel defining the central floor of the vehicle.

Software tools are commercially available for engineers to construct and track an FMEA
process. Most vehicle manufacturers have developed their own systems that enable a high
degree of integration with their other product development management activities. This
section aims to demonstrate the main principles of risk and benefit assessment that
automotive design engineers use in order to make informed and reasoned decisions when a
new application of aluminium may be required.

Prepared by RWH/MS
Date 14/04/2010
Revision 1.0
FailureMode Effects ofFailure Severity Causes Occurrence Controls Detection RiskPriority
Number
Proposed Corrective Actions Responsible Completion
Date
(S) (O) (D) (S*O*D) Actions
taken
S O D RPN
Water ingress 2 Gap injoint 0 FEA&Test 5
Noise/ Vibration 2 Relativemovement 0 " 3
Passenger protection 10 Modified loadpaths 1 " 4 40
Water ingress 2 Gap injoint 2 " 4 16
Noise/ Vibration 2 Relativemovement 1 " 3 6
Passenger protection 10 Modified loadpaths 3 " 5 150 Analyse loads /addrivets/ addadhesive Analysis/Materials 7/5/10 Y 5 1 5 25
Noise/ Vibration 2 Low clampingforce 2 Quality 10 40
Passenger protection 10 Modified loadpaths 3 FEA&Test 10 300 Analyse loads /addrivets/ addadhesive Analysis/Materials 7/5/10 Y 1 1 5 5
Corrosion Strength 4 Dissimilar materials 5 Test 8 160 RivetCoating/ paint& sealing Materials/Test 7/5/10 Y 1 1 5 5
Assembly
feasibility
Hole misalignment 7 Buildtolerances 4 Manufacturing
Engineering
4 112 Larger clearance holeoninsertionside CAD /Test 7/5/10 Y 3 2 4 24
Access Jointdesign 5 GunClearance 5 Manufacturing
Engineering
4 100 SimulationofRobotpath andfouling Manufacturing
Engineering
7/5/10 Y 5 1 1 5
CostofRivet Businesscase 5 Number needed 5 Product
development
5 125 Identifyareaswherepitchcanbe relaxed Productdevelopment 7/5/10 Y 5 2 5 50
Labour Cost Businesscase 7 Manual operation 4 Manufacturing
Engineering
4 112 Only use onnichevehicle volumes Manufacturing
Engineering
N 7 4 4 112
ComponentCost Businesscase 6 Hole Drilling 4 Manufacturing
Engineering
3 72
Cycle time Businesscase 5 Locationofholes 5 Manufacturing
Engineering
4 100 Larger clearance holeoninsertionside Manufacturing
Engineering
7/5/10 Y 3 2 4 24
CostofGun Businesscase 3 Number needed 1 Manufacturing
Engineering
1 3 Manufacturing
Engineering
Water ingress 2 Gap injoint 0 FEA&Test 5
Passenger protection 10 Modified loadpaths 0 " 4
Passenger protection 10 Modified loadpaths 1 " 5 50
Noise/ Vibration 2 Relativemovement 1 Quality 10 20
Passenger protection 10 Modified loadpaths 1 FEA&Test 10 100 Analyse loads /addrivets/ addadhesive Analysis/Materials 7/5/10 N 10 1 10 100
Corrosion Strength 4 Dissimilar materials 5 Test 8 160 RivetCoating Materials/Test 7/5/10 Y 1 1 5 5
Clamping Force 5 Buildtolerances 4 Manufacturing
Engineering
4 80
8 IncompatibleMaterial
strength
3 Product
development
5 120 Testextreme combinations Productdevelopment 7/5/10 Y 3 3 5 45
10 Incompatible
thicknesses
4 Product
development
5 200 Testextreme combinationsafter alloy
combinationswindow identified
Productdevelopment 7/5/10 Y 3 4 5 60
Jointdesign 5 GunClearance 5 Manufacturing
Engineering
3 75
Jointdesign 10 Onlysingle side
access
5 Product
development
3 150 Assembly sequence /putflangeonextrusion Analysis/CAD /
Production
7/5/10 Y 10 1 1 10
CostofRivet Businesscase 3 Number needed 5 Product
development
5 75
Labour Cost Businesscase 7 Fullyautomated 1 Manufacturing
Engineering
4 28
ComponentCost Businesscase 0 Nospecial
preparation required
0 Manufacturing
Engineering
0
Cycle time Businesscase 5 Weight ofGun 1 Manufacturing
Engineering
4 20
CostofGun Businesscase 8 Number ofGuns 8 Manufacturing
Engineering
1 64
Part /ProcessName/N AluminiumFloor Panelin steelstructure
Design / ManufacturingResponsibility AdvancedDesign /Manufacturing
POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT
Description / Purpose Results
Layer failure
Blind Rivet: floor/sill
Self piercingRivet: floor/sill
and seat runner
Access
Assembly
Shear strength
TPeel /tension
Fatigue
Shear strength
TPeel /tension
Fatigue

