Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018

A Technique for Cargo Box Tailgate CAE Fatigue Life 2015-01-0532

Predictions Loaded with Inertial Forces and Moments Published 04/14/2015

Mingchao Guo and Weidong Zhang

FCA US LLC

Dajun Zhang
FCA Canada Inc.

Ram Bhandarkar
FCA US LLC

CITATION: Guo, M., Zhang, W., Zhang, D., and Bhandarkar, R., "A Technique for Cargo Box Tailgate CAE Fatigue Life Predictions
Loaded with Inertial Forces and Moments," SAE Technical Paper 2015-01-0532, 2015, doi:10.4271/2015-01-0532.
Copyright © 2015 SAE International

Abstract between the tailgate and box sides. They also allow the tailgate to
translate within the designed tolerance range (which is much longer than
This paper describes a CAE fatigue life prediction technique for a
the gap at the pivot joint) in the lateral (Y) direction when static frictions
tailgate on pickup truck cargo box with inertial forces and moments
at the latch-striker joints have been overcome. Consequently, both the
applied at mass center of the tailgate as input loads. The inertial forces
pivot and latch-striker joints are limited sliding joints.
and moments are calculated from the accelerations measured at the
corners of the tailgate as the truck is being driven over a durability
schedule at the test proving grounds. All the dynamic responses of the
tailgate on cargo box, including any dynamic interactions at the pivot
joints between the tailgate and box sides, are captured in the acquired
data and also in the inertial forces and moments computed at the mass
center. Correspondingly, all the dynamic responses are included in the
CAE fatigue life predictions. The dynamic interactions at the pivot
joints are simulated by using two identical CAE models, one with
lateral translational constraint applied at the left pivot only and the
other at the right pivot only. The final fatigue damages of the tailgate
are the average damages from the two models.

With this technique, the CAE fatigue life predictions correlated to test (a). Top view
results well in both low fatigue life locations and magnitudes.

1. Introduction
A typical pickup truck tailgate is a rectangular shape closure and is
attached to the rear-end of the cargo box through two pivot joints at
lower corners and two latch-striker joints at upper corners. This results in
one mechanical attachment at each corner of the tailgate. An example
tailgate is demonstrated in Figure 1. The pivot joints allow the tailgate to
rotate freely about the pivot/lateral axis (Y) within a designated open and
close angle (approximately 90 degrees). The pivot joint is designed with
a small gap that allows the tailgate to translate along the pivot axis (Y) at
the pivot joint once static friction is overcome, as shown in Figure 2. This
offers not only flexibility of the tailgate to rotate freely about the pivot
(b). Rear view
axis, but also provides ease of assembly. The latch-striker joints provide
translational constraints in the fore-aft (X) and vertical (Z) directions Figure 1. An example of tailgate on cargo box
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018

In addition to the pivot and latch-striker joints, some cargo boxes have
rubber bumpers between the tailgate and box sides. The bumpers
provide reaction forces to the tailgate when they are compressed.
There are two pairs of bumpers in the example tailgate assembly as
shown in Figure 1b. The upper pair of bumpers offer supports in the
fore-aft (X) and lateral (Y) directions, and the lower pair of bumpers
in the lateral (Y) direction only. These bumpers also prevent metal-to-
metal hard contacts between the tailgate and box sides.
Figure 2. A typical tailgate pivot joint
time history accelerations on the tailgate. As compared to the linear
static based regular analysis method described in Section 2, in this
new technique the dynamic behaviors of the tailgate are more
representative in loads, thus more accurate stresses, and better fatigue
life predictions.
2. Linear Static Based Fatigue Analysis Method
2.1. Analysis Approach and Flowchart
The problem being faced is how to perform fatigue analysis properly
for a whole cargo box structure, containing a tailgate, under random
vibration time history loads measured over a durability schedule at
the test proving grounds. Theoretically, an ideal analysis method
would be a step-by-step integration based nonlinear dynamic analysis
along with the entire time history loads. In reality, however, this is
impractical because the time history loads normally consist of
millions of time slices, and one of this kind of analyses can easily
take many months or more. In addition, the large amount of data
generated during the analysis would need a huge storage system.
Therefore, linear based pseudo stress analysis approaches [1] are still
the preferred methods for routine durability analyses of cargo box
structures.

The typical tailgate pivot joint illustrated in Figure 2 is made of two

There are two linear based pseudo stress analysis approaches. One is
parts: a pivot cup which is welded to the L-shaped bracket on the
time domain and the other is frequency domain, named static fatigue
tailgate, and a pivot pin which is mounted on the box side. Once
analysis and modal transient fatigue analysis respectively. Due to the
static friction is overcome the pivot cup has the ability to slide over
fact that a static fatigue analysis takes relatively shorter time when
the pivot pin till the designated gap is closed at which point the
compared to a modal transient fatigue analysis, the time domain static
tailgate experiences a quick impact due to contact, and starts to
fatigue analysis approach is preferred when there are no significant
translate in the opposite direction. When the left pivot joint gap
resonant response concerns for both global and local modes.
closes the right opens and vice versa. This quick impact between the
pivot cup and pin is referred to as dynamic interactions of the pivot
The linear static fatigue analysis approach includes two phases: stress
joint in this paper.
analysis and fatigue analyses, as illustrated in Figure 3 [5][6].

Similarly, when experiencing translational or rotational movement as

a rigid body, the tailgate compresses and relieves the bumpers. A
bumper provides reaction forces only when it is in compression. This
fact is referred to as compressive reaction forces of the bumpers in
this paper.

Both the dynamic interactions at the pivot joint and the compressive
reaction forces at the bumpers cannot be accurately simulated in a
linear static based fatigue analysis [1], as described in Section 2 of
this paper. These nonlinear phenomena can only be simulated by
using a nonlinear dynamic stress analysis approach. This approach is
computer intensive, taking a long time to run, and thus impractical
when the entire durability schedule time history loads need to be
analyzed in a fatigue life prediction [2][3][4]. Hence, in the case that
there is a durability concern at the pivot joint location (as
demonstrated in Figure 11), how to simulate the dynamic interactions
between the pivot cup and pin to capture the potential durability
issues becomes a big challenge. Another challenge is how to model
the rubber bumpers that provide reaction forces only when they are in
compressions (compressive reaction forces), and behave nonlinearly Figure 3. Flowchart of linear static fatigue analysis approach
all the way since they have been compressed.
2.2. CAE Model
To overcome these challenges, a new technique with inertial forces
In a static fatigue analysis, the whole cargo box is taken into account
and moments applied at mass center of the tailgate as input loads has
as a structure objective, and the tailgate is attached as a subassembly
been developed and is described in details in Section 3 of this paper.
on the cargo box. In the example, the tailgate is connected to box
The inertial forces and moments are calculated based on acquired
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018
sides by two pivot joints, two latch-striker joints and four rubber
bumpers, Figure 1. Both the pivot joints are simulated using zero
length rigid elements with all degrees of freedom constrained except
rotational degree of freedom about the lateral/pivot (y) axis. Both the
latch-striker joints are also modeled using zero length rigid elements
with translational degree of freedom constrained in the fore-aft (x)
and vertical (z) directions.
The two pairs of rubber bumpers are simulated using linear spring
elements with equivalent spring rates. Each spring rate K is generated
as a linear curve fitted as an average of the tested force versus
displacement curve within a possible maximum bumper compressive
deflection range. See Figure 4 for an example, where, the sum of
positive areas ( ) is equivalent to the negative area A−.
Figure 4. Equivalent bumper linear spring stiffness determination
In the CAE model, the linear spring element exerts reaction forces in
both tension and compression. While in reality reaction forces are
generated only when a bumper is in compression. To overcome this
challenge, it is assumed that bumper compression happens for half
the time, thus 50% of a bumper rate (1/2K) is used in a given
direction. This ensures 1) the force range to be more accurate
resulting in more accurate local stresses; and 2) the overall influence
of the bumpers to stresses at the pivot joint areas.
All the steel sheets of the entire cargo box are modeled by using shell
elements that are connected with bar elements for spot welds, solid
elements for adhesive and seam welds, and rigid elements for bolt
joints. All components are assigned with linear material properties.
2.3. Stress Analysis
Figure 5. A cargo box structure under unit loads for stress analysis
In the stress analysis phase, stress tensors on all elements for each
unit load applied to a box mounting location at certain loading
orientation (x, y or z), Figure 5, are analyzed and generated. Since the
entire cargo box structure does not have constrained boundaries,
inertia relief technique [1] is employed in the stress analysis.
For description convenience, assume a cargo box has n load channels,
then the stress tensors on each element under unit load from channels
1, 2 … and k can be expressed by , … and
individually. Each unit load is treated as a sub-load case in the stress
analysis.
2.4. Fatigue Analysis
In the fatigue analysis phase, stress tensors on each element at time t
is calculated by scaling the unit load stress tensors of each channel,
, with the load magnitude at time t and then linearly superposing
the stress tensors for all the load channels. That is,
(1)
where, σij(t) = stress tensors at time t on an element, and Lk(t) = load
magnitude at time t from channels k, k = 1, 2, … n. The loads from
all the channels at the same time t form a set of load case or time
slice.
The stress tensors are then combined into certain format of stresses
based on the elected strength criteria such as critical plane, principal
stress and von Misses stress, etc. Afterwards, rainflow counting is
carried out on the combined stress time history to determine the stress
range on each element. Fatigue damage calculations, including parent
metal fatigue, spot weld fatigue and seam weld fatigue, are followed
up. Many other options also should be chosen in the fatigue analysis,
such as elemental or nodal stress, mean stress correction and
elastic-plastic correction, etc.
To speed up the computational process, a few techniques such as load
gating and critical elements selection are also commonly applied in
the fatigue analysis [4].
Fatigue damage on each element is calculated following the liner
accumulation rule [9]. Let dl present fatigue damage on an element
caused by stress block/range l with nl cycle repeats, and totally m
stress block/ranges have been specified, and then
(2)
where, D= total fatigue damage on an element. It is loading sequence
independent.
2.5. Benefits and Obstacles
The linear static based fatigue analysis utilizes linear stress scaling
and superposition techniques along with linear fatigue damage
accumulation for the entire load time history. It is less CPU intensive
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018
and can be performed in a time efficient manner. This is a significant
benefit over other methods. When this method is used on a cargo box
where input loads are applied at the various cargo box to truck frame
interface, most issue areas correlate very well with tests except for
the tailgate and tailgate to cargo box attachment areas.
In this case, as mentioned previously, the tailgate has the dynamic
interactions at the pivot joints since it is held in place using the
limited sliding joints at the pivot and latch-striker joints, and the
compressive reaction forces at the bumpers. Therefore, the behavior
of the tailgate at these attachment points is very dynamic in nature,
and using a liner static based fatigue analysis method mentioned
above will not replicate the dynamic behavior of the tailgate, and thus
cannot be applied with confidence. This concern prompted
development of an alternate method that would capture the nonlinear
dynamic behavior at the tailgate attachment points.
3. A Technique Loaded with Inertial Forces and
Moments
3.1. Overall Procedure of the Technique
To overcome the challenge of simulating the nonlinear dynamic
behavior at the tailgate attachments in the regular linear static fatigue
method, a new technique with inertial forces and moments applied at
mass center of the tailgate as the input loads has been developed. An
overall procedure of this technique is shown in Figure 6. It includes
three phases: 1) acceleration acquisition and analysis, 2) stress
analysis and 3) fatigue analysis. Details of each phase are described
in the following sections.
Figure 6. Flowchart of the new technique
As compared with the regular method, the new technique has the
following key features:
It is still a linear static based approach. However, the focus is on the
tailgate itself. The tailgate is attached to a constrained rear end of the
box and loaded using the unit inertial forces and moments at the mass
center. The acquired accelerations capture all the dynamic responses
of the tailgate, including the compressive reaction forces of the
bumpers and the dynamic interactions at the pivot joints. These
dynamic responses are taken into account in the stress and fatigue
analyses correspondingly. While in the regular method, the whole box
is the focus, and it is loaded by unit loads at box mount locations. The
stresses on tailgate are the responses from a linear static analysis
which does not reflect nonlinear dynamic responses of the tailgate.
This new technique is based on an assumption that the tailgate
performs as a rigid body in the Y-Z plane where the tailgate has
durability concerns. This assumption should be confirmed prior
applications of the technique. It should be noted that in the mass
center acceleration calculation the tailgate is treated as a rigid body.
While in the stress and fatigue analyses, the tailgate is still treated as
a deformable structure.
3.2. Tailgate Acceleration Acquisitions
Due to instrumentation limitations in measuring forces at the tailgate
to box side connection locations, accelerations are the feasible and
appropriate measurements in this application. Three tri-axial
accelerometers are recommended on the tailgate outer. To get better
estimated mass center accelerations, locations of the tri-axial
accelerometers should be far away from the mass center and in the
tailgate edge areas near the constraints of pivot joints and latch-
striker joints. An example of accelerometer layout on a tailgate is
demonstrated in Figure 7. The three instrumentation locations are
marked as Locations 1, 2 and 3 correspondingly. Each tri-axial
accelerometer acquires 3 translational accelerations in x, y and z
directions individually. The total 9 channel measurements at the three
locations will capture all the overall motion of the tailgate.
Figure 7. Tailgate accelerometer layout for acceleration acquisitions
3.3. Tailgate Mass Center Acceleration Calculations
In order to conduct fatigue analysis of the tailgate with inertial forces
and moments as input loads, acceleration responses at mass center of
the tailgate are computed using a rigid body dynamics approach. This
calculation is based on an assumption that the tailgate performs as a
rigid body in the lateral-vertical (Y-Z) plane, because the dynamic
interactions mainly happen in this plane. This assumption can be
confirmed by a modal analysis of the tailgate. For the example
tailgate, the modal analysis indicated that there were no local modes
in the lateral-vertical (Y-Z) plane with lower frequencies. In addition,
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018

