Cast Simulation and Manufacturing Con-

straints for Detailed Part Optimization

Master’s thesis in Automotive Engineering

ALIREZA NILIPOUR TABATABAEI

CHETAN KRISHNASWAMYREDDY

Department of Applied Mechanics

C HALMERS U NIVERSITY OF T ECHNOLOGY
Gothenburg, Sweden 2017
 Master’s thesis in automotive engineering

Cast Simulation and Manufacturing

Constraints for Detailed Part Optimization

ALIREZA NILIPOUR TABATABAEI

CHETAN KRISHNASWAMYREDDY

Department of Applied Mechanics

Division of Material and Computational Mechanics
Chalmers University of Technology
Gothenburg, Sweden 2017
Cast Simulation and Manufacturing Constraints for Detailed Part Optimization
ALIREZA NILIPOUR TABATABAEI
CHETAN KRISHNASWAMYREDDY

© ALIREZA NILIPOUR TABATABAEI, 2017

© CHETAN KRISHNASWAMYREDDY, 2017

Supervisor: Ragnar Larsson, Chalmers University of Technology

Supervisor: Andreas Carlsson, Volvo Car Corporation
Examiner: Ragnar Larsson, Chalmers University of Technology

Master’s Thesis 2017:90

ISSN 1652-8557
Department of Applied Mechanics
Division of Material and Computational Mechanics
Chalmers University of Technology
SE-412 96 Gothenburg
Telephone +46 31 772 1000

Cover: Topology Optimization and Cast Simulation of Rear Lower & Upper Control
Arms.

Gothenburg, Sweden 2017

iv
Cast simulation and manufacturing constraints for detailed part optimization
Master’s thesis in Automotive Engineering
ALIREZA NILIPOUR TABATABAEI
CHETAN KRISHNASWAMYREDDY
Department of Applied Mechanics - Chalmers University of Technology

Abstract
Structural optimization and cast simulation tools has gained significant importance
in automotive industry. The industry is slowly transforming into CAE driven de-
sign process, as the acceptance of CAE simulations in providing new and inspiring
lighter designs with shortened development cycles is demonstrated in recent times.
Optimization has become an integral part of design, there has been a demand for
optimization of aluminum cast parts where engineers are challenged to guarantee
both functionality and cast-ability of the component. On the other hand, casting
simulation finds its applications in later part of design process particularly used by
foundries for optimization of casting process by mold flow and solid simulation.

The purpose of this master thesis is to propose a methodology with emphasis on ap-
plication of manufacturing constraints in the topology optimization and investigate
the possibility of integrating cast simulation tools in optimization driven product
development. In addition, to decrease the lead development time and number of
iterations in design modifications to verify cast-ability of the components. Use of
casting simulation among engineers is rather new and it helps CAE and design en-
gineers to understand the process and identify the defects and problems in early
concept phase, so that there is enough time and flexibility to make changes and
evaluate different concepts and aid them in choosing the best possible design. Op-
tistrut is a finite element based structural analysis software, used to study structural
topology optimization and NovaFlow&Solid is a finite volume based CFD simula-
tion tool, used to study solidification and filling process in casting for evaluating the
generated concepts from different manufacturing constraints.

The proposed integrated component development process is verified on a simple and

complex components, rear upper control arm (RUCA) and rear lower control arm
(RLCA), respectively. The results of evaluation study confirms that the method
works well in generating light weight concepts for RUCA with simple load cases
without the design realization step. However, for RLCA with complex load case
seems to generate bit heavy concepts than the current design, which confirms that
CAD design realization loops involving CAD engineer can not be eliminated even
when manufacturing constraints have been implemented. The thesis also put for-
ward a template for calculation of threshold for optimal extraction of density plots.
Different concepts from topology optimization are compared based on the cast sim-
ulations results and the results are discussed and future work is proposed.

Keywords: Cast simulation, Topology optimization, Chassis components, Weight

reduction, Cast components, Optistruct, NovaFlow&Solid.

v
Preface
This master thesis in automotive engineering at Chalmers University of Technology
is carried in cooperation with Volvo Car Corporation under weight and optimiza-
tion department for fulfillment of 30 credits in Gothenburg during spring 2017. The
examiner and academic supervisor was Professor Ragnar Larsson, Head of Division
Material and Computational Mechanics, Department of Industrial and Materials
Science, Chalmers University of Technology. Andreas Carlsson was supervisor in
industry, Optimization Engineer Volvo Cars, Gothenburg.

This thesis was one part of thesis cluster proposed by Optimization Culture Arena,
Where the objective is to develop optimization culture as a natural part of compo-
nent development process and demonstrate capabilities of CAE driven optimization.

vii
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the people who contributed in some way to the work
described in this thesis. First and foremost, we thank Andreas Carlsson, our super-
visor at Volvo Car Corporation for accepting us for this thesis work and giving us
intellectual freedom in work, supporting our attendance at RE-OPTIC conferences,
encouragements and guidance throughout the thesis.
We would like to thank Ragnar Larsson, our academic supervisor and examiner at
Chalmers University of Technology for his insightful comments and guidance during
thesis.
We would like to express our deepest gratitude to Harald Hasselbald, Volvo Car
Corporation for providing valuable knowledge and feedback through discussions and
meetings.
We received generous support from Robin Larsson and Chrisat Schuette at VCC,
Pontus Andresson at NovaCast Systems AB, Jakob Olofsson at Jönköping Univer-
sity.
Further, we would like to thank Weight Management & Optimization team for won-
derful fika time and Hrnic Adnan for informative guided tour to durability test
centre at VCC.

Alireza Nilipour Tabatabaei

Chetan Krishnaswamyreddy
Gothenburg, December 2017

viii
Abbreviations
RLCA Rear Lower Control Arm
RUCA Rear Upper Control Arm
NFS NovaFlow&Solid
TO Topology Optimization
DFM Design For Manufacturing
FE Finite Element
DOC Drive Over Curb
BIP Brake In Pothole
ROC Rearwards drive Over Curb

x
 Contents

List of Figures xiii

List of Tables xv

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Theory 4
2.1 Topology optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1 Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2 Objective function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.3 Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1.3.1 Draw direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.3.2 Member size constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.1.3.3 Symmetry constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2 Aluminum casting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.1 Die casting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.2 Permanent mold casting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.3 Sand casting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.3.1 Different sand casting types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.3.2 Sand mold, core and pattern formation . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.3.3 Gating system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.4 Mold filling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.5 Solidification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.6 Casting defects formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.6.1 Mold filling related defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2.6.2 Solidification related defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3 Modeling of casting process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.1 Early phase casting simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.2 Solidification simulation post-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.4 Design for casting - Guidelines for design realization . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4.1 Design of junctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.2 Draft angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

xi
Contents

2.4.3 Wall thickness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.4.4 Fillet radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.4.5 Parting line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3 Method 25
3.1 FEM pre-processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2 Parameter Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2.1 Problem formulation Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3 Methodology for selecting optimal ISO threshold value . . . . . . . . 27
3.4 Cast simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.4.1 Solidification simulation setting in NovaFlow&Solid . . . . . . 30

4 Topology optimization for Rear Upper Control Arm 32

4.1 RUCA problem formulation study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 RUCA manufacturing constraints study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.3 Casting simulation for RUCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5 Topology optimization for Rear Lower Control Arm 39

5.1 RLCA problem formulation study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2 RLCA manufacturing constraints study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.3 Casting simulation for RLCA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

6 Discussion 48

7 Future work 50

Bibliography 51

xii
 List of Figures

2.1 Youngs modulus as a function of design parameter p element for SIMP

schemes [2]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 FEA-based structural optimization method in Optistruct [4]. . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Simplified representation of casting system [5]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4 Topology optimization of over hanging bridge showing pattern grouping
constraint in Optistruct [4]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5 Step-wise casting process [10]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.6 Typical gating system [10]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.7 Solidification shrinkage example of Aluminum casting cube simulated in
NFS with 6.81% volume shrinkage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.8 Thermal modulus example of Aluminum casting cube simulated in NFS,
shows directional solidification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.1 Flowchart of the component development process using topology optimiza-

tion tools integrated with cast simulation tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2 Optimization problem formulation possibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.3 Template to find the threshold ISO value for OSSmooth extraction. . . . . 29

4.1 RUCA pre-processing setup and boundary condition. . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4.2 Comparison of optimization with different casting constraints of RUCA. . 34
4.3 Density plots of optimization results with different casting constraints
(a)No manufacturing constraint, (b)Split draw, (c)Split draw with No-
hole, (d)Split draw with No-hole with Symmetry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4 Compliance vs displacement for different casting constraints. . . . . . . . 35
4.5 Volume shrinkage indication of RUCA showing defective regions for dif-
ferent casting design. Optimization with (a)No manufacturing constraint
(b)Split draw (c)Split draw No-hole (d)Split draw No-hole Symmetry. . . . 36
4.6 Hot spots of RUCA showing directional solidification for different casting
design. Optimization with (a)No manufacturing constraint (b)Split draw
(c)Split draw No-hole (d)Split draw No-hole Symmetry. . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.7 Thermal Modulus of RUCA showing directional solidification for different
casting design. Optimization with (a)No manufacturing constraint (b)Split
draw (c)Split draw No-hole (d)Split draw No-hole Symmetry. . . . . . . . 37
4.8 Concept evaluation matrix for four topology optimized RUCA designs with
different manufacturing constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5.1 RLCA pre-processing setup and boundary condition. . . . . . . . . . . . 39

xiii
List of Figures

5.2 Comparison of compliance for different optimization formulation study. . . 41

5.3 Trade off between compliance and volume fraction for different formulation. 42
5.4 Comparison of volume fraction of RLCA for optimization with different
casting constraints with same structural performance. . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.5 Density plots of optimization results with different casting constraints
(a)Min member size of 73mm (b)Penalization factor of 1.5 (c)Split draw
(d)Single draw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
5.6 (I)Proposed RLCA design of previous study [27]. (II)Proposed RLCA
design with considering manufacturing constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.7 Volume shrinkage indication of RLCA showing defective regions for differ-
ent casting design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
5.8 Hot spots indication of RLCA showing different directional solidification
for different casting design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
5.9 Thermal modulus indication of RLCA showing thickness variation of com-
ponent for different casting design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

xiv
 List of Tables

3.1 Aluminum casting material details [21]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.2 Green sand mold material details [21]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.1 Results of different optimization formulation of RUCA (scaled values). . . 33

5.1 Static linear analysis of current design of RLCA, compliance in FE units

and displacements in millimeter (scaled values). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
5.2 Results of different optimization formulation of RLCA (scaled values). . . 41

xv
List of Tables

xvi
 1
Introduction

This master thesis is a part of Optimization Culture Arena under weight manage-
ment and optimization department at Volvo Car Corporation in Gothenburg. The
thesis mainly focuses on developing a generic understanding and methodology which
integrate manufacturing constraints and casting simulations results in component
optimization and development process using topology optimization and casting sim-
ulation tools. This chapter provides the necessary background information, followed
by purpose and limitations of this thesis project. Subsequently, method workflow
and framework of a thesis is explained.

