ME 155 Project

A Full Frontal Impact Simulation of an Electric Car Chassis

Assembly using ANSYS 12.0™

Cueto, Dean Paul R.

2006 – 18308

BS Mechanical Engineering

University of the Philippines

Sir Gerald Jo Denoga

Adviser
 ME 155 Project

Abstract
Impact simulations forecast a vehicle’s reaction upon collision. It is a crucial selection
measure of vehicles to assure driver safety. A chassis assembly of an electric car is the model
utilized for the simulation using a powerful software, ANSYS 12.0. Discretization of the assembly
is done so as to run the FEA analysis on the chassis. Varying input parameters are allocated prior
to simulation; these factors are the basis for the solution process to take place. Tolerable values
of impact force and g-force are used in comparison to the deformations obtained. This will
dictate whether the driver can survive the crash per given initial velocity. Crash testing is highly
needed in the evaluation of vehicles produced; furthermore, having it simulated would pre-
process the results before setting up an actual one. From there, both the results of the
simulation and the actual one can be compared and assessed.

I. Introduction
Crashworthiness is a vital criterion when designing, evaluating and selecting a vehicle; it
is the ability of the vehicle to survive a collision and to prevent its occupants from injuries in
the event of a vehicular accident. Nowadays, vehicle manufacturers mainly use computer
modeling and simulations in the development of their new designs. Impact simulations provide
feedback on system performance. As such they present opportunities for improvements and
countermeasure development to prevent recurrence of similar events. Vehicles’
crashworthiness should really be inherent in the design.

Electric cars are relatively new to the market as compared to the conventional internal
combustion automobiles. As it became popular in the late-19th century and early 20th century,
advances in internal combustion engine technology and mass production of cheaper gasoline
vehicles took its toll in these cars and led to a decline in the use of electric drive vehicle.
However, the energy crises in the 70s and 80s created an abrupt interest in electric cars, but
around 20 years later there was a renewed interest in the production of electric cars due mainly
to concerns about rapidly increasing oil prices and the need to control and
eradicate greenhouse gas emissions. That is why; it is a great area of interest on how these cars
will behave when subjected to a computer simulation.

The main objective of this project is to test and analyze the crashworthiness of the
electric car chassis assembly through a computer simulation. It is through this diligent
investigation of the structure that future accidents can be forecasted and areas for
improvement are discovered and discerned. Reliability of gathered data is verified.
 ME 155 Project

II. Crash Test Assembly

a. Chassis Assembly

The chassis of an electric car will be the focus of this project. In particular, the double
wishbone chassis assembly is utilized for the simulation. This design was made by the previous
students of ME 155; thus it is guaranteed that this project will be the pioneer in the impact
analysis of that chassis assembly. It is important to note that electric cars are quite heavy than
an equivalent gasoline vehicle due to high density and weight of the electric batteries.

Figure 1 Double Wishbone Chassis Assembly

i. Redesigning

The double wishbone chassis was initially modeled as a multi-assembly design. This
was done so that there will be ease in manufacture and transportation once fabricated.
However, a problem was encountered
when importing these types of files in
ANSYS due to a large memory it
possessed. Thus, the chassis assembly
was redesigned to one rigid body shown
in Figure 1.

ii. Added Features

In order to fully grasp the

response of the assembly to humans
when situated to a crash simulation,

Figure 2 New Chassis Assembly

 ME 155 Project
modeled car seats are mounted to the chassis through a thin plate (Fig2).

iii. Material Selection

Numerous materials for chassis manufacture are available in the market. Selection
criteria considered for the tubes and plates include high stiffness, lightweight, low Young’s
modulus, and low density at the same time with relatively minimal cost upon purchase. No
material can have exemplary qualities in all the given parameters, but on the average,
aluminum is acceptable. Thus, the use of aluminum in the chassis assembly was utilized.

b. Fixed Wall

One of the factors in a successful crash test simulation is when the crash wall
exhibits a minimal deformation during impact. Thus, the modeled wall is relatively large in
terms of its dimensions as compared to the chassis assembly. A reinforced concrete best suits
the material make-up of the wall.

III. Impact Simulation

ANSYS 12.0 is a powerful and complex tool in performing structural and thermal
simulations. It is comprised of various applications including ANSYS Workbench, and AUTODYN.
These areas will be further discussed since these are the tools used for the simulation.

a. Process Diagram

ANSYS Workbench

Explicit Dynamics

ANSYS AUTODYN
 ME 155 Project
b. Simulation Stages

i. ANSYS Workbench

This work area holds various tools necessary for the analysis. It provides
powerful methods for interacting with the different ANSYS applications. This environment
provides a unique integration with CAD systems, and their respective design process. One of
these powerful tools is the Explicit Dynamics.

ii. Explicit Dynamics

The actual simulation process happened here wherein the entry fields;
namely, Engineering Data, Geometry, and Model were defined completely. Proper input of
parameters was observed prior to the Setup being generated.

• Engineering Data

This is where the chassis assembly was defined as stainless steel and crash wall are as
structural steel. Since ANSYS have diverse Materials Library, properties of steel is already
available.

• Geometry

The double wishbone assembly and

the crash wall were modeled using
Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 4.0. Additional
members in the chassis needed for the
crash test simulation are likewise modeled
there. This new assembly is the external
geometry file imported in the ANSYS
Workbench. Conversion of file types from
Assembly (*.asm) to IGES (*.igs) file is
deemed necessary such that the model
will be compatible to the new work area.
Figure 3 Import File

• Model

Material Contact Initial

Mesh
Assignment Regions Conditions
 ME 155 Project
The parameters for the crash test simulation were defined in this field. Chassis was
allocated to be aluminum and wall as concrete. There were 82 contact regions in the chassis
assembly which were assigned as Bonded type. Bonded means the structures in contact are
rigid and frictionless. However, contact regions between the wall and chassis were omitted
since there should be no contact between them prior to impact.

The mesh, on the other hand, is another crucial part in the simulation. Discretization of
the chassis and wall allowed detailed visualization of the areas in the geometries involved in the
crash test where it crumpled and underwent plastic deformation. Also, the distribution of
stresses and displacements were
shown.

Mesh Element Size: 0.1m

Geometry: Number Number

of of
Nodes: Elements:
Chassis 16593 35778
Wall 5859 4800

Several initial conditions

were set prior to impact; namely,
standard earth gravity acting Figure 5 Mesh Assembly
downwards, a fixed support at the
back of the wall so that it won’t be
displaced upon contact of the
assemblies, a force of 5260 N
acting downwards (accounted for
the accumulated weights of two
car seats – 1480 N, chassis – 1580
N, and the battery – 2200 N), and
lastly a velocity of 100m/s is
assigned to the chassis assembly
acting on the axis pinning through
the wall. The car seat weight is
assumed to be of human so that
impact effects to the car seat can Figure 4 Assembly with Initial Conditions
represent its effect to humans.
 ME 155 Project
• Setup

Once the parameters were completely defined, the assembly can be generated for the
simulation to take place. Post processing items such as plots of deformations and stresses
occured were acquired in this module for better analysis of the solution.

iii. ANSYS AUTODYN

This the Solver Module of the program where in the conditions set were
applied to the chassis-wall assembly and the collision is simulated and solved. Local
deformations in the chassis were computed; from there, deceleration of the car and the critical
area (where the car seats are situated) can be solved.

IV. Results
Acquired Parameters:
𝑔𝑔
Aluminum Density: 2.8
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 3

𝑔𝑔
Concrete Density: 2.3
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 3

Chassis (Volume): 1.3𝑥𝑥107 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚3

Wall (Volume): 4.48𝑥𝑥109 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚3

As a result the weights of the chassis, car seats, and the wall were computed; 1580N,
1480N, and 3.7x105N respectively. These values were used in setting up the initial conditions
prior to simulation.

Approach:

Series of simulations using ANSYS were done to find various deformations of the chassis.
Parameters such as the initial speed and collision time were varied to come up with respective
deformations. An inevitable limiting factor is the simulation time as you increase the collision
time in the test. An input of multiples of 10-4 s correspond to a full hour of simulation; however
multiples of 10-3 s correspond to a 14-22 hours of simulation time. To answer this problem, 4
desktops were used for a total of 9 simulations.

Assumptions:

Car did not decelerate prior to impact.

Car seat in the assembly represents a human passenger

 ME 155 Project
Varying Parameters:

Initial velocity of chassis

Collision time

Governing Equations:

Eq.1: 𝑉𝑉𝑓𝑓 2 − 𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 2 = 2𝑎𝑎∆𝑥𝑥 (where x is the distance displaced or deformation)

𝑚𝑚 𝑉𝑉 𝑖𝑖 2
Eq.2: 𝐾𝐾𝐾𝐾 = − (negative since final KE is zero)
2

Pre-defined Values:

a.) Initial Velocity: 𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖 = 27.78 m/s; 19 m/s; 13m/s

b.) Human Weight: m = 70kg

Criteria for survivability:

a.) Maximum tolerable g-force = 45g1

b.) Maximum tolerable impact force = 44.7 KN (normal body weight of 76kg) 2

AUTODYN Generated Results:

Collision time as a function of various parameters with a given initial velocity;

V = 27.78m/s

Collision time (s) Deformation (car Deceleration (car G-force Impact force
seat area; m) seat area; m/s2) experienced experienced (KN)
(m/s2)
0.0001 0.0029 133,056 13,560 9313
0.0002 0.0064 60,291 6000 4220
0.002 0.102 3782 385 264.7

V = 19 m/s

Collision time (s) Deformation (car Deceleration (car G-force Impact force
seat area; m) seat area; m/s2) experienced experienced (KN)
(m/s2)
0.0001 0.0019 133,056 13,560 9313
0.0002 0.003737 48300 4923 3381
0.002 0.14664 8417 858 589
 ME 155 Project

V = 13 m/s

Collision time (s) Deformation (car Deceleration (car G-force Impact force
seat area; m) seat area; m/s2) experienced experienced (KN)
(m/s2)
0.0001 0.0016 52,812 5383 3696
0.0002 0.0029 29,137 2970 2039
0.002 0.307 275 28.05 19.25

Figure 6 Results at 40kph; collision time 0.0002s

 ME 155 Project

Figure 7 Results at 40kph; collision time 0.0001s

Figure 8 Results at 40kph; collision time 0.002s

 ME 155 Project
The reliability of the gathered data presented was erratic. Huge discrepancy of values was
observed. Thus, another approach in the simulation was done.

Approach 2:

The simulation focused only on 13 m/s as the initial velocity. Furthermore, the use of collision
times (10 -5 multiples with an increasing 0.00001s increment) was utilized to actually see the of
the deformation of the chassis assembly.

Simulated Results:

Average time to simulate one datum point is about 50 minutes.

Figure 9 Various Parameters as a function of collision time

 ME 155 Project

0.0045

0.004

0.0035

0.003
Deformation, m

0.0025

0.002
Series1
0.0015

0.001

0.0005

0
0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025
Collision Time, s

Figure 10 Deformation as a function of collision time

700000

600000

500000
Deceleration, m/s2

400000

300000 Power (Series1)

200000 y = 1.040x-1.13

100000

0
0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025
Collision Time,s

Figure11 Deceleration as a function of collision time

 ME 155 Project

700000

600000

500000
Deceleration, m/s2

400000

300000 Series1
Power (Series1)
200000
y = 84.5x-1

100000

0
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045
Deformation, m

Figure 12 Deceleration as a function of deformation

ME 155 Project
 ME 155 Project

The simulations above were taken at t = 0.01ms, 0.05ms, 0.1ms and 0.2 ms respectively.

The trend in the graphs shown above is that when collision time is increased the deformation
increases as well in a very fast rate while the deceleration of the car slows down.

V. Data Analysis

Front impact structures absorb energy through progressive longitudinal deformation

during impact. Thin walled tubes were used in the assembly, the crushing force causes a
progressive buckling of the walls during deformation, which proceeds down the length of the
tube.
The larger the mass M, the smaller the final kinetic energy, and the more energy
0must be absorbed in the collision. The wall can be considered to be of essentially infinite mass
(with a mass of 110,400 N as compared to that of the chassis assembly – 1860 N), the final
kinetic energy is zero, and the full kinetic energy initial was absorbed in the collision.
During car crash very important is absorption of impact energy. Energy absorption
was influenced by the elapsed time of deceleration. Deceleration appears during car crash and
depends on velocity of car in moment of crash, elapsed time of crash and construction of
 ME 155 Project
vehicle. Moreover, deceleration could be responsible for injuries of driver and passengers of
vehicle during collisions.
As the collision time is increased, deformation of the car increases while the
deceleration experienced by the car seat is lessened. Thus, survivability of humans upon
impact increases as well. This proven the reliability of the data observed from 0.01 ms to
0.023ms.
Some limitations posed were the virtual low memory the computer has when
simulating the impact test that lead to self termination of the solving process. Also, the
relatively large solution processing time of the software exhaust the RAM of the computer.
Decelerations observed in an actual crash are usually categorized as tolerable,
injurious, or fatal. Tolerable forces may produce bruises and abrasions but do not incapacitate.
Injurious forces result in moderate to severe trauma, including fractures and injuries to internal
organs such as liver, spleen, and brain, which may or may not incapacitate.

VI. Conclusion

Impact simulations has indeed revolutionized the analysis on a vehicle’s

crashworthiness. It is through modeling the design then subjecting it to powerful computer
programs upon which results of the crash test can be analyzed before really performing an
actual test.
The series of simulations showed that large impact velocities from about 70kph to
100 kph, passengers will face instant death experiencing to thousands of g.

VII. Recommendations
Crash structures dissipate energy through plastic deformation. An ideal material for
a crash structure should have high plastic work capacity, while being as light as possible. Figure
3 suggests that Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) could be a very promising material for
specific energy absorption, particularly for progressive axial crushing since it has the highest
energy dissipation for unit volume. Therefore an optimally designed CFRP crash structure would
likely be significantly lighter than a conventional steel structure currently in use. Installations of
materials of this type to critical areas in the chassis; front, side and rear will definitely increase
the survivability of humans upon impact. (Fig9)
 ME 155 Project
A continuing experiment of this project could focus on the increase value of about
0.01 s to about 0.1s in the collision time corresponding to various initial velocities. A drawback
lies on the processing time of the software to about 500 hours; but this is not a problem when
supercomputers are in the midst.

Figure 9 Comparison of energy dissipation of various materials

 ME 155 Project
References:

Stapp JP, Gell CF (August 1951). "Human exposure to linear declarative force in the backward
and forward facing seated positions". Mil Surg 109 (2): 106–9. PMID 14852638. 1

Bronzino, Joseph D. (2000), The Biomedical Engineering Handbook; 2nd Ed., Volume 1. 2

Ashby, M.F., Evans, A.G., Fleck, N.A., Gibson, L.J., Hutchinson, J.W., Wadley, H.N.G. (2000),
Metal Foams: A Design Guide, Butterworth Heinemann.

Carruth, Mark, “Design Optimization Case Study: Car Structures”, University of Cambridge

“Ask Dr. Math”; http://mathforum.org/, (1994-2009) Drexel University

Akins, Ellen. "Safety in Small Cars: Volvo's Safety Ride Down Concept." Ford Motor Company.

Bolles, Bob. "Stock Car Safety - A Refresher Course." Circle Track. (Aug. 1, 2008)

"Full Size Electric Vehicles". Idaho National Laboratory. 30 May 2006. Retrieved 2009-04-25.

Shigley, Joseph E., and Mischke Charles R., Mechanical Engineering Design 6th Edition, Mc
Graw Hill, 2001.

ANSYS 12.0 Training Manual

Web Sources:

http://desperadocycles.com/The_Lowdown_On_Tubing/Crispin_Mount_Miller_Tubing_
Rigidity.pdf

http://www.hondaev.org/batt.html

http://www.thermospokenhere.com/wp/03_tsh/C258___drunk/drunk.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car