Outlook Punching Holes in Conventional
Lightweighting Techniques
Any business traveler who has packed a suitcase inherently understands the most effective approach to lightweight- ing. If the luggage is too heavy to liſt, everything inside could be transferred to a somewhat lighter-weight bag, but clearly the best solution is simply to remove any of the contents that are not essential to the trip. Te same principle applies to light-
weighting vehicles. Te industry should not focus solely on replacing heavy ma- terials with lighter ones. Rather, to gain the most benefits, we should concentrate on actually removing material. Whether we punch holes in the product, thin out its form or reshape its entire look, optimization technology has made it possible to eliminate material where it is not needed without sacrificing strength, performance or durability. Optimization technology can recom-
mend multiple ways to extract material from a product, significantly reducing its weight. Oſten such revamped designs present options that engineers never would have considered on their own. In other instances, relatively small changes in the original design can produce exceptional results, for example, by re- ducing the thickness of materials where support and durability are not impacted. Te increased use and success of op-
timization is placing lightweight materi- al removal (LMR) on equal footing with lightweight material substitution (LMS); and, going forward, lightweighting will encompass a dual-pronged strategy of both removing and substituting mate- rial. Leaving half of the strategy out of the conversation leaves valuable weight savings on the table. Te need to elevate
our thinking about material removal has become even more urgent with the 2025 federal fuel economy guidelines that require vehicles to average 54.5 mpg. Te combination of both removal and substitution will dramatically increase the auto industry’s progress toward bet- ter fuel economy. Te next generation of lightweight automotive innovations will be realized when we begin to practice both material reduction and substitution for smarter design.
Optimization technology can recommend multiple ways to extract material from a product.
Meeting the new CAFE goals will
require a combination of technologies from powertrain efficiency improve- ments, alternative powertrains, to lightweighting with alternative materi- als and, simply, material removal. A great challenge in introducing these technologies is the incremental cost, and this is where material removal really shines, as the incremental cost is typically small. In some cases, it even presents a cost savings. In developing lightweight solutions,
automakers must consider a number of factors: • Different manufacturing and as- sembly processes available
• Te tradeoff between perfor- mance characteristics
• Te customer-use environment and its impact on materials
• How to design with the right material in the right place
Optimization technology can help balance these factors and serve as a criti- David Mason
Vice President of Global Automotive Altair Engineering Troy, MI
cal tool for today’s automotive engineer- ing challenge. Many companies already have discovered its value. Volkswagen has used optimization to reduce bracket weight by 22%, and Tallent Automotive cut chassis mass by 25%. Ford Motor Co. reports using topology optimiza- tion, for shape and material distribu- tion decisions, to reduce the mass of a bracket by 27% while improving its per- formance by nearly 30%, for a first-year’s saving of more than $1.1 million. Te value of using optimization
technology to design lightweight vehicle components was evident among the applications of manufacturers entered into the Enlighten Award Competi- tion, an annual program developed by Altair Engineering and the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) to honor the industry’s greatest achievements in weight savings. Several of the applica- tions in the 2013 competition presented optimized structures that ranged from a steering wheel and crankcase to an entire optimized body-in-white. Te winning entry was a BASF ther-
moplastic composite front seat pan in which the wall thicknesses were reduced using virtual simulation technology to identify where material could be removed without negative impact to performance. Te weight of the compo- nent was lowered by 45% (1.5 kg to 0.8 kg) compared to the original design. A culture of optimization is begin-
ning to emerge within the auto industry. Tis efficient approach to lightweight- ing offers the opportunity to advance vehicle fuel efficiency significantly, as well as spark an overall shiſt in thinking among designers and engineers.
Motorized Vehicle Manufacturing 27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212