1.1 Background
Structural optimization and cast simulation tools has gained significant importance
in automotive industry. The industry is slowly transforming into CAE driven de-
sign process, as the acceptance of CAE simulations in providing new and inspiring
lighter design with shortened development cycles is demonstrated in recent times.
Optimization has become an integral part of design, there has been a demand for
optimization of aluminum cast parts where engineers are challenged to guarantee
both functionality and cast-ability of the component. On the other hand casting
simulation finds its application in later part of design process particularly used by
foundries to optimization of casting process by mold filling and solidification simu-
lation.

Topology optimization tends to create design proposal which are hollow with rib
structure. In general the material is added on outer area of design space which
make them complicated to realize the design into castings. In the realization phase,
design engineer tries to answer question on how feasible the new design is terms of
manufacturing. It is followed by consideration of casting process design guidelines
to modify the new component accordingly to pass the cast-ability assessment. In
many cases, material is added during design realization phase which has no struc-
tural significance and out weights the benefits of topology optimization.

The Thesis focus on RLCA and RUCA components which are manufactured by
aluminum castings. However, directional structural stiffness requirements, strength
events, load cases and design space are well known for these components. A Linear
isotropic material behaviour is assumed for optimization and solidification simu-
lation is carried to investigate the casting feasibility and how close the optimized

1
1. Introduction

structure is to the design realization and also a need to reduce number of iteration
between design and foundry in later stages of product development where their is
less flexibility for optimal changes, it more natural to include topology and casting
simulation in early phase of component development process.

1.2 Purpose
The main purpose of this master thesis is to improve casting development process by
identifying relations between topology optimization and casting philosophy and pro-
pose a methodology which encourages the use of topology optimization and casting
simulations tools in early phase of component development process for chassis com-
ponents. The casting constraints origin from studying the process of casting method.
The casting simulation is then used to investigate impacts of added manufacturing
constraints in final designs.

1.3 Limitations
Three dimensional FE-meshed design space with no temperature dependencies, vi-
bration free, time independent, multiple loading and linear elastic isotropic material
within Hook’s range is considered. Local approximation methods are used in sensi-
tivity analysis for reducing the computation time. In order to formulate directional
stiffness structural constraint, finite element problem with linear static behavior
is preferred. Since it seems very difficult to formulate every studied casting re-
quirements into topology optimization problem, only those manufacturing related
constraints facilitated by Optistruct tool are used in this study. NovaFlow&Solid
software is utilized as a casting process simulation tool. Although the software is
able to model both filling and solidification process of the casting, only the solidi-
fication process is simulated. This is mainly due to the fact that filling simulation
parameters are process dependent and differs from one foundry to other. The flow
constrains are difficult to formulate. Influence of gravity is not considered in solidi-
fication and material model for temperature dependent properties like density, heat
transfer coefficients are limited to standard data from Novaflow material library.The
limitations of concept selection methods also applies.

1.4 Method
The Thesis work started with literature study on theory of structural optimization,
aluminum casting process and casting simulation. Later on software training on both
tools NovaFlow&Solid 6.0, and Optistruct were done at Volvo Cars by studying
tutorials and attending workshops. For making an optimized casting component
where the design is close to manufacturing, topology optimization is performed
by implementing different available manufacturing constraints. With the help of
parameter study considering different formulation with various combinations best
setting is finalized. A method for finding the optimum threshold filter value for

2
 1. Introduction

efficient extraction of results from density plots file is also proposed. Optimal setting
to import filtered high density elements using function to NovaFlow&Solid where
its re-meshed and boundary condition are setup for solidification simulation. This
is continued by investigation on the solidification defects formed during this phase.
The reasons of defects formation are then interpreted. A criteria for comparing the
cast-ability is defined for evaluating the best design proposal which is tried upon
RUCA. The solidification simulation of current RLCA and proposal from previous
thesis is compared in terms of casting feasibility.

3
 2
Theory

This chapter provides the necessary theoretical materials as well as concepts used
in this thesis work. Section 2.1 briefs on basis of structural and topology optimiza-
tion, we focus more on responses and constraints used in optimization setup. In
addition, we classify the manufacturing constraints of interest to include in problem
formulation. Sections 2.2 & 2.3 give a short description of the aluminum casting
process, defects and simulation theory in detail. Eventually, section 2.4 addresses
on Design For Manufacturing (DFM) for casting which captures the best practices
and guidelines used by design engineer in design realization phase.

2.1 Topology optimization

Topology optimization is a numerical method which involves determination of size

and number of holes and connectivity in a fixed design domain [1]. It is a most
general type of structural optimization problem where optimization software looks
for the optimal placement of isotropic material in the design space subjected to the
given constraints. This method is generally applicable if the loads cases, support
conditions, design volume and design restriction (non-design features) is well under-
stood and approved for the component.
Density based methods are used by majority of topology optimization software com-
mercially available today, one such popular and extremely efficient method that is
used in Optistruct is called Solid Isotropic Material with Penalization Model (SIMP)
which uses penalization interpolation scheme:

E(ρe ) = ρpe E0 , 0 < ρe ≤ 1 (2.1)

where ρ is the design variable with assumed material density and penalization power
p. In Optistruct, parameter value is defined with Opti-control card which is always
equal to p − 1. In order to see the effect of penalization it must take values p > 1,
intermediate values of ρ contribute less to stiffness and more to mass of structure.
Hence intermediate values will be eluded in setting up the optimization problem.

4
 2. Theory

Figure 2.1: Youngs modulus as a function of design parameter p element for

SIMP schemes [2].

Penalization parameter, p, pushes the topology optimization elements to material

density 0 or 1. That is higher values of penalization will reduce intermediate density
elements. Optistruct allows the p parameter to be between 2 ≤ p ≤ 4. However,
Optistruct recommends p of 2 as default, p of 3 for shell or solid structures with
member size constraints but without manufacturing constraints. And p of 4 for
solid elements with both manufacturing and member size constraints. Bendsøe and
Sigmund [2] claims the relevance of continuous formulation is correct as long as
condition on penalization power is fulfilled given by equation 2.2:
1 − ν0 3 1 − ν0
p ≥ max{15 , } (2.2)
7 − 5ν 0 2 1 − 2ν 0
where ν 0 Poisson’s ratio of original material. This condition is known as Hashin–Shtrikman
[3] bounds which correlate the stiffness results from Solid Isotropic Material with
Penalisation (SIMP) to composite material stiffness consisting of original and void
materials. In general ν 0 = 31 .

Topology optimization problem formulated by applying finite element discretization

and continuous interpolation formulation of Solid Isotropic Material with Penalisa-
tion (SIMP) can be written as:



 min, objective function

f (ρe )




subjected to, constraint functions (2.3)





 LB < g(ρe ) < U B, 0.01 < ρe < 1



F = KU
where ρ is design parameter which is continuous in space and belongs to design
domain space Ω, f (ρ) is an objective function, which can be either volume, mass,

5
2. Theory

volume fraction, mass fraction or individual compliance, weighted compliance of

structure defined by the design vector ρ and g(ρ) is a constraint function where UB
and LB are upper bound and lower bounds limit on the constraint respectively.F
is force vector, U is nodal displacement vector and K is global stifness matrix This
formulation is solved by an iterative procedure also known as Method of Feasible
Directions (MFD) which has following steps involved as shown in the flow chart
below in Optistruct.

Figure 2.2: FEA-based structural optimization method in Optistruct [4].

Optistruct uses move limit bounds to reach convergence with minimum number
of FE Analysis which enables large design variables changes in the first few iter-
ations. In sensitivity analysis, second derivative of structural responses from the
FEM analysis with respect to design variable is calculated. Next update of design
variable is obtained by explicitly solving the optimization problem with sensitivity.
Topology uses dual method which solves the optimization problem with Lagrange
multipliers related to active constraints. This method is highly efficient with more
design variable and less number of constraint which is true in the case of topology
optimization.

2.1.1 Responses
Response are predefined variables types used to define objective and constraints in an
optimization setup. There are numerous structural responses from which Optistruct
allows to choose, for our study we will be mainly looking in detail of 4 responses (a)
mass and volume, (b) weighted compliance, (c) compliance, (d) mass and volume
fraction.
Mass and volume are global responses which can be defined for parts of interest
of the structure or whole structure. Mathematically given by equation below:
N
ρe Me0
X
M = M (ρ) = (2.4)
e=1

6
 2. Theory

N
ρe Ve0
X
V = V (ρ) = (2.5)
e=1

Where, M e, V e and ρe are mass, volume and normalized design parameter of eth
element respectively and N is total number of elements.
Weighted compliance is also a global responses defined for whole structure used
to consider multiple load steps in a topology optimization. It is the sum of the
compliance of each individual sub-load step. It is a single scalar value for the whole
structure which approximates the structural performance or strain energy stored in
the structure, lower the weighted compliance implies stiffer the structure.
L L
X 1X
CW = W i Ci = Wi (U (ρ) × F (ρ)) (2.6)
i=1 2 i=1

Where CW is weighted compliance,Wi is weights of each load case C is compliance

of each load step,L total number of load cases, U is stiffness vector and F is force
vector.
In Optistruct compliance is defined as summation of strain energy stored in all
the elements in the structure for individual load case calculated using the following
relationship:
1 1 1Z T
C = U (ρ)T F (ρ) = U (ρ)T K(ρ)U (ρ) =  δdV (2.7)
2 2 2
The above relation is equation of strain energy in classical structural problem which
is area of triangle in stress strain curve under linear region.
Compliance is inversely proportional to measure of stiffness K for a structure with
applied load F .

1 1 F (ρ)T F (ρ) 1 1 1
C = U (ρ)T F (ρ) = T
= f = Constant (2.8)
2 2 K(ρ) 2 K(ρ) K(ρ)

Compliance is direct proportional to stiffness of structure with applied displacement

U.
1 1 1
C = U (ρ)T F (ρ) = U (ρ)T K(ρ)U (ρ) = u2 K(ρ) = ConstantK(ρ) (2.9)
2 2 2
Mass and volume fraction are global responses both are different from each other
given by equation:
total volume at current iteration - initial nondesign volume
V olume F raction =
initial design volume
total mass at current iteration
M ass f raction =
initial design space mass
Static displacement are Nodal displacements of linear static analysis. They can
be selected a total displacement or displacement along xyz axis of local or global
coordinate system. They must also be assigned to each static load step during its
definition in Optistruct.

7
2. Theory

2.1.2 Objective function

Objective is a single most quantitative parameter which evaluates a design and its
associated response which is a function of design variable. A topology optimiza-
tion problem can have only one objective function. The relationship between the
objective parameter with and design variables is expressed in terms of mathemat-
ical formulation known as objective function. During optimization the goal is to
search for maximum or minimum or min-max of objective function. In our study
we will discuss mainly two responses which are used as objective of topology prob-
lems,Compliance and Volume fraction.

Compliance as objective In equation 2.8 we have shown that compliance is inverse

proportional to stiffness of structure for an applied load which motivates us to use
minimize compliance as an objective function. Compliance describes the stiffness of
a structure for a specific load case and can be formulated as:




min
 PN
C(ρ) = F (ρ) × U (ρ) = U (ρ)T × K(ρ) × U (ρ) = ρe p ue T Ke ue


e=1




subjected to

(2.10)
V = fv V0 = N
P
e=1 ρe ve








F = KU


0.01 < ρ < 1
e

Volume fraction as objective It is used in optimization problem when weight

reduction is the main goal and can be formulated as:




min

V = N p
P
e=1 ρe ve





subjected to




PN

C(ρ) = e=1 ρe p ue T Ke ue < Cbound (2.11)




F = KU





N odal displacement < U B

0.01 < ρ < 1

e

2.1.3 Constraints
Constraint is a restriction placed on the optimization problem, they are generally
a limit value associated with a response which is expressed as inequality function
of design variable and this condition must always be satisfied for the design to be
valid. All the created responses can be used as a constraint expect the response
associate with objective. There can be multiple constraints for an optimization
problem. When all constraints are satisfied the design is feasible. Optimum design
is one which gives the minimum of objective function satisfying all constraint equa-
tions, violation of any of constraints results in an in-feasible design.