Typical FMEA tracking sheet for joining

The concept of failure mode potential is simple, but like any prediction, it relies heavily on
experience. It forms an important part of risk and benefit analyses that are normally carried
out and updated periodically for review at each design gate.

In this context, failure means that the component, assembly or system does not meet the
requirements of the design intent.

As the concept matures, the potential risks should all have some corrective action in order to
pass the decision gate allowing the concept to proceed through to the next phases. If
perceived benefits outweigh the resulting risks or cost of investigation and correction, then the
concept may continue. A greater level of confidence is required for each subsequent decision
gate, and it is usual for a panel of experts to contribute to this process in order to arrive at
implementation readiness for design integration, and later implementation readiness for
production.

The FMEA sheet in its simplest form is made up of three parts:
1. List of potential risks
2. Proposed corrective actions
3. Results of actions

FailureMode EffectsofFailure Severity Causes Occurrence Controls Detection RiskPriority
Number
(S) (O) (D) (S*O*D)
Wateringress 2 Gapinjoint 0 FEA&Test 5
Noise/Vibration 2 Relativemovement 0 " 3
Passengerprotection 10 Modifiedloadpaths 1 " 4
40
Wateringress 2 Gapinjoint 2 " 4
16
6
150
16
Noise/Vibration 2 Lowclampingforce 2 Quality 10
40
Passengerprotection 10 Modifiedloadpaths 3 FEA&Test 10
300
Corrosion Strength 4 Dissimilarmaterials 5 Test 8
160
Assembly
feasibility
Holemisalignment 7 Buildtolerances 4 Manufacturing
Engineering
4
112
Access Jointdesign 5 GunClearance 5 Manufacturing
Engineering
4
100
CostofRivet Businesscase 5 Numberneeded 5 Product
development
5
125
LabourCost Businesscase 7 Manualoperation 4 Manufacturing
Engineering
4
112
ComponentCost Businesscase 6 HoleDrilling 4 Manufacturing
Engineering
3
72
Cycletime Businesscase 5 Locationofholes 5 Manufacturing
Engineering
4
100
CostofGun Businesscase 3 Numberneeded 1 Manufacturing
Engineering
1
3
Wateringress 2 Gapinjoint 0 FEA&Test 5
8
50
8
Noise/Vibration 2 Relativemovement 1 Quality 10
20
Passengerprotection 10 Modifiedloadpaths 1 FEA&Test 10
100
Corrosion Strength 4 Dissimilarmaterials 5 Test 8
160
ClampingForce 5 Buildtolerances 4 Manufacturing
Engineering
4
80
8 IncompatibleMaterial
strength
3 Product
development
5
120
10 Incompatible
thicknesses
4 Product
development
5
200
Jointdesign 5 GunClearance 5 Manufacturing
Engineering
3
75
Jointdesign 10 Onlysingleside
access
5 Product
development
3
150
CostofRivet Businesscase 3 Numberneeded 5 Product
development
5
75
LabourCost Businesscase 7 Fullyautomated 1 Manufacturing
Engineering
4
28
ComponentCost Businesscase 0 Nospecial
preparationrequired
0 Manufacturing
Engineering
0
Cycletime Businesscase 5 WeightofGun 1 Manufacturing
Engineering
4
20
CostofGun Businesscase 8 NumberofGuns 8 Manufacturing
Engineering
1
64
Description/Purpose
Layerfailure
BlindRivet:floor/sill
SelfpiercingRivet:floor/sill
andseatrunner
Access
Assembly
Shearstrength
TPeel/tension
Fatigue
Shearstrength
TPeel/tension
Fatigue

Potential risks: Joining aluminium to steel with the selected joining systems
Source: R Hall / M Shergold

Severity of failure (S) is a subjective measure unless numerical simulations or experience can
quantify the consequences of a failure with respect to the function of the component or the
end user. Occurrence (O) is an estimate of the probability of failure. Anticipated loading,
environment and mechanical properties of the system elements can help to define this rating
in the early design stages. Detection (D) is an estimate of the capabilities of the controls to
detect the cause of failure. S, O and D values of 10 indicate maximum risk, RPN of 125 or
greater indicates a high priority risk.


