Crashworthiness of Aluminium Structures

By

Magnus Langseth, Odd Sture Hopperstad and Tore Børvik

1 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Contents

• Aluminium
Al i i as a structural
t t l material
t i l
• Aluminium in the automotive industry
• Behaviour of aluminium alloys
• Constitutive and fracture modelling
• Component/system behaviour and validation
– Crashbox bumper system
– Crushing of aluminium extrusions
• Concluding remarks

2 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Definition of the term Crashworthiness

It refers to the quality of response of a structure

when it is involved in or undergoes an impact*

*W Johnson: The elements of crashworthiness: scope

and quality. IMechE 1990

3 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 The bad p
points about aluminium
• Cost
– Material
• 50% weight reduction, aluminium=steel
• Effect
ec oof temperature
e pe a u e
– Aluminium weakens more quickly than steel
• Elastic modulus
– Buckling
uc g
– Deflection
• HAZ
– Softening
g at welds
– Localisation of strains
• Fatigue
• Thermal expansion
– Expands and contracts twice as much as steel

4 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 The good points about aluminium
• Low weigtht (one third of steel)
– Reduction of fuel consumption
p
– Lower carbon dioxide emission
• Extrusion process
– Cross section geometry
g y
• Recycling
– Energy input equal to 5% of the energy needed to produce primary
aluminium
• Low temperature performance
• Non-rusting
– Unpainted
p
• Machinability and weldability

• GOOD ENERGY ABSORPTION CAPABILITIES

– Increased specific energy compared to steel

5 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 225 T6
200
175 T4

Stress ((MPa)
150
125
100
75
50
25

0
0 5 10 15 20
Strain (%)

Typical engineering stress-strain curves for AA6060 tempers T4 and T6

6 Structural IMpact Laboratory

7 Structural IMpact Laboratory
8 Structural IMpact Laboratory
9 Structural IMpact Laboratory
 Aluminium in the automotive industry

10 Structural IMpact Laboratory

11 Structural IMpact Laboratory
12 Structural IMpact Laboratory
 Needs

• Validated
V lid t d numerical
i l models
d l ffor llarge scale
l analyses
l with
ith respectt
to the interaction between material, product forms and
manufacturing process
– Reduce costs and time to the market
– Optimize the production process
– Optimize the structure with respect to strength, stiffness and energy
absorption
b ti
• Competence on
– Material and structural behaviour
– Testing, modelling and validation
– What is good enough (engineering models with not too many
parameters)

Von Mises (one parameter) Fracture model (10-20 parameters)

13 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Behaviour of aluminium alloys

14 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Plastic anisotropy

15 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 R-ratios
AA7108-T1 AA6063-T1
3 4

R
2
R

0 0

0 30 60 90 0 30 60 90

 

16 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 AA6060-T4

Extrusion direction

300 1.8
a]
s s_5 [MPa 1.6
280

strain p_f
1.4
1.2
260
1 s_5

Fracture s
Flow stress

0.8 p_f
240
0.6
220 0.4
F

0.2
200 0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Strain rate [s^-1]

17 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Heat affected zones (HAZ)
AA6082 T6
AA6082-T6

18 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 F
Fracture
t modes
d

19 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Constitutive and fracture
modelling

20 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Model framework
Disloc. density/
Anisotropy/
py Deform. induced
ageing
texture anisotropy

Isotropic
hardening
Non-local
Yield surface Kinematic
instability criterion
hardening
Non-local ˆ
σˆ  C : D
shell thinning

Damage-driven Damage
g &
Fl
Flow rule
l Fracture
fission adaptivity
Viscous
stress
Plastic slip Microvoids/
Rate effects/
(Schmid’s law) microcracks
PLC-effect

21 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Yield criterion (for plane stress)

• V Mi
Von Mises – default
d f lt

 1    2    1   2   2 Y2
2 2 2

• Isotropic, high exponent – better shape (good alternative!)