8
 2. Theory

Constraints can be classified mainly in to two categories, structural constraints and

manufacturing constraints. Structural constraints can be any of the structural re-
sponses generated in linear static analysis. It can be compliance for a given load
case, nodal displacement for given load case, volume or mass fraction of the design
variable and mass of structure.
Manufacturing constraints impose restriction to the optimization problem. Op-
tistruct makes mainly 4 manufacturing constraints available to include in the prob-
lem. Draw direction, member size control, pattern repetition and extrusion. The
first three categories can be mainly related to casting process hence we will be
discussing them in detail.

2.1.3.1 Draw direction

Casting process involves removal of pattern form the sand mold to form cavity or
the sliding of moving die to remove the solidified component in die castings. The
sand core used in hollow castings has to be removed from the mold for sand core
production. This imposes a manufacturing constraint in placement of voids that are
not open and lined up in the sliding direction to get a feasible optimized design.
However, design from topology optimization more often contains voids that are not
practical in casting. Draw direction constraint is a shape constraint, which facilitates
de-molding operation. Optistruct facilitates two type of mold-ability constraints
formulation into an optimization problem primarily based on number of moving die
and placement of parting line in the castings (a) Single draw (b) Split draw . These
constraints force the solution to produce shape which does not hinder the mold
removal in their parting direction at the end of optimization.

Figure 2.3: Simplified representation of casting system [5].

In most common cases it is not suggested to have through holes in castings as a flow

9
2. Theory

requirement. This can be accomplished by selecting No Hole check-box by which

holes can be prevented in the direction of the draw. It can take many iterations to
remove one layer as topology evolves gradually from the boundary layer at a time.
An optimization problem may contain a non-design space which must be defined as
obstacles to preserves the casting feasibility of the final design. Default minimum
member size to use with draw direction constraints is 3 times the mesh size which
should be specified using opt control card in the Optistruct software. With default
value of discreet penalty parameter with manufacturing constraint the penalty starts
at 2 and increases to 3 and 4 for the second and third iterative phases.
Single Draw As the name indicates single draw constraint considers one moving die
which slides in the user defined drawing direction, Optistruct computes the contra
part for the fixed die.
Split Draw Split draw allows to choose the parting plane where the two dies meet
and it must be decided by the designer to set this constraint based on the symmetry
and undercuts in the non-design volume. This can be approximately selected by
looking at the topology optimization results of the same structure without draw
direction constraint and allow by following standard design guidelines for placement
of parting line. The parting surface is also optimized during the optimization pro-
cess. An optimization problem with more than 2 moving die cannot be modelled in
Optistrcut.

2.1.3.2 Member size constraint

Thin members are difficult to fill in casting and also results in deformation under
high temperature resulting in residual stress after solidification. However, thick
members should be avoided due to cooling issues and formation of porosity due to
poor feed-ability. Number of ribs and gaps between each rib can also affect the
flow pattern of liquid metal in the mold which in turn impact quality of castings.
This imposes a manufacturing constraint on the optimization problem which can be
addressed by member size constraint in Optistruct. Minimum member size control
with default discreet parameter, the discreet penalty factor starts at 2 and increases
to 3 for the second and third iterative phases. Member size constraint also helps to
address the check board problem and mesh dependence of the optimization results.
Minimum member size constraint prevents the formation of features below the set
value. Default min member size is twice the average mesh size of the design space.
Maximum member size constraint can only be set when minimum member size con-
straint is previously defined. It can take value not less than twice the minimum
member value. Optistrcut also allows to define the gap between each feature and
it can be defined if both minimum and maximum member size are pre-defined and
the default value is as the same as the max member size.

2.1.3.3 Symmetry constraint

Castings are designed symmetric between parting plane to reduce the complexity
and to achieve easy fill-ability. This process can be modelled as a constraint in opti-

10
 2. Theory

mization problem by using Pattern grouping options which link topology variables
together in such a way that facilitates the formation of desired reinforcement pat-
terns. One-plane, two-plane, three-plane and cyclical symmetry pattern grouping
can be achieved.

Figure 2.4: Topology optimization of over hanging bridge showing pattern

grouping constraint in Optistruct [4].

2.2 Aluminum casting

Replacing aluminum alloy casting components instead of iron castings components
will result in having weight reduction by more than half. It shows the wide range
of application of aluminum casting in automotive industry where cutting the total
weight of the vehicle has been always a concern. This replacement is very success-
ful in engine blocks and power train parts and it can be extended to chassis and
suspension components as well. As a result, automotive industry has become the
largest market for aluminum castings [6].
The original method of forming aluminum into products is casting which can be done
in different casting methods. The principle of aluminum casting is to pour molten
aluminum into a mold cavity which has been already created by using the pattern
of the desired shape. This process is followed by solidification of filled mold where it
starts at liquidus temperature of the molten metal and ends at solidus temperature.
Die casting, permanent casting and sand casting are the most important aluminum
casting methods. A short introduction of each mentioned method is presented below
[7].

2.2.1 Die casting

The die casting process is done under pressure applying from a plunger to force
molten aluminum into a steel mold (die). This method is typically used for high-
volume production where after removing the casted aluminum part from the mold,
minimum machining and finishing operations are needed [7]. Engine cylinder heads,
gas engine parts, brackets and heat sink for LED headlights are examples of die
casting productions in automotive industry [8].

11
2. Theory

2.2.2 Permanent mold casting

Permanent mold casting consists of molds and cores made of steel or similar metals.
The advantage of this method is that the mold can be reused. The procedure of
permanent mold casting is fairly straight forward so that the molten aluminum is
poured into the prepared cavity and after the metal has solidified the two mold halves
are pulled away from the formed part [9]. It should be mentioned that depending on
the shape of the cavity and used material, a liquid molten metal is subjected to gas
pressure or vacuum. High-volume production of castings with uniform wall thickness
and limited undercuts is the most tendency of using this casting method. For those
aluminum alloy castings where maximum mechanical properties are required, heat
treatment is used to improve mechanical properties [9]. Transmission case and intake
manifold are good examples of permanent mold aluminum castings in automotive
applications.

2.2.3 Sand casting

Sand casting is the most economical shape casting manufacturing process since there
is no need of using high-cost metallic tooling [10]. Typically it is performed in the air
atmosphere with sand mold at room temperature. Sand casting normally begins with
the creation of a pattern as a replica of the desired shape. It is followed by pressing
the pattern into the fine sand mixture to form a mold cavity. After preparation of
the sand mold, liquid metal is poured through channel(s) into the cavity which relies
on gravity until it gets completely filled with molten metal. The solidification is then
started to transfer the poured metal from liquid to solid phase. Once the casting
part is ready the sand mold should be broken to take the formed cast component
out. This process compared to two other mentioned casting methods is slow and
therefore is limited to have a high rate of production. However, casting quality of
the sand cast parts is highly determined by foundry techniques [9]. Since the sand
mold is used, the rough surface texture cast part with low dimensional accuracy has
been produced which usually needs machining and finishing operations to ensure
accuracy and surface quality of the final product. Moreover, components with thin
ribs and walls have a limited capability to be manufactured in sand casting. In
automotive industry, rear lower and upper control arm, RLCA and RUCA, in rear
wheel suspension and steering knuckle arm in vehicle suspension system are examples
of aluminum sand castings. The flowchart below shows the step-wise typical sand
casting process:

12
 2. Theory

Figure 2.5: Step-wise casting process [10].

2.2.3.1 Different sand casting types

Sand in sand casting method can be either wet or dry. Green sand casting refers
casting with wet sand that contains water or oil and organic bonding compounds
such as clay. ’Green sand’ statement origins from the fact that the sand mold is
uncured even when it is filled by molten metal. On the other hand, in dry sand
casting the sand mold is baked at a specific temperature to make the mold stronger
as ensures accurate size for casting products [11].

13
2. Theory

2.2.3.2 Sand mold, core and pattern formation

Sand mold creation consists of packing sand around the pattern and holding the
sand around the pattern by using box called flask which is removed after the metal
has solidified.
In case of having hollow components or producing internal cavities and re-entrants
as a result of casting, sand cores are used to create negative spaces in the final piece.
Cores are made from sand with special binders and different making types exist [12].
They are placed into the mold after building the mold cavity and in addition to the
desired shape of cores, there are extensions called core prints for correct positioning
of the cores into the sand mold. In some sand castings due to the disability of
making the exact desired cavity forming by pattern cores are used, an example can
be a tight corner which cannot be perfectly shaped by sand. Normally sand cores
are disposable units which will be destroyed to be able to get it out of the casting
product.
As mentioned before, pattern is the replica of the part to be cast. It is used to form a
cavity in the molding material where the liquid metal is poured later [13]. The sand
cast patterns can be made out of different types of materials. Wooden, different
types of plastics or even metals patterns are used in different casting conditions. In
order to have a good pattern material selection, various parameters such as size and
complexity of the shape, casting method, number of required casting products to
be manufactured and characteristics of casting should be taken into considerations
[14].
It should be noted that, patterns are commonly made slightly larger than the antic-
ipated casting part to compensate shrinkage in solidification phase which occurs for
nearly every metal alloy and also to compensate thermal contraction of the metal
during cooling to room temperature. ’Shrink rule’ is the phrase used for estimating
amount of shrinkage in each metal according to molding process. For instance, the
shrink rule for aluminum sand casting with hand packed sand is 1/8 inches [10].

2.2.3.3 Gating system

The liquid metal delivery system in casting is called gating system that must be
considered in the casting process design. Typically a gating system includes a pour-
ing basin, down sprue, runner and ingates. Based on the part to be cast, gating
system is designed and built. The aim of using gating system is to fully feed the
cavity from different regions before solidification takes place which has significant
influences on the casting quality. With pouring molten metal into pouring basin of
gating system the filling process is begun.

14
 2. Theory

Figure 2.6: Typical gating system [10].

2.2.4 Mold filling

This step starts after completing all needed mold and gating systems preparations.
Several considerations should be controlled during the filling process to have a desir-
able casting part. These considerations are mainly focused on avoidance of having
incomplete filling and reduction of casting defects due to liquid filling process [10].
In sand casting mold filling, the first rule is to have a smooth and uniform filling.
It means that the rate of liquid metal flow needs to be controlled based on filling
requirements [10].
In order to reduce possible filling defects, gating systems should be always full of
molten metal. Pressurized gating systems by keeping cross-sectional area of ingates
smaller than runners ensure full of metal gating systems. Moreover, in order to have
uninterrupted flow, the pour cup has to remain full of liquid in pouring operation
[10].
Easy removal gating system after solidification is another general rule in filling of
sand casting [10].
Filling all mold regions with liquid metal by means of gating systems should be
ensured since a lack of liquid metal in mold filling process causes a wide range of
casting defects [10].