there were no local modes around the tailgate edges with frequencies
that are smaller than 2 times of the primary frequency of the acquired (4b)
accelerations [1].
where, m = the total mass of the tailgate,
Take the tailgate as the structural objective to be analyzed, and then a
free body diagram of the tailgate can be expressed as shown in Figure ac = the translational acceleration vector at mass center of the tailgate
8. Where, , , , , , , , , , , , overall motion,
present constraint forces and moments at left and right hand side
I = the moment of inertia tensor of the tailgate, and
pivot joints respective, and are zero unless a dynamic
interaction happens at the pivot joint; , , and α = the angular acceleration vector of the tailgate overall motion.
constraint forces at left and right hand side latch-striker joints
The translational accelerations at the mass center and the angular
respective; and , , , , , constraint forces at
accelerations of the tailgate can be calculated based on the acquired
left and right hand side upper bumpers and lower bumpers respective.
acceleration measurements. Let aj represent acquired translational
These bumper forces are zero unless they are in compress.
acceleration vector at Location j (j=1, 2, or 3); rj the position vector
of the Location j relative to the mass center; and ω the angular
velocity vector of the tailgate overall motion, and then there is a
following relation [7]

(5a)

The item ω × (ω × r) can be neglected due to ω2 is a high order small

quantity. A side study showed that the effect of the term would be
about 1% if the term was taken into account in the most damaging
event in the durability schedule. Therefore, the relation is simplified as

(5b)

Each vector equation can provide 3 scalar equations. 3 vector equations

(5b) provide 9 scalar equations. The 9 acceleration components aj are
known, which are measured with 3 tri-axial accelerometers in the
tailgate acceleration acquisition, and only 6 unknowns (3 components
of the translational acceleration ac and 3 components of the angular
acceleration α) need to be solved. As a result, an optimal solution can
be obtained by using the least square method [8].
Figure 8. The tailgate free body diagram

Based on Newton-Euler equations and d'Alembert's principle, the Figure 9 shows an example of time histories of the calculated
force and moment equilibrium equations are accelerations using Equation (5b) for a typical dynamic event in the
durability schedule.

