F2008-SC-048

DEVELOPMENT OF A LIGHTWEIGHT TUBULAR SPACE FRAME OF A SOLAR POWERED VEHICLE USING 2D TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION
Van Hooreweder Brecht*, Faid Saphir Group T Leuven Engineering College, Belgium KEYWORDS chassis development, topology optimization, solar powered vehicle, lightweight structure, manufacturability ABSTRACT Space frame optimization can be complex and time consuming if done with traditional analytical methods. Optimization using 3D finite element analysis in an iterative design cycle provides a solution, but often leads to results that are not conform to production constraints. For the design of the tubular space frame of a solar powered vehicle, a topology optimization in 2D surfaces was used to develop the 3D frame. This allowed significant gains in modeling and processing time and insured conformity of the results with the production constraints of a tubular space frame. The shortened development time allowed more design cycles to be spent on the entire vehicle design, leading to a highly improved design. The described method can be applied to any type of tubular space frame optimization. TECHNICAL PAPER INTRODUCTION At the Group T Leuven Engineering College, a team of fourteen engineering students dedicated one year to design and built a solar powered vehicle (Figure 1). In October 2007 the team participated in the World Solar Challenge in Australia and finished second, averaging 90km/h on the 3000km racetrack.

Figure 1: Solar powered vehicle

In order to achieve this performance, the vehicle was designed to minimize aerodynamic resistance, rolling resistance, and overall mass, while maximizing the efficiency of the electric drivetrain. The solar car, with a total mass of 195kg, is one of the lightest and fastest solar cars in the world. This paper presents a 2D optimization method to determine the optimal placement of material in order to design a lightweight and reliable space frame for the solar car. The described method insures conformity with manufacturing constraints. The resulting aluminium space frame has a mass of only 19kg.

TUBULAR SPACE FRAME When designing the frame for a solar powered vehicle, many parameters are important to take into account. Since the high importance of low aerodynamic resistance (1), the design space for the frame is quite complex. Furthermore, the frame has to meet the requirements for strength and stiffness in every load condition. Moreover, mounting points need to be provided to attach different components such as the battery package, electronics, suspension parts, body panels, etc (Figure 2). Reliability is crucial when developing a solar powered vehicle (2). Hence, the team chose to work with a conventional space frame structure instead of a monocoque structure. Even though composite monocoques theoretically have the potential to be very light, the strength calculation and the manufacturing is rather complex, often leading to a result with higher total mass (3). Space frame structures are by nature very efficient. Bending moments are transmitted as tension and pressure loads along the length of each tube. By consequence, strength calculation can be accurate and straight forward. Manufacturing could be done by welding extruded tubes together.

Aerodynamic body

Tubular space frame

Battery package

Suspension parts

Figure 2: Different components in the solar powered vehicle

Based on criteria as specific strength, specific stiffness, cost, manufacturability, and reparability, the EN AW 7020 T6 aluminium alloy (Table 1) came out as a suitable option for the material of the frame. To verify the mechanical properties (4) and the strength of the welded joints, some welded tubes were subjected to static tensile and dynamic bending tests. Tensile strength Max. allowed stress Mode of elasticity Alloy Density Rm = 380MPa max = 100MPa E = 70000MPa Al Zn4.5 Mg1 2700kg/m

Table 1: Mechanical properties of aluminium EN AW 7020 T6

TOPOLOGY OPTIMIZATION General principle Topology optimization solves the basic engineering problem of distributing a limited amount of material in a design space in order to meet given requirements (5). This is typically done in an iterative design cycle using the finite element method (Figure 3). An important design variable is the density () of the elements (E) which can vary between 0 and 1, e.g. empty or full. The objective is to minimize the weighted compliance of the structure.
Finite element model Design space Mesh (elements) Loads Constraints Material properties Optimization model Design variables Constraints Objective

START

F.E.M.

O.M.

E: = 1
Analysis

, Check objective Convergence ??

high = 1 (filled elements) low = 0 (empty elements) No

No

Yes

Manufacturable ??

Yes

RESULT

Figure 3: General principle of topology optimization

After setting the parameters for the finite element model and the optimization model, the densities of all the elements are set to 1. A static analysis calculates the stress () and strain () in every element. The density of elements with high stresses remains 1 while in other elements, the density is put to 0. In this way, only the elements most needed to obtain the objective remain filled with material. Optimization software gives an optimal solution for the given mechanical problem with respect to the given limiting conditions. The result is therefore only a suggestion for the optimal material distribution. It is the responsibility of the software user to take into account other important parameters such as manufacturability. Since the optimization process can be very time consuming, much time can be gained when a manufacturable material distribution is generated after the first design cycle. To achieve this, it is very important to take the production constraints into account when setting the parameters for the finite element model and the optimization model.

Case study For the manufacturability of a tubular frame, a design space consisting of surfaces is preferred instead of volumes. To illustrate this, a clamped rectangular beam (Figure 4) is submitted to a topology optimization using both strategies.

Figure 4: Clamped rectangular beam

The beam is submitted to two vertical and two horizontal forces and four constraints at the end points. In the first case, only the surfaces of the beam are meshed with 2D shell elements. In the latter case, the whole beam is meshed with 3D tetrahedral elements. Table 2 shows the results of the topology optimization, generated with the optimization software Altair Optistruct.