2.2.5 Solidification
Solidification is changing the material phase from liquid to solid in a casting process.
When the temperature drops, solidification starts. Pure poured liquid metal solid-
ifies at a freezing point which is a constant temperature whereas, solidification for
alloys does not occur in an exact temperature point. Depending on the composition
of the alloy solidification takes place over a temperature range. This cooling down
in the temperature highly affects mechanical properties and the geometric relation
between volume and surface area of the casting product. Besides, most of the casting

15
2. Theory

defects are solidification related defects which lead to investigations on the thermal
effectiveness of the mold design. In thermal effectiveness of the sand casting mold
two important issues are investigated. First, solidification progress must take place
from the mold walls upward and towards the liquid feeders to have a good quality
in casting products. This progression in the solidification phase is called directional
solidification [15]. Secondly, the potential of providing desirable micro-structural
constituents, shape and grain size by the mold design [10, 16]. Solidification plays
an important role on the quality of the casting product, also time taken for produc-
tion of the casting resultant shows the importance of solidification stage in casting
industry [17].

2.2.6 Casting defects formation

Generally, casting defects can be categorized into two main casting processes, mold
filling related defects and solidification related defects. Casting processing demands
different physical phenomena such as fluid flow, heat transfer, thermal stress, de-
fect formation and micro-structure evolution. Among mentioned phenomena, heat
transfer, fluid flow and thermal stress are influenced by defect formation and the
resultant casting quality [10]. Nowadays, different processes in casting are modeled
and simulations can be done before or after the real casting either. This modeling
significantly helps to detect casting defects and analyze different possibilities in the
casting which is highly valuable in terms of time and also cost of the resultant cast-
ings. By having the possibility to simulate and model different casting scenarios the
final quality of casting can be improved. Moreover, different physical phenomena
in filling and solidifying are controlled which can results in having appropriate cast
metal in both shape and mechanical property point of view. This method also avoids
having trial and errors in casting industry which are hugely energy consuming [10].
Modeling for casting will be described more in details in the other section of this
report.

2.2.6.1 Mold filling related defects

Although most of the sand casting defects are formed during solidification, several
mold filling related defects also appear [10].
• No-Fill
When the temperature of the liquid metal is inadequate and below liquidus
temperature, refers to temperature above which the material is in full liquid
state, of the alloy no-fill defect occurs. In fact, the solid fraction is too high and
liquid metal cannot fill the cavity completely [10]. In order to reduce possibility
of having this type of defect and providing a fully liquid flow front in filling
process, the molten metal temperature should not be very high (super-heated)
and mold preheat temperature needs to be hot enough. Thin walls are more
likely to encounter with this problem in filling stage.
• Entrapped gas
Due to turbulent mold filling pattern, gas can be entrapped into casting. Good
gating systems design reduces the possibility of having high velocity mold

16
 2. Theory

filling which cause turbulence and thereby decrease the risk of having gas
entrapped in the casting [10].

2.2.6.2 Solidification related defects

Defects forming in solidification are various and they are not fully recognized even
with the modern casting modeling. In below the most important defects which form
during solidification in sand casting are briefly described:
• Solidification shrinkage
As mentioned earlier, reduction in volume occurs in solidification due to metal
phase transformation. Almost every metal alloy has this volumetric reduction
after the heat loss and its range is between 3 to 7% [10]. In the isolated re-
gions within the part cavity, liquid metal solidifies and subsequently shrinkage
happens. Due to lack of liquid metal feeders in those isolated regions, solidifi-
cation shrinkage cannot be compensated and therefore voids are created. The
isolated areas with liquid metal are known as hot spots and voids are more
likely to develop near the top of those areas [10]. The created voids shape and
distribution are dependent on the type of alloy and its freezing range. For
detecting this type of defect in solidification process in casting simulations,
hot spots by using temperature contours are studied.

Figure 2.7: Solidification shrinkage example of Aluminum casting cube

simulated in NFS with 6.81% volume shrinkage.

• Gas porosity
This defect is not specifically solidification related defect and can be counted
as both, filling and solidification related, defect. During pouring or solidifying
the metal absorbs gasses which can not be rejected completely from the mold.
Consequently, another void type is created which is called gas porosity [10].
The absorbed gasses may be either originated from chemical reactions between

17
2. Theory

molten metal and sand mold materials or presented inside sand and mold
cavity. Some of the absorbed gasses are rejected when liquid metal solidifies
but the rest remain in the bubble shape. Gas porosity defects tend to form
in long freezing range alloys casting such as aluminum based alloys and since
aluminum has a high gas solubility, gas porosity in aluminum is always a
concern [10].
• Hot tears and cracks, residual stresses and distortion
During solidification process when thin liquid film contracts, the hot tears
and hot cracks can be formed. This is as a result of stresses in temperature
reduction. On the other side, residual stresses shows the state of the casting
when it has reached room temperature. All these phenomena are related to
the strains happening due to thermal expansion, volume variations and solid
phase transformations. Moreover, as long as there is no plastic deformation
in casting, no distortion will form. But when the thermal stress is higher
than yield strength of the cast metal, plastic deformation and nonuniform
contraction takes place, therefore distortion in the casting can be found [10].
• Macro-segregation
Macro-segregation defect can be controlled by taking care of local solidification
time and the rate of cooling of the casting. This natural phenomenon affects
final mechanical properties of the casting [10].

2.3 Modeling of casting process

As briefly mentioned, computational modeling for casting process has been recently
made this ability to set the used casting method, in reality, and its related conditions
to simulate the process of casting. Filling and solidification in casting involve several
physical phenomena which by modeling them different casting possibilities, as well
as predictions of the defects, can be checked before going to the foundry workshops.
Although all of the defects in casting cannot be predicted, modeling of the casting
process helps to improve the casting quality by changing the possible parameters.
Especially for new designs with complex geometries, the casting simulations can be
used to ensure that designed components are manufacture-able by casting methods.
The other benefit which can be reached from the cast simulation is that the casting
engineer or the foundry man is able to optimize the casting process. Additionally in
defects prediction point of view, the casting resultants are reliable enough to avoid
mechanical failures while providing the best solution for each casting scenario [10].
It is obvious that by applying casting process modeling, experimental castings and
therefore time and cost can be significantly reduced.
In this master thesis, the software NovaFlow&Solid [18] has been used as a cast
simulation software with the focus on filling and solidification process of the cast
metal. By doing both simulations, filling and solidification, two main processes
of the casting are modeled. The simulation will show visible results as well as
numerical scales, so the user can evaluate the efficiency of the assigned casting
factors and parameters. In some cases from the filling simulation results, the user
understands that the gating systems need to be modified because the cavity is not
fed properly. Moreover, by having the solidification results it is possible to check

18
 2. Theory

the effectiveness of the selected orientation of the casting since different orientation
selection bring different solidification defects in the cast product. These are only
examples of casting modeling results usages. In below the most important benefits
of using cast simulation software in the early phase of the production are itemized
[18]:
• Standardization of the pouring method. Testing and optimizing the variant of
feeding.
• Cast-ability measurement of various designs, particularly for structural and
topology optimized designs.
• Investigation and prediction of casting possible defects, for instance, solids
shrinkage percentage.
• Analysis of casting temperature changes to reduce energy consumption in the
casting processes, especially for casting parts in mass productions.
• Optimization of the complete casting process to provide good casting quality
at the lowest cost.

2.3.1 Early phase casting simulation

After understanding the fact of usefulness of the casting simulation in production
industries, number of users has been grown rapidly. The best reason of this tendency
is that every possibility in casting process can be modelled and the results can then
be analyzed. This interest has not only captured for using in manufacturing areas
but also engineers in design and product development phases have become one of
the largest users of cast simulation computer programs.
In industrial companies, transferring information and feedback between development
and production phase is always an important key to finalize feasibility of the new
product. In fact, feedback loops between design or development and manufacturing
department exist, in which a number of loops have dominant effects on the lead
time of the new product. In the traditional development process after doing related
analysis, feedback of Computer Aided Engineering (CAE) as well as production
engineering were given back to design and development engineering department in
order to modify the new product so that it can fulfill the requirements in both
mentioned areas [19]. On one hand, stress, fatigue and fracture and even more
analysis of the new design. On the other hand, the ability of manufacturing the
designed or developed product and evaluation of the production cost cause iterations
in the process.
New designs generated from topology optimization also need the mentioned itera-
tions, especially feedback from the production point of view on the complex topology
optimized designs. Nowadays, companies try to shorten the lead time beginning from
early phase designs to final produced parts. This is the main reason of entering early
phase evaluation on the design phase. Cast simulation program is a good example
that can be used in the early phase assessment of new designs. By modeling the
casting process in an early phase of product development, engineers are able to have
rapid and short feedback loops between casting development and production. This
leads to have feasible casting designs right after the development phase [19].

19
2. Theory

2.3.2 Solidification simulation post-processing

Once the simulation is finished, results should be analyzed. Normally, results are
interpreted visually so that the defects, thermal gradient, solidification phase rate
and etc. are checked by observations and comparisons of color coded contours at
different instants of time. Liquid to solid phase transformation, solidification time,
solidification direction, the shrinkage percentage, hot spots sizes and locations as well
as chronological thermal modulus of the casting are the most important simulation’s
outcomes that help users to have a correct investigation on the solidification of the
casting process. In below solidification simulation outputs are described:
• Thermal modulus The Modulus parameter is typically used to estimate the
efficiency of the liquid metal delivery system [18]. The term modulus is a
general notion expressing a comparable unit of mutual geometrical, physical
or technical quantities which determine the course of the given process. The
ratio of melt casting volume and its cooling surface area is used for indicating
modulus [20]. The thermal modulus helps to have a study on the progres-
sion of solidification of the casting part. Once the solidification starts due
to higher rate of melt volume reduction compare to surface area reduction
rate, the initial value of the modulus decreases [20]. By having the simula-
tion of solidification, the thermal modulus field has been calculated and the
solidification progression can then be investigated. As mentioned in section
2.2.5, directional solidification is ideal for casting solidification which is started
from thin sections toward thick sections during the solidification time [15]. It
should be mentioned that the higher initial thermal modulus value expresses
the higher demand for casting feeders’ sizes due to the detection of thick parts.
In addition, the higher thermal modulus value causes the more possibility of
irregular solidification progression in different casting regions and therefore
more defective areas are expected. In order to decrease the value of thermal
modulus, increasing the surface area of the casting is recommended.

Figure 2.8: Thermal modulus example of Aluminum casting cube simulated in

NFS, shows directional solidification.

