Concurrent Selection of Material and Joining Technology – Holistically Relevant Aspects and Its Mutual Interrelations in Lightweight Engineering

Derivation of Criteria for Identifying Lightweight Potential – A Literature Review

“…As can be seen in Table 1, seven synonyms for the term "criterion" and eight synonyms for the term "lightweight design" were used in both singular and plural form. Synonyms for the term "criterion*" Synonyms for the term "lightweight design*" "Parameter" (Delogu et al, 2018) "Lightweight construction" (Schleinkofer et al, 2018) "Indicator" (Choudry et al, 2018) "Lightweight development" (defined by the authors) "Factor" (Hottle et al, 2017) "Lightweight engineering" (Caldwell et al, 2013) "Basis" (Koffler and Rohde-Brandenburger, 2010) "Lightweight optimization" (Wang et al, 2017) "Measure" (Delogu et al, 2016) "Mass reduction" (Hottle et al, 2017) "Multi-objective" (Wang et al, 2017) "Mass saving" (Qin et al, 2016) "Multi-criteria" (Kaspar et al, 2018) "Weight reduction" (Viqaruddin and Reddy., 2017) "Weight saving" (defined by the authors)…”

“…Lifecycle engineering is one method for addressing different dimensions. Three dimensions used in this context proved sufficient for lightweight-design applications (Kaspar et al, 2018), thus enabling the criteria found to be clustered. The dimensions consider economic, ecological and technological issues of an engineering solution and help to weight the various factors, such as with regard to the material-selection process (Peças et al, 2014).…”

“…In the context of this second interpretation of the term "lightweight potential" (which is the interpretation used throughout this entire paper), a wide set of relevant criteria is required. This core setwhich considers the different aspects of lightweight design (Kaspar et al, 2018) enables the designer to select the most representative criteria suited to a particular lightweight-design scenario in order to derive individual lightweight potential.…”

Exploitation of AM-Potentials by Linking Manufacturing Processes to Function-Driven Product Design

“…First, the left materials and processes get separately not just assessed on a fulfilled / not-fulfilled basis (binding criteria) like it is done in the initial screening process. Rather, they are subject to an overall weighted technical, economic and ecological sufficiency ranking (Kaspar et al, 2018) displaying a percentage performance level based on local and global but solution-neutral requirements. Second, and in combination with the ultimately proposed alternative solutions, the material and processing options are embedded with any design of the respective working principle and correlatively valued once more in a further integrated view.…”

Function-Based Material Selection for Cross-Component Lightweight Design Within the Extended Target Weighing Approach

“…Consequently, for example, a best material for one component and another could be even worse in the ranking when adjacent joining aspects are ought to be added, and thus a separately second or third best evaluated material solution could be given precedence, e. g. in term of a cost-efficient joining possibility. To systematically approach this matter, a concurrent assessment requires a two-stage evaluation process; first, an individual assessment model for materials followed by the joining technologies, and second its concurrent interrelations regarding impact criteria of both (e. g., joint surface, service temperature, tolerances) along with their mutual ranking (Kaspar et al, 2018b). This integrated view of material and joining technology within previously assigned functional design spaces by ETWA is supposed to be investigated in more detail in Kaspar et al (2019).…”