This paper presents a method that systematically decomposes product geometry into a set of components considering the structural stiffness of the end product. A structure is represented as a graph of its topology, and the optimal decomposition is obtained by combining FEM analyses with a Genetic Algorithm. As the first case study, the side frame of a passenger car is decomposed for the minimum distortion of the front door panel geometry. As the second case study, the under body frame of a passenger car is decomposed for the minimum frame distortion. In both case studies, spot-weld joints are considered as joining methods, where each joint, which may contain multiple weld spots, is modeled as a torsional spring. First, the rates of the torsional springs are treated as constant values obtained in the literature. Second, they are treated as design variables within realistic bounds. By allowing the change in the joint rates, it is demonstrated that the optimal decomposition can achieve the smaller distortion with less amount of joint stiffness (hence less welding spots), than the optimal decomposition with the typical joint rates available in the literature.

1.
Saitou, K., and Yetis, A., 2000, “Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis of Structural Products: Preliminary Results,” Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Tools and Methods of Competitive Engineering, Delft, The Netherlands, April.
2.
Yetis, A., and Saitou, K., 2000, “Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis Based on Structural Considerations,” Proceedings of the 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Baltimore, Maryland, September 10–13, DETC2000/DAC-1428.
3.
Cetin, O. L., and Saitou, K., 2001, “Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis for Maximum Structural Strength and Modularity,” Proceedings of the 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, September 9–12, 2001, Pittsburgh, PA, DETC2001/DAC-21121.
4.
Lotter, B., 1989, Manufacturing Assembly Handbook, Butterworths, London.
5.
Holland, J., 1975, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
6.
Goldberg, D., 1989, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
7.
Boothroyd, G., and Dewhurst, P., 1983, Design for Assembly Handbook, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
8.
Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P., and Winston, K., 1994, Product Design for Manufacturing and Assembly, Marcel Dekker, New York.
9.
De Fanzio, T., and Whitney, D., 1987, “Simplified Generation of all Mechanical Assembly Sequences,” IEEE Trans. Rob. Autom., pp. 640–658.
10.
Ko
,
H.
, and
Lee
,
K.
,
1987
, “
Automatic Assembling Procedure Generation From Mating Conditions
,”
Comput.-Aided Des.
,
19
, pp.
3
10
.
11.
Ashley
,
S.
,
1997
, “
Steel Cars Face a Weighty Decision
,”
Am. Soc. Mech. Eng.
,
119
(
2
), pp.
56
61
.
12.
Chang
,
D.
,
1974
, “
Effects of Flexible Connections on Body Structural Response
,”
SAE Trans.
,
83
, pp.
233
244
.
13.
Lee
,
K.
, and
Nikolaidis
,
E.
,
1998
, “
Effect of Member Length on the Parameter Estimates of Joints
,”
Comput. Struct.
,
68
, pp.
381
391
.
14.
Kim
,
J.
,
Kim
,
H.
,
Kim
,
D.
, and
Kim
,
Y.
,
2002
, “
New Accurate Efficient Modeling Techniques for the Vibration Analysis of T-Joint Thin-Walled Box Structures
,”
Int. J. Solids Struct.
,
39
, June, pp.
2893
2909
.
15.
Garey, M. R., and Johnson, D. S., 1979, Computers And Intractability, A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.
16.
Davis, L., 1991, Handbook of Genetic Algorithms, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
17.
Malen, D., and Kikuchi, N., 2002, Automotive Body Structure—A GM Sponsored Course in the University of Michigan, ME599 Coursepack, University of Michigan.
18.
Brown, J., Robertson, A. J., and Serpento, S. T., 2002, Motor Vehicle Structure, SAE International, Warrendale, PA.
You do not currently have access to this content.