20
 2. Theory

• Shrinkage It has been explained in section 2.2.6.2 that during solidification al-
most every metal alloy shrinks and the percentage of shrinkage for aluminum
alloys is approximately between 3% to 7% of its volume. For prediction of
the shrinkage defects the cast simulation software needs to identify the liq-
uid pools surrounded with solidified regions through solidification process and
those regions where there is high risk of having shrinkage voids due to material
contraction. The studies revealed this fact that long freezing range alloys like
aluminum alloys tend to have too many small shrinkage voids over the casting
part [10]. The improvement in casting shrinkage results can be done by modi-
fying gating systems, risers, chills and all other filling parameters. If the filling
simulation is not modeled, modification of the casting design based on temper-
ature contours will be a good way of improving casting volume shrinkage after
solidification simulation. It should be mentioned that all of the design-wise
modifications are based on creating directional solidification in the casting
part. These adjustments are introduced in details in section 2.4.
• Hot spot The liquid trapped pools inside already solidified regions are hot
spots’ results in the solidification simulation. The software predicts the hot
spots result when the liquid phase reaches zero percent. After that, the number
and size of the hot spots do not change by temperature reduction of the casting.
The hot spots result represents directions of solidification but it should be
noted that a number of hot spots are not as the same as a number of shrinkage
and it proofs the fact that not all of the hot spots form shrinkage defects and
gravity also has an impact on shrinkage formation. The location of formed
hot spots are also predicted by the software.
• Solid phase The solid phase results represent the progression of the solidifica-
tion visually. The filled volume value in percentage is calculated based on the
solid phase. The areas without material after solidification shows the effect
of gravity shrinkage on the casting; However the gravity influence calculation
can be turned off when only solidification is simulated to prevent calculating
massive gravity shrinkage on top of the casting. In fact, by expelling gravity
influence from solidification calculation the result will be orientation indepen-
dent. Moreover, areas which become solid at last can be indicated from the
solid phase results. These last solidified areas are those where thermal modu-
lus can not be predicted and the software shows them transparent in a thermal
modulus optical result. In design point of view, thinner parts of the casting
component become solidify sooner than thicker parts and this differentiation
in solidification progression forms solidification defects. A general guidance
for design realization of casting components which avoids defects formation
will be discussed in section 2.4.

2.4 Design for casting - Guidelines for design re-

alization
In section 2.2.6 the main concern about the formation of casting defects was ex-
plained. In addition to process dependent defect formation, design of the casting

21
2. Theory

could bring weak areas in the casting products. Accordingly, modification on the
casting’s design is performed for eliminating defects causing because of the shape
of the casting. Although the aim of this master thesis is to provide a design out
of the topology optimization that does not encounter with manufacture disability,
sometimes due to limited capability of the optimizer or after understanding of the
solidification process with cast simulation results, changes are required. These mod-
ification will be applied to design in design realization phase to either omit minor
design related defects or prepare the design for manufacturing. The general guide-
line below can be applied to all the casting designs, some of them are fulfilled after
implementing manufacturing constraints into optimization, though.

2.4.1 Design of junctions

Junctions in the casting designs refer to the intersection of ribs or walls where a
meeting of two or more elements occurs. After simulating solidification of the part
to be cast, the software predicts the location of the shrinkage porosity. One of the
common places which shrinkage forms is at casting junctions [22]. The reason of
formation of a defect in such an area is that liquid metal at the junction does not
have sufficient surface area and therefore molten metal in junctions cools down and
solidifies at the end. It has been already mentioned that metal shrinkage can not
be compensated in areas that are surrounded by solidified regions and this causes
shrinkage porosity formation at the junctions’ locations. Note that as the number of
intersections in the place of junction increases, surface area decreases which results
in having higher tendency for porosity defect formations [22].
Design for manufacturing (DFM) studies try to propose a guideline for casting junc-
tions. According to a study in the locations where two or more sections meet, by
keeping constant outer and inner fillet radius more surface area for both internal
and external corners can be created and therefore the possibility of having porosity
shrinkage will reduce. This can be a good guideline for design engineers to slightly
change the geometry after analyzing the casting solidification results to either re-
duce the potential of forming defects or make an optimized design more close to the
production phase [22].

2.4.2 Draft angle

One of the manufacturing considerations in a design of the casting components is
draft angle. The draft angle which specifies in degrees represents the possibility
of removing the casting pattern from the sand mold without damaging the created
mold cavity. Hence, a positive draft angle should be applied to vertical surfaces of
the casting design. By considering positive draft angles in the casting design, the
component can be easily manufactured in a cost-effective way since pattern making
and cavity creation is assured. It has definitely impact on the quality of the part
to be cast with sand casting manufacturing method [23]. The general standard
for a minimum positive draft angle in sand casting is 2 degrees [24]. It should be
mentioned that by adding draw direction as a manufacturing constraints in topology
optimization software negative draft angles are avoided.

22
 2. Theory

2.4.3 Wall thickness

One of the limitations in the casting methods is that each method has its own
ability to cast minimum or maximum thicknesses. Different parameters such as
the fluidity of chosen alloy, required mechanical and metallurgical quality and the
complexity of the casting shape are taken into account when the thickness of the
casting component is designed. A recommended minimum thickness in sand casting
for aluminum alloys is approximately 3.2mm in almost every casting instruction.
However, desirable aluminum casting thickness has been recommended as 4.76mm.
Thus, the minimum thickness should be satisfied in the design of the casting. More-
over, padding in the sections with various thicknesses is performed to avoid sudden
thickness changes. There is a general rule in the geometry of the casting products
which encourages to have a uniform thickness. In case of disability, gradual thick-
ness’ growth is suggested. Nevertheless, it brings the need for adding extra material
which is opposed to the aim of optimization [25]. As a manufacturing constraint in
structural optimization tool, minimum and maximum member size define the lim-
itations for the thickness of every section created in topology optimization. It has
been already explained in section 2.1.

2.4.4 Fillet radius

The sharp edges in casting components influence on the quality and manufactura-
bility of the products. Sharp edges are difficult to be fed properly and always
redesigning or adding extra feeders are required. By eliminating sharp corners the
stress concentrations in these areas are removed and the quality of the casting parts
is increased. It should be mentioned that prevention of having sharp edged also
helps to have less solidification related defects since directional solidification is more
likely to be happened by having internal and external fillet radius instead of sharp
corners. A general rule of thumb for an aluminum casting component is to apply
rounded corners with the radius of 1.25 times of its wall thickness for internal edges
and summation of an internal radius and wall thickness for external radii of the
fillet. In case of having various section thicknesses in a joint, it is recommended to
select minimum thickness to calculate internal and external radii. An internal radius
should be accompanied with an external one to prevent a localized thick section in
the corner of the casting [26].

2.4.5 Parting line

During the design of the sand casting component, the place and type of the parting
line are crucial concerns. The parting line shows the plane where the mold halves
are pulled apart from each other in two different directions to withdraw a casted
part at the end of the sand casting process. The parting line typically defines how
the manufacturing of the component is difficult. One of the important constraints
which can be set during optimization is a draw direction. By adding this manufac-
turing constraint into optimization setup the casting design has a specific feature
to be manufactured based on its parting line. This feature in optimizer brings the

23
2. Theory

possibility of making pattern and cores easier, the orientation of the mold cavity in
casting process is also specified.

24
 3
Method

Integrated component development process using topology optimization and cast

simulation tools are presented in Figure 3.1. This process starts with CAD mod-
elling of design space considering kinematic motion of neighbouring components of
the system and packaging space of the component of interest. On the other hand,
in many cases the current components are simplified and de-featured to get the de-
sign space which is less time consuming and intended to improve the performance
or reduce weight of existing design. In the next phase, the design space is im-
ported to FE pre-processor such as HyperWorks, where the geometry is discretize
in to FE mesh. Materials, boundary constraints and loading conditions are then
applied. The geometry is grouped into design and non-design elements which are
used to retain certain features, critical for assembly and also for application of dif-
ferent manufacturing constraints in certain areas of design space. Further in the
software Optistrct user interface, parameters such as responses, objective function
and structural displacement constraints related to topology optimization are setup.
A parameter study is done by running different optimization formulation and the
best formulation is selected by simplifying many nodal displacement constraints into
single weighted compliance or volume fraction which is global responses and verify-
ing the results. Further optimization with different combinations of manufacturing
constraints along with stiffness requirement constraint is performed with objective
as minimizing volume fraction to get the promising designs which are optimal and
close to cast-ability requirements.
The concepts which give feasible designs which have weight below the target weight
is further post processed using HyperView. Threshold value for filtering low density
elements for extracting density plot is calculated by using the proposed template.
Appropriate export setting are used to create file which is acceptable in NFS tool
where the volume based mesh is generated and boundary conditions, material prop-
erties for heat transfer analysis and conditions to terminate the simulations are setup
to run solidification simulation.
Criteria for comparing the cast-ability of different concepts is formulated and all
the concepts are compared by scoring Kesselring matrix and best concept is taken
forward to CAD realization phase where final design modification are made based on
standard design guidelines and casting simulation input. At last structural analysis
is done to validate the component performance. If the condition are not satisfied the
process is looped until satisfactory design is reached. However this step is beyond
the scope of this thesis.

25
3. Method

Figure 3.1: Flowchart of the component development process using topology

optimization tools integrated with cast simulation tools.

3.1 FEM pre-processing

The design volume is meshed as per the standard solver requirement. In general for
getting a good result in topology optimization a solid mesh is used with some guide-
lines on mesh quality. The SPC boundary condition are setup using HyperWorks
workbench and loads are applied.

3.2 Parameter Study

Parameter study is conducted which has resulted in proposal of best possible op-
timization parameter settings for achieving good quality results which is close to
realization of casting. This section includes study of different problem formula-
tion followed by comparison of different manufacturing constraints and varying of
opti-control setting in Optistrcut.

3.2.1 Problem formulation Study

In product development of automotive components optimization based method is
preferred in two cases; (a) Designs from scratch where the inputs are generally de-
sign volume by package space analysis, static loads cases from dynamic simulation
of critical manoeuvre or durability tests and stiffness or displacement requirement

26
 3. Method

at the hard points and critical regions. (b) Improve the design of existing compo-
nents to their optimal where goal is trying to reduce weight of component satisfying
the requirement or to increase stiffness of component with the same weight where
optimization is difficult due to less flexibility and in some cases to find a completely
new solution, where maximum mass or volume fraction is an input to your formula-
tion of optimization problem. Formulation of an optimization can be done in many
ways and it is very important to choose the best formulation in order to understand
objective, constraints and direction of getting the optimal solution. The flow chart
below shows all possible combination of problem.

Figure 3.2: Optimization problem formulation possibility.

In this study different manufacturing constraints formulated by Optistruct, as dis-

cussed in theory section, is applied to study its influence on compliance and volume
fraction.

