Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A metamodel-based multidisciplinary design optimization process for automotive structures

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Engineering with Computers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Automotive companies continuously strive to design better products faster and more cheaply using simulation models to evaluate every possible aspect of the product. Multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) can be used to find the best possible design taking into account several disciplines simultaneously, but it is not yet fully integrated within automotive product development. The challenge is to find methods that fit company organizations and that can be effectively integrated into the product development process. Based on the characteristics of typical automotive structural MDO problems, a metamodel-based MDO process intended for large-scale applications with computationally expensive simulation models is presented and demonstrated in an example. The process is flexible and can easily fit into existing organizations and product development processes where different groups work in parallel. The method is proven to be efficient for the discussed example and improved designs can also be obtained for more complex industrial cases with comparable characteristics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Craig K, Stander N, Dooge D, Varadappa S (2002) MDO of automotive vehicle for crashworthiness and NVH using response surface methods. Paper AIAA-2002-5607 In: A collection of technical papers, 9th AIAA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Atlanta, Georgia, 4–6 September 2002, vol 3. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, pp 1930–1940

  2. Sheldon A, Helwig E, Cho Y-B (2011) Investigation and application of multi-disciplinary optimization for automotive body-in-white development. In: Paper presented at the 8th European LS-DYNA Users conference, Strasbourg, 23–24 May 2011

  3. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Kodiyalam S, Yang RY (2001) Optimization of car body under constraints of noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH), and crash. Struct Multidiscip Optim 22(4):295–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yang RJ, Gu L, Tho CH, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (2001) Multidisciplinary design optimization of a full vehicle with high performance computing. Paper AIAA-2001-1273 In: A collection of technical papers, 42nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference and exhibit, Seattle, Washington, 16–19April, 2001. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, pp 688–698

  5. Kodiyalam S, Yang RJ, Gu L, Tho C-H (2004) Multidisciplinary design optimization of a vehicle system in a scalable, high performance computing environment. Struct Multidiscip Optim 26(3):256–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoppe A, Kaufmann M, Lauber B (2005) Multidisciplinary optimization considering crash and NVH loadcases. In: On CD: Virtual product creation 2005, internationaler congress, 9th automotive technology conference, 20–21 June 2005, Stuttgart. Vieweg Technology Forum, Wiesbaden

  7. Duddeck F (2008) Multidisciplinary optimization of car bodies. Struct Multidiscip Optim 35(4):375–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Weber J (2009) Automotive development processes: processes for successful customer oriented vehicle development. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Hirz M, Dietrich W, Gfrerrer A, Lang J (2013) Integrated computer-aided design in automotive development: development processes, geometric fundamentals, methods of CAD, knowledge-based engineering data management. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  10. Jergeus J (2012) Prediction material and spotweld failure at Volco Cars Safety Center, Presentation held at 2012 Nordic LS-Dyna users’ forum, Gothenburg, 11 October 2012

  11. Wang GG, Shan S (2007) Review of metamodeling techniques in support of engineering design optimization. J Mech Des 129(4):370–380

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Myers RH, Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2009) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hornik K, Stinchcombe M, White H (1989) Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators. Neural Netw 2(5):359–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Park J, Sandberg IW (1991) Universal approximation using radial-basis-function networks. Neral Comput 3(2):246–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Xie T, Yu H, Wilamowski B (2011) Comparison between traditional neural networks and radial basis function networks. In: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE international symposium on industrial electronics (ISIE), Gdansk, 27–30 June 2011. Institute of Elecrtrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, pp 1194–1199

  16. Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ, Wynn HP (1989) Design and analysis of computer experiments. Stat Sci 4(4):409–423

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Smola AJ, Schölkopf B (2004) A tutorial on support vector regression. Stat Comput 14(3):199–222

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  18. Friedman JH (1991) Multivariate adaptive regression splines. Ann Stat 19(1):1–67

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Forrester AIJ, Keane AJ (2009) Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 45(1–3):50–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Qian PZG, Wu H, Wu CFJ (2008) Gaussian process models for computer experiments with qualitative and quantitative factors. Tecnometrics 50(3):383–396

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Herrera M, Guglielmetti A, Xiao M, Coelho RF (2014) Metamodel-assisted optimization based on multiple kernel regression for mixed variables. Struct Multidiscip Optim 49(6):979–991

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Koehler JR, Owen AB (1996) Computer experiments. In: Gosh S, Rao CR (eds) Design and analysis of experiments. Handbook of statistics, vol 13. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 261–308

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kalagnanam JR, Diwekar UM (1997) An efficient sampling technique for off-line quality control. Technometrics 39(3):308–319

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  24. Fang K-T, Lin DKJ, Winker P, Zhang Y (2000) Uniform design: theory and application. Technometrics 42(3):237–248

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Queipo NV, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Goel T, Vaidyanathan R, Tucker PK (2005) Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Prog Aerosp Sci 41(1):1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Martin JD, Simpson TW (2004) On the use of Kriging models to approximate deterministic computer models. Paper DETC2004 -57300 In: Proceedings of the ASME 2004 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Salt Lake City, Utah USA, September 28–October 2, 2004, vol 1. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp 481–492

  27. Goel T, Stander N (2009) Comparing three error criteria for selecting radial basis function network topology. Comput Method Appl Mech Eng 198(27–29):2137–2150

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Stander N, Craig KJ (2002) On the robustness of a simple domain reduction scheme for simulation-based optimization. Eng Computation 19(4):431–450

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 1995 IEEE international conference on neural networks, Perth, WA, 27 November–1 December 1995. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Service Center, Piscataway, pp IV:1942–1948

  30. Ingber L (1996) Adaptive simulated annealing (ASA): lessons learned. Control Cybern 25(1):32–54

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Eiben AE, Smith JE (2003) Introduction to evolutionary computing. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Kodiyalam S, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (2001) Multidisciplinary design optimization—some formal methods, framework requirements, and application to vehicle design. Int J Veh Des 25(1–2, special issue):3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1988) Optimization by decomposition: a step from hierarchic to non-hierarchic systems. Technical memorantum NASA-TM-101494. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Agte JS, Sandusky Jr, RR (1998) Bi-level integrated system synthesis (BLISS). Paper AIAA-98-4916 In: 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, 2–4 September, 1998, St. Louis, MO. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, pp 1543–1557

  35. Braun RD (1996) Collaborative optimization: an architecture for large-scale distributed design. Dissertation, Stanford University

  36. Kim HM (2001) Target cascading in optimal system design. Dissertation, University of Michigan

  37. Martins JRRA, Lambe AB (2013) Multidisciplinary design optimization: a survey of architectures. AIAA J 51(9):2049–2075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. DeMiguel A-V, Murray W (2000) An analysis of collaborative optimization methods. Paper AIAA-2000-4720 In: 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, 6–8 September, 2000, Long Beach, CA. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston

  39. Alexandrov NM, Lewis RM (2002) Analytical and computational aspects of collaborative optimization for multidisciplinary design. AIAA J 40(2):301–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kroo I, Manning V (2000) Collaborative optimization: status and directions. Paper AIAA-2000-4721 In: 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, 6–8 September, 2000, Long Beach, CA. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston

  41. Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW (2001) Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct Multidiscip Optim 23(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Stander N, Roux W, Goel T, Eggleston T, Craig K (2012) LS-OPT user’s manual version 4.2. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sjödin T (2010) Saab 9-5 virtual development without hardware prototypes, Presentation held at NAFEMS Nordic regional conference 2010, Gothenburg, 26–27 October 2010

  44. Livermore Software Technology Corporation (2007) LS-DYNA keyword user’s manual version 971. Livermore Software Technology Corporation, Livermore

    Google Scholar 

  45. Viana FAC, Gogu C, Haftka RT (2010) Making the most out of surrogate models: tricks of the trade. Paper DETC2010-28813 In: Proceedings of the ASME 2010 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, August 15–18, 2010, vol 1. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, pp 587–598

  46. Craig KJ, Stander N, Dooge DA, Varadappa S (2005) Automotive crashworthiness design using response surface-based variable screening and optimization. Eng Comput 22(1):38–61

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  47. Daniel C (1973) One-at-a-time plans. J Am Stat Assoc 68(342):353–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Sobol’ IM (2001) Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math Comput Simul 55(1–3):271–280

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  49. Gu L, Yang RJ (2006) On reliability-based optimisation methods for automotive structures. Int J Mater Prod Technol 25(1–3):3–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Shi L, Yang RJ, Zhu P (2012) A method for selecting surrogate models in crashworthiness optimization. Struct Multidiscip Optim 46(2):159–170

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  51. Yang RJ, Wang N, Tho CH, Bobineau JP, Wang BP (2005) Metamodeling development for vehicle frontal impact simulation. J Mech Des 127(5):1014–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Li YF, Ng SH, Xie M, Goh TN (2010) A systematic comparison of metamodeling techniques for simulation optimization in decision support systems. Appl Soft Comput 10(4):1257–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Backlund PB, Shahan DW, Seepersad CC (2011) A comparative study of the scalability of alternative metamodelling techniques. Eng Optim 44(7):767–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhu P, Pan F, Chen W, Zhang S (2012) Use of support vector regression in structural optimization: application to vehicle crashworthiness design. Math Comput Simul 86:12–31

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  55. Agte J, de Weck O, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Arendsen P, Morris A, Spieck M (2010) MDO: assessment and direction for advancement-an opinion of one international group. Struct Multidiscip Optim 40(1–6):17–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work presented in this article has been carried out with financial support from the Vinnova FFI project ‘Robust and multidisciplinary optimization of automotive structures’ and the SSF ProViking project ‘ProOpt’.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Combitech AB, Saabvägen 1, 461 38 Trollhättan, Sweden

    Ann-Britt Ryberg

  2. Division of Solid Mechanics, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden

    Ann-Britt Ryberg, Rebecka Domeij Bäckryd & Larsgunnar Nilsson

Authors
  1. Ann-Britt Ryberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecka Domeij Bäckryd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Larsgunnar Nilsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann-Britt Ryberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ryberg, AB., Bäckryd, R.D. & Nilsson, L. A metamodel-based multidisciplinary design optimization process for automotive structures. Engineering with Computers 31, 711–728 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-014-0381-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00366-014-0381-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation