Concurrent Assessment of Material and Joining Technology in Lightweight Engineering

  • Saphir A. ChoudryEmail author
  • Jerome Kaspar
  • Michael Vielhaber
  • Dirk Landgrebe
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 130)


The automotive sector is facing various challenges, such as increasing costs for the production, but also stricter environmental regulations for more sustainable processes and products. The resulting trend to lightweight engineering, however, is causing a growing variety of materials with individual characteristics, which is also leading to an increasing diversity of joining technologies. The component-specific selection of a suitable material and joining technology is usually based on the expertise of a developer; a standardized method analyzing the concurrent assessment of both dimensions regarding monetary (economic impact) and non-monetary (technological and eco-logical impact) criteria does not exist. In doing so, the concurrent assessment approach identifies potential and technically feasible solutions based on individually and/or coherently weighted attributes along with their maximum score to highlight alternatives which fit best collectively. Hence, an essential part of this research is to determine their interrelations and develop a methodology, which consolidates the findings of the assessment of materials and joining technologies for a transparent and sustainable decision-making in product development.


Concurrent assessment Sustainable decision-making Lightweight 


  1. 1.
    Dieter, G.E.: Engineering Design: A Materials and Processing Approach, 1st edn. Mc-Graw-Hill, New York (1983)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crane, F.A.A., Charles, J.A.: Selection and Use of Engineering Materials, 1st edn. Butterworths, London (1984)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ashby, M.F.: Materials Selection in Mechanical Design, 3rd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Granta Design Ltd. CES Selector, version 15.10.8. Cambridge (2016)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chatterjee, P., Chakraborty, S.: Material selection using preferential ranking methods. Mater. Des. 35, 384–393 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jahan, A., Edwards, K.L.: VIKOR method for material selection problems with interval numbers and target-based criteria. Mater. Des. 47, 759–765 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tzeng, G.-H., Huang, J.-J.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making – Methods and Applications, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaspar, J., Vielhaber, M.: Cross-component systematic approach for lightweight and mate-rial-oriented design. In: DS 85-1: Proceedings of Nord Design, vol. 1, 332–341 (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaspar, J., Baehre, D., Vielhaber, M.: Material selection based on a product and production engineering integration framework. Procedia CIRP 50, 2–7 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Choudry, S.A., Müller, S., Alber, U., Riedel, F., Landgrebe, D.: A multidimensional assessment and selection methodology: optimized decision-making of joining technologies in automobile body development. Procedia Manufact. 21, 281–288 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riedel, F.: Selection of joining technologies for the car body manufacturing depending on energy and resource efficiency. Automotive Engineering Congress, Nürnberg (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reinhart, G., Mosandl, T., Gartner, J.: Fügeverfahren für die marktnahe Produktion. wt. Werkstatttechnik online 91(8), 151–162 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prüß, H., Stechert C., Vietor, T.: Methodik zur Auswahl von Fügetechnologien in Multimaterialsystemen. In: Krause, D., Paetzold, K., Wartzack, S. (eds.) Design for X: Beiträge zum 21. DfX-Symposium, pp. 131–142. TuTech Verlag, Hamburg (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    VDMA 34160:2006-06. Forecasting model for lifecycle costs of machines and plants. Beuth, Berlin (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Esawi, A.M.K., Ashby, M.F.: Computer-based selection of joining processes: methods, software and case studies. Mater. Des. 25, 555–564 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choudry, S.A., Sandmann, S., Landgrebe, D.: A methodical approach for an economic assessment of joining technologies under risk – optimized decision-making in automobile body development. Procedia CIRP 69, 31–36 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    EN ISO 14040:2006-10, Environmental management - life cycle assessment - principles and framework, Beuth Verlag, Berlin (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boothroyd, G.: Product design for manufacture and assembly. Comput. Aided Des. 26, 505–520 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaspar, J., Choudry, S.A., Vielhaber, M.: Concurrent selection of material and joining technology – holistically relevant aspects and its mutual interrelations with regard to an affordable and viable lightweight engineering. Procedia CIRP 72, 780–785 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaspar, J., Choudry, S.A., Landgrebe, D., Vielhaber, M.: Concurrent selection of material and joining technology – an initial utility-based systematic decision-making tool. In: 2018 Annual IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), pp. 767–774 (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Choudry, S.A., Haass, S., Alber, U., Landgrebe, D.: A methodical approach for a technological assessment of joining technologies – optimized decision-making in car body development. In: DS 92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference, pp. 225–236 (2018)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaspar, J., Choudry, S.A., Vielhaber, M.: Integrierte bewertung und auswahl von werkstoff und fügetechnik – beispiel: karosseriebau. In: Stuttgarter Symposium für Produktentwicklung SSP 2019, 16 May 2019, Stuttgart, Germany (2019, in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chemnitz University of TechnologyChemnitzGermany
  2. 2.Saarland UniversitySaarbrueckenGermany

Personalised recommendations