ProposedCorrectiveActions Responsible Completion
Date
Analyseloads/addrivets/addadhesive Analysis/Materials 7/5/10
RivetCoating/paint&sealing Materials/Test 7/5/10
Largerclearanceholeoninsertionside CAD/Test 7/5/10
SimulationofRobotpathandfouling Manufacturing
Engineering
7/5/10
Identifyareaswherepitchcanberelaxed Productdevelopment 7/5/10
Onlyuseonnichevehiclevolumes Manufacturing
Engineering
Largerclearanceholeoninsertionside Manufacturing
Engineering
7/5/10
Manufacturing
Engineering
RivetCoating Materials/Test 7/5/10
Testextremecombinations Productdevelopment 7/5/10
Testextremecombinationsafteralloy
combinationswindowidentified
Productdevelopment 7/5/10
Assemblysequence/putflangeonextrusion Analysis/CAD/
Production
7/5/10
Actions
taken
S O D RPN
Y 5 1 5
25
Y 1 1 5
5
Y 1 1 5
5
Y 3 2 4
24
Y 5 1 1
5
Y 5 2 5
50
N 7 4 4
112
Y 3 2 4
24
N 10 1 10
100
Y 1 1 5
5
Y 3 3 5
45
Y 3 4 5
60
Y 10 1 1
10
Results

Proposed corrective actions and results of actions
Source: R Hall / M Shergold


This example would not be considered as the end of the FMEA, since some high ratings
remain to be investigated.

To complete the assessment of the joining system, we need to compare the specific features
and capabilities of each system. The features that have been identified as benefits for our
specific case can then be highlighted enabling the best choice to be identified easily.

Responsibility
Preparedby RWH/MS
Date 14/04/2010
Revision 1.0
Features
SingleSideAccess
Dissimilarmaterialsinlayers
Differentlayerthicknesses
AcceptshighthicknessesRatio
Misalignmenttolerance
Corrosionresistancegalvanic
Pieceprice
Component(drilling)cost
GunPrice
CycleTime
Shearstrength
PeelStrength
Fatiguestrength
SingleSideAccess
Dissimilarmaterialsinlayers
Differentlayerthicknesses
AcceptshighthicknessesRatio
Misalignmenttolerance
Corrosionresistancegalvanic
Pieceprice
Component(preparation)cost
GunPrice
CycleTime
Shearstrength
PeelStrength
Fatiguestrength
Checkparticularcase
Advantage
Disadvantage
BlindRivet:floor/sill
SelfpiercingRivet:floor/sill
Part/ProcessName/N AluminiumFloorPanelinsteelstructure
AdvancedDesign/Manufacturing
Description/Purpose
Low
High
High
High
Checkwithmanufacturer&test
No
Selectappropriatecoating
High
High
High
Selectappropriatecoating
Low
High
Medium
High
Medium
No
Low
Low
Rating
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Comparison of features of two joining systems

Such an evaluation can also lead to the identification of specific areas where the unique
advantages of aluminium can be exploited. In this example, an extruded sill section with a
shear flange could be used to accommodate cross car slip tolerances.

a) Design Optimisation
Many definitions and techniques come under this heading, but all have one thing in common,
the refinement of an existing design. Design optimisation is an iterative procedure usually
employed in the design development and industrialisation phases.

Design optimisation should not be confused with striving to obtain the highest performance
since this may only be obtained in most cases at the cost of the robustness of the solution.

An affinity matrix approach can be useful to help to identify the parameters that need to be
included into the optimisation boundary conditions, the variables and the object function we
wish to minimise in order to obtain an optimal solution.