3.3 Methodology for selecting optimal ISO thresh-

old value
Optistruct uses material distribution method in topology optimization. Material
density of each element in design volume forms the design variable which is defined
as:
ρai
ρi = (3.1)
ρ0i
where, ρai is the assumed material density, ρ0i is the true material density and i is
the normalized material density of the ith element. Material in design space is as-
sumed as non-homogeneous as elasticity properties is a function of density, element
density is penalized to force the design variables to take values between 0 and 1.
In the course of optimization process the density value continuously changes from
0 to 1. In the last iteration each solid element has taken more or less a material

27
3. Method

density which is based on the strain energy that means the higher strain energy in
an element the higher normalized density and closer to 1.
The important output files generated from topology optimization solver, Optistruct,
are .hist, .mvw, .sh files and .OSSmooth file. Shape file (.sh) contains the material
density values, void size parameters and void orientation angle for each element and
its IDs in the analysis for the final iteration.
The density plots can be opened in HyperView for better visualization of the colour
density counter plots as shown in Figure 4.3 and 5.5. With default colour settings
red colour indicates load bearing elements with a density of 1. Blue refers to less
important elements with a density of 0.01. The density contour plot shows the struc-
turally important regions in design volume. However, there is a challenge involved
on understanding and interpreting intermediate density elements such as elements
with a density of 0.3 or 0.7.
Interpreting the topology optimization result has always been a major challenge for
integrating optimization with cast simulation tools and design realization phase.
ISO value is a parameter in Optistruct which aids in interpreting designs and un-
derstanding load paths. The default settings of ISO value is 0.505.
ISO threshold value is manually varied between 0 and 1 in order to decide a solution.
This threshold value is chosen by the designer where he feels confident. By choos-
ing this value the designer is excluding all elements with a density value below the
threshold, which implies that their respective contribution to the overall compliance
of the structure will also be neglected. This is compensated by assigning all elements
above the selected ISO threshold with the new standardized density value of 1, which
also implies that the compliance of the structure is increased. This demand to have
a method to select an exact ISO value can stabilize these effects. This value plays
an important role as it will be used in OSSmooth function to extract and import
the final design geometry from topology results into casting simulation software as
.STL file exchange or .IGES format is used to generate and export surfaces into
CAD tools for design realization.
In this thesis an automatic process that uses an excel template which calculates the
ISO value for every topology result is proposed. The following steps and formulation
are used to get the optimum ISO threshold value.
• Open .sh file in Microsoft Excel program using text import wizard choose ‘fixed
with’ radio button to import the element id and its corresponding normalized
element density into columns. Sort the data with increasing value of density.
• Paste the sorted data in Sheet1 of template with element ids and densities in
A, B columns, respectively. The template itself calculates the threshold value
which can be used for further extraction.
The Sheet2 of the template contains the element id in first column and its corre-
sponding element volume in the second column. This can be extracted from .fem
file which gives coordinates of each nodes and element ids with corresponding node
ids for tetra4 solid element. With this data volume of tetrahedron can be computed
using distance formula.
Sheet3 of the template file contains all the calculation details. Vlookup excel func-
tion is used to arrange the data in sheet1 and sheet2 such that all elements which
form the design and Non-design space are arranged with element id and their cor-

28
 3. Method

responding volume sorted with normalized densities from largest to smallest. The
sum of product of volume and its corresponding density is then computed. This
value is searched with the cumulative sum of volume of elements in order by row.
The ISO value of the matching row is the threshold. The method is validated by
calculating mass with the sum of volume of all elements above the threshold and it
matches closely with result of optimized mass.

Figure 3.3: Template to find the threshold ISO value for OSSmooth extraction.

The whole process is automated and can be easily implemented for another compo-
nent, which is very crucial for integrating topology optimization.

3.4 Cast simulation

In NovaFlow&Solid program [18], the two important casting processes, flow and
solidification modeling, can be simulated. In the production phase, the cast part is
always simulated in both modeling modules. Whereas in an early phase evaluation
of the design, the cast component is modelled only in solidification module. This is
because of vast required data to set up the flow simulation. Typically, many fluid
considerations should be taken into account for filling simulation. Usually many flow
parameters are not even clear for foundries. Besides, the filling parameters and melt
pouring types are very facility dependent and that is not an identical operation in
every foundry. In fact, precise flow simulation is not an easy work in an early design
development phase without having sufficient detailed knowledge of casting and the
parameters can be varied case to case. Despite, having complete cast simulation
helps to evaluate the gating systems’ design and its effectiveness in filling, optimize
the design, location and the size of the material delivery system belongings, optimize
the casing process and ensure the robustness of the manufacturing process.
Subsequently in this master thesis, we will be focused on solidification simulation

29
3. Method

module of NovaFlow&Solid program to evaluate the topology optimized designs with

respect to manufacturing constraints.

3.4.1 Solidification simulation setting in NovaFlow&Solid

The casting simulation setup starts with importing the geometry of the part to be
cast. It can be either only one single part or a few pieces of designed geometry
with all assembly parts such as cores, risers, sleeves, ingate system and channels.
It has been discussed earlier that in the current master thesis project the solidifi-
cation simulations are the main concerns and therefore there is no need of having
other assembly parts of the whole casting design except the designed casting com-
ponent. After importing the casting .STEP or .STL geometry file the orientation
of the casting needs to be fixed. The casting orientation defines how the casting
cavity and its mold will be orientated in the casting process. The simulation setup
is followed by generating desired mesh for the casting and the mold. The number
of cells after building the meshed part will definitely affect the precision as well as
the computational time of later simulations. Note that, volume mesh is generated
by NovaFlow&Solid from imported file [21]. There is a recommendation from the
software instruction shows how the fine meshes should be. NovaFlow&Solid recom-
mends having meshed cast geometry so that all the casting sections trapped at least
in three mesh cells to ensure precise simulation results. The structural boundary
conditions are automatically taken care by the software. The next step is assigning
materials for the casting. The casting metal, the mold and even the gas or liquid
material inside the cavity mold need to be set. An identical material which is as-
signed for all of our cast parts is ’EN AC-44100’, aluminum based alloy. All the
specified parameters and properties for mold and cast material are shown in Table
3.1 and 3.2. For solidification simulation setup, initial temperature distribution,
preheating conditions, simulation parameters, shrinkage calculation model and heat
transfer model are then set to consider the exact casting solidification conditions.
The default values have been used for these mentioned parameters. Before running
the simulation, stop criteria of the simulation can be selected based on the casting
process. It is possible to either stop the simulation at an exact time or at a specific
volume of the liquid phase or even when the temperature of the alloy reaches a par-
ticular value. After all these possibilities in modeling different casting conditions,
the model is ready to simulate.

30
 3. Method

Table 3.1: Aluminum casting material details [21].

Casting Initial Solidus Liquidus Initial Heat

Material Temperature Temperature Temperature Density Conduction
[◦ C] [◦ C] [◦ C] [kg/m3 ] [W.m−2 .◦ C −1 ]
EN AC-44100 690 573.9 591.4 2360 100.01

Table 3.2: Green sand mold material details [21].

Mold Initial Gas Initial Heat

Material Temperature Rigidity Permeability Density Conduction
[◦ C] [m2 .pa−1 .s−1 ] [kg/m3 ] [W.m−2 .◦ C −1 ]
Green Sand(S) 20 0.5 4.250 1520 0.73

31
 4
Topology optimization for Rear
Upper Control Arm

This chapter explains the component development process proposed in methodology

for RUCA using structural optimization tool, Optistrcut, and cast simulation tool,
NovaFlow&Solid. Rear Upper Control Arm is casted with aluminum which is bolted
to sub-frame and knuckle. RUCA is subjected to forces via knuckle and has a
important functionality in the chassis system.

Figure 4.1: RUCA pre-processing setup and boundary condition.

Linear Tetra4 elements are used with average element size of 1.5mm considering
mesh quality criteria as per mesh guideline for solid chassis components. Hard
point 1 assembles with the sub-frame and hard point 7 to the knuckle. Two nodes
are created at pt1 and pt7 hard point coordinate as shown in Figure 4.1. These
two nodes constitute reference nodes in connecting couplings. The couplings at pt1
and pt7 are for each reference node grouped is created by node based surface set
solely containing the nodes on the surfaces with a normal perpendicular to the bush-
ing axis. A local rectangular coordinate system is defined with its Z axis passing
through between pt7 and pt1, oriented in the direction towards pt1. Furthermore,
three defined hard point nodes are transformed into this local system.

Load application and stiffness requirement Unit load of 1000N is applied in

hard point pt7 as single static load case. The structure stiffness, when loading in

32
 4. Topology optimization for Rear Upper Control Arm

positive/negative local Z direction (compression/tension), is of interest. The dis-

placement should not be more than 0.06mm (scaled value) in both positive and
negative local Z direction for an unit load.

4.1 RUCA problem formulation study

In this study first, a simple component RUCA, Rear Upper Control Arm, with one
unit load case with a displacement requirement of 0.06mm (scaled value) at hard
point 7 is considered and we setup the problem without considering any manufac-
turing constraint. In this case, there is a choice of either minimizing volume fraction
or minimizing compliance of structure for the unit load case as objective constraint
with displacement requirement. The table below shows the results of optimization
with different possible combinations.

Table 4.1: Results of different optimization formulation of RUCA (scaled values).

Objective Constraints Compliance Volume Mass Displacement

Fraction [kg] [mm]
Min Vol.fraction Displacement 0.06 29.93 15.73 0.79 0.059
Min Vol.fraction Displacement 0.06 & Compliance 30 29.94 15.73 0.79 0.059
Min Compliance Volume fraction 15.73% 30.63 15.73 0.79 0.060
Min Compliance Vol. frac. 15.73% & Displacement 0.06 30.20 15.73 0.79 0.060
Min Compliance Displacement 0.06 6.84943 99.39 4.64 0.059

The FE model of actual RUCA component is not available as a given input. Hence,
the information about the compliance of the actual structure is not clear. It is best to
consider minimize volume fraction with the given displacement constraint. Output
of this run gives us the optimum value of compliance and mass as it is a well-known
fact that optimal solution is a trade-off between compliance and mass. It is also
observed that formulation with minimized compliance with displacement constraint
does not work as the optimization solver will stop soon as it fulfills the displacement
requirement, “optimal design is probably not reached if the requirement is too easy
to fulfill, since the optimization stops too early”. This gives a hint of adding a
volume fraction constraint for the next problem formulation.
The following conclusions can be derived out of this study:
• Minimize volume fraction as objective with displacement constraint is the best
formulation as it gives the optimal compliance and minimum mass.
• Compliance is a direct measure of displacement. It is observed that for unit
load case the compliance is inverse of 12 the displacement that is C = ( 12 0.06)−1 ∼
=
30 (scaled values) which follows the definition of compliance in theory.
• In order to use minimize compliance as an objective, displacement requirement
is not enough. It is recommended to use volume fraction constraint which in
turn satisfies the displacement requirement. It can also be considered that if
compliance requirement is fulfilled, nodal displacement requirement is taken
care automatically.

33
4. Topology optimization for Rear Upper Control Arm

4.2 RUCA manufacturing constraints study

Optimization with all possible combinations of casting constraints are tried with
two different penalization factors of p=2 and p=4 and the result is plotted as shown
in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Comparison of optimization with different casting constraints of

RUCA.

Figure 4.3: Density plots of optimization results with different casting

constraints (a)No manufacturing constraint, (b)Split draw, (c)Split draw with
No-hole, (d)Split draw with No-hole with Symmetry.

34
 4. Topology optimization for Rear Upper Control Arm

All the concepts generated with different manufacturing constraints have the same
structural performance with global compliance response 30 (scaled values). It can
also be seen that the problem with no manufacturing constraint is heaver than
the problem formulation with split draw and split draw with no-hole constraints
with same compliance value and nodal displacement. This is interesting observation
which confirms that by applying manufacturing constraints, the Optistrcut solver
takes different formulation which can lead to better optimized solution. One more
observation is when we combine a split draw with no-hole with symmetric con-
straints, instead of forming one single shear plane on auto mid plane as in case
of split draw with no-hole constraint, the optimization converges with two parallel
shear planes. However, when no manufacturing constraint is applied it gives a hollow
structure with ribs on outer surface of design space as shown in Figure 4.3. The for-
mulation with split draw no-hole and stamped does not converge to optimal. It can
be seen that all formulations in RUCA resulted in less weight than the previously
optimized and redesigned component with single manufacturing constraint. Now, it
is required to continue with 4 best concepts to next step for casting simulation in
order to understand the cast-ability of these designs.

