“Design &Investigation of honey comb structure of car

body through analysis on various parameters for

different materials’’
A
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Master
of Technology
“AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING”
Submitted To

RAJIV GANDHI PRODYOGIKI VISHWAVIDYALAYA,

(University of Technology of Madhya Pradesh)
BHOPAL (M.P.)

Submitted By
RITU SAHU
0830AU15MT16
Under the supervision of
Prof.Dr. Suman Sharma

Department of Mechanical Engineering

SAGAR INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH &
TECHNOLOGY, INDORE (M.P.)
JUNE-2019
 SAGAR INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY,
INDORE
Department of Mechanical Engineering
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work embodies in this dissertation entitled “DESIGN
AND INVESTIGATION OF HONEY COMB STRUCTURE OF CAR BODY
THROUGH ANALYSIS ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS FOR DIFFERENT
MATERIALS” being Submitted by RITU SAHU [0830AU15MT16] in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the award of “Master of Technology in
Automobile Engineering” to RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIKI
VISHWAVIDYALAYA, BHOPAL (M.P.) during the academic year 2015-2017 is a
record of bonafide piece of work, carried out by her under my supervision
andguidance in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Sagar Institute Of
Research and Technology, Indore.

Guided By: Submitted to:

Prof. Dr. Suman Sharma Prof.Dr. Suman

Department of Sharma Head of
Mechanical Engineering Department Mechanical
Engineering

DIRECTOR
Dr. Akhilesh Upadhyay
Sagar Institute of Research &
Technology, Indore (M.P.)

iv
 SAGAR INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY,
INDORE

Department of Mechanical Engineering

DECLARATION-I

I RITU SAHU a student of “Master of Technology in Automobile

Engineering, session 2015-2017, here by informed that the work presented in this
dissertation entitled “DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION OF HONEY COMB
STRUCTURE OF CAR BODY THROUGH ANALYSIS ON VARIOUS
PARAMETER FOR DIFFERENT MATERIAL ” is the outcome of my own
work, is bonafide and correct the best of my knowledge and this work has been carried
out taking care of Engineering Ethics.

RITU SAHU

0830AU15MT16
 SAGAR INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY,
INDORE

Department of Mechanical Engineering

DECLARATION-II
I here by declare that the work, which is being presented in the dissertation
entitled `“DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION OF HONEY COMB STRUCTURE
OF CAR BODY THROUGH ANALYSIS ON VARIOUS PARAMETERS FOR
DIFFERENT MATERIALS” partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of
degree of Master of Engineering in Automobile Engineering, submitted in the
Department of Mechanical Engineering in Sagar Institute of Research and Technology
is an authentic record of my own work carried under the guidance of Prof.Dr.Suman
Sharma. I have not submitted the matter embodied in this report for award of any
other degree. I also declare that “A check for plagiarism has been carried out on the
dissertation and is found within the acceptable limit and report of which is enclosed
herewith”

Supervisor RITU SAHU

0830AU15MT16

Director/Principal Sign. With Seal

iv
SAGAR INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY,
INDORE

Department of Mechanical Engineering

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

The dissertation entitled “DESIGN AND INVESTIGATION OF HONEY

COMB STRUCTURE OF CAR BODY THROUGH ANALYSIS ON
VARIOUS PARAMETERS FOR DIFFERENT MATERIALS ” being
submitted by “RITU SAHU [Enrolment No: 0830AU15MT16]” has been
examined by us and is hereby approved for award of “Master of Technology in
Automobile Engineering”, for which it has been submitted. It is understood
that by this approval the undersigned do not necessary endorse or approve any
statement made, opinion expressed, or conclusion drawn therein, but approve
the dissertation only for the purpose for which it has been submitted.

(Internal Examiner) (External Examiner}

Date……………… Date………………….
 UNIVERSITY PRAPATRA
प्रपत्र

मैं ,₹T r ग T िU आत्मजश्रीि5 ₹ि T T

िU,
आयु२५वर्षननवासी६६,श्रद्धाश्री ग T´ ग T ,इंदौर(म,प्र)
काहोकरशपथपूवष कननम्नकथनकरताहूँ
नक : -

१. मैं ने, ए .7` के नवर्य 7 Tह इंजीननयररं ग , सत्र२०१६मे काउं सनलं गके माध्यमसे तत्कालीन,
संस्था"सागरइंस्टिट् यूटऑफ़ररसर्षएं डटेक्नोलॉजी" (ट्रू
बाकॉलेजऑफ़इंजीननयररं गएं डटेक् नोलॉजी), कै लोदकरतल, इं दौर (म.प्र.)
मे पर् वे शनलयाथा।

२. मैंसत्रजुलाई२०१६सेननयनमतछात्रके रूपमेंस्नातकोत्तरपाठ्यक् रममेअध्यंयनरतथा।

३. मैं, घोर्णाकरताहूँनकउक्तपाठ्यक् रमअवनधमेनकसीभीअन्यननजीक् षेत्रसंस्थान / समूह /

नकसीभीकायाष लयमेपूणषकानलकरूपसेकायषरतनहीथा।

हस्ताक्षरशपथगृ हीता
गाइडएवंसंर्ालक /
प्रार्ायषद्धारासत्यानपतनकयाजावे |
सत्यानपतकरते हैनकछात्रकानाम₹T r ग T िU, नामांकनक् रमांक
0830AU16MT18
द्धारादीगईउपरोक्तजानकारीप्रमानणतएवं सहीहै ।

गाइडके हस्ताक् षर संर्ालक /

प्रार्ायष
हस्ताक्षर / पदनामएवं सीलसनहत

संस्थाकानाम: सागरइंस्टिट् यूटऑफ़ररसर्षएं

डटेक्नोलॉजी, इंदौर सं स्थाकाकोड: 0830
सं स्थाकाद ू रभार्: 0731 -2306986 / 3240042
नदनांक:
स्थान : इं दौर (म.प्र)

v
 ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

I take an opportunity to acknowledge and extend my heartfelt gratitude to my

guide Prof.Dr.Suman Sharma for this great support, monitoring, exemplary guidance,
constant encouragemnt throughout the session of phase one dissertation. Without her help
this research work would be in vain. Because of constant advice, it was possible.My
sincere gratitude to Prof.Dr. Suman Sharma Head of Mechanical Engineering (Sagar
Institute of Research and Technology, Indore), Dr.Akilesh Upadhyay Director of Sage
Institute of Research and Technology (Indore) for the valuable guidance during the project.
I am also obliged to Prof. Rupesh Tiwari and to other faculty members of Sagar Institute
of Research & Technology, Indore for their valuable information provided by them in
their respective fields. I am very grateful for their cooperation during the period of our
assignment..And lastly, I would thank my family members for their constant
encouragement and support.

RITU SAHU
0830AU15MT16
Abstract
The crashworthiness enhancement of vehicle structures is a very challenging task during
the vehicle design process due to complicated nature of vehicle design structures that need
to comply with different conflicting design task requirements. Although different safety
agencies have issued and modified standardized crash tests to guarantee structural integrity
and occupant survivability, there is continued rise of fatalities in vehicle crashes especially
the passenger cars. This research envisages the application of various materials in
manufacturing of car body along with the possible use of energy dissipator. Quasi-static
analysis and dynamic analysis are performed using ANSYS software and LS-DYNA.
Analytical models for both cases are also presented. The model used for analysis is Ford
2002 explorer.

Honeycomb structures are natural or man -made structures that have the geometry of a
honeycomb to allow the minimization of the amount of used material to reach minimal
weight and minimal material cost. Types of honeycomb structures are depend upon the
geometrical shape. . Structural analysis is the determination of the effects of loads on
physical structure. To perform an accurate analysis an engineer must determine such
information as structural loads, geometry, support conditions, and materials properties. The
results of such an analysis typically include deformation, stresses and displacements. This
information is then compared to criteria that indicate the conditions of failure.Thermal
analysis calculates the temperature distribution and related thermal quantities in the system
or component

Keywords: Crashworthiness, ANSYS, LS DYNA, weight reduction

Table of Content
Content Page No.
Cover Page -
Certificate i
Declaration I ii
Declaration II iii
Certificate of Approval iv
University Form v
Acknowledgement vi
Abstract vii
Table of Content viii
List of Figure xi
List of Abbreviations xvi
List of graph xvii

1. Introduction 1
1.1 Introduction 2
1.1.1 Honey comb 4
1.1.2 Honey comb structure 5
1.2 Overview of test regulations 5
1.3 Crash worthiness 6
1.4 conventional material used for car bodies 9
1.5 crashworthiness requirements 9
2. Literature Review 11
3. Problem Identification 22
3.1 Problem identification 23
3.2 Objectives 23
4. Methodology 26
4.1 Methodology flow chart 27
4.1.1 Introduction 28
4.1.2 Honey comb structure 29
4.1.3 Literature review 29
4.1.4 Problem identification 30
4.1.5 Review of automotive material 30

viii
 4.1.6 Solid CAD modeling of car body 31
4.1.7 Quasi static analysis 31
4.1.8 Dynamic analysis 32
4.1.9 conclusion 34
5 Mathematical Calculation

5.1 Quasi-Static Analysis 35

5.2 Dynamic Analysis 36
5.3 Conservation of energy 37
5.4 Finite Element model formulation 38

6 Analysis of Different & honeycomb materials

6.1 Analysis of car normal structure in Quasitatic static condition 42

6.1.1 Quasitatic analysis of car nor,mal structure for material1 42
6.1.2 Quasitatic analysis of car nor,mal structure for material2 44

6.1.3. Quasitatic analysis of car nor,mal structure for material 3 46

6.2 Analysis of car normal structure in Dynamic condition 47

6.2.1 Dynamic analysis for of car normal structure for material 1 47

6.2.2 Dynamic analysis for of car nor,mal structure for material 2 50

6.2.3 Dynamic analysis for of car nor,mal structure for material 3 51

6.3 Analysis of car with honeycomb structure 52

6.3.1 Analysis of car with honeycomb structure for material 1 53

6.3.2 Analysis of car with honeycomb structure for material 2 54

6.3.3 Analysis of car with honeycomb structure for material 3 56

7 Result
7.1. Analysis result of car normal structure in Quasitatic condition 58
7.1.1. Quasitatic analysis result of car normal structure for material 1 59

7.1.2 Quasitatic analysis result of car normal structure for material 2 60

7.1.3. Quasitatic analysis result of car normal structure for material 3 62

7.2 Analysis resultof car normal structure in Dynamic condition 65

7.2.1 Dynamic analysis result of car nor,mal structure for material 1 67

ix
 7.2.2 Dynamic analysis result of car nor,mal structure for material 2 67

7.2.3 Dynamic analysis result of car nor,mal structure for material 3 67

7.3. Analysis result of car with honeycomb structure 69

7.3.1 Analysis result of car with honeycomb structure for material 1 69

7.3.2 Analysis result of car with honeycomb structure for material 2 71

7.3.3 Analysis result of car with honeycomb structure for material 3 71

7.4 Comparative Analysis result of car normal structure in quasi 72
static condition
7.5 Comparative Analysis result of car normal structure in Dynamic 73
condition
7.6 Comparative Analysis result of car with honeycomb structure in 75
Dynamic condition

8 Conclusion & Future scope 77

9. References 80

10. Annexure 80

CERTIFICATE -1 84

PAPER PUBLISHED-1 85

CERTIFICATE -1 91

PAPER PUBLISHED-1 92

viii
List of Figure

Figure No. Figure Page No.