Considering our example:

Aluminium Panel in Steel Structure
Boundary /
initial
Conditions
Material
Properties
Load
J oining Mechanical
E, , Rp, Rm, Ag,..
Vibration
Thermal
Thermal
Conductivity,
Emissivity,
Expansion
Coefficient, ...
Impact
Stiffness of
attached
structures
Internal stress
Environment
Geometry
Shape
Assembly
Tolerances
Shaping
n-value, r-value, ...
Gravity
Air pressure
Structure Loads
Resistance
Electrical, Corrosion,
Thermal, Radiation,
Magnetic, ...
Boundary conditions
and Loading
Function to Minimise
Optimisation
Variables

Selection of the parameters for an optimisation analysis

As the number of variables and object functions increase, so does the complexity of the
optimisation process. Non-feasible results can be obtained if boundary conditions and
variables are defined incorrectly.

In this case the variables can be further defined as:
J oining
Structural adhesive
Rivet
Rivet +mastic
Rivet pitch
Shape
Flange length
Flange root radius
Material thickness.


All commercial finite element optimisation software packages require that the optimisation
process is controlled by boundary conditions that define the practical spatial, geometrical,
material-related and loading limits of the problem.

The drawback of any optimisation analysis is that it is very difficult to know if the identified
solution is robust. This issue has lead to the development of statistical methods for finite
element predictions (see brief discussion of Stochastic analysis). Furthermore, it is difficult to
include the effect of tolerance on each of the parameters used. Another danger is that some
important parameters may not be selected, although, affinity matrix methods can help to avoid
this problem.

Aluminium extrusions and castings lend themselves particularly well to geometrical and
limited topological optimisation tools.

Aluminium sheet parts can benefit from the very tight tolerances on rolled thickness.
Aluminium has a density of one third of that of steel, with similar if not tighter rolling
tolerances. This combination enables a higher degree of mass optimisation than can be
obtained with commercially available sheet steel. It is usual to try to minimise mass which
automatically reduces material cost and carbon foot print, although many other object
functions may be chosen.

b) Topological optimisation
Topology optimisation relies on algorithms that manipulate two- or three-dimensional spatial
relationships with given materials properties to satisfy all functional requirements of a system
within a given package. This technique is most often used in early design phases when
packaging is defined.

Most linear finite element analysis software offers this capability. In the most general cases, a
somewhat organic structure is identified as the optimum solution, satisfying all of the defined
load cases and boundary conditions.

Design space for topological optimisation
Source: Aachen Body Engineering Days 2009, Realization of an Uncompromising
Sportscar Concept, The Body of the Mercedes SLS AMG

While careful definition of the design volume can steer the optimisation process, it is usually
necessary to further develop the shapes to produce feasible solutions for rolled and/or
extruded products.


Structure proposed by topological optimisation
Source: Aachen Body Engineering Days 2009, Realization of an Uncompromising
Sportscar Concept, The Body of the Mercedes SLS AMG

Topological optimisation is a particularly suitable technique for aluminium solutions. The low
density of aluminium and the possibility of a consequent wall thickness adaptation often make
it possible for cast and extruded aluminium products to achieve close approximations to the
output from these optimisation tools while delivering significant weight savings compared to
other technologies.

c) Optimisation and stochastic methods
Finite element (FE) simulation is increasingly used for the prediction and validation of the
performance of automotive components and sub-systems. Unfortunately, this approach
cannot in itself address uncertainties in tolerances, loading and boundary conditions.

Optimisation techniques are most useful in the early design phases where the part geometry
is dimensioned according to the nominal loads and packaging constraints. It may then be
necessary to judge the robustness of the optimised solution using stochastic methods. If
used correctly to further modify the design parameters in order to avoid an undesired
behaviour, then the final result will be efficient and robust.

Monte Carlo Simulation techniques are used to enable for uncertainties to be modelled and
run on the computer thousands of times. In this way, FE analysis and test results can be
compared to verify that the model represents the functional reality. It enables the
identification of many failure modes that might otherwise not be known. It is also possible to
identify which variables are to be controlled most stringently in order to avoid random
behaviour in highly non-linear systems.

These studies are very expensive, but their results can be very valuable in explaining what
might influence bifurcation in behaviour.

Ant-hill plots are used to identify chaotic and deterministic behaviours.


Ant-hill plot showing system response to a variation of barrier angle
Source: Uncertainty Management in Automotive Crash: From Analysis To Simulation,
J. Marczyk Ph.D

AAM Design 1 Design Methodology PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AAM Design 1 Design Methodology PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Version 2011 European Aluminium Association (auto@eaa.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen