The Use of Inertia Relief to Estimate Impact Loads

Author(s): Mark F. Nelson and Joseph A. Wolf Jr.

Source: SAE Transactions , 1977, Vol. 86, Section 3: 770404–770718 (1977), pp. 2237-2243
Published by: SAE International

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44644543

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

SAE International is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to SAE
Transactions

This content downloaded from

85.229.184.213 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:33:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS why analysts are
often reluctant to perform transient dynamic
analyses for impact problems. First, the cost
may be prohibitive; and second, the results may
be questionable due to the influence of the
high frequency modes. In real life much of the
high frequency response of these modes is
suppressed by damping in the structure. Yet,
for impact studies, these high frequency modes
often yield low-frequency stress components, and
thus to suppress them in the analysis might lead
to erroneous results.
One way to partially overcome these prob-
lems is to use the method of inertia relief.
This is an approximate analytical technique,
used by the aerospace industry for many years
[2,6]*, which will yield exact results if the
periods of the dynamic loads are much greater
than the periods of the modes of interest in
the structure. Under these conditions, one
need only compute the inertia forces due to
these applied loads, superimpose them on the
existing loads, and then solve the problem
statically.
The question arises, however, as to how
good this technique is when the assumption
&
Numbers in brackets designate References at
end of paper.
The method of inertia relief can provide a
very inexpensive way of calculating dynamic
forces in a structure. In order to perform an
inertia relief analysis, an analyst must first
select single values to represent the force
time histories which are applied to the struc-
ture. These forces are then applied to a
partially or totally unrestrained structure
(i.e., free-free), and the resulting rigid body
accelerations are calculated. From these
accelerations and the mass of the structure,
the inertia forces can be calculated at all
points in the structure and then applied along
with the original forces. Finally, the struc-
ture is restrained from rigid body motion, and
a conventional static analysis is performed.
If the periods of the applied loads are
much greater than the periods of those modes
that would be excited in the structure, this
2237
0096-736X/78/8603-2237$02.50
Copyright © 1978 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
This content downloaded from
85.229.184.213 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:33:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
770604
The Use of Inertia Relief
to Estimate Impact Loads
Mark F. Nelson and Joseph A. Wolf, Jr.
Research Labs, General Motors Corp.
given above is violated; that is, when the
period of the loads is near the structure's
periods. Through simple examples this paper
will seek to give some insight into this and to
suggest guidelines for using this technique.
The next section examines the theory of inertia
relief, and the section following it looks at
the results of various examples.
The final section illustrates how inertia
relief can be used to determine the loads from
a low-speed frontal barrier impact such as
might be used for certifying bumpers (Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 215). The vehicle
in this illustration is a space frame composed
of welded tubular elements so as to represent
the geometry of a subcompact car. This tech-
nique has been used in the design of an experi-
mental vehicle [1].
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
In order to perform an inertia relief
analysis, an analyst must first select single
values to represent the force time histories
which are applied to the structure. These
forces are then applied to a partially or
approximate technique is exact. However,
should the periods of the loads be close to
those of interest in the structure, then the
results are not nearly as good.
Several examples are examined to determine
the accuracy of the inertia relief method.
The dynamic responses of simple series- and
parallel-connected spring-mass systems are
analyzed and compared with inertia relief
calculations. An important conclusion is that
for masses connected in series, the error in
the inertia relief results increases as one
gets farther from the applied load. The final
example is a space frame structure composed of
welded tubular elements and representing a
subcompact vehicle geometry. It is subjected
to a load which is similar to that resulting
from the 8 km/h (5 mph) bumper impact safety
standard.
 2238 M. F. NELSON AND J. A. WOLF, JR.

totally unrestrained structure (i.e., free-

free) , and the resulting rigid body accelera-
tions are then calculated. From these accelera- f m - »-Q
tions and the mass of the structure, the inertia
am K m
forces can then be calculated at all points in
the structure and then applied along with the Fig. 1 - Two degree of freedom example
original forces. Now the structure is restrain-
ed from rigid body motion, and a conventional
static analysis is performed. am K m
To express this procedure analytically,
consider the undamped equations of motion
Mx + Kx = P (1)
fo - ""O
which are partitioned as follows:
fo íTõt fo lis
Mff Mfr Xf + Kff Kfr xf (Pf Fig.
(2) 2 - Free body diagram showing inertia
Ml M x Kl K x IP forces
fr rr r fr rr r ' r

where primes (f) denote matrix transposition.

Degrees of freedom of type !ff represent free or
unrestrained motion while degrees of freedom of
type Trł represent restrained motion. These
latter freedoms represent the free body supports
in the actual structure. Let us now perform a
condensation [7], or what NASTRAN [5,6] calls a
Guyan reduction, of these equations by assuming
that xf is a linear combination of xr. Specifi-
cally, let us assume that
This equation can easily be solved for the
accelerations of the degrees of freedom of type
łrł and by means of the second derivative of
Eq. (4) the accelerations of all points in the
structure can be calculated.
Let us now introduce an inertia load vector
P^ which we will define as
P1 = -M x (8)
where M is the mass matrix for the entire

Xf = -K¡P Kfr xr (3) structure. Since we know x , the acceleration

vector for all degrees of freedom in the struc-
which is the static relationship. Then ture, we can compute P* . Superimposing this
vector onto the original load vector, we can now

h * Kfr
restrain the structure and solve for the static

* * * r
* I (4) displacements by means of the equation

where I is an r x r identity matrix. With

Kff xf = Pf + PP (9)
this transformation, Eq. (2) reduces to Once Xf is known, the stresses in the individ-
ual elements can be calculated in the conven-
M* x + K* x = P* (5)
rr r rr r r tional manner.

where
The procedure just outlined is rigid
format 2 of the NASTRAN computer program.
M* = M - K' K~P - Ml K~* K_
rr rr fr ff fr fr ff fr

+frKI fr
ff ff K~p ff M„ ff K~* ff K, fr (6a)
ff fr

K* = ff
Kfr- K' fr K~P ff Kf fr (6b)
INERTIA RELIEF EXAMPLES
rr rr fr
As a first example, consider the structure
P*
r r=fr
P -
ffKl
f fr
v ' K~ļ
shownff
in Fig. 1 P. f (6c)
which consists v '
of two masses
joined by a spring. The system is unconstrained
If the supports are statically determinate, then and is loaded by a force at the left end which
K*r will be a null matrix. This is becausewe will choose to be

these supports are the minimum necessary to 1 2tt

prevent rigid body motion - any additional -r f (1 - cos pt), 0 < t < -
supports would only add redundancies to the f(t) = 2 ° - - p (10)
system. If a unit displacement were applied 0 , otherwise
to the structure in any one of the supported
(This particular forcing function was selected
directions, then rigid body motion would result,
due to its similarity to the impact loading for
and the force required to maintain the structure
an 8 km/h front end barrier test - see
in this configuration would be zero.
Fig. 10.) The reason for the 1/2 factor is
Thus, for a statically determinate struc-
ture, we may rewrite (5) as so that the maximum force will be f0. The exact
solution for the dynamic force in the spring
M*
rr
r r
x = P* (7) during the time the load is applied is

This content downloaded from

85.229.184.213 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:33:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE USE OF INERTIA RELIEF 2239

clear that the inertia relief force, Fj, in the

spring will be
3.0 - c .. Jfi_
I 1 + a

fI"-īīī
2.5- Shown in Fig. 3 is the ratio of the maximum
dynamic force to the inertia relief force versus
am K m the ratio of the system natural frequency to the
f0-^CHwO forcing function frequency. Symbolically stated
2.0 -
T F(t)
R = (14)

^ 1.5 - / '
This ratio is plotted against m/p . From
this graph the reader should note the
following points.
LO - -4 (a) R is physically the dynamic overshot
or the degree to which the dynamic force exceeds
the inertia relief force.
(b) R is independent of the mass ratio a
although F and Fj are not.
(c) The maximum overshoot occurs when
a) = p which is the resonance condition.
0I
(d) Except for co/p < 0.33, R _> 1 which
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 means that the inertia relief results are

«/p generally unconservative.

(e) The unconservative error exceeds 25
Fig. 3 - Comparison of dynamic and inertia percent in the region 0.5 £ o)/p <_ 2 (this
relief results for two degree of freedom corresponds to a 33 percent overshoot) .
example
(f) Beyond co/p = 3, there is good agreement
between the dynamic and inertia relief results.
Kj * K K2 « K K3 ■ K This is as would be expected, for in this region
f - - MMł the period of the applied load is much greater
mmmm
than the period of the system.
(g) The value that R approaches as co/p
Fig. 4 - Four degree of freedom example increases depends on the single value chosen
to represent the time history of the load. For
this example choosing the peak value, f0, leads
to R 1. For other pulse shapes, the peak
value might not work as well, and possibly a
F (t)
root mean square value might be better.
2 (l+a) L l-(£)2
As a second example consider the four equal
1 27T (11) masses connected in series, as shown in Fig. 4.
- cos pt} , 0 < t < -
As before, the system is unconstrained and has
the load given by Eq. (10) applied to the left
where co is the natural frequency of the system end. The inertia relief forces in each of the
which is given by
springs are

«-J;r(i+b w m a (12)
w m a
Ft = - 0.75 f
11 o
The minus sign in (11) indicates compression. Ft = - 0.50 f (15)
1 2 o
Beyond t = 2fr/p , there is no load on the
system, and the problem reduces to a free vibra- Ft = - 0.25 f
tion one.
13 o
To obtain the inertia relief solution, the and the fundamental natural frequency is
forcing function must be applied statically
which means that a value representative of the
time history must be selected. For the time to = y 0.586 ^ (16)
history given in (10), we will use the peak Figure 5 shows the overshoot for each of the
value fQ. The rigid body acceleration is three springs. For each spring, the dynamic
f overshoot curve is very similar to that shown
a = ° . (13) in Fig. 3 for the two-degree-of-f reedom system.
m ( l+a . )
All curves show pronounced overshoot in the
and if the resulting inertia forces are applied region of w = p but small overshoot for
to the system, we will obtain the free body dia- w > 3p. The significant fact from this figure,
gram shown in Fig. 2. From this figure, it is however, is that the overshoot increases dra-

This content downloaded from

85.229.184.213 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:33:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2240 M.F.NELSON AND J. A. WOLF, JR.

ll o al a2 a3 a4

4 0 "
f -

nij fTi^ nrij

r' - B - R (3) F^ - -0.25 f0
Fig. 6 - Masses and springs connected in
series
30 I ' «-y 0.586 K/m
m. = m m . = 25m
VI mmmm

I j f - ►O-wO^OwO i- 1

2.5 -J ' Kj = K K2 = K K3 = K

2.0 -T ' ' K3 - K/2 m

- M/W

Fig. 7 - Four degree of freedom example

with parallel load paths
3.5 -

'i 0

2 0
A - o - R (3) , F. - -0.468 f
3.0 - ' , l3 o
/ ' -A - R (4) F. - -0.436 f
0'
/ ' ' - R (4) F. '4 -0.436 f 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

*/p
fj' ļ to - y 0.316 K/m
Fig. 5 - Comparison of dynamic and inertia
relief results for four degree of freedom
r ' ^ m.-m _ . .m m. = 25m
2.0-1 r V ' m.-m r - _ 2 . .m m. A-n =
example i ' ' - w/v-O 'vwyr-
4J V ' , K.-K/2 K? = K
" I V ' ' , fo~^ m3 = m
matically as one gets farther away from the I ' ' -A/WV-O-^VWV-
applied load. The first spring has an over-
15 'j '
shoot of around 1.3; the second has an over-
shoot of almost 2.0; and the last spring has
an overshoot of 3.9. ! o L/

If we examine the inertia relief forces,

we see that the force decreases as one gets
farther from the applied load. The force, for
example, in the last spring is one- third of
the force in the first spring. Thus we have
the situation that as we move farther away o

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
from the applied load, the inertia relief force
to/p
decreases, but the error (overshoot) increases.
To understand this phenomenon, let us Fig. 8 - Comparison of dynamic and inertia
examine the source of error. For a set of relief results for four degree of freedom
masses and springs connected in series, the example
forces in the springs can easily be found
once the inertia forces are known. Shown in Ft = f - m_a
Fig. 6 are a set of masses connected in series. Iļ o Ir
The accelerations of each of the masses as well F = Ft - m0a = f - m_a - m_a (19)
I2 Iļ 2 r o Ir 2 r
as the forces in each of the springs are shown.
Now from equilibrium considerations etc .

Fļ = f - mļaļ where f0 is a value representing the time

history f - say its peak value. The error
F2 = Fļ - m2a2 = f - iīiļaļ - m2a2 (17)
or difference between F^ and Fj is
etc .

Remember that the expressions in (17) are func- e. 1

1 = mf
t t1F. 1I - .
Ft I
tions of time. To get the inertia relief solu- 1 i (20)
tion, the rigid body acceleration is calculated
t ' °Tlf
= 2 J - a rt
f ' - f °
ar = (18) If the maximum of F-^(t) occurs at approxi-
mately the same time, t0 » for adjacent i
and the forces are computed from the equations then from (20) we can write that

This content downloaded from

85.229.184.213 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:33:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE USE OF
Fig. 9 - Example space frame structure
^8810 N
§ (1980 LB)
z
- / ' relief calculations. Due to structural and
o / V
§
í / N
g Û£ / /
Û£ / X
y[
f-
TIME IN MILLISECONDS
Fig. 10 - Force-time history for 8 km/h
frontal impact
e. - e. - + m. {a - a.(t )} (21)
i l-l - i r i o
From the above equation and from the results
we have seen thus far, it is clear that for a
set of masses in series, inertia relief is
overestimating the accelerations and thus
underestimating the forces. This leads to the
error accumulation as one gets farther from the
applied load.
The assumption made above that the maxima
of the F-^(t) occur at approximately the same
time is not strictly true, for when a set of
masses in series is impacted, there will be a
propagating wave. However, comparing (21) to
the results we have seen, this wave effect does
not seem very important.
As a final example, consider a system
which contains masses connected both in series
and in parallel, as shown in Fig. 7. The
applied load is as specified in (10) . This
system illustrates the accuracy of inertia
relief for multiple load paths.
Shown in Fig. 8 are the inertia relief
results, the natural frequency of the system,
and the overshoot in each of the four springs.
We again notice the same behavior as before.
The inertia relief results are quite good for
the front springs but are not very good for the
rear springs in the neighborhood of oo = p.
The observed phenomenon of obtaining worse
inertia relief results as one gets farther from
the applied load may not be very serious in a
practical design situation. Elements far from
a load are probably not designed by that load
but rather by some other loading condition.
85.229.184.213 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:33:04 UTC
INERTIA RELIEF 224 1
INERTIA RELIEF CALCULATIONS APPLIED TO A
SIMPLIFIED AUTOMOTIVE STRUCTURE
The example structure used to illustrate
the method is the space frame illustrated in
Fig. 9. The space frame structure is composed
of tubular mild steel beams of rectangular cross
section, with welded joints. The structure has
been modeled using finite element beam segments
having six stiffness and three mass degrees of
freedom at each end. The joints between
elements are assumed to be rigid, except at the
roof supports, where some joint flexibilities
are modeled using elastic springs. Additional
concentrated masses representing the engine,
front seat, and spare tire have been added for
dynamic studies, and are retained in the inertia
loading symmetry about the center plane, only
one half of the frame has been modeled, with
boundary conditions applied at the symmetry
plane to enforce symmetric structural deflec-
tions. This reduces the problem size by one
-20 M
half, permitting computational cost savings.
The dynamics model described above has
154 degrees of freedom.
STRUCTURAL STIFFNESS AND MASS MODELING -
Structural modeling consists of two tasks:
stiffness modeling based on the elastic prop-
erties of the vehicle, and mass modeling based
on the inertial properties. For the study
described herein, the mathematical model is
then generated by NASTRAN, based on input data
describing the vehicle geometry, section prop-
erties, material thickness, elastic modulus,
etc. Linearly elastic finite elements such as
springs, beams, and plates are used to repre-
sent small homogenous regions of the structure,
and the total structure is then represented by
mathematically combining element properties to
give an overall stiffness and mass character-
ization of the structure. Inertia properties
are represented by a lumped mass model.
The independent displacements retained for
inertia relief calculations include all trans-
lational degrees of freedom of the stiffness
and mass models. Free-free boundary conditions
are used, as inertia relief can only be calcu-
lated for structures with one or more rigid
body degrees of freedom. The choice of struc-
tural model used is based on the input impact
loading. For low-speed elastic impacts, the
entire structure, including representations of
frame, engine, and front sheet metal is
included.
APPLIED LOADS - The applied dynamic loads
can be obtained either from experimental barrier
force measurements or from a barrier impact
simulation program [3,4]. The peak load is
used to determine stresses for inertia relief.
This load is applied directly to the corre-
sponding model grid point(s). For the low-
speed impact of the example, the application
point is the bumper connection point. The
applied loading for the example calculations
has been adapted from an 8 km/h (5 mph) frontal
barrier impact test, as shown in Fig. 10. A
This content downloaded from
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 994?
-180 ^
vtfs 20 y'
~í 555 _ y>755^-^,
1120 V' / « ^SS - _ .^Li20Ł - -frame
- ļ ^ structure using NASTRAN . Input data
140 94a ' / « 235 s yy ' xT-^ži3 I
' ho $/As' s yy ' xT-^ži3 VvP^Sl
included the structural model described earlier,
^mRìV
-7Ź50 I ' "143°
I "282° NUMBERS REPRESENT
-2835 AXIAL FORCES
NEWTONS
Fig. 11 - Element axial forces for 8 km/h
frontal impact
peak load of 53,800 N (12,100 lb) was obtained
for a vehicle with a mass of 1256 kg (weight
= 2768 lb) . This force is reduced to 8810 N
(1980 lb) for the 205 kg (weight = 453 lb)
half-structure to give equal decelerations.
INERTIA RELIEF RESULTS - For these calcu-
lations, the frame structure is supported at
grid points 25 and 40, and loaded at grid point
8, as shown in Fig. 9. For each of the beam
elements used in the frame, the force outputs
include bending, shear, axial force, and torque.
For example, axial forces are shown in Fig. 11
for elements of the front and side frame por-
tions of the structure. The load paths are
clearly represented, with the forces generally
decreasing as one moves aft away from the impact
point. This is especially noticeable in the
front structure, where the engine inertia is
responsible for a decrease from 7250 N to 2835 N
in the lower beams. Further discussion of the
computed results will be deferred to a later
section where comparison will be made with
transient response calculations.
ESTIMATION OF INTERNAL IMPACT LOADS - The
last step of the method is to estimate the
internal impact loads, based on the inertia
relief results. Because of the dynamic over-
shoot phenomenon observed in any transient
problem, the inertia relief calculations are
generally unconservative. For an 8 km/h
barrier impact, the force input is shown in
Fig. 10, and has a duration t = 0.156 s. For
a single degree of freedom model responding
to the input of Eq. (10), the dynamic over-
shoot will be 1.25 or less if o)t/2tt
= o)/p >2.2 (Fig. 3). To satisfy this cri-
terion, the lowest vibration frequency should
exceed 14.1 Hz. This condition is met for the
space frame of the sample problem.
For the actual multi-degree of freedom
system, the total overshoot cannot be specified
beforehand, as it will involve the response of
more than one mode. However, in problems in
aircraft and building dynamics, only a few
modes, usually those with the lowest fre-
quencies, respond enough to add significantly
to the inertia relief stresses. For vehicle
impact, a few of the higher frequency modes
contribute as well, but the overshoot is not
much more, as will be seen in the example of
the next section. Therefore, it is recom-
mended that the inertia relief results for
This content downloaded from
85.229.184.213 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:33:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
M. F. NELSON AND J. A. WOLF, JR.
peak loading be multiplied by a factor of 1.25
to get internal loads for an 8 km/h (5 mph)
barrier impact.
Transient response results - a transient
response analysis was also carried out for the
and a digitized representation of the force time
history of Fig. 10 sampled at intervals of one
IN millisecond. Forces at other time stations
were provided for the numerical integrations by
linear interpolation. The response included
all vibration modes up to 2500 Hz. This choice
was based on preliminary studies which indicated
that a large contribution to the low frequency
portion of the forced response was due to the
higher frequency modes. One percent of critical
damping was added to each mode to ensure
numerical stability. A time step size of 50 ys
was used, giving 8 steps per cycle at 2500 Hz.
A typical transient response computer run was
about five or six times as expensive as the
companion inertia relief calculation. Program
output included grid point acceleration and
element forces at selected output time steps.
Results are presented in Table 1 in terms of an