Figure 1.1 Proportion of vehicles involved in traffic crashes 2

Figure 1.2 Honey comb structure 4

Figure 1.3 Honey comb structure with panel 5

Figure 1.4 Example of state of art vehicle structure 6

during frontal impact

Figure 1.5 Load paths of the car body atructure members during 6
frontal impact

Figure 1.6 Example of force displacement curves for a range of 8

large saloon cars impacting a deformable barrier at 64km/h

Figure 1.7 Energy distribution in frontal car structure 8

Figure 4.1 CAD model of ford explorer 26

Figure4.2 Energy aborber material between car body and 26

bumper made honey comb material

Figure4.3 Methodology Flow chart 28

Figure4.4 Various automotive materials in use 30

Figure 4.5 Advantages and disadvantages of steel 31

xi
Figure 4.6 Meshed model of car using tetra elements 31

Figure 4.7 Boundary conditions 32

Figure 4.8 CAD Model of car and crash barrier 33

Figure 4.9 Meshed model of car using tetra elements 33

Figure 4.10 Meshed model of car using tetra elements 34

Figure 5.1 Classic and general leaf spring element 39

Figure 6.1 Deformation and equivalent stress using 42

carbon steel at 32km/hr

Figure 6.2 Deformation and equivalent stress using 43

carbon steel at 64km/hr

Figure 6.3 Deformation and equivalent stress using 43

carbon steel at 96km/hr

Figure 6.4 Deformation and equivalent stress using 43

carbon steel at 128km/hr

Figure 6.5 Deformation and equivalent stress using 44

carbon steel at 160km/hr

Figure 6.6 Deformation and equivalent stress using 44

aluminium ceramic composite at 32km/hr

Figure 6.7 Deformation and equivalent stress using 45

aluminium ceramic composite at 64km/hr

Figure 6.8 Deformation and equivalent stress using 45

aluminium ceramic composite at 96km/hr
Figure 6.9 Deformation and equivalent stress using 45
aluminium ceramic composite at 128km/hr

Figure 6.10 Deformation and equivalent stress using 46

aluminium ceramic composite at 160km/hr

Figure 6.11 Deformation and eq stress using 46

grey cast iron at 32Km/hr

Figure 6.12 Deformation and eq stress using 46

grey cast iron at 64Km/hr

Figure 6.13 Deformation and eq stress using 47

grey cast iron at 96Km/hr

Figure 6.14 Deformation and eq stress using 47

grey cast iron at 128Km/hr

Figure 6.15 Deformation and eq stress using 47

grey cast iron at 160Km/hr

Figure 6.16 Directional Deformation plot using carbon steel 48

Material at 64 Km/hr at 950 cycles

Figure 6.17 Directional Deformation plot using carbon steel 48

Material at 64 Km/hr at 3793 cycles

Figure 6.18 Directional Deformation plot using carbon steel 48

Material at 64 Km/hr at 8531 cycles

Figure 6.19 Directional Deformation plot using carbon steel 49

material at 64 Km/hr at 11375 cycles

Figure 6.20 Directional Deformation plot using carbon steel 49

material at 64 Km/hr at 16117 cycles
Figure 6.21 Directional Deformation plot using aluminium 49
Material at 64 Km/hr at 3604 cycles

Figure 6.22 Directional Deformation plot using aluminium 50

material at 64 Km/hr at 10643 cycles

Figure 6.23 Directional Deformation plot using aluminium 50

Material at 64 Km/hr at 49061 cycles

Figure 6.24 Directional Deformation plot using aluminium 51

material at 64 Km/hr at 77406 cycles

Figure 6.25 Directional Deformation plot using cast iron 51

material at 64 Km/hr at 3604 cycles

Figure 6.26 Directional Deformation plot using cast iron 52

material at 64 Km/hr at 6375cycles

Figure 6.27 Directional Deformation plot using cast iron 52

Material at 64 Km/hr at 7172 cycles

Figure 6.28 Blended body structure with honey 53

comb energy absorbent

Figure 6.29 Deformation of honeycomb structure and 53

Carbon steel at 556 cycle

Figure6.30 Deformation of honeycomb structure and 54

Carbon steel at 6095 cycle

Figure 6.31 Deformation of honeycomb structure and 54

carbon steel at 8310 cycle

Figure 6.32 Deformation of honeycomb structure and 54

Carbon steel at 11079 cycle
Figure 6.33 Maximum deformation using blended body and 55
Aluminium alloy at 2600 cycles

Figure 6.34 Maximum deformation using blended body and 55

Aluminium alloy at 9744 cycles

Figure 6.35 Maximum deformation using blended body and 55

Aluminium alloy at 12342 cycles

Figure6.36 Deformation curve using blended body and 56

Cast iron at 4194 cycle

Figure 6.37 Deformation curve using blended body and 56

Cast iron at 6989 cycle
Abbreviations

m = mass of car

v1 = Velocity of heavier vehicle

m1 = mass of heavier vehicle

v2 = velocity of lighter vehicles

m2 = mass of lighter vehicle

t = duration of impact

F = Force (Netwon)

m = mass of vehicle (kg)

U = stain energy

W = work done by external force

List of Graph

Graph 1.6 Example of force-displacement curve for a 8

range saloon cars impacting a deformable
barrier at 64km/h

Graph 1.7 Energy distribution in frontal car structure 8

Graph 7.2 Equivalent stress with respect to velocity using 58

carbon steel

Graph 7.3 Deformation with respect to velocity using 59

carbon steel

Graph 7.5 Deformation with respect to velocity using 60

Aluminium Ceramic composite

Graph 7.6 Equivalent stress with respect to velocity using 60

aluminium Ceramic composite
Graph 7.8 Equivalent stress with respect to velocity using 61
aluminium cast iron

Graph 7.9 Deformation with respect to velocity using 61

aluminium cast iron

Graph 7.10 Equivalent stress comparision for material at 62

different speeds

Graph 7.12 Max (Green) and min (red) displacement 63

curve at 64 Km/hr

Graph 7.13 Energy curves at 64 Km/hr using carbon 63

steel material

Graph 7.14 Momentum gradually decreases with 64

time or cycles
Graph 7.15 Momentum gradually decreases with 64
time or cycles

Graph 7.16 Energy plot using aluminium alloy composite 65

material at 64 Km/hr

Graph 7.17 Deformation using aluminium alloy composite 65

material at 64 Km/hr

Graph 7.18 Deceleration using aluminium alloy 66

material at 64 Km/hr

Graph 7.19 Energy dissipation curve using cast iron 72

material at 64 Km/hr at 7172 cycles

Graph 7.20 Directional deformation curve using cast iron 72

material at 64 Km/hr at 7172 cycles

Graph 7.21 Directional acceleration curve using cast iron 72

material at 64 Km/hr at 7172 cycles

Graph 7.23 Energy absorption using different materials 69

for impact analysis

Graph 7.24 Deformation comparision using different materials 69

for impact analysis

Graph 7.25 Blended body structure with honey comb 70

Energy absorbent and carbon steel

Graph7.26 Maximum deformation using blended body 71

And carbon steel

Graph 7.27 Maximum deformation using blended body 71

and carbon steel
Graph 7.28 Energy absorption curve using blended body 72
and aluminium alloy

Graph 7.29 Energy absorption using blended body 73

And carbon iron

Graph 7.31 Deformation curve using blended body and cast iron 74

Graph 7.33 Energy absorption comparison for different car

Materials using honeycomb 75

Graph 7.34 Deformation comparison for different car 75

Materials using honeycomb
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1
1 INTRODUCTION
Crashworthiness is the ability of a vehicle to withstand a collision or crash and to prevent
injuries to the occupants in the event of a vehicular accident. It is one of the most important
criteria used in designing and evaluating a vehicle. Many manufacturers, research facilities
and consumer protection groups need to perform crashworthiness analyses to test a vehicle's
crash resistance ability and to better understand the vehicle's response during the crash.
However, using real vehicles for the crashworthiness analysis is quite expensive because the
crash test is a destructive test. Generally, in order to obtain qualified crashworthiness analysis
results, multiple tests need to be conducted to assure the accuracy and the reproducibility of
the test or to acquire the optimum design. Thus, numerous vehicle prototypes need to be
produced and tested, which is extremely costly in terms of both time and money. Due to the
necessity of crashworthiness analysis and the limitations of the real crash tests, computer
analyses using finite element (FE) models, is warranted. This method can reasonably simulate
the vehicle's crash process accurately at a reduced cost.

Figure 1.1 Proportion of vehicles involved in traffic crashes [1]

The FE method, first developed in the late 1950's, has evolved into a very useful tool
available to engineers for solving problems in many different areas. In its early use, the FE
method was primarily restricted to linear analyses. With the increased availability of high-
performance computers, nonlinear finite analyses are increasingly being used in more
applications, such as vehicle crashworthiness analyses. FEA has been integrated into many
advanced CAD and CAE software programs to yield powerful computer tools such as
ANSYS, NASTRAN, and LS-DYNA. These are extensively used in the area of dynamic and
nonlinear analyses, including vehicle crashworthiness analysis. With the aid of these
programs, the vehicle crash test can easily be simulated and observed on the computer,
eliminating the need for producing and crushing numerous vehicle prototypes, thereby saving
both time and money. A standard procedure in conducting a crashworthiness analysis using
engineering software is to create a FE model for the real structure, to define the crash test
conditions, and to run the simulation. However, new problems arise because the
crashworthiness analysis usually includes high-rate heavy loading, which requires a small-
time step size to simulate the load history. Meanwhile, as the vehicle structure becomes more
complicated, the size of the respective FE model increases significantly. Thus, the computer
simulation consumes a larger amount of computer resources and takes much longer to
complete the crashworthiness analysis when using a detailed FE model that faithfully reflects
the structure's physical geometry. Moreover, for some complicated models, the crash
problems cannot even be effectively solved with current computational power. Therefore, it is
necessary that new methods and modelling techniques be developed to decrease the size of
the current detailed FE models, which reduces the calculations and saves computation time.
One possible solution is simplified modelling, which chooses a coarse mesh or applies
equivalent elements to build a simpler finite element model for crashworthiness analysis.In
addition, in an automotive design stage, designers usually need to attempt different schemes
with different geometries and shapes to achieve an optimum design. In this case, to
repeatedly generate detailed models with respect to each scheme appears unnecessarily time-
consuming. Simplified modelling can effectively remove this inconvenience. With a basic
simplified model, users may only need to make small changes or switch certain settings to
achieve new models with different design schemes. Therefore, simplified models are also
useful in an automotive design stage and can be used to replace the detailed models for
approximately evaluating different designs.
A standard procedure in conducting a crashworthiness analysis using engineering software is
to create a FE model for the real structure, to define the crash test conditions, and to run the
simulation. However, new problems arise because the crashworthiness analysis usually
includes high-rate heavy loading, which requires a small-time step size to simulate the load
history. Meanwhile, as the vehicle structure becomes more complicated, the size of the
respective FE model increases significantly. Thus, the computer simulation consumes a larger
amount of computer resources and takes much longer to complete the crashworthiness
analysis when using a detailed FE model that faithfully reflects the structure's physical
geometry. Moreover, for some complicated models, the crash problems cannot even be
effectively solved with current computational power. Therefore, it is necessary that new
methods and modeling techniques be developed to decrease the size of the current detailed
FE models, which reduces the calculations and saves computation time. One possible solution
is simplified modeling, which chooses a coarse mesh or applies equivalent elements to build
a simpler finite element model for crashworthiness analysis. In addition, in an automotive
design stage, designers usually need to attempt different schemes with different geometries
and shapes to achieve an optimum design. In this case, to repeatedly generate detailed models
with respect to each scheme appears unnecessarily time-consuming. Simplified modeling can
effectively remove this inconvenience. With a basic simplified model, users may only need to
make small changes or switch certain settings to achieve new models with different design
schemes. Therefore, simplified models are also useful in an automotive design stage and can
be used to replace the detailed models for approximately evaluating different designs.
1.1 HONEYCOMB
Honeycomb structures are natural or man-made structures that have the geometry of a
honeycomb to allow the minimization of the amount of used material to reach minimal
weight and minimal material cost. . A honeycomb shaped structure provides a material with
minimal density and relative high out-of-plane compression properties and out-of-plane shear
properties.

Fig.1.2 Honeycomb Structure

Man-made honeycomb structural materials are commonly made by layering a honeycomb

material between two thin layers that provide strength in tension. This forms a plate-like
assembly. Honeycomb materials are widely used where flat or slightly curved surfaces are
needed and their high strength is valuable. They are widely used in the aerospace industry for
this reason, and honeycomb materials in aluminium, fibreglass and advanced composite
materials have been featured in aircraft and rockets since the 1950s. They can also be found
in many other fields, from packaging materials in the form of paper-based honeycomb
cardboard, to sporting goods like skis and snowboards.
The main use of honeycomb is in structural applications. The standard hexagonal honeycomb
is the basic and most common cellular honeycomb configuration.

1.2 HONEYCOMB STRUCTURES

Natural honeycomb structures occur in many different environments, Based on these, man-
made honeycomb structures have been built with similar geometry to allow the reduction of
the quantity of material used, and thereby realizing minimal weight and material cost.

Fig 1.3 Honeycomb structure with panels

1.3 OVERVIEW OF TEST REGULATIONS

Generally, a car should pass all tests before it is released into the market. One of them is the
crash test which simulates the accidental situations, in which the interaction of the occupants
and the car body is measured. To satisfy different consumers in Europe market, the European
New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) is established.This test program includes
front and side impacts with deformable barrier together with a side pole impact. For the Euro
NCAP frontal crash as shown in Fig. 1, the vehicle is travelling at 64 km/h before impacting
deformable barrier (ODB) with 40 % overlap offset. It is necessary to perform the side-
impact test because a car body does not have a significant crumple zone to absorb the crash
energy in this area.The impact needs to take place with a zero-degree angle and the
evaluation of results must consider the amount of B-pillar intrusion as well as its deformed
shape. In vehicle design especially for its structure, the H-point, which is relative to an
occupant’s hip, is a significant position. Also particularly the pivot point between the torso
and upper leg of the body which is relative to the floor of the vehicle is considered.

Figure 1.4 Example of a state-of-the art vehicle structure [2]

1.4 CRASH WORTHINESS

Over the years, the body structures especially in progressive crush zone have been evolved in
order to absorb the crash kinetic energy through vehicle material during plastic deformations.
The vehicle bodies are manufactured and designed in order to protect occupants by
maintaining integrity of the passenger cell by controlling the crash deceleration pulse to fall
below the upper limit of human tolerance.
Therefore, the target of crashworthiness is dealing with an optimized automobile structure
that controls vehicle deformation areas in order to maintain the adequate space in passenger
cell. The residual crash energy can be managed by the restraint systems to minimize crash
loads transferred to the vehicle occupants as shown inFig 1.5.
Briefly, the vehicle structure should yield a deceleration pulse that satisfies the following
crashworthiness requirements
 Figure 1.5 Load paths of the car body structural members during frontal impact [3]

1> Deformable front structure with crumple zones to absorb the crash kinetic energy
resulting from frontal collisions by plastic deformation and to prevent intrusion into
the occupant compartment.
2> Appropriately designed side structures and doors to minimize intrusion in side impact
and prevent doors from opening due to crash loads.
3> Strong compartment structure for passenger protection
In a head-on collision involving two vehicles, the total initial kinetic energy (Ek,i) can be
determined . The mass and speed of the vehicle 1 and 2 are respectively called m1, v1 and
m2, v2. Then the initial kinetic energy is given by

Ek,I = .5(m1.v12 + m2.v 22) eq (1.1)

From the conservation of momentum principle and assuming that after crashing the two
vehicles are moving together with the same residual speed v3, the following equation can be
written as

M1.v1 – m2.v2 = (m1 + m2). v3 eq(1.2)

V3 = (m1⋅v1−m2 ⋅v2)/(m1 + m2) eq(1.3)

This residual speed is due to the residual kinetic energy that is equal to

Ek,r = .5(m1 + m2).v33 eq(1.4)

From these three equations, the dissipated energy used to deform both vehicles can be
calculated. It is equal to the difference between the initial and residual energy

Ed = Ek,I – Ek,r ={ m1.m2 (v1 + v2)2 } / 2 ( m1 + m2 ) eq(1.5)

This energy is dissipated by both the deformation of the car front and the truck front. The
area under the force-displacement curve gives the absorbed energy of the car front structure.
These curves can be extracted either from crash tests or also from the simulations.

Graph 1.6: Example of force-displacement curves for a range of large saloon cars impacting
a deform-able barrier at 64 km/h [4]

Crashworthiness of a vehicle structure strongly depends on the properties of the primary load
carrying members, namely, the materials properties, shape and cross-sections in addition to
the continuity of different load paths. Figure 1.5 illustrates different load paths in a typical
automotive frontal-structure. The data obtained from extensive frontal crash tests, conducted
by New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) in US and Europe, suggested that the longitudinal
rails (longerons) absorb most of the impact energy. The data in the figure were obtained by
US NCAP during full frontal impact with a rigid barrier at 56 km/h, and by Euro-NCAP
under a 40% offset frontal impact against a deformable barrier at 64 km/h.
 Graph 1.7: Energy distribution in a frontal car structure[5]

The primary load path, the longitudinal rails can undergo both bending and axial compression
collapse modes, while the compressive mode is most desirable to achieve maximum energy
absorption in a continuous manner prior to failure. While the reported studies have
emphasized the above stated three common requirements of the structure design, widely
different methods have been adapted to realize the goals. Irrespective of the methods used to
enhance CEM, the designs and/or identifications of the primary load paths of a vehicle
structure form the essential basis. This is attributed to the fact that the impact load is
transmitted through these paths and absorbed by different load carrying members in a
specified sequential manner thereby reducing the impact load transmitted to the occupant
compartment. Additionally, a thorough understanding of the crash dynamics leads to
identifications of essential developments in CEM to improve the crashworthiness.

1.5 CONVENTIONAL MATERIALS USED FOR CAR BODIES

Steel, the material typically used in vehicle structures, allowed for the economic mass
production of millions of units over the past seven decades. Basic requirements for body
structure materials include good formability, corrosion resistance, and recyclability. Body
materials should also possess sufficient strength and controlled deformations under load to
absorb crash energy, yet maintain sufficient survivable space for adequate occupant
protection should a crash occur. Further, the structure should be lightweight to reduce fuel
consumption. The majority of mass-produced vehicle bodies over the last six decades were
manufactured from stamped steel components. Manufacturers build only a few limited
production and specialty vehicle bodies from composite materials or aluminum.
Although a patent for an all-steel body was granted in 1900, until the 1920’s, automakers-
built vehicle bodies from a composite of wood panels joined with steel brackets. Steel sheets
were added over the panels to provide a better surface to hold the paint. As metallurgists
improved the formability of sheet steel and toolmakers built durable dies capable of stamping
millions of parts and spot weld technology allowed for joining large body shells, the all-steel
vehicle body became a reality. Dodge built an all-steel vehicle body in 1924.
1.6 CRASHWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS
The vehicle structure should be sufficiently stiff in bending and torsion for proper ride and
handling. It should minimize high frequency fore-aft vibrations that give rise to harshness. In
addition, the structure should yield a deceleration pulse that satisfies the following
requirements for a range of occupant sizes, ages, and crash speeds for both genders:

 Deformable, yet stiff, front structure with crumple zones to absorb the crash kinetic
energy resulting from frontal collisions by plastic deformation and prevent intrusion
into the occupant compartment, especially in case of offset crashes and collisions
with narrow objects such as trees. Short vehicle front ends, driven by styling
considerations, present a challenging task to the crash worthiness engineer.
 Deformable rear structure to maintain integrity of the rear passenger compartment and
protect the fuel tank.
 Properly designed side structures and doors to minimize intrusion in side impact and
prevent doors from opening due to crash loads
 Strong roof structure for rollover protection
 Properly designed restraint systems that work in harmony with the vehicle structure to
provide the occupant with optimal ride down and protection in different interior
spaces and trims
 Accommodate various chassis designs for different power train locations and drive
configurations.
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Don O. Brush and Bo O. Almroth. et.al [6]

Demonstrated the classic buckling behavior of identical structural members subjected to axial
crash loading in the book "Buckling of Bars, Plates, and Shells." In this book, the authors
discuss common buckling problemsand develop the equilibrium and stability equations for
bars, plates, and shells. The authors also provide some particular examples that demonstrate
how to determine the critical load using the stability equations. They include the direct
numerical solution of the governing nonlinear equations.

Ishiyama, Nishimura, and Tsuchiya et.al [7]

Reported a numerical study of the impact response of plane frame structures with thin-walled
beam members to predict the deformation and absorbed energy of automobiles under crash
loading. The researchers investigate the collapse characteristics of thin-walled beam members
under crashing loads, describe the inelastic deformations of the frame structure, and verify
the important assumptions and conclusions via crash tests.

E. Haug and A. De Rouvray et.al [8]

Illustrated the numerical simulation and prediction of the crash response of metallic
components and structures. The algorithms of the numerical crashworthiness simulation and
prediction are developed in their research. To validate the developed numerical algorithms, a
full car crash simulation is performed using the numerical method. The reliability of the
numerical method is verified by comparing the results of the simulations and the experiments.

A. G. Mamalis, D. E. Manolakos, G. A. Demosthenous, and M. B. Ioannidis et.al [9]

B. Studied the crashworthy behavior of thin-walled structural components subjected to

various loading conditions, i.e. static and dynamic axial loading and bending. The authors
describe the loading and deformation characteristics of the collapsed shells and discuss the
influence of the shell geometry and the material properties on these characteristics. Also, the
structural features related to vehicle collisions are introduced and useful conclusions for
vehicle design and manufacture are provided.

H. S. Kim and T. Wierzbicki et.al [10]

Investigated the rush response of thin-walled prismatic columns under combined bending-
compression collapse loading. They construct the initial and subsequent failure loci
representing the interaction between the axial forces and the bending moment. In their work,
the researchers formulate a problem in which rectangular cross-section beams with different
aspect ratios are subjected to a prescribed translational and rotational displacement rate. They
then generate numerical results after solving the problem. From the numerical results, they
continue developing the corresponding initial and subsequent failure loci, which describe the
anticipated crush behavior of thin-walled columns under combined loading.

A. A. A. Aighamdi et.al[11]

Studied the buckling behavior of specific thin-walled aluminum frusta. The thin-walled
aluminum frusta with different angles and differing thickness are axially crushed separately,
and respective folding-crumpling mode is observed. In this paper, the load-displacement
relationship between the frusta and the axially load and the final energy density ofthe frusta
are selected to describe the frusta's buckling behavior. Also, the effect of its angle and
thickness on the results is introduced. Then, the load-displacement curve and the energy
density are specified as the functions of them.

Computational technology, computer tools, and programs that can quickly perform complex
calculations make complicated engineering problems easier to approach. With the evolution
of the computer, numerous research methods are integrated into the computer to help
researchers study and simulate the structural crashworthiness analysis .

A. Toyama, K. Hatano, and E. Murakami et.al [12]

Introduced an example of using numerical analysis to investigate vehicle crashworthiness. In

their paper, the authors point out the limitations of the vehicle crash experiments. The crush
characteristics and performance of a vehicle body can not be obtained experimentally due to
the very short experimental time. Thus, the numerical analysis techniques using the finite
element method can be applied to determine the behavior of vehicle components during the
crash. A vehicle frontal crash simulation study is presented with the explicit FE code PAM
CRASH performing this simulation. The deformation modes, the transmitted force, and the
internal energy are studied, and the detailed deformation mechanism of the vehicle body,
which is impossible to make experimentally, is analyzed quantitatively.

U. N. Gandhi and S. J. Hu et.al [13]

Build an analytical model directly from the crash test measurements using system
identification techniques. The model is used for automotive crashworthiness analysis and for
the parametric study. The analytical model includes two parts: a differential equation part
consisting of mass, stiffness, and damping characteristics and a transfer function part
consisting of an autoregressive moving average of white noise. The authors discuss a data-
based approach in modelling automobile crashes with the procedure and numerical method of
creating a data -based model being described intensively. To verify the approach, they
construct two simple models for frontal impact and for side impact. The comparison between
the measured and the simulated results verifies that the data-based model developed in the
research is beneficial both when predicting the vehicle crash test results and when perfonning
the parametric study.

B. Cosme, A. Ghasemi, and J. Gandevia et.al [14]

Discussed the roles of different CAE tools in the design of heavy-duty truck frames and
perfonn specific case studies to demonstrate how this technology is used. Two popular CAE
tools, FEA and multi-body system simulation (MSS), along with a modal superposition
technique known as component mode synthesis (CMS) are presented in the paper. The
authors establish the possibility of using an FE model directly in a multi-body simulation
with the help of CMS. The technique of FE mesh modeling is demonstrated clearly as well.
Then, a detailed MSS heavy truck model is developed using the ADAMS software code. The
truck model is analyzed, and all the changes to the truck frame in the event of impact are
simulated successfully. Next, the CAD/CAE methodology described in the research is
applied to several projects, which mainly concern the structural design and optimizations.
Satisfactory results are obtained using this technique.

H.Nishigaki, S. Nishiwaki, T. Amage, Y. Kojima, and N. Kikuchi et.al [15]

Proposed a new variant of CAE, first order analysis (FOA) for automotive body design. The
authors present the concept FOA and completely demonstrate the characteristics and
advantageous of FOA. In applying the FOA to automotive body structures, they choose beam
and panel elements for the structural analysis and use the beam elements for topology
optimization. Also, a cross-section analysis is performed as a part of the FOA. The analysis
process and its results are thoroughly illustrated, and the formulations of the elements used in
these analyses are also explained. During the research, the Microsoft/Excel graphic interface
is used to achieve these analyses.

O. C. Zienkiewicz's book et.al [16],

The author illustrated how to apply the classic FE method to nonlinear problems, including
material non-linearity such as plasticity and creep and geometric non-linearity such as large
displacement and structural instability. The differential equations governing the non-linearity
are presented in addition to a demonstration of the classic FE method. Recently, due to
integration with advanced computer programs, FEA is intensively applied to solving and to
simulating the problems of structural analysis and other related fields. Also, the wide
application of the FEA is stated.

C. G. Prustyand S. K. Satsangi et.al [17]

Presented a finite element buckling analysis of the laminated stiffened plates and the stiffened
cylindrical shells using revised shell and stiffener modelling methods. Their work utilizes
quadratic iso parametric to model the shell and plate structures with a three-node curved
stiffener element representing the stiffeners. Before starting the buckling analysis, the
characteristics of the stiffened laminated structures subjected to small displacements are
introduced, and finite element formulations are created to describe the stiffness matrix and
geometric stiffness matrix for both the shell element and the stiffener element. Then, the
buckling analysis commences on the identical stiffened laminated structures, which suffer
from various loading cases. The final results are compared with the published ones, and an
acceptable degree of correlation is obtained.

B. W. Pedersen et.al [18]

Concentrates on the topology and the optimum design of the frame structures with respect to
their crashworthiness. He creates the frame structures using rectangular 2D-beam elements
with plastic hinges, and chooses the height of each beam as the design variable that optimizes
the design in order to control the energy absorption of the whole structure. A nonlinear FEA
is combined with the topology optimization to solve the problem. Particularly, the Newmark
method is used for time integration, the implicit backward Euler algorithm is applied to
obtain the system solutions, and the direct differentiation method is used to evaluate the
implicit sensitivities. With the optimum design achieved, the whole topology optimization
procedure and the parametric study of the design variable presented in the work become a
reference for this research.

The Silicon Valley Office of ARA et.al [19]

enabled crashworthiness simulations by developing a high-fidelity computer model of a Ford
Crown Victoria. Before creating the FE vehicle model, the researchers complete the
measurement and digitization process that acquires complete and detailed vehicle geometries.
When performing the crash simulations, the frontal impact and the side impact are
considered, and the corresponding impact conditions are defined. After finishing the
computer simulations, the crash test data are collected, and the collision responses of
different parts of the vehicle are described. Comparing the computer analysis results with
those measured from real impact tests reveals a good correlation between the two results. The
impact tests and the computer simulations of vehicle components are performed, and similar
modeling and evaluation procedures are carried out on some of the important components
such as the frame and the bumper.

M. Gonzalez, C. D. Kan, and N. E. Bedewi et.al [20]

Presented a highly detailed FE model of a 1997 Dodge Grand Caravan. The detailed
modelling process and techniques are described in their work. This detailed vehicle model is
used for different types of crash simulations, and a good correlation is established between
the computer simulations and the real vehicle impact tests.

D. Lawver, L. Nicodym, D. Tennant, and H. Levine et.al [21]

Predicted the response of nonlinear, explicit, and FE aircraft impacting into concrete
runaways and soil surfaces or reinforced concrete shelters. FLEX explicit finite element code
is used to model the aircraft and the impacted structures; also, shell elements, hexahedral
elements, and beam elements are used to model the fuselage, the concrete walls, and the
aircraft stiffeners separately. The created FE models simulate the crash process, and the FEA
results, such as the total forces and impulses acting on the target, are summarized to describe
the responses of the rigid target and the aircraft during the crash. In this work, the theories
and background of FE modelling are referenced along with the advantages of the explicit FE
model in high-speed crash analysis in comparison to other existing models.

Z. Q. Cheng, J. G. Thacker, W. D. Pilkey, W. T. Hollowell, S. W. Reagan, and E. M.

Sieveka et.al[22]

Validated a finite element model for a four-door sedan that can be successfully used in
computational simulations of different car-to-car impact conditions. In the project, a detailed
finite element model of a four-door sedan is provided. The main tasks of the researchers are
to modify and to refine the model to improve its computational performance. This
performance is based on computational impact simulations and ensures that the computer
results are concordant with the test data of actual vehicles. The pre-processing software,
Hyper Mesh, reviews the model before the simulation, and the LS-DYNA executes the
computational simulations. The researchers describe the experiences encountered during the
modification and refinement of the finite element model. Some common issues associated
with LS-DYNA and the model are addressed, which include the negative volume of solid
elements, shooting nodes, energy balance, and calculation of accelerative forces. Several
different car-to-car impact tests are simulated on a computer with an acceptable congruency
between the results of the computational simulations and the actual test data.

Dr. A. Eghlimi and Dr. J. D. Yang et.al [23]

Performed a crash analysis to simulate a car impacting a collapsible signpost using ANSYS
and LS-DYNA. The objective of the project is to predict the behaviours of the thin-walled
signposts under wind load, self-weight, and crash conditions. Then, they optimize the design
of the signpost to achieve better performance under both the static and the dynamic load
conditions. The whole project includes the static analysis of the signpost when subjected to
the wind load and self-weight and the crash analysis of impact from a vehicle. ANSYS is
used for the static analysis, and the LS-DYNA is used for the crash simulation. The work
displays different applications of ANSYS and LS-DYNA and beneficial examples of how to
use the postprocessor of LS-DYNA to record and to plot all the important data. In addition,
the buckling behaviour and the response of the signpost during the crash simulation are
recorded in terms of the displacement, the velocity, and the acceleration history at certain
monitored nodes. These monitored nodes serve as indicators representing the entire buckling
process of the signpost.

Y. M. Jin et.al [24]

Developed the analysis and evaluation of vehicle body structure using FE methods. He uses
MSC products such as Patran, Nastran, and NVH_Manager to perform the FE modelling and
calculation. In his research, the target body structure model undergoes static analysis,
dynamic analysis, and noise-velocity-harshness (NVH) analysis. The performance of the
vehicle body is evaluated, and the full body crash is simulated on the computer. This project
demonstrates the effective application of finite element methods when combined with the
advanced CAD/CAE programs in vehicle crashworthiness analysis. The computer results are
verified by real tests. To create a valid FEA crash model, the modelling method must be
considered first; the original CAD model must be correctly meshed. Additionally, appropriate
crash conditions such as boundary conditions and initial conditions should be selected to
guarantee the accuracy of the analysis results. Some projects pertaining to these areas are
reviewed for later research.

M.H. Ray et.al [25]

Describes the typical impact conditions in side-impact collisions with fixed roadside objects.
He defines the impact conditions by specifying four parameters: the vehicular mass, the
impact velocity, the impact angle, and the impact point. The author examines the data of
numerous accidents from police-reported side impact collisions and summarizes the effects of
each parameter on the severity of the collisions. Then, the worst-case impact conditions that
result in fatal consequences are determined and as possible, selected as the conditions for the
full-scale crash test. The conclusions obtained in this work are adopted to determine the
impact conditions for a vehicle crash computer simulation.

H. A. Zukas and D. R. Scheffler et.al [26]

Focus on the effects of the computational mesh on the computational simulations of problems
that involve fast and transient loading such as, impact problems and crash analysis. The
researchers discuss various factors related to the mesh that might cause discrepancies
between the computer results and the experiment results. They also provide suggestions on
how to decrease the effects of these factors and guarantee the reliability of the finite element
model used for the simulations. This work is very instructive and is usable as a reference for
how to generate the meshes for a finite element model appropriately.

B.Canaple, G. P. Rungen, E. Markiewicz, P. Drazetic, J. H. Smith, B. P. Chinn, and D.

Cesari et.al [27]

Developed a new methodology in modelling the motorcycle accidents in which a motorcycle

impacts a stationary car. The objective of the research is to evaluate the head injuries of the
riders involved in motorcycle accidents, but the modelling method in the paper is very
creative. The researchers use a "multi-body" model to represent the motorcycle and the target
vehicle. They divide the full physical model into several components with specific joints that
connect them together. Using the understanding of the possible relative motions between the
components and the characteristics of their joints, the corresponding multi-body models are
created. It is verified that the developed model can simulate the responses of the original
model very well.

P.Drazetic, E. Markiewicz, and Y. Ravalard et.al [28]

Developed kinematic models to analytically determine the resistance to collapse of thin-

walled structures of simple geometric shapes subjected to compression or bending loading.
Then, based on the kinematic models, a simplified model for an "S" frame is created that is
composed of beams and nonlinear springs. Both the simplified model and the detailed model
undergo crashworthiness analyses. The results are compared with each other as well as with
the results of an experimental test. The comparison reveals that the simplified model is a
promising tool for rapid estimates of the crash behaviour of simple structures and can model
vehicle structures.

In the Ford Motor Company's manual book "Guidelines for Modelling an Automobile
Body for NVH Analysis - Simplified Models"et.al [29],

Researched present the concept of simplified models in contrast to the detailed models. They
describe the characteristics of the simplified model and demonstrate the advantages of using
the simplified model as opposed to the detailed model. The series of simplified modelling
techniques and methodologies in creating different members and components of Ford
vehicles are documented in this book and are very beneficial to later research.

P. J. Brooks and A. M. Tobias et.al [30]

Reviewed the related studies on model simplification techniques and develop an instructive
guideline of how to choose the best model for a mathematical or computer modelling study.
They evaluate the performance of a model and explain the meaning of the level of detail and
complexity. In their work, they focus on the relationship between the model performance and
the level of detail or complexity of the model.

H. S. Kim, S. Y. Kang, I. H. Lee, S. H. Park, and D. C. Han et.al [31]

Created simplified vehicle structures using beam elements and nonlinear springs for
crashworthiness analysis. They introduce the method that uses nonlinear springs and beam
elements to model the major parts of a vehicle, while shell elements model the plate parts and
rigid parts. Also, they verify that the nonlinear spring and beam element can simulate both
the axial and the bending collapse behaviours involved in crashes very well. In their work,
the same crashworthiness analysis is performed on two full car models. One is mainly
modelled by nonlinear springs and beam elements (almost 75%), and the other one is
modelled by shell elements. After checking the results and computer times, it is shown that
compared to the detailed vehicle model (the shell element model), the simplified model (the
beam-spring model) provides an approximate result (with 15% error) while only requiring
16% of the computing time of the shell element model.

A. K. Aaouk, N. E. Bedewi, C. D. Kan, and D. Marzougui [32]

Developed a multipurpose finite element model of a 1994 Chevrolet C-1500 pick-up truck
and use it for impact simulations. A detailed model and a simplified model are created; the
procedures of the modelling generation and simplification are described, and the features of
each model is thoroughly demonstrated and compared. They use the detailed model and the
simplified model for the crash simulations separately. They compare the simulation results
with those of real impact tests in terms of overall impact deformation, component failure
modes, and the velocity and the acceleration at various locations of the vehicle. The impact
modes include frontal and side impact, and both of them are discussed in the paper. The LS-
DYNA performs the computer simulations; the results are gathered and analysed. Also, the
simulation results of the simplified model are compared with those of the detailed model and
the real impact test; a good correlation among these results is achieved. Thus, the advantages
and the possibility of using the simplified model to replace the detailed models are
confirmed. This project exemplifies how to develop a simplified model from detailed model
used for crash simulations. The main technique in this work is to fully increase the element
size while maintaining the accuracy of the results. However, some advanced techniques can
still be developed in future work.

The reviewed literature on crashworthiness analysis using finite element analysis is

summarized into three areas:

1) Introduction of the methods and techniques usually applicable to crashworthiness analysis

These methods mainly include the numerical analysis method and the experimental method.
With the development of computational technology, some powerful CAE tools such as FEA,
MSS, and FOA are proposed and applied to solve such problems quickly and efficiently.
Also, new techniques in system identification and component mode synthesis are introduced
to aid users in building high quality analytical crash models for the numerical analysis.
2) Explaining how to apply FEA to solve crashworthiness analysis and describing the normal
steps
From the above literature, the normal steps used to apply FEA to solve
crashworthiness analysis are briefly summarized as:
• Creating an eligible FEA computer model
• Determining the appropriate crash conditions and boundary conditions
• Applying these conditions to the FEA model
• Running the crashworthiness analysis
• Obtaining and analysing the computer results
• Drawing conclusions

3) Presenting several FE vehicle models that are used for crashworthiness analysis and
illustrating the modelling methods. A typical FE vehicle model is generated based on the
geometries and shapes of the prototype vehicle, which is usually composed of solid elements,
shell elements, and beam elements. The number of elements depends upon the meshing
method used and determines the overall size of the model. Different computer software
packages create such models and run the analysis. Some examples are LS-DYNA, ANSYS,
PAM-CRASH, MSC products, HyperMesh.
 CHAPTER 3
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND OBJECTIVE
3.1 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

When creating a car, it is very important to reduce its mass. This allows maintaining the basic
characteristics of the car, using less powerful engines that consume less fuel and emit less
harmful substances into the atmosphere. In addition,the inertia of the car decreases and for its
acceleration or breaking it is necessary to spend less energy

Lowering the weight of the car also reduces the load on the suspension parts, which increases
their lifespan. With increase in fuel cost and demand for more mileage from vehicle it has
become more important for vehicle manufacturers to search for materials which are lighter in
weight and absorb more crash energies as compared to conventional steel of carbon steel
material. The new category of composites named MMC (Metal Matrix Composites) are
getting popular due to low cost and improved mechanical properties. The current research is
intended with the application of MMC material (Aluminum ceramic matrix composites) in
manufacturing of car body.

3.2 OBJECTIVES

Current analysis are performed in CAD model using three materials namely carbon steel,
Aluminum ceramic composite, cast iron using two approaches quasistatic method and
dynamic analysis. Equivalent stress generated from collision of body of car using normal
structure, by changing materials ,from carbon steel,aluminium ceramic composite ,and cast
iron are compared.

The next analysis is explicit analysis which is performed using honey comb structure etween
fornt bumper and car body, while car body material is made carbon steel.

Explicit dynamic analysis is carried out and result is compared with respect to time cycle, for
three differant materials. These material are carbon steel,aluminium alloy and caste iron.

The current research deals with the application of MMC’s in manufacturing of car body
intended to reduce vehicle weight and improve crash energy absorption characteristics.

1> CAD modeling of car in Creo 2.0 using appropriate dimensions.

2> FEA analysis using ANSYS STATIC STRUCTURAL under quasi static conditions
and determining deformation, stresses and strain energy characteristics under various
impact forces.
3> FEA dynamic analysis using ANSYS LS DYNA under dynamic conditions and
determining deformation, kinetic energy curve, total work done and internal energy
curve.
4> Changing material from carbon steel to Aluminum ceramic composites.
5> Reperforming FEA analysis under quasi static conditions.
6> Reperforming FEA dynamic analysis under dynamic conditions
7> Results comparison by various output parameters like displacement, energy
absorption curves etc.
 CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
4 METHODOLOGY
The CAD model of car body is done using Creo 2.0 software. The software is sketch based,
feature based, parametric 3d modelling software developed by PTC and has the properties of
bi-directional associativity and parent child relationship. The car body is modelled using
extrude tool, revolve, pattern and other tools. The detailed description is provided in further
sections.

Figure 4.1: CAD model of Ford Explorer

The current analysis is performed using honey comb structure between front bumper and car
body, while car body material is made of carbon steel.

Figure 4.2: Energy absorber material between car body and bumper made of honeycomb
Methodology Flow Chart.
Methodology flow chart includes introduction ,in which preliminary study is carried out ,
which includes identification of research problem, identifying theroitical frame work of crush
analysis , identifying aim and objective of crush analysis by changing material for normal car
body and also using honey comb structure.

INTRODUCTION

HONEY COMB STRUCTURE

LITERATURE REVIEW

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

REVIEW OF AUTOMOBILE MATERIAL

SOLID CAD MODELLING OF CAR BODY

THEORITICAL STRESS ANALYSIS

QUASI-STATIC ANALYSIS USING ANSYS

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS USING ANLSYS DYNA

RESULT &CONCLUSION

Figure 4.3:Methodology Flow chart

Lowering the weight of the car also reduces the load on the suspension parts, which increases
their lifespan. With increase in fuel cost and demand for more mileage from vehicle it has
become more important for vehicle manufacturers to search for materials which are lighter in
weight and absorb more crash energies as compared to conventional steel of carbon steel
material. The new category of composites named MMC (Metal Matrix Composites) are
getting popular due to low cost and improved mechanical properties. The current research is
intended with the application of MMC material (Aluminum ceramic matrix composites) in
manufacturing of car body.
The car industry used tremendous numbers of materials to build a car such as aluminum alloy
, non ferrous alloys, but mostly steel is used.
In current research crash investigation is performed using 2 different approaches which are
discussed in detail in subsequent section. First approach is using quasi-static method and
second approach is using dynamic analysis
4.1 INRODUCTION
A standard procedure in conducting a crashworthiness analysis using engineering software is
to create a FE model for the real structure, to define the crash test conditions, and to run the
simulation. However, new problems arise because the crashworthiness analysis usually
includes high-rate heavy loading, which requires a small-time step size to simulate the load
history. Meanwhile, as the vehicle structure becomes more complicated, the size of the
respective FE model increases significantly. Thus, the computer simulation consumes a larger
amount of computer resources and takes much longer to complete the crashworthiness
analysis when using a detailed FE model that faithfully reflects the structure's physical
geometry. Moreover, for some complicated models, the crash problems cannot even be
effectively solved with current computational power. Therefore, it is necessary that new
methods and modeling techniques be developed to decrease the size of the current detailed
FE models, which reduces the calculations and saves computation time. One possible solution
is simplified modeling, which chooses a coarse mesh or applies equivalent elements to build
a simpler finite element model for crashworthiness analysis. In addition, in an automotive
design stage, designers usually need to attempt different schemes with different geometries
and shapes to achieve an optimum design. In this case, to repeatedly generate detailed models
with respect to each scheme appears unnecessarily time-consuming. Simplified modeling can
effectively remove this inconvenience. With a basic simplified model, users may only need to
make small changes or switch certain settings to achieve new models with different design
schemes. Therefore, simplified models are also useful in an automotive design stage and can
be used to replace the detailed models for approximately evaluating different designs.
4.2 HONEY COMB STRUCTURE
Honeycomb structures that have the geometry of a honeycomb to allow the minimization of
the amount of used material to reach minimal weight and minimal material cost. The
geometry of honeycomb structures can vary widely but the common feature of all such
structures is an array of hollow cells formed between thin vertical walls. . A honeycomb
shaped structure provides a material with minimal density and relative high out-of-plane
compression properties and out-of-plane shear properties.
4.3 LITERATURE REVIEW

Performed a crash analysis to simulate a car impacting a collapsible signpost using ANSYS
and LS-DYNA. The objective of the project is to predict the behaviours of the thin-walled
signposts under wind load, self-weight, and crash conditions. Then, they optimize the design
of the signpost to achieve better performance under both the static and the dynamic load
conditions. The whole project includes the static analysis of the signpost when subjected to
the wind load and self-weight and the crash analysis of impact from a vehicle. ANSYS is
used for the static analysis, and the LS-DYNA is used for the crash simulation. The work
displays different applications of ANSYS and LS-DYNA and beneficial examples of how to
use the postprocessor of LS-DYNA to record and to plot all the important data. In addition,
the buckling behaviour and the response of the signpost during the crash simulation are
recorded in terms of the displacement, the velocity, and the acceleration history at certain
monitored nodes. These monitored nodes serve as indicators representing the entire buckling
process of the signpost.

Honeycomb sandwich structure combines high flexural rigidity and bending strength with
low weight. Sandwich construction plays an increasing role in industry, and sandwich
structural designing is an available method for sandwich structures. However, the absence of
the design variable is the principal problem of composite sandwich construction. In this
paper, the structure and mechanical properties of honeycomb sandwich panels are introduced.
The weight ratio range of honeycomb core that is deduced on the basis of optimum
mechanical properties offer a principle foundation for designing the structure of honeycomb
sandwich panels. The satisfying weight condition of the honeycomb core weight is 50–66.7%
of the weight of the whole honeycomb sandwich panels by theoretical analysis. Based on that
conclusion, the honeycomb sandwich panels were designed and the results were verified by
further experiments. Agreement between the theoretical values of the sample and
experimental results is good.

4.4 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Lowering the weight of the car also reduces the load on the suspension parts, which increases
their life span.With increase in fuel cost and demand for more mileage from vehicle it has
become more important for vehicle manufacturers to search for materials which are lighter in
weight and absorb more crash energies as compared to conventional steel of carbon steel
material.This research is done using honey comb struchure by crush analysis.

4.5 REVIEW OF AUTOMOTIVE MATERIAL

More than half of the total volume in the production of a modern car consists of cast iron and
steel parts (55 %), about 11 % – plastics, the third place – aluminium alloys (9 %); rubber and
glass – 7 and 3 % respectively; the share of non-ferrous alloys (magnesium, titanium, copper
and zinc) does not exceed 1 %; other materials (varnishes, paints, electric wires, facing
materials, etc.) make 13.5 %

Figure 4.4 Various automotive materials in use

Although steel is used by most of the car manufacturers, it comes with its own set of
advantages and disadvantages as described in figure 4.5 below.
 Figure 4.5 Advantages and disadvantages of steel

The material used for analysis is Carbon steel and Al2O3 / SiC MMC material.

4.6 SOLID CAD MODELING OF CAR BODY

The CAD model of car body is done using Creo 2.0 software. The software is sketch based,
feature based, parametric 3d modelling software developed by PTC and has the properties of
bi-directional associativity and parent child relationship. The car body is modelled using
extrude tool, revolve, pattern and other tools. The detailed description is provided in further
sections.
4.7 QUASI-STATIC ANALYSIS USING ANSYS
The CAD model of car developed using Creo 2.0 is imported in ANSYS and meshed using
tetra elements with fine sizing. The meshed model of car is shown in figure 4.6 below.

Figure 4.6: Meshed model of car using tetra elements

The model is applied with appropriate loading conditions. Impact force is applied on front
face and bottom face is provided with fixed support. The impact force is applied as per
different velocities as discussed earlier. The loads and boundary conditions applied are shown
in figure 4.7 below. The model above is meshed with tetrahedral elements with fine sizing,
growth rate 1.2, inflation normal, transition ratio of .272. Number of elements generated is
38273 and number of nodes generated is 79078. The bottom face is provided with vertical
displacement support and force is applied on frontal portion of body.

Figure 4.7 : Boundary conditions

The model is solved for Carbon steel material and Aluminium ceramic material respectively.
The stresses and deformation are determined for each material respectively.

4.8 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS USING LS DYNA

The CAD model of car developed using Creo 2.0 is imported in ANSYS and meshed using
tetra elements with fine sizing. The CAD model of car is shown in figure 4.8 below.

Figure 4.8: CAD model of car and crash barrier

The imported CAD model is checked for geometric errors and clean up process is performed
for hard edges and surface roughness in ANSYS space claim module.

Figure 4.9: Meshed model of car using tetra elements

The model above is meshed with tetrahedral elements with fine sizing, growth rate 1.2,
inflation normal, transition ratio of .272. Number of elements generated is 36181 and number
of nodes generated is 13656. Mesh quality checks are performed by which mesh is found to
be good.

Figure 4.10: Meshed model of car using tetra elements

The crash barrier is fixed from bottom end and vehicle is given initial velocity as per ENCAP
standards for frontal crash testing. Energy absorption curves are plotted from software which
includes Kinetic energy dissipation, internal absorption and total work done. Initial
conditions are established and newton Raphson algorithm is switched ON. The crash timing
is set to .005 seconds which should be taken on the basis of computational time. Higher the
crash time , higher is the computational time taken by solver and vice versa.
4.9 CONCLUSION

The crash analysis preformed under quasi static condition shows larger deformation of car
body made from aluminum ceramic composite material. Application of honeycomb stuchure
between bumper and car body reduces crash energy to considerable extend.
 CHAPTER 5
MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION
5.1 MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION
5.1.1 QUASI STATIC ANALYSIS
For quasi-static analysis the impact force is calculated using conservation of linear
momentum, Equation (1) below was used to solve for the time averaged force F that would
be distributed at each node on the front of the car.
F *Δt = – mV1 (5.1)

where Δt= .001s is the duration of impact,

m is the car mass, and

V1 is the incoming speed of car before impact.

The impact force under various velocities is provided in table 5.1 below

Table 5.1: Impact force under various velocities

Velocity Mass of vehicle Δt (duration of impact) Force(N)

(Km/hr) (kg)
32 2327.84 .001 secs 74490880
64 2327.84 .001 secs 148981760
96 2327.84 .001 secs 223472640
128 2327.84 .001 secs 297963520
160 2327.84 .001 secs 372454400

5.1.2 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

For dynamic analysis analytical model is based on conservation of momentum, energy which
are described in next section

Conservation of Momentum: Applying the law of conservation of momentum to the head-

on collision of two vehicles gives very useful kinematic relations. Of course, this idealized
impact between two vehicles assumes that the collision is perfectly plastic, and the masses
move as one rigid body after collision. In other words, the dynamic equations given below
are only valid until the time at which both vehicles have the same speed. It is also assumed
during collision that no plastic unloading or reloading occurs during the crushing process.
Thus, if v1 and m1 are the velocity and mass of the heavier vehicle and v2 & m2 are the
velocity and mass of the lighter vehicle, and the velocity after the crash is assumed to be the
same for both vehicles Vf, then:

Vf = (m1 v1 + m2 v2) / (m1+m2) (5.2)

= m2 Vc / (m1+m2) = m1 Vc / (m1+m2)

Knowing (Vf) helps to calculate the change of vehicle velocity during impact, which is a
good indicator of the severity of impact on each vehicle, from the following:

∆ v1 = Vf - v1 and, ∆ v2 = Vf - v2 (5.3)

Equation gives an expression of the ∆ v’s ratio in terms of µ = ( m1 / m2 ) > 1, the mass ratio
of the two vehicles:

( ∆ v2 / ∆ v1 ) = (m1 /(m2) = µ (5.4)

Thus, the lighter car goes through higher change in velocity than the heavier car. As a result,
it will undergo more deformation than the rigid or deformable barrier cases.

For the special case where v2 = - v1 = v0,

the expression for the velocity after impact, Eq. 4.3

becomes

Vf = [(m1- m2 )/(m1 +m2)] v0 (5.5)

which means when m1 = m2 , Vf = 0. But, when m1 ≠ m2, i.e. µ = ( m1 / m2 ) > 1 , and

defining Vc as pre-impact closing velocity between the two vehicles, that is, Vc = v1 - v2 ,
the above equations may be written as follows:

Vf = [ ( µ - 1 )/( µ + 1)] v0

∆ v1 = Vc /( µ + 1)

∆ v2 = [ ( µ )/( µ + 1)] Vc (5.6)

5.2.1 Conservation of Energy:

Furthermore, by applying conservation of energy theorem, the total energy absorbed by both
vehicles (through deformation) during crash can be computed from the following equation:
Edef. = ½ [(m1 m2)/(m1+m2)] (Vc 2 ) (5.7)

that is, the deformation energy depends on the two masses and the closing velocity Vc of the
two colliding vehicles.

Eq. 4.6 may be written in terms of ( µ ) and (m2), the mass of the lighter vehicle as:

Edef. = ½ [(m2) ( µ ) / (1+( µ )] (Vc 2 ) (5.8)

5.3 Finite Element model formulation

The most popular integral formulation, based on the variational calculus of Euler, is the Princ
iple of Minimum Total Potential Energy.
Basically, it states that the displacement field that satisfies the essential displacement boundar
y conditions and minimizes the total potential energy is the one that corresponds to the state o
f static equilibrium. This implies that displacements are our primary unknowns. They will b
e interpolated in space as will their derivatives, and the strains. The total potential energy, Π,
is the strain energy, U, of the structure minus the mechanical work,W, done by the external f
orces. From introductory mechanics, the mechanical work, W, done by a force is the scalar d
ot product of the force vector, F, and the displacement vector, u, at its point of application. Th
e linear elastic spring will be reviewed to illustrate the concept of obtaining equilibrium equat
ions from an energy formulation. Consider a linear spring, of stiffness k, that has an applied f
orce, F, at the free (right) end, and is restrained from displacement atthe other (left) end. The
free end undergoes a displacement of Δ. The work done by the single force is

W = ∆. F = ∆x * Fx = u F (5.9)

U= ½ K ∆x2

Therefore, the total potential energy for the loaded spring is

Π = ½ K ∆x2 - ∆x * Fx (5.10)

Equation of equilibrium is obtained by minimizing this total potential energy with respect to t
he unknown displacement, ∆. That is,
6 6∆X
=0 = 2
𝐾∆x - Fx (5.11)
2
This gets simplified to below given equation which is well known equilibrium equation for
leaf spring

K ∆x = F
Next we will consider a spring where either end can be fixed or free to move. This will
require that you both minimize the total potential energy and impose the given displacement r
estraint.

U= ½ K ∆x 2
Figure 5.1: Classic and general leaf spring element

{∆}T = [∆1 ∆2]

{F}T = [F1 F2]

W = {∆}T{F}T

Now the spring model has two end displacements, ∆1 and ∆2, and two associated axial forces,
F1 and F2. The net deformation of the bar is δ = ∆ 2 ‐ ∆1. Denote the total vector of displac
ement components as
∆1
{∆ } = ( )
∆2
and the associated vector of forces
as 𝐹1
{∆ } = ( )
𝐹2
Then the mechanical work done on spring is

W = {∆}T{𝐹} = ∆1F1 + ∆2F2 (5.12)

Then the spring strain energy is
1
𝑈 = {∆}T[K]{𝐹} = 1 𝐾𝛿2 (5.13)
2 2
Where k the spring stiffness matrix is found to be
1 −1
[K] = * +
−1 1
Total potential energy Π becomes

Π = 1 {∆}T[K]{∆} − {∆}T {F} (5.14.)

2
First stage of matrix becomes

1 −1
k* + (∆1) = (F1)
−1 1 ∆2 𝐹2
 CHAPTER -6

ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT & HONEY COMB

MATERIALS
6.1 ANALYSIS OF CAR NORMAL STUCTURE QUASITATIC CONDITION
The car industry uses a tremendous number of materials to build cars, including iron,
aluminium, steel, glass, rubber, petroleum products, copper, steel and others. These materials
have evolved greatly over the decades, becoming more sophisticated, better built, and safer.
They've changed as new automotive materials have emerged over the years, and they're used
in increasingly innovative ways. This analysis devoted to systematization information on the
introduction and application of modern materials in the automotive industry.Car
manufacturers are constantly pushing to create the lightest cars possible to increase speed and
power. Research and development into lightweight materials is essential for lowering their
cost, increasing their ability to be recycled, enabling their integration into vehicles, and
maximizing their fuel economy benefits. Light weighting without loss of strength and speed
properties is the present, and the future, of the automotive manufacturing industry. It brings
innovative materials to the frontline of design.
Different materials used for car normal structure are carbon steel, aluminum ceramic
composite,grey cast iron
In current research crash investigation is performed using 2 different approaches quasi static
method second dynamic analysis The analysis of car body is performed using finite element
method using ANSYS software
6.1.1 QUASI STATIC ANALYSIS OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE FOR
MATERIAL 1
. The material used for this analysis is carbon steel. After conduction of FEA analysis,
Graph and tables vonmises stress and displacement contours are plotted in the next section.
Five different velocities are considered for analysis and impact force is calculated on its
basis.
a) Material1 is carbon steel material.The velocity considered for analysis is 32km/hr.

Figure 6.1: Deformation and equivalent stress using carbon steel at 32Km/hr
b) Material1 is carbon steel material.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr.
 Figure 6.2: Deformation and equivalent stress using carbon steel at 64Km/hr
c) Material1 is carbon steel material. The velocity considered for analysis is 96km/hr.

Figure 6.3: Deformation and equivalent stress using carbon steel at 96Km/hr
d) Material1 is carbon steel material. The velocity considered for analysis is 128km/hr

Figure 6.4: Deformation and equivalent stress using carbon steel at 128Km/hr
d) Material1 is carbon steel material. The velocity considered for analysis is 160km/hr.

Figure 6.5: Deformation and equivalent stress using carbon steel at 160Km/hr
For all the velocities the maximum deformation is noticed in front bonnet and hood portion
which bears the maximum amount of impact energy and hence experience maximum stress
and deformation as shown in figures above.
6.1.2 QUASI STATIC ANALYSIS OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE FOR
MATERIAL 2
a) Material 2 is Aluminium ceramic
composite.The velocity considered for analysis is
32km/hr.

Figure 6.6 : Deformation and eq stress using aluminium ceramic composite at 32Km/hr
b)Material 2 is Aluminium ceramic composite.The velocity considered for analysis is
64km/hr.

Figure 6.7: Deformation and eq stress using aluminium ceramic composite at 64Km/hr
c)Material 2 is Aluminium ceramic composite.The velocity considered for analysis is
96km/hr.

Figure 6.8 Deformation and eq stress using aluminium ceramic composite at 96Km/hr
d)Material 2 is Aluminium ceramic composite.The velocity considered for analysis is
128km/hr.

Figure 6.9: Deformation and eq stress using aluminium ceramic composite at 128Km/hr
d)Material 2 is Aluminium ceramic composite.The velocity considered for analysis is
160km/hr

Figure 6.10: Deformation and eq stress using aluminium ceramic composite at 160Km/hr
.For all the velocities the maximum deformation is noticed in front bonnet and hood portion
which bears the maximum amount of impact energy
6.1.3 QUASI STATIC ANALYSIS OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE FOR
MATERIAL 3
a)Material 3 is grey cast iron.The velocity considered for analysis is 32km/hr.

Figure 6..11: Deformation and eq stress using grey cast iron at 32Km/hr
b)Material 3 is grey cast iron.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr.

Figure 6..12: Deformation and eq stress using grey cast iron at 64Km/hr
c)Material 3 is grey cast iron.The velocity considered for analysis is 96km/hr.

Figure 6..13 Deformation and eq stress using grey cast iron at

96Km/hr d)Material 3 is grey cast iron.The velocity considered for analysis is
128km/hr.

Figure 6.14: Deformation and eq stress using grey cast iron at 128Km/hr
d)Material 3is grey cast iron.The velocity considered for analysis is 160km/hr.

Figure 6..15 Deformation and eq stress using grey cast iron at 160Km/hr
For all the velocities the maximum deformation is noticed in front bonnet and hood portion
which bears the maximum amount of impact energy
6.2 ANALYSIS OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE IN DYNAMIC CONDITION
Dynamic crash analysis is performed in CAD model of car using 2 materials .The
deformation contour plots are derived for various time intervals/cycles using ANSYS LS
DYNA. The crash analysis is performed using crash barrier as per ENCAP standard testing
specifications at 64Km/hr speed. The analysis time is .005 secs, this time has been taken
depending on processor speed and computational time. Energy curves, displacement curves
are plotted
6.2.1 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE FOR MATERIAL 1
.a)Material 1 is carbon steel .The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 950cycles

Figure 6.16: Directional deformation plot using carbon steel material at 64Km/hr at
950cycles
b)Material 1 is carbon steel .The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 3793 cycles

Figure 6.17: Directional deformation plot using carbon steel material at 64Km/hr at
3793cycles
c)Material 1 is carbon steel .The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 8531cycles
Figure 6.18: Directional deformation plot using carbon steel material at 64Km/hr at 85
d)Material 1 is carbon steel .The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr 11375 cycles

Figure 6.19: Direction deformation plot using carbon steel material at 64Km/hr at
11375cycles
e)Material 4 is carbon steel .The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr 16117 cycles

Figure 6.20: Direction deformation plot using carbon steel material at 64Km/hr at
16117cycles
6.2.2 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE FOR MATERIAL 2
a) Material 2 is aluminium alloy.The
velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 3604cycles

Figure 6.21: Directional deformation plot using aluminium material at 64Km/hr at 3604cycle
b)Material 2 is aluminium alloy.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at
10643cycles

Figure6.22: Deformation plot using aluminium material at 64Km/hr at 10643cycles

c) Material 2 is aluminium alloy.The
velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 49061cycles

Figure 6.23: Deformation plot using aluminium material at 64Km/hr at 49061cycles

d)Material 2 is aluminium alloy.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 77406
cycles

Figure 6.24 Deformation plot using aluminium material at 64Km/hr at 77406cycles

6.2.3 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE FOR MATERIAL 3
a)Material 3 is cast iron.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 3604cycles.

Figure 6.25: Directional deformation plot using cast iron material at 64Km/hr at
3604cycles b)Material 3 is cast iron.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at
6375cycles
 Figure 6.26: Directional deformation plot using cast iron material at 64Km/hr at 6375
cycles
c)Material 3 is cast iron.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 3604cycles

Figure 6;27: Directional deformation plot using cast iron material at 64Km/hr at 7172 cycles
6. 3 ANALYSIS OF CAR WITH HONEY COMB STRUCTURE
The current analysis is performed using honey comb structure between front bumper and
car body, while car body material is made of carbon steel.
The honeycomb structure is located between car body and front bumper as shown in figure
6.28 below. This honeycomb structures is useful for absorbing crash energy and prevent
passenger cabin from distortion.

Figure 6.28: Blended body structure with honey comb energy absorbent

6. 3.1 ANALYSIS OF CAR WITH HONEY COMB STRUCTURE WITH

MATERIAL 1

a)Material 1 is carbon steel.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at556 cycles
Figure 6.29: Directional deformation plot using carbon steel material at 64Km/hr at
556cycles
b)Material 1 is carbon steel.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 6095 cycle

Figure 6.30: Deformation of honeycomb structure and carbon steel at 6095 cycle
c)Material 1 is carbon steel. The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 8310 cycles

Figure 6.31: Deformation of honeycomb structure and carbon steel at 8310 cycle
d)Material 1 is carbon steel.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 11079cycles

Figure 6.32 Deformation of honeycomb structure and carbon steel at 11079 cycle
6. 3.2 ANALYSIS OF CAR WITH HONEY COMB STRUCTURE WITH
MATERIAL 2
a) Material 2 is aluminium alloy.The
velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 11079cycles

Figure 6.33 Maximum deformation using blended body and aluminium alloy at 2600 cycles

b)Material 2 is aluminium alloy.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at

9744cycles
Figure 6.34 Maximum deformation using blended body and aluminium alloy at 9744 cycles

c) Material 1 is aluminium alloy.The

velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 12342cycles

Figure 6.35 Maximum deformation using blended body and aluminium alloy at 12342 cycles

6.3.3 ANALYSIS OF CAR WITH HONEY COMB STRUCTURE FOR

MATERIAL 3
a)Material 3 is cast iron.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 4194cycles

Figure 6.36 Deformation curve using blended body and cast iron at 4194 cycle
b)Material 3 is cast iron.The velocity considered for analysis is 64km/hr at 6989cycles

Figure 6.37 Deformation curve using blended body and cast iron at 6989 cycle
CHAPTER 7
RESULT
7.1 QUASI STATIC ANALYSIS RESULT OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE
Quasistatic crash analysis is performed in CAD model of car using 3 materials namely
carbon steel and Aluminium ceramic composite and cast iron
7.1.1 QUASI STATIC ANALYSIS RESULT OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE
FOR MATERIAL 1
The material used for this analysis is carbon steel.
Equivalent stress generated after collision.The maximum value of equivalent stress is seen
frontal portion and quarter panel with value 3.29 * 1011The deformation values and
equivalent stress generated for each velocity are shown in table 7.1 below.
.Table 7.1 Eq stress and deformation at various velocities for carbon steel

Velocity Equivalent stress Deformation (m)

(Km/hr) (Pa)
32 6.58 * 1010 2.44
11
64 1.31 * 10 4.88
96 1.97 * 1011 7.32
128 2.63 * 1011 9.76
160 3.29 * 1011 12.05

EQUIVALENT STRESS(MPA)
EQUIVALENT STRESS(MPA)

350000

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000
32 64 VELOCIT9Y8(KM/HR) 128 160
0
7.2 equivalent stress with respect to velocity using carbon steel
The equivalent stresses increase linearly with velocity as can be seen in figure 7.2 above. The
increase in stress can be attributed to increase in impact force on vehicle. The equivalent
stress value is minimum for 32Km/hr and maximum for 160Km/h

DEFORMATION
14
DEFORMATION(M)

12

10

2 32 64 98 128 160
VELOCITY(KM/HR)
0

Graph 7.3 Deformation with respect to velocity using carbon steel

The deformation increase linearly with velocity as can be seen in figure 7.3 above. The
deformation value is minimum for 32Km/hr and maximum for 160Km/hr
7.1.2 QUASI STATIC ANALYSIS RESULT OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE
FOR MATERIAL 2
Material 2 is Aluminium ceramic composite
..Table 7.4 Eq stress and deformation at various velocities for Aluminium ceramic materials
Velocity Equivalent stress Deformation (m)
(Km/hr) (Pa)
32 6.48 * 1010 6.81
11
64 1.29 * 10 13.63
96 1.94 * 1011 20.45
128 2.59 * 1011 27.27
160 3.24 * 1011 34.09
The deformation values and equivalent stress generated for each velocity are shown in table
7.4 above
 DEFORMATION
40
DEFORMATION(M)

35

30

25

20

15

10

5
32 64 98 128 160
0 VELOCITY(KM/HR)

Graph7.5: Deformation with respect to velocity using Aluminium ceramic composite

EQUIVALENT STRESS(MPA)

EQUIVALENT STRESS(MPA)
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0

32 64 98 128 160
VELOCITY(KM/HR)

Graph 7.6: Equivalent stress with respect to velocity using Aluminium ceramic composite
The deformation increase linearly with velocity as can be seen in figure 7.6 above. The
deformation value is minimum for 32Km/hr and maximum for 160Km/h
7.1.3 QUASI STATIC ANALYSIS RESULT OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE
FOR MATERIAL 3
Material 3 is grey cast iron
Table 7.7: Eq stress and deformation at various velocities for grey cast iron materials

Velocity (Km/hr) Equivalent Stress (MPa) Deformation (m)

32 66259 4.458
64 133060 8.91
96 199590 13.37
128 266120 17.83
160 332640 22.91
EQUIVALENT STRESS(MPa)

EQUIVALENT STRESS(Mpa) cast iron

350000

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000
32 64 98 128 160
0 VELOCITY(Km/hr)

Graph ; 7.8 Equivalent stress with respect to velocity for cast iron material

Deformation (m)
25
Deformation (m)

20

15

10

32 64 98 128 160
VELOCITY(Km/hr)

Graph7.9: Deformation with respect to velocity for cast iron material

7.2 ANALYSIS RESULT CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE FOR DYNAMIC
CONDITION
Dynamic crash analysis is performed in CAD model of car using 3 materials namely carbon
steel and Aluminium ceramic composite, Cast iron
The deformation contour plots are derived for various time intervals/cycles using ANSYS LS
DYNA. The crash analysis is performed using crash barrier as per ENCAP standard testing
specifications at 64Km/hr speed. The analysis time is .005 secs, this time has been taken
depending on processor speed and computational time. Energy curves, displacement curves
are plotted.

7.2.1 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS RESULT CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE FOR

MATERIAL 1
Material 1 is carbon steel
Dynamic crash analysis is performed in CAD model of car using 2 materials namely carbon
steel and carbon steel . The properties of carbon steel material is provided in table7.10.
Table 7.10: Carbon steel material properties

DESITY (Kg/m3) 7850

ELASTIC MODULUS(GPa) 210
POISSON’S RATIO .28
TENSILE STRENGTH(MPa) 1882
YIELD STRENGTH(MPa) 758
The deformation contour plots are derived for various time intervals/cycles using ANSYS LS
DYNA.. The analysis time is .005 secs, this time has been taken depending on processor
speed and computational time. Energy curves, displacement curves are plotted.
Graph 7.11 : Max(green) and min(red) displacement curve at 64Km/hr

Directional deformation curve are plotted for maximum and minimum value for each time
cycle. The curve plot shows that maximum deformation increases with increase in time cycle.
The slight decrease in deformation in noticed after .035 secs and increases in further cycle.

Graph 7.12 : Energy curves at 64Km/hr using carbon steel material

The law of conservation of energy explains that energy inside a system cannot be created or
destroyed, and it can be transferred from one form into another without changing the Total
amount of energy. Considering mechanical systems, such as the vehicle systems, the
absorbed work or internal energy of a system cannot exceed the work input. In theory,
internal energy is equal to the work (E) done by external Forces on the system, which is equal
to the product of the exerted force (F) and the distance (d) through which the force moves:
During the impact of a vehicle, its kinetic energy is predominantly transformed into plastic
deformation of the respective structures, for which the internal energy can be calculated.
Kinetic energy at initial contact = 354770J

Kinetic energy by end = 35806J

Energy absorption factor = 354770/35806=9.9
Graph 7.13: Momentum gradually decreases with time or cycles
The de-acceleration curve shows an increase in acceleration initially as the vehicle body
makes first contact with barrier and reduces thereafter. This holds for both positive and
negative acceleration of entire body. The maximum deacceleration is 3.74e6 m/s2
experienced by car body.

Graph 7.14 Momentum gradually decreases with time or cycles

The momentum curve for Z direction (red colour) as shown in figure 7.15 shows higher
magnitude of 39929 N-s which corresponds to initial contact with barrier which gradually
decreases near to zero by end time. The impulse increases from zero during initial contact
reduces to -46083 N-s by end of collision

7.2.2 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS RESULT OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE FOR

MATERIAL 2
Material 2 is aluminium alloy composite material.

Graph 7.15: Energy plot using aluminium alloy composite material at 64Km/hr

Graph 7.16: Deformation using aluminium alloy composite material at 64Km/hr

From energy plot shown in figure 7.16 above shows that aluminium car body has very low
energy absorption characteristics. The kinetic energy at initial contact is 165840J and kinetic
energy after impact is nearly 151520J throughout entire collision course. As the aluminium
material absorbs very low energy, the remaining energy is causes very large deformation
which is evident from figure 7.16 above which goes up to .2165m.
Graph 7.17: Deacceleration using aluminium alloy material at 64Km/h

The deacceleration value obtained for Aluminium material shows comparatively higher value
than carbon steel. The deacceleration value is 5.797e6 m/sec 2. Higher deacceleration value
possess higher risk of injury to passengers and damages the car.

For improved frontal car safety, it is necessary to design a structure that absorbs enough
energy in each realistic crash situation. To protect the occupants, the passenger compartment
should not be deformed and intrusion must be avoided too. To prevent excessive deceleration
levels, the available deformation distance in front of the passenger compartment must be used
completely for a predetermined crash velocity. This implies that in a given vehicle concept
the structure must have a specific stiffness.

7.2.3 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS RESULT OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE FOR

MATERIAL 3
Material 3 is cast iron material.
Graph 7.18 Directional deformation curve using cast iron material at 64Km/hr at 7172 cycles

Graph 7.19 Directional deformation curve using cast iron material at 64Km/hr at 7172cycle

Graph 7.20 Directional acceleration curve using cast iron material at 64Km/hr at 7172 cycles
7.3.3 ANALYSIS RESULT WITH HONEYCOMB STRUCTURE FOR MATERIAL 3

From energy plot shown in figure 7.21 above shows that cast iron car body has very high
energy absorption characteristics. The kinetic energy at initial contact is 314230J and kinetic
energy after impact is nearly 31805J throughout entire collision course. As the cast iron
materia absorbs high energy, the remaining energy is causes very low deformation which is
evident from figure 7.21 above which goes up to .0089 m.

7.3 ANALYSIS RESULT FOR HONEYCOMB STRUCTURE

The current analysis is performed using honey comb structure between front bumper and
car body, while car body material is made of carbon steel.The deformation graph shows
maximum value of 54.08mm. It is noteworthy that the car structure doesn’t experience
any damage or deformation. The whole deformation can be seen in honeycomb structure
only. Car body deformation is only due to initial motion and no distortion.

7.3.1 ANALYSIS RESULT FOR HONEYCOMB STRUCTURE FOR MATERIAL 1

Material 1is carbon steel composite material.

Graph 7.21 : Blended body structure with honey comb energy absorbent and carbon steel

The energy summary curve for blended body structure using honeycomb is shown in figure
7.21 above. Honeycomb structure has considerably reduced kinetic energy of vehicle and
shown excellent energy absorption characteristics shown by purple colour. Initial kinetic
energy of vehicle was 439680J which is reduced to 351770J. Hourglass energy has also
increased as compared to Aluminium ceramic materials and carbons steel material. The use
of honeycomb structure has been successful in safeguarding the entire car body from damage
which include crack initiation or propagation
Graph 7.22: Maximum deformation using blended body and carbon steel

The deformation graph plotted in figure 7.26 above shows that increase in value with time
/cycles. The maximum deformation after impact is 54.08mm which is experienced by
honeycomb structure only.

Graph 7.23 Maximum deformation using blended body and carbon steel

The maximum deacceleration value corresponds to honeycomb structure which experiences

rapid deformation due to collision from crash barrier. The deacceleration value is zero at
instant of first contact with barrier then shoots up and reduces thereafter the value shows ups
and down with almost constant magnitude which goes up to last collision cycle.

7.3.2 ANALYSIS RESULT OF CAR WITH HONEY COMB STRUCTURE WITH

MATERIAL 2
a)Material 2 is aluminium alloy

Figure 7.24: Energy absorption curve using blended body and aluminium alloy

The energy summary curve for blended body structure using honeycomb is shown in figure
7.24 above. Honeycomb structure has considerably reduced kinetic energy of vehicle and
shown excellent energy absorption characteristics shown by purple colour. Initial kinetic
energy of vehicle was 205690J which is reduced to 123430J. Hourglass energy has also
increased as compared to Aluminium ceramic materials and carbons steel material. The use
of honeycomb structure has been successful in safeguarding the entire car body from damage
which include crack initiation or propagation.
Graph 7.25 Deformation curve using blended body and aluminium alloy

The deformation graph plotted in figure 7.25 above shows that increase in value with time
/cycles. The maximum deformation after impact is 54.19mm which is experienced by
honeycomb structure only.

7.3.3 ANALYSIS RESULT WITH HONEYCOMB STRUCTURE FOR MATERIAL 3

Material 3 is cast iron.

Graph 7.26: Energy absorption curve using blended body and cast iron
 Graph 7.27: Deformation curve using blended body and cast iron
The energy summary curve for blended body structure using honeycomb is shown in figure
7.27 above. Honeycomb structure has considerably reduced kinetic energy of vehicle and
shown excellent energy absorption characteristics shown by purple colour. Initial kinetic
energy of vehicle was 3991250J which is reduced to 319320J. Hourglass energy has also
increased as compared to Aluminium ceramic materials and carbons steel material. The use
of honeycomb structure has been successful in safeguarding the entire car body from damage
which include crack initiation or propagation. The deformation graph plotted in figure 7.27
above shows that increase in value with time /cycles. The maximum deformation after

7.4 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS RESULT OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE IN

QUASI STATIC CONDITION
 Equivalent Stress(MPa) Equivalent Stress (MPa)
350000

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0
32 64 96 128 160
Velocity (m/s)

Graph 7.28 : Equivalent stress comparison for both materials at different speeds

Both deformation and stresses increase linearly with velocity. This is due to increase in
impact force. The maximum value of deformation is 27m which signifies complete crushing
of vehicle along the length and maximum stress generated is 3.24 * 10 11 Pa. which is lower
than that of carbon steel.

7.5 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS RESULT OF CAR NORMAL STRUCTURE IN

DYNAMIC CONDITION

Table 7.29: Energy absorption and deformation from crash analysis

Material Energy Absorption (Joules) Deformation(m)

Carbon Steel 318964 .0063

Aluminium Alloy 14320 .2165

Cast Iron 282425 .0089

 Energy Absorption (Joules)

350000
Energy Absorption

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

Carbon Steel Aluminium Alloy Cast Iron

Material
Energy Absorption (Joules)

Graph 7.30 : Energy absorption using different materials for impact analysis

The energy absorption using different material that is carbon ,aluminium and cast iron is
plotted obtained from analysis The energy absorption for carbon steel, is found to be more
than Aluminum ceramic composite and cast iron for all velocities of impact.

Deformation(m)
0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
Carbon Steel Aluminium Alloy Cast Iron

Deformation(m)
 Graph 7.31 : Deformation comparision for different materials for impact analysis

Deformation comparison graph 7.31 above is shown above shows that deformation for
carbon steel is lowest , deformation of aluminium ceramic composite is maximum

The crash analysis performed under quasi-static condition shows larger deformation of car
body made from aluminium ceramic composite material, thereby resulting in complete
distortion of body structure. Use of carbon steel for car body shows lower deformations in car
body and higher stresses with better energy absorption characteristics.

7.6. COMARATIVE ANALYSIS RESULT WITH HONEYCOMB STRUCTURE

Table 7.32: Results from crash analysis using blended body (honey comb)

Material Energy Absorption (Joules) Deformation(m)

Carbon Steel 87910 54.08

Aluminium Alloy 82260 54.19

Cast Iron 79800 53.96

Energy Absorption (Joules)

90000
88000
86000
Energy (J)

84000
82000
80000
78000
76000
74000
Carbon Steel Aluminium Alloy Cast Iron
Car body materials

Energy Absorption (Joules)

Graph 7.33: Energy absorption comparison for different car materials using honeycomb

From above graph it is clear that energy absorption is more case of carbon steel and is less in
case of aluminium alloy and lower in case of cast iron.
 Deformation (mm) Deformation(mm)
54.25
54.2
54.15
54.1
54.05
54
53.95
53.9
53.85
53.8

Carbon Steel Aluminium Alloy Cast Iron

Car body materials

Deformation(mm)

Graph 7.34: Deformation comparison for different car materials using honeycomb

Deformation is more in case aluminium alloy from graph given and less in case cast iron and
moderate in case carbon steel
 CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSION & FUTURE SCOPE

 7.1 CONCLUSION

Finite Element Method serves as an important tool for providing solutions to engineering
problems saving time, money and replication of cases with changed variables. Crash analysis
of Ford Explorer car is performed using ANSYS software. Two different methodologies are
used for analysis, quasi-static and explicit crash dynamics. The detailed results are as follows:

1. By quasi static analysis, aluminum ceramic composite developed less equivalent

stress as compared to structural steel.
2. The deformation observed for external body using Aluminum ceramic composite is
more than carbon steel material.
3. The internal energy absorption by carbon steel is more than aluminum ceramic
composite thereby crash energy is absorbed more by carbon steel.
4. The kinetic energy reduction is more in carbon steel as compared to aluminum
ceramic composite.
5. Due to low internal energy absorption the deformation in aluminum ceramic
composite is higher than carbon steel.
6. The deacceleration value of aluminum ceramic composite material is higher as
compared to carbon steel posing higher risk.
7. Pseudo static analysis and crash analysis shows that carbon steel material exhibits
better material as compared to aluminum ceramic composite. But weight of carbon
steel material is higher therefore building whole body with carbon steel would make it
heavy and effect the mileage of vehicle.
8. Application of honeycomb structure between front bumper and car body greatly
reduces crash energy to a considerable extend. Thus, prevents car body from
distortion or deformation.
9. The optimized solution to achieve weight reduction without compromise in safety of
vehicle is to use combination of carbon steel, honey comb structure and aluminum
ceramic composite for different parts of vehicles.
7.2 FUTURE SCOPE

The car body materials require further research for reduction of weight and improved crash
properties. To achieve this purpose combination of various materials like polymer composite,
matrix composite and glass fibres requires research.
9 REFERENCES
REFERENCES

[1] J.L. Gerberding, H. Falk, and I. Arias, „CDC Injury Fact Book‟, National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006, USA.
[2] Volvo Car Corporation, (2011), 2012 Volvo S60 Body Structure [ONLINE]. Available at:
http://boronextrication.com/2011/08/2012-volvo-s60-body-structure/ [Accessed 24th April
2012].
[3] D.P. Wood and C.K. Simms, „Car size and injury risk: a model for injury risk in frontal
collisions‟, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol.34, Issue 1, pp:93–99, 2002.
[4] Huibers, J.; de Beer, E. (2001): Current front stiffness of European vehicles with regard to
compatibility. Automotive Crash Safety Centre, Netherlands. Paper No. ID#239.
[5] P. Griđkevičius and A. Žiliukas, „The crash energy absorption of the vehicles front
structure‟, Journal of the Transportation, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, pp. 97:101, 2003.
[6] Don o. Brush, Bo O. A1mroth. "Buckling of Bars, Plates and Shells," McGraw-Hill, Inc.
1975.
[7] S. Ishiyama, T. Nishimura, and Y. Tsuchiya. "Impact Response of Thin-walled Plane
Frame Structures," International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 1, Issue 3 (1988) 227 -
247.
[8] N. Jones, T. Wierzbicki. "Structural Crashworthiness and Failure," Elsevier Science
Publishers Ltd., 1993.
[9] A. G. Mamalis, D. E. Manolakos, G. A. Demosthenous, and M. B. Ioannidis.
"Crashworthiness of Composite Thin-walled Structural Components," Technomic Publishing
Company, Inc., 1998.
[10] H. S. Kim, T. Wierzbicki. "Crush Behavior of Thin-walled Prismatic Columns under
Combined Bending and Compression," Computers and Structures 79 (2001) 14171432.C.
[11] A. A. A. Alghmadi. "Folding-crumpling of Thin-walled Aluminum Frusta,"
International Journal of Crash worth iness, Vol. 7, No.1 (2002).
[12] T. Belytschko. "On Computational Methods for Crashworthiness," Computers and
Structures, Vol. 42, No.2 (1992) 271-279.
[13] A. Toyama, K. Hatano, and E. Murakami. "Numerical Analysis of Vehicle Frontal Crash
Phenomena," SAE Technical Paper Series, 920357.
[14] U. N. Gandhi and S. J. Hu. "Data-based Approach in Modeling Automobile Crash,"
International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 16, No.1 (1995) 95 - 118.
[15] Cosme, A. Ghasemi, and J. Gandevia. "Application of Computer Aided Engineering in
the Design of Heavy-duty Truck Frames," Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), 1999-01-
3760.
[16] H. Nishigaki, S. Nishiwaki, T. Amage, Y. Kojima, and N. Kikuchi. "First Order
Analysis - New CAE Tools for Automotive Body Designers," SAE, 2001-01-0768.
[17] O. C. Zienkiewicz. "The Finite Element Method in Engineering Science," McGrawHill,
Inc., 1971.
[18] B. G. Prustyand S. K. Satsangi. "Finite Element Buckling Analysis of Laminated
Composite Stiffened Shells," International Journal of Crashworthiness, Vol. 6, No. 4 (2001)
471 - 483.
[19] C. B. W. Pedersen, "Topology Optimization for Crashworthiness of Frame Structures,"
International Journal of Crashworthiness, Vol. 8, No.1 (2003) 29 - 39.
[20] S. W. Kirkpatrick, J. W. Simons, and T. H. Antoun. "Development and Validation of
High Fidelity Vehicle Crash Simulation Models," International Journal of Crashworthiness'98
- International Crashworthiness Conference.
[21] J. M. Gonzalez, C. D. Kan, and N. E. Bedewi. "Versatility and Limitations ofa Fully
Detailed Finite Element Model of a 1997 Dodge Grand Caravan for Crashworthiness
Application," Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc., 2000-01-062.
[22] D. Lawver, L. Nicodym, D. Tennant, and H. Levine. "Nonlinear Numerical Modeling of
Aircraft Impact," International Journal of Crash worthiness, Vol. 6, No. 4 (2001) 451 - 469.
[23] Z. Q. Chen, J. G. Thacker, W. D. Pilkey, W. T. Hollowell, S. W. Reagan, and E. M.
Sieveka. "Experiences in Reverse-engineering of a Finite Element Automobile Crash Model,"
Finite Elements in Analysis and Design, 37 (2001) 843 - 860.
[24] A. Eghilmi and J. D. Yang. "Collapsible Signpost Design Optimization for Car Crash
Impact and Wind Loading," http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/pdf/CANCES Final.pdf.
[25] Y. M. Jin. "Analysis and Evaluation of Minivan Body Structure Finite Element
Methods," http://www.mscsoftware.com/support/library/conf/autoOO/p005OO.pdf.
[26] M. H. Ray. "Impact Conditions in Side-impact Collisions with Fixed Roadside Objects,"
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31 (1999) 21 - 30.
[27] J. A. Zukas and D. R. Scheffler. "Practical Aspects of Numerical Simulations of
Dynamic Events: Effects of Meshing," International Journal of Impact Engineering, 24
(2000) 925 - 945.
[28] B. Canaple, G. P. Rungen, E. Markiewicz, P. Drazetic, J. H. Smith, B. P. Chinn, D.
Cesario "Impact Model Development for the Reconstruction of Current Motorcycle
Accidents," International Journal of Crash worthiness, Vol. 7, No.3 (2002) 307320.
[29] P. Drazetic, E. Markiewicz, and Y. Ravalard. "Application of Kinematic Models to
Compression and Bending in Simplified Crash Calculation," International Journal of
Mechanical Science, Vol. 35, No. % (1993) 179 - 191.
[30] Ford Motor Company. "Guidelines for Modeling an Automobile Body for NVH
Analysis - Simplified Models" (1995).
[31]R. J. Brooks and A. M. Tobias. "Choosing the Best Model: Level of Detail, Complexity,
and Model Performance," Mathematical Computer Modeling, Vol. 24, No. 44 (1996) 1 -14.
[32] H. S. Kim, S. Y. Kang, I. H. Lee, S. H. Park, and D. C. Han. "Vehicle Frontal
Crashworthiness Analysis by Simplified Structure Modeling using Nonlinear Spring and
Beam Elements," International Journal of Crashworthiness, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1997) lO7 -117.
[33] A. K. Aaouk, N. E. Bedewi, C. D. Kan, and D. Marzougui. "Development and
Evaluation of a C-1500 Pick-up Truck Model for Roadside Hardware Impact Simulation,"
[34] A. Elmarakbi and J. Zu, „Incremental harmonic balance method for analysis of
standard/smart vehicle-to-rigid-barrier frontal collision‟, Int. J. of Vehicle Safety, Vol. 2, No.
3, pp: 288 – 315, 2007.
[35] A. Elmarakbi, „dynamic modeling and analysis of vehicle's smart front -end structure for
frontal collision‟, PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, 2004.
10 ANNEXURE