Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
8392 (2011)
DOI 10.1007/s1223901100112
1. INTRODUCTION
84
Nissan, the Lincoln Town from Ford, and the Civic from
Honda. The armrest has a steel frame that is surrounded by
soft polyurethane foam and an outer leather layer. Figure 1
shows an armrest with a cup holder on the back seat of a
car. In the armrest, the frame is the most important part
because it carries the load, and it is often made by forming
sheet metal.
2.2. Design Specifications
Formerly, a steel armrest frame made of 2-mm-thick sheet
metal was used to carry the load. It was blamed for the
heavy weight and high manufacturing cost because of its
long manufacturing process that includes punching, stamping and welding. In an attempt to reduce the weight and
manufacturing cost, the steel frame should be redesigned
with plastics or plastic-based materials. With these new
materials, the weight of the product will be reduced, and
the manufacturing productivity will be increased through
the application of the injection molding process. In
addition, another requirement is that the frame structure
should be optimized to fulfill the design conditions but
minimize the volume of required material.
Figure 2 shows the loads that the frame carries. The
critical working condition occurs when the armrest is laid
down in a horizontal position. In this case, it is fixed at the
left end by the four short pins, and the applied force acts on
the right end. To ensure the fail-safety of the armrest
according to safety standards, the frame must be strong
enough to support an 800-N distributed load located at a
distance of 20 mm from the right free end.
The yield strength of steel is approximately five to ten
times higher than that of common plastics (250 MPa compared to 20~55 MPa). Therefore, the plastic frame must be
five to ten times thicker than the steel one (approximately
10~20 mm in thickness) if the structure is the same as the
steel frame. Of course, this thickness prohibits the use of
shell-type plastic products for this purpose, and, therefore,
structural optimization should be carried out to reduce the
thickness.
The region on the right side of the frame where the cup
holder is assembled should be retained. However, the main
body region in the middle can be modified to increase the
strength and stiffness of the frame. On the armrest frame,
there are also two metal insert pins in each side at the left
85
end that are used to fit the armrest to the seat frame. Thus,
it is an important region where contact stress occurs. The
contact stress must be less than the yield stress to ensure
that the joins between the metal pins and plastics are not
broken. The deflection of the frame is also considered
because it affects the quality of the frame. Therefore, these
parameters should be reduced as much as possible.
In this research, structural optimization was the most
important task. The problem was how to minimize the
weight and deflection of the frame while keeping the stress
below an allowable value. The following sections present
the optimization method applied to the design of the plastic
armrest frame.
86
The proposed structural optimization method has the advantages of ease of use, reliability, and low computing cost.
With these considerations, the systematic procedure for
designing the plastic armrest frame is presented in Figure 3,
and the main steps of this process are described in more
detail in the following section.
Tensile
strength
(MPa)
Elastic
modulus
(GPa)
Density
(g/cm)
36
83
44
99
130
72
1.6
2.8
2.7
2.3
7.5
4.9
0.91
1.14
1.40
1.18
1.39
1.12
(1)
87
88
(3)
2
1
h
t
h
4t1 ---- +2t3( b 2t1 ) h1 h4 ---3 +2 t2h2 h1 h3 ----2
2
2
2
y1= -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A
A=2[ 2t1 h1+ t2 h2+ ( b 2t1 )t3 ]
4
2
Ix= --- t1 h31+ --- ( b 2t1 )[ ( h1 h4 )3 ( h1 h4 t3)3]
3
3
2
+ --- t2 [ ( h1 h3 )3 ( h1 h3 h2 )3 ]
3
I=IxAy
2
1
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Pl i (i 1)
= ------ -----------------------
3
3E i = 1
Ii
(8)
89
15.0
15.0
15.0
18.5
18.5
18.5
22.0
22.0
22.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
50
58
86
60
82
104
71
96
122
1.01
0.78
0.71
0.84
0.63
0.51
0.75
0.56
0.54
44.2
37.8
36.7
38.8
34.7
34.0
36.7
33.5
31.2
(9)
( y f )
i
R = 1 -------------------------2
( y i yi )
(10)
r2
b2
rb
R
squared
0.17
0.10
1.60
3.75
0.01
0.50
0.999
0.952
0.977
90
minimize f1 and f2
(11a)
subject to f3 38
(11b)
15 r 22; 15 b 25
(11c)
This problem is a multi-objective optimization process
that minimizes the volume ( f2) and displacement ( f1) of the
contact region model while keeping the stress below the
allowable value of 38 MPa. The permitted design strength
of the material in the direction that is perpendicular to fiber
direction was chosen for the contact stress region with a
safety factor of 1.25.
Multi-objective optimization was solved using the multiobjective genetic algorithm (MOGA) (Osyczka, 2002). To
solve this MOGA conveniently, the iSight tool was used.
For multi-objective optimization, there are many trade-off
solutions before choosing the one that best suits the design
requirements. The volume is the most important objective
function that affects the economical effects of the optimization results. For this reason, the preferred optimum point
was selected to minimize the volume rather than the deflection. The optimum values of the design variables were
chosen as r = 16.9 mm and b = 16.7 mm, and they were
rounded to r = 17 mm and b = 17 mm.