overshoot factor, equal to the peak transient
response force divided by the inertia relief
force for element bending moment and axial load.
This factor is given in terms of a weighted
average and a range for various locations in
the structure.
Let
T
F^ - magnitude of peak transient response
force for the ith element,
F± = magnitude of inertia relief force for
the i element,
T I
and Ri = F¿ /F , the trans
Then an average transient overshoot ratio is
given by
R=2>iV£Fi (22)
Table 1 - Transient Overshoot Ratios for 8 km/h Fro
Bending Moment Overshoot Ratio Axial Force Overshoot Ratio
Location Weighted Average Range* Weighted Average Range*
Front 1-09 1.01 - 1.24 1.07 0.97 - 1.28
Cowl and Torque Box 1.10 1.00-1.29 1.08 0.97-1.12
Engine Supports 1.02 - 0.70
Floor, Tunnel,
and Rocker 1.15 1.01-1.54 1.06 0.82-1.21
Roof and Pillars 1.22 - 1.51
KickuP 1.19 1.15 - 1.21 1.19 1.07 - 1.24
Rear End 1.28 1.15 - 1.35 1.19 1.16 - 1.22
* Range based on element moments and forces larger than
respectively.
Indicates insufficient data, fewer than 5 "large" forces in location.
 THE USE OF INERTIA
T I
Where F¿ = or F¿, arid the summation is
carried out over a given local area or sub-
structure. Theoretically, the transient
response forces F¿ should be used as the weight-
ing factors Fi in this equation, because they
represent the actual dynamic response. However,
the calculation takes an especially simple form
if the inertia relief forces are chosen as the
weighting factors. With this choice, (22) may
be rewritten as
Ř = Līļ /EF* (23)
Equation (23) is used to calculate the results
of Table 1.
COMPARISON OF RESULTS - The weighted aver-
ages for elements in the front, cowl, and torque
box substructures, near the loading point, are
between 1.07 and 1.10, as shown in the second
and fourth columns of Table 1. The range for
individual elements in these substructures is
between 1.00 and 1.29 for bending moment and
between 0.97 and 1.28 for axial force, as shown
in the third and fifth columns of Table 1. The
overshoot ratio increases with increasing dis-
tance from the front input load location.
However, the actual force values in the roof,
kickup, and rear end are generally smaller
than in the front, as shown in Fig. 11. Thus,
these structures, remote from the frontal
loading, would be designed to resist loading
applied nearer their locations. For these
loads the element forces in the roof, kickup,
and rear end would be larger than for frontal
loading, and the overshoot ratios for these
loads would probably be equal to or below the
proposed inertia relief multiple of 1.25.
It should be emphasized that the ability
of the inertia relief method to provide a good
estimator for low-speed barrier impacts is
fundamentally an empirical finding, and cannot
be deduced solely on theoretical grounds.
However, based on these preliminary studies,
This content downloaded from
85.229.184.213 on Sun, 03 Oct 2021 19:33:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RELIEF 2243
similar results would be anticipated for other
single load problems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank their General
Motors colleagues Vernon F. Fishtahler, John F.
Harris, Richard W. Marks, and Knut S. Skattum
for providing data for the loads and frame model
used as the example structure in this paper.
REFERENCES
1. J. A. Augus titus, M. M. Kamal, and
L. J. Howell, "Design Through Analysis of an
Experimental Automobile Structure," SAE Confer-
ence Proceedings, Second International Confer-
ence on Vehicle Structural Mechanics, South-
field, Michigan, 1977.
2. R. L. Bisplinghof f , H. Ashley, and
R. L. Halfman, "Aeroelasticity , " Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, Inc. , Reading, Massachu-
setts, 1955.
3. M. M. Kamal, "Analysis and Simulation
of Vehicle to Barrier Impact," SAE Transactions,
Paper No. 700414, Volume 79, pp. 1498-1503,
19 70.
4. K. H. Lin, J. A. Augustitus, and
M. M. Kamal, "Computer Simulation of Vehicle- to-
Barrier Impact - A User's Guide," General
Motors Research Publication No. 1943, Warren,
Michigan, August 8, 1975.
5. C. W. McCormick, ed., "The NASTRAN
User's Manual," National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Special Publication
222(01), Washington, D.C., May 1973.
6. R. H. MacNeal, ed., "The NASTRAN
Theoretical Manual," National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Special Publication
221(01), Washington, D.C., December 1972.
7. M. F. Nelson, "The Use of Condensation
Techniques for Solving Dynamics Problems," SAE
Transactions, Paper No. 740330, Volume 83,
pp. 1435-1444, 1974.