International Journal of Automobile Engineering Research & Development (IJAuERD) ISSN 2277-4785 Vol.

3, Issue 1, Mar 2013, 47-56 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

SIMULATION OF GENERIC SPORTS UTILITY VEHICLE-TO-POLE FRONT CRASH ANALYSIS USING A CAE BASED METHODOLOGY
VIKAS SHARMA1, RAM BANSAL1, R. B. SHARMA2 & Y P UPADHYAY1
1 2

Research Scholars, Rustamji Institute of Technology, BSF Academy, Tekanpur, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India

Asst. Prof. & Head, Mech. Engg., Dept., Rustamji Institute of Technology, Tekanpur, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India

ABSTRACT
Fundamental physics and numerous field studies have clearly shown a higher fatality risk for collapsible frame in vehicles when colliding with fixed structures one, especially when the struck vehicle is a SUV and striking to pole of some higher strength. The consensus is that the significant parameters influencing compatibility in front crashes are geometric interaction, vehicle stiffness, and vehicle mass. The effect of each individual design parameter, however, is not clearly understood but still it makes a clear impression about the collision. As during the collision the momentum theories are applicable during the incident. Here we are performing the operation on the Explicit Dynamics (LS-DYNA) application of Ansys Workbench. Finally conclusion is drawn for the Hood & Bumper are suggested to store the impact energy.

KEYWORDS: Crash Tests, FEA, Explicit Dynamics INTRODUCTION

In automobile design, crash analysis is the most important engineering processes in developing a high quality safety in the vehicle. Computer simulation technologies have greatly endorsed the safety, reliability, and comfort of today's automobiles. This significant achievement was realized with the advanced software and powerful computers that have been available in the last decades. The primary concern for drivers and passengers is safety. Manufacturers have responded to this key concern and expectation with an increasing number of regulations. Although the details may vary slightly from country to country, the fundamental requirements are almost similar. A vehicle is expected to provide adequate protection to driver and passengers in a catastrophe. To protect the occupants of a car, there are many new perceptible safety features such as airbags; Anti-lock Braking System, traction control. A less tangible feature that cannot easily be seen by drivers and passengers is the crash response behaviour. In a well-designed automobile, the car body and various components are the protective layer for the occupants of the vehicle. They serve as the crumpling zone to absorb the energy of impact. The traditional approach involves multiple iterations of design, evaluation, and prototype and crash tests analysis. The process is time consuming and expensive. The availability of high performance computers and crash simulation software has reformed the process. Instead of relying on experimental validations, the safety design process is supplemented with computer simulation to evaluate the design. Since the inception of crash simulation, the product cycle of a new automobile has been reduced by half and the resultant vehicle is compatibly more safer, better and comfortable.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Simulated crash-testing is being increasingly by various institutes to study the outcome of a vehicular in various situations under different conditions. The advantage of simulation is that the FE models can be reused again and again and also the user has the freedom to change any of the parameters of the test and also the user can vary the material properties

48

Vikas Sharma, Ram Bansal, R. B. Sharma & Y P Upadhyay

as well as the type of material of the parts in the vehicle. The FE model was then used to simulate crash test. The FE software used here to carry out the simulation was LS-DYNA. One of the tests carried out was the Frontal-offset crash at 180kph. Before the simulation could be carried out, several other pre-processing conditions have to be specified. The test results were verified using results from actual crash-test reports. Present runtimes on high-end workstations for LS-DYNA vehicle models are still measured in days; while multi-body run-times are typically less than 1s, even for the most complex models. Thacker et.al [1] conducted crash-testing simulation study of a 1997 Honda Accord. Originally, a real vehicle was obtained and then the vehicle was stripped down to its basic parts, each component was identified, labelled, and the material evaluated. Data that could be efficiently extrapolated from existing sources were collected. A similar study was carried out by Cheng et.al [2], wherein the aim of the study was to reverse engineer a 1997 Honda Accord DX Sedan and to develop a FE model of the vehicle to be that can be successfully used in computational simulations of full frontal, offset frontal, side, and oblique car-to-car impact testing. The crashworthiness was then compared to existing physical data of a 2007 Jeep Wrangler that has been manufactured with all safety standards and technology. These comparisons were made to evaluate the crashworthiness of the pre safety standards.

CRASHWORTHINESS TESTS CRITERIA AND MODEL REQUIREMENTS

A crash-test is a form of destructive testing usually performed in order to ensure safe design standards in crashworthiness and crash compatibility for automobiles or related components. To test the cars safety performance under various conditions and during varied types of crashes, vehicle manufacturers crash test their cars from different angles, different sides and with different objects, including other vehicles [3]. The most common types of crash tests are listed below. Front impact test Front offset crash test Side impact test Roll over test

METHOD OF ANALYSIS (LS-DYNA)

Crash-testing requires a number of the test vehicle to be destroyed during the course of the tests and is also time consuming and uneconomical. One new recent trend that is gaining vast popularity is computer simulated crash-testing [4]. Here instead of aerial vehicle, a FE (Finite Element) model of the vehicle is generated and is used to carry out the different tests that were carried out before using actual vehicles. There are several software packages that are equipped to handle the crash-testing of vehicles but one of the most popular is from ANSYS Software Inc. called Ansys Workbench. With Explicit dynamics (LS-DYNA) application, automotive companies and their suppliers can test car designs without having to tool or experimentally test a prototype, thus saving time and expense [5]. While the package continues to contain more and more possibilities for the calculation of many complex, real world problems, its origins and core-competency lie in highly nonlinear transient dynamic finite element analysis (FEA) using explicit time integration. The application of ANSYS covers a wide range of industries.

MATERIALS USED
Most auto bodies today use stamped sheet as structural members that are spot welded together to form a unitized body. This unitized structure is called the body-in white (BIW).

Simulation of Generic Sports Utility Vehicle-To-Pole Front Crash Analysis Using a CAE Based Methodology

49

BIW structural members support most of the loads designed for strength, fatigue resistance, stiffness, as well crush loads for crashworthiness [6]. The test here is performed here utilises the two different material assignments for the individual body of Generic SUV and pole. The grades of steel used for the pole is Structural steel, and for SUV is Steel V250. Table 1: Material Properties of Structural Steel Density Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Specific Heat Thermal Conductivity Resistivity Compressive yield Strength 7.85e-006 kg mm^-3 1.2e-005 C^-1 4.34e+005 mJ kg^-1 C^-1 6.05e-002 W mm^-1 C^-1 1.7e-004 ohm mm 250MPa

Tensile Yield Strength MPa 250 Tensile Ultimate Strength MPa 460 Alternating Stress MPa 3999 2827 1896 1413 1069 441 262 214 138 114 86.2 Cycles 10 20 50 100 200 2000 10000 20000 1.e+005 2.e+005 1.e+006 Mean Stress MPa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 2: Material Properties of Steel V250 Grade 8.129e-006 kg mm^-3 Density Specific Heat 4.08e+005 mJ kg^-1 C^-1 Gruneisen Coefficient Parameter C1 mm s^-1 Parameter S1 Parameter Quadratic S2 s mm^-1 1.6 3.98e+006 1.58 0 Initial Yield Stress Y MPa Maximum Yield Stress YmaxMPa Hardening Constant B Hardening Exponent n Derivative dG/dP G'P Derivative dG/dT G'T MPa C^-1 Derivative dY/dP Y'P Melting Temperature Tmelt C Shear Modulus MPa 71800 1560 2500 2 0.5 1.479 -22.62 3.214e-002 2036.8

METHODOLOGY
The outline of this paper is to present simulation of the front crash of the SUV, using explicit dynamic analysis of a vehicle using Ansys LS-DYNA software [7].

50

Vikas Sharma, Ram Bansal, R. B. Sharma & Y P Upadhyay

Types of Crash Tests All cars undergo various types of impact testing, which includes, but here the case is of come different case i.e., frontal vehicle to pole crash when the initial velocity of the vehicle is 108 kmph (30mps) keeping the pole at 0 DOF Simulation a frontal impact crash-test of a vehicle model moving at a velocity of 30 m/s in to a rigid immovable crash barrier is to be carried out and analysed. It is assumed that the brakes are not applied during the crash event. Then developed a finite element model of the vehicle by the process of reverse engineering. Then again carried out the same test under the same test conditions on the finite element model and validated their results by comparing with me the results obtained from the physical test.

Figure 1: Geometric Model of Pole and SUV The Model of SUV is generated in the Solid-works 2010, using a conceptual drawing and design of SUV, as full Solid works model of assembly

Figure 2: Meshed Model of Pole and SUV 2

RESULTS AND DECISIVE GRAPHS

The digest of the problem is represented here in the form of deformed shape, von mises stress, total velocity, total acceleration & equivalent strain contours, graphs with their respective values in the tabular form are plotted here.

Figure 3: Total Deformation

Simulation of Generic Sports Utility Vehicle-To-Pole Front Crash Analysis Using a CAE Based Methodology

51

Table 3: Total Deformations Time [s] Minimum [mm] Maximum [mm] 1.1755e-038 0. 5.0004e-005 2.5002 1.e-004 5.0001 1.5e-004 7.5787 2.e-004 10.022 2.5e-004 12.465 3.e-004 14.613 3.5001e-004 16.51 4.e-004 18.271 4.5001e-004 19.844 5.e-004 0. 21.102 5.5e-004 22.096 6.0001e-004 22.804 6.5e-004 23.402 7.0001e-004 23.686 7.5e-004 23.684 8.e-004 23.511 8.5001e-004 23.437 9.e-004 23.486 9.5e-004 23.551 1.e-003 23.472

Figure 4: Total Deformation

Figure 5: Equivalent Elastic Strain

52

Vikas Sharma, Ram Bansal, R. B. Sharma & Y P Upadhyay

Table 4: Equivalent Elastic Strains Time [s] 1.1755e-038 5.0004e-005 1.e-004 1.5e-004 2.e-004 2.5e-004 3.e-004 3.5001e-004 4.e-004 4.5001e-004 5.e-004 5.5e-004 6.0001e-004 6.5e-004 7.0001e-004 7.5e-004 8.e-004 8.5001e-004 9.e-004 9.5e-004 1.e-003 Minimum [mm/mm] Maximum [mm/mm] 0. 0. 1.1373e-002 5.3149e-002 0.13985 0.30139 0.42891 0.51439 0.55753 0.60461 0.6425 0.65696 0.65498 0.6449 0.63007 0.60838 0.60235 0.59457 0.59193 0.58976

2.7536e-006 5.2801e-006 2.3241e-006 6.8649e-006 6.1753e-006 7.94e-006 6.2735e-006 5.1598e-006 9.3329e-006 3.7012e-006 1.1338e-005 5.1443e-006 4.5741e-006 3.3558e-006 2.4576e-006 3.4494e-006

Figure 6: Equivalent Elastic Strain

Figure 7: Equivalent Von-Mises Stress

Simulation of Generic Sports Utility Vehicle-To-Pole Front Crash Analysis Using a CAE Based Methodology

53

Table 5: Equivalent Stress Time [s] Minimum [MPa] Maximum [MPa] 1.1755e-038 5.0004e-005 0. 1.e-004 0. 1.5e-004 1537.7 2.e-004 1738.9 2.5e-004 0.45224 1766.8 3.e-004 0.99123 1779.5 3.5001e-004 0.43393 1686.6 4.e-004 0.76912 1728.9 4.5001e-004 0.73308 1806.1 5.e-004 0.98831 1791.1 5.5e-004 0.79602 1784.4 6.0001e-004 0.61037 1741.1 6.5e-004 1.3358 1582.9 7.0001e-004 0.30916 1432.3 7.5e-004 1.5468 1125.4 8.e-004 0.61472 1152.6 8.5001e-004 0.625 1175.4 9.e-004 0.34298 1196.7 9.5e-004 0.25226 946.86 1.e-003 0.26187 1075.4

Figure 8: Equivalent Von Mises Stress

Figure 9: Total Velocity

54

Vikas Sharma, Ram Bansal, R. B. Sharma & Y P Upadhyay

Table 6: Total Velocities Time [s] Minimum [mm/s] Maximum [mm/s] 1.1755e-038 5.0004e-005 50000 1.e-004 1.5e-004 55332 2.e-004 53488 2.5e-004 47465 3.e-004 50322 3.5001e-004 39666 4.e-004 36094 4.5001e-004 30991 5.e-004 0. 28305 5.5e-004 21277 6.0001e-004 23257 6.5e-004 27649 7.0001e-004 28075 7.5e-004 23827 8.e-004 23263 8.5001e-004 26352 9.e-004 26417 9.5e-004 24673 1.e-003 24830

Figure 10: Total Velocity

Figure 11: Total Acceleration

Simulation of Generic Sports Utility Vehicle-To-Pole Front Crash Analysis Using a CAE Based Methodology