4.4.2. Optimization of the main body and cup-holder region
The structural optimization of the main body and cupholder region were changed to cross-section optimization
with the equivalent mechanical model. The cup-holder
region at the free end of the frame is simpler than the main
body region because its cross-section has a U-shaped form.
Its design variables include t, t4, h, and b (see Figure 7), in
which t4 = 2.5 mm, h = 40 mm, and b = 170 mm are predetermined and fixed according to the reasonable size and
subject to
My
I
(12a)
(12b)
= ---------1 41
(12c)
(12d)
(12e)
The problem described by Equations (12) is a multiobjective optimization problem, so it was also solved using
the MOGA method to obtain engineering data mining.
Figure 10 shows the Pareto plots or trade-off between the
stress and area as well as between the deflection and area.
Darker points (blue points in color printing) are possible
optimum points. However, decreasing the area of crosssection, in other words, reducing the volume of material, is
more important than reducing the deflection. Therefore, the
final optimum point (the small square point in Figure 10)
was chosen. At this point, the values of the design variables
are t1 = 2.5 mm, t2 = 2.0 mm, h1 = 57.5 mm, h2 = 21 mm, h3
= 15 mm, and h4 = 10 mm. The outputs (responses) are the
maximum stress at the critical cross-section A-A = 34.3
MPa and the deflection at the load position = 10.6 mm.
4.5. Verification Results
The results of mathematical optimization are, of course,
reliable. However, there are always some errors when
changing from the real model to the equivalent model due
to some simplified assumptions and the method of choosing design variables. As a result, it is necessary to verify
Equivalent
Finite
Relative
model method
element
result
analysis result error
34.3
10.6
34.9
10.3
1.7%
2.9%
Figure 12. Prototypical model of a short carbon fiberreinforced PP plastic armrest frame.
91
stress and deflection are reduced from 38.7 MPa and 11.7
mm to 34.9 MPa and 10.3 mm, respectively, after optimization. Compared to the former steel armrest frame, the
total weight of the plastic-based frame, which includes the
metal inserted pins, decreases from 1.0 kg to 0.498 kg (a
reduction of 50%).
Some prototypical armrest frames were made by injection molding to check the manufacturability and to verify
their strength (see Figure 12). A simple method of testing
the strength of the armrest frames was carried out by using
a jig to fix the pins and a set of weights to create the
bending load. Perceptible observation and the estimation of
the manufacturing expenditure were also conducted. The
results showed that the new plastic armrest frame meets
economical and technical requirements. Mass production
will be launched soon.
5. CONCLUSION
The development of a short fiber-reinforced polypropylene
armrest frame contributes to the reduction of the weight
and manufacturing cost of automobiles. Analyzing the robust structure of the armrest frame, establishing equivalent
models, developing explicit objective functions and constraints, solving mathematical optimization, and engineering data mining were carried out to minimize the volume
and increase the strength of the frame. Estimated using the
short-term amortization of the tooling cost, the manufacturing cost was reduced by 5% when the material was
changed from steel to short glass fiber-reinforced polypropylene. This reduction will generate an enormous profit
due to mass production.
In addition to the economical and technical benefit of
design optimization, this study introduces a new structural
optimization approach based on the conventional method
and advanced CAE tools. The flexible combination of DOE,
FEM, the equivalent mechanical model, and numerical
optimization tools makes the structural design optimization
process much easier, more precise, and more reliable. The
computation cost is also reduced by eliminating some of
the iteration steps due to the application of an appropriate
analytical equivalent model.
Finally, as mentioned in the introduction, there is no
general method for solving all optimum design problems,
and this proposed method is not an exception. Because the
optimum design of a plastic armrest frame is a case study
of this proposed method, more applications should be
developed for other optimum design processes in future
research to confirm the effectiveness of this method.
Developing more convenient and accurate methods for
solving shape and structure optimization must be continued
to improve the quality of the structural optimization process. Making a seamless interaction between commercial
optimization software and CAD/CAE systems in the automated design-evaluate-redesign cycle is a potential approach
that will be the object of further research.
92
REFERENCES
Akbulut, H. (2003). On optimization of a car rim using
finite element method. Finite Elements in Analysis and
Design, 39, 433443.
Dai, L., Guan, Z. Q., Chen, B. S. and Zhang, H. W. (2008).
An open platform of shape design optimization for shell
structure. Struct. Multidisc. Optim., 35, 609622.
Chen, B. S., Liu, G., Kang, J. and Li, Y. P. (2008). Design
optimization of stiffened storage tank for spacecraft.
Struct. Multidisc. Optim., 36, 8392.
Fu, S. Y., Lauke, B., Mder, E., Yue, C. Y. and Hu, X.
(2000). Tensile properties of short-glass-fiber and shortcarbon-fiber-reinforced
polypropylene
composite.
Composites: Part A 31, 10, 11171125.
Han, J., Itoh, R., Nishiyama, S. and Yamazaki, K. (2005).
Application of structure optimization technique to
aluminum beverage bottle design. Struct. Multidisc.
Optim., 29, 304311.
Kim, C. and Yoon, J. W. (2007). Design optimization of
automotive lock-up clutches with damper springs using
simulated annealing, fem, and b-spline curves. Int. J.
Automotive Technology 8, 5, 599603.
Osyczka, A. (2002). Evolutionary Algorithms for Single