1   2  1   2  2 Ym
m m m

22 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Yield criteria (cont.)
(cont )

• Anisotropic, high exponent (Yld2000/Yld2003) – for weak and strong texture

 1   2   1   2  2 Ym ,
m m m

2
 1  a8   x  a1   y  a 2   x  a3   y 
     ( a4 xy ) 2 ,
 2  2  2 

2
 1  x   y  a5   x  a 6   y 
     ( a  ) 2

 2  2  2 
7 xy

23 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Is the yield criterion important? C
L
C
L 2

50

z
z 18
x y
x
A, B
B
A
135 85 9

220

CRO SS-SECTIO N

PLANE
Experiment
Von Mises
Tresca

24 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Fracture criteria
• Ductile damage criterion (Cockcroft and Latham, 1967):

W   ˆ1 d   WC  σˆ  0
0

• Shear instability criterion (Bressan and Williams,1983):

2 C
ˆ1   σˆ  0
2
  
1  
 2   

25 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 CL and BW criteria
Fracture strain vs triaxiality

AA7108 temper T6

26 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 CL and BW criteria
Principle strains at fracture

AA7108 temper T6

27 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 BWH instability criterion

Hill (1952)

Bressan and
Williams (1983)

28 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 BWH instability
y criterion

Hill BW

β= 0

Forming limit diagrams

AA2008 T4

29 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Identification procedure
• Elastic constants E ,
• Reference yield strength 0 = 0°

• Isotropic hardening QR1 , C R1 , QR 2 , C R 1

• Strain rate sensitivity
C , 0
+
z
= 45° = 90°
• Yield criterion
a 1 , a 2 , .. . , a 8 , m + +

+
• Hardening at large strains
• Fracture criteria
H R ,min , WC
• P
Parameter
t refinement
fi t F F

C

30 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Component/system behaviour and
validation

31 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Definitions*

• Definition
– Validation is done by comparing results from computer
calculations to “real world” data from precise/accurate tests. It
would include the effects of the modeller, considerations of
boundary conditions,
conditions material model/properties etc
etc.

* Krauthammer T., Jenssen A. and Langseth M.: Precision testing in Support of Computer
Code validation and Verification. Norwegian Defence Construction Service,
Fortifikatorisk notat Nr 234/96, May 1996

32 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Crashbox bumper system

33 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Trolley
Bumper

Interface plate

Longitudinal

x y

34 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 500

400

True Stress [MPa]

300

200

7108.70 - T6 (Bumper)
100
7003 30 - T79 (Longitudinal)
7003.30
7003.30 - T1 ( " )
6060.35 - T1 ( " )
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Plastic Strain

35 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Hydraulic piston
accumulator

The kicking machine

Hydraulic/pneumatic
actuator

Multi-reaction
Arm load cell

Photocells

Trolley

Axial load
cells

36 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 How does the kicking machine work?

37 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Load cells
A
My
Bumper
Crash box
Mx
Load cell
Top wall load cell

My
Trolley

Mx
Bottom wall load cell

Section A-A
A

38 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Deformation modes
Different combinations of longitudinals

7003-T79

7003-T1

6060-T1

39 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Force – deformation plots from experiments
200
Different longitudinals
7003-T79
7003 T1
7003-T1
160 6060-T1

120
Foorce [kN]

80

40

0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Deformation [mm]

40 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Force-deformation curves

160 120

120
80

Meann Force [kN]

Foorce [kN]

80

Contact Force 40 Mean Force

40 Tests 1-5 Tests 1-5
MAT-24 MAT-24
MAT-103
MAT 103 MAT-103
MAT 103
MAT-41 MAT-41
MAT-41 (CTS)
CL MAT-41 (CTS)
CL
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 0 100 200 300 400 500
Deformation [mm] Deformation [[mm]]

41 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Test data

Tear/Shear
Failure

Locall
L
Bending
Crushing Buckle
Failure
Failure

42 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Predictions

43 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Crushing of aluminium extrusion
AA7108-T6

44 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Extrusion geometry
g y
Axial crushing

8 mm

A A

Section A-A

45 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Static 5 m/s

10 m/s

46 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Axial crushing ~ static ~
comparison test and simulation

250
Fp
[kN]
200

150

100
VA-S-1
VA-S-2
VA S 3
VA-S-3
50 VA-S-4
VA-S-5
Simulation

0
0 100 200 300
dp [mm]

47 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Axial crushing
g ~ dynamic
y 5 m/s

48 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Axial crushing ~ dynamic 10 m/s

49 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Axial crushing ~ comparison test and
simulation
i l ti
250
Axial crushing tests
Fmean AA7108
[kN]
200

150

100

Tests Simulations
Quasi-static Quasi-static
50
vy5 m/s vy5 m/s

vy10 m/s vy10 m/s

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
dp [mm]

50 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Concluding remarks

• When developing engineering models to be used by the

industry a strong interaction is required between
modelling
d lli and d testing
t ti in i the
th laboratory
l b t on material
t i l and
d
component level. Thus we need good experimental
facilities.

• Long term research is required to obtain more physical

based models for process and product development. I
indeed hope that the industry are willing to support
such research

51 Structural IMpact Laboratory

 Thank you for your attention!

52 Structural IMpact Laboratory