(3a)

(3b)

The ΣFapplied and ΣMapplied are the vector summations of all applied
forces and moments acting on the tailgate such as the constraint
forces and moments at pivot joints, latch-striker joints and bumpers.
They will be internal forces and moments in the CAE stress analysis
as a local mode consisting of the tailgate and a portion of box
structure with fixed boundary (Figure 10, for example) is used.

The inertial force and inertial moment vectors, Finertia and Minertia in
Equations 3a and 3b can be expressed as

Figure 9. Some segments of the six calculated acceleration time histories

(4a)
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018

3.4. Stress and Fatigue Analysis under Inertial Forces
and Moments
Now the problem is stress and fatigue analyses of the tailgate under the
inertial forces and moments applied at mass center of the tailgate using
the linear static approach. A simplified local CAE model setup
including the tailgate and a portion of rear end box body is sufficient.
The portion of rear box body not only provides force and moment
reactions with necessary compliance to the tailgate at pivot and
latch-striker joints as well as rubber bumper locations, but also reduces
model size and analysis time. A side study indicated that the differences
between the stresses from the local model and from a whole box model
with fixed constraints at all the box mounts are negligible. The inertial
forces and moments are applied at mass center of the tailgate in the
CAE stress analysis. All the cut boundaries of the local models are
constrained with fixed boundary conditions, Figure 10.
Based on the assumption that each pivot cup on the tailgate will
experience dynamic interactions 50% of the time, the predicted
fatigue damage is calculated as the average of the total damage from
Model 1 and Model 2.
(6)
where, D1 and D2= total damage on an element from Model 1 and Model
2 respectively, and D = the averaged total damage on the element.
4. CAE versus Test Results Correlations
To validate the new technique a correlation study had been carried
out. In an early design version tailgate the L-shape bracket cracked in
a physical test, Figure 11 (a). When the regular method was used to
predict fatigue life of this bracket, it showed low fatigue life but at
different locations, Figure 11 (b). This was mainly due to the fact that
the dynamic interactions were not considered, therefore, the
magnitudes of the reaction force and moment and the resulting stress
and fatigue life were incorrect.

The new technique was not only able to predict the correct issue
location but also the fatigue life, Figure 11 (c). This good correlation
made it possible to develop a solution to fix the problem using CAE
which was confirmed to meet fatigue life requirement in physical tests.

Figure 10. A local CAE model in the new technique

Although all the dynamic responses of the tailgate, including the

dynamic interactions at the pivot joints, have been captured in the
input load data, the question still remains how to simulate the effect
of dynamic interactions properly in the stress and subsequent fatigue
analysis.

In order to simulate the dynamic interactions at the pivot joints, two

identical local CAE models, Model 1 and Model 2, with everything
same except the lateral translational constraint at the pivot joints, are
used. In Model 1 the left hand side pivot joint is constrained in the (a). From a test
lateral translational direction while the right hand side is free. In
Model 2 the right hand side pivot joint is constrained in the lateral
translational direction while the left hand side is free. As a result, all
the lateral internal forces at pivot joint locations will be reacted by
the constrained joint only in each of the models.

All the other tailgates to box connections are modeled identical to

those in the regular linear static based method.