View \ Strategy

2D mesh

3D mesh

Isometric

Side

Top CPU time 8 minutes 15 minutes

Table 2: Results of topology optimization (2D mesh versus 3D mesh)

The strategy involving a 2D mesh for the design space is very efficient for the development of a tubular space frame. The material distribution is rather elementary and the CPU time for optimization is limited. A tubular space frame could be easily designed by matching the centerlines of the tubes on the given material distribution. This is not the case when using the 3D mesh. The resulting material distribution is not conform to the production constraints of a tubular frame. Furthermore CPU time is higher due to the large amount of elements. Another disadvantage of the 3D mesh is the larger chance of meshing errors.

TUBULAR SPACE FRAME OPTIMIZATION Finite element model To start the optimization of the frame for the solar car, the parameters of the finite element model (Figure 3) need to be determined. Figure 5 shows the 3D design space (consisting of surfaces) in the body of the solar powered vehicle. In the overall design, priority was given to optimize the body shape in order to minimize aerodynamic resistance, leading to a limited design space for the structure.

Battery package

Design space

Driver

Rear wheel Aerodynamic body Front wheel

Figure 5: Design space for the tubular space frame

The surfaces of the design space were meshed with 2D linear shell elements. To guarantee a consistent and uniform mesh, both quadrilateral and triangular elements with side lengths of 10mm were used. The mesh contained 150000 elements with in each node six degrees of freedom. The quality of the mesh is of major importance for the final result of the optimization. Therefore quite some time was spent to verify the connectivity, warpage and aspect ratio of the elements. There are a number of forces acting on several nodes of the mesh (Figure 6). Not all these forces are equally important. Therefore eleven different load cases were created, each case with its own weight corresponding to the relative importance of the load. Hence the name of the objective for the optimization: minimize weighted compliance. The different load cases represent the forces when braking, turning, accelerating, etc. The magnitude of the applied forces varies from 50N for the mass of the body on a particular place, to 5000N for the impact when the solar car is rolling over in case of an accident.

Figure 6: Static forces acting on the mesh in stationary position

When the mesh is generated and the forces are applied on the nodes, the constraints needs to be defined. Unlike the case study of the clamped beam, the frame is not clamped. One way of analyzing unconstrained structures is the use of the feature inertia relief (6). Typical applications of this feature are an airplane in flight, suspension parts of a car, or a satellite in space. In an inertia relief analysis, the applied loads are balanced by a set of translational and rotational accelerations generated automatically by the software. These accelerations provide forces, distributed over the structure in such a way that the sum total of the applied forces on the structure is zero. The problem is then in a state of static equilibrium. As a consequence, stresses and deformations can be calculated in every element of the mesh. Optimization model Once the finite element model is finished, the parameters for the optimization model need to be defined. The volume fraction, density, and weighted compliance of the elements are important design variables. The volume fraction is limited to 10% of the initial volume. The density of the elements will vary until an optimum is reached. This objective is defined as minimizing the weighted compliance, or in other words, maximizing the weighted stiffness of the structure. Result The optimization process took eight hours processing time on a workstation with dual core processor (2 x 3.6GHz) and extended ram memory (8GB). The result is a material distribution (Table 3) which is rather elementary. The side view shows mainly triangular features. This is quite logical since triangular structures will convert bending moments into tension and pressure loads along the length of each tube. Space frame structures often use this principle in order to be as efficient as possible.

Design space
(top view)

Result
(top view)

Result
(side view)
Table 3: Design space and topology optimization result

As a consequence of using the 2D mesh for the design space, the result is convenient for the development of a tubular space frame. Drawing the centerlines of the tubes on the given material distribution could be done without deviating from the optimal placement and within a limited time. The next step is to reapply all the original forces on the tubes in order to execute a static finite element analysis on the tubular space frame. This analysis generates the stresses and displacements acting on the tubes. The software user has to compare these values with the maximum allowable stresses and displacements in order to verify the performance of the structure.

Figure 7: Tubular space frame

CONCLUSION Topology optimization is an efficient tool to determine the optimal material placement for a given mechanical design problem. In order to develop and produce a lightweight and reliable structure within a limited time, many factors have to be taken into account. Manufacturability is a very important aspect to keep in mind when setting the parameters for the finite element model and the optimization model. For the design space of a tubular space frame for example, 2D surfaces are preferred rather than 3D volumes. The use of 2D elements limits the modeling and processing time and results in a highly manufacturable material distribution. The space frame of the solar powered vehicle is a good example of the presented optimization method. The frame, with relatively large dimensions (3.5x1x0.5m), has a total mass of only 19kg. Furthermore, it has proven to be reliable on the 3000km racetrack in Australia. REFERENCES (1) David M. Roche, Antony E.T. Schinckel, John W.V. Storey, Clive P. Humphris, Michelle R. Guelden, Speed of Light - The 1996 World Solar Challenge, Photovoltaics Special Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 1997. Douglas R. Carroll, The Winning Solar Car: A Design Guide for Solar Race Car Teams, SAE International, 2003. Potter Kevin, An introduction to composite products: design, development and manufacture, Chapman and Hall, London, 1997. J. Daniel Bryant, Dawn R. White, Aluminium and magnesium for automotive applications, Cleveland, Ohio, 1996. M.P. Bendsoe, O. Sigmund, Topology optimization: Theory, Methods and Applications, Springer, vol. 1, pages 9-24, 2004. Hyperworks 8.0 user manual, Inertia Relief Analysis, Altair Engineering, 2006.

(2) (3) (4) (5) (6)