simulation and design optimization of al alloy wheels ......simulation and design optimization of al...

Simulation and Design Optimization of Al Alloy

Wheels Subjected to Biaxial Fatigue Loading

Ali KARA, Ph.D.

Barış KÜSÜLÜ

Contents

• Company Profile

• Introduction

• Biaxial Testing Simulation with LBF®.WHEELSTRENGTH

• Optimization by Design of Computational Experiments

• Results and Discussions

• Conclusions

CONTACTS ACROSS EUROPE

Barcelona

Turin

Frankfurt

MunichParis

Izmir

HISTORY1

98

0 CMS Light AlloyWheels was foundedin İzmir. 1

98

6 OEM sales began for Renault-Turkey

19

98 Export to European automotive factories, Renault-France and Fiat Auto-Italy begins.

20

07 LDS Lodos Teknik

group company wasfounded. 2

01

1 CMS Jant Sanayi A.Ş was founded in İzmir , Gaziemir Aegean FreeZone.

20

14 CMS Group published

its first sustainabilityreport.

19

55 Mr. Tonguç Ösen and

his partner set up thefirst aluminum die-casting company in Turkey.

19

85 OEM sales began for

Fiat Auto-Turkey and Ford-Turkey 1

99

7 CMS GMBH was founded for the After-market wheel salesin Europe.

20

03 The second

production site was established in Çiğli. 2

00

9 CMS Group R&D Center wasestablished in Izmir. 2

01

2 CMS Jant Sanayi A.Ş. started massproduction 2

01

6 Total CMS Group capacity has reached 9 million wheels.

AWARDS2

00

1 “Qualitas” award by Fiat Auto.

20

05 “Qualitas” award by

Fiat Auto.

20

09 “The Best Supplier” award by Oyak-Renault Turkey. 2

01

1 “Excellence Award” by Honda Access Europe.

20

14 “Regional Contribution

2013” award by Toyota. 2

01

5 ‘’Excellent Overall Performance’’ award by Honda Access.

20

00 “Perfection” award by

Renault-France.

20

04 “Year 2003 OEM

Quality Award” by Tofaş / Fiat-Turkey. 2

00

7 “Regional Contribution 2006” award by Toyota. 2

01

0 “Quality” award by Renault, France and by Toyota. 2

01

2 “Quality” award by Toyota.

20

15 ‘’Project

Management’’ & ‘’Cost’’ awards by Toyota.

20

16 ‘’Q1 Award" by

Ford Motor Company.

Introduction

• ZWARP test can be conducted in CMS Mechanical Testing Laboratory since 2013.

• Wheel development considering fatigue requirements and impact reqiurementshas used simulation support for more than a decade in CMS.

• Standard fatigue simulation was not able to demonstrate correct place and correctlevel for maximum stress due to its monoaxial loading history.

• Therefore Since 2016 June LBF®.WHEELSTRENGTH has been used to developwheels under biaxial fatigue testing conditions.

Biaxial Testing Simulation with LBF®.WHEELSTRENGTH

• In CMS LBF®.WHEELSTRENGTH is used with ANSYS Workbench.

– Finite Element mesh is prepared in ANSYS Workbench,

– In a previous Project, mesh sensitivity analysis was also conducted and element size wasdetermined accordingly.

– Boundary condition is applied in ANSYS Workbench

– *.inp file is exported in order to use in following steps.

Biaxial Testing Simulation with LBF®.WHEELSTRENGTH

• GUI of LBF®.WHEELSTRENGTH:

Biaxial Testing Simulation with LBF®.WHEELSTRENGTH

• Selection of horizontal and vertical load application nodes

• Selection of loadcases according to wheel requirements

Biaxial Testing Simulation with LBF®.WHEELSTRENGTH

• Required Fatigue Strength calculation:

– By iteration to the allowable damage sum the RFS at the knee point of the S-N curve iscalculated for each node.

– These results can subsequently be evaluated by test results in which cracks had occurred in individual areas

Optimization by Design of Computational Experiments

• A 7" x 16" CMS wheel was used in the study

• Design of Experiments (DOE) method was used todetermine the effects.

• A full factorial design with one center point wascreated.

• Minitab 18 was used in the study.

Optimization by Design of Computational Experiments

XPOS YPOS LENGHT WIDTH50,0 105,0 35 2055,0 110,0 35 2055,0 105,0 45 2055,0 105,0 35 1255,0 105,0 45 1255,0 110,0 45 1255,0 110,0 45 2055,0 105,0 35 2050,0 110,0 45 2050,0 110,0 45 1250,0 105,0 45 2050,0 110,0 35 2052,5 107,5 40 1650,0 110,0 35 1250,0 105,0 45 1255,0 110,0 35 1250,0 105,0 35 12

Results and Discussions

• Simulation Results

– Critical points considering the loading in ZWARP were determined as below

– Simulation results were optimized in terms of stress levels at these points along with the mass of the wheels.

• Minimize (Normalized Stresses & Mass)

– Stress levels for these three points were normalized by their maximum values.

SpokeCavity

SpokeCavity

WindowStyle

Results and Discussions

• Simulation Results

XPOS YPOS LENGHT WIDTH Mass (kg) Spoke Cavity Window Style

50 105 35 20 11,164 0,653 0,747 0,963

55 110 35 20 11,066 0,695 0,769 0,944

55 105 45 20 10,988 0,737 0,813 0,981

55 105 35 12 10,973 1,000 1,000 1,000

55 105 45 12 10,868 1,000 0,989 1,000

55 110 45 12 10,863 0,947 0,934 0,944

55 110 45 20 10,977 0,705 0,780 0,944

55 105 35 20 11,068 0,737 0,824 0,963

50 110 45 20 11,120 0,600 0,692 0,944

50 110 45 12 11,059 0,726 0,747 0,944

50 105 45 20 11,119 0,653 0,758 0,981

50 110 35 20 11,170 0,600 0,692 0,926

52,5 107,5 40 16 11,048 0,768 0,835 0,944

50 110 35 12 11,124 0,726 0,747 0,907

50 105 45 12 11,054 0,811 0,846 0,963

55 110 35 12 10,977 0,926 0,912 0,907

50 105 35 12 11,112 0,789 0,857 0,963

Results and Discussions

• Statistical Results

– Pareto charts for objective functions, ANOVA with α=0.1

Results and Discussions

• Statistical Results

– Pareto charts for objective functions, ANOVA with α=0.1

Results and Discussions

• Statistical Results

– Factorial Regression Equations

– Backward elimination method was used with no hierarchy requirement

Results and Discussions

Results and Discussions

• Statistical Results

– ANOVA with α=0.1 and result for curvature calculation thanks to center point showedthat:

• Optimum Mass is out of design domain – Of course mass decreases itself by using a deeper andwider spoke cavity

• Optimum Style Stress for these parameters is in this design domain

• Optimum Window Stress for these parameters is in this design domain

• Optimum Spoke Cavity Stress for these parameters is out of this design domain – this maybebecause of the another factor affecting this stress or we need to look for other factor levels.

Results and Discussions

• Multiobjective Optimization Results

– Optimum parameters were defined

– In the style, for all of design points stress results are similar to each other

– Optimum design is ~195 gr lighter than the heaviest

– Stresses for spoke cavity and window parts were lowered more than 70%.

Conclusions

• In this investigation, Design of Experiment was used along with ZWARP simulationin order to find the optimum spoke cavity design.

• The effects of parameters and their interactions were shown.

• Optimum design was found ~192 gr lighter than the heaviest.

• For mass and spoke cavity stress optimum parameters are found to be out of the selected design domain.

• For the selected investigation points lower stress levels were achieved.

Thank you.Ali KARA, Ph.D.

Barış KÜSÜLÜ

akara@cms.com.tr

bkusulu@cms.com.tr