Topology Optimization for Engine Mounting Arm with Fatigue

Vikas Doundkar
Sp.Engineer(R&D,CAE) Force Motors Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Rd.,Akurdi Pune 411 035

Dhananjay Ghatage
Asst.Manager(R&DCAE) Force Motors Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Rd.,Akurdi Pune 411 035

Manish Madkaikar
Sr. Manager R&D Vehicle Design Force Motors Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Rd.,Akurdi Pune 411 035 mmadkaikar@forcemotors.com

Aniruddha Kulkarni
Dy. Cheif Technology Officer: R&D Force Motors Ltd. Mumbai-Pune Rd.,Akurdi Pune 411 035 amkulkarni@forcemotors.com

Keywords: Engine mounting arm, HyperWorks OptiStruct, Topology Optimization, Fatigue Life Constraint, Fatigue Process Manager (FPM).
Abstract Present automotive market demands low cost and light weight component to meet the need of fuel efficient and cost effective vehicle. This in turn given the rise to more effective use of materials for automotive parts which can reduce the mass of vehicle at the same time enhance the performance. Reducing weight gives multi-disciplinary challenges such as stiffness, strength, fatigue life and NVH requirement. In industry, many components or structures always suffer fluctuating load, which is sometimes small, but they result in the potential danger, since it can make the component broken suddenly without any apparent caution. The failure of components under cyclic load is called fatigue which plays important role in industry design. The internal combustion engine, by nature a dynamic vibration source, required a properly designed mounting arm which has better fatigue strength and stiffness. This paper describes use of Optistruct with fatigue process applied to engine mounting arm. The mounting arm is mainly design for strength in vertical as well as for braking load cases and also for stiffness. These topology optimizations have fatigue life as design constraint and objective is volume minimization. The fatigue life calculation involve accumulation of load Vs time history data on torture track, rough road by using accelerometer, material details to generate S-N curve and process details. This analysis result in 33% weight reduction with desired fatigue life and strength.

1. Introduction
As per current automotive market demands low cost and light weight components to meet the need of fuel efficient and effective vehicle. This in turn gives rise for more effective use of materials for automotive parts which can reduce the curb weight of the vehicle at same time enhance its performance. Reducing weight gives multi-disciplinary challenges in case of stiffness, NVH, strength and fatigue life requirement An automotive engine-body-chassis system is typically subjected to unbalanced engine forces, uneven firing forces, dynamic excitations from gear box and also road excitations. Engine mounting arm always suffers fluctuating forces, which may results in fatigue failure, where component can brake suddenly without any prior information. The failure of component under cyclic load is called fatigue. Our main focus is to optimize the design of engine mounting arm for fatigue life. Conventional design process contains preparing of CAD model, FE analysis and optimization of model and then revalidation thorough FEA and fatigue analysis. We have trying to introduce fatigue analysis in the optimization stage itself inturn results reduction in CAE cycle time

2. Process Methodology
In the automotive field, fatigue strength of component is predominant and often drives the design. Thus taking into accounts fatigue behavior is essential in the optimization calculation. HyperWorks OptiStruct topology optimization with Fatigue Process Manager (FPM) is powerful tool to achieve lighter and more reliable conceptions. The mounting arms are mainly designed for vertical as well as braking forces. The fatigue life calculation involve accumulation of load Vs time history data on torture track and rough road by using accelerometer, material details to generate S-N curve and process details. Optimization process methodology shown in Figure 1.

Simulation Driven Innovation

Figure 1. Process Methodology

2.1. Data Acquisition: Acceleration level of engine measured at three different location engine mounting arms and engine. This measurement had been carried out on torture track and on rough road. For this Piezoelectric type accelerometer fitted on the engine as shown in Figure 2. Acceleration measurement data is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2. Photo-graph of Testing Measurement

Simulation Driven Innovation

Figure 3. Load-Time History for Vertical and Braking Load

2.2. Pre-processing: FE modeling of Engine mounting arm has been created by using HyperMesh. Engine mounting arm is constraints at engine mount bolting locations and vertical and braking load is applied at mounting arm clamping position to chassis shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Engine Mounting Arm Boundary Condition

2.3. Fatigue Process Manager (FPM): Analysis type: There are two approaches for fatigue analysis, one is low cycle fatigue and other one is high cycle fatigue. In this particular problem we have used SN method (High Cycle fatigue) as the maximum principle stresses are well below the yield limit of the material which indicates this component doesnt undergo any plastic deformation. Stress combination method: In general Absolute maximum principle stress is recommended for brittle materials, while Signed von Mises stress is recommended for ductile material. Material of this particular engine mounting arm is Cast Iron, which is brittle in nature and also has negative biaxility ratio. So considering this we have chosen absolute maximum principle for stress combination method. Biaxility ratio is the ratio of minimum principle stress to maximum principle stress. Mean stress correction: When a component is subjected to fluctuating stresses the stress are resolved into two part mean stress and stress amplitude. When stress amplitude is zero, the load is purely static and the criterion of failure is maximum tensile strength or yield strength. When the mean stress is zero the stress is completely reversing and the criteria of failure is endurance strength. The Goodman or the Gerber are used as criteria of failure when the component is subjected to mean stress as well as stress amplitude. The Goodman criterion is safe from design considerations, so it is chosen as mean stress correction factor for our problem. Rainflow type: Rainflow counting is used to define the distribution of loading cycles and fatigue damage. Cycle counting will count the number of stress-strain hysteresis loops and keep track of their range/mean or maximum/minimum values. In our problem rainflow type is Load Vs time as load data had been collected by using accelerometer as explain in data acquisition section.