55

Table 7: Total Acceleration Time [s] Minimum [mm/s] Maximum [mm/s] 1.1755e-038 5.0004e-005 0. 1.e-004 1.5e-004 5.999e+009 2.e-004 3.7863e+009 2.5e-004 4.8057e+009 3.e-004 3.4457e+010 3.5001e-004 1.7622e+009 4.e-004 7.0715e+009 4.5001e-004 3.1923e+009 5.e-004 0. 2.3194e+009 5.5e-004 1.4637e+010 6.0001e-004 3.3836e+009 6.5e-004 2.3729e+009 7.0001e-004 2.9301e+009 7.5e-004 1.9292e+010 8.e-004 1.2858e+010 8.5001e-004 1.3067e+010 9.e-004 1.0305e+010 9.5e-004 8.1149e+009 1.e-003 6.9604e+009

Figure 2: Total Acceleration

SCOPE OF FUTURE WORK

The FE model can be used for further simulation of in the simulations of the offset frontal impact test, where the vehicle is impacted against a pole at the middle of the front. The bumper of a car can be made as sandwich model or springs can be placed in the bumper in order to reduce the impact that is transferred to the passenger compartment. Analysis of these designs can be done which may yield to better safety [8]. These designs may also reduce the weight of the bumper leading to increase fuel efficiency. Further crash-testing involving the effects of the crash forces on the occupants of the vehicle can also be carried by using FE models of test dummies. Human-surrogate dummies called Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs) could be placed inside the FE vehicle models and an entire crash test event could be simulated. The FE dummies are used to simulate the behaviour of a vehicle occupant in the event of a crash. These FE dummies can then be placed inside the vehicle and the crash-simulation performed, they can provide various insights into the dynamic behaviour of the human

56

Vikas Sharma, Ram Bansal, R. B. Sharma & Y P Upadhyay

body in the event of a crash. This, however, requires detailed occupant compartment geometry as well as a detailed dummy model. This could easily double the FE models complexity and greatly increase the needed computer resources.

CONCLUSIONS
This project helps us to understand the designing of vital components of vehicle and to simulate a Frontal crashtest. Simulation was performed using the LS-DYNA software package. As was observed, the bumper, engine and the rails absorb most of the energy before the wheel impacts the wall. Almost half of the energy of the crash is absorbed by these components after about 0.04sec of the crash initiation. It has been observed that there is minimum deformation of the cabin and also there was minimum intrusion of the components into the cabin. Therefore, it can be assumed that the occupants in the cabin would not be caused any injury by a component intruding into the cabin in the event of the crash. Due to the limited availability of computer resources, a simpler model of the test vehicle was chosen, which ultimately caused the inaccuracies of the results. For more accurate results a more accurate model would be required but the computer resources required for the simulations would have been much higher. Therefore a compromise had to be found wherein the simulation could be performed without the result deviating too much.

REFERENCES
1. J.G. Thacker, S.W. Reagan, J.A. Pellettiere, et.al, Experiences during development of a dynamic crash response automobile model, Journal of Finite Element Analysis and Design 30 (1998) 279-295. 2. Z.Q. Chenga, J.G. Thackera, W.D. Pilkeya, W.T. Hollowellb, et.al, Experiences in reverse-engineering of a finite element automobile crash model, Journal of Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 37 (2001) 843860. 3. M.A. Virginia, Crashworthiness of a Pre-NCAP Safety Standard Light Truck and Corresponding Suspension Analysis, Wichita State University (2001). 4. Gary R. Consolazio, Jae H. Chung, Kurtis R. Gurley, Impact simulation and full scale crash testing of a low profile concrete work zone barrier, Journal of Computers and Structures 81 (2003) 13591374. 5. Arborio.N., et al, Future trend of automobile and the high strength sheet steel. Tetsu-to-Hagane. vol. 68, no. 9, Japan 1982. 6. 7. 8. Geoff Davis, Materials for Automobile Bodies, Elsevier, U.K. (2003) 10-60. J.O. Hallquist, LS-DYNA Keyword Users Manual, Livermore Software Technology Corporation (1997). U.N. Gandhi and S. J. Hu, Data-Based Approach in Modeling AutomobileCrash, Jouranal of Impact Engineering 16 (1995) 95-118.