Figure 4.4: Compliance vs displacement for different casting constraints.

4.3 Casting simulation for RUCA

The cast simulation results for solidification of different topology optimized RUCA
designs are presented in Figure 4.5 to 4.7. It needs to be mentioned that all the
simulations are done without performing any CAD realization phase.

35
4. Topology optimization for Rear Upper Control Arm

Figure 4.5: Volume shrinkage indication of RUCA showing defective regions for
different casting design. Optimization with (a)No manufacturing constraint
(b)Split draw (c)Split draw No-hole (d)Split draw No-hole Symmetry.

Figure 4.6: Hot spots of RUCA showing directional solidification for different
casting design. Optimization with (a)No manufacturing constraint (b)Split draw
(c)Split draw No-hole (d)Split draw No-hole Symmetry.

36
 4. Topology optimization for Rear Upper Control Arm

Figure 4.7: Thermal Modulus of RUCA showing directional solidification for

different casting design. Optimization with (a)No manufacturing constraint
(b)Split draw (c)Split draw No-hole (d)Split draw No-hole Symmetry.

After optimizing RUCA with different manufacturing constraints, it has been de-
cided to evaluate the different topology optimization designs by considering different
requirements. This concept evaluation is mainly proposed when more than one opti-
mization result exists and a decision regarding the final selected concept with respect
to cast-ability needs to be made. In this evaluation, categorized requirements are
weighted based on the results of both topology optimization and cast simulation
and that concept wins which has collected higher weight summation. The evalu-
ation matrix with considered requirements for four final RUCA concepts is shown
below:

37
4. Topology optimization for Rear Upper Control Arm

Figure 4.8: Concept evaluation matrix for four topology optimized RUCA
designs with different manufacturing constraints.

Note that an objective function for all four concepts coming from topology opti-
mization is minimizing mass. The Figure 4.8 shows how different topology opti-
mized concepts have been weighted based on structural and cast-ability criteria.
The ranking method gives higher weight to the best concept in each aspect.
Out of four different concepts for RUCA, concept 3 and concept 4 have received
higher total weight. It means that these two concepts are closer to the casting
process and they are the best-optimized concepts by considering cast-ability re-
quirements. When it comes to comparing the two final concepts, the cast-ability
evaluation can be taken into account. In other words, in our evaluation system the
concept which fulfills the cast-ability requirements more than the other would be
a better choice to continue with. This can be a good technique to differ the final
concepts.
After evaluating concepts with the suggested matrix and having the result of cast
simulation for the selected concept(s), design modifications in development phase
can be accomplished to make the design ready for manufacturing phase.

38
 5
Topology optimization for Rear
Lower Control Arm

Rear Lower Control Arm is studied which is an aluminum cast component bolted
to sub-frame, knuckle, damper and leaf spring attachments. RLCA is subjected to
many forces and moments through adjacent components.

Figure 5.1: RLCA pre-processing setup and boundary condition.

Hard point 3 and 4 assemble to the sub-frame, whereas pt6 and pt18 assemble to the
knuckle. The pt56 engages the damper and the pt68 attaches to the spring element
(Leaf or Air spring) as shown in Figure 5.1. Second order tetra4 solid elements are
used with average FE grid element size of 6mm and mesh quality criteria to be used
for the RLCA are as per the standard mesh guideline for solid chassis components.
At each hard point coordinate, a node is created for couplings connection where the
loads and boundary condition are applied. The coupling uses RBE2 element for pt3,
pt4, pt6 and pt18 for each hard point grouped into a node based surface set solely
containing the nodes on the surfaces with a normal perpendicular to the coupling
axis. The damper interface couplings are a part of the clevis bracket which is mod-
elled rigid coupling for simplicity and also the pre-tension of bolts are neglected.
The c-beam element with steel material properties is used which connects the series
of coupling and forms the spring connection at hard point pt56.

39
5. Topology optimization for Rear Lower Control Arm

Load application and stiffness requirement The six leading load cases channels
are selected from load extraction from chassis rig cycle test and different dynamic
loading events.
• Torsional load is unit load of 1000N applied at pt18 along positive x direction.
• Damping load is unit load of 1000N applied at pt56 along negative z direction.
• Spring load is unit load of 1000N applied at pt68 along negative z direction.
• Drive over curb – DOC is set of load and moments applied at all hard points.
• Rearwards drive over curb – ROC is set of load and moments applied at all
hard points.
• Brake in pothole – BIP is set of load and moments applied at all hard points.
The structure stiffness when loading in negative Z direction in three different points,
are of interest named as Torsional, Leaf spring attachment and Damper attachment
stiffness. Displacements are measured which must be less than 1.0989, 0.33, 0.033
(scaled values) for unit loads at respective loading points are pt18, pt68 and pt56.

5.1 RLCA problem formulation study

Rear Lower Control Arm, RLCA, is a complicated problem with 6 load cases and
3 displacement constraints at hard points Pt68, Pt18 and Pt56 for spring, torsional
and damper loads, respectively. The linear static analysis of the existing component
is run in Optistruct solver to benchmark the structural responses of the component
so that these values can be used to study different problem formulation. The result
of analysis is given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Static linear analysis of current design of RLCA, compliance in FE units
and displacements in millimeter (scaled values).

Load Case PTL6 PTL3 PTL4 PTL68_Spr PTL56_Damp PTL18_Torsi Compliance

ROC 2.046 0.462 0 1.584 1.287 2.244 8417
BIP 2.970 0.396 0 2.706 1.188 3.366 11601
DOC 2.343 0.297 0 6.6 3.762 12.27 47432
Torsional 0.165 0.066 0 0.165 0.033 0.825 115
Damper 0.066 0.033 0 0.231 0.099 0.132 32
Spring 0.033 0.003 0 0.099 0.099 0.033 13
Requirement 0.33 0.132 1.0989 67613

Following conclusions can be derived out from the FE analysis of current RLCA
component:
• The displacement requirement at hard points of interests is satisfied for tor-
sional, damping and spring loads cases.
• The load case DOC is dominating load case and load case BIP is the second
dominating load case.
• The requirement displacement constraints will not be enough to define an
effective optimization problem.
• The original component is 9% of current design volume.

40
 5. Topology optimization for Rear Lower Control Arm

In the case of RLCA, all the load cases and its corresponding compliance and dis-
placements are available, since the design volume of this component is given from
packaging space analysis. Therefore, the topology optimization problem can be
formulated in many different ways as listed below in Table 5.2 with the results of
optimization.

Table 5.2: Results of different optimization formulation of RLCA (scaled values).

Objective Constraints Weighted Mass Volume

Compliance [kg] Fraction [%]
Analysis current RLCA RLCA 67613 4.75 9
Min Volume fraction 36 Displacements 67432 4.005 7.75
Min Volume fraction 6 Compliance 67056 3.80 7.28
Min Volume fraction 3 Displacement & 3 Compliance 67413 3.69 7.01
Min Volume fraction Weighted Compliance 50548 3.50 6.55
Min Volume fraction 3 Displacement 1496406 2.32 3.74
Min Weighted compliance 3 Displacement & Vol. frac. 9% 41480 4.52 8.99
Min Weighted compliance Volume fraction 7.28% 41094 3.80 7.28
Min Weighted compliance Volume fraction 9% 39887 4.52 9.0
Min Weighted compliance 3 Disp. & 3 Compl. & Vol. frac. 7.3% 56723 3.82 7.3
Min Weighted compliance 3 Disp. & 3 Compl. & Vol. frac. 9% 40047 4.528 9
Min Weighted compliance 3 Displacement & 3 Compliance 3640 42.68 99.99
Min Weighted compliance 36 Displacements 3640 42.68 99.99
Min Weighted compliance 3 Displacement 3640 42.68 99.99

The results of competent optimization problem formulation is plotted graphically

for better understanding of effect of problem formulation on results and how optimal
compliance and volume fraction varies and also to facilitate the selection process.

Figure 5.2: Comparison of compliance for different optimization formulation

study.

The dotted blue line shows the reference compliance performance of the current
component with their respective load cases and all the curves which are on this line

41
5. Topology optimization for Rear Lower Control Arm

or below this line are good problem formulations. The following conclusions can be
derived out from this study:
• In problems with minimize volume fraction as objective all formulations except
constraint with 3 displacements result in stiffer solutions than the reference
component. Hence, the best formulation can be chosen considering the criteria
of minimum volume fraction. The formulation with 6 reference compliance
constraints which give 7.285 percent of volume fraction is chosen as the best
formulation.
• It is also observed that problem with minimize compliance with volume frac-
tion constraint obtained from previous runs reference component results quali-
fies individual compliance requirements. Which indicates that in problem with
multiple load cases and displacement requirements this method can be used to
convert the complex formulation into single constraint and objective problem.
• Minimize volume with 36 displacement constraints captures the classical trade
off optimization problem of compliance and weight.
• Compliance decreases with increase in mass fraction constraint.

Figure 5.3: Trade off between compliance and volume fraction for different
formulation.

The trade-off between compliance and volume fraction is shown in the figure above.
The case with minimum volume fraction and weighted compliance gives more op-
timal solution. The case with problem formulation of minimizing volume fraction
with 6 reference compliance as constraints gives the best solution.

5.2 RLCA manufacturing constraints study

Optimization with different combinations of available manufacturing constraints are
applied in this study. The formulation shown in the Figure 5.4 is a minimize vol-
ume fraction as objective function and 6 compliance responses form 6 load cases as
structural constraints obtained by FE analysis of current RLCA displayed in Table
5.1 coupled with each of the manufacturing constrains as following:
(a) discreet parameter, (b) minimum member size, (c) minimum member size +
maximum member size, (d) minimum member size + maximum member size + gap

42
 5. Topology optimization for Rear Lower Control Arm

between each member generated, (e) single draw direction, (f) split draw direction,
(g) split draw with no-hole with uniform thickness.

Figure 5.4: Comparison of volume fraction of RLCA for optimization with

different casting constraints with same structural performance.

Figure 5.5: Density plots of optimization results with different casting

constraints (a)Min member size of 73mm (b)Penalization factor of 1.5 (c)Split
draw (d)Single draw.

43
5. Topology optimization for Rear Lower Control Arm

The results of the optimization have been plotted in Figure 5.5. It is seen that
formulation with minimum member size of 73 millimeter looks lighter compared to
the original component and has more defined ribs. The result is also closer to casting
in terms of production compared to formulation with no manufacturing constraints
and split draw that results in many thin ribs with hollow design. Hence, it is not
considered for further casting simulation.

In section 4.3 and 5.3 solidification simulation results are presented. The general
simulation setup has been already mentioned in 3.4.1. It should be explained that as
long as the filling simulation is not conducted in our simulation there is no need of
setting gating systems and melt pouring type. Plus, due to lack of filling simulation
it is recommended to cancel out the gravity influences on the shrinkage calculation
to get a result without interfering of filling parameters. By having this setup the
solidification results are orient-independent and investigations on the orientation of
casting are therefore eliminated.