Simulation Driven Innovation

Biaxiality Gate: Specify the size of the gate to be applied during the calculation of the average and standard deviation of the biaxiality ratio. The value should be specified as a percentage of the UTS of the material at each calculation point. Any nodes whose principal stress is less than this gate will not be included in the calculation of the average or standard deviation of the biaxiality ratio. Certainty of survival: If the materials data contains scatter information from a regression analysis, this option allows a confidence level to be set which takes account of the scatter in the data. The default is 50%, which is the value for the mean line produced during a least squares regression analysis. Fatigue Process Manager is used for defining fatigue subcase, Fatigue parameters and material definition. Load case history is created and link with static event by using FPM. Set up for S-N Fatigue problem using FPM as follows 1. 2. Fatigue subcase is created. (FATSUB) Fatigue Analysis Parameters Definitions (FATPARM): Analysis type: S-N Stress combination method: Abs.Max.Principal Mean Stress correction: Goodman FEA stress unit: MPA Rainflow type: Load Gate: 0.0 Certainty of survival: 0.5 Fatigue Elements and Material Definition (FATDEF): S-N curve is defined for Cast Iron material as shown in material data window (see Figure 5 ) Load-Time History Definition (FATLOAD): Load-time history data taken from testing is applied. (see Figure. 3 ) Loading Sequence Definition (FATSEQ): In this step, one event consisting two load time histories is created, in other words, the linear superposition of the stress caused by the two load time history is requested during analysis. Using this fatigue event (FATEVNT) one load sequence is constructed.

3. 4. 5.

Figure 5. Material Data Window

Simulation Driven Innovation

2.4. Topology Optimization with Fatigue Life Constraint: Topology optimization is a mathematical technique that produces an optimized shape and material distribution for a structure within a given package space. The OptiStruct algorithm alters the material distribution to optimize the user-defined objective under given constraints. The focus is to optimize design of engine mounting arm for fatigue life, as arms are continuously under cyclic loading. By considering this fatigue behavior, fatigue calculations are important in optimization of engine mounting arm. Problem definition: Objective: Minimization of volume for given fatigue life. Design variable: Density of each element in design space. (see Figure 6) Non-design space: Mounting locations area. (see Figure 6) Design constraint: Fatigue constraint: 2, 00,000 life cycles. (Topology-Parameters) Response: Volume

Figure 6. Design and Non-Design Space of Engine Mounting Arm

Figure 7. Optimization of Engine Mounting Arm

Simulation Driven Innovation

Following figure shows the material distribution change over the optimization iteration for different life.

Figure 8. Fatigue Life with Optimization Iterations

3. Results and Discussions Based on the optimized shape from OptiStruct, the engine arm is redesigned by considering manufacturing feasibility.
The redesigned mounting arm is revalidated through FEA and fatigue analysis. FEA analysis shows stress value 20.77kg/mm2 on optimized component which are below the yield limit as shown in Figure 9.The fatigue life is 2.54Lacs cycle which is within expectable limit as shown in Figure10. So with this we are able to reduced weight of engine mounting arm by 0.50kg per arm (1.00kg per vehicle) which is 33% of existing design.

Figure 9. Stress Comparison of Arms

Simulation Driven Innovation

Figure 10. Fatigue Life Comparison of Arms

Table I: Comparison of Existing and Optimized Engine Mounting Arm

4. Conclusions
1. 2. 3. 4. The present work illustrates how topology optimization with fatigue can be used in the design of engine mounting arm. This analysis results in 33% weight reduction with desired fatigue life and strength. Above methodology reduces cycle time for design of engine mounting arm. OptiStruct optimization with fatigue process manager is powerful tool to achieve lighter and more reliable conceptions with significant reduction in cycle time.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We owe our sincere gratitude towards Mr.Prasan Firodia, MD, Force Motors Ltd., for support and allowing publish this work.
REFERENCES

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Regis V. Schmitt, Charles J. Leingang,Design of Electrometric Vibration Isolation Mounting System for Internal Combustion Engines, SAE paper 760431,1976. N.V.Karanth, S.Raju, Design and Evaluation of Engine Mounts of a Passenger Utility Vehicle, SAE paper 962493,1996 James E.Bernard, John M.Starkey,Engine Mount Optimization, SAE Paper 830257, 1983. R.Singh,Dynamic Design of Automotive Systems: Engine Mounts and Structural Joints, Department of Mechanical Engineering. Ohi o State University, Columbus, USA. N-Code Fe-fatigue Users Manual. Altair HyperWorks Optistruct Optimization Users Manual.

Simulation Driven Innovation