The stress and fatigue analyses are carried out for the two models
following the similar procedure to the regular linear static based
method. The unit loads are the 3 unit forces and 3 unit moments at
(b). From the regular method
mass center of the tailgate. The inertia relief technique is not needed
because the local model has the fix boundaries. The time history Figure 11. Tailgate L-shape bracket fatigue Page 7 of 7
loads are the calculated inertial forces and moments as defined by
using Equations 4a and 4b. These loads are quite dynamic as can be
seen in an example segment shown in Figure 9.
 Downloaded from SAE International by University of Auckland, Saturday, August 04, 2018
(c). From the new technique
Figure 11 (cont). Tailgate L-shape bracket fatigue Page 7 of 7
5. Conclusions and Future Work
The new technique for tailgate fatigue life predictions described in
this paper has the following key technical features:
1). The inertial forces and moments at mass center of the tailgate, that
are calculated based on acquired accelerations on the tailgate, are
utilized as input loads in stress and fatigue analyses. All the dynamic
responses of the tailgate, including compressive reaction forces of
the bumpers and dynamic interactions at the pivot joints, have been
captured in the acquired accelerations, and correspondingly have
been included in the CAE fatigue life predictions.
2). The dynamic interactions at the pivot joints are simulated in the
CAE fatigue life predictions by employing two identical local
tailgate assembly models with lateral translation constrained at left
and right hand side pivot joint individually. Fatigue damages of the
tailgate are taken to the averaged results from the two models.
The fatigue life predictions with the new technique correlated to the
test results well for both low life location and fatigue life magnitude
at the pivot joint of the tailgate.
In the future, more correlations between CAE fatigue life predictions
of tailgates with this new technique and physical tests will be carried
out to ensure robustness of the technique. Additionally, this technique
will be extended to other applications for the structures that meet the
rigid body assumption and have suitable loading and boundary
conditions.
The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. The process
requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE International.
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE International. The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper.
ISSN 0148-7191
http://papers.sae.org/2015-01-0532
Reference
1. Lee Y. & Guo M., Chapter 2: “Pseudo Stress Analysis
Techniques”, Published in book: Lee Y., Barkey E. M. & Kang
H., Metal Fatigue Analysis Handbook, Practical Problem-
Solving Techniques for Computer-Aided Engineering, Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2011.
2. Guo, M., Quan, K., Bhosale, S., Wang, C. et al., “Techniques
for Contact Considerations in Fatigue Life Estimations of
Automotive Structures,” SAE Technical Paper 2013-01-1201,
2013, doi:10.4271/2013-01-1201.
3. Chen, G., Guo, M., and Zhang, W., “Fatigue Based Lightweight
Optimization of a Pickup Cargo Box with Advanced High
Strength Steels,” SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. 7(3):545-552, 2014,
doi:10.4271/2014-01-0913.
4. Lin, B., “A New Method of d'Alembert's Principle Finite
Element Based Fatigue Calculation with Input of Loads and
Accelerations,” SAE Technical Paper 2013-01-1003, 2013,
doi:10.4271/2013-01-1003.
5. Zhang, W., Guo, M. & Srikantan, S., “Rainflow Counting Based
Block Cycle Development for Fatigue Analysis using Nonlinear
Stress Approach”, SAE Int. J. Mater. Manf. 6(2):2013,
doi:10.4271/2013-01-1206.
6. Design Life Online Manual, “Design Life User Guide 6.0”,
HBM, 2010.
7. Huston Ronald L., “Multibody Dynamics”, Butterworth-
Heinemann, 1990.
8. Matlab Help Manual, The Mathworks Inc., 2007.
9. Lee, Y., Pan, J., Hathaway, R., & Barkey, M., “Fatigue
Testing and Analysis: Theory and Practice”, Boston: Elsevier/
Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the following colleagues for their
technical discussions:
Mike Gundle, Prasanna Patil, Manjit Wadhwa, Surya Yerva Dr.
Congyue Wang, Paul Stibich, Chris Antenucci and Dr. Yung Li Lee.
Contact Information
Dr. Mingchao Guo
FCA US LLC
800 Chrysler Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326, USA
Mingchao.guo@fcagroup.com