5.3 Casting simulation for RLCA

For interpreting the casting feasibility of the RLCA which its design is way more
complicated than RUCA, two different designs are cast simulated. The first design is
result proposed by previous master thesis where topology optimization of same com-
ponent, RLCA, has been studied without considering any manufacturing constraints
[27]. Thus, the final proposed design (I) has passed manual design realization phase
to ensure the mold-ability of the component. Due to interests in checking the cast
simulation results on this component and investigating the effectiveness of the de-
sign realization phase, solidification of casting setup has been simulated. Finally, the
second design (II) is a proposed topology optimized RLCA component with imple-
menting manufacturing constraints during the optimization phase by current study.
Note that the geometry of design (II) has been imported directly from optimizer to
cast simulation software without passing any design realization phase. The casting
design proposals and their solidification simulation results are shown below.

44
 5. Topology optimization for Rear Lower Control Arm

Figure 5.6: (I)Proposed RLCA design of previous study [27]. (II)Proposed

RLCA design with considering manufacturing constraints.

Figure 5.7: Volume shrinkage indication of RLCA showing defective regions for
different casting design.

45
5. Topology optimization for Rear Lower Control Arm

Figure 5.8: Hot spots indication of RLCA showing different directional

solidification for different casting design.

Figure 5.9: Thermal modulus indication of RLCA showing thickness variation of

component for different casting design.

The results are interpreted as:

Solidification shrinkage detection shows several zones ending up with material con-
traction resulting in forming defective areas. The two major thick sections as seen
in Figure 5.9 (II) are at the dark regions in the bottom right and diagonal rib of
the casting which results in identifying two large volume shrinkage at these regions.
With an investigation on the liquid phase visual results in chronological order, solid-
ification direction inspection is carried out. The directional solidification inspection
on first design proposal of RLCA (I) displays that the whole component is solidified

46
 5. Topology optimization for Rear Lower Control Arm

in 14 different directions. Each direction creates an isolated liquid pool and gives
raise to porosity which reduces the quality of casting. The hot spots with minor
differences are predicted at the same locations which reconfirms the directional so-
lidification inspection. Thickness variation, sharp edges and the junction of walls
are the main causation of having many solidification directions, these have been
figured out after checking geometric dimensions and thermal modulus. It should be
again noted that filling simulation is not considered. The shrinkage prediction of
design proposal (I) reveals the fact that even after considering the standard design
guidelines for interpreting the optimization results by the design engineer, redesign-
ing to remove shrinkage defects in the rib intersections is needed at regions Sb 5, Sb 6,
Sb 7 and Sb 8 predicted from simulation as feeders at these regions are not practical.
It can also be suggested to have ingates for filling simulation in regions labeled as
Sb 2 and Sb 3 since these are thickest regions as seen from thermal modulus and also
shrinkage volume is high which can be compensated during filling. It is also ob-
served from hot spots prediction result that porosity is high and distributed on load
carrying ribs which results in lower quality casting.
From casting simulation of design proposal (II) it can be seen that shrinkage is
concentrated on the diagonal rib and lower right region. Thermal modulus suggests
the need of having a gating system at these regions to compensate the large volume
shrinkage happening. Hot spots on thin ribs can be neglected which can be removed
during later design realization phase. It can be concluded that solidification results
are valuable inputs for design engineer to perform CAD modification in early re-
alization phase. It also gives the design engineer basic clues of gating and feeding
points.

47
 6
Discussion

In this work we have presented an approach to handle the casting component devel-
opment process using topology optimization and casting simulation. The method
is based on first identifying the best optimization formulation for the given loads
and design space and then implementing casting constraints such as draw direction,
minimum member size and penalization factor to find the optimized structure.
Firstly it was intuitively believed that the topology optimization without manu-
facturing constraint would give lighter structure compared to optimization with
manufacturing constraint which was true in case of RLCA. However, It was discov-
ered that topology optimization of RUCA resulted in lighter model with split draw
and no-hole constraints which gives a single shear plane at mid surface, when com-
pared to hollow ribbed structure with no manufacturing constraint while achieving
same structural performance. It was realized that all the optimization for RUCA
with manufacturing constraints was under the targeted weight. Whereas, in case of
RLCA optimization with min member size below 73 and discreet parameter below 1
with no manufacturing constraints resulted in lighter weighted structure compared
with the existing component.
It was also noted that there was large number of intermediate density elements in
these solution and when the results were extracted to casting simulation tools these
designs were heavier than the optimized weight from topology.
The work also provides a generic template to find out the threshold ISO value for
accurate extraction of density plots to CAD realization.
Ideal casting simulation setup for evaluating the topology optimized design is pro-
posed and its benefits are shown on RUCA. The solidification simulation was done
on the current RLCA from where the number of gates, feeders and their position was
identified based on shrinkage and hotspots regions which was followed by filling and
solidification simulation. It was observed that shrinkage was reduced by 98% and
hotspots decreased from 15 to 11. The same method was implemented to optimized
RLCA which showed 97% reduction in shrinkage and number of hotspots regions
decreased from 23 to 17.
Moreover, the casting simulation of optimized RLCA (II), directly extracted from
topology optimization without considering CAD realization, was also done. From
the result of casting simulations it is observed that some of the ribs do not fulfill the
minimum thickness requirement and they are hard or even sometimes impossible to
be manufactured by sand casting method. It is also seen that a few of hot spots
are formed only due to lack of gradual thickness variation, which are removed after
design realization phase. When mold-ability of RLCA component is concerned it
can be generally said that creation of cavity mold for this design is not an easy

48
 6. Discussion

work. However, comments from cast experts and production group could avoid such
difficulties.

49
 7
Future work

In our cast simulation tool, NovaFlow&Solid, there is a module to analyze stresses

caused by filling and solidification process in casting. After completing the simu-
lation in both flow and solid, the NovaStress module can be applied for non-linear
stress evaluation. It is known as an analysis tool where the quality of the casting
affected by the stresses can be investigated. It is interesting that by having the
result of NovaStress the casting cracks are also predicted. Due to the wide thesis
scope in our project and limitation in time, this feature of cast simulation tool has
not studied. Therefore, it is suggested to have a study on this ability of the soft-
ware. This is due to the fact that crack prediction and the effects of stresses on the
quality of the final product can help the design development process to have a better
proposal only by making slight design changes after interpreting the NovaStress re-
sults. To do so, primarily each component needs to be simulated in both filling and
solidification with the material which has required data for stress analysis. Then
NovaStress analysis can be carried out.
The methodology which has been proposed and used in this project needs to be
tested on more sand cast components which tend to be topology optimized with
respect to manufacturing constraints. This will be for investigating and evaluating
the efficiency of the proposed methodology. It is also possible to have some changes
after applying this methodology in more designs and therefore development of the
proposed methodology is achieved.
None of the topology optimization results in this master thesis have been modified
in design realization phase. In fact, all the results have been directly imported to
the cast simulation tool. It is an interest to compare the cast simulation results
before and after the CAD modifications. This loop will first show the integrity of
casting simulation result interpretation and then cause design improvement after a
few short loops.

50
 Bibliography

[1] Christensen PW, Klarbring A. An introduction to structural optimization.

Springer Science & Business Media; 2008 Oct 14.
[2] Bendsøe MP, Sigmund O. Extensions and applications. InTopology Optimiza-
tion 2004. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
[3] Hashin ZS, Shtrikman S. A variational approach to the theory of the elastic
behaviour of polycrystals. Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids. 1962
Oct 1;10(4):343-52.
[4] Altair [Internet]. Client Center Login. [cited 2017May7]. Available from:
http://www.altairhyperworks.in/clientcenterhwloginform.aspx
[5] Michailidis G. Manufacturing constraints and multi-phase shape and topology
optimization via a level-set method (Doctoral dissertation, Ecole Polytechnique
X).
[6] Aluminium Castings [Internet]. Aluminium Castings. [cited 2017Apr23]. Avail-
able from: http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/mech330/alcast1.html
[7] Castings [Internet]. Aluminum Castings | The Alu-
minum Association. [cited 2017May13]. Available from:
http://www.aluminum.org/industries/processing/castingssthash.QOE7dg0k.dpuf
[8] Die casting [Internet]. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation; 2017 [cited
2017Apr1]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_casting
[9] Aluminum Casting Processes [Internet]. Aluminum Casting Pro-
cesses :: Total Materia Article. [cited 2017Apr13]. Available from:
http://www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticlesite=ktnNM=59
[10] Yu KO, editor. Modeling for casting and solidification processing. CRC Press;
2001 Oct 16.
[11] Dry Sand Casting [Internet]. Dry Sand Casting, Dry Sand Casting Process,
Applications and Advantages, Manufacturers. [cited 2017Apr8]. Available from:
http://www.industrialmetalcastings.com/castingd rys andc asting.html
[12] Sandcasting Process [Internet]. Sandcasting Process. [cited 2017Apr13]. Avail-
able from: http://www.rotblattsculpture.com/Articles/sandcastingproce.html
[13] Pattern (casting) [Internet]. Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation; 2017 [cited
2017May13]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern( casting)
[14] Mechanical Engineering [Internet]. Types of patterns used
in Casting Process. [cited 2017Apr14]. Available from:
http://mechanicalinventions.blogspot.se/2012/12/types-of-patterns.html
[15] Hebsur N, Mangshetty S. Casting simulation for sand casting of Flywheel. Int.
Journal of Research in Advent Technology. 2014;2(8):82-6.

51
Bibliography

[16] Groover MP. Fundamentals of modern manufacturing: materials processes, and

systems. John Wiley Sons; 2007 Jun 14.
[17] Freezing Range [Internet]. The Metal Casting. [cited 2017May12]. Available
from: http://www.themetalcasting.com/alloy-freezing-range.html
[18] Altair [Internet]. Altair’s HyperWorks Partner Alliance Expands Its Scope with
the Addition of NovaCast Systems to Its Software Lineup. [cited 2017Apr14].
Available from: http://www.altair.com/NewsDetail.aspx?news_id=10756
[19] MAGMA [Internet]. Casting Design. [cited 2017Apr1]. Available from:
http://www.magmasoft.com/en/solutions/castingdesign.html
[20] Havlicek F, Elbel T. Geometrical modulus of a casting and its influence on
solidification process. Archives of foundry engineering. 2011;11(4):170-6.
[21] NovaFlow & Solid Online Documentation. Version 6.00. NovaCast System AB,
2016.
[22] Singh K, Reddy PK, Joshi D, Subburaj K, Ravi B. 3D Junctions in Castings:
Simulation-based DFM Analysis and Guidelines. InINAE International Confer-
ence on Advances in Manufacturing Technology 2008 Feb 6.
[23] Patternmaking ’Tricks’ | About AFS and Metalcast-
ing| AFS [Internet]. Patternmaking ’Tricks’ | About AFS
and Metalcasting| AFS. [cited 2017May19]. Available from:
http://www.afsinc.org/about/content.cfm?PreviewContentItem=23297
[24] Edge LLCE. Design For Sand Casting Design Guide and Consider-
ations [Internet]. Engineers Edge. [cited 2017May19]. Available from:
http://www.engineersedge.com/sandc ast.html
[25] Casting design and performance. Materials Park, OH: ASM International; 2009.
[26] Sand Casting - The Designers Buyers Guide [Internet].
Find and Promote Manufacturing Capability in the UK »
Manufacturing Network. [cited 2017Apr21]. Available from:
https://www.manufacturingnetwork.com/knowledgebase/view/30
[27] Larsson R. Structural Topology and Shape Optimization. Department of Ap-
plied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology. 2016.

52